As the United States enters a third fall with COVID-19, the virus for many is seemingly gone – or at least out of mind. But for those keeping watch, it is far from forgotten as deaths and infections continue to mount at a lower but steady pace.

What does that mean for the upcoming months? Experts predict different scenarios, some more dire than others – with one more encouraging.

In the United States, more than 300 people still die every day from COVID and more than 44,000 new daily cases are reported, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

But progress is undeniable. The stark daily death tolls of 2020 have plummeted. Vaccines and treatments have dramatically reduced severe illness, and mask requirements have mostly turned to personal preference.

Epidemiologists and other medical experts laud the progress, but as they look at the maps and the numbers, they see several scenarios ahead that signal a coming wave of disease, among them more-resistant variants coupled with waning immunity, the potential for a “twindemic” with a flu/COVID onslaught, and underuse of lifesaving vaccines and treatments.
 

Variants loom/waning immunity

Omicron variant BA.5 still makes up about 80% of infections in the United States, followed by BA4.6, according to the CDC, but other subvariants are emerging and showing signs of resistance to current antiviral treatments.

Eric Topol, MD, founder and director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute in San Diego, said about COVID this fall: “There will be another wave, magnitude unknown.”

He said subvariants XBB and BQ.1.1 “have extreme levels of immune evasion and both could pose a challenge,” explaining that XBB is more likely to cause trouble than BQ.1.1 because it is even more resistant to natural or vaccine-induced immunity.

Dr. Topol pointed to new research on those variants in a preprint posted on bioRxiv. The authors’ conclusion: “These results suggest that current herd immunity and BA.5 vaccine boosters may not provide sufficiently broad protection against infection.” 

Another variant to watch, some experts say, is Omicron subvariant BA.2.75.2, which has shown resistance to antiviral treatments. It is also growing at a rather alarming rate, says Michael Sweat, PhD, director of the Medical University of South Carolina Center for Global Health in Charleston. That subvariant currently makes up under 2% of U.S. cases but has spread to at least 55 countries and 43 U.S. states after first appearing at the end of last year globally and in mid-June in the United States.

A non–peer-reviewed preprint study from Sweden found that the variant in blood samples was neutralized on average “at titers approximately 6.5 times lower than BA.5, making BA.2.75.2 the most [neutralization-resistant] variant evaluated to date.”

Katelyn Jetelina, PhD, assistant professor in the department of epidemiology at University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston, said in an interview the U.S. waves often follow Europe’s, and Europe has seen a recent spike in cases and hospitalizations not related to Omicron subvariants, but to weather changes, waning immunity, and changes in behavior.

The World Health Organization reported on Oct. 5 that, while cases were down in every other region of the world, Europe’s numbers stand out, with an 8% increase in cases from the week before. 

Dr. Jetelina cited events such as Oktoberfest in Germany, which ended in the first week of October after drawing nearly 6 million people over 2 weeks, as a potential contributor, and people heading indoors as weather patterns change in Europe.

Ali Mokdad, PhD, chief strategy officer for population health at the University of Washington, Seattle, said in an interview he is less worried about the documented variants we know about than he is about the potential for a new immune-escape variety yet to emerge.

“Right now we know the Chinese are gearing up to open up the country, and because they have low immunity and little infection, we expect in China there will be a lot of spread of Omicron,” he said. “It’s possible because of the number of infections we could see a new variant.”

Dr. Mokdad said waning immunity could also leave populations vulnerable to variants.

“Even if you get infected, after about 5 months, you’re susceptible again. Remember, most of the infections from Omicron happened in January or February 2022, and we had two waves after that,” he said.

The new bivalent vaccines tweaked to target some Omicron variants will help, Dr. Mokdad said, but he noted, “people are very reluctant to take it.”

Jennifer Nuzzo, DrPH, professor of epidemiology and director of the Pandemic Center at Brown University, Providence, R.I., worries that in the United States we have less ability this year to track variants as funding has receded for testing kits and testing sites. Most people are testing at home – which doesn’t show up in the numbers – and the United States is relying more on other countries’ data to spot trends.

“I think we’re just going to have less visibility into the circulation of this virus,” she said in an interview.
 

‘Twindemic’: COVID and flu

Dr. Jetelina noted Australia and New Zealand just wrapped up a flu season that saw flu numbers returning to normal after a sharp drop in the last 2 years, and North America typically follows suit.

“We do expect flu will be here in the United States and probably at levels that we saw prepandemic. We’re all holding our breath to see how our health systems hold up with COVID-19 and flu. We haven’t really experienced that yet,” she said.

There is some disagreement, however, about the possibility of a so-called “twindemic” of influenza and COVID.

Richard Webby, PhD, an infectious disease specialist at St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital in Memphis, said in an interview he thinks the possibility of both viruses spiking at the same time is unlikely.

“That’s not to say we won’t get flu and COVID activity in the same winter,” he explained, “but I think both roaring at the same time is unlikely.”

As an indicator, he said, at the beginning of the flu season last year in the Northern Hemisphere, flu activity started to pick up, but when the Omicron variant came along, “flu just wasn’t able to compete in that same environment and flu numbers dropped right off.” Previous literature suggests that when one virus is spiking it’s hard for another respiratory virus to take hold.
 

Vaccine, treatment underuse

Another threat is vaccines, boosters, and treatments sitting on shelves.

Dr. Sweat referred to frustration with vaccine uptake that seems to be “frozen in amber.”

As of Oct. 4, only 5.3% of people in the United States who were eligible had received the updated booster launched in early September.

Dr. Nuzzo said boosters for people at least 65 years old will be key to severity of COVID this season.

“I think that’s probably the biggest factor going into the fall and winter,” she said.

Only 38% of people at least 50 years old and 45% of those at least 65 years old had gotten a second booster as of early October.

“If we do nothing else, we have to increase booster uptake in that group,” Dr. Nuzzo said.

She said the treatment nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (Paxlovid, Pfizer) for treating mild to moderate COVID-19 in patients at high risk for severe disease is greatly underused, often because providers aren’t prescribing it because they don’t think it helps, are worried about drug interactions, or are worried about its “rebound” effect.

Dr. Nuzzo urged greater use of the drug and education on how to manage drug interactions.

“We have very strong data that it does help keep people out of hospital. Sure, there may be a rebound, but that pales in comparison to the risk of being hospitalized,” she said.
 

Calm COVID season?

Not all predictions are dire. There is another little-talked-about scenario, Dr. Sweat said – that we could be in for a calm COVID season, and those who seem to be only mildly concerned about COVID may find those thoughts justified in the numbers.

Omicron blew through with such strength, he noted, that it may have left wide immunity in its wake. Because variants seem to be staying in the Omicron family, that may signal optimism.

“If the next variant is a descendant of the Omicron lineage, I would suspect that all these people who just got infected will have some protection, not perfect, but quite a bit of protection,” Dr. Sweat said.

Dr. Topol, Dr. Nuzzo, Dr. Sweat, Dr. Webby, Dr. Mokdad, and Dr. Jetelina reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

As the United States enters a third fall with COVID-19, the virus for many is seemingly gone – or at least out of mind. But for those keeping watch, it is far from forgotten as deaths and infections continue to mount at a lower but steady pace.

What does that mean for the upcoming months? Experts predict different scenarios, some more dire than others – with one more encouraging.

In the United States, more than 300 people still die every day from COVID and more than 44,000 new daily cases are reported, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

But progress is undeniable. The stark daily death tolls of 2020 have plummeted. Vaccines and treatments have dramatically reduced severe illness, and mask requirements have mostly turned to personal preference.

Epidemiologists and other medical experts laud the progress, but as they look at the maps and the numbers, they see several scenarios ahead that signal a coming wave of disease, among them more-resistant variants coupled with waning immunity, the potential for a “twindemic” with a flu/COVID onslaught, and underuse of lifesaving vaccines and treatments.
 

Variants loom/waning immunity

Omicron variant BA.5 still makes up about 80% of infections in the United States, followed by BA4.6, according to the CDC, but other subvariants are emerging and showing signs of resistance to current antiviral treatments.

Eric Topol, MD, founder and director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute in San Diego, said about COVID this fall: “There will be another wave, magnitude unknown.”

He said subvariants XBB and BQ.1.1 “have extreme levels of immune evasion and both could pose a challenge,” explaining that XBB is more likely to cause trouble than BQ.1.1 because it is even more resistant to natural or vaccine-induced immunity.

Dr. Topol pointed to new research on those variants in a preprint posted on bioRxiv. The authors’ conclusion: “These results suggest that current herd immunity and BA.5 vaccine boosters may not provide sufficiently broad protection against infection.” 

Another variant to watch, some experts say, is Omicron subvariant BA.2.75.2, which has shown resistance to antiviral treatments. It is also growing at a rather alarming rate, says Michael Sweat, PhD, director of the Medical University of South Carolina Center for Global Health in Charleston. That subvariant currently makes up under 2% of U.S. cases but has spread to at least 55 countries and 43 U.S. states after first appearing at the end of last year globally and in mid-June in the United States.

A non–peer-reviewed preprint study from Sweden found that the variant in blood samples was neutralized on average “at titers approximately 6.5 times lower than BA.5, making BA.2.75.2 the most [neutralization-resistant] variant evaluated to date.”

Katelyn Jetelina, PhD, assistant professor in the department of epidemiology at University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston, said in an interview the U.S. waves often follow Europe’s, and Europe has seen a recent spike in cases and hospitalizations not related to Omicron subvariants, but to weather changes, waning immunity, and changes in behavior.

The World Health Organization reported on Oct. 5 that, while cases were down in every other region of the world, Europe’s numbers stand out, with an 8% increase in cases from the week before. 

Dr. Jetelina cited events such as Oktoberfest in Germany, which ended in the first week of October after drawing nearly 6 million people over 2 weeks, as a potential contributor, and people heading indoors as weather patterns change in Europe.

Ali Mokdad, PhD, chief strategy officer for population health at the University of Washington, Seattle, said in an interview he is less worried about the documented variants we know about than he is about the potential for a new immune-escape variety yet to emerge.

“Right now we know the Chinese are gearing up to open up the country, and because they have low immunity and little infection, we expect in China there will be a lot of spread of Omicron,” he said. “It’s possible because of the number of infections we could see a new variant.”

Dr. Mokdad said waning immunity could also leave populations vulnerable to variants.

“Even if you get infected, after about 5 months, you’re susceptible again. Remember, most of the infections from Omicron happened in January or February 2022, and we had two waves after that,” he said.

The new bivalent vaccines tweaked to target some Omicron variants will help, Dr. Mokdad said, but he noted, “people are very reluctant to take it.”

Jennifer Nuzzo, DrPH, professor of epidemiology and director of the Pandemic Center at Brown University, Providence, R.I., worries that in the United States we have less ability this year to track variants as funding has receded for testing kits and testing sites. Most people are testing at home – which doesn’t show up in the numbers – and the United States is relying more on other countries’ data to spot trends.

“I think we’re just going to have less visibility into the circulation of this virus,” she said in an interview.
 

‘Twindemic’: COVID and flu

Dr. Jetelina noted Australia and New Zealand just wrapped up a flu season that saw flu numbers returning to normal after a sharp drop in the last 2 years, and North America typically follows suit.

“We do expect flu will be here in the United States and probably at levels that we saw prepandemic. We’re all holding our breath to see how our health systems hold up with COVID-19 and flu. We haven’t really experienced that yet,” she said.

There is some disagreement, however, about the possibility of a so-called “twindemic” of influenza and COVID.

Richard Webby, PhD, an infectious disease specialist at St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital in Memphis, said in an interview he thinks the possibility of both viruses spiking at the same time is unlikely.

“That’s not to say we won’t get flu and COVID activity in the same winter,” he explained, “but I think both roaring at the same time is unlikely.”

As an indicator, he said, at the beginning of the flu season last year in the Northern Hemisphere, flu activity started to pick up, but when the Omicron variant came along, “flu just wasn’t able to compete in that same environment and flu numbers dropped right off.” Previous literature suggests that when one virus is spiking it’s hard for another respiratory virus to take hold.
 

Vaccine, treatment underuse

Another threat is vaccines, boosters, and treatments sitting on shelves.

Dr. Sweat referred to frustration with vaccine uptake that seems to be “frozen in amber.”

As of Oct. 4, only 5.3% of people in the United States who were eligible had received the updated booster launched in early September.

Dr. Nuzzo said boosters for people at least 65 years old will be key to severity of COVID this season.

“I think that’s probably the biggest factor going into the fall and winter,” she said.

Only 38% of people at least 50 years old and 45% of those at least 65 years old had gotten a second booster as of early October.

“If we do nothing else, we have to increase booster uptake in that group,” Dr. Nuzzo said.

She said the treatment nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (Paxlovid, Pfizer) for treating mild to moderate COVID-19 in patients at high risk for severe disease is greatly underused, often because providers aren’t prescribing it because they don’t think it helps, are worried about drug interactions, or are worried about its “rebound” effect.

Dr. Nuzzo urged greater use of the drug and education on how to manage drug interactions.

“We have very strong data that it does help keep people out of hospital. Sure, there may be a rebound, but that pales in comparison to the risk of being hospitalized,” she said.
 

Calm COVID season?

Not all predictions are dire. There is another little-talked-about scenario, Dr. Sweat said – that we could be in for a calm COVID season, and those who seem to be only mildly concerned about COVID may find those thoughts justified in the numbers.

Omicron blew through with such strength, he noted, that it may have left wide immunity in its wake. Because variants seem to be staying in the Omicron family, that may signal optimism.

“If the next variant is a descendant of the Omicron lineage, I would suspect that all these people who just got infected will have some protection, not perfect, but quite a bit of protection,” Dr. Sweat said.

Dr. Topol, Dr. Nuzzo, Dr. Sweat, Dr. Webby, Dr. Mokdad, and Dr. Jetelina reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

As the United States enters a third fall with COVID-19, the virus for many is seemingly gone – or at least out of mind. But for those keeping watch, it is far from forgotten as deaths and infections continue to mount at a lower but steady pace.

What does that mean for the upcoming months? Experts predict different scenarios, some more dire than others – with one more encouraging.

In the United States, more than 300 people still die every day from COVID and more than 44,000 new daily cases are reported, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

But progress is undeniable. The stark daily death tolls of 2020 have plummeted. Vaccines and treatments have dramatically reduced severe illness, and mask requirements have mostly turned to personal preference.

Epidemiologists and other medical experts laud the progress, but as they look at the maps and the numbers, they see several scenarios ahead that signal a coming wave of disease, among them more-resistant variants coupled with waning immunity, the potential for a “twindemic” with a flu/COVID onslaught, and underuse of lifesaving vaccines and treatments.
 

Variants loom/waning immunity

Omicron variant BA.5 still makes up about 80% of infections in the United States, followed by BA4.6, according to the CDC, but other subvariants are emerging and showing signs of resistance to current antiviral treatments.

Eric Topol, MD, founder and director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute in San Diego, said about COVID this fall: “There will be another wave, magnitude unknown.”

He said subvariants XBB and BQ.1.1 “have extreme levels of immune evasion and both could pose a challenge,” explaining that XBB is more likely to cause trouble than BQ.1.1 because it is even more resistant to natural or vaccine-induced immunity.

Dr. Topol pointed to new research on those variants in a preprint posted on bioRxiv. The authors’ conclusion: “These results suggest that current herd immunity and BA.5 vaccine boosters may not provide sufficiently broad protection against infection.” 

Another variant to watch, some experts say, is Omicron subvariant BA.2.75.2, which has shown resistance to antiviral treatments. It is also growing at a rather alarming rate, says Michael Sweat, PhD, director of the Medical University of South Carolina Center for Global Health in Charleston. That subvariant currently makes up under 2% of U.S. cases but has spread to at least 55 countries and 43 U.S. states after first appearing at the end of last year globally and in mid-June in the United States.

A non–peer-reviewed preprint study from Sweden found that the variant in blood samples was neutralized on average “at titers approximately 6.5 times lower than BA.5, making BA.2.75.2 the most [neutralization-resistant] variant evaluated to date.”

Katelyn Jetelina, PhD, assistant professor in the department of epidemiology at University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston, said in an interview the U.S. waves often follow Europe’s, and Europe has seen a recent spike in cases and hospitalizations not related to Omicron subvariants, but to weather changes, waning immunity, and changes in behavior.

The World Health Organization reported on Oct. 5 that, while cases were down in every other region of the world, Europe’s numbers stand out, with an 8% increase in cases from the week before. 

Dr. Jetelina cited events such as Oktoberfest in Germany, which ended in the first week of October after drawing nearly 6 million people over 2 weeks, as a potential contributor, and people heading indoors as weather patterns change in Europe.

Ali Mokdad, PhD, chief strategy officer for population health at the University of Washington, Seattle, said in an interview he is less worried about the documented variants we know about than he is about the potential for a new immune-escape variety yet to emerge.

“Right now we know the Chinese are gearing up to open up the country, and because they have low immunity and little infection, we expect in China there will be a lot of spread of Omicron,” he said. “It’s possible because of the number of infections we could see a new variant.”

Dr. Mokdad said waning immunity could also leave populations vulnerable to variants.

“Even if you get infected, after about 5 months, you’re susceptible again. Remember, most of the infections from Omicron happened in January or February 2022, and we had two waves after that,” he said.

The new bivalent vaccines tweaked to target some Omicron variants will help, Dr. Mokdad said, but he noted, “people are very reluctant to take it.”

Jennifer Nuzzo, DrPH, professor of epidemiology and director of the Pandemic Center at Brown University, Providence, R.I., worries that in the United States we have less ability this year to track variants as funding has receded for testing kits and testing sites. Most people are testing at home – which doesn’t show up in the numbers – and the United States is relying more on other countries’ data to spot trends.

“I think we’re just going to have less visibility into the circulation of this virus,” she said in an interview.
 

‘Twindemic’: COVID and flu

Dr. Jetelina noted Australia and New Zealand just wrapped up a flu season that saw flu numbers returning to normal after a sharp drop in the last 2 years, and North America typically follows suit.

“We do expect flu will be here in the United States and probably at levels that we saw prepandemic. We’re all holding our breath to see how our health systems hold up with COVID-19 and flu. We haven’t really experienced that yet,” she said.

There is some disagreement, however, about the possibility of a so-called “twindemic” of influenza and COVID.

Richard Webby, PhD, an infectious disease specialist at St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital in Memphis, said in an interview he thinks the possibility of both viruses spiking at the same time is unlikely.

“That’s not to say we won’t get flu and COVID activity in the same winter,” he explained, “but I think both roaring at the same time is unlikely.”

As an indicator, he said, at the beginning of the flu season last year in the Northern Hemisphere, flu activity started to pick up, but when the Omicron variant came along, “flu just wasn’t able to compete in that same environment and flu numbers dropped right off.” Previous literature suggests that when one virus is spiking it’s hard for another respiratory virus to take hold.
 

Vaccine, treatment underuse

Another threat is vaccines, boosters, and treatments sitting on shelves.

Dr. Sweat referred to frustration with vaccine uptake that seems to be “frozen in amber.”

As of Oct. 4, only 5.3% of people in the United States who were eligible had received the updated booster launched in early September.

Dr. Nuzzo said boosters for people at least 65 years old will be key to severity of COVID this season.

“I think that’s probably the biggest factor going into the fall and winter,” she said.

Only 38% of people at least 50 years old and 45% of those at least 65 years old had gotten a second booster as of early October.

“If we do nothing else, we have to increase booster uptake in that group,” Dr. Nuzzo said.

She said the treatment nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (Paxlovid, Pfizer) for treating mild to moderate COVID-19 in patients at high risk for severe disease is greatly underused, often because providers aren’t prescribing it because they don’t think it helps, are worried about drug interactions, or are worried about its “rebound” effect.

Dr. Nuzzo urged greater use of the drug and education on how to manage drug interactions.

“We have very strong data that it does help keep people out of hospital. Sure, there may be a rebound, but that pales in comparison to the risk of being hospitalized,” she said.
 

Calm COVID season?

Not all predictions are dire. There is another little-talked-about scenario, Dr. Sweat said – that we could be in for a calm COVID season, and those who seem to be only mildly concerned about COVID may find those thoughts justified in the numbers.

Omicron blew through with such strength, he noted, that it may have left wide immunity in its wake. Because variants seem to be staying in the Omicron family, that may signal optimism.

“If the next variant is a descendant of the Omicron lineage, I would suspect that all these people who just got infected will have some protection, not perfect, but quite a bit of protection,” Dr. Sweat said.

Dr. Topol, Dr. Nuzzo, Dr. Sweat, Dr. Webby, Dr. Mokdad, and Dr. Jetelina reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new international consensus paper is recommending that eosinophilic GI diseases (EGIDs) should be named according to more specific criteria. The paper seeks to update nomenclature to improve research and bolster clinical clarity.

The involved part of the GI tract should be specifically named, and the abbreviation “Eo” should be used. Furthermore, the umbrella term should be EGID instead of the currently used “eosinophilic gastroenteritis,” according to the statement published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. The statement included 91 authors from five continents who filled out two rounds of surveys. In total, 93% completed the first and 90% completed the second. The paper produced 22 statements, with a consensus reached on all but 2.

EGIDs are chronic, immune-driven disorders that produce gastrointestinal symptoms and are characterized by eosinophil-dominant inflammation in specific GI regions. Although eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is the most well known of these conditions, other EGIDs have become more commonly recognized in recent years and are the subject of intense study. Other affected areas include the stomach, small bowel, and colon, where it can occur individually or in combination.

Efforts are underway to develop guidelines for diagnosis and treatment of EGIDs, but there was initial confusion surrounding the term eosinophilic gastroenteritis since its definition varied significantly in different clinical and research settings, according to the authors. That term varyingly referred to stomach alone, small bowel alone, stomach and small bowel, or any region of the GI tract.

“This nonstandardized use of nomenclature highlighted a need for a common language for non-EoE eosinophilic GI disease names, not only for clinical practice, but also for the consistent data collection required for research to continue to advance the field,” co–first authors Evan S. Dellon, MD, MPH, AGAF, from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and Nirmala Gonsalves, MD, from Northwestern University, Chicago, and colleagues wrote. “This step, while seemingly rudimentary, was essential to inform the guideline efforts that are now underway.”

After responses to the surveys were analyzed, respondents participated in one of two scheduled meetings held on a video conferencing platform in May 2021. Feedback from these meetings was then used to create a second round of 29 statements which were again distributed, and participants were asked to either agree or disagree with each statement. Agreement was set a priori at 70%. In all, 38% of the participants were women, and 91% worked in academic or university settings.

In routine clinical practice, conditions with eosinophil-dominant inflammation in the absence of secondary causes outside of the esophagus can collectively be referred to clinically as non-EoE EGID. Stomach involvement should be called eosinophilic gastritis (EoG), small bowel involvement eosinophilic enteritis (EoN), and colon involvement eosinophilic colitis (EoC).

For research use, and clinical use if desired, the authors called for greater granularity in description of the conditions, with each location named. For example, if the stomach and small bowel are both involved, the condition should be termed eosinophilic gastritis and enteritis. The authors could not reach a consensus for terminology when the esophagus is also involved, leading to the recommendation that it can be included using the phrase “with esophageal involvement” or by using EoE, although they note that this could be confusing since EoE is the current term for eosinophilia isolated in the esophagus.

The authors came to universal agreement in many areas, but there were exceptions that mostly centered on how to name conditions that affect multiple areas of the GI tract. It remains uncertain whether eosinophilia in different regions is caused by the same pathogenesis. Some experts felt that a “primary” location of EGID should be identified using predominant symptoms, endoscopic features, and complications. However, the authors anticipate that this nomenclature will change over time.

The authors noted that the clinical manifestation of the disease should remain the driving factor behind classification. Testing should be driven by clinically relevant questions and overtesting should be avoided. More details on this are likely to be forthcoming in future guidelines.

The consensus statement is limited by the fact that most participants were from academic settings. These recommendations do not apply to eosinophilic disorders of gallbladder, liver, or pancreas. Application of the recommendations to the small bowel may be too general or specific, but are meant primarily as a starting point for further refinement.

These limitations should help to drive further research. For example, molecular and pathogenic data could help distinguish EoE from “esophageal involvement” by determining if pathogenic mechanisms are the same or different, which would in turn lead to lumping the conditions into a single term or keeping them separate.

“The iterative and collaborative process led to agreement on nearly all aspects of the proposed nomenclature framework, and has identified future research directions. It is expected that as more data are collected, the nomenclature will again be updated to reflect best practices and the underlying pathogenesis of these disorders,” the authors concluded.

The authors disclosed relationships with various industry companies, include AstraZeneca, Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline, Regeneron, Sanofi, and Takeda.

A new international consensus paper is recommending that eosinophilic GI diseases (EGIDs) should be named according to more specific criteria. The paper seeks to update nomenclature to improve research and bolster clinical clarity.

The involved part of the GI tract should be specifically named, and the abbreviation “Eo” should be used. Furthermore, the umbrella term should be EGID instead of the currently used “eosinophilic gastroenteritis,” according to the statement published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. The statement included 91 authors from five continents who filled out two rounds of surveys. In total, 93% completed the first and 90% completed the second. The paper produced 22 statements, with a consensus reached on all but 2.

EGIDs are chronic, immune-driven disorders that produce gastrointestinal symptoms and are characterized by eosinophil-dominant inflammation in specific GI regions. Although eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is the most well known of these conditions, other EGIDs have become more commonly recognized in recent years and are the subject of intense study. Other affected areas include the stomach, small bowel, and colon, where it can occur individually or in combination.

Efforts are underway to develop guidelines for diagnosis and treatment of EGIDs, but there was initial confusion surrounding the term eosinophilic gastroenteritis since its definition varied significantly in different clinical and research settings, according to the authors. That term varyingly referred to stomach alone, small bowel alone, stomach and small bowel, or any region of the GI tract.

“This nonstandardized use of nomenclature highlighted a need for a common language for non-EoE eosinophilic GI disease names, not only for clinical practice, but also for the consistent data collection required for research to continue to advance the field,” co–first authors Evan S. Dellon, MD, MPH, AGAF, from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and Nirmala Gonsalves, MD, from Northwestern University, Chicago, and colleagues wrote. “This step, while seemingly rudimentary, was essential to inform the guideline efforts that are now underway.”

After responses to the surveys were analyzed, respondents participated in one of two scheduled meetings held on a video conferencing platform in May 2021. Feedback from these meetings was then used to create a second round of 29 statements which were again distributed, and participants were asked to either agree or disagree with each statement. Agreement was set a priori at 70%. In all, 38% of the participants were women, and 91% worked in academic or university settings.

In routine clinical practice, conditions with eosinophil-dominant inflammation in the absence of secondary causes outside of the esophagus can collectively be referred to clinically as non-EoE EGID. Stomach involvement should be called eosinophilic gastritis (EoG), small bowel involvement eosinophilic enteritis (EoN), and colon involvement eosinophilic colitis (EoC).

For research use, and clinical use if desired, the authors called for greater granularity in description of the conditions, with each location named. For example, if the stomach and small bowel are both involved, the condition should be termed eosinophilic gastritis and enteritis. The authors could not reach a consensus for terminology when the esophagus is also involved, leading to the recommendation that it can be included using the phrase “with esophageal involvement” or by using EoE, although they note that this could be confusing since EoE is the current term for eosinophilia isolated in the esophagus.

The authors came to universal agreement in many areas, but there were exceptions that mostly centered on how to name conditions that affect multiple areas of the GI tract. It remains uncertain whether eosinophilia in different regions is caused by the same pathogenesis. Some experts felt that a “primary” location of EGID should be identified using predominant symptoms, endoscopic features, and complications. However, the authors anticipate that this nomenclature will change over time.

The authors noted that the clinical manifestation of the disease should remain the driving factor behind classification. Testing should be driven by clinically relevant questions and overtesting should be avoided. More details on this are likely to be forthcoming in future guidelines.

The consensus statement is limited by the fact that most participants were from academic settings. These recommendations do not apply to eosinophilic disorders of gallbladder, liver, or pancreas. Application of the recommendations to the small bowel may be too general or specific, but are meant primarily as a starting point for further refinement.

These limitations should help to drive further research. For example, molecular and pathogenic data could help distinguish EoE from “esophageal involvement” by determining if pathogenic mechanisms are the same or different, which would in turn lead to lumping the conditions into a single term or keeping them separate.

“The iterative and collaborative process led to agreement on nearly all aspects of the proposed nomenclature framework, and has identified future research directions. It is expected that as more data are collected, the nomenclature will again be updated to reflect best practices and the underlying pathogenesis of these disorders,” the authors concluded.

The authors disclosed relationships with various industry companies, include AstraZeneca, Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline, Regeneron, Sanofi, and Takeda.

A new international consensus paper is recommending that eosinophilic GI diseases (EGIDs) should be named according to more specific criteria. The paper seeks to update nomenclature to improve research and bolster clinical clarity.

The involved part of the GI tract should be specifically named, and the abbreviation “Eo” should be used. Furthermore, the umbrella term should be EGID instead of the currently used “eosinophilic gastroenteritis,” according to the statement published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. The statement included 91 authors from five continents who filled out two rounds of surveys. In total, 93% completed the first and 90% completed the second. The paper produced 22 statements, with a consensus reached on all but 2.

EGIDs are chronic, immune-driven disorders that produce gastrointestinal symptoms and are characterized by eosinophil-dominant inflammation in specific GI regions. Although eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is the most well known of these conditions, other EGIDs have become more commonly recognized in recent years and are the subject of intense study. Other affected areas include the stomach, small bowel, and colon, where it can occur individually or in combination.

Efforts are underway to develop guidelines for diagnosis and treatment of EGIDs, but there was initial confusion surrounding the term eosinophilic gastroenteritis since its definition varied significantly in different clinical and research settings, according to the authors. That term varyingly referred to stomach alone, small bowel alone, stomach and small bowel, or any region of the GI tract.

“This nonstandardized use of nomenclature highlighted a need for a common language for non-EoE eosinophilic GI disease names, not only for clinical practice, but also for the consistent data collection required for research to continue to advance the field,” co–first authors Evan S. Dellon, MD, MPH, AGAF, from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and Nirmala Gonsalves, MD, from Northwestern University, Chicago, and colleagues wrote. “This step, while seemingly rudimentary, was essential to inform the guideline efforts that are now underway.”

After responses to the surveys were analyzed, respondents participated in one of two scheduled meetings held on a video conferencing platform in May 2021. Feedback from these meetings was then used to create a second round of 29 statements which were again distributed, and participants were asked to either agree or disagree with each statement. Agreement was set a priori at 70%. In all, 38% of the participants were women, and 91% worked in academic or university settings.

In routine clinical practice, conditions with eosinophil-dominant inflammation in the absence of secondary causes outside of the esophagus can collectively be referred to clinically as non-EoE EGID. Stomach involvement should be called eosinophilic gastritis (EoG), small bowel involvement eosinophilic enteritis (EoN), and colon involvement eosinophilic colitis (EoC).

For research use, and clinical use if desired, the authors called for greater granularity in description of the conditions, with each location named. For example, if the stomach and small bowel are both involved, the condition should be termed eosinophilic gastritis and enteritis. The authors could not reach a consensus for terminology when the esophagus is also involved, leading to the recommendation that it can be included using the phrase “with esophageal involvement” or by using EoE, although they note that this could be confusing since EoE is the current term for eosinophilia isolated in the esophagus.

The authors came to universal agreement in many areas, but there were exceptions that mostly centered on how to name conditions that affect multiple areas of the GI tract. It remains uncertain whether eosinophilia in different regions is caused by the same pathogenesis. Some experts felt that a “primary” location of EGID should be identified using predominant symptoms, endoscopic features, and complications. However, the authors anticipate that this nomenclature will change over time.

The authors noted that the clinical manifestation of the disease should remain the driving factor behind classification. Testing should be driven by clinically relevant questions and overtesting should be avoided. More details on this are likely to be forthcoming in future guidelines.

The consensus statement is limited by the fact that most participants were from academic settings. These recommendations do not apply to eosinophilic disorders of gallbladder, liver, or pancreas. Application of the recommendations to the small bowel may be too general or specific, but are meant primarily as a starting point for further refinement.

These limitations should help to drive further research. For example, molecular and pathogenic data could help distinguish EoE from “esophageal involvement” by determining if pathogenic mechanisms are the same or different, which would in turn lead to lumping the conditions into a single term or keeping them separate.

“The iterative and collaborative process led to agreement on nearly all aspects of the proposed nomenclature framework, and has identified future research directions. It is expected that as more data are collected, the nomenclature will again be updated to reflect best practices and the underlying pathogenesis of these disorders,” the authors concluded.

The authors disclosed relationships with various industry companies, include AstraZeneca, Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline, Regeneron, Sanofi, and Takeda.

[polldaddy:11216821]

[polldaddy:11216821]

[polldaddy:11216821]

Increased core body temperature is a likely trigger of disease flares in the rare genetic autoinflammatory disorder mevalonate kinase deficiency (MKD), based on a study involving new mouse models.

The study also uncovered potential strategies for treating MKD, lead author Marcia A. Munoz, PhD, of the Garvan Institute of Medical Research and the University of New South Wales, Sydney, and colleagues reported in Journal of Clinical Investigation.

courtesy Garvan Institute of Medical Research

“MKD encompasses a severe manifestation – mevalonic aciduria, and a milder form – a periodic fever syndrome known as hyperimmunoglobulinemia D syndrome,” the investigators wrote.

They noted that severity inversely correlates with the amount of mevalonate kinase in the body. To date, however, it’s been unclear why reduced levels of the enzyme lead to inflammation, or exactly how body temperature plays a role in this process, despite observations that disease flares can be triggered by temperature-raising activities like strenuous exercise.

“The underlying disease mechanisms in MKD have been very difficult to elucidate, because newly identified patients are usually young children (and it’s very difficult to obtain any samples of tissues or cells other than small samples of blood), and also because until now there were no laboratory models that truly mimic the human disease,” senior author Michael J. Rogers, PhD, of the Garvan Institute said in a written comment.

Dr. Rogers and colleagues addressed this gap by creating the first murine models to carry the relevant mutant allele in MVK, the gene encoding mevalonate kinase. These mice had lower levels of the enzyme, which led to increased levels of mevalonic acid and defects in protein prenylation (the addition of hydrophobic moieties), the latter of which were significantly associated with inflammation.

“The discovery that shortage of geranylgeranyl diphosphate, the substrate necessary for prenylation of over 300 substrates including small GTPases, and not the elevated mevalonic acid levels, correlated with inflammation was an important finding that ultimately provided a pathomechanism that linked the mevalonate kinase deficiency to inflammasome activation,” said Raphaela T. Goldbach-Mansky, MD, chief of the translational autoinflammatory disease studies unit at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

Dr. Goldbach-Mansky said the new mouse models can serve as “preclinical platforms” to test the efficacy and safety of possible treatments, such as supplementing geranylgeraniol, an intermediate product in the mevalonate pathway, or blocking NLRP3, the inflammasome in question.

While both of these interventions showed efficacy in mice, it is unclear whether the same therapies will work in people, as the models may not reflect all human disease characteristics.

“It remains unclear which human features are modeled in the mouse model,” Dr. Goldbach-Mansky said, noting that humans may exhibit unique inflammasomes and disease triggers.

Dr. Rogers aims to find out. After 8 years of work that culminated in the present publication, he and his colleagues are now exploring ways of circumventing the defective enzyme to restore normal metabolism. He expects “many more years of work” to understand exactly how MKD affects the immune system and other organs, and how these processes can be mitigated.

Still, he is optimistic.

“Of the many autoinflammatory diseases that are known so far, we believe that new treatments are truly within reach to overcome MKD,” Dr. Rogers said.

The study was supported by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council, St. Vincent’s Clinic Foundation, the Allergy and Immunology Foundation of Australasia, and others. The investigators and Dr. Goldbach-Mansky declared no competing interests.

Increased core body temperature is a likely trigger of disease flares in the rare genetic autoinflammatory disorder mevalonate kinase deficiency (MKD), based on a study involving new mouse models.

The study also uncovered potential strategies for treating MKD, lead author Marcia A. Munoz, PhD, of the Garvan Institute of Medical Research and the University of New South Wales, Sydney, and colleagues reported in Journal of Clinical Investigation.

courtesy Garvan Institute of Medical Research

“MKD encompasses a severe manifestation – mevalonic aciduria, and a milder form – a periodic fever syndrome known as hyperimmunoglobulinemia D syndrome,” the investigators wrote.

They noted that severity inversely correlates with the amount of mevalonate kinase in the body. To date, however, it’s been unclear why reduced levels of the enzyme lead to inflammation, or exactly how body temperature plays a role in this process, despite observations that disease flares can be triggered by temperature-raising activities like strenuous exercise.

“The underlying disease mechanisms in MKD have been very difficult to elucidate, because newly identified patients are usually young children (and it’s very difficult to obtain any samples of tissues or cells other than small samples of blood), and also because until now there were no laboratory models that truly mimic the human disease,” senior author Michael J. Rogers, PhD, of the Garvan Institute said in a written comment.

Dr. Rogers and colleagues addressed this gap by creating the first murine models to carry the relevant mutant allele in MVK, the gene encoding mevalonate kinase. These mice had lower levels of the enzyme, which led to increased levels of mevalonic acid and defects in protein prenylation (the addition of hydrophobic moieties), the latter of which were significantly associated with inflammation.

“The discovery that shortage of geranylgeranyl diphosphate, the substrate necessary for prenylation of over 300 substrates including small GTPases, and not the elevated mevalonic acid levels, correlated with inflammation was an important finding that ultimately provided a pathomechanism that linked the mevalonate kinase deficiency to inflammasome activation,” said Raphaela T. Goldbach-Mansky, MD, chief of the translational autoinflammatory disease studies unit at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

Dr. Goldbach-Mansky said the new mouse models can serve as “preclinical platforms” to test the efficacy and safety of possible treatments, such as supplementing geranylgeraniol, an intermediate product in the mevalonate pathway, or blocking NLRP3, the inflammasome in question.

While both of these interventions showed efficacy in mice, it is unclear whether the same therapies will work in people, as the models may not reflect all human disease characteristics.

“It remains unclear which human features are modeled in the mouse model,” Dr. Goldbach-Mansky said, noting that humans may exhibit unique inflammasomes and disease triggers.

Dr. Rogers aims to find out. After 8 years of work that culminated in the present publication, he and his colleagues are now exploring ways of circumventing the defective enzyme to restore normal metabolism. He expects “many more years of work” to understand exactly how MKD affects the immune system and other organs, and how these processes can be mitigated.

Still, he is optimistic.

“Of the many autoinflammatory diseases that are known so far, we believe that new treatments are truly within reach to overcome MKD,” Dr. Rogers said.

The study was supported by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council, St. Vincent’s Clinic Foundation, the Allergy and Immunology Foundation of Australasia, and others. The investigators and Dr. Goldbach-Mansky declared no competing interests.

Increased core body temperature is a likely trigger of disease flares in the rare genetic autoinflammatory disorder mevalonate kinase deficiency (MKD), based on a study involving new mouse models.

The study also uncovered potential strategies for treating MKD, lead author Marcia A. Munoz, PhD, of the Garvan Institute of Medical Research and the University of New South Wales, Sydney, and colleagues reported in Journal of Clinical Investigation.

courtesy Garvan Institute of Medical Research

“MKD encompasses a severe manifestation – mevalonic aciduria, and a milder form – a periodic fever syndrome known as hyperimmunoglobulinemia D syndrome,” the investigators wrote.

They noted that severity inversely correlates with the amount of mevalonate kinase in the body. To date, however, it’s been unclear why reduced levels of the enzyme lead to inflammation, or exactly how body temperature plays a role in this process, despite observations that disease flares can be triggered by temperature-raising activities like strenuous exercise.

“The underlying disease mechanisms in MKD have been very difficult to elucidate, because newly identified patients are usually young children (and it’s very difficult to obtain any samples of tissues or cells other than small samples of blood), and also because until now there were no laboratory models that truly mimic the human disease,” senior author Michael J. Rogers, PhD, of the Garvan Institute said in a written comment.

Dr. Rogers and colleagues addressed this gap by creating the first murine models to carry the relevant mutant allele in MVK, the gene encoding mevalonate kinase. These mice had lower levels of the enzyme, which led to increased levels of mevalonic acid and defects in protein prenylation (the addition of hydrophobic moieties), the latter of which were significantly associated with inflammation.

“The discovery that shortage of geranylgeranyl diphosphate, the substrate necessary for prenylation of over 300 substrates including small GTPases, and not the elevated mevalonic acid levels, correlated with inflammation was an important finding that ultimately provided a pathomechanism that linked the mevalonate kinase deficiency to inflammasome activation,” said Raphaela T. Goldbach-Mansky, MD, chief of the translational autoinflammatory disease studies unit at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

Dr. Goldbach-Mansky said the new mouse models can serve as “preclinical platforms” to test the efficacy and safety of possible treatments, such as supplementing geranylgeraniol, an intermediate product in the mevalonate pathway, or blocking NLRP3, the inflammasome in question.

While both of these interventions showed efficacy in mice, it is unclear whether the same therapies will work in people, as the models may not reflect all human disease characteristics.

“It remains unclear which human features are modeled in the mouse model,” Dr. Goldbach-Mansky said, noting that humans may exhibit unique inflammasomes and disease triggers.

Dr. Rogers aims to find out. After 8 years of work that culminated in the present publication, he and his colleagues are now exploring ways of circumventing the defective enzyme to restore normal metabolism. He expects “many more years of work” to understand exactly how MKD affects the immune system and other organs, and how these processes can be mitigated.

Still, he is optimistic.

“Of the many autoinflammatory diseases that are known so far, we believe that new treatments are truly within reach to overcome MKD,” Dr. Rogers said.

The study was supported by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council, St. Vincent’s Clinic Foundation, the Allergy and Immunology Foundation of Australasia, and others. The investigators and Dr. Goldbach-Mansky declared no competing interests.

Adenoma detection rate (ADR) targets for endoscopists performing colonoscopy after a positive fecal immunochemical test (FIT) should be markedly higher compared with ADR targets used in primary colonoscopy, researchers report.

Data from the Netherlands FIT-based screening program show that the ADR is “linearly and inversely” associated with interim colorectal cancer (CRC) occurrence, first author Pieter H.A. Wisse, MD, with Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands, told this news organization.

“Endoscopists should strive to obtain ADRs as high as possible” in FIT-positive screenees, Wisse said.

The study was published online in Annals of Internal Medicine.
 

Small differences, huge consequences

The ADR is a key quality indicator for endoscopists performing colonoscopies for CRC because it reflects their ability to detect lesions and is inversely associated with the risk of interval postcolonoscopy CRC (PCCRC).

Adults with a positive FIT result have a high prevalence of adenomas, leading to high ADRs for endoscopists performing colonoscopies in this setting. However, data on optimal ADRs of endoscopists performing colonoscopies in FIT-based screening are scarce.

To investigate, Dr. Wisse and colleagues evaluated the association between the ADR and interval PCCRC in patients undergoing colonoscopy after a positive FIT result. The analysis included 362 accredited and audited endoscopists who performed 116,360 colonoscopies.

During a median follow-up of 52 months, 209 interval PCCRCs were identified.

The quality of the colonoscopic examinations in FIT-positive screenees was high; endoscopists’ ADRs ranged between 40% and 82%, with a median ADR of 67%.

A higher ADR was strongly associated with lower incidence of interval PCCRC, with an adjusted hazard ratio of 0.95 (95% confidence interval, 0.92-0.97) per 1% increase in ADR.

For endoscopists with an ADR of 60%, the cumulative incidence of interval PCCRC was nearly two times as high as that of endoscopists with an ADR of 70%. The risk was even higher for endoscopists with ADRs less than 60%.

For every 1,000 FIT-positive colonoscopies, the expected number of patients diagnosed with interval PCCRC in 5 years was roughly 2 for endoscopists with an ADR of 70%, compared with almost 3.5 for ADRs of 60% and more than 4.5 for ADRs of 55%.

The authors note that the relatively short duration of follow-up (median, 52 months) could be considered a study limitation.
 

Quality metrics needed

“These seemingly small ADR differences are deceptive – if an endoscopist increases their ADR by just 10%, their patients’ associated decrease in relative interval cancer risk is a remarkable 40% to 50%,” Douglas Corley, MD, PhD, MPH, from Kaiser Permanente, Oakland, Calif., points out in an accompanying editorial.

Dr. Wisse and colleagues add that FIT-based colonoscopy has now surpassed primary colonoscopy as the most commonly used primary CRC-screening method.

They say there is a need to determine specific ADR targets for FIT-positive screenees to assure quality of colonoscopies and optimize the effect of screening programs by reducing interval PCCRC risk.

For primary colonoscopy, most professional societies recommend an ADR of at least 25% as an indicator of adequate performance. The new study suggests that FIT-positive colonoscopy “demands a markedly higher ADR target than primary colonoscopy,” the authors write.

Dr. Corley said this study provides “an excellent framework for evaluating nine concepts regarding effective quality metrics and how these can illustrate pathways for meaningful metrics for the care of other cancers and disorders.”

Quality metrics must be trustworthy, important, strategic, relevant, actionable, simple, gaming-resistant, time-stamped, and owned, he explained.

Questions concerning goals, plans for implementation of interventions, and the application of goals while maintaining simplicity must be considered in metric development, Dr. Corley said.

The study had no funding.

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

Adenoma detection rate (ADR) targets for endoscopists performing colonoscopy after a positive fecal immunochemical test (FIT) should be markedly higher compared with ADR targets used in primary colonoscopy, researchers report.

Data from the Netherlands FIT-based screening program show that the ADR is “linearly and inversely” associated with interim colorectal cancer (CRC) occurrence, first author Pieter H.A. Wisse, MD, with Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands, told this news organization.

“Endoscopists should strive to obtain ADRs as high as possible” in FIT-positive screenees, Wisse said.

The study was published online in Annals of Internal Medicine.
 

Small differences, huge consequences

The ADR is a key quality indicator for endoscopists performing colonoscopies for CRC because it reflects their ability to detect lesions and is inversely associated with the risk of interval postcolonoscopy CRC (PCCRC).

Adults with a positive FIT result have a high prevalence of adenomas, leading to high ADRs for endoscopists performing colonoscopies in this setting. However, data on optimal ADRs of endoscopists performing colonoscopies in FIT-based screening are scarce.

To investigate, Dr. Wisse and colleagues evaluated the association between the ADR and interval PCCRC in patients undergoing colonoscopy after a positive FIT result. The analysis included 362 accredited and audited endoscopists who performed 116,360 colonoscopies.

During a median follow-up of 52 months, 209 interval PCCRCs were identified.

The quality of the colonoscopic examinations in FIT-positive screenees was high; endoscopists’ ADRs ranged between 40% and 82%, with a median ADR of 67%.

A higher ADR was strongly associated with lower incidence of interval PCCRC, with an adjusted hazard ratio of 0.95 (95% confidence interval, 0.92-0.97) per 1% increase in ADR.

For endoscopists with an ADR of 60%, the cumulative incidence of interval PCCRC was nearly two times as high as that of endoscopists with an ADR of 70%. The risk was even higher for endoscopists with ADRs less than 60%.

For every 1,000 FIT-positive colonoscopies, the expected number of patients diagnosed with interval PCCRC in 5 years was roughly 2 for endoscopists with an ADR of 70%, compared with almost 3.5 for ADRs of 60% and more than 4.5 for ADRs of 55%.

The authors note that the relatively short duration of follow-up (median, 52 months) could be considered a study limitation.
 

Quality metrics needed

“These seemingly small ADR differences are deceptive – if an endoscopist increases their ADR by just 10%, their patients’ associated decrease in relative interval cancer risk is a remarkable 40% to 50%,” Douglas Corley, MD, PhD, MPH, from Kaiser Permanente, Oakland, Calif., points out in an accompanying editorial.

Dr. Wisse and colleagues add that FIT-based colonoscopy has now surpassed primary colonoscopy as the most commonly used primary CRC-screening method.

They say there is a need to determine specific ADR targets for FIT-positive screenees to assure quality of colonoscopies and optimize the effect of screening programs by reducing interval PCCRC risk.

For primary colonoscopy, most professional societies recommend an ADR of at least 25% as an indicator of adequate performance. The new study suggests that FIT-positive colonoscopy “demands a markedly higher ADR target than primary colonoscopy,” the authors write.

Dr. Corley said this study provides “an excellent framework for evaluating nine concepts regarding effective quality metrics and how these can illustrate pathways for meaningful metrics for the care of other cancers and disorders.”

Quality metrics must be trustworthy, important, strategic, relevant, actionable, simple, gaming-resistant, time-stamped, and owned, he explained.

Questions concerning goals, plans for implementation of interventions, and the application of goals while maintaining simplicity must be considered in metric development, Dr. Corley said.

The study had no funding.

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

Adenoma detection rate (ADR) targets for endoscopists performing colonoscopy after a positive fecal immunochemical test (FIT) should be markedly higher compared with ADR targets used in primary colonoscopy, researchers report.

Data from the Netherlands FIT-based screening program show that the ADR is “linearly and inversely” associated with interim colorectal cancer (CRC) occurrence, first author Pieter H.A. Wisse, MD, with Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands, told this news organization.

“Endoscopists should strive to obtain ADRs as high as possible” in FIT-positive screenees, Wisse said.

The study was published online in Annals of Internal Medicine.
 

Small differences, huge consequences

The ADR is a key quality indicator for endoscopists performing colonoscopies for CRC because it reflects their ability to detect lesions and is inversely associated with the risk of interval postcolonoscopy CRC (PCCRC).

Adults with a positive FIT result have a high prevalence of adenomas, leading to high ADRs for endoscopists performing colonoscopies in this setting. However, data on optimal ADRs of endoscopists performing colonoscopies in FIT-based screening are scarce.

To investigate, Dr. Wisse and colleagues evaluated the association between the ADR and interval PCCRC in patients undergoing colonoscopy after a positive FIT result. The analysis included 362 accredited and audited endoscopists who performed 116,360 colonoscopies.

During a median follow-up of 52 months, 209 interval PCCRCs were identified.

The quality of the colonoscopic examinations in FIT-positive screenees was high; endoscopists’ ADRs ranged between 40% and 82%, with a median ADR of 67%.

A higher ADR was strongly associated with lower incidence of interval PCCRC, with an adjusted hazard ratio of 0.95 (95% confidence interval, 0.92-0.97) per 1% increase in ADR.

For endoscopists with an ADR of 60%, the cumulative incidence of interval PCCRC was nearly two times as high as that of endoscopists with an ADR of 70%. The risk was even higher for endoscopists with ADRs less than 60%.

For every 1,000 FIT-positive colonoscopies, the expected number of patients diagnosed with interval PCCRC in 5 years was roughly 2 for endoscopists with an ADR of 70%, compared with almost 3.5 for ADRs of 60% and more than 4.5 for ADRs of 55%.

The authors note that the relatively short duration of follow-up (median, 52 months) could be considered a study limitation.
 

Quality metrics needed

“These seemingly small ADR differences are deceptive – if an endoscopist increases their ADR by just 10%, their patients’ associated decrease in relative interval cancer risk is a remarkable 40% to 50%,” Douglas Corley, MD, PhD, MPH, from Kaiser Permanente, Oakland, Calif., points out in an accompanying editorial.

Dr. Wisse and colleagues add that FIT-based colonoscopy has now surpassed primary colonoscopy as the most commonly used primary CRC-screening method.

They say there is a need to determine specific ADR targets for FIT-positive screenees to assure quality of colonoscopies and optimize the effect of screening programs by reducing interval PCCRC risk.

For primary colonoscopy, most professional societies recommend an ADR of at least 25% as an indicator of adequate performance. The new study suggests that FIT-positive colonoscopy “demands a markedly higher ADR target than primary colonoscopy,” the authors write.

Dr. Corley said this study provides “an excellent framework for evaluating nine concepts regarding effective quality metrics and how these can illustrate pathways for meaningful metrics for the care of other cancers and disorders.”

Quality metrics must be trustworthy, important, strategic, relevant, actionable, simple, gaming-resistant, time-stamped, and owned, he explained.

Questions concerning goals, plans for implementation of interventions, and the application of goals while maintaining simplicity must be considered in metric development, Dr. Corley said.

The study had no funding.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved a whooping cough vaccine that protects newborns under 2 months of age.

The federal agency on Oct. 7 approved Boostrix for use during the last 3 months of pregnancy to prevent pertussis in infants under 2 months old. The vaccine, manufactured by GlaxoSmithKline, was previously approved among pregnant people for their own protection.

“Infants younger than 2 months of age are too young to be protected by the childhood pertussis vaccine series,” Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said in a press release. “This is the first vaccine approved specifically for use during pregnancy to prevent a disease in young infants whose mothers are vaccinated during pregnancy.”

Pertussis is a highly contagious respiratory tract infection caused by the bacterium Bordetella pertussis. Most cases that result in hospitalizations and death are among infants within 2 months of birth.

The FDA said its decision was based on data from observational studies, which included 108 cases of pertussis in infants younger than 2 months old. According to data evaluated by the agency, the vaccine was 78% effective in preventing whooping cough.

Boostrix is administered as a single 0.5-mL dose.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved a whooping cough vaccine that protects newborns under 2 months of age.

The federal agency on Oct. 7 approved Boostrix for use during the last 3 months of pregnancy to prevent pertussis in infants under 2 months old. The vaccine, manufactured by GlaxoSmithKline, was previously approved among pregnant people for their own protection.

“Infants younger than 2 months of age are too young to be protected by the childhood pertussis vaccine series,” Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said in a press release. “This is the first vaccine approved specifically for use during pregnancy to prevent a disease in young infants whose mothers are vaccinated during pregnancy.”

Pertussis is a highly contagious respiratory tract infection caused by the bacterium Bordetella pertussis. Most cases that result in hospitalizations and death are among infants within 2 months of birth.

The FDA said its decision was based on data from observational studies, which included 108 cases of pertussis in infants younger than 2 months old. According to data evaluated by the agency, the vaccine was 78% effective in preventing whooping cough.

Boostrix is administered as a single 0.5-mL dose.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved a whooping cough vaccine that protects newborns under 2 months of age.

The federal agency on Oct. 7 approved Boostrix for use during the last 3 months of pregnancy to prevent pertussis in infants under 2 months old. The vaccine, manufactured by GlaxoSmithKline, was previously approved among pregnant people for their own protection.

“Infants younger than 2 months of age are too young to be protected by the childhood pertussis vaccine series,” Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said in a press release. “This is the first vaccine approved specifically for use during pregnancy to prevent a disease in young infants whose mothers are vaccinated during pregnancy.”

Pertussis is a highly contagious respiratory tract infection caused by the bacterium Bordetella pertussis. Most cases that result in hospitalizations and death are among infants within 2 months of birth.

The FDA said its decision was based on data from observational studies, which included 108 cases of pertussis in infants younger than 2 months old. According to data evaluated by the agency, the vaccine was 78% effective in preventing whooping cough.

Boostrix is administered as a single 0.5-mL dose.

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

While the use of artificial intelligence (AI) during colonoscopy may contribute to improved cancer prevention, it may also add to patient burden in terms of increased colonoscopy frequency and, in turn, health care costs, a new study suggests.

The study, published online in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology, found that colonoscopy plus AI (vs. colonoscopy alone) increased the proportion of patients requiring intensive postpolypectomy colonoscopy surveillance by roughly 35% in the United States and Japan and by about 20% in Europe.

“It’s certainly possible that AI will lead to more frequent surveillance for some patients, but it may balance itself out given that recent surveillance guidelines have pushed off the surveillance interval depending on the size of the polyp,” senior author Seth A. Gross, MD, professor of medicine and clinical chief of the division of gastroenterology and hepatology at New York University Langone Health, said in an interview.
 

Impact on intensive colonoscopy surveillance

AI tools have been shown to increase the adenoma detection rate (ADR) during colonoscopy, but what impact this has on the frequency of surveillance colonoscopy is unknown.

To investigate, Dr. Gross and an international team conducted a pooled analysis of nine randomized, controlled trials comparing colonoscopy with or without AI detection aids. Five trials were done in China, two in Italy, one in Japan, and one in the United States.

The primary outcome was the proportion of patients recommended to undergo intensive surveillance (that is, 3-year interval).

Among a total of 5,796 patients (mean age, 53 years; 51% male), 2,894 underwent AI-assisted colonoscopy and 2,902 underwent standard colonoscopy without AI assistance.

Higher ADRs in the AI-assisted colonoscopy groups were observed in all of the trials.

When following the U.S. and Japanese guidelines, the proportion of patients recommended for intensive surveillance increased from 8.4% (95% confidence interval, 7.4%-9.5%) in the non-AI group to 11.3% (95% CI, 10.2%-12.6%) in the AI group, which is an absolute difference of 2.9% (95% CI, 1.4%-4.4%) and a risk ratio of 1.35 (95% CI, 1.16-1.57). When following the European guidelines, the increase was from 6.1% (95% CI, 5.3%-7.0%) to 7.4% (95% CI, 6.5%-8.4%), which is an absolute difference of 1.3% (95% CI, 0.01%-2.6%) and a RR of 1.22 (95% CI, 1.01-1.47).

The increases are primarily the result of reallocation of patients from low-risk to intermediate- or high-risk categories, the investigators said. That shift is likely caused by the AI-related increase in adenomas per colonoscopy, which may lead to more effective cancer prevention.

“AI does show us that there’s always an opportunity for improvement when we do screening and surveillance colonoscopy,” Dr. Gross said. “The goal is the same, which is to offer the highest quality colonoscopy exam and the best possible outcome for our patients, and I think that’s what we’re starting to see.”
 

Cost analysis needed

Dr. Gross noted that he sees a cost-effectiveness analysis of AI in colonoscopy in the future.

“As this becomes more and more part of regular clinical practice, if it’s not being done already, someone will look at the cost-effectiveness of incorporating AI, just like they would for other technologies that come into the area of endoscopy,” Dr. Gross said.

Commenting on the study, Atsushi Sakuraba, MD, PhD, a gastroenterologist with University of Chicago Medicine, said he believes that the “benefit of improved adenoma detection and resulting reduction in colon cancer would outweigh the downsides of increased colonoscopy frequency and cost.”

“However, an economic impact study would need to be performed to answer this question,” added Dr. Sakuraba, who wasn’t involved with this study.

The study had no specific funding. Dr. Gross has served as a consultant for Olympus, Cook, Pentax, Ambu, and Iterative Scopes, and served on the advisory board for Docbot. Dr. Sakuraba reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

While the use of artificial intelligence (AI) during colonoscopy may contribute to improved cancer prevention, it may also add to patient burden in terms of increased colonoscopy frequency and, in turn, health care costs, a new study suggests.

The study, published online in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology, found that colonoscopy plus AI (vs. colonoscopy alone) increased the proportion of patients requiring intensive postpolypectomy colonoscopy surveillance by roughly 35% in the United States and Japan and by about 20% in Europe.

“It’s certainly possible that AI will lead to more frequent surveillance for some patients, but it may balance itself out given that recent surveillance guidelines have pushed off the surveillance interval depending on the size of the polyp,” senior author Seth A. Gross, MD, professor of medicine and clinical chief of the division of gastroenterology and hepatology at New York University Langone Health, said in an interview.
 

Impact on intensive colonoscopy surveillance

AI tools have been shown to increase the adenoma detection rate (ADR) during colonoscopy, but what impact this has on the frequency of surveillance colonoscopy is unknown.

To investigate, Dr. Gross and an international team conducted a pooled analysis of nine randomized, controlled trials comparing colonoscopy with or without AI detection aids. Five trials were done in China, two in Italy, one in Japan, and one in the United States.

The primary outcome was the proportion of patients recommended to undergo intensive surveillance (that is, 3-year interval).

Among a total of 5,796 patients (mean age, 53 years; 51% male), 2,894 underwent AI-assisted colonoscopy and 2,902 underwent standard colonoscopy without AI assistance.

Higher ADRs in the AI-assisted colonoscopy groups were observed in all of the trials.

When following the U.S. and Japanese guidelines, the proportion of patients recommended for intensive surveillance increased from 8.4% (95% confidence interval, 7.4%-9.5%) in the non-AI group to 11.3% (95% CI, 10.2%-12.6%) in the AI group, which is an absolute difference of 2.9% (95% CI, 1.4%-4.4%) and a risk ratio of 1.35 (95% CI, 1.16-1.57). When following the European guidelines, the increase was from 6.1% (95% CI, 5.3%-7.0%) to 7.4% (95% CI, 6.5%-8.4%), which is an absolute difference of 1.3% (95% CI, 0.01%-2.6%) and a RR of 1.22 (95% CI, 1.01-1.47).

The increases are primarily the result of reallocation of patients from low-risk to intermediate- or high-risk categories, the investigators said. That shift is likely caused by the AI-related increase in adenomas per colonoscopy, which may lead to more effective cancer prevention.

“AI does show us that there’s always an opportunity for improvement when we do screening and surveillance colonoscopy,” Dr. Gross said. “The goal is the same, which is to offer the highest quality colonoscopy exam and the best possible outcome for our patients, and I think that’s what we’re starting to see.”
 

Cost analysis needed

Dr. Gross noted that he sees a cost-effectiveness analysis of AI in colonoscopy in the future.

“As this becomes more and more part of regular clinical practice, if it’s not being done already, someone will look at the cost-effectiveness of incorporating AI, just like they would for other technologies that come into the area of endoscopy,” Dr. Gross said.

Commenting on the study, Atsushi Sakuraba, MD, PhD, a gastroenterologist with University of Chicago Medicine, said he believes that the “benefit of improved adenoma detection and resulting reduction in colon cancer would outweigh the downsides of increased colonoscopy frequency and cost.”

“However, an economic impact study would need to be performed to answer this question,” added Dr. Sakuraba, who wasn’t involved with this study.

The study had no specific funding. Dr. Gross has served as a consultant for Olympus, Cook, Pentax, Ambu, and Iterative Scopes, and served on the advisory board for Docbot. Dr. Sakuraba reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

While the use of artificial intelligence (AI) during colonoscopy may contribute to improved cancer prevention, it may also add to patient burden in terms of increased colonoscopy frequency and, in turn, health care costs, a new study suggests.

The study, published online in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology, found that colonoscopy plus AI (vs. colonoscopy alone) increased the proportion of patients requiring intensive postpolypectomy colonoscopy surveillance by roughly 35% in the United States and Japan and by about 20% in Europe.

“It’s certainly possible that AI will lead to more frequent surveillance for some patients, but it may balance itself out given that recent surveillance guidelines have pushed off the surveillance interval depending on the size of the polyp,” senior author Seth A. Gross, MD, professor of medicine and clinical chief of the division of gastroenterology and hepatology at New York University Langone Health, said in an interview.
 

Impact on intensive colonoscopy surveillance

AI tools have been shown to increase the adenoma detection rate (ADR) during colonoscopy, but what impact this has on the frequency of surveillance colonoscopy is unknown.

To investigate, Dr. Gross and an international team conducted a pooled analysis of nine randomized, controlled trials comparing colonoscopy with or without AI detection aids. Five trials were done in China, two in Italy, one in Japan, and one in the United States.

The primary outcome was the proportion of patients recommended to undergo intensive surveillance (that is, 3-year interval).

Among a total of 5,796 patients (mean age, 53 years; 51% male), 2,894 underwent AI-assisted colonoscopy and 2,902 underwent standard colonoscopy without AI assistance.

Higher ADRs in the AI-assisted colonoscopy groups were observed in all of the trials.

When following the U.S. and Japanese guidelines, the proportion of patients recommended for intensive surveillance increased from 8.4% (95% confidence interval, 7.4%-9.5%) in the non-AI group to 11.3% (95% CI, 10.2%-12.6%) in the AI group, which is an absolute difference of 2.9% (95% CI, 1.4%-4.4%) and a risk ratio of 1.35 (95% CI, 1.16-1.57). When following the European guidelines, the increase was from 6.1% (95% CI, 5.3%-7.0%) to 7.4% (95% CI, 6.5%-8.4%), which is an absolute difference of 1.3% (95% CI, 0.01%-2.6%) and a RR of 1.22 (95% CI, 1.01-1.47).

The increases are primarily the result of reallocation of patients from low-risk to intermediate- or high-risk categories, the investigators said. That shift is likely caused by the AI-related increase in adenomas per colonoscopy, which may lead to more effective cancer prevention.

“AI does show us that there’s always an opportunity for improvement when we do screening and surveillance colonoscopy,” Dr. Gross said. “The goal is the same, which is to offer the highest quality colonoscopy exam and the best possible outcome for our patients, and I think that’s what we’re starting to see.”
 

Cost analysis needed

Dr. Gross noted that he sees a cost-effectiveness analysis of AI in colonoscopy in the future.

“As this becomes more and more part of regular clinical practice, if it’s not being done already, someone will look at the cost-effectiveness of incorporating AI, just like they would for other technologies that come into the area of endoscopy,” Dr. Gross said.

Commenting on the study, Atsushi Sakuraba, MD, PhD, a gastroenterologist with University of Chicago Medicine, said he believes that the “benefit of improved adenoma detection and resulting reduction in colon cancer would outweigh the downsides of increased colonoscopy frequency and cost.”

“However, an economic impact study would need to be performed to answer this question,” added Dr. Sakuraba, who wasn’t involved with this study.

The study had no specific funding. Dr. Gross has served as a consultant for Olympus, Cook, Pentax, Ambu, and Iterative Scopes, and served on the advisory board for Docbot. Dr. Sakuraba reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Despite money’s central role in our psychic lives, many trainees – and some seasoned practitioners – skirt around financial issues. Some clinicians confess that inquiring about patients’ finances feels “too personal.” They fear that asking about money could suggest that the clinician is primarily concerned with getting paid. Some clinicians feel that looking into patients’ finances might be unprofessional, outside one’s scope of practice. But it is not.

Trainees often receive little guidance concerning money matters in patients’ lives and treatments, considerations we have labeled clinical psychoeconomics. Considerable evidence suggests that financial concerns often provoke emotional distress and dysfunctional behaviors, and directly influence patient’s health care decisions. Financial issues also influence how clinicians view and react to patients.

We have recently reviewed (and illustrated through case vignettes) how money matters might impact psychiatric assessment, case formulation, treatment planning, and ongoing psychiatric treatments including psychotherapies.¹ Consider how money affects people’s lives: Money helps people meet multiple practical, psychological, and social needs by enabling them to obtain food, clothing, shelter, other material goods, services, discretionary time, and opportunities. And money strongly influences relationships. Regardless of poverty or wealth, thoughts and behaviors connected to acquiring, possessing, and disposing of money, and feelings accompanying these processes such as greed, neediness, envy, pride, shame, guilt, and self-satisfaction often underly intrapsychic and interpersonal conflicts.

Individuals constantly engage in numerous simultaneous conscious, preconscious, and unconscious neuro-economic trade-offs that determine goals, efforts, and timing. Many are financially influenced. Money influences how virtually all patients seek, receive, and sustain their mental health care including psychotherapy.

Money problems can be associated with insecurity, impotence, feeling unloved, and lack of freedom or subjugation. Individuals may resent how they’re forced to acquire money, and feel shamed or morally injured by their jobs, financial dependence on other family members, public assistance, or their questionable ways of obtaining money.

Impoverished individuals may face choosing between food, housing, medications, and medical care. Domestically abused individuals may reluctantly remain with their abusers, risking physical harm or death rather than face destitution. Some families tolerate severely disabled individuals at home because they rely on their disability checks and caregiver payments. Suicides may turn on how individuals forecast financial repercussions affecting their families. Desires to avoid debt may lead to treatment avoidance.

Individuals with enough money to get by face daily financially related choices involving competing needs, desires, values, and loyalties. They may experience conflicts concerning spending on necessities vs. indulgences or spending on oneself vs. significant others.

Whereas some wealthy individuals may assume unwarranted airs of superiority and entitlement, others may feel guilty about wealth, or fearful that others like them only for their money. Individuals on the receiving end of wealth may feel emotionally and behaviorally manipulated by their benefactors.
 

Assessment

Assessments should consider how financial matters have shaped patients’ early psychological development as well their current lives. How do patients’ emotions, thoughts, and behaviors reflect money matters? What money-related pathologies are evident? What aspects of the patient’s “financial world” seem modifiable?

Financial questions should be posed colloquially. Screeners include: “Where do you live?”, “Who’s in the home?”, “How do you (all) manage financially?”, “What do you all do for a living?”, “How do you make ends meet?”, and “What financial problems are you facing?” Clinicians can quickly learn about patients’ financial self-sufficiencies, individuals for whom they bear financial responsibility, and others they rely on for support, for example, relatives. If patients avoid answering such questions forthrightly, particularly when financial arrangements are “complicated,” clinicians will want to revisit these issues later after establishing a firmer alliance but continue to wonder about the meaning of the patient’s reluctance.

Clinically, money matters manifest intrapsychically or interpersonally in three ways: as explicit conflicts, implicit issues, and unequivocal money-related pathologies. When explicit, patients, families, and couples are fully aware of the conflicts but have difficulty resolving financial disputes. When conflicts are implicit, money problems may be unacknowledged, avoided, denied, or minimized. Conflicts concerning money are often transmitted trans-generationally.

Psychopathological conditions unequivocally linked to money include compulsive shopping, gambling disorders, miserly hoarding, impulse buying, and spending sprees during hypomanic and manic states. Mounting debts may create progressively insurmountable sources of distress. Money can be weaponized to sadistically create enticement, envy, or deprivation. Some monetarily antisocial individuals compromise interpersonal relationships as well as treatments. Individuals with alcohol/substance use disorders may spend so much on substances that little is left for necessities. Financially needy individuals may engage in morally questionable behaviors they might otherwise shun.
 

Case formulation and treatment planning

Incorporating money matters into case formulations entails demonstrating how financial concerns influenced maladaptive development and distort current attitudes, perceptions, and behaviors.

Concurrently, clinicians should acknowledge patients’ reality-based fiscal decisions, appreciating cultural and family value differences concerning how money should be acquired and spent. Since money often determines frequency and duration of treatment visits, clinicians are ethically obligated to discuss with patients what they might expect from different medications and psychotherapies, and their comparative costs.
 

Money matters’ impact on psychotherapies

Money matters often affect transference and countertransference reactions. Some reactions stem from how patients and clinicians compare their own financial situations with those of the other.

To help identify and ameliorate money-related countertransference responses, clinicians can reflect on questions such as: “How comfortable are you with people who are much poorer or richer than you are?” “How comfortable are you with impoverished individuals or with multimillionaires or their children?” And “why?” For trainees, all these reactions should be discussed in supervision.
 

Conclusions

To summarize, four clinical psychoeconomic issues should be routinely assessed and factored into psychiatric case formulations and treatment plans: how financial issues 1) have impacted patients’ psychological development; 2) impact patients’ current lives; 3) are likely to impact access, type, intensity, and duration of treatment visits; and 4) might provoke money-related transference and countertransference concerns.

In advising patients about treatment options, clinicians should discuss each treatment’s relative effectiveness and estimated costs of care. Patients’ decisions will likely be heavily influenced by financial considerations.

Dr. Yager is based in the department of psychiatry, University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora. Dr. Kay is based in the department of psychiatry, Wright State University, Dayton, Ohio. No external funds were received for this project, and the authors have no conflicts to disclose.

Reference

1. Yager J and Kay J. Money matters in psychiatric assessment, case formulation, treatment planning, and ongoing psychotherapy: Clinical psychoeconomics. J Nerv Ment Dis. 2022 Jun 10. doi: 10.1097/NMD.0000000000001552.

Despite money’s central role in our psychic lives, many trainees – and some seasoned practitioners – skirt around financial issues. Some clinicians confess that inquiring about patients’ finances feels “too personal.” They fear that asking about money could suggest that the clinician is primarily concerned with getting paid. Some clinicians feel that looking into patients’ finances might be unprofessional, outside one’s scope of practice. But it is not.

Trainees often receive little guidance concerning money matters in patients’ lives and treatments, considerations we have labeled clinical psychoeconomics. Considerable evidence suggests that financial concerns often provoke emotional distress and dysfunctional behaviors, and directly influence patient’s health care decisions. Financial issues also influence how clinicians view and react to patients.

We have recently reviewed (and illustrated through case vignettes) how money matters might impact psychiatric assessment, case formulation, treatment planning, and ongoing psychiatric treatments including psychotherapies.¹ Consider how money affects people’s lives: Money helps people meet multiple practical, psychological, and social needs by enabling them to obtain food, clothing, shelter, other material goods, services, discretionary time, and opportunities. And money strongly influences relationships. Regardless of poverty or wealth, thoughts and behaviors connected to acquiring, possessing, and disposing of money, and feelings accompanying these processes such as greed, neediness, envy, pride, shame, guilt, and self-satisfaction often underly intrapsychic and interpersonal conflicts.

Individuals constantly engage in numerous simultaneous conscious, preconscious, and unconscious neuro-economic trade-offs that determine goals, efforts, and timing. Many are financially influenced. Money influences how virtually all patients seek, receive, and sustain their mental health care including psychotherapy.

Money problems can be associated with insecurity, impotence, feeling unloved, and lack of freedom or subjugation. Individuals may resent how they’re forced to acquire money, and feel shamed or morally injured by their jobs, financial dependence on other family members, public assistance, or their questionable ways of obtaining money.

Impoverished individuals may face choosing between food, housing, medications, and medical care. Domestically abused individuals may reluctantly remain with their abusers, risking physical harm or death rather than face destitution. Some families tolerate severely disabled individuals at home because they rely on their disability checks and caregiver payments. Suicides may turn on how individuals forecast financial repercussions affecting their families. Desires to avoid debt may lead to treatment avoidance.

Individuals with enough money to get by face daily financially related choices involving competing needs, desires, values, and loyalties. They may experience conflicts concerning spending on necessities vs. indulgences or spending on oneself vs. significant others.

Whereas some wealthy individuals may assume unwarranted airs of superiority and entitlement, others may feel guilty about wealth, or fearful that others like them only for their money. Individuals on the receiving end of wealth may feel emotionally and behaviorally manipulated by their benefactors.
 

Assessment

Assessments should consider how financial matters have shaped patients’ early psychological development as well their current lives. How do patients’ emotions, thoughts, and behaviors reflect money matters? What money-related pathologies are evident? What aspects of the patient’s “financial world” seem modifiable?

Financial questions should be posed colloquially. Screeners include: “Where do you live?”, “Who’s in the home?”, “How do you (all) manage financially?”, “What do you all do for a living?”, “How do you make ends meet?”, and “What financial problems are you facing?” Clinicians can quickly learn about patients’ financial self-sufficiencies, individuals for whom they bear financial responsibility, and others they rely on for support, for example, relatives. If patients avoid answering such questions forthrightly, particularly when financial arrangements are “complicated,” clinicians will want to revisit these issues later after establishing a firmer alliance but continue to wonder about the meaning of the patient’s reluctance.

Clinically, money matters manifest intrapsychically or interpersonally in three ways: as explicit conflicts, implicit issues, and unequivocal money-related pathologies. When explicit, patients, families, and couples are fully aware of the conflicts but have difficulty resolving financial disputes. When conflicts are implicit, money problems may be unacknowledged, avoided, denied, or minimized. Conflicts concerning money are often transmitted trans-generationally.

Psychopathological conditions unequivocally linked to money include compulsive shopping, gambling disorders, miserly hoarding, impulse buying, and spending sprees during hypomanic and manic states. Mounting debts may create progressively insurmountable sources of distress. Money can be weaponized to sadistically create enticement, envy, or deprivation. Some monetarily antisocial individuals compromise interpersonal relationships as well as treatments. Individuals with alcohol/substance use disorders may spend so much on substances that little is left for necessities. Financially needy individuals may engage in morally questionable behaviors they might otherwise shun.
 

Case formulation and treatment planning

Incorporating money matters into case formulations entails demonstrating how financial concerns influenced maladaptive development and distort current attitudes, perceptions, and behaviors.

Concurrently, clinicians should acknowledge patients’ reality-based fiscal decisions, appreciating cultural and family value differences concerning how money should be acquired and spent. Since money often determines frequency and duration of treatment visits, clinicians are ethically obligated to discuss with patients what they might expect from different medications and psychotherapies, and their comparative costs.
 

Money matters’ impact on psychotherapies

Money matters often affect transference and countertransference reactions. Some reactions stem from how patients and clinicians compare their own financial situations with those of the other.

To help identify and ameliorate money-related countertransference responses, clinicians can reflect on questions such as: “How comfortable are you with people who are much poorer or richer than you are?” “How comfortable are you with impoverished individuals or with multimillionaires or their children?” And “why?” For trainees, all these reactions should be discussed in supervision.
 

Conclusions

To summarize, four clinical psychoeconomic issues should be routinely assessed and factored into psychiatric case formulations and treatment plans: how financial issues 1) have impacted patients’ psychological development; 2) impact patients’ current lives; 3) are likely to impact access, type, intensity, and duration of treatment visits; and 4) might provoke money-related transference and countertransference concerns.

In advising patients about treatment options, clinicians should discuss each treatment’s relative effectiveness and estimated costs of care. Patients’ decisions will likely be heavily influenced by financial considerations.

Dr. Yager is based in the department of psychiatry, University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora. Dr. Kay is based in the department of psychiatry, Wright State University, Dayton, Ohio. No external funds were received for this project, and the authors have no conflicts to disclose.

Reference

1. Yager J and Kay J. Money matters in psychiatric assessment, case formulation, treatment planning, and ongoing psychotherapy: Clinical psychoeconomics. J Nerv Ment Dis. 2022 Jun 10. doi: 10.1097/NMD.0000000000001552.

Despite money’s central role in our psychic lives, many trainees – and some seasoned practitioners – skirt around financial issues. Some clinicians confess that inquiring about patients’ finances feels “too personal.” They fear that asking about money could suggest that the clinician is primarily concerned with getting paid. Some clinicians feel that looking into patients’ finances might be unprofessional, outside one’s scope of practice. But it is not.

Trainees often receive little guidance concerning money matters in patients’ lives and treatments, considerations we have labeled clinical psychoeconomics. Considerable evidence suggests that financial concerns often provoke emotional distress and dysfunctional behaviors, and directly influence patient’s health care decisions. Financial issues also influence how clinicians view and react to patients.

We have recently reviewed (and illustrated through case vignettes) how money matters might impact psychiatric assessment, case formulation, treatment planning, and ongoing psychiatric treatments including psychotherapies.¹ Consider how money affects people’s lives: Money helps people meet multiple practical, psychological, and social needs by enabling them to obtain food, clothing, shelter, other material goods, services, discretionary time, and opportunities. And money strongly influences relationships. Regardless of poverty or wealth, thoughts and behaviors connected to acquiring, possessing, and disposing of money, and feelings accompanying these processes such as greed, neediness, envy, pride, shame, guilt, and self-satisfaction often underly intrapsychic and interpersonal conflicts.

Individuals constantly engage in numerous simultaneous conscious, preconscious, and unconscious neuro-economic trade-offs that determine goals, efforts, and timing. Many are financially influenced. Money influences how virtually all patients seek, receive, and sustain their mental health care including psychotherapy.

Money problems can be associated with insecurity, impotence, feeling unloved, and lack of freedom or subjugation. Individuals may resent how they’re forced to acquire money, and feel shamed or morally injured by their jobs, financial dependence on other family members, public assistance, or their questionable ways of obtaining money.

Impoverished individuals may face choosing between food, housing, medications, and medical care. Domestically abused individuals may reluctantly remain with their abusers, risking physical harm or death rather than face destitution. Some families tolerate severely disabled individuals at home because they rely on their disability checks and caregiver payments. Suicides may turn on how individuals forecast financial repercussions affecting their families. Desires to avoid debt may lead to treatment avoidance.

Individuals with enough money to get by face daily financially related choices involving competing needs, desires, values, and loyalties. They may experience conflicts concerning spending on necessities vs. indulgences or spending on oneself vs. significant others.

Whereas some wealthy individuals may assume unwarranted airs of superiority and entitlement, others may feel guilty about wealth, or fearful that others like them only for their money. Individuals on the receiving end of wealth may feel emotionally and behaviorally manipulated by their benefactors.
 

Assessment

Assessments should consider how financial matters have shaped patients’ early psychological development as well their current lives. How do patients’ emotions, thoughts, and behaviors reflect money matters? What money-related pathologies are evident? What aspects of the patient’s “financial world” seem modifiable?

Financial questions should be posed colloquially. Screeners include: “Where do you live?”, “Who’s in the home?”, “How do you (all) manage financially?”, “What do you all do for a living?”, “How do you make ends meet?”, and “What financial problems are you facing?” Clinicians can quickly learn about patients’ financial self-sufficiencies, individuals for whom they bear financial responsibility, and others they rely on for support, for example, relatives. If patients avoid answering such questions forthrightly, particularly when financial arrangements are “complicated,” clinicians will want to revisit these issues later after establishing a firmer alliance but continue to wonder about the meaning of the patient’s reluctance.

Clinically, money matters manifest intrapsychically or interpersonally in three ways: as explicit conflicts, implicit issues, and unequivocal money-related pathologies. When explicit, patients, families, and couples are fully aware of the conflicts but have difficulty resolving financial disputes. When conflicts are implicit, money problems may be unacknowledged, avoided, denied, or minimized. Conflicts concerning money are often transmitted trans-generationally.

Psychopathological conditions unequivocally linked to money include compulsive shopping, gambling disorders, miserly hoarding, impulse buying, and spending sprees during hypomanic and manic states. Mounting debts may create progressively insurmountable sources of distress. Money can be weaponized to sadistically create enticement, envy, or deprivation. Some monetarily antisocial individuals compromise interpersonal relationships as well as treatments. Individuals with alcohol/substance use disorders may spend so much on substances that little is left for necessities. Financially needy individuals may engage in morally questionable behaviors they might otherwise shun.
 

Case formulation and treatment planning

Incorporating money matters into case formulations entails demonstrating how financial concerns influenced maladaptive development and distort current attitudes, perceptions, and behaviors.

Concurrently, clinicians should acknowledge patients’ reality-based fiscal decisions, appreciating cultural and family value differences concerning how money should be acquired and spent. Since money often determines frequency and duration of treatment visits, clinicians are ethically obligated to discuss with patients what they might expect from different medications and psychotherapies, and their comparative costs.
 

Money matters’ impact on psychotherapies

Money matters often affect transference and countertransference reactions. Some reactions stem from how patients and clinicians compare their own financial situations with those of the other.

To help identify and ameliorate money-related countertransference responses, clinicians can reflect on questions such as: “How comfortable are you with people who are much poorer or richer than you are?” “How comfortable are you with impoverished individuals or with multimillionaires or their children?” And “why?” For trainees, all these reactions should be discussed in supervision.
 

Conclusions

To summarize, four clinical psychoeconomic issues should be routinely assessed and factored into psychiatric case formulations and treatment plans: how financial issues 1) have impacted patients’ psychological development; 2) impact patients’ current lives; 3) are likely to impact access, type, intensity, and duration of treatment visits; and 4) might provoke money-related transference and countertransference concerns.

In advising patients about treatment options, clinicians should discuss each treatment’s relative effectiveness and estimated costs of care. Patients’ decisions will likely be heavily influenced by financial considerations.

Dr. Yager is based in the department of psychiatry, University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora. Dr. Kay is based in the department of psychiatry, Wright State University, Dayton, Ohio. No external funds were received for this project, and the authors have no conflicts to disclose.

Reference

1. Yager J and Kay J. Money matters in psychiatric assessment, case formulation, treatment planning, and ongoing psychotherapy: Clinical psychoeconomics. J Nerv Ment Dis. 2022 Jun 10. doi: 10.1097/NMD.0000000000001552.

Using artificial intelligence, researchers have developed an algorithm that can help improve the prediction of colorectal cancer (CRC) recurrence.

The QuantCRC algorithm can identify patients with CRC who might be able to skip chemotherapy, given a low probability of recurrence, and identify those patients at high risk for recurrence who may benefit from more intensive treatment or follow-up, the researchers say.

“For patients with colon cancer, the algorithm gives oncologists another tool to help guide therapy and follow-up,” Rish Pai, MD, PhD, a pathologist at Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, who developed the tool, said in a news release.

The study was published online in the journal Gastroenterology.

The tool is a deep-learning segmentation algorithm developed using 6,468 digitized CRC images. It quantifies 15 features from a CRC image and uses them to improve prediction of recurrence.

“QuantCRC can identify different regions within the tumor and extract quantitative data from these regions,” Dr. Pai explained.

“The algorithm converts an image into a set of numbers that is unique to that tumor. The large number of tumors that we analyzed allowed us to learn which features were most predictive of tumor behavior. We can now apply what we have learned to new colon cancers to predict how the tumor will behave,” Dr. Pai said.

The researchers developed a prognostic model incorporating stage, mismatch repair, and QuantCRC that resulted in a concordance (c)-index of 0.714 in the internal test and 0.744 in the external cohort. Removing QuantCRC from the model reduced the c-index to 0.679 in the external cohort.

Using QuantCRC, they identified prognostic risk groups for recurrence, which provided a hazard ratio of 2.24 for low- versus high-risk stage III CRC and 2.36 for low- versus high-risk stage II CRC, in the external cohort after adjusting for established risk factors.

The predicted median 36-month recurrence rate for high-risk stage III CRC was 32.7% versus 13.4% for low-risk stage III CRC and 15.8% for high-risk stage II CRC versus 5.4% for low-risk stage II CRC, the researchers report.

QuantCRC provides a “powerful adjunct” to routine pathologic reporting of CRC, and a prognostic model using QuantCRC can improve prediction of recurrence-free survival, they write.

Looking ahead, Dr. Pai plans to use QuantCRC to better understand mechanisms of tumor recurrence and see if it can predict the response to certain treatments, like immunotherapy, he said.

Funding for this study was provided in part by the Colon Cancer Family Registry, which is supported in part by funding from the National Cancer Institute and National Institutes of Health. Dr. Pai reports consulting income from Alimentiv, Eli Lilly, AbbVie, Allergan, Genentech, and PathAI outside of the submitted work.

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

Using artificial intelligence, researchers have developed an algorithm that can help improve the prediction of colorectal cancer (CRC) recurrence.

The QuantCRC algorithm can identify patients with CRC who might be able to skip chemotherapy, given a low probability of recurrence, and identify those patients at high risk for recurrence who may benefit from more intensive treatment or follow-up, the researchers say.

“For patients with colon cancer, the algorithm gives oncologists another tool to help guide therapy and follow-up,” Rish Pai, MD, PhD, a pathologist at Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, who developed the tool, said in a news release.

The study was published online in the journal Gastroenterology.

The tool is a deep-learning segmentation algorithm developed using 6,468 digitized CRC images. It quantifies 15 features from a CRC image and uses them to improve prediction of recurrence.

“QuantCRC can identify different regions within the tumor and extract quantitative data from these regions,” Dr. Pai explained.

“The algorithm converts an image into a set of numbers that is unique to that tumor. The large number of tumors that we analyzed allowed us to learn which features were most predictive of tumor behavior. We can now apply what we have learned to new colon cancers to predict how the tumor will behave,” Dr. Pai said.

The researchers developed a prognostic model incorporating stage, mismatch repair, and QuantCRC that resulted in a concordance (c)-index of 0.714 in the internal test and 0.744 in the external cohort. Removing QuantCRC from the model reduced the c-index to 0.679 in the external cohort.

Using QuantCRC, they identified prognostic risk groups for recurrence, which provided a hazard ratio of 2.24 for low- versus high-risk stage III CRC and 2.36 for low- versus high-risk stage II CRC, in the external cohort after adjusting for established risk factors.

The predicted median 36-month recurrence rate for high-risk stage III CRC was 32.7% versus 13.4% for low-risk stage III CRC and 15.8% for high-risk stage II CRC versus 5.4% for low-risk stage II CRC, the researchers report.

QuantCRC provides a “powerful adjunct” to routine pathologic reporting of CRC, and a prognostic model using QuantCRC can improve prediction of recurrence-free survival, they write.

Looking ahead, Dr. Pai plans to use QuantCRC to better understand mechanisms of tumor recurrence and see if it can predict the response to certain treatments, like immunotherapy, he said.

Funding for this study was provided in part by the Colon Cancer Family Registry, which is supported in part by funding from the National Cancer Institute and National Institutes of Health. Dr. Pai reports consulting income from Alimentiv, Eli Lilly, AbbVie, Allergan, Genentech, and PathAI outside of the submitted work.

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

Using artificial intelligence, researchers have developed an algorithm that can help improve the prediction of colorectal cancer (CRC) recurrence.

The QuantCRC algorithm can identify patients with CRC who might be able to skip chemotherapy, given a low probability of recurrence, and identify those patients at high risk for recurrence who may benefit from more intensive treatment or follow-up, the researchers say.

“For patients with colon cancer, the algorithm gives oncologists another tool to help guide therapy and follow-up,” Rish Pai, MD, PhD, a pathologist at Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, who developed the tool, said in a news release.

The study was published online in the journal Gastroenterology.

The tool is a deep-learning segmentation algorithm developed using 6,468 digitized CRC images. It quantifies 15 features from a CRC image and uses them to improve prediction of recurrence.

“QuantCRC can identify different regions within the tumor and extract quantitative data from these regions,” Dr. Pai explained.

“The algorithm converts an image into a set of numbers that is unique to that tumor. The large number of tumors that we analyzed allowed us to learn which features were most predictive of tumor behavior. We can now apply what we have learned to new colon cancers to predict how the tumor will behave,” Dr. Pai said.

The researchers developed a prognostic model incorporating stage, mismatch repair, and QuantCRC that resulted in a concordance (c)-index of 0.714 in the internal test and 0.744 in the external cohort. Removing QuantCRC from the model reduced the c-index to 0.679 in the external cohort.

Using QuantCRC, they identified prognostic risk groups for recurrence, which provided a hazard ratio of 2.24 for low- versus high-risk stage III CRC and 2.36 for low- versus high-risk stage II CRC, in the external cohort after adjusting for established risk factors.

The predicted median 36-month recurrence rate for high-risk stage III CRC was 32.7% versus 13.4% for low-risk stage III CRC and 15.8% for high-risk stage II CRC versus 5.4% for low-risk stage II CRC, the researchers report.

QuantCRC provides a “powerful adjunct” to routine pathologic reporting of CRC, and a prognostic model using QuantCRC can improve prediction of recurrence-free survival, they write.

Looking ahead, Dr. Pai plans to use QuantCRC to better understand mechanisms of tumor recurrence and see if it can predict the response to certain treatments, like immunotherapy, he said.

Funding for this study was provided in part by the Colon Cancer Family Registry, which is supported in part by funding from the National Cancer Institute and National Institutes of Health. Dr. Pai reports consulting income from Alimentiv, Eli Lilly, AbbVie, Allergan, Genentech, and PathAI outside of the submitted work.

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

Type 2 diabetes (T2D) has become a noncommunicable pandemic. Approximately 14.7% of the US adult population has diabetes.¹ Additionally, nearly 25% of the geriatric population has diabetes and nearly 50% has prediabetes.² Needless to say, most practices, regardless of specialty, see many patients with diabetes. We have made major advances in diabetes treatments, yet diabetes mellitus is still the leading cause of legal blindness, nontraumatic amputation, and end-stage renal disease requiring dialysis.³ 

While the prevalence of diabetes in adults is concerning, what is even more startling is the significant increase of T2D within the pediatric population. It was not too long ago that we considered T2D an “adult-only” disease. Now, 24% of children with diabetes have T2D, and 18% of adolescents have prediabetes.^4,5 This is not the end of the story. Recent studies have identified that the earlier you are diagnosed with T2D, the less responsive you are to diabetes treatments—and the disease will progress more rapidly to complications. 
 

We know that pediatric patients are not little adults. There are important physiologic and metabolic differences in our younger patients. The RISE study found that adolescents have lower insulin sensitivity than adults.^4,6 The pancreatic beta cells are more responsive at first and there is less clearance by the liver, which may indeed make insulin resistance worse. Finally, pancreatic beta cell function declines more rapidly in adolescents than in adults.^4,6 These physiologic changes can be even worse during puberty. The hormonal changes seen in puberty accelerate and amplify insulin secretion and worsen insulin resistance, which can result in hyperglycemia in those at risk.^7,8

The other complicating factor is the rapid rise in obesity in Americans. While childhood obesity is not quite at adult levels, it is a major risk factor for adult obesity. The prevalence of obesity in childhood was recently estimated to be 19.7% and is still on the rise.⁹ Obesity can be diabetogenic as we see an increase in visceral obesity. This triggers an inflammatory response that leads to worsening systemic insulin resistance and lipotoxicity from elevated circulating free fatty acids.⁸ 

Lifestyle and behavioral factors are also important in adolescents with T2D. While they are more independent than younger children, they are still largely dependent on the foods that are available in their home. Family food choices have a major impact on our youth. Further, the foods that our adolescents eat outside the home are more likely to be fast food or ultra-processed foods, which have been shown to contribute to obesity and T2D. 

Family history is a strong predictor of risk for T2D. In the Treatment Options for Type 2 Diabetes in Adolescents and Youth (TODAY) cohort, 89.4% of pediatric participants had a first-degree relative or grandparent with T2D.¹⁰ This highlights the importance of both genetic risk and living environment as risks for T2D. 

The American Diabetes Association recommends that all children with specific risk factors be screened for diabetes starting at the age 10 years or at puberty, whichever comes first.¹¹ The screening tests recommended for diabetes are currently the same as for adults, yet there are few data supporting this regimen. To diagnose diabetes, you can use any of the following screening tests: fasting glucose, glucose tolerance, or glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c).¹ 

Risk Factors That Should Prompt Diabetes Screening¹¹

Screening is recommended in children who are overweight (≥85%) or obese (≥95%) and who also have ≥1 of the following risk factors:

• Family history of T2D in a first- or second-degree relative
• Maternal history of gestational diabetes
• Low birth weight for gestational age
• Physical signs of insulin resistance or related conditions (eg, hypertension, dyslipidemia, polycystic ovary syndrome)
• High-risk race/ethnicity (Native American, African American, Pacific Islander, Latino)

Diagnostic Criteria for Diabetes Mellitus¹¹

A childhood or adolescent T2D diagnosis should be taken seriously and communicated to the patient and family in a timely manner. Treatment should start immediately. There are several factors that make managing T2D in adolescents more challenging. Children do not control key aspects of their life, including nutrition and, often, free time activity. There are a lot of social pressures to be “normal,” and having a chronic disease will definitely make the child feel “different” and potentially feel socially isolated. There are high rates of mood disorders in children with diabetes, which can make self-management even harder.¹²

As mentioned above, treatment should begin immediately upon diagnosis. This is because T2D in younger people tends to be more progressive and less responsive to treatment options, and patients are much more likely to develop.^1,13,14 These same complications can be seen in adult patients, but in younger patients they develop earlier in the disease; specifically, renal and neurologic complications occur at even higher rates.¹⁴ 

The initial treatment should include both family-based therapeutic lifestyle changes (ie, nutrition, physical activity intervention) and medication.¹¹ There are fewer US Food and Drug Administration–approved medication options for children and adolescents, and those treatments that have been approved are less durable in this population. 

Metformin and insulin are the most-used medications, but their initiation is often delayed, as therapeutic lifestyle change is tried first. This has not been shown to be an effective strategy and may even undermine the value of therapeutic lifestyle change if the family is told later that medication may still need to be added. 

Recent studies have shown the benefit of select glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) as important therapeutic tools to treat T2D in adolescence. Dulaglutide, exenatide, and liraglutide have been shown to be safe and effective in trials for adolescents with T2D.^15-17 These agents reduce glucose and body weight and may be important tools to help reduce extra glycemic risks (eg, cardiovascular disease, kidney disease), but they have not been studied for this purpose yet. 

Further, there is good support for the use of bariatric surgery for adolescents. While this is a relatively new treatment option, early and mid-term results are favorable compared with medication-based strategies.¹⁸ Further studies are needed to determine the long-term benefits.

Take home points:

1. T2D is becoming increasingly common in our youth.
2. T2D, when diagnosed earlier in life, is more progressive, less responsive to treatment options, and associated with earlier complications.
3. New studies support the use of novel therapies such as GLP-1 RAs and metabolic surgery in this age group.

Dr. Shubrook and Dr. Antonia M. Molinari have written a comprehensive review on treatment options and current guidelines for the management of T2D in the pediatric population, which can supply further information.¹⁹ 

Type 2 diabetes (T2D) has become a noncommunicable pandemic. Approximately 14.7% of the US adult population has diabetes.¹ Additionally, nearly 25% of the geriatric population has diabetes and nearly 50% has prediabetes.² Needless to say, most practices, regardless of specialty, see many patients with diabetes. We have made major advances in diabetes treatments, yet diabetes mellitus is still the leading cause of legal blindness, nontraumatic amputation, and end-stage renal disease requiring dialysis.³ 

While the prevalence of diabetes in adults is concerning, what is even more startling is the significant increase of T2D within the pediatric population. It was not too long ago that we considered T2D an “adult-only” disease. Now, 24% of children with diabetes have T2D, and 18% of adolescents have prediabetes.^4,5 This is not the end of the story. Recent studies have identified that the earlier you are diagnosed with T2D, the less responsive you are to diabetes treatments—and the disease will progress more rapidly to complications. 
 

We know that pediatric patients are not little adults. There are important physiologic and metabolic differences in our younger patients. The RISE study found that adolescents have lower insulin sensitivity than adults.^4,6 The pancreatic beta cells are more responsive at first and there is less clearance by the liver, which may indeed make insulin resistance worse. Finally, pancreatic beta cell function declines more rapidly in adolescents than in adults.^4,6 These physiologic changes can be even worse during puberty. The hormonal changes seen in puberty accelerate and amplify insulin secretion and worsen insulin resistance, which can result in hyperglycemia in those at risk.^7,8

The other complicating factor is the rapid rise in obesity in Americans. While childhood obesity is not quite at adult levels, it is a major risk factor for adult obesity. The prevalence of obesity in childhood was recently estimated to be 19.7% and is still on the rise.⁹ Obesity can be diabetogenic as we see an increase in visceral obesity. This triggers an inflammatory response that leads to worsening systemic insulin resistance and lipotoxicity from elevated circulating free fatty acids.⁸ 

Lifestyle and behavioral factors are also important in adolescents with T2D. While they are more independent than younger children, they are still largely dependent on the foods that are available in their home. Family food choices have a major impact on our youth. Further, the foods that our adolescents eat outside the home are more likely to be fast food or ultra-processed foods, which have been shown to contribute to obesity and T2D. 

Family history is a strong predictor of risk for T2D. In the Treatment Options for Type 2 Diabetes in Adolescents and Youth (TODAY) cohort, 89.4% of pediatric participants had a first-degree relative or grandparent with T2D.¹⁰ This highlights the importance of both genetic risk and living environment as risks for T2D. 

The American Diabetes Association recommends that all children with specific risk factors be screened for diabetes starting at the age 10 years or at puberty, whichever comes first.¹¹ The screening tests recommended for diabetes are currently the same as for adults, yet there are few data supporting this regimen. To diagnose diabetes, you can use any of the following screening tests: fasting glucose, glucose tolerance, or glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c).¹ 

Risk Factors That Should Prompt Diabetes Screening¹¹

Screening is recommended in children who are overweight (≥85%) or obese (≥95%) and who also have ≥1 of the following risk factors:

• Family history of T2D in a first- or second-degree relative
• Maternal history of gestational diabetes
• Low birth weight for gestational age
• Physical signs of insulin resistance or related conditions (eg, hypertension, dyslipidemia, polycystic ovary syndrome)
• High-risk race/ethnicity (Native American, African American, Pacific Islander, Latino)

Diagnostic Criteria for Diabetes Mellitus¹¹

A childhood or adolescent T2D diagnosis should be taken seriously and communicated to the patient and family in a timely manner. Treatment should start immediately. There are several factors that make managing T2D in adolescents more challenging. Children do not control key aspects of their life, including nutrition and, often, free time activity. There are a lot of social pressures to be “normal,” and having a chronic disease will definitely make the child feel “different” and potentially feel socially isolated. There are high rates of mood disorders in children with diabetes, which can make self-management even harder.¹²

As mentioned above, treatment should begin immediately upon diagnosis. This is because T2D in younger people tends to be more progressive and less responsive to treatment options, and patients are much more likely to develop.^1,13,14 These same complications can be seen in adult patients, but in younger patients they develop earlier in the disease; specifically, renal and neurologic complications occur at even higher rates.¹⁴ 

The initial treatment should include both family-based therapeutic lifestyle changes (ie, nutrition, physical activity intervention) and medication.¹¹ There are fewer US Food and Drug Administration–approved medication options for children and adolescents, and those treatments that have been approved are less durable in this population. 

Metformin and insulin are the most-used medications, but their initiation is often delayed, as therapeutic lifestyle change is tried first. This has not been shown to be an effective strategy and may even undermine the value of therapeutic lifestyle change if the family is told later that medication may still need to be added. 

Recent studies have shown the benefit of select glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) as important therapeutic tools to treat T2D in adolescence. Dulaglutide, exenatide, and liraglutide have been shown to be safe and effective in trials for adolescents with T2D.^15-17 These agents reduce glucose and body weight and may be important tools to help reduce extra glycemic risks (eg, cardiovascular disease, kidney disease), but they have not been studied for this purpose yet. 

Further, there is good support for the use of bariatric surgery for adolescents. While this is a relatively new treatment option, early and mid-term results are favorable compared with medication-based strategies.¹⁸ Further studies are needed to determine the long-term benefits.

Take home points:

1. T2D is becoming increasingly common in our youth.
2. T2D, when diagnosed earlier in life, is more progressive, less responsive to treatment options, and associated with earlier complications.
3. New studies support the use of novel therapies such as GLP-1 RAs and metabolic surgery in this age group.

Dr. Shubrook and Dr. Antonia M. Molinari have written a comprehensive review on treatment options and current guidelines for the management of T2D in the pediatric population, which can supply further information.¹⁹ 

Type 2 diabetes (T2D) has become a noncommunicable pandemic. Approximately 14.7% of the US adult population has diabetes.¹ Additionally, nearly 25% of the geriatric population has diabetes and nearly 50% has prediabetes.² Needless to say, most practices, regardless of specialty, see many patients with diabetes. We have made major advances in diabetes treatments, yet diabetes mellitus is still the leading cause of legal blindness, nontraumatic amputation, and end-stage renal disease requiring dialysis.³ 

While the prevalence of diabetes in adults is concerning, what is even more startling is the significant increase of T2D within the pediatric population. It was not too long ago that we considered T2D an “adult-only” disease. Now, 24% of children with diabetes have T2D, and 18% of adolescents have prediabetes.^4,5 This is not the end of the story. Recent studies have identified that the earlier you are diagnosed with T2D, the less responsive you are to diabetes treatments—and the disease will progress more rapidly to complications. 
 

We know that pediatric patients are not little adults. There are important physiologic and metabolic differences in our younger patients. The RISE study found that adolescents have lower insulin sensitivity than adults.^4,6 The pancreatic beta cells are more responsive at first and there is less clearance by the liver, which may indeed make insulin resistance worse. Finally, pancreatic beta cell function declines more rapidly in adolescents than in adults.^4,6 These physiologic changes can be even worse during puberty. The hormonal changes seen in puberty accelerate and amplify insulin secretion and worsen insulin resistance, which can result in hyperglycemia in those at risk.^7,8

The other complicating factor is the rapid rise in obesity in Americans. While childhood obesity is not quite at adult levels, it is a major risk factor for adult obesity. The prevalence of obesity in childhood was recently estimated to be 19.7% and is still on the rise.⁹ Obesity can be diabetogenic as we see an increase in visceral obesity. This triggers an inflammatory response that leads to worsening systemic insulin resistance and lipotoxicity from elevated circulating free fatty acids.⁸ 

Lifestyle and behavioral factors are also important in adolescents with T2D. While they are more independent than younger children, they are still largely dependent on the foods that are available in their home. Family food choices have a major impact on our youth. Further, the foods that our adolescents eat outside the home are more likely to be fast food or ultra-processed foods, which have been shown to contribute to obesity and T2D. 

Family history is a strong predictor of risk for T2D. In the Treatment Options for Type 2 Diabetes in Adolescents and Youth (TODAY) cohort, 89.4% of pediatric participants had a first-degree relative or grandparent with T2D.¹⁰ This highlights the importance of both genetic risk and living environment as risks for T2D. 

The American Diabetes Association recommends that all children with specific risk factors be screened for diabetes starting at the age 10 years or at puberty, whichever comes first.¹¹ The screening tests recommended for diabetes are currently the same as for adults, yet there are few data supporting this regimen. To diagnose diabetes, you can use any of the following screening tests: fasting glucose, glucose tolerance, or glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c).¹ 

Risk Factors That Should Prompt Diabetes Screening¹¹

Screening is recommended in children who are overweight (≥85%) or obese (≥95%) and who also have ≥1 of the following risk factors:

• Family history of T2D in a first- or second-degree relative
• Maternal history of gestational diabetes
• Low birth weight for gestational age
• Physical signs of insulin resistance or related conditions (eg, hypertension, dyslipidemia, polycystic ovary syndrome)
• High-risk race/ethnicity (Native American, African American, Pacific Islander, Latino)

Diagnostic Criteria for Diabetes Mellitus¹¹

A childhood or adolescent T2D diagnosis should be taken seriously and communicated to the patient and family in a timely manner. Treatment should start immediately. There are several factors that make managing T2D in adolescents more challenging. Children do not control key aspects of their life, including nutrition and, often, free time activity. There are a lot of social pressures to be “normal,” and having a chronic disease will definitely make the child feel “different” and potentially feel socially isolated. There are high rates of mood disorders in children with diabetes, which can make self-management even harder.¹²

As mentioned above, treatment should begin immediately upon diagnosis. This is because T2D in younger people tends to be more progressive and less responsive to treatment options, and patients are much more likely to develop.^1,13,14 These same complications can be seen in adult patients, but in younger patients they develop earlier in the disease; specifically, renal and neurologic complications occur at even higher rates.¹⁴ 

The initial treatment should include both family-based therapeutic lifestyle changes (ie, nutrition, physical activity intervention) and medication.¹¹ There are fewer US Food and Drug Administration–approved medication options for children and adolescents, and those treatments that have been approved are less durable in this population. 

Metformin and insulin are the most-used medications, but their initiation is often delayed, as therapeutic lifestyle change is tried first. This has not been shown to be an effective strategy and may even undermine the value of therapeutic lifestyle change if the family is told later that medication may still need to be added. 

Recent studies have shown the benefit of select glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) as important therapeutic tools to treat T2D in adolescence. Dulaglutide, exenatide, and liraglutide have been shown to be safe and effective in trials for adolescents with T2D.^15-17 These agents reduce glucose and body weight and may be important tools to help reduce extra glycemic risks (eg, cardiovascular disease, kidney disease), but they have not been studied for this purpose yet. 

Further, there is good support for the use of bariatric surgery for adolescents. While this is a relatively new treatment option, early and mid-term results are favorable compared with medication-based strategies.¹⁸ Further studies are needed to determine the long-term benefits.

Take home points:

1. T2D is becoming increasingly common in our youth.
2. T2D, when diagnosed earlier in life, is more progressive, less responsive to treatment options, and associated with earlier complications.
3. New studies support the use of novel therapies such as GLP-1 RAs and metabolic surgery in this age group.

Dr. Shubrook and Dr. Antonia M. Molinari have written a comprehensive review on treatment options and current guidelines for the management of T2D in the pediatric population, which can supply further information.¹⁹