Pediatric News

Nearly one in three physicians endorsing drugs and devices on the social media platform X did not disclose that they received payments from the manufacturers, according to a new study published in JAMA.

Lead author Aaron Mitchell, MD, MPH, a medical oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City, told this news organization that he and his colleagues undertook the study in part to see whether physicians were adhering to professional and industry guidelines regarding marketing communications.

The team reviewed posts by physicians on X during 2022, looking for key words that might indicate that the posts were intended as endorsements of a product. The researchers then delved into the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Open Payments database to see how many of those identified as having endorsed a product were paid by the manufacturers.

What Dr. Mitchell found concerned him, he said.

Overall, the researchers identified 28 physician endorsers who received a total of $1.4 million from sponsors in 2022. Among these, 26 physicians (93%) received payments from the product’s manufacturer, totaling $713,976, and 24 physicians (86%) accepted payments related to the endorsed drug or device, totaling $492,098.

While most did disclose that the posts were sponsored — by adding the word “sponsored” or using #sponsored — nine physicians did not.

Although 28 physician endorsers represent a “small fraction” of the overall number of physicians who use X, each endorsement was ultimately posted dozens, if not hundreds of times, said Dr. Mitchell. In fact, he said he saw the same particular endorsement post every time he opened his X app for months.

Overall, Dr. Mitchell noted that it’s less about the fact that the endorsements are occurring on social media and more that there are these paid endorsements taking place at all.

Among the physician specialties promoting a product, urologists and oncologists dominated. Almost one third were urologists, and 57% were oncologists — six medical oncologists, six radiation oncologists, and four gynecologic oncologists. Of the remaining three physicians, two were internists and one was a pulmonary and critical care medicine specialist.

The authors tracked posts from physicians and industry accounts. Many of the posts on industry accounts were physician testimonials, usually videos. Almost half — 8 of 17 — of those testimonials did not disclose that the doctor was being paid by the manufacturer. In another case, a physician did not disclose that they were paid to endorse a white paper.

Fifteen promotional posts were for a Boston Scientific product, followed by six for GlaxoSmithKline, two for Eisai, two for Exelixis, and one each for AstraZeneca, Novartis, and Pfizer.

In general, Dr. Mitchell said, industry guidelines suggest that manufacturer-paid speakers or consultants should have well-regarded expertise in the area they are being asked to weigh in on, but most physician endorsers in the study were not key opinion leaders or experts.

The authors examined the paid endorsers’ H-index — a measure of academic productivity provided by Scopus. Overall, 19 of the 28 physicians had an H-index below 20, which is considered less accomplished, and 14 had no published research related to the endorsed product.

Ten received payments from manufacturers for research purposes, and only one received research payments related to the endorsed product ($224,577).

“Physicians’ participation in industry marketing raises questions regarding professionalism and their responsibilities as patient advocates,” the JAMA authors wrote.

The study was supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Mitchell reported no relevant financial relationships. Coauthors Samer Al Hadidi, MD, reported receiving personal fees from Pfizer, Sanofi, and Janssen during the conduct of the study, and Timothy S. Anderson, MD, reported receiving grants from the National Institute on Aging, the American Heart Association, and the American College of Cardiology, and receiving consulting fees from the American Medical Student Association. Dr. Anderson is also an associate editor of JAMA Internal Medicine.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Nearly one in three physicians endorsing drugs and devices on the social media platform X did not disclose that they received payments from the manufacturers, according to a new study published in JAMA.

Lead author Aaron Mitchell, MD, MPH, a medical oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City, told this news organization that he and his colleagues undertook the study in part to see whether physicians were adhering to professional and industry guidelines regarding marketing communications.

The team reviewed posts by physicians on X during 2022, looking for key words that might indicate that the posts were intended as endorsements of a product. The researchers then delved into the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Open Payments database to see how many of those identified as having endorsed a product were paid by the manufacturers.

What Dr. Mitchell found concerned him, he said.

Overall, the researchers identified 28 physician endorsers who received a total of $1.4 million from sponsors in 2022. Among these, 26 physicians (93%) received payments from the product’s manufacturer, totaling $713,976, and 24 physicians (86%) accepted payments related to the endorsed drug or device, totaling $492,098.

While most did disclose that the posts were sponsored — by adding the word “sponsored” or using #sponsored — nine physicians did not.

Although 28 physician endorsers represent a “small fraction” of the overall number of physicians who use X, each endorsement was ultimately posted dozens, if not hundreds of times, said Dr. Mitchell. In fact, he said he saw the same particular endorsement post every time he opened his X app for months.

Overall, Dr. Mitchell noted that it’s less about the fact that the endorsements are occurring on social media and more that there are these paid endorsements taking place at all.

Among the physician specialties promoting a product, urologists and oncologists dominated. Almost one third were urologists, and 57% were oncologists — six medical oncologists, six radiation oncologists, and four gynecologic oncologists. Of the remaining three physicians, two were internists and one was a pulmonary and critical care medicine specialist.

The authors tracked posts from physicians and industry accounts. Many of the posts on industry accounts were physician testimonials, usually videos. Almost half — 8 of 17 — of those testimonials did not disclose that the doctor was being paid by the manufacturer. In another case, a physician did not disclose that they were paid to endorse a white paper.

Fifteen promotional posts were for a Boston Scientific product, followed by six for GlaxoSmithKline, two for Eisai, two for Exelixis, and one each for AstraZeneca, Novartis, and Pfizer.

In general, Dr. Mitchell said, industry guidelines suggest that manufacturer-paid speakers or consultants should have well-regarded expertise in the area they are being asked to weigh in on, but most physician endorsers in the study were not key opinion leaders or experts.

The authors examined the paid endorsers’ H-index — a measure of academic productivity provided by Scopus. Overall, 19 of the 28 physicians had an H-index below 20, which is considered less accomplished, and 14 had no published research related to the endorsed product.

Ten received payments from manufacturers for research purposes, and only one received research payments related to the endorsed product ($224,577).

“Physicians’ participation in industry marketing raises questions regarding professionalism and their responsibilities as patient advocates,” the JAMA authors wrote.

The study was supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Mitchell reported no relevant financial relationships. Coauthors Samer Al Hadidi, MD, reported receiving personal fees from Pfizer, Sanofi, and Janssen during the conduct of the study, and Timothy S. Anderson, MD, reported receiving grants from the National Institute on Aging, the American Heart Association, and the American College of Cardiology, and receiving consulting fees from the American Medical Student Association. Dr. Anderson is also an associate editor of JAMA Internal Medicine.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Nearly one in three physicians endorsing drugs and devices on the social media platform X did not disclose that they received payments from the manufacturers, according to a new study published in JAMA.

Lead author Aaron Mitchell, MD, MPH, a medical oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City, told this news organization that he and his colleagues undertook the study in part to see whether physicians were adhering to professional and industry guidelines regarding marketing communications.

The team reviewed posts by physicians on X during 2022, looking for key words that might indicate that the posts were intended as endorsements of a product. The researchers then delved into the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Open Payments database to see how many of those identified as having endorsed a product were paid by the manufacturers.

What Dr. Mitchell found concerned him, he said.

Overall, the researchers identified 28 physician endorsers who received a total of $1.4 million from sponsors in 2022. Among these, 26 physicians (93%) received payments from the product’s manufacturer, totaling $713,976, and 24 physicians (86%) accepted payments related to the endorsed drug or device, totaling $492,098.

While most did disclose that the posts were sponsored — by adding the word “sponsored” or using #sponsored — nine physicians did not.

Although 28 physician endorsers represent a “small fraction” of the overall number of physicians who use X, each endorsement was ultimately posted dozens, if not hundreds of times, said Dr. Mitchell. In fact, he said he saw the same particular endorsement post every time he opened his X app for months.

Overall, Dr. Mitchell noted that it’s less about the fact that the endorsements are occurring on social media and more that there are these paid endorsements taking place at all.

Among the physician specialties promoting a product, urologists and oncologists dominated. Almost one third were urologists, and 57% were oncologists — six medical oncologists, six radiation oncologists, and four gynecologic oncologists. Of the remaining three physicians, two were internists and one was a pulmonary and critical care medicine specialist.

The authors tracked posts from physicians and industry accounts. Many of the posts on industry accounts were physician testimonials, usually videos. Almost half — 8 of 17 — of those testimonials did not disclose that the doctor was being paid by the manufacturer. In another case, a physician did not disclose that they were paid to endorse a white paper.

Fifteen promotional posts were for a Boston Scientific product, followed by six for GlaxoSmithKline, two for Eisai, two for Exelixis, and one each for AstraZeneca, Novartis, and Pfizer.

In general, Dr. Mitchell said, industry guidelines suggest that manufacturer-paid speakers or consultants should have well-regarded expertise in the area they are being asked to weigh in on, but most physician endorsers in the study were not key opinion leaders or experts.

The authors examined the paid endorsers’ H-index — a measure of academic productivity provided by Scopus. Overall, 19 of the 28 physicians had an H-index below 20, which is considered less accomplished, and 14 had no published research related to the endorsed product.

Ten received payments from manufacturers for research purposes, and only one received research payments related to the endorsed product ($224,577).

“Physicians’ participation in industry marketing raises questions regarding professionalism and their responsibilities as patient advocates,” the JAMA authors wrote.

The study was supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Mitchell reported no relevant financial relationships. Coauthors Samer Al Hadidi, MD, reported receiving personal fees from Pfizer, Sanofi, and Janssen during the conduct of the study, and Timothy S. Anderson, MD, reported receiving grants from the National Institute on Aging, the American Heart Association, and the American College of Cardiology, and receiving consulting fees from the American Medical Student Association. Dr. Anderson is also an associate editor of JAMA Internal Medicine.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — In a randomized, controlled trial, lidocaine injections to the greater occipital nerve were effective in controlling migraine symptoms among adolescents. The treatment has long been used in adults, and frequently in children on the strength of observational evidence.

Prior Research

Most of the studies have been conducted in adults, and these were often in specific settings like the emergency department for status migrainosus, while outpatient studies were generally conducted in chronic migraine, according to presenting author Christina Szperka, MD. “The assumptions were a little bit different,” Dr. Szperka, director of the pediatric headache program at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, said in an interview.

Szperka_Christina_Phila_web.jpg

Retrospective studies are also fraught with bias. “We’ve tried to look at retrospective data. People don’t necessarily report how they’re doing unless they come back, and so you lose a huge portion of kids,” said Dr. Szperka, who presented the research at the annual meeting of the American Headache Society.

“From a clinical perspective, I think it gives us additional evidence that what we’re doing makes a difference, and I think that will help us in terms of insurance coverage, because that’s really been a major barrier,” said Dr. Szperka.

The study also opens other avenues for research. “Just doing the greater occipital nerves only reduces the pain so much. So what’s the next step? Do I study additional injections? Do I do a study where I compare different medications?”

She previously conducted a study of how providers were using lidocaine injections, and “there was a large amount of variability, both in terms of what nerves are being injected, what medications they were using, the patient population, et cetera,” said Dr. Szperka. Previous observational studies have suggested efficacy in pediatric populations for transition and prevention of migraine, new daily persistent headache, posttraumatic headache, and post-shunt occipital neuralgia.
 

A Randomized, Controlled Trial

In the new study, 58 adolescents aged 7 to 21 (mean age, 16.0 years; 44 female) were initially treated with lidocaine cream. The patients were “relatively refractory,” said Dr. Szperka, with 25 having received intravenous medications and 6 having been inpatients. After 30 minutes, if they still had pain and consented to further treatment, Dr. Szperka performed bilateral greater occipital nerve injections with lidocaine or a saline placebo, and did additional injections after 30 minutes if there wasn’t sufficient improvement.

There was no significant change in pain after the lidocaine cream treatment, and all patients proceeded to be randomized to lidocaine or placebo injections. The primary outcome of 30-minute reduction in pain score ranked 0-10 favored the lidocaine group (2.3 vs 1.1; P = .013). There was a 2-point reduction in pain scores in 69% of the lidocaine group and 34% of the saline group (P = .009) and a higher frequency of pain relief from moderate/severe to no pain or mild (52% versus 24%; P = .03). There was no significant difference in pain freedom.

After 24 hours, the treatment group was more likely to experience pain relief from moderate/severe to no pain or mild (24% vs 3%; P = .05) and to be free from associated symptoms (48% vs 21%; P = .027). Pain at the injection site was significantly higher in the placebo group (5.4 vs 3.2), prompting a change in plans for future trials. “I don’t think I would do saline again, because I think it hurt them, and I don’t want to cause them harm,” said Dr. Szperka.

Adverse events were common, with all but one patient in the study experiencing at least one. “I think this is a couple of things: One, kids don’t like needles in their head. Nerve blocks hurt. And so it was not surprising in some ways that we had a very high rate of adverse events. We also consented them, and that had a long wait period, and there’s a lot of anxiety in the room. However, most of the adverse events were mild,” said Dr. Szperka.
 

Important Research in an Understudied Population

Laine Greene, MD, who moderated the session, was asked for comment. “I think it’s an important study. Occipital nerve blocks have been used for a long period of time in management of migraine and other headache disorders. The quality of the evidence has always been brought into question, especially from payers, but also a very important aspect to this is that a lot of clinical trials over time have not specifically been done in children or adolescents, so any work that is done in that age category is significantly helpful to advancing therapeutics,” said Dr. Greene, associate professor of neurology at Mayo Clinic Arizona.

Dr. Szperka has consulted for AbbVie and Teva, and serves on data safety and monitoring boards for Eli Lilly and Upsher-Smith. She has been a principal investigator in trials sponsored by Abbvie, Amgen, Biohaven/Pfizer, Teva, and Theranica. Dr. Greene has no relevant financial disclosures.

SAN DIEGO — In a randomized, controlled trial, lidocaine injections to the greater occipital nerve were effective in controlling migraine symptoms among adolescents. The treatment has long been used in adults, and frequently in children on the strength of observational evidence.

Prior Research

Most of the studies have been conducted in adults, and these were often in specific settings like the emergency department for status migrainosus, while outpatient studies were generally conducted in chronic migraine, according to presenting author Christina Szperka, MD. “The assumptions were a little bit different,” Dr. Szperka, director of the pediatric headache program at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, said in an interview.

Szperka_Christina_Phila_web.jpg

Retrospective studies are also fraught with bias. “We’ve tried to look at retrospective data. People don’t necessarily report how they’re doing unless they come back, and so you lose a huge portion of kids,” said Dr. Szperka, who presented the research at the annual meeting of the American Headache Society.

“From a clinical perspective, I think it gives us additional evidence that what we’re doing makes a difference, and I think that will help us in terms of insurance coverage, because that’s really been a major barrier,” said Dr. Szperka.

The study also opens other avenues for research. “Just doing the greater occipital nerves only reduces the pain so much. So what’s the next step? Do I study additional injections? Do I do a study where I compare different medications?”

She previously conducted a study of how providers were using lidocaine injections, and “there was a large amount of variability, both in terms of what nerves are being injected, what medications they were using, the patient population, et cetera,” said Dr. Szperka. Previous observational studies have suggested efficacy in pediatric populations for transition and prevention of migraine, new daily persistent headache, posttraumatic headache, and post-shunt occipital neuralgia.
 

A Randomized, Controlled Trial

In the new study, 58 adolescents aged 7 to 21 (mean age, 16.0 years; 44 female) were initially treated with lidocaine cream. The patients were “relatively refractory,” said Dr. Szperka, with 25 having received intravenous medications and 6 having been inpatients. After 30 minutes, if they still had pain and consented to further treatment, Dr. Szperka performed bilateral greater occipital nerve injections with lidocaine or a saline placebo, and did additional injections after 30 minutes if there wasn’t sufficient improvement.

There was no significant change in pain after the lidocaine cream treatment, and all patients proceeded to be randomized to lidocaine or placebo injections. The primary outcome of 30-minute reduction in pain score ranked 0-10 favored the lidocaine group (2.3 vs 1.1; P = .013). There was a 2-point reduction in pain scores in 69% of the lidocaine group and 34% of the saline group (P = .009) and a higher frequency of pain relief from moderate/severe to no pain or mild (52% versus 24%; P = .03). There was no significant difference in pain freedom.

After 24 hours, the treatment group was more likely to experience pain relief from moderate/severe to no pain or mild (24% vs 3%; P = .05) and to be free from associated symptoms (48% vs 21%; P = .027). Pain at the injection site was significantly higher in the placebo group (5.4 vs 3.2), prompting a change in plans for future trials. “I don’t think I would do saline again, because I think it hurt them, and I don’t want to cause them harm,” said Dr. Szperka.

Adverse events were common, with all but one patient in the study experiencing at least one. “I think this is a couple of things: One, kids don’t like needles in their head. Nerve blocks hurt. And so it was not surprising in some ways that we had a very high rate of adverse events. We also consented them, and that had a long wait period, and there’s a lot of anxiety in the room. However, most of the adverse events were mild,” said Dr. Szperka.
 

Important Research in an Understudied Population

Laine Greene, MD, who moderated the session, was asked for comment. “I think it’s an important study. Occipital nerve blocks have been used for a long period of time in management of migraine and other headache disorders. The quality of the evidence has always been brought into question, especially from payers, but also a very important aspect to this is that a lot of clinical trials over time have not specifically been done in children or adolescents, so any work that is done in that age category is significantly helpful to advancing therapeutics,” said Dr. Greene, associate professor of neurology at Mayo Clinic Arizona.

Dr. Szperka has consulted for AbbVie and Teva, and serves on data safety and monitoring boards for Eli Lilly and Upsher-Smith. She has been a principal investigator in trials sponsored by Abbvie, Amgen, Biohaven/Pfizer, Teva, and Theranica. Dr. Greene has no relevant financial disclosures.

SAN DIEGO — In a randomized, controlled trial, lidocaine injections to the greater occipital nerve were effective in controlling migraine symptoms among adolescents. The treatment has long been used in adults, and frequently in children on the strength of observational evidence.

Prior Research

Most of the studies have been conducted in adults, and these were often in specific settings like the emergency department for status migrainosus, while outpatient studies were generally conducted in chronic migraine, according to presenting author Christina Szperka, MD. “The assumptions were a little bit different,” Dr. Szperka, director of the pediatric headache program at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, said in an interview.

Szperka_Christina_Phila_web.jpg

Retrospective studies are also fraught with bias. “We’ve tried to look at retrospective data. People don’t necessarily report how they’re doing unless they come back, and so you lose a huge portion of kids,” said Dr. Szperka, who presented the research at the annual meeting of the American Headache Society.

“From a clinical perspective, I think it gives us additional evidence that what we’re doing makes a difference, and I think that will help us in terms of insurance coverage, because that’s really been a major barrier,” said Dr. Szperka.

The study also opens other avenues for research. “Just doing the greater occipital nerves only reduces the pain so much. So what’s the next step? Do I study additional injections? Do I do a study where I compare different medications?”

She previously conducted a study of how providers were using lidocaine injections, and “there was a large amount of variability, both in terms of what nerves are being injected, what medications they were using, the patient population, et cetera,” said Dr. Szperka. Previous observational studies have suggested efficacy in pediatric populations for transition and prevention of migraine, new daily persistent headache, posttraumatic headache, and post-shunt occipital neuralgia.
 

A Randomized, Controlled Trial

In the new study, 58 adolescents aged 7 to 21 (mean age, 16.0 years; 44 female) were initially treated with lidocaine cream. The patients were “relatively refractory,” said Dr. Szperka, with 25 having received intravenous medications and 6 having been inpatients. After 30 minutes, if they still had pain and consented to further treatment, Dr. Szperka performed bilateral greater occipital nerve injections with lidocaine or a saline placebo, and did additional injections after 30 minutes if there wasn’t sufficient improvement.

There was no significant change in pain after the lidocaine cream treatment, and all patients proceeded to be randomized to lidocaine or placebo injections. The primary outcome of 30-minute reduction in pain score ranked 0-10 favored the lidocaine group (2.3 vs 1.1; P = .013). There was a 2-point reduction in pain scores in 69% of the lidocaine group and 34% of the saline group (P = .009) and a higher frequency of pain relief from moderate/severe to no pain or mild (52% versus 24%; P = .03). There was no significant difference in pain freedom.

After 24 hours, the treatment group was more likely to experience pain relief from moderate/severe to no pain or mild (24% vs 3%; P = .05) and to be free from associated symptoms (48% vs 21%; P = .027). Pain at the injection site was significantly higher in the placebo group (5.4 vs 3.2), prompting a change in plans for future trials. “I don’t think I would do saline again, because I think it hurt them, and I don’t want to cause them harm,” said Dr. Szperka.

Adverse events were common, with all but one patient in the study experiencing at least one. “I think this is a couple of things: One, kids don’t like needles in their head. Nerve blocks hurt. And so it was not surprising in some ways that we had a very high rate of adverse events. We also consented them, and that had a long wait period, and there’s a lot of anxiety in the room. However, most of the adverse events were mild,” said Dr. Szperka.
 

Important Research in an Understudied Population

Laine Greene, MD, who moderated the session, was asked for comment. “I think it’s an important study. Occipital nerve blocks have been used for a long period of time in management of migraine and other headache disorders. The quality of the evidence has always been brought into question, especially from payers, but also a very important aspect to this is that a lot of clinical trials over time have not specifically been done in children or adolescents, so any work that is done in that age category is significantly helpful to advancing therapeutics,” said Dr. Greene, associate professor of neurology at Mayo Clinic Arizona.

Dr. Szperka has consulted for AbbVie and Teva, and serves on data safety and monitoring boards for Eli Lilly and Upsher-Smith. She has been a principal investigator in trials sponsored by Abbvie, Amgen, Biohaven/Pfizer, Teva, and Theranica. Dr. Greene has no relevant financial disclosures.

CHICAGO — One of the more recent developments in sunscreen technology is the addition of iron oxide to mineral sunscreens.

Iron oxide is “an excellent pigment” that absorbs and blocks visible light, which is particularly important in individuals with Fitzpatrick skin types III-VI, Zoe D. Draelos, MD, consulting professor of dermatology at Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, said at the Pigmentation Disorders Exchange symposium.

Susan C. Taylor, MD, professor of dermatology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, who spoke at the conference, also recommended tinted sunscreen with iron oxide for patients with skin of color. “It still needs to be broad spectrum,” she said, “and at least an SPF [Sun Protection Factor] 30.”

When blended with mineral sunscreens, iron oxide can reduce transmission of visible light by 90% and can protect patients from hyperpigmentation. Iron oxide comes in different colors blended together for various degrees of tinting.

Dr. Taylor noted that iron oxide is listed under the inactive ingredients. “The literature indicates a 3% concentration to aim for, but we don’t know the concentration in most of the products,” she added.

During her presentation, Dr. Draelos noted that inorganic sunscreens, such as zinc oxide and titanium oxides, are highly effective but make the skin white and pasty. To address this issue, many companies are now grinding these materials into such small particles that they are transparent.

“That’s great, except the smaller the particle is, the less UV [ultraviolet] radiation it reflects and that lowers the [SPF],” she said.

In addition to providing photoprotection, sunscreens in general provide protection from nanoparticles in tobacco and combustion, such as traffic exhaust, which can harm skin over time. “Moisturizers and sunscreens are the best way to protect against pollution and tobacco nanoparticle damage, which can contribute to inflammation,” she noted. They create a film over the skin and trap the nanoparticles.
 

Start the Patient Visit With a Photoprotection Talk

At the meeting, Dr. Taylor recommended that for all patients with hypopigmentation and hyperpigmentation disorders, “treatment really begins with photoprotection.”

She acknowledged that photoprotection discussions, including the basics of seeking shade, wearing protective clothing, and avoiding midday sun, often come at the end of the patient visit but she urged dermatologists to make that the first topic instead.

Dr. Taylor said a question often asked of patients of color about prolonged sun exposure — whether their skin turns bright red after too much sun — may get a negative reply. The better question is whether the patient has experienced tender skin after too much sun — which can signify a sunburn, she said.

Dr. Draelos reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Taylor reported financial relationships and grant support from multiple pharmaceutical companies.

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

CHICAGO — One of the more recent developments in sunscreen technology is the addition of iron oxide to mineral sunscreens.

Iron oxide is “an excellent pigment” that absorbs and blocks visible light, which is particularly important in individuals with Fitzpatrick skin types III-VI, Zoe D. Draelos, MD, consulting professor of dermatology at Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, said at the Pigmentation Disorders Exchange symposium.

Susan C. Taylor, MD, professor of dermatology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, who spoke at the conference, also recommended tinted sunscreen with iron oxide for patients with skin of color. “It still needs to be broad spectrum,” she said, “and at least an SPF [Sun Protection Factor] 30.”

When blended with mineral sunscreens, iron oxide can reduce transmission of visible light by 90% and can protect patients from hyperpigmentation. Iron oxide comes in different colors blended together for various degrees of tinting.

Dr. Taylor noted that iron oxide is listed under the inactive ingredients. “The literature indicates a 3% concentration to aim for, but we don’t know the concentration in most of the products,” she added.

During her presentation, Dr. Draelos noted that inorganic sunscreens, such as zinc oxide and titanium oxides, are highly effective but make the skin white and pasty. To address this issue, many companies are now grinding these materials into such small particles that they are transparent.

“That’s great, except the smaller the particle is, the less UV [ultraviolet] radiation it reflects and that lowers the [SPF],” she said.

In addition to providing photoprotection, sunscreens in general provide protection from nanoparticles in tobacco and combustion, such as traffic exhaust, which can harm skin over time. “Moisturizers and sunscreens are the best way to protect against pollution and tobacco nanoparticle damage, which can contribute to inflammation,” she noted. They create a film over the skin and trap the nanoparticles.
 

Start the Patient Visit With a Photoprotection Talk

At the meeting, Dr. Taylor recommended that for all patients with hypopigmentation and hyperpigmentation disorders, “treatment really begins with photoprotection.”

She acknowledged that photoprotection discussions, including the basics of seeking shade, wearing protective clothing, and avoiding midday sun, often come at the end of the patient visit but she urged dermatologists to make that the first topic instead.

Dr. Taylor said a question often asked of patients of color about prolonged sun exposure — whether their skin turns bright red after too much sun — may get a negative reply. The better question is whether the patient has experienced tender skin after too much sun — which can signify a sunburn, she said.

Dr. Draelos reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Taylor reported financial relationships and grant support from multiple pharmaceutical companies.

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

CHICAGO — One of the more recent developments in sunscreen technology is the addition of iron oxide to mineral sunscreens.

Iron oxide is “an excellent pigment” that absorbs and blocks visible light, which is particularly important in individuals with Fitzpatrick skin types III-VI, Zoe D. Draelos, MD, consulting professor of dermatology at Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, said at the Pigmentation Disorders Exchange symposium.

Susan C. Taylor, MD, professor of dermatology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, who spoke at the conference, also recommended tinted sunscreen with iron oxide for patients with skin of color. “It still needs to be broad spectrum,” she said, “and at least an SPF [Sun Protection Factor] 30.”

When blended with mineral sunscreens, iron oxide can reduce transmission of visible light by 90% and can protect patients from hyperpigmentation. Iron oxide comes in different colors blended together for various degrees of tinting.

Dr. Taylor noted that iron oxide is listed under the inactive ingredients. “The literature indicates a 3% concentration to aim for, but we don’t know the concentration in most of the products,” she added.

During her presentation, Dr. Draelos noted that inorganic sunscreens, such as zinc oxide and titanium oxides, are highly effective but make the skin white and pasty. To address this issue, many companies are now grinding these materials into such small particles that they are transparent.

“That’s great, except the smaller the particle is, the less UV [ultraviolet] radiation it reflects and that lowers the [SPF],” she said.

In addition to providing photoprotection, sunscreens in general provide protection from nanoparticles in tobacco and combustion, such as traffic exhaust, which can harm skin over time. “Moisturizers and sunscreens are the best way to protect against pollution and tobacco nanoparticle damage, which can contribute to inflammation,” she noted. They create a film over the skin and trap the nanoparticles.
 

Start the Patient Visit With a Photoprotection Talk

At the meeting, Dr. Taylor recommended that for all patients with hypopigmentation and hyperpigmentation disorders, “treatment really begins with photoprotection.”

She acknowledged that photoprotection discussions, including the basics of seeking shade, wearing protective clothing, and avoiding midday sun, often come at the end of the patient visit but she urged dermatologists to make that the first topic instead.

Dr. Taylor said a question often asked of patients of color about prolonged sun exposure — whether their skin turns bright red after too much sun — may get a negative reply. The better question is whether the patient has experienced tender skin after too much sun — which can signify a sunburn, she said.

Dr. Draelos reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Taylor reported financial relationships and grant support from multiple pharmaceutical companies.

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

Among the more unheralded examples of collateral damage of the COVID epidemic is chronic absenteeism. A recent NPR/Ipsos poll found that parents ranked chronic absenteeism last in a list of 12 school-related concerns. Only 5% listed it first.

This is surprising and concerning, given that prior to the pandemic the rate of chronic absenteeism nationwide was 15%, but during the 2021-22 school year this doubled to 30% and it has not declined. In fact, in some states the chronic absenteeism rate is 40%. In 2020 8 million students were chronically absent. This number is now over 14 million. Chronic absenteeism is a metric defined as a student absent for 15 days or more, which comes out to around 10% of the school year. Chronic absenteeism has been used as a predictor of the student dropout rate.

Wilkoff_William_G_2_web.jpg

The initial contribution of the pandemic is easily explained, as parents were understandably concerned about sending their children into an environment that might cause disease, or at least bring the disease home to a more vulnerable family member. The reasons behind the trend’s persistence are a bit more complicated.

Family schedules initially disrupted by the pandemic have settled back into a pattern that may make it more difficult for a child to get to school. Day care and work schedules may have changed, but not yet readjusted to sync with the school schedule.

In the simplest terms, children and their families may have simply fallen out of the habit of going to school. For children (and maybe their parents) who had always struggled with an unresolved separation anxiety, the time at home — or at least not in school — came as a relief. Which, in turn, meant that any gains in dealing with the anxiety have been undone. The child who was already struggling academically or socially found being at home much less challenging. It’s not surprising that he/she might resist climbing back in the academic saddle.

It is very likely that a significant contributor to the persistent trend in chronic absenteeism is what social scientists call “norm erosion.” Not just children, but families may have developed an attitude that time spent in school just isn’t as valuable as they once believed, or were at least told that it was. There seems to be more parents questioning what their children are being taught in school. The home schooling movement existed before the pandemic. Its roots may be growing under the surface in the form of general skepticism about the importance of school in the bigger scheme of things. The home schooling movement was ready to blossom when the COVID pandemic triggered school closures. We hoped and dreamed that remote learning would be just as good as in-person school. We now realize that, in most cases, that was wishful thinking.

It feels as though a “Perfect Attendance Record” may have lost the cachet it once had. During the pandemic anyone claiming to have never missed a day at school lost that gold star. Did opening your computer every day to watch a remote learning session count for anything?

The threshold for allowing a child to stay home from school may be reaching a historic low. Families seem to regard the school schedule as a guideline that can easily be ignored when planning a vacation. Take little brother out of school to attend big brother’s lacrosse playoff game, not to worry if the youngster misses school days for a trip.

Who is responsible for reversing the trend? Teachers already know it is a serious problem. They view attendance as important. Maybe educators could make school more appealing. But to whom? Sounds like this message should be targeted at the parents. Would stiff penalties for parents whose children are chronically absent help? Would demanding a note from a physician after a certain number of absences help? It might. But, are pediatricians and educators ready to take on one more task in which parents have dropped the ball?

An unknown percentage of chronically absent children are missing school because of a previously unrecognized or inadequately treated mental health condition or learning disability. Involving physicians in a community’s response to chronic absenteeism may be the first step in getting a child back on track. If socioeconomic factors are contributing to a child’s truancy, the involvement of social service agencies may be the answer.

I have a friend who is often asked to address graduating classes at both the high school and college level. One of his standard pieces of advice, whether it be about school or a workplace you may not be in love with, is to at least “show up.” The family that treats school attendance as optional is likely to produce adults who take a similarly nonchalant attitude toward their employment opportunities — with unfortunate results.
 

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

Among the more unheralded examples of collateral damage of the COVID epidemic is chronic absenteeism. A recent NPR/Ipsos poll found that parents ranked chronic absenteeism last in a list of 12 school-related concerns. Only 5% listed it first.

This is surprising and concerning, given that prior to the pandemic the rate of chronic absenteeism nationwide was 15%, but during the 2021-22 school year this doubled to 30% and it has not declined. In fact, in some states the chronic absenteeism rate is 40%. In 2020 8 million students were chronically absent. This number is now over 14 million. Chronic absenteeism is a metric defined as a student absent for 15 days or more, which comes out to around 10% of the school year. Chronic absenteeism has been used as a predictor of the student dropout rate.

Wilkoff_William_G_2_web.jpg

The initial contribution of the pandemic is easily explained, as parents were understandably concerned about sending their children into an environment that might cause disease, or at least bring the disease home to a more vulnerable family member. The reasons behind the trend’s persistence are a bit more complicated.

Family schedules initially disrupted by the pandemic have settled back into a pattern that may make it more difficult for a child to get to school. Day care and work schedules may have changed, but not yet readjusted to sync with the school schedule.

In the simplest terms, children and their families may have simply fallen out of the habit of going to school. For children (and maybe their parents) who had always struggled with an unresolved separation anxiety, the time at home — or at least not in school — came as a relief. Which, in turn, meant that any gains in dealing with the anxiety have been undone. The child who was already struggling academically or socially found being at home much less challenging. It’s not surprising that he/she might resist climbing back in the academic saddle.

It is very likely that a significant contributor to the persistent trend in chronic absenteeism is what social scientists call “norm erosion.” Not just children, but families may have developed an attitude that time spent in school just isn’t as valuable as they once believed, or were at least told that it was. There seems to be more parents questioning what their children are being taught in school. The home schooling movement existed before the pandemic. Its roots may be growing under the surface in the form of general skepticism about the importance of school in the bigger scheme of things. The home schooling movement was ready to blossom when the COVID pandemic triggered school closures. We hoped and dreamed that remote learning would be just as good as in-person school. We now realize that, in most cases, that was wishful thinking.

It feels as though a “Perfect Attendance Record” may have lost the cachet it once had. During the pandemic anyone claiming to have never missed a day at school lost that gold star. Did opening your computer every day to watch a remote learning session count for anything?

The threshold for allowing a child to stay home from school may be reaching a historic low. Families seem to regard the school schedule as a guideline that can easily be ignored when planning a vacation. Take little brother out of school to attend big brother’s lacrosse playoff game, not to worry if the youngster misses school days for a trip.

Who is responsible for reversing the trend? Teachers already know it is a serious problem. They view attendance as important. Maybe educators could make school more appealing. But to whom? Sounds like this message should be targeted at the parents. Would stiff penalties for parents whose children are chronically absent help? Would demanding a note from a physician after a certain number of absences help? It might. But, are pediatricians and educators ready to take on one more task in which parents have dropped the ball?

An unknown percentage of chronically absent children are missing school because of a previously unrecognized or inadequately treated mental health condition or learning disability. Involving physicians in a community’s response to chronic absenteeism may be the first step in getting a child back on track. If socioeconomic factors are contributing to a child’s truancy, the involvement of social service agencies may be the answer.

I have a friend who is often asked to address graduating classes at both the high school and college level. One of his standard pieces of advice, whether it be about school or a workplace you may not be in love with, is to at least “show up.” The family that treats school attendance as optional is likely to produce adults who take a similarly nonchalant attitude toward their employment opportunities — with unfortunate results.
 

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

Among the more unheralded examples of collateral damage of the COVID epidemic is chronic absenteeism. A recent NPR/Ipsos poll found that parents ranked chronic absenteeism last in a list of 12 school-related concerns. Only 5% listed it first.

This is surprising and concerning, given that prior to the pandemic the rate of chronic absenteeism nationwide was 15%, but during the 2021-22 school year this doubled to 30% and it has not declined. In fact, in some states the chronic absenteeism rate is 40%. In 2020 8 million students were chronically absent. This number is now over 14 million. Chronic absenteeism is a metric defined as a student absent for 15 days or more, which comes out to around 10% of the school year. Chronic absenteeism has been used as a predictor of the student dropout rate.

Wilkoff_William_G_2_web.jpg

The initial contribution of the pandemic is easily explained, as parents were understandably concerned about sending their children into an environment that might cause disease, or at least bring the disease home to a more vulnerable family member. The reasons behind the trend’s persistence are a bit more complicated.

Family schedules initially disrupted by the pandemic have settled back into a pattern that may make it more difficult for a child to get to school. Day care and work schedules may have changed, but not yet readjusted to sync with the school schedule.

In the simplest terms, children and their families may have simply fallen out of the habit of going to school. For children (and maybe their parents) who had always struggled with an unresolved separation anxiety, the time at home — or at least not in school — came as a relief. Which, in turn, meant that any gains in dealing with the anxiety have been undone. The child who was already struggling academically or socially found being at home much less challenging. It’s not surprising that he/she might resist climbing back in the academic saddle.

It is very likely that a significant contributor to the persistent trend in chronic absenteeism is what social scientists call “norm erosion.” Not just children, but families may have developed an attitude that time spent in school just isn’t as valuable as they once believed, or were at least told that it was. There seems to be more parents questioning what their children are being taught in school. The home schooling movement existed before the pandemic. Its roots may be growing under the surface in the form of general skepticism about the importance of school in the bigger scheme of things. The home schooling movement was ready to blossom when the COVID pandemic triggered school closures. We hoped and dreamed that remote learning would be just as good as in-person school. We now realize that, in most cases, that was wishful thinking.

It feels as though a “Perfect Attendance Record” may have lost the cachet it once had. During the pandemic anyone claiming to have never missed a day at school lost that gold star. Did opening your computer every day to watch a remote learning session count for anything?

The threshold for allowing a child to stay home from school may be reaching a historic low. Families seem to regard the school schedule as a guideline that can easily be ignored when planning a vacation. Take little brother out of school to attend big brother’s lacrosse playoff game, not to worry if the youngster misses school days for a trip.

Who is responsible for reversing the trend? Teachers already know it is a serious problem. They view attendance as important. Maybe educators could make school more appealing. But to whom? Sounds like this message should be targeted at the parents. Would stiff penalties for parents whose children are chronically absent help? Would demanding a note from a physician after a certain number of absences help? It might. But, are pediatricians and educators ready to take on one more task in which parents have dropped the ball?

An unknown percentage of chronically absent children are missing school because of a previously unrecognized or inadequately treated mental health condition or learning disability. Involving physicians in a community’s response to chronic absenteeism may be the first step in getting a child back on track. If socioeconomic factors are contributing to a child’s truancy, the involvement of social service agencies may be the answer.

I have a friend who is often asked to address graduating classes at both the high school and college level. One of his standard pieces of advice, whether it be about school or a workplace you may not be in love with, is to at least “show up.” The family that treats school attendance as optional is likely to produce adults who take a similarly nonchalant attitude toward their employment opportunities — with unfortunate results.
 

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

Using combined genetic testing in early childhood may decrease the misdiagnosis rate for Global Development Delay (GDD) and may help identify intervention targets, a new study suggests.

Researchers, led by Jiamei Zhang, MS, Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Third Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, China, in a multicenter, prospective cohort study enrolled patients ages 12 to 60 months with GDD from six centers in China from July 2020 through August 2023. Participants underwent trio whole exome sequencing (trio-WES) paired with copy number variation sequencing (CNV-seq).

“To the best of our knowledge, this study represents the largest prospective examination of combined genetic testing methods in a GDD cohort,” the authors reported in JAMA Network Open.

GDD is a common neurodevelopmental disorder, marked by cognitive impairment, and affects about 1% of children, the paper states. Most children with GDD develop intellectual disability (ID) after 5 years of age, with implications for quality of life, their physical abilities, and social functioning. Early and accurate diagnosis followed by appropriately targeted treatment is critical, but lacking. Researchers note that there is lack of consensus among health care professionals on whether genetic testing is necessary.

Genetics are known to play a significant role in pathogenesis of GDD, but definitive biomarkers have been elusive.
 

Positive Detection Rate of 61%

In this study, the combined use of trio-WES with CNV-seq in children with early-stage GDD resulted in a positive detection rate of 61%, a significant improvement over performing individual tests, “enhancing the positive detection rate by 18%-40%,” the researchers wrote. The combined approach also saves families time and costs, they note, while leading to more comprehensive genetic analysis and fewer missed diagnoses.

The combined approach also addressed the limitations of trio-WES and CNV-seq used alone, the authors wrote. Because of technological constraints, trio-WES may miss 55% of CNV variations, and CNV-seq has a missed diagnosis rate of 3%.

The study included 434 patients with GDD (60% male; average age, 25 months) with diverse degrees of cognitive impairment: mild (23%); moderate (32%); severe (28%); and profound (17%).

Three characteristics were linked with higher likelihood of having genetic variants: Craniofacial abnormalities (odds ratio [OR], 2.27; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.45-3.56); moderate or severe cognitive impairment (OR, 1.69; 95% CI, 1.05-2.70); and age between 12 and 24 months (OR, 1.57; 95% CI, 1.05-2.35).
 

Dopaminergic Pathway Promising for Treatment

Researchers also discovered that GDD-related genes were primarily enriched in lysosome, dopaminergic synapse, and lysine degradation pathways. Dopaminergic synapse emerged as a significant pathway linked with GDD.

“In this cohort study, our findings support the correlation between dopaminergic synapse and cognitive impairment, as substantiated by prior research and animal models. Therefore, targeting the dopaminergic pathway holds promise for treating GDD and ID,” the authors wrote.

However, the authors note in the limitations that they used only a subset of 100 patients with GDD to measure dopamine concentration.

“Expanding the sample size and conducting in vivo and in vitro experiments are necessary steps to verify whether dopamine can be targeted for clinical precision medical intervention in patients with GDD,” they wrote.

The authors reported no relevant financial relationships.

Using combined genetic testing in early childhood may decrease the misdiagnosis rate for Global Development Delay (GDD) and may help identify intervention targets, a new study suggests.

Researchers, led by Jiamei Zhang, MS, Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Third Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, China, in a multicenter, prospective cohort study enrolled patients ages 12 to 60 months with GDD from six centers in China from July 2020 through August 2023. Participants underwent trio whole exome sequencing (trio-WES) paired with copy number variation sequencing (CNV-seq).

“To the best of our knowledge, this study represents the largest prospective examination of combined genetic testing methods in a GDD cohort,” the authors reported in JAMA Network Open.

GDD is a common neurodevelopmental disorder, marked by cognitive impairment, and affects about 1% of children, the paper states. Most children with GDD develop intellectual disability (ID) after 5 years of age, with implications for quality of life, their physical abilities, and social functioning. Early and accurate diagnosis followed by appropriately targeted treatment is critical, but lacking. Researchers note that there is lack of consensus among health care professionals on whether genetic testing is necessary.

Genetics are known to play a significant role in pathogenesis of GDD, but definitive biomarkers have been elusive.
 

Positive Detection Rate of 61%

In this study, the combined use of trio-WES with CNV-seq in children with early-stage GDD resulted in a positive detection rate of 61%, a significant improvement over performing individual tests, “enhancing the positive detection rate by 18%-40%,” the researchers wrote. The combined approach also saves families time and costs, they note, while leading to more comprehensive genetic analysis and fewer missed diagnoses.

The combined approach also addressed the limitations of trio-WES and CNV-seq used alone, the authors wrote. Because of technological constraints, trio-WES may miss 55% of CNV variations, and CNV-seq has a missed diagnosis rate of 3%.

The study included 434 patients with GDD (60% male; average age, 25 months) with diverse degrees of cognitive impairment: mild (23%); moderate (32%); severe (28%); and profound (17%).

Three characteristics were linked with higher likelihood of having genetic variants: Craniofacial abnormalities (odds ratio [OR], 2.27; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.45-3.56); moderate or severe cognitive impairment (OR, 1.69; 95% CI, 1.05-2.70); and age between 12 and 24 months (OR, 1.57; 95% CI, 1.05-2.35).
 

Dopaminergic Pathway Promising for Treatment

Researchers also discovered that GDD-related genes were primarily enriched in lysosome, dopaminergic synapse, and lysine degradation pathways. Dopaminergic synapse emerged as a significant pathway linked with GDD.

“In this cohort study, our findings support the correlation between dopaminergic synapse and cognitive impairment, as substantiated by prior research and animal models. Therefore, targeting the dopaminergic pathway holds promise for treating GDD and ID,” the authors wrote.

However, the authors note in the limitations that they used only a subset of 100 patients with GDD to measure dopamine concentration.

“Expanding the sample size and conducting in vivo and in vitro experiments are necessary steps to verify whether dopamine can be targeted for clinical precision medical intervention in patients with GDD,” they wrote.

The authors reported no relevant financial relationships.

Using combined genetic testing in early childhood may decrease the misdiagnosis rate for Global Development Delay (GDD) and may help identify intervention targets, a new study suggests.

Researchers, led by Jiamei Zhang, MS, Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Third Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, China, in a multicenter, prospective cohort study enrolled patients ages 12 to 60 months with GDD from six centers in China from July 2020 through August 2023. Participants underwent trio whole exome sequencing (trio-WES) paired with copy number variation sequencing (CNV-seq).

“To the best of our knowledge, this study represents the largest prospective examination of combined genetic testing methods in a GDD cohort,” the authors reported in JAMA Network Open.

GDD is a common neurodevelopmental disorder, marked by cognitive impairment, and affects about 1% of children, the paper states. Most children with GDD develop intellectual disability (ID) after 5 years of age, with implications for quality of life, their physical abilities, and social functioning. Early and accurate diagnosis followed by appropriately targeted treatment is critical, but lacking. Researchers note that there is lack of consensus among health care professionals on whether genetic testing is necessary.

Genetics are known to play a significant role in pathogenesis of GDD, but definitive biomarkers have been elusive.
 

Positive Detection Rate of 61%

In this study, the combined use of trio-WES with CNV-seq in children with early-stage GDD resulted in a positive detection rate of 61%, a significant improvement over performing individual tests, “enhancing the positive detection rate by 18%-40%,” the researchers wrote. The combined approach also saves families time and costs, they note, while leading to more comprehensive genetic analysis and fewer missed diagnoses.

The combined approach also addressed the limitations of trio-WES and CNV-seq used alone, the authors wrote. Because of technological constraints, trio-WES may miss 55% of CNV variations, and CNV-seq has a missed diagnosis rate of 3%.

The study included 434 patients with GDD (60% male; average age, 25 months) with diverse degrees of cognitive impairment: mild (23%); moderate (32%); severe (28%); and profound (17%).

Three characteristics were linked with higher likelihood of having genetic variants: Craniofacial abnormalities (odds ratio [OR], 2.27; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.45-3.56); moderate or severe cognitive impairment (OR, 1.69; 95% CI, 1.05-2.70); and age between 12 and 24 months (OR, 1.57; 95% CI, 1.05-2.35).
 

Dopaminergic Pathway Promising for Treatment

Researchers also discovered that GDD-related genes were primarily enriched in lysosome, dopaminergic synapse, and lysine degradation pathways. Dopaminergic synapse emerged as a significant pathway linked with GDD.

“In this cohort study, our findings support the correlation between dopaminergic synapse and cognitive impairment, as substantiated by prior research and animal models. Therefore, targeting the dopaminergic pathway holds promise for treating GDD and ID,” the authors wrote.

However, the authors note in the limitations that they used only a subset of 100 patients with GDD to measure dopamine concentration.

“Expanding the sample size and conducting in vivo and in vitro experiments are necessary steps to verify whether dopamine can be targeted for clinical precision medical intervention in patients with GDD,” they wrote.

The authors reported no relevant financial relationships.

We recently shared a clinical case drawn from a family medicine practice about the effect of adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) on health. The widespread epidemiology and significant health consequences require a focus on the prevention and management of ACEs. 
 

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention published an important monograph on ACEs in 2019. Although it is evidence based, most of the interventions recommended to reduce ACEs and their sequelae are larger policy and public health efforts that go well beyond the clinician’s office. Important highlights from these recommended strategies to reduce ACEs include:

• Strengthen economic support for families through policies such as the earned income tax credit and child tax credit.
• Establish routine parental work/shift times to optimize cognitive outcomes in children.
• Promote social norms for healthy families through public health campaigns and legislative efforts to reduce corporal punishment of children. Bystander training that targets boys and men has also proven effective in reducing sexual violence.
• Facilitate early in-home visitation for at-risk families as well as high-quality childcare.
• Employ social-emotional learning approaches for children and adolescents, which can improve aggressive or violent behavior, rates of substance use, and academic success.
• Connect youth to after-school programs featuring caring adults.

But clinicians still play a vital role in the prevention and management of ACEs among their patients. Akin to gathering a patient’s past medical history or family history is initiating universal ACE screening in practice and exploring related topics in conversation.

The ACEs Aware initiative in California provides a comprehensive ACE screening clinical workflow to help implement these conversations in practice, including the assessment of associated health conditions and their appropriate clinical follow-up. While it is encouraged to universally screen patients, the key screenings to prioritize for the pediatric population are “parental depression, severe stress, unhealthy drug use, domestic violence, harsh punishment, [and] food insecurity.” Moreover, a systematic review by Steen and colleagues shared insight into newer interpretations of ACE screening which relate trauma to “[...] community violence, poverty, housing instability, structural racism, environmental blight, and climate change.” 

These exposures are now being investigated for a connection to the toxic stress response. In the long term, this genetic regulatory mechanism can be affected by “high doses of cumulative adversity experienced during critical and sensitive periods of early life development — without the buffering protections of trusted, nurturing caregivers and safe, stable environments.” This micro and macro lens fosters a deeper clinician understanding of a patient’s trauma origin and can better guide appropriate clinical follow-up. 

ACE-associated health conditions can be neurologic, endocrine, metabolic, or immune system–related. Early diagnosis and treatment of these conditions can help prevent long-term health care complications, costly for both patient and the health care system. 

After the initial clinical assessment, physicians can educate patients about the ways that ACE-associated health conditions are a consequence of toxic stress exposure. From there, physicians should rely on a broader integrated health team, within the health system and the community, to offer clinical interventions and services to mitigate patients’ toxic stress. The ACEs Aware Stress Buster wheel highlights seven targets to strategize stress regulation. This wheel can be used to identify existing protective factors for patients and track treatment progress, which may buffer the negative impact of stressors and contribute to health and resilience. 

The burden of universal screenings in primary care is high. Without ACE screening, however, the opportunity to address downstream health effects from toxic stress may be lost. Dubowitz and colleagues suggest ways to successfully incorporate ACE screenings in clinical workflow:

• Utilize technology to implement a streamlined referral processing/tracking system.
• Train clinicians to respond competently to positive ACE screens.
• Gather in-network and community-based resources for patients.

In addition, prioritize screening for families with children younger than 6 years of age to begin interventions as early as possible. Primary care clinicians have the unique opportunity to provide appropriate intervention over continual care. An intervention as simple as encouraging pediatric patient involvement in after-school programs may mitigate toxic stress and prevent the development of an ACE-associated health condition. 

Dr. Vega, Health Sciences Clinical Professor, Family Medicine, University of California, Irvine, disclosed ties with McNeil Pharmaceuticals. Alejandra Hurtado, MD candidate, University of California, Irvine School of Medicine, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

We recently shared a clinical case drawn from a family medicine practice about the effect of adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) on health. The widespread epidemiology and significant health consequences require a focus on the prevention and management of ACEs. 
 

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention published an important monograph on ACEs in 2019. Although it is evidence based, most of the interventions recommended to reduce ACEs and their sequelae are larger policy and public health efforts that go well beyond the clinician’s office. Important highlights from these recommended strategies to reduce ACEs include:

• Strengthen economic support for families through policies such as the earned income tax credit and child tax credit.
• Establish routine parental work/shift times to optimize cognitive outcomes in children.
• Promote social norms for healthy families through public health campaigns and legislative efforts to reduce corporal punishment of children. Bystander training that targets boys and men has also proven effective in reducing sexual violence.
• Facilitate early in-home visitation for at-risk families as well as high-quality childcare.
• Employ social-emotional learning approaches for children and adolescents, which can improve aggressive or violent behavior, rates of substance use, and academic success.
• Connect youth to after-school programs featuring caring adults.

But clinicians still play a vital role in the prevention and management of ACEs among their patients. Akin to gathering a patient’s past medical history or family history is initiating universal ACE screening in practice and exploring related topics in conversation.

The ACEs Aware initiative in California provides a comprehensive ACE screening clinical workflow to help implement these conversations in practice, including the assessment of associated health conditions and their appropriate clinical follow-up. While it is encouraged to universally screen patients, the key screenings to prioritize for the pediatric population are “parental depression, severe stress, unhealthy drug use, domestic violence, harsh punishment, [and] food insecurity.” Moreover, a systematic review by Steen and colleagues shared insight into newer interpretations of ACE screening which relate trauma to “[...] community violence, poverty, housing instability, structural racism, environmental blight, and climate change.” 

These exposures are now being investigated for a connection to the toxic stress response. In the long term, this genetic regulatory mechanism can be affected by “high doses of cumulative adversity experienced during critical and sensitive periods of early life development — without the buffering protections of trusted, nurturing caregivers and safe, stable environments.” This micro and macro lens fosters a deeper clinician understanding of a patient’s trauma origin and can better guide appropriate clinical follow-up. 

ACE-associated health conditions can be neurologic, endocrine, metabolic, or immune system–related. Early diagnosis and treatment of these conditions can help prevent long-term health care complications, costly for both patient and the health care system. 

After the initial clinical assessment, physicians can educate patients about the ways that ACE-associated health conditions are a consequence of toxic stress exposure. From there, physicians should rely on a broader integrated health team, within the health system and the community, to offer clinical interventions and services to mitigate patients’ toxic stress. The ACEs Aware Stress Buster wheel highlights seven targets to strategize stress regulation. This wheel can be used to identify existing protective factors for patients and track treatment progress, which may buffer the negative impact of stressors and contribute to health and resilience. 

The burden of universal screenings in primary care is high. Without ACE screening, however, the opportunity to address downstream health effects from toxic stress may be lost. Dubowitz and colleagues suggest ways to successfully incorporate ACE screenings in clinical workflow:

• Utilize technology to implement a streamlined referral processing/tracking system.
• Train clinicians to respond competently to positive ACE screens.
• Gather in-network and community-based resources for patients.

In addition, prioritize screening for families with children younger than 6 years of age to begin interventions as early as possible. Primary care clinicians have the unique opportunity to provide appropriate intervention over continual care. An intervention as simple as encouraging pediatric patient involvement in after-school programs may mitigate toxic stress and prevent the development of an ACE-associated health condition. 

Dr. Vega, Health Sciences Clinical Professor, Family Medicine, University of California, Irvine, disclosed ties with McNeil Pharmaceuticals. Alejandra Hurtado, MD candidate, University of California, Irvine School of Medicine, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

We recently shared a clinical case drawn from a family medicine practice about the effect of adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) on health. The widespread epidemiology and significant health consequences require a focus on the prevention and management of ACEs. 
 

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention published an important monograph on ACEs in 2019. Although it is evidence based, most of the interventions recommended to reduce ACEs and their sequelae are larger policy and public health efforts that go well beyond the clinician’s office. Important highlights from these recommended strategies to reduce ACEs include:

• Strengthen economic support for families through policies such as the earned income tax credit and child tax credit.
• Establish routine parental work/shift times to optimize cognitive outcomes in children.
• Promote social norms for healthy families through public health campaigns and legislative efforts to reduce corporal punishment of children. Bystander training that targets boys and men has also proven effective in reducing sexual violence.
• Facilitate early in-home visitation for at-risk families as well as high-quality childcare.
• Employ social-emotional learning approaches for children and adolescents, which can improve aggressive or violent behavior, rates of substance use, and academic success.
• Connect youth to after-school programs featuring caring adults.

But clinicians still play a vital role in the prevention and management of ACEs among their patients. Akin to gathering a patient’s past medical history or family history is initiating universal ACE screening in practice and exploring related topics in conversation.

The ACEs Aware initiative in California provides a comprehensive ACE screening clinical workflow to help implement these conversations in practice, including the assessment of associated health conditions and their appropriate clinical follow-up. While it is encouraged to universally screen patients, the key screenings to prioritize for the pediatric population are “parental depression, severe stress, unhealthy drug use, domestic violence, harsh punishment, [and] food insecurity.” Moreover, a systematic review by Steen and colleagues shared insight into newer interpretations of ACE screening which relate trauma to “[...] community violence, poverty, housing instability, structural racism, environmental blight, and climate change.” 

These exposures are now being investigated for a connection to the toxic stress response. In the long term, this genetic regulatory mechanism can be affected by “high doses of cumulative adversity experienced during critical and sensitive periods of early life development — without the buffering protections of trusted, nurturing caregivers and safe, stable environments.” This micro and macro lens fosters a deeper clinician understanding of a patient’s trauma origin and can better guide appropriate clinical follow-up. 

ACE-associated health conditions can be neurologic, endocrine, metabolic, or immune system–related. Early diagnosis and treatment of these conditions can help prevent long-term health care complications, costly for both patient and the health care system. 

After the initial clinical assessment, physicians can educate patients about the ways that ACE-associated health conditions are a consequence of toxic stress exposure. From there, physicians should rely on a broader integrated health team, within the health system and the community, to offer clinical interventions and services to mitigate patients’ toxic stress. The ACEs Aware Stress Buster wheel highlights seven targets to strategize stress regulation. This wheel can be used to identify existing protective factors for patients and track treatment progress, which may buffer the negative impact of stressors and contribute to health and resilience. 

The burden of universal screenings in primary care is high. Without ACE screening, however, the opportunity to address downstream health effects from toxic stress may be lost. Dubowitz and colleagues suggest ways to successfully incorporate ACE screenings in clinical workflow:

• Utilize technology to implement a streamlined referral processing/tracking system.
• Train clinicians to respond competently to positive ACE screens.
• Gather in-network and community-based resources for patients.

In addition, prioritize screening for families with children younger than 6 years of age to begin interventions as early as possible. Primary care clinicians have the unique opportunity to provide appropriate intervention over continual care. An intervention as simple as encouraging pediatric patient involvement in after-school programs may mitigate toxic stress and prevent the development of an ACE-associated health condition. 

Dr. Vega, Health Sciences Clinical Professor, Family Medicine, University of California, Irvine, disclosed ties with McNeil Pharmaceuticals. Alejandra Hurtado, MD candidate, University of California, Irvine School of Medicine, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Almost all primary care providers (PCPs) have taken on diagnosing and managing ADHD. With about 12% of school aged children affected, typical PCPs can expect about 240 children with ADHD under their care. Adopting this primary care function has been helped by having clear diagnostic criteria for the three DMS 5 “presentations” of ADHD, open source tools (e.g. Vanderbilts), expectation of collaboration by educators, American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) guidelines for diagnosis and management, Society for Developmental–Behavioral Pediatrics guidelines for “complex ADHD,” and access to effective medication treatments PCPs can provide (although less so for behavioral ones), cultural acceptance of individuals with ADHD, and especially reliable payment by insurers.

Screening

But what about PCP management of autism spectrum disorder (ASD), now affecting 2.8%, for an expected 60 children under care for each of us? PCP detection and care for children with ASD is more complex than ADHD, but even more essential, so we need to learn the skills. It is more essential because very early detection and entry into evidence-based intervention has long-term benefits for the child and family that are not as crucial for ADHD. While ADHD symptoms may not impact functioning until age 7 or even 12 years of age, signs of ASD usually emerge earlier (by 18 months) but gradually and about 30% after apparently normal development even to age 2 years.

Howard_Barbara_BALT_2024_web.jpg

Screening is crucial, but unfortunately not perfect. Recent AAP surveys show that most PCPs screen for autism at the recommended 18 and 24 months. But what happens after that? How many offices are tracking referrals for positive screens for needed evaluations and early intervention? Our data shows that tracking is rarely done and children do not start to get the benefit of early intervention until 4.5 years of age, on average.
 

Diagnostic Testing

And screening is the easiest part of addressing ASD. Wait times for diagnostic testing can be agonizing months to years. Multiple programs are training PCPs to perform hands-on 10- to 30-minute secondary screening with considerable success. You can become proficient on tools such as STAT (Screening Tool for Autism in Two-Year-Olds), RITA-T (Rapid Interactive Screening Test for Autism in Toddlers), BISCUIT (Baby and Infant Screen for Children with Autism Traits), SORF (Systematic Observation of Red Flags), ADEC (Autism Detection in Early Childhood) or CARS (Childhood Autism Rating Scale) with a few hours of training. Even secondary assessments done virtually by PCPs such as TELE-ASD-PEDS quite accurately predict a verifiable ASD diagnosis for those referred by concerns. Some problems of the reported accuracy of these secondary screening processes have to do with validation in samples of children for whom parents or clinicians already had concern and generally not including many younger children in whom it is so important to detect. Level of confidence of developmental and behavioral pediatricians of the presence of ASD is highly related to ultimate diagnosis. But success with PCPs’ mastering secondary screening has not yet been reported to convince insurers to approve payment for intervention services such as Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA).

Comorbidity

Co-existing conditions affect the majority of patients with ASD (70%), compared with ADHD, but with a broader range and more debilitating and difficult to manage conditions. More medical co-existing issues such as intellectual disability (25%-75%), seizures (12%-26%), motor incoordination (51%), GI conditions (9%-91%), sleep difficulty (50%-80%), sleep apnea, congenital heart disease, avoidant-restrictive food intake disorder, autoimmune disorders, and genetic syndromes (e.g. Fragile X, tuberous sclerosis, Down, Angelman’s, untreated PKU, neurofibromatosis, Klinefelter syndrome) reflect the range of underpinnings of ASD. The need to detect and manage these co-existing issues, besides assessing hearing and vision, makes our skilled involvement and vigilance in ASD care essential. Referring for help from OTs, PTs, speech pathologists, neurologists, psychologists, and special educators as issues in their domains are prioritized is also our responsibility. We must also help families balance utilizing these resources so as to avoid overwhelm.

Anxiety (50%), ADHD (37%-85%), depression (54%), bipolar (7.3%), suicidal ideation (40% starting < 8 years), and emotion dysregulation, familiar to us from our management of ADHD, may develop but are often less well defined and more intractable in ASD, making use of screening tools essential. Using a system like CHADIS that has online pre-visit and monitoring screens delivered based on algorithms for the numerous co-existing conditions, automated handouts, and functions to make and track referral success can facilitate care for this complex chronic condition. Identifying mental health providers with ASD expertise is more difficult, so more management is on us. While medications for these conditions can be beneficial, we need to learn to use lower doses, slower dose increases, and employ problem-solving of side effects with more parent collaboration than for ADHD as children with ASD often cannot self-report effectively. We need to ask about the common ad hoc use of complementary medications and substances (32%-87%) that may be complicating. Of course, these conditions and the caveats of management require more of our time with the patient and family as well as communication with the many other professionals involved. It is important to set our own and our families’ expectations (and schedules) for much more frequent contact and also to bill appropriately with chronic care (99487,89,90) and collaborative care CPT codes (99492,3,4 or G2214).
 

Behavioral Manifestations

During our care, the often extreme behavioral manifestations of ASD may be the most pressing issues. We need new understanding and skills to sort out and counsel on inflexible, explosive, and sensory triggered behaviors. Just as for ADHD, using the approach of Functional Behavioral Assessment and plans for home as well as school behavior can be key. More difficult in ASD is looking for physical causes, since the child may not provide clear cues because of communication and sensory differences. Conditions common in children with ASD such as constipation, dental caries, otitis, dietary intolerances, allergies, migraine, sleep deficits, menstrual cramps, or fears and changes from puberty manifesting behaviorally are often tricky to sort out.

While the diagnosis of ASD, as for ADHD, does not require any laboratory testing, looking for possible causes is important information for the family and someday may also lead to genetic or other therapies. We need to know that recommendations include screening for Ferritin, Pb, chromosomal microarray and FMR I testing as well as checking that PKU was normal; MECP 2 is indicated in females and symptomatic males; and PTENS testing for children with head circumference greater than 2.5-3 SD. Metabolic and mitochondrial assays are indicated only when symptoms suggest. We need to develop confidence to reserve MRIs or EEGs for cases with abnormal neuro. exams, regression, or history of seizures. It is demanding to keep up with AAP recommendations in this very active area of research.
 

Interventions

The interventions for ADHD are generally school accommodations and therapies for comorbidities. In contrast, since core social communication skills are the main deficit in ASD, all children screened positive for ASD should be referred for early intervention while awaiting, as well as after, diagnosis. While all states have no or low-cost early intervention, quality and quantity (of hours offered) varies. We should also recommend and try to determine if evidence-based intervention is being provided, such as pivotal response training, UCLA discrete trial therapy, Carbone’s verbal behavior, applied behavior analysis (ABA), Early Start Denver Model, and sometimes music and social skills trainings (effect size 0.42-0.76). Such professional interventions have best evidence with more than 25 hours/week but 15 hours has benefit for higher functioning children. CBT can help anxiety even in younger children. One way for families to provide more hours and more generalizable intervention is coaching by the PLAY Project or DIRFloortime, parent mediated interventions with evidence, some with training both in person or online. Alternative communication training and other condition specific assistance are often needed (e.g. Picture Exchange Communication System for nonverbal children).

While we should already be familiar with writing 504 plan and IEP requests to schools, which also apply to children with ASD, in addition we need to be ready to advise about other legal rights including autism waivers, wraparound services, guardianship, and trust accounts. We can share quality educational materials available online (e.g. from Autism Speaks, SPARK, and Autism Navigator). Social media groups may be supportive, but also may contain disinformation we need to dispel.

Unfortunately, templates, questionnaires, and lack of interdisciplinary referral and communication functions of EHRs don’t support the complexities of care for ASD. While the AAP has guidelines for diagnosis and management and an online toolkit, consider adding a system with an autism-specific module like CHADIS and joining the Autism Care Network or ECHO Autism sessions to get both information and support to take on the evolving critical role of autism care.
 

Dr. Howard is assistant professor of pediatrics at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and creator of CHADIS. She had no other relevant disclosures. Dr. Howard’s contribution to this publication was as a paid expert to MDedge News. E-mail her at pdnews@mdedge.com.

Almost all primary care providers (PCPs) have taken on diagnosing and managing ADHD. With about 12% of school aged children affected, typical PCPs can expect about 240 children with ADHD under their care. Adopting this primary care function has been helped by having clear diagnostic criteria for the three DMS 5 “presentations” of ADHD, open source tools (e.g. Vanderbilts), expectation of collaboration by educators, American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) guidelines for diagnosis and management, Society for Developmental–Behavioral Pediatrics guidelines for “complex ADHD,” and access to effective medication treatments PCPs can provide (although less so for behavioral ones), cultural acceptance of individuals with ADHD, and especially reliable payment by insurers.

Screening

But what about PCP management of autism spectrum disorder (ASD), now affecting 2.8%, for an expected 60 children under care for each of us? PCP detection and care for children with ASD is more complex than ADHD, but even more essential, so we need to learn the skills. It is more essential because very early detection and entry into evidence-based intervention has long-term benefits for the child and family that are not as crucial for ADHD. While ADHD symptoms may not impact functioning until age 7 or even 12 years of age, signs of ASD usually emerge earlier (by 18 months) but gradually and about 30% after apparently normal development even to age 2 years.

Howard_Barbara_BALT_2024_web.jpg

Screening is crucial, but unfortunately not perfect. Recent AAP surveys show that most PCPs screen for autism at the recommended 18 and 24 months. But what happens after that? How many offices are tracking referrals for positive screens for needed evaluations and early intervention? Our data shows that tracking is rarely done and children do not start to get the benefit of early intervention until 4.5 years of age, on average.
 

Diagnostic Testing

And screening is the easiest part of addressing ASD. Wait times for diagnostic testing can be agonizing months to years. Multiple programs are training PCPs to perform hands-on 10- to 30-minute secondary screening with considerable success. You can become proficient on tools such as STAT (Screening Tool for Autism in Two-Year-Olds), RITA-T (Rapid Interactive Screening Test for Autism in Toddlers), BISCUIT (Baby and Infant Screen for Children with Autism Traits), SORF (Systematic Observation of Red Flags), ADEC (Autism Detection in Early Childhood) or CARS (Childhood Autism Rating Scale) with a few hours of training. Even secondary assessments done virtually by PCPs such as TELE-ASD-PEDS quite accurately predict a verifiable ASD diagnosis for those referred by concerns. Some problems of the reported accuracy of these secondary screening processes have to do with validation in samples of children for whom parents or clinicians already had concern and generally not including many younger children in whom it is so important to detect. Level of confidence of developmental and behavioral pediatricians of the presence of ASD is highly related to ultimate diagnosis. But success with PCPs’ mastering secondary screening has not yet been reported to convince insurers to approve payment for intervention services such as Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA).

Comorbidity

Co-existing conditions affect the majority of patients with ASD (70%), compared with ADHD, but with a broader range and more debilitating and difficult to manage conditions. More medical co-existing issues such as intellectual disability (25%-75%), seizures (12%-26%), motor incoordination (51%), GI conditions (9%-91%), sleep difficulty (50%-80%), sleep apnea, congenital heart disease, avoidant-restrictive food intake disorder, autoimmune disorders, and genetic syndromes (e.g. Fragile X, tuberous sclerosis, Down, Angelman’s, untreated PKU, neurofibromatosis, Klinefelter syndrome) reflect the range of underpinnings of ASD. The need to detect and manage these co-existing issues, besides assessing hearing and vision, makes our skilled involvement and vigilance in ASD care essential. Referring for help from OTs, PTs, speech pathologists, neurologists, psychologists, and special educators as issues in their domains are prioritized is also our responsibility. We must also help families balance utilizing these resources so as to avoid overwhelm.

Anxiety (50%), ADHD (37%-85%), depression (54%), bipolar (7.3%), suicidal ideation (40% starting < 8 years), and emotion dysregulation, familiar to us from our management of ADHD, may develop but are often less well defined and more intractable in ASD, making use of screening tools essential. Using a system like CHADIS that has online pre-visit and monitoring screens delivered based on algorithms for the numerous co-existing conditions, automated handouts, and functions to make and track referral success can facilitate care for this complex chronic condition. Identifying mental health providers with ASD expertise is more difficult, so more management is on us. While medications for these conditions can be beneficial, we need to learn to use lower doses, slower dose increases, and employ problem-solving of side effects with more parent collaboration than for ADHD as children with ASD often cannot self-report effectively. We need to ask about the common ad hoc use of complementary medications and substances (32%-87%) that may be complicating. Of course, these conditions and the caveats of management require more of our time with the patient and family as well as communication with the many other professionals involved. It is important to set our own and our families’ expectations (and schedules) for much more frequent contact and also to bill appropriately with chronic care (99487,89,90) and collaborative care CPT codes (99492,3,4 or G2214).
 

Behavioral Manifestations

During our care, the often extreme behavioral manifestations of ASD may be the most pressing issues. We need new understanding and skills to sort out and counsel on inflexible, explosive, and sensory triggered behaviors. Just as for ADHD, using the approach of Functional Behavioral Assessment and plans for home as well as school behavior can be key. More difficult in ASD is looking for physical causes, since the child may not provide clear cues because of communication and sensory differences. Conditions common in children with ASD such as constipation, dental caries, otitis, dietary intolerances, allergies, migraine, sleep deficits, menstrual cramps, or fears and changes from puberty manifesting behaviorally are often tricky to sort out.

While the diagnosis of ASD, as for ADHD, does not require any laboratory testing, looking for possible causes is important information for the family and someday may also lead to genetic or other therapies. We need to know that recommendations include screening for Ferritin, Pb, chromosomal microarray and FMR I testing as well as checking that PKU was normal; MECP 2 is indicated in females and symptomatic males; and PTENS testing for children with head circumference greater than 2.5-3 SD. Metabolic and mitochondrial assays are indicated only when symptoms suggest. We need to develop confidence to reserve MRIs or EEGs for cases with abnormal neuro. exams, regression, or history of seizures. It is demanding to keep up with AAP recommendations in this very active area of research.
 

Interventions

The interventions for ADHD are generally school accommodations and therapies for comorbidities. In contrast, since core social communication skills are the main deficit in ASD, all children screened positive for ASD should be referred for early intervention while awaiting, as well as after, diagnosis. While all states have no or low-cost early intervention, quality and quantity (of hours offered) varies. We should also recommend and try to determine if evidence-based intervention is being provided, such as pivotal response training, UCLA discrete trial therapy, Carbone’s verbal behavior, applied behavior analysis (ABA), Early Start Denver Model, and sometimes music and social skills trainings (effect size 0.42-0.76). Such professional interventions have best evidence with more than 25 hours/week but 15 hours has benefit for higher functioning children. CBT can help anxiety even in younger children. One way for families to provide more hours and more generalizable intervention is coaching by the PLAY Project or DIRFloortime, parent mediated interventions with evidence, some with training both in person or online. Alternative communication training and other condition specific assistance are often needed (e.g. Picture Exchange Communication System for nonverbal children).

While we should already be familiar with writing 504 plan and IEP requests to schools, which also apply to children with ASD, in addition we need to be ready to advise about other legal rights including autism waivers, wraparound services, guardianship, and trust accounts. We can share quality educational materials available online (e.g. from Autism Speaks, SPARK, and Autism Navigator). Social media groups may be supportive, but also may contain disinformation we need to dispel.

Unfortunately, templates, questionnaires, and lack of interdisciplinary referral and communication functions of EHRs don’t support the complexities of care for ASD. While the AAP has guidelines for diagnosis and management and an online toolkit, consider adding a system with an autism-specific module like CHADIS and joining the Autism Care Network or ECHO Autism sessions to get both information and support to take on the evolving critical role of autism care.
 

Dr. Howard is assistant professor of pediatrics at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and creator of CHADIS. She had no other relevant disclosures. Dr. Howard’s contribution to this publication was as a paid expert to MDedge News. E-mail her at pdnews@mdedge.com.

Almost all primary care providers (PCPs) have taken on diagnosing and managing ADHD. With about 12% of school aged children affected, typical PCPs can expect about 240 children with ADHD under their care. Adopting this primary care function has been helped by having clear diagnostic criteria for the three DMS 5 “presentations” of ADHD, open source tools (e.g. Vanderbilts), expectation of collaboration by educators, American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) guidelines for diagnosis and management, Society for Developmental–Behavioral Pediatrics guidelines for “complex ADHD,” and access to effective medication treatments PCPs can provide (although less so for behavioral ones), cultural acceptance of individuals with ADHD, and especially reliable payment by insurers.

Screening

But what about PCP management of autism spectrum disorder (ASD), now affecting 2.8%, for an expected 60 children under care for each of us? PCP detection and care for children with ASD is more complex than ADHD, but even more essential, so we need to learn the skills. It is more essential because very early detection and entry into evidence-based intervention has long-term benefits for the child and family that are not as crucial for ADHD. While ADHD symptoms may not impact functioning until age 7 or even 12 years of age, signs of ASD usually emerge earlier (by 18 months) but gradually and about 30% after apparently normal development even to age 2 years.

Howard_Barbara_BALT_2024_web.jpg

Screening is crucial, but unfortunately not perfect. Recent AAP surveys show that most PCPs screen for autism at the recommended 18 and 24 months. But what happens after that? How many offices are tracking referrals for positive screens for needed evaluations and early intervention? Our data shows that tracking is rarely done and children do not start to get the benefit of early intervention until 4.5 years of age, on average.
 

Diagnostic Testing

And screening is the easiest part of addressing ASD. Wait times for diagnostic testing can be agonizing months to years. Multiple programs are training PCPs to perform hands-on 10- to 30-minute secondary screening with considerable success. You can become proficient on tools such as STAT (Screening Tool for Autism in Two-Year-Olds), RITA-T (Rapid Interactive Screening Test for Autism in Toddlers), BISCUIT (Baby and Infant Screen for Children with Autism Traits), SORF (Systematic Observation of Red Flags), ADEC (Autism Detection in Early Childhood) or CARS (Childhood Autism Rating Scale) with a few hours of training. Even secondary assessments done virtually by PCPs such as TELE-ASD-PEDS quite accurately predict a verifiable ASD diagnosis for those referred by concerns. Some problems of the reported accuracy of these secondary screening processes have to do with validation in samples of children for whom parents or clinicians already had concern and generally not including many younger children in whom it is so important to detect. Level of confidence of developmental and behavioral pediatricians of the presence of ASD is highly related to ultimate diagnosis. But success with PCPs’ mastering secondary screening has not yet been reported to convince insurers to approve payment for intervention services such as Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA).

Comorbidity

Co-existing conditions affect the majority of patients with ASD (70%), compared with ADHD, but with a broader range and more debilitating and difficult to manage conditions. More medical co-existing issues such as intellectual disability (25%-75%), seizures (12%-26%), motor incoordination (51%), GI conditions (9%-91%), sleep difficulty (50%-80%), sleep apnea, congenital heart disease, avoidant-restrictive food intake disorder, autoimmune disorders, and genetic syndromes (e.g. Fragile X, tuberous sclerosis, Down, Angelman’s, untreated PKU, neurofibromatosis, Klinefelter syndrome) reflect the range of underpinnings of ASD. The need to detect and manage these co-existing issues, besides assessing hearing and vision, makes our skilled involvement and vigilance in ASD care essential. Referring for help from OTs, PTs, speech pathologists, neurologists, psychologists, and special educators as issues in their domains are prioritized is also our responsibility. We must also help families balance utilizing these resources so as to avoid overwhelm.

Anxiety (50%), ADHD (37%-85%), depression (54%), bipolar (7.3%), suicidal ideation (40% starting < 8 years), and emotion dysregulation, familiar to us from our management of ADHD, may develop but are often less well defined and more intractable in ASD, making use of screening tools essential. Using a system like CHADIS that has online pre-visit and monitoring screens delivered based on algorithms for the numerous co-existing conditions, automated handouts, and functions to make and track referral success can facilitate care for this complex chronic condition. Identifying mental health providers with ASD expertise is more difficult, so more management is on us. While medications for these conditions can be beneficial, we need to learn to use lower doses, slower dose increases, and employ problem-solving of side effects with more parent collaboration than for ADHD as children with ASD often cannot self-report effectively. We need to ask about the common ad hoc use of complementary medications and substances (32%-87%) that may be complicating. Of course, these conditions and the caveats of management require more of our time with the patient and family as well as communication with the many other professionals involved. It is important to set our own and our families’ expectations (and schedules) for much more frequent contact and also to bill appropriately with chronic care (99487,89,90) and collaborative care CPT codes (99492,3,4 or G2214).
 

Behavioral Manifestations

During our care, the often extreme behavioral manifestations of ASD may be the most pressing issues. We need new understanding and skills to sort out and counsel on inflexible, explosive, and sensory triggered behaviors. Just as for ADHD, using the approach of Functional Behavioral Assessment and plans for home as well as school behavior can be key. More difficult in ASD is looking for physical causes, since the child may not provide clear cues because of communication and sensory differences. Conditions common in children with ASD such as constipation, dental caries, otitis, dietary intolerances, allergies, migraine, sleep deficits, menstrual cramps, or fears and changes from puberty manifesting behaviorally are often tricky to sort out.

While the diagnosis of ASD, as for ADHD, does not require any laboratory testing, looking for possible causes is important information for the family and someday may also lead to genetic or other therapies. We need to know that recommendations include screening for Ferritin, Pb, chromosomal microarray and FMR I testing as well as checking that PKU was normal; MECP 2 is indicated in females and symptomatic males; and PTENS testing for children with head circumference greater than 2.5-3 SD. Metabolic and mitochondrial assays are indicated only when symptoms suggest. We need to develop confidence to reserve MRIs or EEGs for cases with abnormal neuro. exams, regression, or history of seizures. It is demanding to keep up with AAP recommendations in this very active area of research.
 

Interventions

The interventions for ADHD are generally school accommodations and therapies for comorbidities. In contrast, since core social communication skills are the main deficit in ASD, all children screened positive for ASD should be referred for early intervention while awaiting, as well as after, diagnosis. While all states have no or low-cost early intervention, quality and quantity (of hours offered) varies. We should also recommend and try to determine if evidence-based intervention is being provided, such as pivotal response training, UCLA discrete trial therapy, Carbone’s verbal behavior, applied behavior analysis (ABA), Early Start Denver Model, and sometimes music and social skills trainings (effect size 0.42-0.76). Such professional interventions have best evidence with more than 25 hours/week but 15 hours has benefit for higher functioning children. CBT can help anxiety even in younger children. One way for families to provide more hours and more generalizable intervention is coaching by the PLAY Project or DIRFloortime, parent mediated interventions with evidence, some with training both in person or online. Alternative communication training and other condition specific assistance are often needed (e.g. Picture Exchange Communication System for nonverbal children).

While we should already be familiar with writing 504 plan and IEP requests to schools, which also apply to children with ASD, in addition we need to be ready to advise about other legal rights including autism waivers, wraparound services, guardianship, and trust accounts. We can share quality educational materials available online (e.g. from Autism Speaks, SPARK, and Autism Navigator). Social media groups may be supportive, but also may contain disinformation we need to dispel.

Unfortunately, templates, questionnaires, and lack of interdisciplinary referral and communication functions of EHRs don’t support the complexities of care for ASD. While the AAP has guidelines for diagnosis and management and an online toolkit, consider adding a system with an autism-specific module like CHADIS and joining the Autism Care Network or ECHO Autism sessions to get both information and support to take on the evolving critical role of autism care.
 

Dr. Howard is assistant professor of pediatrics at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and creator of CHADIS. She had no other relevant disclosures. Dr. Howard’s contribution to this publication was as a paid expert to MDedge News. E-mail her at pdnews@mdedge.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

Matthew F. Watto, MD: Welcome back to The Curbsiders. I’m Dr. Matthew Frank Watto, here with my great friend and America’s primary care physician, Dr. Paul Nelson Williams. Paul, are you ready to talk about anxiety?

Paul N. Williams, MD: Always. It’s one of my favorite topics. 

Dr. Watto: We had a great guest for this podcast on anxiety — Dr. Jessi Gold, who gave us a lot of practical tips. The way she talks to her patients about anxiety is really useful. When patients say “my anxiety” or “I feel anxious,” she considers that a symptom. Anxiety can be a diagnosis or a symptom. You need to clarify what they mean when they refer to their anxiety and dig into how it affects their life. 

We asked her about the Generalized Anxiety Disorder (GAD)-7 score. Like most of the experts we’ve talked to, she’s internalized that, so she doesn’t need to rely on a questionnaire. But I still rely on a questionnaire when I’m taking a history for anxiety. 

We also asked her how she explains anxiety to patients. I don’t know about you, Paul, but I’ve never really thought about explaining to patients why they have anxiety. 

Dr. Williams: I’ve done my best to try to normalize it, but I haven’t actually talked to patients about the evolutionary advantage of anxiety. 

Dr. Watto: She frames it to patients this way: As we were evolving, it was somewhat of an advantage to be hypervigilant, to have some anxiety and a healthy amount of fear so that you weren’t killed or eaten. But now, in the modern world, anxiety isn’t playing to our advantage. Anxiety is not making them safer; it’s making their lives worse. She explains to patients that she’s trying to help them overcome that. 

In terms of pharmacotherapy for anxiety, I always think about SSRIs as one of the first steps. Why not use an SNRI as first-line treatment?

Dr. Williams: I was glad we had this conversation because I feel, for whatever reason, a bit more comfortable treating depression than anxiety. In any case, Dr. Gold reaches for the SSRI first, in part because getting off an SNRI (for example, to switch to something else) can be absolutely miserable. The discontinuation effects can be severe enough to have to bridge some patients with a benzodiazepine to get them fully off the SNRI. So, an SNRI is not the first drug you should necessarily reach for. 

She thinks about using an SNRI if she has tried a couple of SSRIs that have been ineffective, or if the patient has a comorbid condition that might also benefit from the SNRI in the same way that you might use a tricyclic antidepressant in the patient with both migraines and anxiety. An SNRI might be a good medication to consider in the patient with neuropathic pain and anxiety but rarely as a first-line treatment, because if it doesn’t work out, getting the patient off that medication can be a challenge.

Dr. Watto: She mentioned venlafaxine as being especially difficult to get people off of. I’ve heard that bupropion should never be used in anxiety, and if you give it, you are a terrible doctor. What did we learn about that? 

Dr. Williams: It’s a drug I’ve hesitated to prescribe to patients with anxiety or even comorbid anxiety. I’m a little bit nervous for someone who has depression and anxiety to prescribe bupropion because it can be activating and make things worse. But Dr. Gold says that she has seen bupropion work for some patients so she will consider it, especially for patients who don’t want to gain weight, or for whom sexual side effects would be bothersome. So, it’s not always the wrong answer. In her expert opinion, you can try it and see how the patient responds, using shared decision-making and letting the patient know that they may not tolerate it as well as other medications. 

Dr. Watto: She sees a lot of younger people — students, working professionals — who do not want to gain weight, and that’s understandable. She will tell patients, “We can try bupropion, but if you get more anxious, we might not be able to continue it. We might have to use one of the first-line agents instead.” 

Dr. Williams: We talked about mirtazapine as well. She tells patients they are going to gain weight with it. You have to have that conversation with the patient to see whether that is something they are willing to tolerate. If so, mirtazapine might be worth a try, but you have to be upfront about the potential side effects and know what the medications you’re prescribing will do to patients. 

Dr. Watto: We asked her about benzodiazepines. For as-needed medication for people who are experiencing panic or anxiety attacks, she prescribes propranolol 10-20 mg twice a day as needed, which is a low dose. In primary care, we use higher doses for migraine prophylaxis. 

She uses propranolol because for some patients, it’s the physical symptoms of anxiety that are bothering them. She can calm down the physical symptoms with that and get by without needing to use a benzodiazepine. 

But what about thoughts that make people anxious? Can we change people’s thoughts with medication? 

Dr. Williams: Dr. Gold made the point that we can medicate away insomnia, for the most part. We can medicate away the physical symptoms of anxiety, which can be really bothersome. But we can’t medicate away thoughts and thought patterns. You can make patients feel better with medications, but you may not be able to get rid of the persistent bothersome thoughts. That’s where cognitive-behavioral therapy can be especially helpful. Most of these patients would benefit from therapy.

Dr. Watto: I completely agree with that. We talked about so many great things with Dr. Gold, but we can’t recap all of it here. Please click on this link to hear the full podcast episode. 
 

Dr. Watto is Clinical Assistant Professor, Department of Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine at University of Pennsylvania; Internist, Department of Medicine, Hospital Medicine Section, Pennsylvania Hospital, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Williams is Associate Professor of Clinical Medicine, Department of General Internal Medicine, Lewis Katz School of Medicine; Staff Physician, Department of General Internal Medicine, Temple Internal Medicine Associates, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. He disclosed receiving income from The Curbsiders. The Curbsiders is an internal medicine podcast, in which three board-certified internists interview experts on clinically important topics. In a collaboration with Medscape, the Curbsiders share clinical pearls and practice-changing knowledge from selected podcasts.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

Matthew F. Watto, MD: Welcome back to The Curbsiders. I’m Dr. Matthew Frank Watto, here with my great friend and America’s primary care physician, Dr. Paul Nelson Williams. Paul, are you ready to talk about anxiety?

Paul N. Williams, MD: Always. It’s one of my favorite topics. 

Dr. Watto: We had a great guest for this podcast on anxiety — Dr. Jessi Gold, who gave us a lot of practical tips. The way she talks to her patients about anxiety is really useful. When patients say “my anxiety” or “I feel anxious,” she considers that a symptom. Anxiety can be a diagnosis or a symptom. You need to clarify what they mean when they refer to their anxiety and dig into how it affects their life. 

We asked her about the Generalized Anxiety Disorder (GAD)-7 score. Like most of the experts we’ve talked to, she’s internalized that, so she doesn’t need to rely on a questionnaire. But I still rely on a questionnaire when I’m taking a history for anxiety. 

We also asked her how she explains anxiety to patients. I don’t know about you, Paul, but I’ve never really thought about explaining to patients why they have anxiety. 

Dr. Williams: I’ve done my best to try to normalize it, but I haven’t actually talked to patients about the evolutionary advantage of anxiety. 

Dr. Watto: She frames it to patients this way: As we were evolving, it was somewhat of an advantage to be hypervigilant, to have some anxiety and a healthy amount of fear so that you weren’t killed or eaten. But now, in the modern world, anxiety isn’t playing to our advantage. Anxiety is not making them safer; it’s making their lives worse. She explains to patients that she’s trying to help them overcome that. 

In terms of pharmacotherapy for anxiety, I always think about SSRIs as one of the first steps. Why not use an SNRI as first-line treatment?

Dr. Williams: I was glad we had this conversation because I feel, for whatever reason, a bit more comfortable treating depression than anxiety. In any case, Dr. Gold reaches for the SSRI first, in part because getting off an SNRI (for example, to switch to something else) can be absolutely miserable. The discontinuation effects can be severe enough to have to bridge some patients with a benzodiazepine to get them fully off the SNRI. So, an SNRI is not the first drug you should necessarily reach for. 

She thinks about using an SNRI if she has tried a couple of SSRIs that have been ineffective, or if the patient has a comorbid condition that might also benefit from the SNRI in the same way that you might use a tricyclic antidepressant in the patient with both migraines and anxiety. An SNRI might be a good medication to consider in the patient with neuropathic pain and anxiety but rarely as a first-line treatment, because if it doesn’t work out, getting the patient off that medication can be a challenge.

Dr. Watto: She mentioned venlafaxine as being especially difficult to get people off of. I’ve heard that bupropion should never be used in anxiety, and if you give it, you are a terrible doctor. What did we learn about that? 

Dr. Williams: It’s a drug I’ve hesitated to prescribe to patients with anxiety or even comorbid anxiety. I’m a little bit nervous for someone who has depression and anxiety to prescribe bupropion because it can be activating and make things worse. But Dr. Gold says that she has seen bupropion work for some patients so she will consider it, especially for patients who don’t want to gain weight, or for whom sexual side effects would be bothersome. So, it’s not always the wrong answer. In her expert opinion, you can try it and see how the patient responds, using shared decision-making and letting the patient know that they may not tolerate it as well as other medications. 

Dr. Watto: She sees a lot of younger people — students, working professionals — who do not want to gain weight, and that’s understandable. She will tell patients, “We can try bupropion, but if you get more anxious, we might not be able to continue it. We might have to use one of the first-line agents instead.” 

Dr. Williams: We talked about mirtazapine as well. She tells patients they are going to gain weight with it. You have to have that conversation with the patient to see whether that is something they are willing to tolerate. If so, mirtazapine might be worth a try, but you have to be upfront about the potential side effects and know what the medications you’re prescribing will do to patients. 

Dr. Watto: We asked her about benzodiazepines. For as-needed medication for people who are experiencing panic or anxiety attacks, she prescribes propranolol 10-20 mg twice a day as needed, which is a low dose. In primary care, we use higher doses for migraine prophylaxis. 

She uses propranolol because for some patients, it’s the physical symptoms of anxiety that are bothering them. She can calm down the physical symptoms with that and get by without needing to use a benzodiazepine. 

But what about thoughts that make people anxious? Can we change people’s thoughts with medication? 

Dr. Williams: Dr. Gold made the point that we can medicate away insomnia, for the most part. We can medicate away the physical symptoms of anxiety, which can be really bothersome. But we can’t medicate away thoughts and thought patterns. You can make patients feel better with medications, but you may not be able to get rid of the persistent bothersome thoughts. That’s where cognitive-behavioral therapy can be especially helpful. Most of these patients would benefit from therapy.

Dr. Watto: I completely agree with that. We talked about so many great things with Dr. Gold, but we can’t recap all of it here. Please click on this link to hear the full podcast episode. 
 

Dr. Watto is Clinical Assistant Professor, Department of Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine at University of Pennsylvania; Internist, Department of Medicine, Hospital Medicine Section, Pennsylvania Hospital, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Williams is Associate Professor of Clinical Medicine, Department of General Internal Medicine, Lewis Katz School of Medicine; Staff Physician, Department of General Internal Medicine, Temple Internal Medicine Associates, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. He disclosed receiving income from The Curbsiders. The Curbsiders is an internal medicine podcast, in which three board-certified internists interview experts on clinically important topics. In a collaboration with Medscape, the Curbsiders share clinical pearls and practice-changing knowledge from selected podcasts.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

Matthew F. Watto, MD: Welcome back to The Curbsiders. I’m Dr. Matthew Frank Watto, here with my great friend and America’s primary care physician, Dr. Paul Nelson Williams. Paul, are you ready to talk about anxiety?

Paul N. Williams, MD: Always. It’s one of my favorite topics. 

Dr. Watto: We had a great guest for this podcast on anxiety — Dr. Jessi Gold, who gave us a lot of practical tips. The way she talks to her patients about anxiety is really useful. When patients say “my anxiety” or “I feel anxious,” she considers that a symptom. Anxiety can be a diagnosis or a symptom. You need to clarify what they mean when they refer to their anxiety and dig into how it affects their life. 

We asked her about the Generalized Anxiety Disorder (GAD)-7 score. Like most of the experts we’ve talked to, she’s internalized that, so she doesn’t need to rely on a questionnaire. But I still rely on a questionnaire when I’m taking a history for anxiety. 

We also asked her how she explains anxiety to patients. I don’t know about you, Paul, but I’ve never really thought about explaining to patients why they have anxiety. 

Dr. Williams: I’ve done my best to try to normalize it, but I haven’t actually talked to patients about the evolutionary advantage of anxiety. 

Dr. Watto: She frames it to patients this way: As we were evolving, it was somewhat of an advantage to be hypervigilant, to have some anxiety and a healthy amount of fear so that you weren’t killed or eaten. But now, in the modern world, anxiety isn’t playing to our advantage. Anxiety is not making them safer; it’s making their lives worse. She explains to patients that she’s trying to help them overcome that. 

In terms of pharmacotherapy for anxiety, I always think about SSRIs as one of the first steps. Why not use an SNRI as first-line treatment?

Dr. Williams: I was glad we had this conversation because I feel, for whatever reason, a bit more comfortable treating depression than anxiety. In any case, Dr. Gold reaches for the SSRI first, in part because getting off an SNRI (for example, to switch to something else) can be absolutely miserable. The discontinuation effects can be severe enough to have to bridge some patients with a benzodiazepine to get them fully off the SNRI. So, an SNRI is not the first drug you should necessarily reach for. 

She thinks about using an SNRI if she has tried a couple of SSRIs that have been ineffective, or if the patient has a comorbid condition that might also benefit from the SNRI in the same way that you might use a tricyclic antidepressant in the patient with both migraines and anxiety. An SNRI might be a good medication to consider in the patient with neuropathic pain and anxiety but rarely as a first-line treatment, because if it doesn’t work out, getting the patient off that medication can be a challenge.

Dr. Watto: She mentioned venlafaxine as being especially difficult to get people off of. I’ve heard that bupropion should never be used in anxiety, and if you give it, you are a terrible doctor. What did we learn about that? 

Dr. Williams: It’s a drug I’ve hesitated to prescribe to patients with anxiety or even comorbid anxiety. I’m a little bit nervous for someone who has depression and anxiety to prescribe bupropion because it can be activating and make things worse. But Dr. Gold says that she has seen bupropion work for some patients so she will consider it, especially for patients who don’t want to gain weight, or for whom sexual side effects would be bothersome. So, it’s not always the wrong answer. In her expert opinion, you can try it and see how the patient responds, using shared decision-making and letting the patient know that they may not tolerate it as well as other medications. 

Dr. Watto: She sees a lot of younger people — students, working professionals — who do not want to gain weight, and that’s understandable. She will tell patients, “We can try bupropion, but if you get more anxious, we might not be able to continue it. We might have to use one of the first-line agents instead.” 

Dr. Williams: We talked about mirtazapine as well. She tells patients they are going to gain weight with it. You have to have that conversation with the patient to see whether that is something they are willing to tolerate. If so, mirtazapine might be worth a try, but you have to be upfront about the potential side effects and know what the medications you’re prescribing will do to patients. 

Dr. Watto: We asked her about benzodiazepines. For as-needed medication for people who are experiencing panic or anxiety attacks, she prescribes propranolol 10-20 mg twice a day as needed, which is a low dose. In primary care, we use higher doses for migraine prophylaxis. 

She uses propranolol because for some patients, it’s the physical symptoms of anxiety that are bothering them. She can calm down the physical symptoms with that and get by without needing to use a benzodiazepine. 

But what about thoughts that make people anxious? Can we change people’s thoughts with medication? 

Dr. Williams: Dr. Gold made the point that we can medicate away insomnia, for the most part. We can medicate away the physical symptoms of anxiety, which can be really bothersome. But we can’t medicate away thoughts and thought patterns. You can make patients feel better with medications, but you may not be able to get rid of the persistent bothersome thoughts. That’s where cognitive-behavioral therapy can be especially helpful. Most of these patients would benefit from therapy.

Dr. Watto: I completely agree with that. We talked about so many great things with Dr. Gold, but we can’t recap all of it here. Please click on this link to hear the full podcast episode. 
 

Dr. Watto is Clinical Assistant Professor, Department of Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine at University of Pennsylvania; Internist, Department of Medicine, Hospital Medicine Section, Pennsylvania Hospital, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Williams is Associate Professor of Clinical Medicine, Department of General Internal Medicine, Lewis Katz School of Medicine; Staff Physician, Department of General Internal Medicine, Temple Internal Medicine Associates, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. He disclosed receiving income from The Curbsiders. The Curbsiders is an internal medicine podcast, in which three board-certified internists interview experts on clinically important topics. In a collaboration with Medscape, the Curbsiders share clinical pearls and practice-changing knowledge from selected podcasts.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Emergency department (ED) visits in the United States for suicide attempts and intentional self-harm show an increasing trend from 2011 to 2020, with visits being most common among adolescents and the largest increase in visits being seen in adults aged 65 years or older.

METHODOLOGY:

• This study used data from the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey, an annual nationwide cross-sectional survey, to track trends in ED visits for suicide attempts and intentional self-harm in the United States from 2011 to 2020.
• Researchers identified visits for suicide attempts and intentional self-harm, along with diagnoses of any co-occurring mental health conditions, using discharge diagnosis codes or reason-for-visit codes.
• The focus was to identify the percentages of ED visits for suicide attempts and intentional self-harm, with analyses done per 100,000 persons and for changes possibly linked to the COVID-19 pandemic in 2019-2020.

TAKEAWAY:

• The number of ED visits owing to suicide attempts and intentional self-harm increased from 1.43 million in 2011-2012 to 5.37 million in 2019-2020 (average annual percent change, 19.5%; 95% confidence interval, 16.9-22.2).
• The rate of ED visits for suicide attempts and intentional self-harm was higher among adolescents and young adults, particularly women, and lower among children.
• Despite a surge in ED visits for self-harm, less than 16% included a mental health evaluation, with visits among patients with mood disorders decreasing by 5.5% annually and those among patients with drug-related disorders increasing by 6.8% annually.
• In 2019-2020, those aged 15-20 years had the highest rate of ED visits (1552 visits per 100,000 persons), with a significant increase seen across all age groups; the largest increase was among those aged 65 years or older.

IN PRACTICE:

“Given that suicide attempts are the single greatest risk factor for suicide, evidence-based management of individuals presenting to emergency departments with suicide attempts and intentional self-harm is a critical component of comprehensive suicide prevention strategies,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The investigation, led by Tanner J. Bommersbach, MD, MPH, Department of Psychiatry and Psychology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, was published online in The American Journal of Psychiatry.

LIMITATIONS:

Visits for suicide attempts and intentional self-harm were identified based on discharge diagnostic and reason-for-visit codes, which may have led to an underestimation of visits for suicide attempts. ED visits for suicidal vs nonsuicidal self-injury could not be distinguished due to reliance on discharge diagnostic codes. Visits for suicidal ideation, which was not the focus of the study, may have been miscoded as suicide attempts and intentional self-harm.

DISCLOSURES:

No funding source was reported for the study. Some authors received funding grants from various institutions, and one author disclosed receiving honoraria for service as a review committee member and serving as a stakeholder/consultant and as an advisory committee member for some institutes and agencies.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Emergency department (ED) visits in the United States for suicide attempts and intentional self-harm show an increasing trend from 2011 to 2020, with visits being most common among adolescents and the largest increase in visits being seen in adults aged 65 years or older.

METHODOLOGY:

• This study used data from the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey, an annual nationwide cross-sectional survey, to track trends in ED visits for suicide attempts and intentional self-harm in the United States from 2011 to 2020.
• Researchers identified visits for suicide attempts and intentional self-harm, along with diagnoses of any co-occurring mental health conditions, using discharge diagnosis codes or reason-for-visit codes.
• The focus was to identify the percentages of ED visits for suicide attempts and intentional self-harm, with analyses done per 100,000 persons and for changes possibly linked to the COVID-19 pandemic in 2019-2020.

TAKEAWAY:

• The number of ED visits owing to suicide attempts and intentional self-harm increased from 1.43 million in 2011-2012 to 5.37 million in 2019-2020 (average annual percent change, 19.5%; 95% confidence interval, 16.9-22.2).
• The rate of ED visits for suicide attempts and intentional self-harm was higher among adolescents and young adults, particularly women, and lower among children.
• Despite a surge in ED visits for self-harm, less than 16% included a mental health evaluation, with visits among patients with mood disorders decreasing by 5.5% annually and those among patients with drug-related disorders increasing by 6.8% annually.
• In 2019-2020, those aged 15-20 years had the highest rate of ED visits (1552 visits per 100,000 persons), with a significant increase seen across all age groups; the largest increase was among those aged 65 years or older.

IN PRACTICE:

“Given that suicide attempts are the single greatest risk factor for suicide, evidence-based management of individuals presenting to emergency departments with suicide attempts and intentional self-harm is a critical component of comprehensive suicide prevention strategies,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The investigation, led by Tanner J. Bommersbach, MD, MPH, Department of Psychiatry and Psychology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, was published online in The American Journal of Psychiatry.

LIMITATIONS:

Visits for suicide attempts and intentional self-harm were identified based on discharge diagnostic and reason-for-visit codes, which may have led to an underestimation of visits for suicide attempts. ED visits for suicidal vs nonsuicidal self-injury could not be distinguished due to reliance on discharge diagnostic codes. Visits for suicidal ideation, which was not the focus of the study, may have been miscoded as suicide attempts and intentional self-harm.

DISCLOSURES:

No funding source was reported for the study. Some authors received funding grants from various institutions, and one author disclosed receiving honoraria for service as a review committee member and serving as a stakeholder/consultant and as an advisory committee member for some institutes and agencies.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Emergency department (ED) visits in the United States for suicide attempts and intentional self-harm show an increasing trend from 2011 to 2020, with visits being most common among adolescents and the largest increase in visits being seen in adults aged 65 years or older.

METHODOLOGY:

• This study used data from the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey, an annual nationwide cross-sectional survey, to track trends in ED visits for suicide attempts and intentional self-harm in the United States from 2011 to 2020.
• Researchers identified visits for suicide attempts and intentional self-harm, along with diagnoses of any co-occurring mental health conditions, using discharge diagnosis codes or reason-for-visit codes.
• The focus was to identify the percentages of ED visits for suicide attempts and intentional self-harm, with analyses done per 100,000 persons and for changes possibly linked to the COVID-19 pandemic in 2019-2020.

TAKEAWAY:

• The number of ED visits owing to suicide attempts and intentional self-harm increased from 1.43 million in 2011-2012 to 5.37 million in 2019-2020 (average annual percent change, 19.5%; 95% confidence interval, 16.9-22.2).
• The rate of ED visits for suicide attempts and intentional self-harm was higher among adolescents and young adults, particularly women, and lower among children.
• Despite a surge in ED visits for self-harm, less than 16% included a mental health evaluation, with visits among patients with mood disorders decreasing by 5.5% annually and those among patients with drug-related disorders increasing by 6.8% annually.
• In 2019-2020, those aged 15-20 years had the highest rate of ED visits (1552 visits per 100,000 persons), with a significant increase seen across all age groups; the largest increase was among those aged 65 years or older.

IN PRACTICE:

“Given that suicide attempts are the single greatest risk factor for suicide, evidence-based management of individuals presenting to emergency departments with suicide attempts and intentional self-harm is a critical component of comprehensive suicide prevention strategies,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The investigation, led by Tanner J. Bommersbach, MD, MPH, Department of Psychiatry and Psychology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, was published online in The American Journal of Psychiatry.

LIMITATIONS:

Visits for suicide attempts and intentional self-harm were identified based on discharge diagnostic and reason-for-visit codes, which may have led to an underestimation of visits for suicide attempts. ED visits for suicidal vs nonsuicidal self-injury could not be distinguished due to reliance on discharge diagnostic codes. Visits for suicidal ideation, which was not the focus of the study, may have been miscoded as suicide attempts and intentional self-harm.

DISCLOSURES:

No funding source was reported for the study. Some authors received funding grants from various institutions, and one author disclosed receiving honoraria for service as a review committee member and serving as a stakeholder/consultant and as an advisory committee member for some institutes and agencies.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

It’s time to renew two of my three narcotic prescribing licenses. For the first time in my career, I’ve waffled on whether the financial outlay to the US Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) is worth it. 

At $888 each, I’ve considered letting two licenses lapse because I only work part-time in Montana. But several friends advised me to keep a “spare” in case I transfer to a new location. 

I thought about just paying the fees until I could do a little more research, but there is no mechanism for a refund unless I die within the first year of the 3-year cycle, provide incorrect credit card digits, or accidentally duplicate payments.

The renewal fee is just part of the issue.
 

Mandatory 8-Hour Training

I also received an alert about the requirement for more “narcotics prescribing education” thanks to the Medication Access and Training Expansion Act (MATE). 

The requirement seems counterintuitive because opioid prescribing has decreased for the 10th consecutive year, according to the AMA Overdose Epidemic Report. The continuing rise in overdose deaths is largely due to illegitimate manufacturing of synthetic opioids. 

I’ve written zero outpatient narcotics prescriptions in the past 6 years, and I’ve written very few in my 33 years of practice. My use is limited to intravenous morphine for flash pulmonary edema or refractory angina, but unless you graduated from a training program within 5 years of the June 2023 mandate or are boarded in addiction medicine, there is no way to escape the 8-hour education requirement.

The problem is that these courses are never just 8 hours in duration. After signing up for one such CME course that cost $150, I was still dying of boredom and at risk for DVT 4 days later. That’s how long it took to sit through.

Instead of the 30 seconds it should have taken to review the simple instructions to deliver Narcan, there were scores of screens followed by juvenile quizlets and cartoons. All but about 2 hours out of the 4 days is now relegated to that category of “hours of my life that I can never get back.” Additionally, none of that mandatory “education” will change my prescribing habits one whit. 

And beware the penalty. 

keshophucitotrumuhidruwrorobrubauestetowrirostakoswijocraviphuswuclumineketretichodanacromuclalislolo

vepribuspekucrukulemacrefrisoclutagaswegopregiprowrastauuchiclethasluslochouifricrecosteslobrijetumudraraprajotrufrauuchuuimevewrufradojashuthouejoshudrefracredriclofridrevechuchisivuphastaphusitinacredepavitrereswivupaprecrabrohosustivijukacludi

Changes Needed

The only good thing that came of those 4 long days of opioid education was a motivation to drive change in our current licensing and educational experience. Why not use this opportunity to reform the DEA-physician/prescriber relationship? 

The educational requirements should be curtailed for those of us who do not provide outpatient narcotic prescriptions even if we use inpatient opioids. Meds with low abuse potential should be rescheduled to minimize who gets caught in the broad net of the education requirement. 

We should reduce overregulation of the legitimate prescribers by lowering, instead of increasing, licensing fees. We should change to a single license number that covers every state. In this digital age, there is no legitimate excuse to prevent this from happening. 

After all, the settlements from opioid manufacturers and distributors will in time total $50 billion. It seems that at least some of the responsibilities of the DEA could shift to states, cities, and towns. 

My friend Siamak Karimian, MD, who provides locum services in multiple states, pays for seven active DEA licenses every 3 years. He pointed out the hypocrisy in the current regulatory system: “It’s funny that you can have only one DEA or state license and work for the government in all other states or territories with no limits, including the VA, Indian healthcare systems, or prison systems.”

All other prescribers require a separate DEA number for every state. Ultimately, you’d think tracking prescriptions for a single DEA number should be far simpler than tracking someone with seven. 

Competent physicians not guilty of criminal overprescribing seem to be the last to be considered in nearly every healthcare endeavor these days. It would be refreshing if they would reduce our fees and prevent this waste of our time. 

And while we are at it, perhaps a more fitting punishment is due for Richard Sackler and all the Purdue Pharma–affiliated family members. The Sacklers will pay out $6 billion in exchange for immunity against civil litigation. That doesn’t seem like much when they are worth $11 billion. 

Perhaps they should be made to take an 8-hour course on opioid prescribing, annually and in perpetuity. Let’s see them complete a few quizlets and sit through screens of instruction on how to administer Naloxone. Of course, that would be a mild punishment for those who manufactured a drug that killed hundreds of thousands. But it would be a start. 
 

Dr. Walton-Shirley, a clinical cardiologist in Nashville, Tennessee, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

It’s time to renew two of my three narcotic prescribing licenses. For the first time in my career, I’ve waffled on whether the financial outlay to the US Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) is worth it. 

At $888 each, I’ve considered letting two licenses lapse because I only work part-time in Montana. But several friends advised me to keep a “spare” in case I transfer to a new location. 

I thought about just paying the fees until I could do a little more research, but there is no mechanism for a refund unless I die within the first year of the 3-year cycle, provide incorrect credit card digits, or accidentally duplicate payments.

The renewal fee is just part of the issue.
 

Mandatory 8-Hour Training

I also received an alert about the requirement for more “narcotics prescribing education” thanks to the Medication Access and Training Expansion Act (MATE). 

The requirement seems counterintuitive because opioid prescribing has decreased for the 10th consecutive year, according to the AMA Overdose Epidemic Report. The continuing rise in overdose deaths is largely due to illegitimate manufacturing of synthetic opioids. 

I’ve written zero outpatient narcotics prescriptions in the past 6 years, and I’ve written very few in my 33 years of practice. My use is limited to intravenous morphine for flash pulmonary edema or refractory angina, but unless you graduated from a training program within 5 years of the June 2023 mandate or are boarded in addiction medicine, there is no way to escape the 8-hour education requirement.

The problem is that these courses are never just 8 hours in duration. After signing up for one such CME course that cost $150, I was still dying of boredom and at risk for DVT 4 days later. That’s how long it took to sit through.

Instead of the 30 seconds it should have taken to review the simple instructions to deliver Narcan, there were scores of screens followed by juvenile quizlets and cartoons. All but about 2 hours out of the 4 days is now relegated to that category of “hours of my life that I can never get back.” Additionally, none of that mandatory “education” will change my prescribing habits one whit. 

And beware the penalty. 

keshophucitotrumuhidruwrorobrubauestetowrirostakoswijocraviphuswuclumineketretichodanacromuclalislolo

vepribuspekucrukulemacrefrisoclutagaswegopregiprowrastauuchiclethasluslochouifricrecosteslobrijetumudraraprajotrufrauuchuuimevewrufradojashuthouejoshudrefracredriclofridrevechuchisivuphastaphusitinacredepavitrereswivupaprecrabrohosustivijukacludi

Changes Needed

The only good thing that came of those 4 long days of opioid education was a motivation to drive change in our current licensing and educational experience. Why not use this opportunity to reform the DEA-physician/prescriber relationship? 

The educational requirements should be curtailed for those of us who do not provide outpatient narcotic prescriptions even if we use inpatient opioids. Meds with low abuse potential should be rescheduled to minimize who gets caught in the broad net of the education requirement. 

We should reduce overregulation of the legitimate prescribers by lowering, instead of increasing, licensing fees. We should change to a single license number that covers every state. In this digital age, there is no legitimate excuse to prevent this from happening. 

After all, the settlements from opioid manufacturers and distributors will in time total $50 billion. It seems that at least some of the responsibilities of the DEA could shift to states, cities, and towns. 

My friend Siamak Karimian, MD, who provides locum services in multiple states, pays for seven active DEA licenses every 3 years. He pointed out the hypocrisy in the current regulatory system: “It’s funny that you can have only one DEA or state license and work for the government in all other states or territories with no limits, including the VA, Indian healthcare systems, or prison systems.”

All other prescribers require a separate DEA number for every state. Ultimately, you’d think tracking prescriptions for a single DEA number should be far simpler than tracking someone with seven. 

Competent physicians not guilty of criminal overprescribing seem to be the last to be considered in nearly every healthcare endeavor these days. It would be refreshing if they would reduce our fees and prevent this waste of our time. 

And while we are at it, perhaps a more fitting punishment is due for Richard Sackler and all the Purdue Pharma–affiliated family members. The Sacklers will pay out $6 billion in exchange for immunity against civil litigation. That doesn’t seem like much when they are worth $11 billion. 

Perhaps they should be made to take an 8-hour course on opioid prescribing, annually and in perpetuity. Let’s see them complete a few quizlets and sit through screens of instruction on how to administer Naloxone. Of course, that would be a mild punishment for those who manufactured a drug that killed hundreds of thousands. But it would be a start. 
 

Dr. Walton-Shirley, a clinical cardiologist in Nashville, Tennessee, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

It’s time to renew two of my three narcotic prescribing licenses. For the first time in my career, I’ve waffled on whether the financial outlay to the US Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) is worth it. 

At $888 each, I’ve considered letting two licenses lapse because I only work part-time in Montana. But several friends advised me to keep a “spare” in case I transfer to a new location. 

I thought about just paying the fees until I could do a little more research, but there is no mechanism for a refund unless I die within the first year of the 3-year cycle, provide incorrect credit card digits, or accidentally duplicate payments.

The renewal fee is just part of the issue.
 

Mandatory 8-Hour Training

I also received an alert about the requirement for more “narcotics prescribing education” thanks to the Medication Access and Training Expansion Act (MATE). 

The requirement seems counterintuitive because opioid prescribing has decreased for the 10th consecutive year, according to the AMA Overdose Epidemic Report. The continuing rise in overdose deaths is largely due to illegitimate manufacturing of synthetic opioids. 

I’ve written zero outpatient narcotics prescriptions in the past 6 years, and I’ve written very few in my 33 years of practice. My use is limited to intravenous morphine for flash pulmonary edema or refractory angina, but unless you graduated from a training program within 5 years of the June 2023 mandate or are boarded in addiction medicine, there is no way to escape the 8-hour education requirement.

The problem is that these courses are never just 8 hours in duration. After signing up for one such CME course that cost $150, I was still dying of boredom and at risk for DVT 4 days later. That’s how long it took to sit through.

Instead of the 30 seconds it should have taken to review the simple instructions to deliver Narcan, there were scores of screens followed by juvenile quizlets and cartoons. All but about 2 hours out of the 4 days is now relegated to that category of “hours of my life that I can never get back.” Additionally, none of that mandatory “education” will change my prescribing habits one whit. 

And beware the penalty. 

keshophucitotrumuhidruwrorobrubauestetowrirostakoswijocraviphuswuclumineketretichodanacromuclalislolo

vepribuspekucrukulemacrefrisoclutagaswegopregiprowrastauuchiclethasluslochouifricrecosteslobrijetumudraraprajotrufrauuchuuimevewrufradojashuthouejoshudrefracredriclofridrevechuchisivuphastaphusitinacredepavitrereswivupaprecrabrohosustivijukacludi

Changes Needed

The only good thing that came of those 4 long days of opioid education was a motivation to drive change in our current licensing and educational experience. Why not use this opportunity to reform the DEA-physician/prescriber relationship? 

The educational requirements should be curtailed for those of us who do not provide outpatient narcotic prescriptions even if we use inpatient opioids. Meds with low abuse potential should be rescheduled to minimize who gets caught in the broad net of the education requirement. 

We should reduce overregulation of the legitimate prescribers by lowering, instead of increasing, licensing fees. We should change to a single license number that covers every state. In this digital age, there is no legitimate excuse to prevent this from happening. 

After all, the settlements from opioid manufacturers and distributors will in time total $50 billion. It seems that at least some of the responsibilities of the DEA could shift to states, cities, and towns. 

My friend Siamak Karimian, MD, who provides locum services in multiple states, pays for seven active DEA licenses every 3 years. He pointed out the hypocrisy in the current regulatory system: “It’s funny that you can have only one DEA or state license and work for the government in all other states or territories with no limits, including the VA, Indian healthcare systems, or prison systems.”

All other prescribers require a separate DEA number for every state. Ultimately, you’d think tracking prescriptions for a single DEA number should be far simpler than tracking someone with seven. 

Competent physicians not guilty of criminal overprescribing seem to be the last to be considered in nearly every healthcare endeavor these days. It would be refreshing if they would reduce our fees and prevent this waste of our time. 

And while we are at it, perhaps a more fitting punishment is due for Richard Sackler and all the Purdue Pharma–affiliated family members. The Sacklers will pay out $6 billion in exchange for immunity against civil litigation. That doesn’t seem like much when they are worth $11 billion. 

Perhaps they should be made to take an 8-hour course on opioid prescribing, annually and in perpetuity. Let’s see them complete a few quizlets and sit through screens of instruction on how to administer Naloxone. Of course, that would be a mild punishment for those who manufactured a drug that killed hundreds of thousands. But it would be a start. 
 

Dr. Walton-Shirley, a clinical cardiologist in Nashville, Tennessee, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.