User login
News and Views that Matter to Pediatricians
The leading independent newspaper covering news and commentary in pediatrics.
Children with autism but no intellectual disability may be falling through the cracks
Approximately two out of three children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) do not have concurrent intellectual disability, according to a population study of ASD trends.
Intellectual functioning remains the best predictor of functional outcomes in kids with ASD, and missing those with no cognitive impairment (ASD-N) can prevent intervention and affect future achievement.
Furthermore, while the study found that ASD-N increased among all demographic subgroups from 2000 to 2016, it also observed widespread health disparities in identifying ASD-N, especially in Black, Hispanic, and underprivileged children.
“ASD is a major public health concern and prevalence estimates are likely to continue to rise as disparities are reduced and ASD identification is improved,” wrote researchers led by Josephine Shenouda, DrPH, MS, of Rutgers School of Public Health in Piscataway, N.J., in Pediatrics .
The study period saw a surprising 500% increase in the prevalence of ASD-N and a 200% increase in the prevalence of cognitive impairment–associated ASD-I , with higher rates across all sex, race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic subgroups. The five- and twofold respective increases are consistent with previous research.
“To a large degree, the rise in autism estimates has been driven by individuals without intellectual disability,” Dr. Shenouda said in an interview. “The best way to address increasing autism and to affect disparities in autism identification is through universal autism screening during the toddler period. And different metrics of functional outcomes need to be developed to understand the expression of autism better.”
Her group had previously seen autism estimates of approximately 1% in 2000 rise to 3% by 2016 but had noted variations, with some communities exceeding 5% for autism estimates. “That led to the question of why, and we saw that in areas with high estimates, we are identifying more children with autism without intellectual disability,” she said. “We wanted to know if the increase over time was equally distributed among children with autism with and without intellectual disability.”
A study in disparities
The cross-sectional study examined data from active ASD surveillance by the CDC’s Autism and Developmental Disabilities Monitoring Network in 8-year-olds residing in the New York/New Jersey Metropolitan Area. Overall, 4,661 children were identified with ASD, with ASD-I affecting 1,505 (32.3%), and ASD-N affecting 2,764 (59.3%). Non-Hispanic Black children who were affected numbered 946 (20.3%), while 1,230 (26.4%) were Hispanic, and 2,114 (45.4%) were non-Hispanic White.
Notably, Black children were 30% less likely to be identified with ASD-N compared with White children, and children residing in affluent areas were 80% more likely to be identified with ASD-N versus those in underserved areas. Furthermore, a greater proportion of children with ASD-I resided in vulnerable areas compared with their counterparts with ASD-N.
While males had a higher prevalence compared with females regardless of intellectual disability status, male-to-female ratios were slightly lower among ASD-I compared with ASD-N cases.
Commenting on the study but not involved in it, Barbara J. Howard, MD, an assistant professor of medicine at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said the increasing gap in identifying ASD-N according to race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status measures probably reflects greater parental awareness of ASD and access to diagnostic services in White families and those of higher socioeconomic status. “There were no racial, ethnicity, or socioeconomic status differences in the prevalence of the more obvious and impairing ASD-I in the sample, but its prevalence was also increasing over this period,” she said.
Although the greater recognition of the less impairing ASD-N is important for optimal outcomes through intervention, the increasing discrepancies mean that more children generally and more marginalized children specifically are not being diagnosed or served. “There should be no differences in prevalence by these characteristics,” Dr. Howard said. “The striking inequity for non-White children and those of lower socioeconomic status in being diagnosed with ASD-N and thus qualifying for intervention that could improve their long-term functioning is likely also compounded by service, educational, and social disadvantages they may experience.”
In light of these disparities, an accompanying editorial by Emily Hotez, PhD, of the University of California, Los Angeles, and Lindsay Shea, DrPH, of the A.J. Drexel Autism Institute at Drexel University, Philadelphia, argues that social determinants of health (SDOH) should be prioritized in the public health surveillance of autism since these factors potentially contribute to the general underdiagnosis of autism in minority groups and merit more attention from pediatricians. While SDOH affects many nonautistic conditions, it may be even more important for families dealing with the stressors and isolation associated with autism, the commentators said. “Our commentary speaks to the utility of increasing SDOH surveillance in improving our understanding of autistic individuals’ needs, experiences, and priorities on a population level,” Dr. Hotez said in an interview. She added that integrating SDOH surveillance into pediatricians’ workflows will lead to improvements in clinical practice and patient care in the long term.
“Specifically, increased uptake of universal SDOH screening and referral practices will allow pediatricians to more proactively link autistic children and families, particularly those from marginalized groups, with much-needed health-promoting services and supports.” She cautioned, however, that while most providers believe universal SDOH screening is important, fewer report that screening is feasible or feel prepared to address families’ social needs when they are identified.
This study was supported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institutes of Health/National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. The authors had no conflicts of interest to disclose. The commentators had no potential conflicts of interest to disclose. Dr. Howard disclosed no competing interests relevant to her comments.
Approximately two out of three children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) do not have concurrent intellectual disability, according to a population study of ASD trends.
Intellectual functioning remains the best predictor of functional outcomes in kids with ASD, and missing those with no cognitive impairment (ASD-N) can prevent intervention and affect future achievement.
Furthermore, while the study found that ASD-N increased among all demographic subgroups from 2000 to 2016, it also observed widespread health disparities in identifying ASD-N, especially in Black, Hispanic, and underprivileged children.
“ASD is a major public health concern and prevalence estimates are likely to continue to rise as disparities are reduced and ASD identification is improved,” wrote researchers led by Josephine Shenouda, DrPH, MS, of Rutgers School of Public Health in Piscataway, N.J., in Pediatrics .
The study period saw a surprising 500% increase in the prevalence of ASD-N and a 200% increase in the prevalence of cognitive impairment–associated ASD-I , with higher rates across all sex, race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic subgroups. The five- and twofold respective increases are consistent with previous research.
“To a large degree, the rise in autism estimates has been driven by individuals without intellectual disability,” Dr. Shenouda said in an interview. “The best way to address increasing autism and to affect disparities in autism identification is through universal autism screening during the toddler period. And different metrics of functional outcomes need to be developed to understand the expression of autism better.”
Her group had previously seen autism estimates of approximately 1% in 2000 rise to 3% by 2016 but had noted variations, with some communities exceeding 5% for autism estimates. “That led to the question of why, and we saw that in areas with high estimates, we are identifying more children with autism without intellectual disability,” she said. “We wanted to know if the increase over time was equally distributed among children with autism with and without intellectual disability.”
A study in disparities
The cross-sectional study examined data from active ASD surveillance by the CDC’s Autism and Developmental Disabilities Monitoring Network in 8-year-olds residing in the New York/New Jersey Metropolitan Area. Overall, 4,661 children were identified with ASD, with ASD-I affecting 1,505 (32.3%), and ASD-N affecting 2,764 (59.3%). Non-Hispanic Black children who were affected numbered 946 (20.3%), while 1,230 (26.4%) were Hispanic, and 2,114 (45.4%) were non-Hispanic White.
Notably, Black children were 30% less likely to be identified with ASD-N compared with White children, and children residing in affluent areas were 80% more likely to be identified with ASD-N versus those in underserved areas. Furthermore, a greater proportion of children with ASD-I resided in vulnerable areas compared with their counterparts with ASD-N.
While males had a higher prevalence compared with females regardless of intellectual disability status, male-to-female ratios were slightly lower among ASD-I compared with ASD-N cases.
Commenting on the study but not involved in it, Barbara J. Howard, MD, an assistant professor of medicine at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said the increasing gap in identifying ASD-N according to race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status measures probably reflects greater parental awareness of ASD and access to diagnostic services in White families and those of higher socioeconomic status. “There were no racial, ethnicity, or socioeconomic status differences in the prevalence of the more obvious and impairing ASD-I in the sample, but its prevalence was also increasing over this period,” she said.
Although the greater recognition of the less impairing ASD-N is important for optimal outcomes through intervention, the increasing discrepancies mean that more children generally and more marginalized children specifically are not being diagnosed or served. “There should be no differences in prevalence by these characteristics,” Dr. Howard said. “The striking inequity for non-White children and those of lower socioeconomic status in being diagnosed with ASD-N and thus qualifying for intervention that could improve their long-term functioning is likely also compounded by service, educational, and social disadvantages they may experience.”
In light of these disparities, an accompanying editorial by Emily Hotez, PhD, of the University of California, Los Angeles, and Lindsay Shea, DrPH, of the A.J. Drexel Autism Institute at Drexel University, Philadelphia, argues that social determinants of health (SDOH) should be prioritized in the public health surveillance of autism since these factors potentially contribute to the general underdiagnosis of autism in minority groups and merit more attention from pediatricians. While SDOH affects many nonautistic conditions, it may be even more important for families dealing with the stressors and isolation associated with autism, the commentators said. “Our commentary speaks to the utility of increasing SDOH surveillance in improving our understanding of autistic individuals’ needs, experiences, and priorities on a population level,” Dr. Hotez said in an interview. She added that integrating SDOH surveillance into pediatricians’ workflows will lead to improvements in clinical practice and patient care in the long term.
“Specifically, increased uptake of universal SDOH screening and referral practices will allow pediatricians to more proactively link autistic children and families, particularly those from marginalized groups, with much-needed health-promoting services and supports.” She cautioned, however, that while most providers believe universal SDOH screening is important, fewer report that screening is feasible or feel prepared to address families’ social needs when they are identified.
This study was supported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institutes of Health/National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. The authors had no conflicts of interest to disclose. The commentators had no potential conflicts of interest to disclose. Dr. Howard disclosed no competing interests relevant to her comments.
Approximately two out of three children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) do not have concurrent intellectual disability, according to a population study of ASD trends.
Intellectual functioning remains the best predictor of functional outcomes in kids with ASD, and missing those with no cognitive impairment (ASD-N) can prevent intervention and affect future achievement.
Furthermore, while the study found that ASD-N increased among all demographic subgroups from 2000 to 2016, it also observed widespread health disparities in identifying ASD-N, especially in Black, Hispanic, and underprivileged children.
“ASD is a major public health concern and prevalence estimates are likely to continue to rise as disparities are reduced and ASD identification is improved,” wrote researchers led by Josephine Shenouda, DrPH, MS, of Rutgers School of Public Health in Piscataway, N.J., in Pediatrics .
The study period saw a surprising 500% increase in the prevalence of ASD-N and a 200% increase in the prevalence of cognitive impairment–associated ASD-I , with higher rates across all sex, race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic subgroups. The five- and twofold respective increases are consistent with previous research.
“To a large degree, the rise in autism estimates has been driven by individuals without intellectual disability,” Dr. Shenouda said in an interview. “The best way to address increasing autism and to affect disparities in autism identification is through universal autism screening during the toddler period. And different metrics of functional outcomes need to be developed to understand the expression of autism better.”
Her group had previously seen autism estimates of approximately 1% in 2000 rise to 3% by 2016 but had noted variations, with some communities exceeding 5% for autism estimates. “That led to the question of why, and we saw that in areas with high estimates, we are identifying more children with autism without intellectual disability,” she said. “We wanted to know if the increase over time was equally distributed among children with autism with and without intellectual disability.”
A study in disparities
The cross-sectional study examined data from active ASD surveillance by the CDC’s Autism and Developmental Disabilities Monitoring Network in 8-year-olds residing in the New York/New Jersey Metropolitan Area. Overall, 4,661 children were identified with ASD, with ASD-I affecting 1,505 (32.3%), and ASD-N affecting 2,764 (59.3%). Non-Hispanic Black children who were affected numbered 946 (20.3%), while 1,230 (26.4%) were Hispanic, and 2,114 (45.4%) were non-Hispanic White.
Notably, Black children were 30% less likely to be identified with ASD-N compared with White children, and children residing in affluent areas were 80% more likely to be identified with ASD-N versus those in underserved areas. Furthermore, a greater proportion of children with ASD-I resided in vulnerable areas compared with their counterparts with ASD-N.
While males had a higher prevalence compared with females regardless of intellectual disability status, male-to-female ratios were slightly lower among ASD-I compared with ASD-N cases.
Commenting on the study but not involved in it, Barbara J. Howard, MD, an assistant professor of medicine at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said the increasing gap in identifying ASD-N according to race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status measures probably reflects greater parental awareness of ASD and access to diagnostic services in White families and those of higher socioeconomic status. “There were no racial, ethnicity, or socioeconomic status differences in the prevalence of the more obvious and impairing ASD-I in the sample, but its prevalence was also increasing over this period,” she said.
Although the greater recognition of the less impairing ASD-N is important for optimal outcomes through intervention, the increasing discrepancies mean that more children generally and more marginalized children specifically are not being diagnosed or served. “There should be no differences in prevalence by these characteristics,” Dr. Howard said. “The striking inequity for non-White children and those of lower socioeconomic status in being diagnosed with ASD-N and thus qualifying for intervention that could improve their long-term functioning is likely also compounded by service, educational, and social disadvantages they may experience.”
In light of these disparities, an accompanying editorial by Emily Hotez, PhD, of the University of California, Los Angeles, and Lindsay Shea, DrPH, of the A.J. Drexel Autism Institute at Drexel University, Philadelphia, argues that social determinants of health (SDOH) should be prioritized in the public health surveillance of autism since these factors potentially contribute to the general underdiagnosis of autism in minority groups and merit more attention from pediatricians. While SDOH affects many nonautistic conditions, it may be even more important for families dealing with the stressors and isolation associated with autism, the commentators said. “Our commentary speaks to the utility of increasing SDOH surveillance in improving our understanding of autistic individuals’ needs, experiences, and priorities on a population level,” Dr. Hotez said in an interview. She added that integrating SDOH surveillance into pediatricians’ workflows will lead to improvements in clinical practice and patient care in the long term.
“Specifically, increased uptake of universal SDOH screening and referral practices will allow pediatricians to more proactively link autistic children and families, particularly those from marginalized groups, with much-needed health-promoting services and supports.” She cautioned, however, that while most providers believe universal SDOH screening is important, fewer report that screening is feasible or feel prepared to address families’ social needs when they are identified.
This study was supported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institutes of Health/National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. The authors had no conflicts of interest to disclose. The commentators had no potential conflicts of interest to disclose. Dr. Howard disclosed no competing interests relevant to her comments.
FROM PEDIATRICS
The longevity gene: Healthy mutant reverses heart aging
Everybody wants a younger heart
As more people live well past 90, scientists have been taking a closer look at how they’ve been doing it. Mostly it boiled down to genetics. You either had it or you didn’t. Well, a recent study suggests that doesn’t have to be true anymore, at least for the heart.
Scientists from the United Kingdom and Italy found an antiaging gene in some centenarians that has shown possible antiaging effects in mice and in human heart cells. A single administration of the mutant antiaging gene, they found, stopped heart function decay in middle-aged mice and even reversed the biological clock by the human equivalent of 10 years in elderly mice.
When the researchers applied the antiaging gene to samples of human heart cells from elderly people with heart problems, the cells “resumed functioning properly, proving to be more efficient in building new blood vessels,” they said in a written statement. It all kind of sounds like something out of Dr. Frankenstein’s lab.
I want to believe … in better sleep
The “X-Files” theme song plays. Mulder and Scully are sitting in a diner, breakfast laid out around them. The diner is quiet, with only a few people inside.
Mulder: I’m telling you, Scully, there’s something spooky going on here.
Scully: You mean other than the fact that this town in Georgia looks suspiciously like Vancouver?
Mulder: Not one person we spoke to yesterday has gotten a full night’s sleep since the UFO sighting last month. I’m telling you, they’re here, they’re experimenting.
Scully: Do you really want me to do this to you again?
Mulder: Do what again?
Scully: There’s nothing going on here that can’t be explained by the current research. Why, in January 2023 a study was published revealing a link between poor sleep and belief in paranormal phenomena like UFOS, demons, or ghosts. Which probably explains why you’re on your third cup of coffee for the morning.
Mulder: Scully, you’ve literally been abducted by aliens. Do we have to play this game every time?
Scully: Look, it’s simple. In a sample of nearly 9,000 people, nearly two-thirds of those who reported experiencing sleep paralysis or exploding head syndrome reported believing in UFOs and aliens walking amongst humanity, despite making up just 3% of the overall sample.
Furthermore, about 60% of those reporting sleep paralysis also reported believing near-death experiences prove the soul lingers on after death, and those with stronger insomnia symptoms were more likely to believe in the devil.
Mulder: Aha!
Scully: Aha what?
Mulder: You’re a devout Christian. You believe in the devil and the soul.
Scully: Yes, but I don’t let it interfere with a good night’s sleep, Mulder. These people saw something strange, convinced themselves it was a UFO, and now they can’t sleep. It’s a vicious cycle. The study authors even said that people experiencing strange nighttime phenomena could interpret this as evidence of aliens or other paranormal beings, thus making them even more susceptible to further sleep disruption and deepening beliefs. Look who I’m talking to.
Mulder: Always with the facts, eh?
Scully: I am a doctor, after all. And if you want more research into how paranormal belief and poor sleep quality are linked, I’d be happy to dig out the literature, because the truth is out there, Mulder.
Mulder: I hate you sometimes.
It’s ChatGPT’s world. We’re just living in it
Have you heard about ChatGPT? The artificial intelligence chatbot was just launched in November and it’s already more important to the Internet than either Vladimir Putin or “Rick and Morty.”
What’s that? You’re wondering why you should care? Well, excuuuuuse us, but we thought you might want to know that ChatGPT is in the process of taking over the world. Let’s take a quick look at what it’s been up to.
“ChatGPT bot passes law school exam”
“ChatGPT passes MBA exam given by a Wharton professor”
“A freelance writer says ChatGPT wrote a $600 article in just 30 seconds”
And here’s one that might be of interest to those of the health care persuasion: “ChatGPT can pass part of the U.S. Medical Licensing Exam.” See? It’s coming for you, too.
The artificial intelligence known as ChatGPT “performed at >50% accuracy across [the three USMLE] examinations, exceeding 60% in most analyses,” a group of researchers wrote on the preprint server medRxiv, noting that 60% is usually the pass threshold for humans taking the exam in any given year.
ChatGPT was not given any special medical training before the exam, but the investigators pointed out that another AI, PubMedGPT, which is trained exclusively on biomedical domain literature, was only 50.8% accurate on the USMLE. Its reliance on “ongoing academic discourse that tends to be inconclusive, contradictory, or highly conservative or noncommittal in its language” was its undoing, the team suggested.
To top it off, ChatGPT is listed as one of the authors at the top of the medRxiv report, with an acknowledgment at the end saying that “ChatGPT contributed to the writing of several sections of this manuscript.”
We’ve said it before, and no doubt we’ll say it again: We’re doomed.
Everybody wants a younger heart
As more people live well past 90, scientists have been taking a closer look at how they’ve been doing it. Mostly it boiled down to genetics. You either had it or you didn’t. Well, a recent study suggests that doesn’t have to be true anymore, at least for the heart.
Scientists from the United Kingdom and Italy found an antiaging gene in some centenarians that has shown possible antiaging effects in mice and in human heart cells. A single administration of the mutant antiaging gene, they found, stopped heart function decay in middle-aged mice and even reversed the biological clock by the human equivalent of 10 years in elderly mice.
When the researchers applied the antiaging gene to samples of human heart cells from elderly people with heart problems, the cells “resumed functioning properly, proving to be more efficient in building new blood vessels,” they said in a written statement. It all kind of sounds like something out of Dr. Frankenstein’s lab.
I want to believe … in better sleep
The “X-Files” theme song plays. Mulder and Scully are sitting in a diner, breakfast laid out around them. The diner is quiet, with only a few people inside.
Mulder: I’m telling you, Scully, there’s something spooky going on here.
Scully: You mean other than the fact that this town in Georgia looks suspiciously like Vancouver?
Mulder: Not one person we spoke to yesterday has gotten a full night’s sleep since the UFO sighting last month. I’m telling you, they’re here, they’re experimenting.
Scully: Do you really want me to do this to you again?
Mulder: Do what again?
Scully: There’s nothing going on here that can’t be explained by the current research. Why, in January 2023 a study was published revealing a link between poor sleep and belief in paranormal phenomena like UFOS, demons, or ghosts. Which probably explains why you’re on your third cup of coffee for the morning.
Mulder: Scully, you’ve literally been abducted by aliens. Do we have to play this game every time?
Scully: Look, it’s simple. In a sample of nearly 9,000 people, nearly two-thirds of those who reported experiencing sleep paralysis or exploding head syndrome reported believing in UFOs and aliens walking amongst humanity, despite making up just 3% of the overall sample.
Furthermore, about 60% of those reporting sleep paralysis also reported believing near-death experiences prove the soul lingers on after death, and those with stronger insomnia symptoms were more likely to believe in the devil.
Mulder: Aha!
Scully: Aha what?
Mulder: You’re a devout Christian. You believe in the devil and the soul.
Scully: Yes, but I don’t let it interfere with a good night’s sleep, Mulder. These people saw something strange, convinced themselves it was a UFO, and now they can’t sleep. It’s a vicious cycle. The study authors even said that people experiencing strange nighttime phenomena could interpret this as evidence of aliens or other paranormal beings, thus making them even more susceptible to further sleep disruption and deepening beliefs. Look who I’m talking to.
Mulder: Always with the facts, eh?
Scully: I am a doctor, after all. And if you want more research into how paranormal belief and poor sleep quality are linked, I’d be happy to dig out the literature, because the truth is out there, Mulder.
Mulder: I hate you sometimes.
It’s ChatGPT’s world. We’re just living in it
Have you heard about ChatGPT? The artificial intelligence chatbot was just launched in November and it’s already more important to the Internet than either Vladimir Putin or “Rick and Morty.”
What’s that? You’re wondering why you should care? Well, excuuuuuse us, but we thought you might want to know that ChatGPT is in the process of taking over the world. Let’s take a quick look at what it’s been up to.
“ChatGPT bot passes law school exam”
“ChatGPT passes MBA exam given by a Wharton professor”
“A freelance writer says ChatGPT wrote a $600 article in just 30 seconds”
And here’s one that might be of interest to those of the health care persuasion: “ChatGPT can pass part of the U.S. Medical Licensing Exam.” See? It’s coming for you, too.
The artificial intelligence known as ChatGPT “performed at >50% accuracy across [the three USMLE] examinations, exceeding 60% in most analyses,” a group of researchers wrote on the preprint server medRxiv, noting that 60% is usually the pass threshold for humans taking the exam in any given year.
ChatGPT was not given any special medical training before the exam, but the investigators pointed out that another AI, PubMedGPT, which is trained exclusively on biomedical domain literature, was only 50.8% accurate on the USMLE. Its reliance on “ongoing academic discourse that tends to be inconclusive, contradictory, or highly conservative or noncommittal in its language” was its undoing, the team suggested.
To top it off, ChatGPT is listed as one of the authors at the top of the medRxiv report, with an acknowledgment at the end saying that “ChatGPT contributed to the writing of several sections of this manuscript.”
We’ve said it before, and no doubt we’ll say it again: We’re doomed.
Everybody wants a younger heart
As more people live well past 90, scientists have been taking a closer look at how they’ve been doing it. Mostly it boiled down to genetics. You either had it or you didn’t. Well, a recent study suggests that doesn’t have to be true anymore, at least for the heart.
Scientists from the United Kingdom and Italy found an antiaging gene in some centenarians that has shown possible antiaging effects in mice and in human heart cells. A single administration of the mutant antiaging gene, they found, stopped heart function decay in middle-aged mice and even reversed the biological clock by the human equivalent of 10 years in elderly mice.
When the researchers applied the antiaging gene to samples of human heart cells from elderly people with heart problems, the cells “resumed functioning properly, proving to be more efficient in building new blood vessels,” they said in a written statement. It all kind of sounds like something out of Dr. Frankenstein’s lab.
I want to believe … in better sleep
The “X-Files” theme song plays. Mulder and Scully are sitting in a diner, breakfast laid out around them. The diner is quiet, with only a few people inside.
Mulder: I’m telling you, Scully, there’s something spooky going on here.
Scully: You mean other than the fact that this town in Georgia looks suspiciously like Vancouver?
Mulder: Not one person we spoke to yesterday has gotten a full night’s sleep since the UFO sighting last month. I’m telling you, they’re here, they’re experimenting.
Scully: Do you really want me to do this to you again?
Mulder: Do what again?
Scully: There’s nothing going on here that can’t be explained by the current research. Why, in January 2023 a study was published revealing a link between poor sleep and belief in paranormal phenomena like UFOS, demons, or ghosts. Which probably explains why you’re on your third cup of coffee for the morning.
Mulder: Scully, you’ve literally been abducted by aliens. Do we have to play this game every time?
Scully: Look, it’s simple. In a sample of nearly 9,000 people, nearly two-thirds of those who reported experiencing sleep paralysis or exploding head syndrome reported believing in UFOs and aliens walking amongst humanity, despite making up just 3% of the overall sample.
Furthermore, about 60% of those reporting sleep paralysis also reported believing near-death experiences prove the soul lingers on after death, and those with stronger insomnia symptoms were more likely to believe in the devil.
Mulder: Aha!
Scully: Aha what?
Mulder: You’re a devout Christian. You believe in the devil and the soul.
Scully: Yes, but I don’t let it interfere with a good night’s sleep, Mulder. These people saw something strange, convinced themselves it was a UFO, and now they can’t sleep. It’s a vicious cycle. The study authors even said that people experiencing strange nighttime phenomena could interpret this as evidence of aliens or other paranormal beings, thus making them even more susceptible to further sleep disruption and deepening beliefs. Look who I’m talking to.
Mulder: Always with the facts, eh?
Scully: I am a doctor, after all. And if you want more research into how paranormal belief and poor sleep quality are linked, I’d be happy to dig out the literature, because the truth is out there, Mulder.
Mulder: I hate you sometimes.
It’s ChatGPT’s world. We’re just living in it
Have you heard about ChatGPT? The artificial intelligence chatbot was just launched in November and it’s already more important to the Internet than either Vladimir Putin or “Rick and Morty.”
What’s that? You’re wondering why you should care? Well, excuuuuuse us, but we thought you might want to know that ChatGPT is in the process of taking over the world. Let’s take a quick look at what it’s been up to.
“ChatGPT bot passes law school exam”
“ChatGPT passes MBA exam given by a Wharton professor”
“A freelance writer says ChatGPT wrote a $600 article in just 30 seconds”
And here’s one that might be of interest to those of the health care persuasion: “ChatGPT can pass part of the U.S. Medical Licensing Exam.” See? It’s coming for you, too.
The artificial intelligence known as ChatGPT “performed at >50% accuracy across [the three USMLE] examinations, exceeding 60% in most analyses,” a group of researchers wrote on the preprint server medRxiv, noting that 60% is usually the pass threshold for humans taking the exam in any given year.
ChatGPT was not given any special medical training before the exam, but the investigators pointed out that another AI, PubMedGPT, which is trained exclusively on biomedical domain literature, was only 50.8% accurate on the USMLE. Its reliance on “ongoing academic discourse that tends to be inconclusive, contradictory, or highly conservative or noncommittal in its language” was its undoing, the team suggested.
To top it off, ChatGPT is listed as one of the authors at the top of the medRxiv report, with an acknowledgment at the end saying that “ChatGPT contributed to the writing of several sections of this manuscript.”
We’ve said it before, and no doubt we’ll say it again: We’re doomed.
FDA wants annual COVID boosters, just like annual flu shots
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is suggesting a single annual shot. The formulation would be selected in June targeting the most threatening COVID-19 strains, and then people could get a shot in the fall when people begin spending more time indoors and exposure increases.
Some people, such as those who are older or immunocompromised, may need more than one dose.
A national advisory committee is expected to vote on the proposal at a meeting Jan. 26.
People in the United States have been much less likely to get an updated COVID-19 booster shot, compared with widespread uptake of the primary vaccine series. In its proposal, the FDA indicated it hoped a single annual shot would overcome challenges created by the complexity of the process – both in messaging and administration – attributed to that low booster rate. Nine in 10 people age 12 or older got the primary vaccine series in the United States, but only 15% got the latest booster shot for COVID-19.
About half of children and adults in the U.S. get an annual flu shot, according to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data.
The FDA also wants to move to a single COVID-19 vaccine formulation that would be used for primary vaccine series and for booster shots.
COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations, and deaths are trending downward, according to the data tracker from the New York Times. Cases are down 28%, with 47,290 tallied daily. Hospitalizations are down 22%, with 37,474 daily. Deaths are down 4%, with an average of 489 per day as of Jan. 22.
A version of this article originally appeared on WebMD.com.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is suggesting a single annual shot. The formulation would be selected in June targeting the most threatening COVID-19 strains, and then people could get a shot in the fall when people begin spending more time indoors and exposure increases.
Some people, such as those who are older or immunocompromised, may need more than one dose.
A national advisory committee is expected to vote on the proposal at a meeting Jan. 26.
People in the United States have been much less likely to get an updated COVID-19 booster shot, compared with widespread uptake of the primary vaccine series. In its proposal, the FDA indicated it hoped a single annual shot would overcome challenges created by the complexity of the process – both in messaging and administration – attributed to that low booster rate. Nine in 10 people age 12 or older got the primary vaccine series in the United States, but only 15% got the latest booster shot for COVID-19.
About half of children and adults in the U.S. get an annual flu shot, according to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data.
The FDA also wants to move to a single COVID-19 vaccine formulation that would be used for primary vaccine series and for booster shots.
COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations, and deaths are trending downward, according to the data tracker from the New York Times. Cases are down 28%, with 47,290 tallied daily. Hospitalizations are down 22%, with 37,474 daily. Deaths are down 4%, with an average of 489 per day as of Jan. 22.
A version of this article originally appeared on WebMD.com.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is suggesting a single annual shot. The formulation would be selected in June targeting the most threatening COVID-19 strains, and then people could get a shot in the fall when people begin spending more time indoors and exposure increases.
Some people, such as those who are older or immunocompromised, may need more than one dose.
A national advisory committee is expected to vote on the proposal at a meeting Jan. 26.
People in the United States have been much less likely to get an updated COVID-19 booster shot, compared with widespread uptake of the primary vaccine series. In its proposal, the FDA indicated it hoped a single annual shot would overcome challenges created by the complexity of the process – both in messaging and administration – attributed to that low booster rate. Nine in 10 people age 12 or older got the primary vaccine series in the United States, but only 15% got the latest booster shot for COVID-19.
About half of children and adults in the U.S. get an annual flu shot, according to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data.
The FDA also wants to move to a single COVID-19 vaccine formulation that would be used for primary vaccine series and for booster shots.
COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations, and deaths are trending downward, according to the data tracker from the New York Times. Cases are down 28%, with 47,290 tallied daily. Hospitalizations are down 22%, with 37,474 daily. Deaths are down 4%, with an average of 489 per day as of Jan. 22.
A version of this article originally appeared on WebMD.com.
Canadian guidance recommends reducing alcohol consumption
“Drinking less is better,” says the guidance, which replaces Canada’s 2011 Low-Risk Drinking Guidelines (LRDGs).
Developed in consultation with an executive committee from federal, provincial, and territorial governments; national organizations; three scientific expert panels; and an internal evidence review working group, the guidance presents the following findings:
- Consuming no drinks per week has benefits, such as better health and better sleep, and it’s the only safe option during pregnancy.
- Consuming one or two standard drinks weekly will likely not have alcohol-related consequences.
- Three to six drinks raise the risk of developing breast, colon, and other cancers.
- Seven or more increase the risk of heart disease or stroke.
- Each additional drink “radically increases” the risk of these health consequences.
“Alcohol is more harmful than was previously thought and is a key component of the health of your patients,” Adam Sherk, PhD, a scientist at the Canadian Institute for Substance Use Research at the University of Victoria (B.C.), and a member of the scientific expert panel that contributed to the guidance, said in an interview. “Display and discuss the new guidance with your patients with the main message that drinking less is better.”
Peter Butt, MD, a clinical associate professor at the University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, and cochair of the guidance project, said in an interview: “The World Health Organization has identified over 200 ICD-coded conditions associated with alcohol use. This creates many opportunities to inquire into quantity and frequency of alcohol use, relate it to the patient’s health and well-being, and provide advice on reduction.”
“Canada’s Guidance on Alcohol and Health: Final Report” and a related infographic were published online Jan. 17.
Continuum of risk
The impetus for the new guidance came from the fact that “our 2011 LRDGs were no longer current, and there was emerging evidence that people drinking within those levels were coming to harm,” said Dr. Butt.
That evidence indicates that alcohol causes at least seven types of cancer, mostly of the breast or colon; is a risk factor for most types of heart disease; and is a main cause of liver disease. Evidence also indicates that avoiding drinking to the point of intoxication will reduce people’s risk of perpetrating alcohol-related violence.
Responding to the need to accurately quantify the risk, the guidance defines a “standard” drink as 12 oz of beer, cooler, or cider (5% alcohol); 5 oz of wine (12% alcohol); and 1.5 oz of spirits such as whiskey, vodka, or gin (40% alcohol).
Using different mortality risk thresholds, the project’s experts developed the following continuum of risk:
- Low for individuals who consume two standard drinks or fewer per week
- Moderate for those who consume from three to six standard drinks per week
- Increasingly high for those who consume seven standard drinks or more per week
The guidance makes the following observations:
- Consuming more than two standard drinks per drinking occasion is associated with an increased risk of harms to self and others, including injuries and violence.
- When pregnant or trying to get pregnant, no amount of alcohol is safe.
- When breastfeeding, not drinking is safest.
- Above the upper limit of the moderate risk zone, health risks increase more steeply for females than males.
- Far more injuries, violence, and deaths result from men’s alcohol use, especially for per occasion drinking, than from women’s alcohol use.
- Young people should delay alcohol use for as long as possible.
- Individuals should not start to use alcohol or increase their alcohol use for health benefits.
- Any reduction in alcohol use is beneficial.
Other national guidelines
“Countries that haven’t updated their alcohol use guidelines recently should do so, as the evidence regarding alcohol and health has advanced considerably in the past 10 years,” said Dr. Sherk. He acknowledged that “any time health guidance changes substantially, it’s reasonable to expect a period of readjustment.”
“Some will be resistant,” Dr. Butt agreed. “Some professionals will need more education than others on the health effects of alcohol. Some patients will also be more invested in drinking than others. The harm-reduction, risk-zone approach should assist in the process of engaging patients and helping them reduce over time.
“Just as we benefited from the updates done in the United Kingdom, France, and especially Australia, so also researchers elsewhere will critique our work and our approach and make their own decisions on how best to communicate with their public,” Dr. Butt said. He noted that Canada’s contributions regarding the association between alcohol and violence, as well as their sex/gender approach to the evidence, “may influence the next country’s review.”
Commenting on whether the United States should consider changing its guidance, Timothy Brennan, MD, MPH, chief of clinical services for the Addiction Institute of Mount Sinai Health System in New York, said in an interview, “A lot of people will be surprised at the recommended limits on alcohol. Most think that they can have one or two glasses of alcohol per day and not have any increased risk to their health. I think the Canadians deserve credit for putting themselves out there.”
Dr. Brennan said there will “certainly be pushback by the drinking lobby, which is very strong both in the U.S. and in Canada.” In fact, the national trade group Beer Canada was recently quoted as stating that it still supports the 2011 guidelines and that the updating process lacked full transparency and expert technical peer review.
Nevertheless, Dr. Brennan said, “it’s overwhelmingly clear that alcohol affects a ton of different parts of our body, so limiting the amount of alcohol we take in is always going to be a good thing. The Canadian graphic is great because it color-codes the risk. I recommend that clinicians put it up in their offices and begin quantifying the units of alcohol that are going into a patient’s body each day.”
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
“Drinking less is better,” says the guidance, which replaces Canada’s 2011 Low-Risk Drinking Guidelines (LRDGs).
Developed in consultation with an executive committee from federal, provincial, and territorial governments; national organizations; three scientific expert panels; and an internal evidence review working group, the guidance presents the following findings:
- Consuming no drinks per week has benefits, such as better health and better sleep, and it’s the only safe option during pregnancy.
- Consuming one or two standard drinks weekly will likely not have alcohol-related consequences.
- Three to six drinks raise the risk of developing breast, colon, and other cancers.
- Seven or more increase the risk of heart disease or stroke.
- Each additional drink “radically increases” the risk of these health consequences.
“Alcohol is more harmful than was previously thought and is a key component of the health of your patients,” Adam Sherk, PhD, a scientist at the Canadian Institute for Substance Use Research at the University of Victoria (B.C.), and a member of the scientific expert panel that contributed to the guidance, said in an interview. “Display and discuss the new guidance with your patients with the main message that drinking less is better.”
Peter Butt, MD, a clinical associate professor at the University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, and cochair of the guidance project, said in an interview: “The World Health Organization has identified over 200 ICD-coded conditions associated with alcohol use. This creates many opportunities to inquire into quantity and frequency of alcohol use, relate it to the patient’s health and well-being, and provide advice on reduction.”
“Canada’s Guidance on Alcohol and Health: Final Report” and a related infographic were published online Jan. 17.
Continuum of risk
The impetus for the new guidance came from the fact that “our 2011 LRDGs were no longer current, and there was emerging evidence that people drinking within those levels were coming to harm,” said Dr. Butt.
That evidence indicates that alcohol causes at least seven types of cancer, mostly of the breast or colon; is a risk factor for most types of heart disease; and is a main cause of liver disease. Evidence also indicates that avoiding drinking to the point of intoxication will reduce people’s risk of perpetrating alcohol-related violence.
Responding to the need to accurately quantify the risk, the guidance defines a “standard” drink as 12 oz of beer, cooler, or cider (5% alcohol); 5 oz of wine (12% alcohol); and 1.5 oz of spirits such as whiskey, vodka, or gin (40% alcohol).
Using different mortality risk thresholds, the project’s experts developed the following continuum of risk:
- Low for individuals who consume two standard drinks or fewer per week
- Moderate for those who consume from three to six standard drinks per week
- Increasingly high for those who consume seven standard drinks or more per week
The guidance makes the following observations:
- Consuming more than two standard drinks per drinking occasion is associated with an increased risk of harms to self and others, including injuries and violence.
- When pregnant or trying to get pregnant, no amount of alcohol is safe.
- When breastfeeding, not drinking is safest.
- Above the upper limit of the moderate risk zone, health risks increase more steeply for females than males.
- Far more injuries, violence, and deaths result from men’s alcohol use, especially for per occasion drinking, than from women’s alcohol use.
- Young people should delay alcohol use for as long as possible.
- Individuals should not start to use alcohol or increase their alcohol use for health benefits.
- Any reduction in alcohol use is beneficial.
Other national guidelines
“Countries that haven’t updated their alcohol use guidelines recently should do so, as the evidence regarding alcohol and health has advanced considerably in the past 10 years,” said Dr. Sherk. He acknowledged that “any time health guidance changes substantially, it’s reasonable to expect a period of readjustment.”
“Some will be resistant,” Dr. Butt agreed. “Some professionals will need more education than others on the health effects of alcohol. Some patients will also be more invested in drinking than others. The harm-reduction, risk-zone approach should assist in the process of engaging patients and helping them reduce over time.
“Just as we benefited from the updates done in the United Kingdom, France, and especially Australia, so also researchers elsewhere will critique our work and our approach and make their own decisions on how best to communicate with their public,” Dr. Butt said. He noted that Canada’s contributions regarding the association between alcohol and violence, as well as their sex/gender approach to the evidence, “may influence the next country’s review.”
Commenting on whether the United States should consider changing its guidance, Timothy Brennan, MD, MPH, chief of clinical services for the Addiction Institute of Mount Sinai Health System in New York, said in an interview, “A lot of people will be surprised at the recommended limits on alcohol. Most think that they can have one or two glasses of alcohol per day and not have any increased risk to their health. I think the Canadians deserve credit for putting themselves out there.”
Dr. Brennan said there will “certainly be pushback by the drinking lobby, which is very strong both in the U.S. and in Canada.” In fact, the national trade group Beer Canada was recently quoted as stating that it still supports the 2011 guidelines and that the updating process lacked full transparency and expert technical peer review.
Nevertheless, Dr. Brennan said, “it’s overwhelmingly clear that alcohol affects a ton of different parts of our body, so limiting the amount of alcohol we take in is always going to be a good thing. The Canadian graphic is great because it color-codes the risk. I recommend that clinicians put it up in their offices and begin quantifying the units of alcohol that are going into a patient’s body each day.”
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
“Drinking less is better,” says the guidance, which replaces Canada’s 2011 Low-Risk Drinking Guidelines (LRDGs).
Developed in consultation with an executive committee from federal, provincial, and territorial governments; national organizations; three scientific expert panels; and an internal evidence review working group, the guidance presents the following findings:
- Consuming no drinks per week has benefits, such as better health and better sleep, and it’s the only safe option during pregnancy.
- Consuming one or two standard drinks weekly will likely not have alcohol-related consequences.
- Three to six drinks raise the risk of developing breast, colon, and other cancers.
- Seven or more increase the risk of heart disease or stroke.
- Each additional drink “radically increases” the risk of these health consequences.
“Alcohol is more harmful than was previously thought and is a key component of the health of your patients,” Adam Sherk, PhD, a scientist at the Canadian Institute for Substance Use Research at the University of Victoria (B.C.), and a member of the scientific expert panel that contributed to the guidance, said in an interview. “Display and discuss the new guidance with your patients with the main message that drinking less is better.”
Peter Butt, MD, a clinical associate professor at the University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, and cochair of the guidance project, said in an interview: “The World Health Organization has identified over 200 ICD-coded conditions associated with alcohol use. This creates many opportunities to inquire into quantity and frequency of alcohol use, relate it to the patient’s health and well-being, and provide advice on reduction.”
“Canada’s Guidance on Alcohol and Health: Final Report” and a related infographic were published online Jan. 17.
Continuum of risk
The impetus for the new guidance came from the fact that “our 2011 LRDGs were no longer current, and there was emerging evidence that people drinking within those levels were coming to harm,” said Dr. Butt.
That evidence indicates that alcohol causes at least seven types of cancer, mostly of the breast or colon; is a risk factor for most types of heart disease; and is a main cause of liver disease. Evidence also indicates that avoiding drinking to the point of intoxication will reduce people’s risk of perpetrating alcohol-related violence.
Responding to the need to accurately quantify the risk, the guidance defines a “standard” drink as 12 oz of beer, cooler, or cider (5% alcohol); 5 oz of wine (12% alcohol); and 1.5 oz of spirits such as whiskey, vodka, or gin (40% alcohol).
Using different mortality risk thresholds, the project’s experts developed the following continuum of risk:
- Low for individuals who consume two standard drinks or fewer per week
- Moderate for those who consume from three to six standard drinks per week
- Increasingly high for those who consume seven standard drinks or more per week
The guidance makes the following observations:
- Consuming more than two standard drinks per drinking occasion is associated with an increased risk of harms to self and others, including injuries and violence.
- When pregnant or trying to get pregnant, no amount of alcohol is safe.
- When breastfeeding, not drinking is safest.
- Above the upper limit of the moderate risk zone, health risks increase more steeply for females than males.
- Far more injuries, violence, and deaths result from men’s alcohol use, especially for per occasion drinking, than from women’s alcohol use.
- Young people should delay alcohol use for as long as possible.
- Individuals should not start to use alcohol or increase their alcohol use for health benefits.
- Any reduction in alcohol use is beneficial.
Other national guidelines
“Countries that haven’t updated their alcohol use guidelines recently should do so, as the evidence regarding alcohol and health has advanced considerably in the past 10 years,” said Dr. Sherk. He acknowledged that “any time health guidance changes substantially, it’s reasonable to expect a period of readjustment.”
“Some will be resistant,” Dr. Butt agreed. “Some professionals will need more education than others on the health effects of alcohol. Some patients will also be more invested in drinking than others. The harm-reduction, risk-zone approach should assist in the process of engaging patients and helping them reduce over time.
“Just as we benefited from the updates done in the United Kingdom, France, and especially Australia, so also researchers elsewhere will critique our work and our approach and make their own decisions on how best to communicate with their public,” Dr. Butt said. He noted that Canada’s contributions regarding the association between alcohol and violence, as well as their sex/gender approach to the evidence, “may influence the next country’s review.”
Commenting on whether the United States should consider changing its guidance, Timothy Brennan, MD, MPH, chief of clinical services for the Addiction Institute of Mount Sinai Health System in New York, said in an interview, “A lot of people will be surprised at the recommended limits on alcohol. Most think that they can have one or two glasses of alcohol per day and not have any increased risk to their health. I think the Canadians deserve credit for putting themselves out there.”
Dr. Brennan said there will “certainly be pushback by the drinking lobby, which is very strong both in the U.S. and in Canada.” In fact, the national trade group Beer Canada was recently quoted as stating that it still supports the 2011 guidelines and that the updating process lacked full transparency and expert technical peer review.
Nevertheless, Dr. Brennan said, “it’s overwhelmingly clear that alcohol affects a ton of different parts of our body, so limiting the amount of alcohol we take in is always going to be a good thing. The Canadian graphic is great because it color-codes the risk. I recommend that clinicians put it up in their offices and begin quantifying the units of alcohol that are going into a patient’s body each day.”
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Over half of ED visits from cancer patients could be prevented
Overall, researchers found that 18.3 million (52%) ED visits among patients with cancer between 2012 and 2019 were potentially avoidable. Pain was the most common reason for such a visit. Notably, the number of potentially preventable ED visits documented each year increased over the study period.
“These findings highlight the need for cancer care programs to implement evidence-based interventions to better manage cancer treatment complications, such as uncontrolled pain, in outpatient and ambulatory settings,” said the authors, led by Amir Alishahi Tabriz, MD, PhD, MPH, department of health outcomes and behavior, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa.
Authors of an accompanying editorial agree, noting that “patients at risk for having uncontrolled pain could potentially be identified earlier, and steps could be taken that would address their pain and help prevent acute care visits.”
The study and the editorial were published online Jan. 19, 2022, in JAMA Network Open.
Patients with cancer experience a range of side effects from their cancer and treatment. Many such problems can be managed in the ambulatory setting but are often managed in the ED, which is far from optimal for patients with cancer from both a complications and cost perspective. Still, little is known about whether ED visits among patients with cancer are avoidable.
To better understand unnecessary emergency care use by these patients, Dr. Tabriz and colleagues evaluated trends and characteristics of potentially preventable ED visits among adults with cancer who had an ED visit between 2012 and 2019. The authors used the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services definition for a potentially preventable ED visit among patients receiving chemotherapy.
Among the 35.5 million ED visits made by patients with cancer during the study period, 18.3 million (52%) were identified as potentially preventable. Nearly 5.8 million of these visits (21%) were classified as being of “high acuity,” and almost 30% resulted in unplanned hospitalizations.
Pain was the most common reason for potentially preventable ED visits, accounting for 37% of these visits.
The absolute number of potentially preventable ED visits among cancer patients increased from about 1.8 million in 2012 to 3.2 million in 2019. The number of patients who visited the ED because of pain more than doubled, from roughly 1.2 million in 2012 to 2.4 million in 2019.
“The disproportionate increase in the number of ED visits by patients with cancer has put a substantial burden on EDs that are already operating at peak capacity” and “reinforces the need for cancer care programs to devise innovative ways to manage complications associated with cancer treatment in the outpatient and ambulatory settings,” Dr. Tabriz and coauthors wrote.
The increase could be an “unintended” consequence of efforts to decrease overall opioid administration in response to the opioid epidemic, Dr. Tabriz and colleagues noted. For example, the authors point to a recent study that found that about half of patients with cancer who had severe pain did not receive outpatient opioids in the week before visiting the ED.
“Even access to outpatient care does not mean patients can get the care they need outside an ED,” wrote editorialists Erek Majka, MD, with Summerlin Hospital, Las Vegas, and N. Seth Trueger, MD, MPH, with Northwestern University, Chicago. Thus, “it is no surprise that patients are sent to the ED if the alternatives do not have the staff or diagnostic and therapeutic capabilities the patients need.”
Overall, however, the “goal is not to eliminate ED visits for their own sake; rather, the goal is better care of patients with cancer, and secondarily, in a manner that is cost-effective,” Dr. Majka and Dr. Trueger explained.
No specific funding for the study was reported. The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Trueger is digital media editor of JAMA Network Open, but he was not involved in decisions regarding review of the manuscript or its acceptance.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Overall, researchers found that 18.3 million (52%) ED visits among patients with cancer between 2012 and 2019 were potentially avoidable. Pain was the most common reason for such a visit. Notably, the number of potentially preventable ED visits documented each year increased over the study period.
“These findings highlight the need for cancer care programs to implement evidence-based interventions to better manage cancer treatment complications, such as uncontrolled pain, in outpatient and ambulatory settings,” said the authors, led by Amir Alishahi Tabriz, MD, PhD, MPH, department of health outcomes and behavior, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa.
Authors of an accompanying editorial agree, noting that “patients at risk for having uncontrolled pain could potentially be identified earlier, and steps could be taken that would address their pain and help prevent acute care visits.”
The study and the editorial were published online Jan. 19, 2022, in JAMA Network Open.
Patients with cancer experience a range of side effects from their cancer and treatment. Many such problems can be managed in the ambulatory setting but are often managed in the ED, which is far from optimal for patients with cancer from both a complications and cost perspective. Still, little is known about whether ED visits among patients with cancer are avoidable.
To better understand unnecessary emergency care use by these patients, Dr. Tabriz and colleagues evaluated trends and characteristics of potentially preventable ED visits among adults with cancer who had an ED visit between 2012 and 2019. The authors used the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services definition for a potentially preventable ED visit among patients receiving chemotherapy.
Among the 35.5 million ED visits made by patients with cancer during the study period, 18.3 million (52%) were identified as potentially preventable. Nearly 5.8 million of these visits (21%) were classified as being of “high acuity,” and almost 30% resulted in unplanned hospitalizations.
Pain was the most common reason for potentially preventable ED visits, accounting for 37% of these visits.
The absolute number of potentially preventable ED visits among cancer patients increased from about 1.8 million in 2012 to 3.2 million in 2019. The number of patients who visited the ED because of pain more than doubled, from roughly 1.2 million in 2012 to 2.4 million in 2019.
“The disproportionate increase in the number of ED visits by patients with cancer has put a substantial burden on EDs that are already operating at peak capacity” and “reinforces the need for cancer care programs to devise innovative ways to manage complications associated with cancer treatment in the outpatient and ambulatory settings,” Dr. Tabriz and coauthors wrote.
The increase could be an “unintended” consequence of efforts to decrease overall opioid administration in response to the opioid epidemic, Dr. Tabriz and colleagues noted. For example, the authors point to a recent study that found that about half of patients with cancer who had severe pain did not receive outpatient opioids in the week before visiting the ED.
“Even access to outpatient care does not mean patients can get the care they need outside an ED,” wrote editorialists Erek Majka, MD, with Summerlin Hospital, Las Vegas, and N. Seth Trueger, MD, MPH, with Northwestern University, Chicago. Thus, “it is no surprise that patients are sent to the ED if the alternatives do not have the staff or diagnostic and therapeutic capabilities the patients need.”
Overall, however, the “goal is not to eliminate ED visits for their own sake; rather, the goal is better care of patients with cancer, and secondarily, in a manner that is cost-effective,” Dr. Majka and Dr. Trueger explained.
No specific funding for the study was reported. The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Trueger is digital media editor of JAMA Network Open, but he was not involved in decisions regarding review of the manuscript or its acceptance.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Overall, researchers found that 18.3 million (52%) ED visits among patients with cancer between 2012 and 2019 were potentially avoidable. Pain was the most common reason for such a visit. Notably, the number of potentially preventable ED visits documented each year increased over the study period.
“These findings highlight the need for cancer care programs to implement evidence-based interventions to better manage cancer treatment complications, such as uncontrolled pain, in outpatient and ambulatory settings,” said the authors, led by Amir Alishahi Tabriz, MD, PhD, MPH, department of health outcomes and behavior, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa.
Authors of an accompanying editorial agree, noting that “patients at risk for having uncontrolled pain could potentially be identified earlier, and steps could be taken that would address their pain and help prevent acute care visits.”
The study and the editorial were published online Jan. 19, 2022, in JAMA Network Open.
Patients with cancer experience a range of side effects from their cancer and treatment. Many such problems can be managed in the ambulatory setting but are often managed in the ED, which is far from optimal for patients with cancer from both a complications and cost perspective. Still, little is known about whether ED visits among patients with cancer are avoidable.
To better understand unnecessary emergency care use by these patients, Dr. Tabriz and colleagues evaluated trends and characteristics of potentially preventable ED visits among adults with cancer who had an ED visit between 2012 and 2019. The authors used the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services definition for a potentially preventable ED visit among patients receiving chemotherapy.
Among the 35.5 million ED visits made by patients with cancer during the study period, 18.3 million (52%) were identified as potentially preventable. Nearly 5.8 million of these visits (21%) were classified as being of “high acuity,” and almost 30% resulted in unplanned hospitalizations.
Pain was the most common reason for potentially preventable ED visits, accounting for 37% of these visits.
The absolute number of potentially preventable ED visits among cancer patients increased from about 1.8 million in 2012 to 3.2 million in 2019. The number of patients who visited the ED because of pain more than doubled, from roughly 1.2 million in 2012 to 2.4 million in 2019.
“The disproportionate increase in the number of ED visits by patients with cancer has put a substantial burden on EDs that are already operating at peak capacity” and “reinforces the need for cancer care programs to devise innovative ways to manage complications associated with cancer treatment in the outpatient and ambulatory settings,” Dr. Tabriz and coauthors wrote.
The increase could be an “unintended” consequence of efforts to decrease overall opioid administration in response to the opioid epidemic, Dr. Tabriz and colleagues noted. For example, the authors point to a recent study that found that about half of patients with cancer who had severe pain did not receive outpatient opioids in the week before visiting the ED.
“Even access to outpatient care does not mean patients can get the care they need outside an ED,” wrote editorialists Erek Majka, MD, with Summerlin Hospital, Las Vegas, and N. Seth Trueger, MD, MPH, with Northwestern University, Chicago. Thus, “it is no surprise that patients are sent to the ED if the alternatives do not have the staff or diagnostic and therapeutic capabilities the patients need.”
Overall, however, the “goal is not to eliminate ED visits for their own sake; rather, the goal is better care of patients with cancer, and secondarily, in a manner that is cost-effective,” Dr. Majka and Dr. Trueger explained.
No specific funding for the study was reported. The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Trueger is digital media editor of JAMA Network Open, but he was not involved in decisions regarding review of the manuscript or its acceptance.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM JAMA NETWORK OPEN
Is it time to unionize?
According to an article in the Wall Street Journal (Mosbergen D. 2023 Jan 16), physicians-in-training in several parts of the country are attempting to unionize. The Committee of Interns and Residents (CIR), a union representing about 15% of the 140,000 residents and fellows in the United States reports that it has been adding chapters at an accelerated rate since the pandemic began.
Most of the 1,400 residents at Palo Alto–based Stanford Medicine recently voted to unionize seeking better compensation and improved working conditions including more accommodations for residents with disabilities or who are breastfeeding. At the University of Illinois at Chicago, house officers are also exploring an association with CIR hoping that collective bargaining might help them get “better pay and working conditions that could alleviate some burnout and stress.”
Although physicians have been hesitant to organize themselves around workplace concerns, nurses have a more robust history of unionizing and taking action. Recently, the nurses at two of New York’s largest medical centers went on a strike for 3 days that ended after the medical centers agreed to their primary demand of hiring more nurses and committing to set more workable nurse to patient ratios.
In an unusual but historic incident of workplace activism, the residents and interns at the then notoriously decrepit Boston City Hospital staged a “heal-in” in 1967 during which they admitted more patients (all with legitimate conditions for admission) than the hospital could handle. While more pay was included in their demands (interns were being paid $3,600/year and senior residents $7,500/year), the primary complaint of the house officers focused on patient health and safety issues. The crisis this work action triggered finally brought into sharp focus the city’s failure to care for its most needy citizens and over time, changes have been made (TIME Magazine. U.S. edition. Jun 21;91:25).
Having spent some time at the Boston City Hospital as a medical student in the 1960s I can attest to the deplorable conditions. While you might not be washing your hands and instruments in rusty sinks or having to brush flaking paint off your patients’ cribs, you may be experiencing working conditions that are threatening the health and safety of you, your coworkers, and not least of all your patients. Staffing shortages, clunky electronic health record systems that are adding hours of work to your day, screen after screen of data entry tasks that prevent you from meeting your patients eye-to-eye, and piles of prior authorization requests clogging your inbox to name just a few.
Who can you complain to, other than your coworkers? The patients brought their problems to you; it doesn’t seem fair to add to their burden by sharing your own. Maybe it’s time to think about joining a union to strengthen your voice and create some change.
But “union” and “strike” don’t sound very professional and certainly not coming from the mouths of folks who have chosen to be caregivers. However, things have changed. Most of us are employees now. We need to finally accept that role and begin acting like employees working under stressful and unhealthy conditions. Does the word “burnout” make the notion of unionizing any more palatable?
The American Medical Association’s code of ethics wisely discourages physicians from engaging in actions that withhold medical care. However, the Boston City Hospital house officers provided just one example of a work action that can draw attention to the problem while still providing care to the patients in our trust.
Simply, joining our voices can be a powerful force in the war of words and images. Patients don’t like the impersonalization that has come with the current crop of electronic health record systems and the tortuous phone trees they must navigate just to talk to a human voice any more than we do. Instead of complaining to the patients, we should explain to them that the working conditions we must endure have the same roots as the things they don’t like about coming to see us.
I hope your situation still allows you to have an effective voice. If it doesn’t maybe it’s time to consider unionizing. However, if asking for more pay is anywhere near the top of your grievance list, I don’t want to join your union because you are doomed to failure on the public relations battlefield.
Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].
According to an article in the Wall Street Journal (Mosbergen D. 2023 Jan 16), physicians-in-training in several parts of the country are attempting to unionize. The Committee of Interns and Residents (CIR), a union representing about 15% of the 140,000 residents and fellows in the United States reports that it has been adding chapters at an accelerated rate since the pandemic began.
Most of the 1,400 residents at Palo Alto–based Stanford Medicine recently voted to unionize seeking better compensation and improved working conditions including more accommodations for residents with disabilities or who are breastfeeding. At the University of Illinois at Chicago, house officers are also exploring an association with CIR hoping that collective bargaining might help them get “better pay and working conditions that could alleviate some burnout and stress.”
Although physicians have been hesitant to organize themselves around workplace concerns, nurses have a more robust history of unionizing and taking action. Recently, the nurses at two of New York’s largest medical centers went on a strike for 3 days that ended after the medical centers agreed to their primary demand of hiring more nurses and committing to set more workable nurse to patient ratios.
In an unusual but historic incident of workplace activism, the residents and interns at the then notoriously decrepit Boston City Hospital staged a “heal-in” in 1967 during which they admitted more patients (all with legitimate conditions for admission) than the hospital could handle. While more pay was included in their demands (interns were being paid $3,600/year and senior residents $7,500/year), the primary complaint of the house officers focused on patient health and safety issues. The crisis this work action triggered finally brought into sharp focus the city’s failure to care for its most needy citizens and over time, changes have been made (TIME Magazine. U.S. edition. Jun 21;91:25).
Having spent some time at the Boston City Hospital as a medical student in the 1960s I can attest to the deplorable conditions. While you might not be washing your hands and instruments in rusty sinks or having to brush flaking paint off your patients’ cribs, you may be experiencing working conditions that are threatening the health and safety of you, your coworkers, and not least of all your patients. Staffing shortages, clunky electronic health record systems that are adding hours of work to your day, screen after screen of data entry tasks that prevent you from meeting your patients eye-to-eye, and piles of prior authorization requests clogging your inbox to name just a few.
Who can you complain to, other than your coworkers? The patients brought their problems to you; it doesn’t seem fair to add to their burden by sharing your own. Maybe it’s time to think about joining a union to strengthen your voice and create some change.
But “union” and “strike” don’t sound very professional and certainly not coming from the mouths of folks who have chosen to be caregivers. However, things have changed. Most of us are employees now. We need to finally accept that role and begin acting like employees working under stressful and unhealthy conditions. Does the word “burnout” make the notion of unionizing any more palatable?
The American Medical Association’s code of ethics wisely discourages physicians from engaging in actions that withhold medical care. However, the Boston City Hospital house officers provided just one example of a work action that can draw attention to the problem while still providing care to the patients in our trust.
Simply, joining our voices can be a powerful force in the war of words and images. Patients don’t like the impersonalization that has come with the current crop of electronic health record systems and the tortuous phone trees they must navigate just to talk to a human voice any more than we do. Instead of complaining to the patients, we should explain to them that the working conditions we must endure have the same roots as the things they don’t like about coming to see us.
I hope your situation still allows you to have an effective voice. If it doesn’t maybe it’s time to consider unionizing. However, if asking for more pay is anywhere near the top of your grievance list, I don’t want to join your union because you are doomed to failure on the public relations battlefield.
Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].
According to an article in the Wall Street Journal (Mosbergen D. 2023 Jan 16), physicians-in-training in several parts of the country are attempting to unionize. The Committee of Interns and Residents (CIR), a union representing about 15% of the 140,000 residents and fellows in the United States reports that it has been adding chapters at an accelerated rate since the pandemic began.
Most of the 1,400 residents at Palo Alto–based Stanford Medicine recently voted to unionize seeking better compensation and improved working conditions including more accommodations for residents with disabilities or who are breastfeeding. At the University of Illinois at Chicago, house officers are also exploring an association with CIR hoping that collective bargaining might help them get “better pay and working conditions that could alleviate some burnout and stress.”
Although physicians have been hesitant to organize themselves around workplace concerns, nurses have a more robust history of unionizing and taking action. Recently, the nurses at two of New York’s largest medical centers went on a strike for 3 days that ended after the medical centers agreed to their primary demand of hiring more nurses and committing to set more workable nurse to patient ratios.
In an unusual but historic incident of workplace activism, the residents and interns at the then notoriously decrepit Boston City Hospital staged a “heal-in” in 1967 during which they admitted more patients (all with legitimate conditions for admission) than the hospital could handle. While more pay was included in their demands (interns were being paid $3,600/year and senior residents $7,500/year), the primary complaint of the house officers focused on patient health and safety issues. The crisis this work action triggered finally brought into sharp focus the city’s failure to care for its most needy citizens and over time, changes have been made (TIME Magazine. U.S. edition. Jun 21;91:25).
Having spent some time at the Boston City Hospital as a medical student in the 1960s I can attest to the deplorable conditions. While you might not be washing your hands and instruments in rusty sinks or having to brush flaking paint off your patients’ cribs, you may be experiencing working conditions that are threatening the health and safety of you, your coworkers, and not least of all your patients. Staffing shortages, clunky electronic health record systems that are adding hours of work to your day, screen after screen of data entry tasks that prevent you from meeting your patients eye-to-eye, and piles of prior authorization requests clogging your inbox to name just a few.
Who can you complain to, other than your coworkers? The patients brought their problems to you; it doesn’t seem fair to add to their burden by sharing your own. Maybe it’s time to think about joining a union to strengthen your voice and create some change.
But “union” and “strike” don’t sound very professional and certainly not coming from the mouths of folks who have chosen to be caregivers. However, things have changed. Most of us are employees now. We need to finally accept that role and begin acting like employees working under stressful and unhealthy conditions. Does the word “burnout” make the notion of unionizing any more palatable?
The American Medical Association’s code of ethics wisely discourages physicians from engaging in actions that withhold medical care. However, the Boston City Hospital house officers provided just one example of a work action that can draw attention to the problem while still providing care to the patients in our trust.
Simply, joining our voices can be a powerful force in the war of words and images. Patients don’t like the impersonalization that has come with the current crop of electronic health record systems and the tortuous phone trees they must navigate just to talk to a human voice any more than we do. Instead of complaining to the patients, we should explain to them that the working conditions we must endure have the same roots as the things they don’t like about coming to see us.
I hope your situation still allows you to have an effective voice. If it doesn’t maybe it’s time to consider unionizing. However, if asking for more pay is anywhere near the top of your grievance list, I don’t want to join your union because you are doomed to failure on the public relations battlefield.
Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].
Transgender people in rural America struggle to find doctors willing or able to provide care
For Tammy Rainey, finding a health care provider who knows about gender-affirming care has been a challenge in the rural northern Mississippi town where she lives.
As a transgender woman, Ms. Rainey needs the hormone estrogen, which allows her to physically transition by developing more feminine features. But when she asked her doctor for an estrogen prescription, he said he couldn’t provide that type of care.
“He’s generally a good guy and doesn’t act prejudiced. He gets my name and pronouns right,” said Ms. Rainey. “But when I asked him about hormones, he said, ‘I just don’t feel like I know enough about that. I don’t want to get involved in that.’ ”
So Ms. Rainey drives around 170 miles round trip every 6 months to get a supply of estrogen from a clinic in Memphis, Tenn., to take home with her.
The obstacles Ms. Rainey overcomes to access care illustrate a type of medical inequity that transgender people who live in the rural United States often face: A general lack of education about trans-related care among small-town health professionals who might also be reluctant to learn.
“Medical communities across the country are seeing clearly that there is a knowledge gap in the provision of gender-affirming care,” said Morissa Ladinsky, MD, a pediatrician who co-leads the Youth Multidisciplinary Gender Team at the University of Alabama–Birmingham (UAB).
Accurately counting the number of transgender people in rural America is hindered by a lack of U.S. census data and uniform state data. However, the Movement Advancement Project, a nonprofit organization that advocates for LGBTQ+ issues, used 2014-17 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data from selected ZIP codes in 35 states to estimate that roughly one in six transgender adults in the United States live in a rural area. When that report was released in 2019, there were an estimated 1.4 million transgender people 13 and older nationwide. That number is now at least 1.6 million, according to the Williams Institute, a nonprofit think tank at the UCLA School of Law.
One in three trans people in rural areas experienced discrimination by a health care provider in the year leading up to the 2015 U.S. Transgender Survey Report, according to an analysis by MAP. A third of all trans individuals report having to teach their doctors about their health care needs to receive appropriate care, and 62% worry about being negatively judged by a health care provider because of their sexual orientation or gender identity, according to data collected by the Williams Institute and other organizations.
A lack of local rural providers knowledgeable in trans care can mean long drives to gender-affirming clinics in metropolitan areas. Rural trans people are three times as likely as are all transgender adults to travel 25-49 miles for routine care.
In Colorado, for example, many trans people outside Denver struggle to find proper care. Those who do have a trans-inclusive provider are more likely to receive wellness exams, less likely to delay care due to discrimination, and less likely to attempt suicide, according to results from the Colorado Transgender Health Survey published in 2018.
Much of the lack of care experienced by trans people is linked to insufficient education on LGBTQ+ health in medical schools across the country. In 2014, the Association of American Medical Colleges, which represents 170 accredited medical schools in the United States and Canada, released its first curriculum guidelines on caring for LGBTQ+ patients. As of 2018, 76% of medical schools included LGBTQ health themes in their curriculum, with half providing three or fewer classes on this topic.
Perhaps because of this, almost 77% of students from 10 medical schools in New England felt “not competent” or “somewhat not competent” in treating gender minority patients, according to a 2018 pilot study. Another paper, published last year, found that even clinicians who work in trans-friendly clinics lack knowledge about hormones, gender-affirming surgical options, and how to use appropriate pronouns and trans-inclusive language.
Throughout medical school, trans care was only briefly mentioned in endocrinology class, said Justin Bailey, MD, who received his medical degree from UAB in 2021 and is now a resident there. “I don’t want to say the wrong thing or use the wrong pronouns, so I was hesitant and a little bit tepid in my approach to interviewing and treating this population of patients,” he said.
On top of insufficient medical school education, some practicing doctors don’t take the time to teach themselves about trans people, said Kathie Moehlig, founder of TransFamily Support Services, a nonprofit organization that offers a range of services to transgender people and their families. They are very well intentioned yet uneducated when it comes to transgender care, she said.
Some medical schools, like the one at UAB, have pushed for change. Since 2017, Dr. Ladinsky and her colleagues have worked to include trans people in their standardized patient program, which gives medical students hands-on experience and feedback by interacting with “patients” in simulated clinical environments.
For example, a trans individual acting as a patient will simulate acid reflux by pretending to have pain in their stomach and chest. Then, over the course of the examination, they will reveal that they are transgender.
In the early years of this program, some students’ bedside manner would change once the patient’s gender identity was revealed, said Elaine Stephens, a trans woman who participates in UAB’s standardized patient program. “Sometimes they would immediately start asking about sexual activity,” Stephens said.
Since UAB launched its program, students’ reactions have improved significantly, she said.
This progress is being replicated by other medical schools, said Ms. Moehlig. “But it’s a slow start, and these are large institutions that take a long time to move forward.”
Advocates also are working outside medical schools to improve care in rural areas. In Colorado, the nonprofit Extension for Community Health Outcomes, or ECHO Colorado, has been offering monthly virtual classes on gender-affirming care to rural providers since 2020. The classes became so popular that the organization created a 4-week boot camp in 2021 for providers to learn about hormone therapy management, proper terminologies, surgical options, and supporting patients’ mental health.
For many years, doctors failed to recognize the need to learn about gender-affirming care, said Caroline Kirsch, DO, director of osteopathic education at the University of Wyoming Family Medicine Residency Program–Casper. In Casper, this led to “a number of patients traveling to Colorado to access care, which is a large burden for them financially,” said Dr. Kirsch, who has participated in the ECHO Colorado program.
“Things that haven’t been as well taught historically in medical school are things that I think many physicians feel anxious about initially,” she said. “The earlier you learn about this type of care in your career, the more likely you are to see its potential and be less anxious about it.”
Educating more providers about trans-related care has become increasingly vital in recent years as gender-affirming clinics nationwide experience a rise in harassment and threats. For instance, Vanderbilt University Medical Center’s Clinic for Transgender Health became the target of far-right hate on social media last year. After growing pressure from Tennessee’s Republican lawmakers, the clinic paused gender-affirmation surgeries on patients younger than 18, potentially leaving many trans individuals without necessary care.
Stephens hopes to see more medical schools include coursework on trans health care. She also wishes for doctors to treat trans people as they would any other patient.
“Just provide quality health care,” she tells the medical students at UAB. “We need health care like everyone else does.”
KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.
For Tammy Rainey, finding a health care provider who knows about gender-affirming care has been a challenge in the rural northern Mississippi town where she lives.
As a transgender woman, Ms. Rainey needs the hormone estrogen, which allows her to physically transition by developing more feminine features. But when she asked her doctor for an estrogen prescription, he said he couldn’t provide that type of care.
“He’s generally a good guy and doesn’t act prejudiced. He gets my name and pronouns right,” said Ms. Rainey. “But when I asked him about hormones, he said, ‘I just don’t feel like I know enough about that. I don’t want to get involved in that.’ ”
So Ms. Rainey drives around 170 miles round trip every 6 months to get a supply of estrogen from a clinic in Memphis, Tenn., to take home with her.
The obstacles Ms. Rainey overcomes to access care illustrate a type of medical inequity that transgender people who live in the rural United States often face: A general lack of education about trans-related care among small-town health professionals who might also be reluctant to learn.
“Medical communities across the country are seeing clearly that there is a knowledge gap in the provision of gender-affirming care,” said Morissa Ladinsky, MD, a pediatrician who co-leads the Youth Multidisciplinary Gender Team at the University of Alabama–Birmingham (UAB).
Accurately counting the number of transgender people in rural America is hindered by a lack of U.S. census data and uniform state data. However, the Movement Advancement Project, a nonprofit organization that advocates for LGBTQ+ issues, used 2014-17 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data from selected ZIP codes in 35 states to estimate that roughly one in six transgender adults in the United States live in a rural area. When that report was released in 2019, there were an estimated 1.4 million transgender people 13 and older nationwide. That number is now at least 1.6 million, according to the Williams Institute, a nonprofit think tank at the UCLA School of Law.
One in three trans people in rural areas experienced discrimination by a health care provider in the year leading up to the 2015 U.S. Transgender Survey Report, according to an analysis by MAP. A third of all trans individuals report having to teach their doctors about their health care needs to receive appropriate care, and 62% worry about being negatively judged by a health care provider because of their sexual orientation or gender identity, according to data collected by the Williams Institute and other organizations.
A lack of local rural providers knowledgeable in trans care can mean long drives to gender-affirming clinics in metropolitan areas. Rural trans people are three times as likely as are all transgender adults to travel 25-49 miles for routine care.
In Colorado, for example, many trans people outside Denver struggle to find proper care. Those who do have a trans-inclusive provider are more likely to receive wellness exams, less likely to delay care due to discrimination, and less likely to attempt suicide, according to results from the Colorado Transgender Health Survey published in 2018.
Much of the lack of care experienced by trans people is linked to insufficient education on LGBTQ+ health in medical schools across the country. In 2014, the Association of American Medical Colleges, which represents 170 accredited medical schools in the United States and Canada, released its first curriculum guidelines on caring for LGBTQ+ patients. As of 2018, 76% of medical schools included LGBTQ health themes in their curriculum, with half providing three or fewer classes on this topic.
Perhaps because of this, almost 77% of students from 10 medical schools in New England felt “not competent” or “somewhat not competent” in treating gender minority patients, according to a 2018 pilot study. Another paper, published last year, found that even clinicians who work in trans-friendly clinics lack knowledge about hormones, gender-affirming surgical options, and how to use appropriate pronouns and trans-inclusive language.
Throughout medical school, trans care was only briefly mentioned in endocrinology class, said Justin Bailey, MD, who received his medical degree from UAB in 2021 and is now a resident there. “I don’t want to say the wrong thing or use the wrong pronouns, so I was hesitant and a little bit tepid in my approach to interviewing and treating this population of patients,” he said.
On top of insufficient medical school education, some practicing doctors don’t take the time to teach themselves about trans people, said Kathie Moehlig, founder of TransFamily Support Services, a nonprofit organization that offers a range of services to transgender people and their families. They are very well intentioned yet uneducated when it comes to transgender care, she said.
Some medical schools, like the one at UAB, have pushed for change. Since 2017, Dr. Ladinsky and her colleagues have worked to include trans people in their standardized patient program, which gives medical students hands-on experience and feedback by interacting with “patients” in simulated clinical environments.
For example, a trans individual acting as a patient will simulate acid reflux by pretending to have pain in their stomach and chest. Then, over the course of the examination, they will reveal that they are transgender.
In the early years of this program, some students’ bedside manner would change once the patient’s gender identity was revealed, said Elaine Stephens, a trans woman who participates in UAB’s standardized patient program. “Sometimes they would immediately start asking about sexual activity,” Stephens said.
Since UAB launched its program, students’ reactions have improved significantly, she said.
This progress is being replicated by other medical schools, said Ms. Moehlig. “But it’s a slow start, and these are large institutions that take a long time to move forward.”
Advocates also are working outside medical schools to improve care in rural areas. In Colorado, the nonprofit Extension for Community Health Outcomes, or ECHO Colorado, has been offering monthly virtual classes on gender-affirming care to rural providers since 2020. The classes became so popular that the organization created a 4-week boot camp in 2021 for providers to learn about hormone therapy management, proper terminologies, surgical options, and supporting patients’ mental health.
For many years, doctors failed to recognize the need to learn about gender-affirming care, said Caroline Kirsch, DO, director of osteopathic education at the University of Wyoming Family Medicine Residency Program–Casper. In Casper, this led to “a number of patients traveling to Colorado to access care, which is a large burden for them financially,” said Dr. Kirsch, who has participated in the ECHO Colorado program.
“Things that haven’t been as well taught historically in medical school are things that I think many physicians feel anxious about initially,” she said. “The earlier you learn about this type of care in your career, the more likely you are to see its potential and be less anxious about it.”
Educating more providers about trans-related care has become increasingly vital in recent years as gender-affirming clinics nationwide experience a rise in harassment and threats. For instance, Vanderbilt University Medical Center’s Clinic for Transgender Health became the target of far-right hate on social media last year. After growing pressure from Tennessee’s Republican lawmakers, the clinic paused gender-affirmation surgeries on patients younger than 18, potentially leaving many trans individuals without necessary care.
Stephens hopes to see more medical schools include coursework on trans health care. She also wishes for doctors to treat trans people as they would any other patient.
“Just provide quality health care,” she tells the medical students at UAB. “We need health care like everyone else does.”
KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.
For Tammy Rainey, finding a health care provider who knows about gender-affirming care has been a challenge in the rural northern Mississippi town where she lives.
As a transgender woman, Ms. Rainey needs the hormone estrogen, which allows her to physically transition by developing more feminine features. But when she asked her doctor for an estrogen prescription, he said he couldn’t provide that type of care.
“He’s generally a good guy and doesn’t act prejudiced. He gets my name and pronouns right,” said Ms. Rainey. “But when I asked him about hormones, he said, ‘I just don’t feel like I know enough about that. I don’t want to get involved in that.’ ”
So Ms. Rainey drives around 170 miles round trip every 6 months to get a supply of estrogen from a clinic in Memphis, Tenn., to take home with her.
The obstacles Ms. Rainey overcomes to access care illustrate a type of medical inequity that transgender people who live in the rural United States often face: A general lack of education about trans-related care among small-town health professionals who might also be reluctant to learn.
“Medical communities across the country are seeing clearly that there is a knowledge gap in the provision of gender-affirming care,” said Morissa Ladinsky, MD, a pediatrician who co-leads the Youth Multidisciplinary Gender Team at the University of Alabama–Birmingham (UAB).
Accurately counting the number of transgender people in rural America is hindered by a lack of U.S. census data and uniform state data. However, the Movement Advancement Project, a nonprofit organization that advocates for LGBTQ+ issues, used 2014-17 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data from selected ZIP codes in 35 states to estimate that roughly one in six transgender adults in the United States live in a rural area. When that report was released in 2019, there were an estimated 1.4 million transgender people 13 and older nationwide. That number is now at least 1.6 million, according to the Williams Institute, a nonprofit think tank at the UCLA School of Law.
One in three trans people in rural areas experienced discrimination by a health care provider in the year leading up to the 2015 U.S. Transgender Survey Report, according to an analysis by MAP. A third of all trans individuals report having to teach their doctors about their health care needs to receive appropriate care, and 62% worry about being negatively judged by a health care provider because of their sexual orientation or gender identity, according to data collected by the Williams Institute and other organizations.
A lack of local rural providers knowledgeable in trans care can mean long drives to gender-affirming clinics in metropolitan areas. Rural trans people are three times as likely as are all transgender adults to travel 25-49 miles for routine care.
In Colorado, for example, many trans people outside Denver struggle to find proper care. Those who do have a trans-inclusive provider are more likely to receive wellness exams, less likely to delay care due to discrimination, and less likely to attempt suicide, according to results from the Colorado Transgender Health Survey published in 2018.
Much of the lack of care experienced by trans people is linked to insufficient education on LGBTQ+ health in medical schools across the country. In 2014, the Association of American Medical Colleges, which represents 170 accredited medical schools in the United States and Canada, released its first curriculum guidelines on caring for LGBTQ+ patients. As of 2018, 76% of medical schools included LGBTQ health themes in their curriculum, with half providing three or fewer classes on this topic.
Perhaps because of this, almost 77% of students from 10 medical schools in New England felt “not competent” or “somewhat not competent” in treating gender minority patients, according to a 2018 pilot study. Another paper, published last year, found that even clinicians who work in trans-friendly clinics lack knowledge about hormones, gender-affirming surgical options, and how to use appropriate pronouns and trans-inclusive language.
Throughout medical school, trans care was only briefly mentioned in endocrinology class, said Justin Bailey, MD, who received his medical degree from UAB in 2021 and is now a resident there. “I don’t want to say the wrong thing or use the wrong pronouns, so I was hesitant and a little bit tepid in my approach to interviewing and treating this population of patients,” he said.
On top of insufficient medical school education, some practicing doctors don’t take the time to teach themselves about trans people, said Kathie Moehlig, founder of TransFamily Support Services, a nonprofit organization that offers a range of services to transgender people and their families. They are very well intentioned yet uneducated when it comes to transgender care, she said.
Some medical schools, like the one at UAB, have pushed for change. Since 2017, Dr. Ladinsky and her colleagues have worked to include trans people in their standardized patient program, which gives medical students hands-on experience and feedback by interacting with “patients” in simulated clinical environments.
For example, a trans individual acting as a patient will simulate acid reflux by pretending to have pain in their stomach and chest. Then, over the course of the examination, they will reveal that they are transgender.
In the early years of this program, some students’ bedside manner would change once the patient’s gender identity was revealed, said Elaine Stephens, a trans woman who participates in UAB’s standardized patient program. “Sometimes they would immediately start asking about sexual activity,” Stephens said.
Since UAB launched its program, students’ reactions have improved significantly, she said.
This progress is being replicated by other medical schools, said Ms. Moehlig. “But it’s a slow start, and these are large institutions that take a long time to move forward.”
Advocates also are working outside medical schools to improve care in rural areas. In Colorado, the nonprofit Extension for Community Health Outcomes, or ECHO Colorado, has been offering monthly virtual classes on gender-affirming care to rural providers since 2020. The classes became so popular that the organization created a 4-week boot camp in 2021 for providers to learn about hormone therapy management, proper terminologies, surgical options, and supporting patients’ mental health.
For many years, doctors failed to recognize the need to learn about gender-affirming care, said Caroline Kirsch, DO, director of osteopathic education at the University of Wyoming Family Medicine Residency Program–Casper. In Casper, this led to “a number of patients traveling to Colorado to access care, which is a large burden for them financially,” said Dr. Kirsch, who has participated in the ECHO Colorado program.
“Things that haven’t been as well taught historically in medical school are things that I think many physicians feel anxious about initially,” she said. “The earlier you learn about this type of care in your career, the more likely you are to see its potential and be less anxious about it.”
Educating more providers about trans-related care has become increasingly vital in recent years as gender-affirming clinics nationwide experience a rise in harassment and threats. For instance, Vanderbilt University Medical Center’s Clinic for Transgender Health became the target of far-right hate on social media last year. After growing pressure from Tennessee’s Republican lawmakers, the clinic paused gender-affirmation surgeries on patients younger than 18, potentially leaving many trans individuals without necessary care.
Stephens hopes to see more medical schools include coursework on trans health care. She also wishes for doctors to treat trans people as they would any other patient.
“Just provide quality health care,” she tells the medical students at UAB. “We need health care like everyone else does.”
KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.
Outdoor play may mitigate screen time’s risk to brain development
Watching a screen more than an hour a day as a toddler is directly linked with poorer communication and daily living skills at age 4, but outdoor play may lessen some of the effects, new research suggests.
The results point to outdoor play as a potential targeted intervention to counter suboptimal brain development in young children who are watching screens at increasingly younger ages.
The findings were published online in JAMA Pediatrics.
The researchers first investigated whether higher screen time (more than 1 hour a day on a device or watching television) at age 2 years is associated with neurodevelopmental outcomes at age 4.
They found the 885 children in the sample from the Japanese Hamamatsu Birth Cohort Study for Mothers and Children who had more screen time had lower scores on communication and daily living skills than children who watched less than an hour a day.
Scores were based on the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scale according to parent responses to questions. The children included were born between December 2007 and March 2012 and were followed from 18 months to 4 years.
After finding the connection between screen time and lower scores, the researchers investigated whether outdoor play (at least 30 minutes a day) introduced at a 2 years and 8 months made a difference. They considered 6 or 7 days per week frequent outdoor play.
Outdoor play mitigated poorer daily living scores
The researchers found that the outdoor play intervention mitigated 18% of the association between high screen time and lower daily living scores but did not mitigate the lower communication scores.
They also found that more screen time at age 2 was significantly linked with infrequent outdoor play at age 32 months (odds ratio, 2.03; 95% confidence interval, 1.48-2.76).
The associations were consistent after taking into account factors including a child’s sex, parental education, and any autism spectrum disorder symptoms at age 18 months.
The authors noted that neurodevelopment concerns with screen use are particularly troubling as the age for use is getting younger.
A recent meta-analysis found that 75% of children younger than 2 use or watch screens, even though guidelines recommend against any screen time before 2.
In addition, the “COVID-19 pandemic led to children having more screen time, less outdoor play, and less physical activity, putting them at potentially greater risk for neurodevelopmental problems,” the authors noted.
“What is concerning is that data show screen time has not decreased after seclusion measures were lifted,” they added.
Proven benefits for outdoor play
Jennifer Cross, MD,* assistant professor and section chief for developmental pediatrics at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, who was not part of the study, said the mitigation properties of outdoor play were something she hadn’t seen before but the concept makes sense.
“The overwhelming evidence is that screen time is not helpful for young children under the age of 2,” she said.
Outdoor play, on the other hand, has proven benefits.
“Physical activity has been shown to be good for physical and mental health so there’s no reason to believe it wouldn’t be good for 2-and-a-half-year olds,” Dr. Cross said. “It’s also good for developmental health. You want them to be engaged in imaginative play and be interactive.”
“[Outdoor play] gets them away from screens and gives them an opportunity to experience another environment and work on their motor skills and motor planning,” she added. “Exercise will change, briefly, the way our brains process information.”
Dr. Cross added that a lot of motor skills are involved in daily living skills, such as feeding, dressing, and toileting.
Screen time is increasing
The authors acknowledged that screen time may be underestimated by parents. They also noted that they did not have access to what children were watching on the screens.
“This should have been collected because the effect of high screen time differs depending on the type of program,” the authors wrote.
They added that children born in the 2020s may have been exposed to more screen time than the children reared in the early 2010s in this study.
Dr. Cross said screen use in the 2020s may be higher than estimated here and higher in certain populations globally, so it’s not easy to tell if the intervention in this study would have the same mitigating effect on a real-world population.
However, she said, the effect of outdoor play is always going to be helpful for brain development and there’s no downside.
“Exercise is just as important for little kids as it is for grown-ups,” she said.
The authors reported no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Cross reported no relevant financial disclosures.
*Dr. Jennifer Cross is the correct name, not Dr. Jennifer Frost. The correction was made on Jan. 27, 2023.
Watching a screen more than an hour a day as a toddler is directly linked with poorer communication and daily living skills at age 4, but outdoor play may lessen some of the effects, new research suggests.
The results point to outdoor play as a potential targeted intervention to counter suboptimal brain development in young children who are watching screens at increasingly younger ages.
The findings were published online in JAMA Pediatrics.
The researchers first investigated whether higher screen time (more than 1 hour a day on a device or watching television) at age 2 years is associated with neurodevelopmental outcomes at age 4.
They found the 885 children in the sample from the Japanese Hamamatsu Birth Cohort Study for Mothers and Children who had more screen time had lower scores on communication and daily living skills than children who watched less than an hour a day.
Scores were based on the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scale according to parent responses to questions. The children included were born between December 2007 and March 2012 and were followed from 18 months to 4 years.
After finding the connection between screen time and lower scores, the researchers investigated whether outdoor play (at least 30 minutes a day) introduced at a 2 years and 8 months made a difference. They considered 6 or 7 days per week frequent outdoor play.
Outdoor play mitigated poorer daily living scores
The researchers found that the outdoor play intervention mitigated 18% of the association between high screen time and lower daily living scores but did not mitigate the lower communication scores.
They also found that more screen time at age 2 was significantly linked with infrequent outdoor play at age 32 months (odds ratio, 2.03; 95% confidence interval, 1.48-2.76).
The associations were consistent after taking into account factors including a child’s sex, parental education, and any autism spectrum disorder symptoms at age 18 months.
The authors noted that neurodevelopment concerns with screen use are particularly troubling as the age for use is getting younger.
A recent meta-analysis found that 75% of children younger than 2 use or watch screens, even though guidelines recommend against any screen time before 2.
In addition, the “COVID-19 pandemic led to children having more screen time, less outdoor play, and less physical activity, putting them at potentially greater risk for neurodevelopmental problems,” the authors noted.
“What is concerning is that data show screen time has not decreased after seclusion measures were lifted,” they added.
Proven benefits for outdoor play
Jennifer Cross, MD,* assistant professor and section chief for developmental pediatrics at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, who was not part of the study, said the mitigation properties of outdoor play were something she hadn’t seen before but the concept makes sense.
“The overwhelming evidence is that screen time is not helpful for young children under the age of 2,” she said.
Outdoor play, on the other hand, has proven benefits.
“Physical activity has been shown to be good for physical and mental health so there’s no reason to believe it wouldn’t be good for 2-and-a-half-year olds,” Dr. Cross said. “It’s also good for developmental health. You want them to be engaged in imaginative play and be interactive.”
“[Outdoor play] gets them away from screens and gives them an opportunity to experience another environment and work on their motor skills and motor planning,” she added. “Exercise will change, briefly, the way our brains process information.”
Dr. Cross added that a lot of motor skills are involved in daily living skills, such as feeding, dressing, and toileting.
Screen time is increasing
The authors acknowledged that screen time may be underestimated by parents. They also noted that they did not have access to what children were watching on the screens.
“This should have been collected because the effect of high screen time differs depending on the type of program,” the authors wrote.
They added that children born in the 2020s may have been exposed to more screen time than the children reared in the early 2010s in this study.
Dr. Cross said screen use in the 2020s may be higher than estimated here and higher in certain populations globally, so it’s not easy to tell if the intervention in this study would have the same mitigating effect on a real-world population.
However, she said, the effect of outdoor play is always going to be helpful for brain development and there’s no downside.
“Exercise is just as important for little kids as it is for grown-ups,” she said.
The authors reported no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Cross reported no relevant financial disclosures.
*Dr. Jennifer Cross is the correct name, not Dr. Jennifer Frost. The correction was made on Jan. 27, 2023.
Watching a screen more than an hour a day as a toddler is directly linked with poorer communication and daily living skills at age 4, but outdoor play may lessen some of the effects, new research suggests.
The results point to outdoor play as a potential targeted intervention to counter suboptimal brain development in young children who are watching screens at increasingly younger ages.
The findings were published online in JAMA Pediatrics.
The researchers first investigated whether higher screen time (more than 1 hour a day on a device or watching television) at age 2 years is associated with neurodevelopmental outcomes at age 4.
They found the 885 children in the sample from the Japanese Hamamatsu Birth Cohort Study for Mothers and Children who had more screen time had lower scores on communication and daily living skills than children who watched less than an hour a day.
Scores were based on the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scale according to parent responses to questions. The children included were born between December 2007 and March 2012 and were followed from 18 months to 4 years.
After finding the connection between screen time and lower scores, the researchers investigated whether outdoor play (at least 30 minutes a day) introduced at a 2 years and 8 months made a difference. They considered 6 or 7 days per week frequent outdoor play.
Outdoor play mitigated poorer daily living scores
The researchers found that the outdoor play intervention mitigated 18% of the association between high screen time and lower daily living scores but did not mitigate the lower communication scores.
They also found that more screen time at age 2 was significantly linked with infrequent outdoor play at age 32 months (odds ratio, 2.03; 95% confidence interval, 1.48-2.76).
The associations were consistent after taking into account factors including a child’s sex, parental education, and any autism spectrum disorder symptoms at age 18 months.
The authors noted that neurodevelopment concerns with screen use are particularly troubling as the age for use is getting younger.
A recent meta-analysis found that 75% of children younger than 2 use or watch screens, even though guidelines recommend against any screen time before 2.
In addition, the “COVID-19 pandemic led to children having more screen time, less outdoor play, and less physical activity, putting them at potentially greater risk for neurodevelopmental problems,” the authors noted.
“What is concerning is that data show screen time has not decreased after seclusion measures were lifted,” they added.
Proven benefits for outdoor play
Jennifer Cross, MD,* assistant professor and section chief for developmental pediatrics at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, who was not part of the study, said the mitigation properties of outdoor play were something she hadn’t seen before but the concept makes sense.
“The overwhelming evidence is that screen time is not helpful for young children under the age of 2,” she said.
Outdoor play, on the other hand, has proven benefits.
“Physical activity has been shown to be good for physical and mental health so there’s no reason to believe it wouldn’t be good for 2-and-a-half-year olds,” Dr. Cross said. “It’s also good for developmental health. You want them to be engaged in imaginative play and be interactive.”
“[Outdoor play] gets them away from screens and gives them an opportunity to experience another environment and work on their motor skills and motor planning,” she added. “Exercise will change, briefly, the way our brains process information.”
Dr. Cross added that a lot of motor skills are involved in daily living skills, such as feeding, dressing, and toileting.
Screen time is increasing
The authors acknowledged that screen time may be underestimated by parents. They also noted that they did not have access to what children were watching on the screens.
“This should have been collected because the effect of high screen time differs depending on the type of program,” the authors wrote.
They added that children born in the 2020s may have been exposed to more screen time than the children reared in the early 2010s in this study.
Dr. Cross said screen use in the 2020s may be higher than estimated here and higher in certain populations globally, so it’s not easy to tell if the intervention in this study would have the same mitigating effect on a real-world population.
However, she said, the effect of outdoor play is always going to be helpful for brain development and there’s no downside.
“Exercise is just as important for little kids as it is for grown-ups,” she said.
The authors reported no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Cross reported no relevant financial disclosures.
*Dr. Jennifer Cross is the correct name, not Dr. Jennifer Frost. The correction was made on Jan. 27, 2023.
FROM JAMA PEDIATRICS
Childhood behavioral, emotional problems linked to poor economic and social outcomes in adulthood
Children with chronically elevated externalizing symptoms, such as behavioral problems, or internalizing symptoms, such as mental health concerns, have an increased risk for poor economic and social outcomes in adulthood, data from a new study suggest.
Children with comorbid externalizing and internalizing symptoms were especially vulnerable to long-term economic and social exclusion.
“Research has mostly studied the outcomes of children with either behavioral problems or depression-anxiety problems. However, comorbidity is the rule rather than the exception in clinical practice,” senior author Massimilliano Orri, PhD, an assistant professor of psychiatry at McGill University and clinical psychologist with the Douglas Mental Health University Institute, both in Montreal, said in an interview.
“Our findings are important, as they show that comorbidity between externalizing and internalizing problems is associated with real-life outcomes that profoundly influence a youth’s chances to participate in society later in life,” he said.
The study was published in JAMA Network Open.
Analyzing associations
Dr. Orri and colleagues analyzed data for 3,017 children in the Quebec Longitudinal Study of Kindergarten Children, a population-based birth cohort that enrolled participants in 1986-1987 and 1987-1988 while they were attending kindergarten. The sample included 2,000 children selected at random and 1,017 children who scored at or above the 80th percentile for disruptive behavior problems.
The research team looked at the association between childhood behavioral profiles and economic and social outcomes for ages 19-37 years, including employment earnings, receipt of welfare, intimate partnerships, and having children living in the household. They obtained the outcome data from participants’ tax returns for 1998-2017.
During enrollment in the study, the children’s teachers assessed behavioral symptoms annually for ages 6-12 years using the Social Behavior Questionnaire. Based on the assessments, the research team categorized the students as having no or low symptoms, high externalizing symptoms only (such as hyperactivity, impulsivity, aggression, and rule violation), high internalizing symptoms only (such as anxiety, depression, worry, and social withdrawal), or comorbid symptoms. They looked at other variables as well, including the child’s sex, the parents’ age at the birth of their first child, the parents’ years of education, family structure, and the parents’ household income.
Among the 3,017 participants, 45.4% of children had no or low symptoms, 29.2% had high externalizing symptoms, 11.7% had high internalizing symptoms, and 13.7% had comorbid symptoms. About 53% were boys, and 47% were girls.
In general, boys were more likely to exhibit high externalizing symptoms, and girls were more likely to exhibit high internalizing symptoms. In the comorbid group, about 82% were boys, and they were more likely to have younger mothers, come from households with lower earnings when they were ages 3-5 years, and have a nonintact family at age 6 years.
The average age at follow-up was 37 years. Participants earned an average of $32,800 per year at ages 33-37 years (between 2013 and 2017). During the 20 years of follow-up, participants received welfare support for about 1.5 years, had an intimate partner for 7.4 years, and had children living in the household for 11 years.
Overall, participants in the high externalizing and high internalizing symptom profiles – and especially those in the comorbid profile – had lower earnings and a higher incidence of annual welfare receipt across early adulthood, compared with participants with low or no symptoms. They were also less likely to have an intimate partner or have children living in the household. Participants with a comorbid symptom profile earned $15,031 less per year and had a 3.79-times higher incidence of annual welfare receipt.
Lower earnings
Across the sample, men were more likely to have higher earnings and less likely to receive welfare each year, but they also were less likely to have an intimate partner or have children in the household. Among those with the high externalizing profile, men were significantly less likely to receive welfare. Among the comorbid profile, men were less likely to have children in the household.
Compared with the no-symptom or low-symptom profile, those in the high externalizing profile earned $5,904 less per year and had a two-times–higher incidence of welfare receipt. Those in the high internalizing profile earned $8,473 less per year, had a 2.07-times higher incidence of welfare receipt, and had a lower incidence of intimate partnership.
Compared with the high externalizing profile, those in the comorbid profile earned $9,126 less per year, had a higher incidence of annual welfare receipt, had a lower incidence of intimate partnership, and were less likely to have children in the household. Similarly, compared with the high internalizing profile, those in the comorbid profile earned $6,558 less per year and were more likely to exhibit the other poor long-term outcomes. Participants in the high internalizing profile earned $2,568 less per year than those in the high externalizing profile.
During a 40-year working career, the estimated lost personal employment earnings were $140,515 for the high externalizing profile, $201,657 for the high internalizing profile, and $357,737 for the comorbid profile, compared with those in the no-symptom or low-symptom profile.
“We know that children with externalizing and internalizing symptoms can have many problems in the short term – like social difficulties and lower education attainment – but it’s important to also understand the potential long-term outcomes,” study author Francis Vergunst, DPhil/PhD, an associate professor of child psychosocial difficulties at the University of Oslo, told this news organization.
“For example, when people have insufficient income, are forced to seek welfare support, or lack the social support structure that comes from an intimate partnership, it can have profound consequences for their mental health and well-being – and for society as a whole,” he said. “Understanding this helps to build the case for early prevention programs that can reduce childhood externalizing and internalizing problems and improve long-term outcomes.”
Several mechanisms could explain the associations found across the childhood symptom profiles, the study authors wrote. For instance, children with early behavior problems may be more likely to engage in risky adolescent activities, such as substance use, delinquent peer affiliations, and academic underachievement, which affects their transition to adulthood and accumulation of social and economic capital throughout life. Those with comorbid symptoms likely experience a compounded effect.
Future studies should investigate how to intervene effectively to support children, particularly those with comorbid externalizing and internalizing symptoms, the study authors write.
“Currently, most published studies focus on children with either externalizing or internalizing problems (and these programs can be effective, especially for externalizing problems), but we know very little about how to improve long-term outcomes for children with comorbid symptoms,” Dr. Vergunst said. “Given the large costs of these problems for individuals and society, this is a critical area for further research.”
‘Solid evidence’
Commenting on the findings, Ian Colman, PhD, a professor of epidemiology and public health and director of the Applied Psychiatric Epidemiology Across the Life course (APEAL) lab at the University of Ottawa, said, “Research like this provides solid evidence that if we do not provide appropriate supports for children who are struggling with their mental health or related behaviors, then these children are more likely to face a life of social and economic exclusion.”
Dr. Colman, who wasn’t involved with this study, has researched long-term psychosocial outcomes among adolescents with depression, as well as those with externalizing behaviors. He and colleagues have found poorer outcomes among those who exhibit mild or severe difficulties during childhood.
“Studying the long-term outcomes associated with child and adolescent mental and behavioral disorders gives us an idea of how concerned we should be about their future,” he said.
Dr. Vergunst was funded by the Canadian Institute of Health Research and Fonds de Recherche du Quebec Santé postdoctoral fellowships. Dr. Orri and Dr. Colman report no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Children with chronically elevated externalizing symptoms, such as behavioral problems, or internalizing symptoms, such as mental health concerns, have an increased risk for poor economic and social outcomes in adulthood, data from a new study suggest.
Children with comorbid externalizing and internalizing symptoms were especially vulnerable to long-term economic and social exclusion.
“Research has mostly studied the outcomes of children with either behavioral problems or depression-anxiety problems. However, comorbidity is the rule rather than the exception in clinical practice,” senior author Massimilliano Orri, PhD, an assistant professor of psychiatry at McGill University and clinical psychologist with the Douglas Mental Health University Institute, both in Montreal, said in an interview.
“Our findings are important, as they show that comorbidity between externalizing and internalizing problems is associated with real-life outcomes that profoundly influence a youth’s chances to participate in society later in life,” he said.
The study was published in JAMA Network Open.
Analyzing associations
Dr. Orri and colleagues analyzed data for 3,017 children in the Quebec Longitudinal Study of Kindergarten Children, a population-based birth cohort that enrolled participants in 1986-1987 and 1987-1988 while they were attending kindergarten. The sample included 2,000 children selected at random and 1,017 children who scored at or above the 80th percentile for disruptive behavior problems.
The research team looked at the association between childhood behavioral profiles and economic and social outcomes for ages 19-37 years, including employment earnings, receipt of welfare, intimate partnerships, and having children living in the household. They obtained the outcome data from participants’ tax returns for 1998-2017.
During enrollment in the study, the children’s teachers assessed behavioral symptoms annually for ages 6-12 years using the Social Behavior Questionnaire. Based on the assessments, the research team categorized the students as having no or low symptoms, high externalizing symptoms only (such as hyperactivity, impulsivity, aggression, and rule violation), high internalizing symptoms only (such as anxiety, depression, worry, and social withdrawal), or comorbid symptoms. They looked at other variables as well, including the child’s sex, the parents’ age at the birth of their first child, the parents’ years of education, family structure, and the parents’ household income.
Among the 3,017 participants, 45.4% of children had no or low symptoms, 29.2% had high externalizing symptoms, 11.7% had high internalizing symptoms, and 13.7% had comorbid symptoms. About 53% were boys, and 47% were girls.
In general, boys were more likely to exhibit high externalizing symptoms, and girls were more likely to exhibit high internalizing symptoms. In the comorbid group, about 82% were boys, and they were more likely to have younger mothers, come from households with lower earnings when they were ages 3-5 years, and have a nonintact family at age 6 years.
The average age at follow-up was 37 years. Participants earned an average of $32,800 per year at ages 33-37 years (between 2013 and 2017). During the 20 years of follow-up, participants received welfare support for about 1.5 years, had an intimate partner for 7.4 years, and had children living in the household for 11 years.
Overall, participants in the high externalizing and high internalizing symptom profiles – and especially those in the comorbid profile – had lower earnings and a higher incidence of annual welfare receipt across early adulthood, compared with participants with low or no symptoms. They were also less likely to have an intimate partner or have children living in the household. Participants with a comorbid symptom profile earned $15,031 less per year and had a 3.79-times higher incidence of annual welfare receipt.
Lower earnings
Across the sample, men were more likely to have higher earnings and less likely to receive welfare each year, but they also were less likely to have an intimate partner or have children in the household. Among those with the high externalizing profile, men were significantly less likely to receive welfare. Among the comorbid profile, men were less likely to have children in the household.
Compared with the no-symptom or low-symptom profile, those in the high externalizing profile earned $5,904 less per year and had a two-times–higher incidence of welfare receipt. Those in the high internalizing profile earned $8,473 less per year, had a 2.07-times higher incidence of welfare receipt, and had a lower incidence of intimate partnership.
Compared with the high externalizing profile, those in the comorbid profile earned $9,126 less per year, had a higher incidence of annual welfare receipt, had a lower incidence of intimate partnership, and were less likely to have children in the household. Similarly, compared with the high internalizing profile, those in the comorbid profile earned $6,558 less per year and were more likely to exhibit the other poor long-term outcomes. Participants in the high internalizing profile earned $2,568 less per year than those in the high externalizing profile.
During a 40-year working career, the estimated lost personal employment earnings were $140,515 for the high externalizing profile, $201,657 for the high internalizing profile, and $357,737 for the comorbid profile, compared with those in the no-symptom or low-symptom profile.
“We know that children with externalizing and internalizing symptoms can have many problems in the short term – like social difficulties and lower education attainment – but it’s important to also understand the potential long-term outcomes,” study author Francis Vergunst, DPhil/PhD, an associate professor of child psychosocial difficulties at the University of Oslo, told this news organization.
“For example, when people have insufficient income, are forced to seek welfare support, or lack the social support structure that comes from an intimate partnership, it can have profound consequences for their mental health and well-being – and for society as a whole,” he said. “Understanding this helps to build the case for early prevention programs that can reduce childhood externalizing and internalizing problems and improve long-term outcomes.”
Several mechanisms could explain the associations found across the childhood symptom profiles, the study authors wrote. For instance, children with early behavior problems may be more likely to engage in risky adolescent activities, such as substance use, delinquent peer affiliations, and academic underachievement, which affects their transition to adulthood and accumulation of social and economic capital throughout life. Those with comorbid symptoms likely experience a compounded effect.
Future studies should investigate how to intervene effectively to support children, particularly those with comorbid externalizing and internalizing symptoms, the study authors write.
“Currently, most published studies focus on children with either externalizing or internalizing problems (and these programs can be effective, especially for externalizing problems), but we know very little about how to improve long-term outcomes for children with comorbid symptoms,” Dr. Vergunst said. “Given the large costs of these problems for individuals and society, this is a critical area for further research.”
‘Solid evidence’
Commenting on the findings, Ian Colman, PhD, a professor of epidemiology and public health and director of the Applied Psychiatric Epidemiology Across the Life course (APEAL) lab at the University of Ottawa, said, “Research like this provides solid evidence that if we do not provide appropriate supports for children who are struggling with their mental health or related behaviors, then these children are more likely to face a life of social and economic exclusion.”
Dr. Colman, who wasn’t involved with this study, has researched long-term psychosocial outcomes among adolescents with depression, as well as those with externalizing behaviors. He and colleagues have found poorer outcomes among those who exhibit mild or severe difficulties during childhood.
“Studying the long-term outcomes associated with child and adolescent mental and behavioral disorders gives us an idea of how concerned we should be about their future,” he said.
Dr. Vergunst was funded by the Canadian Institute of Health Research and Fonds de Recherche du Quebec Santé postdoctoral fellowships. Dr. Orri and Dr. Colman report no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Children with chronically elevated externalizing symptoms, such as behavioral problems, or internalizing symptoms, such as mental health concerns, have an increased risk for poor economic and social outcomes in adulthood, data from a new study suggest.
Children with comorbid externalizing and internalizing symptoms were especially vulnerable to long-term economic and social exclusion.
“Research has mostly studied the outcomes of children with either behavioral problems or depression-anxiety problems. However, comorbidity is the rule rather than the exception in clinical practice,” senior author Massimilliano Orri, PhD, an assistant professor of psychiatry at McGill University and clinical psychologist with the Douglas Mental Health University Institute, both in Montreal, said in an interview.
“Our findings are important, as they show that comorbidity between externalizing and internalizing problems is associated with real-life outcomes that profoundly influence a youth’s chances to participate in society later in life,” he said.
The study was published in JAMA Network Open.
Analyzing associations
Dr. Orri and colleagues analyzed data for 3,017 children in the Quebec Longitudinal Study of Kindergarten Children, a population-based birth cohort that enrolled participants in 1986-1987 and 1987-1988 while they were attending kindergarten. The sample included 2,000 children selected at random and 1,017 children who scored at or above the 80th percentile for disruptive behavior problems.
The research team looked at the association between childhood behavioral profiles and economic and social outcomes for ages 19-37 years, including employment earnings, receipt of welfare, intimate partnerships, and having children living in the household. They obtained the outcome data from participants’ tax returns for 1998-2017.
During enrollment in the study, the children’s teachers assessed behavioral symptoms annually for ages 6-12 years using the Social Behavior Questionnaire. Based on the assessments, the research team categorized the students as having no or low symptoms, high externalizing symptoms only (such as hyperactivity, impulsivity, aggression, and rule violation), high internalizing symptoms only (such as anxiety, depression, worry, and social withdrawal), or comorbid symptoms. They looked at other variables as well, including the child’s sex, the parents’ age at the birth of their first child, the parents’ years of education, family structure, and the parents’ household income.
Among the 3,017 participants, 45.4% of children had no or low symptoms, 29.2% had high externalizing symptoms, 11.7% had high internalizing symptoms, and 13.7% had comorbid symptoms. About 53% were boys, and 47% were girls.
In general, boys were more likely to exhibit high externalizing symptoms, and girls were more likely to exhibit high internalizing symptoms. In the comorbid group, about 82% were boys, and they were more likely to have younger mothers, come from households with lower earnings when they were ages 3-5 years, and have a nonintact family at age 6 years.
The average age at follow-up was 37 years. Participants earned an average of $32,800 per year at ages 33-37 years (between 2013 and 2017). During the 20 years of follow-up, participants received welfare support for about 1.5 years, had an intimate partner for 7.4 years, and had children living in the household for 11 years.
Overall, participants in the high externalizing and high internalizing symptom profiles – and especially those in the comorbid profile – had lower earnings and a higher incidence of annual welfare receipt across early adulthood, compared with participants with low or no symptoms. They were also less likely to have an intimate partner or have children living in the household. Participants with a comorbid symptom profile earned $15,031 less per year and had a 3.79-times higher incidence of annual welfare receipt.
Lower earnings
Across the sample, men were more likely to have higher earnings and less likely to receive welfare each year, but they also were less likely to have an intimate partner or have children in the household. Among those with the high externalizing profile, men were significantly less likely to receive welfare. Among the comorbid profile, men were less likely to have children in the household.
Compared with the no-symptom or low-symptom profile, those in the high externalizing profile earned $5,904 less per year and had a two-times–higher incidence of welfare receipt. Those in the high internalizing profile earned $8,473 less per year, had a 2.07-times higher incidence of welfare receipt, and had a lower incidence of intimate partnership.
Compared with the high externalizing profile, those in the comorbid profile earned $9,126 less per year, had a higher incidence of annual welfare receipt, had a lower incidence of intimate partnership, and were less likely to have children in the household. Similarly, compared with the high internalizing profile, those in the comorbid profile earned $6,558 less per year and were more likely to exhibit the other poor long-term outcomes. Participants in the high internalizing profile earned $2,568 less per year than those in the high externalizing profile.
During a 40-year working career, the estimated lost personal employment earnings were $140,515 for the high externalizing profile, $201,657 for the high internalizing profile, and $357,737 for the comorbid profile, compared with those in the no-symptom or low-symptom profile.
“We know that children with externalizing and internalizing symptoms can have many problems in the short term – like social difficulties and lower education attainment – but it’s important to also understand the potential long-term outcomes,” study author Francis Vergunst, DPhil/PhD, an associate professor of child psychosocial difficulties at the University of Oslo, told this news organization.
“For example, when people have insufficient income, are forced to seek welfare support, or lack the social support structure that comes from an intimate partnership, it can have profound consequences for their mental health and well-being – and for society as a whole,” he said. “Understanding this helps to build the case for early prevention programs that can reduce childhood externalizing and internalizing problems and improve long-term outcomes.”
Several mechanisms could explain the associations found across the childhood symptom profiles, the study authors wrote. For instance, children with early behavior problems may be more likely to engage in risky adolescent activities, such as substance use, delinquent peer affiliations, and academic underachievement, which affects their transition to adulthood and accumulation of social and economic capital throughout life. Those with comorbid symptoms likely experience a compounded effect.
Future studies should investigate how to intervene effectively to support children, particularly those with comorbid externalizing and internalizing symptoms, the study authors write.
“Currently, most published studies focus on children with either externalizing or internalizing problems (and these programs can be effective, especially for externalizing problems), but we know very little about how to improve long-term outcomes for children with comorbid symptoms,” Dr. Vergunst said. “Given the large costs of these problems for individuals and society, this is a critical area for further research.”
‘Solid evidence’
Commenting on the findings, Ian Colman, PhD, a professor of epidemiology and public health and director of the Applied Psychiatric Epidemiology Across the Life course (APEAL) lab at the University of Ottawa, said, “Research like this provides solid evidence that if we do not provide appropriate supports for children who are struggling with their mental health or related behaviors, then these children are more likely to face a life of social and economic exclusion.”
Dr. Colman, who wasn’t involved with this study, has researched long-term psychosocial outcomes among adolescents with depression, as well as those with externalizing behaviors. He and colleagues have found poorer outcomes among those who exhibit mild or severe difficulties during childhood.
“Studying the long-term outcomes associated with child and adolescent mental and behavioral disorders gives us an idea of how concerned we should be about their future,” he said.
Dr. Vergunst was funded by the Canadian Institute of Health Research and Fonds de Recherche du Quebec Santé postdoctoral fellowships. Dr. Orri and Dr. Colman report no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM JAMA NETWORK OPEN
Does appendectomy raise the risk for colorectal cancer?
In one part of a three-part analysis, researchers observed a 73% increase in CRC risk among appendectomy cases compared, with controls over a 20-year follow-up.
The study, published in Oncogene, suggests that appendectomy may promote colorectal tumorigenesis by influencing the gut microbiome and that surgeons should “more cautiously consider the necessity of appendectomy,” the authors concluded.
Charles Dinerstein, MD, who was not involved in the research, said that the findings are “intriguing,” but it’s “too soon to tell” what the potential clinical implications may be. For now, “I would not think those patients having undergone an appendectomy should have more intense screening,” said Dr. Dinerstein, medical director of the American Council on Science and Health.
A growing body of evidence suggests that microbes in the gut may play a role in CRC risk, and other research indicates that the appendix might play a role in maintaining the diversity of the gut microbiome. However, whether removing the appendix influences a person’s risk for CRC remains controversial.
In the current study, Feiyu Shi, MD, of The First Affiliated Hospital of Xi’an Jiaotong University, and colleagues sought to better understand a possible association between appendectomy and CRC risk.
The team performed a three-part study: (1) analyzed a population of 129,155 adults who had an appendectomy and those who did not to assess a possible clinical connection between appendectomy and CRC risk; (2) performed fecal metagenomics sequencing to evaluate characteristics of the gut microbiome in appendectomy cases versus matched normal controls without appendectomy; and (3) investigated a CRC mouse model with appendectomy to uncover a mechanism of appendectomy-induced colorectal tumorigenesis.
In the large epidemiological study, Dr. Shi and colleagues compared CRC risk in almost 44,000 appendectomy cases versus more than 85,000 age- and gender-matched nonappendectomy controls. The researchers found that, over the 20-year follow-up, the risk for CRC increased by 73% in appendectomy cases (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.73; P < .001). CRC risk and gut dysbiosis were more pronounced in adults older than 50 years with a history of appendectomy.
In the gut microbiome analysis, Dr. Shi’s team performed metagenomic sequencing on fecal samples from 314 participants – 157 appendectomy cases and 157 controls – and found significant alterations in the gut microbiome in appendectomy cases. The changes were characterized by enrichment of seven CRC-promoting bacteria, including Bacteroides vulgatus and Bacteroides fragilis, and depletion of five beneficial bacteria, including Collinsella aerofaciens and Enterococcus hirae.
Finally, to examine the influence of appendectomy on microbial dysbiosis and CRC tumorigenesis, Dr. Shi’s team performed an appendectomy or a sham procedure in a carcinogen-induced CRC mouse model and found that appendectomy appeared to promote CRC tumorigenesis by prompting gut dysbiosis.
Aasma Shaukat, MD, MPH, a gastroenterologist at NYU Langone Health, who was not involved in the research, urged caution in interpreting the findings, which “need confirmation in larger diverse cohorts.”
First, Dr. Shaukat explained, “the two groups are not comparable, even though [they were] matched for age and gender, and many known and unknown factors can explain the results.” For instance, information on which subjects underwent colon cancer screening is not known, which may explain differences.
Dr. Shaukat also cautioned that the researchers only profiled the microbiome in “a small group of individuals and a cross-sectional analysis is not sufficient to explain causation.”
The study had no commercial funding. Dr. Shi, Dr. Dinerstein, and Dr. Shaukat have no relevant conflicts of interest to report.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
In one part of a three-part analysis, researchers observed a 73% increase in CRC risk among appendectomy cases compared, with controls over a 20-year follow-up.
The study, published in Oncogene, suggests that appendectomy may promote colorectal tumorigenesis by influencing the gut microbiome and that surgeons should “more cautiously consider the necessity of appendectomy,” the authors concluded.
Charles Dinerstein, MD, who was not involved in the research, said that the findings are “intriguing,” but it’s “too soon to tell” what the potential clinical implications may be. For now, “I would not think those patients having undergone an appendectomy should have more intense screening,” said Dr. Dinerstein, medical director of the American Council on Science and Health.
A growing body of evidence suggests that microbes in the gut may play a role in CRC risk, and other research indicates that the appendix might play a role in maintaining the diversity of the gut microbiome. However, whether removing the appendix influences a person’s risk for CRC remains controversial.
In the current study, Feiyu Shi, MD, of The First Affiliated Hospital of Xi’an Jiaotong University, and colleagues sought to better understand a possible association between appendectomy and CRC risk.
The team performed a three-part study: (1) analyzed a population of 129,155 adults who had an appendectomy and those who did not to assess a possible clinical connection between appendectomy and CRC risk; (2) performed fecal metagenomics sequencing to evaluate characteristics of the gut microbiome in appendectomy cases versus matched normal controls without appendectomy; and (3) investigated a CRC mouse model with appendectomy to uncover a mechanism of appendectomy-induced colorectal tumorigenesis.
In the large epidemiological study, Dr. Shi and colleagues compared CRC risk in almost 44,000 appendectomy cases versus more than 85,000 age- and gender-matched nonappendectomy controls. The researchers found that, over the 20-year follow-up, the risk for CRC increased by 73% in appendectomy cases (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.73; P < .001). CRC risk and gut dysbiosis were more pronounced in adults older than 50 years with a history of appendectomy.
In the gut microbiome analysis, Dr. Shi’s team performed metagenomic sequencing on fecal samples from 314 participants – 157 appendectomy cases and 157 controls – and found significant alterations in the gut microbiome in appendectomy cases. The changes were characterized by enrichment of seven CRC-promoting bacteria, including Bacteroides vulgatus and Bacteroides fragilis, and depletion of five beneficial bacteria, including Collinsella aerofaciens and Enterococcus hirae.
Finally, to examine the influence of appendectomy on microbial dysbiosis and CRC tumorigenesis, Dr. Shi’s team performed an appendectomy or a sham procedure in a carcinogen-induced CRC mouse model and found that appendectomy appeared to promote CRC tumorigenesis by prompting gut dysbiosis.
Aasma Shaukat, MD, MPH, a gastroenterologist at NYU Langone Health, who was not involved in the research, urged caution in interpreting the findings, which “need confirmation in larger diverse cohorts.”
First, Dr. Shaukat explained, “the two groups are not comparable, even though [they were] matched for age and gender, and many known and unknown factors can explain the results.” For instance, information on which subjects underwent colon cancer screening is not known, which may explain differences.
Dr. Shaukat also cautioned that the researchers only profiled the microbiome in “a small group of individuals and a cross-sectional analysis is not sufficient to explain causation.”
The study had no commercial funding. Dr. Shi, Dr. Dinerstein, and Dr. Shaukat have no relevant conflicts of interest to report.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
In one part of a three-part analysis, researchers observed a 73% increase in CRC risk among appendectomy cases compared, with controls over a 20-year follow-up.
The study, published in Oncogene, suggests that appendectomy may promote colorectal tumorigenesis by influencing the gut microbiome and that surgeons should “more cautiously consider the necessity of appendectomy,” the authors concluded.
Charles Dinerstein, MD, who was not involved in the research, said that the findings are “intriguing,” but it’s “too soon to tell” what the potential clinical implications may be. For now, “I would not think those patients having undergone an appendectomy should have more intense screening,” said Dr. Dinerstein, medical director of the American Council on Science and Health.
A growing body of evidence suggests that microbes in the gut may play a role in CRC risk, and other research indicates that the appendix might play a role in maintaining the diversity of the gut microbiome. However, whether removing the appendix influences a person’s risk for CRC remains controversial.
In the current study, Feiyu Shi, MD, of The First Affiliated Hospital of Xi’an Jiaotong University, and colleagues sought to better understand a possible association between appendectomy and CRC risk.
The team performed a three-part study: (1) analyzed a population of 129,155 adults who had an appendectomy and those who did not to assess a possible clinical connection between appendectomy and CRC risk; (2) performed fecal metagenomics sequencing to evaluate characteristics of the gut microbiome in appendectomy cases versus matched normal controls without appendectomy; and (3) investigated a CRC mouse model with appendectomy to uncover a mechanism of appendectomy-induced colorectal tumorigenesis.
In the large epidemiological study, Dr. Shi and colleagues compared CRC risk in almost 44,000 appendectomy cases versus more than 85,000 age- and gender-matched nonappendectomy controls. The researchers found that, over the 20-year follow-up, the risk for CRC increased by 73% in appendectomy cases (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.73; P < .001). CRC risk and gut dysbiosis were more pronounced in adults older than 50 years with a history of appendectomy.
In the gut microbiome analysis, Dr. Shi’s team performed metagenomic sequencing on fecal samples from 314 participants – 157 appendectomy cases and 157 controls – and found significant alterations in the gut microbiome in appendectomy cases. The changes were characterized by enrichment of seven CRC-promoting bacteria, including Bacteroides vulgatus and Bacteroides fragilis, and depletion of five beneficial bacteria, including Collinsella aerofaciens and Enterococcus hirae.
Finally, to examine the influence of appendectomy on microbial dysbiosis and CRC tumorigenesis, Dr. Shi’s team performed an appendectomy or a sham procedure in a carcinogen-induced CRC mouse model and found that appendectomy appeared to promote CRC tumorigenesis by prompting gut dysbiosis.
Aasma Shaukat, MD, MPH, a gastroenterologist at NYU Langone Health, who was not involved in the research, urged caution in interpreting the findings, which “need confirmation in larger diverse cohorts.”
First, Dr. Shaukat explained, “the two groups are not comparable, even though [they were] matched for age and gender, and many known and unknown factors can explain the results.” For instance, information on which subjects underwent colon cancer screening is not known, which may explain differences.
Dr. Shaukat also cautioned that the researchers only profiled the microbiome in “a small group of individuals and a cross-sectional analysis is not sufficient to explain causation.”
The study had no commercial funding. Dr. Shi, Dr. Dinerstein, and Dr. Shaukat have no relevant conflicts of interest to report.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ONCOGENE