Pediatric News

Women who had overweight or obesity as teens or young adults had more than a twofold increased risk for stroke before age 55, new research suggested.

An analysis of more than five decades of health data on 10,000 adults revealed that close to 5% experienced a stroke during the follow-up period, with the risk for ischemic stroke being more than twice as high in women who had obesity as teens or young adults. The risk was even higher for hemorrhagic stroke in both men and women with a history of obesity in youth.

“Our findings suggest that being overweight may have long-term health effects, even if the excess weight is temporary,” lead author Ursula Mikkola, BM, an investigator in the Research Unit of Population Health at the University of Oulu, Oulu, Finland, said in a news release.

Gender Differences

Childhood obesity has been associated with a heightened risk for cerebrovascular disease later in life, but most studies have focused on body mass index (BMI) at a single time point without considering its fluctuations throughout life, the investigators noted.

For the study, investigators used data from the Northern Finland Birth Cohort 1966, a prospective, general population-based birth cohort that followed 10,491 individuals (5185 women) until 2020 or the first stroke, death, or moving abroad, whichever came first.

Mean (SD) follow-up for each participant was 39 years from age 14 onward and 23 years from age 31 onward. The analysis was conducted between 1980 and 2020.

BMI data were collected from participants at the age of 14 and 31 years. Age 14 covariates included smoking, parental socioeconomic status, and age at menarche (for girls). Age 31 covariates included smoking and participants’ educational level.

During the follow-up period, 4.7% of participants experienced stroke. Of these events, 31% were ischemic strokes and 40% were transient ischemic attacks. The remainder were hemorrhagic or other cerebrovascular events.

Using normal weight as a reference, researchers found that the risk for ischemic stroke was over twice as high for women who had been overweight at ages 14 (hazard ratio [HR], 2.49; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.44-4.31) and 31 (HR, 2.13; 95% CI, 1.14-3.97) years. The risk was also considerably higher for women who had obesity at ages 14 (HR, 1.87; 95% CI, 0.76-4.58) and 31 (HR, 2.67; 95% CI, 1.26-5.65) years.

The risk for hemorrhagic stroke was even higher, both among women (HR, 3.49; 95% CI, 1.13-10.7) and men (HR, 5.75; 95% CI, 1.43-23.1) who had obesity at age 31.

No similar associations were found among men, and the findings were independent of earlier or later BMI.

The risk for any cerebrovascular disease related to overweight at age 14 was twice as high among girls vs boys (HR, 2.09; 95% CI, 1.06-4.15), and the risk for ischemic stroke related to obesity at age 31 was nearly seven times higher among women vs men (HR, 6.96; 95% CI, 1.36-35.7).

“Stroke at a young age is rare, so the difference of just a few strokes could have an outsized impact on the risk estimates,” the study authors said. “Also, BMI relies solely on a person’s height and weight; therefore, a high BMI may be a misleading way to define obesity, especially in muscular people who may carry little fat even while weighing more.”
 

Caveats

In an accompanying editorial, Larry Goldstein, MD, chair of the Department of Neurology, University of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky, and codirector of the Kentucky Neuroscience Institute, said the study “provides additional evidence of an association between overweight/obesity and stroke in young adults.”

However, Dr. Goldstein added that “while it is tempting to assume that reductions in overweight/obesity in younger populations would translate to lower stroke rates in young adults, this remains to be proven.”

Moreover, it is “always important to acknowledge that associations found in observational studies may not reflect causality.”

This study was supported by Orion Research Foundation, Päivikki and Sakari Sohlberg Foundation, and Paulo Foundation. Dr. Mikkola reported no relevant financial relationships. The other authors’ disclosures are listed on the original paper. Dr. Goldstein reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Women who had overweight or obesity as teens or young adults had more than a twofold increased risk for stroke before age 55, new research suggested.

An analysis of more than five decades of health data on 10,000 adults revealed that close to 5% experienced a stroke during the follow-up period, with the risk for ischemic stroke being more than twice as high in women who had obesity as teens or young adults. The risk was even higher for hemorrhagic stroke in both men and women with a history of obesity in youth.

“Our findings suggest that being overweight may have long-term health effects, even if the excess weight is temporary,” lead author Ursula Mikkola, BM, an investigator in the Research Unit of Population Health at the University of Oulu, Oulu, Finland, said in a news release.

Gender Differences

Childhood obesity has been associated with a heightened risk for cerebrovascular disease later in life, but most studies have focused on body mass index (BMI) at a single time point without considering its fluctuations throughout life, the investigators noted.

For the study, investigators used data from the Northern Finland Birth Cohort 1966, a prospective, general population-based birth cohort that followed 10,491 individuals (5185 women) until 2020 or the first stroke, death, or moving abroad, whichever came first.

Mean (SD) follow-up for each participant was 39 years from age 14 onward and 23 years from age 31 onward. The analysis was conducted between 1980 and 2020.

BMI data were collected from participants at the age of 14 and 31 years. Age 14 covariates included smoking, parental socioeconomic status, and age at menarche (for girls). Age 31 covariates included smoking and participants’ educational level.

During the follow-up period, 4.7% of participants experienced stroke. Of these events, 31% were ischemic strokes and 40% were transient ischemic attacks. The remainder were hemorrhagic or other cerebrovascular events.

Using normal weight as a reference, researchers found that the risk for ischemic stroke was over twice as high for women who had been overweight at ages 14 (hazard ratio [HR], 2.49; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.44-4.31) and 31 (HR, 2.13; 95% CI, 1.14-3.97) years. The risk was also considerably higher for women who had obesity at ages 14 (HR, 1.87; 95% CI, 0.76-4.58) and 31 (HR, 2.67; 95% CI, 1.26-5.65) years.

The risk for hemorrhagic stroke was even higher, both among women (HR, 3.49; 95% CI, 1.13-10.7) and men (HR, 5.75; 95% CI, 1.43-23.1) who had obesity at age 31.

No similar associations were found among men, and the findings were independent of earlier or later BMI.

The risk for any cerebrovascular disease related to overweight at age 14 was twice as high among girls vs boys (HR, 2.09; 95% CI, 1.06-4.15), and the risk for ischemic stroke related to obesity at age 31 was nearly seven times higher among women vs men (HR, 6.96; 95% CI, 1.36-35.7).

“Stroke at a young age is rare, so the difference of just a few strokes could have an outsized impact on the risk estimates,” the study authors said. “Also, BMI relies solely on a person’s height and weight; therefore, a high BMI may be a misleading way to define obesity, especially in muscular people who may carry little fat even while weighing more.”
 

Caveats

In an accompanying editorial, Larry Goldstein, MD, chair of the Department of Neurology, University of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky, and codirector of the Kentucky Neuroscience Institute, said the study “provides additional evidence of an association between overweight/obesity and stroke in young adults.”

However, Dr. Goldstein added that “while it is tempting to assume that reductions in overweight/obesity in younger populations would translate to lower stroke rates in young adults, this remains to be proven.”

Moreover, it is “always important to acknowledge that associations found in observational studies may not reflect causality.”

This study was supported by Orion Research Foundation, Päivikki and Sakari Sohlberg Foundation, and Paulo Foundation. Dr. Mikkola reported no relevant financial relationships. The other authors’ disclosures are listed on the original paper. Dr. Goldstein reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Women who had overweight or obesity as teens or young adults had more than a twofold increased risk for stroke before age 55, new research suggested.

An analysis of more than five decades of health data on 10,000 adults revealed that close to 5% experienced a stroke during the follow-up period, with the risk for ischemic stroke being more than twice as high in women who had obesity as teens or young adults. The risk was even higher for hemorrhagic stroke in both men and women with a history of obesity in youth.

“Our findings suggest that being overweight may have long-term health effects, even if the excess weight is temporary,” lead author Ursula Mikkola, BM, an investigator in the Research Unit of Population Health at the University of Oulu, Oulu, Finland, said in a news release.

Gender Differences

Childhood obesity has been associated with a heightened risk for cerebrovascular disease later in life, but most studies have focused on body mass index (BMI) at a single time point without considering its fluctuations throughout life, the investigators noted.

For the study, investigators used data from the Northern Finland Birth Cohort 1966, a prospective, general population-based birth cohort that followed 10,491 individuals (5185 women) until 2020 or the first stroke, death, or moving abroad, whichever came first.

Mean (SD) follow-up for each participant was 39 years from age 14 onward and 23 years from age 31 onward. The analysis was conducted between 1980 and 2020.

BMI data were collected from participants at the age of 14 and 31 years. Age 14 covariates included smoking, parental socioeconomic status, and age at menarche (for girls). Age 31 covariates included smoking and participants’ educational level.

During the follow-up period, 4.7% of participants experienced stroke. Of these events, 31% were ischemic strokes and 40% were transient ischemic attacks. The remainder were hemorrhagic or other cerebrovascular events.

Using normal weight as a reference, researchers found that the risk for ischemic stroke was over twice as high for women who had been overweight at ages 14 (hazard ratio [HR], 2.49; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.44-4.31) and 31 (HR, 2.13; 95% CI, 1.14-3.97) years. The risk was also considerably higher for women who had obesity at ages 14 (HR, 1.87; 95% CI, 0.76-4.58) and 31 (HR, 2.67; 95% CI, 1.26-5.65) years.

The risk for hemorrhagic stroke was even higher, both among women (HR, 3.49; 95% CI, 1.13-10.7) and men (HR, 5.75; 95% CI, 1.43-23.1) who had obesity at age 31.

No similar associations were found among men, and the findings were independent of earlier or later BMI.

The risk for any cerebrovascular disease related to overweight at age 14 was twice as high among girls vs boys (HR, 2.09; 95% CI, 1.06-4.15), and the risk for ischemic stroke related to obesity at age 31 was nearly seven times higher among women vs men (HR, 6.96; 95% CI, 1.36-35.7).

“Stroke at a young age is rare, so the difference of just a few strokes could have an outsized impact on the risk estimates,” the study authors said. “Also, BMI relies solely on a person’s height and weight; therefore, a high BMI may be a misleading way to define obesity, especially in muscular people who may carry little fat even while weighing more.”
 

Caveats

In an accompanying editorial, Larry Goldstein, MD, chair of the Department of Neurology, University of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky, and codirector of the Kentucky Neuroscience Institute, said the study “provides additional evidence of an association between overweight/obesity and stroke in young adults.”

However, Dr. Goldstein added that “while it is tempting to assume that reductions in overweight/obesity in younger populations would translate to lower stroke rates in young adults, this remains to be proven.”

Moreover, it is “always important to acknowledge that associations found in observational studies may not reflect causality.”

This study was supported by Orion Research Foundation, Päivikki and Sakari Sohlberg Foundation, and Paulo Foundation. Dr. Mikkola reported no relevant financial relationships. The other authors’ disclosures are listed on the original paper. Dr. Goldstein reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A new analysis of a national dataset of children in the United States shows that there were roughly one million more children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in 2022 than in 2016.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers used 2022 data from the National Survey of Children’s Health to estimate the prevalence of ever-diagnosed and current ADHD among US children between the ages of 3 and 18 years.
• They also estimated, among children with current ADHD, the severity of the condition and the presence of current co-occurring disorders and the receipt of medication and behavioral treatments.
• The researchers calculated overall weighted estimates as well as estimates for specific demographic and clinical subgroups (n = 45,169).

TAKEAWAY:

• The number of children who had ever received an ADHD diagnosis increased from 6.1 million in 2016 to 7.1 million in 2022, and the number with current ADHD increased from 5.4 million to 6.5 million.
• Of those with current ADHD in 2022, 58.1% had moderate or severe ADHD, and 77.9% had at least one co-occurring disorder.
• A total of 53.6% had received ADHD medication, 44.4% had received behavioral treatment in the past year, and 30.1% had received no ADHD-specific treatment.
• A similar percentage of children with ADHD were receiving behavioral treatment in 2022 as in 2016 (44.4% vs 46.7%, respectively), but treatment with ADHD medication was lower in 2022 than in 2016 (53.6% vs 62.0%, respectively).

IN PRACTICE:

The estimates “can be used by clinicians to understand current ADHD diagnosis and treatment utilization patterns to inform clinical practice, such as accounting for the frequency and management of co-occurring conditions and considering the notable percentage of children with ADHD not currently receiving ADHD treatment,” and can be used by policymakers, practitioners, and others “to plan for the needs of children with ADHD, such as by ensuring access to care and services for ADHD,” investigators wrote.

SOURCE:

Melissa L. Danielson, of the National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, led the study, which was published online in the Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology.

LIMITATIONS:

Indicators reported in the analysis were on the basis of the parent report, which may be limited by recall and reporting decisions and were not validated against medical records or clinical judgment. Moreover, details about the types of treatment were not included.

DISCLOSURES:

The work was authorized as part of the contributor’s official duties as an employee of the US Government, and therefore is a work of the US Government. The authors declared no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A new analysis of a national dataset of children in the United States shows that there were roughly one million more children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in 2022 than in 2016.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers used 2022 data from the National Survey of Children’s Health to estimate the prevalence of ever-diagnosed and current ADHD among US children between the ages of 3 and 18 years.
• They also estimated, among children with current ADHD, the severity of the condition and the presence of current co-occurring disorders and the receipt of medication and behavioral treatments.
• The researchers calculated overall weighted estimates as well as estimates for specific demographic and clinical subgroups (n = 45,169).

TAKEAWAY:

• The number of children who had ever received an ADHD diagnosis increased from 6.1 million in 2016 to 7.1 million in 2022, and the number with current ADHD increased from 5.4 million to 6.5 million.
• Of those with current ADHD in 2022, 58.1% had moderate or severe ADHD, and 77.9% had at least one co-occurring disorder.
• A total of 53.6% had received ADHD medication, 44.4% had received behavioral treatment in the past year, and 30.1% had received no ADHD-specific treatment.
• A similar percentage of children with ADHD were receiving behavioral treatment in 2022 as in 2016 (44.4% vs 46.7%, respectively), but treatment with ADHD medication was lower in 2022 than in 2016 (53.6% vs 62.0%, respectively).

IN PRACTICE:

The estimates “can be used by clinicians to understand current ADHD diagnosis and treatment utilization patterns to inform clinical practice, such as accounting for the frequency and management of co-occurring conditions and considering the notable percentage of children with ADHD not currently receiving ADHD treatment,” and can be used by policymakers, practitioners, and others “to plan for the needs of children with ADHD, such as by ensuring access to care and services for ADHD,” investigators wrote.

SOURCE:

Melissa L. Danielson, of the National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, led the study, which was published online in the Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology.

LIMITATIONS:

Indicators reported in the analysis were on the basis of the parent report, which may be limited by recall and reporting decisions and were not validated against medical records or clinical judgment. Moreover, details about the types of treatment were not included.

DISCLOSURES:

The work was authorized as part of the contributor’s official duties as an employee of the US Government, and therefore is a work of the US Government. The authors declared no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A new analysis of a national dataset of children in the United States shows that there were roughly one million more children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in 2022 than in 2016.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers used 2022 data from the National Survey of Children’s Health to estimate the prevalence of ever-diagnosed and current ADHD among US children between the ages of 3 and 18 years.
• They also estimated, among children with current ADHD, the severity of the condition and the presence of current co-occurring disorders and the receipt of medication and behavioral treatments.
• The researchers calculated overall weighted estimates as well as estimates for specific demographic and clinical subgroups (n = 45,169).

TAKEAWAY:

• The number of children who had ever received an ADHD diagnosis increased from 6.1 million in 2016 to 7.1 million in 2022, and the number with current ADHD increased from 5.4 million to 6.5 million.
• Of those with current ADHD in 2022, 58.1% had moderate or severe ADHD, and 77.9% had at least one co-occurring disorder.
• A total of 53.6% had received ADHD medication, 44.4% had received behavioral treatment in the past year, and 30.1% had received no ADHD-specific treatment.
• A similar percentage of children with ADHD were receiving behavioral treatment in 2022 as in 2016 (44.4% vs 46.7%, respectively), but treatment with ADHD medication was lower in 2022 than in 2016 (53.6% vs 62.0%, respectively).

IN PRACTICE:

The estimates “can be used by clinicians to understand current ADHD diagnosis and treatment utilization patterns to inform clinical practice, such as accounting for the frequency and management of co-occurring conditions and considering the notable percentage of children with ADHD not currently receiving ADHD treatment,” and can be used by policymakers, practitioners, and others “to plan for the needs of children with ADHD, such as by ensuring access to care and services for ADHD,” investigators wrote.

SOURCE:

Melissa L. Danielson, of the National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, led the study, which was published online in the Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology.

LIMITATIONS:

Indicators reported in the analysis were on the basis of the parent report, which may be limited by recall and reporting decisions and were not validated against medical records or clinical judgment. Moreover, details about the types of treatment were not included.

DISCLOSURES:

The work was authorized as part of the contributor’s official duties as an employee of the US Government, and therefore is a work of the US Government. The authors declared no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Fundamentally, an immigrant parent’s traditional role as teacher of culture and social systems to their children is undermined by immigration. In their native country, they learned throughout their life cultural norms and systems that defined their environment. When these parents immigrate to a new country, their different set of knowledge may not be applicable in many ways to their new environment.

The Disruption of Social Roles

Culturally, language is one of the most important types of knowledge parents pass to their children. Nearly half of adult immigrants in the United States have limited English proficiency. ¹

Their children often learn the language faster, often placing these children in the position of interpreters for their parents. These parents can become dependent on their children to negotiate social structures instead of vice versa, potentially undermining the social hierarchy and role of parenting. ² Both Mr. Contreras and Dr. Nguyen recall that as children of immigrant parents — from Mexico and Vietnam, respectively — they commanded English better than their parents, which often made them take on more “adult roles.” For example, Dr. Nguyen recalls that his mother would solicit his help in grocery shopping because she could neither navigate the aisles effectively nor ask for help. Mr. Contreras commonly found himself acting as an impromptu medical translator for his mother on several occasions. This dependence of immigrant parents on their children for guidance in their host country can be pervasive in other social structures such as legal and academic.

Impact on School

Potentially, an immigrant parent’s lack of knowledge of the language and systems of their host country can make them ineffective advocates for their children at school. Mr. Contreras’s intervention for his patient as a medical student demonstrates this in the arena of school.

Mr. Contreras was rotating at a hospital burn unit in 2023 when R, a young middle school student, and his mother arrived in the emergency department. An incident had occurred at his school. R had been the victim of aggravated battery and assault, sustaining a 3x2 cm burn on his forearm from students placing hot glue onto a piece of cardboard then immediately onto his skin and silencing him by covering his mouth. For months the older students had been bullying R. R’s mother made multiple attempts with both the school’s front desk and counselors to address the issue, but to no avail. R himself, though encouraged to speak up, did not out of fear. As Mr. Contreras realized the situation and the impasse, he used his fluency in Spanish and English to facilitate a joint call with the school district. Within 10 minutes, they were able to connect with a student safety specialist and launch a full investigation. A language barrier and the lack of knowledge of their rights and school system had prevented R’s mother from effectively advocating for her child’s safety.

In Dr. Nguyen’s experience as a teacher, even in classrooms dominated by minority students, the advocacy for students struggling in classes was disproportionate. It favored White parents, but also generally more educated families. This is further supported by a study of 225 schools across six states of kindergarten children showing similar trends, that African American, Latino, and less-educated parents were less involved in their children’s education as reported by teachers.³ It is important to note that in this study teachers were 80% White, 9% Latino, 7% African American, 3% multiracial, and 1% Asian American, suggesting that cultural discrepancy between teachers and parents could be an important factor affecting parent-teacher communication. Dr. Nguyen also recalled trying to discipline several students who were disruptive in his class by telling them he would speak to their parents. Several times, these students would counter defiantly, “Well, good luck, they can’t speak English.” The parents’ dependency on their children to communicate with teachers undermined the abilities of both adults to manage their behaviors and promote learning.
 

The Mental Health of Immigrant Parents  

Migrants often have greater incidence of mental health problems, including depression, PTSD, and anxiety, from a combination of peri-migrational experiences. ⁴ Immigrant mothers are known to have higher rates of post-natal depression, which cause problems later with child development. ⁵ Though she warns larger studies are needed, Dr. Fazel’s review of Croatian refugees suggests that displacement from one’s native country is a risk factor for poorer mental health, namely due to difficulty in psychosocial adaptation. ⁶ The likely mechanism is that lack of access to one’s language and culture, or a language and culture that one can navigate effectively, exacerbates, even engenders mental health sequelae. Because of this, first-generation immigrant children often face harsher and more violent parenting. ^7,8 Immigrant parents also may have less access to mental health resources since they often resort to their own cultural practices. Both Mr. Contreras’s and Dr. Nguyen’s following narratives of their mothers’ struggle with mental health illustrate the causes and consequences.

Mr. Contreras, who grew up in a Mexican immigrant household in Los Angeles, saw firsthand how his mother, who faced language barriers and a distrust of Western medicine, turned to traditional healers and herbal remedies for her health needs. Accompanying her to doctor appointments as her translator, he often felt the disconnect between her cultural background and the Western medical system. For her, seeking help from traditional healers was not just about addressing physical ailments but also about finding comfort and familiarity in practices rooted in her cultural beliefs. This preference for cultural or religious methods for mental health support is not uncommon among Mexican immigrant families.

Dr. Nguyen, whose mother was a refugee from Vietnam, recalls her constant depressed mood and suicidal thoughts in the immediate years after she resettled in San Diego. This was caused mostly by the missing of her social supports in Vietnam, her difficulty adjusting to American culture and language, and her difficulty finding work. Often her depression and stress took a darker turn in terms of more violent parenting. Of course, the cause of her poor mental health is hard to parse from the traumas and violence she had faced as a refugee, but in subsequent years, her many brothers and sisters who immigrated through a more orderly process also displayed similar mental health vulnerabilities.

   

The Mental Health of Children of Immigrant Parents  

The relationship between an immigrant parent’s poor mental health and their children is difficult to parse from what we know about native parents and their children. But the primary differences appear to be a great disruption of social roles, the effects of migration itself, and the oftentimes more strict and disciplinarian parenting style as discussed above. Given this, one would expect immigrant children to suffer greater mental health difficulties. However, a recent study of almost 500,000 children in Canada revealed decreased prevalence of conduct disorder, ADHD, and mood and anxiety disorders in immigrant youth, both first- and second-generation, as compared to non-immigrants. ⁹ This perhaps surprising result highlights how much more we need to understand about the effects of culture on the mental health diagnosis of immigrant youth. It suggests differences in mental health access and use from the cultural factors we mentioned above, to problems with using Western-based mental criteria and symptomatology for diagnosing non-Western children. It can even suggest the underestimation of the protective effects of native culture such as strong ethnic identity and cultural support systems, thereby challenging a purely deficit mental health model of the immigrant experience.

Summary

Dr. Duy Nguyen and Mr. Andrew Contreras are both children of immigrant parents from Vietnam and Mexico, respectively. Dr. Nguyen spent 15 years as an English teacher at San Leandro High School, whose student body was roughly 50% Hispanic and 25% Asian, making immigrant parents a huge swath of his educational partners. Mr. Contreras founded a high school outreach program where he interacted with K-12 children of immigrant youth. In addition, he partners with Fresno’s Economic Opportunity Commission to educate immigrant Hispanic parents and their teens on having difficult conversations with their teenage children on topics such as mental and reproductive health. Dr. Duy Nguyen and Mr. Andrew Contreras will explore the differences in immigrant parent-child relationships, compared with native ones, as they relate to mental health ramifications for the child and parent. They reveal immigrant mental health disruptions regarding culture and language, familial hierarchies, parenting styles, as well as parental mental health sequelae brought about by immigration using research and their own personal experiences.

Dr. Nguyen is a second-year resident at the University of California, San Francisco, Fresno Psychiatry Residency. He was a public high school English teacher for 15 years previously. Mr. Contreras is currently a 4th-year medical student at University of California, San Francisco, and applying to Psychiatry for the 2025 match.

References  

1. Rao A et al. Five Key Facts About Immigrants With Limited English Proficiency. KFF. 2024 March 14. https://www.kff.org/racial-equity-and-health-policy/issue-brief-five-key-facts-about-immigrants-with-limited-english-proficiency .

2. Raffaetà R. Migration and Parenting: Reviewing the Debate and Calling for Future Research. International Journal of Migration, Health and Social Care. 2016;12(1):38-50. doi: 10.1108/IJMHSC-12-2014-0052/full/html .

3. Nzinga‐Johnson S et al. Teacher‐Parent Relationships and School Involvement Among Racially and Educationally Diverse Parents of Kindergartners. Elementary School Journal. 2009 Sept. doi: 10.1086/598844 .

4. Close C et al. The Mental Health and Wellbeing of First Generation Migrants: A Systematic-Narrative Review of Reviews. Global Health. 2016 Aug 25;12(1):47. doi: 10.1186/s12992-016-0187-3.

5. Collins CH et al. Refugee, Asylum Seeker, Immigrant Women and Postnatal Depression: Rates and Risk Factors. Arch Womens Ment Health. 2011 Feb;14(1):3-11. doi: 10.1007/s00737-010-0198-7 .

6. Fazel M, Betancourt TS. Preventive Mental Health Interventions for Refugee Children and Adolescents in High-Income Settings. Lancet Child Adolesc Health. 2018 Feb;2(2):121-132. doi: 10.1016/S2352-4642(17)30147-5 .

7. Pottie K et al. Do First Generation Immigrant Adolescents Face Higher Rates of Bullying, Violence and Suicidal Behaviours Than Do Third Generation and Native Born? J Immigr Minor Health. 2015 Oct;17(5):1557-1566. doi: 10.1007/s10903-014-0108-6.

8. Smokowski PR, Bacallao ML. Acculturation and Aggression in Latino Adolescents: A Structural Model Focusing on Cultural Risk Factors and Assets. J Abnorm Child Psychol. 2006 Oct;34(5):659-673. doi: 10.1007/s10802-006-9049-4 .

9. Gadermann AM et al. Prevalence of Mental Health Disorders Among Immigrant, Refugee, and Nonimmigrant Children and Youth in British Columbia, Canada. JAMA Netw Open. 2022;5(2):e2144934. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.44934 .

Fundamentally, an immigrant parent’s traditional role as teacher of culture and social systems to their children is undermined by immigration. In their native country, they learned throughout their life cultural norms and systems that defined their environment. When these parents immigrate to a new country, their different set of knowledge may not be applicable in many ways to their new environment.

The Disruption of Social Roles

Culturally, language is one of the most important types of knowledge parents pass to their children. Nearly half of adult immigrants in the United States have limited English proficiency. ¹

Their children often learn the language faster, often placing these children in the position of interpreters for their parents. These parents can become dependent on their children to negotiate social structures instead of vice versa, potentially undermining the social hierarchy and role of parenting. ² Both Mr. Contreras and Dr. Nguyen recall that as children of immigrant parents — from Mexico and Vietnam, respectively — they commanded English better than their parents, which often made them take on more “adult roles.” For example, Dr. Nguyen recalls that his mother would solicit his help in grocery shopping because she could neither navigate the aisles effectively nor ask for help. Mr. Contreras commonly found himself acting as an impromptu medical translator for his mother on several occasions. This dependence of immigrant parents on their children for guidance in their host country can be pervasive in other social structures such as legal and academic.

Impact on School

Potentially, an immigrant parent’s lack of knowledge of the language and systems of their host country can make them ineffective advocates for their children at school. Mr. Contreras’s intervention for his patient as a medical student demonstrates this in the arena of school.

Mr. Contreras was rotating at a hospital burn unit in 2023 when R, a young middle school student, and his mother arrived in the emergency department. An incident had occurred at his school. R had been the victim of aggravated battery and assault, sustaining a 3x2 cm burn on his forearm from students placing hot glue onto a piece of cardboard then immediately onto his skin and silencing him by covering his mouth. For months the older students had been bullying R. R’s mother made multiple attempts with both the school’s front desk and counselors to address the issue, but to no avail. R himself, though encouraged to speak up, did not out of fear. As Mr. Contreras realized the situation and the impasse, he used his fluency in Spanish and English to facilitate a joint call with the school district. Within 10 minutes, they were able to connect with a student safety specialist and launch a full investigation. A language barrier and the lack of knowledge of their rights and school system had prevented R’s mother from effectively advocating for her child’s safety.

In Dr. Nguyen’s experience as a teacher, even in classrooms dominated by minority students, the advocacy for students struggling in classes was disproportionate. It favored White parents, but also generally more educated families. This is further supported by a study of 225 schools across six states of kindergarten children showing similar trends, that African American, Latino, and less-educated parents were less involved in their children’s education as reported by teachers.³ It is important to note that in this study teachers were 80% White, 9% Latino, 7% African American, 3% multiracial, and 1% Asian American, suggesting that cultural discrepancy between teachers and parents could be an important factor affecting parent-teacher communication. Dr. Nguyen also recalled trying to discipline several students who were disruptive in his class by telling them he would speak to their parents. Several times, these students would counter defiantly, “Well, good luck, they can’t speak English.” The parents’ dependency on their children to communicate with teachers undermined the abilities of both adults to manage their behaviors and promote learning.
 

The Mental Health of Immigrant Parents  

Migrants often have greater incidence of mental health problems, including depression, PTSD, and anxiety, from a combination of peri-migrational experiences. ⁴ Immigrant mothers are known to have higher rates of post-natal depression, which cause problems later with child development. ⁵ Though she warns larger studies are needed, Dr. Fazel’s review of Croatian refugees suggests that displacement from one’s native country is a risk factor for poorer mental health, namely due to difficulty in psychosocial adaptation. ⁶ The likely mechanism is that lack of access to one’s language and culture, or a language and culture that one can navigate effectively, exacerbates, even engenders mental health sequelae. Because of this, first-generation immigrant children often face harsher and more violent parenting. ^7,8 Immigrant parents also may have less access to mental health resources since they often resort to their own cultural practices. Both Mr. Contreras’s and Dr. Nguyen’s following narratives of their mothers’ struggle with mental health illustrate the causes and consequences.

Mr. Contreras, who grew up in a Mexican immigrant household in Los Angeles, saw firsthand how his mother, who faced language barriers and a distrust of Western medicine, turned to traditional healers and herbal remedies for her health needs. Accompanying her to doctor appointments as her translator, he often felt the disconnect between her cultural background and the Western medical system. For her, seeking help from traditional healers was not just about addressing physical ailments but also about finding comfort and familiarity in practices rooted in her cultural beliefs. This preference for cultural or religious methods for mental health support is not uncommon among Mexican immigrant families.

Dr. Nguyen, whose mother was a refugee from Vietnam, recalls her constant depressed mood and suicidal thoughts in the immediate years after she resettled in San Diego. This was caused mostly by the missing of her social supports in Vietnam, her difficulty adjusting to American culture and language, and her difficulty finding work. Often her depression and stress took a darker turn in terms of more violent parenting. Of course, the cause of her poor mental health is hard to parse from the traumas and violence she had faced as a refugee, but in subsequent years, her many brothers and sisters who immigrated through a more orderly process also displayed similar mental health vulnerabilities.

   

The Mental Health of Children of Immigrant Parents  

The relationship between an immigrant parent’s poor mental health and their children is difficult to parse from what we know about native parents and their children. But the primary differences appear to be a great disruption of social roles, the effects of migration itself, and the oftentimes more strict and disciplinarian parenting style as discussed above. Given this, one would expect immigrant children to suffer greater mental health difficulties. However, a recent study of almost 500,000 children in Canada revealed decreased prevalence of conduct disorder, ADHD, and mood and anxiety disorders in immigrant youth, both first- and second-generation, as compared to non-immigrants. ⁹ This perhaps surprising result highlights how much more we need to understand about the effects of culture on the mental health diagnosis of immigrant youth. It suggests differences in mental health access and use from the cultural factors we mentioned above, to problems with using Western-based mental criteria and symptomatology for diagnosing non-Western children. It can even suggest the underestimation of the protective effects of native culture such as strong ethnic identity and cultural support systems, thereby challenging a purely deficit mental health model of the immigrant experience.

Summary

Dr. Duy Nguyen and Mr. Andrew Contreras are both children of immigrant parents from Vietnam and Mexico, respectively. Dr. Nguyen spent 15 years as an English teacher at San Leandro High School, whose student body was roughly 50% Hispanic and 25% Asian, making immigrant parents a huge swath of his educational partners. Mr. Contreras founded a high school outreach program where he interacted with K-12 children of immigrant youth. In addition, he partners with Fresno’s Economic Opportunity Commission to educate immigrant Hispanic parents and their teens on having difficult conversations with their teenage children on topics such as mental and reproductive health. Dr. Duy Nguyen and Mr. Andrew Contreras will explore the differences in immigrant parent-child relationships, compared with native ones, as they relate to mental health ramifications for the child and parent. They reveal immigrant mental health disruptions regarding culture and language, familial hierarchies, parenting styles, as well as parental mental health sequelae brought about by immigration using research and their own personal experiences.

Dr. Nguyen is a second-year resident at the University of California, San Francisco, Fresno Psychiatry Residency. He was a public high school English teacher for 15 years previously. Mr. Contreras is currently a 4th-year medical student at University of California, San Francisco, and applying to Psychiatry for the 2025 match.

References  

1. Rao A et al. Five Key Facts About Immigrants With Limited English Proficiency. KFF. 2024 March 14. https://www.kff.org/racial-equity-and-health-policy/issue-brief-five-key-facts-about-immigrants-with-limited-english-proficiency .

2. Raffaetà R. Migration and Parenting: Reviewing the Debate and Calling for Future Research. International Journal of Migration, Health and Social Care. 2016;12(1):38-50. doi: 10.1108/IJMHSC-12-2014-0052/full/html .

3. Nzinga‐Johnson S et al. Teacher‐Parent Relationships and School Involvement Among Racially and Educationally Diverse Parents of Kindergartners. Elementary School Journal. 2009 Sept. doi: 10.1086/598844 .

4. Close C et al. The Mental Health and Wellbeing of First Generation Migrants: A Systematic-Narrative Review of Reviews. Global Health. 2016 Aug 25;12(1):47. doi: 10.1186/s12992-016-0187-3.

5. Collins CH et al. Refugee, Asylum Seeker, Immigrant Women and Postnatal Depression: Rates and Risk Factors. Arch Womens Ment Health. 2011 Feb;14(1):3-11. doi: 10.1007/s00737-010-0198-7 .

6. Fazel M, Betancourt TS. Preventive Mental Health Interventions for Refugee Children and Adolescents in High-Income Settings. Lancet Child Adolesc Health. 2018 Feb;2(2):121-132. doi: 10.1016/S2352-4642(17)30147-5 .

7. Pottie K et al. Do First Generation Immigrant Adolescents Face Higher Rates of Bullying, Violence and Suicidal Behaviours Than Do Third Generation and Native Born? J Immigr Minor Health. 2015 Oct;17(5):1557-1566. doi: 10.1007/s10903-014-0108-6.

8. Smokowski PR, Bacallao ML. Acculturation and Aggression in Latino Adolescents: A Structural Model Focusing on Cultural Risk Factors and Assets. J Abnorm Child Psychol. 2006 Oct;34(5):659-673. doi: 10.1007/s10802-006-9049-4 .

9. Gadermann AM et al. Prevalence of Mental Health Disorders Among Immigrant, Refugee, and Nonimmigrant Children and Youth in British Columbia, Canada. JAMA Netw Open. 2022;5(2):e2144934. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.44934 .

Fundamentally, an immigrant parent’s traditional role as teacher of culture and social systems to their children is undermined by immigration. In their native country, they learned throughout their life cultural norms and systems that defined their environment. When these parents immigrate to a new country, their different set of knowledge may not be applicable in many ways to their new environment.

The Disruption of Social Roles

Culturally, language is one of the most important types of knowledge parents pass to their children. Nearly half of adult immigrants in the United States have limited English proficiency. ¹

Their children often learn the language faster, often placing these children in the position of interpreters for their parents. These parents can become dependent on their children to negotiate social structures instead of vice versa, potentially undermining the social hierarchy and role of parenting. ² Both Mr. Contreras and Dr. Nguyen recall that as children of immigrant parents — from Mexico and Vietnam, respectively — they commanded English better than their parents, which often made them take on more “adult roles.” For example, Dr. Nguyen recalls that his mother would solicit his help in grocery shopping because she could neither navigate the aisles effectively nor ask for help. Mr. Contreras commonly found himself acting as an impromptu medical translator for his mother on several occasions. This dependence of immigrant parents on their children for guidance in their host country can be pervasive in other social structures such as legal and academic.

Impact on School

Potentially, an immigrant parent’s lack of knowledge of the language and systems of their host country can make them ineffective advocates for their children at school. Mr. Contreras’s intervention for his patient as a medical student demonstrates this in the arena of school.

Mr. Contreras was rotating at a hospital burn unit in 2023 when R, a young middle school student, and his mother arrived in the emergency department. An incident had occurred at his school. R had been the victim of aggravated battery and assault, sustaining a 3x2 cm burn on his forearm from students placing hot glue onto a piece of cardboard then immediately onto his skin and silencing him by covering his mouth. For months the older students had been bullying R. R’s mother made multiple attempts with both the school’s front desk and counselors to address the issue, but to no avail. R himself, though encouraged to speak up, did not out of fear. As Mr. Contreras realized the situation and the impasse, he used his fluency in Spanish and English to facilitate a joint call with the school district. Within 10 minutes, they were able to connect with a student safety specialist and launch a full investigation. A language barrier and the lack of knowledge of their rights and school system had prevented R’s mother from effectively advocating for her child’s safety.

In Dr. Nguyen’s experience as a teacher, even in classrooms dominated by minority students, the advocacy for students struggling in classes was disproportionate. It favored White parents, but also generally more educated families. This is further supported by a study of 225 schools across six states of kindergarten children showing similar trends, that African American, Latino, and less-educated parents were less involved in their children’s education as reported by teachers.³ It is important to note that in this study teachers were 80% White, 9% Latino, 7% African American, 3% multiracial, and 1% Asian American, suggesting that cultural discrepancy between teachers and parents could be an important factor affecting parent-teacher communication. Dr. Nguyen also recalled trying to discipline several students who were disruptive in his class by telling them he would speak to their parents. Several times, these students would counter defiantly, “Well, good luck, they can’t speak English.” The parents’ dependency on their children to communicate with teachers undermined the abilities of both adults to manage their behaviors and promote learning.
 

The Mental Health of Immigrant Parents  

Migrants often have greater incidence of mental health problems, including depression, PTSD, and anxiety, from a combination of peri-migrational experiences. ⁴ Immigrant mothers are known to have higher rates of post-natal depression, which cause problems later with child development. ⁵ Though she warns larger studies are needed, Dr. Fazel’s review of Croatian refugees suggests that displacement from one’s native country is a risk factor for poorer mental health, namely due to difficulty in psychosocial adaptation. ⁶ The likely mechanism is that lack of access to one’s language and culture, or a language and culture that one can navigate effectively, exacerbates, even engenders mental health sequelae. Because of this, first-generation immigrant children often face harsher and more violent parenting. ^7,8 Immigrant parents also may have less access to mental health resources since they often resort to their own cultural practices. Both Mr. Contreras’s and Dr. Nguyen’s following narratives of their mothers’ struggle with mental health illustrate the causes and consequences.

Mr. Contreras, who grew up in a Mexican immigrant household in Los Angeles, saw firsthand how his mother, who faced language barriers and a distrust of Western medicine, turned to traditional healers and herbal remedies for her health needs. Accompanying her to doctor appointments as her translator, he often felt the disconnect between her cultural background and the Western medical system. For her, seeking help from traditional healers was not just about addressing physical ailments but also about finding comfort and familiarity in practices rooted in her cultural beliefs. This preference for cultural or religious methods for mental health support is not uncommon among Mexican immigrant families.

Dr. Nguyen, whose mother was a refugee from Vietnam, recalls her constant depressed mood and suicidal thoughts in the immediate years after she resettled in San Diego. This was caused mostly by the missing of her social supports in Vietnam, her difficulty adjusting to American culture and language, and her difficulty finding work. Often her depression and stress took a darker turn in terms of more violent parenting. Of course, the cause of her poor mental health is hard to parse from the traumas and violence she had faced as a refugee, but in subsequent years, her many brothers and sisters who immigrated through a more orderly process also displayed similar mental health vulnerabilities.

   

The Mental Health of Children of Immigrant Parents  

The relationship between an immigrant parent’s poor mental health and their children is difficult to parse from what we know about native parents and their children. But the primary differences appear to be a great disruption of social roles, the effects of migration itself, and the oftentimes more strict and disciplinarian parenting style as discussed above. Given this, one would expect immigrant children to suffer greater mental health difficulties. However, a recent study of almost 500,000 children in Canada revealed decreased prevalence of conduct disorder, ADHD, and mood and anxiety disorders in immigrant youth, both first- and second-generation, as compared to non-immigrants. ⁹ This perhaps surprising result highlights how much more we need to understand about the effects of culture on the mental health diagnosis of immigrant youth. It suggests differences in mental health access and use from the cultural factors we mentioned above, to problems with using Western-based mental criteria and symptomatology for diagnosing non-Western children. It can even suggest the underestimation of the protective effects of native culture such as strong ethnic identity and cultural support systems, thereby challenging a purely deficit mental health model of the immigrant experience.

Summary

Dr. Duy Nguyen and Mr. Andrew Contreras are both children of immigrant parents from Vietnam and Mexico, respectively. Dr. Nguyen spent 15 years as an English teacher at San Leandro High School, whose student body was roughly 50% Hispanic and 25% Asian, making immigrant parents a huge swath of his educational partners. Mr. Contreras founded a high school outreach program where he interacted with K-12 children of immigrant youth. In addition, he partners with Fresno’s Economic Opportunity Commission to educate immigrant Hispanic parents and their teens on having difficult conversations with their teenage children on topics such as mental and reproductive health. Dr. Duy Nguyen and Mr. Andrew Contreras will explore the differences in immigrant parent-child relationships, compared with native ones, as they relate to mental health ramifications for the child and parent. They reveal immigrant mental health disruptions regarding culture and language, familial hierarchies, parenting styles, as well as parental mental health sequelae brought about by immigration using research and their own personal experiences.

Dr. Nguyen is a second-year resident at the University of California, San Francisco, Fresno Psychiatry Residency. He was a public high school English teacher for 15 years previously. Mr. Contreras is currently a 4th-year medical student at University of California, San Francisco, and applying to Psychiatry for the 2025 match.

References  

1. Rao A et al. Five Key Facts About Immigrants With Limited English Proficiency. KFF. 2024 March 14. https://www.kff.org/racial-equity-and-health-policy/issue-brief-five-key-facts-about-immigrants-with-limited-english-proficiency .

2. Raffaetà R. Migration and Parenting: Reviewing the Debate and Calling for Future Research. International Journal of Migration, Health and Social Care. 2016;12(1):38-50. doi: 10.1108/IJMHSC-12-2014-0052/full/html .

3. Nzinga‐Johnson S et al. Teacher‐Parent Relationships and School Involvement Among Racially and Educationally Diverse Parents of Kindergartners. Elementary School Journal. 2009 Sept. doi: 10.1086/598844 .

4. Close C et al. The Mental Health and Wellbeing of First Generation Migrants: A Systematic-Narrative Review of Reviews. Global Health. 2016 Aug 25;12(1):47. doi: 10.1186/s12992-016-0187-3.

5. Collins CH et al. Refugee, Asylum Seeker, Immigrant Women and Postnatal Depression: Rates and Risk Factors. Arch Womens Ment Health. 2011 Feb;14(1):3-11. doi: 10.1007/s00737-010-0198-7 .

6. Fazel M, Betancourt TS. Preventive Mental Health Interventions for Refugee Children and Adolescents in High-Income Settings. Lancet Child Adolesc Health. 2018 Feb;2(2):121-132. doi: 10.1016/S2352-4642(17)30147-5 .

7. Pottie K et al. Do First Generation Immigrant Adolescents Face Higher Rates of Bullying, Violence and Suicidal Behaviours Than Do Third Generation and Native Born? J Immigr Minor Health. 2015 Oct;17(5):1557-1566. doi: 10.1007/s10903-014-0108-6.

8. Smokowski PR, Bacallao ML. Acculturation and Aggression in Latino Adolescents: A Structural Model Focusing on Cultural Risk Factors and Assets. J Abnorm Child Psychol. 2006 Oct;34(5):659-673. doi: 10.1007/s10802-006-9049-4 .

9. Gadermann AM et al. Prevalence of Mental Health Disorders Among Immigrant, Refugee, and Nonimmigrant Children and Youth in British Columbia, Canada. JAMA Netw Open. 2022;5(2):e2144934. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.44934 .

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved sarilumab (Kevzara) for the treatment of polyarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis (pJIA) for patients weighing ≥ 63 kg (139 lb). 

“Polyarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) can be a painful disease for children where multiple joints are impacted by this chronic inflammation,” said George D. Yancopoulos, MD, PhD, president and chief scientific officer at Regeneron in a press release. 

It is estimated that nearly 300,000 children in the United States have JIA, and 1 in 4 of them have pJIA, according to the Arthritis Foundation. 

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/Creative Commons License

“Not only are their daily lives impacted, but their futures can be disrupted without adequate treatment,” Dr. Yancopoulos continued. “The approval of Kevzara in polyarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis provides these vulnerable patients and their families a new FDA-approved treatment option to help navigate this disease.” 

Sarilumab, jointly developed by Sanofi and Regeneron, is an interleukin 6 receptor blocker. It was first approved in 2017 for the treatment of moderate to severely active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in adults who had inadequate response or intolerance to at least one other disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD). 

In 2023, the FDA approved sarilumab as the first biologic treatment for polymyalgia rheumatica in adults who had inadequate response to corticosteroids and could not tolerate a corticosteroid taper. 

For pJIA, sarilumab is administered subcutaneously using a 200-mg/1.14-mL prefilled syringe once every 2 weeks. The medication can be used alone or in combination with other conventional DMARDs. 

“Use of KEVZARA in pediatric patients with pJIA is supported by evidence from adequate and well-controlled studies of KEVZARA in adults with RA, pharmacokinetic data from adult patients with RA,” and pharmacokinetic comparability in 101 pediatric patients aged 2-17 years treated with sarilumab, according to the prescribing information. Sarilumab is not approved for pediatric patients < 63 kg “because of a lack of an appropriate dosage form.” 

The most common reported adverse reactions for sarilumab in pJIA are nasopharyngitis, neutropenia, upper respiratory tract infection, and injection site erythema. The pJIA trial recorded no new adverse reactions or safety concerns, compared with patients with RA. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved sarilumab (Kevzara) for the treatment of polyarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis (pJIA) for patients weighing ≥ 63 kg (139 lb). 

“Polyarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) can be a painful disease for children where multiple joints are impacted by this chronic inflammation,” said George D. Yancopoulos, MD, PhD, president and chief scientific officer at Regeneron in a press release. 

It is estimated that nearly 300,000 children in the United States have JIA, and 1 in 4 of them have pJIA, according to the Arthritis Foundation. 

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/Creative Commons License

“Not only are their daily lives impacted, but their futures can be disrupted without adequate treatment,” Dr. Yancopoulos continued. “The approval of Kevzara in polyarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis provides these vulnerable patients and their families a new FDA-approved treatment option to help navigate this disease.” 

Sarilumab, jointly developed by Sanofi and Regeneron, is an interleukin 6 receptor blocker. It was first approved in 2017 for the treatment of moderate to severely active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in adults who had inadequate response or intolerance to at least one other disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD). 

In 2023, the FDA approved sarilumab as the first biologic treatment for polymyalgia rheumatica in adults who had inadequate response to corticosteroids and could not tolerate a corticosteroid taper. 

For pJIA, sarilumab is administered subcutaneously using a 200-mg/1.14-mL prefilled syringe once every 2 weeks. The medication can be used alone or in combination with other conventional DMARDs. 

“Use of KEVZARA in pediatric patients with pJIA is supported by evidence from adequate and well-controlled studies of KEVZARA in adults with RA, pharmacokinetic data from adult patients with RA,” and pharmacokinetic comparability in 101 pediatric patients aged 2-17 years treated with sarilumab, according to the prescribing information. Sarilumab is not approved for pediatric patients < 63 kg “because of a lack of an appropriate dosage form.” 

The most common reported adverse reactions for sarilumab in pJIA are nasopharyngitis, neutropenia, upper respiratory tract infection, and injection site erythema. The pJIA trial recorded no new adverse reactions or safety concerns, compared with patients with RA. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved sarilumab (Kevzara) for the treatment of polyarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis (pJIA) for patients weighing ≥ 63 kg (139 lb). 

“Polyarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) can be a painful disease for children where multiple joints are impacted by this chronic inflammation,” said George D. Yancopoulos, MD, PhD, president and chief scientific officer at Regeneron in a press release. 

It is estimated that nearly 300,000 children in the United States have JIA, and 1 in 4 of them have pJIA, according to the Arthritis Foundation. 

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/Creative Commons License

“Not only are their daily lives impacted, but their futures can be disrupted without adequate treatment,” Dr. Yancopoulos continued. “The approval of Kevzara in polyarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis provides these vulnerable patients and their families a new FDA-approved treatment option to help navigate this disease.” 

Sarilumab, jointly developed by Sanofi and Regeneron, is an interleukin 6 receptor blocker. It was first approved in 2017 for the treatment of moderate to severely active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in adults who had inadequate response or intolerance to at least one other disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD). 

In 2023, the FDA approved sarilumab as the first biologic treatment for polymyalgia rheumatica in adults who had inadequate response to corticosteroids and could not tolerate a corticosteroid taper. 

For pJIA, sarilumab is administered subcutaneously using a 200-mg/1.14-mL prefilled syringe once every 2 weeks. The medication can be used alone or in combination with other conventional DMARDs. 

“Use of KEVZARA in pediatric patients with pJIA is supported by evidence from adequate and well-controlled studies of KEVZARA in adults with RA, pharmacokinetic data from adult patients with RA,” and pharmacokinetic comparability in 101 pediatric patients aged 2-17 years treated with sarilumab, according to the prescribing information. Sarilumab is not approved for pediatric patients < 63 kg “because of a lack of an appropriate dosage form.” 

The most common reported adverse reactions for sarilumab in pJIA are nasopharyngitis, neutropenia, upper respiratory tract infection, and injection site erythema. The pJIA trial recorded no new adverse reactions or safety concerns, compared with patients with RA. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

I am going to guess that if we asked 500,000 adults in this country if they felt that children and adolescents were spending too much time on their smartphones, we would elicit almost uniform agreement that, yes indeed, smartphone use is gobbling up too much time from our young people. And, the adults would volunteer a long laundry list of all the bad consequences this overuse was generating. If you ask this same sample of adults if they too were spending too much time on their smartphones they would answer yes and, again, give you a list of the problems they feel are the result of this overuse.

We might begin to find a scattering of responses if we ask the adults when a child is too young to have his/her own cell phone. But, they would all agree that “young children” weren’t ready to be trusted with a cell phone. The “when” they were ready would be up for discussion. However, I suspect we might see a clustering around age 10 years. The reality is that despite what the majority may believe, a 2022 survey found that 42% of children have a cell phone by age 10, 71% by age 12, and 91% by age 14.

So, it would appear that, while we believe there can be significant downsides to having a cell phone, we are having great difficulty in policing ourselves and creating limits for our children. Does cell phone use qualify as an addiction, or is it just another example of how adults have lost the ability to say “no” to themselves and to their children?

When it comes to cell phones in school, the situation gets increasingly murky. The teachers I speak with are very clear that cell phones are creating problems for both the academic and the social experiences of their students. One teacher referred me to an article from the Norwegian Institute of Public Health, which found that banning cell phones in school decreased the incidence of psychological symptoms and diseases in girls. Bullying decreased in both genders and the girls’ GPA scores improved. In schools with cell phone bans, girls were more likely to choose and attend academic track programs, an effect which was more pronounced in young women with lower socioeconomic backgrounds. But, the if, when, and how to institute smartphone bans in school is complicated.

On one front, the movement toward cell phone bans in school has been given a major boost with the publication and publicity of a new book titled The Anxious Generation by social psychologist Jonathan Haidt, PhD. The New York University professor sees the GenZ’ers as experiencing a tsunami of mental health challenges including anxiety, self-harm, and suicide. And, he lays much of the blame for this situation on cell phone use.

He is optimistic about turning the tide because he claims that everywhere he speaks about the problem he says “I feel that I’m pushing on open doors.” Comparing the phenomenon to the collapse of the Berlin Wall, Dr. Haidt says “When you have a system that everyone hates, and then you have a way to escape it, it can change in a year.”

I wish I could share in his optimism, although I did just encounter a news story in the Portland paper describing a national program called “Wait Until 8th,” which is being considered by a parents’ group here in Maine.

The usual suspects have their own predictable take on the issue. The House and Senate have proposed a study on the use of cell phones in elementary and secondary schools and a pilot program awarding grants to some schools to create mobile device–free environments. Sounds like a momentum killer to me.

Not surprisingly, the issue of cell phone bans in school has taken on a bit of a political odor. The National Parents Union reports in a very small and inadequately described sample that 56% of parents are against total school bans. In the accompanying press release, the organizations offers an extensive list of concerns parents have reported — many cite the need to remain in contact with their children throughout the day. One has to wonder how often these concerns are a reflection of unresolved separation anxiety.

The American Academy of Pediatrics has rolled out a “5 Cs” framework that pediatricians can use to discuss media use with families. As usual, the thought is that talking about a problem is going to somehow convince parents to do what they already know is the correct action. And, of course, pediatricians have plenty of time to initiate this discussion of the obvious.

A recent study from the Department of Pediatrics at University of California, San Francisco, has found that parental monitoring, limit setting, and modeling good screen use behavior (my bolding) are the most effective strategies for reducing adolescent screen time. Using screen time allowances as a reward or punishment does not seem to be effective.

So there you have it. It looks like cell phone overuse, particularly in school, is something most of us see as a problem deserving an immediate solution. However, despite Dr. Haidt’s optimism about a seismic turnaround, I suspect it will more likely be guerrilla warfare — one family, one school, or one school district at a time.
 

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

I am going to guess that if we asked 500,000 adults in this country if they felt that children and adolescents were spending too much time on their smartphones, we would elicit almost uniform agreement that, yes indeed, smartphone use is gobbling up too much time from our young people. And, the adults would volunteer a long laundry list of all the bad consequences this overuse was generating. If you ask this same sample of adults if they too were spending too much time on their smartphones they would answer yes and, again, give you a list of the problems they feel are the result of this overuse.

We might begin to find a scattering of responses if we ask the adults when a child is too young to have his/her own cell phone. But, they would all agree that “young children” weren’t ready to be trusted with a cell phone. The “when” they were ready would be up for discussion. However, I suspect we might see a clustering around age 10 years. The reality is that despite what the majority may believe, a 2022 survey found that 42% of children have a cell phone by age 10, 71% by age 12, and 91% by age 14.

So, it would appear that, while we believe there can be significant downsides to having a cell phone, we are having great difficulty in policing ourselves and creating limits for our children. Does cell phone use qualify as an addiction, or is it just another example of how adults have lost the ability to say “no” to themselves and to their children?

When it comes to cell phones in school, the situation gets increasingly murky. The teachers I speak with are very clear that cell phones are creating problems for both the academic and the social experiences of their students. One teacher referred me to an article from the Norwegian Institute of Public Health, which found that banning cell phones in school decreased the incidence of psychological symptoms and diseases in girls. Bullying decreased in both genders and the girls’ GPA scores improved. In schools with cell phone bans, girls were more likely to choose and attend academic track programs, an effect which was more pronounced in young women with lower socioeconomic backgrounds. But, the if, when, and how to institute smartphone bans in school is complicated.

On one front, the movement toward cell phone bans in school has been given a major boost with the publication and publicity of a new book titled The Anxious Generation by social psychologist Jonathan Haidt, PhD. The New York University professor sees the GenZ’ers as experiencing a tsunami of mental health challenges including anxiety, self-harm, and suicide. And, he lays much of the blame for this situation on cell phone use.

He is optimistic about turning the tide because he claims that everywhere he speaks about the problem he says “I feel that I’m pushing on open doors.” Comparing the phenomenon to the collapse of the Berlin Wall, Dr. Haidt says “When you have a system that everyone hates, and then you have a way to escape it, it can change in a year.”

I wish I could share in his optimism, although I did just encounter a news story in the Portland paper describing a national program called “Wait Until 8th,” which is being considered by a parents’ group here in Maine.

The usual suspects have their own predictable take on the issue. The House and Senate have proposed a study on the use of cell phones in elementary and secondary schools and a pilot program awarding grants to some schools to create mobile device–free environments. Sounds like a momentum killer to me.

Not surprisingly, the issue of cell phone bans in school has taken on a bit of a political odor. The National Parents Union reports in a very small and inadequately described sample that 56% of parents are against total school bans. In the accompanying press release, the organizations offers an extensive list of concerns parents have reported — many cite the need to remain in contact with their children throughout the day. One has to wonder how often these concerns are a reflection of unresolved separation anxiety.

The American Academy of Pediatrics has rolled out a “5 Cs” framework that pediatricians can use to discuss media use with families. As usual, the thought is that talking about a problem is going to somehow convince parents to do what they already know is the correct action. And, of course, pediatricians have plenty of time to initiate this discussion of the obvious.

A recent study from the Department of Pediatrics at University of California, San Francisco, has found that parental monitoring, limit setting, and modeling good screen use behavior (my bolding) are the most effective strategies for reducing adolescent screen time. Using screen time allowances as a reward or punishment does not seem to be effective.

So there you have it. It looks like cell phone overuse, particularly in school, is something most of us see as a problem deserving an immediate solution. However, despite Dr. Haidt’s optimism about a seismic turnaround, I suspect it will more likely be guerrilla warfare — one family, one school, or one school district at a time.
 

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

I am going to guess that if we asked 500,000 adults in this country if they felt that children and adolescents were spending too much time on their smartphones, we would elicit almost uniform agreement that, yes indeed, smartphone use is gobbling up too much time from our young people. And, the adults would volunteer a long laundry list of all the bad consequences this overuse was generating. If you ask this same sample of adults if they too were spending too much time on their smartphones they would answer yes and, again, give you a list of the problems they feel are the result of this overuse.

We might begin to find a scattering of responses if we ask the adults when a child is too young to have his/her own cell phone. But, they would all agree that “young children” weren’t ready to be trusted with a cell phone. The “when” they were ready would be up for discussion. However, I suspect we might see a clustering around age 10 years. The reality is that despite what the majority may believe, a 2022 survey found that 42% of children have a cell phone by age 10, 71% by age 12, and 91% by age 14.

So, it would appear that, while we believe there can be significant downsides to having a cell phone, we are having great difficulty in policing ourselves and creating limits for our children. Does cell phone use qualify as an addiction, or is it just another example of how adults have lost the ability to say “no” to themselves and to their children?

When it comes to cell phones in school, the situation gets increasingly murky. The teachers I speak with are very clear that cell phones are creating problems for both the academic and the social experiences of their students. One teacher referred me to an article from the Norwegian Institute of Public Health, which found that banning cell phones in school decreased the incidence of psychological symptoms and diseases in girls. Bullying decreased in both genders and the girls’ GPA scores improved. In schools with cell phone bans, girls were more likely to choose and attend academic track programs, an effect which was more pronounced in young women with lower socioeconomic backgrounds. But, the if, when, and how to institute smartphone bans in school is complicated.

On one front, the movement toward cell phone bans in school has been given a major boost with the publication and publicity of a new book titled The Anxious Generation by social psychologist Jonathan Haidt, PhD. The New York University professor sees the GenZ’ers as experiencing a tsunami of mental health challenges including anxiety, self-harm, and suicide. And, he lays much of the blame for this situation on cell phone use.

He is optimistic about turning the tide because he claims that everywhere he speaks about the problem he says “I feel that I’m pushing on open doors.” Comparing the phenomenon to the collapse of the Berlin Wall, Dr. Haidt says “When you have a system that everyone hates, and then you have a way to escape it, it can change in a year.”

I wish I could share in his optimism, although I did just encounter a news story in the Portland paper describing a national program called “Wait Until 8th,” which is being considered by a parents’ group here in Maine.

The usual suspects have their own predictable take on the issue. The House and Senate have proposed a study on the use of cell phones in elementary and secondary schools and a pilot program awarding grants to some schools to create mobile device–free environments. Sounds like a momentum killer to me.

Not surprisingly, the issue of cell phone bans in school has taken on a bit of a political odor. The National Parents Union reports in a very small and inadequately described sample that 56% of parents are against total school bans. In the accompanying press release, the organizations offers an extensive list of concerns parents have reported — many cite the need to remain in contact with their children throughout the day. One has to wonder how often these concerns are a reflection of unresolved separation anxiety.

The American Academy of Pediatrics has rolled out a “5 Cs” framework that pediatricians can use to discuss media use with families. As usual, the thought is that talking about a problem is going to somehow convince parents to do what they already know is the correct action. And, of course, pediatricians have plenty of time to initiate this discussion of the obvious.

A recent study from the Department of Pediatrics at University of California, San Francisco, has found that parental monitoring, limit setting, and modeling good screen use behavior (my bolding) are the most effective strategies for reducing adolescent screen time. Using screen time allowances as a reward or punishment does not seem to be effective.

So there you have it. It looks like cell phone overuse, particularly in school, is something most of us see as a problem deserving an immediate solution. However, despite Dr. Haidt’s optimism about a seismic turnaround, I suspect it will more likely be guerrilla warfare — one family, one school, or one school district at a time.
 

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].

Do drugs work better if taken by the clock?

A new analysis published in The Lancet journal’s eClinicalMedicine suggests: Yes, they do — if you consider the patient’s individual body clock. The study is the first to find that timing blood pressure drugs to a person’s personal “chronotype” — that is, whether they are a night owl or an early bird — may reduce the risk for a heart attack.

The findings represent a significant advance in the field of circadian medicine or “chronotherapy” — timing drug administration to circadian rhythms. A growing stack of research suggests this approach could reduce side effects and improve the effectiveness of a wide range of therapies, including vaccines, cancer treatments, and drugs for depression, glaucoma, pain, seizures, and other conditions. Still, despite decades of research, time of day is rarely considered in writing prescriptions.

“We are really just at the beginning of an exciting new way of looking at patient care,” said Kenneth A. Dyar, PhD, whose lab at Helmholtz Zentrum München’s Institute for Diabetes and Cancer focuses on metabolic physiology. Dr. Dyar is co-lead author of the new blood pressure analysis.

“Chronotherapy is a rapidly growing field,” he said, “and I suspect we are soon going to see more and more studies focused on ‘personalized chronotherapy,’ not only in hypertension but also potentially in other clinical areas.”
 

The ‘Missing Piece’ in Chronotherapy Research

Blood pressure drugs have long been chronotherapy’s battleground. After all, blood pressure follows a circadian rhythm, peaking in the morning and dropping at night.

That healthy overnight dip can disappear in people with diabetes, kidney disease, and obstructive sleep apnea. Some physicians have suggested a bed-time dose to restore that dip. But studies have had mixed results, so “take at bedtime” has become a less common recommendation in recent years.

But the debate continued. After a large 2019 Spanish study found that bedtime doses had benefits so big that the results drew questions, an even larger, 2022 randomized, controlled trial from the University of Dundee in Dundee, Scotland — called the TIME study — aimed to settle the question.

Researchers assigned over 21,000 people to take morning or night hypertension drugs for several years and found no difference in cardiovascular outcomes.

“We did this study thinking nocturnal blood pressure tablets might be better,” said Thomas MacDonald, MD, professor emeritus of clinical pharmacology and pharmacoepidemiology at the University of Dundee and principal investigator for the TIME study and the recent chronotype analysis. “But there was no difference for heart attacks, strokes, or vascular death.”

So, the researchers then looked at participants’ chronotypes, sorting outcomes based on whether the participants were late-to-bed, late-to-rise “night owls” or early-to-bed, early-to-rise “morning larks.”

Their analysis of these 5358 TIME participants found the following results: Risk for hospitalization for a heart attack was at least 34% lower for “owls” who took their drugs at bedtime. By contrast, owls’ heart attack risk was at least 62% higher with morning doses. For “larks,” the opposite was true. Morning doses were associated with an 11% lower heart attack risk and night doses with an 11% higher risk, according to supplemental data.

The personalized approach could explain why some previous chronotherapy studies have failed to show a benefit. Those studies did not individualize drug timing as this one did. But personalization could be key to circadian medicine’s success.

“Our ‘internal personal time’ appears to be an important variable to consider when dosing antihypertensives,” said co-lead author Filippo Pigazzani, MD, PhD, clinical senior lecturer and honorary consultant cardiologist at the University of Dundee School of Medicine. “Chronotherapy research has been going on for decades. We knew there was something important with time of day. But researchers haven’t considered the internal time of individual people. I think that is the missing piece.”

The analysis has several important limitations, the researchers said. A total of 95% of participants were White. And it was an observational study, not a true randomized comparison. “We started it late in the original TIME study,” Dr. MacDonald said. “You could argue we were reporting on those who survived long enough to get into the analysis.” More research is needed, they concluded.
 

Looking Beyond Blood Pressure

What about the rest of the body? “Almost all the cells of our body contain ‘circadian clocks’ that are synchronized by daily environmental cues, including light-dark, activity-rest, and feeding-fasting cycles,” said Dr. Dyar.

An estimated 50% of prescription drugs hit targets in the body that have circadian patterns. So, experts suspect that syncing a drug with a person’s body clock might increase effectiveness of many drugs.

A handful of US Food and Drug Administration–approved drugs already have time-of-day recommendations on the label for effectiveness or to limit side effects, including bedtime or evening for the insomnia drug Ambien, the HIV antiviral Atripla, and cholesterol-lowering Zocor. Others are intended to be taken with or after your last meal of the day, such as the long-acting insulin Levemir and the cardiovascular drug Xarelto. A morning recommendation comes with the proton pump inhibitor Nexium and the attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder drug Ritalin.

Interest is expanding. About one third of the papers published about chronotherapy in the past 25 years have come out in the past 5 years. The May 2024 meeting of the Society for Research on Biological Rhythms featured a day-long session aimed at bringing clinicians up to speed. An organization called the International Association of Circadian Health Clinics is trying to bring circadian medicine findings to clinicians and their patients and to support research.

Moreover, while recent research suggests minding the clock could have benefits for a wide range of treatments, ignoring it could cause problems.

In a Massachusetts Institute of Technology study published in April in Science Advances, researchers looked at engineered livers made from human donor cells and found more than 300 genes that operate on a circadian schedule, many with roles in drug metabolism. They also found that circadian patterns affected the toxicity of acetaminophen and atorvastatin. Identifying the time of day to take these drugs could maximize effectiveness and minimize adverse effects, the researchers said.
 

Timing and the Immune System

Circadian rhythms are also seen in immune processes. In a 2023 study in The Journal of Clinical Investigation of vaccine data from 1.5 million people in Israel, researchers found that children and older adults who got their second dose of the Pfizer mRNA COVID vaccine earlier in the day were about 36% less likely to be hospitalized with SARS-CoV-2 infection than those who got an evening shot.

“The sweet spot in our data was somewhere around late morning to late afternoon,” said lead researcher Jeffrey Haspel, MD, PhD, associate professor of medicine in the division of pulmonary and critical care medicine at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis.

In a multicenter, 2024 analysis of 13 studies of immunotherapy for advanced cancers in 1663 people, researchers found treatment earlier in the day was associated with longer survival time and longer survival without cancer progression.

“Patients with selected metastatic cancers seemed to largely benefit from early [time of day] infusions, which is consistent with circadian mechanisms in immune-cell functions and trafficking,” the researchers noted. But “retrospective randomized trials are needed to establish recommendations for optimal circadian timing.”

Other research suggests or is investigating possible chronotherapy benefits for depression, glaucoma, respiratory diseases, stroke treatment, epilepsy, and sedatives used in surgery. So why aren’t healthcare providers adding time of day to more prescriptions? “What’s missing is more reliable data,” Dr. Dyar said.
 

Should You Use Chronotherapy Now?

Experts emphasize that more research is needed before doctors use chronotherapy and before medical organizations include it in treatment recommendations. But for some patients, circadian dosing may be worth a try:

Night owls whose blood pressure isn’t well controlled. Dr. Dyar and Dr. Pigazzani said night-time blood pressure drugs may be helpful for people with a “late chronotype.” Of course, patients shouldn’t change their medication schedule on their own, they said. And doctors may want to consider other concerns, like more overnight bathroom visits with evening diuretics.

In their study, the researchers determined participants’ chronotype with a few questions from the Munich Chronotype Questionnaire about what time they fell asleep and woke up on workdays and days off and whether they considered themselves “morning types” or “evening types.” (The questions can be found in supplementary data for the study.)

If a physician thinks matching the timing of a dose with chronotype would help, they can consider it, Dr. Pigazzani said. “However, I must add that this was an observational study, so I would advise healthcare practitioners to wait for our data to be confirmed in new RCTs of personalized chronotherapy of hypertension.”

Children and older adults getting vaccines. Timing COVID shots and possibly other vaccines from late morning to mid-afternoon could have a small benefit for individuals and a bigger public-health benefit, Dr. Haspel said. But the most important thing is getting vaccinated. “If you can only get one in the evening, it’s still worthwhile. Timing may add oomph at a public-health level for more vulnerable groups.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Do drugs work better if taken by the clock?

A new analysis published in The Lancet journal’s eClinicalMedicine suggests: Yes, they do — if you consider the patient’s individual body clock. The study is the first to find that timing blood pressure drugs to a person’s personal “chronotype” — that is, whether they are a night owl or an early bird — may reduce the risk for a heart attack.

The findings represent a significant advance in the field of circadian medicine or “chronotherapy” — timing drug administration to circadian rhythms. A growing stack of research suggests this approach could reduce side effects and improve the effectiveness of a wide range of therapies, including vaccines, cancer treatments, and drugs for depression, glaucoma, pain, seizures, and other conditions. Still, despite decades of research, time of day is rarely considered in writing prescriptions.

“We are really just at the beginning of an exciting new way of looking at patient care,” said Kenneth A. Dyar, PhD, whose lab at Helmholtz Zentrum München’s Institute for Diabetes and Cancer focuses on metabolic physiology. Dr. Dyar is co-lead author of the new blood pressure analysis.

“Chronotherapy is a rapidly growing field,” he said, “and I suspect we are soon going to see more and more studies focused on ‘personalized chronotherapy,’ not only in hypertension but also potentially in other clinical areas.”
 

The ‘Missing Piece’ in Chronotherapy Research

Blood pressure drugs have long been chronotherapy’s battleground. After all, blood pressure follows a circadian rhythm, peaking in the morning and dropping at night.

That healthy overnight dip can disappear in people with diabetes, kidney disease, and obstructive sleep apnea. Some physicians have suggested a bed-time dose to restore that dip. But studies have had mixed results, so “take at bedtime” has become a less common recommendation in recent years.

But the debate continued. After a large 2019 Spanish study found that bedtime doses had benefits so big that the results drew questions, an even larger, 2022 randomized, controlled trial from the University of Dundee in Dundee, Scotland — called the TIME study — aimed to settle the question.

Researchers assigned over 21,000 people to take morning or night hypertension drugs for several years and found no difference in cardiovascular outcomes.

“We did this study thinking nocturnal blood pressure tablets might be better,” said Thomas MacDonald, MD, professor emeritus of clinical pharmacology and pharmacoepidemiology at the University of Dundee and principal investigator for the TIME study and the recent chronotype analysis. “But there was no difference for heart attacks, strokes, or vascular death.”

So, the researchers then looked at participants’ chronotypes, sorting outcomes based on whether the participants were late-to-bed, late-to-rise “night owls” or early-to-bed, early-to-rise “morning larks.”

Their analysis of these 5358 TIME participants found the following results: Risk for hospitalization for a heart attack was at least 34% lower for “owls” who took their drugs at bedtime. By contrast, owls’ heart attack risk was at least 62% higher with morning doses. For “larks,” the opposite was true. Morning doses were associated with an 11% lower heart attack risk and night doses with an 11% higher risk, according to supplemental data.

The personalized approach could explain why some previous chronotherapy studies have failed to show a benefit. Those studies did not individualize drug timing as this one did. But personalization could be key to circadian medicine’s success.

“Our ‘internal personal time’ appears to be an important variable to consider when dosing antihypertensives,” said co-lead author Filippo Pigazzani, MD, PhD, clinical senior lecturer and honorary consultant cardiologist at the University of Dundee School of Medicine. “Chronotherapy research has been going on for decades. We knew there was something important with time of day. But researchers haven’t considered the internal time of individual people. I think that is the missing piece.”

The analysis has several important limitations, the researchers said. A total of 95% of participants were White. And it was an observational study, not a true randomized comparison. “We started it late in the original TIME study,” Dr. MacDonald said. “You could argue we were reporting on those who survived long enough to get into the analysis.” More research is needed, they concluded.
 

Looking Beyond Blood Pressure

What about the rest of the body? “Almost all the cells of our body contain ‘circadian clocks’ that are synchronized by daily environmental cues, including light-dark, activity-rest, and feeding-fasting cycles,” said Dr. Dyar.

An estimated 50% of prescription drugs hit targets in the body that have circadian patterns. So, experts suspect that syncing a drug with a person’s body clock might increase effectiveness of many drugs.

A handful of US Food and Drug Administration–approved drugs already have time-of-day recommendations on the label for effectiveness or to limit side effects, including bedtime or evening for the insomnia drug Ambien, the HIV antiviral Atripla, and cholesterol-lowering Zocor. Others are intended to be taken with or after your last meal of the day, such as the long-acting insulin Levemir and the cardiovascular drug Xarelto. A morning recommendation comes with the proton pump inhibitor Nexium and the attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder drug Ritalin.

Interest is expanding. About one third of the papers published about chronotherapy in the past 25 years have come out in the past 5 years. The May 2024 meeting of the Society for Research on Biological Rhythms featured a day-long session aimed at bringing clinicians up to speed. An organization called the International Association of Circadian Health Clinics is trying to bring circadian medicine findings to clinicians and their patients and to support research.

Moreover, while recent research suggests minding the clock could have benefits for a wide range of treatments, ignoring it could cause problems.

In a Massachusetts Institute of Technology study published in April in Science Advances, researchers looked at engineered livers made from human donor cells and found more than 300 genes that operate on a circadian schedule, many with roles in drug metabolism. They also found that circadian patterns affected the toxicity of acetaminophen and atorvastatin. Identifying the time of day to take these drugs could maximize effectiveness and minimize adverse effects, the researchers said.
 

Timing and the Immune System

Circadian rhythms are also seen in immune processes. In a 2023 study in The Journal of Clinical Investigation of vaccine data from 1.5 million people in Israel, researchers found that children and older adults who got their second dose of the Pfizer mRNA COVID vaccine earlier in the day were about 36% less likely to be hospitalized with SARS-CoV-2 infection than those who got an evening shot.

“The sweet spot in our data was somewhere around late morning to late afternoon,” said lead researcher Jeffrey Haspel, MD, PhD, associate professor of medicine in the division of pulmonary and critical care medicine at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis.

In a multicenter, 2024 analysis of 13 studies of immunotherapy for advanced cancers in 1663 people, researchers found treatment earlier in the day was associated with longer survival time and longer survival without cancer progression.

“Patients with selected metastatic cancers seemed to largely benefit from early [time of day] infusions, which is consistent with circadian mechanisms in immune-cell functions and trafficking,” the researchers noted. But “retrospective randomized trials are needed to establish recommendations for optimal circadian timing.”

Other research suggests or is investigating possible chronotherapy benefits for depression, glaucoma, respiratory diseases, stroke treatment, epilepsy, and sedatives used in surgery. So why aren’t healthcare providers adding time of day to more prescriptions? “What’s missing is more reliable data,” Dr. Dyar said.
 

Should You Use Chronotherapy Now?

Experts emphasize that more research is needed before doctors use chronotherapy and before medical organizations include it in treatment recommendations. But for some patients, circadian dosing may be worth a try:

Night owls whose blood pressure isn’t well controlled. Dr. Dyar and Dr. Pigazzani said night-time blood pressure drugs may be helpful for people with a “late chronotype.” Of course, patients shouldn’t change their medication schedule on their own, they said. And doctors may want to consider other concerns, like more overnight bathroom visits with evening diuretics.

In their study, the researchers determined participants’ chronotype with a few questions from the Munich Chronotype Questionnaire about what time they fell asleep and woke up on workdays and days off and whether they considered themselves “morning types” or “evening types.” (The questions can be found in supplementary data for the study.)

If a physician thinks matching the timing of a dose with chronotype would help, they can consider it, Dr. Pigazzani said. “However, I must add that this was an observational study, so I would advise healthcare practitioners to wait for our data to be confirmed in new RCTs of personalized chronotherapy of hypertension.”

Children and older adults getting vaccines. Timing COVID shots and possibly other vaccines from late morning to mid-afternoon could have a small benefit for individuals and a bigger public-health benefit, Dr. Haspel said. But the most important thing is getting vaccinated. “If you can only get one in the evening, it’s still worthwhile. Timing may add oomph at a public-health level for more vulnerable groups.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Do drugs work better if taken by the clock?

A new analysis published in The Lancet journal’s eClinicalMedicine suggests: Yes, they do — if you consider the patient’s individual body clock. The study is the first to find that timing blood pressure drugs to a person’s personal “chronotype” — that is, whether they are a night owl or an early bird — may reduce the risk for a heart attack.

The findings represent a significant advance in the field of circadian medicine or “chronotherapy” — timing drug administration to circadian rhythms. A growing stack of research suggests this approach could reduce side effects and improve the effectiveness of a wide range of therapies, including vaccines, cancer treatments, and drugs for depression, glaucoma, pain, seizures, and other conditions. Still, despite decades of research, time of day is rarely considered in writing prescriptions.

“We are really just at the beginning of an exciting new way of looking at patient care,” said Kenneth A. Dyar, PhD, whose lab at Helmholtz Zentrum München’s Institute for Diabetes and Cancer focuses on metabolic physiology. Dr. Dyar is co-lead author of the new blood pressure analysis.

“Chronotherapy is a rapidly growing field,” he said, “and I suspect we are soon going to see more and more studies focused on ‘personalized chronotherapy,’ not only in hypertension but also potentially in other clinical areas.”
 

The ‘Missing Piece’ in Chronotherapy Research

Blood pressure drugs have long been chronotherapy’s battleground. After all, blood pressure follows a circadian rhythm, peaking in the morning and dropping at night.

That healthy overnight dip can disappear in people with diabetes, kidney disease, and obstructive sleep apnea. Some physicians have suggested a bed-time dose to restore that dip. But studies have had mixed results, so “take at bedtime” has become a less common recommendation in recent years.

But the debate continued. After a large 2019 Spanish study found that bedtime doses had benefits so big that the results drew questions, an even larger, 2022 randomized, controlled trial from the University of Dundee in Dundee, Scotland — called the TIME study — aimed to settle the question.

Researchers assigned over 21,000 people to take morning or night hypertension drugs for several years and found no difference in cardiovascular outcomes.

“We did this study thinking nocturnal blood pressure tablets might be better,” said Thomas MacDonald, MD, professor emeritus of clinical pharmacology and pharmacoepidemiology at the University of Dundee and principal investigator for the TIME study and the recent chronotype analysis. “But there was no difference for heart attacks, strokes, or vascular death.”

So, the researchers then looked at participants’ chronotypes, sorting outcomes based on whether the participants were late-to-bed, late-to-rise “night owls” or early-to-bed, early-to-rise “morning larks.”

Their analysis of these 5358 TIME participants found the following results: Risk for hospitalization for a heart attack was at least 34% lower for “owls” who took their drugs at bedtime. By contrast, owls’ heart attack risk was at least 62% higher with morning doses. For “larks,” the opposite was true. Morning doses were associated with an 11% lower heart attack risk and night doses with an 11% higher risk, according to supplemental data.

The personalized approach could explain why some previous chronotherapy studies have failed to show a benefit. Those studies did not individualize drug timing as this one did. But personalization could be key to circadian medicine’s success.

“Our ‘internal personal time’ appears to be an important variable to consider when dosing antihypertensives,” said co-lead author Filippo Pigazzani, MD, PhD, clinical senior lecturer and honorary consultant cardiologist at the University of Dundee School of Medicine. “Chronotherapy research has been going on for decades. We knew there was something important with time of day. But researchers haven’t considered the internal time of individual people. I think that is the missing piece.”

The analysis has several important limitations, the researchers said. A total of 95% of participants were White. And it was an observational study, not a true randomized comparison. “We started it late in the original TIME study,” Dr. MacDonald said. “You could argue we were reporting on those who survived long enough to get into the analysis.” More research is needed, they concluded.
 

Looking Beyond Blood Pressure

What about the rest of the body? “Almost all the cells of our body contain ‘circadian clocks’ that are synchronized by daily environmental cues, including light-dark, activity-rest, and feeding-fasting cycles,” said Dr. Dyar.

An estimated 50% of prescription drugs hit targets in the body that have circadian patterns. So, experts suspect that syncing a drug with a person’s body clock might increase effectiveness of many drugs.

A handful of US Food and Drug Administration–approved drugs already have time-of-day recommendations on the label for effectiveness or to limit side effects, including bedtime or evening for the insomnia drug Ambien, the HIV antiviral Atripla, and cholesterol-lowering Zocor. Others are intended to be taken with or after your last meal of the day, such as the long-acting insulin Levemir and the cardiovascular drug Xarelto. A morning recommendation comes with the proton pump inhibitor Nexium and the attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder drug Ritalin.

Interest is expanding. About one third of the papers published about chronotherapy in the past 25 years have come out in the past 5 years. The May 2024 meeting of the Society for Research on Biological Rhythms featured a day-long session aimed at bringing clinicians up to speed. An organization called the International Association of Circadian Health Clinics is trying to bring circadian medicine findings to clinicians and their patients and to support research.

Moreover, while recent research suggests minding the clock could have benefits for a wide range of treatments, ignoring it could cause problems.

In a Massachusetts Institute of Technology study published in April in Science Advances, researchers looked at engineered livers made from human donor cells and found more than 300 genes that operate on a circadian schedule, many with roles in drug metabolism. They also found that circadian patterns affected the toxicity of acetaminophen and atorvastatin. Identifying the time of day to take these drugs could maximize effectiveness and minimize adverse effects, the researchers said.
 

Timing and the Immune System

Circadian rhythms are also seen in immune processes. In a 2023 study in The Journal of Clinical Investigation of vaccine data from 1.5 million people in Israel, researchers found that children and older adults who got their second dose of the Pfizer mRNA COVID vaccine earlier in the day were about 36% less likely to be hospitalized with SARS-CoV-2 infection than those who got an evening shot.

“The sweet spot in our data was somewhere around late morning to late afternoon,” said lead researcher Jeffrey Haspel, MD, PhD, associate professor of medicine in the division of pulmonary and critical care medicine at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis.

In a multicenter, 2024 analysis of 13 studies of immunotherapy for advanced cancers in 1663 people, researchers found treatment earlier in the day was associated with longer survival time and longer survival without cancer progression.

“Patients with selected metastatic cancers seemed to largely benefit from early [time of day] infusions, which is consistent with circadian mechanisms in immune-cell functions and trafficking,” the researchers noted. But “retrospective randomized trials are needed to establish recommendations for optimal circadian timing.”

Other research suggests or is investigating possible chronotherapy benefits for depression, glaucoma, respiratory diseases, stroke treatment, epilepsy, and sedatives used in surgery. So why aren’t healthcare providers adding time of day to more prescriptions? “What’s missing is more reliable data,” Dr. Dyar said.
 

Should You Use Chronotherapy Now?

Experts emphasize that more research is needed before doctors use chronotherapy and before medical organizations include it in treatment recommendations. But for some patients, circadian dosing may be worth a try:

Night owls whose blood pressure isn’t well controlled. Dr. Dyar and Dr. Pigazzani said night-time blood pressure drugs may be helpful for people with a “late chronotype.” Of course, patients shouldn’t change their medication schedule on their own, they said. And doctors may want to consider other concerns, like more overnight bathroom visits with evening diuretics.

In their study, the researchers determined participants’ chronotype with a few questions from the Munich Chronotype Questionnaire about what time they fell asleep and woke up on workdays and days off and whether they considered themselves “morning types” or “evening types.” (The questions can be found in supplementary data for the study.)

If a physician thinks matching the timing of a dose with chronotype would help, they can consider it, Dr. Pigazzani said. “However, I must add that this was an observational study, so I would advise healthcare practitioners to wait for our data to be confirmed in new RCTs of personalized chronotherapy of hypertension.”

Children and older adults getting vaccines. Timing COVID shots and possibly other vaccines from late morning to mid-afternoon could have a small benefit for individuals and a bigger public-health benefit, Dr. Haspel said. But the most important thing is getting vaccinated. “If you can only get one in the evening, it’s still worthwhile. Timing may add oomph at a public-health level for more vulnerable groups.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

When doctors and patients consider the appendix, it’s often with urgency. In cases of appendicitis, the clock could be ticking down to a life-threatening burst. Thus, despite recent research suggesting antibiotics could be an alternative therapy, appendectomy remains standard for uncomplicated appendicitis.

But what if removing the appendix could raise the risk for gastrointestinal (GI) diseases like irritable bowel syndrome and colorectal cancer? That’s what some emerging science suggests. And though the research is early and mixed, it’s enough to give some health professionals pause.

“If there’s no reason to remove the appendix, then it’s better to have one,” said Heather Smith, PhD, a comparative anatomist at Midwestern University, Glendale, Arizona. Preemptive removal is not supported by the evidence, she said.

To be fair, we’ve come a long way since 1928, when American physician Miles Breuer, MD, suggested that people with infected appendixes should be left to perish, so as to remove their inferior DNA from the gene pool (he called such people “uncivilized” and “candidates for extinction”). Charles Darwin, while less radical, believed the appendix was at best useless — a mere vestige of our ancestors switching diets from leaves to fruits.

What we know now is that the appendix isn’t just a troublesome piece of worthless flesh. Instead, it may act as a safe house for friendly gut bacteria and a training camp for the immune system. It also appears to play a role in several medical conditions, from ulcerative colitis and colorectal cancer to Parkinson’s disease and lupus. The roughly 300,000 Americans who undergo appendectomy each year should be made aware of this, some experts say. But the frustrating truth is, scientists are still trying to figure out in which cases having an appendix is protective and in which we may be better off without it.
 

A ‘Worm’ as Intestinal Protection

The appendix is a blind pouch (meaning its ending is closed off) that extends from the large intestine. Not all mammals have one; it’s been found in several species of primates and rodents, as well as in rabbits, wombats, and Florida manatees, among others (dogs and cats don’t have it). While a human appendix “looks like a little worm,” Dr. Smith said, these anatomical structures come in various sizes and shapes. Some are thick, as in a beaver, while others are long and spiraling, like a rabbit’s.

Comparative anatomy studies reveal that the appendix has evolved independently at least 29 times throughout mammalian evolution. This suggests that “it has some kind of an adaptive function,” Dr. Smith said. When French scientists analyzed data from 258 species of mammals, they discovered that those that possess an appendix live longer than those without one. A possible explanation, the researchers wrote, may lie with the appendix’s role in preventing diarrhea.

Their 2023 study supported this hypothesis. Based on veterinary records of 45 different species of primates housed in a French zoo, the scientists established that primates with appendixes are far less likely to suffer severe diarrhea than those that don’t possess this organ. The appendix, it appears, might be our tiny weapon against bowel troubles.

For immunologist William Parker, PhD, a visiting scholar at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, these data are “about as good as we could hope for” in support of the idea that the appendix might protect mammals from GI problems. An experiment on humans would be unethical, Dr. Parker said. But observational studies offer clues.

One study showed that compared with people with an intact appendix, young adults with a history of appendectomy have more than double the risk of developing a serious infection with non-typhoidal Salmonella of the kind that would require hospitalization.
 

A ‘Safe House’ for Bacteria

Such studies add weight to a theory that Dr. Parker and his colleagues developed back in 2007: That the appendix acts as a “safe house” for beneficial gut bacteria.

Think of the colon as a wide pipe, Dr. Parker said, that may become contaminated with a pathogen such as Salmonella. Diarrhea follows, and the pipe gets repeatedly flushed, wiping everything clean, including your friendly gut microbiome. Luckily, “you’ve got this little offshoot of that pipe,” where the flow can’t really get in “because it’s so constricted,” Dr. Parker said. The friendly gut microbes can survive inside the appendix and repopulate the colon once diarrhea is over. Dr. Parker and his colleagues found that the human appendix contains a thick layer of beneficial bacteria. “They were right where we predicted they would be,” he said.

This safe house hypothesis could explain why the gut microbiome may be different in people who no longer have an appendix. In one small study, people who’d had an appendectomy had a less diverse microbiome, with a lower abundance of beneficial strains such as Butyricicoccus and Barnesiella, than did those with intact appendixes.

The appendix likely has a second function, too, Dr. Smith said: It may serve as a training camp for the immune system. “When there is an invading pathogen in the gut, it helps the GI system to mount the immune response,” she said. The human appendix is rich in special cells known as M cells. These act as scouts, detecting and capturing invasive bacteria and viruses and presenting them to the body’s defense team, such as the T lymphocytes.

If the appendix shelters beneficial bacteria and boosts immune response, that may explain its links to various diseases. According to an epidemiological study from Taiwan,patients who underwent an appendectomy have a 46% higher risk of developing irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) — a disease associated with a low abundance of Butyricicoccus bacteria. This is why, the study authors wrote, doctors should pay careful attention to people who’ve had their appendixes removed, monitoring them for potential symptoms of IBS.

The same database helped uncover other connections between appendectomy and disease. For one, there was type 2 diabetes: Within 3 years of the surgery, patients under 30 had double the risk of developing this disorder. Then there was lupus: While those who underwent appendectomy generally had higher risk for this autoimmune disease, women were particularly affected.
 

The Contentious Connections

The most heated scientific discussion surrounds the links between the appendix and conditions such as Parkinson’s disease, ulcerative colitis, and colorectal cancer. A small 2019 study showed, for example, that appendectomy may improve symptoms of certain forms of ulcerative colitis that don’t respond to standard medical treatments. A third of patients improved after their appendix was removed, and 17% fully recovered.

Why? According to Dr. Parker, appendectomy may work for ulcerative colitis because it’s “a way of suppressing the immune system, especially in the lower intestinal areas.” A 2023 meta-analysis found that people who’d had their appendix removed before being diagnosed with ulcerative colitis were less likely to need their colon removed later on.

Such a procedure may have a serious side effect, however: Colorectal cancer. French scientists discovered that removing the appendix may reduce the numbers of certain immune cells called CD3+ and CD8+ T cells, causing a weakened immune surveillance. As a result, tumor cells might escape detection.

Yet the links between appendix removal and cancer are far from clear. A recent meta-analysis found that while people with appendectomies generally had a higher risk for colorectal cancer, for Europeans, these effects were insignificant. In fact, removal of the appendix actually protected European women from this particular form of cancer. For Parker, such mixed results may stem from the fact that treatments and populations vary widely. The issue “may depend on complex social and medical factors,” Dr. Parker said.

Things also appear complicated with Parkinson’s disease — another condition linked to the appendix. A large epidemiological study showed that appendectomy is associated with a lower risk for Parkinson’s disease and a delayed age of Parkinson’s onset. It also found that a normal appendix contains α-synuclein, a protein that may accumulate in the brain and contribute to the development of Parkinson’s. “Although α-synuclein is toxic when in the brain, it appears to be quite normal when present in the appendix,” said Luis Vitetta, PhD, MD, a clinical epidemiologist at the University of Sydney, Camperdown, Australia. Yet, not all studies find that removing the appendix lowers the risk for Parkinson’s. In fact, some show the opposite results.
 

How Should Doctors View the Appendix?

Even with these mysteries and contradictions, Dr. Vitetta said, a healthy appendix in a healthy body appears to be protective. This is why, he said, when someone is diagnosed with appendicitis, careful assessment is essential before surgery is performed.

“Perhaps an antibiotic can actually help fix it,” he said. A 2020 study published in The New England Journal of Medicine showed that antibiotics may indeed be a good alternative to surgery for the treatment of appendicitis. “We don’t want necessarily to remove an appendix that could be beneficial,” Dr. Smith said.

The many links between the appendix and various diseases mean that doctors should be more vigilant when treating patients who’ve had this organ removed, Dr. Parker said. “When a patient loses an appendix, depending on their environment, there may be effects on infection and cancer. So they might need more regular checkups,” he said. This could include monitoring for IBS and colorectal cancer.

What’s more, Dr. Parker believes that research on the appendix puts even more emphasis on the need to protect the gut microbiome — such as taking probiotics with antibiotics. And while we are still a long way from understanding how exactly this worm-like structure affects various diseases, one thing appears quite certain: The appendix is not useless. “If Darwin had the information that we have, he would not have drawn these conclusions,” Dr. Parker said.
 

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

When doctors and patients consider the appendix, it’s often with urgency. In cases of appendicitis, the clock could be ticking down to a life-threatening burst. Thus, despite recent research suggesting antibiotics could be an alternative therapy, appendectomy remains standard for uncomplicated appendicitis.

But what if removing the appendix could raise the risk for gastrointestinal (GI) diseases like irritable bowel syndrome and colorectal cancer? That’s what some emerging science suggests. And though the research is early and mixed, it’s enough to give some health professionals pause.

“If there’s no reason to remove the appendix, then it’s better to have one,” said Heather Smith, PhD, a comparative anatomist at Midwestern University, Glendale, Arizona. Preemptive removal is not supported by the evidence, she said.

To be fair, we’ve come a long way since 1928, when American physician Miles Breuer, MD, suggested that people with infected appendixes should be left to perish, so as to remove their inferior DNA from the gene pool (he called such people “uncivilized” and “candidates for extinction”). Charles Darwin, while less radical, believed the appendix was at best useless — a mere vestige of our ancestors switching diets from leaves to fruits.

What we know now is that the appendix isn’t just a troublesome piece of worthless flesh. Instead, it may act as a safe house for friendly gut bacteria and a training camp for the immune system. It also appears to play a role in several medical conditions, from ulcerative colitis and colorectal cancer to Parkinson’s disease and lupus. The roughly 300,000 Americans who undergo appendectomy each year should be made aware of this, some experts say. But the frustrating truth is, scientists are still trying to figure out in which cases having an appendix is protective and in which we may be better off without it.
 

A ‘Worm’ as Intestinal Protection

The appendix is a blind pouch (meaning its ending is closed off) that extends from the large intestine. Not all mammals have one; it’s been found in several species of primates and rodents, as well as in rabbits, wombats, and Florida manatees, among others (dogs and cats don’t have it). While a human appendix “looks like a little worm,” Dr. Smith said, these anatomical structures come in various sizes and shapes. Some are thick, as in a beaver, while others are long and spiraling, like a rabbit’s.

Comparative anatomy studies reveal that the appendix has evolved independently at least 29 times throughout mammalian evolution. This suggests that “it has some kind of an adaptive function,” Dr. Smith said. When French scientists analyzed data from 258 species of mammals, they discovered that those that possess an appendix live longer than those without one. A possible explanation, the researchers wrote, may lie with the appendix’s role in preventing diarrhea.

Their 2023 study supported this hypothesis. Based on veterinary records of 45 different species of primates housed in a French zoo, the scientists established that primates with appendixes are far less likely to suffer severe diarrhea than those that don’t possess this organ. The appendix, it appears, might be our tiny weapon against bowel troubles.

For immunologist William Parker, PhD, a visiting scholar at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, these data are “about as good as we could hope for” in support of the idea that the appendix might protect mammals from GI problems. An experiment on humans would be unethical, Dr. Parker said. But observational studies offer clues.

One study showed that compared with people with an intact appendix, young adults with a history of appendectomy have more than double the risk of developing a serious infection with non-typhoidal Salmonella of the kind that would require hospitalization.
 

A ‘Safe House’ for Bacteria

Such studies add weight to a theory that Dr. Parker and his colleagues developed back in 2007: That the appendix acts as a “safe house” for beneficial gut bacteria.

Think of the colon as a wide pipe, Dr. Parker said, that may become contaminated with a pathogen such as Salmonella. Diarrhea follows, and the pipe gets repeatedly flushed, wiping everything clean, including your friendly gut microbiome. Luckily, “you’ve got this little offshoot of that pipe,” where the flow can’t really get in “because it’s so constricted,” Dr. Parker said. The friendly gut microbes can survive inside the appendix and repopulate the colon once diarrhea is over. Dr. Parker and his colleagues found that the human appendix contains a thick layer of beneficial bacteria. “They were right where we predicted they would be,” he said.

This safe house hypothesis could explain why the gut microbiome may be different in people who no longer have an appendix. In one small study, people who’d had an appendectomy had a less diverse microbiome, with a lower abundance of beneficial strains such as Butyricicoccus and Barnesiella, than did those with intact appendixes.

The appendix likely has a second function, too, Dr. Smith said: It may serve as a training camp for the immune system. “When there is an invading pathogen in the gut, it helps the GI system to mount the immune response,” she said. The human appendix is rich in special cells known as M cells. These act as scouts, detecting and capturing invasive bacteria and viruses and presenting them to the body’s defense team, such as the T lymphocytes.

If the appendix shelters beneficial bacteria and boosts immune response, that may explain its links to various diseases. According to an epidemiological study from Taiwan,patients who underwent an appendectomy have a 46% higher risk of developing irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) — a disease associated with a low abundance of Butyricicoccus bacteria. This is why, the study authors wrote, doctors should pay careful attention to people who’ve had their appendixes removed, monitoring them for potential symptoms of IBS.

The same database helped uncover other connections between appendectomy and disease. For one, there was type 2 diabetes: Within 3 years of the surgery, patients under 30 had double the risk of developing this disorder. Then there was lupus: While those who underwent appendectomy generally had higher risk for this autoimmune disease, women were particularly affected.
 

The Contentious Connections

The most heated scientific discussion surrounds the links between the appendix and conditions such as Parkinson’s disease, ulcerative colitis, and colorectal cancer. A small 2019 study showed, for example, that appendectomy may improve symptoms of certain forms of ulcerative colitis that don’t respond to standard medical treatments. A third of patients improved after their appendix was removed, and 17% fully recovered.

Why? According to Dr. Parker, appendectomy may work for ulcerative colitis because it’s “a way of suppressing the immune system, especially in the lower intestinal areas.” A 2023 meta-analysis found that people who’d had their appendix removed before being diagnosed with ulcerative colitis were less likely to need their colon removed later on.

Such a procedure may have a serious side effect, however: Colorectal cancer. French scientists discovered that removing the appendix may reduce the numbers of certain immune cells called CD3+ and CD8+ T cells, causing a weakened immune surveillance. As a result, tumor cells might escape detection.

Yet the links between appendix removal and cancer are far from clear. A recent meta-analysis found that while people with appendectomies generally had a higher risk for colorectal cancer, for Europeans, these effects were insignificant. In fact, removal of the appendix actually protected European women from this particular form of cancer. For Parker, such mixed results may stem from the fact that treatments and populations vary widely. The issue “may depend on complex social and medical factors,” Dr. Parker said.

Things also appear complicated with Parkinson’s disease — another condition linked to the appendix. A large epidemiological study showed that appendectomy is associated with a lower risk for Parkinson’s disease and a delayed age of Parkinson’s onset. It also found that a normal appendix contains α-synuclein, a protein that may accumulate in the brain and contribute to the development of Parkinson’s. “Although α-synuclein is toxic when in the brain, it appears to be quite normal when present in the appendix,” said Luis Vitetta, PhD, MD, a clinical epidemiologist at the University of Sydney, Camperdown, Australia. Yet, not all studies find that removing the appendix lowers the risk for Parkinson’s. In fact, some show the opposite results.
 

How Should Doctors View the Appendix?

Even with these mysteries and contradictions, Dr. Vitetta said, a healthy appendix in a healthy body appears to be protective. This is why, he said, when someone is diagnosed with appendicitis, careful assessment is essential before surgery is performed.

“Perhaps an antibiotic can actually help fix it,” he said. A 2020 study published in The New England Journal of Medicine showed that antibiotics may indeed be a good alternative to surgery for the treatment of appendicitis. “We don’t want necessarily to remove an appendix that could be beneficial,” Dr. Smith said.

The many links between the appendix and various diseases mean that doctors should be more vigilant when treating patients who’ve had this organ removed, Dr. Parker said. “When a patient loses an appendix, depending on their environment, there may be effects on infection and cancer. So they might need more regular checkups,” he said. This could include monitoring for IBS and colorectal cancer.

What’s more, Dr. Parker believes that research on the appendix puts even more emphasis on the need to protect the gut microbiome — such as taking probiotics with antibiotics. And while we are still a long way from understanding how exactly this worm-like structure affects various diseases, one thing appears quite certain: The appendix is not useless. “If Darwin had the information that we have, he would not have drawn these conclusions,” Dr. Parker said.
 

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

When doctors and patients consider the appendix, it’s often with urgency. In cases of appendicitis, the clock could be ticking down to a life-threatening burst. Thus, despite recent research suggesting antibiotics could be an alternative therapy, appendectomy remains standard for uncomplicated appendicitis.

But what if removing the appendix could raise the risk for gastrointestinal (GI) diseases like irritable bowel syndrome and colorectal cancer? That’s what some emerging science suggests. And though the research is early and mixed, it’s enough to give some health professionals pause.

“If there’s no reason to remove the appendix, then it’s better to have one,” said Heather Smith, PhD, a comparative anatomist at Midwestern University, Glendale, Arizona. Preemptive removal is not supported by the evidence, she said.

To be fair, we’ve come a long way since 1928, when American physician Miles Breuer, MD, suggested that people with infected appendixes should be left to perish, so as to remove their inferior DNA from the gene pool (he called such people “uncivilized” and “candidates for extinction”). Charles Darwin, while less radical, believed the appendix was at best useless — a mere vestige of our ancestors switching diets from leaves to fruits.

What we know now is that the appendix isn’t just a troublesome piece of worthless flesh. Instead, it may act as a safe house for friendly gut bacteria and a training camp for the immune system. It also appears to play a role in several medical conditions, from ulcerative colitis and colorectal cancer to Parkinson’s disease and lupus. The roughly 300,000 Americans who undergo appendectomy each year should be made aware of this, some experts say. But the frustrating truth is, scientists are still trying to figure out in which cases having an appendix is protective and in which we may be better off without it.
 

A ‘Worm’ as Intestinal Protection

The appendix is a blind pouch (meaning its ending is closed off) that extends from the large intestine. Not all mammals have one; it’s been found in several species of primates and rodents, as well as in rabbits, wombats, and Florida manatees, among others (dogs and cats don’t have it). While a human appendix “looks like a little worm,” Dr. Smith said, these anatomical structures come in various sizes and shapes. Some are thick, as in a beaver, while others are long and spiraling, like a rabbit’s.

Comparative anatomy studies reveal that the appendix has evolved independently at least 29 times throughout mammalian evolution. This suggests that “it has some kind of an adaptive function,” Dr. Smith said. When French scientists analyzed data from 258 species of mammals, they discovered that those that possess an appendix live longer than those without one. A possible explanation, the researchers wrote, may lie with the appendix’s role in preventing diarrhea.

Their 2023 study supported this hypothesis. Based on veterinary records of 45 different species of primates housed in a French zoo, the scientists established that primates with appendixes are far less likely to suffer severe diarrhea than those that don’t possess this organ. The appendix, it appears, might be our tiny weapon against bowel troubles.

For immunologist William Parker, PhD, a visiting scholar at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, these data are “about as good as we could hope for” in support of the idea that the appendix might protect mammals from GI problems. An experiment on humans would be unethical, Dr. Parker said. But observational studies offer clues.

One study showed that compared with people with an intact appendix, young adults with a history of appendectomy have more than double the risk of developing a serious infection with non-typhoidal Salmonella of the kind that would require hospitalization.
 

A ‘Safe House’ for Bacteria

Such studies add weight to a theory that Dr. Parker and his colleagues developed back in 2007: That the appendix acts as a “safe house” for beneficial gut bacteria.

Think of the colon as a wide pipe, Dr. Parker said, that may become contaminated with a pathogen such as Salmonella. Diarrhea follows, and the pipe gets repeatedly flushed, wiping everything clean, including your friendly gut microbiome. Luckily, “you’ve got this little offshoot of that pipe,” where the flow can’t really get in “because it’s so constricted,” Dr. Parker said. The friendly gut microbes can survive inside the appendix and repopulate the colon once diarrhea is over. Dr. Parker and his colleagues found that the human appendix contains a thick layer of beneficial bacteria. “They were right where we predicted they would be,” he said.

This safe house hypothesis could explain why the gut microbiome may be different in people who no longer have an appendix. In one small study, people who’d had an appendectomy had a less diverse microbiome, with a lower abundance of beneficial strains such as Butyricicoccus and Barnesiella, than did those with intact appendixes.

The appendix likely has a second function, too, Dr. Smith said: It may serve as a training camp for the immune system. “When there is an invading pathogen in the gut, it helps the GI system to mount the immune response,” she said. The human appendix is rich in special cells known as M cells. These act as scouts, detecting and capturing invasive bacteria and viruses and presenting them to the body’s defense team, such as the T lymphocytes.

If the appendix shelters beneficial bacteria and boosts immune response, that may explain its links to various diseases. According to an epidemiological study from Taiwan,patients who underwent an appendectomy have a 46% higher risk of developing irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) — a disease associated with a low abundance of Butyricicoccus bacteria. This is why, the study authors wrote, doctors should pay careful attention to people who’ve had their appendixes removed, monitoring them for potential symptoms of IBS.

The same database helped uncover other connections between appendectomy and disease. For one, there was type 2 diabetes: Within 3 years of the surgery, patients under 30 had double the risk of developing this disorder. Then there was lupus: While those who underwent appendectomy generally had higher risk for this autoimmune disease, women were particularly affected.
 

The Contentious Connections

The most heated scientific discussion surrounds the links between the appendix and conditions such as Parkinson’s disease, ulcerative colitis, and colorectal cancer. A small 2019 study showed, for example, that appendectomy may improve symptoms of certain forms of ulcerative colitis that don’t respond to standard medical treatments. A third of patients improved after their appendix was removed, and 17% fully recovered.

Why? According to Dr. Parker, appendectomy may work for ulcerative colitis because it’s “a way of suppressing the immune system, especially in the lower intestinal areas.” A 2023 meta-analysis found that people who’d had their appendix removed before being diagnosed with ulcerative colitis were less likely to need their colon removed later on.

Such a procedure may have a serious side effect, however: Colorectal cancer. French scientists discovered that removing the appendix may reduce the numbers of certain immune cells called CD3+ and CD8+ T cells, causing a weakened immune surveillance. As a result, tumor cells might escape detection.

Yet the links between appendix removal and cancer are far from clear. A recent meta-analysis found that while people with appendectomies generally had a higher risk for colorectal cancer, for Europeans, these effects were insignificant. In fact, removal of the appendix actually protected European women from this particular form of cancer. For Parker, such mixed results may stem from the fact that treatments and populations vary widely. The issue “may depend on complex social and medical factors,” Dr. Parker said.

Things also appear complicated with Parkinson’s disease — another condition linked to the appendix. A large epidemiological study showed that appendectomy is associated with a lower risk for Parkinson’s disease and a delayed age of Parkinson’s onset. It also found that a normal appendix contains α-synuclein, a protein that may accumulate in the brain and contribute to the development of Parkinson’s. “Although α-synuclein is toxic when in the brain, it appears to be quite normal when present in the appendix,” said Luis Vitetta, PhD, MD, a clinical epidemiologist at the University of Sydney, Camperdown, Australia. Yet, not all studies find that removing the appendix lowers the risk for Parkinson’s. In fact, some show the opposite results.
 

How Should Doctors View the Appendix?

Even with these mysteries and contradictions, Dr. Vitetta said, a healthy appendix in a healthy body appears to be protective. This is why, he said, when someone is diagnosed with appendicitis, careful assessment is essential before surgery is performed.

“Perhaps an antibiotic can actually help fix it,” he said. A 2020 study published in The New England Journal of Medicine showed that antibiotics may indeed be a good alternative to surgery for the treatment of appendicitis. “We don’t want necessarily to remove an appendix that could be beneficial,” Dr. Smith said.

The many links between the appendix and various diseases mean that doctors should be more vigilant when treating patients who’ve had this organ removed, Dr. Parker said. “When a patient loses an appendix, depending on their environment, there may be effects on infection and cancer. So they might need more regular checkups,” he said. This could include monitoring for IBS and colorectal cancer.

What’s more, Dr. Parker believes that research on the appendix puts even more emphasis on the need to protect the gut microbiome — such as taking probiotics with antibiotics. And while we are still a long way from understanding how exactly this worm-like structure affects various diseases, one thing appears quite certain: The appendix is not useless. “If Darwin had the information that we have, he would not have drawn these conclusions,” Dr. Parker said.
 

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

The results of a large French study comparing the cancer risk in children conceived through assisted reproductive technology (ART) with that of naturally conceived children were published recently in JAMA Network Open. This study is one of the largest to date on this subject: It included 8,526,306 children born in France between 2010 and 2021, of whom 260,236 (3%) were conceived through ART, and followed them up to a median age of 6.7 years.

Motivations for the Study

ART (including artificial insemination, in vitro fertilization [IVF], or intracytoplasmic sperm injection [ICSI] with fresh or frozen embryo transfer) accounts for about 1 in 30 births in France. However, limited and heterogeneous data have suggested an increased risk for certain health disorders, including cancer, among children conceived through ART. Therefore, a large-scale evaluation of cancer risk in these children is important.

No Overall Increase

In all, 9256 children developed cancer, including 292 who were conceived through ART. Thus, this study did not show an increased risk for cancer (of all types combined) in children conceived through ART. Nevertheless, a slight increase in the risk for leukemia was observed in children conceived through IVF or ICSI. The investigators observed approximately one additional case for every 5000 newborns conceived through IVF or ICSI who reached age 10 years.

Epidemiological monitoring should be continued to better evaluate long-term risks and see whether the risk for leukemia is confirmed. If it is, then it will be useful to investigate the mechanisms related to ART techniques or the fertility disorders of parents that could lead to an increased risk for leukemia.

This story was translated from Univadis France, which is part of the Medscape Professional Network, using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The results of a large French study comparing the cancer risk in children conceived through assisted reproductive technology (ART) with that of naturally conceived children were published recently in JAMA Network Open. This study is one of the largest to date on this subject: It included 8,526,306 children born in France between 2010 and 2021, of whom 260,236 (3%) were conceived through ART, and followed them up to a median age of 6.7 years.

Motivations for the Study

ART (including artificial insemination, in vitro fertilization [IVF], or intracytoplasmic sperm injection [ICSI] with fresh or frozen embryo transfer) accounts for about 1 in 30 births in France. However, limited and heterogeneous data have suggested an increased risk for certain health disorders, including cancer, among children conceived through ART. Therefore, a large-scale evaluation of cancer risk in these children is important.

No Overall Increase

In all, 9256 children developed cancer, including 292 who were conceived through ART. Thus, this study did not show an increased risk for cancer (of all types combined) in children conceived through ART. Nevertheless, a slight increase in the risk for leukemia was observed in children conceived through IVF or ICSI. The investigators observed approximately one additional case for every 5000 newborns conceived through IVF or ICSI who reached age 10 years.

Epidemiological monitoring should be continued to better evaluate long-term risks and see whether the risk for leukemia is confirmed. If it is, then it will be useful to investigate the mechanisms related to ART techniques or the fertility disorders of parents that could lead to an increased risk for leukemia.

This story was translated from Univadis France, which is part of the Medscape Professional Network, using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The results of a large French study comparing the cancer risk in children conceived through assisted reproductive technology (ART) with that of naturally conceived children were published recently in JAMA Network Open. This study is one of the largest to date on this subject: It included 8,526,306 children born in France between 2010 and 2021, of whom 260,236 (3%) were conceived through ART, and followed them up to a median age of 6.7 years.

Motivations for the Study

ART (including artificial insemination, in vitro fertilization [IVF], or intracytoplasmic sperm injection [ICSI] with fresh or frozen embryo transfer) accounts for about 1 in 30 births in France. However, limited and heterogeneous data have suggested an increased risk for certain health disorders, including cancer, among children conceived through ART. Therefore, a large-scale evaluation of cancer risk in these children is important.

No Overall Increase

In all, 9256 children developed cancer, including 292 who were conceived through ART. Thus, this study did not show an increased risk for cancer (of all types combined) in children conceived through ART. Nevertheless, a slight increase in the risk for leukemia was observed in children conceived through IVF or ICSI. The investigators observed approximately one additional case for every 5000 newborns conceived through IVF or ICSI who reached age 10 years.

Epidemiological monitoring should be continued to better evaluate long-term risks and see whether the risk for leukemia is confirmed. If it is, then it will be useful to investigate the mechanisms related to ART techniques or the fertility disorders of parents that could lead to an increased risk for leukemia.

This story was translated from Univadis France, which is part of the Medscape Professional Network, using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A new antibiotic uses a never-before-seen mechanism to deliver a direct hit on tough-to-treat infections while leaving beneficial microbes alone. The strategy could lead to a new class of antibiotics that attack dangerous bacteria in a powerful new way, overcoming current drug resistance while sparing the gut microbiome.

“The biggest takeaway is the double-selective component,” said co-lead author Kristen A. Muñoz, PhD, who performed the research as a doctoral student at University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (UIUC). “We were able to develop a drug that not only targets problematic pathogens, but because it is selective for these pathogens only, we can spare the good bacteria and preserve the integrity of the microbiome.”

The drug goes after Gram-negative bacteria — pathogens responsible for debilitating and even fatal infections like gastroenteritis, urinary tract infections, pneumonia, sepsis, and cholera. The arsenal of antibiotics against them is old, with no new classes specifically targeting these bacteria coming on the market since 1968.

Many of these bugs have become resistant to one or more antibiotics, with deadly consequences. And antibiotics against them can also wipe out beneficial gut bacteria, allowing serious secondary infections to flare up.

In a study published in Nature, the drug lolamicin knocked out or reduced 130 strains of antibiotic-resistant Gram-negative bacteria in cell cultures. It also successfully treated drug-resistant bloodstream infections and pneumonia in mice while sparing their gut microbiome.

With their microbiomes intact, the mice then fought off secondary infection with Clostridioides difficile (a leading cause of opportunistic and sometimes fatal infections in US health care facilities), while mice treated with other compounds that damaged their microbiome succumbed.
 

How It Works

Like a well-built medieval castle, Gram-negative bacteria are encased in two protective walls, or membranes. Dr. Muñoz and her team at UIUC set out to breach this defense by finding compounds that hinder the “Lol system,” which ferries lipoproteins between them. 

From one compound they constructed lolamicin, which can stop Gram-negative pathogens — with little effect on Gram-negative beneficial bacteria and no effect on Gram-positive bacteria. 

“Gram-positive bacteria do not have an outer membrane, so they do not possess the Lol system,” Dr. Muñoz said. “When we compared the sequences of the Lol system in certain Gram-negative pathogens to Gram-negative commensal [beneficial] gut bacteria, we saw that the Lol systems were pretty different.”

Tossing a monkey wrench into the Lol system may be the study’s biggest contribution to future antibiotic development, said Kim Lewis, PhD, professor of Biology and director of Antimicrobial Discovery Center at Northeastern University, Boston, who has discovered several antibiotics now in preclinical research. One, darobactin, targets Gram-negative bugs without affecting the gut microbiome. Another, teixobactin, takes down Gram-positive bacteria without causing drug resistance. 

“Lolamicin hits a novel target. I would say that’s the most significant study finding,” said Dr. Lewis, who was not involved in the study. “That is rare. If you look at antibiotics introduced since 1968, they have been modifications of existing antibiotics or, rarely, new chemically but hitting the same proven targets. This one hits something properly new, and [that’s] what I found perhaps the most original and interesting.”

Kirk E. Hevener, PharmD, PhD, associate professor of Pharmaceutical Sciences at the University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, Tennessee, agreed. (Dr. Hevener also was not involved in the study.) “Lolamicin works by targeting a unique Gram-negative transport system. No currently approved antibacterials work in this way, meaning it potentially represents the first of a new class of antibacterials with narrow-spectrum Gram-negative activity and low gastrointestinal disturbance,” said Dr. Hevener, whose research looks at new antimicrobial drug targets.

The UIUC researchers noted that lolamicin has one drawback: Bacteria frequently developed resistance to it. But in future work, it could be tweaked, combined with other antibiotics, or used as a template for finding other Lol system attackers, they said.

“There is still a good amount of work cut out for us in terms of assessing the clinical translatability of lolamicin, but we are hopeful for the future of this drug,” Dr. Muñoz said.
 

Addressing a Dire Need

Bringing such a drug to market — from discovery to Food and Drug Administration approval — could take more than a decade, said Dr. Hevener. And new agents, especially for Gram-negative bugs, are sorely needed.

Not only do these bacteria shield themselves with a double membrane but they also “have more complex resistance mechanisms including special pumps that can remove antibacterial drugs from the cell before they can be effective,” Dr. Hevener said.

As a result, drug-resistant Gram-negative bacteria are making treatment of severe infections such as sepsis and pneumonia in health care settings difficult. 

Bloodstream infections with drug-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae have a 40% mortality rate, Dr. Lewis said. And microbiome damage caused by antibiotics is also widespread and deadly, wiping out communities of helpful, protective gut bacteria. That contributes to over half of the C. difficile infections that affect 500,000 people and kill 30,000 a year in the United States. 

“Our arsenal of antibacterials that can be used to treat Gram-negative infections is dangerously low,” Dr. Hevener said. “Research will always be needed to develop new antibacterials with novel mechanisms of activity that can bypass bacterial resistance mechanisms.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A new antibiotic uses a never-before-seen mechanism to deliver a direct hit on tough-to-treat infections while leaving beneficial microbes alone. The strategy could lead to a new class of antibiotics that attack dangerous bacteria in a powerful new way, overcoming current drug resistance while sparing the gut microbiome.

“The biggest takeaway is the double-selective component,” said co-lead author Kristen A. Muñoz, PhD, who performed the research as a doctoral student at University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (UIUC). “We were able to develop a drug that not only targets problematic pathogens, but because it is selective for these pathogens only, we can spare the good bacteria and preserve the integrity of the microbiome.”

The drug goes after Gram-negative bacteria — pathogens responsible for debilitating and even fatal infections like gastroenteritis, urinary tract infections, pneumonia, sepsis, and cholera. The arsenal of antibiotics against them is old, with no new classes specifically targeting these bacteria coming on the market since 1968.

Many of these bugs have become resistant to one or more antibiotics, with deadly consequences. And antibiotics against them can also wipe out beneficial gut bacteria, allowing serious secondary infections to flare up.

In a study published in Nature, the drug lolamicin knocked out or reduced 130 strains of antibiotic-resistant Gram-negative bacteria in cell cultures. It also successfully treated drug-resistant bloodstream infections and pneumonia in mice while sparing their gut microbiome.

With their microbiomes intact, the mice then fought off secondary infection with Clostridioides difficile (a leading cause of opportunistic and sometimes fatal infections in US health care facilities), while mice treated with other compounds that damaged their microbiome succumbed.
 

How It Works

Like a well-built medieval castle, Gram-negative bacteria are encased in two protective walls, or membranes. Dr. Muñoz and her team at UIUC set out to breach this defense by finding compounds that hinder the “Lol system,” which ferries lipoproteins between them. 

From one compound they constructed lolamicin, which can stop Gram-negative pathogens — with little effect on Gram-negative beneficial bacteria and no effect on Gram-positive bacteria. 

“Gram-positive bacteria do not have an outer membrane, so they do not possess the Lol system,” Dr. Muñoz said. “When we compared the sequences of the Lol system in certain Gram-negative pathogens to Gram-negative commensal [beneficial] gut bacteria, we saw that the Lol systems were pretty different.”

Tossing a monkey wrench into the Lol system may be the study’s biggest contribution to future antibiotic development, said Kim Lewis, PhD, professor of Biology and director of Antimicrobial Discovery Center at Northeastern University, Boston, who has discovered several antibiotics now in preclinical research. One, darobactin, targets Gram-negative bugs without affecting the gut microbiome. Another, teixobactin, takes down Gram-positive bacteria without causing drug resistance. 

“Lolamicin hits a novel target. I would say that’s the most significant study finding,” said Dr. Lewis, who was not involved in the study. “That is rare. If you look at antibiotics introduced since 1968, they have been modifications of existing antibiotics or, rarely, new chemically but hitting the same proven targets. This one hits something properly new, and [that’s] what I found perhaps the most original and interesting.”

Kirk E. Hevener, PharmD, PhD, associate professor of Pharmaceutical Sciences at the University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, Tennessee, agreed. (Dr. Hevener also was not involved in the study.) “Lolamicin works by targeting a unique Gram-negative transport system. No currently approved antibacterials work in this way, meaning it potentially represents the first of a new class of antibacterials with narrow-spectrum Gram-negative activity and low gastrointestinal disturbance,” said Dr. Hevener, whose research looks at new antimicrobial drug targets.

The UIUC researchers noted that lolamicin has one drawback: Bacteria frequently developed resistance to it. But in future work, it could be tweaked, combined with other antibiotics, or used as a template for finding other Lol system attackers, they said.

“There is still a good amount of work cut out for us in terms of assessing the clinical translatability of lolamicin, but we are hopeful for the future of this drug,” Dr. Muñoz said.
 

Addressing a Dire Need

Bringing such a drug to market — from discovery to Food and Drug Administration approval — could take more than a decade, said Dr. Hevener. And new agents, especially for Gram-negative bugs, are sorely needed.

Not only do these bacteria shield themselves with a double membrane but they also “have more complex resistance mechanisms including special pumps that can remove antibacterial drugs from the cell before they can be effective,” Dr. Hevener said.

As a result, drug-resistant Gram-negative bacteria are making treatment of severe infections such as sepsis and pneumonia in health care settings difficult. 

Bloodstream infections with drug-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae have a 40% mortality rate, Dr. Lewis said. And microbiome damage caused by antibiotics is also widespread and deadly, wiping out communities of helpful, protective gut bacteria. That contributes to over half of the C. difficile infections that affect 500,000 people and kill 30,000 a year in the United States. 

“Our arsenal of antibacterials that can be used to treat Gram-negative infections is dangerously low,” Dr. Hevener said. “Research will always be needed to develop new antibacterials with novel mechanisms of activity that can bypass bacterial resistance mechanisms.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A new antibiotic uses a never-before-seen mechanism to deliver a direct hit on tough-to-treat infections while leaving beneficial microbes alone. The strategy could lead to a new class of antibiotics that attack dangerous bacteria in a powerful new way, overcoming current drug resistance while sparing the gut microbiome.

“The biggest takeaway is the double-selective component,” said co-lead author Kristen A. Muñoz, PhD, who performed the research as a doctoral student at University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (UIUC). “We were able to develop a drug that not only targets problematic pathogens, but because it is selective for these pathogens only, we can spare the good bacteria and preserve the integrity of the microbiome.”

The drug goes after Gram-negative bacteria — pathogens responsible for debilitating and even fatal infections like gastroenteritis, urinary tract infections, pneumonia, sepsis, and cholera. The arsenal of antibiotics against them is old, with no new classes specifically targeting these bacteria coming on the market since 1968.

Many of these bugs have become resistant to one or more antibiotics, with deadly consequences. And antibiotics against them can also wipe out beneficial gut bacteria, allowing serious secondary infections to flare up.

In a study published in Nature, the drug lolamicin knocked out or reduced 130 strains of antibiotic-resistant Gram-negative bacteria in cell cultures. It also successfully treated drug-resistant bloodstream infections and pneumonia in mice while sparing their gut microbiome.

With their microbiomes intact, the mice then fought off secondary infection with Clostridioides difficile (a leading cause of opportunistic and sometimes fatal infections in US health care facilities), while mice treated with other compounds that damaged their microbiome succumbed.
 

How It Works

Like a well-built medieval castle, Gram-negative bacteria are encased in two protective walls, or membranes. Dr. Muñoz and her team at UIUC set out to breach this defense by finding compounds that hinder the “Lol system,” which ferries lipoproteins between them. 

From one compound they constructed lolamicin, which can stop Gram-negative pathogens — with little effect on Gram-negative beneficial bacteria and no effect on Gram-positive bacteria. 

“Gram-positive bacteria do not have an outer membrane, so they do not possess the Lol system,” Dr. Muñoz said. “When we compared the sequences of the Lol system in certain Gram-negative pathogens to Gram-negative commensal [beneficial] gut bacteria, we saw that the Lol systems were pretty different.”

Tossing a monkey wrench into the Lol system may be the study’s biggest contribution to future antibiotic development, said Kim Lewis, PhD, professor of Biology and director of Antimicrobial Discovery Center at Northeastern University, Boston, who has discovered several antibiotics now in preclinical research. One, darobactin, targets Gram-negative bugs without affecting the gut microbiome. Another, teixobactin, takes down Gram-positive bacteria without causing drug resistance. 

“Lolamicin hits a novel target. I would say that’s the most significant study finding,” said Dr. Lewis, who was not involved in the study. “That is rare. If you look at antibiotics introduced since 1968, they have been modifications of existing antibiotics or, rarely, new chemically but hitting the same proven targets. This one hits something properly new, and [that’s] what I found perhaps the most original and interesting.”

Kirk E. Hevener, PharmD, PhD, associate professor of Pharmaceutical Sciences at the University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, Tennessee, agreed. (Dr. Hevener also was not involved in the study.) “Lolamicin works by targeting a unique Gram-negative transport system. No currently approved antibacterials work in this way, meaning it potentially represents the first of a new class of antibacterials with narrow-spectrum Gram-negative activity and low gastrointestinal disturbance,” said Dr. Hevener, whose research looks at new antimicrobial drug targets.

The UIUC researchers noted that lolamicin has one drawback: Bacteria frequently developed resistance to it. But in future work, it could be tweaked, combined with other antibiotics, or used as a template for finding other Lol system attackers, they said.

“There is still a good amount of work cut out for us in terms of assessing the clinical translatability of lolamicin, but we are hopeful for the future of this drug,” Dr. Muñoz said.
 

Addressing a Dire Need

Bringing such a drug to market — from discovery to Food and Drug Administration approval — could take more than a decade, said Dr. Hevener. And new agents, especially for Gram-negative bugs, are sorely needed.

Not only do these bacteria shield themselves with a double membrane but they also “have more complex resistance mechanisms including special pumps that can remove antibacterial drugs from the cell before they can be effective,” Dr. Hevener said.

As a result, drug-resistant Gram-negative bacteria are making treatment of severe infections such as sepsis and pneumonia in health care settings difficult. 

Bloodstream infections with drug-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae have a 40% mortality rate, Dr. Lewis said. And microbiome damage caused by antibiotics is also widespread and deadly, wiping out communities of helpful, protective gut bacteria. That contributes to over half of the C. difficile infections that affect 500,000 people and kill 30,000 a year in the United States. 

“Our arsenal of antibacterials that can be used to treat Gram-negative infections is dangerously low,” Dr. Hevener said. “Research will always be needed to develop new antibacterials with novel mechanisms of activity that can bypass bacterial resistance mechanisms.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Early-life exposure to air and noise pollution is associated with a higher risk for psychosis, depression, and anxiety in adolescence and early adulthood, results from a longitudinal birth cohort study showed.

While air pollution was associated primarily with psychotic experiences and depression, noise pollution was more likely to be associated with anxiety in adolescence and early adulthood.

“Early-life exposure could be detrimental to mental health given the extensive brain development and epigenetic processes that occur in utero and during infancy,” the researchers, led by Joanne Newbury, PhD, of Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, England, wrote, adding that “the results of this cohort study provide novel evidence that early-life exposure to particulate matter is prospectively associated with the development of psychotic experiences and depression in youth.”

The findings were published online on May 28 in JAMA Network Open.
 

Large, Longitudinal Study

To learn more about how air and noise pollution may affect the brain from an early age, the investigators used data from the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children, an ongoing longitudinal birth cohort capturing data on new births in Southwest England from 1991 to 1992.

Investigators captured levels of air pollutants, which included nitrogen dioxide and fine particulate matter with a diameter smaller than 2.5 µm (PM2.5), in the areas where expectant mothers lived and where their children lived until age 12.

They also collected decibel levels of noise pollution in neighborhoods where expectant mothers and their children lived.

Participants were assessed for psychotic experiences, depression, and anxiety when they were 13, 18, and 24 years old.

Among the 9065 participants who had mental health data, 20% reported psychotic experiences, 11% reported depression, and 10% reported anxiety. About 60% of the participants had a family history of mental illness.

When they were age 13, 13.6% of participants reported psychotic experiences; 9.2% reported them at age 18, and 12.6% at age 24.

A lower number of participants reported feeling depressed and anxious at 13 years (5.6% for depression and 3.6% for anxiety) and 18 years (7.9% for depression and 5.7% for anxiety).

After adjusting for individual and family-level variables, including family psychiatric history, maternal social class, and neighborhood deprivation, elevated PM2.5 levels during pregnancy (P = .002) and childhood (P = .04) were associated with a significantly increased risk for psychotic experiences later in life. Pregnancy PM2.5 exposure was also associated with depression (P = .01).

Participants exposed to higher noise pollution in childhood and adolescence had an increased risk for anxiety (P = .03) as teenagers.
 

Vulnerability of the Developing Brain

The investigators noted that more information is needed to understand the underlying mechanisms behind these associations but noted that early-life exposure could be detrimental to mental health given “extensive brain development and epigenetic processes that occur in utero.”

They also noted that air pollution could lead to restricted fetal growth and premature birth, both of which are risk factors for psychopathology.

Martin Clift, PhD, of Swansea University in Swansea, Wales, who was not involved in the study, said that the paper highlights the need for more consideration of health consequences related to these exposures.

“As noted by the authors, this is an area that has received a lot of recent attention, yet there remains a large void of knowledge,” Dr. Clift said in a UK Science Media Centre release. “It highlights that some of the most dominant air pollutants can impact different mental health diagnoses, but that time-of-life is particularly important as to how each individual air pollutant may impact this diagnosis.”

Study limitations included limitations to generalizability of the data — the families in the study were more affluent and less diverse than the UK population overall.

The study was funded by the UK Medical Research Council, Wellcome Trust, and University of Bristol. Disclosures were noted in the original article.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Early-life exposure to air and noise pollution is associated with a higher risk for psychosis, depression, and anxiety in adolescence and early adulthood, results from a longitudinal birth cohort study showed.

While air pollution was associated primarily with psychotic experiences and depression, noise pollution was more likely to be associated with anxiety in adolescence and early adulthood.

“Early-life exposure could be detrimental to mental health given the extensive brain development and epigenetic processes that occur in utero and during infancy,” the researchers, led by Joanne Newbury, PhD, of Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, England, wrote, adding that “the results of this cohort study provide novel evidence that early-life exposure to particulate matter is prospectively associated with the development of psychotic experiences and depression in youth.”

The findings were published online on May 28 in JAMA Network Open.
 

Large, Longitudinal Study

To learn more about how air and noise pollution may affect the brain from an early age, the investigators used data from the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children, an ongoing longitudinal birth cohort capturing data on new births in Southwest England from 1991 to 1992.

Investigators captured levels of air pollutants, which included nitrogen dioxide and fine particulate matter with a diameter smaller than 2.5 µm (PM2.5), in the areas where expectant mothers lived and where their children lived until age 12.

They also collected decibel levels of noise pollution in neighborhoods where expectant mothers and their children lived.

Participants were assessed for psychotic experiences, depression, and anxiety when they were 13, 18, and 24 years old.

Among the 9065 participants who had mental health data, 20% reported psychotic experiences, 11% reported depression, and 10% reported anxiety. About 60% of the participants had a family history of mental illness.

When they were age 13, 13.6% of participants reported psychotic experiences; 9.2% reported them at age 18, and 12.6% at age 24.

A lower number of participants reported feeling depressed and anxious at 13 years (5.6% for depression and 3.6% for anxiety) and 18 years (7.9% for depression and 5.7% for anxiety).

After adjusting for individual and family-level variables, including family psychiatric history, maternal social class, and neighborhood deprivation, elevated PM2.5 levels during pregnancy (P = .002) and childhood (P = .04) were associated with a significantly increased risk for psychotic experiences later in life. Pregnancy PM2.5 exposure was also associated with depression (P = .01).

Participants exposed to higher noise pollution in childhood and adolescence had an increased risk for anxiety (P = .03) as teenagers.
 

Vulnerability of the Developing Brain

The investigators noted that more information is needed to understand the underlying mechanisms behind these associations but noted that early-life exposure could be detrimental to mental health given “extensive brain development and epigenetic processes that occur in utero.”

They also noted that air pollution could lead to restricted fetal growth and premature birth, both of which are risk factors for psychopathology.

Martin Clift, PhD, of Swansea University in Swansea, Wales, who was not involved in the study, said that the paper highlights the need for more consideration of health consequences related to these exposures.

“As noted by the authors, this is an area that has received a lot of recent attention, yet there remains a large void of knowledge,” Dr. Clift said in a UK Science Media Centre release. “It highlights that some of the most dominant air pollutants can impact different mental health diagnoses, but that time-of-life is particularly important as to how each individual air pollutant may impact this diagnosis.”

Study limitations included limitations to generalizability of the data — the families in the study were more affluent and less diverse than the UK population overall.

The study was funded by the UK Medical Research Council, Wellcome Trust, and University of Bristol. Disclosures were noted in the original article.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Early-life exposure to air and noise pollution is associated with a higher risk for psychosis, depression, and anxiety in adolescence and early adulthood, results from a longitudinal birth cohort study showed.

While air pollution was associated primarily with psychotic experiences and depression, noise pollution was more likely to be associated with anxiety in adolescence and early adulthood.

“Early-life exposure could be detrimental to mental health given the extensive brain development and epigenetic processes that occur in utero and during infancy,” the researchers, led by Joanne Newbury, PhD, of Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, England, wrote, adding that “the results of this cohort study provide novel evidence that early-life exposure to particulate matter is prospectively associated with the development of psychotic experiences and depression in youth.”

The findings were published online on May 28 in JAMA Network Open.
 

Large, Longitudinal Study

To learn more about how air and noise pollution may affect the brain from an early age, the investigators used data from the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children, an ongoing longitudinal birth cohort capturing data on new births in Southwest England from 1991 to 1992.

Investigators captured levels of air pollutants, which included nitrogen dioxide and fine particulate matter with a diameter smaller than 2.5 µm (PM2.5), in the areas where expectant mothers lived and where their children lived until age 12.

They also collected decibel levels of noise pollution in neighborhoods where expectant mothers and their children lived.

Participants were assessed for psychotic experiences, depression, and anxiety when they were 13, 18, and 24 years old.

Among the 9065 participants who had mental health data, 20% reported psychotic experiences, 11% reported depression, and 10% reported anxiety. About 60% of the participants had a family history of mental illness.

When they were age 13, 13.6% of participants reported psychotic experiences; 9.2% reported them at age 18, and 12.6% at age 24.

A lower number of participants reported feeling depressed and anxious at 13 years (5.6% for depression and 3.6% for anxiety) and 18 years (7.9% for depression and 5.7% for anxiety).

After adjusting for individual and family-level variables, including family psychiatric history, maternal social class, and neighborhood deprivation, elevated PM2.5 levels during pregnancy (P = .002) and childhood (P = .04) were associated with a significantly increased risk for psychotic experiences later in life. Pregnancy PM2.5 exposure was also associated with depression (P = .01).

Participants exposed to higher noise pollution in childhood and adolescence had an increased risk for anxiety (P = .03) as teenagers.
 

Vulnerability of the Developing Brain

The investigators noted that more information is needed to understand the underlying mechanisms behind these associations but noted that early-life exposure could be detrimental to mental health given “extensive brain development and epigenetic processes that occur in utero.”

They also noted that air pollution could lead to restricted fetal growth and premature birth, both of which are risk factors for psychopathology.

Martin Clift, PhD, of Swansea University in Swansea, Wales, who was not involved in the study, said that the paper highlights the need for more consideration of health consequences related to these exposures.

“As noted by the authors, this is an area that has received a lot of recent attention, yet there remains a large void of knowledge,” Dr. Clift said in a UK Science Media Centre release. “It highlights that some of the most dominant air pollutants can impact different mental health diagnoses, but that time-of-life is particularly important as to how each individual air pollutant may impact this diagnosis.”

Study limitations included limitations to generalizability of the data — the families in the study were more affluent and less diverse than the UK population overall.

The study was funded by the UK Medical Research Council, Wellcome Trust, and University of Bristol. Disclosures were noted in the original article.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.