MDedge Pediatrics

The World Health Organization now recommends shortened treatment for children with mild tuberculosis, as well as two oral TB treatments (bedaquiline and delamanid) for use in children of all ages. The updated guidelines for TB management in children and adolescents were announced March 21 ahead of World Tuberculosis Day on March 24.

The agency also called for increased investment in global TB programs, noting that in 2020, TB deaths increased for the first time in over a decade. “We cannot falter in our commitment to reach and save every man, woman, child, family, and community impacted by this deadly disease,” said Tereza Kasaeva, MD, PhD, director of the WHO Global Tuberculosis Programme during a press conference.

TB is the 13th-leading cause of death and the second top infectious killer after COVID-19, with more than 4,100 people dying from TB every day. WHO estimates that 1.1 million children fall ill with TB each year.
 

Calls for investment

The increase in TB deaths from 1.4 million in 2019 to 1.5 million in 2020 was coupled with a decrease in funding. From 2019-2020, global spending for TB diagnostic, treatment, and prevention services fell from $5.8 billion to $5.3 billion. This is less than half of the $13 billion target funding amount for 2022, Dr. Kasaeva said.

Efforts to expand access to TB care have fallen short mainly because of this lack of funding, especially for children. In 2020, about 63% of children under 15 years of age with TB either did not receive or were not reported to have access to TB diagnosis and treatment services, which rose to 72% in children under age 5. Almost two-thirds of children under age 5 also did not receive TB preventive treatment in 2022, according to WHO statistics.

The socioeconomic ramifications of the COVID-19 pandemic as well as ongoing conflict in Eastern Europe, Africa, and the Middle East have “further exacerbated the situation,” Dr. Kasaeva said. “This conveys the urgent need to dramatically increase investments to ramp up the fight against TB and achieve commitments to end TB made by global leaders.”

Dr. Kasaeva laid out WHO’s main points for global investment in TB care:

• Increase domestic and international funding to close gaps in TB research and program implementation. For countries with smaller economies, increased international investment will be necessary in the short or medium term to help regain progress.
• Double funding for TB research, including vaccines.
• Invest in sustaining TB programs and services during the COVID-19 pandemic and ongoing crises so care is not disrupted.

New guidelines

Dr. Kasaeva also noted that adoption of WHO’s new guidelines for children and adolescents should be fast-tracked to improve access to and quality of care. The updates include:

• Rapid molecular tests called Xpert Ultra should be used as the initial test for TB in children and adolescents.
• Diagnostic testing can now include noninvasive specimens, like stool samples.
• Children with mild TB can be treated with a , rather than 6 months. This shortened regimen will allow children to return to school faster and save money for families and the health care system, said Kerri Viney, MD, PhD, a team lead for the WHO Tuberculosis Programme, with a focus on vulnerable populations, including children. She presented the new guidelines during the WHO press conference.
• The recommended treatment regimen for TB meningitis has also been shortened from 12 to 6 months.

Two oral medications for drug-resistant TB (bedaquiline and delamanid) are now recommended for use in children of all ages. “There is no longer a need for painful injections that can have serious side effects, including deafness,” Dr. Viney said.

Health systems should develop new models of decentralized and integrated TB care to bring TB care closer to where children live.

The guidelines are available on the WHO website.

“The WHO guidelines issued today are a game changer for children and adolescents with TB,” Dr. Kasaeva said. The next step is assisting countries in implementing these updates so that children and adolescents globally have access to high quality TB care,” Dr. Viney added. “We have the policy recommendations. We have the implementation guidance, we have child-friendly formulations of TB medicines,” she said. “Let us not wait any longer. Let us invest to end TB in children and adolescents.”

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

The World Health Organization now recommends shortened treatment for children with mild tuberculosis, as well as two oral TB treatments (bedaquiline and delamanid) for use in children of all ages. The updated guidelines for TB management in children and adolescents were announced March 21 ahead of World Tuberculosis Day on March 24.

The agency also called for increased investment in global TB programs, noting that in 2020, TB deaths increased for the first time in over a decade. “We cannot falter in our commitment to reach and save every man, woman, child, family, and community impacted by this deadly disease,” said Tereza Kasaeva, MD, PhD, director of the WHO Global Tuberculosis Programme during a press conference.

TB is the 13th-leading cause of death and the second top infectious killer after COVID-19, with more than 4,100 people dying from TB every day. WHO estimates that 1.1 million children fall ill with TB each year.
 

Calls for investment

The increase in TB deaths from 1.4 million in 2019 to 1.5 million in 2020 was coupled with a decrease in funding. From 2019-2020, global spending for TB diagnostic, treatment, and prevention services fell from $5.8 billion to $5.3 billion. This is less than half of the $13 billion target funding amount for 2022, Dr. Kasaeva said.

Efforts to expand access to TB care have fallen short mainly because of this lack of funding, especially for children. In 2020, about 63% of children under 15 years of age with TB either did not receive or were not reported to have access to TB diagnosis and treatment services, which rose to 72% in children under age 5. Almost two-thirds of children under age 5 also did not receive TB preventive treatment in 2022, according to WHO statistics.

The socioeconomic ramifications of the COVID-19 pandemic as well as ongoing conflict in Eastern Europe, Africa, and the Middle East have “further exacerbated the situation,” Dr. Kasaeva said. “This conveys the urgent need to dramatically increase investments to ramp up the fight against TB and achieve commitments to end TB made by global leaders.”

Dr. Kasaeva laid out WHO’s main points for global investment in TB care:

• Increase domestic and international funding to close gaps in TB research and program implementation. For countries with smaller economies, increased international investment will be necessary in the short or medium term to help regain progress.
• Double funding for TB research, including vaccines.
• Invest in sustaining TB programs and services during the COVID-19 pandemic and ongoing crises so care is not disrupted.

New guidelines

Dr. Kasaeva also noted that adoption of WHO’s new guidelines for children and adolescents should be fast-tracked to improve access to and quality of care. The updates include:

• Rapid molecular tests called Xpert Ultra should be used as the initial test for TB in children and adolescents.
• Diagnostic testing can now include noninvasive specimens, like stool samples.
• Children with mild TB can be treated with a , rather than 6 months. This shortened regimen will allow children to return to school faster and save money for families and the health care system, said Kerri Viney, MD, PhD, a team lead for the WHO Tuberculosis Programme, with a focus on vulnerable populations, including children. She presented the new guidelines during the WHO press conference.
• The recommended treatment regimen for TB meningitis has also been shortened from 12 to 6 months.

Two oral medications for drug-resistant TB (bedaquiline and delamanid) are now recommended for use in children of all ages. “There is no longer a need for painful injections that can have serious side effects, including deafness,” Dr. Viney said.

Health systems should develop new models of decentralized and integrated TB care to bring TB care closer to where children live.

The guidelines are available on the WHO website.

“The WHO guidelines issued today are a game changer for children and adolescents with TB,” Dr. Kasaeva said. The next step is assisting countries in implementing these updates so that children and adolescents globally have access to high quality TB care,” Dr. Viney added. “We have the policy recommendations. We have the implementation guidance, we have child-friendly formulations of TB medicines,” she said. “Let us not wait any longer. Let us invest to end TB in children and adolescents.”

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

The World Health Organization now recommends shortened treatment for children with mild tuberculosis, as well as two oral TB treatments (bedaquiline and delamanid) for use in children of all ages. The updated guidelines for TB management in children and adolescents were announced March 21 ahead of World Tuberculosis Day on March 24.

The agency also called for increased investment in global TB programs, noting that in 2020, TB deaths increased for the first time in over a decade. “We cannot falter in our commitment to reach and save every man, woman, child, family, and community impacted by this deadly disease,” said Tereza Kasaeva, MD, PhD, director of the WHO Global Tuberculosis Programme during a press conference.

TB is the 13th-leading cause of death and the second top infectious killer after COVID-19, with more than 4,100 people dying from TB every day. WHO estimates that 1.1 million children fall ill with TB each year.
 

Calls for investment

The increase in TB deaths from 1.4 million in 2019 to 1.5 million in 2020 was coupled with a decrease in funding. From 2019-2020, global spending for TB diagnostic, treatment, and prevention services fell from $5.8 billion to $5.3 billion. This is less than half of the $13 billion target funding amount for 2022, Dr. Kasaeva said.

Efforts to expand access to TB care have fallen short mainly because of this lack of funding, especially for children. In 2020, about 63% of children under 15 years of age with TB either did not receive or were not reported to have access to TB diagnosis and treatment services, which rose to 72% in children under age 5. Almost two-thirds of children under age 5 also did not receive TB preventive treatment in 2022, according to WHO statistics.

The socioeconomic ramifications of the COVID-19 pandemic as well as ongoing conflict in Eastern Europe, Africa, and the Middle East have “further exacerbated the situation,” Dr. Kasaeva said. “This conveys the urgent need to dramatically increase investments to ramp up the fight against TB and achieve commitments to end TB made by global leaders.”

Dr. Kasaeva laid out WHO’s main points for global investment in TB care:

• Increase domestic and international funding to close gaps in TB research and program implementation. For countries with smaller economies, increased international investment will be necessary in the short or medium term to help regain progress.
• Double funding for TB research, including vaccines.
• Invest in sustaining TB programs and services during the COVID-19 pandemic and ongoing crises so care is not disrupted.

New guidelines

Dr. Kasaeva also noted that adoption of WHO’s new guidelines for children and adolescents should be fast-tracked to improve access to and quality of care. The updates include:

• Rapid molecular tests called Xpert Ultra should be used as the initial test for TB in children and adolescents.
• Diagnostic testing can now include noninvasive specimens, like stool samples.
• Children with mild TB can be treated with a , rather than 6 months. This shortened regimen will allow children to return to school faster and save money for families and the health care system, said Kerri Viney, MD, PhD, a team lead for the WHO Tuberculosis Programme, with a focus on vulnerable populations, including children. She presented the new guidelines during the WHO press conference.
• The recommended treatment regimen for TB meningitis has also been shortened from 12 to 6 months.

Two oral medications for drug-resistant TB (bedaquiline and delamanid) are now recommended for use in children of all ages. “There is no longer a need for painful injections that can have serious side effects, including deafness,” Dr. Viney said.

Health systems should develop new models of decentralized and integrated TB care to bring TB care closer to where children live.

The guidelines are available on the WHO website.

“The WHO guidelines issued today are a game changer for children and adolescents with TB,” Dr. Kasaeva said. The next step is assisting countries in implementing these updates so that children and adolescents globally have access to high quality TB care,” Dr. Viney added. “We have the policy recommendations. We have the implementation guidance, we have child-friendly formulations of TB medicines,” she said. “Let us not wait any longer. Let us invest to end TB in children and adolescents.”

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Hi. I’m Art Caplan. I’m at the division of medical ethics at the NYU Grossman School of Medicine.

There are many difficult moral issues that are being fueled by the terrible war that Russia is waging against Ukraine. I think there is no way to justify anything that the Russians are doing. Ukraine did not do anything to violate Russian integrity, Russian territorial integrity, or anything by way of being aggressive toward Russia.

Russia decided at some point it wanted the Ukraine back. Putin has a dream, as the long-standing leader of Russia, to restore the Soviet empire, and Ukraine is top of the list of the places that he wants back for a variety of reasons.

We’re not here to debate the merits and demerits of this terrible act of war. One issue that’s come up that doctors and scientists face is whether they should be cooperating with Russian scientific societies, Russian doctors, and Russian scientists.

The European Society of Cardiology made a decision very recently to drop, as members, both Russia and Belarus, Russia’s ally in this aggressive war against Ukraine. They basically found it intolerable to have business as usual with these subsidiary cardiology societies as part of the ongoing activities of the European group.

The sole goal of this overarching European group is to reduce the health burden of cardiovascular disease. It doesn’t have political goals. It doesn’t have much to say about anything other than, “Let’s get evidence-based medicine used to try and prevent heart disease or treat heart disease.” So there’s noble intent.

Many of its members asked, “What are we doing in politics? Why are we punishing Russian and Belarussian cardiologists, acting as if somehow they are responsible for what the Russian army is doing or for what Putin has decided to do? Why are we acting against them? They are just trying to fight heart disease. That’s a legitimate goal for any doctor, public health official, or scientist.” They didn’t see, as members, why this exclusion had taken place.

I believe the exclusion is appropriate and some of the membership, obviously, in the European Society of Cardiology, agrees. It’s not because they’re holding doctors or scientists directly accountable for Putin’s war crimes, ethnic cleansing assault, or bombing and shelling of hospitals, maternity hospitals, and civilians.

They understand that these scientists and doctors have little to do with such things, but we are in a new form of warfare, and that warfare is basically economic and sociologic: turning Russia, as an inexcusably aggressive state, into a pariah.

The reason to break the ties is that that is the way to bring pressure upon Putin and his kleptocratic, oligarchic advisers to stop the attack, to try and bring down their economy, to say, “Business is not going to go on as usual. You will be excluded from normal scientific and medical commerce. We’re not going to be holding conferences or exchanging ideas,” and in my view, extending it to say, “We’re not taking your papers, we’re not publishing anything you do. We’re not even having you speak at our meetings until this war, this aggressive invasion, and these war crimes come to a halt.”

There is actually a basis for this action. It isn’t in the organization’s own bylaws, which as I said, are very simple — reduce cardiovascular disease burden — but they are a member of a broader group, the Biomedical Alliance in Europe, which does have a very explicit code of ethics.

I’m going to read you a little bit from that code. It says healthcare organizations should uphold and promote equality, diversity and inclusion, accountability, transparency, and equality. They also say that all members, including the European Society of Cardiology, should be committed both to the Declaration of Helsinki, a fundamental medical ethics document, and the Declaration of Geneva. These rules refer to the highest respect of human beings, responsible resource allocation, and preservation of the environment, among other things.

What the organization is doing is consistent with the code of ethics that the broader organization of all the medical societies of Europe say that these individual groups should be doing. You can’t collaborate with war criminals. You can’t act as if business as usual is going on. That’s not inclusive. That’s not respect for diversity.

I think the Ukrainian medical societies of cardiology and other specialties would find it grimly ironic to say that keeping Russian and Belarus members makes sense, given what’s going on in their country and what is happening to them. They’re under attack. They’re being killed. Their healthcare institutions are being indiscriminately shelled and bombed.

It’s very hard — and I understand that — to say we’re going to punish scientists. We’re going to, perhaps, even cause public health problems in Russia because we’re not going to collaborate right now with doctors and scientists in cardiology or any other medical specialty. I think it’s what has to be done.

We’re in a new era of trying to combat what is basically organized, international ethnic terrorism, complete with war crimes. We fight financially. We fight by isolating. We fight by excluding. It’s painful. It’s difficult. It’s somewhat unfair to individuals.

Only through that kind of pain are we going to get the kind of pressure that will achieve justice. I think that is a goal that we have to commend the European Society of Cardiology for honoring.
 

Dr. Caplan is director of the division of medical ethics at New York University. He is the author or editor of 35 books and 750 peer-reviewed articles as well as a frequent commentator in the media on bioethical issues. He has served as a director, officer, partner, employee, adviser, consultant, or trustee for Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use (an unpaid position), and is a contributing author and adviser for Medscape. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Hi. I’m Art Caplan. I’m at the division of medical ethics at the NYU Grossman School of Medicine.

There are many difficult moral issues that are being fueled by the terrible war that Russia is waging against Ukraine. I think there is no way to justify anything that the Russians are doing. Ukraine did not do anything to violate Russian integrity, Russian territorial integrity, or anything by way of being aggressive toward Russia.

Russia decided at some point it wanted the Ukraine back. Putin has a dream, as the long-standing leader of Russia, to restore the Soviet empire, and Ukraine is top of the list of the places that he wants back for a variety of reasons.

We’re not here to debate the merits and demerits of this terrible act of war. One issue that’s come up that doctors and scientists face is whether they should be cooperating with Russian scientific societies, Russian doctors, and Russian scientists.

The European Society of Cardiology made a decision very recently to drop, as members, both Russia and Belarus, Russia’s ally in this aggressive war against Ukraine. They basically found it intolerable to have business as usual with these subsidiary cardiology societies as part of the ongoing activities of the European group.

The sole goal of this overarching European group is to reduce the health burden of cardiovascular disease. It doesn’t have political goals. It doesn’t have much to say about anything other than, “Let’s get evidence-based medicine used to try and prevent heart disease or treat heart disease.” So there’s noble intent.

Many of its members asked, “What are we doing in politics? Why are we punishing Russian and Belarussian cardiologists, acting as if somehow they are responsible for what the Russian army is doing or for what Putin has decided to do? Why are we acting against them? They are just trying to fight heart disease. That’s a legitimate goal for any doctor, public health official, or scientist.” They didn’t see, as members, why this exclusion had taken place.

I believe the exclusion is appropriate and some of the membership, obviously, in the European Society of Cardiology, agrees. It’s not because they’re holding doctors or scientists directly accountable for Putin’s war crimes, ethnic cleansing assault, or bombing and shelling of hospitals, maternity hospitals, and civilians.

They understand that these scientists and doctors have little to do with such things, but we are in a new form of warfare, and that warfare is basically economic and sociologic: turning Russia, as an inexcusably aggressive state, into a pariah.

The reason to break the ties is that that is the way to bring pressure upon Putin and his kleptocratic, oligarchic advisers to stop the attack, to try and bring down their economy, to say, “Business is not going to go on as usual. You will be excluded from normal scientific and medical commerce. We’re not going to be holding conferences or exchanging ideas,” and in my view, extending it to say, “We’re not taking your papers, we’re not publishing anything you do. We’re not even having you speak at our meetings until this war, this aggressive invasion, and these war crimes come to a halt.”

There is actually a basis for this action. It isn’t in the organization’s own bylaws, which as I said, are very simple — reduce cardiovascular disease burden — but they are a member of a broader group, the Biomedical Alliance in Europe, which does have a very explicit code of ethics.

I’m going to read you a little bit from that code. It says healthcare organizations should uphold and promote equality, diversity and inclusion, accountability, transparency, and equality. They also say that all members, including the European Society of Cardiology, should be committed both to the Declaration of Helsinki, a fundamental medical ethics document, and the Declaration of Geneva. These rules refer to the highest respect of human beings, responsible resource allocation, and preservation of the environment, among other things.

What the organization is doing is consistent with the code of ethics that the broader organization of all the medical societies of Europe say that these individual groups should be doing. You can’t collaborate with war criminals. You can’t act as if business as usual is going on. That’s not inclusive. That’s not respect for diversity.

I think the Ukrainian medical societies of cardiology and other specialties would find it grimly ironic to say that keeping Russian and Belarus members makes sense, given what’s going on in their country and what is happening to them. They’re under attack. They’re being killed. Their healthcare institutions are being indiscriminately shelled and bombed.

It’s very hard — and I understand that — to say we’re going to punish scientists. We’re going to, perhaps, even cause public health problems in Russia because we’re not going to collaborate right now with doctors and scientists in cardiology or any other medical specialty. I think it’s what has to be done.

We’re in a new era of trying to combat what is basically organized, international ethnic terrorism, complete with war crimes. We fight financially. We fight by isolating. We fight by excluding. It’s painful. It’s difficult. It’s somewhat unfair to individuals.

Only through that kind of pain are we going to get the kind of pressure that will achieve justice. I think that is a goal that we have to commend the European Society of Cardiology for honoring.
 

Dr. Caplan is director of the division of medical ethics at New York University. He is the author or editor of 35 books and 750 peer-reviewed articles as well as a frequent commentator in the media on bioethical issues. He has served as a director, officer, partner, employee, adviser, consultant, or trustee for Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use (an unpaid position), and is a contributing author and adviser for Medscape. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Hi. I’m Art Caplan. I’m at the division of medical ethics at the NYU Grossman School of Medicine.

There are many difficult moral issues that are being fueled by the terrible war that Russia is waging against Ukraine. I think there is no way to justify anything that the Russians are doing. Ukraine did not do anything to violate Russian integrity, Russian territorial integrity, or anything by way of being aggressive toward Russia.

Russia decided at some point it wanted the Ukraine back. Putin has a dream, as the long-standing leader of Russia, to restore the Soviet empire, and Ukraine is top of the list of the places that he wants back for a variety of reasons.

We’re not here to debate the merits and demerits of this terrible act of war. One issue that’s come up that doctors and scientists face is whether they should be cooperating with Russian scientific societies, Russian doctors, and Russian scientists.

The European Society of Cardiology made a decision very recently to drop, as members, both Russia and Belarus, Russia’s ally in this aggressive war against Ukraine. They basically found it intolerable to have business as usual with these subsidiary cardiology societies as part of the ongoing activities of the European group.

The sole goal of this overarching European group is to reduce the health burden of cardiovascular disease. It doesn’t have political goals. It doesn’t have much to say about anything other than, “Let’s get evidence-based medicine used to try and prevent heart disease or treat heart disease.” So there’s noble intent.

Many of its members asked, “What are we doing in politics? Why are we punishing Russian and Belarussian cardiologists, acting as if somehow they are responsible for what the Russian army is doing or for what Putin has decided to do? Why are we acting against them? They are just trying to fight heart disease. That’s a legitimate goal for any doctor, public health official, or scientist.” They didn’t see, as members, why this exclusion had taken place.

I believe the exclusion is appropriate and some of the membership, obviously, in the European Society of Cardiology, agrees. It’s not because they’re holding doctors or scientists directly accountable for Putin’s war crimes, ethnic cleansing assault, or bombing and shelling of hospitals, maternity hospitals, and civilians.

They understand that these scientists and doctors have little to do with such things, but we are in a new form of warfare, and that warfare is basically economic and sociologic: turning Russia, as an inexcusably aggressive state, into a pariah.

The reason to break the ties is that that is the way to bring pressure upon Putin and his kleptocratic, oligarchic advisers to stop the attack, to try and bring down their economy, to say, “Business is not going to go on as usual. You will be excluded from normal scientific and medical commerce. We’re not going to be holding conferences or exchanging ideas,” and in my view, extending it to say, “We’re not taking your papers, we’re not publishing anything you do. We’re not even having you speak at our meetings until this war, this aggressive invasion, and these war crimes come to a halt.”

There is actually a basis for this action. It isn’t in the organization’s own bylaws, which as I said, are very simple — reduce cardiovascular disease burden — but they are a member of a broader group, the Biomedical Alliance in Europe, which does have a very explicit code of ethics.

I’m going to read you a little bit from that code. It says healthcare organizations should uphold and promote equality, diversity and inclusion, accountability, transparency, and equality. They also say that all members, including the European Society of Cardiology, should be committed both to the Declaration of Helsinki, a fundamental medical ethics document, and the Declaration of Geneva. These rules refer to the highest respect of human beings, responsible resource allocation, and preservation of the environment, among other things.

What the organization is doing is consistent with the code of ethics that the broader organization of all the medical societies of Europe say that these individual groups should be doing. You can’t collaborate with war criminals. You can’t act as if business as usual is going on. That’s not inclusive. That’s not respect for diversity.

I think the Ukrainian medical societies of cardiology and other specialties would find it grimly ironic to say that keeping Russian and Belarus members makes sense, given what’s going on in their country and what is happening to them. They’re under attack. They’re being killed. Their healthcare institutions are being indiscriminately shelled and bombed.

It’s very hard — and I understand that — to say we’re going to punish scientists. We’re going to, perhaps, even cause public health problems in Russia because we’re not going to collaborate right now with doctors and scientists in cardiology or any other medical specialty. I think it’s what has to be done.

We’re in a new era of trying to combat what is basically organized, international ethnic terrorism, complete with war crimes. We fight financially. We fight by isolating. We fight by excluding. It’s painful. It’s difficult. It’s somewhat unfair to individuals.

Only through that kind of pain are we going to get the kind of pressure that will achieve justice. I think that is a goal that we have to commend the European Society of Cardiology for honoring.
 

Dr. Caplan is director of the division of medical ethics at New York University. He is the author or editor of 35 books and 750 peer-reviewed articles as well as a frequent commentator in the media on bioethical issues. He has served as a director, officer, partner, employee, adviser, consultant, or trustee for Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use (an unpaid position), and is a contributing author and adviser for Medscape. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

U.S. health officials are watching the steady climb in COVID-19 cases in the United Kingdom, which tends to signal what could happen next in the United States, according to NPR.

Daily cases counts have increased 38% in the past week, according to the latest data from the U.K. Health Security Agency. Hospitalizations are up about 25% as well.

“Over the last year or so, what happens in the U.K. usually happens here a few weeks later,” Anthony S. Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, told NPR.

“And right now, the U.K. is seeing somewhat of a rebound in cases,” he said.

Health officials in the United Kingdom have noted the latest increase is likely due to the contagious BA.2 Omicron subvariant, the recent loosening of coronavirus restrictions, and waning immunity from vaccinations and infections.

“All three of those factors we have here in the United States,” Dr. Fauci said. “So I would not be surprised if, in the next few weeks, we see either a plateauing … of cases or even [the curve] rebounds and slightly goes up.”

Right now, COVID-19 cases in the United Stastes have dropped to their lowest levels since July 2021, according to the latest Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data, with fewer than 30,000 daily cases. At the same time, the rate of decline in cases has slowed significantly and is beginning to plateau.

Public health experts are also pointing to wastewater surveillance data that shows an uptick in viral activity across the country. The CDC’s wastewater dashboard indicates that about 35% of sites that monitor wastewater are seeing an increase, with consistent growth in Florida, Rhode Island, and West Virginia.

“The power of wastewater surveillance is that it’s an early warning system,” Amy Kirby, the program lead for the CDC’s National Wastewater Surveillance System, told NPR.

“We are seeing evidence of increases in some communities across the country,” she said. “What looked like noise at the beginning of the week is starting to look like a true signal here at the end of the week.”

The wastewater system doesn’t distinguish between Omicron and subvariants such as BA.2. However, other CDC data has found an increase in BA.2 cases in the United States, making up about a quarter of new COVID-19 cases.

The BA.2 variant has roughly doubled each week for the last month, which means it could become the dominant coronavirus strain in the United States in coming weeks, according to USA Today. Cases appear to be spreading more quickly in the Northeast and West, making up about 39% of cases in New York and New Jersey last week.

BA.2 also accounts for nearly 39% of cases across the Northeast, including Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Vermont, USA Today reported. In the West, which includes Arizona, California and Nevada, the subvariant makes up about 28% of new cases. In the upper West, which includes Alaska, Oregon and Washington, about 26% of cases are BA.2.

The good news is that BA.2 “doesn’t seem to evade our vaccines or immunity any more than the prior Omicron [variant]. And it doesn’t seem to lead to any more increased severity of disease,” Rochelle Walensky, MD, the CDC director, told NPR’s Morning Edition on March 18.

The effects of BA.2 will likely depend on the immunity profile in the United States, including how long it’s been since someone was vaccinated, boosted, or recovered from an infection, she said.

Health officials are watching other countries with BA.2 increases, such as Germany, Italy, and the Netherlands. Many European countries have been reporting an uptick but not implementing major restrictions or shutdowns, USA Today reported.

The BA.2 variant likely won’t lead to a major surge in severe disease or strict COVID-19 measures, Dr. Fauci told NPR, but some coronavirus protocols may need to be implemented again if cases grow dramatically.

“We must be ready to pivot and, if necessary, to go back to stricter mitigation with regard to masks,” he said.

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

U.S. health officials are watching the steady climb in COVID-19 cases in the United Kingdom, which tends to signal what could happen next in the United States, according to NPR.

Daily cases counts have increased 38% in the past week, according to the latest data from the U.K. Health Security Agency. Hospitalizations are up about 25% as well.

“Over the last year or so, what happens in the U.K. usually happens here a few weeks later,” Anthony S. Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, told NPR.

“And right now, the U.K. is seeing somewhat of a rebound in cases,” he said.

Health officials in the United Kingdom have noted the latest increase is likely due to the contagious BA.2 Omicron subvariant, the recent loosening of coronavirus restrictions, and waning immunity from vaccinations and infections.

“All three of those factors we have here in the United States,” Dr. Fauci said. “So I would not be surprised if, in the next few weeks, we see either a plateauing … of cases or even [the curve] rebounds and slightly goes up.”

Right now, COVID-19 cases in the United Stastes have dropped to their lowest levels since July 2021, according to the latest Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data, with fewer than 30,000 daily cases. At the same time, the rate of decline in cases has slowed significantly and is beginning to plateau.

Public health experts are also pointing to wastewater surveillance data that shows an uptick in viral activity across the country. The CDC’s wastewater dashboard indicates that about 35% of sites that monitor wastewater are seeing an increase, with consistent growth in Florida, Rhode Island, and West Virginia.

“The power of wastewater surveillance is that it’s an early warning system,” Amy Kirby, the program lead for the CDC’s National Wastewater Surveillance System, told NPR.

“We are seeing evidence of increases in some communities across the country,” she said. “What looked like noise at the beginning of the week is starting to look like a true signal here at the end of the week.”

The wastewater system doesn’t distinguish between Omicron and subvariants such as BA.2. However, other CDC data has found an increase in BA.2 cases in the United States, making up about a quarter of new COVID-19 cases.

The BA.2 variant has roughly doubled each week for the last month, which means it could become the dominant coronavirus strain in the United States in coming weeks, according to USA Today. Cases appear to be spreading more quickly in the Northeast and West, making up about 39% of cases in New York and New Jersey last week.

BA.2 also accounts for nearly 39% of cases across the Northeast, including Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Vermont, USA Today reported. In the West, which includes Arizona, California and Nevada, the subvariant makes up about 28% of new cases. In the upper West, which includes Alaska, Oregon and Washington, about 26% of cases are BA.2.

The good news is that BA.2 “doesn’t seem to evade our vaccines or immunity any more than the prior Omicron [variant]. And it doesn’t seem to lead to any more increased severity of disease,” Rochelle Walensky, MD, the CDC director, told NPR’s Morning Edition on March 18.

The effects of BA.2 will likely depend on the immunity profile in the United States, including how long it’s been since someone was vaccinated, boosted, or recovered from an infection, she said.

Health officials are watching other countries with BA.2 increases, such as Germany, Italy, and the Netherlands. Many European countries have been reporting an uptick but not implementing major restrictions or shutdowns, USA Today reported.

The BA.2 variant likely won’t lead to a major surge in severe disease or strict COVID-19 measures, Dr. Fauci told NPR, but some coronavirus protocols may need to be implemented again if cases grow dramatically.

“We must be ready to pivot and, if necessary, to go back to stricter mitigation with regard to masks,” he said.

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

U.S. health officials are watching the steady climb in COVID-19 cases in the United Kingdom, which tends to signal what could happen next in the United States, according to NPR.

Daily cases counts have increased 38% in the past week, according to the latest data from the U.K. Health Security Agency. Hospitalizations are up about 25% as well.

“Over the last year or so, what happens in the U.K. usually happens here a few weeks later,” Anthony S. Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, told NPR.

“And right now, the U.K. is seeing somewhat of a rebound in cases,” he said.

Health officials in the United Kingdom have noted the latest increase is likely due to the contagious BA.2 Omicron subvariant, the recent loosening of coronavirus restrictions, and waning immunity from vaccinations and infections.

“All three of those factors we have here in the United States,” Dr. Fauci said. “So I would not be surprised if, in the next few weeks, we see either a plateauing … of cases or even [the curve] rebounds and slightly goes up.”

Right now, COVID-19 cases in the United Stastes have dropped to their lowest levels since July 2021, according to the latest Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data, with fewer than 30,000 daily cases. At the same time, the rate of decline in cases has slowed significantly and is beginning to plateau.

Public health experts are also pointing to wastewater surveillance data that shows an uptick in viral activity across the country. The CDC’s wastewater dashboard indicates that about 35% of sites that monitor wastewater are seeing an increase, with consistent growth in Florida, Rhode Island, and West Virginia.

“The power of wastewater surveillance is that it’s an early warning system,” Amy Kirby, the program lead for the CDC’s National Wastewater Surveillance System, told NPR.

“We are seeing evidence of increases in some communities across the country,” she said. “What looked like noise at the beginning of the week is starting to look like a true signal here at the end of the week.”

The wastewater system doesn’t distinguish between Omicron and subvariants such as BA.2. However, other CDC data has found an increase in BA.2 cases in the United States, making up about a quarter of new COVID-19 cases.

The BA.2 variant has roughly doubled each week for the last month, which means it could become the dominant coronavirus strain in the United States in coming weeks, according to USA Today. Cases appear to be spreading more quickly in the Northeast and West, making up about 39% of cases in New York and New Jersey last week.

BA.2 also accounts for nearly 39% of cases across the Northeast, including Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Vermont, USA Today reported. In the West, which includes Arizona, California and Nevada, the subvariant makes up about 28% of new cases. In the upper West, which includes Alaska, Oregon and Washington, about 26% of cases are BA.2.

The good news is that BA.2 “doesn’t seem to evade our vaccines or immunity any more than the prior Omicron [variant]. And it doesn’t seem to lead to any more increased severity of disease,” Rochelle Walensky, MD, the CDC director, told NPR’s Morning Edition on March 18.

The effects of BA.2 will likely depend on the immunity profile in the United States, including how long it’s been since someone was vaccinated, boosted, or recovered from an infection, she said.

Health officials are watching other countries with BA.2 increases, such as Germany, Italy, and the Netherlands. Many European countries have been reporting an uptick but not implementing major restrictions or shutdowns, USA Today reported.

The BA.2 variant likely won’t lead to a major surge in severe disease or strict COVID-19 measures, Dr. Fauci told NPR, but some coronavirus protocols may need to be implemented again if cases grow dramatically.

“We must be ready to pivot and, if necessary, to go back to stricter mitigation with regard to masks,” he said.

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

Get the science right. I have spent years researching and reflecting on what makes the best physicians, the best medicine, the optimal organized medical system, and the best medical ethics and law to support all of it. I have traveled to almost innumerable conferences to discuss these topics with colleagues who have similar goals. Time and time again, I come back to the conclusion that, in the modern era, the second-most important thing to do is to get the science right.

The practice of medicine in my Western world can be traced back to Hippocrates and earlier. The practice of nursing has other milestones. The healing arts have different points of origin in other cultures, such as China. In a modern world of mass communication, these various historical paths are converging on scientific evidence. The science to support medicine has always had flaws, but it has fared better than the other options. Sometimes, the science was so sketchy that the key was to believe in whatever the shaman was providing. But for the past 100 years, science, rather than tradition and hierarchy, has been relied upon to guide policy and action. For the past 50 years, evidence-based medicine has ascended. Have we become better than the snake oil salesmen of the late 19th century?

Modern health care is far from perfect. The pandemic has been a major stressor to the health care system. The pandemic has revealed flaws and weaknesses, including inequity in access to care, health illiteracy, and a shaky moral compass balancing individual liberty and social good. Overall, despite multiple mistakes dealing with a novel threat, I think the institutions promoting science have performed well during the pandemic, especially when compared with the moral and governmental institutions encouraging ethical behavior and making policies to promote justice.

My highest praise would be for the professionalism of health care workers. Nurses and physicians have staffed the hospitals and clinics caring for people when the hallways were overflowing for days without end. Without the commitment, the teamwork, and the courage to provide that care, the death toll would have been much higher and the suffering unimaginable. My observation is that these people were not motivated by an abstract primum non nocere, first do no harm. It was the commitment to love one’s neighbor and care for the sick. This dedication is the first most important thing in professionalism.

Part of what fuels that commitment is a belief that what they are doing makes a difference. The belief is stronger when there is measurable, scientific evidence that a difference is being made. The scientific decisions have not been perfect, but at this point the evidence is clear that the shutdown flattened the curve. Vaccines saved lives and will continue to do so. Masks saved lives. Nursing care, particularly intensive care, reduced the case fatality rate and assuaged suffering and grief.

What lessons about training new providers can be gleaned from the past 2 years? Those who teach professionalism for physicians, nurses, and other health care workers should strengthen the common value systems that undergird the commitment people have to the patients and the professions. In the face of postmodern nihilism and relativism, virtues need to be clarified and reinforced. In the face of political polarization which seeks to make a political affiliation the locus of loyalty and commitment, emphasize the fellowship of the health care professions.

To me as a scientist, a key lesson is that we need to be better at getting the science right. Two years ago I was wiping some groceries with alcohol and quarantining cans in shopping bags in the corner of the kitchen for 24 hours before shelving them. I still push elevator buttons with my knuckles. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention needs to revamp their policy making procedures.

Institutions must work to reestablish the public trust in science. That is a challenge because while many amazing scientific advances have occurred (i.e., my MRI last week showed far more going on than my orthopedist and physical therapist detected based on clinical exam). Imaging such as MR and ultrasound have been major advances in diagnostic medicine, but there are also repeated examples demonstrating where medicine has been wrong. In the past 6 months I have read new guidelines for ear tubes, for neonatal jaundice, for newborn sepsis, and for newborn hypoglycemia. All indicate to me that my training 30 years ago was on target and the interval “improvements” in practice have been worthless Brownian motion based on false scientific discoveries. My recommendation would be that pediatrics do one-third as much research but do that research three times better and get it right.

Dr. Powell is a retired pediatric hospitalist and clinical ethics consultant living in St. Louis. Email him at [email protected].

Get the science right. I have spent years researching and reflecting on what makes the best physicians, the best medicine, the optimal organized medical system, and the best medical ethics and law to support all of it. I have traveled to almost innumerable conferences to discuss these topics with colleagues who have similar goals. Time and time again, I come back to the conclusion that, in the modern era, the second-most important thing to do is to get the science right.

The practice of medicine in my Western world can be traced back to Hippocrates and earlier. The practice of nursing has other milestones. The healing arts have different points of origin in other cultures, such as China. In a modern world of mass communication, these various historical paths are converging on scientific evidence. The science to support medicine has always had flaws, but it has fared better than the other options. Sometimes, the science was so sketchy that the key was to believe in whatever the shaman was providing. But for the past 100 years, science, rather than tradition and hierarchy, has been relied upon to guide policy and action. For the past 50 years, evidence-based medicine has ascended. Have we become better than the snake oil salesmen of the late 19th century?

Modern health care is far from perfect. The pandemic has been a major stressor to the health care system. The pandemic has revealed flaws and weaknesses, including inequity in access to care, health illiteracy, and a shaky moral compass balancing individual liberty and social good. Overall, despite multiple mistakes dealing with a novel threat, I think the institutions promoting science have performed well during the pandemic, especially when compared with the moral and governmental institutions encouraging ethical behavior and making policies to promote justice.

My highest praise would be for the professionalism of health care workers. Nurses and physicians have staffed the hospitals and clinics caring for people when the hallways were overflowing for days without end. Without the commitment, the teamwork, and the courage to provide that care, the death toll would have been much higher and the suffering unimaginable. My observation is that these people were not motivated by an abstract primum non nocere, first do no harm. It was the commitment to love one’s neighbor and care for the sick. This dedication is the first most important thing in professionalism.

Part of what fuels that commitment is a belief that what they are doing makes a difference. The belief is stronger when there is measurable, scientific evidence that a difference is being made. The scientific decisions have not been perfect, but at this point the evidence is clear that the shutdown flattened the curve. Vaccines saved lives and will continue to do so. Masks saved lives. Nursing care, particularly intensive care, reduced the case fatality rate and assuaged suffering and grief.

What lessons about training new providers can be gleaned from the past 2 years? Those who teach professionalism for physicians, nurses, and other health care workers should strengthen the common value systems that undergird the commitment people have to the patients and the professions. In the face of postmodern nihilism and relativism, virtues need to be clarified and reinforced. In the face of political polarization which seeks to make a political affiliation the locus of loyalty and commitment, emphasize the fellowship of the health care professions.

To me as a scientist, a key lesson is that we need to be better at getting the science right. Two years ago I was wiping some groceries with alcohol and quarantining cans in shopping bags in the corner of the kitchen for 24 hours before shelving them. I still push elevator buttons with my knuckles. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention needs to revamp their policy making procedures.

Institutions must work to reestablish the public trust in science. That is a challenge because while many amazing scientific advances have occurred (i.e., my MRI last week showed far more going on than my orthopedist and physical therapist detected based on clinical exam). Imaging such as MR and ultrasound have been major advances in diagnostic medicine, but there are also repeated examples demonstrating where medicine has been wrong. In the past 6 months I have read new guidelines for ear tubes, for neonatal jaundice, for newborn sepsis, and for newborn hypoglycemia. All indicate to me that my training 30 years ago was on target and the interval “improvements” in practice have been worthless Brownian motion based on false scientific discoveries. My recommendation would be that pediatrics do one-third as much research but do that research three times better and get it right.

Dr. Powell is a retired pediatric hospitalist and clinical ethics consultant living in St. Louis. Email him at [email protected].

Get the science right. I have spent years researching and reflecting on what makes the best physicians, the best medicine, the optimal organized medical system, and the best medical ethics and law to support all of it. I have traveled to almost innumerable conferences to discuss these topics with colleagues who have similar goals. Time and time again, I come back to the conclusion that, in the modern era, the second-most important thing to do is to get the science right.

The practice of medicine in my Western world can be traced back to Hippocrates and earlier. The practice of nursing has other milestones. The healing arts have different points of origin in other cultures, such as China. In a modern world of mass communication, these various historical paths are converging on scientific evidence. The science to support medicine has always had flaws, but it has fared better than the other options. Sometimes, the science was so sketchy that the key was to believe in whatever the shaman was providing. But for the past 100 years, science, rather than tradition and hierarchy, has been relied upon to guide policy and action. For the past 50 years, evidence-based medicine has ascended. Have we become better than the snake oil salesmen of the late 19th century?

Modern health care is far from perfect. The pandemic has been a major stressor to the health care system. The pandemic has revealed flaws and weaknesses, including inequity in access to care, health illiteracy, and a shaky moral compass balancing individual liberty and social good. Overall, despite multiple mistakes dealing with a novel threat, I think the institutions promoting science have performed well during the pandemic, especially when compared with the moral and governmental institutions encouraging ethical behavior and making policies to promote justice.

My highest praise would be for the professionalism of health care workers. Nurses and physicians have staffed the hospitals and clinics caring for people when the hallways were overflowing for days without end. Without the commitment, the teamwork, and the courage to provide that care, the death toll would have been much higher and the suffering unimaginable. My observation is that these people were not motivated by an abstract primum non nocere, first do no harm. It was the commitment to love one’s neighbor and care for the sick. This dedication is the first most important thing in professionalism.

Part of what fuels that commitment is a belief that what they are doing makes a difference. The belief is stronger when there is measurable, scientific evidence that a difference is being made. The scientific decisions have not been perfect, but at this point the evidence is clear that the shutdown flattened the curve. Vaccines saved lives and will continue to do so. Masks saved lives. Nursing care, particularly intensive care, reduced the case fatality rate and assuaged suffering and grief.

What lessons about training new providers can be gleaned from the past 2 years? Those who teach professionalism for physicians, nurses, and other health care workers should strengthen the common value systems that undergird the commitment people have to the patients and the professions. In the face of postmodern nihilism and relativism, virtues need to be clarified and reinforced. In the face of political polarization which seeks to make a political affiliation the locus of loyalty and commitment, emphasize the fellowship of the health care professions.

To me as a scientist, a key lesson is that we need to be better at getting the science right. Two years ago I was wiping some groceries with alcohol and quarantining cans in shopping bags in the corner of the kitchen for 24 hours before shelving them. I still push elevator buttons with my knuckles. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention needs to revamp their policy making procedures.

Institutions must work to reestablish the public trust in science. That is a challenge because while many amazing scientific advances have occurred (i.e., my MRI last week showed far more going on than my orthopedist and physical therapist detected based on clinical exam). Imaging such as MR and ultrasound have been major advances in diagnostic medicine, but there are also repeated examples demonstrating where medicine has been wrong. In the past 6 months I have read new guidelines for ear tubes, for neonatal jaundice, for newborn sepsis, and for newborn hypoglycemia. All indicate to me that my training 30 years ago was on target and the interval “improvements” in practice have been worthless Brownian motion based on false scientific discoveries. My recommendation would be that pediatrics do one-third as much research but do that research three times better and get it right.

Dr. Powell is a retired pediatric hospitalist and clinical ethics consultant living in St. Louis. Email him at [email protected].

Misaligned eyes in children are associated with an increased prevalence of mental illness, results of a large study suggest.

Investigators found children with strabismus or “crossed eyes” had up to a twofold increased risk of developing anxiety, depression, bipolar disorder, and schizophrenia, compared with their counterparts without the eye condition.

“Psychiatrists who have a patient with depression or anxiety and notice that patient also has strabismus might think about the link between those two conditions and refer that patient,” study investigator Stacy L. Pineles, MD, professor, department of ophthalmology, University of California, Los Angeles, told this news organization.

University of California at Los Angeles

A common condition

Strabismus, a condition in which the eyes don’t line up or are “crossed,” is one of the most common eye diseases in children, with some estimates suggesting it affects more than 1.5 million American youth.

Patients with strabismus have problems making eye contact and are affected socially and functionally, said Dr. Pineles. They’re often met with a negative bias, as shown by children’s responses to pictures of faces with and without strabismus, she said.

There is a signal from previous research suggesting that strabismus is linked to a higher risk of mental illness. However, most of these studies were small and had relatively homogenous populations, said Dr. Pineles.

The new study includes over 12 million children (mean age, 8.0 years) from a private health insurance claims database that represents diverse races and ethnicities as well as geographic regions across the United States.

The sample included 352,636 children with strabismus and 11,652,553 children with no diagnosed eye disease who served as controls. Most participants were White (51.6%), came from a family with an annual household income of $40,000 or more (51.0%), had point-of-service insurance (68.7%), and had at least one comorbid condition (64.5%).

The study evaluated five mental illness diagnoses. These included anxiety disorder, depressive disorder, substance use or addictive disorder, bipolar disorder, and schizophrenia.

Overall, children with strabismus had a higher prevalence of all these illnesses, with the exception of substance use disorder.

After adjusting for age, sex, race and ethnicity, census region, education level of caregiver, family net worth, and presence of at least one comorbid condition, the odds ratios among those with versus without strabismus were: 2.01 (95% confidence interval, 1.99-2.04; P < .001) for anxiety disorder, 1.83 (95% CI, 1.76-1.90; P < .001) for schizophrenia, 1.64 (95% CI, 1.59-1.70; P < .001) for bipolar disorder, and 1.61 (95% CI, 1.59-1.63; P < .001) for depressive disorder.

Substance use disorder had a negative unadjusted association with strabismus, but after adjustment for confounders, the association was not significant (OR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.97-1.02; P = .48).

Dr. Pineles noted that the study participants, who were all under age 19, may be too young to have substance use disorders.

The results for substance use disorders provided something of an “internal control” and reaffirmed results for the other four conditions, said Dr. Pineles.

“When you do research on such a large database, you’re very likely to find significant associations; the dataset is so large that even very small differences become statistically significant. It was interesting that not everything gave us a positive association.”

Researchers divided the strabismus group into those with esotropia, where the eyes turn inward (52.2%), exotropia, where they turn outward (46.3%), and hypertropia, where one eye wanders upward (12.5%). Investigators found that all three conditions were associated with increased risk of anxiety disorder, depressive disorder, bipolar disorders, and schizophrenia.

Investigators note that rates in the current study were lower than in previous studies, which showed that children with congenital esotropia were 2.6 times more likely to receive a mental health diagnosis, and children with intermittent exotropia were 2.7 times more likely to receive a mental health diagnosis.

“It is probable that our study found a lower risk than these studies, because our study was cross-sectional and claims based, whereas these studies observed the children to early adulthood and were based on medical records,” the investigators note.

It’s impossible to determine from this study how strabismus is connected to mental illness. However, Dr. Pineles believes depression and anxiety might be tied to strabismus via teasing, which affects self-esteem, although genetics could also play a role. For conditions such as schizophrenia, a shared genetic link with strabismus might be more likely, she added.

“Schizophrenia is a pretty severe diagnosis, so just being teased or having poor self-esteem is probably not enough” to develop schizophrenia.

Based on her clinical experience, Dr. Pineles said that realigning the eyes of patients with milder forms of depression or anxiety “definitely anecdotally helps these patients a lot.”

Dr. Pineles and colleagues have another paper in press that examines mental illnesses and other serious eye disorders in children and shows similar findings, she said.
 

Implications for insurance coverage?

In an accompanying editorial, experts, led by S. Grace Prakalapakorn, MD, department of ophthalmology and pediatrics, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C., noted the exclusion of children covered under government insurance or without insurance is an important study limitation, largely because socioeconomic status is a risk factor for poor mental health.   

The editorialists point to studies showing that surgical correction of ocular misalignments may be associated with reduced anxiety and depression. However, health insurance coverage for such surgical correction “may not be available owing to a misconception that these conditions are ‘cosmetic’.”  

Evidence of the broader association of strabismus with physical and mental health “may play an important role in shifting policy to promote insurance coverage for timely strabismus care,” they write.

As many mental health disorders begin in childhood or adolescence, “it is paramount to identify, address, and, if possible, prevent mental health disorders at a young age, because failure to intervene in a timely fashion can have lifelong health consequences,” say Dr. Prakalapakorn and colleagues.

With mental health conditions and disorders increasing worldwide, compounded by the stressors of the COVID-19 pandemic, additional studies are needed to explore the causal relationships between ocular and psychiatric phenomena, their treatment, and outcomes, they add.

The study was supported by a grant from the National Eye Institute and an unrestricted grant from Research to Prevent Blindness. Dr. Pineles has reported no relevant conflicts of interest. Commentary author Manpreet K. Singh, MD, has reported receiving research support from Stanford’s Maternal Child Health Research Institute and Stanford’s Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, the National Institute of Mental Health, the National Institute on Aging, the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, Johnson & Johnson, Allergan, and the Brain and Behavior Research Foundation; serving on the advisory board for Sunovion and Skyland Trail; serving as a consultant for Johnson & Johnson; previously serving as a consultant for X, the moonshot factory, Alphabet, and Limbix Health; receiving honoraria from the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry; and receiving royalties from American Psychiatric Association Publishing and Thrive Global. Commentary author Nathan Congdon, MD, has reported receiving personal fees from Belkin Vision outside the submitted work.

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

Misaligned eyes in children are associated with an increased prevalence of mental illness, results of a large study suggest.

Investigators found children with strabismus or “crossed eyes” had up to a twofold increased risk of developing anxiety, depression, bipolar disorder, and schizophrenia, compared with their counterparts without the eye condition.

“Psychiatrists who have a patient with depression or anxiety and notice that patient also has strabismus might think about the link between those two conditions and refer that patient,” study investigator Stacy L. Pineles, MD, professor, department of ophthalmology, University of California, Los Angeles, told this news organization.

University of California at Los Angeles

A common condition

Strabismus, a condition in which the eyes don’t line up or are “crossed,” is one of the most common eye diseases in children, with some estimates suggesting it affects more than 1.5 million American youth.

Patients with strabismus have problems making eye contact and are affected socially and functionally, said Dr. Pineles. They’re often met with a negative bias, as shown by children’s responses to pictures of faces with and without strabismus, she said.

There is a signal from previous research suggesting that strabismus is linked to a higher risk of mental illness. However, most of these studies were small and had relatively homogenous populations, said Dr. Pineles.

The new study includes over 12 million children (mean age, 8.0 years) from a private health insurance claims database that represents diverse races and ethnicities as well as geographic regions across the United States.

The sample included 352,636 children with strabismus and 11,652,553 children with no diagnosed eye disease who served as controls. Most participants were White (51.6%), came from a family with an annual household income of $40,000 or more (51.0%), had point-of-service insurance (68.7%), and had at least one comorbid condition (64.5%).

The study evaluated five mental illness diagnoses. These included anxiety disorder, depressive disorder, substance use or addictive disorder, bipolar disorder, and schizophrenia.

Overall, children with strabismus had a higher prevalence of all these illnesses, with the exception of substance use disorder.

After adjusting for age, sex, race and ethnicity, census region, education level of caregiver, family net worth, and presence of at least one comorbid condition, the odds ratios among those with versus without strabismus were: 2.01 (95% confidence interval, 1.99-2.04; P < .001) for anxiety disorder, 1.83 (95% CI, 1.76-1.90; P < .001) for schizophrenia, 1.64 (95% CI, 1.59-1.70; P < .001) for bipolar disorder, and 1.61 (95% CI, 1.59-1.63; P < .001) for depressive disorder.

Substance use disorder had a negative unadjusted association with strabismus, but after adjustment for confounders, the association was not significant (OR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.97-1.02; P = .48).

Dr. Pineles noted that the study participants, who were all under age 19, may be too young to have substance use disorders.

The results for substance use disorders provided something of an “internal control” and reaffirmed results for the other four conditions, said Dr. Pineles.

“When you do research on such a large database, you’re very likely to find significant associations; the dataset is so large that even very small differences become statistically significant. It was interesting that not everything gave us a positive association.”

Researchers divided the strabismus group into those with esotropia, where the eyes turn inward (52.2%), exotropia, where they turn outward (46.3%), and hypertropia, where one eye wanders upward (12.5%). Investigators found that all three conditions were associated with increased risk of anxiety disorder, depressive disorder, bipolar disorders, and schizophrenia.

Investigators note that rates in the current study were lower than in previous studies, which showed that children with congenital esotropia were 2.6 times more likely to receive a mental health diagnosis, and children with intermittent exotropia were 2.7 times more likely to receive a mental health diagnosis.

“It is probable that our study found a lower risk than these studies, because our study was cross-sectional and claims based, whereas these studies observed the children to early adulthood and were based on medical records,” the investigators note.

It’s impossible to determine from this study how strabismus is connected to mental illness. However, Dr. Pineles believes depression and anxiety might be tied to strabismus via teasing, which affects self-esteem, although genetics could also play a role. For conditions such as schizophrenia, a shared genetic link with strabismus might be more likely, she added.

“Schizophrenia is a pretty severe diagnosis, so just being teased or having poor self-esteem is probably not enough” to develop schizophrenia.

Based on her clinical experience, Dr. Pineles said that realigning the eyes of patients with milder forms of depression or anxiety “definitely anecdotally helps these patients a lot.”

Dr. Pineles and colleagues have another paper in press that examines mental illnesses and other serious eye disorders in children and shows similar findings, she said.
 

Implications for insurance coverage?

In an accompanying editorial, experts, led by S. Grace Prakalapakorn, MD, department of ophthalmology and pediatrics, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C., noted the exclusion of children covered under government insurance or without insurance is an important study limitation, largely because socioeconomic status is a risk factor for poor mental health.   

The editorialists point to studies showing that surgical correction of ocular misalignments may be associated with reduced anxiety and depression. However, health insurance coverage for such surgical correction “may not be available owing to a misconception that these conditions are ‘cosmetic’.”  

Evidence of the broader association of strabismus with physical and mental health “may play an important role in shifting policy to promote insurance coverage for timely strabismus care,” they write.

As many mental health disorders begin in childhood or adolescence, “it is paramount to identify, address, and, if possible, prevent mental health disorders at a young age, because failure to intervene in a timely fashion can have lifelong health consequences,” say Dr. Prakalapakorn and colleagues.

With mental health conditions and disorders increasing worldwide, compounded by the stressors of the COVID-19 pandemic, additional studies are needed to explore the causal relationships between ocular and psychiatric phenomena, their treatment, and outcomes, they add.

The study was supported by a grant from the National Eye Institute and an unrestricted grant from Research to Prevent Blindness. Dr. Pineles has reported no relevant conflicts of interest. Commentary author Manpreet K. Singh, MD, has reported receiving research support from Stanford’s Maternal Child Health Research Institute and Stanford’s Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, the National Institute of Mental Health, the National Institute on Aging, the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, Johnson & Johnson, Allergan, and the Brain and Behavior Research Foundation; serving on the advisory board for Sunovion and Skyland Trail; serving as a consultant for Johnson & Johnson; previously serving as a consultant for X, the moonshot factory, Alphabet, and Limbix Health; receiving honoraria from the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry; and receiving royalties from American Psychiatric Association Publishing and Thrive Global. Commentary author Nathan Congdon, MD, has reported receiving personal fees from Belkin Vision outside the submitted work.

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

Misaligned eyes in children are associated with an increased prevalence of mental illness, results of a large study suggest.

Investigators found children with strabismus or “crossed eyes” had up to a twofold increased risk of developing anxiety, depression, bipolar disorder, and schizophrenia, compared with their counterparts without the eye condition.

“Psychiatrists who have a patient with depression or anxiety and notice that patient also has strabismus might think about the link between those two conditions and refer that patient,” study investigator Stacy L. Pineles, MD, professor, department of ophthalmology, University of California, Los Angeles, told this news organization.

University of California at Los Angeles

A common condition

Strabismus, a condition in which the eyes don’t line up or are “crossed,” is one of the most common eye diseases in children, with some estimates suggesting it affects more than 1.5 million American youth.

Patients with strabismus have problems making eye contact and are affected socially and functionally, said Dr. Pineles. They’re often met with a negative bias, as shown by children’s responses to pictures of faces with and without strabismus, she said.

There is a signal from previous research suggesting that strabismus is linked to a higher risk of mental illness. However, most of these studies were small and had relatively homogenous populations, said Dr. Pineles.

The new study includes over 12 million children (mean age, 8.0 years) from a private health insurance claims database that represents diverse races and ethnicities as well as geographic regions across the United States.

The sample included 352,636 children with strabismus and 11,652,553 children with no diagnosed eye disease who served as controls. Most participants were White (51.6%), came from a family with an annual household income of $40,000 or more (51.0%), had point-of-service insurance (68.7%), and had at least one comorbid condition (64.5%).

The study evaluated five mental illness diagnoses. These included anxiety disorder, depressive disorder, substance use or addictive disorder, bipolar disorder, and schizophrenia.

Overall, children with strabismus had a higher prevalence of all these illnesses, with the exception of substance use disorder.

After adjusting for age, sex, race and ethnicity, census region, education level of caregiver, family net worth, and presence of at least one comorbid condition, the odds ratios among those with versus without strabismus were: 2.01 (95% confidence interval, 1.99-2.04; P < .001) for anxiety disorder, 1.83 (95% CI, 1.76-1.90; P < .001) for schizophrenia, 1.64 (95% CI, 1.59-1.70; P < .001) for bipolar disorder, and 1.61 (95% CI, 1.59-1.63; P < .001) for depressive disorder.

Substance use disorder had a negative unadjusted association with strabismus, but after adjustment for confounders, the association was not significant (OR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.97-1.02; P = .48).

Dr. Pineles noted that the study participants, who were all under age 19, may be too young to have substance use disorders.

The results for substance use disorders provided something of an “internal control” and reaffirmed results for the other four conditions, said Dr. Pineles.

“When you do research on such a large database, you’re very likely to find significant associations; the dataset is so large that even very small differences become statistically significant. It was interesting that not everything gave us a positive association.”

Researchers divided the strabismus group into those with esotropia, where the eyes turn inward (52.2%), exotropia, where they turn outward (46.3%), and hypertropia, where one eye wanders upward (12.5%). Investigators found that all three conditions were associated with increased risk of anxiety disorder, depressive disorder, bipolar disorders, and schizophrenia.

Investigators note that rates in the current study were lower than in previous studies, which showed that children with congenital esotropia were 2.6 times more likely to receive a mental health diagnosis, and children with intermittent exotropia were 2.7 times more likely to receive a mental health diagnosis.

“It is probable that our study found a lower risk than these studies, because our study was cross-sectional and claims based, whereas these studies observed the children to early adulthood and were based on medical records,” the investigators note.

It’s impossible to determine from this study how strabismus is connected to mental illness. However, Dr. Pineles believes depression and anxiety might be tied to strabismus via teasing, which affects self-esteem, although genetics could also play a role. For conditions such as schizophrenia, a shared genetic link with strabismus might be more likely, she added.

“Schizophrenia is a pretty severe diagnosis, so just being teased or having poor self-esteem is probably not enough” to develop schizophrenia.

Based on her clinical experience, Dr. Pineles said that realigning the eyes of patients with milder forms of depression or anxiety “definitely anecdotally helps these patients a lot.”

Dr. Pineles and colleagues have another paper in press that examines mental illnesses and other serious eye disorders in children and shows similar findings, she said.
 

Implications for insurance coverage?

In an accompanying editorial, experts, led by S. Grace Prakalapakorn, MD, department of ophthalmology and pediatrics, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C., noted the exclusion of children covered under government insurance or without insurance is an important study limitation, largely because socioeconomic status is a risk factor for poor mental health.   

The editorialists point to studies showing that surgical correction of ocular misalignments may be associated with reduced anxiety and depression. However, health insurance coverage for such surgical correction “may not be available owing to a misconception that these conditions are ‘cosmetic’.”  

Evidence of the broader association of strabismus with physical and mental health “may play an important role in shifting policy to promote insurance coverage for timely strabismus care,” they write.

As many mental health disorders begin in childhood or adolescence, “it is paramount to identify, address, and, if possible, prevent mental health disorders at a young age, because failure to intervene in a timely fashion can have lifelong health consequences,” say Dr. Prakalapakorn and colleagues.

With mental health conditions and disorders increasing worldwide, compounded by the stressors of the COVID-19 pandemic, additional studies are needed to explore the causal relationships between ocular and psychiatric phenomena, their treatment, and outcomes, they add.

The study was supported by a grant from the National Eye Institute and an unrestricted grant from Research to Prevent Blindness. Dr. Pineles has reported no relevant conflicts of interest. Commentary author Manpreet K. Singh, MD, has reported receiving research support from Stanford’s Maternal Child Health Research Institute and Stanford’s Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, the National Institute of Mental Health, the National Institute on Aging, the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, Johnson & Johnson, Allergan, and the Brain and Behavior Research Foundation; serving on the advisory board for Sunovion and Skyland Trail; serving as a consultant for Johnson & Johnson; previously serving as a consultant for X, the moonshot factory, Alphabet, and Limbix Health; receiving honoraria from the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry; and receiving royalties from American Psychiatric Association Publishing and Thrive Global. Commentary author Nathan Congdon, MD, has reported receiving personal fees from Belkin Vision outside the submitted work.

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

If the nation’s primary care system were a patient, it would be in critical condition, researchers have found.

In delivery of primary care, including access and coordination, the U.S. trails well behind 10 other wealthy countries, according to a new report from the Commonwealth Fund.

The document, released March 15, concludes that the shortcomings in the U.S. system – from a lack of a relationship with a primary care physician to unequal access to after-hours care – “disproportionately affect Black and Latinx communities and rural areas, exacerbating disparities that have widened during the COVID-19 pandemic.”

“This report really shows that the U.S. is falling behind. We know that a strong primary care system yields better health outcomes. We have a lot to learn from other high-income countries,” coauthor Munira Z. Gunja, MPH, a senior researcher for the Commonwealth Fund’s International Program in Health Policy and Practice Innovations, told this news organization. “At baseline, we really need to make sure that everyone has health insurance in this country so they can actually use primary care services, and we need to increase the supply of those services.”

The report draws from the Commonwealth Fund’s 2019 and 2020 International Health Policy Surveys and the 2020 International Profiles of Health Care Systems. Among the main points:

• U.S. adults are the least likely to have a regular physician or place of care or a long-standing relationship with a primary care provider: 43% of American adults have a long-term relationship with a primary care doctor, compared with highs of 71% in Germany and the Netherlands.
• Access to home visits or after-hours care – excluding emergency department visits – is lowest in the United States (45%). In the Netherlands, Norway, New Zealand, and Germany, the rate is 90% to 96%.
• Half of primary care providers in the United States report adequate coordination with specialists and hospitals – around the average for the 11 countries studied.

‘Dismal mess’

Experts reacted to the report with a mix of concern and frustration – but not surprise.

“The results in this report are not surprising, and we have known them all for a number of years now,” Timothy Hoff, PhD, a health policy expert at Northeastern University, Boston, said. “Primary care doctors remain the backbone of our primary care system. But there are too few of them in the United States, and there likely will remain too few of them in the future. This opens the door to other and more diverse forms of innovation that will be required to help complement the work they do.”

Dr. Hoff, author of Searching for the Family Doctor: Primary Care on the Brink, added that comparing the United States to smaller countries like Norway or the United Kingdom is “somewhat problematic.”

“Our system has to take care of several hundred million people, trapped in a fragmented and market-based delivery system focused on specialty care, each of whom may have a different insurance plan,” he said. “Doing some of the things very small countries with government-funded insurance and a history of strong primary care delivery do in taking care of far fewer citizens is not realistic.”

Jeffrey Borkan, MD, PhD, chair and professor in the department of family medicine at the Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, R.I., said the most shocking finding in the report is that despite spending far more on health care than any other country, “we cannot manage to provide one of the least expensive and most efficacious services: a relationship with a primary care doctor.”

Arthur Caplan, PhD, director of the Division of Medical Ethics at New York University Langone Medical Center, called primary care in this country “a dismal mess. It has been for many years. This is especially so in mental health. Access in many counties is nonexistent, and many primary care physicians are opting into boutique care.”

R. Shawn Martin, CEO of the 133,000-member American Academy of Family Physicians, said, “None of this surprises me. I think these are trendlines; we have been following this for many, many years here at the Academy.”

Mr. Martin added that he was disappointed that the recent, large investments in sharing and digitizing information have not closed the gaps that hinder the efficient and widespread delivery of primary care.

The findings in the report weren’t all bad. More primary care providers in the United States (30%) screen their patients for social needs such as housing, food security, and transportation – the highest among all 11 nations studied.

Also, Commonwealth Fund said the proportion of patients who said they received information on meeting their social needs and screening for domestic violence or social isolation was low everywhere. However, the percentage in the United States, Canada, and Norway was the highest, at 9%. Sweden had the lowest rate for such screenings, at 1%.

The researchers noted that social determinants of health account for as much as 55% of health outcomes. “In some countries, like the United States, the higher rates of receiving such information may be a response to the higher rates of material hardship, along with a weaker safety net,” the report states.

Ms. Gunja and her colleagues suggested several options for changes in policies, including narrowing the wage gap between primary care providers and higher-paid specialists; subsidizing medical school tuition to give students incentives to enter primary care; investing in telehealth to make primary care more accessible; and rewarding and holding providers accountable for continuity of care.

“The U.S. had the largest wage gap and highest tuition fees among the countries we studied,” Ms. Gunja told this news organization..

Researchers noted that U.S. patients could benefit from the introduction of incentives such as those paid in New Zealand to primary health organizations, which receive additional funding per capita to promote health and coordinate care.

But Dr. Caplan was skeptical that those measures would do much to correct the problems.

“We have no will to fix this ongoing, scandalous situation,” he said. “Specialist care still pays inordinately large salaries. Nurses and physician extenders are underused. Academic prestige does little to reward primary care. Plus, patients are not pressing for better access. Sorry, but I see no solutions pending in the current climate. Obamacare barely survived.”

The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

If the nation’s primary care system were a patient, it would be in critical condition, researchers have found.

In delivery of primary care, including access and coordination, the U.S. trails well behind 10 other wealthy countries, according to a new report from the Commonwealth Fund.

The document, released March 15, concludes that the shortcomings in the U.S. system – from a lack of a relationship with a primary care physician to unequal access to after-hours care – “disproportionately affect Black and Latinx communities and rural areas, exacerbating disparities that have widened during the COVID-19 pandemic.”

“This report really shows that the U.S. is falling behind. We know that a strong primary care system yields better health outcomes. We have a lot to learn from other high-income countries,” coauthor Munira Z. Gunja, MPH, a senior researcher for the Commonwealth Fund’s International Program in Health Policy and Practice Innovations, told this news organization. “At baseline, we really need to make sure that everyone has health insurance in this country so they can actually use primary care services, and we need to increase the supply of those services.”

The report draws from the Commonwealth Fund’s 2019 and 2020 International Health Policy Surveys and the 2020 International Profiles of Health Care Systems. Among the main points:

• U.S. adults are the least likely to have a regular physician or place of care or a long-standing relationship with a primary care provider: 43% of American adults have a long-term relationship with a primary care doctor, compared with highs of 71% in Germany and the Netherlands.
• Access to home visits or after-hours care – excluding emergency department visits – is lowest in the United States (45%). In the Netherlands, Norway, New Zealand, and Germany, the rate is 90% to 96%.
• Half of primary care providers in the United States report adequate coordination with specialists and hospitals – around the average for the 11 countries studied.

‘Dismal mess’

Experts reacted to the report with a mix of concern and frustration – but not surprise.

“The results in this report are not surprising, and we have known them all for a number of years now,” Timothy Hoff, PhD, a health policy expert at Northeastern University, Boston, said. “Primary care doctors remain the backbone of our primary care system. But there are too few of them in the United States, and there likely will remain too few of them in the future. This opens the door to other and more diverse forms of innovation that will be required to help complement the work they do.”

Dr. Hoff, author of Searching for the Family Doctor: Primary Care on the Brink, added that comparing the United States to smaller countries like Norway or the United Kingdom is “somewhat problematic.”

“Our system has to take care of several hundred million people, trapped in a fragmented and market-based delivery system focused on specialty care, each of whom may have a different insurance plan,” he said. “Doing some of the things very small countries with government-funded insurance and a history of strong primary care delivery do in taking care of far fewer citizens is not realistic.”

Jeffrey Borkan, MD, PhD, chair and professor in the department of family medicine at the Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, R.I., said the most shocking finding in the report is that despite spending far more on health care than any other country, “we cannot manage to provide one of the least expensive and most efficacious services: a relationship with a primary care doctor.”

Arthur Caplan, PhD, director of the Division of Medical Ethics at New York University Langone Medical Center, called primary care in this country “a dismal mess. It has been for many years. This is especially so in mental health. Access in many counties is nonexistent, and many primary care physicians are opting into boutique care.”

R. Shawn Martin, CEO of the 133,000-member American Academy of Family Physicians, said, “None of this surprises me. I think these are trendlines; we have been following this for many, many years here at the Academy.”

Mr. Martin added that he was disappointed that the recent, large investments in sharing and digitizing information have not closed the gaps that hinder the efficient and widespread delivery of primary care.

The findings in the report weren’t all bad. More primary care providers in the United States (30%) screen their patients for social needs such as housing, food security, and transportation – the highest among all 11 nations studied.

Also, Commonwealth Fund said the proportion of patients who said they received information on meeting their social needs and screening for domestic violence or social isolation was low everywhere. However, the percentage in the United States, Canada, and Norway was the highest, at 9%. Sweden had the lowest rate for such screenings, at 1%.

The researchers noted that social determinants of health account for as much as 55% of health outcomes. “In some countries, like the United States, the higher rates of receiving such information may be a response to the higher rates of material hardship, along with a weaker safety net,” the report states.

Ms. Gunja and her colleagues suggested several options for changes in policies, including narrowing the wage gap between primary care providers and higher-paid specialists; subsidizing medical school tuition to give students incentives to enter primary care; investing in telehealth to make primary care more accessible; and rewarding and holding providers accountable for continuity of care.

“The U.S. had the largest wage gap and highest tuition fees among the countries we studied,” Ms. Gunja told this news organization..

Researchers noted that U.S. patients could benefit from the introduction of incentives such as those paid in New Zealand to primary health organizations, which receive additional funding per capita to promote health and coordinate care.

But Dr. Caplan was skeptical that those measures would do much to correct the problems.

“We have no will to fix this ongoing, scandalous situation,” he said. “Specialist care still pays inordinately large salaries. Nurses and physician extenders are underused. Academic prestige does little to reward primary care. Plus, patients are not pressing for better access. Sorry, but I see no solutions pending in the current climate. Obamacare barely survived.”

The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

If the nation’s primary care system were a patient, it would be in critical condition, researchers have found.

In delivery of primary care, including access and coordination, the U.S. trails well behind 10 other wealthy countries, according to a new report from the Commonwealth Fund.

The document, released March 15, concludes that the shortcomings in the U.S. system – from a lack of a relationship with a primary care physician to unequal access to after-hours care – “disproportionately affect Black and Latinx communities and rural areas, exacerbating disparities that have widened during the COVID-19 pandemic.”

“This report really shows that the U.S. is falling behind. We know that a strong primary care system yields better health outcomes. We have a lot to learn from other high-income countries,” coauthor Munira Z. Gunja, MPH, a senior researcher for the Commonwealth Fund’s International Program in Health Policy and Practice Innovations, told this news organization. “At baseline, we really need to make sure that everyone has health insurance in this country so they can actually use primary care services, and we need to increase the supply of those services.”

The report draws from the Commonwealth Fund’s 2019 and 2020 International Health Policy Surveys and the 2020 International Profiles of Health Care Systems. Among the main points:

• U.S. adults are the least likely to have a regular physician or place of care or a long-standing relationship with a primary care provider: 43% of American adults have a long-term relationship with a primary care doctor, compared with highs of 71% in Germany and the Netherlands.
• Access to home visits or after-hours care – excluding emergency department visits – is lowest in the United States (45%). In the Netherlands, Norway, New Zealand, and Germany, the rate is 90% to 96%.
• Half of primary care providers in the United States report adequate coordination with specialists and hospitals – around the average for the 11 countries studied.

‘Dismal mess’

Experts reacted to the report with a mix of concern and frustration – but not surprise.

“The results in this report are not surprising, and we have known them all for a number of years now,” Timothy Hoff, PhD, a health policy expert at Northeastern University, Boston, said. “Primary care doctors remain the backbone of our primary care system. But there are too few of them in the United States, and there likely will remain too few of them in the future. This opens the door to other and more diverse forms of innovation that will be required to help complement the work they do.”

Dr. Hoff, author of Searching for the Family Doctor: Primary Care on the Brink, added that comparing the United States to smaller countries like Norway or the United Kingdom is “somewhat problematic.”

“Our system has to take care of several hundred million people, trapped in a fragmented and market-based delivery system focused on specialty care, each of whom may have a different insurance plan,” he said. “Doing some of the things very small countries with government-funded insurance and a history of strong primary care delivery do in taking care of far fewer citizens is not realistic.”

Jeffrey Borkan, MD, PhD, chair and professor in the department of family medicine at the Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, R.I., said the most shocking finding in the report is that despite spending far more on health care than any other country, “we cannot manage to provide one of the least expensive and most efficacious services: a relationship with a primary care doctor.”

Arthur Caplan, PhD, director of the Division of Medical Ethics at New York University Langone Medical Center, called primary care in this country “a dismal mess. It has been for many years. This is especially so in mental health. Access in many counties is nonexistent, and many primary care physicians are opting into boutique care.”

R. Shawn Martin, CEO of the 133,000-member American Academy of Family Physicians, said, “None of this surprises me. I think these are trendlines; we have been following this for many, many years here at the Academy.”

Mr. Martin added that he was disappointed that the recent, large investments in sharing and digitizing information have not closed the gaps that hinder the efficient and widespread delivery of primary care.

The findings in the report weren’t all bad. More primary care providers in the United States (30%) screen their patients for social needs such as housing, food security, and transportation – the highest among all 11 nations studied.

Also, Commonwealth Fund said the proportion of patients who said they received information on meeting their social needs and screening for domestic violence or social isolation was low everywhere. However, the percentage in the United States, Canada, and Norway was the highest, at 9%. Sweden had the lowest rate for such screenings, at 1%.

The researchers noted that social determinants of health account for as much as 55% of health outcomes. “In some countries, like the United States, the higher rates of receiving such information may be a response to the higher rates of material hardship, along with a weaker safety net,” the report states.

Ms. Gunja and her colleagues suggested several options for changes in policies, including narrowing the wage gap between primary care providers and higher-paid specialists; subsidizing medical school tuition to give students incentives to enter primary care; investing in telehealth to make primary care more accessible; and rewarding and holding providers accountable for continuity of care.

“The U.S. had the largest wage gap and highest tuition fees among the countries we studied,” Ms. Gunja told this news organization..

Researchers noted that U.S. patients could benefit from the introduction of incentives such as those paid in New Zealand to primary health organizations, which receive additional funding per capita to promote health and coordinate care.

But Dr. Caplan was skeptical that those measures would do much to correct the problems.

“We have no will to fix this ongoing, scandalous situation,” he said. “Specialist care still pays inordinately large salaries. Nurses and physician extenders are underused. Academic prestige does little to reward primary care. Plus, patients are not pressing for better access. Sorry, but I see no solutions pending in the current climate. Obamacare barely survived.”

The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new systematic literature review suggests that there may be – at most – a weak link between COVID-19 and alopecia areata.

If there is a connection, it’s likely not a strong one, said study author Rachel E. Christensen, a graduate student at Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, in an interview. “Based on the reported number of cases following COVID-19, alopecia areata appears to be low on the list of common skin manifestations of COVID-19,” she said. Of 402 articles screened from three databases in the review, only 11 were identified as related to alopecia areata (AA) and COVID-19, and only 9 of those met the study inclusion criteria. “This number alone highlights the very low number of published articles investigating this connection.”

The review was published in JAAD International.

While COVID-19 has been linked to a variety of skin conditions, a 2021 South Korean study of 7,958 cases and 218,779 controls found no connection between infection and AA even after covariates such as age, gender, and income level were taken into account. In a letter to the editor published in 2020, dermatologists in Turkey reported that the percentage of patients with AA at the dermatology outpatient clinic jumped from 0.97% in May 2019 to 1.48% in May 2020. The number of patients in each group wasn’t reported.

Systematic review

The investigators launched the systematic review to gain a wider perspective, although there are still limitations. On the one hand, Ms. Christensen said, “we do know that COVID-19, like other viruses, has been linked to various dermatological disorders.”

However, “it is difficult to tease apart whether any worsening of alopecia areata we see following COVID-19 is due to the virus itself or the increased psychological burden related to the infection or to the pandemic in general,” she said. Indeed, the authors of the report in Turkey attributed the rise in cases to stress.

For the review, the researchers analyzed studies from Italy (four), Turkey (two), Brazil (one), the United States (one), and Poland (one).

Six of the studies reported cases of new-onset AA following COVID-19 infection (seven cases; average age, 37 years; females, three). Another study was a retrospective review of 32 patients with preexisting AA who developed COVID-19; none experienced significant worsening of AA within 6 months.

The review also included a study based on a survey of 389 patients with AA. The investigators found that, at a median 2.14 months after infection, 44% of those who had COVID-19 vs. 12% of those who were COVID negative had a relapse. Finally, a case report noted a patient with preexisting AA whose condition worsened following COVID infection.

The findings suggest that AA “could be a dermatological manifestation of COVID-19, with cases most often appearing 1-2 months following infection,” the authors wrote. “However, the heterogeneity of study designs and high proportion of case reports make it challenging to draw any conclusion.”

In an interview, dermatologist Brett King, MD, PhD, of the department of dermatology, Yale University, New Haven, Conn., said the review findings suggest that “there is little concern of alopecia areata following COVID infection.

Does new-onset AA happen, and are there exacerbations of preexisting disease related to COVID infection? Probably yes, but rarely.”

However, he noted that another form of alopecia, telogen effluvium (TE), is more common after COVID-19 infection. According to Dr. King, who was not involved with the systematic review, TE is typically time-limited, compared with AA’s more common chronic waxing-and-waning course.

“Distinguishing TE and AA is usually straightforward because AA typically presents with well-circumscribed patches of hair loss,” such as circular patches, “while TE manifests as diffuse hair loss,” he explained. “Rarely, however, AA does manifest diffuse hair loss without patches, similar to TE. In those cases, it may be difficult to distinguish them. A biopsy may be helpful if there is a question of the diagnosis.”

No study funding is reported. The review authors and Dr. King report no relevant disclosures.

A new systematic literature review suggests that there may be – at most – a weak link between COVID-19 and alopecia areata.

If there is a connection, it’s likely not a strong one, said study author Rachel E. Christensen, a graduate student at Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, in an interview. “Based on the reported number of cases following COVID-19, alopecia areata appears to be low on the list of common skin manifestations of COVID-19,” she said. Of 402 articles screened from three databases in the review, only 11 were identified as related to alopecia areata (AA) and COVID-19, and only 9 of those met the study inclusion criteria. “This number alone highlights the very low number of published articles investigating this connection.”

The review was published in JAAD International.

While COVID-19 has been linked to a variety of skin conditions, a 2021 South Korean study of 7,958 cases and 218,779 controls found no connection between infection and AA even after covariates such as age, gender, and income level were taken into account. In a letter to the editor published in 2020, dermatologists in Turkey reported that the percentage of patients with AA at the dermatology outpatient clinic jumped from 0.97% in May 2019 to 1.48% in May 2020. The number of patients in each group wasn’t reported.

Systematic review

The investigators launched the systematic review to gain a wider perspective, although there are still limitations. On the one hand, Ms. Christensen said, “we do know that COVID-19, like other viruses, has been linked to various dermatological disorders.”

However, “it is difficult to tease apart whether any worsening of alopecia areata we see following COVID-19 is due to the virus itself or the increased psychological burden related to the infection or to the pandemic in general,” she said. Indeed, the authors of the report in Turkey attributed the rise in cases to stress.

For the review, the researchers analyzed studies from Italy (four), Turkey (two), Brazil (one), the United States (one), and Poland (one).

Six of the studies reported cases of new-onset AA following COVID-19 infection (seven cases; average age, 37 years; females, three). Another study was a retrospective review of 32 patients with preexisting AA who developed COVID-19; none experienced significant worsening of AA within 6 months.

The review also included a study based on a survey of 389 patients with AA. The investigators found that, at a median 2.14 months after infection, 44% of those who had COVID-19 vs. 12% of those who were COVID negative had a relapse. Finally, a case report noted a patient with preexisting AA whose condition worsened following COVID infection.

The findings suggest that AA “could be a dermatological manifestation of COVID-19, with cases most often appearing 1-2 months following infection,” the authors wrote. “However, the heterogeneity of study designs and high proportion of case reports make it challenging to draw any conclusion.”

In an interview, dermatologist Brett King, MD, PhD, of the department of dermatology, Yale University, New Haven, Conn., said the review findings suggest that “there is little concern of alopecia areata following COVID infection.

Does new-onset AA happen, and are there exacerbations of preexisting disease related to COVID infection? Probably yes, but rarely.”

However, he noted that another form of alopecia, telogen effluvium (TE), is more common after COVID-19 infection. According to Dr. King, who was not involved with the systematic review, TE is typically time-limited, compared with AA’s more common chronic waxing-and-waning course.

“Distinguishing TE and AA is usually straightforward because AA typically presents with well-circumscribed patches of hair loss,” such as circular patches, “while TE manifests as diffuse hair loss,” he explained. “Rarely, however, AA does manifest diffuse hair loss without patches, similar to TE. In those cases, it may be difficult to distinguish them. A biopsy may be helpful if there is a question of the diagnosis.”

No study funding is reported. The review authors and Dr. King report no relevant disclosures.

A new systematic literature review suggests that there may be – at most – a weak link between COVID-19 and alopecia areata.

If there is a connection, it’s likely not a strong one, said study author Rachel E. Christensen, a graduate student at Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, in an interview. “Based on the reported number of cases following COVID-19, alopecia areata appears to be low on the list of common skin manifestations of COVID-19,” she said. Of 402 articles screened from three databases in the review, only 11 were identified as related to alopecia areata (AA) and COVID-19, and only 9 of those met the study inclusion criteria. “This number alone highlights the very low number of published articles investigating this connection.”

The review was published in JAAD International.

While COVID-19 has been linked to a variety of skin conditions, a 2021 South Korean study of 7,958 cases and 218,779 controls found no connection between infection and AA even after covariates such as age, gender, and income level were taken into account. In a letter to the editor published in 2020, dermatologists in Turkey reported that the percentage of patients with AA at the dermatology outpatient clinic jumped from 0.97% in May 2019 to 1.48% in May 2020. The number of patients in each group wasn’t reported.

Systematic review

The investigators launched the systematic review to gain a wider perspective, although there are still limitations. On the one hand, Ms. Christensen said, “we do know that COVID-19, like other viruses, has been linked to various dermatological disorders.”

However, “it is difficult to tease apart whether any worsening of alopecia areata we see following COVID-19 is due to the virus itself or the increased psychological burden related to the infection or to the pandemic in general,” she said. Indeed, the authors of the report in Turkey attributed the rise in cases to stress.

For the review, the researchers analyzed studies from Italy (four), Turkey (two), Brazil (one), the United States (one), and Poland (one).

Six of the studies reported cases of new-onset AA following COVID-19 infection (seven cases; average age, 37 years; females, three). Another study was a retrospective review of 32 patients with preexisting AA who developed COVID-19; none experienced significant worsening of AA within 6 months.

The review also included a study based on a survey of 389 patients with AA. The investigators found that, at a median 2.14 months after infection, 44% of those who had COVID-19 vs. 12% of those who were COVID negative had a relapse. Finally, a case report noted a patient with preexisting AA whose condition worsened following COVID infection.

The findings suggest that AA “could be a dermatological manifestation of COVID-19, with cases most often appearing 1-2 months following infection,” the authors wrote. “However, the heterogeneity of study designs and high proportion of case reports make it challenging to draw any conclusion.”

In an interview, dermatologist Brett King, MD, PhD, of the department of dermatology, Yale University, New Haven, Conn., said the review findings suggest that “there is little concern of alopecia areata following COVID infection.

Does new-onset AA happen, and are there exacerbations of preexisting disease related to COVID infection? Probably yes, but rarely.”

However, he noted that another form of alopecia, telogen effluvium (TE), is more common after COVID-19 infection. According to Dr. King, who was not involved with the systematic review, TE is typically time-limited, compared with AA’s more common chronic waxing-and-waning course.

“Distinguishing TE and AA is usually straightforward because AA typically presents with well-circumscribed patches of hair loss,” such as circular patches, “while TE manifests as diffuse hair loss,” he explained. “Rarely, however, AA does manifest diffuse hair loss without patches, similar to TE. In those cases, it may be difficult to distinguish them. A biopsy may be helpful if there is a question of the diagnosis.”

No study funding is reported. The review authors and Dr. King report no relevant disclosures.

A large global report shows a decline in mental health worldwide, with the poorest outcomes reported in young adults.

The Mental Health Million project of Sapien Labs issued its second report, published online March 15, encompassing 34 countries and over 220,000 Internet-enabled adults. It found a continued decline in mental health in all age groups and genders, with English-speaking countries having the lowest mental well-being.

The decline was significantly correlated with the stringency of COVID-19 lockdown measures in each country and was directionally correlated to the cases and deaths per million.

The youngest age group (18-24 years) reported the poorest mental well-being, with better mental health scores rising in every successively older age group.

“Some of our findings, especially regarding mental health in young adults, are alarming,” Tara Thiagarajan, PhD, Sapien Labs founder and chief scientist, told this news organization.

“Our data, which are continually updated in real time, are freely available for nonprofit, noncommercial use and research, and we hope that researchers will get involved in an interdisciplinary way that spans sociology, economics, psychiatry, and other fields,” she said.
 

Pioneering research

Dr. Thiagarajan and her team pioneered the Mental Health Million project, an ongoing research initiative utilizing a “free and anonymous assessment tool,” the Mental Health Quotient (MHQ), which “encompasses a comprehensive view of our emotional, social, and cognitive function and capability.”

The MHQ consists of 47 “elements of mental well-being,” with scores ranging from –100 to +200. (Negative scores indicate poorer mental well-being.) The MHQ categorizes respondents as “clinical, at-risk, enduring, managing, succeeding, and thriving” and computes scores on the basis of six broad dimensions of mental health: core cognition, complex cognition, mood and outlook, drive and motivation, social self, and mind-body connection.

As reported by this news organization, Sapien Lab’s first Mental Health State of the World report (n = 49,000 adults) was conducted in eight English-speaking countries in 2020. Participants were compared to a smaller sample of people from the same countries polled in 2019.

In this year’s report, “we expanded quite substantially,” Dr. Thiagarajan said. The project added Spanish, French, and Arabic and recruited participants from 34 countries on six continents (n = 223,087) via advertising on Google and Facebook.

Economic prosperity not protective

Across the eight English-speaking countries, there was a decline in mental well-being of 3% from 2020 to 2021, which was smaller than the 8% decline from 2019 to 2020. The percentage of people who were “distressed or struggling” increased from 26% to 30% in 2021.

“Now that a lot of pandemic issue seems to be easing up, I hope we’ll see mental well-being coming back up, but at least it’s a smaller decline than we saw between 2019 and 2020,” said Dr. Thiagarajan.

The decline across countries from 2019 to 2021 was significantly correlated with the stringency of governmental COVID-19-related measures (based on the Oxford COVID-19 Government Response Tracker, 2022; r = .54) and directionally correlated to the cases and deaths per million.

In total, 30% of respondents in English-speaking countries had mental well-being scores in the “distressed” or “struggling” range – higher than the Middle Eastern countries, North Africa, Latin America, and Europe (23%, 23%, 24%, and 18%, respectively).

Only 36% of participants in the English-speaking countries, the Middle East, and North Africa reported “thriving or succeeding,” vs. 45% and 46% in Latin America and Europe, respectively. Venezuela topped the list with an average MHQ of 91, while the United Kingdom and South Africa had the lowest scores, at 46 each.

Mental well-being was slightly higher in males than in females but was dramatically lower in nonbinary/third-gender respondents. In fact, those identifying as nonbinary/third gender had the lowest mental well-being of any group.

Across all countries and languages, higher education was associated with better mental well-being. Employment was also associated with superior mental well-being, compared with being unemployed – particularly in core English-speaking countries.

However, “country indicators of economic prosperity were negatively correlated with mental well-being, particularly for young adults and males, belying the commonly held belief that national economic prosperity translates into greater mental well-being,” said Dr. Thiagarajan.
 

‘Stark’ contrast

The most dramatic finding was the difference in mental well-being between younger and older adults, which was two- to threefold larger than differences in other dimensions (for example, age, gender, employment). Even the maximum difference between countries overall (15%) was still smaller than the generational gap within any region.

While only 7% (6%- 9%) of participants aged ≥65 years were “distressed and struggling” with their mental well-being to a “clinical” extent, 44% (38%-50%) of those aged 18-24 years reported mental well-being scores in the “distressed or struggling” range – representing a “growing gap between generations that, while present prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, has since been exacerbated,” the authors state.

With every successive decrement in age group, mental well-being “plummeted,” Dr. Thiagarajan said. She noted that research conducted prior to 2010 in several regions of the world showed that young adults typically had the highest well-being. “Our findings stand in stark contrast to these previous patterns.”

The relationship between lockdown stringency and poorer mental health could play a role. “The impact of social isolation may be most strongly felt in younger people,” she said.
 

Internet a culprit?

“Within almost every region, scores for cognition and drive and motivation were highest while mood and outlook and social self were the lowest,” the authors report.

The aggregate percentage of respondents who reported being “distressed or struggling” in the various MHQ dimensions is shown in the following table.

Sedentary time

Commenting for this news organization, Bernardo Ng, MD, a member of the American Psychiatric Association’s Council on International Psychiatry and Global Health and medical director of Sun Valley Research Center, Imperial, Calif., called the report “interesting, with an impressive sample size” and an “impressive geographic distribution.”

Courtesy Sun Valley Research Center

Dr. Ng, who was not involved in the report, said, “I did not think the impact of Internet use on mental health was as dramatic before looking at this report.

“On the other hand, I have personally been interested in the impact of sedentarism in mental health – not only emotionally but also biologically. Sedentarism, which is directly related to screen use time, produces inflammation that worsens brain function.”

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

A large global report shows a decline in mental health worldwide, with the poorest outcomes reported in young adults.

The Mental Health Million project of Sapien Labs issued its second report, published online March 15, encompassing 34 countries and over 220,000 Internet-enabled adults. It found a continued decline in mental health in all age groups and genders, with English-speaking countries having the lowest mental well-being.

The decline was significantly correlated with the stringency of COVID-19 lockdown measures in each country and was directionally correlated to the cases and deaths per million.

The youngest age group (18-24 years) reported the poorest mental well-being, with better mental health scores rising in every successively older age group.

“Some of our findings, especially regarding mental health in young adults, are alarming,” Tara Thiagarajan, PhD, Sapien Labs founder and chief scientist, told this news organization.

“Our data, which are continually updated in real time, are freely available for nonprofit, noncommercial use and research, and we hope that researchers will get involved in an interdisciplinary way that spans sociology, economics, psychiatry, and other fields,” she said.
 

Pioneering research

Dr. Thiagarajan and her team pioneered the Mental Health Million project, an ongoing research initiative utilizing a “free and anonymous assessment tool,” the Mental Health Quotient (MHQ), which “encompasses a comprehensive view of our emotional, social, and cognitive function and capability.”

The MHQ consists of 47 “elements of mental well-being,” with scores ranging from –100 to +200. (Negative scores indicate poorer mental well-being.) The MHQ categorizes respondents as “clinical, at-risk, enduring, managing, succeeding, and thriving” and computes scores on the basis of six broad dimensions of mental health: core cognition, complex cognition, mood and outlook, drive and motivation, social self, and mind-body connection.

As reported by this news organization, Sapien Lab’s first Mental Health State of the World report (n = 49,000 adults) was conducted in eight English-speaking countries in 2020. Participants were compared to a smaller sample of people from the same countries polled in 2019.

In this year’s report, “we expanded quite substantially,” Dr. Thiagarajan said. The project added Spanish, French, and Arabic and recruited participants from 34 countries on six continents (n = 223,087) via advertising on Google and Facebook.

Economic prosperity not protective

Across the eight English-speaking countries, there was a decline in mental well-being of 3% from 2020 to 2021, which was smaller than the 8% decline from 2019 to 2020. The percentage of people who were “distressed or struggling” increased from 26% to 30% in 2021.

“Now that a lot of pandemic issue seems to be easing up, I hope we’ll see mental well-being coming back up, but at least it’s a smaller decline than we saw between 2019 and 2020,” said Dr. Thiagarajan.

The decline across countries from 2019 to 2021 was significantly correlated with the stringency of governmental COVID-19-related measures (based on the Oxford COVID-19 Government Response Tracker, 2022; r = .54) and directionally correlated to the cases and deaths per million.

In total, 30% of respondents in English-speaking countries had mental well-being scores in the “distressed” or “struggling” range – higher than the Middle Eastern countries, North Africa, Latin America, and Europe (23%, 23%, 24%, and 18%, respectively).

Only 36% of participants in the English-speaking countries, the Middle East, and North Africa reported “thriving or succeeding,” vs. 45% and 46% in Latin America and Europe, respectively. Venezuela topped the list with an average MHQ of 91, while the United Kingdom and South Africa had the lowest scores, at 46 each.

Mental well-being was slightly higher in males than in females but was dramatically lower in nonbinary/third-gender respondents. In fact, those identifying as nonbinary/third gender had the lowest mental well-being of any group.

Across all countries and languages, higher education was associated with better mental well-being. Employment was also associated with superior mental well-being, compared with being unemployed – particularly in core English-speaking countries.

However, “country indicators of economic prosperity were negatively correlated with mental well-being, particularly for young adults and males, belying the commonly held belief that national economic prosperity translates into greater mental well-being,” said Dr. Thiagarajan.
 

‘Stark’ contrast

The most dramatic finding was the difference in mental well-being between younger and older adults, which was two- to threefold larger than differences in other dimensions (for example, age, gender, employment). Even the maximum difference between countries overall (15%) was still smaller than the generational gap within any region.

While only 7% (6%- 9%) of participants aged ≥65 years were “distressed and struggling” with their mental well-being to a “clinical” extent, 44% (38%-50%) of those aged 18-24 years reported mental well-being scores in the “distressed or struggling” range – representing a “growing gap between generations that, while present prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, has since been exacerbated,” the authors state.

With every successive decrement in age group, mental well-being “plummeted,” Dr. Thiagarajan said. She noted that research conducted prior to 2010 in several regions of the world showed that young adults typically had the highest well-being. “Our findings stand in stark contrast to these previous patterns.”

The relationship between lockdown stringency and poorer mental health could play a role. “The impact of social isolation may be most strongly felt in younger people,” she said.
 

Internet a culprit?

“Within almost every region, scores for cognition and drive and motivation were highest while mood and outlook and social self were the lowest,” the authors report.

The aggregate percentage of respondents who reported being “distressed or struggling” in the various MHQ dimensions is shown in the following table.

Sedentary time

Commenting for this news organization, Bernardo Ng, MD, a member of the American Psychiatric Association’s Council on International Psychiatry and Global Health and medical director of Sun Valley Research Center, Imperial, Calif., called the report “interesting, with an impressive sample size” and an “impressive geographic distribution.”

Courtesy Sun Valley Research Center

Dr. Ng, who was not involved in the report, said, “I did not think the impact of Internet use on mental health was as dramatic before looking at this report.

“On the other hand, I have personally been interested in the impact of sedentarism in mental health – not only emotionally but also biologically. Sedentarism, which is directly related to screen use time, produces inflammation that worsens brain function.”

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

A large global report shows a decline in mental health worldwide, with the poorest outcomes reported in young adults.

The Mental Health Million project of Sapien Labs issued its second report, published online March 15, encompassing 34 countries and over 220,000 Internet-enabled adults. It found a continued decline in mental health in all age groups and genders, with English-speaking countries having the lowest mental well-being.

The decline was significantly correlated with the stringency of COVID-19 lockdown measures in each country and was directionally correlated to the cases and deaths per million.

The youngest age group (18-24 years) reported the poorest mental well-being, with better mental health scores rising in every successively older age group.

“Some of our findings, especially regarding mental health in young adults, are alarming,” Tara Thiagarajan, PhD, Sapien Labs founder and chief scientist, told this news organization.

“Our data, which are continually updated in real time, are freely available for nonprofit, noncommercial use and research, and we hope that researchers will get involved in an interdisciplinary way that spans sociology, economics, psychiatry, and other fields,” she said.
 

Pioneering research

Dr. Thiagarajan and her team pioneered the Mental Health Million project, an ongoing research initiative utilizing a “free and anonymous assessment tool,” the Mental Health Quotient (MHQ), which “encompasses a comprehensive view of our emotional, social, and cognitive function and capability.”

The MHQ consists of 47 “elements of mental well-being,” with scores ranging from –100 to +200. (Negative scores indicate poorer mental well-being.) The MHQ categorizes respondents as “clinical, at-risk, enduring, managing, succeeding, and thriving” and computes scores on the basis of six broad dimensions of mental health: core cognition, complex cognition, mood and outlook, drive and motivation, social self, and mind-body connection.

As reported by this news organization, Sapien Lab’s first Mental Health State of the World report (n = 49,000 adults) was conducted in eight English-speaking countries in 2020. Participants were compared to a smaller sample of people from the same countries polled in 2019.

In this year’s report, “we expanded quite substantially,” Dr. Thiagarajan said. The project added Spanish, French, and Arabic and recruited participants from 34 countries on six continents (n = 223,087) via advertising on Google and Facebook.

Economic prosperity not protective

Across the eight English-speaking countries, there was a decline in mental well-being of 3% from 2020 to 2021, which was smaller than the 8% decline from 2019 to 2020. The percentage of people who were “distressed or struggling” increased from 26% to 30% in 2021.

“Now that a lot of pandemic issue seems to be easing up, I hope we’ll see mental well-being coming back up, but at least it’s a smaller decline than we saw between 2019 and 2020,” said Dr. Thiagarajan.

The decline across countries from 2019 to 2021 was significantly correlated with the stringency of governmental COVID-19-related measures (based on the Oxford COVID-19 Government Response Tracker, 2022; r = .54) and directionally correlated to the cases and deaths per million.

In total, 30% of respondents in English-speaking countries had mental well-being scores in the “distressed” or “struggling” range – higher than the Middle Eastern countries, North Africa, Latin America, and Europe (23%, 23%, 24%, and 18%, respectively).

Only 36% of participants in the English-speaking countries, the Middle East, and North Africa reported “thriving or succeeding,” vs. 45% and 46% in Latin America and Europe, respectively. Venezuela topped the list with an average MHQ of 91, while the United Kingdom and South Africa had the lowest scores, at 46 each.

Mental well-being was slightly higher in males than in females but was dramatically lower in nonbinary/third-gender respondents. In fact, those identifying as nonbinary/third gender had the lowest mental well-being of any group.

Across all countries and languages, higher education was associated with better mental well-being. Employment was also associated with superior mental well-being, compared with being unemployed – particularly in core English-speaking countries.

However, “country indicators of economic prosperity were negatively correlated with mental well-being, particularly for young adults and males, belying the commonly held belief that national economic prosperity translates into greater mental well-being,” said Dr. Thiagarajan.
 

‘Stark’ contrast

The most dramatic finding was the difference in mental well-being between younger and older adults, which was two- to threefold larger than differences in other dimensions (for example, age, gender, employment). Even the maximum difference between countries overall (15%) was still smaller than the generational gap within any region.

While only 7% (6%- 9%) of participants aged ≥65 years were “distressed and struggling” with their mental well-being to a “clinical” extent, 44% (38%-50%) of those aged 18-24 years reported mental well-being scores in the “distressed or struggling” range – representing a “growing gap between generations that, while present prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, has since been exacerbated,” the authors state.

With every successive decrement in age group, mental well-being “plummeted,” Dr. Thiagarajan said. She noted that research conducted prior to 2010 in several regions of the world showed that young adults typically had the highest well-being. “Our findings stand in stark contrast to these previous patterns.”

The relationship between lockdown stringency and poorer mental health could play a role. “The impact of social isolation may be most strongly felt in younger people,” she said.
 

Internet a culprit?

“Within almost every region, scores for cognition and drive and motivation were highest while mood and outlook and social self were the lowest,” the authors report.

The aggregate percentage of respondents who reported being “distressed or struggling” in the various MHQ dimensions is shown in the following table.

Sedentary time

Commenting for this news organization, Bernardo Ng, MD, a member of the American Psychiatric Association’s Council on International Psychiatry and Global Health and medical director of Sun Valley Research Center, Imperial, Calif., called the report “interesting, with an impressive sample size” and an “impressive geographic distribution.”

Courtesy Sun Valley Research Center

Dr. Ng, who was not involved in the report, said, “I did not think the impact of Internet use on mental health was as dramatic before looking at this report.

“On the other hand, I have personally been interested in the impact of sedentarism in mental health – not only emotionally but also biologically. Sedentarism, which is directly related to screen use time, produces inflammation that worsens brain function.”

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

In his first State of the Union address in early March, President Joe Biden broached a tax policy question that neuroscientists and pediatricians also see as a scientific one.

President Biden urged lawmakers to extend the Child Tax Credit “so no one has to raise a family in poverty.”

Apart from the usual political and budgetary calculus, physicians and social scientists are actively examining the ramifications that such policies could have on child development and long-term health outcomes.

To do so, they have turned to brain scans and rigorous studies to better understand the effects of being raised in poverty and whether giving families more cash makes a difference.

Initial results from an ongoing study known as Baby’s First Years suggest that providing extra money to mothers may influence brain activity in infants in ways that reflect improvements in cognitive ability.

Researchers, doctors, and advocates say the findings cement the case for policies such as the expanded Child Tax Credit. Others argue that reducing child poverty is a social good on its own, regardless of what brain scans show.

The new findings were published Jan. 24 in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), as lawmakers were weighing whether to resume an expansion of the tax credit, which had temporarily provided monthly payments akin to the $333 a month looked at in the study.

The expiration of the expanded credit in December left some 3.6 million more children in poverty, bringing the total number to more than 12.5 million and pushing the child poverty rate to 17%.

Philanthropists and research teams have partnered to conduct other guaranteed income experiments around the United States, including one in New York called the Bridge Project, which is evaluating different levels of financial support for mothers with babies.

Some mothers are receiving $500 per month, others twice that amount.

Angelina Matos, 18, receives $1,000 a month, allowing her to attend college and pay for necessities like diapers, clothes, and toys for her nearly 1-year-old daughter.

As one of 600 mothers participating in the project, Ms. Matos periodically answers questions about her daughter’s progress, like whether she is eating solid foods.

Megha Agarwal, BS, executive director of the Bridge Project and its funder the Monarch Foundation, said she was thrilled to see the early results from Baby’s First Years. “We are looking for ways in which we can strengthen our future generations,” she said. “It is exciting to see that direct cash and a guaranteed income might be part of the solution.”
 

A scientific perspective

Growing up in poverty is well-known to increase the likelihood of lower academic achievement and chronic conditions such as asthma and obesity. Relative to higher income levels, poverty is associated with differences in the structure and function of the developing brain. But whether interventions to reduce poverty can influence how newborns develop is less clear.

“There would be plenty of people who would say, ‘Well, it’s not poverty. It’s all the things associated with poverty. It’s the choices you make that are actually leading to differences in outcomes,’” said Kimberly Noble, MD, PhD, a neuroscientist at Columbia University, New York, and a coauthor of the PNAS study. Regardless of ideology, she said, the best way to address that question from a scientific perspective is through a randomized controlled trial.

“You can’t, and wouldn’t want to, randomize kids to living in poverty or not, but you can take a group of families who are unfortunately living in poverty and randomize them to receive different levels of economic support,” Dr. Noble said.
 

$333 per month

Baby’s First Years has done just that. Researchers gave 1,000 low-income mothers with newborns a cash gift of $333 per month or a smaller gift of $20 per month, disbursed on debit cards, starting in 2018. Participants live in four metropolitan areas – New York City, greater New Orleans, Minneapolis-Saint Paul, and Omaha – and were recruited at the time of their child’s birth. Investigators currently have funding to continue the cash support until the children turn 4 years old.

When the infants were about 1 year old, investigators measured their resting brain activity using EEG.

The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted the ability to conduct in-person testing, so the number of children with EEG data was smaller than planned. Still, the researchers analyzed data from 251 kids in the group that received the smaller cash gift and 184 kids in the group that received the larger amount. Patterns of brain activity largely tracked those seen in earlier observational studies: more mid- and high-frequency activity (alpha-, beta-, and gamma-bands) and less low-frequency activity (theta-bands) among children in the households that received more money.

Faster brain activity is associated with better scores on measures of language, cognition, and social-emotional development. Slower activity has been linked to problems with behavior, attention, and learning.

“We predicted that our poverty reduction intervention would mitigate the neurobiological signal of poverty,” Dr. Noble said. “And that’s exactly what we report in this paper.”

The study builds on decades of work showing that poverty can harm child development, said Joan Luby, MD, with Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, who served as a peer reviewer for the PNAS paper.

More follow-up data and information about the babies’ cognitive function and behavior over time are needed, but the study shows a signal that cannot be ignored, Dr. Luby said.

Dr. Luby began exploring the effects of poverty on brain development in earnest while working on a study that was meant to focus on another variable altogether: early childhood depression. The investigators on that 2013 study found that poverty had a “very, very big effect in our sample, and we realized we had to learn more about it,” she said.

The American Academy of Pediatrics likewise has recognized poverty as an important determinant of health. A policy statement that the group published in 2016 and reaffirmed in 2021 outlines ways pediatricians and social programs can address poverty.

Benard Dreyer, MD, director of pediatrics at Bellevue Hospital, New York, was president of the AAP when it published this guidance.

One lingering question has been how much low income worsens educational outcomes, Dr. Dreyer said. Perhaps other issues, such as single motherhood, a lack of parental education, or living in neighborhoods with more crime may be the cause. If so, simply giving more money to parents might not overcome those barriers.

Natural experiments have hinted that money itself can influence child development. For example, families on an American Indian reservation in North Carolina started receiving a share of casino profits after a casino opened there.

The new infusion of funds arrived in the middle of a study in which researchers were examining the development of mental illness in children.

Among children who were no longer poor as a result of the casino payments, symptoms of conduct and oppositional defiant disorders decreased.
 

Guaranteeing income

How extra money affects families across different levels of income also interests researchers and policymakers.

“One of the policy debates in Washington is to what degree should it be to everyone,” Ajay Chaudry, PhD, a research scholar at New York University who is advising the Bridge Project, said.

Guaranteed income programs may need to be available to most of the population out of political necessity, even if the benefits turn out to be the most pronounced at lower income levels, added Dr. Chaudry, who served in the Obama administration as deputy assistant secretary for human services policy.

If giving moms money affects babies’ brains, Dr. Dreyer pointed to two pathways that could explain the link: more resources and less family stress.

Money helps families buy toys and books, which in turn could support a child’s cognitive development. Meanwhile, low-income mothers and fathers may experience worries about eviction, adequate food, and the loss of heat and electricity, which could detract from their ability to parent.

Of course, many ways to support a child’s development do not require money. Engaging with children in a warm and nurturing way, having conversations with them, and reading with them are all important.

If the pattern in the PNAS study holds, individual experiences and outcomes will still vary, Dr. Noble said. Many children in the group that received the smaller gift had fast-paced brain activity, whereas some babies in the group that received the larger gift showed slower brain activity. Knowing family income would not allow you to accurately predict anything about an individual child’s brain, Dr. Noble said.

“I certainly wouldn’t want the message to be that money is the only thing that matters,” Dr. Noble said. “Money is something that can be easily manipulated by policy, which is why I think this is important.”

For the 18-year-old new mom Ms. Matos, accepting assistance “makes me feel less of myself. But honestly, I feel like mothers shouldn’t be afraid to ask for help or reach out for help or apply to programs like these.”

The sources reported a variety of funders, including federal agencies and foundations and donors.

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

In his first State of the Union address in early March, President Joe Biden broached a tax policy question that neuroscientists and pediatricians also see as a scientific one.

President Biden urged lawmakers to extend the Child Tax Credit “so no one has to raise a family in poverty.”

Apart from the usual political and budgetary calculus, physicians and social scientists are actively examining the ramifications that such policies could have on child development and long-term health outcomes.

To do so, they have turned to brain scans and rigorous studies to better understand the effects of being raised in poverty and whether giving families more cash makes a difference.

Initial results from an ongoing study known as Baby’s First Years suggest that providing extra money to mothers may influence brain activity in infants in ways that reflect improvements in cognitive ability.

Researchers, doctors, and advocates say the findings cement the case for policies such as the expanded Child Tax Credit. Others argue that reducing child poverty is a social good on its own, regardless of what brain scans show.

The new findings were published Jan. 24 in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), as lawmakers were weighing whether to resume an expansion of the tax credit, which had temporarily provided monthly payments akin to the $333 a month looked at in the study.

The expiration of the expanded credit in December left some 3.6 million more children in poverty, bringing the total number to more than 12.5 million and pushing the child poverty rate to 17%.

Philanthropists and research teams have partnered to conduct other guaranteed income experiments around the United States, including one in New York called the Bridge Project, which is evaluating different levels of financial support for mothers with babies.

Some mothers are receiving $500 per month, others twice that amount.

Angelina Matos, 18, receives $1,000 a month, allowing her to attend college and pay for necessities like diapers, clothes, and toys for her nearly 1-year-old daughter.

As one of 600 mothers participating in the project, Ms. Matos periodically answers questions about her daughter’s progress, like whether she is eating solid foods.

Megha Agarwal, BS, executive director of the Bridge Project and its funder the Monarch Foundation, said she was thrilled to see the early results from Baby’s First Years. “We are looking for ways in which we can strengthen our future generations,” she said. “It is exciting to see that direct cash and a guaranteed income might be part of the solution.”
 

A scientific perspective

Growing up in poverty is well-known to increase the likelihood of lower academic achievement and chronic conditions such as asthma and obesity. Relative to higher income levels, poverty is associated with differences in the structure and function of the developing brain. But whether interventions to reduce poverty can influence how newborns develop is less clear.

“There would be plenty of people who would say, ‘Well, it’s not poverty. It’s all the things associated with poverty. It’s the choices you make that are actually leading to differences in outcomes,’” said Kimberly Noble, MD, PhD, a neuroscientist at Columbia University, New York, and a coauthor of the PNAS study. Regardless of ideology, she said, the best way to address that question from a scientific perspective is through a randomized controlled trial.

“You can’t, and wouldn’t want to, randomize kids to living in poverty or not, but you can take a group of families who are unfortunately living in poverty and randomize them to receive different levels of economic support,” Dr. Noble said.
 

$333 per month

Baby’s First Years has done just that. Researchers gave 1,000 low-income mothers with newborns a cash gift of $333 per month or a smaller gift of $20 per month, disbursed on debit cards, starting in 2018. Participants live in four metropolitan areas – New York City, greater New Orleans, Minneapolis-Saint Paul, and Omaha – and were recruited at the time of their child’s birth. Investigators currently have funding to continue the cash support until the children turn 4 years old.

When the infants were about 1 year old, investigators measured their resting brain activity using EEG.

The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted the ability to conduct in-person testing, so the number of children with EEG data was smaller than planned. Still, the researchers analyzed data from 251 kids in the group that received the smaller cash gift and 184 kids in the group that received the larger amount. Patterns of brain activity largely tracked those seen in earlier observational studies: more mid- and high-frequency activity (alpha-, beta-, and gamma-bands) and less low-frequency activity (theta-bands) among children in the households that received more money.

Faster brain activity is associated with better scores on measures of language, cognition, and social-emotional development. Slower activity has been linked to problems with behavior, attention, and learning.

“We predicted that our poverty reduction intervention would mitigate the neurobiological signal of poverty,” Dr. Noble said. “And that’s exactly what we report in this paper.”

The study builds on decades of work showing that poverty can harm child development, said Joan Luby, MD, with Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, who served as a peer reviewer for the PNAS paper.

More follow-up data and information about the babies’ cognitive function and behavior over time are needed, but the study shows a signal that cannot be ignored, Dr. Luby said.

Dr. Luby began exploring the effects of poverty on brain development in earnest while working on a study that was meant to focus on another variable altogether: early childhood depression. The investigators on that 2013 study found that poverty had a “very, very big effect in our sample, and we realized we had to learn more about it,” she said.

The American Academy of Pediatrics likewise has recognized poverty as an important determinant of health. A policy statement that the group published in 2016 and reaffirmed in 2021 outlines ways pediatricians and social programs can address poverty.

Benard Dreyer, MD, director of pediatrics at Bellevue Hospital, New York, was president of the AAP when it published this guidance.

One lingering question has been how much low income worsens educational outcomes, Dr. Dreyer said. Perhaps other issues, such as single motherhood, a lack of parental education, or living in neighborhoods with more crime may be the cause. If so, simply giving more money to parents might not overcome those barriers.

Natural experiments have hinted that money itself can influence child development. For example, families on an American Indian reservation in North Carolina started receiving a share of casino profits after a casino opened there.

The new infusion of funds arrived in the middle of a study in which researchers were examining the development of mental illness in children.

Among children who were no longer poor as a result of the casino payments, symptoms of conduct and oppositional defiant disorders decreased.
 

Guaranteeing income

How extra money affects families across different levels of income also interests researchers and policymakers.

“One of the policy debates in Washington is to what degree should it be to everyone,” Ajay Chaudry, PhD, a research scholar at New York University who is advising the Bridge Project, said.

Guaranteed income programs may need to be available to most of the population out of political necessity, even if the benefits turn out to be the most pronounced at lower income levels, added Dr. Chaudry, who served in the Obama administration as deputy assistant secretary for human services policy.

If giving moms money affects babies’ brains, Dr. Dreyer pointed to two pathways that could explain the link: more resources and less family stress.

Money helps families buy toys and books, which in turn could support a child’s cognitive development. Meanwhile, low-income mothers and fathers may experience worries about eviction, adequate food, and the loss of heat and electricity, which could detract from their ability to parent.

Of course, many ways to support a child’s development do not require money. Engaging with children in a warm and nurturing way, having conversations with them, and reading with them are all important.

If the pattern in the PNAS study holds, individual experiences and outcomes will still vary, Dr. Noble said. Many children in the group that received the smaller gift had fast-paced brain activity, whereas some babies in the group that received the larger gift showed slower brain activity. Knowing family income would not allow you to accurately predict anything about an individual child’s brain, Dr. Noble said.

“I certainly wouldn’t want the message to be that money is the only thing that matters,” Dr. Noble said. “Money is something that can be easily manipulated by policy, which is why I think this is important.”

For the 18-year-old new mom Ms. Matos, accepting assistance “makes me feel less of myself. But honestly, I feel like mothers shouldn’t be afraid to ask for help or reach out for help or apply to programs like these.”

The sources reported a variety of funders, including federal agencies and foundations and donors.

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

In his first State of the Union address in early March, President Joe Biden broached a tax policy question that neuroscientists and pediatricians also see as a scientific one.

President Biden urged lawmakers to extend the Child Tax Credit “so no one has to raise a family in poverty.”

Apart from the usual political and budgetary calculus, physicians and social scientists are actively examining the ramifications that such policies could have on child development and long-term health outcomes.

To do so, they have turned to brain scans and rigorous studies to better understand the effects of being raised in poverty and whether giving families more cash makes a difference.

Initial results from an ongoing study known as Baby’s First Years suggest that providing extra money to mothers may influence brain activity in infants in ways that reflect improvements in cognitive ability.

Researchers, doctors, and advocates say the findings cement the case for policies such as the expanded Child Tax Credit. Others argue that reducing child poverty is a social good on its own, regardless of what brain scans show.

The new findings were published Jan. 24 in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), as lawmakers were weighing whether to resume an expansion of the tax credit, which had temporarily provided monthly payments akin to the $333 a month looked at in the study.

The expiration of the expanded credit in December left some 3.6 million more children in poverty, bringing the total number to more than 12.5 million and pushing the child poverty rate to 17%.

Philanthropists and research teams have partnered to conduct other guaranteed income experiments around the United States, including one in New York called the Bridge Project, which is evaluating different levels of financial support for mothers with babies.

Some mothers are receiving $500 per month, others twice that amount.

Angelina Matos, 18, receives $1,000 a month, allowing her to attend college and pay for necessities like diapers, clothes, and toys for her nearly 1-year-old daughter.

As one of 600 mothers participating in the project, Ms. Matos periodically answers questions about her daughter’s progress, like whether she is eating solid foods.

Megha Agarwal, BS, executive director of the Bridge Project and its funder the Monarch Foundation, said she was thrilled to see the early results from Baby’s First Years. “We are looking for ways in which we can strengthen our future generations,” she said. “It is exciting to see that direct cash and a guaranteed income might be part of the solution.”
 

A scientific perspective

Growing up in poverty is well-known to increase the likelihood of lower academic achievement and chronic conditions such as asthma and obesity. Relative to higher income levels, poverty is associated with differences in the structure and function of the developing brain. But whether interventions to reduce poverty can influence how newborns develop is less clear.

“There would be plenty of people who would say, ‘Well, it’s not poverty. It’s all the things associated with poverty. It’s the choices you make that are actually leading to differences in outcomes,’” said Kimberly Noble, MD, PhD, a neuroscientist at Columbia University, New York, and a coauthor of the PNAS study. Regardless of ideology, she said, the best way to address that question from a scientific perspective is through a randomized controlled trial.

“You can’t, and wouldn’t want to, randomize kids to living in poverty or not, but you can take a group of families who are unfortunately living in poverty and randomize them to receive different levels of economic support,” Dr. Noble said.
 

$333 per month

Baby’s First Years has done just that. Researchers gave 1,000 low-income mothers with newborns a cash gift of $333 per month or a smaller gift of $20 per month, disbursed on debit cards, starting in 2018. Participants live in four metropolitan areas – New York City, greater New Orleans, Minneapolis-Saint Paul, and Omaha – and were recruited at the time of their child’s birth. Investigators currently have funding to continue the cash support until the children turn 4 years old.

When the infants were about 1 year old, investigators measured their resting brain activity using EEG.

The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted the ability to conduct in-person testing, so the number of children with EEG data was smaller than planned. Still, the researchers analyzed data from 251 kids in the group that received the smaller cash gift and 184 kids in the group that received the larger amount. Patterns of brain activity largely tracked those seen in earlier observational studies: more mid- and high-frequency activity (alpha-, beta-, and gamma-bands) and less low-frequency activity (theta-bands) among children in the households that received more money.

Faster brain activity is associated with better scores on measures of language, cognition, and social-emotional development. Slower activity has been linked to problems with behavior, attention, and learning.

“We predicted that our poverty reduction intervention would mitigate the neurobiological signal of poverty,” Dr. Noble said. “And that’s exactly what we report in this paper.”

The study builds on decades of work showing that poverty can harm child development, said Joan Luby, MD, with Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, who served as a peer reviewer for the PNAS paper.

More follow-up data and information about the babies’ cognitive function and behavior over time are needed, but the study shows a signal that cannot be ignored, Dr. Luby said.

Dr. Luby began exploring the effects of poverty on brain development in earnest while working on a study that was meant to focus on another variable altogether: early childhood depression. The investigators on that 2013 study found that poverty had a “very, very big effect in our sample, and we realized we had to learn more about it,” she said.

The American Academy of Pediatrics likewise has recognized poverty as an important determinant of health. A policy statement that the group published in 2016 and reaffirmed in 2021 outlines ways pediatricians and social programs can address poverty.

Benard Dreyer, MD, director of pediatrics at Bellevue Hospital, New York, was president of the AAP when it published this guidance.

One lingering question has been how much low income worsens educational outcomes, Dr. Dreyer said. Perhaps other issues, such as single motherhood, a lack of parental education, or living in neighborhoods with more crime may be the cause. If so, simply giving more money to parents might not overcome those barriers.

Natural experiments have hinted that money itself can influence child development. For example, families on an American Indian reservation in North Carolina started receiving a share of casino profits after a casino opened there.

The new infusion of funds arrived in the middle of a study in which researchers were examining the development of mental illness in children.

Among children who were no longer poor as a result of the casino payments, symptoms of conduct and oppositional defiant disorders decreased.
 

Guaranteeing income

How extra money affects families across different levels of income also interests researchers and policymakers.

“One of the policy debates in Washington is to what degree should it be to everyone,” Ajay Chaudry, PhD, a research scholar at New York University who is advising the Bridge Project, said.

Guaranteed income programs may need to be available to most of the population out of political necessity, even if the benefits turn out to be the most pronounced at lower income levels, added Dr. Chaudry, who served in the Obama administration as deputy assistant secretary for human services policy.

If giving moms money affects babies’ brains, Dr. Dreyer pointed to two pathways that could explain the link: more resources and less family stress.

Money helps families buy toys and books, which in turn could support a child’s cognitive development. Meanwhile, low-income mothers and fathers may experience worries about eviction, adequate food, and the loss of heat and electricity, which could detract from their ability to parent.

Of course, many ways to support a child’s development do not require money. Engaging with children in a warm and nurturing way, having conversations with them, and reading with them are all important.

If the pattern in the PNAS study holds, individual experiences and outcomes will still vary, Dr. Noble said. Many children in the group that received the smaller gift had fast-paced brain activity, whereas some babies in the group that received the larger gift showed slower brain activity. Knowing family income would not allow you to accurately predict anything about an individual child’s brain, Dr. Noble said.

“I certainly wouldn’t want the message to be that money is the only thing that matters,” Dr. Noble said. “Money is something that can be easily manipulated by policy, which is why I think this is important.”

For the 18-year-old new mom Ms. Matos, accepting assistance “makes me feel less of myself. But honestly, I feel like mothers shouldn’t be afraid to ask for help or reach out for help or apply to programs like these.”

The sources reported a variety of funders, including federal agencies and foundations and donors.

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

All Kawasaki disease (KD) patients should be treated first with intravenous immunoglobulin, according to an updated guideline issued jointly by the American College of Rheumatology and the Vasculitis Foundation.

KD has low mortality when treated appropriately, guideline first author Mark Gorelik, MD, assistant professor of pediatrics at Columbia University, New York, and colleagues wrote.

The update is important at this time because new evidence continues to emerge in the clinical management of KD, Dr. Gorelik said in an interview.

“In addition, this guideline approaches Kawasaki disease from a perspective of acting as an adjunct to the already existing and excellent American Heart Association guidelines by adding information in areas that rheumatologists may play a role,” Dr. Gorelik said. “This is specifically regarding patients who may require additional therapy beyond standard IVIg, such as patients who may be at higher risk of morbidity from disease and patients who have refractory disease,” he explained.

The guideline, published in Arthritis & Rheumatology, includes 11 recommendations, 1 good practice statement, and 1 ungraded position statement. The good practice statement emphasizes that all patients with KD should be initially treated with IVIg.

The position statement advises that either nonglucocorticoid immunosuppressive therapy or glucocorticoids may be used for patients with acute KD whose fever persists despite repeated IVIg treatment. No clinical evidence currently supports the superiority of either nonglucocorticoid immunosuppressive therapy or glucocorticoids; therefore, the authors support the use of either based on what is appropriate in any given clinical situation. Although optimal dosage and duration of glucocorticoids have yet to be determined in a U.S. population, the authors described a typical glucocorticoid dosage as starting prednisone at 2 mg/kg per day, with a maximum of 60 mg/day, and dose tapering over 15 days.

The 11 recommendations consist of 7 strong and 4 conditional recommendations. The strong recommendations focus on prompt treatment of incomplete KD, treatment with aspirin, and obtaining an echocardiogram in patients with unexplained macrophage activation syndrome or shock. The conditional recommendations support using established therapy promptly at disease onset, then identifying cases in which additional therapy is needed.

Dr. Gorelik highlighted four clinical takeaways from the guideline. First, “patients with higher risk for complications do exist in Kawasaki disease, and that these patients can be treated more aggressively,” he said. “Specifically, patients with aneurysms seen at first ultrasound, and patients who are under 6 months, are more likely to have progressive and/or refractory disease; these patients can be treated with an adjunctive short course of corticosteroids.”

Second, “the use of high-dose aspirin for patients with Kawasaki disease does not have strong basis in evidence. While aspirin itself of some dose is necessary for patients with Kawasaki disease, use of either high- or low-dose aspirin has the same outcome for patients, and a physician may choose either of these in practice,” he said.

Third, “we continue to recommend that refractory patients with Kawasaki disease be treated with a second dose of IVIg; however, there are many scenarios in which a physician may choose either corticosteroids [either a single high dose of >10 mg/kg, or a short moderate-dose course of 2 mg/kg per day for 5-7 days] or a biologic agent such as infliximab. ... These are valid choices for therapy in patients with refractory Kawasaki disease,” he emphasized.

Fourth, “physicians should discard the idea of treating before [and conversely, not treating after] 10 days of fever,” Dr. Gorelik said. “Patients with Kawasaki disease should be treated as soon as the diagnosis is made, regardless of whether this patient is on day 5, day 12, or day 20 of symptoms.”

Update incorporates emerging evidence

Potential barriers to implementing the guideline in practice include the challenge of weaning doctors from practices that are habitual in medicine, Dr. Gorelik said. “One of these is the use of high-dose aspirin for Kawasaki disease; a number of studies have shown over the past decade or more that high-dose aspirin has no greater effect than lower-dose aspirin for Kawasaki disease. Despite all of these studies, the use of high-dose aspirin continued. High-dose aspirin for Kawasaki disease was used in the era prior to use of IVIg as an anti-inflammatory agent. However, it has poor efficacy in this regard, and the true benefit for aspirin is for anticoagulation for patients at risk of a clot, and this is just as effective in lower doses. Expressing this in a guideline could help to change practices by helping physicians understand not only what they are guided to do, but why.”

Additional research is needed to better identify high-risk patients in non-Japanese populations, he noted. “While studies from Japan suggest that higher-risk patients can be identified based on various parameters, these have not been well replicated in non-Japanese populations. Good research that identifies which patients may be more at risk in other populations would be helpful to more precisely target high-risk therapy.”

Other research needs include a clearer understanding of the best therapies for refractory patients, Dr. Gorelik said. “One area of the most difficulty was determining whether patients with refractory disease should have repeated IVIg or a switch to glucocorticoids and biologic agents. Some of this research is underway, and some was published just as these guidelines were being drawn, and this particular area is one that is likely to change significantly. While currently we recommend a repeated dose of IVIg, it is likely that over the very near term, the use of repeated IVIg in KD will be curtailed” because of concerns such as the relatively high rate of hemolysis. Research to identify which therapy has a noninferior effect with a superior risk profile is needed; such research “will likely result in a future iteration of these guidelines specifically related to this question,” he concluded.

The KD guideline is the final companion to three additional ACR/VF vasculitis guidelines that were released in July 2021. The guideline research received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

All Kawasaki disease (KD) patients should be treated first with intravenous immunoglobulin, according to an updated guideline issued jointly by the American College of Rheumatology and the Vasculitis Foundation.

KD has low mortality when treated appropriately, guideline first author Mark Gorelik, MD, assistant professor of pediatrics at Columbia University, New York, and colleagues wrote.

The update is important at this time because new evidence continues to emerge in the clinical management of KD, Dr. Gorelik said in an interview.

“In addition, this guideline approaches Kawasaki disease from a perspective of acting as an adjunct to the already existing and excellent American Heart Association guidelines by adding information in areas that rheumatologists may play a role,” Dr. Gorelik said. “This is specifically regarding patients who may require additional therapy beyond standard IVIg, such as patients who may be at higher risk of morbidity from disease and patients who have refractory disease,” he explained.

The guideline, published in Arthritis & Rheumatology, includes 11 recommendations, 1 good practice statement, and 1 ungraded position statement. The good practice statement emphasizes that all patients with KD should be initially treated with IVIg.

The position statement advises that either nonglucocorticoid immunosuppressive therapy or glucocorticoids may be used for patients with acute KD whose fever persists despite repeated IVIg treatment. No clinical evidence currently supports the superiority of either nonglucocorticoid immunosuppressive therapy or glucocorticoids; therefore, the authors support the use of either based on what is appropriate in any given clinical situation. Although optimal dosage and duration of glucocorticoids have yet to be determined in a U.S. population, the authors described a typical glucocorticoid dosage as starting prednisone at 2 mg/kg per day, with a maximum of 60 mg/day, and dose tapering over 15 days.

The 11 recommendations consist of 7 strong and 4 conditional recommendations. The strong recommendations focus on prompt treatment of incomplete KD, treatment with aspirin, and obtaining an echocardiogram in patients with unexplained macrophage activation syndrome or shock. The conditional recommendations support using established therapy promptly at disease onset, then identifying cases in which additional therapy is needed.

Dr. Gorelik highlighted four clinical takeaways from the guideline. First, “patients with higher risk for complications do exist in Kawasaki disease, and that these patients can be treated more aggressively,” he said. “Specifically, patients with aneurysms seen at first ultrasound, and patients who are under 6 months, are more likely to have progressive and/or refractory disease; these patients can be treated with an adjunctive short course of corticosteroids.”

Second, “the use of high-dose aspirin for patients with Kawasaki disease does not have strong basis in evidence. While aspirin itself of some dose is necessary for patients with Kawasaki disease, use of either high- or low-dose aspirin has the same outcome for patients, and a physician may choose either of these in practice,” he said.

Third, “we continue to recommend that refractory patients with Kawasaki disease be treated with a second dose of IVIg; however, there are many scenarios in which a physician may choose either corticosteroids [either a single high dose of >10 mg/kg, or a short moderate-dose course of 2 mg/kg per day for 5-7 days] or a biologic agent such as infliximab. ... These are valid choices for therapy in patients with refractory Kawasaki disease,” he emphasized.

Fourth, “physicians should discard the idea of treating before [and conversely, not treating after] 10 days of fever,” Dr. Gorelik said. “Patients with Kawasaki disease should be treated as soon as the diagnosis is made, regardless of whether this patient is on day 5, day 12, or day 20 of symptoms.”

Update incorporates emerging evidence

Potential barriers to implementing the guideline in practice include the challenge of weaning doctors from practices that are habitual in medicine, Dr. Gorelik said. “One of these is the use of high-dose aspirin for Kawasaki disease; a number of studies have shown over the past decade or more that high-dose aspirin has no greater effect than lower-dose aspirin for Kawasaki disease. Despite all of these studies, the use of high-dose aspirin continued. High-dose aspirin for Kawasaki disease was used in the era prior to use of IVIg as an anti-inflammatory agent. However, it has poor efficacy in this regard, and the true benefit for aspirin is for anticoagulation for patients at risk of a clot, and this is just as effective in lower doses. Expressing this in a guideline could help to change practices by helping physicians understand not only what they are guided to do, but why.”

Additional research is needed to better identify high-risk patients in non-Japanese populations, he noted. “While studies from Japan suggest that higher-risk patients can be identified based on various parameters, these have not been well replicated in non-Japanese populations. Good research that identifies which patients may be more at risk in other populations would be helpful to more precisely target high-risk therapy.”

Other research needs include a clearer understanding of the best therapies for refractory patients, Dr. Gorelik said. “One area of the most difficulty was determining whether patients with refractory disease should have repeated IVIg or a switch to glucocorticoids and biologic agents. Some of this research is underway, and some was published just as these guidelines were being drawn, and this particular area is one that is likely to change significantly. While currently we recommend a repeated dose of IVIg, it is likely that over the very near term, the use of repeated IVIg in KD will be curtailed” because of concerns such as the relatively high rate of hemolysis. Research to identify which therapy has a noninferior effect with a superior risk profile is needed; such research “will likely result in a future iteration of these guidelines specifically related to this question,” he concluded.

The KD guideline is the final companion to three additional ACR/VF vasculitis guidelines that were released in July 2021. The guideline research received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

All Kawasaki disease (KD) patients should be treated first with intravenous immunoglobulin, according to an updated guideline issued jointly by the American College of Rheumatology and the Vasculitis Foundation.

KD has low mortality when treated appropriately, guideline first author Mark Gorelik, MD, assistant professor of pediatrics at Columbia University, New York, and colleagues wrote.

The update is important at this time because new evidence continues to emerge in the clinical management of KD, Dr. Gorelik said in an interview.

“In addition, this guideline approaches Kawasaki disease from a perspective of acting as an adjunct to the already existing and excellent American Heart Association guidelines by adding information in areas that rheumatologists may play a role,” Dr. Gorelik said. “This is specifically regarding patients who may require additional therapy beyond standard IVIg, such as patients who may be at higher risk of morbidity from disease and patients who have refractory disease,” he explained.

The guideline, published in Arthritis & Rheumatology, includes 11 recommendations, 1 good practice statement, and 1 ungraded position statement. The good practice statement emphasizes that all patients with KD should be initially treated with IVIg.

The position statement advises that either nonglucocorticoid immunosuppressive therapy or glucocorticoids may be used for patients with acute KD whose fever persists despite repeated IVIg treatment. No clinical evidence currently supports the superiority of either nonglucocorticoid immunosuppressive therapy or glucocorticoids; therefore, the authors support the use of either based on what is appropriate in any given clinical situation. Although optimal dosage and duration of glucocorticoids have yet to be determined in a U.S. population, the authors described a typical glucocorticoid dosage as starting prednisone at 2 mg/kg per day, with a maximum of 60 mg/day, and dose tapering over 15 days.

The 11 recommendations consist of 7 strong and 4 conditional recommendations. The strong recommendations focus on prompt treatment of incomplete KD, treatment with aspirin, and obtaining an echocardiogram in patients with unexplained macrophage activation syndrome or shock. The conditional recommendations support using established therapy promptly at disease onset, then identifying cases in which additional therapy is needed.

Dr. Gorelik highlighted four clinical takeaways from the guideline. First, “patients with higher risk for complications do exist in Kawasaki disease, and that these patients can be treated more aggressively,” he said. “Specifically, patients with aneurysms seen at first ultrasound, and patients who are under 6 months, are more likely to have progressive and/or refractory disease; these patients can be treated with an adjunctive short course of corticosteroids.”

Second, “the use of high-dose aspirin for patients with Kawasaki disease does not have strong basis in evidence. While aspirin itself of some dose is necessary for patients with Kawasaki disease, use of either high- or low-dose aspirin has the same outcome for patients, and a physician may choose either of these in practice,” he said.

Third, “we continue to recommend that refractory patients with Kawasaki disease be treated with a second dose of IVIg; however, there are many scenarios in which a physician may choose either corticosteroids [either a single high dose of >10 mg/kg, or a short moderate-dose course of 2 mg/kg per day for 5-7 days] or a biologic agent such as infliximab. ... These are valid choices for therapy in patients with refractory Kawasaki disease,” he emphasized.

Fourth, “physicians should discard the idea of treating before [and conversely, not treating after] 10 days of fever,” Dr. Gorelik said. “Patients with Kawasaki disease should be treated as soon as the diagnosis is made, regardless of whether this patient is on day 5, day 12, or day 20 of symptoms.”

Update incorporates emerging evidence

Potential barriers to implementing the guideline in practice include the challenge of weaning doctors from practices that are habitual in medicine, Dr. Gorelik said. “One of these is the use of high-dose aspirin for Kawasaki disease; a number of studies have shown over the past decade or more that high-dose aspirin has no greater effect than lower-dose aspirin for Kawasaki disease. Despite all of these studies, the use of high-dose aspirin continued. High-dose aspirin for Kawasaki disease was used in the era prior to use of IVIg as an anti-inflammatory agent. However, it has poor efficacy in this regard, and the true benefit for aspirin is for anticoagulation for patients at risk of a clot, and this is just as effective in lower doses. Expressing this in a guideline could help to change practices by helping physicians understand not only what they are guided to do, but why.”

Additional research is needed to better identify high-risk patients in non-Japanese populations, he noted. “While studies from Japan suggest that higher-risk patients can be identified based on various parameters, these have not been well replicated in non-Japanese populations. Good research that identifies which patients may be more at risk in other populations would be helpful to more precisely target high-risk therapy.”

Other research needs include a clearer understanding of the best therapies for refractory patients, Dr. Gorelik said. “One area of the most difficulty was determining whether patients with refractory disease should have repeated IVIg or a switch to glucocorticoids and biologic agents. Some of this research is underway, and some was published just as these guidelines were being drawn, and this particular area is one that is likely to change significantly. While currently we recommend a repeated dose of IVIg, it is likely that over the very near term, the use of repeated IVIg in KD will be curtailed” because of concerns such as the relatively high rate of hemolysis. Research to identify which therapy has a noninferior effect with a superior risk profile is needed; such research “will likely result in a future iteration of these guidelines specifically related to this question,” he concluded.

The KD guideline is the final companion to three additional ACR/VF vasculitis guidelines that were released in July 2021. The guideline research received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.