User login
Study spotlights clinicopathologic features, survival outcomes of pediatric melanoma
.
“Cutaneous melanomas are rare in children and much less common in adolescents than in later life,” researchers led by Mary-Ann El Sharouni, PhD, wrote in the study, which was published online in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology. “Management of these young patients currently follows guidelines developed for adults. Better understanding of melanoma occurring in the first 2 decades of life is, therefore, warranted.”
Drawing from two datasets – one from the Netherlands and the other from Melanoma Institute Australia (MIA) at the University of Sydney – Dr. El Sharouni of the MIA and of the department of dermatology at University Medical Center Utrecht in the Netherlands, and colleagues, evaluated all patients younger than 20 years of age who were diagnosed with invasive melanoma between January 2000 and December 2014. The pooled cohort included 397 Dutch and 117 Australian individuals. Of these, 62 were children and 452 were adolescents. To determine melanoma subtypes, the researchers reevaluated pathology reports and used multivariate Cox models to calculate recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS).
The median Breslow thickness was 2.7 mm in children and 1.0 mm in adolescents. Most patients (83%) had conventional melanoma, which consisted of superficial spreading, nodular, desmoplastic, and acral lentiginous forms, while 78 had spitzoid melanoma and 8 had melanoma associated with a congenital nevus. The 10-year RFS was 91.5% in children and 86.4% in adolescents (P =.32), while the 10-year OS was 100% in children and 92.7% in adolescents (P = .09).
On multivariable analysis, which was possible only for the adolescent cohort because of the small number of children, ulceration status and anatomic site were associated with RFS and OS, whereas age, sex, mitotic index, sentinel node status, and melanoma subtype were not. Breslow thickness > 4 mm was associated with worse RFS. As for affected anatomic site, those with melanomas located on the upper and lower limbs had a better overall RFS and OS compared with those who had head or neck melanomas.
The authors acknowledged certain limitation of the analysis, including its retrospective design and the small number of children. “Our data suggest that adolescent melanomas are often similar to adult-type melanomas, whilst those which occur in young children frequently occur via different molecular mechanisms,” they concluded. “In the future it is likely that further understanding of these molecular mechanisms and ability to classify melanomas based on their molecular characteristics will assist in further refining prognostic estimates and possible guiding treatment for young patients with melanoma.”
Rebecca M. Thiede, MD, assistant program director of the division of dermatology at the University of Arizona, Tucson, who was asked to comment on the study, said that the analysis “greatly contributes to dermatology, as we are still learning the differences between melanoma in children and adolescents versus adults.
This study found that adolescents with melanoma had worse survival if mitosis were present and/or located on head/neck, which could aid in aggressiveness of treatment.”
A key strength of analysis, she continued, is the large sample size of 514 patients, “given that melanoma in this population is very rare. A limitation which [the researchers] brought up is the discrepancy of diagnosis via histopathology of melanoma in children versus adults. The study relied on the pathology report given the retrospective nature of this [analysis, and it] was based on Australian and Dutch populations, which may limit its scope in other countries.”
Dr. El Sharouni was supported by a research fellowship grant from the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV), while two of her coauthors, Richard A. Scolyer, MD, and John F. Thompson, MD, were recipients of an Australian National Health and Medical Research Council Program Grant. The study was also supported by a research program grant from Cancer Institute New South Wales. Dr. Thiede reported having no financial disclosures.
.
“Cutaneous melanomas are rare in children and much less common in adolescents than in later life,” researchers led by Mary-Ann El Sharouni, PhD, wrote in the study, which was published online in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology. “Management of these young patients currently follows guidelines developed for adults. Better understanding of melanoma occurring in the first 2 decades of life is, therefore, warranted.”
Drawing from two datasets – one from the Netherlands and the other from Melanoma Institute Australia (MIA) at the University of Sydney – Dr. El Sharouni of the MIA and of the department of dermatology at University Medical Center Utrecht in the Netherlands, and colleagues, evaluated all patients younger than 20 years of age who were diagnosed with invasive melanoma between January 2000 and December 2014. The pooled cohort included 397 Dutch and 117 Australian individuals. Of these, 62 were children and 452 were adolescents. To determine melanoma subtypes, the researchers reevaluated pathology reports and used multivariate Cox models to calculate recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS).
The median Breslow thickness was 2.7 mm in children and 1.0 mm in adolescents. Most patients (83%) had conventional melanoma, which consisted of superficial spreading, nodular, desmoplastic, and acral lentiginous forms, while 78 had spitzoid melanoma and 8 had melanoma associated with a congenital nevus. The 10-year RFS was 91.5% in children and 86.4% in adolescents (P =.32), while the 10-year OS was 100% in children and 92.7% in adolescents (P = .09).
On multivariable analysis, which was possible only for the adolescent cohort because of the small number of children, ulceration status and anatomic site were associated with RFS and OS, whereas age, sex, mitotic index, sentinel node status, and melanoma subtype were not. Breslow thickness > 4 mm was associated with worse RFS. As for affected anatomic site, those with melanomas located on the upper and lower limbs had a better overall RFS and OS compared with those who had head or neck melanomas.
The authors acknowledged certain limitation of the analysis, including its retrospective design and the small number of children. “Our data suggest that adolescent melanomas are often similar to adult-type melanomas, whilst those which occur in young children frequently occur via different molecular mechanisms,” they concluded. “In the future it is likely that further understanding of these molecular mechanisms and ability to classify melanomas based on their molecular characteristics will assist in further refining prognostic estimates and possible guiding treatment for young patients with melanoma.”
Rebecca M. Thiede, MD, assistant program director of the division of dermatology at the University of Arizona, Tucson, who was asked to comment on the study, said that the analysis “greatly contributes to dermatology, as we are still learning the differences between melanoma in children and adolescents versus adults.
This study found that adolescents with melanoma had worse survival if mitosis were present and/or located on head/neck, which could aid in aggressiveness of treatment.”
A key strength of analysis, she continued, is the large sample size of 514 patients, “given that melanoma in this population is very rare. A limitation which [the researchers] brought up is the discrepancy of diagnosis via histopathology of melanoma in children versus adults. The study relied on the pathology report given the retrospective nature of this [analysis, and it] was based on Australian and Dutch populations, which may limit its scope in other countries.”
Dr. El Sharouni was supported by a research fellowship grant from the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV), while two of her coauthors, Richard A. Scolyer, MD, and John F. Thompson, MD, were recipients of an Australian National Health and Medical Research Council Program Grant. The study was also supported by a research program grant from Cancer Institute New South Wales. Dr. Thiede reported having no financial disclosures.
.
“Cutaneous melanomas are rare in children and much less common in adolescents than in later life,” researchers led by Mary-Ann El Sharouni, PhD, wrote in the study, which was published online in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology. “Management of these young patients currently follows guidelines developed for adults. Better understanding of melanoma occurring in the first 2 decades of life is, therefore, warranted.”
Drawing from two datasets – one from the Netherlands and the other from Melanoma Institute Australia (MIA) at the University of Sydney – Dr. El Sharouni of the MIA and of the department of dermatology at University Medical Center Utrecht in the Netherlands, and colleagues, evaluated all patients younger than 20 years of age who were diagnosed with invasive melanoma between January 2000 and December 2014. The pooled cohort included 397 Dutch and 117 Australian individuals. Of these, 62 were children and 452 were adolescents. To determine melanoma subtypes, the researchers reevaluated pathology reports and used multivariate Cox models to calculate recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS).
The median Breslow thickness was 2.7 mm in children and 1.0 mm in adolescents. Most patients (83%) had conventional melanoma, which consisted of superficial spreading, nodular, desmoplastic, and acral lentiginous forms, while 78 had spitzoid melanoma and 8 had melanoma associated with a congenital nevus. The 10-year RFS was 91.5% in children and 86.4% in adolescents (P =.32), while the 10-year OS was 100% in children and 92.7% in adolescents (P = .09).
On multivariable analysis, which was possible only for the adolescent cohort because of the small number of children, ulceration status and anatomic site were associated with RFS and OS, whereas age, sex, mitotic index, sentinel node status, and melanoma subtype were not. Breslow thickness > 4 mm was associated with worse RFS. As for affected anatomic site, those with melanomas located on the upper and lower limbs had a better overall RFS and OS compared with those who had head or neck melanomas.
The authors acknowledged certain limitation of the analysis, including its retrospective design and the small number of children. “Our data suggest that adolescent melanomas are often similar to adult-type melanomas, whilst those which occur in young children frequently occur via different molecular mechanisms,” they concluded. “In the future it is likely that further understanding of these molecular mechanisms and ability to classify melanomas based on their molecular characteristics will assist in further refining prognostic estimates and possible guiding treatment for young patients with melanoma.”
Rebecca M. Thiede, MD, assistant program director of the division of dermatology at the University of Arizona, Tucson, who was asked to comment on the study, said that the analysis “greatly contributes to dermatology, as we are still learning the differences between melanoma in children and adolescents versus adults.
This study found that adolescents with melanoma had worse survival if mitosis were present and/or located on head/neck, which could aid in aggressiveness of treatment.”
A key strength of analysis, she continued, is the large sample size of 514 patients, “given that melanoma in this population is very rare. A limitation which [the researchers] brought up is the discrepancy of diagnosis via histopathology of melanoma in children versus adults. The study relied on the pathology report given the retrospective nature of this [analysis, and it] was based on Australian and Dutch populations, which may limit its scope in other countries.”
Dr. El Sharouni was supported by a research fellowship grant from the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV), while two of her coauthors, Richard A. Scolyer, MD, and John F. Thompson, MD, were recipients of an Australian National Health and Medical Research Council Program Grant. The study was also supported by a research program grant from Cancer Institute New South Wales. Dr. Thiede reported having no financial disclosures.
FROM THE JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY OF DERMATOLOGY
ADHD beyond medications
Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is often a very challenging condition for parents to manage, both because of the “gleeful mayhem” children with ADHD manifest and because of the nature of effective treatments. Multiple randomized controlled studies and meta-analyses have demonstrated that stimulant medication with behavioral interventions is the optimal first-line treatment for children with both subtypes of ADHD, and that medications alone are superior to behavioral interventions alone. By improving attention and impulse control, the medications effectively decrease the many negative interactions with teachers, peers, and parents, aiding development and healthy self-esteem.
But many parents feel anxious about treating their young children with stimulants. Importantly, how children with ADHD will fare as adults is not predicted by their symptom level, but instead by the quality of their relationships with their parents, their ability to perform at school, and their social skills. Bring this framework to parents as you listen to their questions and help them decide on the best approach for their family. To assist you in these conversations, we will review the evidence for (or against) several of the most common alternatives to medication that parents are likely to ask about.
Diets and supplements
Dietary modifications are among the most popular “natural” approaches to managing ADHD in children. Diets that eliminate processed sugars or food additives (particularly artificial food coloring) are among the most common approaches discussed in the lay press. These diets are usually very time-consuming and disruptive for families to follow, and there is no evidence to support their general use in ADHD management. Those studies that rigorously examined them suggest that, for children with severe impairment who have failed to respond to medications for ADHD, a workup for food intolerance or nutritional deficits may reveal a different problem underlying their behavioral difficulties.1
Similarly, supplementation with high-dose omega-3 fatty acids is modestly helpful only in a subset of children with ADHD symptoms, and not nearly as effective as medications or behavioral interventions. Spending time on an exacting diet or buying expensive supplements is very unlikely to relieve the children’s symptoms and may only add to their stress at home. The “sugar high” parents note may be the rare joy of eating a candy bar and not sugar causing ADHD. Offer parents the guidance to focus on a healthy diet, high in fruits and vegetables, whole grains, and healthy protein, and on meals that emphasize family time instead of struggles around food.
Neurofeedback
Neurofeedback is an approach that grew out of the observation that many adults with ADHD had resting patterns of brain wave activity different from those of neurotypical adults. In neurofeedback, patients learn strategies that amplify the brain waves associated with focused mental activity, rather than listless or hyperactive states. Businesses market this service for all sorts of illnesses and challenges, ADHD chief among them. Despite the marketing, there are very few randomized controlled studies of this intervention for ADHD in youth, and those have shown only the possibility of a benefit.
While there is no evidence of serious side effects, these treatments are time-consuming and expensive and unlikely to be covered by any insurance. You might suggest to parents that they could achieve some of the same theoretical benefits by looking for hobbies that invite sustained focus in their children. That is, they should think about activities that interest the children, such as music lessons or karate, that they could practice in classes and at home. If the children find these activities even somewhat interesting (or just enjoy the reward of their parents’ or teachers’ attention), regular practice will be supporting their developing attention while building social skills and authentic self-confidence, rather than the activities feeling like a treatment for an illness or condition.
Sleep and exercise
There are not many businesses or books selling worried and exhausted parents a quick nonmedication solution for their children’s ADHD in the form of healthy sleep and exercise habits. But these are safe and healthy ways to reduce symptoms and support development. Children with ADHD often enjoy and benefit from participating in a sport, and daily exercise can help with sleep and regulating their energy. They also often have difficulty with sleep initiation, and commonly do not get adequate or restful sleep. Inadequate sleep exacerbates inattention, distractibility, and irritability. Children with untreated ADHD also often spend a lot of time on screens, as it is difficult for them to shift away from rewarding activities, and parents can find screen time to be a welcome break from hyperactivity and negative interactions. But excessive screen time, especially close to bedtime, can worsen irritability and make sleep more difficult. Talk with parents about the value of establishing a routine around screen time, modest daily physical activity, and sleep that everyone can follow. If their family life is currently marked by late bedtimes and long hours in front of video games, this change will take effort. But within a few weeks, it could lead to significant improvements in energy, attention, and interactions at home.
Behavioral treatments
Effective behavioral treatments for ADHD do not change ADHD symptoms, but they do help children learn how to manage them. In “parent management training,” younger children and parents learn together how to avoid negative cycles of behavior (i.e., temper outbursts) by focusing on consistent routines and consequences that support children calmly learning to manage their impulses. The only other evidence-based treatment focuses on helping school age and older children develop executive functions – their planning, organization, and time management skills – with a range of age-appropriate tools. Both of these therapies may be more effective if the children are also receiving medication, but medication is not necessary for them to be helpful. It is important to note that play therapy and other evidence-based psychotherapies are not effective for management of ADHD, although they may treat comorbid problems.
Parent treatment
You may have diagnosed children with ADHD only to hear their parents respond by saying that they suspect (or know) that they (or their spouses) also have ADHD. This would not be surprising, as ADHD has one of the highest rates of heritability of psychiatric disorders, at 80%. Somewhere between 25% and 50% of parents of children with ADHD have ADHD themselves.2 Screening for adults with ADHD, such as the Adult ADHD Self-Report Scale, is widely available and free. Speak with parents about the fact that behavioral treatments for their children’s ADHD are demanding. Such treatments require patience, calm, organization, and consistency.
If parents have ADHD, it may be very helpful for them to prioritize their own effective treatments, so that their attention and impulse control will support their parenting. They may be interested in learning about how treatment might also improve their performance at work and even the quality of their relationships. While there is some evidence that their children’s treatment outcome will hinge on the parents’ treatment,3 they deserve good care independent of the expectations of parenting.
Families benefit from a comprehensive “ADHD plan” for their children. This would start with an assessment of the severity of their children’s symptoms, specifying their impairment at home, school, and in social relationships. It would include their nonacademic performance, exploration of interests, and developing self-confidence. All of these considerations lead to setting reasonable expectations so the children can feel successful. Parents should think about how best to structure their children’s schedules to promote healthy sleep, exercise, and nutrition, and to expand opportunities for building their frustration tolerance, social skills, and executive function.
Parents will need to consider what kind of supports they themselves need to offer this structure. There are good resources available online for information and support, including Children and Adults with ADHD (chadd.org) and the ADHD Resource Center from the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (aacap.org). This approach may help parents to evaluate the potential risks and benefits of medications as a component of treatment. Most of the quick fixes for childhood ADHD on the market will take a family’s time and money without providing meaningful improvement. Parents should focus instead on the tried-and-true routines and supports that will help them to create the setting at home that will enable their children to flourish.
Dr. Swick is physician in chief at Ohana, Center for Child and Adolescent Behavioral Health, Community Hospital of the Monterey (Calif.) Peninsula. Dr. Jellinek is professor emeritus of psychiatry and pediatrics, Harvard Medical School, Boston. Email them at [email protected].
References
1. Millichap JG and Yee MM. Pediatrics. 2012 Feb;129(2):330-7.
2. Grimm O et al. Curr Psychiatry Rep. 2020 Feb 27;22(4):18.
3. Chronis-Tuscano A et al. J Abnorm Child Psychol. 2017 Apr;45(3):501-7.
Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is often a very challenging condition for parents to manage, both because of the “gleeful mayhem” children with ADHD manifest and because of the nature of effective treatments. Multiple randomized controlled studies and meta-analyses have demonstrated that stimulant medication with behavioral interventions is the optimal first-line treatment for children with both subtypes of ADHD, and that medications alone are superior to behavioral interventions alone. By improving attention and impulse control, the medications effectively decrease the many negative interactions with teachers, peers, and parents, aiding development and healthy self-esteem.
But many parents feel anxious about treating their young children with stimulants. Importantly, how children with ADHD will fare as adults is not predicted by their symptom level, but instead by the quality of their relationships with their parents, their ability to perform at school, and their social skills. Bring this framework to parents as you listen to their questions and help them decide on the best approach for their family. To assist you in these conversations, we will review the evidence for (or against) several of the most common alternatives to medication that parents are likely to ask about.
Diets and supplements
Dietary modifications are among the most popular “natural” approaches to managing ADHD in children. Diets that eliminate processed sugars or food additives (particularly artificial food coloring) are among the most common approaches discussed in the lay press. These diets are usually very time-consuming and disruptive for families to follow, and there is no evidence to support their general use in ADHD management. Those studies that rigorously examined them suggest that, for children with severe impairment who have failed to respond to medications for ADHD, a workup for food intolerance or nutritional deficits may reveal a different problem underlying their behavioral difficulties.1
Similarly, supplementation with high-dose omega-3 fatty acids is modestly helpful only in a subset of children with ADHD symptoms, and not nearly as effective as medications or behavioral interventions. Spending time on an exacting diet or buying expensive supplements is very unlikely to relieve the children’s symptoms and may only add to their stress at home. The “sugar high” parents note may be the rare joy of eating a candy bar and not sugar causing ADHD. Offer parents the guidance to focus on a healthy diet, high in fruits and vegetables, whole grains, and healthy protein, and on meals that emphasize family time instead of struggles around food.
Neurofeedback
Neurofeedback is an approach that grew out of the observation that many adults with ADHD had resting patterns of brain wave activity different from those of neurotypical adults. In neurofeedback, patients learn strategies that amplify the brain waves associated with focused mental activity, rather than listless or hyperactive states. Businesses market this service for all sorts of illnesses and challenges, ADHD chief among them. Despite the marketing, there are very few randomized controlled studies of this intervention for ADHD in youth, and those have shown only the possibility of a benefit.
While there is no evidence of serious side effects, these treatments are time-consuming and expensive and unlikely to be covered by any insurance. You might suggest to parents that they could achieve some of the same theoretical benefits by looking for hobbies that invite sustained focus in their children. That is, they should think about activities that interest the children, such as music lessons or karate, that they could practice in classes and at home. If the children find these activities even somewhat interesting (or just enjoy the reward of their parents’ or teachers’ attention), regular practice will be supporting their developing attention while building social skills and authentic self-confidence, rather than the activities feeling like a treatment for an illness or condition.
Sleep and exercise
There are not many businesses or books selling worried and exhausted parents a quick nonmedication solution for their children’s ADHD in the form of healthy sleep and exercise habits. But these are safe and healthy ways to reduce symptoms and support development. Children with ADHD often enjoy and benefit from participating in a sport, and daily exercise can help with sleep and regulating their energy. They also often have difficulty with sleep initiation, and commonly do not get adequate or restful sleep. Inadequate sleep exacerbates inattention, distractibility, and irritability. Children with untreated ADHD also often spend a lot of time on screens, as it is difficult for them to shift away from rewarding activities, and parents can find screen time to be a welcome break from hyperactivity and negative interactions. But excessive screen time, especially close to bedtime, can worsen irritability and make sleep more difficult. Talk with parents about the value of establishing a routine around screen time, modest daily physical activity, and sleep that everyone can follow. If their family life is currently marked by late bedtimes and long hours in front of video games, this change will take effort. But within a few weeks, it could lead to significant improvements in energy, attention, and interactions at home.
Behavioral treatments
Effective behavioral treatments for ADHD do not change ADHD symptoms, but they do help children learn how to manage them. In “parent management training,” younger children and parents learn together how to avoid negative cycles of behavior (i.e., temper outbursts) by focusing on consistent routines and consequences that support children calmly learning to manage their impulses. The only other evidence-based treatment focuses on helping school age and older children develop executive functions – their planning, organization, and time management skills – with a range of age-appropriate tools. Both of these therapies may be more effective if the children are also receiving medication, but medication is not necessary for them to be helpful. It is important to note that play therapy and other evidence-based psychotherapies are not effective for management of ADHD, although they may treat comorbid problems.
Parent treatment
You may have diagnosed children with ADHD only to hear their parents respond by saying that they suspect (or know) that they (or their spouses) also have ADHD. This would not be surprising, as ADHD has one of the highest rates of heritability of psychiatric disorders, at 80%. Somewhere between 25% and 50% of parents of children with ADHD have ADHD themselves.2 Screening for adults with ADHD, such as the Adult ADHD Self-Report Scale, is widely available and free. Speak with parents about the fact that behavioral treatments for their children’s ADHD are demanding. Such treatments require patience, calm, organization, and consistency.
If parents have ADHD, it may be very helpful for them to prioritize their own effective treatments, so that their attention and impulse control will support their parenting. They may be interested in learning about how treatment might also improve their performance at work and even the quality of their relationships. While there is some evidence that their children’s treatment outcome will hinge on the parents’ treatment,3 they deserve good care independent of the expectations of parenting.
Families benefit from a comprehensive “ADHD plan” for their children. This would start with an assessment of the severity of their children’s symptoms, specifying their impairment at home, school, and in social relationships. It would include their nonacademic performance, exploration of interests, and developing self-confidence. All of these considerations lead to setting reasonable expectations so the children can feel successful. Parents should think about how best to structure their children’s schedules to promote healthy sleep, exercise, and nutrition, and to expand opportunities for building their frustration tolerance, social skills, and executive function.
Parents will need to consider what kind of supports they themselves need to offer this structure. There are good resources available online for information and support, including Children and Adults with ADHD (chadd.org) and the ADHD Resource Center from the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (aacap.org). This approach may help parents to evaluate the potential risks and benefits of medications as a component of treatment. Most of the quick fixes for childhood ADHD on the market will take a family’s time and money without providing meaningful improvement. Parents should focus instead on the tried-and-true routines and supports that will help them to create the setting at home that will enable their children to flourish.
Dr. Swick is physician in chief at Ohana, Center for Child and Adolescent Behavioral Health, Community Hospital of the Monterey (Calif.) Peninsula. Dr. Jellinek is professor emeritus of psychiatry and pediatrics, Harvard Medical School, Boston. Email them at [email protected].
References
1. Millichap JG and Yee MM. Pediatrics. 2012 Feb;129(2):330-7.
2. Grimm O et al. Curr Psychiatry Rep. 2020 Feb 27;22(4):18.
3. Chronis-Tuscano A et al. J Abnorm Child Psychol. 2017 Apr;45(3):501-7.
Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is often a very challenging condition for parents to manage, both because of the “gleeful mayhem” children with ADHD manifest and because of the nature of effective treatments. Multiple randomized controlled studies and meta-analyses have demonstrated that stimulant medication with behavioral interventions is the optimal first-line treatment for children with both subtypes of ADHD, and that medications alone are superior to behavioral interventions alone. By improving attention and impulse control, the medications effectively decrease the many negative interactions with teachers, peers, and parents, aiding development and healthy self-esteem.
But many parents feel anxious about treating their young children with stimulants. Importantly, how children with ADHD will fare as adults is not predicted by their symptom level, but instead by the quality of their relationships with their parents, their ability to perform at school, and their social skills. Bring this framework to parents as you listen to their questions and help them decide on the best approach for their family. To assist you in these conversations, we will review the evidence for (or against) several of the most common alternatives to medication that parents are likely to ask about.
Diets and supplements
Dietary modifications are among the most popular “natural” approaches to managing ADHD in children. Diets that eliminate processed sugars or food additives (particularly artificial food coloring) are among the most common approaches discussed in the lay press. These diets are usually very time-consuming and disruptive for families to follow, and there is no evidence to support their general use in ADHD management. Those studies that rigorously examined them suggest that, for children with severe impairment who have failed to respond to medications for ADHD, a workup for food intolerance or nutritional deficits may reveal a different problem underlying their behavioral difficulties.1
Similarly, supplementation with high-dose omega-3 fatty acids is modestly helpful only in a subset of children with ADHD symptoms, and not nearly as effective as medications or behavioral interventions. Spending time on an exacting diet or buying expensive supplements is very unlikely to relieve the children’s symptoms and may only add to their stress at home. The “sugar high” parents note may be the rare joy of eating a candy bar and not sugar causing ADHD. Offer parents the guidance to focus on a healthy diet, high in fruits and vegetables, whole grains, and healthy protein, and on meals that emphasize family time instead of struggles around food.
Neurofeedback
Neurofeedback is an approach that grew out of the observation that many adults with ADHD had resting patterns of brain wave activity different from those of neurotypical adults. In neurofeedback, patients learn strategies that amplify the brain waves associated with focused mental activity, rather than listless or hyperactive states. Businesses market this service for all sorts of illnesses and challenges, ADHD chief among them. Despite the marketing, there are very few randomized controlled studies of this intervention for ADHD in youth, and those have shown only the possibility of a benefit.
While there is no evidence of serious side effects, these treatments are time-consuming and expensive and unlikely to be covered by any insurance. You might suggest to parents that they could achieve some of the same theoretical benefits by looking for hobbies that invite sustained focus in their children. That is, they should think about activities that interest the children, such as music lessons or karate, that they could practice in classes and at home. If the children find these activities even somewhat interesting (or just enjoy the reward of their parents’ or teachers’ attention), regular practice will be supporting their developing attention while building social skills and authentic self-confidence, rather than the activities feeling like a treatment for an illness or condition.
Sleep and exercise
There are not many businesses or books selling worried and exhausted parents a quick nonmedication solution for their children’s ADHD in the form of healthy sleep and exercise habits. But these are safe and healthy ways to reduce symptoms and support development. Children with ADHD often enjoy and benefit from participating in a sport, and daily exercise can help with sleep and regulating their energy. They also often have difficulty with sleep initiation, and commonly do not get adequate or restful sleep. Inadequate sleep exacerbates inattention, distractibility, and irritability. Children with untreated ADHD also often spend a lot of time on screens, as it is difficult for them to shift away from rewarding activities, and parents can find screen time to be a welcome break from hyperactivity and negative interactions. But excessive screen time, especially close to bedtime, can worsen irritability and make sleep more difficult. Talk with parents about the value of establishing a routine around screen time, modest daily physical activity, and sleep that everyone can follow. If their family life is currently marked by late bedtimes and long hours in front of video games, this change will take effort. But within a few weeks, it could lead to significant improvements in energy, attention, and interactions at home.
Behavioral treatments
Effective behavioral treatments for ADHD do not change ADHD symptoms, but they do help children learn how to manage them. In “parent management training,” younger children and parents learn together how to avoid negative cycles of behavior (i.e., temper outbursts) by focusing on consistent routines and consequences that support children calmly learning to manage their impulses. The only other evidence-based treatment focuses on helping school age and older children develop executive functions – their planning, organization, and time management skills – with a range of age-appropriate tools. Both of these therapies may be more effective if the children are also receiving medication, but medication is not necessary for them to be helpful. It is important to note that play therapy and other evidence-based psychotherapies are not effective for management of ADHD, although they may treat comorbid problems.
Parent treatment
You may have diagnosed children with ADHD only to hear their parents respond by saying that they suspect (or know) that they (or their spouses) also have ADHD. This would not be surprising, as ADHD has one of the highest rates of heritability of psychiatric disorders, at 80%. Somewhere between 25% and 50% of parents of children with ADHD have ADHD themselves.2 Screening for adults with ADHD, such as the Adult ADHD Self-Report Scale, is widely available and free. Speak with parents about the fact that behavioral treatments for their children’s ADHD are demanding. Such treatments require patience, calm, organization, and consistency.
If parents have ADHD, it may be very helpful for them to prioritize their own effective treatments, so that their attention and impulse control will support their parenting. They may be interested in learning about how treatment might also improve their performance at work and even the quality of their relationships. While there is some evidence that their children’s treatment outcome will hinge on the parents’ treatment,3 they deserve good care independent of the expectations of parenting.
Families benefit from a comprehensive “ADHD plan” for their children. This would start with an assessment of the severity of their children’s symptoms, specifying their impairment at home, school, and in social relationships. It would include their nonacademic performance, exploration of interests, and developing self-confidence. All of these considerations lead to setting reasonable expectations so the children can feel successful. Parents should think about how best to structure their children’s schedules to promote healthy sleep, exercise, and nutrition, and to expand opportunities for building their frustration tolerance, social skills, and executive function.
Parents will need to consider what kind of supports they themselves need to offer this structure. There are good resources available online for information and support, including Children and Adults with ADHD (chadd.org) and the ADHD Resource Center from the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (aacap.org). This approach may help parents to evaluate the potential risks and benefits of medications as a component of treatment. Most of the quick fixes for childhood ADHD on the market will take a family’s time and money without providing meaningful improvement. Parents should focus instead on the tried-and-true routines and supports that will help them to create the setting at home that will enable their children to flourish.
Dr. Swick is physician in chief at Ohana, Center for Child and Adolescent Behavioral Health, Community Hospital of the Monterey (Calif.) Peninsula. Dr. Jellinek is professor emeritus of psychiatry and pediatrics, Harvard Medical School, Boston. Email them at [email protected].
References
1. Millichap JG and Yee MM. Pediatrics. 2012 Feb;129(2):330-7.
2. Grimm O et al. Curr Psychiatry Rep. 2020 Feb 27;22(4):18.
3. Chronis-Tuscano A et al. J Abnorm Child Psychol. 2017 Apr;45(3):501-7.
New Omicron subvariant is ‘crazy infectious,’ COVID expert warns
“It’s crazy infectious,” said Paula Cannon, PhD, a virologist at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles. “All the things that have protected you for the past couple of years, I don’t think are going to protect you against this new crop of variants.”
XBB.1.5 is spreading quickly in the United States. It accounted for 27.6% of cases in the country in the week ending on Jan. 7, up from about 1% of cases at one point in December, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. It’s especially prevalent in the Northeast, now accounting for more than 70% of the cases in that region.
It’s spreading across the globe, too. Maria Van Kerkhove, PhD, technical lead of the World Health Organization, has called XBB.1.5 is “the most transmissible subvariant that has been detected yet.”
Ashish Jha, MD, the White House COVID-19 response coordinator, tweeted a few days ago that the spread of XBB.1.5 is “stunning” but cautioned that it’s unclear if the symptoms of infection will be more severe than for previous variants.
“Whether we’ll have an XBB.1.5 wave (and if yes, how big) will depend on many factors including immunity of the population, people’s actions, etc.,” he tweeted.
He urged people to get up to date on their boosters, wear a snug-fitting mask, and avoid crowded indoor spaces. He noted that people who haven’t been infected recently or haven’t gotten the bivalent booster likely have little protection against infection.
The symptoms for XBB.1.5 appear to be the same as for other versions of COVID-19. However, it’s less common for people infected with XBB.1.5 to report losing their sense of taste and smell, USA Today reported.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
“It’s crazy infectious,” said Paula Cannon, PhD, a virologist at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles. “All the things that have protected you for the past couple of years, I don’t think are going to protect you against this new crop of variants.”
XBB.1.5 is spreading quickly in the United States. It accounted for 27.6% of cases in the country in the week ending on Jan. 7, up from about 1% of cases at one point in December, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. It’s especially prevalent in the Northeast, now accounting for more than 70% of the cases in that region.
It’s spreading across the globe, too. Maria Van Kerkhove, PhD, technical lead of the World Health Organization, has called XBB.1.5 is “the most transmissible subvariant that has been detected yet.”
Ashish Jha, MD, the White House COVID-19 response coordinator, tweeted a few days ago that the spread of XBB.1.5 is “stunning” but cautioned that it’s unclear if the symptoms of infection will be more severe than for previous variants.
“Whether we’ll have an XBB.1.5 wave (and if yes, how big) will depend on many factors including immunity of the population, people’s actions, etc.,” he tweeted.
He urged people to get up to date on their boosters, wear a snug-fitting mask, and avoid crowded indoor spaces. He noted that people who haven’t been infected recently or haven’t gotten the bivalent booster likely have little protection against infection.
The symptoms for XBB.1.5 appear to be the same as for other versions of COVID-19. However, it’s less common for people infected with XBB.1.5 to report losing their sense of taste and smell, USA Today reported.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
“It’s crazy infectious,” said Paula Cannon, PhD, a virologist at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles. “All the things that have protected you for the past couple of years, I don’t think are going to protect you against this new crop of variants.”
XBB.1.5 is spreading quickly in the United States. It accounted for 27.6% of cases in the country in the week ending on Jan. 7, up from about 1% of cases at one point in December, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. It’s especially prevalent in the Northeast, now accounting for more than 70% of the cases in that region.
It’s spreading across the globe, too. Maria Van Kerkhove, PhD, technical lead of the World Health Organization, has called XBB.1.5 is “the most transmissible subvariant that has been detected yet.”
Ashish Jha, MD, the White House COVID-19 response coordinator, tweeted a few days ago that the spread of XBB.1.5 is “stunning” but cautioned that it’s unclear if the symptoms of infection will be more severe than for previous variants.
“Whether we’ll have an XBB.1.5 wave (and if yes, how big) will depend on many factors including immunity of the population, people’s actions, etc.,” he tweeted.
He urged people to get up to date on their boosters, wear a snug-fitting mask, and avoid crowded indoor spaces. He noted that people who haven’t been infected recently or haven’t gotten the bivalent booster likely have little protection against infection.
The symptoms for XBB.1.5 appear to be the same as for other versions of COVID-19. However, it’s less common for people infected with XBB.1.5 to report losing their sense of taste and smell, USA Today reported.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Autopsies show COVID virus invades entire body
A study on the subject was published in the journal Nature. The researchers completed autopsies from April 2020 to March 2021 of 44 unvaccinated people who had severe COVID-19. The median age was 62.5 years old, and 30% were female. Extensive brain sampling was done for 11 cases.
Because of its nature as a respiratory illness, SARS-CoV-2 was most widespread in the respiratory system such as in the lungs. But it was also found in 79 other body locations, including the heart, kidneys, liver, muscles, nerves, reproductive tract, and eyes.
The researchers said their work shows the SARS-CoV-2 “is capable of infecting and replicating within the human brain.” They also said their results indicate the virus spreads via the blood early during infection, which “seeds the virus throughout the body following infection of the respiratory tract.”
The authors noted that, while the virus was found outside the respiratory tract, they did not find signs of inflammation beyond the respiratory system.
The results will help narrow down treatments for long COVID, and particularly support the idea of using the antiviral drug Paxlovid to treat long COVID, according to a blog post from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. A clinical trial is already underway examining the treatment, and results are expected in January 2024.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
A study on the subject was published in the journal Nature. The researchers completed autopsies from April 2020 to March 2021 of 44 unvaccinated people who had severe COVID-19. The median age was 62.5 years old, and 30% were female. Extensive brain sampling was done for 11 cases.
Because of its nature as a respiratory illness, SARS-CoV-2 was most widespread in the respiratory system such as in the lungs. But it was also found in 79 other body locations, including the heart, kidneys, liver, muscles, nerves, reproductive tract, and eyes.
The researchers said their work shows the SARS-CoV-2 “is capable of infecting and replicating within the human brain.” They also said their results indicate the virus spreads via the blood early during infection, which “seeds the virus throughout the body following infection of the respiratory tract.”
The authors noted that, while the virus was found outside the respiratory tract, they did not find signs of inflammation beyond the respiratory system.
The results will help narrow down treatments for long COVID, and particularly support the idea of using the antiviral drug Paxlovid to treat long COVID, according to a blog post from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. A clinical trial is already underway examining the treatment, and results are expected in January 2024.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
A study on the subject was published in the journal Nature. The researchers completed autopsies from April 2020 to March 2021 of 44 unvaccinated people who had severe COVID-19. The median age was 62.5 years old, and 30% were female. Extensive brain sampling was done for 11 cases.
Because of its nature as a respiratory illness, SARS-CoV-2 was most widespread in the respiratory system such as in the lungs. But it was also found in 79 other body locations, including the heart, kidneys, liver, muscles, nerves, reproductive tract, and eyes.
The researchers said their work shows the SARS-CoV-2 “is capable of infecting and replicating within the human brain.” They also said their results indicate the virus spreads via the blood early during infection, which “seeds the virus throughout the body following infection of the respiratory tract.”
The authors noted that, while the virus was found outside the respiratory tract, they did not find signs of inflammation beyond the respiratory system.
The results will help narrow down treatments for long COVID, and particularly support the idea of using the antiviral drug Paxlovid to treat long COVID, according to a blog post from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. A clinical trial is already underway examining the treatment, and results are expected in January 2024.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
FROM NATURE
New study offers details on post-COVID pediatric illness
Multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) is more common than previously thought. This pediatric illness occurs 2-6 weeks after being infected with COVID-19.
a new study found. The illness is rare, but it causes dangerous multiorgan dysfunction and frequently requires a stay in the ICU. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, there have been at least 9,333 cases nationwide and 76 deaths from MIS-C.
Researchers said their findings were in such contrast to previous MIS-C research that it may render the old research “misleading.”
The analysis was powered by improved data extracted from hospital billing systems. Previous analyses of MIS-C were limited to voluntarily reported cases, which is likely the reason for the undercount.
The study reported a mortality rate for people with the most severe cases (affecting six to eight organs) of 5.8%. The authors of a companion editorial to the study said the mortality rate was low when considering the widespread impacts, “reflecting the rapid reversibility of MIS-C” with treatment.
Differences in MIS-C cases were also found based on children’s race and ethnicity. Black patients were more likely to have severe cases affecting more organs, compared to white patients.
The study included 4,107 MIS-C cases, using data from 2021 for patients younger than 21 years old. The median age was 9 years old.
The findings provide direction for further research, the editorial writers suggested.
Questions that need to be answered include asking why Black children with MIS-C are more likely to have a higher number of organ systems affected.
“Identifying patient biological or socioeconomic factors that can be targeted for treatment or prevention should be pursued,” they wrote.
The CDC says symptoms of MIS-C are an ongoing fever plus more than one of the following: stomach pain, bloodshot eyes, diarrhea, dizziness or lightheadedness (signs of low blood pressure), skin rash, or vomiting.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) is more common than previously thought. This pediatric illness occurs 2-6 weeks after being infected with COVID-19.
a new study found. The illness is rare, but it causes dangerous multiorgan dysfunction and frequently requires a stay in the ICU. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, there have been at least 9,333 cases nationwide and 76 deaths from MIS-C.
Researchers said their findings were in such contrast to previous MIS-C research that it may render the old research “misleading.”
The analysis was powered by improved data extracted from hospital billing systems. Previous analyses of MIS-C were limited to voluntarily reported cases, which is likely the reason for the undercount.
The study reported a mortality rate for people with the most severe cases (affecting six to eight organs) of 5.8%. The authors of a companion editorial to the study said the mortality rate was low when considering the widespread impacts, “reflecting the rapid reversibility of MIS-C” with treatment.
Differences in MIS-C cases were also found based on children’s race and ethnicity. Black patients were more likely to have severe cases affecting more organs, compared to white patients.
The study included 4,107 MIS-C cases, using data from 2021 for patients younger than 21 years old. The median age was 9 years old.
The findings provide direction for further research, the editorial writers suggested.
Questions that need to be answered include asking why Black children with MIS-C are more likely to have a higher number of organ systems affected.
“Identifying patient biological or socioeconomic factors that can be targeted for treatment or prevention should be pursued,” they wrote.
The CDC says symptoms of MIS-C are an ongoing fever plus more than one of the following: stomach pain, bloodshot eyes, diarrhea, dizziness or lightheadedness (signs of low blood pressure), skin rash, or vomiting.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) is more common than previously thought. This pediatric illness occurs 2-6 weeks after being infected with COVID-19.
a new study found. The illness is rare, but it causes dangerous multiorgan dysfunction and frequently requires a stay in the ICU. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, there have been at least 9,333 cases nationwide and 76 deaths from MIS-C.
Researchers said their findings were in such contrast to previous MIS-C research that it may render the old research “misleading.”
The analysis was powered by improved data extracted from hospital billing systems. Previous analyses of MIS-C were limited to voluntarily reported cases, which is likely the reason for the undercount.
The study reported a mortality rate for people with the most severe cases (affecting six to eight organs) of 5.8%. The authors of a companion editorial to the study said the mortality rate was low when considering the widespread impacts, “reflecting the rapid reversibility of MIS-C” with treatment.
Differences in MIS-C cases were also found based on children’s race and ethnicity. Black patients were more likely to have severe cases affecting more organs, compared to white patients.
The study included 4,107 MIS-C cases, using data from 2021 for patients younger than 21 years old. The median age was 9 years old.
The findings provide direction for further research, the editorial writers suggested.
Questions that need to be answered include asking why Black children with MIS-C are more likely to have a higher number of organ systems affected.
“Identifying patient biological or socioeconomic factors that can be targeted for treatment or prevention should be pursued,” they wrote.
The CDC says symptoms of MIS-C are an ongoing fever plus more than one of the following: stomach pain, bloodshot eyes, diarrhea, dizziness or lightheadedness (signs of low blood pressure), skin rash, or vomiting.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
FROM JAMA NETWORK OPEN
Expert panel forms strategy for eosinophilic esophagitis monitoring
“Follow-up should comprise symptom assessment and periodic or repeated endoscopy with histological assessment in specific EoE settings,” wrote Ulrike von Arnim, MD, from University Hospital Magdeburg (Germany), and an international team of colleagues in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.
Although medicine and diet can control EoE, there is presently no cure, and long-term management is needed to prevent recurrence and long-term effects such as esophageal remodeling, fibrosis, and stricture, the researchers said. Yet they could find no evidence-based recommendations for clinical monitoring of the condition.
With the participation of The International Gastrointestinal Eosinophil Researchers (TIGER) and the European Consortium for Eosinophilic Diseases of the GI Tract (EUREOS), they assembled a team of 18 gastroenterologists, pathologists, and allergists from the United States and Western Europe with expertise in the condition.
Almost all panelists had more than 10 years of subspecialty EoE care and more than five relevant research publications. All were members of TIGER or EUREOS. The panel met by video conferencing and responded to surveys to develop a consensus about why, by what means, and when to monitor patients with EoE.
The group reached 75% or greater agreement on 11 statements on these subjects.
Regular follow-ups are needed because they enable clinicians to detect whether treatments have stopped working, improve therapy adherence, and introduce patients to any new treatments that become available, while preventing gaps in care that can worsen outcomes, the group wrote.
Symptoms don’t give a precise indication of esophageal healing and shouldn’t be the sole measure for disease activity, the experts wrote. They recommended other approaches to monitoring, including biopsies. They also endorse the Endoscopic Reference Score as an outcome measure.
The panel recommended noninvasive tissue sampling, mentioning the esophageal string test and the Cytosponge as examples, but called for more research on these two techniques.
Blood markers, oral swabs, breath condensates, and stool and urine samples are not recommended as approaches for monitoring EoE, they wrote.
The optimal interval to measure the efficacy of a therapy is more difficult to decide, the panel noted.
“The clinician’s decision should take into account the clinical severity of the disease, estimated risk of imminent subsequent food impaction, presence of stenosis, as well as mode of action and reported outcome of the chosen medical, dietary, or mechanical treatment,” they wrote. Intervals from 6 to 24 weeks may be appropriate.
For diets and topical corticosteroids, they agreed on an interval of 8-12 weeks to confirm remission but say a longer time might be preferred for slower-acting therapies, such as monoclonal antibodies.
The panel had the most trouble reaching a consensus on how often to follow up on patients whose disease is in remission or is stable. They settled on 12 to 24 months after the last endoscopy. Any longer than 2 years risks missing increased disease activity, they wrote.
This follow-up should include assessment of symptoms and a gastrointestinal endoscopy in cases of relapse or suspected stricture, as well as when treatment modification is being considered or when assessment of histological activity is desired, the panel recommended.
Almost all the panelists disclosed financial relationships with pharmaceutical or medical device companies.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
“Follow-up should comprise symptom assessment and periodic or repeated endoscopy with histological assessment in specific EoE settings,” wrote Ulrike von Arnim, MD, from University Hospital Magdeburg (Germany), and an international team of colleagues in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.
Although medicine and diet can control EoE, there is presently no cure, and long-term management is needed to prevent recurrence and long-term effects such as esophageal remodeling, fibrosis, and stricture, the researchers said. Yet they could find no evidence-based recommendations for clinical monitoring of the condition.
With the participation of The International Gastrointestinal Eosinophil Researchers (TIGER) and the European Consortium for Eosinophilic Diseases of the GI Tract (EUREOS), they assembled a team of 18 gastroenterologists, pathologists, and allergists from the United States and Western Europe with expertise in the condition.
Almost all panelists had more than 10 years of subspecialty EoE care and more than five relevant research publications. All were members of TIGER or EUREOS. The panel met by video conferencing and responded to surveys to develop a consensus about why, by what means, and when to monitor patients with EoE.
The group reached 75% or greater agreement on 11 statements on these subjects.
Regular follow-ups are needed because they enable clinicians to detect whether treatments have stopped working, improve therapy adherence, and introduce patients to any new treatments that become available, while preventing gaps in care that can worsen outcomes, the group wrote.
Symptoms don’t give a precise indication of esophageal healing and shouldn’t be the sole measure for disease activity, the experts wrote. They recommended other approaches to monitoring, including biopsies. They also endorse the Endoscopic Reference Score as an outcome measure.
The panel recommended noninvasive tissue sampling, mentioning the esophageal string test and the Cytosponge as examples, but called for more research on these two techniques.
Blood markers, oral swabs, breath condensates, and stool and urine samples are not recommended as approaches for monitoring EoE, they wrote.
The optimal interval to measure the efficacy of a therapy is more difficult to decide, the panel noted.
“The clinician’s decision should take into account the clinical severity of the disease, estimated risk of imminent subsequent food impaction, presence of stenosis, as well as mode of action and reported outcome of the chosen medical, dietary, or mechanical treatment,” they wrote. Intervals from 6 to 24 weeks may be appropriate.
For diets and topical corticosteroids, they agreed on an interval of 8-12 weeks to confirm remission but say a longer time might be preferred for slower-acting therapies, such as monoclonal antibodies.
The panel had the most trouble reaching a consensus on how often to follow up on patients whose disease is in remission or is stable. They settled on 12 to 24 months after the last endoscopy. Any longer than 2 years risks missing increased disease activity, they wrote.
This follow-up should include assessment of symptoms and a gastrointestinal endoscopy in cases of relapse or suspected stricture, as well as when treatment modification is being considered or when assessment of histological activity is desired, the panel recommended.
Almost all the panelists disclosed financial relationships with pharmaceutical or medical device companies.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
“Follow-up should comprise symptom assessment and periodic or repeated endoscopy with histological assessment in specific EoE settings,” wrote Ulrike von Arnim, MD, from University Hospital Magdeburg (Germany), and an international team of colleagues in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.
Although medicine and diet can control EoE, there is presently no cure, and long-term management is needed to prevent recurrence and long-term effects such as esophageal remodeling, fibrosis, and stricture, the researchers said. Yet they could find no evidence-based recommendations for clinical monitoring of the condition.
With the participation of The International Gastrointestinal Eosinophil Researchers (TIGER) and the European Consortium for Eosinophilic Diseases of the GI Tract (EUREOS), they assembled a team of 18 gastroenterologists, pathologists, and allergists from the United States and Western Europe with expertise in the condition.
Almost all panelists had more than 10 years of subspecialty EoE care and more than five relevant research publications. All were members of TIGER or EUREOS. The panel met by video conferencing and responded to surveys to develop a consensus about why, by what means, and when to monitor patients with EoE.
The group reached 75% or greater agreement on 11 statements on these subjects.
Regular follow-ups are needed because they enable clinicians to detect whether treatments have stopped working, improve therapy adherence, and introduce patients to any new treatments that become available, while preventing gaps in care that can worsen outcomes, the group wrote.
Symptoms don’t give a precise indication of esophageal healing and shouldn’t be the sole measure for disease activity, the experts wrote. They recommended other approaches to monitoring, including biopsies. They also endorse the Endoscopic Reference Score as an outcome measure.
The panel recommended noninvasive tissue sampling, mentioning the esophageal string test and the Cytosponge as examples, but called for more research on these two techniques.
Blood markers, oral swabs, breath condensates, and stool and urine samples are not recommended as approaches for monitoring EoE, they wrote.
The optimal interval to measure the efficacy of a therapy is more difficult to decide, the panel noted.
“The clinician’s decision should take into account the clinical severity of the disease, estimated risk of imminent subsequent food impaction, presence of stenosis, as well as mode of action and reported outcome of the chosen medical, dietary, or mechanical treatment,” they wrote. Intervals from 6 to 24 weeks may be appropriate.
For diets and topical corticosteroids, they agreed on an interval of 8-12 weeks to confirm remission but say a longer time might be preferred for slower-acting therapies, such as monoclonal antibodies.
The panel had the most trouble reaching a consensus on how often to follow up on patients whose disease is in remission or is stable. They settled on 12 to 24 months after the last endoscopy. Any longer than 2 years risks missing increased disease activity, they wrote.
This follow-up should include assessment of symptoms and a gastrointestinal endoscopy in cases of relapse or suspected stricture, as well as when treatment modification is being considered or when assessment of histological activity is desired, the panel recommended.
Almost all the panelists disclosed financial relationships with pharmaceutical or medical device companies.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM CLINICAL GASTROENTEROLOGY AND HEPATOLOGY
Modified Atkins diet beneficial in drug-resistant epilepsy
, new research shows.
In a randomized prospective study, the number of seizures per month dropped by more than half in one-quarter of patients following the high-fat, low-carb diet; and 5% of the group were free from all seizure activity after 6 months.
Both adults and adolescents reported benefits from the diet, which is a less strict version of a traditional ketogenic diet that many patients find difficult to follow. The modified Atkins diet includes foods such as leafy green vegetables and eggs, chicken, fish, bacon, and other animal proteins.
“The use of an exchange list and recipe booklet with local recipes and spices helped in the initiation of modified Atkins diet with the flexibility of meal choices and ease of administration,” said coinvestigator Manjari Tripathi, MD, DM, department of neurology, All India Institute of Medical Science, New Delhi.
“As items were everyday household ingredients in proportion to the requirement of the modified Atkins diet, this diet is possible in low-income countries also,” Dr. Tripathi added.
The findings were published online in the journal Neurology.
Low carbs, high benefit
The modified Atkins diet includes around 65% fat, 25% protein, and 10% carbohydrates. Unlike a traditional ketogenic diet, the modified Atkins diet includes no restrictions on protein, calories, or fluids.
Researchers have long known that ketogenic and Atkins diets are associated with reduced seizure activity in adolescents with epilepsy. But previous studies were small, and many were retrospective analyses.
The current investigators enrolled 160 patients (80 adults, 80 adolescents) aged 10-55 years whose epilepsy was not controlled despite using at least three antiseizure medications at maximum tolerated doses.
The intervention group received training in the modified Atkins diet and were given a food exchange list, sample menu, and recipe booklet. Carbohydrate intake was restricted to 20 grams per day.
Participants took supplemental multivitamins and minerals, kept a food diary, logged seizure activity, and measured urine ketone levels three times a day. They also received weekly check-up phone calls to ensure diet adherence.
The control group received a normal diet with no carbohydrate restrictions. All participants continued their prescribed antiseizure therapy throughout the trial.
Primary outcome met
The primary study outcome was a reduction in seizures of more than 50%. At 6 months, 26.2% of the intervention group had reached that goal, compared with just 2.5% of the control group (P < .001).
When the median number of seizures in the modified Atkins diet group was analyzed, the frequency dropped in the intervention group from 37.5 per month at baseline to 27.5 per month after 3 months of the modified Atkins diet and to 21.5 per month after 6 months.
Adding the modified Atkins diet had a larger effect on seizure activity in adults than in adolescents. At the end of 6 months, 36% of adolescents on the modified Atkins diet had more than a 50% reduction in seizures, while 57.1% of adults on the diet reached that level.
Quality-of-life scores were also higher in the intervention group.
By the end of the trial, 5% of patients on the modified Atkins diet had no seizure activity at all versus none of the control group. In fact, the median number of seizures increased in the control group during the study.
The mean morning and evening levels of urine ketosis in the intervention group were 58.3 ± 8.0 mg/dL and 62.2 ± 22.6 mg/dL, respectively, suggesting satisfactory diet adherence. There was no significant difference between groups in weight loss.
Dr. Tripathi noted that 33% of participants did not complete the study because of poor tolerance of the diet, lack of benefit, or the inability to follow up – in part due to COVID-19. However, she said tolerance of the modified Atkins diet was better than what has been reported with the ketogenic diet.
“Though the exact mechanism by which such a diet protects against seizures is unknown, there is evidence that it causes effects on intermediary metabolism that influences the dynamics of the major inhibitory and excitatory neurotransmitter systems in the brain,” Dr. Tripathi said.
Benefits outweigh cost
Commenting on the research findings, Mackenzie Cervenka, MD, professor of neurology and director of the Adult Epilepsy Diet Center at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, noted that the study is the first randomized controlled trial of this size to demonstrate a benefit from adding the modified Atkins diet to standard antiseizure therapy in treatment-resistant epilepsy.
“Importantly, the study also showed improvement in quality of life and behavior over standard-of-care therapies without significant adverse effects,” said Dr. Cervenka, who was not part of the research.
The investigators noted that the flexibility of the modified Atkins diet allows more variation in menu options and a greater intake of protein, making it easier to follow than a traditional ketogenic diet.
One area of debate, however, is whether these diets are manageable for individuals with low income. Poultry, meat, and fish, all of which are staples of a modified Atkins diet, can be more expensive than other high-carb options such as pasta and rice.
“While some of the foods such as protein sources that patients purchase when they are on a ketogenic diet therapy can be more expensive, if you take into account the cost of antiseizure medications and other antiseizure treatments, hospital visits, and missed work related to seizures, et cetera, the overall financial benefits of seizure reduction with incorporating a ketogenic diet therapy may outweigh these costs,” Dr. Cervenka said.
“There are also low-cost foods that can be used since there is a great deal of flexibility with a modified Atkins diet,” she added.
The study was funded by the Centre of Excellence for Epilepsy, which is funded by the Department of Biotechnology, Government of India. Dr. Tripathi and Dr. Cervenka report no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, new research shows.
In a randomized prospective study, the number of seizures per month dropped by more than half in one-quarter of patients following the high-fat, low-carb diet; and 5% of the group were free from all seizure activity after 6 months.
Both adults and adolescents reported benefits from the diet, which is a less strict version of a traditional ketogenic diet that many patients find difficult to follow. The modified Atkins diet includes foods such as leafy green vegetables and eggs, chicken, fish, bacon, and other animal proteins.
“The use of an exchange list and recipe booklet with local recipes and spices helped in the initiation of modified Atkins diet with the flexibility of meal choices and ease of administration,” said coinvestigator Manjari Tripathi, MD, DM, department of neurology, All India Institute of Medical Science, New Delhi.
“As items were everyday household ingredients in proportion to the requirement of the modified Atkins diet, this diet is possible in low-income countries also,” Dr. Tripathi added.
The findings were published online in the journal Neurology.
Low carbs, high benefit
The modified Atkins diet includes around 65% fat, 25% protein, and 10% carbohydrates. Unlike a traditional ketogenic diet, the modified Atkins diet includes no restrictions on protein, calories, or fluids.
Researchers have long known that ketogenic and Atkins diets are associated with reduced seizure activity in adolescents with epilepsy. But previous studies were small, and many were retrospective analyses.
The current investigators enrolled 160 patients (80 adults, 80 adolescents) aged 10-55 years whose epilepsy was not controlled despite using at least three antiseizure medications at maximum tolerated doses.
The intervention group received training in the modified Atkins diet and were given a food exchange list, sample menu, and recipe booklet. Carbohydrate intake was restricted to 20 grams per day.
Participants took supplemental multivitamins and minerals, kept a food diary, logged seizure activity, and measured urine ketone levels three times a day. They also received weekly check-up phone calls to ensure diet adherence.
The control group received a normal diet with no carbohydrate restrictions. All participants continued their prescribed antiseizure therapy throughout the trial.
Primary outcome met
The primary study outcome was a reduction in seizures of more than 50%. At 6 months, 26.2% of the intervention group had reached that goal, compared with just 2.5% of the control group (P < .001).
When the median number of seizures in the modified Atkins diet group was analyzed, the frequency dropped in the intervention group from 37.5 per month at baseline to 27.5 per month after 3 months of the modified Atkins diet and to 21.5 per month after 6 months.
Adding the modified Atkins diet had a larger effect on seizure activity in adults than in adolescents. At the end of 6 months, 36% of adolescents on the modified Atkins diet had more than a 50% reduction in seizures, while 57.1% of adults on the diet reached that level.
Quality-of-life scores were also higher in the intervention group.
By the end of the trial, 5% of patients on the modified Atkins diet had no seizure activity at all versus none of the control group. In fact, the median number of seizures increased in the control group during the study.
The mean morning and evening levels of urine ketosis in the intervention group were 58.3 ± 8.0 mg/dL and 62.2 ± 22.6 mg/dL, respectively, suggesting satisfactory diet adherence. There was no significant difference between groups in weight loss.
Dr. Tripathi noted that 33% of participants did not complete the study because of poor tolerance of the diet, lack of benefit, or the inability to follow up – in part due to COVID-19. However, she said tolerance of the modified Atkins diet was better than what has been reported with the ketogenic diet.
“Though the exact mechanism by which such a diet protects against seizures is unknown, there is evidence that it causes effects on intermediary metabolism that influences the dynamics of the major inhibitory and excitatory neurotransmitter systems in the brain,” Dr. Tripathi said.
Benefits outweigh cost
Commenting on the research findings, Mackenzie Cervenka, MD, professor of neurology and director of the Adult Epilepsy Diet Center at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, noted that the study is the first randomized controlled trial of this size to demonstrate a benefit from adding the modified Atkins diet to standard antiseizure therapy in treatment-resistant epilepsy.
“Importantly, the study also showed improvement in quality of life and behavior over standard-of-care therapies without significant adverse effects,” said Dr. Cervenka, who was not part of the research.
The investigators noted that the flexibility of the modified Atkins diet allows more variation in menu options and a greater intake of protein, making it easier to follow than a traditional ketogenic diet.
One area of debate, however, is whether these diets are manageable for individuals with low income. Poultry, meat, and fish, all of which are staples of a modified Atkins diet, can be more expensive than other high-carb options such as pasta and rice.
“While some of the foods such as protein sources that patients purchase when they are on a ketogenic diet therapy can be more expensive, if you take into account the cost of antiseizure medications and other antiseizure treatments, hospital visits, and missed work related to seizures, et cetera, the overall financial benefits of seizure reduction with incorporating a ketogenic diet therapy may outweigh these costs,” Dr. Cervenka said.
“There are also low-cost foods that can be used since there is a great deal of flexibility with a modified Atkins diet,” she added.
The study was funded by the Centre of Excellence for Epilepsy, which is funded by the Department of Biotechnology, Government of India. Dr. Tripathi and Dr. Cervenka report no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, new research shows.
In a randomized prospective study, the number of seizures per month dropped by more than half in one-quarter of patients following the high-fat, low-carb diet; and 5% of the group were free from all seizure activity after 6 months.
Both adults and adolescents reported benefits from the diet, which is a less strict version of a traditional ketogenic diet that many patients find difficult to follow. The modified Atkins diet includes foods such as leafy green vegetables and eggs, chicken, fish, bacon, and other animal proteins.
“The use of an exchange list and recipe booklet with local recipes and spices helped in the initiation of modified Atkins diet with the flexibility of meal choices and ease of administration,” said coinvestigator Manjari Tripathi, MD, DM, department of neurology, All India Institute of Medical Science, New Delhi.
“As items were everyday household ingredients in proportion to the requirement of the modified Atkins diet, this diet is possible in low-income countries also,” Dr. Tripathi added.
The findings were published online in the journal Neurology.
Low carbs, high benefit
The modified Atkins diet includes around 65% fat, 25% protein, and 10% carbohydrates. Unlike a traditional ketogenic diet, the modified Atkins diet includes no restrictions on protein, calories, or fluids.
Researchers have long known that ketogenic and Atkins diets are associated with reduced seizure activity in adolescents with epilepsy. But previous studies were small, and many were retrospective analyses.
The current investigators enrolled 160 patients (80 adults, 80 adolescents) aged 10-55 years whose epilepsy was not controlled despite using at least three antiseizure medications at maximum tolerated doses.
The intervention group received training in the modified Atkins diet and were given a food exchange list, sample menu, and recipe booklet. Carbohydrate intake was restricted to 20 grams per day.
Participants took supplemental multivitamins and minerals, kept a food diary, logged seizure activity, and measured urine ketone levels three times a day. They also received weekly check-up phone calls to ensure diet adherence.
The control group received a normal diet with no carbohydrate restrictions. All participants continued their prescribed antiseizure therapy throughout the trial.
Primary outcome met
The primary study outcome was a reduction in seizures of more than 50%. At 6 months, 26.2% of the intervention group had reached that goal, compared with just 2.5% of the control group (P < .001).
When the median number of seizures in the modified Atkins diet group was analyzed, the frequency dropped in the intervention group from 37.5 per month at baseline to 27.5 per month after 3 months of the modified Atkins diet and to 21.5 per month after 6 months.
Adding the modified Atkins diet had a larger effect on seizure activity in adults than in adolescents. At the end of 6 months, 36% of adolescents on the modified Atkins diet had more than a 50% reduction in seizures, while 57.1% of adults on the diet reached that level.
Quality-of-life scores were also higher in the intervention group.
By the end of the trial, 5% of patients on the modified Atkins diet had no seizure activity at all versus none of the control group. In fact, the median number of seizures increased in the control group during the study.
The mean morning and evening levels of urine ketosis in the intervention group were 58.3 ± 8.0 mg/dL and 62.2 ± 22.6 mg/dL, respectively, suggesting satisfactory diet adherence. There was no significant difference between groups in weight loss.
Dr. Tripathi noted that 33% of participants did not complete the study because of poor tolerance of the diet, lack of benefit, or the inability to follow up – in part due to COVID-19. However, she said tolerance of the modified Atkins diet was better than what has been reported with the ketogenic diet.
“Though the exact mechanism by which such a diet protects against seizures is unknown, there is evidence that it causes effects on intermediary metabolism that influences the dynamics of the major inhibitory and excitatory neurotransmitter systems in the brain,” Dr. Tripathi said.
Benefits outweigh cost
Commenting on the research findings, Mackenzie Cervenka, MD, professor of neurology and director of the Adult Epilepsy Diet Center at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, noted that the study is the first randomized controlled trial of this size to demonstrate a benefit from adding the modified Atkins diet to standard antiseizure therapy in treatment-resistant epilepsy.
“Importantly, the study also showed improvement in quality of life and behavior over standard-of-care therapies without significant adverse effects,” said Dr. Cervenka, who was not part of the research.
The investigators noted that the flexibility of the modified Atkins diet allows more variation in menu options and a greater intake of protein, making it easier to follow than a traditional ketogenic diet.
One area of debate, however, is whether these diets are manageable for individuals with low income. Poultry, meat, and fish, all of which are staples of a modified Atkins diet, can be more expensive than other high-carb options such as pasta and rice.
“While some of the foods such as protein sources that patients purchase when they are on a ketogenic diet therapy can be more expensive, if you take into account the cost of antiseizure medications and other antiseizure treatments, hospital visits, and missed work related to seizures, et cetera, the overall financial benefits of seizure reduction with incorporating a ketogenic diet therapy may outweigh these costs,” Dr. Cervenka said.
“There are also low-cost foods that can be used since there is a great deal of flexibility with a modified Atkins diet,” she added.
The study was funded by the Centre of Excellence for Epilepsy, which is funded by the Department of Biotechnology, Government of India. Dr. Tripathi and Dr. Cervenka report no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM NEUROLOGY
Infantile hemangioma: Analysis underscores importance of early propranolol treatment
, results from a post-hoc analysis of phase 2 and 3 clinical trial data showed.
“It is widely accepted that oral propranolol should be started early to improve the success rate, but proposed thresholds have lacked supportive data,” researchers led by Christine Léauté-Labrèze, MD, of the department of dermatology at Pellegrin Children’s Hospital, Bordeaux, France, wrote in the study, which was published online in Pediatric Dermatology. In the pivotal phase 2/3 trial of propranolol of 460 infants, published in 2015, the mean initiation of treatment was 104 days, they added, but “in real-life studies, most infants are referred later than this.”
In addition, a European expert consensus panel set the ideal age for a patient to be seen by a specialist at between 3 and 5 weeks of age, while an American Academy of Pediatrics Clinical Practice Guideline set the ideal age at 1 month.
To determine factors associated with a higher success rate with oral propranolol treatment, such as age at treatment initiation, the researchers analyzed data from the pivotal phase 2-3 clinical trial of oral propranolol in IH. They used Generalized Additive Model (GAM) charts with Generalized Linear Models (GLM), then a rule discovery algorithm, to identify subgroups presenting a high probability of occurrence of the predefined outcome: success at 6 months of treatment (defined as complete or nearly complete resolution of the target hemangioma). Study coauthors were Ilona J. Frieden, MD, of the department of dermatology at the University of California, San Francisco, and director of the UCSF Birthmarks & Vascular Anomalies Center; and Alain Delarue, MD, of medical affairs at Pierre Fabre Dermatologie, Lavaur, France, which markets the pediatric formulation of propranolol approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2014 for treating IH.
They found that patients who started oral propranolol 3 mg/kg/day before the age of 10 weeks had a success rate of 86%, while those who started treatment after 10 weeks of age had a success rate of 60%. “Our clinical experience suggested that starting early propranolol gave better results on infantile hemangiomas; however, we were surprised” by the significance of the difference, the three study authors stated in an e-mail reply to this news organization.
“It therefore seemed essential to communicate the importance of early treatment to maximize the possibilities of recovery for children. Our findings support early treatment of at-risk infantile hemangiomas, without waiting for complications such as ulceration and/or functional consequences,” they added.
In their e-mail reply, the authors stated that treatment of high-risk IH should be initiated whenever possible before 10 weeks of age. Ideally, infants should be examined by a practitioner between 2 and 5 weeks of age and referred to a specialized center if they have features of an at-risk IH. Tools such as the Infantile Hemangioma Referral Score (IHReS) and consensus guidelines such as the AAP Clinical Practice Guideline “can help guide clinicians seeing newborns and young infants to recognize which IH may need early intervention,” they stated.
For rural-based providers whose patients and their families may not live close to an expert center, the study authors especially recommend using the IHReS scoring tool, which is readily available online and “will be very helpful in assessing whether patients need referral.” For those who do, they added, “triage using photographs is an excellent way to reach out to a referral center for advice and possible urgent referral.” In addition, a recent study emphasized that telemedicine using either live interactive portals or store-and-forward can be helpful in evaluation and management of patients with IH.
Dr. Léauté-Labrèze and colleagues acknowledged certain limitations of the analysis, including the fact that it was performed post-hoc on an existing study and the challenge of translating its findings into clinical practice.
The three study authors were also authors of the 2015 NEJM study; Dr. Léauté-Labrèze was the lead author.
Dr. Léauté-Labrèze disclosed that she has served as a speaker and consultant for Pierre Fabre. Dr. Delarue is an employee of the company. Dr. Frieden reported having no disclosures relevant to the analysis.
, results from a post-hoc analysis of phase 2 and 3 clinical trial data showed.
“It is widely accepted that oral propranolol should be started early to improve the success rate, but proposed thresholds have lacked supportive data,” researchers led by Christine Léauté-Labrèze, MD, of the department of dermatology at Pellegrin Children’s Hospital, Bordeaux, France, wrote in the study, which was published online in Pediatric Dermatology. In the pivotal phase 2/3 trial of propranolol of 460 infants, published in 2015, the mean initiation of treatment was 104 days, they added, but “in real-life studies, most infants are referred later than this.”
In addition, a European expert consensus panel set the ideal age for a patient to be seen by a specialist at between 3 and 5 weeks of age, while an American Academy of Pediatrics Clinical Practice Guideline set the ideal age at 1 month.
To determine factors associated with a higher success rate with oral propranolol treatment, such as age at treatment initiation, the researchers analyzed data from the pivotal phase 2-3 clinical trial of oral propranolol in IH. They used Generalized Additive Model (GAM) charts with Generalized Linear Models (GLM), then a rule discovery algorithm, to identify subgroups presenting a high probability of occurrence of the predefined outcome: success at 6 months of treatment (defined as complete or nearly complete resolution of the target hemangioma). Study coauthors were Ilona J. Frieden, MD, of the department of dermatology at the University of California, San Francisco, and director of the UCSF Birthmarks & Vascular Anomalies Center; and Alain Delarue, MD, of medical affairs at Pierre Fabre Dermatologie, Lavaur, France, which markets the pediatric formulation of propranolol approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2014 for treating IH.
They found that patients who started oral propranolol 3 mg/kg/day before the age of 10 weeks had a success rate of 86%, while those who started treatment after 10 weeks of age had a success rate of 60%. “Our clinical experience suggested that starting early propranolol gave better results on infantile hemangiomas; however, we were surprised” by the significance of the difference, the three study authors stated in an e-mail reply to this news organization.
“It therefore seemed essential to communicate the importance of early treatment to maximize the possibilities of recovery for children. Our findings support early treatment of at-risk infantile hemangiomas, without waiting for complications such as ulceration and/or functional consequences,” they added.
In their e-mail reply, the authors stated that treatment of high-risk IH should be initiated whenever possible before 10 weeks of age. Ideally, infants should be examined by a practitioner between 2 and 5 weeks of age and referred to a specialized center if they have features of an at-risk IH. Tools such as the Infantile Hemangioma Referral Score (IHReS) and consensus guidelines such as the AAP Clinical Practice Guideline “can help guide clinicians seeing newborns and young infants to recognize which IH may need early intervention,” they stated.
For rural-based providers whose patients and their families may not live close to an expert center, the study authors especially recommend using the IHReS scoring tool, which is readily available online and “will be very helpful in assessing whether patients need referral.” For those who do, they added, “triage using photographs is an excellent way to reach out to a referral center for advice and possible urgent referral.” In addition, a recent study emphasized that telemedicine using either live interactive portals or store-and-forward can be helpful in evaluation and management of patients with IH.
Dr. Léauté-Labrèze and colleagues acknowledged certain limitations of the analysis, including the fact that it was performed post-hoc on an existing study and the challenge of translating its findings into clinical practice.
The three study authors were also authors of the 2015 NEJM study; Dr. Léauté-Labrèze was the lead author.
Dr. Léauté-Labrèze disclosed that she has served as a speaker and consultant for Pierre Fabre. Dr. Delarue is an employee of the company. Dr. Frieden reported having no disclosures relevant to the analysis.
, results from a post-hoc analysis of phase 2 and 3 clinical trial data showed.
“It is widely accepted that oral propranolol should be started early to improve the success rate, but proposed thresholds have lacked supportive data,” researchers led by Christine Léauté-Labrèze, MD, of the department of dermatology at Pellegrin Children’s Hospital, Bordeaux, France, wrote in the study, which was published online in Pediatric Dermatology. In the pivotal phase 2/3 trial of propranolol of 460 infants, published in 2015, the mean initiation of treatment was 104 days, they added, but “in real-life studies, most infants are referred later than this.”
In addition, a European expert consensus panel set the ideal age for a patient to be seen by a specialist at between 3 and 5 weeks of age, while an American Academy of Pediatrics Clinical Practice Guideline set the ideal age at 1 month.
To determine factors associated with a higher success rate with oral propranolol treatment, such as age at treatment initiation, the researchers analyzed data from the pivotal phase 2-3 clinical trial of oral propranolol in IH. They used Generalized Additive Model (GAM) charts with Generalized Linear Models (GLM), then a rule discovery algorithm, to identify subgroups presenting a high probability of occurrence of the predefined outcome: success at 6 months of treatment (defined as complete or nearly complete resolution of the target hemangioma). Study coauthors were Ilona J. Frieden, MD, of the department of dermatology at the University of California, San Francisco, and director of the UCSF Birthmarks & Vascular Anomalies Center; and Alain Delarue, MD, of medical affairs at Pierre Fabre Dermatologie, Lavaur, France, which markets the pediatric formulation of propranolol approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2014 for treating IH.
They found that patients who started oral propranolol 3 mg/kg/day before the age of 10 weeks had a success rate of 86%, while those who started treatment after 10 weeks of age had a success rate of 60%. “Our clinical experience suggested that starting early propranolol gave better results on infantile hemangiomas; however, we were surprised” by the significance of the difference, the three study authors stated in an e-mail reply to this news organization.
“It therefore seemed essential to communicate the importance of early treatment to maximize the possibilities of recovery for children. Our findings support early treatment of at-risk infantile hemangiomas, without waiting for complications such as ulceration and/or functional consequences,” they added.
In their e-mail reply, the authors stated that treatment of high-risk IH should be initiated whenever possible before 10 weeks of age. Ideally, infants should be examined by a practitioner between 2 and 5 weeks of age and referred to a specialized center if they have features of an at-risk IH. Tools such as the Infantile Hemangioma Referral Score (IHReS) and consensus guidelines such as the AAP Clinical Practice Guideline “can help guide clinicians seeing newborns and young infants to recognize which IH may need early intervention,” they stated.
For rural-based providers whose patients and their families may not live close to an expert center, the study authors especially recommend using the IHReS scoring tool, which is readily available online and “will be very helpful in assessing whether patients need referral.” For those who do, they added, “triage using photographs is an excellent way to reach out to a referral center for advice and possible urgent referral.” In addition, a recent study emphasized that telemedicine using either live interactive portals or store-and-forward can be helpful in evaluation and management of patients with IH.
Dr. Léauté-Labrèze and colleagues acknowledged certain limitations of the analysis, including the fact that it was performed post-hoc on an existing study and the challenge of translating its findings into clinical practice.
The three study authors were also authors of the 2015 NEJM study; Dr. Léauté-Labrèze was the lead author.
Dr. Léauté-Labrèze disclosed that she has served as a speaker and consultant for Pierre Fabre. Dr. Delarue is an employee of the company. Dr. Frieden reported having no disclosures relevant to the analysis.
FROM PEDIATRIC DERMATOLOGY
Nodule on gardener’s hand
Using an 18-gauge needle, a simple incision and drainage was performed, and copious turbid and bloody material was expressed and cultured for aerobic and acid-fast bacteria, as well as fungus. The patient was started on trimethoprim sulfamethoxazole DS twice daily while cultures and sensitivities were pending. Cultures grew Staphylococcus lugdunensis, a coagulase-negative staph species known to cause a range of infections from simple skin infections to bacteremia and endocarditis.1 If the drainage had been viscous and clear to blood-tinged, that would have been more consistent with a ganglion cyst. Lack of drainage would have prompted a small punch biopsy to exclude a tumor.
Fortunately, S lugdunensis is often broadly sensitive to antibiotics, although treatment choices should follow antibiotic sensitivity testing. Any signs of systemic illness should be worked up with blood cultures and consideration of endocarditis or involvement of an implant. Penicillin is recommended as a first line systemic agent if sensitivities support this, and for abscesses, incision and drainage is recommended. The length of treatment for skin infections is generally 1 to 2 weeks, guided by response to therapy.
This patient’s nodule resolved following the incision and drainage and 7 days of therapy with trimethoprim sulfamethoxazole DS.
Photos and text for Photo Rounds Friday courtesy of Jonathan Karnes, MD (copyright retained). Dr. Karnes is the medical director of MDFMR Dermatology Services, Augusta, ME.
1. Kleiner E, Monk AB, Archer GL, et al. Clinical significance of Staphylococcus lugdunensis isolated from routine cultures. Clin Infect Dis. 2010;51:801-803. doi: 10.1086/656280
Using an 18-gauge needle, a simple incision and drainage was performed, and copious turbid and bloody material was expressed and cultured for aerobic and acid-fast bacteria, as well as fungus. The patient was started on trimethoprim sulfamethoxazole DS twice daily while cultures and sensitivities were pending. Cultures grew Staphylococcus lugdunensis, a coagulase-negative staph species known to cause a range of infections from simple skin infections to bacteremia and endocarditis.1 If the drainage had been viscous and clear to blood-tinged, that would have been more consistent with a ganglion cyst. Lack of drainage would have prompted a small punch biopsy to exclude a tumor.
Fortunately, S lugdunensis is often broadly sensitive to antibiotics, although treatment choices should follow antibiotic sensitivity testing. Any signs of systemic illness should be worked up with blood cultures and consideration of endocarditis or involvement of an implant. Penicillin is recommended as a first line systemic agent if sensitivities support this, and for abscesses, incision and drainage is recommended. The length of treatment for skin infections is generally 1 to 2 weeks, guided by response to therapy.
This patient’s nodule resolved following the incision and drainage and 7 days of therapy with trimethoprim sulfamethoxazole DS.
Photos and text for Photo Rounds Friday courtesy of Jonathan Karnes, MD (copyright retained). Dr. Karnes is the medical director of MDFMR Dermatology Services, Augusta, ME.
Using an 18-gauge needle, a simple incision and drainage was performed, and copious turbid and bloody material was expressed and cultured for aerobic and acid-fast bacteria, as well as fungus. The patient was started on trimethoprim sulfamethoxazole DS twice daily while cultures and sensitivities were pending. Cultures grew Staphylococcus lugdunensis, a coagulase-negative staph species known to cause a range of infections from simple skin infections to bacteremia and endocarditis.1 If the drainage had been viscous and clear to blood-tinged, that would have been more consistent with a ganglion cyst. Lack of drainage would have prompted a small punch biopsy to exclude a tumor.
Fortunately, S lugdunensis is often broadly sensitive to antibiotics, although treatment choices should follow antibiotic sensitivity testing. Any signs of systemic illness should be worked up with blood cultures and consideration of endocarditis or involvement of an implant. Penicillin is recommended as a first line systemic agent if sensitivities support this, and for abscesses, incision and drainage is recommended. The length of treatment for skin infections is generally 1 to 2 weeks, guided by response to therapy.
This patient’s nodule resolved following the incision and drainage and 7 days of therapy with trimethoprim sulfamethoxazole DS.
Photos and text for Photo Rounds Friday courtesy of Jonathan Karnes, MD (copyright retained). Dr. Karnes is the medical director of MDFMR Dermatology Services, Augusta, ME.
1. Kleiner E, Monk AB, Archer GL, et al. Clinical significance of Staphylococcus lugdunensis isolated from routine cultures. Clin Infect Dis. 2010;51:801-803. doi: 10.1086/656280
1. Kleiner E, Monk AB, Archer GL, et al. Clinical significance of Staphylococcus lugdunensis isolated from routine cultures. Clin Infect Dis. 2010;51:801-803. doi: 10.1086/656280
Is the limit of viability shifting again?
Chawla S, Wyckoff MH, Rysavy MA, et al; Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Neonatal Research Network. Association of antenatal steroid exposure at 21 to 22 weeks of gestation with neonatal survival and survival without morbidities. JAMA Netw Open. 2022;5:e2233331. doi:10.1001/jamanet workopen.2022.33331.
EXPERT COMMENTARY
The single most important intervention available in obstetrics to improve the health outcomes of preterm newborns is the maternal administration of corticosteroids. The 27 randomized controlled trials that formed the basis for this knowledge1 did not include infants delivered at 24 weeks’ gestation or less. This has not dissuaded us, over the last several decades, from using corticosteroids for impending delivery at 24 weeks’ gestation; in the absence of randomized data, this has been based on observational evidence of benefit.
Following the 2011 publication of a retrospective cohort study that analyzed data collected by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) Neonatal Research Network between 1993 and 2009 (the Carlo study),2 ACS started to be used widely even for impending delivery at 23 weeks’ gestation. That study had found that the odds of death and neurodevelopmental impairment at 18 to 22 months of age were significantly lower in cases that received ACS and were born at 23 weeks (n = 1,978). The same benefit could not be verified for infants born at 22 weeks’ gestational age (n = 402).
In a recent study conducted by the same NICHD Neonatal Research Network, antenatal steroid exposure at 21 to 22 weeks of gestation was examined.
Details of the study
Using prospectively collected data from 2016 to 2019, Chawla and colleagues conducted a retrospective cohort study that analyzed data from 431 infants who were born between 22 0/7 and 23 6/7 weeks’ gestation and received neonatal intensive care (179 infants born at 22 weeks’ gestation).3 The infants not exposed to ACS were compared with those who had partial exposure (only 1 dose) and those with complete ACS exposure (2 doses).
Complete ACS exposure proved to be beneficial, increasing survival to discharge from 35.5% in the no-exposure group to 53.9% (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.95; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.07–3.56). Of the survivors, 26.9% in the complete-exposure group had no major morbidities compared with 10% in the no-exposure group (aOR, 2.74; 95% CI, 1.19–6.30).
Study strengths and limitations
The strengths of this study include the use of a diverse, multicenter cohort, with contemporary delivery data, which increases the generalizability of the findings. The analysis included aspects often overlooked in other similar studies, such as the dose of ACS exposure and the gestational age at the time of exposure.
The observational study design, however, can suggest only associations rather than causal relationships. Observational studies also are apt to be affected by residual confounding. Such limitations can only be overcome by a randomized controlled trial, but such a trial of ACS at periviable gestational ages seems unfeasible due to limited ethical justification.
Another limitation is the reporting on outcomes as a collective group (22–23 weeks’ gestation). It is important to consider each gestational age week separately due to differences in physiology and potential biological limitations. It cannot be assumed that 22 weeks behaves like 23 weeks, just as 21 weeks is not equivalent to 22 weeks.
The study results suggest that the protective effect of ACS was dose dependent. However, the interpretation that only a complete ACS exposure was beneficial should be viewed cautiously because the study had no power to assess the impact of a partial exposure.
A further limitation is the lack of consideration in analysis for maternal comorbidities and fetal growth restriction. In the Carlo study, the beneficial effect of corticosteroids in 23-week gestational age deliveries was not demonstrable in pregnancies affected by fetal growth restriction or maternal hypertension.
Other studies considered
Given all its limitations, can we assume that the study by Chawla and colleagues has reliably refuted the Carlo study’s suggestion of lack of ACS efficacy in infants born at 22 weeks’ gestation? Taken by itself, probably not. In the context of other recent investigations, yes.
A retrospective registry study that used data from the Vermont Oxford Network for the period 2012–2016 on 1,058 infants born at 22 weeks’ gestation found that infants who were exposed to ACS and received postnatal life support were more likely to survive to hospital discharge without major morbidity compared with infants who received postnatal life support alone.4 Overall survival was 38.5% versus 17.7% (adjusted risk ratio [aRR], 2.11; 95% CI, 1.68–2.65), and survival without major morbidity was 4.4% versus 1.0% (aRR, 4.35; 95% CI, 1.84–10.28).
An even larger cohort study that used data from the National Center for Health Statistics concluded that survival at age 1 year for infants born at 22 weeks (n = 2,635) during 2009–2014 was improved in those exposed to ACS followed by postnatal life support compared with postnatal life support alone (45.2% vs 27.8%; aRR, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.2–2.1).5
A meta-analysis of observational studies that reported on infants born between 22 0/7 and 22 6/7 weeks’ gestation (n = 2,226) who received proactive neonatal treatment found that administration of ACS doubled the rate of survival when compared with no ACS administration (39% vs 19.5%; P<.01).6
In September 2021, the recommendations from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists changed, stating that ACS can be considered at 22 weeks’ gestation when active postnatal management is desired.7 This recommendation is largely congruent with those from several other national and international medical organizations, including the World Association of Perinatal Medicine, the Royal Collegeof Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, and the German, Austrian and Swiss societies of gynecology and obstetrics. The implication is that the limit of viability may have shifted again, from 23 to 22 weeks’ gestation, and considering the importance of adequate timing in ACS administration (within 1 week from delivery), Chawla and colleagues posited that ACS administration can be considered as early as 21 weeks’ gestation when birth is anticipated at 22 weeks and active postnatal management is planned (notably, this should be the correct interpretation of the article title, not that ACS may be beneficial in 21-weeks’ gestational age births). ●
In 2001, the Institute of Medicine of the National Academies introduced the concept of shared decision-making as a key component of quality care. In very few other clinical situations is shared decision-making as critical as in the context of planning intervention when delivery is anticipated at 22 weeks’ gestation. The truth remains that even with the coordinated provision of ACS and active postnatal care, survival at this gestational age is still a toss-up, and survivors face a high probability of neurodevelopmental impairment and other long-term adverse health outcomes. In this setting, decision-making is complex, with the need to balance patient autonomy and nonmaleficence. On the other hand, the concept of patient autonomy is blurred because the patient (fetus) is incompetent and the negotiation is conducted between physicians and parents. However, no intervention should be undertaken unless the parents so desire. Since parental wishes are frequently emotional, overwhelmingly driving intervention, thorough and timely interdisciplinary counseling is needed. Evidence indicates that both obstetricians and neonatologists may, at times, underestimate the chance of a favorable health outcome for infants born extremely preterm.8,9 Early involvement of the neonatal and obstetric team is pivotal to put forward a coherent, nonconfusing, nonpaternalistic, balanced message. When outcomes information is shared during prenatal counseling, it should be based on local, not only national, data. Following appropriate consultation with the parents, the physicians will adjust the expectations to the local standards, outcomes data, and availability regarding periviable neonatal support.
Recent data suggest that the rate of cesarean delivery (CD) in the periviable period is increasing.10 There is no clear evidence in favor of CD to improve neonatal outcomes, whereas there is concern that periviable CD is associated with significantly increased maternal risks. Regardless of uterine incision type, periviable CD results in an increased risk of uterine rupture in a subsequent pregnancy.11 Consistent with the principle of nonmaleficence, a discussion of these risks should be included in shared decision-making.
ALEX C. VIDAEFF, MD, MPH, AND NATHAN C. SUNDGREN, MD, PHD
- McGoldrick E, Stewart F, Parker R, et al. Antenatal corticosteroids for accelerating fetal lung maturation for women at risk of preterm birth. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020;12(12):CD004454.
- Carlo WA, McDonald SA, Fanaroff AA, et al; Eunice Kennedy Schriver National Institute for Child Health and Human Development Neonatal Research Network. Association of antenatal corticosteroids with mortality and neurodevelopmental outcomes among infants born at 22-25 weeks gestation. JAMA. 2011;306:2348-2358.
- Chawla S, Wyckoff MH, Rysavy MA, et al; Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Neonatal Research Network. Association of antenatal steroid exposure at 21 to 22 weeks of gestation with neonatal survival and survival without morbidities. JAMA Netw Open. 2022;5(9):e2233331. doi:10.1001/ jamanetworkopen.2022.33331.
- Ehret DEY, Edwards EM, Greenberg LT, et al. Association of antenatal steroid exposure with survival among infants receiving postnatal life support at 22 to 25 weeks’ gestation. JAMA Netw Open. 2018;1(6):e183235. doi:10.1001/ jamanetworkopen.2018.3235.
- Rossi RM, DeFranco EA, Hall ES. Association of antenatal corticosteroid exposure and infant survival at 22 and 23 weeks. Am J Perinatol. November 28, 2021. doi:10.1055/s-0041-1740062.
- Backes CH, Rivera BK, Pavlek L, et al. Proactive neonatal treatment at 22 weeks of gestation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2021;224:158-174.
- Cahill AG, Kaimal AJ, Kuller JA, et al; American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine. Practice advisory: Use of antenatal corticosteroids at 22 weeks of gestation. Accessed December 7, 2022. https://www.acog.org/clinical/clinical-guidance /practice-advisory/articles/2021/09/use-of-antenatal -corticosteroids-at-22-weeks-of-gestation#
- Boland RA, Davis PG, Dawson JA, et al. What are we telling the parents of extremely preterm babies? Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2016;56:274-281.
- Blanco F, Suresh G, Howard D, et al. Ensuring accurate knowledge of prematurity outcomes for prenatal counseling. Pediatrics. 2005;115:e478-e487.
- Rossi RM, Hall E, DeFranco EA. Contemporary trends in cesarean delivery utilization for live births between 22 0/7 and 23 6/7 weeks of gestation. Obstet Gynecol. 2019;133:451-458.
- Lannon SMR, Guthrie KA, Vanderhoeven JP, et al. Uterine rupture risk after periviable cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol. 2015;125:1095-1100.
Chawla S, Wyckoff MH, Rysavy MA, et al; Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Neonatal Research Network. Association of antenatal steroid exposure at 21 to 22 weeks of gestation with neonatal survival and survival without morbidities. JAMA Netw Open. 2022;5:e2233331. doi:10.1001/jamanet workopen.2022.33331.
EXPERT COMMENTARY
The single most important intervention available in obstetrics to improve the health outcomes of preterm newborns is the maternal administration of corticosteroids. The 27 randomized controlled trials that formed the basis for this knowledge1 did not include infants delivered at 24 weeks’ gestation or less. This has not dissuaded us, over the last several decades, from using corticosteroids for impending delivery at 24 weeks’ gestation; in the absence of randomized data, this has been based on observational evidence of benefit.
Following the 2011 publication of a retrospective cohort study that analyzed data collected by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) Neonatal Research Network between 1993 and 2009 (the Carlo study),2 ACS started to be used widely even for impending delivery at 23 weeks’ gestation. That study had found that the odds of death and neurodevelopmental impairment at 18 to 22 months of age were significantly lower in cases that received ACS and were born at 23 weeks (n = 1,978). The same benefit could not be verified for infants born at 22 weeks’ gestational age (n = 402).
In a recent study conducted by the same NICHD Neonatal Research Network, antenatal steroid exposure at 21 to 22 weeks of gestation was examined.
Details of the study
Using prospectively collected data from 2016 to 2019, Chawla and colleagues conducted a retrospective cohort study that analyzed data from 431 infants who were born between 22 0/7 and 23 6/7 weeks’ gestation and received neonatal intensive care (179 infants born at 22 weeks’ gestation).3 The infants not exposed to ACS were compared with those who had partial exposure (only 1 dose) and those with complete ACS exposure (2 doses).
Complete ACS exposure proved to be beneficial, increasing survival to discharge from 35.5% in the no-exposure group to 53.9% (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.95; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.07–3.56). Of the survivors, 26.9% in the complete-exposure group had no major morbidities compared with 10% in the no-exposure group (aOR, 2.74; 95% CI, 1.19–6.30).
Study strengths and limitations
The strengths of this study include the use of a diverse, multicenter cohort, with contemporary delivery data, which increases the generalizability of the findings. The analysis included aspects often overlooked in other similar studies, such as the dose of ACS exposure and the gestational age at the time of exposure.
The observational study design, however, can suggest only associations rather than causal relationships. Observational studies also are apt to be affected by residual confounding. Such limitations can only be overcome by a randomized controlled trial, but such a trial of ACS at periviable gestational ages seems unfeasible due to limited ethical justification.
Another limitation is the reporting on outcomes as a collective group (22–23 weeks’ gestation). It is important to consider each gestational age week separately due to differences in physiology and potential biological limitations. It cannot be assumed that 22 weeks behaves like 23 weeks, just as 21 weeks is not equivalent to 22 weeks.
The study results suggest that the protective effect of ACS was dose dependent. However, the interpretation that only a complete ACS exposure was beneficial should be viewed cautiously because the study had no power to assess the impact of a partial exposure.
A further limitation is the lack of consideration in analysis for maternal comorbidities and fetal growth restriction. In the Carlo study, the beneficial effect of corticosteroids in 23-week gestational age deliveries was not demonstrable in pregnancies affected by fetal growth restriction or maternal hypertension.
Other studies considered
Given all its limitations, can we assume that the study by Chawla and colleagues has reliably refuted the Carlo study’s suggestion of lack of ACS efficacy in infants born at 22 weeks’ gestation? Taken by itself, probably not. In the context of other recent investigations, yes.
A retrospective registry study that used data from the Vermont Oxford Network for the period 2012–2016 on 1,058 infants born at 22 weeks’ gestation found that infants who were exposed to ACS and received postnatal life support were more likely to survive to hospital discharge without major morbidity compared with infants who received postnatal life support alone.4 Overall survival was 38.5% versus 17.7% (adjusted risk ratio [aRR], 2.11; 95% CI, 1.68–2.65), and survival without major morbidity was 4.4% versus 1.0% (aRR, 4.35; 95% CI, 1.84–10.28).
An even larger cohort study that used data from the National Center for Health Statistics concluded that survival at age 1 year for infants born at 22 weeks (n = 2,635) during 2009–2014 was improved in those exposed to ACS followed by postnatal life support compared with postnatal life support alone (45.2% vs 27.8%; aRR, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.2–2.1).5
A meta-analysis of observational studies that reported on infants born between 22 0/7 and 22 6/7 weeks’ gestation (n = 2,226) who received proactive neonatal treatment found that administration of ACS doubled the rate of survival when compared with no ACS administration (39% vs 19.5%; P<.01).6
In September 2021, the recommendations from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists changed, stating that ACS can be considered at 22 weeks’ gestation when active postnatal management is desired.7 This recommendation is largely congruent with those from several other national and international medical organizations, including the World Association of Perinatal Medicine, the Royal Collegeof Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, and the German, Austrian and Swiss societies of gynecology and obstetrics. The implication is that the limit of viability may have shifted again, from 23 to 22 weeks’ gestation, and considering the importance of adequate timing in ACS administration (within 1 week from delivery), Chawla and colleagues posited that ACS administration can be considered as early as 21 weeks’ gestation when birth is anticipated at 22 weeks and active postnatal management is planned (notably, this should be the correct interpretation of the article title, not that ACS may be beneficial in 21-weeks’ gestational age births). ●
In 2001, the Institute of Medicine of the National Academies introduced the concept of shared decision-making as a key component of quality care. In very few other clinical situations is shared decision-making as critical as in the context of planning intervention when delivery is anticipated at 22 weeks’ gestation. The truth remains that even with the coordinated provision of ACS and active postnatal care, survival at this gestational age is still a toss-up, and survivors face a high probability of neurodevelopmental impairment and other long-term adverse health outcomes. In this setting, decision-making is complex, with the need to balance patient autonomy and nonmaleficence. On the other hand, the concept of patient autonomy is blurred because the patient (fetus) is incompetent and the negotiation is conducted between physicians and parents. However, no intervention should be undertaken unless the parents so desire. Since parental wishes are frequently emotional, overwhelmingly driving intervention, thorough and timely interdisciplinary counseling is needed. Evidence indicates that both obstetricians and neonatologists may, at times, underestimate the chance of a favorable health outcome for infants born extremely preterm.8,9 Early involvement of the neonatal and obstetric team is pivotal to put forward a coherent, nonconfusing, nonpaternalistic, balanced message. When outcomes information is shared during prenatal counseling, it should be based on local, not only national, data. Following appropriate consultation with the parents, the physicians will adjust the expectations to the local standards, outcomes data, and availability regarding periviable neonatal support.
Recent data suggest that the rate of cesarean delivery (CD) in the periviable period is increasing.10 There is no clear evidence in favor of CD to improve neonatal outcomes, whereas there is concern that periviable CD is associated with significantly increased maternal risks. Regardless of uterine incision type, periviable CD results in an increased risk of uterine rupture in a subsequent pregnancy.11 Consistent with the principle of nonmaleficence, a discussion of these risks should be included in shared decision-making.
ALEX C. VIDAEFF, MD, MPH, AND NATHAN C. SUNDGREN, MD, PHD
Chawla S, Wyckoff MH, Rysavy MA, et al; Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Neonatal Research Network. Association of antenatal steroid exposure at 21 to 22 weeks of gestation with neonatal survival and survival without morbidities. JAMA Netw Open. 2022;5:e2233331. doi:10.1001/jamanet workopen.2022.33331.
EXPERT COMMENTARY
The single most important intervention available in obstetrics to improve the health outcomes of preterm newborns is the maternal administration of corticosteroids. The 27 randomized controlled trials that formed the basis for this knowledge1 did not include infants delivered at 24 weeks’ gestation or less. This has not dissuaded us, over the last several decades, from using corticosteroids for impending delivery at 24 weeks’ gestation; in the absence of randomized data, this has been based on observational evidence of benefit.
Following the 2011 publication of a retrospective cohort study that analyzed data collected by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) Neonatal Research Network between 1993 and 2009 (the Carlo study),2 ACS started to be used widely even for impending delivery at 23 weeks’ gestation. That study had found that the odds of death and neurodevelopmental impairment at 18 to 22 months of age were significantly lower in cases that received ACS and were born at 23 weeks (n = 1,978). The same benefit could not be verified for infants born at 22 weeks’ gestational age (n = 402).
In a recent study conducted by the same NICHD Neonatal Research Network, antenatal steroid exposure at 21 to 22 weeks of gestation was examined.
Details of the study
Using prospectively collected data from 2016 to 2019, Chawla and colleagues conducted a retrospective cohort study that analyzed data from 431 infants who were born between 22 0/7 and 23 6/7 weeks’ gestation and received neonatal intensive care (179 infants born at 22 weeks’ gestation).3 The infants not exposed to ACS were compared with those who had partial exposure (only 1 dose) and those with complete ACS exposure (2 doses).
Complete ACS exposure proved to be beneficial, increasing survival to discharge from 35.5% in the no-exposure group to 53.9% (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.95; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.07–3.56). Of the survivors, 26.9% in the complete-exposure group had no major morbidities compared with 10% in the no-exposure group (aOR, 2.74; 95% CI, 1.19–6.30).
Study strengths and limitations
The strengths of this study include the use of a diverse, multicenter cohort, with contemporary delivery data, which increases the generalizability of the findings. The analysis included aspects often overlooked in other similar studies, such as the dose of ACS exposure and the gestational age at the time of exposure.
The observational study design, however, can suggest only associations rather than causal relationships. Observational studies also are apt to be affected by residual confounding. Such limitations can only be overcome by a randomized controlled trial, but such a trial of ACS at periviable gestational ages seems unfeasible due to limited ethical justification.
Another limitation is the reporting on outcomes as a collective group (22–23 weeks’ gestation). It is important to consider each gestational age week separately due to differences in physiology and potential biological limitations. It cannot be assumed that 22 weeks behaves like 23 weeks, just as 21 weeks is not equivalent to 22 weeks.
The study results suggest that the protective effect of ACS was dose dependent. However, the interpretation that only a complete ACS exposure was beneficial should be viewed cautiously because the study had no power to assess the impact of a partial exposure.
A further limitation is the lack of consideration in analysis for maternal comorbidities and fetal growth restriction. In the Carlo study, the beneficial effect of corticosteroids in 23-week gestational age deliveries was not demonstrable in pregnancies affected by fetal growth restriction or maternal hypertension.
Other studies considered
Given all its limitations, can we assume that the study by Chawla and colleagues has reliably refuted the Carlo study’s suggestion of lack of ACS efficacy in infants born at 22 weeks’ gestation? Taken by itself, probably not. In the context of other recent investigations, yes.
A retrospective registry study that used data from the Vermont Oxford Network for the period 2012–2016 on 1,058 infants born at 22 weeks’ gestation found that infants who were exposed to ACS and received postnatal life support were more likely to survive to hospital discharge without major morbidity compared with infants who received postnatal life support alone.4 Overall survival was 38.5% versus 17.7% (adjusted risk ratio [aRR], 2.11; 95% CI, 1.68–2.65), and survival without major morbidity was 4.4% versus 1.0% (aRR, 4.35; 95% CI, 1.84–10.28).
An even larger cohort study that used data from the National Center for Health Statistics concluded that survival at age 1 year for infants born at 22 weeks (n = 2,635) during 2009–2014 was improved in those exposed to ACS followed by postnatal life support compared with postnatal life support alone (45.2% vs 27.8%; aRR, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.2–2.1).5
A meta-analysis of observational studies that reported on infants born between 22 0/7 and 22 6/7 weeks’ gestation (n = 2,226) who received proactive neonatal treatment found that administration of ACS doubled the rate of survival when compared with no ACS administration (39% vs 19.5%; P<.01).6
In September 2021, the recommendations from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists changed, stating that ACS can be considered at 22 weeks’ gestation when active postnatal management is desired.7 This recommendation is largely congruent with those from several other national and international medical organizations, including the World Association of Perinatal Medicine, the Royal Collegeof Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, and the German, Austrian and Swiss societies of gynecology and obstetrics. The implication is that the limit of viability may have shifted again, from 23 to 22 weeks’ gestation, and considering the importance of adequate timing in ACS administration (within 1 week from delivery), Chawla and colleagues posited that ACS administration can be considered as early as 21 weeks’ gestation when birth is anticipated at 22 weeks and active postnatal management is planned (notably, this should be the correct interpretation of the article title, not that ACS may be beneficial in 21-weeks’ gestational age births). ●
In 2001, the Institute of Medicine of the National Academies introduced the concept of shared decision-making as a key component of quality care. In very few other clinical situations is shared decision-making as critical as in the context of planning intervention when delivery is anticipated at 22 weeks’ gestation. The truth remains that even with the coordinated provision of ACS and active postnatal care, survival at this gestational age is still a toss-up, and survivors face a high probability of neurodevelopmental impairment and other long-term adverse health outcomes. In this setting, decision-making is complex, with the need to balance patient autonomy and nonmaleficence. On the other hand, the concept of patient autonomy is blurred because the patient (fetus) is incompetent and the negotiation is conducted between physicians and parents. However, no intervention should be undertaken unless the parents so desire. Since parental wishes are frequently emotional, overwhelmingly driving intervention, thorough and timely interdisciplinary counseling is needed. Evidence indicates that both obstetricians and neonatologists may, at times, underestimate the chance of a favorable health outcome for infants born extremely preterm.8,9 Early involvement of the neonatal and obstetric team is pivotal to put forward a coherent, nonconfusing, nonpaternalistic, balanced message. When outcomes information is shared during prenatal counseling, it should be based on local, not only national, data. Following appropriate consultation with the parents, the physicians will adjust the expectations to the local standards, outcomes data, and availability regarding periviable neonatal support.
Recent data suggest that the rate of cesarean delivery (CD) in the periviable period is increasing.10 There is no clear evidence in favor of CD to improve neonatal outcomes, whereas there is concern that periviable CD is associated with significantly increased maternal risks. Regardless of uterine incision type, periviable CD results in an increased risk of uterine rupture in a subsequent pregnancy.11 Consistent with the principle of nonmaleficence, a discussion of these risks should be included in shared decision-making.
ALEX C. VIDAEFF, MD, MPH, AND NATHAN C. SUNDGREN, MD, PHD
- McGoldrick E, Stewart F, Parker R, et al. Antenatal corticosteroids for accelerating fetal lung maturation for women at risk of preterm birth. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020;12(12):CD004454.
- Carlo WA, McDonald SA, Fanaroff AA, et al; Eunice Kennedy Schriver National Institute for Child Health and Human Development Neonatal Research Network. Association of antenatal corticosteroids with mortality and neurodevelopmental outcomes among infants born at 22-25 weeks gestation. JAMA. 2011;306:2348-2358.
- Chawla S, Wyckoff MH, Rysavy MA, et al; Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Neonatal Research Network. Association of antenatal steroid exposure at 21 to 22 weeks of gestation with neonatal survival and survival without morbidities. JAMA Netw Open. 2022;5(9):e2233331. doi:10.1001/ jamanetworkopen.2022.33331.
- Ehret DEY, Edwards EM, Greenberg LT, et al. Association of antenatal steroid exposure with survival among infants receiving postnatal life support at 22 to 25 weeks’ gestation. JAMA Netw Open. 2018;1(6):e183235. doi:10.1001/ jamanetworkopen.2018.3235.
- Rossi RM, DeFranco EA, Hall ES. Association of antenatal corticosteroid exposure and infant survival at 22 and 23 weeks. Am J Perinatol. November 28, 2021. doi:10.1055/s-0041-1740062.
- Backes CH, Rivera BK, Pavlek L, et al. Proactive neonatal treatment at 22 weeks of gestation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2021;224:158-174.
- Cahill AG, Kaimal AJ, Kuller JA, et al; American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine. Practice advisory: Use of antenatal corticosteroids at 22 weeks of gestation. Accessed December 7, 2022. https://www.acog.org/clinical/clinical-guidance /practice-advisory/articles/2021/09/use-of-antenatal -corticosteroids-at-22-weeks-of-gestation#
- Boland RA, Davis PG, Dawson JA, et al. What are we telling the parents of extremely preterm babies? Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2016;56:274-281.
- Blanco F, Suresh G, Howard D, et al. Ensuring accurate knowledge of prematurity outcomes for prenatal counseling. Pediatrics. 2005;115:e478-e487.
- Rossi RM, Hall E, DeFranco EA. Contemporary trends in cesarean delivery utilization for live births between 22 0/7 and 23 6/7 weeks of gestation. Obstet Gynecol. 2019;133:451-458.
- Lannon SMR, Guthrie KA, Vanderhoeven JP, et al. Uterine rupture risk after periviable cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol. 2015;125:1095-1100.
- McGoldrick E, Stewart F, Parker R, et al. Antenatal corticosteroids for accelerating fetal lung maturation for women at risk of preterm birth. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020;12(12):CD004454.
- Carlo WA, McDonald SA, Fanaroff AA, et al; Eunice Kennedy Schriver National Institute for Child Health and Human Development Neonatal Research Network. Association of antenatal corticosteroids with mortality and neurodevelopmental outcomes among infants born at 22-25 weeks gestation. JAMA. 2011;306:2348-2358.
- Chawla S, Wyckoff MH, Rysavy MA, et al; Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Neonatal Research Network. Association of antenatal steroid exposure at 21 to 22 weeks of gestation with neonatal survival and survival without morbidities. JAMA Netw Open. 2022;5(9):e2233331. doi:10.1001/ jamanetworkopen.2022.33331.
- Ehret DEY, Edwards EM, Greenberg LT, et al. Association of antenatal steroid exposure with survival among infants receiving postnatal life support at 22 to 25 weeks’ gestation. JAMA Netw Open. 2018;1(6):e183235. doi:10.1001/ jamanetworkopen.2018.3235.
- Rossi RM, DeFranco EA, Hall ES. Association of antenatal corticosteroid exposure and infant survival at 22 and 23 weeks. Am J Perinatol. November 28, 2021. doi:10.1055/s-0041-1740062.
- Backes CH, Rivera BK, Pavlek L, et al. Proactive neonatal treatment at 22 weeks of gestation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2021;224:158-174.
- Cahill AG, Kaimal AJ, Kuller JA, et al; American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine. Practice advisory: Use of antenatal corticosteroids at 22 weeks of gestation. Accessed December 7, 2022. https://www.acog.org/clinical/clinical-guidance /practice-advisory/articles/2021/09/use-of-antenatal -corticosteroids-at-22-weeks-of-gestation#
- Boland RA, Davis PG, Dawson JA, et al. What are we telling the parents of extremely preterm babies? Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2016;56:274-281.
- Blanco F, Suresh G, Howard D, et al. Ensuring accurate knowledge of prematurity outcomes for prenatal counseling. Pediatrics. 2005;115:e478-e487.
- Rossi RM, Hall E, DeFranco EA. Contemporary trends in cesarean delivery utilization for live births between 22 0/7 and 23 6/7 weeks of gestation. Obstet Gynecol. 2019;133:451-458.
- Lannon SMR, Guthrie KA, Vanderhoeven JP, et al. Uterine rupture risk after periviable cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol. 2015;125:1095-1100.
