The Journal of Family Practice

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE

A 52-year-old woman presents to the emergency department complaining of dysuria and a fever. Her work-up yields a diagnosis of sepsis secondary to pyelonephritis and bacteremia. She is admitted and started on broad-spectrum antimicrobial therapy. The patient’s symptoms improve significantly over the next 48 hours of treatment. When should antibiotic therapy be discontinued to reduce the patient’s risk for antibiotic-associated AEs and to optimize antimicrobial stewardship?

Antimicrobial resistance is a growing public health risk associated with considerable morbidity and mortality, extended hospitalization, and increased medical expenditures.^2-4 Antibiotic stewardship is vital in curbing antimicrobial resistance. The predictive biomarker PCT has emerged as both a diagnostic and prognostic agent for numerous infectious diseases. It has recently received much attention as an adjunct to clinical judgment for discontinuation of antibiotic therapy in hospitalized patients with lower respiratory tract infections and/or sepsis.^5-11 Indeed, use of PCT guidance in these patients has resulted in decreased AEs, as well as an enhanced survival benefit.^5-15

The utility of PCT-guided early discontinuation of antibiotics had yet to be studied in an expanded population of hospitalized patients with sepsis—especially with regard to AEs associated with multidrug-resistant organisms (MDROs) and Clostridioides difficile (formerly Clostridium difficile). The Surviving Sepsis Campaign’s 2021 international guidelines support the use of PCT in conjunction with clinical evaluation for shortening the duration of antibiotic therapy (“weak recommendation, low quality of evidence”).¹⁶ They also suggest daily reassessment for de-­escalation of antibiotic use (“weak recommendation, very low quality of evidence”) as a possible way to decrease MDROs and AEs but state that more and better trials are needed.¹⁵

STUDY SUMMARY

PCT-guided intervention reduced infection-associated AEs

This pragmatic, real-world, multicenter, randomized clinical trial evaluated the use of PCT-guided early discontinuation of antibiotic therapy in patients with sepsis, in hopes of decreasing infection-associated AEs related to prolonged antibiotic exposure.¹ The trial took place in 7 hospitals in Athens, Greece, with 266 patients randomized to the PCT-guided intervention or the standard of care (SOC)—the 2016 international guidelines for the management of sepsis and septic shock from the Surviving Sepsis campaign.¹⁷ Study participants had sepsis, as defined by a sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score ≥ 2, and infections that included pneumonia, pyelonephritis, or bacteremia.¹⁶ Pregnancy, lactation, HIV infection with a low CD4 count, neutropenia, cystic fibrosis, and viral, parasitic, or tuberculosis infections were exclusion criteria. Of note, all patients were managed on general medical wards and not in intensive care units.

This trial demonstrated the benefit of PCT-guided antimicrobial therapy in reducing infection-associated AEs, length of antibiotic treatment, and 28-day mortality for patients with sepsis.

Serum PCT samples were collected at baseline and then at Day 5 of therapy. ­Discontinuation of antibiotic therapy in the PCT trial arm occurred once PCT levels were ≤ 0.5 mcg/L or were reduced by at least 80%. If PCT levels did not meet one of these criteria, the lab test would be repeated daily and antibiotic therapy would continue until the rule was met. Neither patients nor investigators were blinded to the treatment assignments, but investigators in the SOC arm were kept unaware of Day 5 PCT results. In the PCT arm, 71% of participants met Day 5 criteria for stopping antibiotics, and a retrospective analysis indicated that a near-identical 70% in the SOC arm also would have met the same criteria.

The assessment of stool colonization with either C difficile or MDROs was done by stool cultures at baseline and on Days 7, 28, and 180.

The primary outcome of infection-­associated AEs, which was evaluated at 180 days, was defined as new cases of C difficile or MDRO infection, or death associated with baseline infection with either C difficile or an MDRO. Of the 133 participants allocated to each trial arm, 8 patients in the intervention group and 2 in the SOC group withdrew consent prior to treatment in the intervention group, with the remaining 125 and 131 participants, respectively, completing the interventions and not lost to follow-up.

Continue to: In an intention-to-treat analysis...

In an intention-to-treat analysis, 9 participants (7.2%; 95% CI, 3.8%-13.1%) in the PCT group compared with 20 participants (15.3%; 95% CI, 10.1%-22.4%) in the SOC group experienced the primary outcome of an antibiotic-associated AE at 180 days, resulting in a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.45 (95% CI, 0.2-0.98).

Secondary outcomes also favored the PCT arm regarding 28-day mortality (19 vs 37 patients; HR = 0.51; 95% CI, 0.29-0.89), median length of antibiotic treatment (5 days in the PCT group and 10 days in the SOC group; P < .001), and median hospitalization cost (24% greater in the SOC group; P = .05). Results for 180-day mortality were 30.4% in the PCT arm and 38.2% in the SOC arm (HR = 0.71; 95% CI, 0.42-1.19), thereby not achieving statistical significance.

WHAT'S NEW

An effective tool in reducing AEs in patients with sepsis

In this multicenter trial, PCT proved successful as a clinical decision tool for discontinuing antibiotic therapy and decreasing infection-associated AEs in patients with sepsis.

Caveats

A promising approach but its superiority is uncertain

The confidence interval for the AE hazard ratio was very wide, but significant, suggesting greater uncertainty and less precision in the chance of obtaining improved outcomes with PCT-guided intervention. However, these data also clarify that outcomes should (at least) not be worse with PCT-directed therapy.

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

Assay limitations and potential resistance to a new decision tool

The primary challenge to implementation is likely the availability of the PCT assay and the immediacy of turnaround time to enable physicians to make daily decisions regarding antibiotic therapy de-escalation. Additionally, as with any new knowledge, local culture and physician buy-in may limit implementation of this ever-more-valuable patient care tool.

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE

A 52-year-old woman presents to the emergency department complaining of dysuria and a fever. Her work-up yields a diagnosis of sepsis secondary to pyelonephritis and bacteremia. She is admitted and started on broad-spectrum antimicrobial therapy. The patient’s symptoms improve significantly over the next 48 hours of treatment. When should antibiotic therapy be discontinued to reduce the patient’s risk for antibiotic-associated AEs and to optimize antimicrobial stewardship?

Antimicrobial resistance is a growing public health risk associated with considerable morbidity and mortality, extended hospitalization, and increased medical expenditures.^2-4 Antibiotic stewardship is vital in curbing antimicrobial resistance. The predictive biomarker PCT has emerged as both a diagnostic and prognostic agent for numerous infectious diseases. It has recently received much attention as an adjunct to clinical judgment for discontinuation of antibiotic therapy in hospitalized patients with lower respiratory tract infections and/or sepsis.^5-11 Indeed, use of PCT guidance in these patients has resulted in decreased AEs, as well as an enhanced survival benefit.^5-15

The utility of PCT-guided early discontinuation of antibiotics had yet to be studied in an expanded population of hospitalized patients with sepsis—especially with regard to AEs associated with multidrug-resistant organisms (MDROs) and Clostridioides difficile (formerly Clostridium difficile). The Surviving Sepsis Campaign’s 2021 international guidelines support the use of PCT in conjunction with clinical evaluation for shortening the duration of antibiotic therapy (“weak recommendation, low quality of evidence”).¹⁶ They also suggest daily reassessment for de-­escalation of antibiotic use (“weak recommendation, very low quality of evidence”) as a possible way to decrease MDROs and AEs but state that more and better trials are needed.¹⁵

STUDY SUMMARY

PCT-guided intervention reduced infection-associated AEs

This pragmatic, real-world, multicenter, randomized clinical trial evaluated the use of PCT-guided early discontinuation of antibiotic therapy in patients with sepsis, in hopes of decreasing infection-associated AEs related to prolonged antibiotic exposure.¹ The trial took place in 7 hospitals in Athens, Greece, with 266 patients randomized to the PCT-guided intervention or the standard of care (SOC)—the 2016 international guidelines for the management of sepsis and septic shock from the Surviving Sepsis campaign.¹⁷ Study participants had sepsis, as defined by a sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score ≥ 2, and infections that included pneumonia, pyelonephritis, or bacteremia.¹⁶ Pregnancy, lactation, HIV infection with a low CD4 count, neutropenia, cystic fibrosis, and viral, parasitic, or tuberculosis infections were exclusion criteria. Of note, all patients were managed on general medical wards and not in intensive care units.

This trial demonstrated the benefit of PCT-guided antimicrobial therapy in reducing infection-associated AEs, length of antibiotic treatment, and 28-day mortality for patients with sepsis.

Serum PCT samples were collected at baseline and then at Day 5 of therapy. ­Discontinuation of antibiotic therapy in the PCT trial arm occurred once PCT levels were ≤ 0.5 mcg/L or were reduced by at least 80%. If PCT levels did not meet one of these criteria, the lab test would be repeated daily and antibiotic therapy would continue until the rule was met. Neither patients nor investigators were blinded to the treatment assignments, but investigators in the SOC arm were kept unaware of Day 5 PCT results. In the PCT arm, 71% of participants met Day 5 criteria for stopping antibiotics, and a retrospective analysis indicated that a near-identical 70% in the SOC arm also would have met the same criteria.

The assessment of stool colonization with either C difficile or MDROs was done by stool cultures at baseline and on Days 7, 28, and 180.

The primary outcome of infection-­associated AEs, which was evaluated at 180 days, was defined as new cases of C difficile or MDRO infection, or death associated with baseline infection with either C difficile or an MDRO. Of the 133 participants allocated to each trial arm, 8 patients in the intervention group and 2 in the SOC group withdrew consent prior to treatment in the intervention group, with the remaining 125 and 131 participants, respectively, completing the interventions and not lost to follow-up.

Continue to: In an intention-to-treat analysis...

In an intention-to-treat analysis, 9 participants (7.2%; 95% CI, 3.8%-13.1%) in the PCT group compared with 20 participants (15.3%; 95% CI, 10.1%-22.4%) in the SOC group experienced the primary outcome of an antibiotic-associated AE at 180 days, resulting in a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.45 (95% CI, 0.2-0.98).

Secondary outcomes also favored the PCT arm regarding 28-day mortality (19 vs 37 patients; HR = 0.51; 95% CI, 0.29-0.89), median length of antibiotic treatment (5 days in the PCT group and 10 days in the SOC group; P < .001), and median hospitalization cost (24% greater in the SOC group; P = .05). Results for 180-day mortality were 30.4% in the PCT arm and 38.2% in the SOC arm (HR = 0.71; 95% CI, 0.42-1.19), thereby not achieving statistical significance.

WHAT'S NEW

An effective tool in reducing AEs in patients with sepsis

In this multicenter trial, PCT proved successful as a clinical decision tool for discontinuing antibiotic therapy and decreasing infection-associated AEs in patients with sepsis.

Caveats

A promising approach but its superiority is uncertain

The confidence interval for the AE hazard ratio was very wide, but significant, suggesting greater uncertainty and less precision in the chance of obtaining improved outcomes with PCT-guided intervention. However, these data also clarify that outcomes should (at least) not be worse with PCT-directed therapy.

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

Assay limitations and potential resistance to a new decision tool

The primary challenge to implementation is likely the availability of the PCT assay and the immediacy of turnaround time to enable physicians to make daily decisions regarding antibiotic therapy de-escalation. Additionally, as with any new knowledge, local culture and physician buy-in may limit implementation of this ever-more-valuable patient care tool.

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE

A 52-year-old woman presents to the emergency department complaining of dysuria and a fever. Her work-up yields a diagnosis of sepsis secondary to pyelonephritis and bacteremia. She is admitted and started on broad-spectrum antimicrobial therapy. The patient’s symptoms improve significantly over the next 48 hours of treatment. When should antibiotic therapy be discontinued to reduce the patient’s risk for antibiotic-associated AEs and to optimize antimicrobial stewardship?

Antimicrobial resistance is a growing public health risk associated with considerable morbidity and mortality, extended hospitalization, and increased medical expenditures.^2-4 Antibiotic stewardship is vital in curbing antimicrobial resistance. The predictive biomarker PCT has emerged as both a diagnostic and prognostic agent for numerous infectious diseases. It has recently received much attention as an adjunct to clinical judgment for discontinuation of antibiotic therapy in hospitalized patients with lower respiratory tract infections and/or sepsis.^5-11 Indeed, use of PCT guidance in these patients has resulted in decreased AEs, as well as an enhanced survival benefit.^5-15

The utility of PCT-guided early discontinuation of antibiotics had yet to be studied in an expanded population of hospitalized patients with sepsis—especially with regard to AEs associated with multidrug-resistant organisms (MDROs) and Clostridioides difficile (formerly Clostridium difficile). The Surviving Sepsis Campaign’s 2021 international guidelines support the use of PCT in conjunction with clinical evaluation for shortening the duration of antibiotic therapy (“weak recommendation, low quality of evidence”).¹⁶ They also suggest daily reassessment for de-­escalation of antibiotic use (“weak recommendation, very low quality of evidence”) as a possible way to decrease MDROs and AEs but state that more and better trials are needed.¹⁵

STUDY SUMMARY

PCT-guided intervention reduced infection-associated AEs

This pragmatic, real-world, multicenter, randomized clinical trial evaluated the use of PCT-guided early discontinuation of antibiotic therapy in patients with sepsis, in hopes of decreasing infection-associated AEs related to prolonged antibiotic exposure.¹ The trial took place in 7 hospitals in Athens, Greece, with 266 patients randomized to the PCT-guided intervention or the standard of care (SOC)—the 2016 international guidelines for the management of sepsis and septic shock from the Surviving Sepsis campaign.¹⁷ Study participants had sepsis, as defined by a sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score ≥ 2, and infections that included pneumonia, pyelonephritis, or bacteremia.¹⁶ Pregnancy, lactation, HIV infection with a low CD4 count, neutropenia, cystic fibrosis, and viral, parasitic, or tuberculosis infections were exclusion criteria. Of note, all patients were managed on general medical wards and not in intensive care units.

This trial demonstrated the benefit of PCT-guided antimicrobial therapy in reducing infection-associated AEs, length of antibiotic treatment, and 28-day mortality for patients with sepsis.

Serum PCT samples were collected at baseline and then at Day 5 of therapy. ­Discontinuation of antibiotic therapy in the PCT trial arm occurred once PCT levels were ≤ 0.5 mcg/L or were reduced by at least 80%. If PCT levels did not meet one of these criteria, the lab test would be repeated daily and antibiotic therapy would continue until the rule was met. Neither patients nor investigators were blinded to the treatment assignments, but investigators in the SOC arm were kept unaware of Day 5 PCT results. In the PCT arm, 71% of participants met Day 5 criteria for stopping antibiotics, and a retrospective analysis indicated that a near-identical 70% in the SOC arm also would have met the same criteria.

The assessment of stool colonization with either C difficile or MDROs was done by stool cultures at baseline and on Days 7, 28, and 180.

The primary outcome of infection-­associated AEs, which was evaluated at 180 days, was defined as new cases of C difficile or MDRO infection, or death associated with baseline infection with either C difficile or an MDRO. Of the 133 participants allocated to each trial arm, 8 patients in the intervention group and 2 in the SOC group withdrew consent prior to treatment in the intervention group, with the remaining 125 and 131 participants, respectively, completing the interventions and not lost to follow-up.

Continue to: In an intention-to-treat analysis...

In an intention-to-treat analysis, 9 participants (7.2%; 95% CI, 3.8%-13.1%) in the PCT group compared with 20 participants (15.3%; 95% CI, 10.1%-22.4%) in the SOC group experienced the primary outcome of an antibiotic-associated AE at 180 days, resulting in a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.45 (95% CI, 0.2-0.98).

Secondary outcomes also favored the PCT arm regarding 28-day mortality (19 vs 37 patients; HR = 0.51; 95% CI, 0.29-0.89), median length of antibiotic treatment (5 days in the PCT group and 10 days in the SOC group; P < .001), and median hospitalization cost (24% greater in the SOC group; P = .05). Results for 180-day mortality were 30.4% in the PCT arm and 38.2% in the SOC arm (HR = 0.71; 95% CI, 0.42-1.19), thereby not achieving statistical significance.

WHAT'S NEW

An effective tool in reducing AEs in patients with sepsis

In this multicenter trial, PCT proved successful as a clinical decision tool for discontinuing antibiotic therapy and decreasing infection-associated AEs in patients with sepsis.

Caveats

A promising approach but its superiority is uncertain

The confidence interval for the AE hazard ratio was very wide, but significant, suggesting greater uncertainty and less precision in the chance of obtaining improved outcomes with PCT-guided intervention. However, these data also clarify that outcomes should (at least) not be worse with PCT-directed therapy.

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

Assay limitations and potential resistance to a new decision tool

The primary challenge to implementation is likely the availability of the PCT assay and the immediacy of turnaround time to enable physicians to make daily decisions regarding antibiotic therapy de-escalation. Additionally, as with any new knowledge, local culture and physician buy-in may limit implementation of this ever-more-valuable patient care tool.

Evidence summary

Walking’s impact on cholesterol levels is modest, inconsistent

A 2022 systematic review and meta-analysis of 21 studies (n = 1129) evaluated the effects of walking on lipids and lipoproteins in women older than 18 years who were overweight or obese and were not taking any lipid-­lowering medications. Median TC was 206 mg/dL and median LDL was 126 mg/dL.¹

The primary outcome found that walking decreased TC and LDL levels independent of diet and weight loss. Twenty studies reported on TC and showed that walking significantly decreased TC levels compared to the control groups (raw mean difference [RMD] = 6.7 mg/dL; 95% CI, 0.4-12.9; P = .04). Fifteen studies examined LDL and showed a significant decrease in LDL levels with walking compared to control groups (RMD = 7.4 mg/dL; 95% CI, 0.3-14.5; P = .04). However, the small magnitude of the changes may have little clinical impact.¹

There were no significant changes in the walking groups compared to the control groups for triglycerides (17 studies; RMD = 2.2 mg/dL; 95% CI, –8.4 to 12.8; P = .68) or high-density lipoprotein (HDL) (18 studies; RMD = 1.5 mg/dL; 95% CI, –0.4 to 3.3; P = .12). Included studies were required to be controlled but were otherwise not described. The overall risk for bias was determined to be low.¹

A 2020 RCT (n = 22) assessed the effects of a walking intervention on cholesterol and cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk in individuals ages 40 to 65 years with moderate CVD risk but without diabetes or CVD.² Moderate CVD risk was defined as a 2% to 5% ­10-year risk for a CVD event using the European HeartScore, which incorporates age, sex, blood pressure, lipid levels, and smoking status³; however, study participants were not required to have hyperlipidemia. Participants were enrolled in a 12-week, nurse-led intervention of moderate-paced walking for 30 to 45 minutes 5 times weekly.

Individuals in the intervention group had significant decreases in average TC levels from baseline to follow-up (244.6 mg/dL vs 213.7 mg/dL; P = .001). As a result, participants’ average 10-year CVD risk was significantly reduced from moderate risk to low risk (2.6% vs 1.8%; P = 038) and was significantly lower in the intervention group than in the control group at follow-up (1.8% vs 3.1%; P = .019). No blinding was used, and the use of lipid-lowering medications was not reported, which could have impacted the results.²

A 2008 RCT (n = 67) examined the effect of a home-based walking program (12 weeks of brisk walking, at least 30 min/d and at least 5 d/wk, with at least 300 kcal burned per walk) vs a sedentary control group in men ages 45 to 65 years with hyperlipidemia (TC > 240 mg/dL and/or TC/­HDL-C ratio ≥ 6) who were not receiving lipid-lowering medication. There were no significant changes from baseline to follow-up in the walking group compared to the control group in TC (adjusted mean difference [AMD] = –9.3 mg/dL; 95% CI, –22.8 to 4.64; P = .19), HDL-C (AMD = 2.7 mg/dL; 95% CI, –0.4 to 5.4; P = .07) or triglycerides (AMD = –26.6 mg/dL; 95% CI, –56.7 to 2.7; P = .07).⁴

The lipid reductions achieved from walking—if any—are minimal.

A 2002 RCT (n = 111) of sedentary men and women (BMI, 25-35; ages, 40-65 years) with dyslipidemia (LDL of 130-190 mg/dL, or HDL < 40 mg/dL for men or < 45 mg/dL for women) examined the impact of various physical activity levels for 8 months when compared to a control group observed for 6 months. The group assigned to low-amount, moderate-intensity physical activity walked an equivalent of 12 miles per week.⁵

Continue to: In this group...

In this group, there was a significant decrease in average triglyceride concentrations from baseline to follow-up (mean ± standard error = 196.8 ± 30.5 mg/dL vs 145.2 ± 16.0 mg/dL; P < .001). Significance of the change compared with changes in the control group was not reported, although triglycerides in the control group increased from baseline to follow-up (132.1 ± 11.0 vs 155.8 ± 14.9 mg/dL). There were no significant changes from baseline to follow-up in TC (194 ± 4.8 vs 197.9 ± 5.4 mg/dL), LDL (122.7 ± 4.0 vs 127.8 ± 4.1 mg/dL), or HDL (42.0 ± 1.9 vs 43.1 ± 2.5 mg/dL); P values of pre-post changes and comparison to control group were not reported.⁵

Recommendations from others

The Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans, published by the Department of Health and Human Services and updated in 2018, cite adherence to the published guidelines as a protective factor against high LDL and total lipids in both adults and children.⁶ The guidelines for adults recommend 150 to 300 minutes of moderate-intensity or 75 to 150 minutes of vigorous-intensity aerobic exercise per week, as well as muscle-strengthening activities of moderate or greater intensity 2 or more days per week. Brisk walking is included as an example of a moderate-intensity activity. These same guidelines are cited and endorsed by the American College of Sports Medicine and the American Heart Association.^7,8

Editor’s takeaway

The lipid reductions achieved from walking—if any—are minimal. By themselves, these small reductions will not accomplish our ­lipid-lowering goals. However, cholesterol goals are primarily disease oriented. This evidence does not directly inform us of important patient-oriented outcomes, such as morbidity, mortality, and vitality.

Evidence summary

Walking’s impact on cholesterol levels is modest, inconsistent

A 2022 systematic review and meta-analysis of 21 studies (n = 1129) evaluated the effects of walking on lipids and lipoproteins in women older than 18 years who were overweight or obese and were not taking any lipid-­lowering medications. Median TC was 206 mg/dL and median LDL was 126 mg/dL.¹

The primary outcome found that walking decreased TC and LDL levels independent of diet and weight loss. Twenty studies reported on TC and showed that walking significantly decreased TC levels compared to the control groups (raw mean difference [RMD] = 6.7 mg/dL; 95% CI, 0.4-12.9; P = .04). Fifteen studies examined LDL and showed a significant decrease in LDL levels with walking compared to control groups (RMD = 7.4 mg/dL; 95% CI, 0.3-14.5; P = .04). However, the small magnitude of the changes may have little clinical impact.¹

There were no significant changes in the walking groups compared to the control groups for triglycerides (17 studies; RMD = 2.2 mg/dL; 95% CI, –8.4 to 12.8; P = .68) or high-density lipoprotein (HDL) (18 studies; RMD = 1.5 mg/dL; 95% CI, –0.4 to 3.3; P = .12). Included studies were required to be controlled but were otherwise not described. The overall risk for bias was determined to be low.¹

A 2020 RCT (n = 22) assessed the effects of a walking intervention on cholesterol and cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk in individuals ages 40 to 65 years with moderate CVD risk but without diabetes or CVD.² Moderate CVD risk was defined as a 2% to 5% ­10-year risk for a CVD event using the European HeartScore, which incorporates age, sex, blood pressure, lipid levels, and smoking status³; however, study participants were not required to have hyperlipidemia. Participants were enrolled in a 12-week, nurse-led intervention of moderate-paced walking for 30 to 45 minutes 5 times weekly.

Individuals in the intervention group had significant decreases in average TC levels from baseline to follow-up (244.6 mg/dL vs 213.7 mg/dL; P = .001). As a result, participants’ average 10-year CVD risk was significantly reduced from moderate risk to low risk (2.6% vs 1.8%; P = 038) and was significantly lower in the intervention group than in the control group at follow-up (1.8% vs 3.1%; P = .019). No blinding was used, and the use of lipid-lowering medications was not reported, which could have impacted the results.²

A 2008 RCT (n = 67) examined the effect of a home-based walking program (12 weeks of brisk walking, at least 30 min/d and at least 5 d/wk, with at least 300 kcal burned per walk) vs a sedentary control group in men ages 45 to 65 years with hyperlipidemia (TC > 240 mg/dL and/or TC/­HDL-C ratio ≥ 6) who were not receiving lipid-lowering medication. There were no significant changes from baseline to follow-up in the walking group compared to the control group in TC (adjusted mean difference [AMD] = –9.3 mg/dL; 95% CI, –22.8 to 4.64; P = .19), HDL-C (AMD = 2.7 mg/dL; 95% CI, –0.4 to 5.4; P = .07) or triglycerides (AMD = –26.6 mg/dL; 95% CI, –56.7 to 2.7; P = .07).⁴

The lipid reductions achieved from walking—if any—are minimal.

A 2002 RCT (n = 111) of sedentary men and women (BMI, 25-35; ages, 40-65 years) with dyslipidemia (LDL of 130-190 mg/dL, or HDL < 40 mg/dL for men or < 45 mg/dL for women) examined the impact of various physical activity levels for 8 months when compared to a control group observed for 6 months. The group assigned to low-amount, moderate-intensity physical activity walked an equivalent of 12 miles per week.⁵

Continue to: In this group...

In this group, there was a significant decrease in average triglyceride concentrations from baseline to follow-up (mean ± standard error = 196.8 ± 30.5 mg/dL vs 145.2 ± 16.0 mg/dL; P < .001). Significance of the change compared with changes in the control group was not reported, although triglycerides in the control group increased from baseline to follow-up (132.1 ± 11.0 vs 155.8 ± 14.9 mg/dL). There were no significant changes from baseline to follow-up in TC (194 ± 4.8 vs 197.9 ± 5.4 mg/dL), LDL (122.7 ± 4.0 vs 127.8 ± 4.1 mg/dL), or HDL (42.0 ± 1.9 vs 43.1 ± 2.5 mg/dL); P values of pre-post changes and comparison to control group were not reported.⁵

Recommendations from others

The Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans, published by the Department of Health and Human Services and updated in 2018, cite adherence to the published guidelines as a protective factor against high LDL and total lipids in both adults and children.⁶ The guidelines for adults recommend 150 to 300 minutes of moderate-intensity or 75 to 150 minutes of vigorous-intensity aerobic exercise per week, as well as muscle-strengthening activities of moderate or greater intensity 2 or more days per week. Brisk walking is included as an example of a moderate-intensity activity. These same guidelines are cited and endorsed by the American College of Sports Medicine and the American Heart Association.^7,8

Editor’s takeaway

The lipid reductions achieved from walking—if any—are minimal. By themselves, these small reductions will not accomplish our ­lipid-lowering goals. However, cholesterol goals are primarily disease oriented. This evidence does not directly inform us of important patient-oriented outcomes, such as morbidity, mortality, and vitality.

Evidence summary

Walking’s impact on cholesterol levels is modest, inconsistent

A 2022 systematic review and meta-analysis of 21 studies (n = 1129) evaluated the effects of walking on lipids and lipoproteins in women older than 18 years who were overweight or obese and were not taking any lipid-­lowering medications. Median TC was 206 mg/dL and median LDL was 126 mg/dL.¹

The primary outcome found that walking decreased TC and LDL levels independent of diet and weight loss. Twenty studies reported on TC and showed that walking significantly decreased TC levels compared to the control groups (raw mean difference [RMD] = 6.7 mg/dL; 95% CI, 0.4-12.9; P = .04). Fifteen studies examined LDL and showed a significant decrease in LDL levels with walking compared to control groups (RMD = 7.4 mg/dL; 95% CI, 0.3-14.5; P = .04). However, the small magnitude of the changes may have little clinical impact.¹

There were no significant changes in the walking groups compared to the control groups for triglycerides (17 studies; RMD = 2.2 mg/dL; 95% CI, –8.4 to 12.8; P = .68) or high-density lipoprotein (HDL) (18 studies; RMD = 1.5 mg/dL; 95% CI, –0.4 to 3.3; P = .12). Included studies were required to be controlled but were otherwise not described. The overall risk for bias was determined to be low.¹

A 2020 RCT (n = 22) assessed the effects of a walking intervention on cholesterol and cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk in individuals ages 40 to 65 years with moderate CVD risk but without diabetes or CVD.² Moderate CVD risk was defined as a 2% to 5% ­10-year risk for a CVD event using the European HeartScore, which incorporates age, sex, blood pressure, lipid levels, and smoking status³; however, study participants were not required to have hyperlipidemia. Participants were enrolled in a 12-week, nurse-led intervention of moderate-paced walking for 30 to 45 minutes 5 times weekly.

Individuals in the intervention group had significant decreases in average TC levels from baseline to follow-up (244.6 mg/dL vs 213.7 mg/dL; P = .001). As a result, participants’ average 10-year CVD risk was significantly reduced from moderate risk to low risk (2.6% vs 1.8%; P = 038) and was significantly lower in the intervention group than in the control group at follow-up (1.8% vs 3.1%; P = .019). No blinding was used, and the use of lipid-lowering medications was not reported, which could have impacted the results.²

A 2008 RCT (n = 67) examined the effect of a home-based walking program (12 weeks of brisk walking, at least 30 min/d and at least 5 d/wk, with at least 300 kcal burned per walk) vs a sedentary control group in men ages 45 to 65 years with hyperlipidemia (TC > 240 mg/dL and/or TC/­HDL-C ratio ≥ 6) who were not receiving lipid-lowering medication. There were no significant changes from baseline to follow-up in the walking group compared to the control group in TC (adjusted mean difference [AMD] = –9.3 mg/dL; 95% CI, –22.8 to 4.64; P = .19), HDL-C (AMD = 2.7 mg/dL; 95% CI, –0.4 to 5.4; P = .07) or triglycerides (AMD = –26.6 mg/dL; 95% CI, –56.7 to 2.7; P = .07).⁴

The lipid reductions achieved from walking—if any—are minimal.

A 2002 RCT (n = 111) of sedentary men and women (BMI, 25-35; ages, 40-65 years) with dyslipidemia (LDL of 130-190 mg/dL, or HDL < 40 mg/dL for men or < 45 mg/dL for women) examined the impact of various physical activity levels for 8 months when compared to a control group observed for 6 months. The group assigned to low-amount, moderate-intensity physical activity walked an equivalent of 12 miles per week.⁵

Continue to: In this group...

In this group, there was a significant decrease in average triglyceride concentrations from baseline to follow-up (mean ± standard error = 196.8 ± 30.5 mg/dL vs 145.2 ± 16.0 mg/dL; P < .001). Significance of the change compared with changes in the control group was not reported, although triglycerides in the control group increased from baseline to follow-up (132.1 ± 11.0 vs 155.8 ± 14.9 mg/dL). There were no significant changes from baseline to follow-up in TC (194 ± 4.8 vs 197.9 ± 5.4 mg/dL), LDL (122.7 ± 4.0 vs 127.8 ± 4.1 mg/dL), or HDL (42.0 ± 1.9 vs 43.1 ± 2.5 mg/dL); P values of pre-post changes and comparison to control group were not reported.⁵

Recommendations from others

The Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans, published by the Department of Health and Human Services and updated in 2018, cite adherence to the published guidelines as a protective factor against high LDL and total lipids in both adults and children.⁶ The guidelines for adults recommend 150 to 300 minutes of moderate-intensity or 75 to 150 minutes of vigorous-intensity aerobic exercise per week, as well as muscle-strengthening activities of moderate or greater intensity 2 or more days per week. Brisk walking is included as an example of a moderate-intensity activity. These same guidelines are cited and endorsed by the American College of Sports Medicine and the American Heart Association.^7,8

Editor’s takeaway

The lipid reductions achieved from walking—if any—are minimal. By themselves, these small reductions will not accomplish our ­lipid-lowering goals. However, cholesterol goals are primarily disease oriented. This evidence does not directly inform us of important patient-oriented outcomes, such as morbidity, mortality, and vitality.

A 4-MONTH-OLD HISPANIC INFANT was brought to her pediatrician by her parents for evaluation of a dark red lesion over her right eyelid. The mother said that the lesion appeared when the child was 4 weeks old and started as a small red dot. As the baby grew, so did the red dot. The mother said the lesion appeared redder and darker when the baby got fussy and cried. The mother noted that some of the child’s eyelashes on the affected eyelid had fallen out. The infant was still able to use her eyes to follow the movements of her parents and siblings.

The mother denied any complications during pregnancy and delivered the child vaginally. No one else in the family had a similar lesion. When asked, the mother said that when her daughter was born, she was missing hair on her scalp and had dark spots on her lower backside. The mother had taken the baby to all wellness checks. The child was up to date on her vaccines, had no known drug allergies, and was otherwise healthy.

The pediatrician referred the baby to our skin clinic for further evaluation and treatment of the right eyelid lesion. Skin examination showed a 2.1-cm focal/localized, vascular, violaceous/dark red plaque over the right upper eyelid with an irregular border causing mild drooping of the right eyelid and some missing eyelashes (FIGURE 1). Multiple hyperpigmented patches on the upper and lower back were clinically consistent with Mongolian spots. Hair thinning was observed on the posterior and left posterior scalp. 

WHAT IS YOUR DIAGNOSIS?
HOW WOULD YOU TREAT THIS PATIENT?

The diagnosis of an infantile hemangioma was made clinically, based on the lesion’s appearance and when it became noticeable (during the child’s first few weeks of life).

The majority of infantile hemangiomas do not require treatment because they can resolve spontaneously over time.

Infantile hemangiomas are the most common benign tumors of infancy, and the majority are not present at birth.^1,2 Infantile periocular hemangioma, which our patient had, is typically unilateral and involves the upper eyelid.¹ Infantile hemangiomas appear in the first few weeks of life with an area of pallor and later a faint red patch, which the mother first noted in our patient. Lesions grow rapidly in the first 3 to 6 months.² Superficial lesions appear as bright red papules or patches that may have a flat or rough surface and are sharply demarcated, while deep lesions tend to be bluish and dome shaped.^1,2 

Infantile hemangiomas continue to grow until 9 to 12 months of age, at which time the growth rate slows to parallel the growth of the child. Involution typically begins by the time the child is 1 year old. Most infantile hemangiomas do not improve significantly after 3.5 years of age.³

Differential includes congenital hemangiomas, pyogenic granulomas

Clinical presentation, histology, and lesion evolution distinguish infantile hemangioma from other diagnoses, notably the following:

Congenital hemangiomas (CH) are fully formed vascular tumors present at birth; they occur less frequently than infantile hemangiomas. CHs are divided into 2 categories: rapidly involuting CHs and noninvoluting CHs.⁴

Continue to: Pyogenic granulomas

Pyogenic granulomas are usually small (< 1 cm), sessile or pedunculated red papules or nodules. They are friable, bleed easily, and grow rapidly.

Capillary malformations can manifest at birth as flat, red/purple, cutaneous patches with irregular borders that are painless and can spontaneously bleed; they can be found in any part of the body but mainly occur in the cervicofacial area.⁵ Capillary malformations are commonly known as stork bites on the nape of the neck or angel kisses if found on the forehead. Lateral lesions, known as port wine stains, persist and do not resolve without treatment.⁵

Tufted angioma and kaposiform hemangioendothelioma manifest as expanding ecchymotic firm masses with purpura and accompanying lymphedema.⁴ Magnetic resonance imaging, including magnetic resonance angiography, is recommended for management and treatment.⁴ 

Venous malformations can be noted at birth as a dark blue or purple discoloration and manifest as a deep mass.⁵ Venous malformations grow with the patient and have a rapid growth phase during puberty, pregnancy, or traumatic injury.⁵ 

Arteriovenous malformations (AVMs) may be present at birth as a slight blush hypervascular lesion. AVMs can be quiescent for many years and grow with the patient. AVMs have a palpable warmth, pulse, or thrill due to high vascular flow.⁵ 

Continue to: Individualize treatment when it's needed

Individualize treatment when it’s needed

The majority of infantile hemangiomas do not require treatment because they can resolve spontaneously over time.² That said, children with periocular infantile hemangiomas may require treatment because the lesions may result in amblyopia and visual impairment if not properly treated.⁶ Treatment should be individualized, depending on the size, rate of growth, morphology, number, and location of the lesions; existing or potential complications; benefits and adverse events associated with the treatment; age of the patient; level of parental concern; and the physician’s comfort level with the various treatment options.

Predictive factors for ocular complications in patients with periocular infantile hemangiomas are diameter > 1 cm, a deep component, and upper eyelid involvement. Patients at risk for ocular complications should be promptly referred to an ophthalmologist, and treatment should be strongly considered.⁶ Currently, oral propranolol is the treatment of choice for high-risk and complicated infantile hemangiomas.² This is a very safe treatment. Only rarely do the following adverse effects occur: bronchospasm, bradycardia, hypotension, nightmares, cold hands, and hypoglycemia. If these adverse effects do occur, they are reversible with discontinuation of propranolol. Hypoglycemia can be prevented by giving propranolol during or right after feeding.

Our patient was started on propranolol 1 mg/kg/d for 1 month. The medication was administered by syringe for precise measurement. After the initial dose was ­tolerated, this was increased to 2 mg/kg/d ­for 1 month, then continued sequentially another month on 2.5 mg/kg/d, 2 months on 3 mg/kg/d, and finally 2 months on 3.4 mg/kg/d. All doses were divided twice per day between feedings.

After 7 months of total treatment time (FIGURE 2), we began titrating down the patient’s dose over the next several months. After 3 months, treatment was stopped altogether. At the time treatment was completed, only a faint pink blush remained.

A 4-MONTH-OLD HISPANIC INFANT was brought to her pediatrician by her parents for evaluation of a dark red lesion over her right eyelid. The mother said that the lesion appeared when the child was 4 weeks old and started as a small red dot. As the baby grew, so did the red dot. The mother said the lesion appeared redder and darker when the baby got fussy and cried. The mother noted that some of the child’s eyelashes on the affected eyelid had fallen out. The infant was still able to use her eyes to follow the movements of her parents and siblings.

The mother denied any complications during pregnancy and delivered the child vaginally. No one else in the family had a similar lesion. When asked, the mother said that when her daughter was born, she was missing hair on her scalp and had dark spots on her lower backside. The mother had taken the baby to all wellness checks. The child was up to date on her vaccines, had no known drug allergies, and was otherwise healthy.

The pediatrician referred the baby to our skin clinic for further evaluation and treatment of the right eyelid lesion. Skin examination showed a 2.1-cm focal/localized, vascular, violaceous/dark red plaque over the right upper eyelid with an irregular border causing mild drooping of the right eyelid and some missing eyelashes (FIGURE 1). Multiple hyperpigmented patches on the upper and lower back were clinically consistent with Mongolian spots. Hair thinning was observed on the posterior and left posterior scalp. 

WHAT IS YOUR DIAGNOSIS?
HOW WOULD YOU TREAT THIS PATIENT?

The diagnosis of an infantile hemangioma was made clinically, based on the lesion’s appearance and when it became noticeable (during the child’s first few weeks of life).

The majority of infantile hemangiomas do not require treatment because they can resolve spontaneously over time.

Infantile hemangiomas are the most common benign tumors of infancy, and the majority are not present at birth.^1,2 Infantile periocular hemangioma, which our patient had, is typically unilateral and involves the upper eyelid.¹ Infantile hemangiomas appear in the first few weeks of life with an area of pallor and later a faint red patch, which the mother first noted in our patient. Lesions grow rapidly in the first 3 to 6 months.² Superficial lesions appear as bright red papules or patches that may have a flat or rough surface and are sharply demarcated, while deep lesions tend to be bluish and dome shaped.^1,2 

Infantile hemangiomas continue to grow until 9 to 12 months of age, at which time the growth rate slows to parallel the growth of the child. Involution typically begins by the time the child is 1 year old. Most infantile hemangiomas do not improve significantly after 3.5 years of age.³

Differential includes congenital hemangiomas, pyogenic granulomas

Clinical presentation, histology, and lesion evolution distinguish infantile hemangioma from other diagnoses, notably the following:

Congenital hemangiomas (CH) are fully formed vascular tumors present at birth; they occur less frequently than infantile hemangiomas. CHs are divided into 2 categories: rapidly involuting CHs and noninvoluting CHs.⁴

Continue to: Pyogenic granulomas

Pyogenic granulomas are usually small (< 1 cm), sessile or pedunculated red papules or nodules. They are friable, bleed easily, and grow rapidly.

Capillary malformations can manifest at birth as flat, red/purple, cutaneous patches with irregular borders that are painless and can spontaneously bleed; they can be found in any part of the body but mainly occur in the cervicofacial area.⁵ Capillary malformations are commonly known as stork bites on the nape of the neck or angel kisses if found on the forehead. Lateral lesions, known as port wine stains, persist and do not resolve without treatment.⁵

Tufted angioma and kaposiform hemangioendothelioma manifest as expanding ecchymotic firm masses with purpura and accompanying lymphedema.⁴ Magnetic resonance imaging, including magnetic resonance angiography, is recommended for management and treatment.⁴ 

Venous malformations can be noted at birth as a dark blue or purple discoloration and manifest as a deep mass.⁵ Venous malformations grow with the patient and have a rapid growth phase during puberty, pregnancy, or traumatic injury.⁵ 

Arteriovenous malformations (AVMs) may be present at birth as a slight blush hypervascular lesion. AVMs can be quiescent for many years and grow with the patient. AVMs have a palpable warmth, pulse, or thrill due to high vascular flow.⁵ 

Continue to: Individualize treatment when it's needed

Individualize treatment when it’s needed

The majority of infantile hemangiomas do not require treatment because they can resolve spontaneously over time.² That said, children with periocular infantile hemangiomas may require treatment because the lesions may result in amblyopia and visual impairment if not properly treated.⁶ Treatment should be individualized, depending on the size, rate of growth, morphology, number, and location of the lesions; existing or potential complications; benefits and adverse events associated with the treatment; age of the patient; level of parental concern; and the physician’s comfort level with the various treatment options.

Predictive factors for ocular complications in patients with periocular infantile hemangiomas are diameter > 1 cm, a deep component, and upper eyelid involvement. Patients at risk for ocular complications should be promptly referred to an ophthalmologist, and treatment should be strongly considered.⁶ Currently, oral propranolol is the treatment of choice for high-risk and complicated infantile hemangiomas.² This is a very safe treatment. Only rarely do the following adverse effects occur: bronchospasm, bradycardia, hypotension, nightmares, cold hands, and hypoglycemia. If these adverse effects do occur, they are reversible with discontinuation of propranolol. Hypoglycemia can be prevented by giving propranolol during or right after feeding.

Our patient was started on propranolol 1 mg/kg/d for 1 month. The medication was administered by syringe for precise measurement. After the initial dose was ­tolerated, this was increased to 2 mg/kg/d ­for 1 month, then continued sequentially another month on 2.5 mg/kg/d, 2 months on 3 mg/kg/d, and finally 2 months on 3.4 mg/kg/d. All doses were divided twice per day between feedings.

After 7 months of total treatment time (FIGURE 2), we began titrating down the patient’s dose over the next several months. After 3 months, treatment was stopped altogether. At the time treatment was completed, only a faint pink blush remained.

A 4-MONTH-OLD HISPANIC INFANT was brought to her pediatrician by her parents for evaluation of a dark red lesion over her right eyelid. The mother said that the lesion appeared when the child was 4 weeks old and started as a small red dot. As the baby grew, so did the red dot. The mother said the lesion appeared redder and darker when the baby got fussy and cried. The mother noted that some of the child’s eyelashes on the affected eyelid had fallen out. The infant was still able to use her eyes to follow the movements of her parents and siblings.

The mother denied any complications during pregnancy and delivered the child vaginally. No one else in the family had a similar lesion. When asked, the mother said that when her daughter was born, she was missing hair on her scalp and had dark spots on her lower backside. The mother had taken the baby to all wellness checks. The child was up to date on her vaccines, had no known drug allergies, and was otherwise healthy.

The pediatrician referred the baby to our skin clinic for further evaluation and treatment of the right eyelid lesion. Skin examination showed a 2.1-cm focal/localized, vascular, violaceous/dark red plaque over the right upper eyelid with an irregular border causing mild drooping of the right eyelid and some missing eyelashes (FIGURE 1). Multiple hyperpigmented patches on the upper and lower back were clinically consistent with Mongolian spots. Hair thinning was observed on the posterior and left posterior scalp. 

WHAT IS YOUR DIAGNOSIS?
HOW WOULD YOU TREAT THIS PATIENT?

The diagnosis of an infantile hemangioma was made clinically, based on the lesion’s appearance and when it became noticeable (during the child’s first few weeks of life).

The majority of infantile hemangiomas do not require treatment because they can resolve spontaneously over time.

Infantile hemangiomas are the most common benign tumors of infancy, and the majority are not present at birth.^1,2 Infantile periocular hemangioma, which our patient had, is typically unilateral and involves the upper eyelid.¹ Infantile hemangiomas appear in the first few weeks of life with an area of pallor and later a faint red patch, which the mother first noted in our patient. Lesions grow rapidly in the first 3 to 6 months.² Superficial lesions appear as bright red papules or patches that may have a flat or rough surface and are sharply demarcated, while deep lesions tend to be bluish and dome shaped.^1,2 

Infantile hemangiomas continue to grow until 9 to 12 months of age, at which time the growth rate slows to parallel the growth of the child. Involution typically begins by the time the child is 1 year old. Most infantile hemangiomas do not improve significantly after 3.5 years of age.³

Differential includes congenital hemangiomas, pyogenic granulomas

Clinical presentation, histology, and lesion evolution distinguish infantile hemangioma from other diagnoses, notably the following:

Congenital hemangiomas (CH) are fully formed vascular tumors present at birth; they occur less frequently than infantile hemangiomas. CHs are divided into 2 categories: rapidly involuting CHs and noninvoluting CHs.⁴

Continue to: Pyogenic granulomas

Pyogenic granulomas are usually small (< 1 cm), sessile or pedunculated red papules or nodules. They are friable, bleed easily, and grow rapidly.

Capillary malformations can manifest at birth as flat, red/purple, cutaneous patches with irregular borders that are painless and can spontaneously bleed; they can be found in any part of the body but mainly occur in the cervicofacial area.⁵ Capillary malformations are commonly known as stork bites on the nape of the neck or angel kisses if found on the forehead. Lateral lesions, known as port wine stains, persist and do not resolve without treatment.⁵

Tufted angioma and kaposiform hemangioendothelioma manifest as expanding ecchymotic firm masses with purpura and accompanying lymphedema.⁴ Magnetic resonance imaging, including magnetic resonance angiography, is recommended for management and treatment.⁴ 

Venous malformations can be noted at birth as a dark blue or purple discoloration and manifest as a deep mass.⁵ Venous malformations grow with the patient and have a rapid growth phase during puberty, pregnancy, or traumatic injury.⁵ 

Arteriovenous malformations (AVMs) may be present at birth as a slight blush hypervascular lesion. AVMs can be quiescent for many years and grow with the patient. AVMs have a palpable warmth, pulse, or thrill due to high vascular flow.⁵ 

Continue to: Individualize treatment when it's needed

Individualize treatment when it’s needed

The majority of infantile hemangiomas do not require treatment because they can resolve spontaneously over time.² That said, children with periocular infantile hemangiomas may require treatment because the lesions may result in amblyopia and visual impairment if not properly treated.⁶ Treatment should be individualized, depending on the size, rate of growth, morphology, number, and location of the lesions; existing or potential complications; benefits and adverse events associated with the treatment; age of the patient; level of parental concern; and the physician’s comfort level with the various treatment options.

Predictive factors for ocular complications in patients with periocular infantile hemangiomas are diameter > 1 cm, a deep component, and upper eyelid involvement. Patients at risk for ocular complications should be promptly referred to an ophthalmologist, and treatment should be strongly considered.⁶ Currently, oral propranolol is the treatment of choice for high-risk and complicated infantile hemangiomas.² This is a very safe treatment. Only rarely do the following adverse effects occur: bronchospasm, bradycardia, hypotension, nightmares, cold hands, and hypoglycemia. If these adverse effects do occur, they are reversible with discontinuation of propranolol. Hypoglycemia can be prevented by giving propranolol during or right after feeding.

Our patient was started on propranolol 1 mg/kg/d for 1 month. The medication was administered by syringe for precise measurement. After the initial dose was ­tolerated, this was increased to 2 mg/kg/d ­for 1 month, then continued sequentially another month on 2.5 mg/kg/d, 2 months on 3 mg/kg/d, and finally 2 months on 3.4 mg/kg/d. All doses were divided twice per day between feedings.

After 7 months of total treatment time (FIGURE 2), we began titrating down the patient’s dose over the next several months. After 3 months, treatment was stopped altogether. At the time treatment was completed, only a faint pink blush remained.

THE CASE

James B* is a 7-year-old Black child who presented to his primary care physician (PCP) for a well-child visit. During preventive health screening, James’ mother expressed concerns about his behavior, characterizing him as immature, aggressive, destructive, and occasionally self-loathing. She described him as physically uncoordinated, struggling to keep up with his peers in sports, and tiring after 20 minutes of activity. James slept 10 hours nightly but was often restless and snored intermittently. As a second grader, his academic achievement was not progressing, and he had become increasingly inattentive at home and at school. James’ mother offered several examples of his fighting with his siblings, noncompliance with morning routines, and avoidance of learning activities. Additionally, his mother expressed concern that James, as a Black child, might eventually be unfairly labeled as a problem child by his teachers or held back a grade level in school.

Although James did not have a family history of developmental delays or learning disorders, he had not met any milestones on time for gross or fine motor, language, cognitive, and social-emotional skills. James had a history of chronic otitis media, for which pressure equalizer tubes were inserted at age 2 years. He had not had any major physical injuries, psychological trauma, recent life transitions, or adverse childhood events. When asked, James’ mother acknowledged symptoms of maternal depression but alluded to faith-based reasons for not seeking treatment for herself.

James’ physical examination was unremarkable. His height, weight, and vitals were all within normal limits. However, he had some difficulty with verbal articulation and expression and showed signs of a possible vocal tic. Based on James’ presentation, his PCP suspected attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), as well as neurodevelopmental delays.

The PCP gave James’ mother the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire to complete and the Vanderbilt Assessment Scales for her and James’ teacher to fill out independently and return to the clinic. The PCP also instructed James’ mother on how to use a sleep diary to maintain a 1-month log of his sleep patterns and habits. The PCP consulted the integrated behavioral health clinician (IBHC; a clinical social worker embedded in the primary care clinic) and made a warm handoff for the IBHC to further assess James’ maladaptive behaviors and interactions.

● How would you proceed with this patient?

* The patient’s name has been changed to protect his identity.

James is one of more than 6 million children, ages 3 to 17 years, in the United States who live with ADHD.^1,2 ADHD is the most common neurodevelopmental disorder among children, and it affects multiple cognitive and behavioral domains throughout the lifespan.³ Children with ADHD often initially present in primary care settings; thus, PCPs are well positioned to diagnose the disorder and provide longitudinal treatment. This Behavioral Health Consult reviews clinical assessment and practice guidelines, as well as treatment recommendations applicable across different areas of influence—individual, family, community, and systems—for PCPs and IBHCs to use in managing ADHD in children.

ADHD features can vary by age and sex

ADHD is a persistent pattern of inattention or hyperactivity and impulsivity interfering with functioning or development in childhood and functioning later in adulthood. ADHD symptoms manifest prior to age 12 years and must occur in 2 or more settings.⁴ Symptoms should not be better explained by another psychiatric disorder or occur exclusively during the course of another disorder (TABLE 1).⁴

Psychostimulants are preferred for ADHD. However, a variety of medications are available and may prove efficacious as children grow and their symptoms and the capacity to manage them change.

The rate of heritability is high, with significant incidence among first-degree relatives.⁴ Children with ADHD show executive functioning deficits in 1 or more cognitive domains (eg, visuospatial, memory, inhibitions, decision making, and reward regulation).^4,5 The prevalence of ADHD nationally is approximately 9.8% (2.2%, ages 3-5 years; 10%, ages 6-11 years; 13.2%, ages 12-17 years) in children and adolescents; worldwide prevalence is 7.2%.^1,6 It persists among 2.6% to 6.8% of adults worldwide.⁷

Research has shown that boys ages 6 to 11 years are significantly more likely than girls to exhibit attention-getting, externalizing behaviors or conduct problems (eg, hyperactivity, impulsivity, disruption, aggression).^1,6 On the other hand, girls ages 12 to 17 years tend to display internalized (eg, depressed mood, anxiety, low self-esteem) or inattentive behaviors, which clinicians and educators may assess as less severe and warranting fewer supportive measures.¹

The prevalence of ADHD and its associated factors, which evolve through maturation, underscore the importance of persistent, patient-centered, and collaborative PCP and IBHC clinical management.

Continue to: Begin with a screening tool, move to a clinical interview

When caregivers express concerns about their child’s behavior, focus, mood, learning, and socialization, consider initiating a multimodal evaluation for ADHD.^5,8 Embarking on an ADHD assessment can require extended or multiple visits to arrive at the diagnosis, followed by still more visits to confirm a course of care and adjust medications. The integrative care approach described in the patient case and elaborated on later in this article can help facilitate assessment and treatment of ADHD.⁹

Signs of ADHD may be observed at initial screening using a tool such as the Ages & Stages Questionnaire (https://agesandstages.com/products-pricing/asq3/) to reveal indications of norm deviations or delays commensurate with ADHD.¹⁰ However, to substantiate the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, Text Revision criteria for an accurate diagnosis,⁴ the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) clinical practice guidelines require a thorough clinical interview, administration of a standardized assessment tool, and review of objective reports in conjunction with a physical examination and psychosocial evaluation.⁶ Standardized meas­ures of psychological, neurocognitive, and academic achievement reported by caregivers and collateral contacts (eg, teachers, counselors, coaches, care providers) are needed to maximize data objectivity and symptom accuracy across settings (TABLE 2^10-17). Additionally, periodic reassessment is recommended to validate changes in diagnostic subtype and treatment plans due to the chronic and dynamic nature of ADHD.

Consider comorbidities and alternate diagnoses

The diagnostic possibility of ADHD should also prompt consideration of other childhood disorders due to the high potential for comorbidities.^4,6 In a 2016 study, approximately 64% of children with ADHD exhibited another developmental or psychiatric disorder at some point. These disorders included oppositional defiant or conduct disorders (52%), anxiety (33%), depression (17%), and autism spectrum disorder (14%), as well as Tourette syndrome, learning or language disorders, motor delays, substance use disorders, sleep-wake disorders, personality disorders, and ­suicidality.¹⁸

Various medical disorders may manifest with similar signs or symptoms to ADHD, such as thyroid disorders, seizure disorders, adverse drug effects, anemia, genetic anomalies, and others.^6,19Although further research is needed to ascertain potential associations between recurrent otitis media and language delay and later social, cognitive, or attention challenges, early consultation with an otolaryngologist is warranted if such concerns arise in a child’s early years.²⁰ Following the initial assessment, conduct a targeted examination and lab testing to rule out co-occurring conditions or comorbidities.

If there are behavioral concerns or developmental delays associated with tall stature for age or pubertal or testicular development anomalies, consult a geneticist and a developmental pediatrician for targeted testing and neurodevelopmental assessment, respectively. For example, ADHD is a common comorbidity among boys who also have XYY syndrome (Jacobs syndrome). However, due to the variability of symptoms and severity, XYY syndrome often goes undiagnosed, leaving a host of compounding pervasive and developmental problems untreated. Overall, more than two-thirds of patients with ADHD and a co-occurring condition are either inaccurately diagnosed or not referred for additional assessment and adjunct treatment.²¹

Continue to: Risks that arise over time

Risks that arise over time. As ADHD persists, adolescents are at greater risk for psychiatric comorbidities, suicidality, and functional impairments (eg, risky behaviors, occupational problems, truancy, delinquency, and poor self-esteem).^4,8 Adolescents with internalized behaviors are more likely to experience comorbid depressive disorders with increased risk for self-harm.^4,5,8 As adolescents age and their sense of autonomy increases, there is a tendency among those who have received a diagnosis of ADHD to minimize symptoms and decrease the frequency of routine clinic visits along with medication use and treatment compliance.³ Additionally, abuse, misuse, and misappropriation of stimulants among teens and young adults are commonplace.

Wide-scope, multidisciplinary evaluation and close clinical management reduce the potential for imprecise diagnoses, particularly at critical developmental junctures. AAP suggests that PCPs can treat mild and moderate cases of ADHD, but if the treating clinician does not have adequate training, experience, time, or clinical support to manage this condition, early referral is warranted.⁶

A guide to pharmacotherapy

Approximately 77% of children ages 2 to 17 years with a diagnosis of ADHD receive any form of treatment.² Treatment for ADHD can include behavioral therapy and medication.² AAP clinical practice guidelines caution against prescribing medications for children younger than 6 years, relying instead on ­caregiver-, teacher-, or clinician-­administered behavioral strategies and parental training in behavioral modification. For children and adolescents between ages 6 and 18 years, first-line ­treatment includes pharmacotherapy balanced with behavioral therapy, academic modifications, and educational supports (eg, 504 Plan, individualized education plan [IEP]).⁶

Psychostimulants are preferred. These agents (eg, methylphenidate, amphetamine) remain the most efficacious class of medications to reduce hyperactivity and inattentiveness and to improve function. While long-acting psychostimulants are associated with better medication adherence and ­adverse-effect tolerance than are short-acting forms, the latter offer more flexibility in dosing. Start by titrating any stimulant to the lowest effective dose; reassess monthly until potential rebound effects stabilize.

More than twothirds of ADHD patients with a co-occurring condition are either inaccurately diagnosed or not referred for additional assessment and adjunct treatment.

Due to potential adverse effects of this class of medication, screen for any family history or personal risk for structural or electrical cardiac anomalies before starting pharmacotherapy. If any such risks exist, arrange for further cardiac evaluation before initiating medication.⁶ Adverse effects of stimulants include reduced appetite, gastrointestinal symptoms, headaches, anxiousness, parasomnia, tachycardia, and hypertension.

Continue to: Once medication is stabilized...

Once medication is stabilized, monitor treatment 2 to 3 times per year thereafter; watch for longer-term adverse effects such as weight loss, decreased growth rate, and psychiatric comorbidities including the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)’s black box warning of increased risk for suicidality.^5,6,22

Other options. The optimal duration of psychostimulant use remains debatable, as existing evidence does not support its long-term use (10 years) over other interventions, such as nonstimulants and nonmedicinal therapies.²² Although backed by less evidence, additional medications indicated for the treatment of ADHD include: (1) atomoxetine, a selective norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor, and (2) the selective alpha-2 adrenergic agonists, extended-release guanfacine and extended-release clonidine (third-line agent).²²

Adverse effects of these FDA-approved medications are similar to those observed in stimulant medications. Evaluation of cardiac risks is recommended before starting nonstimulant medications. The alpha-2 adrenergic agonists may also be used as adjunct therapies to stimulants. Before stopping an alpha-2 adrenergic agonist, taper the dosage slowly to avoid the risk for rebound hypertension.^6,23 Given the wide variety of medication options and variability of effects, it may be necessary to try different medications as children grow and their symptoms and capacity to manage them change. Additional guidance on FDA-approved medications is available at www.ADHDMedicationGuide.com.

How multilevel care coordination can work

As with other chronic or developmental conditions, the treatment of ADHD requires an interdisciplinary perspective. Continuous, comprehensive case management can help patients overcome obstacles to wellness by balancing the resolution of problems with the development of resilience. Well-documented collaboration of subspecialists, educators, and other stakeholders engaged in ADHD care at multiple levels (individual, family, community, and health care system) increases the likelihood of meaningful, sustainable gains. Using a patient-centered medical home framework, IBHCs or other allied health professionals embedded in, or co-located with, primary care settings can be key to accessing evidence-based treatments that include: psycho-­education and mindfulness-based stress reduction training for caregivers^24,25; occupational,²⁶ cognitive behavioral,²⁷ or family therapies^28,29; neuro-feedback; computer-based attention training; group- or community-based interventions; and academic and social supports.^5,8

Evidence shows that recognition and diagnostic specificity of ADHD and comorbidities— not true prevalence—vary more widely among minority than among nonminority populations.

Treatment approaches that capitalize on children’s neurologic and psychological plasticity and fortify self-efficacy with developmentally appropriate tools empower them to surmount ADHD symptoms over time.²³ Facilitating children’s resilience within a developmental framework and health system’s capacities with socio-culturally relevant approaches, consultation, and research can optimize outcomes and mitigate pervasiveness into adulthood. While the patient is at the center of treatment, it is important to consider the family, school, and communities in which the child lives, learns, and plays. PCPs and IBHCs together can consider a “try and track” method to follow progress, changes, and outcomes over time. With this method, the physician can employ approaches that focus on the patient, caregiver, or the caregiver–child interaction (TABLE 3).

Continue to: Assess patients' needs and the resources available

Assess patients’ needs and the resources available throughout the system of care beyond the primary care setting. Stay abreast of hospital policies, health care insurance coverage, and community- and school-based health programs, and any gaps in adequate and equitable assessment and treatment. For example, while clinical recommendations include psychiatric care, health insurance availability or limits in coverage may dissuade caregivers from seeking help or limit initial or long-term access to resources for help.³⁰ Integrating or advocating for clinic support resources or staffing to assist patients in navigating and mitigating challenges may lessen the management burden and increase the likelihood and longevity of favorable health outcomes.

Steps to ensuring health care equity

Among children of historically marginalized and racial and ethnic minority groups or those of populations affected by health disparities, ADHD symptoms and needs are often masked by structural biases that lead to inequitable care and outcomes, as well as treatment misprioritization or delays.³¹ In particular, evidence has shown that recognition and diagnostic specificity of ADHD and comorbidities, not prevalence, vary more widely among minority than among nonminority populations,³² contributing to the 23% of children with ADHD who receive no treatment at all.²

Understand caregiver concerns. This diagnosis discrepancy is correlated with symptom rating sensitivities (eg, reliability, perception, accuracy) among informants and how caregivers observe, perceive, appreciate, understand, and report behaviors. This discrepancy is also related to cultural belief differences, physician–patient communication variants, and a litany of other socioeconomic determinants.^2,4,31 Caregivers from some cultural, ethnic, or socioeconomic backgrounds may be doubtful of psychiatric assessment, diagnoses, treatment, or medication, and that can impact how children are engaged in clinical and educational settings from the outset.³¹ In the case we described, James’ mother was initially hesitant to explore psychotropic medications and was concerned about stigmatization within the school system. She also seemed to avoid psychiatric treatment for her own depressive symptoms due to cultural and religious beliefs.

Health care provider concerns. Some PCPs may hesitate to explore medications due to limited knowledge and skill in dosing and titrating based on a child’s age, stage, and symptoms, and a perceived lack of competence in managing ADHD. This, too, can indirectly perpetuate existing health disparities. Furthermore, ADHD symptoms may be deemed a secondary or tertiary concern if other complex or urgent medical or undifferentiated developmental problems manifest.

Compounding matters is the limited dissemination of empiric research articles (including randomized controlled trials with representative samples) and limited education on the effectiveness and safety of psychopharmacologic interventions across the lifespan and different cultural and ethnic groups.⁴ Consequently, patients who struggle with unmanaged ADHD symptoms are more likely to have chronic mental health disorders, maladaptive behaviors, and other co-occurring conditions contributing to the complexity of individual needs, health care burdens, or justice system involvement; this is particularly true for those of racial and ethnic minorities.³³

Continue to: Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. Patients—particularly those in minority or health disparity populations—who under normal circumstances might have been hesitant to seek help may have felt even more reluctant to do so during the COVID-19 pandemic. We have not yet learned the degree to which limited availability of preventive health care services, decreased routine visits, and fluctuating insurance coverage has impacted the diagnosis, management, or severity of childhood disorders during the past 2 years. Reports of national findings indicate that prolonged periods out of school and reduced daily structure were associated with increased disruptions in mood, sleep, and appetite, particularly among children with pre-existing pathologies. Evidence suggests that school-aged children experienced more anxiety, regressive behaviors, and parasomnias than they did before the pandemic, while adolescents experienced more isolation and depressive symptoms.^34,35

However, there remains a paucity of large-scale or representative studies that use an intersectional lens to examine the influence of COVID-19 on children with ADHD. Therefore, PCPs and IBHCs should refocus attention on possibly undiagnosed, stagnated, or regressed ADHD cases, as well as the adults who care for them. (See “5 ways to overcome Tx barriers and promote health equity.”)

THE CASE

During a follow-up visit 1 month later, the PCP confirmed the clinical impression of ADHD combined presentation with a clinical interview and review of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire completed by James’ mother and the Vanderbilt Assessment Scales completed by James’ mother and teacher. The sleep diary indicated potential problems and apneas worthy of consults for pulmonary function testing, a sleep study, and otolaryngology examination. The PCP informed James’ mother on sleep hygiene strategies and ADHD medication options. She indicated that she wanted to pursue the referrals and behavioral modifications before starting any medication trial.

The PCP referred James to a developmental pediatrician for in-depth assessment of his overall development, learning, and functioning. The developmental pediatrician ultimately confirmed the diagnosis of ADHD, as well as motor and speech delays warranting physical, occupational, and speech therapies. The developmental pediatrician also referred James for targeted genetic testing because she suspected a genetic disorder (eg, XYY syndrome).

The PCP reconnected James and his mother to the IBHC to facilitate subspecialty and school-based care coordination and to provide in-office and home-based interventions. The IBHC assessed James’ emotional dysregulation and impulsivity as adversely impacting his interpersonal relationships and planned to address these issues with behavioral and ­parent–child interaction therapies and skills training during the course of 6 to 12 visits. James’ mother was encouraged to engage his teacher on his academic performance and to initiate a 504 Plan or IEP for in-school accommodations and support. The IBHC aided in tracking his assessments, referrals, follow-ups, access barriers, and treatment goals.

After 6 months, James had made only modest progress, and his mother requested that he begin a trial of medication. Based on his weight, symptoms, behavior patterns, and sleep habits, the PCP prescribed ­extended-release dexmethylphenidate 10 mg each morning, then extended-release clonidine 0.1 mg nightly. With team-based clinical management of pharmacologic, behavioral, physical, speech, and occupational therapies, James’ behavior and sleep improved, and the signs of a vocal tic diminished.

By the next school year, James demonstrated a marked improvement in impulse control, attention, and academic functioning. He followed up with the PCP at least quarterly for reassessment of his symptoms, growth, and experience of adverse effects, and to titrate medications accordingly. James and his mother continued to work closely with the IBHC monthly to engage interventions and to monitor his progress at home and school.

CORRESPONDENCE
Sundania J. W. Wonnum, PhD, LCSW, National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Suite 800, Bethesda, MD 20892; [email protected]

THE CASE

James B* is a 7-year-old Black child who presented to his primary care physician (PCP) for a well-child visit. During preventive health screening, James’ mother expressed concerns about his behavior, characterizing him as immature, aggressive, destructive, and occasionally self-loathing. She described him as physically uncoordinated, struggling to keep up with his peers in sports, and tiring after 20 minutes of activity. James slept 10 hours nightly but was often restless and snored intermittently. As a second grader, his academic achievement was not progressing, and he had become increasingly inattentive at home and at school. James’ mother offered several examples of his fighting with his siblings, noncompliance with morning routines, and avoidance of learning activities. Additionally, his mother expressed concern that James, as a Black child, might eventually be unfairly labeled as a problem child by his teachers or held back a grade level in school.

Although James did not have a family history of developmental delays or learning disorders, he had not met any milestones on time for gross or fine motor, language, cognitive, and social-emotional skills. James had a history of chronic otitis media, for which pressure equalizer tubes were inserted at age 2 years. He had not had any major physical injuries, psychological trauma, recent life transitions, or adverse childhood events. When asked, James’ mother acknowledged symptoms of maternal depression but alluded to faith-based reasons for not seeking treatment for herself.

James’ physical examination was unremarkable. His height, weight, and vitals were all within normal limits. However, he had some difficulty with verbal articulation and expression and showed signs of a possible vocal tic. Based on James’ presentation, his PCP suspected attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), as well as neurodevelopmental delays.

The PCP gave James’ mother the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire to complete and the Vanderbilt Assessment Scales for her and James’ teacher to fill out independently and return to the clinic. The PCP also instructed James’ mother on how to use a sleep diary to maintain a 1-month log of his sleep patterns and habits. The PCP consulted the integrated behavioral health clinician (IBHC; a clinical social worker embedded in the primary care clinic) and made a warm handoff for the IBHC to further assess James’ maladaptive behaviors and interactions.

● How would you proceed with this patient?

* The patient’s name has been changed to protect his identity.

James is one of more than 6 million children, ages 3 to 17 years, in the United States who live with ADHD.^1,2 ADHD is the most common neurodevelopmental disorder among children, and it affects multiple cognitive and behavioral domains throughout the lifespan.³ Children with ADHD often initially present in primary care settings; thus, PCPs are well positioned to diagnose the disorder and provide longitudinal treatment. This Behavioral Health Consult reviews clinical assessment and practice guidelines, as well as treatment recommendations applicable across different areas of influence—individual, family, community, and systems—for PCPs and IBHCs to use in managing ADHD in children.

ADHD features can vary by age and sex

ADHD is a persistent pattern of inattention or hyperactivity and impulsivity interfering with functioning or development in childhood and functioning later in adulthood. ADHD symptoms manifest prior to age 12 years and must occur in 2 or more settings.⁴ Symptoms should not be better explained by another psychiatric disorder or occur exclusively during the course of another disorder (TABLE 1).⁴

Psychostimulants are preferred for ADHD. However, a variety of medications are available and may prove efficacious as children grow and their symptoms and the capacity to manage them change.

The rate of heritability is high, with significant incidence among first-degree relatives.⁴ Children with ADHD show executive functioning deficits in 1 or more cognitive domains (eg, visuospatial, memory, inhibitions, decision making, and reward regulation).^4,5 The prevalence of ADHD nationally is approximately 9.8% (2.2%, ages 3-5 years; 10%, ages 6-11 years; 13.2%, ages 12-17 years) in children and adolescents; worldwide prevalence is 7.2%.^1,6 It persists among 2.6% to 6.8% of adults worldwide.⁷

Research has shown that boys ages 6 to 11 years are significantly more likely than girls to exhibit attention-getting, externalizing behaviors or conduct problems (eg, hyperactivity, impulsivity, disruption, aggression).^1,6 On the other hand, girls ages 12 to 17 years tend to display internalized (eg, depressed mood, anxiety, low self-esteem) or inattentive behaviors, which clinicians and educators may assess as less severe and warranting fewer supportive measures.¹

The prevalence of ADHD and its associated factors, which evolve through maturation, underscore the importance of persistent, patient-centered, and collaborative PCP and IBHC clinical management.

Continue to: Begin with a screening tool, move to a clinical interview

When caregivers express concerns about their child’s behavior, focus, mood, learning, and socialization, consider initiating a multimodal evaluation for ADHD.^5,8 Embarking on an ADHD assessment can require extended or multiple visits to arrive at the diagnosis, followed by still more visits to confirm a course of care and adjust medications. The integrative care approach described in the patient case and elaborated on later in this article can help facilitate assessment and treatment of ADHD.⁹

Signs of ADHD may be observed at initial screening using a tool such as the Ages & Stages Questionnaire (https://agesandstages.com/products-pricing/asq3/) to reveal indications of norm deviations or delays commensurate with ADHD.¹⁰ However, to substantiate the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, Text Revision criteria for an accurate diagnosis,⁴ the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) clinical practice guidelines require a thorough clinical interview, administration of a standardized assessment tool, and review of objective reports in conjunction with a physical examination and psychosocial evaluation.⁶ Standardized meas­ures of psychological, neurocognitive, and academic achievement reported by caregivers and collateral contacts (eg, teachers, counselors, coaches, care providers) are needed to maximize data objectivity and symptom accuracy across settings (TABLE 2^10-17). Additionally, periodic reassessment is recommended to validate changes in diagnostic subtype and treatment plans due to the chronic and dynamic nature of ADHD.

Consider comorbidities and alternate diagnoses

The diagnostic possibility of ADHD should also prompt consideration of other childhood disorders due to the high potential for comorbidities.^4,6 In a 2016 study, approximately 64% of children with ADHD exhibited another developmental or psychiatric disorder at some point. These disorders included oppositional defiant or conduct disorders (52%), anxiety (33%), depression (17%), and autism spectrum disorder (14%), as well as Tourette syndrome, learning or language disorders, motor delays, substance use disorders, sleep-wake disorders, personality disorders, and ­suicidality.¹⁸

Various medical disorders may manifest with similar signs or symptoms to ADHD, such as thyroid disorders, seizure disorders, adverse drug effects, anemia, genetic anomalies, and others.^6,19Although further research is needed to ascertain potential associations between recurrent otitis media and language delay and later social, cognitive, or attention challenges, early consultation with an otolaryngologist is warranted if such concerns arise in a child’s early years.²⁰ Following the initial assessment, conduct a targeted examination and lab testing to rule out co-occurring conditions or comorbidities.

If there are behavioral concerns or developmental delays associated with tall stature for age or pubertal or testicular development anomalies, consult a geneticist and a developmental pediatrician for targeted testing and neurodevelopmental assessment, respectively. For example, ADHD is a common comorbidity among boys who also have XYY syndrome (Jacobs syndrome). However, due to the variability of symptoms and severity, XYY syndrome often goes undiagnosed, leaving a host of compounding pervasive and developmental problems untreated. Overall, more than two-thirds of patients with ADHD and a co-occurring condition are either inaccurately diagnosed or not referred for additional assessment and adjunct treatment.²¹

Continue to: Risks that arise over time

Risks that arise over time. As ADHD persists, adolescents are at greater risk for psychiatric comorbidities, suicidality, and functional impairments (eg, risky behaviors, occupational problems, truancy, delinquency, and poor self-esteem).^4,8 Adolescents with internalized behaviors are more likely to experience comorbid depressive disorders with increased risk for self-harm.^4,5,8 As adolescents age and their sense of autonomy increases, there is a tendency among those who have received a diagnosis of ADHD to minimize symptoms and decrease the frequency of routine clinic visits along with medication use and treatment compliance.³ Additionally, abuse, misuse, and misappropriation of stimulants among teens and young adults are commonplace.

Wide-scope, multidisciplinary evaluation and close clinical management reduce the potential for imprecise diagnoses, particularly at critical developmental junctures. AAP suggests that PCPs can treat mild and moderate cases of ADHD, but if the treating clinician does not have adequate training, experience, time, or clinical support to manage this condition, early referral is warranted.⁶

A guide to pharmacotherapy

Approximately 77% of children ages 2 to 17 years with a diagnosis of ADHD receive any form of treatment.² Treatment for ADHD can include behavioral therapy and medication.² AAP clinical practice guidelines caution against prescribing medications for children younger than 6 years, relying instead on ­caregiver-, teacher-, or clinician-­administered behavioral strategies and parental training in behavioral modification. For children and adolescents between ages 6 and 18 years, first-line ­treatment includes pharmacotherapy balanced with behavioral therapy, academic modifications, and educational supports (eg, 504 Plan, individualized education plan [IEP]).⁶

Psychostimulants are preferred. These agents (eg, methylphenidate, amphetamine) remain the most efficacious class of medications to reduce hyperactivity and inattentiveness and to improve function. While long-acting psychostimulants are associated with better medication adherence and ­adverse-effect tolerance than are short-acting forms, the latter offer more flexibility in dosing. Start by titrating any stimulant to the lowest effective dose; reassess monthly until potential rebound effects stabilize.

More than twothirds of ADHD patients with a co-occurring condition are either inaccurately diagnosed or not referred for additional assessment and adjunct treatment.

Due to potential adverse effects of this class of medication, screen for any family history or personal risk for structural or electrical cardiac anomalies before starting pharmacotherapy. If any such risks exist, arrange for further cardiac evaluation before initiating medication.⁶ Adverse effects of stimulants include reduced appetite, gastrointestinal symptoms, headaches, anxiousness, parasomnia, tachycardia, and hypertension.

Continue to: Once medication is stabilized...

Once medication is stabilized, monitor treatment 2 to 3 times per year thereafter; watch for longer-term adverse effects such as weight loss, decreased growth rate, and psychiatric comorbidities including the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)’s black box warning of increased risk for suicidality.^5,6,22

Other options. The optimal duration of psychostimulant use remains debatable, as existing evidence does not support its long-term use (10 years) over other interventions, such as nonstimulants and nonmedicinal therapies.²² Although backed by less evidence, additional medications indicated for the treatment of ADHD include: (1) atomoxetine, a selective norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor, and (2) the selective alpha-2 adrenergic agonists, extended-release guanfacine and extended-release clonidine (third-line agent).²²

Adverse effects of these FDA-approved medications are similar to those observed in stimulant medications. Evaluation of cardiac risks is recommended before starting nonstimulant medications. The alpha-2 adrenergic agonists may also be used as adjunct therapies to stimulants. Before stopping an alpha-2 adrenergic agonist, taper the dosage slowly to avoid the risk for rebound hypertension.^6,23 Given the wide variety of medication options and variability of effects, it may be necessary to try different medications as children grow and their symptoms and capacity to manage them change. Additional guidance on FDA-approved medications is available at www.ADHDMedicationGuide.com.

How multilevel care coordination can work

As with other chronic or developmental conditions, the treatment of ADHD requires an interdisciplinary perspective. Continuous, comprehensive case management can help patients overcome obstacles to wellness by balancing the resolution of problems with the development of resilience. Well-documented collaboration of subspecialists, educators, and other stakeholders engaged in ADHD care at multiple levels (individual, family, community, and health care system) increases the likelihood of meaningful, sustainable gains. Using a patient-centered medical home framework, IBHCs or other allied health professionals embedded in, or co-located with, primary care settings can be key to accessing evidence-based treatments that include: psycho-­education and mindfulness-based stress reduction training for caregivers^24,25; occupational,²⁶ cognitive behavioral,²⁷ or family therapies^28,29; neuro-feedback; computer-based attention training; group- or community-based interventions; and academic and social supports.^5,8

Evidence shows that recognition and diagnostic specificity of ADHD and comorbidities— not true prevalence—vary more widely among minority than among nonminority populations.

Treatment approaches that capitalize on children’s neurologic and psychological plasticity and fortify self-efficacy with developmentally appropriate tools empower them to surmount ADHD symptoms over time.²³ Facilitating children’s resilience within a developmental framework and health system’s capacities with socio-culturally relevant approaches, consultation, and research can optimize outcomes and mitigate pervasiveness into adulthood. While the patient is at the center of treatment, it is important to consider the family, school, and communities in which the child lives, learns, and plays. PCPs and IBHCs together can consider a “try and track” method to follow progress, changes, and outcomes over time. With this method, the physician can employ approaches that focus on the patient, caregiver, or the caregiver–child interaction (TABLE 3).

Continue to: Assess patients' needs and the resources available

Assess patients’ needs and the resources available throughout the system of care beyond the primary care setting. Stay abreast of hospital policies, health care insurance coverage, and community- and school-based health programs, and any gaps in adequate and equitable assessment and treatment. For example, while clinical recommendations include psychiatric care, health insurance availability or limits in coverage may dissuade caregivers from seeking help or limit initial or long-term access to resources for help.³⁰ Integrating or advocating for clinic support resources or staffing to assist patients in navigating and mitigating challenges may lessen the management burden and increase the likelihood and longevity of favorable health outcomes.

Steps to ensuring health care equity

Among children of historically marginalized and racial and ethnic minority groups or those of populations affected by health disparities, ADHD symptoms and needs are often masked by structural biases that lead to inequitable care and outcomes, as well as treatment misprioritization or delays.³¹ In particular, evidence has shown that recognition and diagnostic specificity of ADHD and comorbidities, not prevalence, vary more widely among minority than among nonminority populations,³² contributing to the 23% of children with ADHD who receive no treatment at all.²

Understand caregiver concerns. This diagnosis discrepancy is correlated with symptom rating sensitivities (eg, reliability, perception, accuracy) among informants and how caregivers observe, perceive, appreciate, understand, and report behaviors. This discrepancy is also related to cultural belief differences, physician–patient communication variants, and a litany of other socioeconomic determinants.^2,4,31 Caregivers from some cultural, ethnic, or socioeconomic backgrounds may be doubtful of psychiatric assessment, diagnoses, treatment, or medication, and that can impact how children are engaged in clinical and educational settings from the outset.³¹ In the case we described, James’ mother was initially hesitant to explore psychotropic medications and was concerned about stigmatization within the school system. She also seemed to avoid psychiatric treatment for her own depressive symptoms due to cultural and religious beliefs.

Health care provider concerns. Some PCPs may hesitate to explore medications due to limited knowledge and skill in dosing and titrating based on a child’s age, stage, and symptoms, and a perceived lack of competence in managing ADHD. This, too, can indirectly perpetuate existing health disparities. Furthermore, ADHD symptoms may be deemed a secondary or tertiary concern if other complex or urgent medical or undifferentiated developmental problems manifest.

Compounding matters is the limited dissemination of empiric research articles (including randomized controlled trials with representative samples) and limited education on the effectiveness and safety of psychopharmacologic interventions across the lifespan and different cultural and ethnic groups.⁴ Consequently, patients who struggle with unmanaged ADHD symptoms are more likely to have chronic mental health disorders, maladaptive behaviors, and other co-occurring conditions contributing to the complexity of individual needs, health care burdens, or justice system involvement; this is particularly true for those of racial and ethnic minorities.³³

Continue to: Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. Patients—particularly those in minority or health disparity populations—who under normal circumstances might have been hesitant to seek help may have felt even more reluctant to do so during the COVID-19 pandemic. We have not yet learned the degree to which limited availability of preventive health care services, decreased routine visits, and fluctuating insurance coverage has impacted the diagnosis, management, or severity of childhood disorders during the past 2 years. Reports of national findings indicate that prolonged periods out of school and reduced daily structure were associated with increased disruptions in mood, sleep, and appetite, particularly among children with pre-existing pathologies. Evidence suggests that school-aged children experienced more anxiety, regressive behaviors, and parasomnias than they did before the pandemic, while adolescents experienced more isolation and depressive symptoms.^34,35

However, there remains a paucity of large-scale or representative studies that use an intersectional lens to examine the influence of COVID-19 on children with ADHD. Therefore, PCPs and IBHCs should refocus attention on possibly undiagnosed, stagnated, or regressed ADHD cases, as well as the adults who care for them. (See “5 ways to overcome Tx barriers and promote health equity.”)

THE CASE

During a follow-up visit 1 month later, the PCP confirmed the clinical impression of ADHD combined presentation with a clinical interview and review of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire completed by James’ mother and the Vanderbilt Assessment Scales completed by James’ mother and teacher. The sleep diary indicated potential problems and apneas worthy of consults for pulmonary function testing, a sleep study, and otolaryngology examination. The PCP informed James’ mother on sleep hygiene strategies and ADHD medication options. She indicated that she wanted to pursue the referrals and behavioral modifications before starting any medication trial.

The PCP referred James to a developmental pediatrician for in-depth assessment of his overall development, learning, and functioning. The developmental pediatrician ultimately confirmed the diagnosis of ADHD, as well as motor and speech delays warranting physical, occupational, and speech therapies. The developmental pediatrician also referred James for targeted genetic testing because she suspected a genetic disorder (eg, XYY syndrome).

The PCP reconnected James and his mother to the IBHC to facilitate subspecialty and school-based care coordination and to provide in-office and home-based interventions. The IBHC assessed James’ emotional dysregulation and impulsivity as adversely impacting his interpersonal relationships and planned to address these issues with behavioral and ­parent–child interaction therapies and skills training during the course of 6 to 12 visits. James’ mother was encouraged to engage his teacher on his academic performance and to initiate a 504 Plan or IEP for in-school accommodations and support. The IBHC aided in tracking his assessments, referrals, follow-ups, access barriers, and treatment goals.

After 6 months, James had made only modest progress, and his mother requested that he begin a trial of medication. Based on his weight, symptoms, behavior patterns, and sleep habits, the PCP prescribed ­extended-release dexmethylphenidate 10 mg each morning, then extended-release clonidine 0.1 mg nightly. With team-based clinical management of pharmacologic, behavioral, physical, speech, and occupational therapies, James’ behavior and sleep improved, and the signs of a vocal tic diminished.

By the next school year, James demonstrated a marked improvement in impulse control, attention, and academic functioning. He followed up with the PCP at least quarterly for reassessment of his symptoms, growth, and experience of adverse effects, and to titrate medications accordingly. James and his mother continued to work closely with the IBHC monthly to engage interventions and to monitor his progress at home and school.

CORRESPONDENCE
Sundania J. W. Wonnum, PhD, LCSW, National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Suite 800, Bethesda, MD 20892; [email protected]

THE CASE

James B* is a 7-year-old Black child who presented to his primary care physician (PCP) for a well-child visit. During preventive health screening, James’ mother expressed concerns about his behavior, characterizing him as immature, aggressive, destructive, and occasionally self-loathing. She described him as physically uncoordinated, struggling to keep up with his peers in sports, and tiring after 20 minutes of activity. James slept 10 hours nightly but was often restless and snored intermittently. As a second grader, his academic achievement was not progressing, and he had become increasingly inattentive at home and at school. James’ mother offered several examples of his fighting with his siblings, noncompliance with morning routines, and avoidance of learning activities. Additionally, his mother expressed concern that James, as a Black child, might eventually be unfairly labeled as a problem child by his teachers or held back a grade level in school.

Although James did not have a family history of developmental delays or learning disorders, he had not met any milestones on time for gross or fine motor, language, cognitive, and social-emotional skills. James had a history of chronic otitis media, for which pressure equalizer tubes were inserted at age 2 years. He had not had any major physical injuries, psychological trauma, recent life transitions, or adverse childhood events. When asked, James’ mother acknowledged symptoms of maternal depression but alluded to faith-based reasons for not seeking treatment for herself.

James’ physical examination was unremarkable. His height, weight, and vitals were all within normal limits. However, he had some difficulty with verbal articulation and expression and showed signs of a possible vocal tic. Based on James’ presentation, his PCP suspected attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), as well as neurodevelopmental delays.

The PCP gave James’ mother the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire to complete and the Vanderbilt Assessment Scales for her and James’ teacher to fill out independently and return to the clinic. The PCP also instructed James’ mother on how to use a sleep diary to maintain a 1-month log of his sleep patterns and habits. The PCP consulted the integrated behavioral health clinician (IBHC; a clinical social worker embedded in the primary care clinic) and made a warm handoff for the IBHC to further assess James’ maladaptive behaviors and interactions.

● How would you proceed with this patient?

* The patient’s name has been changed to protect his identity.

James is one of more than 6 million children, ages 3 to 17 years, in the United States who live with ADHD.^1,2 ADHD is the most common neurodevelopmental disorder among children, and it affects multiple cognitive and behavioral domains throughout the lifespan.³ Children with ADHD often initially present in primary care settings; thus, PCPs are well positioned to diagnose the disorder and provide longitudinal treatment. This Behavioral Health Consult reviews clinical assessment and practice guidelines, as well as treatment recommendations applicable across different areas of influence—individual, family, community, and systems—for PCPs and IBHCs to use in managing ADHD in children.

ADHD features can vary by age and sex

ADHD is a persistent pattern of inattention or hyperactivity and impulsivity interfering with functioning or development in childhood and functioning later in adulthood. ADHD symptoms manifest prior to age 12 years and must occur in 2 or more settings.⁴ Symptoms should not be better explained by another psychiatric disorder or occur exclusively during the course of another disorder (TABLE 1).⁴

Psychostimulants are preferred for ADHD. However, a variety of medications are available and may prove efficacious as children grow and their symptoms and the capacity to manage them change.

The rate of heritability is high, with significant incidence among first-degree relatives.⁴ Children with ADHD show executive functioning deficits in 1 or more cognitive domains (eg, visuospatial, memory, inhibitions, decision making, and reward regulation).^4,5 The prevalence of ADHD nationally is approximately 9.8% (2.2%, ages 3-5 years; 10%, ages 6-11 years; 13.2%, ages 12-17 years) in children and adolescents; worldwide prevalence is 7.2%.^1,6 It persists among 2.6% to 6.8% of adults worldwide.⁷

Research has shown that boys ages 6 to 11 years are significantly more likely than girls to exhibit attention-getting, externalizing behaviors or conduct problems (eg, hyperactivity, impulsivity, disruption, aggression).^1,6 On the other hand, girls ages 12 to 17 years tend to display internalized (eg, depressed mood, anxiety, low self-esteem) or inattentive behaviors, which clinicians and educators may assess as less severe and warranting fewer supportive measures.¹

The prevalence of ADHD and its associated factors, which evolve through maturation, underscore the importance of persistent, patient-centered, and collaborative PCP and IBHC clinical management.

Continue to: Begin with a screening tool, move to a clinical interview

When caregivers express concerns about their child’s behavior, focus, mood, learning, and socialization, consider initiating a multimodal evaluation for ADHD.^5,8 Embarking on an ADHD assessment can require extended or multiple visits to arrive at the diagnosis, followed by still more visits to confirm a course of care and adjust medications. The integrative care approach described in the patient case and elaborated on later in this article can help facilitate assessment and treatment of ADHD.⁹

Signs of ADHD may be observed at initial screening using a tool such as the Ages & Stages Questionnaire (https://agesandstages.com/products-pricing/asq3/) to reveal indications of norm deviations or delays commensurate with ADHD.¹⁰ However, to substantiate the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, Text Revision criteria for an accurate diagnosis,⁴ the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) clinical practice guidelines require a thorough clinical interview, administration of a standardized assessment tool, and review of objective reports in conjunction with a physical examination and psychosocial evaluation.⁶ Standardized meas­ures of psychological, neurocognitive, and academic achievement reported by caregivers and collateral contacts (eg, teachers, counselors, coaches, care providers) are needed to maximize data objectivity and symptom accuracy across settings (TABLE 2^10-17). Additionally, periodic reassessment is recommended to validate changes in diagnostic subtype and treatment plans due to the chronic and dynamic nature of ADHD.

Consider comorbidities and alternate diagnoses

The diagnostic possibility of ADHD should also prompt consideration of other childhood disorders due to the high potential for comorbidities.^4,6 In a 2016 study, approximately 64% of children with ADHD exhibited another developmental or psychiatric disorder at some point. These disorders included oppositional defiant or conduct disorders (52%), anxiety (33%), depression (17%), and autism spectrum disorder (14%), as well as Tourette syndrome, learning or language disorders, motor delays, substance use disorders, sleep-wake disorders, personality disorders, and ­suicidality.¹⁸

Various medical disorders may manifest with similar signs or symptoms to ADHD, such as thyroid disorders, seizure disorders, adverse drug effects, anemia, genetic anomalies, and others.^6,19Although further research is needed to ascertain potential associations between recurrent otitis media and language delay and later social, cognitive, or attention challenges, early consultation with an otolaryngologist is warranted if such concerns arise in a child’s early years.²⁰ Following the initial assessment, conduct a targeted examination and lab testing to rule out co-occurring conditions or comorbidities.

If there are behavioral concerns or developmental delays associated with tall stature for age or pubertal or testicular development anomalies, consult a geneticist and a developmental pediatrician for targeted testing and neurodevelopmental assessment, respectively. For example, ADHD is a common comorbidity among boys who also have XYY syndrome (Jacobs syndrome). However, due to the variability of symptoms and severity, XYY syndrome often goes undiagnosed, leaving a host of compounding pervasive and developmental problems untreated. Overall, more than two-thirds of patients with ADHD and a co-occurring condition are either inaccurately diagnosed or not referred for additional assessment and adjunct treatment.²¹

Continue to: Risks that arise over time

Risks that arise over time. As ADHD persists, adolescents are at greater risk for psychiatric comorbidities, suicidality, and functional impairments (eg, risky behaviors, occupational problems, truancy, delinquency, and poor self-esteem).^4,8 Adolescents with internalized behaviors are more likely to experience comorbid depressive disorders with increased risk for self-harm.^4,5,8 As adolescents age and their sense of autonomy increases, there is a tendency among those who have received a diagnosis of ADHD to minimize symptoms and decrease the frequency of routine clinic visits along with medication use and treatment compliance.³ Additionally, abuse, misuse, and misappropriation of stimulants among teens and young adults are commonplace.

Wide-scope, multidisciplinary evaluation and close clinical management reduce the potential for imprecise diagnoses, particularly at critical developmental junctures. AAP suggests that PCPs can treat mild and moderate cases of ADHD, but if the treating clinician does not have adequate training, experience, time, or clinical support to manage this condition, early referral is warranted.⁶

A guide to pharmacotherapy

Approximately 77% of children ages 2 to 17 years with a diagnosis of ADHD receive any form of treatment.² Treatment for ADHD can include behavioral therapy and medication.² AAP clinical practice guidelines caution against prescribing medications for children younger than 6 years, relying instead on ­caregiver-, teacher-, or clinician-­administered behavioral strategies and parental training in behavioral modification. For children and adolescents between ages 6 and 18 years, first-line ­treatment includes pharmacotherapy balanced with behavioral therapy, academic modifications, and educational supports (eg, 504 Plan, individualized education plan [IEP]).⁶

Psychostimulants are preferred. These agents (eg, methylphenidate, amphetamine) remain the most efficacious class of medications to reduce hyperactivity and inattentiveness and to improve function. While long-acting psychostimulants are associated with better medication adherence and ­adverse-effect tolerance than are short-acting forms, the latter offer more flexibility in dosing. Start by titrating any stimulant to the lowest effective dose; reassess monthly until potential rebound effects stabilize.

More than twothirds of ADHD patients with a co-occurring condition are either inaccurately diagnosed or not referred for additional assessment and adjunct treatment.

Due to potential adverse effects of this class of medication, screen for any family history or personal risk for structural or electrical cardiac anomalies before starting pharmacotherapy. If any such risks exist, arrange for further cardiac evaluation before initiating medication.⁶ Adverse effects of stimulants include reduced appetite, gastrointestinal symptoms, headaches, anxiousness, parasomnia, tachycardia, and hypertension.

Continue to: Once medication is stabilized...

Once medication is stabilized, monitor treatment 2 to 3 times per year thereafter; watch for longer-term adverse effects such as weight loss, decreased growth rate, and psychiatric comorbidities including the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)’s black box warning of increased risk for suicidality.^5,6,22

Other options. The optimal duration of psychostimulant use remains debatable, as existing evidence does not support its long-term use (10 years) over other interventions, such as nonstimulants and nonmedicinal therapies.²² Although backed by less evidence, additional medications indicated for the treatment of ADHD include: (1) atomoxetine, a selective norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor, and (2) the selective alpha-2 adrenergic agonists, extended-release guanfacine and extended-release clonidine (third-line agent).²²

Adverse effects of these FDA-approved medications are similar to those observed in stimulant medications. Evaluation of cardiac risks is recommended before starting nonstimulant medications. The alpha-2 adrenergic agonists may also be used as adjunct therapies to stimulants. Before stopping an alpha-2 adrenergic agonist, taper the dosage slowly to avoid the risk for rebound hypertension.^6,23 Given the wide variety of medication options and variability of effects, it may be necessary to try different medications as children grow and their symptoms and capacity to manage them change. Additional guidance on FDA-approved medications is available at www.ADHDMedicationGuide.com.

How multilevel care coordination can work

As with other chronic or developmental conditions, the treatment of ADHD requires an interdisciplinary perspective. Continuous, comprehensive case management can help patients overcome obstacles to wellness by balancing the resolution of problems with the development of resilience. Well-documented collaboration of subspecialists, educators, and other stakeholders engaged in ADHD care at multiple levels (individual, family, community, and health care system) increases the likelihood of meaningful, sustainable gains. Using a patient-centered medical home framework, IBHCs or other allied health professionals embedded in, or co-located with, primary care settings can be key to accessing evidence-based treatments that include: psycho-­education and mindfulness-based stress reduction training for caregivers^24,25; occupational,²⁶ cognitive behavioral,²⁷ or family therapies^28,29; neuro-feedback; computer-based attention training; group- or community-based interventions; and academic and social supports.^5,8

Evidence shows that recognition and diagnostic specificity of ADHD and comorbidities— not true prevalence—vary more widely among minority than among nonminority populations.

Treatment approaches that capitalize on children’s neurologic and psychological plasticity and fortify self-efficacy with developmentally appropriate tools empower them to surmount ADHD symptoms over time.²³ Facilitating children’s resilience within a developmental framework and health system’s capacities with socio-culturally relevant approaches, consultation, and research can optimize outcomes and mitigate pervasiveness into adulthood. While the patient is at the center of treatment, it is important to consider the family, school, and communities in which the child lives, learns, and plays. PCPs and IBHCs together can consider a “try and track” method to follow progress, changes, and outcomes over time. With this method, the physician can employ approaches that focus on the patient, caregiver, or the caregiver–child interaction (TABLE 3).

Continue to: Assess patients' needs and the resources available

Assess patients’ needs and the resources available throughout the system of care beyond the primary care setting. Stay abreast of hospital policies, health care insurance coverage, and community- and school-based health programs, and any gaps in adequate and equitable assessment and treatment. For example, while clinical recommendations include psychiatric care, health insurance availability or limits in coverage may dissuade caregivers from seeking help or limit initial or long-term access to resources for help.³⁰ Integrating or advocating for clinic support resources or staffing to assist patients in navigating and mitigating challenges may lessen the management burden and increase the likelihood and longevity of favorable health outcomes.

Steps to ensuring health care equity

Among children of historically marginalized and racial and ethnic minority groups or those of populations affected by health disparities, ADHD symptoms and needs are often masked by structural biases that lead to inequitable care and outcomes, as well as treatment misprioritization or delays.³¹ In particular, evidence has shown that recognition and diagnostic specificity of ADHD and comorbidities, not prevalence, vary more widely among minority than among nonminority populations,³² contributing to the 23% of children with ADHD who receive no treatment at all.²

Understand caregiver concerns. This diagnosis discrepancy is correlated with symptom rating sensitivities (eg, reliability, perception, accuracy) among informants and how caregivers observe, perceive, appreciate, understand, and report behaviors. This discrepancy is also related to cultural belief differences, physician–patient communication variants, and a litany of other socioeconomic determinants.^2,4,31 Caregivers from some cultural, ethnic, or socioeconomic backgrounds may be doubtful of psychiatric assessment, diagnoses, treatment, or medication, and that can impact how children are engaged in clinical and educational settings from the outset.³¹ In the case we described, James’ mother was initially hesitant to explore psychotropic medications and was concerned about stigmatization within the school system. She also seemed to avoid psychiatric treatment for her own depressive symptoms due to cultural and religious beliefs.

Health care provider concerns. Some PCPs may hesitate to explore medications due to limited knowledge and skill in dosing and titrating based on a child’s age, stage, and symptoms, and a perceived lack of competence in managing ADHD. This, too, can indirectly perpetuate existing health disparities. Furthermore, ADHD symptoms may be deemed a secondary or tertiary concern if other complex or urgent medical or undifferentiated developmental problems manifest.

Compounding matters is the limited dissemination of empiric research articles (including randomized controlled trials with representative samples) and limited education on the effectiveness and safety of psychopharmacologic interventions across the lifespan and different cultural and ethnic groups.⁴ Consequently, patients who struggle with unmanaged ADHD symptoms are more likely to have chronic mental health disorders, maladaptive behaviors, and other co-occurring conditions contributing to the complexity of individual needs, health care burdens, or justice system involvement; this is particularly true for those of racial and ethnic minorities.³³

Continue to: Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. Patients—particularly those in minority or health disparity populations—who under normal circumstances might have been hesitant to seek help may have felt even more reluctant to do so during the COVID-19 pandemic. We have not yet learned the degree to which limited availability of preventive health care services, decreased routine visits, and fluctuating insurance coverage has impacted the diagnosis, management, or severity of childhood disorders during the past 2 years. Reports of national findings indicate that prolonged periods out of school and reduced daily structure were associated with increased disruptions in mood, sleep, and appetite, particularly among children with pre-existing pathologies. Evidence suggests that school-aged children experienced more anxiety, regressive behaviors, and parasomnias than they did before the pandemic, while adolescents experienced more isolation and depressive symptoms.^34,35

However, there remains a paucity of large-scale or representative studies that use an intersectional lens to examine the influence of COVID-19 on children with ADHD. Therefore, PCPs and IBHCs should refocus attention on possibly undiagnosed, stagnated, or regressed ADHD cases, as well as the adults who care for them. (See “5 ways to overcome Tx barriers and promote health equity.”)

THE CASE

During a follow-up visit 1 month later, the PCP confirmed the clinical impression of ADHD combined presentation with a clinical interview and review of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire completed by James’ mother and the Vanderbilt Assessment Scales completed by James’ mother and teacher. The sleep diary indicated potential problems and apneas worthy of consults for pulmonary function testing, a sleep study, and otolaryngology examination. The PCP informed James’ mother on sleep hygiene strategies and ADHD medication options. She indicated that she wanted to pursue the referrals and behavioral modifications before starting any medication trial.

The PCP referred James to a developmental pediatrician for in-depth assessment of his overall development, learning, and functioning. The developmental pediatrician ultimately confirmed the diagnosis of ADHD, as well as motor and speech delays warranting physical, occupational, and speech therapies. The developmental pediatrician also referred James for targeted genetic testing because she suspected a genetic disorder (eg, XYY syndrome).

The PCP reconnected James and his mother to the IBHC to facilitate subspecialty and school-based care coordination and to provide in-office and home-based interventions. The IBHC assessed James’ emotional dysregulation and impulsivity as adversely impacting his interpersonal relationships and planned to address these issues with behavioral and ­parent–child interaction therapies and skills training during the course of 6 to 12 visits. James’ mother was encouraged to engage his teacher on his academic performance and to initiate a 504 Plan or IEP for in-school accommodations and support. The IBHC aided in tracking his assessments, referrals, follow-ups, access barriers, and treatment goals.

After 6 months, James had made only modest progress, and his mother requested that he begin a trial of medication. Based on his weight, symptoms, behavior patterns, and sleep habits, the PCP prescribed ­extended-release dexmethylphenidate 10 mg each morning, then extended-release clonidine 0.1 mg nightly. With team-based clinical management of pharmacologic, behavioral, physical, speech, and occupational therapies, James’ behavior and sleep improved, and the signs of a vocal tic diminished.

By the next school year, James demonstrated a marked improvement in impulse control, attention, and academic functioning. He followed up with the PCP at least quarterly for reassessment of his symptoms, growth, and experience of adverse effects, and to titrate medications accordingly. James and his mother continued to work closely with the IBHC monthly to engage interventions and to monitor his progress at home and school.

CORRESPONDENCE
Sundania J. W. Wonnum, PhD, LCSW, National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Suite 800, Bethesda, MD 20892; [email protected]

Evidence summary

Mixed results on exercise’s effect on neuropsychiatric symptoms

A 2020 systematic review and meta-analysis of 18 RCTs investigated the effect of home-based physical activity on several markers of behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia (BPSD). These symptoms were measured using the caregiver-completed neuropsychiatric inventory (NPI), which in­cludes agitation. There was substantial heterogeneity between trials; however, 4 RCTs (472 patients) were included in a meta-­analysis of the NPI. These RCTs were nonblinded, given the nature of the intervention.¹

Interventions to enhance physical activity ranged from 12 weeks to 2 years in duration, with 2 to 8 contacts from the study team per week. The type of physical activity varied and included cardiorespiratory endurance, balance training, resistance training, and activities of daily living training.¹

Exercise was associated with significantly fewer symptoms on the NPI, although the effect size was small (standard mean difference [SMD] = –0.37; 95% CI, –0.57 to –0.17). Heterogeneity in the interventions and assessments were limitations to this meta-analysis.¹

A 2015 systematic review and meta-­analysis of 18 RCTs compared the effect of exercise interventions against a control group for the treatment of BPSD, utilizing 10 behavioral and 2 neurovegetative components of the NPI (each scored from 0 to 5) in patients with dementia. Studies were included if they used ≥ 1 exercise intervention compared to a control or usual care group without additional exercise recommendations. Thirteen studies had a multicomponent training intervention (≥ 2 exercise types grouped together in the same training session), 2 used tai chi, 4 used walking, and 1 used dance and movement therapy. These RCTs were conducted in a variety of settings, including community-dwelling and long-term care facilities (n = 6427 patients).²

Exercise did not reduce global BPSD (N = 4441 patients), with a weighted mean difference (WMD) of −3.9 (95% CI, −9.0 to 1.2; P = .13). Exploratory analysis did not show improvement in aberrant motor behavior with exercise (WMD = –0.55; 95% CI, –1.10 to 0.001; P = .05). Limitations of this review included the small number of studies, heterogeneity of the population, and limitations in data accessibility.²

A 2017 hospital-based RCT evaluated the effects of a short-term exercise program on neuropsychiatric signs and symptoms in patients with dementia in 3 specialized dementia care wards (N = 85). Patients had a diagnosis of dementia, minimum length of stay of 1 week, no delirium, and the ability to perform the Timed Up and Go Test. The intervention group included a 2-week exercise program of four 20-minute exercise sessions per day on 3 days per week, involving strengthening or endurance exercises, in addition to treatment as usual. The control group included a 2-week period of social-stimulation programs consisting of table games for 120 minutes per week, in addition to treatment as usual.³

Exercise remains a small tool to address a big problem.

Of 85 patients randomized, 15 (18%) were lost to follow-up (14 of whom were discharged early from the hospital). Among the 70 patients included in the final analysis, the mean age was 80 years; 47% were female and 53% male; and the mean Mini-Mental Status Examination score was 18.3 (≤ 23 indicates dementia). In both groups, most patients had moderate dementia, moderate neuropsychiatric signs and symptoms, and a low level of psychotic symptoms. Patients in the intervention group had a higher adherence rate compared with those in the control group.³

Continue to: The primary outcome...

The primary outcome was neuropsychiatric signs and symptoms as measured by the Alzheimer’s Disease Cooperative Study–­Clinical Global Impression of Change (ADCS-CGIC). Compared to the control group, the intervention group experienced greater improvement on the ADCS-CGIC dimensions of emotional agitation (SMD = –0.9; P < .001), lability (SMD = –1.1; P < .001), psychomotor agitation (SMD = –0.7; P = .01), and verbal aggression (SMD = –0.5; P = .04). However, there were no differences between groups in the physical aggression dimension. Trial limitations included potential impact of the drop-out rate and possible blinding issues, as nursing staff performing assessments could have seen to which group a patient was allocated.³

A 2016 factorial cluster RCT of 16 nursing homes (with at least 60% of the population having dementia) compared the use of ­person-centered care vs person-centered care plus at least 1 randomly assigned additional intervention (eg, antipsychotic medication use review, social interaction interventions, and exercise over a period of 9 months) (n = 277, with 193 analyzed per protocol). Exercise was implemented at 1 hour per week or at an increase of 20% above baseline and compared with a control group with no change in exercise.⁴

Exercise significantly improved neuropsychiatric symptoms. The baseline NPI score of 14.54 improved by –3.59 (95% CI, –7.08 to –0.09; P < .05). However, none of the study interventions significantly improved the agitation-specific scores. The primary limitation of this study was that antipsychotic prescribing was at the discretion of the provider and not according to a protocol. In addition, the authors noted that the trial was inadequately powered to correct for testing 3 primary outcomes.⁴

Editor’s takeaway

Dementia and dementia with agitation are challenging conditions to treat. Disappointingly, physical exercise had inconsistent and generally minimal effect on agitation in dementia. Nevertheless, exercise had other positive effects. So, considering the benefits that exercise does provide, its low cost, and its limited adverse effects, exercise remains a small tool to address a big problem.

Evidence summary

Mixed results on exercise’s effect on neuropsychiatric symptoms

A 2020 systematic review and meta-analysis of 18 RCTs investigated the effect of home-based physical activity on several markers of behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia (BPSD). These symptoms were measured using the caregiver-completed neuropsychiatric inventory (NPI), which in­cludes agitation. There was substantial heterogeneity between trials; however, 4 RCTs (472 patients) were included in a meta-­analysis of the NPI. These RCTs were nonblinded, given the nature of the intervention.¹

Interventions to enhance physical activity ranged from 12 weeks to 2 years in duration, with 2 to 8 contacts from the study team per week. The type of physical activity varied and included cardiorespiratory endurance, balance training, resistance training, and activities of daily living training.¹

Exercise was associated with significantly fewer symptoms on the NPI, although the effect size was small (standard mean difference [SMD] = –0.37; 95% CI, –0.57 to –0.17). Heterogeneity in the interventions and assessments were limitations to this meta-analysis.¹

A 2015 systematic review and meta-­analysis of 18 RCTs compared the effect of exercise interventions against a control group for the treatment of BPSD, utilizing 10 behavioral and 2 neurovegetative components of the NPI (each scored from 0 to 5) in patients with dementia. Studies were included if they used ≥ 1 exercise intervention compared to a control or usual care group without additional exercise recommendations. Thirteen studies had a multicomponent training intervention (≥ 2 exercise types grouped together in the same training session), 2 used tai chi, 4 used walking, and 1 used dance and movement therapy. These RCTs were conducted in a variety of settings, including community-dwelling and long-term care facilities (n = 6427 patients).²

Exercise did not reduce global BPSD (N = 4441 patients), with a weighted mean difference (WMD) of −3.9 (95% CI, −9.0 to 1.2; P = .13). Exploratory analysis did not show improvement in aberrant motor behavior with exercise (WMD = –0.55; 95% CI, –1.10 to 0.001; P = .05). Limitations of this review included the small number of studies, heterogeneity of the population, and limitations in data accessibility.²

A 2017 hospital-based RCT evaluated the effects of a short-term exercise program on neuropsychiatric signs and symptoms in patients with dementia in 3 specialized dementia care wards (N = 85). Patients had a diagnosis of dementia, minimum length of stay of 1 week, no delirium, and the ability to perform the Timed Up and Go Test. The intervention group included a 2-week exercise program of four 20-minute exercise sessions per day on 3 days per week, involving strengthening or endurance exercises, in addition to treatment as usual. The control group included a 2-week period of social-stimulation programs consisting of table games for 120 minutes per week, in addition to treatment as usual.³

Exercise remains a small tool to address a big problem.

Of 85 patients randomized, 15 (18%) were lost to follow-up (14 of whom were discharged early from the hospital). Among the 70 patients included in the final analysis, the mean age was 80 years; 47% were female and 53% male; and the mean Mini-Mental Status Examination score was 18.3 (≤ 23 indicates dementia). In both groups, most patients had moderate dementia, moderate neuropsychiatric signs and symptoms, and a low level of psychotic symptoms. Patients in the intervention group had a higher adherence rate compared with those in the control group.³

Continue to: The primary outcome...

The primary outcome was neuropsychiatric signs and symptoms as measured by the Alzheimer’s Disease Cooperative Study–­Clinical Global Impression of Change (ADCS-CGIC). Compared to the control group, the intervention group experienced greater improvement on the ADCS-CGIC dimensions of emotional agitation (SMD = –0.9; P < .001), lability (SMD = –1.1; P < .001), psychomotor agitation (SMD = –0.7; P = .01), and verbal aggression (SMD = –0.5; P = .04). However, there were no differences between groups in the physical aggression dimension. Trial limitations included potential impact of the drop-out rate and possible blinding issues, as nursing staff performing assessments could have seen to which group a patient was allocated.³

A 2016 factorial cluster RCT of 16 nursing homes (with at least 60% of the population having dementia) compared the use of ­person-centered care vs person-centered care plus at least 1 randomly assigned additional intervention (eg, antipsychotic medication use review, social interaction interventions, and exercise over a period of 9 months) (n = 277, with 193 analyzed per protocol). Exercise was implemented at 1 hour per week or at an increase of 20% above baseline and compared with a control group with no change in exercise.⁴

Exercise significantly improved neuropsychiatric symptoms. The baseline NPI score of 14.54 improved by –3.59 (95% CI, –7.08 to –0.09; P < .05). However, none of the study interventions significantly improved the agitation-specific scores. The primary limitation of this study was that antipsychotic prescribing was at the discretion of the provider and not according to a protocol. In addition, the authors noted that the trial was inadequately powered to correct for testing 3 primary outcomes.⁴

Editor’s takeaway

Dementia and dementia with agitation are challenging conditions to treat. Disappointingly, physical exercise had inconsistent and generally minimal effect on agitation in dementia. Nevertheless, exercise had other positive effects. So, considering the benefits that exercise does provide, its low cost, and its limited adverse effects, exercise remains a small tool to address a big problem.

Evidence summary

Mixed results on exercise’s effect on neuropsychiatric symptoms

A 2020 systematic review and meta-analysis of 18 RCTs investigated the effect of home-based physical activity on several markers of behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia (BPSD). These symptoms were measured using the caregiver-completed neuropsychiatric inventory (NPI), which in­cludes agitation. There was substantial heterogeneity between trials; however, 4 RCTs (472 patients) were included in a meta-­analysis of the NPI. These RCTs were nonblinded, given the nature of the intervention.¹

Interventions to enhance physical activity ranged from 12 weeks to 2 years in duration, with 2 to 8 contacts from the study team per week. The type of physical activity varied and included cardiorespiratory endurance, balance training, resistance training, and activities of daily living training.¹

Exercise was associated with significantly fewer symptoms on the NPI, although the effect size was small (standard mean difference [SMD] = –0.37; 95% CI, –0.57 to –0.17). Heterogeneity in the interventions and assessments were limitations to this meta-analysis.¹

A 2015 systematic review and meta-­analysis of 18 RCTs compared the effect of exercise interventions against a control group for the treatment of BPSD, utilizing 10 behavioral and 2 neurovegetative components of the NPI (each scored from 0 to 5) in patients with dementia. Studies were included if they used ≥ 1 exercise intervention compared to a control or usual care group without additional exercise recommendations. Thirteen studies had a multicomponent training intervention (≥ 2 exercise types grouped together in the same training session), 2 used tai chi, 4 used walking, and 1 used dance and movement therapy. These RCTs were conducted in a variety of settings, including community-dwelling and long-term care facilities (n = 6427 patients).²

Exercise did not reduce global BPSD (N = 4441 patients), with a weighted mean difference (WMD) of −3.9 (95% CI, −9.0 to 1.2; P = .13). Exploratory analysis did not show improvement in aberrant motor behavior with exercise (WMD = –0.55; 95% CI, –1.10 to 0.001; P = .05). Limitations of this review included the small number of studies, heterogeneity of the population, and limitations in data accessibility.²

A 2017 hospital-based RCT evaluated the effects of a short-term exercise program on neuropsychiatric signs and symptoms in patients with dementia in 3 specialized dementia care wards (N = 85). Patients had a diagnosis of dementia, minimum length of stay of 1 week, no delirium, and the ability to perform the Timed Up and Go Test. The intervention group included a 2-week exercise program of four 20-minute exercise sessions per day on 3 days per week, involving strengthening or endurance exercises, in addition to treatment as usual. The control group included a 2-week period of social-stimulation programs consisting of table games for 120 minutes per week, in addition to treatment as usual.³

Exercise remains a small tool to address a big problem.

Of 85 patients randomized, 15 (18%) were lost to follow-up (14 of whom were discharged early from the hospital). Among the 70 patients included in the final analysis, the mean age was 80 years; 47% were female and 53% male; and the mean Mini-Mental Status Examination score was 18.3 (≤ 23 indicates dementia). In both groups, most patients had moderate dementia, moderate neuropsychiatric signs and symptoms, and a low level of psychotic symptoms. Patients in the intervention group had a higher adherence rate compared with those in the control group.³

Continue to: The primary outcome...

The primary outcome was neuropsychiatric signs and symptoms as measured by the Alzheimer’s Disease Cooperative Study–­Clinical Global Impression of Change (ADCS-CGIC). Compared to the control group, the intervention group experienced greater improvement on the ADCS-CGIC dimensions of emotional agitation (SMD = –0.9; P < .001), lability (SMD = –1.1; P < .001), psychomotor agitation (SMD = –0.7; P = .01), and verbal aggression (SMD = –0.5; P = .04). However, there were no differences between groups in the physical aggression dimension. Trial limitations included potential impact of the drop-out rate and possible blinding issues, as nursing staff performing assessments could have seen to which group a patient was allocated.³

A 2016 factorial cluster RCT of 16 nursing homes (with at least 60% of the population having dementia) compared the use of ­person-centered care vs person-centered care plus at least 1 randomly assigned additional intervention (eg, antipsychotic medication use review, social interaction interventions, and exercise over a period of 9 months) (n = 277, with 193 analyzed per protocol). Exercise was implemented at 1 hour per week or at an increase of 20% above baseline and compared with a control group with no change in exercise.⁴

Exercise significantly improved neuropsychiatric symptoms. The baseline NPI score of 14.54 improved by –3.59 (95% CI, –7.08 to –0.09; P < .05). However, none of the study interventions significantly improved the agitation-specific scores. The primary limitation of this study was that antipsychotic prescribing was at the discretion of the provider and not according to a protocol. In addition, the authors noted that the trial was inadequately powered to correct for testing 3 primary outcomes.⁴

Editor’s takeaway

Dementia and dementia with agitation are challenging conditions to treat. Disappointingly, physical exercise had inconsistent and generally minimal effect on agitation in dementia. Nevertheless, exercise had other positive effects. So, considering the benefits that exercise does provide, its low cost, and its limited adverse effects, exercise remains a small tool to address a big problem.