MDedge Pediatrics

LAS VEGAS – Acne is a barrier-deficient disorder, and good skin care with over-the-counter products can improve this barrier and increase adherence to prescription medications, Hilary E. Baldwin, MD, of Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical Center, New Brunswick, N.J., said in a presentation at Medscape Live’s annual Las Vegas Dermatology Seminar.

In some cases, the use of good-quality over-the -counter skin care products can improve acne without prescription treatment, said Dr. Baldwin, who is medical director of the Acne Treatment and Research Center, New York. Good skin care can enhance the effects of prescription medication by decreasing side effects such as inflammation, pain, and erythema, and improving compliance; and use of OTC products has not been shown to interfere with the efficacy of prescription products, she noted.

However, patient education about OTC products is key, she said. In particular, “cleansers are a double-edged sword,” Dr. Baldwin emphasized.

Cleansing is important to preserve barrier function, but “there is a risk of skin damage” if cleansers are too harsh, she said. The goal is to remove dirt, oils, and bacteria without disrupting the lipids, proteins, and normal flora that keep skin healthy, and to avoid altering pH, she added.

Key considerations for OTC cleansers include surfactants, pH, and patient preferences, Dr. Baldwin said.

Surfactants, the main components of OTC cleansers, can do more harm than good in some cases. Surfactants break down impurities on the skin surface, but not all are created equal, and some may cause skin irritation, she explained.

Surfactants fall into four categories: nonionic (no charge), anionic (negative charge), cationic (positive charge), and amphoteric (dual charge). Of these, cationic surfactants have the highest level of antimicrobial activity.

Many patients with acne seek out antibacterial cleansers, but many of these products have a high pH, which can inhibit healthy skin function and promote inflammation, Dr. Baldwin noted.

The right OTC skin care products can normalize pH, which promotes repair of the skin barrier and reduces inflammation, she said. While some products are labeled as “gentle,” they may have a high pH, and many products don’t list a pH, Dr. Baldwin pointed out. Many antibacterial products have pH levels in the 10-12 range, while true soaps fall in the 9-10 range, and hydrating liquid cleansers often land in the 5-7 range, she said.

“Most of our patients don’t know what ingredients to look for” in a cleanser, she noted. However, data show that a majority of patients prefer a foaming cleanser, enjoy the face-washing experience – and wash their faces at least twice a day, with a range of products including bath soap, said Dr. Baldwin. Consequently, “educate your patient about moisturizing,” she advised.

For patients with greasy or oily skin, Dr. Baldwin recommends lipid-free foaming cleansers, such as those with ceramides or glycerin. For patients with dry, irritated acne, she advises once-daily washing only, without cleansing devices, which includes washcloths, she said. Look for hydrating cleansers that are nonfoaming or slightly foaming for these patients, she added.

Another tip for patients is to remind them that “sebum is not a moisturizer,” said Dr. Baldwin. Acne patients may still need moisturizers, especially if they experience dry skin as a side effect of their acne medication, but finding the right fit can be a challenge requiring some trial and error, she noted.

OTC products for rosacea

Dr. Baldwin also addressed the use of OTC products for patients with rosacea. For cleansers, she recommends the same hydrating, nonfoaming categories as for her acne patients, with a once-daily, no-device regimen. She advises rosacea patients to avoid pure humectants for moisturizing and noted that silicone-based products are often the least irritating.

Seek moisturizers with ceramides, hyaluronic acid, glycerin, or niacinamide, she said. Data have shown that effective moisturization improves the ability of patients with rosacea to use and adhere to their prescription medications, Dr. Baldwin emphasized. Moisturizers also can make the medication more effective by enhancing the penetration of products such as azelaic acid, she added.

No acne or rosacea visit is complete until overall skin care has been discussed, Dr. Baldwin said.

Dr. Baldwin disclosed serving as a consultant or adviser for Almirall, EPI Health, Galderma, La Roche Posay, Ortho Dermatologics, Sun, and Vyne; and serving as a speaker or member of the speakers’ bureau for Almirall, Galderma, La Roche Posay, Ortho Dermatologics, and Sun. MedscapeLive and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

LAS VEGAS – Acne is a barrier-deficient disorder, and good skin care with over-the-counter products can improve this barrier and increase adherence to prescription medications, Hilary E. Baldwin, MD, of Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical Center, New Brunswick, N.J., said in a presentation at Medscape Live’s annual Las Vegas Dermatology Seminar.

In some cases, the use of good-quality over-the -counter skin care products can improve acne without prescription treatment, said Dr. Baldwin, who is medical director of the Acne Treatment and Research Center, New York. Good skin care can enhance the effects of prescription medication by decreasing side effects such as inflammation, pain, and erythema, and improving compliance; and use of OTC products has not been shown to interfere with the efficacy of prescription products, she noted.

However, patient education about OTC products is key, she said. In particular, “cleansers are a double-edged sword,” Dr. Baldwin emphasized.

Cleansing is important to preserve barrier function, but “there is a risk of skin damage” if cleansers are too harsh, she said. The goal is to remove dirt, oils, and bacteria without disrupting the lipids, proteins, and normal flora that keep skin healthy, and to avoid altering pH, she added.

Key considerations for OTC cleansers include surfactants, pH, and patient preferences, Dr. Baldwin said.

Surfactants, the main components of OTC cleansers, can do more harm than good in some cases. Surfactants break down impurities on the skin surface, but not all are created equal, and some may cause skin irritation, she explained.

Surfactants fall into four categories: nonionic (no charge), anionic (negative charge), cationic (positive charge), and amphoteric (dual charge). Of these, cationic surfactants have the highest level of antimicrobial activity.

Many patients with acne seek out antibacterial cleansers, but many of these products have a high pH, which can inhibit healthy skin function and promote inflammation, Dr. Baldwin noted.

The right OTC skin care products can normalize pH, which promotes repair of the skin barrier and reduces inflammation, she said. While some products are labeled as “gentle,” they may have a high pH, and many products don’t list a pH, Dr. Baldwin pointed out. Many antibacterial products have pH levels in the 10-12 range, while true soaps fall in the 9-10 range, and hydrating liquid cleansers often land in the 5-7 range, she said.

“Most of our patients don’t know what ingredients to look for” in a cleanser, she noted. However, data show that a majority of patients prefer a foaming cleanser, enjoy the face-washing experience – and wash their faces at least twice a day, with a range of products including bath soap, said Dr. Baldwin. Consequently, “educate your patient about moisturizing,” she advised.

For patients with greasy or oily skin, Dr. Baldwin recommends lipid-free foaming cleansers, such as those with ceramides or glycerin. For patients with dry, irritated acne, she advises once-daily washing only, without cleansing devices, which includes washcloths, she said. Look for hydrating cleansers that are nonfoaming or slightly foaming for these patients, she added.

Another tip for patients is to remind them that “sebum is not a moisturizer,” said Dr. Baldwin. Acne patients may still need moisturizers, especially if they experience dry skin as a side effect of their acne medication, but finding the right fit can be a challenge requiring some trial and error, she noted.

OTC products for rosacea

Dr. Baldwin also addressed the use of OTC products for patients with rosacea. For cleansers, she recommends the same hydrating, nonfoaming categories as for her acne patients, with a once-daily, no-device regimen. She advises rosacea patients to avoid pure humectants for moisturizing and noted that silicone-based products are often the least irritating.

Seek moisturizers with ceramides, hyaluronic acid, glycerin, or niacinamide, she said. Data have shown that effective moisturization improves the ability of patients with rosacea to use and adhere to their prescription medications, Dr. Baldwin emphasized. Moisturizers also can make the medication more effective by enhancing the penetration of products such as azelaic acid, she added.

No acne or rosacea visit is complete until overall skin care has been discussed, Dr. Baldwin said.

Dr. Baldwin disclosed serving as a consultant or adviser for Almirall, EPI Health, Galderma, La Roche Posay, Ortho Dermatologics, Sun, and Vyne; and serving as a speaker or member of the speakers’ bureau for Almirall, Galderma, La Roche Posay, Ortho Dermatologics, and Sun. MedscapeLive and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

LAS VEGAS – Acne is a barrier-deficient disorder, and good skin care with over-the-counter products can improve this barrier and increase adherence to prescription medications, Hilary E. Baldwin, MD, of Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical Center, New Brunswick, N.J., said in a presentation at Medscape Live’s annual Las Vegas Dermatology Seminar.

In some cases, the use of good-quality over-the -counter skin care products can improve acne without prescription treatment, said Dr. Baldwin, who is medical director of the Acne Treatment and Research Center, New York. Good skin care can enhance the effects of prescription medication by decreasing side effects such as inflammation, pain, and erythema, and improving compliance; and use of OTC products has not been shown to interfere with the efficacy of prescription products, she noted.

However, patient education about OTC products is key, she said. In particular, “cleansers are a double-edged sword,” Dr. Baldwin emphasized.

Cleansing is important to preserve barrier function, but “there is a risk of skin damage” if cleansers are too harsh, she said. The goal is to remove dirt, oils, and bacteria without disrupting the lipids, proteins, and normal flora that keep skin healthy, and to avoid altering pH, she added.

Key considerations for OTC cleansers include surfactants, pH, and patient preferences, Dr. Baldwin said.

Surfactants, the main components of OTC cleansers, can do more harm than good in some cases. Surfactants break down impurities on the skin surface, but not all are created equal, and some may cause skin irritation, she explained.

Surfactants fall into four categories: nonionic (no charge), anionic (negative charge), cationic (positive charge), and amphoteric (dual charge). Of these, cationic surfactants have the highest level of antimicrobial activity.

Many patients with acne seek out antibacterial cleansers, but many of these products have a high pH, which can inhibit healthy skin function and promote inflammation, Dr. Baldwin noted.

The right OTC skin care products can normalize pH, which promotes repair of the skin barrier and reduces inflammation, she said. While some products are labeled as “gentle,” they may have a high pH, and many products don’t list a pH, Dr. Baldwin pointed out. Many antibacterial products have pH levels in the 10-12 range, while true soaps fall in the 9-10 range, and hydrating liquid cleansers often land in the 5-7 range, she said.

“Most of our patients don’t know what ingredients to look for” in a cleanser, she noted. However, data show that a majority of patients prefer a foaming cleanser, enjoy the face-washing experience – and wash their faces at least twice a day, with a range of products including bath soap, said Dr. Baldwin. Consequently, “educate your patient about moisturizing,” she advised.

For patients with greasy or oily skin, Dr. Baldwin recommends lipid-free foaming cleansers, such as those with ceramides or glycerin. For patients with dry, irritated acne, she advises once-daily washing only, without cleansing devices, which includes washcloths, she said. Look for hydrating cleansers that are nonfoaming or slightly foaming for these patients, she added.

Another tip for patients is to remind them that “sebum is not a moisturizer,” said Dr. Baldwin. Acne patients may still need moisturizers, especially if they experience dry skin as a side effect of their acne medication, but finding the right fit can be a challenge requiring some trial and error, she noted.

OTC products for rosacea

Dr. Baldwin also addressed the use of OTC products for patients with rosacea. For cleansers, she recommends the same hydrating, nonfoaming categories as for her acne patients, with a once-daily, no-device regimen. She advises rosacea patients to avoid pure humectants for moisturizing and noted that silicone-based products are often the least irritating.

Seek moisturizers with ceramides, hyaluronic acid, glycerin, or niacinamide, she said. Data have shown that effective moisturization improves the ability of patients with rosacea to use and adhere to their prescription medications, Dr. Baldwin emphasized. Moisturizers also can make the medication more effective by enhancing the penetration of products such as azelaic acid, she added.

No acne or rosacea visit is complete until overall skin care has been discussed, Dr. Baldwin said.

Dr. Baldwin disclosed serving as a consultant or adviser for Almirall, EPI Health, Galderma, La Roche Posay, Ortho Dermatologics, Sun, and Vyne; and serving as a speaker or member of the speakers’ bureau for Almirall, Galderma, La Roche Posay, Ortho Dermatologics, and Sun. MedscapeLive and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

Vaping has become the dominant form of tobacco use by adolescents in the United States immediately after waking up, according to an analysis of a survey on teen tobacco use published in JAMA Network Open.

By 2019, Stanton Glantz, PhD, and associates found, “more e-cigarette users were using their first tobacco product within 5 minutes of waking than users of cigarettes and all other tobacco products combined.” Use upon waking is an indicator of addiction.

That number changed drastically from 2014 when less than 1% of sole-e-cigarette users were using e-cigarettes first thing in the morning to 10.3% by 2021. The numbers did not change for sole cigarette smokers or sole smokeless tobacco users, but did increase by half (odds ratio per year, 1.49) for sole cigar users.

In addition, among adolescents who currently use any tobacco product, the proportion whose first tobacco product was e-cigarettes increased from 27.2% in 2014 to 78.3% in 2019 and remained close to that at 77% in 2021.

Meanwhile, the number of young people using e-cigarettes peaked in 2019 and has been declining.

By 2019, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimated that 5.3 million middle and high school students were using e-cigarettes. That number dropped to 3.6 million in 2020 and to 2.1 million in 2021 during the COVID-19 pandemic.
 

Researchers suspect more addictive nicotine

This increasing intensity of use may reflect the higher nicotine delivery and addiction liability of modern e-cigarettes that use protonated nicotine, which makes nicotine easier to inhale than older versions of e-cigarettes, which used freebase nicotine, Dr. Glantz and associates wrote.

The change in nicotine came in 2015 with the introduction of Juul products, they said, “which added benzoic acid to the nicotine e-liquid to lower the pH level and form protonated nicotine.”

The researchers advised: “Clinicians should question all their patients about nicotine and tobacco product use, including e-cigarettes and other new nicotine products.”

Raghu Appasani, MD, a psychiatrist who specializes in adolescent addiction and a clinical fellow at University of California, San Francisco, said in an interview that users often misunderstand the potential health effects of e-cigarettes and mistakenly think of them as a safe alternative to cigarettes.

All medical providers have a responsibility to ask patients about nicotine and tobacco products, Dr. Appasani said.
 

‘Be curious, not judgmental’

Dr. Appasani advised: “Be curious with your approach. This may uncover that maybe they use [e-cigarettes] to fit into a social scene or have stressors at home or in school. Most likely there is an underlying issue that has led to their use. Perhaps there is untreated anxiety and/or depression. Be curious, not judgmental.”

It is also important to ask about social and psychological factors that may be contributing to use and help the user think through how the use is affecting life in their home, school, and social settings, Dr. Appasani said.

He said he was not surprised by the findings as e-cigarettes allow easy access to smoking and it’s easier to hide the habit. The flavoring often get kids hooked originally.

The authors wrote: “These findings suggest that clinicians need to be ready to address youth addiction to these new highly addictive nicotine products during many clinical encounters, and stronger regulation is needed, including comprehensive bans on the sale of flavored tobacco products.”

Just more than half of the survey respondents (51.1%) were male and average age was 14. Researchers analyzed data from the National Youth Tobacco Survey, a nationally representative survey of middle and high school students.

They used the Youth Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System from 2015 to 2019 as a confirmatory analysis.

This study was supported in part by grants from the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Glantz received personal fees from the World Health Organization outside the submitted work. One coauthor reported serving as a paid expert witness against the tobacco industry outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported. Dr. Appasani declared no relevant financial relationships.

Vaping has become the dominant form of tobacco use by adolescents in the United States immediately after waking up, according to an analysis of a survey on teen tobacco use published in JAMA Network Open.

By 2019, Stanton Glantz, PhD, and associates found, “more e-cigarette users were using their first tobacco product within 5 minutes of waking than users of cigarettes and all other tobacco products combined.” Use upon waking is an indicator of addiction.

That number changed drastically from 2014 when less than 1% of sole-e-cigarette users were using e-cigarettes first thing in the morning to 10.3% by 2021. The numbers did not change for sole cigarette smokers or sole smokeless tobacco users, but did increase by half (odds ratio per year, 1.49) for sole cigar users.

In addition, among adolescents who currently use any tobacco product, the proportion whose first tobacco product was e-cigarettes increased from 27.2% in 2014 to 78.3% in 2019 and remained close to that at 77% in 2021.

Meanwhile, the number of young people using e-cigarettes peaked in 2019 and has been declining.

By 2019, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimated that 5.3 million middle and high school students were using e-cigarettes. That number dropped to 3.6 million in 2020 and to 2.1 million in 2021 during the COVID-19 pandemic.
 

Researchers suspect more addictive nicotine

This increasing intensity of use may reflect the higher nicotine delivery and addiction liability of modern e-cigarettes that use protonated nicotine, which makes nicotine easier to inhale than older versions of e-cigarettes, which used freebase nicotine, Dr. Glantz and associates wrote.

The change in nicotine came in 2015 with the introduction of Juul products, they said, “which added benzoic acid to the nicotine e-liquid to lower the pH level and form protonated nicotine.”

The researchers advised: “Clinicians should question all their patients about nicotine and tobacco product use, including e-cigarettes and other new nicotine products.”

Raghu Appasani, MD, a psychiatrist who specializes in adolescent addiction and a clinical fellow at University of California, San Francisco, said in an interview that users often misunderstand the potential health effects of e-cigarettes and mistakenly think of them as a safe alternative to cigarettes.

All medical providers have a responsibility to ask patients about nicotine and tobacco products, Dr. Appasani said.
 

‘Be curious, not judgmental’

Dr. Appasani advised: “Be curious with your approach. This may uncover that maybe they use [e-cigarettes] to fit into a social scene or have stressors at home or in school. Most likely there is an underlying issue that has led to their use. Perhaps there is untreated anxiety and/or depression. Be curious, not judgmental.”

It is also important to ask about social and psychological factors that may be contributing to use and help the user think through how the use is affecting life in their home, school, and social settings, Dr. Appasani said.

He said he was not surprised by the findings as e-cigarettes allow easy access to smoking and it’s easier to hide the habit. The flavoring often get kids hooked originally.

The authors wrote: “These findings suggest that clinicians need to be ready to address youth addiction to these new highly addictive nicotine products during many clinical encounters, and stronger regulation is needed, including comprehensive bans on the sale of flavored tobacco products.”

Just more than half of the survey respondents (51.1%) were male and average age was 14. Researchers analyzed data from the National Youth Tobacco Survey, a nationally representative survey of middle and high school students.

They used the Youth Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System from 2015 to 2019 as a confirmatory analysis.

This study was supported in part by grants from the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Glantz received personal fees from the World Health Organization outside the submitted work. One coauthor reported serving as a paid expert witness against the tobacco industry outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported. Dr. Appasani declared no relevant financial relationships.

Vaping has become the dominant form of tobacco use by adolescents in the United States immediately after waking up, according to an analysis of a survey on teen tobacco use published in JAMA Network Open.

By 2019, Stanton Glantz, PhD, and associates found, “more e-cigarette users were using their first tobacco product within 5 minutes of waking than users of cigarettes and all other tobacco products combined.” Use upon waking is an indicator of addiction.

That number changed drastically from 2014 when less than 1% of sole-e-cigarette users were using e-cigarettes first thing in the morning to 10.3% by 2021. The numbers did not change for sole cigarette smokers or sole smokeless tobacco users, but did increase by half (odds ratio per year, 1.49) for sole cigar users.

In addition, among adolescents who currently use any tobacco product, the proportion whose first tobacco product was e-cigarettes increased from 27.2% in 2014 to 78.3% in 2019 and remained close to that at 77% in 2021.

Meanwhile, the number of young people using e-cigarettes peaked in 2019 and has been declining.

By 2019, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimated that 5.3 million middle and high school students were using e-cigarettes. That number dropped to 3.6 million in 2020 and to 2.1 million in 2021 during the COVID-19 pandemic.
 

Researchers suspect more addictive nicotine

This increasing intensity of use may reflect the higher nicotine delivery and addiction liability of modern e-cigarettes that use protonated nicotine, which makes nicotine easier to inhale than older versions of e-cigarettes, which used freebase nicotine, Dr. Glantz and associates wrote.

The change in nicotine came in 2015 with the introduction of Juul products, they said, “which added benzoic acid to the nicotine e-liquid to lower the pH level and form protonated nicotine.”

The researchers advised: “Clinicians should question all their patients about nicotine and tobacco product use, including e-cigarettes and other new nicotine products.”

Raghu Appasani, MD, a psychiatrist who specializes in adolescent addiction and a clinical fellow at University of California, San Francisco, said in an interview that users often misunderstand the potential health effects of e-cigarettes and mistakenly think of them as a safe alternative to cigarettes.

All medical providers have a responsibility to ask patients about nicotine and tobacco products, Dr. Appasani said.
 

‘Be curious, not judgmental’

Dr. Appasani advised: “Be curious with your approach. This may uncover that maybe they use [e-cigarettes] to fit into a social scene or have stressors at home or in school. Most likely there is an underlying issue that has led to their use. Perhaps there is untreated anxiety and/or depression. Be curious, not judgmental.”

It is also important to ask about social and psychological factors that may be contributing to use and help the user think through how the use is affecting life in their home, school, and social settings, Dr. Appasani said.

He said he was not surprised by the findings as e-cigarettes allow easy access to smoking and it’s easier to hide the habit. The flavoring often get kids hooked originally.

The authors wrote: “These findings suggest that clinicians need to be ready to address youth addiction to these new highly addictive nicotine products during many clinical encounters, and stronger regulation is needed, including comprehensive bans on the sale of flavored tobacco products.”

Just more than half of the survey respondents (51.1%) were male and average age was 14. Researchers analyzed data from the National Youth Tobacco Survey, a nationally representative survey of middle and high school students.

They used the Youth Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System from 2015 to 2019 as a confirmatory analysis.

This study was supported in part by grants from the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Glantz received personal fees from the World Health Organization outside the submitted work. One coauthor reported serving as a paid expert witness against the tobacco industry outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported. Dr. Appasani declared no relevant financial relationships.

I suspect that you have heard about or maybe read the recent Associated Press story reporting that four daycare workers in Hamilton, Miss., have been charged with felony child abuse for intentionally scaring the children “who didn’t clean up or act good” by wearing a Halloween mask and yelling in their faces. I can have some sympathy for those among us who choose to spend their days tending a flock of sometimes unruly and mischievous toddlers and preschoolers. But, I think one would be hard pressed to find very many adults who would condone the strategy of these misguided daycare providers. Not surprisingly, the parents of some of these children describe their children as traumatized and having disordered sleep.

The news report of this incident in Mississippi doesn’t tell us if these daycare providers had used this tactic in the past. One wonders whether they had found less dramatic verbal threats just weren’t as effective as they had hoped and so decided to go all out.

How effective is fear in changing behavior? Certainly, we have all experienced situations in which a frightening experience has caused us to avoid places, people, and activities. But, is a fear-focused strategy one that health care providers should include in their quiver as we try to mold patient behavior? As luck would have it, 2 weeks before this news story broke I encountered a global study from 84 countries that sought to answer this question (Affect Sci. 2022 Sep. doi: 10.1007/s42761-022-00128-3).

Using the WHO four-point advice about COVID prevention (stay home/avoid shops/use face covering/isolate if exposed) as a model the researchers around the world reviewed the responses of 16,000 individuals. They found that there was no difference in the effectiveness of the message whether it was framed as a negative (“you have so much to lose”) or a positive (“you have so much to gain”). However, investigators observed that the negatively framed presentations generated significantly more anxiety in the respondents. The authors of the paper conclude that if there is no significant difference in the effectiveness, why would we chose a negatively framed presentation that is likely to generate anxiety that we know is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. From a purely public health perspective, it doesn’t make sense and is counterproductive.

I guess if we look back to the old carrot and stick metaphor we shouldn’t be surprised by the findings in this paper. If one’s only goal is to get a group of young preschoolers to behave by scaring the b’geezes out of them with a mask or a threat of bodily punishment, then go for it. Scare tactics will probably work just as well as offering a well-chosen reward system. However, the devil is in the side effects. It’s the same argument that I give to parents who argue that spanking works. Of course it does, but it has a narrow margin for safety and can set up ripples of negative side effects that can destroy healthy parent-child relationships.

The bottom line of this story is the sad truth that somewhere along the line someone failed to effectively train these four daycare workers. But, do we as health care providers need to rethink our training? Have we forgotten our commitment to “First do no harm?” As we craft our messaging have we thought enough about the potential side effects of our attempts at scaring the public into following our suggestions?

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 suspect that you have heard about or maybe read the recent Associated Press story reporting that four daycare workers in Hamilton, Miss., have been charged with felony child abuse for intentionally scaring the children “who didn’t clean up or act good” by wearing a Halloween mask and yelling in their faces. I can have some sympathy for those among us who choose to spend their days tending a flock of sometimes unruly and mischievous toddlers and preschoolers. But, I think one would be hard pressed to find very many adults who would condone the strategy of these misguided daycare providers. Not surprisingly, the parents of some of these children describe their children as traumatized and having disordered sleep.

The news report of this incident in Mississippi doesn’t tell us if these daycare providers had used this tactic in the past. One wonders whether they had found less dramatic verbal threats just weren’t as effective as they had hoped and so decided to go all out.

How effective is fear in changing behavior? Certainly, we have all experienced situations in which a frightening experience has caused us to avoid places, people, and activities. But, is a fear-focused strategy one that health care providers should include in their quiver as we try to mold patient behavior? As luck would have it, 2 weeks before this news story broke I encountered a global study from 84 countries that sought to answer this question (Affect Sci. 2022 Sep. doi: 10.1007/s42761-022-00128-3).

Using the WHO four-point advice about COVID prevention (stay home/avoid shops/use face covering/isolate if exposed) as a model the researchers around the world reviewed the responses of 16,000 individuals. They found that there was no difference in the effectiveness of the message whether it was framed as a negative (“you have so much to lose”) or a positive (“you have so much to gain”). However, investigators observed that the negatively framed presentations generated significantly more anxiety in the respondents. The authors of the paper conclude that if there is no significant difference in the effectiveness, why would we chose a negatively framed presentation that is likely to generate anxiety that we know is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. From a purely public health perspective, it doesn’t make sense and is counterproductive.

I guess if we look back to the old carrot and stick metaphor we shouldn’t be surprised by the findings in this paper. If one’s only goal is to get a group of young preschoolers to behave by scaring the b’geezes out of them with a mask or a threat of bodily punishment, then go for it. Scare tactics will probably work just as well as offering a well-chosen reward system. However, the devil is in the side effects. It’s the same argument that I give to parents who argue that spanking works. Of course it does, but it has a narrow margin for safety and can set up ripples of negative side effects that can destroy healthy parent-child relationships.

The bottom line of this story is the sad truth that somewhere along the line someone failed to effectively train these four daycare workers. But, do we as health care providers need to rethink our training? Have we forgotten our commitment to “First do no harm?” As we craft our messaging have we thought enough about the potential side effects of our attempts at scaring the public into following our suggestions?

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 suspect that you have heard about or maybe read the recent Associated Press story reporting that four daycare workers in Hamilton, Miss., have been charged with felony child abuse for intentionally scaring the children “who didn’t clean up or act good” by wearing a Halloween mask and yelling in their faces. I can have some sympathy for those among us who choose to spend their days tending a flock of sometimes unruly and mischievous toddlers and preschoolers. But, I think one would be hard pressed to find very many adults who would condone the strategy of these misguided daycare providers. Not surprisingly, the parents of some of these children describe their children as traumatized and having disordered sleep.

The news report of this incident in Mississippi doesn’t tell us if these daycare providers had used this tactic in the past. One wonders whether they had found less dramatic verbal threats just weren’t as effective as they had hoped and so decided to go all out.

How effective is fear in changing behavior? Certainly, we have all experienced situations in which a frightening experience has caused us to avoid places, people, and activities. But, is a fear-focused strategy one that health care providers should include in their quiver as we try to mold patient behavior? As luck would have it, 2 weeks before this news story broke I encountered a global study from 84 countries that sought to answer this question (Affect Sci. 2022 Sep. doi: 10.1007/s42761-022-00128-3).

Using the WHO four-point advice about COVID prevention (stay home/avoid shops/use face covering/isolate if exposed) as a model the researchers around the world reviewed the responses of 16,000 individuals. They found that there was no difference in the effectiveness of the message whether it was framed as a negative (“you have so much to lose”) or a positive (“you have so much to gain”). However, investigators observed that the negatively framed presentations generated significantly more anxiety in the respondents. The authors of the paper conclude that if there is no significant difference in the effectiveness, why would we chose a negatively framed presentation that is likely to generate anxiety that we know is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. From a purely public health perspective, it doesn’t make sense and is counterproductive.

I guess if we look back to the old carrot and stick metaphor we shouldn’t be surprised by the findings in this paper. If one’s only goal is to get a group of young preschoolers to behave by scaring the b’geezes out of them with a mask or a threat of bodily punishment, then go for it. Scare tactics will probably work just as well as offering a well-chosen reward system. However, the devil is in the side effects. It’s the same argument that I give to parents who argue that spanking works. Of course it does, but it has a narrow margin for safety and can set up ripples of negative side effects that can destroy healthy parent-child relationships.

The bottom line of this story is the sad truth that somewhere along the line someone failed to effectively train these four daycare workers. But, do we as health care providers need to rethink our training? Have we forgotten our commitment to “First do no harm?” As we craft our messaging have we thought enough about the potential side effects of our attempts at scaring the public into following our suggestions?

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].

Before the pandemic, physicians came to work sick, as people do in many other professions. The reasons are likely as varied as, “you weren’t feeling bad enough to miss work,” “you couldn’t afford to miss pay,” “you had too many patients to see,” or “too much work to do.”

In Medscape’s Employed Physicians Report: Loving the Focus, Hating the Bureaucracy, 61% of physicians reported that they sometimes or often come to work sick. Only 2% of respondents said they never come to work unwell.

Medscape wanted to know more about how often you call in sick, how often you come to work feeling unwell, what symptoms you have, and the dogma of your workplace culture regarding sick days. Not to mention the brutal ethos that starts in medical school, in which calling in sick shows weakness or is unacceptable.

So, we polled 2,347 physicians in the United States and abroad and asked them about their sniffling, sneezing, cold, flu, and fever symptoms, and, of course, COVID. Results were split about 50-50 among male and female physicians. The poll ran from Sept. 28 through Oct. 11.
 

Coming to work sick

It’s no surprise that the majority of physicians who were polled (85%) have come to work sick in 2022. In the last prepandemic year (2019), about 70% came to work feeling sick one to five times, and 13% worked while sick six to ten times.

When asked about the symptoms that they’ve previously come to work with, 48% of U.S. physicians said multiple symptoms. They gave high marks for runny nose, cough, congestion, and sore throat. Only 27% have worked with a fever, 22% have worked with other symptoms, and 7% have worked with both strep throat and COVID.

“My workplace, especially in the COVID years, accommodates persons who honestly do not feel well enough to report. Sooner or later, everyone covers for someone else who has to be out,” says Kenneth Abbott, MD, an oncologist in Maryland.
 

The culture of working while sick

Why doctors come to work when they’re sick is complicated. The overwhelming majority of U.S. respondents cited professional obligations; 73% noted that they feel a professional obligation to their patients, and 72% feel a professional obligation to their co-workers. Half of the polled U.S. physicians said they didn’t feel bad enough to stay home, while 48% said they had too much work to do to stay home.

Some 45% said the expectation at their workplace is to come to work unless seriously ill; 43% had too many patients to see; and 18% didn’t think they were contagious when they headed to work sick. Unfortunately, 15% chose to work while sick because otherwise they would lose pay.

In light of these responses, it’s not surprising that 93% reported they’d seen other medical professionals working when sick.

“My schedule is almost always booked weeks in advance. If someone misses or has to cancel their appointment, they typically have 2-4 weeks to wait to get back in. If I was sick and a full day of patients (or God forbid more than a day) had to be canceled because I called in, it’s so much more work when I return,” says Caitlin Briggs, MD, a psychiatrist in Lexington, Ky.
 

Doctors’ workplace sick day policy

Most employees’ benefits allow at least a few sick days, but doctors who treat society’s ill patients don’t seem to stay home from work when they’re suffering. So, we asked physicians, official policy aside, whether they thought going to work sick was expected in their workplace. The majority (76%) said yes, while 24% said no.

“Unless I’m dying or extremely contagious, I usually work. At least now, I have the telehealth option. Not saying any of this is right, but it’s the reality we deal with and the choice we must make,” says Dr. Briggs.

Additionally, 58% of polled physicians said their workplace did not have a clearly defined policy against coming to work sick, while 20% said theirs did, and 22% weren’t sure.

“The first thing I heard on the subject as a medical student was that sick people come to the hospital, so if you’re sick, then you come to the hospital too ... to work. If you can’t work, then you will be admitted. Another aphorism was from Churchill, that ‘most of the world’s work is done by people who don’t feel very well,’ ” says Paul Andreason, MD, a psychiatrist in Bethesda, Md.
 

Working in the time of COVID

Working while ill during ordinary times is one thing, but what about working in the time of COVID? Has the pandemic changed the culture of coming to work sick because medical facilities, such as doctor’s offices and hospitals, don’t want their staff coming in when they have COVID?

Surprisingly, when we asked physicians whether the pandemic has made it more or less acceptable to come to work sick, only 61% thought COVID has made it less acceptable to work while sick, while 16% thought it made it more acceptable, and 23% said there’s no change.

“I draw the line at fevers/chills, feeling like you’ve just been run over, or significant enteritis,” says Dr. Abbott. “Also, if I have to take palliative meds that interfere with alertness, I’m not doing my patients any favors.”

While a minority of physicians may call in sick, most still suffer through their sneezing, coughing, chills, and fever while seeing patients as usual.

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

Before the pandemic, physicians came to work sick, as people do in many other professions. The reasons are likely as varied as, “you weren’t feeling bad enough to miss work,” “you couldn’t afford to miss pay,” “you had too many patients to see,” or “too much work to do.”

In Medscape’s Employed Physicians Report: Loving the Focus, Hating the Bureaucracy, 61% of physicians reported that they sometimes or often come to work sick. Only 2% of respondents said they never come to work unwell.

Medscape wanted to know more about how often you call in sick, how often you come to work feeling unwell, what symptoms you have, and the dogma of your workplace culture regarding sick days. Not to mention the brutal ethos that starts in medical school, in which calling in sick shows weakness or is unacceptable.

So, we polled 2,347 physicians in the United States and abroad and asked them about their sniffling, sneezing, cold, flu, and fever symptoms, and, of course, COVID. Results were split about 50-50 among male and female physicians. The poll ran from Sept. 28 through Oct. 11.
 

Coming to work sick

It’s no surprise that the majority of physicians who were polled (85%) have come to work sick in 2022. In the last prepandemic year (2019), about 70% came to work feeling sick one to five times, and 13% worked while sick six to ten times.

When asked about the symptoms that they’ve previously come to work with, 48% of U.S. physicians said multiple symptoms. They gave high marks for runny nose, cough, congestion, and sore throat. Only 27% have worked with a fever, 22% have worked with other symptoms, and 7% have worked with both strep throat and COVID.

“My workplace, especially in the COVID years, accommodates persons who honestly do not feel well enough to report. Sooner or later, everyone covers for someone else who has to be out,” says Kenneth Abbott, MD, an oncologist in Maryland.
 

The culture of working while sick

Why doctors come to work when they’re sick is complicated. The overwhelming majority of U.S. respondents cited professional obligations; 73% noted that they feel a professional obligation to their patients, and 72% feel a professional obligation to their co-workers. Half of the polled U.S. physicians said they didn’t feel bad enough to stay home, while 48% said they had too much work to do to stay home.

Some 45% said the expectation at their workplace is to come to work unless seriously ill; 43% had too many patients to see; and 18% didn’t think they were contagious when they headed to work sick. Unfortunately, 15% chose to work while sick because otherwise they would lose pay.

In light of these responses, it’s not surprising that 93% reported they’d seen other medical professionals working when sick.

“My schedule is almost always booked weeks in advance. If someone misses or has to cancel their appointment, they typically have 2-4 weeks to wait to get back in. If I was sick and a full day of patients (or God forbid more than a day) had to be canceled because I called in, it’s so much more work when I return,” says Caitlin Briggs, MD, a psychiatrist in Lexington, Ky.
 

Doctors’ workplace sick day policy

Most employees’ benefits allow at least a few sick days, but doctors who treat society’s ill patients don’t seem to stay home from work when they’re suffering. So, we asked physicians, official policy aside, whether they thought going to work sick was expected in their workplace. The majority (76%) said yes, while 24% said no.

“Unless I’m dying or extremely contagious, I usually work. At least now, I have the telehealth option. Not saying any of this is right, but it’s the reality we deal with and the choice we must make,” says Dr. Briggs.

Additionally, 58% of polled physicians said their workplace did not have a clearly defined policy against coming to work sick, while 20% said theirs did, and 22% weren’t sure.

“The first thing I heard on the subject as a medical student was that sick people come to the hospital, so if you’re sick, then you come to the hospital too ... to work. If you can’t work, then you will be admitted. Another aphorism was from Churchill, that ‘most of the world’s work is done by people who don’t feel very well,’ ” says Paul Andreason, MD, a psychiatrist in Bethesda, Md.
 

Working in the time of COVID

Working while ill during ordinary times is one thing, but what about working in the time of COVID? Has the pandemic changed the culture of coming to work sick because medical facilities, such as doctor’s offices and hospitals, don’t want their staff coming in when they have COVID?

Surprisingly, when we asked physicians whether the pandemic has made it more or less acceptable to come to work sick, only 61% thought COVID has made it less acceptable to work while sick, while 16% thought it made it more acceptable, and 23% said there’s no change.

“I draw the line at fevers/chills, feeling like you’ve just been run over, or significant enteritis,” says Dr. Abbott. “Also, if I have to take palliative meds that interfere with alertness, I’m not doing my patients any favors.”

While a minority of physicians may call in sick, most still suffer through their sneezing, coughing, chills, and fever while seeing patients as usual.

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

Before the pandemic, physicians came to work sick, as people do in many other professions. The reasons are likely as varied as, “you weren’t feeling bad enough to miss work,” “you couldn’t afford to miss pay,” “you had too many patients to see,” or “too much work to do.”

In Medscape’s Employed Physicians Report: Loving the Focus, Hating the Bureaucracy, 61% of physicians reported that they sometimes or often come to work sick. Only 2% of respondents said they never come to work unwell.

Medscape wanted to know more about how often you call in sick, how often you come to work feeling unwell, what symptoms you have, and the dogma of your workplace culture regarding sick days. Not to mention the brutal ethos that starts in medical school, in which calling in sick shows weakness or is unacceptable.

So, we polled 2,347 physicians in the United States and abroad and asked them about their sniffling, sneezing, cold, flu, and fever symptoms, and, of course, COVID. Results were split about 50-50 among male and female physicians. The poll ran from Sept. 28 through Oct. 11.
 

Coming to work sick

It’s no surprise that the majority of physicians who were polled (85%) have come to work sick in 2022. In the last prepandemic year (2019), about 70% came to work feeling sick one to five times, and 13% worked while sick six to ten times.

When asked about the symptoms that they’ve previously come to work with, 48% of U.S. physicians said multiple symptoms. They gave high marks for runny nose, cough, congestion, and sore throat. Only 27% have worked with a fever, 22% have worked with other symptoms, and 7% have worked with both strep throat and COVID.

“My workplace, especially in the COVID years, accommodates persons who honestly do not feel well enough to report. Sooner or later, everyone covers for someone else who has to be out,” says Kenneth Abbott, MD, an oncologist in Maryland.
 

The culture of working while sick

Why doctors come to work when they’re sick is complicated. The overwhelming majority of U.S. respondents cited professional obligations; 73% noted that they feel a professional obligation to their patients, and 72% feel a professional obligation to their co-workers. Half of the polled U.S. physicians said they didn’t feel bad enough to stay home, while 48% said they had too much work to do to stay home.

Some 45% said the expectation at their workplace is to come to work unless seriously ill; 43% had too many patients to see; and 18% didn’t think they were contagious when they headed to work sick. Unfortunately, 15% chose to work while sick because otherwise they would lose pay.

In light of these responses, it’s not surprising that 93% reported they’d seen other medical professionals working when sick.

“My schedule is almost always booked weeks in advance. If someone misses or has to cancel their appointment, they typically have 2-4 weeks to wait to get back in. If I was sick and a full day of patients (or God forbid more than a day) had to be canceled because I called in, it’s so much more work when I return,” says Caitlin Briggs, MD, a psychiatrist in Lexington, Ky.
 

Doctors’ workplace sick day policy

Most employees’ benefits allow at least a few sick days, but doctors who treat society’s ill patients don’t seem to stay home from work when they’re suffering. So, we asked physicians, official policy aside, whether they thought going to work sick was expected in their workplace. The majority (76%) said yes, while 24% said no.

“Unless I’m dying or extremely contagious, I usually work. At least now, I have the telehealth option. Not saying any of this is right, but it’s the reality we deal with and the choice we must make,” says Dr. Briggs.

Additionally, 58% of polled physicians said their workplace did not have a clearly defined policy against coming to work sick, while 20% said theirs did, and 22% weren’t sure.

“The first thing I heard on the subject as a medical student was that sick people come to the hospital, so if you’re sick, then you come to the hospital too ... to work. If you can’t work, then you will be admitted. Another aphorism was from Churchill, that ‘most of the world’s work is done by people who don’t feel very well,’ ” says Paul Andreason, MD, a psychiatrist in Bethesda, Md.
 

Working in the time of COVID

Working while ill during ordinary times is one thing, but what about working in the time of COVID? Has the pandemic changed the culture of coming to work sick because medical facilities, such as doctor’s offices and hospitals, don’t want their staff coming in when they have COVID?

Surprisingly, when we asked physicians whether the pandemic has made it more or less acceptable to come to work sick, only 61% thought COVID has made it less acceptable to work while sick, while 16% thought it made it more acceptable, and 23% said there’s no change.

“I draw the line at fevers/chills, feeling like you’ve just been run over, or significant enteritis,” says Dr. Abbott. “Also, if I have to take palliative meds that interfere with alertness, I’m not doing my patients any favors.”

While a minority of physicians may call in sick, most still suffer through their sneezing, coughing, chills, and fever while seeing patients as usual.

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

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has released updated and expanded recommendations for prescribing opioids for adults with acute and chronic pain not related to cancer, sickle cell disease, or palliative/end-of-life care.

The 2022 Clinical Practice Guideline provides guidance on determining whether to initiate opioids for pain; selecting opioids and determining opioid dosages; deciding duration of initial opioid prescription and conducting follow-up; and assessing risk and addressing potential harms of opioid use.

“Patients with pain should receive compassionate, safe, and effective pain care. We want clinicians and patients to have the information they need to weigh the benefits of different approaches to pain care, with the goal of helping people reduce their pain and improve their quality of life,” Christopher M. Jones, PharmD, DrPH, acting director for the CDC’s National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, said in a news release.
 

How to taper safely

The last guideline on the topic was released by CDC in 2016. Since then, new evidence has emerged regarding the benefits and risks of prescription opioids for acute and chronic pain, comparisons with nonopioid pain treatments, dosing strategies, opioid dose-dependent effects, risk mitigation strategies, and opioid tapering and discontinuation, the CDC says.

A “critical” addition to the 2022 guideline is advice on tapering opioids, Dr. Jones said during a press briefing.

“Practical tips on how to taper in an individualized patient-centered manner have been added to help clinicians if the decision is made to taper opioids, and the guideline explicitly advises against abrupt discontinuation or rapid dose reductions of opioids,” Dr. Jones said.

“That is based on lessons learned over the last several years as well as new science about how we approach tapering and the real harms that can result when patients are abruptly discontinued or rapidly tapered,” he added.

The updated guideline was published online Nov. 3 in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

Key recommendations in the 100-page document include the following:

• In determining whether or not to initiate opioids, nonopioid therapies are at least as effective as opioids for many common types of acute pain. Use of nondrug and nonopioid drug therapies should be maximized as appropriate, and opioid therapy should only be considered for acute pain if it is anticipated that benefits outweigh risks to the patient.
• Before starting opioid therapy, providers should discuss with patients the realistic benefits and known risks of opioid therapy.
• Before starting ongoing opioid therapy for patients with subacute pain lasting 1 to 3 months or chronic pain lasting more than 3 months, providers should work with patients to establish treatment goals for pain and function, and consideration should be given as to how opioid therapy will be discontinued if benefits do not outweigh risks.
• Once opioids are started, the lowest effective dose of immediate-release opioids should be prescribed for no longer than needed for the expected duration of pain severe enough to require opioids.
• Within 1 to 4 weeks of starting opioid therapy for subacute or chronic pain, providers should work with patients to evaluate and carefully weigh benefits and risks of continuing opioid therapy; care should be exercised when increasing, continuing, or reducing opioid dosage.
• Before starting and periodically during ongoing opioid therapy, providers should evaluate risk for opioid-related harms and should work with patients to incorporate relevant strategies to mitigate risk, including offering naloxone and reviewing potential interactions with any other prescribed medications or substance used.
• Abrupt discontinuation of opioids should be avoided, especially for patients receiving high doses.
• For treating patients with opioid use disorder, treatment with evidence-based medications should be provided, or arrangements for such treatment should be made.

Dr. Jones emphasized that the guideline is “voluntary and meant to guide shared decision-making between a clinician and patient. It’s not meant to be implemented as absolute limits of policy or practice by clinicians, health systems, insurance companies, governmental entities.”

He also noted that the “current state of the overdose crisis, which is very much driven by illicit synthetic opioids, is not the aim of this guideline.

“The release of this guideline is really about advancing pain care and improving the lives of patients living with pain,” he said.

“We know that at least 1 in 5 people in the country have chronic pain. It’s one of the most common reasons why people present to their health care provider, and the goal here is to advance pain care, function, and quality of life for that patient population, while also reducing misuse, diversion, and consequences of prescription opioid misuse,” Dr. Jones added.

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

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has released updated and expanded recommendations for prescribing opioids for adults with acute and chronic pain not related to cancer, sickle cell disease, or palliative/end-of-life care.

The 2022 Clinical Practice Guideline provides guidance on determining whether to initiate opioids for pain; selecting opioids and determining opioid dosages; deciding duration of initial opioid prescription and conducting follow-up; and assessing risk and addressing potential harms of opioid use.

“Patients with pain should receive compassionate, safe, and effective pain care. We want clinicians and patients to have the information they need to weigh the benefits of different approaches to pain care, with the goal of helping people reduce their pain and improve their quality of life,” Christopher M. Jones, PharmD, DrPH, acting director for the CDC’s National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, said in a news release.
 

How to taper safely

The last guideline on the topic was released by CDC in 2016. Since then, new evidence has emerged regarding the benefits and risks of prescription opioids for acute and chronic pain, comparisons with nonopioid pain treatments, dosing strategies, opioid dose-dependent effects, risk mitigation strategies, and opioid tapering and discontinuation, the CDC says.

A “critical” addition to the 2022 guideline is advice on tapering opioids, Dr. Jones said during a press briefing.

“Practical tips on how to taper in an individualized patient-centered manner have been added to help clinicians if the decision is made to taper opioids, and the guideline explicitly advises against abrupt discontinuation or rapid dose reductions of opioids,” Dr. Jones said.

“That is based on lessons learned over the last several years as well as new science about how we approach tapering and the real harms that can result when patients are abruptly discontinued or rapidly tapered,” he added.

The updated guideline was published online Nov. 3 in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

Key recommendations in the 100-page document include the following:

• In determining whether or not to initiate opioids, nonopioid therapies are at least as effective as opioids for many common types of acute pain. Use of nondrug and nonopioid drug therapies should be maximized as appropriate, and opioid therapy should only be considered for acute pain if it is anticipated that benefits outweigh risks to the patient.
• Before starting opioid therapy, providers should discuss with patients the realistic benefits and known risks of opioid therapy.
• Before starting ongoing opioid therapy for patients with subacute pain lasting 1 to 3 months or chronic pain lasting more than 3 months, providers should work with patients to establish treatment goals for pain and function, and consideration should be given as to how opioid therapy will be discontinued if benefits do not outweigh risks.
• Once opioids are started, the lowest effective dose of immediate-release opioids should be prescribed for no longer than needed for the expected duration of pain severe enough to require opioids.
• Within 1 to 4 weeks of starting opioid therapy for subacute or chronic pain, providers should work with patients to evaluate and carefully weigh benefits and risks of continuing opioid therapy; care should be exercised when increasing, continuing, or reducing opioid dosage.
• Before starting and periodically during ongoing opioid therapy, providers should evaluate risk for opioid-related harms and should work with patients to incorporate relevant strategies to mitigate risk, including offering naloxone and reviewing potential interactions with any other prescribed medications or substance used.
• Abrupt discontinuation of opioids should be avoided, especially for patients receiving high doses.
• For treating patients with opioid use disorder, treatment with evidence-based medications should be provided, or arrangements for such treatment should be made.

Dr. Jones emphasized that the guideline is “voluntary and meant to guide shared decision-making between a clinician and patient. It’s not meant to be implemented as absolute limits of policy or practice by clinicians, health systems, insurance companies, governmental entities.”

He also noted that the “current state of the overdose crisis, which is very much driven by illicit synthetic opioids, is not the aim of this guideline.

“The release of this guideline is really about advancing pain care and improving the lives of patients living with pain,” he said.

“We know that at least 1 in 5 people in the country have chronic pain. It’s one of the most common reasons why people present to their health care provider, and the goal here is to advance pain care, function, and quality of life for that patient population, while also reducing misuse, diversion, and consequences of prescription opioid misuse,” Dr. Jones added.

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

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has released updated and expanded recommendations for prescribing opioids for adults with acute and chronic pain not related to cancer, sickle cell disease, or palliative/end-of-life care.

The 2022 Clinical Practice Guideline provides guidance on determining whether to initiate opioids for pain; selecting opioids and determining opioid dosages; deciding duration of initial opioid prescription and conducting follow-up; and assessing risk and addressing potential harms of opioid use.

“Patients with pain should receive compassionate, safe, and effective pain care. We want clinicians and patients to have the information they need to weigh the benefits of different approaches to pain care, with the goal of helping people reduce their pain and improve their quality of life,” Christopher M. Jones, PharmD, DrPH, acting director for the CDC’s National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, said in a news release.
 

How to taper safely

The last guideline on the topic was released by CDC in 2016. Since then, new evidence has emerged regarding the benefits and risks of prescription opioids for acute and chronic pain, comparisons with nonopioid pain treatments, dosing strategies, opioid dose-dependent effects, risk mitigation strategies, and opioid tapering and discontinuation, the CDC says.

A “critical” addition to the 2022 guideline is advice on tapering opioids, Dr. Jones said during a press briefing.

“Practical tips on how to taper in an individualized patient-centered manner have been added to help clinicians if the decision is made to taper opioids, and the guideline explicitly advises against abrupt discontinuation or rapid dose reductions of opioids,” Dr. Jones said.

“That is based on lessons learned over the last several years as well as new science about how we approach tapering and the real harms that can result when patients are abruptly discontinued or rapidly tapered,” he added.

The updated guideline was published online Nov. 3 in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

Key recommendations in the 100-page document include the following:

• In determining whether or not to initiate opioids, nonopioid therapies are at least as effective as opioids for many common types of acute pain. Use of nondrug and nonopioid drug therapies should be maximized as appropriate, and opioid therapy should only be considered for acute pain if it is anticipated that benefits outweigh risks to the patient.
• Before starting opioid therapy, providers should discuss with patients the realistic benefits and known risks of opioid therapy.
• Before starting ongoing opioid therapy for patients with subacute pain lasting 1 to 3 months or chronic pain lasting more than 3 months, providers should work with patients to establish treatment goals for pain and function, and consideration should be given as to how opioid therapy will be discontinued if benefits do not outweigh risks.
• Once opioids are started, the lowest effective dose of immediate-release opioids should be prescribed for no longer than needed for the expected duration of pain severe enough to require opioids.
• Within 1 to 4 weeks of starting opioid therapy for subacute or chronic pain, providers should work with patients to evaluate and carefully weigh benefits and risks of continuing opioid therapy; care should be exercised when increasing, continuing, or reducing opioid dosage.
• Before starting and periodically during ongoing opioid therapy, providers should evaluate risk for opioid-related harms and should work with patients to incorporate relevant strategies to mitigate risk, including offering naloxone and reviewing potential interactions with any other prescribed medications or substance used.
• Abrupt discontinuation of opioids should be avoided, especially for patients receiving high doses.
• For treating patients with opioid use disorder, treatment with evidence-based medications should be provided, or arrangements for such treatment should be made.

Dr. Jones emphasized that the guideline is “voluntary and meant to guide shared decision-making between a clinician and patient. It’s not meant to be implemented as absolute limits of policy or practice by clinicians, health systems, insurance companies, governmental entities.”

He also noted that the “current state of the overdose crisis, which is very much driven by illicit synthetic opioids, is not the aim of this guideline.

“The release of this guideline is really about advancing pain care and improving the lives of patients living with pain,” he said.

“We know that at least 1 in 5 people in the country have chronic pain. It’s one of the most common reasons why people present to their health care provider, and the goal here is to advance pain care, function, and quality of life for that patient population, while also reducing misuse, diversion, and consequences of prescription opioid misuse,” Dr. Jones added.

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

Attendees at ObesityWeek® 2022 listened with much excitement to the results of the STEP TEENS phase 3 trial of once-weekly subcutaneous semaglutide 2.4 mg (Wegovy) in adolescents aged 12 up to 18 years old with obesity.

When a session panel member said that clinical trials of weight-loss medications for adolescents with obesity should henceforth stop using placebo controls – implying that comparison with the once-weekly injection semaglutide would be more informative – the audience applauded.

The results were also simultaneously published in the New England Journal of Medicine to coincide with the presentation.  

The research “gives hope” to adolescents with obesity, their parents, and their doctors, the trial’s principal investigator, Daniel Weghuber, MD, said in an interview.

“Many of them have been struggling for such a long time – both the parents and the kids themselves,” said Dr. Weghuber, from the department of pediatrics, Paracelsus Medical University, Salzburg, Austria.

“It’s not an issue of lack of willpower,” he stressed. “That’s a major misunderstanding.”

“This drug [semaglutide] seems to enable people who are living with obesity to adhere to the recommendations that they may have been following for years and years but were [still] not able to achieve their goal,” he said. It “enables people to achieve their goals.”

Asked about any potential negative impact on normal growth, Dr. Weghuber pointed out that the average weight of study participants was 107 kg (236 lb). “I’m really not afraid of a 15-year-old with 107 kg losing 10%, 15%, 20%” of their weight, he said. There was no indication of a problem regarding normal growth or development in the study.

The research showed that “there is the combination of lifestyle plus in the future anti-obesity medications that will open up a new chapter” for treating adolescents with obesity, he summarized.

Senior study author, Silva Arslanian, MD, who holds the Richard L. Day Endowed Chair in Pediatrics at the University of Pittsburgh, agreed. “The results are amazing,” said Dr. Arslanian in a press release issued by the University of Pittsburgh. “For a person who is 5 foot, 5 inches tall and weighs 240 pounds, the average reduction in BMI equates to shedding about 40 pounds.”
 

‘Mind-blowing, awesome’ results

The session at ObesityWeek® 2022, the annual meeting of the Obesity Society, was chaired by Aaron S. Kelly, PhD, professor of pediatrics and codirector of the center for pediatric obesity medicine at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.

Dr. Kelly led the SCALE TEENS clinical trial of liraglutide (Saxenda), also a glucagon-like peptide (GLP-1) agonist like semaglutide, for adolescents aged 12 up to 18 years with obesity, which assigned 125 participants to the daily injectable liraglutide group and 126 to the placebo group. SCALE TEENS was presented and published in May 2020, leading to the approval of liraglutide for obesity in this age group, in December 2020.

Dr. Kelly called on two experts who were not involved in the research to offer their comments, starting with Claudia K. Fox, MD, MPH.

“These results are mind-blowing,” said Dr. Fox, who is associate professor of pediatrics and codirector of the center for pediatric obesity medicine at the University of Minnesota.

“We are getting close to bariatric surgery results” in these adolescent patients with obesity, added Dr. Fox, who is an American Board of Obesity Medicine diplomate. To have 40% of patients attain normal weight, “that’s massive” and “life-changing,” she said. And improvement in quality of life is what families care most about. “I am super excited,” she commented.

Next, Dr. Kelly called on Sarah C. Armstrong, MD, director of the Duke Children’s Healthy Lifestyles Program, Duke University, Durham, N.C.

Dr. Armstrong is a member of the executive committee for the American Academy of Pediatrics Section on Obesity and a coauthor of the upcoming clinical practice guidelines that are being published.

Looking at more than 16,000 abstracts at the meeting shows that “watchful waiting is not effective,” Dr. Armstrong said.
 

200 teens with obesity, only 1 with overweight

Obesity affects almost one in five children and adolescents worldwide. The chronic disease is linked with decreased life expectancy and higher risk of developing serious health problems such as type 2 diabetes, heart disease, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, sleep apnea, and certain cancers. Teenagers with obesity are also more likely to have depression, anxiety, poor self-esteem, and other psychological issues.

STEP TEENS enrolled 201 adolescents aged 12 up to 18 years with obesity (body mass index [BMI] ≥ 95th percentile) or overweight (BMI ≥ 85th percentile) plus at least one weight-related comorbidity.

Only one recruited patient fit the latter category; the rest had obesity.

Most patients (62%) were female. They had a mean age of 15.4 years, a mean BMI of 37 kg/m², and a mean waist circumference of 110 cm (43 inches).

Patients were randomized 2:1 to receive a once-weekly 2.4-mg subcutaneous injection of semaglutide or placebo for 68 weeks, plus lifestyle intervention.

Dr. Weghuber noted that 89.6% of patients in the semaglutide group completed treatment.

The primary endpoint, mean change in BMI from baseline to week 68, was −16.1% with semaglutide and +0.6% with placebo (estimated difference, −16.7 percentage points; P < .001).

A second confirmatory endpoint, at least 5% weight loss at week 68, was met by 73% of patients in the semaglutide group versus 18% of patients in the placebo group (P < .001).

Reductions in body weight and improvements in waist circumference, A1c, lipids (except HDL cholesterol), and the liver enzyme alanine aminotransferase were greater with semaglutide than placebo.

The Impact of Weight on Quality of Life – Kids (IWQOL-Kids) questionnaire total score as well as scores for body esteem, family relation, physical comfort, and social life were better in the semaglutide group.

However, the incidence of gastrointestinal adverse events was greater with semaglutide than placebo (62% versus 42%).

Five participants (4%) in the semaglutide group and none in the placebo group developed gallstones (cholelithiasis).

Serious adverse events were reported in 11% of patients in the semaglutide group and 9% of patients in the placebo group.
 

‘Big change’ coming in guidelines for obesity in teens

Commenting on the upcoming new recommendations for adolescents, Dr. Armstrong noted “there’s going to be a strong recommendation” for therapy in the new guidelines for pediatric obesity. “That’s a big change,” she said.

In the lively question-and-answer session that followed, a clinician wanted to know what explained the very high rate of study completion during the COVID-19 pandemic (when STEP TEENS was conducted). “What can we learn?” he asked.

“The bottom line is the relationship” and “close communication” between study investigators and patients, Dr. Weghuber replied.

“The fast track is likely to lead to approval in adolescents,” another member of the audience noted. He wanted to know if the company is planning a trial of semaglutide in younger children.

They are, Dr. Weghuber replied, and one with liraglutide is already underway.

The SCALE KIDS clinical trial of liraglutide is randomizing 78 participants aged 6 up to 12 years for 56 weeks of treatment and 26 weeks of follow-up, with an estimated primary completion date of July 7, 2023.

The last words went to Dr. Fox. The current results “are indeed very awesome,” she said, yet “thousands of providers are hesitant” to prescribe medications for adolescents with obesity.

The trial was funded by Novo Nordisk. Dr. Weghuber has reported being a consultant for Novo Nordisk and member of the Global Pediatric Obesity Expert Panel for the company. Disclosures for the other authors are listed with the article. Dr. Kelly has reported receiving donated drugs from AstraZeneca and travel support from Novo Nordisk and serving as an unpaid consultant for Novo Nordisk, Orexigen Therapeutics, VIVUS, and WW (formerly Weight Watchers).

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

Attendees at ObesityWeek® 2022 listened with much excitement to the results of the STEP TEENS phase 3 trial of once-weekly subcutaneous semaglutide 2.4 mg (Wegovy) in adolescents aged 12 up to 18 years old with obesity.

When a session panel member said that clinical trials of weight-loss medications for adolescents with obesity should henceforth stop using placebo controls – implying that comparison with the once-weekly injection semaglutide would be more informative – the audience applauded.

The results were also simultaneously published in the New England Journal of Medicine to coincide with the presentation.  

The research “gives hope” to adolescents with obesity, their parents, and their doctors, the trial’s principal investigator, Daniel Weghuber, MD, said in an interview.

“Many of them have been struggling for such a long time – both the parents and the kids themselves,” said Dr. Weghuber, from the department of pediatrics, Paracelsus Medical University, Salzburg, Austria.

“It’s not an issue of lack of willpower,” he stressed. “That’s a major misunderstanding.”

“This drug [semaglutide] seems to enable people who are living with obesity to adhere to the recommendations that they may have been following for years and years but were [still] not able to achieve their goal,” he said. It “enables people to achieve their goals.”

Asked about any potential negative impact on normal growth, Dr. Weghuber pointed out that the average weight of study participants was 107 kg (236 lb). “I’m really not afraid of a 15-year-old with 107 kg losing 10%, 15%, 20%” of their weight, he said. There was no indication of a problem regarding normal growth or development in the study.

The research showed that “there is the combination of lifestyle plus in the future anti-obesity medications that will open up a new chapter” for treating adolescents with obesity, he summarized.

Senior study author, Silva Arslanian, MD, who holds the Richard L. Day Endowed Chair in Pediatrics at the University of Pittsburgh, agreed. “The results are amazing,” said Dr. Arslanian in a press release issued by the University of Pittsburgh. “For a person who is 5 foot, 5 inches tall and weighs 240 pounds, the average reduction in BMI equates to shedding about 40 pounds.”
 

‘Mind-blowing, awesome’ results

The session at ObesityWeek® 2022, the annual meeting of the Obesity Society, was chaired by Aaron S. Kelly, PhD, professor of pediatrics and codirector of the center for pediatric obesity medicine at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.

Dr. Kelly led the SCALE TEENS clinical trial of liraglutide (Saxenda), also a glucagon-like peptide (GLP-1) agonist like semaglutide, for adolescents aged 12 up to 18 years with obesity, which assigned 125 participants to the daily injectable liraglutide group and 126 to the placebo group. SCALE TEENS was presented and published in May 2020, leading to the approval of liraglutide for obesity in this age group, in December 2020.

Dr. Kelly called on two experts who were not involved in the research to offer their comments, starting with Claudia K. Fox, MD, MPH.

“These results are mind-blowing,” said Dr. Fox, who is associate professor of pediatrics and codirector of the center for pediatric obesity medicine at the University of Minnesota.

“We are getting close to bariatric surgery results” in these adolescent patients with obesity, added Dr. Fox, who is an American Board of Obesity Medicine diplomate. To have 40% of patients attain normal weight, “that’s massive” and “life-changing,” she said. And improvement in quality of life is what families care most about. “I am super excited,” she commented.

Next, Dr. Kelly called on Sarah C. Armstrong, MD, director of the Duke Children’s Healthy Lifestyles Program, Duke University, Durham, N.C.

Dr. Armstrong is a member of the executive committee for the American Academy of Pediatrics Section on Obesity and a coauthor of the upcoming clinical practice guidelines that are being published.

Looking at more than 16,000 abstracts at the meeting shows that “watchful waiting is not effective,” Dr. Armstrong said.
 

200 teens with obesity, only 1 with overweight

Obesity affects almost one in five children and adolescents worldwide. The chronic disease is linked with decreased life expectancy and higher risk of developing serious health problems such as type 2 diabetes, heart disease, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, sleep apnea, and certain cancers. Teenagers with obesity are also more likely to have depression, anxiety, poor self-esteem, and other psychological issues.

STEP TEENS enrolled 201 adolescents aged 12 up to 18 years with obesity (body mass index [BMI] ≥ 95th percentile) or overweight (BMI ≥ 85th percentile) plus at least one weight-related comorbidity.

Only one recruited patient fit the latter category; the rest had obesity.

Most patients (62%) were female. They had a mean age of 15.4 years, a mean BMI of 37 kg/m², and a mean waist circumference of 110 cm (43 inches).

Patients were randomized 2:1 to receive a once-weekly 2.4-mg subcutaneous injection of semaglutide or placebo for 68 weeks, plus lifestyle intervention.

Dr. Weghuber noted that 89.6% of patients in the semaglutide group completed treatment.

The primary endpoint, mean change in BMI from baseline to week 68, was −16.1% with semaglutide and +0.6% with placebo (estimated difference, −16.7 percentage points; P < .001).

A second confirmatory endpoint, at least 5% weight loss at week 68, was met by 73% of patients in the semaglutide group versus 18% of patients in the placebo group (P < .001).

Reductions in body weight and improvements in waist circumference, A1c, lipids (except HDL cholesterol), and the liver enzyme alanine aminotransferase were greater with semaglutide than placebo.

The Impact of Weight on Quality of Life – Kids (IWQOL-Kids) questionnaire total score as well as scores for body esteem, family relation, physical comfort, and social life were better in the semaglutide group.

However, the incidence of gastrointestinal adverse events was greater with semaglutide than placebo (62% versus 42%).

Five participants (4%) in the semaglutide group and none in the placebo group developed gallstones (cholelithiasis).

Serious adverse events were reported in 11% of patients in the semaglutide group and 9% of patients in the placebo group.
 

‘Big change’ coming in guidelines for obesity in teens

Commenting on the upcoming new recommendations for adolescents, Dr. Armstrong noted “there’s going to be a strong recommendation” for therapy in the new guidelines for pediatric obesity. “That’s a big change,” she said.

In the lively question-and-answer session that followed, a clinician wanted to know what explained the very high rate of study completion during the COVID-19 pandemic (when STEP TEENS was conducted). “What can we learn?” he asked.

“The bottom line is the relationship” and “close communication” between study investigators and patients, Dr. Weghuber replied.

“The fast track is likely to lead to approval in adolescents,” another member of the audience noted. He wanted to know if the company is planning a trial of semaglutide in younger children.

They are, Dr. Weghuber replied, and one with liraglutide is already underway.

The SCALE KIDS clinical trial of liraglutide is randomizing 78 participants aged 6 up to 12 years for 56 weeks of treatment and 26 weeks of follow-up, with an estimated primary completion date of July 7, 2023.

The last words went to Dr. Fox. The current results “are indeed very awesome,” she said, yet “thousands of providers are hesitant” to prescribe medications for adolescents with obesity.

The trial was funded by Novo Nordisk. Dr. Weghuber has reported being a consultant for Novo Nordisk and member of the Global Pediatric Obesity Expert Panel for the company. Disclosures for the other authors are listed with the article. Dr. Kelly has reported receiving donated drugs from AstraZeneca and travel support from Novo Nordisk and serving as an unpaid consultant for Novo Nordisk, Orexigen Therapeutics, VIVUS, and WW (formerly Weight Watchers).

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

Attendees at ObesityWeek® 2022 listened with much excitement to the results of the STEP TEENS phase 3 trial of once-weekly subcutaneous semaglutide 2.4 mg (Wegovy) in adolescents aged 12 up to 18 years old with obesity.

When a session panel member said that clinical trials of weight-loss medications for adolescents with obesity should henceforth stop using placebo controls – implying that comparison with the once-weekly injection semaglutide would be more informative – the audience applauded.

The results were also simultaneously published in the New England Journal of Medicine to coincide with the presentation.  

The research “gives hope” to adolescents with obesity, their parents, and their doctors, the trial’s principal investigator, Daniel Weghuber, MD, said in an interview.

“Many of them have been struggling for such a long time – both the parents and the kids themselves,” said Dr. Weghuber, from the department of pediatrics, Paracelsus Medical University, Salzburg, Austria.

“It’s not an issue of lack of willpower,” he stressed. “That’s a major misunderstanding.”

“This drug [semaglutide] seems to enable people who are living with obesity to adhere to the recommendations that they may have been following for years and years but were [still] not able to achieve their goal,” he said. It “enables people to achieve their goals.”

Asked about any potential negative impact on normal growth, Dr. Weghuber pointed out that the average weight of study participants was 107 kg (236 lb). “I’m really not afraid of a 15-year-old with 107 kg losing 10%, 15%, 20%” of their weight, he said. There was no indication of a problem regarding normal growth or development in the study.

The research showed that “there is the combination of lifestyle plus in the future anti-obesity medications that will open up a new chapter” for treating adolescents with obesity, he summarized.

Senior study author, Silva Arslanian, MD, who holds the Richard L. Day Endowed Chair in Pediatrics at the University of Pittsburgh, agreed. “The results are amazing,” said Dr. Arslanian in a press release issued by the University of Pittsburgh. “For a person who is 5 foot, 5 inches tall and weighs 240 pounds, the average reduction in BMI equates to shedding about 40 pounds.”
 

‘Mind-blowing, awesome’ results

The session at ObesityWeek® 2022, the annual meeting of the Obesity Society, was chaired by Aaron S. Kelly, PhD, professor of pediatrics and codirector of the center for pediatric obesity medicine at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.

Dr. Kelly led the SCALE TEENS clinical trial of liraglutide (Saxenda), also a glucagon-like peptide (GLP-1) agonist like semaglutide, for adolescents aged 12 up to 18 years with obesity, which assigned 125 participants to the daily injectable liraglutide group and 126 to the placebo group. SCALE TEENS was presented and published in May 2020, leading to the approval of liraglutide for obesity in this age group, in December 2020.

Dr. Kelly called on two experts who were not involved in the research to offer their comments, starting with Claudia K. Fox, MD, MPH.

“These results are mind-blowing,” said Dr. Fox, who is associate professor of pediatrics and codirector of the center for pediatric obesity medicine at the University of Minnesota.

“We are getting close to bariatric surgery results” in these adolescent patients with obesity, added Dr. Fox, who is an American Board of Obesity Medicine diplomate. To have 40% of patients attain normal weight, “that’s massive” and “life-changing,” she said. And improvement in quality of life is what families care most about. “I am super excited,” she commented.

Next, Dr. Kelly called on Sarah C. Armstrong, MD, director of the Duke Children’s Healthy Lifestyles Program, Duke University, Durham, N.C.

Dr. Armstrong is a member of the executive committee for the American Academy of Pediatrics Section on Obesity and a coauthor of the upcoming clinical practice guidelines that are being published.

Looking at more than 16,000 abstracts at the meeting shows that “watchful waiting is not effective,” Dr. Armstrong said.
 

200 teens with obesity, only 1 with overweight

Obesity affects almost one in five children and adolescents worldwide. The chronic disease is linked with decreased life expectancy and higher risk of developing serious health problems such as type 2 diabetes, heart disease, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, sleep apnea, and certain cancers. Teenagers with obesity are also more likely to have depression, anxiety, poor self-esteem, and other psychological issues.

STEP TEENS enrolled 201 adolescents aged 12 up to 18 years with obesity (body mass index [BMI] ≥ 95th percentile) or overweight (BMI ≥ 85th percentile) plus at least one weight-related comorbidity.

Only one recruited patient fit the latter category; the rest had obesity.

Most patients (62%) were female. They had a mean age of 15.4 years, a mean BMI of 37 kg/m², and a mean waist circumference of 110 cm (43 inches).

Patients were randomized 2:1 to receive a once-weekly 2.4-mg subcutaneous injection of semaglutide or placebo for 68 weeks, plus lifestyle intervention.

Dr. Weghuber noted that 89.6% of patients in the semaglutide group completed treatment.

The primary endpoint, mean change in BMI from baseline to week 68, was −16.1% with semaglutide and +0.6% with placebo (estimated difference, −16.7 percentage points; P < .001).

A second confirmatory endpoint, at least 5% weight loss at week 68, was met by 73% of patients in the semaglutide group versus 18% of patients in the placebo group (P < .001).

Reductions in body weight and improvements in waist circumference, A1c, lipids (except HDL cholesterol), and the liver enzyme alanine aminotransferase were greater with semaglutide than placebo.

The Impact of Weight on Quality of Life – Kids (IWQOL-Kids) questionnaire total score as well as scores for body esteem, family relation, physical comfort, and social life were better in the semaglutide group.

However, the incidence of gastrointestinal adverse events was greater with semaglutide than placebo (62% versus 42%).

Five participants (4%) in the semaglutide group and none in the placebo group developed gallstones (cholelithiasis).

Serious adverse events were reported in 11% of patients in the semaglutide group and 9% of patients in the placebo group.
 

‘Big change’ coming in guidelines for obesity in teens

Commenting on the upcoming new recommendations for adolescents, Dr. Armstrong noted “there’s going to be a strong recommendation” for therapy in the new guidelines for pediatric obesity. “That’s a big change,” she said.

In the lively question-and-answer session that followed, a clinician wanted to know what explained the very high rate of study completion during the COVID-19 pandemic (when STEP TEENS was conducted). “What can we learn?” he asked.

“The bottom line is the relationship” and “close communication” between study investigators and patients, Dr. Weghuber replied.

“The fast track is likely to lead to approval in adolescents,” another member of the audience noted. He wanted to know if the company is planning a trial of semaglutide in younger children.

They are, Dr. Weghuber replied, and one with liraglutide is already underway.

The SCALE KIDS clinical trial of liraglutide is randomizing 78 participants aged 6 up to 12 years for 56 weeks of treatment and 26 weeks of follow-up, with an estimated primary completion date of July 7, 2023.

The last words went to Dr. Fox. The current results “are indeed very awesome,” she said, yet “thousands of providers are hesitant” to prescribe medications for adolescents with obesity.

The trial was funded by Novo Nordisk. Dr. Weghuber has reported being a consultant for Novo Nordisk and member of the Global Pediatric Obesity Expert Panel for the company. Disclosures for the other authors are listed with the article. Dr. Kelly has reported receiving donated drugs from AstraZeneca and travel support from Novo Nordisk and serving as an unpaid consultant for Novo Nordisk, Orexigen Therapeutics, VIVUS, and WW (formerly Weight Watchers).

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

New trial data from drugmaker Pfizer shows promising results of a vaccine given to mothers during pregnancy that later protects infants in their first months from the worst effects of respiratory syncytial virus, or RSV.

Pfizer will apply for FDA approval by the end of the year, the company said in a statement Nov. 1.

Trial results are so promising that – after talking with government regulators – the company will stop enrolling new people in the study.

Specifically, the company reported that the vaccine prevented severe illness particularly well during the first 90 days of life, with measurable protection against severe illness continuing through 6 months of age. (That period is when infants are the most fragile if they get sick with RSV.)

RSV is a respiratory illness than can affect anyone, usually resulting in no symptoms or those similar to the common cold. But it can be particularly dangerous – and even deadly – for babies and for people over the age of 65. Pfizer and another drug company, GSK, are developing promising vaccines for older adults, the Washington Post reported.

RSV is the leading cause of hospitalization for infants, the Post noted.

The Pfizer study, called MATISSE, enrolled 7,400 pregnant women in 18 countries worldwide. Those who received the vaccine were given it during the late second to third trimester of pregnancy. Women in the study were monitored for safety through the rest of their pregnancy and 6 months after their children were born. Infants were monitored for at least 1 year for safety and effectiveness; more than half of them were monitored for 2 years.

The Pfizer vaccine works by passing maternal antibodies to the infant during pregnancy, the Post reported, noting that other vaccines transmitted via maternal immunization include those for influenza, diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis.

Annually, RSV has a devastating impact on young children, hospitalizing tens of thousands and causing up to 300 deaths, data show.

For every 100 children who get RSV under 6 months of age, one or two of them may need to be hospitalized, according to the CDC. Those hospitalized infants may need oxygen, intubation, or even mechanical ventilation to help with breathing.

“Most improve with this type of supportive care and are discharged in a few days,” the CDC said.

“I think this is a big step for protecting babies against RSV and improving overall lung health,” vaccine researcher Barney Graham, PhD, told the Post. “Overall, it’s an exciting time for RSV. It’s also a troubling time, because you see how the patterns of infection have been changed by COVID, and we’re having an earlier, bigger season this year than we have for a couple of years – and it’s causing a lot of hospitalization and misery for people.”

As many as four RSV vaccines may have applications submitted to the FDA in 2022, according to CNN. Also in development is an antibody shot given to infants just after they are born, the news outlet reported.

Pfizer’s data, announced Tuesday, has not yet been published or peer-reviewed, but the company said it is seeking peer-reviewed publication.

“We are thrilled by these data, as this is the first-ever investigational vaccine shown to help protect newborns against severe RSV-related respiratory illness immediately at birth,” Annaliesa Anderson, PhD, Pfizer chief scientific officer for vaccine research & development, said in a statement. “We look forward to working with the FDA and other regulatory agencies to bring this vaccine candidate to expectant mothers to help protect their infants against severe RSV during their most vulnerable first six months of life, which has the highest burden of RSV illness in infants.”

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

New trial data from drugmaker Pfizer shows promising results of a vaccine given to mothers during pregnancy that later protects infants in their first months from the worst effects of respiratory syncytial virus, or RSV.

Pfizer will apply for FDA approval by the end of the year, the company said in a statement Nov. 1.

Trial results are so promising that – after talking with government regulators – the company will stop enrolling new people in the study.

Specifically, the company reported that the vaccine prevented severe illness particularly well during the first 90 days of life, with measurable protection against severe illness continuing through 6 months of age. (That period is when infants are the most fragile if they get sick with RSV.)

RSV is a respiratory illness than can affect anyone, usually resulting in no symptoms or those similar to the common cold. But it can be particularly dangerous – and even deadly – for babies and for people over the age of 65. Pfizer and another drug company, GSK, are developing promising vaccines for older adults, the Washington Post reported.

RSV is the leading cause of hospitalization for infants, the Post noted.

The Pfizer study, called MATISSE, enrolled 7,400 pregnant women in 18 countries worldwide. Those who received the vaccine were given it during the late second to third trimester of pregnancy. Women in the study were monitored for safety through the rest of their pregnancy and 6 months after their children were born. Infants were monitored for at least 1 year for safety and effectiveness; more than half of them were monitored for 2 years.

The Pfizer vaccine works by passing maternal antibodies to the infant during pregnancy, the Post reported, noting that other vaccines transmitted via maternal immunization include those for influenza, diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis.

Annually, RSV has a devastating impact on young children, hospitalizing tens of thousands and causing up to 300 deaths, data show.

For every 100 children who get RSV under 6 months of age, one or two of them may need to be hospitalized, according to the CDC. Those hospitalized infants may need oxygen, intubation, or even mechanical ventilation to help with breathing.

“Most improve with this type of supportive care and are discharged in a few days,” the CDC said.

“I think this is a big step for protecting babies against RSV and improving overall lung health,” vaccine researcher Barney Graham, PhD, told the Post. “Overall, it’s an exciting time for RSV. It’s also a troubling time, because you see how the patterns of infection have been changed by COVID, and we’re having an earlier, bigger season this year than we have for a couple of years – and it’s causing a lot of hospitalization and misery for people.”

As many as four RSV vaccines may have applications submitted to the FDA in 2022, according to CNN. Also in development is an antibody shot given to infants just after they are born, the news outlet reported.

Pfizer’s data, announced Tuesday, has not yet been published or peer-reviewed, but the company said it is seeking peer-reviewed publication.

“We are thrilled by these data, as this is the first-ever investigational vaccine shown to help protect newborns against severe RSV-related respiratory illness immediately at birth,” Annaliesa Anderson, PhD, Pfizer chief scientific officer for vaccine research & development, said in a statement. “We look forward to working with the FDA and other regulatory agencies to bring this vaccine candidate to expectant mothers to help protect their infants against severe RSV during their most vulnerable first six months of life, which has the highest burden of RSV illness in infants.”

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

New trial data from drugmaker Pfizer shows promising results of a vaccine given to mothers during pregnancy that later protects infants in their first months from the worst effects of respiratory syncytial virus, or RSV.

Pfizer will apply for FDA approval by the end of the year, the company said in a statement Nov. 1.

Trial results are so promising that – after talking with government regulators – the company will stop enrolling new people in the study.

Specifically, the company reported that the vaccine prevented severe illness particularly well during the first 90 days of life, with measurable protection against severe illness continuing through 6 months of age. (That period is when infants are the most fragile if they get sick with RSV.)

RSV is a respiratory illness than can affect anyone, usually resulting in no symptoms or those similar to the common cold. But it can be particularly dangerous – and even deadly – for babies and for people over the age of 65. Pfizer and another drug company, GSK, are developing promising vaccines for older adults, the Washington Post reported.

RSV is the leading cause of hospitalization for infants, the Post noted.

The Pfizer study, called MATISSE, enrolled 7,400 pregnant women in 18 countries worldwide. Those who received the vaccine were given it during the late second to third trimester of pregnancy. Women in the study were monitored for safety through the rest of their pregnancy and 6 months after their children were born. Infants were monitored for at least 1 year for safety and effectiveness; more than half of them were monitored for 2 years.

The Pfizer vaccine works by passing maternal antibodies to the infant during pregnancy, the Post reported, noting that other vaccines transmitted via maternal immunization include those for influenza, diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis.

Annually, RSV has a devastating impact on young children, hospitalizing tens of thousands and causing up to 300 deaths, data show.

For every 100 children who get RSV under 6 months of age, one or two of them may need to be hospitalized, according to the CDC. Those hospitalized infants may need oxygen, intubation, or even mechanical ventilation to help with breathing.

“Most improve with this type of supportive care and are discharged in a few days,” the CDC said.

“I think this is a big step for protecting babies against RSV and improving overall lung health,” vaccine researcher Barney Graham, PhD, told the Post. “Overall, it’s an exciting time for RSV. It’s also a troubling time, because you see how the patterns of infection have been changed by COVID, and we’re having an earlier, bigger season this year than we have for a couple of years – and it’s causing a lot of hospitalization and misery for people.”

As many as four RSV vaccines may have applications submitted to the FDA in 2022, according to CNN. Also in development is an antibody shot given to infants just after they are born, the news outlet reported.

Pfizer’s data, announced Tuesday, has not yet been published or peer-reviewed, but the company said it is seeking peer-reviewed publication.

“We are thrilled by these data, as this is the first-ever investigational vaccine shown to help protect newborns against severe RSV-related respiratory illness immediately at birth,” Annaliesa Anderson, PhD, Pfizer chief scientific officer for vaccine research & development, said in a statement. “We look forward to working with the FDA and other regulatory agencies to bring this vaccine candidate to expectant mothers to help protect their infants against severe RSV during their most vulnerable first six months of life, which has the highest burden of RSV illness in infants.”

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

The liquid form of the antibiotic amoxicillin often used to treat ear infections and strep throat in children is in short supply, just as Americans head into the season when they use the bacteria-fighting drug the most.

The FDA officially listed the shortage Oct. 28, but pharmacists, hospitals, and a supply tracking database sounded alarms earlier this month.

“The scary part is, we’re coming into the time of the year where you have the greatest need,” independent pharmacy owner Hugh Chancy, PharmD, of Georgia, told NBC News. 

Thus far, reports indicate the impact of the shortages is not widespread but does affect some pharmacies, and at least one hospital has published an algorithm for offering treatment alternatives. 

CVS told Bloomberg News that some stores are experiencing shortages of certain doses of amoxicillin, but a Walmart spokesperson said its diverse supply chain meant none of its pharmacies were affected.

“Hypothetically, if amoxicillin doesn’t come into stock for some time, then we’re potentially having to use less effective antibiotics with more side effects,” said Ohio pediatrician Sean Gallagher, MD, according to Bloomberg.

The shortage impacts three of the four largest amoxicillin manufacturers worldwide, according to the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy (CIDRAP) at the University of Minnesota. The FDA listed the reason for the shortage as “demand increase for drug,” except in the case of manufacturer Sandoz, for which the reason listed read “information pending.”

A company spokesperson told Bloomberg the reasons were complex.

“The combination in rapid succession of the pandemic impact and consequent demand swings, manufacturing capacity constraints, scarcity of raw materials, and the current energy crisis means we face a uniquely difficult situation in the short term,” Sandoz spokesperson Leslie Pott told Bloomberg.

According to Bloomberg, other major manufacturers are still delivering the product, but limiting new orders.

The American Society of Health-System Pharmacists issued an alert for the shortage last week via its real time drug shortage database.

“Amoxicillin comes in many forms – including capsules, powders and chewable tablets – but the most common type children take is the liquid form, which makes up at least 19 products that are part of the” shortage, Becker’s Hospital Review summarized of the database reports.

The pediatric health system Children’s Minnesota told CIDRAP that supplies are low and that alternatives are being prescribed “when appropriate.”

“As a final step, we temporarily discontinued our standard procedure of dispensing the entire bottle of amoxicillin (which comes in multiple sizes),” a spokesperson told CIDRAP. “We are instead mixing and pouring the exact amount for each course of therapy, to eliminate waste.” 

The Minnesota pediatric clinic and others are particularly on alert because of the surge nationwide of a respiratory virus that particularly impacts children known as RSV.

“We have certainly observed an increase in recent use most likely correlating with the surge in RSV and other respiratory viruses with concern for superimposed bacterial infection in our critically ill and hospitalized patient population,” Laura Bio, PharmD, a clinical pharmacy specialist at Stanford Medicine Children’s Health told CIDRAP.

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

The liquid form of the antibiotic amoxicillin often used to treat ear infections and strep throat in children is in short supply, just as Americans head into the season when they use the bacteria-fighting drug the most.

The FDA officially listed the shortage Oct. 28, but pharmacists, hospitals, and a supply tracking database sounded alarms earlier this month.

“The scary part is, we’re coming into the time of the year where you have the greatest need,” independent pharmacy owner Hugh Chancy, PharmD, of Georgia, told NBC News. 

Thus far, reports indicate the impact of the shortages is not widespread but does affect some pharmacies, and at least one hospital has published an algorithm for offering treatment alternatives. 

CVS told Bloomberg News that some stores are experiencing shortages of certain doses of amoxicillin, but a Walmart spokesperson said its diverse supply chain meant none of its pharmacies were affected.

“Hypothetically, if amoxicillin doesn’t come into stock for some time, then we’re potentially having to use less effective antibiotics with more side effects,” said Ohio pediatrician Sean Gallagher, MD, according to Bloomberg.

The shortage impacts three of the four largest amoxicillin manufacturers worldwide, according to the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy (CIDRAP) at the University of Minnesota. The FDA listed the reason for the shortage as “demand increase for drug,” except in the case of manufacturer Sandoz, for which the reason listed read “information pending.”

A company spokesperson told Bloomberg the reasons were complex.

“The combination in rapid succession of the pandemic impact and consequent demand swings, manufacturing capacity constraints, scarcity of raw materials, and the current energy crisis means we face a uniquely difficult situation in the short term,” Sandoz spokesperson Leslie Pott told Bloomberg.

According to Bloomberg, other major manufacturers are still delivering the product, but limiting new orders.

The American Society of Health-System Pharmacists issued an alert for the shortage last week via its real time drug shortage database.

“Amoxicillin comes in many forms – including capsules, powders and chewable tablets – but the most common type children take is the liquid form, which makes up at least 19 products that are part of the” shortage, Becker’s Hospital Review summarized of the database reports.

The pediatric health system Children’s Minnesota told CIDRAP that supplies are low and that alternatives are being prescribed “when appropriate.”

“As a final step, we temporarily discontinued our standard procedure of dispensing the entire bottle of amoxicillin (which comes in multiple sizes),” a spokesperson told CIDRAP. “We are instead mixing and pouring the exact amount for each course of therapy, to eliminate waste.” 

The Minnesota pediatric clinic and others are particularly on alert because of the surge nationwide of a respiratory virus that particularly impacts children known as RSV.

“We have certainly observed an increase in recent use most likely correlating with the surge in RSV and other respiratory viruses with concern for superimposed bacterial infection in our critically ill and hospitalized patient population,” Laura Bio, PharmD, a clinical pharmacy specialist at Stanford Medicine Children’s Health told CIDRAP.

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

The liquid form of the antibiotic amoxicillin often used to treat ear infections and strep throat in children is in short supply, just as Americans head into the season when they use the bacteria-fighting drug the most.

The FDA officially listed the shortage Oct. 28, but pharmacists, hospitals, and a supply tracking database sounded alarms earlier this month.

“The scary part is, we’re coming into the time of the year where you have the greatest need,” independent pharmacy owner Hugh Chancy, PharmD, of Georgia, told NBC News. 

Thus far, reports indicate the impact of the shortages is not widespread but does affect some pharmacies, and at least one hospital has published an algorithm for offering treatment alternatives. 

CVS told Bloomberg News that some stores are experiencing shortages of certain doses of amoxicillin, but a Walmart spokesperson said its diverse supply chain meant none of its pharmacies were affected.

“Hypothetically, if amoxicillin doesn’t come into stock for some time, then we’re potentially having to use less effective antibiotics with more side effects,” said Ohio pediatrician Sean Gallagher, MD, according to Bloomberg.

The shortage impacts three of the four largest amoxicillin manufacturers worldwide, according to the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy (CIDRAP) at the University of Minnesota. The FDA listed the reason for the shortage as “demand increase for drug,” except in the case of manufacturer Sandoz, for which the reason listed read “information pending.”

A company spokesperson told Bloomberg the reasons were complex.

“The combination in rapid succession of the pandemic impact and consequent demand swings, manufacturing capacity constraints, scarcity of raw materials, and the current energy crisis means we face a uniquely difficult situation in the short term,” Sandoz spokesperson Leslie Pott told Bloomberg.

According to Bloomberg, other major manufacturers are still delivering the product, but limiting new orders.

The American Society of Health-System Pharmacists issued an alert for the shortage last week via its real time drug shortage database.

“Amoxicillin comes in many forms – including capsules, powders and chewable tablets – but the most common type children take is the liquid form, which makes up at least 19 products that are part of the” shortage, Becker’s Hospital Review summarized of the database reports.

The pediatric health system Children’s Minnesota told CIDRAP that supplies are low and that alternatives are being prescribed “when appropriate.”

“As a final step, we temporarily discontinued our standard procedure of dispensing the entire bottle of amoxicillin (which comes in multiple sizes),” a spokesperson told CIDRAP. “We are instead mixing and pouring the exact amount for each course of therapy, to eliminate waste.” 

The Minnesota pediatric clinic and others are particularly on alert because of the surge nationwide of a respiratory virus that particularly impacts children known as RSV.

“We have certainly observed an increase in recent use most likely correlating with the surge in RSV and other respiratory viruses with concern for superimposed bacterial infection in our critically ill and hospitalized patient population,” Laura Bio, PharmD, a clinical pharmacy specialist at Stanford Medicine Children’s Health told CIDRAP.

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

A machine-learning risk model that incorporates childhood characteristics can predict development of bipolar disorder up to a decade later, according to investigators.

This is the first quantitative approach to predict bipolar disorder, offering sensitivity and specificity of 75% and 76%, respectively, reported lead author Mai Uchida, MD, director of the pediatric depression program at Massachusetts General Hospital and assistant professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and colleagues. With further development, the model could be used to identify at-risk children via electronic medical records, enabling earlier monitoring and intervention.

“Although longitudinal studies have found the prognosis of early-onset mood disorders to be unfavorable, research has also shown there are effective treatments and therapies that could significantly alleviate the patients’ and their families’ struggles from the diagnoses,” the investigators wrote in the Journal of Psychiatric Research. “Thus, early identification of the risks and interventions for early symptoms of pediatric mood disorders is crucial.”

To this end, Dr. Uchida and colleagues teamed up with the Gabrieli Lab at MIT, who have published extensively in the realm of neurodevelopment. They sourced data from 492 children, 6-18 years at baseline, who were involved in two longitudinal case-control family studies focused on ADHD. Inputs included psychometric scales, structured diagnostic interviews, social and cognitive functioning assessments, and sociodemographic data.

At 10-year follow-up, 10% of these children had developed bipolar disorder, a notably higher rate than the 3%-4% prevalence in the general population.

“This is a population that’s overrepresented,” Dr. Uchida said in an interview.

She offered two primary reasons for this: First, the families involved in the study were probably willing to be followed for 10 years because they had ongoing concerns about their child’s mental health. Second, the studies enrolled children diagnosed with ADHD, a condition associated with increased risk of bipolar disorder.

Using machine learning algorithms that processed the baseline data while accounting for the skewed distribution, the investigators were able to predict which of the children in the population would go on to develop bipolar disorder. The final model offered a sensitivity of 75%, a specificity of 76%, and an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 75%.

“To the best of our knowledge, this represents the first study using machine-learning algorithms for this purpose in pediatric psychiatry,” the investigators wrote.
 

Integrating models into electronic medical records

In the future, this model, or one like it, could be incorporated into software that automatically analyzes electronic medical records and notifies physicians about high-risk patients, Dr. Uchida predicted.

“Not all patients would connect to intervention,” she said. “Maybe it just means that you invite them in for a visit, or you observe them a little bit more carefully. I think that’s where we are hoping that machine learning and medical practice will go.”

When asked about the potential bias posed by psychiatric evaluation, compared with something like blood work results, Dr. Uchida suggested that this subjectivity can be overcome.

“I’m not entirely bothered by that,” she said, offering a list of objective data points that could be harvested from records, such as number of referrals, medications, and hospitalizations. Narrative text in medical records could also be analyzed, she said, potentially detecting key words that are more often associated with high-risk patients.

“Risk prediction is never going to be 100% accurate,” Dr. Uchida said. “But I do think that there will be things [in electronic medical records] that could guide how worried we should be, or how quickly we should intervene.”
 

Opening doors to personalized care

Martin Gignac, MD, chief of psychiatry at Montreal Children’s Hospital and associate professor at McGill University, Montreal, said the present study offers further support for the existence of pediatric-onset bipolar disorder, which “remains controversial” despite “solid evidence.”

“I’m impressed that we have 10-year-long longitudinal follow-up studies that corroborate the importance of this disorder, and show strong predictors of who is at risk,” Dr. Gignac said in an interview. “Clinicians treating a pediatric population should be aware that some of those children with mental health problems might have severe mental health problems, and you have to have the appropriate tools to screen them.”

Advanced tools like the one developed by Dr. Uchida and colleagues should lead to more personalized care, he said.

“We’re going to be able to define what your individual risk is, and maybe most importantly, what you can do to prevent the development of certain disorders,” Dr. Gignac said. “Are there any risks that are dynamic in nature, and that we can act upon? Exposure to stress, for example.”

While more work is needed to bring machine learning into daily psychiatric practice, Dr. Gignac concluded on an optimistic note.

“These instruments should translate from research into clinical practice in order to make difference for the patients we care for,” he said. “This is the type of hope that I hold – that it’s going to be applicable in clinical practice, hopefully, in the near future.”

The investigators disclosed relationships with InCarda, Baylis Medical, Johnson & Johnson, and others. Dr. Gignac disclosed no relevant competing interests.

A machine-learning risk model that incorporates childhood characteristics can predict development of bipolar disorder up to a decade later, according to investigators.

This is the first quantitative approach to predict bipolar disorder, offering sensitivity and specificity of 75% and 76%, respectively, reported lead author Mai Uchida, MD, director of the pediatric depression program at Massachusetts General Hospital and assistant professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and colleagues. With further development, the model could be used to identify at-risk children via electronic medical records, enabling earlier monitoring and intervention.

“Although longitudinal studies have found the prognosis of early-onset mood disorders to be unfavorable, research has also shown there are effective treatments and therapies that could significantly alleviate the patients’ and their families’ struggles from the diagnoses,” the investigators wrote in the Journal of Psychiatric Research. “Thus, early identification of the risks and interventions for early symptoms of pediatric mood disorders is crucial.”

To this end, Dr. Uchida and colleagues teamed up with the Gabrieli Lab at MIT, who have published extensively in the realm of neurodevelopment. They sourced data from 492 children, 6-18 years at baseline, who were involved in two longitudinal case-control family studies focused on ADHD. Inputs included psychometric scales, structured diagnostic interviews, social and cognitive functioning assessments, and sociodemographic data.

At 10-year follow-up, 10% of these children had developed bipolar disorder, a notably higher rate than the 3%-4% prevalence in the general population.

“This is a population that’s overrepresented,” Dr. Uchida said in an interview.

She offered two primary reasons for this: First, the families involved in the study were probably willing to be followed for 10 years because they had ongoing concerns about their child’s mental health. Second, the studies enrolled children diagnosed with ADHD, a condition associated with increased risk of bipolar disorder.

Using machine learning algorithms that processed the baseline data while accounting for the skewed distribution, the investigators were able to predict which of the children in the population would go on to develop bipolar disorder. The final model offered a sensitivity of 75%, a specificity of 76%, and an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 75%.

“To the best of our knowledge, this represents the first study using machine-learning algorithms for this purpose in pediatric psychiatry,” the investigators wrote.
 

Integrating models into electronic medical records

In the future, this model, or one like it, could be incorporated into software that automatically analyzes electronic medical records and notifies physicians about high-risk patients, Dr. Uchida predicted.

“Not all patients would connect to intervention,” she said. “Maybe it just means that you invite them in for a visit, or you observe them a little bit more carefully. I think that’s where we are hoping that machine learning and medical practice will go.”

When asked about the potential bias posed by psychiatric evaluation, compared with something like blood work results, Dr. Uchida suggested that this subjectivity can be overcome.

“I’m not entirely bothered by that,” she said, offering a list of objective data points that could be harvested from records, such as number of referrals, medications, and hospitalizations. Narrative text in medical records could also be analyzed, she said, potentially detecting key words that are more often associated with high-risk patients.

“Risk prediction is never going to be 100% accurate,” Dr. Uchida said. “But I do think that there will be things [in electronic medical records] that could guide how worried we should be, or how quickly we should intervene.”
 

Opening doors to personalized care

Martin Gignac, MD, chief of psychiatry at Montreal Children’s Hospital and associate professor at McGill University, Montreal, said the present study offers further support for the existence of pediatric-onset bipolar disorder, which “remains controversial” despite “solid evidence.”

“I’m impressed that we have 10-year-long longitudinal follow-up studies that corroborate the importance of this disorder, and show strong predictors of who is at risk,” Dr. Gignac said in an interview. “Clinicians treating a pediatric population should be aware that some of those children with mental health problems might have severe mental health problems, and you have to have the appropriate tools to screen them.”

Advanced tools like the one developed by Dr. Uchida and colleagues should lead to more personalized care, he said.

“We’re going to be able to define what your individual risk is, and maybe most importantly, what you can do to prevent the development of certain disorders,” Dr. Gignac said. “Are there any risks that are dynamic in nature, and that we can act upon? Exposure to stress, for example.”

While more work is needed to bring machine learning into daily psychiatric practice, Dr. Gignac concluded on an optimistic note.

“These instruments should translate from research into clinical practice in order to make difference for the patients we care for,” he said. “This is the type of hope that I hold – that it’s going to be applicable in clinical practice, hopefully, in the near future.”

The investigators disclosed relationships with InCarda, Baylis Medical, Johnson & Johnson, and others. Dr. Gignac disclosed no relevant competing interests.

A machine-learning risk model that incorporates childhood characteristics can predict development of bipolar disorder up to a decade later, according to investigators.

This is the first quantitative approach to predict bipolar disorder, offering sensitivity and specificity of 75% and 76%, respectively, reported lead author Mai Uchida, MD, director of the pediatric depression program at Massachusetts General Hospital and assistant professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and colleagues. With further development, the model could be used to identify at-risk children via electronic medical records, enabling earlier monitoring and intervention.

“Although longitudinal studies have found the prognosis of early-onset mood disorders to be unfavorable, research has also shown there are effective treatments and therapies that could significantly alleviate the patients’ and their families’ struggles from the diagnoses,” the investigators wrote in the Journal of Psychiatric Research. “Thus, early identification of the risks and interventions for early symptoms of pediatric mood disorders is crucial.”

To this end, Dr. Uchida and colleagues teamed up with the Gabrieli Lab at MIT, who have published extensively in the realm of neurodevelopment. They sourced data from 492 children, 6-18 years at baseline, who were involved in two longitudinal case-control family studies focused on ADHD. Inputs included psychometric scales, structured diagnostic interviews, social and cognitive functioning assessments, and sociodemographic data.

At 10-year follow-up, 10% of these children had developed bipolar disorder, a notably higher rate than the 3%-4% prevalence in the general population.

“This is a population that’s overrepresented,” Dr. Uchida said in an interview.

She offered two primary reasons for this: First, the families involved in the study were probably willing to be followed for 10 years because they had ongoing concerns about their child’s mental health. Second, the studies enrolled children diagnosed with ADHD, a condition associated with increased risk of bipolar disorder.

Using machine learning algorithms that processed the baseline data while accounting for the skewed distribution, the investigators were able to predict which of the children in the population would go on to develop bipolar disorder. The final model offered a sensitivity of 75%, a specificity of 76%, and an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 75%.

“To the best of our knowledge, this represents the first study using machine-learning algorithms for this purpose in pediatric psychiatry,” the investigators wrote.
 

Integrating models into electronic medical records

In the future, this model, or one like it, could be incorporated into software that automatically analyzes electronic medical records and notifies physicians about high-risk patients, Dr. Uchida predicted.

“Not all patients would connect to intervention,” she said. “Maybe it just means that you invite them in for a visit, or you observe them a little bit more carefully. I think that’s where we are hoping that machine learning and medical practice will go.”

When asked about the potential bias posed by psychiatric evaluation, compared with something like blood work results, Dr. Uchida suggested that this subjectivity can be overcome.

“I’m not entirely bothered by that,” she said, offering a list of objective data points that could be harvested from records, such as number of referrals, medications, and hospitalizations. Narrative text in medical records could also be analyzed, she said, potentially detecting key words that are more often associated with high-risk patients.

“Risk prediction is never going to be 100% accurate,” Dr. Uchida said. “But I do think that there will be things [in electronic medical records] that could guide how worried we should be, or how quickly we should intervene.”
 

Opening doors to personalized care

Martin Gignac, MD, chief of psychiatry at Montreal Children’s Hospital and associate professor at McGill University, Montreal, said the present study offers further support for the existence of pediatric-onset bipolar disorder, which “remains controversial” despite “solid evidence.”

“I’m impressed that we have 10-year-long longitudinal follow-up studies that corroborate the importance of this disorder, and show strong predictors of who is at risk,” Dr. Gignac said in an interview. “Clinicians treating a pediatric population should be aware that some of those children with mental health problems might have severe mental health problems, and you have to have the appropriate tools to screen them.”

Advanced tools like the one developed by Dr. Uchida and colleagues should lead to more personalized care, he said.

“We’re going to be able to define what your individual risk is, and maybe most importantly, what you can do to prevent the development of certain disorders,” Dr. Gignac said. “Are there any risks that are dynamic in nature, and that we can act upon? Exposure to stress, for example.”

While more work is needed to bring machine learning into daily psychiatric practice, Dr. Gignac concluded on an optimistic note.

“These instruments should translate from research into clinical practice in order to make difference for the patients we care for,” he said. “This is the type of hope that I hold – that it’s going to be applicable in clinical practice, hopefully, in the near future.”

The investigators disclosed relationships with InCarda, Baylis Medical, Johnson & Johnson, and others. Dr. Gignac disclosed no relevant competing interests.

Bad drinking consequence No. 87: Joining the LOTME team

Alcohol and college students go together like peanut butter and jelly. Or peanut butter and chocolate. Or peanut butter and toothpaste. Peanut butter goes with a lot of things.

Naturally, when you combine alcohol and college students, bad decisions are sure to follow. But have you ever wondered just how many bad decisions alcohol causes? A team of researchers from Penn State University, the undisputed champion of poor drinking decisions (trust us, we know), sure has. They’ve even conducted a 4-year study of 1,700 students as they carved a drunken swath through the many fine local drinking establishments, such as East Halls or that one frat house that hosts medieval battle–style ping pong tournaments.

elevate/PxHere

The students were surveyed twice a year throughout the study, and the researchers compiled a list of all the various consequences their subjects experienced. Ultimately, college students will experience an average of 102 consequences from drinking during their 4-year college careers, which is an impressive number. Try thinking up a hundred consequences for anything.

Some consequences are less common than others – we imagine “missing the Renaissance Faire because you felt drunker the morning after than while you were drinking” is pretty low on the list – but more than 96% of students reported that they’d experienced a hangover and that drinking had caused them to say or do embarrassing things. Also, more than 70% said they needed additional alcohol to feel any effect, a potential sign of alcohol use disorder.

Once they had their list, the researchers focused on 12 of the more common and severe consequences, such as blacking out, hangovers, and missing work/class, and asked the study participants how their parents would react to their drinking and those specific consequences. Students who believed their parents would disapprove of alcohol-related consequences actually experienced fewer consequences overall.

College students, it seems, really do care what their parents think, even if they don’t express it, the researchers said. That gives space for parents to offer advice about the consequences of hard drinking, making decisions while drunk, or bringing godawful Fireball whiskey to parties. Seriously, don’t do that. Stuff’s bad, and you should feel bad for bringing it. Your parents raised you better than that.
 

COVID ‘expert’ discusses data sharing

We interrupt our regularly scheduled programming to bring you this special news event. Elon Musk, the world’s second-most annoying human, is holding a press conference to discuss, of all things, COVID-19.

Reporter: Hey, Mr. Musketeer, what qualifies you to talk about a global pandemic?

EM: As the official king of the Twitterverse, I’m pretty much an expert on any topic.

Reporter: Okay then, Mr. Muskmelon, what can you tell us about the new study in Agricultural Economics, which looked at consumers’ knowledge of local COVID infection rates and their willingness to eat at restaurants?

Dmitry Zvolskiy

That’s all the time I have to chat with you today. I’m off to fire some more Twitter employees.

In case you hadn’t already guessed, Vlad Putin is officially more annoying than Elon Musk. We now return to this week’s typical LOTME shenanigans, already in progress.
 

The deadliest month

With climate change making the world hotter, leading to more heat stroke and organ failure, you would think the summer months would be the most deadly. In reality, though, it’s quite the opposite.

Nothing Ahead

There are multiple factors that make January the most deadly month out of the year, as LiveScience discovered in a recent analysis.

Let’s go through them, shall we?

Respiratory viruses: Robert Glatter, MD, of Lenox Hill Hospital in New York, told LiveScence that winter is the time for illnesses like the flu, bacterial pneumonia, and RSV. Millions of people worldwide die from the flu, according to the CDC. And the World Health Organization reported lower respiratory infections as the fourth-leading cause of death worldwide before COVID came along.

Heart disease: Heart conditions are actually more fatal in the winter months, according to a study published in Circulation. The cold puts more stress on the heart to keep the body warm, which can be a challenge for people who already have preexisting heart conditions.

Space heaters: Dr. Glatter also told Live Science that the use of space heaters could be a factor in the cold winter months since they can lead to carbon monoxide poisoning and even fires. Silent killers.

Holiday season: A time for joy and merriment, certainly, but Christmas et al. have their downsides. By January we’re coming off a 3-month food and alcohol binge, which leads to cardiac stress. There’s also the psychological stress that comes with the season. Sometimes the most wonderful time of the year just isn’t.

So even though summer is hot, fall has hurricanes, and spring tends to have the highest suicide rate, winter still ends up being the deadliest season.

Bad drinking consequence No. 87: Joining the LOTME team

Alcohol and college students go together like peanut butter and jelly. Or peanut butter and chocolate. Or peanut butter and toothpaste. Peanut butter goes with a lot of things.

Naturally, when you combine alcohol and college students, bad decisions are sure to follow. But have you ever wondered just how many bad decisions alcohol causes? A team of researchers from Penn State University, the undisputed champion of poor drinking decisions (trust us, we know), sure has. They’ve even conducted a 4-year study of 1,700 students as they carved a drunken swath through the many fine local drinking establishments, such as East Halls or that one frat house that hosts medieval battle–style ping pong tournaments.

elevate/PxHere

The students were surveyed twice a year throughout the study, and the researchers compiled a list of all the various consequences their subjects experienced. Ultimately, college students will experience an average of 102 consequences from drinking during their 4-year college careers, which is an impressive number. Try thinking up a hundred consequences for anything.

Some consequences are less common than others – we imagine “missing the Renaissance Faire because you felt drunker the morning after than while you were drinking” is pretty low on the list – but more than 96% of students reported that they’d experienced a hangover and that drinking had caused them to say or do embarrassing things. Also, more than 70% said they needed additional alcohol to feel any effect, a potential sign of alcohol use disorder.

Once they had their list, the researchers focused on 12 of the more common and severe consequences, such as blacking out, hangovers, and missing work/class, and asked the study participants how their parents would react to their drinking and those specific consequences. Students who believed their parents would disapprove of alcohol-related consequences actually experienced fewer consequences overall.

College students, it seems, really do care what their parents think, even if they don’t express it, the researchers said. That gives space for parents to offer advice about the consequences of hard drinking, making decisions while drunk, or bringing godawful Fireball whiskey to parties. Seriously, don’t do that. Stuff’s bad, and you should feel bad for bringing it. Your parents raised you better than that.
 

COVID ‘expert’ discusses data sharing

We interrupt our regularly scheduled programming to bring you this special news event. Elon Musk, the world’s second-most annoying human, is holding a press conference to discuss, of all things, COVID-19.

Reporter: Hey, Mr. Musketeer, what qualifies you to talk about a global pandemic?

EM: As the official king of the Twitterverse, I’m pretty much an expert on any topic.

Reporter: Okay then, Mr. Muskmelon, what can you tell us about the new study in Agricultural Economics, which looked at consumers’ knowledge of local COVID infection rates and their willingness to eat at restaurants?

Dmitry Zvolskiy

That’s all the time I have to chat with you today. I’m off to fire some more Twitter employees.

In case you hadn’t already guessed, Vlad Putin is officially more annoying than Elon Musk. We now return to this week’s typical LOTME shenanigans, already in progress.
 

The deadliest month

With climate change making the world hotter, leading to more heat stroke and organ failure, you would think the summer months would be the most deadly. In reality, though, it’s quite the opposite.

Nothing Ahead

There are multiple factors that make January the most deadly month out of the year, as LiveScience discovered in a recent analysis.

Let’s go through them, shall we?

Respiratory viruses: Robert Glatter, MD, of Lenox Hill Hospital in New York, told LiveScence that winter is the time for illnesses like the flu, bacterial pneumonia, and RSV. Millions of people worldwide die from the flu, according to the CDC. And the World Health Organization reported lower respiratory infections as the fourth-leading cause of death worldwide before COVID came along.

Heart disease: Heart conditions are actually more fatal in the winter months, according to a study published in Circulation. The cold puts more stress on the heart to keep the body warm, which can be a challenge for people who already have preexisting heart conditions.

Space heaters: Dr. Glatter also told Live Science that the use of space heaters could be a factor in the cold winter months since they can lead to carbon monoxide poisoning and even fires. Silent killers.

Holiday season: A time for joy and merriment, certainly, but Christmas et al. have their downsides. By January we’re coming off a 3-month food and alcohol binge, which leads to cardiac stress. There’s also the psychological stress that comes with the season. Sometimes the most wonderful time of the year just isn’t.

So even though summer is hot, fall has hurricanes, and spring tends to have the highest suicide rate, winter still ends up being the deadliest season.

Bad drinking consequence No. 87: Joining the LOTME team

Alcohol and college students go together like peanut butter and jelly. Or peanut butter and chocolate. Or peanut butter and toothpaste. Peanut butter goes with a lot of things.

Naturally, when you combine alcohol and college students, bad decisions are sure to follow. But have you ever wondered just how many bad decisions alcohol causes? A team of researchers from Penn State University, the undisputed champion of poor drinking decisions (trust us, we know), sure has. They’ve even conducted a 4-year study of 1,700 students as they carved a drunken swath through the many fine local drinking establishments, such as East Halls or that one frat house that hosts medieval battle–style ping pong tournaments.

elevate/PxHere

The students were surveyed twice a year throughout the study, and the researchers compiled a list of all the various consequences their subjects experienced. Ultimately, college students will experience an average of 102 consequences from drinking during their 4-year college careers, which is an impressive number. Try thinking up a hundred consequences for anything.

Some consequences are less common than others – we imagine “missing the Renaissance Faire because you felt drunker the morning after than while you were drinking” is pretty low on the list – but more than 96% of students reported that they’d experienced a hangover and that drinking had caused them to say or do embarrassing things. Also, more than 70% said they needed additional alcohol to feel any effect, a potential sign of alcohol use disorder.

Once they had their list, the researchers focused on 12 of the more common and severe consequences, such as blacking out, hangovers, and missing work/class, and asked the study participants how their parents would react to their drinking and those specific consequences. Students who believed their parents would disapprove of alcohol-related consequences actually experienced fewer consequences overall.

College students, it seems, really do care what their parents think, even if they don’t express it, the researchers said. That gives space for parents to offer advice about the consequences of hard drinking, making decisions while drunk, or bringing godawful Fireball whiskey to parties. Seriously, don’t do that. Stuff’s bad, and you should feel bad for bringing it. Your parents raised you better than that.
 

COVID ‘expert’ discusses data sharing

We interrupt our regularly scheduled programming to bring you this special news event. Elon Musk, the world’s second-most annoying human, is holding a press conference to discuss, of all things, COVID-19.

Reporter: Hey, Mr. Musketeer, what qualifies you to talk about a global pandemic?

EM: As the official king of the Twitterverse, I’m pretty much an expert on any topic.

Reporter: Okay then, Mr. Muskmelon, what can you tell us about the new study in Agricultural Economics, which looked at consumers’ knowledge of local COVID infection rates and their willingness to eat at restaurants?

Dmitry Zvolskiy

That’s all the time I have to chat with you today. I’m off to fire some more Twitter employees.

In case you hadn’t already guessed, Vlad Putin is officially more annoying than Elon Musk. We now return to this week’s typical LOTME shenanigans, already in progress.
 

The deadliest month

With climate change making the world hotter, leading to more heat stroke and organ failure, you would think the summer months would be the most deadly. In reality, though, it’s quite the opposite.

Nothing Ahead

There are multiple factors that make January the most deadly month out of the year, as LiveScience discovered in a recent analysis.

Let’s go through them, shall we?

Respiratory viruses: Robert Glatter, MD, of Lenox Hill Hospital in New York, told LiveScence that winter is the time for illnesses like the flu, bacterial pneumonia, and RSV. Millions of people worldwide die from the flu, according to the CDC. And the World Health Organization reported lower respiratory infections as the fourth-leading cause of death worldwide before COVID came along.

Heart disease: Heart conditions are actually more fatal in the winter months, according to a study published in Circulation. The cold puts more stress on the heart to keep the body warm, which can be a challenge for people who already have preexisting heart conditions.

Space heaters: Dr. Glatter also told Live Science that the use of space heaters could be a factor in the cold winter months since they can lead to carbon monoxide poisoning and even fires. Silent killers.

Holiday season: A time for joy and merriment, certainly, but Christmas et al. have their downsides. By January we’re coming off a 3-month food and alcohol binge, which leads to cardiac stress. There’s also the psychological stress that comes with the season. Sometimes the most wonderful time of the year just isn’t.

So even though summer is hot, fall has hurricanes, and spring tends to have the highest suicide rate, winter still ends up being the deadliest season.