Guidelines

The American Academy of Pediatrics is cautioning physicians and parents to be on the lookout for unnecessary diagnostic testing associated with several common pediatric conditions.

Children seen for these conditions in emergency settings and even in primary care offices could experience avoidable pain, exposure to harmful radiation, and other harms, according to the group.

“The emergency department has the ability to rapidly perform myriad diagnostic tests and receive results quickly,” said Paul Mullan, MD, MPH, chair of the AAP’s Section of Emergency Medicine’s Choosing Wisely task force. “However, this comes with the danger of diagnostic overtesting.”

The five recommendations are as follows:

• Radiographs should not be obtained for children with bronchiolitis, croup, asthma, or first-time wheezing.
• Laboratory tests for screening should not be undertaken in the medical clearance process of children who require inpatient psychiatric admission unless clinically indicated.
• Laboratory testing or a CT scan of the head should not be ordered for a child with an unprovoked, generalized seizure or a simple febrile seizure whose mental status has returned to baseline.
• Abdominal radiographs should not be obtained for suspected constipation.
• Comprehensive viral panel testing should not be undertaken for children who are suspected of having respiratory viral illnesses.

The AAP task force partnered with Choosing Wisely Canada to create the recommendations. The list is the first of its kind to be published jointly by two countries, according to the release.

“We hope this Choosing Wisely list will encourage clinicians to rely on their clinical skills and avoid unnecessary tests,” said Dr. Mullan, who is also a physician at Children’s Hospital of the King’s Daughters and professor of pediatrics at Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk.

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

The American Academy of Pediatrics is cautioning physicians and parents to be on the lookout for unnecessary diagnostic testing associated with several common pediatric conditions.

Children seen for these conditions in emergency settings and even in primary care offices could experience avoidable pain, exposure to harmful radiation, and other harms, according to the group.

“The emergency department has the ability to rapidly perform myriad diagnostic tests and receive results quickly,” said Paul Mullan, MD, MPH, chair of the AAP’s Section of Emergency Medicine’s Choosing Wisely task force. “However, this comes with the danger of diagnostic overtesting.”

The five recommendations are as follows:

• Radiographs should not be obtained for children with bronchiolitis, croup, asthma, or first-time wheezing.
• Laboratory tests for screening should not be undertaken in the medical clearance process of children who require inpatient psychiatric admission unless clinically indicated.
• Laboratory testing or a CT scan of the head should not be ordered for a child with an unprovoked, generalized seizure or a simple febrile seizure whose mental status has returned to baseline.
• Abdominal radiographs should not be obtained for suspected constipation.
• Comprehensive viral panel testing should not be undertaken for children who are suspected of having respiratory viral illnesses.

The AAP task force partnered with Choosing Wisely Canada to create the recommendations. The list is the first of its kind to be published jointly by two countries, according to the release.

“We hope this Choosing Wisely list will encourage clinicians to rely on their clinical skills and avoid unnecessary tests,” said Dr. Mullan, who is also a physician at Children’s Hospital of the King’s Daughters and professor of pediatrics at Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk.

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

The American Academy of Pediatrics is cautioning physicians and parents to be on the lookout for unnecessary diagnostic testing associated with several common pediatric conditions.

Children seen for these conditions in emergency settings and even in primary care offices could experience avoidable pain, exposure to harmful radiation, and other harms, according to the group.

“The emergency department has the ability to rapidly perform myriad diagnostic tests and receive results quickly,” said Paul Mullan, MD, MPH, chair of the AAP’s Section of Emergency Medicine’s Choosing Wisely task force. “However, this comes with the danger of diagnostic overtesting.”

The five recommendations are as follows:

• Radiographs should not be obtained for children with bronchiolitis, croup, asthma, or first-time wheezing.
• Laboratory tests for screening should not be undertaken in the medical clearance process of children who require inpatient psychiatric admission unless clinically indicated.
• Laboratory testing or a CT scan of the head should not be ordered for a child with an unprovoked, generalized seizure or a simple febrile seizure whose mental status has returned to baseline.
• Abdominal radiographs should not be obtained for suspected constipation.
• Comprehensive viral panel testing should not be undertaken for children who are suspected of having respiratory viral illnesses.

The AAP task force partnered with Choosing Wisely Canada to create the recommendations. The list is the first of its kind to be published jointly by two countries, according to the release.

“We hope this Choosing Wisely list will encourage clinicians to rely on their clinical skills and avoid unnecessary tests,” said Dr. Mullan, who is also a physician at Children’s Hospital of the King’s Daughters and professor of pediatrics at Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk.

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

Updated clinical guidelines for the early diagnosis and management of cerebral palsy have been issued by the American Academy of Pediatrics.

Coauthored with the American Academy for Cerebral Palsy and Developmental Medicine, the report builds on new evidence for improved care and outcomes since the 2006 consensus guidelines.

Cerebral palsy, the most common neuromotor disorder of childhood, is often accompanied by cognitive impairments, epilepsy, sensory impairments, behavioral problems, communication difficulties, breathing and sleep problems, gastrointestinal and nutritional problems, and bone and orthopedic problems.

In the United States, the estimated prevalence of cerebral palsy ranges from 1.5 to 4 per 1,000 live births.

“Early identification and initiation of evidence-based motor therapies can improve outcomes by taking advantage of the neuroplasticity in the infant brain,” said the guideline authors in an executive summary.

The guideline, published in Pediatrics, is directed to primary care physicians with pediatrics, family practice, or internal medicine training. “It’s a much more comprehensive overview of the important role that primary care providers play in the lifetime care of people with cerebral palsy,” explained Garey Noritz, MD, chair of the 2021-2022 Executive Committee of the Council on Children with Disabilities. Dr. Noritz, a professor of pediatrics at Ohio State University and division chief of the complex health care program at Nationwide Children’s Hospital, both in Columbus, said: “The combined efforts of the primary care physician and specialty providers are needed to achieve the best outcomes.”

The AAP recommends that primary care pediatricians, neonatologists, and other specialists caring for hospitalized newborns recognize those at high risk of cerebral palsy, diagnose them as early as possible, and promptly refer them for therapy. Primary care physicians are advised to identify motor delays early by formalizing standardized developmental surveillance and screening at 9, 18, and 30 months, and to implement family-centered care across multiple specialists.

“If a motor disorder is suspected, primary care physicians should simultaneously begin a medical evaluation, refer to a specialist for definitive diagnosis, and to therapists for treatment,” Dr. Noritz emphasized.

“The earlier any possible movement disorder is recognized and intervention begins, the better a child can develop a gait pattern and work toward living an independent life, said Manish N. Shah, MD, associate professor of pediatric neurosurgery at the University of Texas, Houston, who was not involved in developing the guidelines.

For children in whom physical therapy and medication have not reduced leg spasticity, a minimally invasive spinal procedure can help release contracted tendons and encourage independent walking. The optimal age for selective dorsal rhizotomy is about 4 years, said Dr. Shah, who is director of the Texas Comprehensive Spasticity Center at Children’s Memorial Hermann Hospital in Houston. “You can turn these children into walkers. As adults, they can get jobs, have their own families. It’s life-changing.”

Importantly, the guidelines address the health care disparities leading to a higher prevalence of cerebral palsy in Black children and in those from families with lower socioeconomic status. “Efforts to combat racism and eliminate barriers to culturally sensitive prenatal, perinatal, and later pediatric care may help to improve outcomes for all children with cerebral palsy,” the authors said.

“Every child with cerebral palsy needs an individual plan, but only 30% or 40% are getting interventions,” said Dr. Shah. The updated guidelines could help payers rethink the 15-20 visits a year that are often approved, compared with the 2-3 visits per week that are needed for speech, physical, and occupational therapy, he pointed out.

“Financial issues often compromise the interdisciplinary and coordinated care associated with favorable outcomes in children with cerebral palsy,” said Heidi Feldman, MD, PhD, a developmental and behavioral pediatric specialist at Stanford (Calif.) Medicine Children’s Health’s Johnson Center for Pregnancy and Newborn Services. “With a new guideline, there may be greater willingness to fund these essential services.”

In the meantime, the AAP recommends that pediatricians advise families about available medical, social, and educational services, such as early intervention services, the Title V Maternal and Child Health block grant program, and special education services through the public school system.

Children with cerebral palsy need the same standardized primary care as any child, including the full schedule of recommended vaccinations and vision and hearing testing. They also need to be monitored and treated for the many problems that commonly co-occur, including chronic pain.

When secondary complications arise, the frequency of visits should increase.

Pneumonia, the leading cause of death in children and adolescents with cerebral palsy, can be prevented or minimized through immunization against respiratory diseases and screening for signs and symptoms of aspiration and sleep-disordered breathing.

The AAP also recommends that symptoms or functional declines undergo full investigation into other potential causes.

Since the sedentary lifestyle associated with cerebral palsy is now known to be related to the higher rates of cardiovascular complications in this patient population, the AAP recommends more attention be paid to physical activity and a healthy diet early in life. Pediatricians are advised to help families locate suitable opportunities for adaptive sports and recreation.

Almost 50% of children and adolescents with cerebral palsy have intellectual disability, 60%-80% have difficulty speaking, and about 25% are nonverbal. To address this, pediatricians should maximize the use of augmentative and alternative communication devices and involve experts in speech and language pathology, according to the guidelines.

“Many individuals with cerebral palsy and severe motor limitations have active, creative minds, and may need assistive technology, such as electronic talking devices, to demonstrate that mental life,” said Dr. Feldman. “Primary care clinicians should advocate for assistive technology.”

For challenging behavior, especially in the patient with limited verbal skills, potential nonbehavioral culprits such as constipation, esophageal reflux disease, and musculoskeletal or dental pain must be ruled out.

In the lead-up to adolescence, youth with cerebral palsy must be prepared for puberty, menstruation, and healthy, safe sexual relationships, much like their nonaffected peers. Since a disproportionate number of children with cerebral palsy experience neglect and physical, sexual, and emotional abuse, however, family stressors should be identified and caregivers referred for support services.

For the transition from pediatric to adult health care, the AAP recommends that structured planning begin between 12 and 14 years of age. Before transfer, the pediatrician should prepare a comprehensive medical summary with the input of the patient, parent/guardian, and pediatric subspecialists.

Without a proper handoff, “there is an increased risk of morbidity, medical complications, unnecessary emergency department visits, hospitalizations, and procedures,” the authors warned.

Transitions are likely to run more smoothly when youth are given the opportunity to understand their medical condition and be involved in decisions about their health. With this in mind, the AAP recommends that pediatricians actively discourage overprotective parents from getting in the way of their child developing “maximal independence.”

No potential conflicts of interest were disclosed by the authors, Dr. Shah, or Dr. Feldman.

*This story was updated on Nov. 28, 2022.
 

Updated clinical guidelines for the early diagnosis and management of cerebral palsy have been issued by the American Academy of Pediatrics.

Coauthored with the American Academy for Cerebral Palsy and Developmental Medicine, the report builds on new evidence for improved care and outcomes since the 2006 consensus guidelines.

Cerebral palsy, the most common neuromotor disorder of childhood, is often accompanied by cognitive impairments, epilepsy, sensory impairments, behavioral problems, communication difficulties, breathing and sleep problems, gastrointestinal and nutritional problems, and bone and orthopedic problems.

In the United States, the estimated prevalence of cerebral palsy ranges from 1.5 to 4 per 1,000 live births.

“Early identification and initiation of evidence-based motor therapies can improve outcomes by taking advantage of the neuroplasticity in the infant brain,” said the guideline authors in an executive summary.

The guideline, published in Pediatrics, is directed to primary care physicians with pediatrics, family practice, or internal medicine training. “It’s a much more comprehensive overview of the important role that primary care providers play in the lifetime care of people with cerebral palsy,” explained Garey Noritz, MD, chair of the 2021-2022 Executive Committee of the Council on Children with Disabilities. Dr. Noritz, a professor of pediatrics at Ohio State University and division chief of the complex health care program at Nationwide Children’s Hospital, both in Columbus, said: “The combined efforts of the primary care physician and specialty providers are needed to achieve the best outcomes.”

The AAP recommends that primary care pediatricians, neonatologists, and other specialists caring for hospitalized newborns recognize those at high risk of cerebral palsy, diagnose them as early as possible, and promptly refer them for therapy. Primary care physicians are advised to identify motor delays early by formalizing standardized developmental surveillance and screening at 9, 18, and 30 months, and to implement family-centered care across multiple specialists.

“If a motor disorder is suspected, primary care physicians should simultaneously begin a medical evaluation, refer to a specialist for definitive diagnosis, and to therapists for treatment,” Dr. Noritz emphasized.

“The earlier any possible movement disorder is recognized and intervention begins, the better a child can develop a gait pattern and work toward living an independent life, said Manish N. Shah, MD, associate professor of pediatric neurosurgery at the University of Texas, Houston, who was not involved in developing the guidelines.

For children in whom physical therapy and medication have not reduced leg spasticity, a minimally invasive spinal procedure can help release contracted tendons and encourage independent walking. The optimal age for selective dorsal rhizotomy is about 4 years, said Dr. Shah, who is director of the Texas Comprehensive Spasticity Center at Children’s Memorial Hermann Hospital in Houston. “You can turn these children into walkers. As adults, they can get jobs, have their own families. It’s life-changing.”

Importantly, the guidelines address the health care disparities leading to a higher prevalence of cerebral palsy in Black children and in those from families with lower socioeconomic status. “Efforts to combat racism and eliminate barriers to culturally sensitive prenatal, perinatal, and later pediatric care may help to improve outcomes for all children with cerebral palsy,” the authors said.

“Every child with cerebral palsy needs an individual plan, but only 30% or 40% are getting interventions,” said Dr. Shah. The updated guidelines could help payers rethink the 15-20 visits a year that are often approved, compared with the 2-3 visits per week that are needed for speech, physical, and occupational therapy, he pointed out.

“Financial issues often compromise the interdisciplinary and coordinated care associated with favorable outcomes in children with cerebral palsy,” said Heidi Feldman, MD, PhD, a developmental and behavioral pediatric specialist at Stanford (Calif.) Medicine Children’s Health’s Johnson Center for Pregnancy and Newborn Services. “With a new guideline, there may be greater willingness to fund these essential services.”

In the meantime, the AAP recommends that pediatricians advise families about available medical, social, and educational services, such as early intervention services, the Title V Maternal and Child Health block grant program, and special education services through the public school system.

Children with cerebral palsy need the same standardized primary care as any child, including the full schedule of recommended vaccinations and vision and hearing testing. They also need to be monitored and treated for the many problems that commonly co-occur, including chronic pain.

When secondary complications arise, the frequency of visits should increase.

Pneumonia, the leading cause of death in children and adolescents with cerebral palsy, can be prevented or minimized through immunization against respiratory diseases and screening for signs and symptoms of aspiration and sleep-disordered breathing.

The AAP also recommends that symptoms or functional declines undergo full investigation into other potential causes.

Since the sedentary lifestyle associated with cerebral palsy is now known to be related to the higher rates of cardiovascular complications in this patient population, the AAP recommends more attention be paid to physical activity and a healthy diet early in life. Pediatricians are advised to help families locate suitable opportunities for adaptive sports and recreation.

Almost 50% of children and adolescents with cerebral palsy have intellectual disability, 60%-80% have difficulty speaking, and about 25% are nonverbal. To address this, pediatricians should maximize the use of augmentative and alternative communication devices and involve experts in speech and language pathology, according to the guidelines.

“Many individuals with cerebral palsy and severe motor limitations have active, creative minds, and may need assistive technology, such as electronic talking devices, to demonstrate that mental life,” said Dr. Feldman. “Primary care clinicians should advocate for assistive technology.”

For challenging behavior, especially in the patient with limited verbal skills, potential nonbehavioral culprits such as constipation, esophageal reflux disease, and musculoskeletal or dental pain must be ruled out.

In the lead-up to adolescence, youth with cerebral palsy must be prepared for puberty, menstruation, and healthy, safe sexual relationships, much like their nonaffected peers. Since a disproportionate number of children with cerebral palsy experience neglect and physical, sexual, and emotional abuse, however, family stressors should be identified and caregivers referred for support services.

For the transition from pediatric to adult health care, the AAP recommends that structured planning begin between 12 and 14 years of age. Before transfer, the pediatrician should prepare a comprehensive medical summary with the input of the patient, parent/guardian, and pediatric subspecialists.

Without a proper handoff, “there is an increased risk of morbidity, medical complications, unnecessary emergency department visits, hospitalizations, and procedures,” the authors warned.

Transitions are likely to run more smoothly when youth are given the opportunity to understand their medical condition and be involved in decisions about their health. With this in mind, the AAP recommends that pediatricians actively discourage overprotective parents from getting in the way of their child developing “maximal independence.”

No potential conflicts of interest were disclosed by the authors, Dr. Shah, or Dr. Feldman.

*This story was updated on Nov. 28, 2022.
 

Updated clinical guidelines for the early diagnosis and management of cerebral palsy have been issued by the American Academy of Pediatrics.

Coauthored with the American Academy for Cerebral Palsy and Developmental Medicine, the report builds on new evidence for improved care and outcomes since the 2006 consensus guidelines.

Cerebral palsy, the most common neuromotor disorder of childhood, is often accompanied by cognitive impairments, epilepsy, sensory impairments, behavioral problems, communication difficulties, breathing and sleep problems, gastrointestinal and nutritional problems, and bone and orthopedic problems.

In the United States, the estimated prevalence of cerebral palsy ranges from 1.5 to 4 per 1,000 live births.

“Early identification and initiation of evidence-based motor therapies can improve outcomes by taking advantage of the neuroplasticity in the infant brain,” said the guideline authors in an executive summary.

The guideline, published in Pediatrics, is directed to primary care physicians with pediatrics, family practice, or internal medicine training. “It’s a much more comprehensive overview of the important role that primary care providers play in the lifetime care of people with cerebral palsy,” explained Garey Noritz, MD, chair of the 2021-2022 Executive Committee of the Council on Children with Disabilities. Dr. Noritz, a professor of pediatrics at Ohio State University and division chief of the complex health care program at Nationwide Children’s Hospital, both in Columbus, said: “The combined efforts of the primary care physician and specialty providers are needed to achieve the best outcomes.”

The AAP recommends that primary care pediatricians, neonatologists, and other specialists caring for hospitalized newborns recognize those at high risk of cerebral palsy, diagnose them as early as possible, and promptly refer them for therapy. Primary care physicians are advised to identify motor delays early by formalizing standardized developmental surveillance and screening at 9, 18, and 30 months, and to implement family-centered care across multiple specialists.

“If a motor disorder is suspected, primary care physicians should simultaneously begin a medical evaluation, refer to a specialist for definitive diagnosis, and to therapists for treatment,” Dr. Noritz emphasized.

“The earlier any possible movement disorder is recognized and intervention begins, the better a child can develop a gait pattern and work toward living an independent life, said Manish N. Shah, MD, associate professor of pediatric neurosurgery at the University of Texas, Houston, who was not involved in developing the guidelines.

For children in whom physical therapy and medication have not reduced leg spasticity, a minimally invasive spinal procedure can help release contracted tendons and encourage independent walking. The optimal age for selective dorsal rhizotomy is about 4 years, said Dr. Shah, who is director of the Texas Comprehensive Spasticity Center at Children’s Memorial Hermann Hospital in Houston. “You can turn these children into walkers. As adults, they can get jobs, have their own families. It’s life-changing.”

Importantly, the guidelines address the health care disparities leading to a higher prevalence of cerebral palsy in Black children and in those from families with lower socioeconomic status. “Efforts to combat racism and eliminate barriers to culturally sensitive prenatal, perinatal, and later pediatric care may help to improve outcomes for all children with cerebral palsy,” the authors said.

“Every child with cerebral palsy needs an individual plan, but only 30% or 40% are getting interventions,” said Dr. Shah. The updated guidelines could help payers rethink the 15-20 visits a year that are often approved, compared with the 2-3 visits per week that are needed for speech, physical, and occupational therapy, he pointed out.

“Financial issues often compromise the interdisciplinary and coordinated care associated with favorable outcomes in children with cerebral palsy,” said Heidi Feldman, MD, PhD, a developmental and behavioral pediatric specialist at Stanford (Calif.) Medicine Children’s Health’s Johnson Center for Pregnancy and Newborn Services. “With a new guideline, there may be greater willingness to fund these essential services.”

In the meantime, the AAP recommends that pediatricians advise families about available medical, social, and educational services, such as early intervention services, the Title V Maternal and Child Health block grant program, and special education services through the public school system.

Children with cerebral palsy need the same standardized primary care as any child, including the full schedule of recommended vaccinations and vision and hearing testing. They also need to be monitored and treated for the many problems that commonly co-occur, including chronic pain.

When secondary complications arise, the frequency of visits should increase.

Pneumonia, the leading cause of death in children and adolescents with cerebral palsy, can be prevented or minimized through immunization against respiratory diseases and screening for signs and symptoms of aspiration and sleep-disordered breathing.

The AAP also recommends that symptoms or functional declines undergo full investigation into other potential causes.

Since the sedentary lifestyle associated with cerebral palsy is now known to be related to the higher rates of cardiovascular complications in this patient population, the AAP recommends more attention be paid to physical activity and a healthy diet early in life. Pediatricians are advised to help families locate suitable opportunities for adaptive sports and recreation.

Almost 50% of children and adolescents with cerebral palsy have intellectual disability, 60%-80% have difficulty speaking, and about 25% are nonverbal. To address this, pediatricians should maximize the use of augmentative and alternative communication devices and involve experts in speech and language pathology, according to the guidelines.

“Many individuals with cerebral palsy and severe motor limitations have active, creative minds, and may need assistive technology, such as electronic talking devices, to demonstrate that mental life,” said Dr. Feldman. “Primary care clinicians should advocate for assistive technology.”

For challenging behavior, especially in the patient with limited verbal skills, potential nonbehavioral culprits such as constipation, esophageal reflux disease, and musculoskeletal or dental pain must be ruled out.

In the lead-up to adolescence, youth with cerebral palsy must be prepared for puberty, menstruation, and healthy, safe sexual relationships, much like their nonaffected peers. Since a disproportionate number of children with cerebral palsy experience neglect and physical, sexual, and emotional abuse, however, family stressors should be identified and caregivers referred for support services.

For the transition from pediatric to adult health care, the AAP recommends that structured planning begin between 12 and 14 years of age. Before transfer, the pediatrician should prepare a comprehensive medical summary with the input of the patient, parent/guardian, and pediatric subspecialists.

Without a proper handoff, “there is an increased risk of morbidity, medical complications, unnecessary emergency department visits, hospitalizations, and procedures,” the authors warned.

Transitions are likely to run more smoothly when youth are given the opportunity to understand their medical condition and be involved in decisions about their health. With this in mind, the AAP recommends that pediatricians actively discourage overprotective parents from getting in the way of their child developing “maximal independence.”

No potential conflicts of interest were disclosed by the authors, Dr. Shah, or Dr. Feldman.

*This story was updated on Nov. 28, 2022.
 

PHILADELPHIA – The new American College of Rheumatology Guideline for Vaccinations in Patients with Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Diseases (RMDs) emphasizes that both adult and pediatric patients should receive recommended vaccinations whenever possible.

But the guideline, currently in press, also offers recommendations about whether and when to withhold vaccines from patients with RMDs, such as avoiding the use of live attenuated virus vaccines in patients who are on immunosuppressive drug regimens, such as conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), biologic DMARDs, or targeted synthetic DMARDs.

The new consensus guideline was formulated with the understanding that patients with RMDs are at increased risk for vaccine-preventable infections and more serious complications from infections, compared with the general population.

However, the guideline also acknowledges that the immunogenicity and safety of vaccines may differ among patients with RMDs, and that, depending on the patient age and disease state, individuals may benefit from modified vaccine indications, schedules, or modified medication schedules, said guideline panel member Anne Bass, MD, a rheumatologist at Hospital for Special Surgery and a professor of clinical medicine at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York, who presented the guideline with other panel members in a session outlining the recommendations at the annual meeting of the ACR.

“In addition, vaccination recommendations – since much of it relates to medications – really applies across diseases, and so the ACR felt that, rather than having vaccine recommendations tacked onto the end of treatment guidelines for each individual disease, that the topic should be discussed or tackled as a whole,” she said.

The guideline does not cover vaccinations in patients taking nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs because this class of agents has minimal or no impact on antibody responses to vaccines. The guideline also does not address vaccinations against COVID-19 infections since the rapidly changing formulations would make the recommendations obsolete before they were even published, and because the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention provides up-to-date guidance on COVID-19 vaccinations in patients with compromised immunity, she said.
 

Guiding principles

The overarching principles of the guideline are to give indicated vaccines to patients with RMD whenever possible and that any decision to hold medications before or after vaccination consider the dosage used, RMD disease activity, and the patient’s risk for vaccine-preventable infection.

The guideline also states that “shared decision-making with patients is a key component of any vaccination strategy.”

Panel member Clifton O. Bingham III, MD, professor of medicine at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, outlined expanded indications for vaccinations against influenza, pneumococcal infections, varicella zoster virus (VZV) and human papillomavirus (HPV).
 

Influenza

The guideline conditionally recommends that patients with RMD aged 65 years and older and adults older than age 18 years who are on immunosuppressive medications should receive either high-dose or adjuvanted influenza vaccination rather than regular-dose vaccines.

“It’s recognized that the high-dose or adjuvanted vaccinations may be unavailable for patients when they’re seen in your practice,” Dr. Bingham said,” and we came out with two additional statements within the guidelines that said that any flu vaccine is recommended over no flu vaccinations, because we do know that responses are elicited, and a flu vaccination today is preferred over a flu vaccination delay.”
 

Pneumococcal vaccination

The panelists strongly recommended that patients with RMD younger than age 65 years who are on immunosuppressive medication receive pneumococcal vaccinations.

The ACR guideline is in sync with those issued by the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, Dr. Bingham said. He urged audience members to visit a CDC-ACIP web page for more information on who should receive pneumococcal vaccination and when.
 

Recombinant varicella zoster

The recommendations strongly support that patients aged 18 years and over who are on immunosuppressive therapies should receive the recombinant VZV vaccine (Shingrix).

HPV

A less robust, conditional recommendation is for patients with RMDs who are between the ages of 26 and 45 years and on immunosuppressive medications to receive the HPV vaccine (if they have not already received the vaccine).

Non-live attenuated vaccines

Kevin Winthrop, MD, MPH, professor of infectious diseases and public health at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, summarized the recommendations for managing immunosuppressive therapies in patients scheduled to receive vaccinations using killed or nonactive antigens.

“In influenza season, don’t pass up the opportunity to vaccinate,” he said, adding, “if you can wait on rituximab dosing, do it, and if you can’t, go ahead and vaccinate.”

The guidelines also recommend a 2-week methotrexate hold at the time of influenza vaccination; other DMARD dosing changes are likely not necessary at the time of vaccination, “but this is an area of fervent study, and I think in a year or two we’ll have more experimental hold data with regard to other DMARDs,” Dr. Winthrop said.

For other nonlive attenuated vaccinations, recommendations are similar to those for influenza, except with more flexible timing because these vaccinations are not seasonal. When and how to hold methotrexate is still up in the air, he said.

Additionally, it’s recommended that vaccinations be delayed in patients on high-dose prednisone until the drug is tapered to below 20 mg per day, and ideally to less than 10 mg per day, he said.
 

Live-attenuated vaccines

The guideline conditionally recommends deferring live-attenuated vaccines in patients on immunosuppressive drugs. It also recommends holding these medications “for an appropriate period before” vaccination and for 4 weeks afterward.

“Although the evidence around conventional synthetic DMARDs and TNF inhibitors is reassuring in terms of their safety at the time of live attenuated vaccines, as you can see the number of studies is quite small, and so the voting panel conditionally recommend against administering live-attenuated virus vaccines to patients who are on conventional synthetics, biologic, or targeted DMARDs,” Dr. Bass said.
 

In utero exposures

Most women with RMD who have recently given birth will consult their general pediatricians rather than rheumatologists for infant vaccinations, but pediatricians may not be aware of the affect that in utero exposures to biologic DMARDs can have on vaccine safety and immunogenicity in infants, Dr, Bass said.

“It’s important that you, as a provider, give your recommendations regarding infant rotavirus vaccination after in utero exposure to the pregnant rheumatic disease patient prior to delivery, and let that patient know that this is something that they should share with their pediatrician to be,” she advised audience members.
 

Getting the message out

In an interview, session moderator and guidelines panelist Lisa F. Imundo, MD, director of the center for adolescent rheumatology at Columbia University in New York, noted that rheumatologists don’t usually have the full schedule of pediatric vaccinations in stock and often leave the decisions about what to give – and when – to general practitioners.

“Pediatric rheumatologists sometimes will give patients flu vaccinations because they’re a high-risk population of patients, and we want to make sure that they’re getting it in a timely manner,” she said.

In addition, because pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccines are not indicated in the general pediatric population, children on biologic DMARDs who have completed their standard series of pneumococcal conjugate vaccines (PCV13 or PVC15) are recommended to get a 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine, Dr. Imundo said.

She also noted that communication between pediatric rheumatologists and general practitioners about vaccine recommendations can be challenging.

“It’s a huge issue, figuring out how we’re going to communicate all of this information to our pediatric colleagues,” she said. “With individual patients, we may sometimes remind doctors, especially with our younger patients who haven’t gotten their live vaccines, that they really shouldn’t get live vaccines until they’re off medication or until we arrange holding medication for some period of time.”

She said that ACR vaccine committee members are working with infectious disease specialists and guideline developers for the American Academy of Pediatrics to ensure guidelines include the most important vaccination recommendations for pediatric patients with RMDs.

The development process for the guidelines was supported by the ACR. Dr. Bass reported no relevant disclosures, Dr. Bingham disclosed consulting activities, grant/research support, and royalties from various corporate entities. Dr. Winthrop disclosed consulting activities for and research funding from various companies. Dr. Imundo reported no relevant financial relationships.

PHILADELPHIA – The new American College of Rheumatology Guideline for Vaccinations in Patients with Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Diseases (RMDs) emphasizes that both adult and pediatric patients should receive recommended vaccinations whenever possible.

But the guideline, currently in press, also offers recommendations about whether and when to withhold vaccines from patients with RMDs, such as avoiding the use of live attenuated virus vaccines in patients who are on immunosuppressive drug regimens, such as conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), biologic DMARDs, or targeted synthetic DMARDs.

The new consensus guideline was formulated with the understanding that patients with RMDs are at increased risk for vaccine-preventable infections and more serious complications from infections, compared with the general population.

However, the guideline also acknowledges that the immunogenicity and safety of vaccines may differ among patients with RMDs, and that, depending on the patient age and disease state, individuals may benefit from modified vaccine indications, schedules, or modified medication schedules, said guideline panel member Anne Bass, MD, a rheumatologist at Hospital for Special Surgery and a professor of clinical medicine at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York, who presented the guideline with other panel members in a session outlining the recommendations at the annual meeting of the ACR.

“In addition, vaccination recommendations – since much of it relates to medications – really applies across diseases, and so the ACR felt that, rather than having vaccine recommendations tacked onto the end of treatment guidelines for each individual disease, that the topic should be discussed or tackled as a whole,” she said.

The guideline does not cover vaccinations in patients taking nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs because this class of agents has minimal or no impact on antibody responses to vaccines. The guideline also does not address vaccinations against COVID-19 infections since the rapidly changing formulations would make the recommendations obsolete before they were even published, and because the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention provides up-to-date guidance on COVID-19 vaccinations in patients with compromised immunity, she said.
 

Guiding principles

The overarching principles of the guideline are to give indicated vaccines to patients with RMD whenever possible and that any decision to hold medications before or after vaccination consider the dosage used, RMD disease activity, and the patient’s risk for vaccine-preventable infection.

The guideline also states that “shared decision-making with patients is a key component of any vaccination strategy.”

Panel member Clifton O. Bingham III, MD, professor of medicine at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, outlined expanded indications for vaccinations against influenza, pneumococcal infections, varicella zoster virus (VZV) and human papillomavirus (HPV).
 

Influenza

The guideline conditionally recommends that patients with RMD aged 65 years and older and adults older than age 18 years who are on immunosuppressive medications should receive either high-dose or adjuvanted influenza vaccination rather than regular-dose vaccines.

“It’s recognized that the high-dose or adjuvanted vaccinations may be unavailable for patients when they’re seen in your practice,” Dr. Bingham said,” and we came out with two additional statements within the guidelines that said that any flu vaccine is recommended over no flu vaccinations, because we do know that responses are elicited, and a flu vaccination today is preferred over a flu vaccination delay.”
 

Pneumococcal vaccination

The panelists strongly recommended that patients with RMD younger than age 65 years who are on immunosuppressive medication receive pneumococcal vaccinations.

The ACR guideline is in sync with those issued by the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, Dr. Bingham said. He urged audience members to visit a CDC-ACIP web page for more information on who should receive pneumococcal vaccination and when.
 

Recombinant varicella zoster

The recommendations strongly support that patients aged 18 years and over who are on immunosuppressive therapies should receive the recombinant VZV vaccine (Shingrix).

HPV

A less robust, conditional recommendation is for patients with RMDs who are between the ages of 26 and 45 years and on immunosuppressive medications to receive the HPV vaccine (if they have not already received the vaccine).

Non-live attenuated vaccines

Kevin Winthrop, MD, MPH, professor of infectious diseases and public health at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, summarized the recommendations for managing immunosuppressive therapies in patients scheduled to receive vaccinations using killed or nonactive antigens.

“In influenza season, don’t pass up the opportunity to vaccinate,” he said, adding, “if you can wait on rituximab dosing, do it, and if you can’t, go ahead and vaccinate.”

The guidelines also recommend a 2-week methotrexate hold at the time of influenza vaccination; other DMARD dosing changes are likely not necessary at the time of vaccination, “but this is an area of fervent study, and I think in a year or two we’ll have more experimental hold data with regard to other DMARDs,” Dr. Winthrop said.

For other nonlive attenuated vaccinations, recommendations are similar to those for influenza, except with more flexible timing because these vaccinations are not seasonal. When and how to hold methotrexate is still up in the air, he said.

Additionally, it’s recommended that vaccinations be delayed in patients on high-dose prednisone until the drug is tapered to below 20 mg per day, and ideally to less than 10 mg per day, he said.
 

Live-attenuated vaccines

The guideline conditionally recommends deferring live-attenuated vaccines in patients on immunosuppressive drugs. It also recommends holding these medications “for an appropriate period before” vaccination and for 4 weeks afterward.

“Although the evidence around conventional synthetic DMARDs and TNF inhibitors is reassuring in terms of their safety at the time of live attenuated vaccines, as you can see the number of studies is quite small, and so the voting panel conditionally recommend against administering live-attenuated virus vaccines to patients who are on conventional synthetics, biologic, or targeted DMARDs,” Dr. Bass said.
 

In utero exposures

Most women with RMD who have recently given birth will consult their general pediatricians rather than rheumatologists for infant vaccinations, but pediatricians may not be aware of the affect that in utero exposures to biologic DMARDs can have on vaccine safety and immunogenicity in infants, Dr, Bass said.

“It’s important that you, as a provider, give your recommendations regarding infant rotavirus vaccination after in utero exposure to the pregnant rheumatic disease patient prior to delivery, and let that patient know that this is something that they should share with their pediatrician to be,” she advised audience members.
 

Getting the message out

In an interview, session moderator and guidelines panelist Lisa F. Imundo, MD, director of the center for adolescent rheumatology at Columbia University in New York, noted that rheumatologists don’t usually have the full schedule of pediatric vaccinations in stock and often leave the decisions about what to give – and when – to general practitioners.

“Pediatric rheumatologists sometimes will give patients flu vaccinations because they’re a high-risk population of patients, and we want to make sure that they’re getting it in a timely manner,” she said.

In addition, because pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccines are not indicated in the general pediatric population, children on biologic DMARDs who have completed their standard series of pneumococcal conjugate vaccines (PCV13 or PVC15) are recommended to get a 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine, Dr. Imundo said.

She also noted that communication between pediatric rheumatologists and general practitioners about vaccine recommendations can be challenging.

“It’s a huge issue, figuring out how we’re going to communicate all of this information to our pediatric colleagues,” she said. “With individual patients, we may sometimes remind doctors, especially with our younger patients who haven’t gotten their live vaccines, that they really shouldn’t get live vaccines until they’re off medication or until we arrange holding medication for some period of time.”

She said that ACR vaccine committee members are working with infectious disease specialists and guideline developers for the American Academy of Pediatrics to ensure guidelines include the most important vaccination recommendations for pediatric patients with RMDs.

The development process for the guidelines was supported by the ACR. Dr. Bass reported no relevant disclosures, Dr. Bingham disclosed consulting activities, grant/research support, and royalties from various corporate entities. Dr. Winthrop disclosed consulting activities for and research funding from various companies. Dr. Imundo reported no relevant financial relationships.

PHILADELPHIA – The new American College of Rheumatology Guideline for Vaccinations in Patients with Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Diseases (RMDs) emphasizes that both adult and pediatric patients should receive recommended vaccinations whenever possible.

But the guideline, currently in press, also offers recommendations about whether and when to withhold vaccines from patients with RMDs, such as avoiding the use of live attenuated virus vaccines in patients who are on immunosuppressive drug regimens, such as conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), biologic DMARDs, or targeted synthetic DMARDs.

The new consensus guideline was formulated with the understanding that patients with RMDs are at increased risk for vaccine-preventable infections and more serious complications from infections, compared with the general population.

However, the guideline also acknowledges that the immunogenicity and safety of vaccines may differ among patients with RMDs, and that, depending on the patient age and disease state, individuals may benefit from modified vaccine indications, schedules, or modified medication schedules, said guideline panel member Anne Bass, MD, a rheumatologist at Hospital for Special Surgery and a professor of clinical medicine at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York, who presented the guideline with other panel members in a session outlining the recommendations at the annual meeting of the ACR.

“In addition, vaccination recommendations – since much of it relates to medications – really applies across diseases, and so the ACR felt that, rather than having vaccine recommendations tacked onto the end of treatment guidelines for each individual disease, that the topic should be discussed or tackled as a whole,” she said.

The guideline does not cover vaccinations in patients taking nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs because this class of agents has minimal or no impact on antibody responses to vaccines. The guideline also does not address vaccinations against COVID-19 infections since the rapidly changing formulations would make the recommendations obsolete before they were even published, and because the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention provides up-to-date guidance on COVID-19 vaccinations in patients with compromised immunity, she said.
 

Guiding principles

The overarching principles of the guideline are to give indicated vaccines to patients with RMD whenever possible and that any decision to hold medications before or after vaccination consider the dosage used, RMD disease activity, and the patient’s risk for vaccine-preventable infection.

The guideline also states that “shared decision-making with patients is a key component of any vaccination strategy.”

Panel member Clifton O. Bingham III, MD, professor of medicine at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, outlined expanded indications for vaccinations against influenza, pneumococcal infections, varicella zoster virus (VZV) and human papillomavirus (HPV).
 

Influenza

The guideline conditionally recommends that patients with RMD aged 65 years and older and adults older than age 18 years who are on immunosuppressive medications should receive either high-dose or adjuvanted influenza vaccination rather than regular-dose vaccines.

“It’s recognized that the high-dose or adjuvanted vaccinations may be unavailable for patients when they’re seen in your practice,” Dr. Bingham said,” and we came out with two additional statements within the guidelines that said that any flu vaccine is recommended over no flu vaccinations, because we do know that responses are elicited, and a flu vaccination today is preferred over a flu vaccination delay.”
 

Pneumococcal vaccination

The panelists strongly recommended that patients with RMD younger than age 65 years who are on immunosuppressive medication receive pneumococcal vaccinations.

The ACR guideline is in sync with those issued by the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, Dr. Bingham said. He urged audience members to visit a CDC-ACIP web page for more information on who should receive pneumococcal vaccination and when.
 

Recombinant varicella zoster

The recommendations strongly support that patients aged 18 years and over who are on immunosuppressive therapies should receive the recombinant VZV vaccine (Shingrix).

HPV

A less robust, conditional recommendation is for patients with RMDs who are between the ages of 26 and 45 years and on immunosuppressive medications to receive the HPV vaccine (if they have not already received the vaccine).

Non-live attenuated vaccines

Kevin Winthrop, MD, MPH, professor of infectious diseases and public health at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, summarized the recommendations for managing immunosuppressive therapies in patients scheduled to receive vaccinations using killed or nonactive antigens.

“In influenza season, don’t pass up the opportunity to vaccinate,” he said, adding, “if you can wait on rituximab dosing, do it, and if you can’t, go ahead and vaccinate.”

The guidelines also recommend a 2-week methotrexate hold at the time of influenza vaccination; other DMARD dosing changes are likely not necessary at the time of vaccination, “but this is an area of fervent study, and I think in a year or two we’ll have more experimental hold data with regard to other DMARDs,” Dr. Winthrop said.

For other nonlive attenuated vaccinations, recommendations are similar to those for influenza, except with more flexible timing because these vaccinations are not seasonal. When and how to hold methotrexate is still up in the air, he said.

Additionally, it’s recommended that vaccinations be delayed in patients on high-dose prednisone until the drug is tapered to below 20 mg per day, and ideally to less than 10 mg per day, he said.
 

Live-attenuated vaccines

The guideline conditionally recommends deferring live-attenuated vaccines in patients on immunosuppressive drugs. It also recommends holding these medications “for an appropriate period before” vaccination and for 4 weeks afterward.

“Although the evidence around conventional synthetic DMARDs and TNF inhibitors is reassuring in terms of their safety at the time of live attenuated vaccines, as you can see the number of studies is quite small, and so the voting panel conditionally recommend against administering live-attenuated virus vaccines to patients who are on conventional synthetics, biologic, or targeted DMARDs,” Dr. Bass said.
 

In utero exposures

Most women with RMD who have recently given birth will consult their general pediatricians rather than rheumatologists for infant vaccinations, but pediatricians may not be aware of the affect that in utero exposures to biologic DMARDs can have on vaccine safety and immunogenicity in infants, Dr, Bass said.

“It’s important that you, as a provider, give your recommendations regarding infant rotavirus vaccination after in utero exposure to the pregnant rheumatic disease patient prior to delivery, and let that patient know that this is something that they should share with their pediatrician to be,” she advised audience members.
 

Getting the message out

In an interview, session moderator and guidelines panelist Lisa F. Imundo, MD, director of the center for adolescent rheumatology at Columbia University in New York, noted that rheumatologists don’t usually have the full schedule of pediatric vaccinations in stock and often leave the decisions about what to give – and when – to general practitioners.

“Pediatric rheumatologists sometimes will give patients flu vaccinations because they’re a high-risk population of patients, and we want to make sure that they’re getting it in a timely manner,” she said.

In addition, because pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccines are not indicated in the general pediatric population, children on biologic DMARDs who have completed their standard series of pneumococcal conjugate vaccines (PCV13 or PVC15) are recommended to get a 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine, Dr. Imundo said.

She also noted that communication between pediatric rheumatologists and general practitioners about vaccine recommendations can be challenging.

“It’s a huge issue, figuring out how we’re going to communicate all of this information to our pediatric colleagues,” she said. “With individual patients, we may sometimes remind doctors, especially with our younger patients who haven’t gotten their live vaccines, that they really shouldn’t get live vaccines until they’re off medication or until we arrange holding medication for some period of time.”

She said that ACR vaccine committee members are working with infectious disease specialists and guideline developers for the American Academy of Pediatrics to ensure guidelines include the most important vaccination recommendations for pediatric patients with RMDs.

The development process for the guidelines was supported by the ACR. Dr. Bass reported no relevant disclosures, Dr. Bingham disclosed consulting activities, grant/research support, and royalties from various corporate entities. Dr. Winthrop disclosed consulting activities for and research funding from various companies. Dr. Imundo reported no relevant financial relationships.

AT ACR 2022

PHILADELPHIA – The first consensus screening guidelines for patients with idiopathic inflammatory myopathy (IIM) provide recommendations on risk stratification for individuals, basic and enhanced screening protocols, and screening frequency.

The recommendations, issued by the International Myositis Assessment and Clinical Studies Group (IMACS), stratify cancer risk for individual patients into low, intermediate, or high categories based on the IIM disease subtype, autoantibody status, and clinical features, reported Alexander Oldroyd, PhD, MSc, MBChB of the University of Manchester, England.

Neil Osterweil/MDedge News

“There’s a big unmet need for cancer screening. One in four adults with myositis has cancer, either 3 years before or after a diagnosis of myositis. It’s one of the leading causes of death in these patients, and they’re overwhelmingly diagnosed at a late stage, so we need standardized approaches to get early diagnosis,” he said in an interview at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

Sharon Kolasinski, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, said in an interview that the guideline is a welcome development for rheumatologists. Dr. Kolasinski moderated the session where Dr. Oldroyd described the guideline, but she was not involved in its formulation.

“I think that we all have wondered for a very long time: What is the optimal cancer screening for myositis patients? We all worry that the onset of their diseases is associated with a coincident cancer, or that they will develop it soon,” she said.

Dr. Oldroyd emphasized that all patients with myositis have elevated risk for cancer compared with the general population and that the guideline categories of low, intermediate, and high are relative only to patients with IIM.
 

International consensus

The data on which the recommendations are based come from a systematic review and meta-analysis by Dr. Oldroyd and colleagues of 69 studies on cancer risk factors and 9 on IIM-specific cancer screening.

The authors of that paper found that the dermatomyositis subtype, older age, male sex, dysphagia, cutaneous ulceration and antitranscriptional intermediary factor-1 gamma (anti-TIF1-gamma) positivity were associated with significantly increased risk of cancer.

In contrast, polymyositis and clinically amyopathic dermatomyositis subtypes, Raynaud’s phenomenon, interstitial lung disease, very high serum creatine kinase or lactate dehydrogenase levels, and positivity for anti-Jo1 or anti-EJ antibodies were associated with significantly reduced risk of cancer.

The consensus recommendations were developed with anonymous contributions from 75 expert participants in 22 countries, with additional input from 3 patient partners.
 

Do this

The guideline lists 18 recommendations, of which 13 are strong and 5 are conditional.

An example of a strong recommendation is number 3, based on a moderate level of evidences:

“All adult IIM patients, irrespective of cancer risk, should continue to participate in country/region-specific age and sex appropriate cancer screening programs,” the guideline recommends.

Patients with verified inclusion body myositis or juvenile-onset IIM do not, however, require routine screening for myositis-associated cancer, the guideline says (recommendations 1 and 2).

There are also recommendations that all adults with new-onset IIM be tested for myositis-specific and myositis-associated autoantibodies to assist in stratifying patients by risk category.

The guideline divides screening recommendations into basic and enhanced. The basic screening should include a comprehensive history and physical exam, complete blood count, liver functions tests, erythrocyte sedimentation rates/plasma viscosity, serum protein electrophoresis, urinalysis, and chest x-ray.

Adults with IIM who are determined to be at low risk for IIM-related cancer should have basic cancer screening at the time of IIM diagnosis. Adults with intermediate risk should undergo both basic and enhanced screening at the time of IIM diagnosis, and those with high risk should undergo enhanced screening at the time of myositis diagnosis, with basic screening annually for 3 years, the recommendations say.
 

Consider doing this

Conditional recommendations (“clinicians should consider ...”) include the use of PET/CT for adults at high risk for cancer when an underlying cancer has not been detected at the time of IIM diagnosis. They also include a single screening test for anti-TIF1-gamma positive dermatomyositis patients whose disease onset was after age 40 and who have at least one additional risk factor.

Also conditionally recommended are upper and lower gastrointestinal endoscopy for patients at high risk when an underlying cancer is not found at the time of IIM diagnosis, nasoendoscopy in geographical regions with elevated risk for nasopharyngeal cancers, and screening for all IIM patients with red-flag symptoms or clinical features of cancer, including unexplained weight loss, family history of cancer, smoking, unexplained fever, or night sweats.
 

Guided steps

“I think clinicians have a lot of questions such as, ‘well, what should I do, when should I do it?’ These are important clinical questions, and we need guidance about this. We need to balance comprehensiveness with cost-effectiveness, and we need expert opinion about what steps we should take now and which should we take later,” Dr. Kolasinski said.

The guideline development process was supported by the University of Manchester, IMACS, National Institute for Health Research (United Kingdom), National Institutes of Health, National Health Service Northern Care Alliance, The Myositis Association, Myositis UK, University of Pittsburgh, Versus Arthritis, and the Center for Musculoskeletal Research. Dr. Oldroyd and Dr. Kolasinski reported having no relevant conflicts of interest.

AT ACR 2022

PHILADELPHIA – The first consensus screening guidelines for patients with idiopathic inflammatory myopathy (IIM) provide recommendations on risk stratification for individuals, basic and enhanced screening protocols, and screening frequency.

The recommendations, issued by the International Myositis Assessment and Clinical Studies Group (IMACS), stratify cancer risk for individual patients into low, intermediate, or high categories based on the IIM disease subtype, autoantibody status, and clinical features, reported Alexander Oldroyd, PhD, MSc, MBChB of the University of Manchester, England.

Neil Osterweil/MDedge News

“There’s a big unmet need for cancer screening. One in four adults with myositis has cancer, either 3 years before or after a diagnosis of myositis. It’s one of the leading causes of death in these patients, and they’re overwhelmingly diagnosed at a late stage, so we need standardized approaches to get early diagnosis,” he said in an interview at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

Sharon Kolasinski, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, said in an interview that the guideline is a welcome development for rheumatologists. Dr. Kolasinski moderated the session where Dr. Oldroyd described the guideline, but she was not involved in its formulation.

“I think that we all have wondered for a very long time: What is the optimal cancer screening for myositis patients? We all worry that the onset of their diseases is associated with a coincident cancer, or that they will develop it soon,” she said.

Dr. Oldroyd emphasized that all patients with myositis have elevated risk for cancer compared with the general population and that the guideline categories of low, intermediate, and high are relative only to patients with IIM.
 

International consensus

The data on which the recommendations are based come from a systematic review and meta-analysis by Dr. Oldroyd and colleagues of 69 studies on cancer risk factors and 9 on IIM-specific cancer screening.

The authors of that paper found that the dermatomyositis subtype, older age, male sex, dysphagia, cutaneous ulceration and antitranscriptional intermediary factor-1 gamma (anti-TIF1-gamma) positivity were associated with significantly increased risk of cancer.

In contrast, polymyositis and clinically amyopathic dermatomyositis subtypes, Raynaud’s phenomenon, interstitial lung disease, very high serum creatine kinase or lactate dehydrogenase levels, and positivity for anti-Jo1 or anti-EJ antibodies were associated with significantly reduced risk of cancer.

The consensus recommendations were developed with anonymous contributions from 75 expert participants in 22 countries, with additional input from 3 patient partners.
 

Do this

The guideline lists 18 recommendations, of which 13 are strong and 5 are conditional.

An example of a strong recommendation is number 3, based on a moderate level of evidences:

“All adult IIM patients, irrespective of cancer risk, should continue to participate in country/region-specific age and sex appropriate cancer screening programs,” the guideline recommends.

Patients with verified inclusion body myositis or juvenile-onset IIM do not, however, require routine screening for myositis-associated cancer, the guideline says (recommendations 1 and 2).

There are also recommendations that all adults with new-onset IIM be tested for myositis-specific and myositis-associated autoantibodies to assist in stratifying patients by risk category.

The guideline divides screening recommendations into basic and enhanced. The basic screening should include a comprehensive history and physical exam, complete blood count, liver functions tests, erythrocyte sedimentation rates/plasma viscosity, serum protein electrophoresis, urinalysis, and chest x-ray.

Adults with IIM who are determined to be at low risk for IIM-related cancer should have basic cancer screening at the time of IIM diagnosis. Adults with intermediate risk should undergo both basic and enhanced screening at the time of IIM diagnosis, and those with high risk should undergo enhanced screening at the time of myositis diagnosis, with basic screening annually for 3 years, the recommendations say.
 

Consider doing this

Conditional recommendations (“clinicians should consider ...”) include the use of PET/CT for adults at high risk for cancer when an underlying cancer has not been detected at the time of IIM diagnosis. They also include a single screening test for anti-TIF1-gamma positive dermatomyositis patients whose disease onset was after age 40 and who have at least one additional risk factor.

Also conditionally recommended are upper and lower gastrointestinal endoscopy for patients at high risk when an underlying cancer is not found at the time of IIM diagnosis, nasoendoscopy in geographical regions with elevated risk for nasopharyngeal cancers, and screening for all IIM patients with red-flag symptoms or clinical features of cancer, including unexplained weight loss, family history of cancer, smoking, unexplained fever, or night sweats.
 

Guided steps

“I think clinicians have a lot of questions such as, ‘well, what should I do, when should I do it?’ These are important clinical questions, and we need guidance about this. We need to balance comprehensiveness with cost-effectiveness, and we need expert opinion about what steps we should take now and which should we take later,” Dr. Kolasinski said.

The guideline development process was supported by the University of Manchester, IMACS, National Institute for Health Research (United Kingdom), National Institutes of Health, National Health Service Northern Care Alliance, The Myositis Association, Myositis UK, University of Pittsburgh, Versus Arthritis, and the Center for Musculoskeletal Research. Dr. Oldroyd and Dr. Kolasinski reported having no relevant conflicts of interest.

AT ACR 2022

PHILADELPHIA – The first consensus screening guidelines for patients with idiopathic inflammatory myopathy (IIM) provide recommendations on risk stratification for individuals, basic and enhanced screening protocols, and screening frequency.

The recommendations, issued by the International Myositis Assessment and Clinical Studies Group (IMACS), stratify cancer risk for individual patients into low, intermediate, or high categories based on the IIM disease subtype, autoantibody status, and clinical features, reported Alexander Oldroyd, PhD, MSc, MBChB of the University of Manchester, England.

Neil Osterweil/MDedge News

“There’s a big unmet need for cancer screening. One in four adults with myositis has cancer, either 3 years before or after a diagnosis of myositis. It’s one of the leading causes of death in these patients, and they’re overwhelmingly diagnosed at a late stage, so we need standardized approaches to get early diagnosis,” he said in an interview at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

Sharon Kolasinski, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, said in an interview that the guideline is a welcome development for rheumatologists. Dr. Kolasinski moderated the session where Dr. Oldroyd described the guideline, but she was not involved in its formulation.

“I think that we all have wondered for a very long time: What is the optimal cancer screening for myositis patients? We all worry that the onset of their diseases is associated with a coincident cancer, or that they will develop it soon,” she said.

Dr. Oldroyd emphasized that all patients with myositis have elevated risk for cancer compared with the general population and that the guideline categories of low, intermediate, and high are relative only to patients with IIM.
 

International consensus

The data on which the recommendations are based come from a systematic review and meta-analysis by Dr. Oldroyd and colleagues of 69 studies on cancer risk factors and 9 on IIM-specific cancer screening.

The authors of that paper found that the dermatomyositis subtype, older age, male sex, dysphagia, cutaneous ulceration and antitranscriptional intermediary factor-1 gamma (anti-TIF1-gamma) positivity were associated with significantly increased risk of cancer.

In contrast, polymyositis and clinically amyopathic dermatomyositis subtypes, Raynaud’s phenomenon, interstitial lung disease, very high serum creatine kinase or lactate dehydrogenase levels, and positivity for anti-Jo1 or anti-EJ antibodies were associated with significantly reduced risk of cancer.

The consensus recommendations were developed with anonymous contributions from 75 expert participants in 22 countries, with additional input from 3 patient partners.
 

Do this

The guideline lists 18 recommendations, of which 13 are strong and 5 are conditional.

An example of a strong recommendation is number 3, based on a moderate level of evidences:

“All adult IIM patients, irrespective of cancer risk, should continue to participate in country/region-specific age and sex appropriate cancer screening programs,” the guideline recommends.

Patients with verified inclusion body myositis or juvenile-onset IIM do not, however, require routine screening for myositis-associated cancer, the guideline says (recommendations 1 and 2).

There are also recommendations that all adults with new-onset IIM be tested for myositis-specific and myositis-associated autoantibodies to assist in stratifying patients by risk category.

The guideline divides screening recommendations into basic and enhanced. The basic screening should include a comprehensive history and physical exam, complete blood count, liver functions tests, erythrocyte sedimentation rates/plasma viscosity, serum protein electrophoresis, urinalysis, and chest x-ray.

Adults with IIM who are determined to be at low risk for IIM-related cancer should have basic cancer screening at the time of IIM diagnosis. Adults with intermediate risk should undergo both basic and enhanced screening at the time of IIM diagnosis, and those with high risk should undergo enhanced screening at the time of myositis diagnosis, with basic screening annually for 3 years, the recommendations say.
 

Consider doing this

Conditional recommendations (“clinicians should consider ...”) include the use of PET/CT for adults at high risk for cancer when an underlying cancer has not been detected at the time of IIM diagnosis. They also include a single screening test for anti-TIF1-gamma positive dermatomyositis patients whose disease onset was after age 40 and who have at least one additional risk factor.

Also conditionally recommended are upper and lower gastrointestinal endoscopy for patients at high risk when an underlying cancer is not found at the time of IIM diagnosis, nasoendoscopy in geographical regions with elevated risk for nasopharyngeal cancers, and screening for all IIM patients with red-flag symptoms or clinical features of cancer, including unexplained weight loss, family history of cancer, smoking, unexplained fever, or night sweats.
 

Guided steps

“I think clinicians have a lot of questions such as, ‘well, what should I do, when should I do it?’ These are important clinical questions, and we need guidance about this. We need to balance comprehensiveness with cost-effectiveness, and we need expert opinion about what steps we should take now and which should we take later,” Dr. Kolasinski said.

The guideline development process was supported by the University of Manchester, IMACS, National Institute for Health Research (United Kingdom), National Institutes of Health, National Health Service Northern Care Alliance, The Myositis Association, Myositis UK, University of Pittsburgh, Versus Arthritis, and the Center for Musculoskeletal Research. Dr. Oldroyd and Dr. Kolasinski reported having no relevant conflicts of interest.

Exercise tops the list of 28 recommendations in a guideline for integrative interventions in patients with rheumatoid arthritis developed by the American College of Rheumatology.

The guideline is specific to RA and presents integrative interventions to accompany treatment with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), according to a summary statement issued by the ACR. The summary was approved by the ACR Board of Directors on Oct. 31, and the recommendations are part of a manuscript that will be submitted for publication in both Arthritis & Rheumatology and Arthritis Care & Research.

Consistent engagement in exercise earned the only strong recommendation; the other 27 were conditional. In the exercise category, the authors offered conditional recommendations for aerobic exercise, aquatic exercise, resistance exercise, and mind-body exercise.

Three recommendations focused on diet. Notably, the recommended diet is Mediterranean style. Two other recommendations were specifically against any other formal diet and against the use of dietary supplements. “The conditional recommendation for adhering to a Mediterranean-style diet, but not other formally defined diets, to improve RA-specific outcomes may be surprising to some clinicians,” said Bryant R. England, MD, PhD, of the University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, and one of the guideline’s coprincipal investigators, in a press release. “The voting panel acknowledged, however, that other health indications may exist for alternative diet and dietary supplements, which makes it crucial for clinicians and patients to engage in shared decision-making,” Dr. England said.

Nearly half of the 28 recommendations (13) focused on rehabilitation, but all were conditional. These included comprehensive occupational and physical therapy and hand therapy, as well as the use of splinting, orthoses, compression, bracing, and taping of affected areas. Other conditional recommendations supported the use of joint protection techniques, assistive devices, adaptive equipment, and/or environmental adaptations. The authors also included a conditional recommendation for vocational rehabilitation and work-site evaluations and/or modifications.

A category of additional integrative interventions included recommendations against both electrotherapy and chiropractic care. However, conditional recommendations were positive for acupuncture, massage therapy, and thermal modalities. Conditional recommendations also supported cognitive-behavioral therapy and/or mind-body strategies, and a standardized self-management program.

The guideline was developed by an interprofessional voting panel of 20 individuals with expertise in epidemiology, exercise physiology, GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) methodology, integrative medicine, nursing, nutrition, occupational therapy, physical therapy, rheumatology, and social work, as well as three individuals who have RA. The panel developed questions, conducted a literature review, and used the GRADE approach to rate the certainty of evidence.

“These recommendations are specific to RA management, understanding that other medical indications and general health benefits may exist for many of these interventions,” the authors write in the summary statement.

The range of interventions shows both the importance of an interprofessional team–based approach to RA management and the need to engage patients in shared decision-making, they said.

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

Exercise tops the list of 28 recommendations in a guideline for integrative interventions in patients with rheumatoid arthritis developed by the American College of Rheumatology.

The guideline is specific to RA and presents integrative interventions to accompany treatment with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), according to a summary statement issued by the ACR. The summary was approved by the ACR Board of Directors on Oct. 31, and the recommendations are part of a manuscript that will be submitted for publication in both Arthritis & Rheumatology and Arthritis Care & Research.

Consistent engagement in exercise earned the only strong recommendation; the other 27 were conditional. In the exercise category, the authors offered conditional recommendations for aerobic exercise, aquatic exercise, resistance exercise, and mind-body exercise.

Three recommendations focused on diet. Notably, the recommended diet is Mediterranean style. Two other recommendations were specifically against any other formal diet and against the use of dietary supplements. “The conditional recommendation for adhering to a Mediterranean-style diet, but not other formally defined diets, to improve RA-specific outcomes may be surprising to some clinicians,” said Bryant R. England, MD, PhD, of the University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, and one of the guideline’s coprincipal investigators, in a press release. “The voting panel acknowledged, however, that other health indications may exist for alternative diet and dietary supplements, which makes it crucial for clinicians and patients to engage in shared decision-making,” Dr. England said.

Nearly half of the 28 recommendations (13) focused on rehabilitation, but all were conditional. These included comprehensive occupational and physical therapy and hand therapy, as well as the use of splinting, orthoses, compression, bracing, and taping of affected areas. Other conditional recommendations supported the use of joint protection techniques, assistive devices, adaptive equipment, and/or environmental adaptations. The authors also included a conditional recommendation for vocational rehabilitation and work-site evaluations and/or modifications.

A category of additional integrative interventions included recommendations against both electrotherapy and chiropractic care. However, conditional recommendations were positive for acupuncture, massage therapy, and thermal modalities. Conditional recommendations also supported cognitive-behavioral therapy and/or mind-body strategies, and a standardized self-management program.

The guideline was developed by an interprofessional voting panel of 20 individuals with expertise in epidemiology, exercise physiology, GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) methodology, integrative medicine, nursing, nutrition, occupational therapy, physical therapy, rheumatology, and social work, as well as three individuals who have RA. The panel developed questions, conducted a literature review, and used the GRADE approach to rate the certainty of evidence.

“These recommendations are specific to RA management, understanding that other medical indications and general health benefits may exist for many of these interventions,” the authors write in the summary statement.

The range of interventions shows both the importance of an interprofessional team–based approach to RA management and the need to engage patients in shared decision-making, they said.

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

Exercise tops the list of 28 recommendations in a guideline for integrative interventions in patients with rheumatoid arthritis developed by the American College of Rheumatology.

The guideline is specific to RA and presents integrative interventions to accompany treatment with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), according to a summary statement issued by the ACR. The summary was approved by the ACR Board of Directors on Oct. 31, and the recommendations are part of a manuscript that will be submitted for publication in both Arthritis & Rheumatology and Arthritis Care & Research.

Consistent engagement in exercise earned the only strong recommendation; the other 27 were conditional. In the exercise category, the authors offered conditional recommendations for aerobic exercise, aquatic exercise, resistance exercise, and mind-body exercise.

Three recommendations focused on diet. Notably, the recommended diet is Mediterranean style. Two other recommendations were specifically against any other formal diet and against the use of dietary supplements. “The conditional recommendation for adhering to a Mediterranean-style diet, but not other formally defined diets, to improve RA-specific outcomes may be surprising to some clinicians,” said Bryant R. England, MD, PhD, of the University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, and one of the guideline’s coprincipal investigators, in a press release. “The voting panel acknowledged, however, that other health indications may exist for alternative diet and dietary supplements, which makes it crucial for clinicians and patients to engage in shared decision-making,” Dr. England said.

Nearly half of the 28 recommendations (13) focused on rehabilitation, but all were conditional. These included comprehensive occupational and physical therapy and hand therapy, as well as the use of splinting, orthoses, compression, bracing, and taping of affected areas. Other conditional recommendations supported the use of joint protection techniques, assistive devices, adaptive equipment, and/or environmental adaptations. The authors also included a conditional recommendation for vocational rehabilitation and work-site evaluations and/or modifications.

A category of additional integrative interventions included recommendations against both electrotherapy and chiropractic care. However, conditional recommendations were positive for acupuncture, massage therapy, and thermal modalities. Conditional recommendations also supported cognitive-behavioral therapy and/or mind-body strategies, and a standardized self-management program.

The guideline was developed by an interprofessional voting panel of 20 individuals with expertise in epidemiology, exercise physiology, GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) methodology, integrative medicine, nursing, nutrition, occupational therapy, physical therapy, rheumatology, and social work, as well as three individuals who have RA. The panel developed questions, conducted a literature review, and used the GRADE approach to rate the certainty of evidence.

“These recommendations are specific to RA management, understanding that other medical indications and general health benefits may exist for many of these interventions,” the authors write in the summary statement.

The range of interventions shows both the importance of an interprofessional team–based approach to RA management and the need to engage patients in shared decision-making, they said.

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

The Canadian Paediatric Society (CPS) has issued a position statement on the diagnosis of anxiety disorders in children and youth. The organization aims to “offer evidence-informed guidance to support pediatric health care providers making decisions around the care of children and adolescents with these conditions.”

“It’s been a long time coming,” lead author Benjamin Klein, MD, assistant clinical professor of pediatrics at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., told this news organization. The target audience for the documents includes community pediatricians, subspecialists, family doctors, and nurse practitioners. “There was a great demand from that audience for a position statement, for guidance, obviously in the backdrop of rising child and adolescent mental health incidence over the years and of course COVID,” said Dr. Klein.

The statement was published on the CPS website.
 

‘A comprehensive approach’

Although many other guidelines on this topic are available, it was important to have a Canadian document, said Dr. Klein. “Obviously, there’s going to be a great deal of overlap with European or American guidelines, but it’s just kind of assumed that people want specifically Canadian content. ... Physicians want to know that they’re practicing within a standard of care in Canada.” Dr. Klein is medical director of the Lansdowne Children’s Centre, Brantford, Ont., which provides help for children with communication, developmental, and physical special needs across Ontario.

Anxiety disorders are the most common mental disorders among children and adolescents in Canada, according to the position statement. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th Edition (DSM-5) groups these disorders into separation anxiety disorder, selective mutism, specific phobia, social anxiety disorder (social phobia), panic disorder, agoraphobia, and generalized anxiety disorder.

Distinguishing normal, age-appropriate anxiety from anxiety disorder, while also recognizing other comorbidities, is complicated, said Dr. Klein. “Anxiety is one possible diagnosis or feature, and children with mental health and developmental problems often present with a number of problems. Anxiety may be one of them, but if it’s one of them, it may not be the main driver. So, a comprehensive approach is needed ... combining the medical model with biopsychosocial thinking to give a better picture of anxiety in the context of anything else that may be contributing to a presentation.”

The statement outlines recommendations for anxiety assessment, starting with a screening questionnaire such as the Screen for Child Anxiety Related Disorders (SCARED), which is completed by parents and children, to assess symptom severity. Standardized measures for medical, mental health, and developmental histories are available on the CPS website.

The document next recommends an interview about presenting concerns (such as sleep problems or school difficulties), inciting events, and parent-child interactions. The process includes confidential, nonjudgmental interviews with adolescents using a history-taking tool such as HEEADSSS (Home, Education/Employment, Eating, Activities, Drugs, Sexuality, Suicide/Mental Health, and Safety).

“The diagnosis and treatment of anxiety disorders kind of sounds simple if you just read about it as an isolated thing, but the reality is ... there’s no MRI. It’s detective work,” said Dr. Klein. Clinicians must distinguish between normal anxiety, situational anxiety, and specific anxiety disorder, he added. He usually allows 90 minutes for an anxiety assessment, partly to gain the patient’s trust. “These are sensitive issues. It’s common that people don’t trust a diagnosis if you haven’t spent enough time with them. That relational care piece just needs to be there, or people aren’t going to buy in.”

The CPS position statement was reviewed and endorsed by the Canadian Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry.
 

Methodology unclear

Joanna Henderson, MD, professor of psychiatry at the University of Toronto and director of the Margaret and Wallace McCain Centre for Child, Youth, and Family Mental Health at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Toronto, said that the guidelines have been released at an important time. “Conversations about mental health have become more common, and many children, youth, and families are reaching out for support. It is essential that health care professionals be equipped with accessible information about practices to provide appropriate care. These guidelines support that vision.”

It would be helpful to know more about the methods used to arrive at the recommendations, however, said Dr. Henderson. “It is critical that health care providers be guided by evidence-based guidelines that adhere to criteria for establishing high-quality guidelines. Because the authors did not provide information about their methods, I am not able to provide a comment about the quality of their guidelines. There are established approaches for evaluating quality, and I would encourage the authors to publish as a supplement to this article their methods, including in reference to the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) checklist.”

In the absence of readily available information about methods, she said, “clinicians are encouraged to use guidelines from sources that provide information about the guideline development process and include quality appraisal,” such as the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, which is “generally recognized as a reputable source for high-quality practice guidelines.”

Responding to this concern, Dr. Klein said, “There is no specific evidence base for diagnosis. That robust science doesn’t exist. No one has done randomized controlled trials of different methods of diagnosing kids with anxiety. We looked at other position statements, we looked at textbooks, and obviously we drew from our own clinical experience, so it comes from clinical judgment and expert opinion.”

Dr. Henderson also noted that in the future “it will be important to contextualize the recommendations by highlighting the importance of cultural competence in conducting assessments and providing treatment.” Moreover, current evidence can be expanded through the incorporation of diverse cultural and racial perspectives, experiences, and data, she added.

Health service providers should reflect on their own potential biases, which can influence clinician-patient interactions, Dr. Henderson continued. It also is important to consider biases in the evidence, which influence practice. Clinicians should also consider how their recommendations fit with patients’ “cultural and race-based experiences, beliefs, and practices.”

No source of funding for the position statement was reported. Dr. Klein and Dr. Henderson had disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The Canadian Paediatric Society (CPS) has issued a position statement on the diagnosis of anxiety disorders in children and youth. The organization aims to “offer evidence-informed guidance to support pediatric health care providers making decisions around the care of children and adolescents with these conditions.”

“It’s been a long time coming,” lead author Benjamin Klein, MD, assistant clinical professor of pediatrics at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., told this news organization. The target audience for the documents includes community pediatricians, subspecialists, family doctors, and nurse practitioners. “There was a great demand from that audience for a position statement, for guidance, obviously in the backdrop of rising child and adolescent mental health incidence over the years and of course COVID,” said Dr. Klein.

The statement was published on the CPS website.
 

‘A comprehensive approach’

Although many other guidelines on this topic are available, it was important to have a Canadian document, said Dr. Klein. “Obviously, there’s going to be a great deal of overlap with European or American guidelines, but it’s just kind of assumed that people want specifically Canadian content. ... Physicians want to know that they’re practicing within a standard of care in Canada.” Dr. Klein is medical director of the Lansdowne Children’s Centre, Brantford, Ont., which provides help for children with communication, developmental, and physical special needs across Ontario.

Anxiety disorders are the most common mental disorders among children and adolescents in Canada, according to the position statement. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th Edition (DSM-5) groups these disorders into separation anxiety disorder, selective mutism, specific phobia, social anxiety disorder (social phobia), panic disorder, agoraphobia, and generalized anxiety disorder.

Distinguishing normal, age-appropriate anxiety from anxiety disorder, while also recognizing other comorbidities, is complicated, said Dr. Klein. “Anxiety is one possible diagnosis or feature, and children with mental health and developmental problems often present with a number of problems. Anxiety may be one of them, but if it’s one of them, it may not be the main driver. So, a comprehensive approach is needed ... combining the medical model with biopsychosocial thinking to give a better picture of anxiety in the context of anything else that may be contributing to a presentation.”

The statement outlines recommendations for anxiety assessment, starting with a screening questionnaire such as the Screen for Child Anxiety Related Disorders (SCARED), which is completed by parents and children, to assess symptom severity. Standardized measures for medical, mental health, and developmental histories are available on the CPS website.

The document next recommends an interview about presenting concerns (such as sleep problems or school difficulties), inciting events, and parent-child interactions. The process includes confidential, nonjudgmental interviews with adolescents using a history-taking tool such as HEEADSSS (Home, Education/Employment, Eating, Activities, Drugs, Sexuality, Suicide/Mental Health, and Safety).

“The diagnosis and treatment of anxiety disorders kind of sounds simple if you just read about it as an isolated thing, but the reality is ... there’s no MRI. It’s detective work,” said Dr. Klein. Clinicians must distinguish between normal anxiety, situational anxiety, and specific anxiety disorder, he added. He usually allows 90 minutes for an anxiety assessment, partly to gain the patient’s trust. “These are sensitive issues. It’s common that people don’t trust a diagnosis if you haven’t spent enough time with them. That relational care piece just needs to be there, or people aren’t going to buy in.”

The CPS position statement was reviewed and endorsed by the Canadian Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry.
 

Methodology unclear

Joanna Henderson, MD, professor of psychiatry at the University of Toronto and director of the Margaret and Wallace McCain Centre for Child, Youth, and Family Mental Health at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Toronto, said that the guidelines have been released at an important time. “Conversations about mental health have become more common, and many children, youth, and families are reaching out for support. It is essential that health care professionals be equipped with accessible information about practices to provide appropriate care. These guidelines support that vision.”

It would be helpful to know more about the methods used to arrive at the recommendations, however, said Dr. Henderson. “It is critical that health care providers be guided by evidence-based guidelines that adhere to criteria for establishing high-quality guidelines. Because the authors did not provide information about their methods, I am not able to provide a comment about the quality of their guidelines. There are established approaches for evaluating quality, and I would encourage the authors to publish as a supplement to this article their methods, including in reference to the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) checklist.”

In the absence of readily available information about methods, she said, “clinicians are encouraged to use guidelines from sources that provide information about the guideline development process and include quality appraisal,” such as the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, which is “generally recognized as a reputable source for high-quality practice guidelines.”

Responding to this concern, Dr. Klein said, “There is no specific evidence base for diagnosis. That robust science doesn’t exist. No one has done randomized controlled trials of different methods of diagnosing kids with anxiety. We looked at other position statements, we looked at textbooks, and obviously we drew from our own clinical experience, so it comes from clinical judgment and expert opinion.”

Dr. Henderson also noted that in the future “it will be important to contextualize the recommendations by highlighting the importance of cultural competence in conducting assessments and providing treatment.” Moreover, current evidence can be expanded through the incorporation of diverse cultural and racial perspectives, experiences, and data, she added.

Health service providers should reflect on their own potential biases, which can influence clinician-patient interactions, Dr. Henderson continued. It also is important to consider biases in the evidence, which influence practice. Clinicians should also consider how their recommendations fit with patients’ “cultural and race-based experiences, beliefs, and practices.”

No source of funding for the position statement was reported. Dr. Klein and Dr. Henderson had disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The Canadian Paediatric Society (CPS) has issued a position statement on the diagnosis of anxiety disorders in children and youth. The organization aims to “offer evidence-informed guidance to support pediatric health care providers making decisions around the care of children and adolescents with these conditions.”

“It’s been a long time coming,” lead author Benjamin Klein, MD, assistant clinical professor of pediatrics at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., told this news organization. The target audience for the documents includes community pediatricians, subspecialists, family doctors, and nurse practitioners. “There was a great demand from that audience for a position statement, for guidance, obviously in the backdrop of rising child and adolescent mental health incidence over the years and of course COVID,” said Dr. Klein.

The statement was published on the CPS website.
 

‘A comprehensive approach’

Although many other guidelines on this topic are available, it was important to have a Canadian document, said Dr. Klein. “Obviously, there’s going to be a great deal of overlap with European or American guidelines, but it’s just kind of assumed that people want specifically Canadian content. ... Physicians want to know that they’re practicing within a standard of care in Canada.” Dr. Klein is medical director of the Lansdowne Children’s Centre, Brantford, Ont., which provides help for children with communication, developmental, and physical special needs across Ontario.

Anxiety disorders are the most common mental disorders among children and adolescents in Canada, according to the position statement. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th Edition (DSM-5) groups these disorders into separation anxiety disorder, selective mutism, specific phobia, social anxiety disorder (social phobia), panic disorder, agoraphobia, and generalized anxiety disorder.

Distinguishing normal, age-appropriate anxiety from anxiety disorder, while also recognizing other comorbidities, is complicated, said Dr. Klein. “Anxiety is one possible diagnosis or feature, and children with mental health and developmental problems often present with a number of problems. Anxiety may be one of them, but if it’s one of them, it may not be the main driver. So, a comprehensive approach is needed ... combining the medical model with biopsychosocial thinking to give a better picture of anxiety in the context of anything else that may be contributing to a presentation.”

The statement outlines recommendations for anxiety assessment, starting with a screening questionnaire such as the Screen for Child Anxiety Related Disorders (SCARED), which is completed by parents and children, to assess symptom severity. Standardized measures for medical, mental health, and developmental histories are available on the CPS website.

The document next recommends an interview about presenting concerns (such as sleep problems or school difficulties), inciting events, and parent-child interactions. The process includes confidential, nonjudgmental interviews with adolescents using a history-taking tool such as HEEADSSS (Home, Education/Employment, Eating, Activities, Drugs, Sexuality, Suicide/Mental Health, and Safety).

“The diagnosis and treatment of anxiety disorders kind of sounds simple if you just read about it as an isolated thing, but the reality is ... there’s no MRI. It’s detective work,” said Dr. Klein. Clinicians must distinguish between normal anxiety, situational anxiety, and specific anxiety disorder, he added. He usually allows 90 minutes for an anxiety assessment, partly to gain the patient’s trust. “These are sensitive issues. It’s common that people don’t trust a diagnosis if you haven’t spent enough time with them. That relational care piece just needs to be there, or people aren’t going to buy in.”

The CPS position statement was reviewed and endorsed by the Canadian Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry.
 

Methodology unclear

Joanna Henderson, MD, professor of psychiatry at the University of Toronto and director of the Margaret and Wallace McCain Centre for Child, Youth, and Family Mental Health at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Toronto, said that the guidelines have been released at an important time. “Conversations about mental health have become more common, and many children, youth, and families are reaching out for support. It is essential that health care professionals be equipped with accessible information about practices to provide appropriate care. These guidelines support that vision.”

It would be helpful to know more about the methods used to arrive at the recommendations, however, said Dr. Henderson. “It is critical that health care providers be guided by evidence-based guidelines that adhere to criteria for establishing high-quality guidelines. Because the authors did not provide information about their methods, I am not able to provide a comment about the quality of their guidelines. There are established approaches for evaluating quality, and I would encourage the authors to publish as a supplement to this article their methods, including in reference to the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) checklist.”

In the absence of readily available information about methods, she said, “clinicians are encouraged to use guidelines from sources that provide information about the guideline development process and include quality appraisal,” such as the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, which is “generally recognized as a reputable source for high-quality practice guidelines.”

Responding to this concern, Dr. Klein said, “There is no specific evidence base for diagnosis. That robust science doesn’t exist. No one has done randomized controlled trials of different methods of diagnosing kids with anxiety. We looked at other position statements, we looked at textbooks, and obviously we drew from our own clinical experience, so it comes from clinical judgment and expert opinion.”

Dr. Henderson also noted that in the future “it will be important to contextualize the recommendations by highlighting the importance of cultural competence in conducting assessments and providing treatment.” Moreover, current evidence can be expanded through the incorporation of diverse cultural and racial perspectives, experiences, and data, she added.

Health service providers should reflect on their own potential biases, which can influence clinician-patient interactions, Dr. Henderson continued. It also is important to consider biases in the evidence, which influence practice. Clinicians should also consider how their recommendations fit with patients’ “cultural and race-based experiences, beliefs, and practices.”

No source of funding for the position statement was reported. Dr. Klein and Dr. Henderson had disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force moved forward their recommendations for using hormone therapy to prevent chronic conditions in postmenopausal women by keeping them the same.

The central message of the new recommendations, released on Nov. 1 as a statement published in JAMA, remains unchanged from the last update in 2017.

The message also remains simple: Don’t use hormone therapy for preventing chronic conditions, such as cardiovascular disease, cancer, and osteoporosis, or bone fracture.

The USPSTF summarized its recommendations in two brief statements: the group “recommends against the use of combined estrogen and progestin for the primary prevention of chronic conditions in postmenopausal persons” and “recommends against the use of estrogen alone for the primary prevention of chronic conditions in postmenopausal persons who have had a hysterectomy.”

This wording is identical to that used in the 2017 guidance (except it now refers to postmenopausal persons instead of specifically women). The recommendation against use of estrogen and progestin for prevention of chronic conditions in postmenopausal women was first made by the USPSTF in 2002.

An editorial accompanying the 2022 revision notes that the evidence cited by the USPSTF includes “only two additional, modest-sized trials” (that focused on the effects of hormone therapy on cognition and brain structure) compared with 2017, “as well as ancillary analyses of previous trials.”
 

A standard 5-year update

The 2022 revision and revisiting of the evidence base by the Task Force regarding the benefits and risks of postmenopausal hormone therapy occurred “as part of the Task Force’s standard approach, which includes updating each recommendation approximately every 5 years,” explained Carol M. Mangione, MD, who is USPSTF chair and chief of the division of general internal medicine and health services research at the University of California, Los Angeles.

“In our review we again found that while hormone therapy may reduce the risk of some conditions, it can also lead to serious harms such as an increase in the risk of blood clots and stroke,” Dr. Mangione said in an interview. “The harms cancel out any potential benefits overall.”

This new statement only applies to using menopausal hormone treatment for preventing chronic conditions in asymptomatic people but does not speak to using this treatment in managing people with perimenopausal symptoms such as hot flashes or vaginal dryness or treating people with premature or surgical menopause, Dr. Mangione highlighted.
 

No review for treating menopausal symptoms

“The Task Force encourages people who are experiencing symptoms of menopause to talk with their health care professional about the best treatment for them,” explained Dr. Mangione. “The Task Force did not review the evidence on the use of hormone therapy to treat symptoms of menopause.”

Osteoporosis and increased risk for bone fracture were among the conditions that accompany menopause reviewed by the USPSTF. The Task Force concluded that while “hormone therapy was associated with decreased risk of fractures,” after weighing the benefits and harms for preventing this condition, “there is no net benefit at the population level.”

This conclusion seems to contrast with the 2022 hormone therapy position statement of the North American Menopause Society (NAMS), released in July, which states: “For women aged younger than 60 years or who are within 10 years of menopause onset and have no contraindications, the benefit-risk ratio is favorable for treatment of bothersome vasomotor symptoms and prevention of bone loss.”
 

USPSTF, NAMS are ‘completely consistent’

However, Stephanie S. Faubion, MD, medical director of NAMS and director of the women’s health clinic at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., said the new USPSTF recommendations “are completely consistent” with the recent NAMS statement.

“We are entirely aligned with the recommendation to use hormone therapy for management of menopausal symptoms and not for chronic disease prevention or as an anti-aging strategy,” Dr. Faubion commented in an interview.

Dr. Faubion also stressed that “menopausal hormone therapy remains the most effective treatment for menopausal symptoms,” and that “women should not be reflexively directed to other pharmacologic therapies for management of menopausal symptoms.”

The distinction the USPSTF makes between its recommendations against using hormone therapy to prevent chronic conditions and its deferral of comment on use of the same treatment to manage perimenopausal symptoms is often forgotten, note Alison J. Huang, MD, and Deborah Grady, MD, in their editorial.
 

A problem of conflation

“Many patients and clinicians conflate these two different indications,” they write.

The notion that the net harms of menopausal hormone therapy outweigh the benefits “is now widely adopted as a rationale for foregoing menopausal hormone therapy for symptomatic treatment,” even though “nonhormonal treatments that are as effective as menopausal hormone therapy have not yet been identified,” say Dr. Huang and Dr. Grady, both physicians at the University of California, San Francisco.

In addition, alternative, nonhormonal options for treating perimenopausal symptoms have not received the same level of scrutiny as hormonal treatment, they say.

“It is arguably problematic to avoid menopausal hormone therapy and favor potentially less effective treatments, when the longer-term implications of those treatments for health have not been evaluated,” Dr. Huang and Dr. Grady write in their editorial.

In short, during menopause, people are at risk of being “frightened away from considering using menopausal hormone therapy for distressing symptoms,” they say.

“We can’t speak to whether or how often clinicians might be conflating the role of hormone therapy in treating symptoms and preventing chronic conditions,” answered Dr. Mangione.

“We hope to ensure that health professionals know that hormone therapy is not a beneficial way to reduce the risk of chronic conditions such as heart disease, cancer, and strokes,” she added. The new recommendations are an effort to “raise awareness about the value of considering other safe and effective ways for people to reduce their risk of chronic health problems as they age.”
 

The issue of timing

Another critique offered by Dr. Huang and Dr. Grady in their editorial is that “the scientific and medical community should let go of the past,” and should no longer invest additional resources in “trying to parse out subsets of menopausal patients who may derive some preventive benefit from menopausal hormone therapy for a limited amount of time.”

But Dr. Mangione disagreed.

The USPSTF “calls for more research that can help us understand whether health outcomes – both benefits and harms – differ depending on a person’s age or when they started hormone therapy related to when they went through menopause,” she said.

Dr. Mangione also highlighted the need for additional research on whether the benefits and risks of menopausal hormone therapy vary across racial and ethnic groups.

USPSTF receives no commercial funding. Dr. Mangione, Dr. Huang, and Dr. Grady have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force moved forward their recommendations for using hormone therapy to prevent chronic conditions in postmenopausal women by keeping them the same.

The central message of the new recommendations, released on Nov. 1 as a statement published in JAMA, remains unchanged from the last update in 2017.

The message also remains simple: Don’t use hormone therapy for preventing chronic conditions, such as cardiovascular disease, cancer, and osteoporosis, or bone fracture.

The USPSTF summarized its recommendations in two brief statements: the group “recommends against the use of combined estrogen and progestin for the primary prevention of chronic conditions in postmenopausal persons” and “recommends against the use of estrogen alone for the primary prevention of chronic conditions in postmenopausal persons who have had a hysterectomy.”

This wording is identical to that used in the 2017 guidance (except it now refers to postmenopausal persons instead of specifically women). The recommendation against use of estrogen and progestin for prevention of chronic conditions in postmenopausal women was first made by the USPSTF in 2002.

An editorial accompanying the 2022 revision notes that the evidence cited by the USPSTF includes “only two additional, modest-sized trials” (that focused on the effects of hormone therapy on cognition and brain structure) compared with 2017, “as well as ancillary analyses of previous trials.”
 

A standard 5-year update

The 2022 revision and revisiting of the evidence base by the Task Force regarding the benefits and risks of postmenopausal hormone therapy occurred “as part of the Task Force’s standard approach, which includes updating each recommendation approximately every 5 years,” explained Carol M. Mangione, MD, who is USPSTF chair and chief of the division of general internal medicine and health services research at the University of California, Los Angeles.

“In our review we again found that while hormone therapy may reduce the risk of some conditions, it can also lead to serious harms such as an increase in the risk of blood clots and stroke,” Dr. Mangione said in an interview. “The harms cancel out any potential benefits overall.”

This new statement only applies to using menopausal hormone treatment for preventing chronic conditions in asymptomatic people but does not speak to using this treatment in managing people with perimenopausal symptoms such as hot flashes or vaginal dryness or treating people with premature or surgical menopause, Dr. Mangione highlighted.
 

No review for treating menopausal symptoms

“The Task Force encourages people who are experiencing symptoms of menopause to talk with their health care professional about the best treatment for them,” explained Dr. Mangione. “The Task Force did not review the evidence on the use of hormone therapy to treat symptoms of menopause.”

Osteoporosis and increased risk for bone fracture were among the conditions that accompany menopause reviewed by the USPSTF. The Task Force concluded that while “hormone therapy was associated with decreased risk of fractures,” after weighing the benefits and harms for preventing this condition, “there is no net benefit at the population level.”

This conclusion seems to contrast with the 2022 hormone therapy position statement of the North American Menopause Society (NAMS), released in July, which states: “For women aged younger than 60 years or who are within 10 years of menopause onset and have no contraindications, the benefit-risk ratio is favorable for treatment of bothersome vasomotor symptoms and prevention of bone loss.”
 

USPSTF, NAMS are ‘completely consistent’

However, Stephanie S. Faubion, MD, medical director of NAMS and director of the women’s health clinic at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., said the new USPSTF recommendations “are completely consistent” with the recent NAMS statement.

“We are entirely aligned with the recommendation to use hormone therapy for management of menopausal symptoms and not for chronic disease prevention or as an anti-aging strategy,” Dr. Faubion commented in an interview.

Dr. Faubion also stressed that “menopausal hormone therapy remains the most effective treatment for menopausal symptoms,” and that “women should not be reflexively directed to other pharmacologic therapies for management of menopausal symptoms.”

The distinction the USPSTF makes between its recommendations against using hormone therapy to prevent chronic conditions and its deferral of comment on use of the same treatment to manage perimenopausal symptoms is often forgotten, note Alison J. Huang, MD, and Deborah Grady, MD, in their editorial.
 

A problem of conflation

“Many patients and clinicians conflate these two different indications,” they write.

The notion that the net harms of menopausal hormone therapy outweigh the benefits “is now widely adopted as a rationale for foregoing menopausal hormone therapy for symptomatic treatment,” even though “nonhormonal treatments that are as effective as menopausal hormone therapy have not yet been identified,” say Dr. Huang and Dr. Grady, both physicians at the University of California, San Francisco.

In addition, alternative, nonhormonal options for treating perimenopausal symptoms have not received the same level of scrutiny as hormonal treatment, they say.

“It is arguably problematic to avoid menopausal hormone therapy and favor potentially less effective treatments, when the longer-term implications of those treatments for health have not been evaluated,” Dr. Huang and Dr. Grady write in their editorial.

In short, during menopause, people are at risk of being “frightened away from considering using menopausal hormone therapy for distressing symptoms,” they say.

“We can’t speak to whether or how often clinicians might be conflating the role of hormone therapy in treating symptoms and preventing chronic conditions,” answered Dr. Mangione.

“We hope to ensure that health professionals know that hormone therapy is not a beneficial way to reduce the risk of chronic conditions such as heart disease, cancer, and strokes,” she added. The new recommendations are an effort to “raise awareness about the value of considering other safe and effective ways for people to reduce their risk of chronic health problems as they age.”
 

The issue of timing

Another critique offered by Dr. Huang and Dr. Grady in their editorial is that “the scientific and medical community should let go of the past,” and should no longer invest additional resources in “trying to parse out subsets of menopausal patients who may derive some preventive benefit from menopausal hormone therapy for a limited amount of time.”

But Dr. Mangione disagreed.

The USPSTF “calls for more research that can help us understand whether health outcomes – both benefits and harms – differ depending on a person’s age or when they started hormone therapy related to when they went through menopause,” she said.

Dr. Mangione also highlighted the need for additional research on whether the benefits and risks of menopausal hormone therapy vary across racial and ethnic groups.

USPSTF receives no commercial funding. Dr. Mangione, Dr. Huang, and Dr. Grady have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force moved forward their recommendations for using hormone therapy to prevent chronic conditions in postmenopausal women by keeping them the same.

The central message of the new recommendations, released on Nov. 1 as a statement published in JAMA, remains unchanged from the last update in 2017.

The message also remains simple: Don’t use hormone therapy for preventing chronic conditions, such as cardiovascular disease, cancer, and osteoporosis, or bone fracture.

The USPSTF summarized its recommendations in two brief statements: the group “recommends against the use of combined estrogen and progestin for the primary prevention of chronic conditions in postmenopausal persons” and “recommends against the use of estrogen alone for the primary prevention of chronic conditions in postmenopausal persons who have had a hysterectomy.”

This wording is identical to that used in the 2017 guidance (except it now refers to postmenopausal persons instead of specifically women). The recommendation against use of estrogen and progestin for prevention of chronic conditions in postmenopausal women was first made by the USPSTF in 2002.

An editorial accompanying the 2022 revision notes that the evidence cited by the USPSTF includes “only two additional, modest-sized trials” (that focused on the effects of hormone therapy on cognition and brain structure) compared with 2017, “as well as ancillary analyses of previous trials.”
 

A standard 5-year update

The 2022 revision and revisiting of the evidence base by the Task Force regarding the benefits and risks of postmenopausal hormone therapy occurred “as part of the Task Force’s standard approach, which includes updating each recommendation approximately every 5 years,” explained Carol M. Mangione, MD, who is USPSTF chair and chief of the division of general internal medicine and health services research at the University of California, Los Angeles.

“In our review we again found that while hormone therapy may reduce the risk of some conditions, it can also lead to serious harms such as an increase in the risk of blood clots and stroke,” Dr. Mangione said in an interview. “The harms cancel out any potential benefits overall.”

This new statement only applies to using menopausal hormone treatment for preventing chronic conditions in asymptomatic people but does not speak to using this treatment in managing people with perimenopausal symptoms such as hot flashes or vaginal dryness or treating people with premature or surgical menopause, Dr. Mangione highlighted.
 

No review for treating menopausal symptoms

“The Task Force encourages people who are experiencing symptoms of menopause to talk with their health care professional about the best treatment for them,” explained Dr. Mangione. “The Task Force did not review the evidence on the use of hormone therapy to treat symptoms of menopause.”

Osteoporosis and increased risk for bone fracture were among the conditions that accompany menopause reviewed by the USPSTF. The Task Force concluded that while “hormone therapy was associated with decreased risk of fractures,” after weighing the benefits and harms for preventing this condition, “there is no net benefit at the population level.”

This conclusion seems to contrast with the 2022 hormone therapy position statement of the North American Menopause Society (NAMS), released in July, which states: “For women aged younger than 60 years or who are within 10 years of menopause onset and have no contraindications, the benefit-risk ratio is favorable for treatment of bothersome vasomotor symptoms and prevention of bone loss.”
 

USPSTF, NAMS are ‘completely consistent’

However, Stephanie S. Faubion, MD, medical director of NAMS and director of the women’s health clinic at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., said the new USPSTF recommendations “are completely consistent” with the recent NAMS statement.

“We are entirely aligned with the recommendation to use hormone therapy for management of menopausal symptoms and not for chronic disease prevention or as an anti-aging strategy,” Dr. Faubion commented in an interview.

Dr. Faubion also stressed that “menopausal hormone therapy remains the most effective treatment for menopausal symptoms,” and that “women should not be reflexively directed to other pharmacologic therapies for management of menopausal symptoms.”

The distinction the USPSTF makes between its recommendations against using hormone therapy to prevent chronic conditions and its deferral of comment on use of the same treatment to manage perimenopausal symptoms is often forgotten, note Alison J. Huang, MD, and Deborah Grady, MD, in their editorial.
 

A problem of conflation

“Many patients and clinicians conflate these two different indications,” they write.

The notion that the net harms of menopausal hormone therapy outweigh the benefits “is now widely adopted as a rationale for foregoing menopausal hormone therapy for symptomatic treatment,” even though “nonhormonal treatments that are as effective as menopausal hormone therapy have not yet been identified,” say Dr. Huang and Dr. Grady, both physicians at the University of California, San Francisco.

In addition, alternative, nonhormonal options for treating perimenopausal symptoms have not received the same level of scrutiny as hormonal treatment, they say.

“It is arguably problematic to avoid menopausal hormone therapy and favor potentially less effective treatments, when the longer-term implications of those treatments for health have not been evaluated,” Dr. Huang and Dr. Grady write in their editorial.

In short, during menopause, people are at risk of being “frightened away from considering using menopausal hormone therapy for distressing symptoms,” they say.

“We can’t speak to whether or how often clinicians might be conflating the role of hormone therapy in treating symptoms and preventing chronic conditions,” answered Dr. Mangione.

“We hope to ensure that health professionals know that hormone therapy is not a beneficial way to reduce the risk of chronic conditions such as heart disease, cancer, and strokes,” she added. The new recommendations are an effort to “raise awareness about the value of considering other safe and effective ways for people to reduce their risk of chronic health problems as they age.”
 

The issue of timing

Another critique offered by Dr. Huang and Dr. Grady in their editorial is that “the scientific and medical community should let go of the past,” and should no longer invest additional resources in “trying to parse out subsets of menopausal patients who may derive some preventive benefit from menopausal hormone therapy for a limited amount of time.”

But Dr. Mangione disagreed.

The USPSTF “calls for more research that can help us understand whether health outcomes – both benefits and harms – differ depending on a person’s age or when they started hormone therapy related to when they went through menopause,” she said.

Dr. Mangione also highlighted the need for additional research on whether the benefits and risks of menopausal hormone therapy vary across racial and ethnic groups.

USPSTF receives no commercial funding. Dr. Mangione, Dr. Huang, and Dr. Grady have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Comprehensive evaluation, multidisciplinary care, individualized treatment, and ongoing follow-up are all key to the management of pediatric thyroid nodules and differentiated thyroid carcinoma (DTC), according to the first European guidelines for this rare disease.

The guidelines were recently published in the European Thyroid Journal.

Lead author Chantal A. Lebbink told this news organization one of the key takeaways for clinicians is that management of pediatric thyroid nodules and DTC is «challenging and cannot be captured in a one-size-fits-all model.”

She also underlined the need for a “multidisciplinary approach in pediatric thyroid cancer expertise centers.”

Above all, Ms. Lebbink, who is a PhD student in the department of pediatric endocrinology, Wilhelmina Children’s Hospital, Utrecht, the Netherlands, said that pediatric DTC “is not adult DTC in a small person; it has different genetics and a different clinical behavior.”

The authors noted that DTC may be a rare disease, but its worldwide incidence is rising. It has several histologic subtypes, although the “vast majority” of cases are papillary thyroid carcinoma.

Crucially, there are “important differences” between adult and pediatric DTC in terms of their clinical, molecular, and pathologic characteristics, with pediatric patients commonly presenting with more advanced disease with greater lymph node involvement, distant metastases, and multifocal disease.

“However, despite the aggressive presentation, the overall survival rates are excellent,” Ms. Lebbink said.

There are also differences in genetic alterations between adult and pediatric patients. RET-PTC and NTRK fusions are more common in pediatric patients, while mutations in BRAF V600E and RAS point mutations are less frequent.
 

First European guidelines on thyroid cancer, thyroid nodules in children

Despite these differences, and the existence of U.S. guidelines, until now there have been no European recommendations on the management of pediatric thyroid nodules and DTC.

The European Thyroid Association therefore convened a panel of experts in pediatric and adult endocrinology, pathology, endocrine surgery, nuclear medicine, clinical genetics, and oncology, and tasked them with looking at diagnostics and staging, treatment, and follow-up.

The 2015 American Thyroid Association pediatric guideline was used as framework for the European guideline, with the expert panel identifying areas of discordance and outstanding clinical questions (Thyroid. 2015 Jul;25[7]:716-59).

To answer these questions, they searched PubMed and identified 3,251 studies, of which 45 studies met the inclusion criteria. From this they developed a comprehensive set of recommendations. These include that a child with suspected or proven cancer be referred to an experienced multidisciplinary team and their likely benefit from higher- versus lower-intensity treatment be established.

In addition, children should undergo a preoperative evaluation, with neck palpation, comprehensive neck ultrasonography, and laboratory work-up as a minimum, with further testing suggested in case of a family history or extensive disease.

Total thyroidectomy is the recommended treatment, although the authors call for further studies to assess the impact of limited surgery, and they suggest that prophylactic central lymph node dissection be reserved for advanced cases.

Crucially, all children “should be operated on by high-volume pediatric thyroid cancer surgeons with experience in pediatric thyroid cancer and who are embedded in a center with expertise in the management of DTC,” they wrote.
 

RAI therapy recommended for all children, in contrast to ATA guidelines

Radioactive iodine (I-131) therapy is recommended for all children following total thyroidectomy, with treatment following an individual patient-based approach.

This differs slightly from the ATA guidelines, which recommend against radioactive iodine (RAI) therapy for children with low-risk differentiated thyroid cancer that is mostly confined to the thyroid (N0 or minimal N1a disease). A study presented at the recent 2022 annual meeting of the ATA found that such children who were spared RAI showed no increases in risk of remission compared with those who did receive it.

The ETA guidelines then go on to recommend that children should be followed up with thyroid-stimulating hormone monitoring and suppression to low-normal levels, as well as serum thyroglobulin measurement and neck ultrasound, although other imaging modalities are not recommended.

In children with persistent or recurrent cervical disease, “surgery or I-131 therapy are indicated depending on the size, tumor load, and degree of progression,” and the authors said that cases of radioactive refractory disease should be “thoroughly investigated.”

Patients should also be counseled on the risk of the late effects of treatment for DTC and undergo monitoring, with follow-up continued for at least 10 years. Any subsequent follow-up should be “the result of shared decision-making between the physician and the patient.”
 

Evidence for molecular testing is scarce

Ms. Lebbink said that developing the guidelines nevertheless revealed a series of gaps in current knowledge, notably that the evidence for molecular testing “and the clinical implications in the preoperative stage are scarce.”

Specifically, the “positive and negative predictive value of molecular testing in fine needle biopsy specimen for the presence of DTC in a thyroid nodule must be further investigated.»

She also said that there has been a shift towards less aggressive treatment, due to a reluctance to performed prophylactic central neck dissection, and to offer I-131 therapy after surgery.

“However, before less aggressive treatment could be recommended,” Ms. Lebbink said, “it first must be investigated if there are differences in outcomes,” such as recurrence rates, disease-free survival rates, and survival rates between patients who do and do not receive the treatments.

No funding was declared. One author has reported relationships with Sanofi, AstraZeneca, Bayer, and GE. No other relevant financial relationships were reported.

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

Comprehensive evaluation, multidisciplinary care, individualized treatment, and ongoing follow-up are all key to the management of pediatric thyroid nodules and differentiated thyroid carcinoma (DTC), according to the first European guidelines for this rare disease.

The guidelines were recently published in the European Thyroid Journal.

Lead author Chantal A. Lebbink told this news organization one of the key takeaways for clinicians is that management of pediatric thyroid nodules and DTC is «challenging and cannot be captured in a one-size-fits-all model.”

She also underlined the need for a “multidisciplinary approach in pediatric thyroid cancer expertise centers.”

Above all, Ms. Lebbink, who is a PhD student in the department of pediatric endocrinology, Wilhelmina Children’s Hospital, Utrecht, the Netherlands, said that pediatric DTC “is not adult DTC in a small person; it has different genetics and a different clinical behavior.”

The authors noted that DTC may be a rare disease, but its worldwide incidence is rising. It has several histologic subtypes, although the “vast majority” of cases are papillary thyroid carcinoma.

Crucially, there are “important differences” between adult and pediatric DTC in terms of their clinical, molecular, and pathologic characteristics, with pediatric patients commonly presenting with more advanced disease with greater lymph node involvement, distant metastases, and multifocal disease.

“However, despite the aggressive presentation, the overall survival rates are excellent,” Ms. Lebbink said.

There are also differences in genetic alterations between adult and pediatric patients. RET-PTC and NTRK fusions are more common in pediatric patients, while mutations in BRAF V600E and RAS point mutations are less frequent.
 

First European guidelines on thyroid cancer, thyroid nodules in children

Despite these differences, and the existence of U.S. guidelines, until now there have been no European recommendations on the management of pediatric thyroid nodules and DTC.

The European Thyroid Association therefore convened a panel of experts in pediatric and adult endocrinology, pathology, endocrine surgery, nuclear medicine, clinical genetics, and oncology, and tasked them with looking at diagnostics and staging, treatment, and follow-up.

The 2015 American Thyroid Association pediatric guideline was used as framework for the European guideline, with the expert panel identifying areas of discordance and outstanding clinical questions (Thyroid. 2015 Jul;25[7]:716-59).

To answer these questions, they searched PubMed and identified 3,251 studies, of which 45 studies met the inclusion criteria. From this they developed a comprehensive set of recommendations. These include that a child with suspected or proven cancer be referred to an experienced multidisciplinary team and their likely benefit from higher- versus lower-intensity treatment be established.

In addition, children should undergo a preoperative evaluation, with neck palpation, comprehensive neck ultrasonography, and laboratory work-up as a minimum, with further testing suggested in case of a family history or extensive disease.

Total thyroidectomy is the recommended treatment, although the authors call for further studies to assess the impact of limited surgery, and they suggest that prophylactic central lymph node dissection be reserved for advanced cases.

Crucially, all children “should be operated on by high-volume pediatric thyroid cancer surgeons with experience in pediatric thyroid cancer and who are embedded in a center with expertise in the management of DTC,” they wrote.
 

RAI therapy recommended for all children, in contrast to ATA guidelines

Radioactive iodine (I-131) therapy is recommended for all children following total thyroidectomy, with treatment following an individual patient-based approach.

This differs slightly from the ATA guidelines, which recommend against radioactive iodine (RAI) therapy for children with low-risk differentiated thyroid cancer that is mostly confined to the thyroid (N0 or minimal N1a disease). A study presented at the recent 2022 annual meeting of the ATA found that such children who were spared RAI showed no increases in risk of remission compared with those who did receive it.

The ETA guidelines then go on to recommend that children should be followed up with thyroid-stimulating hormone monitoring and suppression to low-normal levels, as well as serum thyroglobulin measurement and neck ultrasound, although other imaging modalities are not recommended.

In children with persistent or recurrent cervical disease, “surgery or I-131 therapy are indicated depending on the size, tumor load, and degree of progression,” and the authors said that cases of radioactive refractory disease should be “thoroughly investigated.”

Patients should also be counseled on the risk of the late effects of treatment for DTC and undergo monitoring, with follow-up continued for at least 10 years. Any subsequent follow-up should be “the result of shared decision-making between the physician and the patient.”
 

Evidence for molecular testing is scarce

Ms. Lebbink said that developing the guidelines nevertheless revealed a series of gaps in current knowledge, notably that the evidence for molecular testing “and the clinical implications in the preoperative stage are scarce.”

Specifically, the “positive and negative predictive value of molecular testing in fine needle biopsy specimen for the presence of DTC in a thyroid nodule must be further investigated.»

She also said that there has been a shift towards less aggressive treatment, due to a reluctance to performed prophylactic central neck dissection, and to offer I-131 therapy after surgery.

“However, before less aggressive treatment could be recommended,” Ms. Lebbink said, “it first must be investigated if there are differences in outcomes,” such as recurrence rates, disease-free survival rates, and survival rates between patients who do and do not receive the treatments.

No funding was declared. One author has reported relationships with Sanofi, AstraZeneca, Bayer, and GE. No other relevant financial relationships were reported.

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

Comprehensive evaluation, multidisciplinary care, individualized treatment, and ongoing follow-up are all key to the management of pediatric thyroid nodules and differentiated thyroid carcinoma (DTC), according to the first European guidelines for this rare disease.

The guidelines were recently published in the European Thyroid Journal.

Lead author Chantal A. Lebbink told this news organization one of the key takeaways for clinicians is that management of pediatric thyroid nodules and DTC is «challenging and cannot be captured in a one-size-fits-all model.”

She also underlined the need for a “multidisciplinary approach in pediatric thyroid cancer expertise centers.”

Above all, Ms. Lebbink, who is a PhD student in the department of pediatric endocrinology, Wilhelmina Children’s Hospital, Utrecht, the Netherlands, said that pediatric DTC “is not adult DTC in a small person; it has different genetics and a different clinical behavior.”

The authors noted that DTC may be a rare disease, but its worldwide incidence is rising. It has several histologic subtypes, although the “vast majority” of cases are papillary thyroid carcinoma.

Crucially, there are “important differences” between adult and pediatric DTC in terms of their clinical, molecular, and pathologic characteristics, with pediatric patients commonly presenting with more advanced disease with greater lymph node involvement, distant metastases, and multifocal disease.

“However, despite the aggressive presentation, the overall survival rates are excellent,” Ms. Lebbink said.

There are also differences in genetic alterations between adult and pediatric patients. RET-PTC and NTRK fusions are more common in pediatric patients, while mutations in BRAF V600E and RAS point mutations are less frequent.
 

First European guidelines on thyroid cancer, thyroid nodules in children

Despite these differences, and the existence of U.S. guidelines, until now there have been no European recommendations on the management of pediatric thyroid nodules and DTC.

The European Thyroid Association therefore convened a panel of experts in pediatric and adult endocrinology, pathology, endocrine surgery, nuclear medicine, clinical genetics, and oncology, and tasked them with looking at diagnostics and staging, treatment, and follow-up.

The 2015 American Thyroid Association pediatric guideline was used as framework for the European guideline, with the expert panel identifying areas of discordance and outstanding clinical questions (Thyroid. 2015 Jul;25[7]:716-59).

To answer these questions, they searched PubMed and identified 3,251 studies, of which 45 studies met the inclusion criteria. From this they developed a comprehensive set of recommendations. These include that a child with suspected or proven cancer be referred to an experienced multidisciplinary team and their likely benefit from higher- versus lower-intensity treatment be established.

In addition, children should undergo a preoperative evaluation, with neck palpation, comprehensive neck ultrasonography, and laboratory work-up as a minimum, with further testing suggested in case of a family history or extensive disease.

Total thyroidectomy is the recommended treatment, although the authors call for further studies to assess the impact of limited surgery, and they suggest that prophylactic central lymph node dissection be reserved for advanced cases.

Crucially, all children “should be operated on by high-volume pediatric thyroid cancer surgeons with experience in pediatric thyroid cancer and who are embedded in a center with expertise in the management of DTC,” they wrote.
 

RAI therapy recommended for all children, in contrast to ATA guidelines

Radioactive iodine (I-131) therapy is recommended for all children following total thyroidectomy, with treatment following an individual patient-based approach.

This differs slightly from the ATA guidelines, which recommend against radioactive iodine (RAI) therapy for children with low-risk differentiated thyroid cancer that is mostly confined to the thyroid (N0 or minimal N1a disease). A study presented at the recent 2022 annual meeting of the ATA found that such children who were spared RAI showed no increases in risk of remission compared with those who did receive it.

The ETA guidelines then go on to recommend that children should be followed up with thyroid-stimulating hormone monitoring and suppression to low-normal levels, as well as serum thyroglobulin measurement and neck ultrasound, although other imaging modalities are not recommended.

In children with persistent or recurrent cervical disease, “surgery or I-131 therapy are indicated depending on the size, tumor load, and degree of progression,” and the authors said that cases of radioactive refractory disease should be “thoroughly investigated.”

Patients should also be counseled on the risk of the late effects of treatment for DTC and undergo monitoring, with follow-up continued for at least 10 years. Any subsequent follow-up should be “the result of shared decision-making between the physician and the patient.”
 

Evidence for molecular testing is scarce

Ms. Lebbink said that developing the guidelines nevertheless revealed a series of gaps in current knowledge, notably that the evidence for molecular testing “and the clinical implications in the preoperative stage are scarce.”

Specifically, the “positive and negative predictive value of molecular testing in fine needle biopsy specimen for the presence of DTC in a thyroid nodule must be further investigated.»

She also said that there has been a shift towards less aggressive treatment, due to a reluctance to performed prophylactic central neck dissection, and to offer I-131 therapy after surgery.

“However, before less aggressive treatment could be recommended,” Ms. Lebbink said, “it first must be investigated if there are differences in outcomes,” such as recurrence rates, disease-free survival rates, and survival rates between patients who do and do not receive the treatments.

No funding was declared. One author has reported relationships with Sanofi, AstraZeneca, Bayer, and GE. No other relevant financial relationships were reported.

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

An international group representing leading endocrinology associations has recommended that the name “diabetes insipidus” – which in some cases has led to harm – be changed to eliminate confusion with “diabetes mellitus” and to reflect the former condition’s pathophysiology.

The new proposed names are arginine vasopressin deficiency (AVP-D) for central (also called “cranial”) etiologies and arginine vasopressin resistance (AVP-R) for nephrogenic (kidney) etiologies.

“What we’re proposing is to rename the disease according to the pathophysiology that defines it,” statement co-author Joseph G. Verbalis, MD, professor of medicine and chief of endocrinology and metabolism at Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, told this news organization.

The statement advises that henceforth the new names be used in manuscripts and the medical literature while keeping the old names in parentheses during a transition period, as in “AVP-deficiency (cranial diabetes insipidus)” and “AVP-resistance (nephrogenic diabetes insipidus).”

The condition formerly known as diabetes insipidus is relatively rare, occurring in about 1 person per 10-15,000 population. It is caused by either deficient production or resistance in the kidney to the hormone AVP, normally produced by the hypothalamus and stored in the pituitary gland. AVP, also called antidiuretic hormone, regulates the body’s water level and urine production by the kidney.

Both etiologies lead to extreme thirst and excessive production of urine. Common causes of the deficiency include head trauma or brain tumor, while resistance in the kidney is often congenital. It is currently treated with a synthetic form of AVP called desmopressin and fluid replacement.
 

What’s in a name?

The proposal to change the name by the Working Group for Renaming Diabetes Insipidus is endorsed by The Endocrine Society, European Society of Endocrinology, Pituitary Society, Society for Endocrinology, European Society for Paediatric Endocrinology, Endocrine Society of Australia, Brazilian Endocrine Society, and Japanese Endocrine Society and is under review by several other societies. It was published as a position statement in several of those society’s journals, with more to follow.

Historically, the word “diabetes,” a Greek word meaning “siphon,” was used in the 1st and 2nd century BC to describe excess flow of urine. The Latin word “mellitus” or “honey” was added in the late 17th century to describe the sweetness of the urine in the dysglycemic condition.

A century later, the Latin word “insipidus,” meaning insipid or tasteless, was coined to distinguish between the two types of polyuria, the position statement details.

In the late 19th to early 20th century, the vasopressor and antidiuretic actions of posterior pituitary extracts were discovered and used to treat people with both the central and nephrogenic etiologies, which were also recognized around that time, yet the name “diabetes insipidus” has persisted.

“From a historical perspective, the name is perfectly appropriate. At the time it was identified, and it was realized that it was different from diabetes mellitus, that was a perfectly appropriate terminology based on what was known in the late 19th century – but not now. It has persisted through the years simply because in medicine there’s a lot of inertia for change ... It’s just always been called that. If there’s not a compelling reason to change a name, generally there’s no move to change it,” Dr. Verbalis observed.  
 

‘Dramatic cases of patient mismanagement’ due to name confusion

Unfortunately, the urgency for the change arose from tragedy. In 2009, a 22-year-old man was admitted to the orthopedics department of a London teaching hospital for a hip replacement. Despite his known panhypopituitarism and diabetes insipidus, the nurses continually checked his blood glucose but didn’t give him desmopressin or sufficient fluids. Laboratory testing showed normal glucose, but his serum sodium was 149 mmol/L. The morning after his operation, he had a fatal cardiac arrest with a serum sodium of 169 mmol/L. 

“The nurses thought he had diabetes mellitus ... So that was death due to failure to recognize that diabetes insipidus is not diabetes mellitus,” Dr. Verbalis said. “If he had been admitted to endocrinology, this wouldn’t have happened. But he was admitted to orthopedics. Non-endocrinologists are not so aware of diabetes insipidus, because it is a rare disease.”

In 2016, National Health Service England issued a patient safety alert about the “risk of severe harm or death when desmopressin is omitted or delayed in patients with cranial diabetes insipidus,” citing at least four incidents within the prior 7 years where omission of desmopressin had resulted in severe dehydration and death, with another 76 cases of omission or delay that were acted on before the patients became critically ill.

Further impetus for the name change came from the results of an anonymous web-based survey of 1,034 adult and pediatric patients with central diabetes insipidus conducted between August 2021 and February 2022. Overall, 80% reported encountering situations in which their condition had been confused with diabetes mellitus by health care professionals, and 85% supported renaming the disease.

There was some divergence in opinion as to what the new name(s) should be, but clear agreement that the term “diabetes” should not be part of it.  

“We’ve only become recently aware that there are dramatic cases of patient mismanagement due to the confusion caused by the word ‘diabetes.’ We think patients should have a voice. If a legitimate patient survey says over 80% think this name should be changed, then I think we as endocrinologists need to pay attention to that,” Dr. Verbalis said.

But while endocrinologists are the ones who see these patients the most often, Dr. Verbalis said a main aim of the position statement “is really to change the mindset of non-endocrinologist doctors and nurses and other health care professionals that this is not diabetes mellitus. It’s a totally different disease. And if we give it a totally different name, then I think they will better recognize that.”

As to how long Dr. Verbalis thinks it will take for the new names to catch on, he pointed out that it’s taken about a decade for the rheumatology field to fully adopt the name “granulomatosis with polyangiitis” as a replacement for “Wegener’s granulomatosis” after the eponymous physician’s Nazi ties were revealed.

“So we’re not anticipating that this is going to change terminology tomorrow. It’s a long process. We just wanted to get the process started,” he said.

Dr. Verbalis has reported consulting for Otsuka.

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

An international group representing leading endocrinology associations has recommended that the name “diabetes insipidus” – which in some cases has led to harm – be changed to eliminate confusion with “diabetes mellitus” and to reflect the former condition’s pathophysiology.

The new proposed names are arginine vasopressin deficiency (AVP-D) for central (also called “cranial”) etiologies and arginine vasopressin resistance (AVP-R) for nephrogenic (kidney) etiologies.

“What we’re proposing is to rename the disease according to the pathophysiology that defines it,” statement co-author Joseph G. Verbalis, MD, professor of medicine and chief of endocrinology and metabolism at Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, told this news organization.

The statement advises that henceforth the new names be used in manuscripts and the medical literature while keeping the old names in parentheses during a transition period, as in “AVP-deficiency (cranial diabetes insipidus)” and “AVP-resistance (nephrogenic diabetes insipidus).”

The condition formerly known as diabetes insipidus is relatively rare, occurring in about 1 person per 10-15,000 population. It is caused by either deficient production or resistance in the kidney to the hormone AVP, normally produced by the hypothalamus and stored in the pituitary gland. AVP, also called antidiuretic hormone, regulates the body’s water level and urine production by the kidney.

Both etiologies lead to extreme thirst and excessive production of urine. Common causes of the deficiency include head trauma or brain tumor, while resistance in the kidney is often congenital. It is currently treated with a synthetic form of AVP called desmopressin and fluid replacement.
 

What’s in a name?

The proposal to change the name by the Working Group for Renaming Diabetes Insipidus is endorsed by The Endocrine Society, European Society of Endocrinology, Pituitary Society, Society for Endocrinology, European Society for Paediatric Endocrinology, Endocrine Society of Australia, Brazilian Endocrine Society, and Japanese Endocrine Society and is under review by several other societies. It was published as a position statement in several of those society’s journals, with more to follow.

Historically, the word “diabetes,” a Greek word meaning “siphon,” was used in the 1st and 2nd century BC to describe excess flow of urine. The Latin word “mellitus” or “honey” was added in the late 17th century to describe the sweetness of the urine in the dysglycemic condition.

A century later, the Latin word “insipidus,” meaning insipid or tasteless, was coined to distinguish between the two types of polyuria, the position statement details.

In the late 19th to early 20th century, the vasopressor and antidiuretic actions of posterior pituitary extracts were discovered and used to treat people with both the central and nephrogenic etiologies, which were also recognized around that time, yet the name “diabetes insipidus” has persisted.

“From a historical perspective, the name is perfectly appropriate. At the time it was identified, and it was realized that it was different from diabetes mellitus, that was a perfectly appropriate terminology based on what was known in the late 19th century – but not now. It has persisted through the years simply because in medicine there’s a lot of inertia for change ... It’s just always been called that. If there’s not a compelling reason to change a name, generally there’s no move to change it,” Dr. Verbalis observed.  
 

‘Dramatic cases of patient mismanagement’ due to name confusion

Unfortunately, the urgency for the change arose from tragedy. In 2009, a 22-year-old man was admitted to the orthopedics department of a London teaching hospital for a hip replacement. Despite his known panhypopituitarism and diabetes insipidus, the nurses continually checked his blood glucose but didn’t give him desmopressin or sufficient fluids. Laboratory testing showed normal glucose, but his serum sodium was 149 mmol/L. The morning after his operation, he had a fatal cardiac arrest with a serum sodium of 169 mmol/L. 

“The nurses thought he had diabetes mellitus ... So that was death due to failure to recognize that diabetes insipidus is not diabetes mellitus,” Dr. Verbalis said. “If he had been admitted to endocrinology, this wouldn’t have happened. But he was admitted to orthopedics. Non-endocrinologists are not so aware of diabetes insipidus, because it is a rare disease.”

In 2016, National Health Service England issued a patient safety alert about the “risk of severe harm or death when desmopressin is omitted or delayed in patients with cranial diabetes insipidus,” citing at least four incidents within the prior 7 years where omission of desmopressin had resulted in severe dehydration and death, with another 76 cases of omission or delay that were acted on before the patients became critically ill.

Further impetus for the name change came from the results of an anonymous web-based survey of 1,034 adult and pediatric patients with central diabetes insipidus conducted between August 2021 and February 2022. Overall, 80% reported encountering situations in which their condition had been confused with diabetes mellitus by health care professionals, and 85% supported renaming the disease.

There was some divergence in opinion as to what the new name(s) should be, but clear agreement that the term “diabetes” should not be part of it.  

“We’ve only become recently aware that there are dramatic cases of patient mismanagement due to the confusion caused by the word ‘diabetes.’ We think patients should have a voice. If a legitimate patient survey says over 80% think this name should be changed, then I think we as endocrinologists need to pay attention to that,” Dr. Verbalis said.

But while endocrinologists are the ones who see these patients the most often, Dr. Verbalis said a main aim of the position statement “is really to change the mindset of non-endocrinologist doctors and nurses and other health care professionals that this is not diabetes mellitus. It’s a totally different disease. And if we give it a totally different name, then I think they will better recognize that.”

As to how long Dr. Verbalis thinks it will take for the new names to catch on, he pointed out that it’s taken about a decade for the rheumatology field to fully adopt the name “granulomatosis with polyangiitis” as a replacement for “Wegener’s granulomatosis” after the eponymous physician’s Nazi ties were revealed.

“So we’re not anticipating that this is going to change terminology tomorrow. It’s a long process. We just wanted to get the process started,” he said.

Dr. Verbalis has reported consulting for Otsuka.

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

An international group representing leading endocrinology associations has recommended that the name “diabetes insipidus” – which in some cases has led to harm – be changed to eliminate confusion with “diabetes mellitus” and to reflect the former condition’s pathophysiology.

The new proposed names are arginine vasopressin deficiency (AVP-D) for central (also called “cranial”) etiologies and arginine vasopressin resistance (AVP-R) for nephrogenic (kidney) etiologies.

“What we’re proposing is to rename the disease according to the pathophysiology that defines it,” statement co-author Joseph G. Verbalis, MD, professor of medicine and chief of endocrinology and metabolism at Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, told this news organization.

The statement advises that henceforth the new names be used in manuscripts and the medical literature while keeping the old names in parentheses during a transition period, as in “AVP-deficiency (cranial diabetes insipidus)” and “AVP-resistance (nephrogenic diabetes insipidus).”

The condition formerly known as diabetes insipidus is relatively rare, occurring in about 1 person per 10-15,000 population. It is caused by either deficient production or resistance in the kidney to the hormone AVP, normally produced by the hypothalamus and stored in the pituitary gland. AVP, also called antidiuretic hormone, regulates the body’s water level and urine production by the kidney.

Both etiologies lead to extreme thirst and excessive production of urine. Common causes of the deficiency include head trauma or brain tumor, while resistance in the kidney is often congenital. It is currently treated with a synthetic form of AVP called desmopressin and fluid replacement.
 

What’s in a name?

The proposal to change the name by the Working Group for Renaming Diabetes Insipidus is endorsed by The Endocrine Society, European Society of Endocrinology, Pituitary Society, Society for Endocrinology, European Society for Paediatric Endocrinology, Endocrine Society of Australia, Brazilian Endocrine Society, and Japanese Endocrine Society and is under review by several other societies. It was published as a position statement in several of those society’s journals, with more to follow.

Historically, the word “diabetes,” a Greek word meaning “siphon,” was used in the 1st and 2nd century BC to describe excess flow of urine. The Latin word “mellitus” or “honey” was added in the late 17th century to describe the sweetness of the urine in the dysglycemic condition.

A century later, the Latin word “insipidus,” meaning insipid or tasteless, was coined to distinguish between the two types of polyuria, the position statement details.

In the late 19th to early 20th century, the vasopressor and antidiuretic actions of posterior pituitary extracts were discovered and used to treat people with both the central and nephrogenic etiologies, which were also recognized around that time, yet the name “diabetes insipidus” has persisted.

“From a historical perspective, the name is perfectly appropriate. At the time it was identified, and it was realized that it was different from diabetes mellitus, that was a perfectly appropriate terminology based on what was known in the late 19th century – but not now. It has persisted through the years simply because in medicine there’s a lot of inertia for change ... It’s just always been called that. If there’s not a compelling reason to change a name, generally there’s no move to change it,” Dr. Verbalis observed.  
 

‘Dramatic cases of patient mismanagement’ due to name confusion

Unfortunately, the urgency for the change arose from tragedy. In 2009, a 22-year-old man was admitted to the orthopedics department of a London teaching hospital for a hip replacement. Despite his known panhypopituitarism and diabetes insipidus, the nurses continually checked his blood glucose but didn’t give him desmopressin or sufficient fluids. Laboratory testing showed normal glucose, but his serum sodium was 149 mmol/L. The morning after his operation, he had a fatal cardiac arrest with a serum sodium of 169 mmol/L. 

“The nurses thought he had diabetes mellitus ... So that was death due to failure to recognize that diabetes insipidus is not diabetes mellitus,” Dr. Verbalis said. “If he had been admitted to endocrinology, this wouldn’t have happened. But he was admitted to orthopedics. Non-endocrinologists are not so aware of diabetes insipidus, because it is a rare disease.”

In 2016, National Health Service England issued a patient safety alert about the “risk of severe harm or death when desmopressin is omitted or delayed in patients with cranial diabetes insipidus,” citing at least four incidents within the prior 7 years where omission of desmopressin had resulted in severe dehydration and death, with another 76 cases of omission or delay that were acted on before the patients became critically ill.

Further impetus for the name change came from the results of an anonymous web-based survey of 1,034 adult and pediatric patients with central diabetes insipidus conducted between August 2021 and February 2022. Overall, 80% reported encountering situations in which their condition had been confused with diabetes mellitus by health care professionals, and 85% supported renaming the disease.

There was some divergence in opinion as to what the new name(s) should be, but clear agreement that the term “diabetes” should not be part of it.  

“We’ve only become recently aware that there are dramatic cases of patient mismanagement due to the confusion caused by the word ‘diabetes.’ We think patients should have a voice. If a legitimate patient survey says over 80% think this name should be changed, then I think we as endocrinologists need to pay attention to that,” Dr. Verbalis said.

But while endocrinologists are the ones who see these patients the most often, Dr. Verbalis said a main aim of the position statement “is really to change the mindset of non-endocrinologist doctors and nurses and other health care professionals that this is not diabetes mellitus. It’s a totally different disease. And if we give it a totally different name, then I think they will better recognize that.”

As to how long Dr. Verbalis thinks it will take for the new names to catch on, he pointed out that it’s taken about a decade for the rheumatology field to fully adopt the name “granulomatosis with polyangiitis” as a replacement for “Wegener’s granulomatosis” after the eponymous physician’s Nazi ties were revealed.

“So we’re not anticipating that this is going to change terminology tomorrow. It’s a long process. We just wanted to get the process started,” he said.

Dr. Verbalis has reported consulting for Otsuka.

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

Adults with obesity who do not respond adequately to lifestyle interventions alone should be offered one of four suggested medications to treat obesity, with preference for semaglutide before others, according to new guidelines published by the American Gastroenterological Association in Gastroenterology.

Recommended first-line medications include semaglutide, liraglutide, phentermine-topiramate extended-release (ER), and naltrexone-buproprion ER, based on moderate-certainty evidence. Also recommended, albeit based on lower-certainty evidence, are phentermine and diethylpropion. The guidelines suggest avoiding use of orlistat. Evidence was insufficient for Gelesis100 superabsorbent hydrogel.

The substantial increase in obesity prevalence in the United States – from 30.5% to 41.9% in just the 2 decades from 2000 to 2020 – has likely contributed to increases in various obesity-related complications, wrote Eduardo Grunvald, MD, of the University of California San Diego, and colleagues. These include cardiovascular disease, stroke, type 2 diabetes mellitus, nonalcoholic steatohepatitis, obstructive sleep apnea, osteoarthritis, and certain types of cancer, such as colorectal cancer.

“Lifestyle intervention is the foundation in the management of obesity, but it has limited effectiveness and durability for most individuals,” the authors wrote. Despite a range of highly effective pharmacological therapies developed for long-term management of obesity, these agents are not widely used in routine clinical care, and practice variability is wide. There is a “small number of providers responsible for more than 90% of the prescriptions, partly due to lack of familiarity and limited access and insurance coverage,” the authors wrote.

A multidisciplinary panel of 10 experts and one patient representative, therefore, developed the guidelines by first prioritizing key clinical questions, identifying patient-centered outcomes, and conducting an evidence review of the following interventions: semaglutide 2.4 mg, liraglutide 3.0 mg, phentermine-topiramate extended-release (ER), naltrexone-bupropion ER, orlistat, phentermine, diethylpropion, and Gelesis100 superabsorbent hydrogel. The guideline panel then developed management recommendations and provided clinical practice considerations regarding each of the pharmacologic interventions.

The authors focused on adults, noting that pharmacologic treatment of childhood obesity is beyond the scope of these guidelines. The evidence synthesis yielded nine recommendations for the pharmacological management of obesity by gastroenterologists, primary care clinicians, endocrinologists, and other providers caring for patients with overweight or obesity. The target audience of the guidelines, however, includes patients and policymakers, the authors wrote.

“These guidelines are not intended to impose a standard of care, but rather, they provide the basis for rational, informed decisions for patients and health care professionals,” the authors wrote. “No recommendation can include all the unique individual circumstances that must be considered when making recommendations for individual patients. However, discussions around benefits and harms can be used for shared decision-making, especially for conditional recommendations where patients’ values and preferences are important to consider.”

The panel conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of Food and Drug Administration–approved obesity medications through Jan. 1, 2022. Though they primarily included studies with at least 48 weeks follow-up, they included studies with a follow-up of less than a year if one with 48 weeks’ outcomes did not exist.

The first of the nine recommendations was to add pharmacological agents to lifestyle interventions in treating adults with obesity or overweight and weight-related complications who have not adequately responded to lifestyle interventions alone. This strong recommendation was based on moderate-certainty evidence.

“Antiobesity medications generally need to be used chronically, and the selection of the medication or intervention should be based on the clinical profile and needs of the patient, including, but not limited to, comorbidities, patients’ preferences, costs, and access to the therapy,” the authors wrote. Average difference in total body weight loss with the addition of medication to lifestyle interventions was 3%-10.8%, depending on the drug. Treatment discontinuation ranged from 34 to 219 per 1,000 people in treatment groups, but adverse event rates were low.

The panel’s second recommendation suggested prioritizing of semaglutide along with lifestyle interventions based on the large magnitude of its net benefit. The remaining recommendations describes the use of each of the other medications based on their respective magnitude of effect and risk for adverse events.

Important considerations

“These medications treat a biological disease, not a lifestyle problem,” Dr. Grunvald said in a prepared statement. “Obesity is a disease that often does not respond to lifestyle interventions alone in the long term. Using medications as an option to assist with weight loss can improve weight-related complications like joint pain, diabetes, fatty liver, and hypertension.”

The authors acknowledged that cost remains a concern for the use of these therapies, especially among vulnerable populations. They also noted that the medications should not be used in pregnant individuals or those with bulimia nervosa, and they should be used with caution in people with other eating disorders. Patients with type 2 diabetes taking insulin or sulfonylureas and patients taking antihypertensives may require dosage adjustments since these obesity medications may increase risk of hypoglycemia for the former and decrease blood pressure for the latter.

The panel advised against orlistat, although it added that ”patients who place a high value on the potential small weight loss benefit and low value on gastrointestinal side effects may reasonably choose treatment with orlistat.” Those patients should take a multivitamin daily that contains vitamins A, D, E, and K at least 2 hours apart from orlistat.

The lack of available evidence for Gelesis100 oral superabsorbent hydrogel led the panel to suggest its use only in the context of a clinical trial.

The AGA will update these guidelines no later than 2025 and may issue rapid guidance updates until then as new evidence comes to light.

The guidelines did not receive any external funding, being fully funded by the AGA. The guideline chair and guideline methodologists had no relevant or direct conflicts of interest. All conflict of interest disclosures are maintained by the AGA office.

Adults with obesity who do not respond adequately to lifestyle interventions alone should be offered one of four suggested medications to treat obesity, with preference for semaglutide before others, according to new guidelines published by the American Gastroenterological Association in Gastroenterology.

Recommended first-line medications include semaglutide, liraglutide, phentermine-topiramate extended-release (ER), and naltrexone-buproprion ER, based on moderate-certainty evidence. Also recommended, albeit based on lower-certainty evidence, are phentermine and diethylpropion. The guidelines suggest avoiding use of orlistat. Evidence was insufficient for Gelesis100 superabsorbent hydrogel.

The substantial increase in obesity prevalence in the United States – from 30.5% to 41.9% in just the 2 decades from 2000 to 2020 – has likely contributed to increases in various obesity-related complications, wrote Eduardo Grunvald, MD, of the University of California San Diego, and colleagues. These include cardiovascular disease, stroke, type 2 diabetes mellitus, nonalcoholic steatohepatitis, obstructive sleep apnea, osteoarthritis, and certain types of cancer, such as colorectal cancer.

“Lifestyle intervention is the foundation in the management of obesity, but it has limited effectiveness and durability for most individuals,” the authors wrote. Despite a range of highly effective pharmacological therapies developed for long-term management of obesity, these agents are not widely used in routine clinical care, and practice variability is wide. There is a “small number of providers responsible for more than 90% of the prescriptions, partly due to lack of familiarity and limited access and insurance coverage,” the authors wrote.

A multidisciplinary panel of 10 experts and one patient representative, therefore, developed the guidelines by first prioritizing key clinical questions, identifying patient-centered outcomes, and conducting an evidence review of the following interventions: semaglutide 2.4 mg, liraglutide 3.0 mg, phentermine-topiramate extended-release (ER), naltrexone-bupropion ER, orlistat, phentermine, diethylpropion, and Gelesis100 superabsorbent hydrogel. The guideline panel then developed management recommendations and provided clinical practice considerations regarding each of the pharmacologic interventions.

The authors focused on adults, noting that pharmacologic treatment of childhood obesity is beyond the scope of these guidelines. The evidence synthesis yielded nine recommendations for the pharmacological management of obesity by gastroenterologists, primary care clinicians, endocrinologists, and other providers caring for patients with overweight or obesity. The target audience of the guidelines, however, includes patients and policymakers, the authors wrote.

“These guidelines are not intended to impose a standard of care, but rather, they provide the basis for rational, informed decisions for patients and health care professionals,” the authors wrote. “No recommendation can include all the unique individual circumstances that must be considered when making recommendations for individual patients. However, discussions around benefits and harms can be used for shared decision-making, especially for conditional recommendations where patients’ values and preferences are important to consider.”

The panel conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of Food and Drug Administration–approved obesity medications through Jan. 1, 2022. Though they primarily included studies with at least 48 weeks follow-up, they included studies with a follow-up of less than a year if one with 48 weeks’ outcomes did not exist.

The first of the nine recommendations was to add pharmacological agents to lifestyle interventions in treating adults with obesity or overweight and weight-related complications who have not adequately responded to lifestyle interventions alone. This strong recommendation was based on moderate-certainty evidence.

“Antiobesity medications generally need to be used chronically, and the selection of the medication or intervention should be based on the clinical profile and needs of the patient, including, but not limited to, comorbidities, patients’ preferences, costs, and access to the therapy,” the authors wrote. Average difference in total body weight loss with the addition of medication to lifestyle interventions was 3%-10.8%, depending on the drug. Treatment discontinuation ranged from 34 to 219 per 1,000 people in treatment groups, but adverse event rates were low.

The panel’s second recommendation suggested prioritizing of semaglutide along with lifestyle interventions based on the large magnitude of its net benefit. The remaining recommendations describes the use of each of the other medications based on their respective magnitude of effect and risk for adverse events.

Important considerations

“These medications treat a biological disease, not a lifestyle problem,” Dr. Grunvald said in a prepared statement. “Obesity is a disease that often does not respond to lifestyle interventions alone in the long term. Using medications as an option to assist with weight loss can improve weight-related complications like joint pain, diabetes, fatty liver, and hypertension.”

The authors acknowledged that cost remains a concern for the use of these therapies, especially among vulnerable populations. They also noted that the medications should not be used in pregnant individuals or those with bulimia nervosa, and they should be used with caution in people with other eating disorders. Patients with type 2 diabetes taking insulin or sulfonylureas and patients taking antihypertensives may require dosage adjustments since these obesity medications may increase risk of hypoglycemia for the former and decrease blood pressure for the latter.

The panel advised against orlistat, although it added that ”patients who place a high value on the potential small weight loss benefit and low value on gastrointestinal side effects may reasonably choose treatment with orlistat.” Those patients should take a multivitamin daily that contains vitamins A, D, E, and K at least 2 hours apart from orlistat.

The lack of available evidence for Gelesis100 oral superabsorbent hydrogel led the panel to suggest its use only in the context of a clinical trial.

The AGA will update these guidelines no later than 2025 and may issue rapid guidance updates until then as new evidence comes to light.

The guidelines did not receive any external funding, being fully funded by the AGA. The guideline chair and guideline methodologists had no relevant or direct conflicts of interest. All conflict of interest disclosures are maintained by the AGA office.

Adults with obesity who do not respond adequately to lifestyle interventions alone should be offered one of four suggested medications to treat obesity, with preference for semaglutide before others, according to new guidelines published by the American Gastroenterological Association in Gastroenterology.

Recommended first-line medications include semaglutide, liraglutide, phentermine-topiramate extended-release (ER), and naltrexone-buproprion ER, based on moderate-certainty evidence. Also recommended, albeit based on lower-certainty evidence, are phentermine and diethylpropion. The guidelines suggest avoiding use of orlistat. Evidence was insufficient for Gelesis100 superabsorbent hydrogel.

The substantial increase in obesity prevalence in the United States – from 30.5% to 41.9% in just the 2 decades from 2000 to 2020 – has likely contributed to increases in various obesity-related complications, wrote Eduardo Grunvald, MD, of the University of California San Diego, and colleagues. These include cardiovascular disease, stroke, type 2 diabetes mellitus, nonalcoholic steatohepatitis, obstructive sleep apnea, osteoarthritis, and certain types of cancer, such as colorectal cancer.

“Lifestyle intervention is the foundation in the management of obesity, but it has limited effectiveness and durability for most individuals,” the authors wrote. Despite a range of highly effective pharmacological therapies developed for long-term management of obesity, these agents are not widely used in routine clinical care, and practice variability is wide. There is a “small number of providers responsible for more than 90% of the prescriptions, partly due to lack of familiarity and limited access and insurance coverage,” the authors wrote.

A multidisciplinary panel of 10 experts and one patient representative, therefore, developed the guidelines by first prioritizing key clinical questions, identifying patient-centered outcomes, and conducting an evidence review of the following interventions: semaglutide 2.4 mg, liraglutide 3.0 mg, phentermine-topiramate extended-release (ER), naltrexone-bupropion ER, orlistat, phentermine, diethylpropion, and Gelesis100 superabsorbent hydrogel. The guideline panel then developed management recommendations and provided clinical practice considerations regarding each of the pharmacologic interventions.

The authors focused on adults, noting that pharmacologic treatment of childhood obesity is beyond the scope of these guidelines. The evidence synthesis yielded nine recommendations for the pharmacological management of obesity by gastroenterologists, primary care clinicians, endocrinologists, and other providers caring for patients with overweight or obesity. The target audience of the guidelines, however, includes patients and policymakers, the authors wrote.

“These guidelines are not intended to impose a standard of care, but rather, they provide the basis for rational, informed decisions for patients and health care professionals,” the authors wrote. “No recommendation can include all the unique individual circumstances that must be considered when making recommendations for individual patients. However, discussions around benefits and harms can be used for shared decision-making, especially for conditional recommendations where patients’ values and preferences are important to consider.”

The panel conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of Food and Drug Administration–approved obesity medications through Jan. 1, 2022. Though they primarily included studies with at least 48 weeks follow-up, they included studies with a follow-up of less than a year if one with 48 weeks’ outcomes did not exist.

The first of the nine recommendations was to add pharmacological agents to lifestyle interventions in treating adults with obesity or overweight and weight-related complications who have not adequately responded to lifestyle interventions alone. This strong recommendation was based on moderate-certainty evidence.

“Antiobesity medications generally need to be used chronically, and the selection of the medication or intervention should be based on the clinical profile and needs of the patient, including, but not limited to, comorbidities, patients’ preferences, costs, and access to the therapy,” the authors wrote. Average difference in total body weight loss with the addition of medication to lifestyle interventions was 3%-10.8%, depending on the drug. Treatment discontinuation ranged from 34 to 219 per 1,000 people in treatment groups, but adverse event rates were low.

The panel’s second recommendation suggested prioritizing of semaglutide along with lifestyle interventions based on the large magnitude of its net benefit. The remaining recommendations describes the use of each of the other medications based on their respective magnitude of effect and risk for adverse events.

Important considerations

“These medications treat a biological disease, not a lifestyle problem,” Dr. Grunvald said in a prepared statement. “Obesity is a disease that often does not respond to lifestyle interventions alone in the long term. Using medications as an option to assist with weight loss can improve weight-related complications like joint pain, diabetes, fatty liver, and hypertension.”

The authors acknowledged that cost remains a concern for the use of these therapies, especially among vulnerable populations. They also noted that the medications should not be used in pregnant individuals or those with bulimia nervosa, and they should be used with caution in people with other eating disorders. Patients with type 2 diabetes taking insulin or sulfonylureas and patients taking antihypertensives may require dosage adjustments since these obesity medications may increase risk of hypoglycemia for the former and decrease blood pressure for the latter.

The panel advised against orlistat, although it added that ”patients who place a high value on the potential small weight loss benefit and low value on gastrointestinal side effects may reasonably choose treatment with orlistat.” Those patients should take a multivitamin daily that contains vitamins A, D, E, and K at least 2 hours apart from orlistat.

The lack of available evidence for Gelesis100 oral superabsorbent hydrogel led the panel to suggest its use only in the context of a clinical trial.

The AGA will update these guidelines no later than 2025 and may issue rapid guidance updates until then as new evidence comes to light.

The guidelines did not receive any external funding, being fully funded by the AGA. The guideline chair and guideline methodologists had no relevant or direct conflicts of interest. All conflict of interest disclosures are maintained by the AGA office.