Clinical Psychiatry News

A single course of treatment with emotional awareness and expression therapy (EAET) was associated with a significantly greater reduction in chronic pain severity than cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT), the current psychotherapeutic gold standard, a new study suggested.

Two thirds of the patients who received EAET reported at least a 30% reduction in pain compared with 17% of those who received CBT. The randomized clinical trial also showed that individuals with depression and anxiety responded more favorably to EAET, a novel finding.

The study is one of only a few to directly compare EAET with CBT.

“Most people with chronic pain don’t consider psychotherapy at all,” said study investigator Brandon C. Yarns, MD, a staff psychiatrist at the VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, and clinical professor of health sciences at the Department of Psychiatry and Biobehavioral Sciences, UCLA Health.

Although patients were allowed to continue medication for pain and other comorbidities during the study, those who received EAET “had larger improvements in pain, depression, and anxiety,” Dr. Yarns said. “That suggests that the effect was due to the EAET.”

The findings were published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

‘Gold Standard’

EAET was first used in the early 2010s. In the therapy, patients are asked to recall a difficult or traumatic memory, engage in experiencing how the related emotions feel in the body, express those feelings in words, and release or let them go. They are taught that the brain’s perception of pain is strongly influenced by the evasion of grief, fear, rage, or guilt, Dr. Yarns said.

This contrasts with CBT — considered the current gold standard for chronic pain — which teaches patients to improve the ability to tolerate pain though guided imagery, muscle relaxation, and other exercises and to adapt their thinking to change how they think about pain.

Although prior studies suggested EAET is effective in reducing pain in fibromyalgia and chronic musculoskeletal, pelvic, and head pain, most included primarily younger, female patients.

The research is the “first full-scale evaluation of EAET, to our knowledge, in a medically or psychiatrically complex, racially and ethnically diverse, older sample comprising predominantly men,” investigators wrote.

The trial enrolled 126 veterans (92% men; 55% Black or African American) aged 60-95 years with at least 3 months of musculoskeletal pain. More than two thirds of patients had a psychiatric diagnosis, with about one third having posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Almost all had back pain, and many had pain in multiple locations.

All services were delivered in-person at the US Department of Veterans Affairs Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, Los Angeles. Half underwent CBT, while the other half received EAET.

Each patient had one 90-minute individual session and eight additional 90-minute group sessions.

Patients were asked to rate their pain using a 0-10 scale in the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) before starting treatment, at the end of the nine sessions (at week 10), and 6 months after the sessions ended. Baseline BPI score for both groups was a mean of around 6.

Post treatment, people in the EAET versus CBT group had a mean two-point reduction versus 0.60 reduction, respectively, on the BPI scale. A clinically significant reduction in pain — defined as ≥ 30% decrease — was reported in 63% of EAET patients versus 17% of CBT patients (odds ratio [OR], 21.54; P < .001).

At 6 months, the mean reduction was 1.2 for the EAET group compared with 0.25 for the CBT group, and 40% of the EAET group reported a clinically significant reduction in pain.

A little more than a third (35%) of veterans receiving EAET reported at least a 50% reduction in pain at 10 weeks compared with 7% of those receiving CBT. At 6 months, 16% of the EAET arm reported a halving of their pain.

EAET was also superior to CBT in reducing anxiety, depression, and PTSD symptoms at the 10-week mark.
 

More Work Needed

In an accompanying editorial, Matthias Karst, MD, PhD, a clinician with the Pain Clinic, Hannover Medical School, in Hannover, Germany, noted that EAET’s effects “are significantly superior to those of CBT in almost all dimensions, even after 6 months.”

EAET “assigns a special place to the integration of the body into the emotional experience,” he wrote.

The study demonstrated that “the evocation and expression of emotions is superior to the mere cognitive discussion of these emotions in therapy of patients with chronic pain.”

Commenting on the findings, Traci J. Speed, MD, PhD, assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences and an attending psychiatrist of the Johns Hopkins Pain Treatment Program at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, called the study “ground-breaking” because it showed effectiveness in people with high rates of PTSD, anxiety, and depression.

“It is a little bit surprising how impressive the study outcomes are in terms of maintaining the effects at the end of the treatment and sustaining some of the effects on pain sensitivity even at the 6-month follow-up,” said Dr. Speed, who was not part of the study.

However, she continued, “I don’t think it changes the current standard of practice yet. CBT has decades of research and evidence that it is effective for chronic pain and that will I think continue to be the standard of care.”

Although EAET is in its infancy, chronic pain experts are interested in learning more about the therapy, Dr. Speed added.

“It blends well with the current techniques and extends the current gold standard treatment approaches,” she said. “We are starting to really appreciate the role that emotions play in pain sensitivity.”

Both Dr. Karst and Dr. Speed noted that more study is needed to determine the sustainability of treatment effects.

Dr. Yarns agreed. “We need more research on what the appropriate dose is and perhaps how one might go about personalizing that for the patient,” he said.

The study was funded by a career development award to Dr. Yarns from the VA Clinical Science Research and Development Service. Dr. Yarns reported receiving grants from the US Department of Veterans Affairs during the study. Other authors’ disclosures are in the original article. Dr. Speed reported no conflicts.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A single course of treatment with emotional awareness and expression therapy (EAET) was associated with a significantly greater reduction in chronic pain severity than cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT), the current psychotherapeutic gold standard, a new study suggested.

Two thirds of the patients who received EAET reported at least a 30% reduction in pain compared with 17% of those who received CBT. The randomized clinical trial also showed that individuals with depression and anxiety responded more favorably to EAET, a novel finding.

The study is one of only a few to directly compare EAET with CBT.

“Most people with chronic pain don’t consider psychotherapy at all,” said study investigator Brandon C. Yarns, MD, a staff psychiatrist at the VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, and clinical professor of health sciences at the Department of Psychiatry and Biobehavioral Sciences, UCLA Health.

Although patients were allowed to continue medication for pain and other comorbidities during the study, those who received EAET “had larger improvements in pain, depression, and anxiety,” Dr. Yarns said. “That suggests that the effect was due to the EAET.”

The findings were published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

‘Gold Standard’

EAET was first used in the early 2010s. In the therapy, patients are asked to recall a difficult or traumatic memory, engage in experiencing how the related emotions feel in the body, express those feelings in words, and release or let them go. They are taught that the brain’s perception of pain is strongly influenced by the evasion of grief, fear, rage, or guilt, Dr. Yarns said.

This contrasts with CBT — considered the current gold standard for chronic pain — which teaches patients to improve the ability to tolerate pain though guided imagery, muscle relaxation, and other exercises and to adapt their thinking to change how they think about pain.

Although prior studies suggested EAET is effective in reducing pain in fibromyalgia and chronic musculoskeletal, pelvic, and head pain, most included primarily younger, female patients.

The research is the “first full-scale evaluation of EAET, to our knowledge, in a medically or psychiatrically complex, racially and ethnically diverse, older sample comprising predominantly men,” investigators wrote.

The trial enrolled 126 veterans (92% men; 55% Black or African American) aged 60-95 years with at least 3 months of musculoskeletal pain. More than two thirds of patients had a psychiatric diagnosis, with about one third having posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Almost all had back pain, and many had pain in multiple locations.

All services were delivered in-person at the US Department of Veterans Affairs Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, Los Angeles. Half underwent CBT, while the other half received EAET.

Each patient had one 90-minute individual session and eight additional 90-minute group sessions.

Patients were asked to rate their pain using a 0-10 scale in the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) before starting treatment, at the end of the nine sessions (at week 10), and 6 months after the sessions ended. Baseline BPI score for both groups was a mean of around 6.

Post treatment, people in the EAET versus CBT group had a mean two-point reduction versus 0.60 reduction, respectively, on the BPI scale. A clinically significant reduction in pain — defined as ≥ 30% decrease — was reported in 63% of EAET patients versus 17% of CBT patients (odds ratio [OR], 21.54; P < .001).

At 6 months, the mean reduction was 1.2 for the EAET group compared with 0.25 for the CBT group, and 40% of the EAET group reported a clinically significant reduction in pain.

A little more than a third (35%) of veterans receiving EAET reported at least a 50% reduction in pain at 10 weeks compared with 7% of those receiving CBT. At 6 months, 16% of the EAET arm reported a halving of their pain.

EAET was also superior to CBT in reducing anxiety, depression, and PTSD symptoms at the 10-week mark.
 

More Work Needed

In an accompanying editorial, Matthias Karst, MD, PhD, a clinician with the Pain Clinic, Hannover Medical School, in Hannover, Germany, noted that EAET’s effects “are significantly superior to those of CBT in almost all dimensions, even after 6 months.”

EAET “assigns a special place to the integration of the body into the emotional experience,” he wrote.

The study demonstrated that “the evocation and expression of emotions is superior to the mere cognitive discussion of these emotions in therapy of patients with chronic pain.”

Commenting on the findings, Traci J. Speed, MD, PhD, assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences and an attending psychiatrist of the Johns Hopkins Pain Treatment Program at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, called the study “ground-breaking” because it showed effectiveness in people with high rates of PTSD, anxiety, and depression.

“It is a little bit surprising how impressive the study outcomes are in terms of maintaining the effects at the end of the treatment and sustaining some of the effects on pain sensitivity even at the 6-month follow-up,” said Dr. Speed, who was not part of the study.

However, she continued, “I don’t think it changes the current standard of practice yet. CBT has decades of research and evidence that it is effective for chronic pain and that will I think continue to be the standard of care.”

Although EAET is in its infancy, chronic pain experts are interested in learning more about the therapy, Dr. Speed added.

“It blends well with the current techniques and extends the current gold standard treatment approaches,” she said. “We are starting to really appreciate the role that emotions play in pain sensitivity.”

Both Dr. Karst and Dr. Speed noted that more study is needed to determine the sustainability of treatment effects.

Dr. Yarns agreed. “We need more research on what the appropriate dose is and perhaps how one might go about personalizing that for the patient,” he said.

The study was funded by a career development award to Dr. Yarns from the VA Clinical Science Research and Development Service. Dr. Yarns reported receiving grants from the US Department of Veterans Affairs during the study. Other authors’ disclosures are in the original article. Dr. Speed reported no conflicts.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A single course of treatment with emotional awareness and expression therapy (EAET) was associated with a significantly greater reduction in chronic pain severity than cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT), the current psychotherapeutic gold standard, a new study suggested.

Two thirds of the patients who received EAET reported at least a 30% reduction in pain compared with 17% of those who received CBT. The randomized clinical trial also showed that individuals with depression and anxiety responded more favorably to EAET, a novel finding.

The study is one of only a few to directly compare EAET with CBT.

“Most people with chronic pain don’t consider psychotherapy at all,” said study investigator Brandon C. Yarns, MD, a staff psychiatrist at the VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, and clinical professor of health sciences at the Department of Psychiatry and Biobehavioral Sciences, UCLA Health.

Although patients were allowed to continue medication for pain and other comorbidities during the study, those who received EAET “had larger improvements in pain, depression, and anxiety,” Dr. Yarns said. “That suggests that the effect was due to the EAET.”

The findings were published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

‘Gold Standard’

EAET was first used in the early 2010s. In the therapy, patients are asked to recall a difficult or traumatic memory, engage in experiencing how the related emotions feel in the body, express those feelings in words, and release or let them go. They are taught that the brain’s perception of pain is strongly influenced by the evasion of grief, fear, rage, or guilt, Dr. Yarns said.

This contrasts with CBT — considered the current gold standard for chronic pain — which teaches patients to improve the ability to tolerate pain though guided imagery, muscle relaxation, and other exercises and to adapt their thinking to change how they think about pain.

Although prior studies suggested EAET is effective in reducing pain in fibromyalgia and chronic musculoskeletal, pelvic, and head pain, most included primarily younger, female patients.

The research is the “first full-scale evaluation of EAET, to our knowledge, in a medically or psychiatrically complex, racially and ethnically diverse, older sample comprising predominantly men,” investigators wrote.

The trial enrolled 126 veterans (92% men; 55% Black or African American) aged 60-95 years with at least 3 months of musculoskeletal pain. More than two thirds of patients had a psychiatric diagnosis, with about one third having posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Almost all had back pain, and many had pain in multiple locations.

All services were delivered in-person at the US Department of Veterans Affairs Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, Los Angeles. Half underwent CBT, while the other half received EAET.

Each patient had one 90-minute individual session and eight additional 90-minute group sessions.

Patients were asked to rate their pain using a 0-10 scale in the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) before starting treatment, at the end of the nine sessions (at week 10), and 6 months after the sessions ended. Baseline BPI score for both groups was a mean of around 6.

Post treatment, people in the EAET versus CBT group had a mean two-point reduction versus 0.60 reduction, respectively, on the BPI scale. A clinically significant reduction in pain — defined as ≥ 30% decrease — was reported in 63% of EAET patients versus 17% of CBT patients (odds ratio [OR], 21.54; P < .001).

At 6 months, the mean reduction was 1.2 for the EAET group compared with 0.25 for the CBT group, and 40% of the EAET group reported a clinically significant reduction in pain.

A little more than a third (35%) of veterans receiving EAET reported at least a 50% reduction in pain at 10 weeks compared with 7% of those receiving CBT. At 6 months, 16% of the EAET arm reported a halving of their pain.

EAET was also superior to CBT in reducing anxiety, depression, and PTSD symptoms at the 10-week mark.
 

More Work Needed

In an accompanying editorial, Matthias Karst, MD, PhD, a clinician with the Pain Clinic, Hannover Medical School, in Hannover, Germany, noted that EAET’s effects “are significantly superior to those of CBT in almost all dimensions, even after 6 months.”

EAET “assigns a special place to the integration of the body into the emotional experience,” he wrote.

The study demonstrated that “the evocation and expression of emotions is superior to the mere cognitive discussion of these emotions in therapy of patients with chronic pain.”

Commenting on the findings, Traci J. Speed, MD, PhD, assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences and an attending psychiatrist of the Johns Hopkins Pain Treatment Program at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, called the study “ground-breaking” because it showed effectiveness in people with high rates of PTSD, anxiety, and depression.

“It is a little bit surprising how impressive the study outcomes are in terms of maintaining the effects at the end of the treatment and sustaining some of the effects on pain sensitivity even at the 6-month follow-up,” said Dr. Speed, who was not part of the study.

However, she continued, “I don’t think it changes the current standard of practice yet. CBT has decades of research and evidence that it is effective for chronic pain and that will I think continue to be the standard of care.”

Although EAET is in its infancy, chronic pain experts are interested in learning more about the therapy, Dr. Speed added.

“It blends well with the current techniques and extends the current gold standard treatment approaches,” she said. “We are starting to really appreciate the role that emotions play in pain sensitivity.”

Both Dr. Karst and Dr. Speed noted that more study is needed to determine the sustainability of treatment effects.

Dr. Yarns agreed. “We need more research on what the appropriate dose is and perhaps how one might go about personalizing that for the patient,” he said.

The study was funded by a career development award to Dr. Yarns from the VA Clinical Science Research and Development Service. Dr. Yarns reported receiving grants from the US Department of Veterans Affairs during the study. Other authors’ disclosures are in the original article. Dr. Speed reported no conflicts.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Emergencies happen anywhere, anytime, and sometimes, medical professionals find themselves in situations where they are the only ones who can help. Is There a Doctor in the House? is a Medscape Medical News series telling these stories.

I had worked a normal 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. shift in our emergency department. It was a nice day out, so I put my headphones in and started walking home through the Capitol Hill neighborhood in Denver. I passed a couple of buildings and reached an alleyway. At that moment, I glanced over.

Two guys were standing over a third person who was down on the ground. One of the people standing was on the phone. I paused for a second and thought, that doesn’t look right.

The guy on the ground was clearly out. And the other two were looking concerned like they didn’t know what to do.

I walked up the alley and asked, “What’s going on? Can I help?” One of the guys explained that they had just found this man lying here and had already called 911. They sounded a little bit out of their element. They certainly weren’t medically trained.

I leaned down next to the man on the ground. He was probably in his mid-to-late 40s. Unconscious. I always start with, “Hello? Can you hear me?” No response.

I felt for a pulse and he had one, but he didn’t appear to be breathing. I thought, I know what this is. I said, “Sir, I’m going to open your eyes.” I opened his eyes, and his pupils were tiny. It was almost certainly an opioid overdose.

And I had naloxone in my bag.

I got it out and started to assemble it. I didn’t have Narcan, which is the easy one. I had to put this kit together, draw up the medication, and put on the little nasal atomizer.

The two other guys were standing there watching. Then the one on the phone walked down to the end of the alley to where the ambulance was probably going to arrive so he could wave them down.

I gave the man the 4 mg of naloxone, two in each nostril.

He still wasn’t breathing. I did a basic maneuver where you lift his jaw a little bit to help open up the airway.

Suddenly, he started breathing again. I couldn’t do any meaningful measurements of his oxygen saturation or anything like that. I just kind of looked at him and thought, Okay, he has a pulse. He’s breathing now. That’s good.

Luckily, the cavalry arrived soon after that. Our Denver Health paramedics pulled up into the alley, and one of them recognized me from the ER. I explained that I had already given the guy naloxone. They did their assessment, and he still wasn’t breathing well, so they gave him some breaths with a mask and a bag.

We got him onto the gurney and into the back of the ambulance. They started an IV. He seemed to be breathing okay by then, and his numbers looked okay. But he wasn’t awake yet by any means.

I handed off care to them and disposed of my sharp in the ambulance. Then they took him into the ER that I had just left moments ago.

The two other guys had already disappeared. I think they saw the ambulance and thought, our job is done. So, I didn’t end up talking to them at all.

So, just like that ... I started walking home again.

I like to think of myself as a cool, calm, collected person working in the ER. But my heart was definitely going fast at that point. I called my wife to tell her about the crazy thing that just happened, and she could hear in my voice how amped up I was.

In the ER, it’s very common to see patients who need naloxone, have opioid toxicity, or have received Narcan in the community. Luckily, this man was found right away. He had likely overdosed only a few minutes earlier. Those scenarios can go bad very quickly. If there’s no one there, people often die.

That’s why I started carrying naloxone.

There are a lot of programs to get free naloxone out into the community. So, about 2 years earlier, I got some and threw one in my ER bag, one in my office bag, and another in my car. Then I essentially forgot about it. Until I needed it.

Now, I encourage all my friends to have some, and I suggest all medical professionals to keep some with them. Just be prepared. Put it in your backpack, your purse, keep it in the house, in the car, wherever. The nasal autoinjectors are incredibly easy. Like, stick it up the nose, push the big red button. Done.

When we train lay people to administer Narcan, we try to keep it simple. If you see someone, and they’re not responsive, not breathing, just give it. It’s not that there’s no possible harm if you’re wrong. But the benefits so vastly outweigh the risks that we are very aggressive to say, go ahead and give it.

I think we all have a responsibility to care for our communities. Obviously, that can take a lot of different forms. I had the privilege of being in the right place at the right time with the right tool to potentially save a life. That was the form it took for me that day.

Later, I followed up with a friend who took care of the man in the ER. He went through our standard procedure, being monitored to make sure the opioids didn’t outlast the naloxone. We have a lot of resources and next steps for people that have opioid use disorder. He was made aware of those. And then he walked out. I never saw him again.

It’s not the sexy part of our job in emergency medicine, not the super high–intensity adrenaline rush–type work, but a lot of what we do is talk to people like this guy. We counsel them. We think about their longer-term health and not just the overdose. This is an incredibly high-risk population in terms of their mortality risk from the opioid use disorder. It’s astronomical.

I obviously believed in this work before, but that day changed something for me. It added a layer of urgency. Now, when I have a moment in the emergency room to connect with someone, I know the reality — this person sitting in front of me could die in an alley. Maybe not today, but next week or next month.

I have the naloxone in my bag. Just in case.

Patrick Joynt, MD, is an emergency medicine physician with Denver Health in Denver.

Are you a medical professional with a dramatic story outside the clinic? Medscape Medical News would love to consider your story for Is There a Doctor in the House? Please email your contact information and a short summary to [email protected].

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

Emergencies happen anywhere, anytime, and sometimes, medical professionals find themselves in situations where they are the only ones who can help. Is There a Doctor in the House? is a Medscape Medical News series telling these stories.

I had worked a normal 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. shift in our emergency department. It was a nice day out, so I put my headphones in and started walking home through the Capitol Hill neighborhood in Denver. I passed a couple of buildings and reached an alleyway. At that moment, I glanced over.

Two guys were standing over a third person who was down on the ground. One of the people standing was on the phone. I paused for a second and thought, that doesn’t look right.

The guy on the ground was clearly out. And the other two were looking concerned like they didn’t know what to do.

I walked up the alley and asked, “What’s going on? Can I help?” One of the guys explained that they had just found this man lying here and had already called 911. They sounded a little bit out of their element. They certainly weren’t medically trained.

I leaned down next to the man on the ground. He was probably in his mid-to-late 40s. Unconscious. I always start with, “Hello? Can you hear me?” No response.

I felt for a pulse and he had one, but he didn’t appear to be breathing. I thought, I know what this is. I said, “Sir, I’m going to open your eyes.” I opened his eyes, and his pupils were tiny. It was almost certainly an opioid overdose.

And I had naloxone in my bag.

I got it out and started to assemble it. I didn’t have Narcan, which is the easy one. I had to put this kit together, draw up the medication, and put on the little nasal atomizer.

The two other guys were standing there watching. Then the one on the phone walked down to the end of the alley to where the ambulance was probably going to arrive so he could wave them down.

I gave the man the 4 mg of naloxone, two in each nostril.

He still wasn’t breathing. I did a basic maneuver where you lift his jaw a little bit to help open up the airway.

Suddenly, he started breathing again. I couldn’t do any meaningful measurements of his oxygen saturation or anything like that. I just kind of looked at him and thought, Okay, he has a pulse. He’s breathing now. That’s good.

Luckily, the cavalry arrived soon after that. Our Denver Health paramedics pulled up into the alley, and one of them recognized me from the ER. I explained that I had already given the guy naloxone. They did their assessment, and he still wasn’t breathing well, so they gave him some breaths with a mask and a bag.

We got him onto the gurney and into the back of the ambulance. They started an IV. He seemed to be breathing okay by then, and his numbers looked okay. But he wasn’t awake yet by any means.

I handed off care to them and disposed of my sharp in the ambulance. Then they took him into the ER that I had just left moments ago.

The two other guys had already disappeared. I think they saw the ambulance and thought, our job is done. So, I didn’t end up talking to them at all.

So, just like that ... I started walking home again.

I like to think of myself as a cool, calm, collected person working in the ER. But my heart was definitely going fast at that point. I called my wife to tell her about the crazy thing that just happened, and she could hear in my voice how amped up I was.

In the ER, it’s very common to see patients who need naloxone, have opioid toxicity, or have received Narcan in the community. Luckily, this man was found right away. He had likely overdosed only a few minutes earlier. Those scenarios can go bad very quickly. If there’s no one there, people often die.

That’s why I started carrying naloxone.

There are a lot of programs to get free naloxone out into the community. So, about 2 years earlier, I got some and threw one in my ER bag, one in my office bag, and another in my car. Then I essentially forgot about it. Until I needed it.

Now, I encourage all my friends to have some, and I suggest all medical professionals to keep some with them. Just be prepared. Put it in your backpack, your purse, keep it in the house, in the car, wherever. The nasal autoinjectors are incredibly easy. Like, stick it up the nose, push the big red button. Done.

When we train lay people to administer Narcan, we try to keep it simple. If you see someone, and they’re not responsive, not breathing, just give it. It’s not that there’s no possible harm if you’re wrong. But the benefits so vastly outweigh the risks that we are very aggressive to say, go ahead and give it.

I think we all have a responsibility to care for our communities. Obviously, that can take a lot of different forms. I had the privilege of being in the right place at the right time with the right tool to potentially save a life. That was the form it took for me that day.

Later, I followed up with a friend who took care of the man in the ER. He went through our standard procedure, being monitored to make sure the opioids didn’t outlast the naloxone. We have a lot of resources and next steps for people that have opioid use disorder. He was made aware of those. And then he walked out. I never saw him again.

It’s not the sexy part of our job in emergency medicine, not the super high–intensity adrenaline rush–type work, but a lot of what we do is talk to people like this guy. We counsel them. We think about their longer-term health and not just the overdose. This is an incredibly high-risk population in terms of their mortality risk from the opioid use disorder. It’s astronomical.

I obviously believed in this work before, but that day changed something for me. It added a layer of urgency. Now, when I have a moment in the emergency room to connect with someone, I know the reality — this person sitting in front of me could die in an alley. Maybe not today, but next week or next month.

I have the naloxone in my bag. Just in case.

Patrick Joynt, MD, is an emergency medicine physician with Denver Health in Denver.

Are you a medical professional with a dramatic story outside the clinic? Medscape Medical News would love to consider your story for Is There a Doctor in the House? Please email your contact information and a short summary to [email protected].

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

Emergencies happen anywhere, anytime, and sometimes, medical professionals find themselves in situations where they are the only ones who can help. Is There a Doctor in the House? is a Medscape Medical News series telling these stories.

I had worked a normal 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. shift in our emergency department. It was a nice day out, so I put my headphones in and started walking home through the Capitol Hill neighborhood in Denver. I passed a couple of buildings and reached an alleyway. At that moment, I glanced over.

Two guys were standing over a third person who was down on the ground. One of the people standing was on the phone. I paused for a second and thought, that doesn’t look right.

The guy on the ground was clearly out. And the other two were looking concerned like they didn’t know what to do.

I walked up the alley and asked, “What’s going on? Can I help?” One of the guys explained that they had just found this man lying here and had already called 911. They sounded a little bit out of their element. They certainly weren’t medically trained.

I leaned down next to the man on the ground. He was probably in his mid-to-late 40s. Unconscious. I always start with, “Hello? Can you hear me?” No response.

I felt for a pulse and he had one, but he didn’t appear to be breathing. I thought, I know what this is. I said, “Sir, I’m going to open your eyes.” I opened his eyes, and his pupils were tiny. It was almost certainly an opioid overdose.

And I had naloxone in my bag.

I got it out and started to assemble it. I didn’t have Narcan, which is the easy one. I had to put this kit together, draw up the medication, and put on the little nasal atomizer.

The two other guys were standing there watching. Then the one on the phone walked down to the end of the alley to where the ambulance was probably going to arrive so he could wave them down.

I gave the man the 4 mg of naloxone, two in each nostril.

He still wasn’t breathing. I did a basic maneuver where you lift his jaw a little bit to help open up the airway.

Suddenly, he started breathing again. I couldn’t do any meaningful measurements of his oxygen saturation or anything like that. I just kind of looked at him and thought, Okay, he has a pulse. He’s breathing now. That’s good.

Luckily, the cavalry arrived soon after that. Our Denver Health paramedics pulled up into the alley, and one of them recognized me from the ER. I explained that I had already given the guy naloxone. They did their assessment, and he still wasn’t breathing well, so they gave him some breaths with a mask and a bag.

We got him onto the gurney and into the back of the ambulance. They started an IV. He seemed to be breathing okay by then, and his numbers looked okay. But he wasn’t awake yet by any means.

I handed off care to them and disposed of my sharp in the ambulance. Then they took him into the ER that I had just left moments ago.

The two other guys had already disappeared. I think they saw the ambulance and thought, our job is done. So, I didn’t end up talking to them at all.

So, just like that ... I started walking home again.

I like to think of myself as a cool, calm, collected person working in the ER. But my heart was definitely going fast at that point. I called my wife to tell her about the crazy thing that just happened, and she could hear in my voice how amped up I was.

In the ER, it’s very common to see patients who need naloxone, have opioid toxicity, or have received Narcan in the community. Luckily, this man was found right away. He had likely overdosed only a few minutes earlier. Those scenarios can go bad very quickly. If there’s no one there, people often die.

That’s why I started carrying naloxone.

There are a lot of programs to get free naloxone out into the community. So, about 2 years earlier, I got some and threw one in my ER bag, one in my office bag, and another in my car. Then I essentially forgot about it. Until I needed it.

Now, I encourage all my friends to have some, and I suggest all medical professionals to keep some with them. Just be prepared. Put it in your backpack, your purse, keep it in the house, in the car, wherever. The nasal autoinjectors are incredibly easy. Like, stick it up the nose, push the big red button. Done.

When we train lay people to administer Narcan, we try to keep it simple. If you see someone, and they’re not responsive, not breathing, just give it. It’s not that there’s no possible harm if you’re wrong. But the benefits so vastly outweigh the risks that we are very aggressive to say, go ahead and give it.

I think we all have a responsibility to care for our communities. Obviously, that can take a lot of different forms. I had the privilege of being in the right place at the right time with the right tool to potentially save a life. That was the form it took for me that day.

Later, I followed up with a friend who took care of the man in the ER. He went through our standard procedure, being monitored to make sure the opioids didn’t outlast the naloxone. We have a lot of resources and next steps for people that have opioid use disorder. He was made aware of those. And then he walked out. I never saw him again.

It’s not the sexy part of our job in emergency medicine, not the super high–intensity adrenaline rush–type work, but a lot of what we do is talk to people like this guy. We counsel them. We think about their longer-term health and not just the overdose. This is an incredibly high-risk population in terms of their mortality risk from the opioid use disorder. It’s astronomical.

I obviously believed in this work before, but that day changed something for me. It added a layer of urgency. Now, when I have a moment in the emergency room to connect with someone, I know the reality — this person sitting in front of me could die in an alley. Maybe not today, but next week or next month.

I have the naloxone in my bag. Just in case.

Patrick Joynt, MD, is an emergency medicine physician with Denver Health in Denver.

Are you a medical professional with a dramatic story outside the clinic? Medscape Medical News would love to consider your story for Is There a Doctor in the House? Please email your contact information and a short summary to [email protected].

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

An intensive lifestyle intervention significantly improved cognition and function in many patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or early dementia due to Alzheimer’s disease, in what authors said is the first randomized controlled trial of intensive lifestyle modification for patients diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease. Results could help physicians address patients at risk of Alzheimer’s disease who reject relevant testing because they believe nothing can forestall development of the disease, the authors added. The study was published online in Alzheimer’s Research & Therapy.

Although technology allows probable Alzheimer’s disease diagnosis years before clinical symptoms appear, wrote investigators led by Dean Ornish, MD, of the Preventive Medicine Research Institute in Sausalito, California, “many people do not want to know if they are likely to get Alzheimer’s disease if they do not believe they can do anything about it. If intensive lifestyle changes may cause improvement in cognition and function in MCI or early dementia due to Alzheimer’s disease, then it is reasonable to think that these lifestyle changes may also help to prevent MCI or early dementia due to Alzheimer’s disease.” As with cardiovascular disease, the authors added, preventing Alzheimer’s disease might require less intensive lifestyle modifications than treating it.
 

Study Methodology

Investigators randomized 26 patients with Montréal Cognitive Assessment scores of 18 or higher to an intensive intervention involving nutrition, exercise, and stress management techniques. To improve adherence, the protocol included participants’ spouses or caregivers.

Two patients, both in the treatment group, withdrew over logistical concerns.

After 20 weeks, treated patients exhibited statistically significant differences in several key measures versus a 25-patient usual-care control group. Scores that improved in the intervention group and worsened among controls included the following:

• Clinical Global Impression of Change (CGIC, P = .001)
• Clinical Dementia Rating-Global (CDR-Global, -0.04, P = .037)
• Clinical Dementia Rating Sum of Boxes (CDR-SB, +0.08, P = .032)
• Alzheimer’s Disease Assessment Scale (ADAS-Cog, -1.01, P = .053)

The validity of these changes in cognition and function, and possible biological mechanisms of improvement, were supported by statistically significant improvements in several clinically relevant biomarkers versus controls, the investigators wrote. These biomarkers included Abeta42/40 ratio, HbA1c, insulin, and glycoprotein acetylation. “This information may also help in predicting which patients are more likely to show improvements in cognition and function by making these intensive lifestyle changes,” the authors added.

In primary analysis, the degree of lifestyle changes required to stop progression of MCI ranged from 71.4% (ADAS-Cog) to 120.6% (CDR-SB). “This helps to explain why other studies of less intensive lifestyle interventions may not have been sufficient to stop deterioration or improve cognition and function,” the authors wrote. Moreover, they added, variable adherence might explain why in the intervention group, 10 patients improved their CGIC scores, while the rest held static or worsened.
 

Caveats

Alzheimer’s Association Vice President of Medical and Scientific Relations Heather M. Snyder, PhD, said, “This is an interesting paper in an important area of research and adds to the growing body of literature on how behavior or lifestyle may be related to cognitive decline. However, because this is a small phase 2 study, it is important for this or similar work to be done in larger, more diverse populations and over a longer duration of the intervention.” She was not involved with the study but was asked to comment.

Investigators chose the 20-week duration, they explained, because control-group patients likely would not refrain from trying the lifestyle intervention beyond that timeframe. Perhaps more importantly, challenges created by the COVID-19 pandemic required researchers to cut planned enrollment in half, eliminate planned MRI and amyloid PET scans, and reduce the number of cognition and function tests.

Such shortcomings limit what neurologists can glean and generalize from the study, said Dr. Snyder. “That said,” she added, “it does demonstrate the potential of an intensive behavior/lifestyle intervention, and the importance of this sort of research in Alzheimer’s and dementia.” Although the complexity of the interventions makes these studies challenging, she added, “it is important that we continue to advance larger, longer studies in more representative study populations to develop specific recommendations.”
 

Further Study

The Alzheimer’s Association’s U.S. POINTER study is the first large-scale study in the United States to explore the impact of comprehensive lifestyle changes on cognitive health. About 2000 older adults at risk for cognitive decline are participating, from diverse locations across the country. More than 25% of participants come from groups typically underrepresented in dementia research, said Dr. Snyder. Initial results are expected in summer 2025.

Future research also should explore reasons (beyond adherence) why some patients respond to lifestyle interventions better than others, and the potential synergy of lifestyle changes with drug therapies, wrote Dr. Ornish and colleagues.

“For now,” said Dr. Snyder, “there is an opportunity for providers to incorporate or expand messaging with their patients and families about the habits that they can incorporate into their daily lives. The Alzheimer’s Association offers 10 Healthy Habits for Your Brain — everyday actions that can make a difference for your brain health.”

Investigators received study funding from more than two dozen charitable foundations and other organizations. Dr. Snyder is a full-time employee of the Alzheimer’s Association and in this role, serves on the leadership team of the U.S. POINTER study. Her partner works for Abbott in an unrelated field. 

An intensive lifestyle intervention significantly improved cognition and function in many patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or early dementia due to Alzheimer’s disease, in what authors said is the first randomized controlled trial of intensive lifestyle modification for patients diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease. Results could help physicians address patients at risk of Alzheimer’s disease who reject relevant testing because they believe nothing can forestall development of the disease, the authors added. The study was published online in Alzheimer’s Research & Therapy.

Although technology allows probable Alzheimer’s disease diagnosis years before clinical symptoms appear, wrote investigators led by Dean Ornish, MD, of the Preventive Medicine Research Institute in Sausalito, California, “many people do not want to know if they are likely to get Alzheimer’s disease if they do not believe they can do anything about it. If intensive lifestyle changes may cause improvement in cognition and function in MCI or early dementia due to Alzheimer’s disease, then it is reasonable to think that these lifestyle changes may also help to prevent MCI or early dementia due to Alzheimer’s disease.” As with cardiovascular disease, the authors added, preventing Alzheimer’s disease might require less intensive lifestyle modifications than treating it.
 

Study Methodology

Investigators randomized 26 patients with Montréal Cognitive Assessment scores of 18 or higher to an intensive intervention involving nutrition, exercise, and stress management techniques. To improve adherence, the protocol included participants’ spouses or caregivers.

Two patients, both in the treatment group, withdrew over logistical concerns.

After 20 weeks, treated patients exhibited statistically significant differences in several key measures versus a 25-patient usual-care control group. Scores that improved in the intervention group and worsened among controls included the following:

• Clinical Global Impression of Change (CGIC, P = .001)
• Clinical Dementia Rating-Global (CDR-Global, -0.04, P = .037)
• Clinical Dementia Rating Sum of Boxes (CDR-SB, +0.08, P = .032)
• Alzheimer’s Disease Assessment Scale (ADAS-Cog, -1.01, P = .053)

The validity of these changes in cognition and function, and possible biological mechanisms of improvement, were supported by statistically significant improvements in several clinically relevant biomarkers versus controls, the investigators wrote. These biomarkers included Abeta42/40 ratio, HbA1c, insulin, and glycoprotein acetylation. “This information may also help in predicting which patients are more likely to show improvements in cognition and function by making these intensive lifestyle changes,” the authors added.

In primary analysis, the degree of lifestyle changes required to stop progression of MCI ranged from 71.4% (ADAS-Cog) to 120.6% (CDR-SB). “This helps to explain why other studies of less intensive lifestyle interventions may not have been sufficient to stop deterioration or improve cognition and function,” the authors wrote. Moreover, they added, variable adherence might explain why in the intervention group, 10 patients improved their CGIC scores, while the rest held static or worsened.
 

Caveats

Alzheimer’s Association Vice President of Medical and Scientific Relations Heather M. Snyder, PhD, said, “This is an interesting paper in an important area of research and adds to the growing body of literature on how behavior or lifestyle may be related to cognitive decline. However, because this is a small phase 2 study, it is important for this or similar work to be done in larger, more diverse populations and over a longer duration of the intervention.” She was not involved with the study but was asked to comment.

Investigators chose the 20-week duration, they explained, because control-group patients likely would not refrain from trying the lifestyle intervention beyond that timeframe. Perhaps more importantly, challenges created by the COVID-19 pandemic required researchers to cut planned enrollment in half, eliminate planned MRI and amyloid PET scans, and reduce the number of cognition and function tests.

Such shortcomings limit what neurologists can glean and generalize from the study, said Dr. Snyder. “That said,” she added, “it does demonstrate the potential of an intensive behavior/lifestyle intervention, and the importance of this sort of research in Alzheimer’s and dementia.” Although the complexity of the interventions makes these studies challenging, she added, “it is important that we continue to advance larger, longer studies in more representative study populations to develop specific recommendations.”
 

Further Study

The Alzheimer’s Association’s U.S. POINTER study is the first large-scale study in the United States to explore the impact of comprehensive lifestyle changes on cognitive health. About 2000 older adults at risk for cognitive decline are participating, from diverse locations across the country. More than 25% of participants come from groups typically underrepresented in dementia research, said Dr. Snyder. Initial results are expected in summer 2025.

Future research also should explore reasons (beyond adherence) why some patients respond to lifestyle interventions better than others, and the potential synergy of lifestyle changes with drug therapies, wrote Dr. Ornish and colleagues.

“For now,” said Dr. Snyder, “there is an opportunity for providers to incorporate or expand messaging with their patients and families about the habits that they can incorporate into their daily lives. The Alzheimer’s Association offers 10 Healthy Habits for Your Brain — everyday actions that can make a difference for your brain health.”

Investigators received study funding from more than two dozen charitable foundations and other organizations. Dr. Snyder is a full-time employee of the Alzheimer’s Association and in this role, serves on the leadership team of the U.S. POINTER study. Her partner works for Abbott in an unrelated field. 

An intensive lifestyle intervention significantly improved cognition and function in many patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or early dementia due to Alzheimer’s disease, in what authors said is the first randomized controlled trial of intensive lifestyle modification for patients diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease. Results could help physicians address patients at risk of Alzheimer’s disease who reject relevant testing because they believe nothing can forestall development of the disease, the authors added. The study was published online in Alzheimer’s Research & Therapy.

Although technology allows probable Alzheimer’s disease diagnosis years before clinical symptoms appear, wrote investigators led by Dean Ornish, MD, of the Preventive Medicine Research Institute in Sausalito, California, “many people do not want to know if they are likely to get Alzheimer’s disease if they do not believe they can do anything about it. If intensive lifestyle changes may cause improvement in cognition and function in MCI or early dementia due to Alzheimer’s disease, then it is reasonable to think that these lifestyle changes may also help to prevent MCI or early dementia due to Alzheimer’s disease.” As with cardiovascular disease, the authors added, preventing Alzheimer’s disease might require less intensive lifestyle modifications than treating it.
 

Study Methodology

Investigators randomized 26 patients with Montréal Cognitive Assessment scores of 18 or higher to an intensive intervention involving nutrition, exercise, and stress management techniques. To improve adherence, the protocol included participants’ spouses or caregivers.

Two patients, both in the treatment group, withdrew over logistical concerns.

After 20 weeks, treated patients exhibited statistically significant differences in several key measures versus a 25-patient usual-care control group. Scores that improved in the intervention group and worsened among controls included the following:

• Clinical Global Impression of Change (CGIC, P = .001)
• Clinical Dementia Rating-Global (CDR-Global, -0.04, P = .037)
• Clinical Dementia Rating Sum of Boxes (CDR-SB, +0.08, P = .032)
• Alzheimer’s Disease Assessment Scale (ADAS-Cog, -1.01, P = .053)

The validity of these changes in cognition and function, and possible biological mechanisms of improvement, were supported by statistically significant improvements in several clinically relevant biomarkers versus controls, the investigators wrote. These biomarkers included Abeta42/40 ratio, HbA1c, insulin, and glycoprotein acetylation. “This information may also help in predicting which patients are more likely to show improvements in cognition and function by making these intensive lifestyle changes,” the authors added.

In primary analysis, the degree of lifestyle changes required to stop progression of MCI ranged from 71.4% (ADAS-Cog) to 120.6% (CDR-SB). “This helps to explain why other studies of less intensive lifestyle interventions may not have been sufficient to stop deterioration or improve cognition and function,” the authors wrote. Moreover, they added, variable adherence might explain why in the intervention group, 10 patients improved their CGIC scores, while the rest held static or worsened.
 

Caveats

Alzheimer’s Association Vice President of Medical and Scientific Relations Heather M. Snyder, PhD, said, “This is an interesting paper in an important area of research and adds to the growing body of literature on how behavior or lifestyle may be related to cognitive decline. However, because this is a small phase 2 study, it is important for this or similar work to be done in larger, more diverse populations and over a longer duration of the intervention.” She was not involved with the study but was asked to comment.

Investigators chose the 20-week duration, they explained, because control-group patients likely would not refrain from trying the lifestyle intervention beyond that timeframe. Perhaps more importantly, challenges created by the COVID-19 pandemic required researchers to cut planned enrollment in half, eliminate planned MRI and amyloid PET scans, and reduce the number of cognition and function tests.

Such shortcomings limit what neurologists can glean and generalize from the study, said Dr. Snyder. “That said,” she added, “it does demonstrate the potential of an intensive behavior/lifestyle intervention, and the importance of this sort of research in Alzheimer’s and dementia.” Although the complexity of the interventions makes these studies challenging, she added, “it is important that we continue to advance larger, longer studies in more representative study populations to develop specific recommendations.”
 

Further Study

The Alzheimer’s Association’s U.S. POINTER study is the first large-scale study in the United States to explore the impact of comprehensive lifestyle changes on cognitive health. About 2000 older adults at risk for cognitive decline are participating, from diverse locations across the country. More than 25% of participants come from groups typically underrepresented in dementia research, said Dr. Snyder. Initial results are expected in summer 2025.

Future research also should explore reasons (beyond adherence) why some patients respond to lifestyle interventions better than others, and the potential synergy of lifestyle changes with drug therapies, wrote Dr. Ornish and colleagues.

“For now,” said Dr. Snyder, “there is an opportunity for providers to incorporate or expand messaging with their patients and families about the habits that they can incorporate into their daily lives. The Alzheimer’s Association offers 10 Healthy Habits for Your Brain — everyday actions that can make a difference for your brain health.”

Investigators received study funding from more than two dozen charitable foundations and other organizations. Dr. Snyder is a full-time employee of the Alzheimer’s Association and in this role, serves on the leadership team of the U.S. POINTER study. Her partner works for Abbott in an unrelated field. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

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

Screening

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

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

Diagnostic Testing

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

Comorbidity

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

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

Behavioral Manifestations

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

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

Interventions

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

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

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

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

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

Screening

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

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

Diagnostic Testing

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

Comorbidity

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

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

Behavioral Manifestations

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

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

Interventions

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

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

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

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

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

Screening

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

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

Diagnostic Testing

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

Comorbidity

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

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

Behavioral Manifestations

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

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

Interventions

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

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

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

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

HOUSTON — Sleep may have a role in driving down rates of loneliness, especially among younger adults.

A study of nearly 2300 participants showed that better sleep health is associated with significantly lower levels of loneliness across ages and that the association is particularly strong in younger individuals.

The US Surgeon General has identified loneliness as “a major public health concern, linked to high rates of negative physical and mental health outcomes,” lead researcher Joseph Dzierzewski, PhD, vice president for research and scientific affairs at the National Sleep Foundation, told this news organization.

“Loneliness is an urgent public health crisis, and there is a pressing need for providers to better understand and treat it,” Dr. Dzierzewski said in a statement.

“Better sleep health might be connected to lower feelings of loneliness by empowering people to engage in social activities, reducing feelings of negative emotions and increasing the likelihood that people interpret interactions in a positive way,” he added.

The findings were presented at SLEEP 2024: 38th Annual Meeting of the Associated Professional Sleep Societies and recently published in an online supplement of the journal Sleep.
 

Rested, Connected

An American Psychiatric Association poll conducted earlier this year showed 30% of US adults reported feelings of loneliness at least once a week over the past year, and 10% reported feeling lonely every day.

Younger people are more likely to report feeling lonely, with 30% of Americans, aged 18-34 years, feeling lonely every day or several times a week.

While there is growing research identifying a relationship between loneliness and poor sleep in different age groups, few studies have explored ties between social and emotional loneliness and sleep health across the adult lifespan.

In the current study led by Dr. Dzierzewski, 2297 adults (mean age, 44 years; 51% male) completed a validated sleep health questionnaire and loneliness scale.

Linear regression analyses were used to examine the direct associations between sleep health, age, and loneliness. Moderation analyses tested whether the link between sleep health and loneliness differed by age.

On average, the total sleep score was 7.7 (range, 0-12), with higher scores indicating better multidimensional sleep health, and total loneliness scale score was 8.9 (out of 11), indicating moderate levels of loneliness.

Better sleep health and younger age were associated with significantly lower loneliness total scores and social and emotional loneliness subscale scores (all P < .001).

Age significantly moderated the association between sleep health and total (P < .001) and emotional loneliness scores (P < .001) but did not moderate the association between sleep health and social loneliness (P = .034). Better sleep health was associated with lower loneliness across ages, and this association was stronger at younger ages.

“Why younger adults might experience more sleep-related benefits to loneliness than older adults is unknown and intriguing — certainly worth further investigation,” Dr. Dzierzewski said in a conference statement.
 

Untapped Avenue

Promoting sleep health may be an “untapped avenue” to support efforts and programs that aim to reduce loneliness and increase engagement in all age groups but especially in younger ages, the researchers noted.

Future research should consider monitoring sleep health in programs or interventions that address loneliness, they added.

“Healthcare providers should be aware of the important link between sleep health and loneliness as both sleep and social connections are essential to health and well-being. When sitting across from patients, asking about both sleep health and loneliness might yield important insights into avenues for health promotion,” said Dr. Dzierzewski.

Michael Breus, PhD, clinical psychologist and founder of SleepDoctor.com, who wasn’t involved in the study, is not surprised by the results.

It makes sense that better sleep would lead to less feelings of loneliness, he told this news organization.

Research has shown that when someone is not sleeping well, they “give others a sense of unhappiness, which socially deflects new encounters or even encounters with friends. So social awareness and social initiation would appear to both be affected by sleep quality, therefore potentially leading, at least in part, to loneliness,” he said.

Support for the study was provided by the National Institute on Aging. Dr. Dzierzewski and Dr. Breus had no relevant disclosures.

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

HOUSTON — Sleep may have a role in driving down rates of loneliness, especially among younger adults.

A study of nearly 2300 participants showed that better sleep health is associated with significantly lower levels of loneliness across ages and that the association is particularly strong in younger individuals.

The US Surgeon General has identified loneliness as “a major public health concern, linked to high rates of negative physical and mental health outcomes,” lead researcher Joseph Dzierzewski, PhD, vice president for research and scientific affairs at the National Sleep Foundation, told this news organization.

“Loneliness is an urgent public health crisis, and there is a pressing need for providers to better understand and treat it,” Dr. Dzierzewski said in a statement.

“Better sleep health might be connected to lower feelings of loneliness by empowering people to engage in social activities, reducing feelings of negative emotions and increasing the likelihood that people interpret interactions in a positive way,” he added.

The findings were presented at SLEEP 2024: 38th Annual Meeting of the Associated Professional Sleep Societies and recently published in an online supplement of the journal Sleep.
 

Rested, Connected

An American Psychiatric Association poll conducted earlier this year showed 30% of US adults reported feelings of loneliness at least once a week over the past year, and 10% reported feeling lonely every day.

Younger people are more likely to report feeling lonely, with 30% of Americans, aged 18-34 years, feeling lonely every day or several times a week.

While there is growing research identifying a relationship between loneliness and poor sleep in different age groups, few studies have explored ties between social and emotional loneliness and sleep health across the adult lifespan.

In the current study led by Dr. Dzierzewski, 2297 adults (mean age, 44 years; 51% male) completed a validated sleep health questionnaire and loneliness scale.

Linear regression analyses were used to examine the direct associations between sleep health, age, and loneliness. Moderation analyses tested whether the link between sleep health and loneliness differed by age.

On average, the total sleep score was 7.7 (range, 0-12), with higher scores indicating better multidimensional sleep health, and total loneliness scale score was 8.9 (out of 11), indicating moderate levels of loneliness.

Better sleep health and younger age were associated with significantly lower loneliness total scores and social and emotional loneliness subscale scores (all P < .001).

Age significantly moderated the association between sleep health and total (P < .001) and emotional loneliness scores (P < .001) but did not moderate the association between sleep health and social loneliness (P = .034). Better sleep health was associated with lower loneliness across ages, and this association was stronger at younger ages.

“Why younger adults might experience more sleep-related benefits to loneliness than older adults is unknown and intriguing — certainly worth further investigation,” Dr. Dzierzewski said in a conference statement.
 

Untapped Avenue

Promoting sleep health may be an “untapped avenue” to support efforts and programs that aim to reduce loneliness and increase engagement in all age groups but especially in younger ages, the researchers noted.

Future research should consider monitoring sleep health in programs or interventions that address loneliness, they added.

“Healthcare providers should be aware of the important link between sleep health and loneliness as both sleep and social connections are essential to health and well-being. When sitting across from patients, asking about both sleep health and loneliness might yield important insights into avenues for health promotion,” said Dr. Dzierzewski.

Michael Breus, PhD, clinical psychologist and founder of SleepDoctor.com, who wasn’t involved in the study, is not surprised by the results.

It makes sense that better sleep would lead to less feelings of loneliness, he told this news organization.

Research has shown that when someone is not sleeping well, they “give others a sense of unhappiness, which socially deflects new encounters or even encounters with friends. So social awareness and social initiation would appear to both be affected by sleep quality, therefore potentially leading, at least in part, to loneliness,” he said.

Support for the study was provided by the National Institute on Aging. Dr. Dzierzewski and Dr. Breus had no relevant disclosures.

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

HOUSTON — Sleep may have a role in driving down rates of loneliness, especially among younger adults.

A study of nearly 2300 participants showed that better sleep health is associated with significantly lower levels of loneliness across ages and that the association is particularly strong in younger individuals.

The US Surgeon General has identified loneliness as “a major public health concern, linked to high rates of negative physical and mental health outcomes,” lead researcher Joseph Dzierzewski, PhD, vice president for research and scientific affairs at the National Sleep Foundation, told this news organization.

“Loneliness is an urgent public health crisis, and there is a pressing need for providers to better understand and treat it,” Dr. Dzierzewski said in a statement.

“Better sleep health might be connected to lower feelings of loneliness by empowering people to engage in social activities, reducing feelings of negative emotions and increasing the likelihood that people interpret interactions in a positive way,” he added.

The findings were presented at SLEEP 2024: 38th Annual Meeting of the Associated Professional Sleep Societies and recently published in an online supplement of the journal Sleep.
 

Rested, Connected

An American Psychiatric Association poll conducted earlier this year showed 30% of US adults reported feelings of loneliness at least once a week over the past year, and 10% reported feeling lonely every day.

Younger people are more likely to report feeling lonely, with 30% of Americans, aged 18-34 years, feeling lonely every day or several times a week.

While there is growing research identifying a relationship between loneliness and poor sleep in different age groups, few studies have explored ties between social and emotional loneliness and sleep health across the adult lifespan.

In the current study led by Dr. Dzierzewski, 2297 adults (mean age, 44 years; 51% male) completed a validated sleep health questionnaire and loneliness scale.

Linear regression analyses were used to examine the direct associations between sleep health, age, and loneliness. Moderation analyses tested whether the link between sleep health and loneliness differed by age.

On average, the total sleep score was 7.7 (range, 0-12), with higher scores indicating better multidimensional sleep health, and total loneliness scale score was 8.9 (out of 11), indicating moderate levels of loneliness.

Better sleep health and younger age were associated with significantly lower loneliness total scores and social and emotional loneliness subscale scores (all P < .001).

Age significantly moderated the association between sleep health and total (P < .001) and emotional loneliness scores (P < .001) but did not moderate the association between sleep health and social loneliness (P = .034). Better sleep health was associated with lower loneliness across ages, and this association was stronger at younger ages.

“Why younger adults might experience more sleep-related benefits to loneliness than older adults is unknown and intriguing — certainly worth further investigation,” Dr. Dzierzewski said in a conference statement.
 

Untapped Avenue

Promoting sleep health may be an “untapped avenue” to support efforts and programs that aim to reduce loneliness and increase engagement in all age groups but especially in younger ages, the researchers noted.

Future research should consider monitoring sleep health in programs or interventions that address loneliness, they added.

“Healthcare providers should be aware of the important link between sleep health and loneliness as both sleep and social connections are essential to health and well-being. When sitting across from patients, asking about both sleep health and loneliness might yield important insights into avenues for health promotion,” said Dr. Dzierzewski.

Michael Breus, PhD, clinical psychologist and founder of SleepDoctor.com, who wasn’t involved in the study, is not surprised by the results.

It makes sense that better sleep would lead to less feelings of loneliness, he told this news organization.

Research has shown that when someone is not sleeping well, they “give others a sense of unhappiness, which socially deflects new encounters or even encounters with friends. So social awareness and social initiation would appear to both be affected by sleep quality, therefore potentially leading, at least in part, to loneliness,” he said.

Support for the study was provided by the National Institute on Aging. Dr. Dzierzewski and Dr. Breus had no relevant disclosures.

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

TOPLINE:

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

METHODOLOGY:

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

TAKEAWAY:

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

IN PRACTICE:

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

SOURCE:

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

LIMITATIONS:

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

DISCLOSURES:

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

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

METHODOLOGY:

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

TAKEAWAY:

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

IN PRACTICE:

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

SOURCE:

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

LIMITATIONS:

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

DISCLOSURES:

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

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

METHODOLOGY:

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

TAKEAWAY:

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

IN PRACTICE:

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

SOURCE:

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

LIMITATIONS:

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

DISCLOSURES:

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

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

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

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

The renewal fee is just part of the issue.
 

Mandatory 8-Hour Training

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

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

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

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

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

And beware the penalty. 

Changes Needed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

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

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

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

The renewal fee is just part of the issue.
 

Mandatory 8-Hour Training

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

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

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

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

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

And beware the penalty. 

Changes Needed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

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

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

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

The renewal fee is just part of the issue.
 

Mandatory 8-Hour Training

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

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

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

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

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

And beware the penalty. 

Changes Needed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Nearly 13% of older adults in the United States were treated for traumatic brain injury (TBI) over an 18-year period, a new study showed.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed data from approximately 9200 Medicare enrollees who were part of the Health and Retirement Study (HRS), aged 65 years and older, from 2000 to 2018.
• The baseline date was the date of the first age eligible HRS core interview in the community in 2000 or later.
• Incident TBI cases came from an updated list of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD), 9th and 10th edition codes, from the Defense and Veterans Brain Injury Center and the Armed Forces Health Surveillance Branch for TBI surveillance.
• Codes corresponded with emergency department, CT, and/or fMRI visits.

TAKEAWAY:

• Almost 13% of older individuals (n = 797) experienced TBI during the study, highlighting its significant prevalence in this population.
• Older adults (mean age at baseline, 75 years) who experienced TBI during the study period were more likely to be women and White individuals as well as individuals having higher levels of education and normal cognition (P < .001), challenging previous assumptions about risk factors.
• The study underscored the need for targeted interventions and research focused on TBI prevention and postdischarge care in older adults.

IN PRACTICE:

“The number of people 65 and older with TBI is shockingly high,” senior author Raquel Gardner, MD, said in a press release. “We need evidence-based guidelines to inform postdischarge care of this very large Medicare population and more research on post-TBI dementia prevention and repeat injury prevention.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Erica Kornblith, PhD, of the University of California, San Francisco. It was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s reliance on ICD codes for TBI identification may not capture the full spectrum of TBI severity. Self-reported data on sociodemographic factors may have introduced bias, affecting the accuracy of associations with TBI incidence. In addition, the findings’ generalizability may be limited due to the study’s focus on Medicare enrollees, potentially excluding those from diverse socioeconomic backgrounds.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the Alzheimer’s Association, the US Department of Veterans Affairs, the National Institute on Aging, and the Department of Defense. Disclosures are noted in the original study.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Nearly 13% of older adults in the United States were treated for traumatic brain injury (TBI) over an 18-year period, a new study showed.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed data from approximately 9200 Medicare enrollees who were part of the Health and Retirement Study (HRS), aged 65 years and older, from 2000 to 2018.
• The baseline date was the date of the first age eligible HRS core interview in the community in 2000 or later.
• Incident TBI cases came from an updated list of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD), 9th and 10th edition codes, from the Defense and Veterans Brain Injury Center and the Armed Forces Health Surveillance Branch for TBI surveillance.
• Codes corresponded with emergency department, CT, and/or fMRI visits.

TAKEAWAY:

• Almost 13% of older individuals (n = 797) experienced TBI during the study, highlighting its significant prevalence in this population.
• Older adults (mean age at baseline, 75 years) who experienced TBI during the study period were more likely to be women and White individuals as well as individuals having higher levels of education and normal cognition (P < .001), challenging previous assumptions about risk factors.
• The study underscored the need for targeted interventions and research focused on TBI prevention and postdischarge care in older adults.

IN PRACTICE:

“The number of people 65 and older with TBI is shockingly high,” senior author Raquel Gardner, MD, said in a press release. “We need evidence-based guidelines to inform postdischarge care of this very large Medicare population and more research on post-TBI dementia prevention and repeat injury prevention.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Erica Kornblith, PhD, of the University of California, San Francisco. It was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s reliance on ICD codes for TBI identification may not capture the full spectrum of TBI severity. Self-reported data on sociodemographic factors may have introduced bias, affecting the accuracy of associations with TBI incidence. In addition, the findings’ generalizability may be limited due to the study’s focus on Medicare enrollees, potentially excluding those from diverse socioeconomic backgrounds.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the Alzheimer’s Association, the US Department of Veterans Affairs, the National Institute on Aging, and the Department of Defense. Disclosures are noted in the original study.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Nearly 13% of older adults in the United States were treated for traumatic brain injury (TBI) over an 18-year period, a new study showed.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed data from approximately 9200 Medicare enrollees who were part of the Health and Retirement Study (HRS), aged 65 years and older, from 2000 to 2018.
• The baseline date was the date of the first age eligible HRS core interview in the community in 2000 or later.
• Incident TBI cases came from an updated list of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD), 9th and 10th edition codes, from the Defense and Veterans Brain Injury Center and the Armed Forces Health Surveillance Branch for TBI surveillance.
• Codes corresponded with emergency department, CT, and/or fMRI visits.

TAKEAWAY:

• Almost 13% of older individuals (n = 797) experienced TBI during the study, highlighting its significant prevalence in this population.
• Older adults (mean age at baseline, 75 years) who experienced TBI during the study period were more likely to be women and White individuals as well as individuals having higher levels of education and normal cognition (P < .001), challenging previous assumptions about risk factors.
• The study underscored the need for targeted interventions and research focused on TBI prevention and postdischarge care in older adults.

IN PRACTICE:

“The number of people 65 and older with TBI is shockingly high,” senior author Raquel Gardner, MD, said in a press release. “We need evidence-based guidelines to inform postdischarge care of this very large Medicare population and more research on post-TBI dementia prevention and repeat injury prevention.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Erica Kornblith, PhD, of the University of California, San Francisco. It was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s reliance on ICD codes for TBI identification may not capture the full spectrum of TBI severity. Self-reported data on sociodemographic factors may have introduced bias, affecting the accuracy of associations with TBI incidence. In addition, the findings’ generalizability may be limited due to the study’s focus on Medicare enrollees, potentially excluding those from diverse socioeconomic backgrounds.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the Alzheimer’s Association, the US Department of Veterans Affairs, the National Institute on Aging, and the Department of Defense. Disclosures are noted in the original study.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

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

METHODOLOGY:

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

TAKEAWAY:

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

IN PRACTICE:

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

SOURCE:

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

LIMITATIONS:

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

DISCLOSURES:

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

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

METHODOLOGY:

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

TAKEAWAY:

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

IN PRACTICE:

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

SOURCE:

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

LIMITATIONS:

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

DISCLOSURES:

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

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

METHODOLOGY:

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

TAKEAWAY:

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

IN PRACTICE:

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

SOURCE:

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

LIMITATIONS:

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

DISCLOSURES:

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.