Key clinical point: Percutaneous patent foramen ovale (PFO) closure with the Amplatzer PFO Occluder significantly reduced migraine days and attacks in patients with episodic migraine who had PFO and were refractory to preventive medical therapy.

Major finding: At 12 months, PFO closure vs. medical therapy group showed a significantly greater mean reduction in monthly migraine days (−3.1 vs. −1.9 days; P = .02) and the number of monthly migraine attacks (−2.0 vs. −1.4; P = .01). Rate of complete migraine cessation was significantly higher in PFO closure vs. medical therapy (9% vs. 0.7%; P less than .001) group. No clinically relevant adverse events were reported.

Study details: Findings are from individual patient-level data from 2 randomized migraine trials PRIMA and PREMIUM involving 337 patients with episodic migraine and PFO randomly allocated to either PFO closure+medical therapy (n=176) or medical therapy alone (n=161).

Disclosures: The study did not receive any funding. Dr. AC Charles, Dr. S Sorensen, Dr. SD Silberstein and Dr. JM Tobis were on the steering committee for the PREMIUM trial. Dr. HP Mattle and Dr. B Meier were on the steering committee for the PRIMA trial.  Dr. B West, Dr. B Meier and Dr. JM Tobis declared receiving funds, serving as proctor/speaker/consultant for various sources. All other authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Mojadidi MK et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2021 Feb 16. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2020.11.068.

Key clinical point: Percutaneous patent foramen ovale (PFO) closure with the Amplatzer PFO Occluder significantly reduced migraine days and attacks in patients with episodic migraine who had PFO and were refractory to preventive medical therapy.

Major finding: At 12 months, PFO closure vs. medical therapy group showed a significantly greater mean reduction in monthly migraine days (−3.1 vs. −1.9 days; P = .02) and the number of monthly migraine attacks (−2.0 vs. −1.4; P = .01). Rate of complete migraine cessation was significantly higher in PFO closure vs. medical therapy (9% vs. 0.7%; P less than .001) group. No clinically relevant adverse events were reported.

Study details: Findings are from individual patient-level data from 2 randomized migraine trials PRIMA and PREMIUM involving 337 patients with episodic migraine and PFO randomly allocated to either PFO closure+medical therapy (n=176) or medical therapy alone (n=161).

Disclosures: The study did not receive any funding. Dr. AC Charles, Dr. S Sorensen, Dr. SD Silberstein and Dr. JM Tobis were on the steering committee for the PREMIUM trial. Dr. HP Mattle and Dr. B Meier were on the steering committee for the PRIMA trial.  Dr. B West, Dr. B Meier and Dr. JM Tobis declared receiving funds, serving as proctor/speaker/consultant for various sources. All other authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Mojadidi MK et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2021 Feb 16. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2020.11.068.

Key clinical point: Percutaneous patent foramen ovale (PFO) closure with the Amplatzer PFO Occluder significantly reduced migraine days and attacks in patients with episodic migraine who had PFO and were refractory to preventive medical therapy.

Major finding: At 12 months, PFO closure vs. medical therapy group showed a significantly greater mean reduction in monthly migraine days (−3.1 vs. −1.9 days; P = .02) and the number of monthly migraine attacks (−2.0 vs. −1.4; P = .01). Rate of complete migraine cessation was significantly higher in PFO closure vs. medical therapy (9% vs. 0.7%; P less than .001) group. No clinically relevant adverse events were reported.

Study details: Findings are from individual patient-level data from 2 randomized migraine trials PRIMA and PREMIUM involving 337 patients with episodic migraine and PFO randomly allocated to either PFO closure+medical therapy (n=176) or medical therapy alone (n=161).

Disclosures: The study did not receive any funding. Dr. AC Charles, Dr. S Sorensen, Dr. SD Silberstein and Dr. JM Tobis were on the steering committee for the PREMIUM trial. Dr. HP Mattle and Dr. B Meier were on the steering committee for the PRIMA trial.  Dr. B West, Dr. B Meier and Dr. JM Tobis declared receiving funds, serving as proctor/speaker/consultant for various sources. All other authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Mojadidi MK et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2021 Feb 16. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2020.11.068.

Pregnant patients with COVID-19 infections were more likely to experience severe disease if they had preexisting comorbidities, such as chronic hypertension, asthma, or pregestational diabetes, according to findings from a new study presented at the meeting sponsored by the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine.

The study included outcomes for the largest multistate cohort of pregnant patients with COVID-19 outside of what the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is tracking. Its findings also mirrored those of a multicenter, retrospective study in Washington state, published in the American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology. That study also found that pregnant patients hospitalized for COVID-19 were more likely to have comorbidities, and both studies found an increased likelihood of preterm birth among pregnant patients with severe or critical disease.
 

Disease severity linked to risk of perinatal complications

In the abstract presented at the SMFM meeting, more severe disease was associated with older age and a higher median body mass index, as seen in the general population, but the researchers found no differences in disease severity occurred by race or ethnicity, Torri D. Metz, MD, of the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Maternal-Fetal Medicine Units Network, told attendees of the conference. The researchers also found that perinatal complications were more prevalent in those with severe or critical COVID-19 disease but not in those with mild or moderate disease. Vertical COVID-19 transmission from mother to child was rare.

The observational study included all patients who had a singleton pregnancy, had a positive SARS-CoV-2 test, and delivered between March 1 and July 31, 2020, at one of the 33 U.S. hospitals in the NICHD Maternal-Fetal Medicine Units Network, spread across 14 states. The researchers used electronic medical records to determine incidence of cesarean delivery, postpartum hemorrhage, hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, preterm birth (less than 37 weeks), maternal death, infant death, and positive infant COVID-19 test. They tracked mothers through 6 weeks post partum and newborns through delivery hospitalization.

Of 1,291 patients in the cohort, 1,219 received their first positive COVID-19 test during pregnancy. The others tested positive while in the hospital for delivery or within a month and a half after discharge. Limiting their analysis to those who developed COVID-19 while pregnant prior to delivery, nearly half (47%) were asymptomatic.

The disease was mild in 27%, moderate in 14%, severe in 8%, and critical in 4%. The researchers used the National Institutes of Health classifications for severity and included deaths in the critical group. The most common symptom was a cough, reported by a third of the patients (34%). Four of six maternal deaths that occurred were caused by COVID-19.

Compared with an average age of 28 in those without symptoms, the mean age was 29 in those with mild/moderate disease and 30 in those with severe/critical disease (P = .006). Similarly, the mean BMI was 28.3 in asymptomatic patients, 29 in those with mild/moderate disease, and 32.3 in those with severe/critical disease (P < .001). Despite a diverse cohort – 53% Hispanic, 23% Black, and 15% White – the researches found no racial/ethnic trends in disease severity.

Patients who had asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder, pregestational diabetes, chronic hypertension, chronic liver disease, or a seizure disorder were all significantly more likely to have critical/severe disease than mild/moderate disease, and more likely to have mild/moderate disease than asymptomatic (P values ranged from < .001 to .02).

The mothers with critical or severe illness were 1.6 times more likely to have cesarean births and to have hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, and they were twice as likely to have postpartum hemorrhage (P < .001; P = .007). Those with mild or moderate disease, however, had no increased risks for perinatal complications over asymptomatic patients.

Critical or severe illness was also associated with more than triple the risk of preterm birth (adjusted risk ratio, 3.6; P < .001). Newborns of mothers with critical or severe illness also had three times greater risk of neonatal ICU admission (ARR, 3.1; P <. 001) and weighed an average 385 g less than newborns of asymptomatic mothers. COVID-19 rate among infants was only 1% during delivery hospitalization.

Since the study cutoff was July 30 and COVID infections only became prevalent in March, the researchers were unable to evaluate women for outcomes resulting from COVID infections in early pregnancy, such as congenital anomalies or early miscarriage, Dr. Metz said. In addition, since many of the sites are urban centers, the data may not be generalizable to rural areas.

Peter S. Bernstein, MD, MPH, of Montefiore Medical Center, New York, asked whether the increased cesarean deliveries and preterm births in the group of women with severe disease were caused by usual obstetric causes or the treatment of COVID-19 infection. Dr. Metz said the vast majority of preterm deliveries were indicated, but only a small proportion were induced for COVID-19 alone. “A lot had hypertensive disorders of pregnancies or PPROM, so it’s partly driven by the infection itself but also partly driven by some of those perinatal complications,” she said.
 

Similar findings in Washington

In the Washington study, among 240 pregnant patients with confirmed COVID-19 infection between March 1 and July 30, 2020, 1 in 11 developed severe or critical disease, and 1 in 10 were hospitalized. The pregnant patients had more than triple the risk of hospitalization compared with adults of similar ages in the general population (10% vs. 2.8%; rate ratio, 3.5). Similar to the multistate NICHD study, women were more likely to be hospitalized if they had asthma, hypertension, type 2 diabetes, autoimmune disease, or class III obesity.

Three mothers died of COVID-19, resulting in a case fatality rate 13.6 times greater than nonpregnant patients with COVID-19 in the general population. The absolute difference in the rate was 1.2%. As seen in the NICHD study, preterm birth was more common in mothers with severe or critical COVID-19. Nearly half (45.4%) of mothers with severe or critical COVID-19 delivered preterm compared to 5.2% in those with mild COVID-19 (P < .001).

“Our finding that deaths in pregnant patients contributed disproportionately to deaths from COVID-19 among 20- to 39-year-olds in Washington state is similar to what was observed during the influenza A virus H1N1 2009 pandemic,” Erica M. Lokken, PhD, MS, of the departments of global health and ob.gyn. at the University of Washington, Seattle, and colleagues wrote in the Washington study. But they noted that it took 8 months into the pandemic before pregnant patients were identified as a high-risk group for COVID-19.

“Given the similarity in clinical course between COVID-19 and IAV H1N1 2009 with an increased risk for mortality during pregnancy and the postpartum period, we strongly recommend that pregnant patients should be considered a high-risk population to novel highly pathogenic respiratory viruses until proven otherwise by population-based studies with good ascertainment of pregnancy status,” they wrote.

Judette Louis, MD, MPH, associate professor of ob.gyn. and department chair at the University of South Florida, Tampa, said in an interview that the findings in these studies were fairly expected, but it’s important to have data from such a large cohort as the one presented at SMFM.

“It confirmed that those who had severe disease were more likely to have chronic medical conditions, mirroring what we saw in the general population who isn’t pregnant,” Dr. Louis said. “I thought this was very crucial because as pregnant women are trying to decide whether they should get the COVID vaccine, this provides support to say that if you’re pregnant, you’re more likely to have severe disease [if you have] other chronic medical conditions.”

The findings also confirm the importance of pregnant people taking precautions to avoid infection.

“Even though these individuals are, as a group, in an age cohort that mostly has asymptomatic disease, for some of them, it results in severe disease and even maternal death,” she said. “They should still take it seriously if they’re pregnant.”

The SMFM abstract study was funded by the NICHD. The Washington study was funded by the University of Washington Population Health Initiative, the National Institutes of Health, and philanthropic gift funds. One coauthor of the Washington study is on a Pfizer and GlaxoSmithKline advisory board for immunizations. No other authors or individuals interviewed reported any disclosures.

Pregnant patients with COVID-19 infections were more likely to experience severe disease if they had preexisting comorbidities, such as chronic hypertension, asthma, or pregestational diabetes, according to findings from a new study presented at the meeting sponsored by the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine.

The study included outcomes for the largest multistate cohort of pregnant patients with COVID-19 outside of what the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is tracking. Its findings also mirrored those of a multicenter, retrospective study in Washington state, published in the American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology. That study also found that pregnant patients hospitalized for COVID-19 were more likely to have comorbidities, and both studies found an increased likelihood of preterm birth among pregnant patients with severe or critical disease.
 

Disease severity linked to risk of perinatal complications

In the abstract presented at the SMFM meeting, more severe disease was associated with older age and a higher median body mass index, as seen in the general population, but the researchers found no differences in disease severity occurred by race or ethnicity, Torri D. Metz, MD, of the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Maternal-Fetal Medicine Units Network, told attendees of the conference. The researchers also found that perinatal complications were more prevalent in those with severe or critical COVID-19 disease but not in those with mild or moderate disease. Vertical COVID-19 transmission from mother to child was rare.

The observational study included all patients who had a singleton pregnancy, had a positive SARS-CoV-2 test, and delivered between March 1 and July 31, 2020, at one of the 33 U.S. hospitals in the NICHD Maternal-Fetal Medicine Units Network, spread across 14 states. The researchers used electronic medical records to determine incidence of cesarean delivery, postpartum hemorrhage, hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, preterm birth (less than 37 weeks), maternal death, infant death, and positive infant COVID-19 test. They tracked mothers through 6 weeks post partum and newborns through delivery hospitalization.

Of 1,291 patients in the cohort, 1,219 received their first positive COVID-19 test during pregnancy. The others tested positive while in the hospital for delivery or within a month and a half after discharge. Limiting their analysis to those who developed COVID-19 while pregnant prior to delivery, nearly half (47%) were asymptomatic.

The disease was mild in 27%, moderate in 14%, severe in 8%, and critical in 4%. The researchers used the National Institutes of Health classifications for severity and included deaths in the critical group. The most common symptom was a cough, reported by a third of the patients (34%). Four of six maternal deaths that occurred were caused by COVID-19.

Compared with an average age of 28 in those without symptoms, the mean age was 29 in those with mild/moderate disease and 30 in those with severe/critical disease (P = .006). Similarly, the mean BMI was 28.3 in asymptomatic patients, 29 in those with mild/moderate disease, and 32.3 in those with severe/critical disease (P < .001). Despite a diverse cohort – 53% Hispanic, 23% Black, and 15% White – the researches found no racial/ethnic trends in disease severity.

Patients who had asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder, pregestational diabetes, chronic hypertension, chronic liver disease, or a seizure disorder were all significantly more likely to have critical/severe disease than mild/moderate disease, and more likely to have mild/moderate disease than asymptomatic (P values ranged from < .001 to .02).

The mothers with critical or severe illness were 1.6 times more likely to have cesarean births and to have hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, and they were twice as likely to have postpartum hemorrhage (P < .001; P = .007). Those with mild or moderate disease, however, had no increased risks for perinatal complications over asymptomatic patients.

Critical or severe illness was also associated with more than triple the risk of preterm birth (adjusted risk ratio, 3.6; P < .001). Newborns of mothers with critical or severe illness also had three times greater risk of neonatal ICU admission (ARR, 3.1; P <. 001) and weighed an average 385 g less than newborns of asymptomatic mothers. COVID-19 rate among infants was only 1% during delivery hospitalization.

Since the study cutoff was July 30 and COVID infections only became prevalent in March, the researchers were unable to evaluate women for outcomes resulting from COVID infections in early pregnancy, such as congenital anomalies or early miscarriage, Dr. Metz said. In addition, since many of the sites are urban centers, the data may not be generalizable to rural areas.

Peter S. Bernstein, MD, MPH, of Montefiore Medical Center, New York, asked whether the increased cesarean deliveries and preterm births in the group of women with severe disease were caused by usual obstetric causes or the treatment of COVID-19 infection. Dr. Metz said the vast majority of preterm deliveries were indicated, but only a small proportion were induced for COVID-19 alone. “A lot had hypertensive disorders of pregnancies or PPROM, so it’s partly driven by the infection itself but also partly driven by some of those perinatal complications,” she said.
 

Similar findings in Washington

In the Washington study, among 240 pregnant patients with confirmed COVID-19 infection between March 1 and July 30, 2020, 1 in 11 developed severe or critical disease, and 1 in 10 were hospitalized. The pregnant patients had more than triple the risk of hospitalization compared with adults of similar ages in the general population (10% vs. 2.8%; rate ratio, 3.5). Similar to the multistate NICHD study, women were more likely to be hospitalized if they had asthma, hypertension, type 2 diabetes, autoimmune disease, or class III obesity.

Three mothers died of COVID-19, resulting in a case fatality rate 13.6 times greater than nonpregnant patients with COVID-19 in the general population. The absolute difference in the rate was 1.2%. As seen in the NICHD study, preterm birth was more common in mothers with severe or critical COVID-19. Nearly half (45.4%) of mothers with severe or critical COVID-19 delivered preterm compared to 5.2% in those with mild COVID-19 (P < .001).

“Our finding that deaths in pregnant patients contributed disproportionately to deaths from COVID-19 among 20- to 39-year-olds in Washington state is similar to what was observed during the influenza A virus H1N1 2009 pandemic,” Erica M. Lokken, PhD, MS, of the departments of global health and ob.gyn. at the University of Washington, Seattle, and colleagues wrote in the Washington study. But they noted that it took 8 months into the pandemic before pregnant patients were identified as a high-risk group for COVID-19.

“Given the similarity in clinical course between COVID-19 and IAV H1N1 2009 with an increased risk for mortality during pregnancy and the postpartum period, we strongly recommend that pregnant patients should be considered a high-risk population to novel highly pathogenic respiratory viruses until proven otherwise by population-based studies with good ascertainment of pregnancy status,” they wrote.

Judette Louis, MD, MPH, associate professor of ob.gyn. and department chair at the University of South Florida, Tampa, said in an interview that the findings in these studies were fairly expected, but it’s important to have data from such a large cohort as the one presented at SMFM.

“It confirmed that those who had severe disease were more likely to have chronic medical conditions, mirroring what we saw in the general population who isn’t pregnant,” Dr. Louis said. “I thought this was very crucial because as pregnant women are trying to decide whether they should get the COVID vaccine, this provides support to say that if you’re pregnant, you’re more likely to have severe disease [if you have] other chronic medical conditions.”

The findings also confirm the importance of pregnant people taking precautions to avoid infection.

“Even though these individuals are, as a group, in an age cohort that mostly has asymptomatic disease, for some of them, it results in severe disease and even maternal death,” she said. “They should still take it seriously if they’re pregnant.”

The SMFM abstract study was funded by the NICHD. The Washington study was funded by the University of Washington Population Health Initiative, the National Institutes of Health, and philanthropic gift funds. One coauthor of the Washington study is on a Pfizer and GlaxoSmithKline advisory board for immunizations. No other authors or individuals interviewed reported any disclosures.

Pregnant patients with COVID-19 infections were more likely to experience severe disease if they had preexisting comorbidities, such as chronic hypertension, asthma, or pregestational diabetes, according to findings from a new study presented at the meeting sponsored by the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine.

The study included outcomes for the largest multistate cohort of pregnant patients with COVID-19 outside of what the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is tracking. Its findings also mirrored those of a multicenter, retrospective study in Washington state, published in the American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology. That study also found that pregnant patients hospitalized for COVID-19 were more likely to have comorbidities, and both studies found an increased likelihood of preterm birth among pregnant patients with severe or critical disease.
 

Disease severity linked to risk of perinatal complications

In the abstract presented at the SMFM meeting, more severe disease was associated with older age and a higher median body mass index, as seen in the general population, but the researchers found no differences in disease severity occurred by race or ethnicity, Torri D. Metz, MD, of the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Maternal-Fetal Medicine Units Network, told attendees of the conference. The researchers also found that perinatal complications were more prevalent in those with severe or critical COVID-19 disease but not in those with mild or moderate disease. Vertical COVID-19 transmission from mother to child was rare.

The observational study included all patients who had a singleton pregnancy, had a positive SARS-CoV-2 test, and delivered between March 1 and July 31, 2020, at one of the 33 U.S. hospitals in the NICHD Maternal-Fetal Medicine Units Network, spread across 14 states. The researchers used electronic medical records to determine incidence of cesarean delivery, postpartum hemorrhage, hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, preterm birth (less than 37 weeks), maternal death, infant death, and positive infant COVID-19 test. They tracked mothers through 6 weeks post partum and newborns through delivery hospitalization.

Of 1,291 patients in the cohort, 1,219 received their first positive COVID-19 test during pregnancy. The others tested positive while in the hospital for delivery or within a month and a half after discharge. Limiting their analysis to those who developed COVID-19 while pregnant prior to delivery, nearly half (47%) were asymptomatic.

The disease was mild in 27%, moderate in 14%, severe in 8%, and critical in 4%. The researchers used the National Institutes of Health classifications for severity and included deaths in the critical group. The most common symptom was a cough, reported by a third of the patients (34%). Four of six maternal deaths that occurred were caused by COVID-19.

Compared with an average age of 28 in those without symptoms, the mean age was 29 in those with mild/moderate disease and 30 in those with severe/critical disease (P = .006). Similarly, the mean BMI was 28.3 in asymptomatic patients, 29 in those with mild/moderate disease, and 32.3 in those with severe/critical disease (P < .001). Despite a diverse cohort – 53% Hispanic, 23% Black, and 15% White – the researches found no racial/ethnic trends in disease severity.

Patients who had asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder, pregestational diabetes, chronic hypertension, chronic liver disease, or a seizure disorder were all significantly more likely to have critical/severe disease than mild/moderate disease, and more likely to have mild/moderate disease than asymptomatic (P values ranged from < .001 to .02).

The mothers with critical or severe illness were 1.6 times more likely to have cesarean births and to have hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, and they were twice as likely to have postpartum hemorrhage (P < .001; P = .007). Those with mild or moderate disease, however, had no increased risks for perinatal complications over asymptomatic patients.

Critical or severe illness was also associated with more than triple the risk of preterm birth (adjusted risk ratio, 3.6; P < .001). Newborns of mothers with critical or severe illness also had three times greater risk of neonatal ICU admission (ARR, 3.1; P <. 001) and weighed an average 385 g less than newborns of asymptomatic mothers. COVID-19 rate among infants was only 1% during delivery hospitalization.

Since the study cutoff was July 30 and COVID infections only became prevalent in March, the researchers were unable to evaluate women for outcomes resulting from COVID infections in early pregnancy, such as congenital anomalies or early miscarriage, Dr. Metz said. In addition, since many of the sites are urban centers, the data may not be generalizable to rural areas.

Peter S. Bernstein, MD, MPH, of Montefiore Medical Center, New York, asked whether the increased cesarean deliveries and preterm births in the group of women with severe disease were caused by usual obstetric causes or the treatment of COVID-19 infection. Dr. Metz said the vast majority of preterm deliveries were indicated, but only a small proportion were induced for COVID-19 alone. “A lot had hypertensive disorders of pregnancies or PPROM, so it’s partly driven by the infection itself but also partly driven by some of those perinatal complications,” she said.
 

Similar findings in Washington

In the Washington study, among 240 pregnant patients with confirmed COVID-19 infection between March 1 and July 30, 2020, 1 in 11 developed severe or critical disease, and 1 in 10 were hospitalized. The pregnant patients had more than triple the risk of hospitalization compared with adults of similar ages in the general population (10% vs. 2.8%; rate ratio, 3.5). Similar to the multistate NICHD study, women were more likely to be hospitalized if they had asthma, hypertension, type 2 diabetes, autoimmune disease, or class III obesity.

Three mothers died of COVID-19, resulting in a case fatality rate 13.6 times greater than nonpregnant patients with COVID-19 in the general population. The absolute difference in the rate was 1.2%. As seen in the NICHD study, preterm birth was more common in mothers with severe or critical COVID-19. Nearly half (45.4%) of mothers with severe or critical COVID-19 delivered preterm compared to 5.2% in those with mild COVID-19 (P < .001).

“Our finding that deaths in pregnant patients contributed disproportionately to deaths from COVID-19 among 20- to 39-year-olds in Washington state is similar to what was observed during the influenza A virus H1N1 2009 pandemic,” Erica M. Lokken, PhD, MS, of the departments of global health and ob.gyn. at the University of Washington, Seattle, and colleagues wrote in the Washington study. But they noted that it took 8 months into the pandemic before pregnant patients were identified as a high-risk group for COVID-19.

“Given the similarity in clinical course between COVID-19 and IAV H1N1 2009 with an increased risk for mortality during pregnancy and the postpartum period, we strongly recommend that pregnant patients should be considered a high-risk population to novel highly pathogenic respiratory viruses until proven otherwise by population-based studies with good ascertainment of pregnancy status,” they wrote.

Judette Louis, MD, MPH, associate professor of ob.gyn. and department chair at the University of South Florida, Tampa, said in an interview that the findings in these studies were fairly expected, but it’s important to have data from such a large cohort as the one presented at SMFM.

“It confirmed that those who had severe disease were more likely to have chronic medical conditions, mirroring what we saw in the general population who isn’t pregnant,” Dr. Louis said. “I thought this was very crucial because as pregnant women are trying to decide whether they should get the COVID vaccine, this provides support to say that if you’re pregnant, you’re more likely to have severe disease [if you have] other chronic medical conditions.”

The findings also confirm the importance of pregnant people taking precautions to avoid infection.

“Even though these individuals are, as a group, in an age cohort that mostly has asymptomatic disease, for some of them, it results in severe disease and even maternal death,” she said. “They should still take it seriously if they’re pregnant.”

The SMFM abstract study was funded by the NICHD. The Washington study was funded by the University of Washington Population Health Initiative, the National Institutes of Health, and philanthropic gift funds. One coauthor of the Washington study is on a Pfizer and GlaxoSmithKline advisory board for immunizations. No other authors or individuals interviewed reported any disclosures.

I enjoyed Dr. Jonas’s article, “A new model of care to return holism to family medicine” (J Fam Pract. 2020;69:493-498).

However, I wanted to point out that for more than 100 years the concept of the patient-centered medical home, and the outgrowth of that, has been part of osteopathic medical education, founded by A.T. Still, MD, in the 1800s.

Congratulations to the allopathic medicine profession for recognizing its significance.

Steven Shapiro, DO
Fenton, MI

I enjoyed Dr. Jonas’s article, “A new model of care to return holism to family medicine” (J Fam Pract. 2020;69:493-498).

However, I wanted to point out that for more than 100 years the concept of the patient-centered medical home, and the outgrowth of that, has been part of osteopathic medical education, founded by A.T. Still, MD, in the 1800s.

Congratulations to the allopathic medicine profession for recognizing its significance.

Steven Shapiro, DO
Fenton, MI

I enjoyed Dr. Jonas’s article, “A new model of care to return holism to family medicine” (J Fam Pract. 2020;69:493-498).

However, I wanted to point out that for more than 100 years the concept of the patient-centered medical home, and the outgrowth of that, has been part of osteopathic medical education, founded by A.T. Still, MD, in the 1800s.

Congratulations to the allopathic medicine profession for recognizing its significance.

Steven Shapiro, DO
Fenton, MI

In the January 2019 article “Migraine: Expanding our Tx arsenal” (J Fam Pract. 2019;68:10-14,16-24), Table 2: Establishing the differential diagnosis of headache provided information that was incorrectly categorized. The table should not have included “Temporal arteritis” as a trigger for a headache caused by infection. Rather, the table should have listed “Temporal arteritis” among the triggers for a headache caused by an autoimmune disorder. In addition, “Acute and chronic sinusitis” and “Meningitis” should not have been listed as triggers for a headache with an iatrogenic or intoxication cause. Rather, they should have been the only triggers attributed to headaches with an infectious origin. The revised table can be found here.

In the January 2019 article “Migraine: Expanding our Tx arsenal” (J Fam Pract. 2019;68:10-14,16-24), Table 2: Establishing the differential diagnosis of headache provided information that was incorrectly categorized. The table should not have included “Temporal arteritis” as a trigger for a headache caused by infection. Rather, the table should have listed “Temporal arteritis” among the triggers for a headache caused by an autoimmune disorder. In addition, “Acute and chronic sinusitis” and “Meningitis” should not have been listed as triggers for a headache with an iatrogenic or intoxication cause. Rather, they should have been the only triggers attributed to headaches with an infectious origin. The revised table can be found here.

In the January 2019 article “Migraine: Expanding our Tx arsenal” (J Fam Pract. 2019;68:10-14,16-24), Table 2: Establishing the differential diagnosis of headache provided information that was incorrectly categorized. The table should not have included “Temporal arteritis” as a trigger for a headache caused by infection. Rather, the table should have listed “Temporal arteritis” among the triggers for a headache caused by an autoimmune disorder. In addition, “Acute and chronic sinusitis” and “Meningitis” should not have been listed as triggers for a headache with an iatrogenic or intoxication cause. Rather, they should have been the only triggers attributed to headaches with an infectious origin. The revised table can be found here.

In 2020, COVID-19 disrupted our medical system, and life in general. In the 1980s, the AIDS epidemic devastated communities and overwhelmed hospitals. There were lessons learned from the AIDS epidemic that can be applied to the current situation.

Patients with HIV-spectrum illness faced stigmatization and societal indifference, including rejection by family members, increased rates of suicide, fears of sexual and/or intrauterine transmission, substance abuse issues, and alterations of body image for those with wasting syndromes and disfiguring Kaposi lesions. AIDS prevention strategies such as the provision of condoms and needle exchange programs were controversial, and many caregivers exposed to contaminated fluids had to endure months of antiretroviral treatment.

Similar to the AIDS epidemic, the COVID-19 pandemic has had significant psychological implications for patients and caregivers. Patients with COVID-19 infections also face feelings of guilt over potentially exposing a family member to the virus; devastating socioeconomic issues; restrictive hospital visitation policies for family members; disease news oversaturation; and feelings of hopelessness. People with AIDS in the 1980s faced the possibility of dying alone, and there was initial skepticism about medications to treat HIV—just as some individuals are now uneasy about recently introduced coronavirus vaccines.

Looking back on the AIDS epidemic should teach us to prioritize attending to the mental health of sufferers and caregivers and depoliticizing prevention strategies.

The similarities of both diseases allow us some foresight on how to deal with current COVID-19 issues. Looking back on the AIDS epidemic should teach us to prioritize attending to the mental health of sufferers and caregivers, creating advocacy and support groups for when a patient’s family is unavailable, instilling public confidence in treatment options, maintaining staff morale, addressing substance abuse (due to COVID-related stress), and depoliticizing prevention strategies. Addressing these issues is especially critical for minority populations.

As respected medical care leaders, we can provide and draw extra attention to the needs of patients’ family members and health care personnel during this COVID-19 pandemic. Hopefully, the distribution of vaccines will shorten some of our communal and professional distress.

Robert Frierson, MD
Steven Lippmann, MD
Louisville, KY

In 2020, COVID-19 disrupted our medical system, and life in general. In the 1980s, the AIDS epidemic devastated communities and overwhelmed hospitals. There were lessons learned from the AIDS epidemic that can be applied to the current situation.

Patients with HIV-spectrum illness faced stigmatization and societal indifference, including rejection by family members, increased rates of suicide, fears of sexual and/or intrauterine transmission, substance abuse issues, and alterations of body image for those with wasting syndromes and disfiguring Kaposi lesions. AIDS prevention strategies such as the provision of condoms and needle exchange programs were controversial, and many caregivers exposed to contaminated fluids had to endure months of antiretroviral treatment.

Similar to the AIDS epidemic, the COVID-19 pandemic has had significant psychological implications for patients and caregivers. Patients with COVID-19 infections also face feelings of guilt over potentially exposing a family member to the virus; devastating socioeconomic issues; restrictive hospital visitation policies for family members; disease news oversaturation; and feelings of hopelessness. People with AIDS in the 1980s faced the possibility of dying alone, and there was initial skepticism about medications to treat HIV—just as some individuals are now uneasy about recently introduced coronavirus vaccines.

Looking back on the AIDS epidemic should teach us to prioritize attending to the mental health of sufferers and caregivers and depoliticizing prevention strategies.

The similarities of both diseases allow us some foresight on how to deal with current COVID-19 issues. Looking back on the AIDS epidemic should teach us to prioritize attending to the mental health of sufferers and caregivers, creating advocacy and support groups for when a patient’s family is unavailable, instilling public confidence in treatment options, maintaining staff morale, addressing substance abuse (due to COVID-related stress), and depoliticizing prevention strategies. Addressing these issues is especially critical for minority populations.

As respected medical care leaders, we can provide and draw extra attention to the needs of patients’ family members and health care personnel during this COVID-19 pandemic. Hopefully, the distribution of vaccines will shorten some of our communal and professional distress.

Robert Frierson, MD
Steven Lippmann, MD
Louisville, KY

In 2020, COVID-19 disrupted our medical system, and life in general. In the 1980s, the AIDS epidemic devastated communities and overwhelmed hospitals. There were lessons learned from the AIDS epidemic that can be applied to the current situation.

Patients with HIV-spectrum illness faced stigmatization and societal indifference, including rejection by family members, increased rates of suicide, fears of sexual and/or intrauterine transmission, substance abuse issues, and alterations of body image for those with wasting syndromes and disfiguring Kaposi lesions. AIDS prevention strategies such as the provision of condoms and needle exchange programs were controversial, and many caregivers exposed to contaminated fluids had to endure months of antiretroviral treatment.

Similar to the AIDS epidemic, the COVID-19 pandemic has had significant psychological implications for patients and caregivers. Patients with COVID-19 infections also face feelings of guilt over potentially exposing a family member to the virus; devastating socioeconomic issues; restrictive hospital visitation policies for family members; disease news oversaturation; and feelings of hopelessness. People with AIDS in the 1980s faced the possibility of dying alone, and there was initial skepticism about medications to treat HIV—just as some individuals are now uneasy about recently introduced coronavirus vaccines.

Looking back on the AIDS epidemic should teach us to prioritize attending to the mental health of sufferers and caregivers and depoliticizing prevention strategies.

The similarities of both diseases allow us some foresight on how to deal with current COVID-19 issues. Looking back on the AIDS epidemic should teach us to prioritize attending to the mental health of sufferers and caregivers, creating advocacy and support groups for when a patient’s family is unavailable, instilling public confidence in treatment options, maintaining staff morale, addressing substance abuse (due to COVID-related stress), and depoliticizing prevention strategies. Addressing these issues is especially critical for minority populations.

As respected medical care leaders, we can provide and draw extra attention to the needs of patients’ family members and health care personnel during this COVID-19 pandemic. Hopefully, the distribution of vaccines will shorten some of our communal and professional distress.

Robert Frierson, MD
Steven Lippmann, MD
Louisville, KY

When I sat down to watch Oprah Winfrey’s interview with Meghan Markle on Sunday night, I didn’t know what to expect. As a psychiatrist dedicated to reducing the loss of life through suicide, I homed in on the aspect of the interview in which she discussed the depth of her suffering.

AkilinaWinner/Thinkstock

Meghan Markle is one of many celebrities to speak about their experience with suicidal crisis. Those disclosures provide opportunities to increase the public’s understanding of mental health and to deepen compassion for what others may be going through. They challenge our culturally normed assumptions: false beliefs – such as the idea that beauty, wealth, and success protect people from mental health struggles. We would do well to trust that the dichotomy between external appearances and internal experiences is always at play, and we never know what someone is going through. Human beings are both enormously resilient and vulnerable.

Suicide, while complex, is a health issue. Therefore, it is important that we all do our part in approaching mental health and suicide risk in a similar manner to other health issues.

We all have a dynamic and continuous interplay going on between life circumstances and our internal biological, genetic, and psychological makeup. The more honest and the more we learn about our own vulnerabilities and strengths, the more proactive we can be in protecting and optimizing our mental health. All individuals should be able to receive support and access to care to have their mental health needs addressed.

It’s important to note that distress leads many people to instinctually withdraw, just at a time when receiving support is even more important. In addition, cultures that traditionally emphasize self-sufficiency or stoicism may unintentionally create additional barriers to reaching out for help. Therefore, many people who experience suicidal thoughts do not disclose them to anyone. If someone does mention they are struggling, you can thank them for opening up and let them know you want to support them, and that you are there to help them find the help they need.

Dr. Moutier is chief medical officer of the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention. She reported no disclosures.

When I sat down to watch Oprah Winfrey’s interview with Meghan Markle on Sunday night, I didn’t know what to expect. As a psychiatrist dedicated to reducing the loss of life through suicide, I homed in on the aspect of the interview in which she discussed the depth of her suffering.

AkilinaWinner/Thinkstock

Meghan Markle is one of many celebrities to speak about their experience with suicidal crisis. Those disclosures provide opportunities to increase the public’s understanding of mental health and to deepen compassion for what others may be going through. They challenge our culturally normed assumptions: false beliefs – such as the idea that beauty, wealth, and success protect people from mental health struggles. We would do well to trust that the dichotomy between external appearances and internal experiences is always at play, and we never know what someone is going through. Human beings are both enormously resilient and vulnerable.

Suicide, while complex, is a health issue. Therefore, it is important that we all do our part in approaching mental health and suicide risk in a similar manner to other health issues.

We all have a dynamic and continuous interplay going on between life circumstances and our internal biological, genetic, and psychological makeup. The more honest and the more we learn about our own vulnerabilities and strengths, the more proactive we can be in protecting and optimizing our mental health. All individuals should be able to receive support and access to care to have their mental health needs addressed.

It’s important to note that distress leads many people to instinctually withdraw, just at a time when receiving support is even more important. In addition, cultures that traditionally emphasize self-sufficiency or stoicism may unintentionally create additional barriers to reaching out for help. Therefore, many people who experience suicidal thoughts do not disclose them to anyone. If someone does mention they are struggling, you can thank them for opening up and let them know you want to support them, and that you are there to help them find the help they need.

Dr. Moutier is chief medical officer of the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention. She reported no disclosures.

When I sat down to watch Oprah Winfrey’s interview with Meghan Markle on Sunday night, I didn’t know what to expect. As a psychiatrist dedicated to reducing the loss of life through suicide, I homed in on the aspect of the interview in which she discussed the depth of her suffering.

AkilinaWinner/Thinkstock

Meghan Markle is one of many celebrities to speak about their experience with suicidal crisis. Those disclosures provide opportunities to increase the public’s understanding of mental health and to deepen compassion for what others may be going through. They challenge our culturally normed assumptions: false beliefs – such as the idea that beauty, wealth, and success protect people from mental health struggles. We would do well to trust that the dichotomy between external appearances and internal experiences is always at play, and we never know what someone is going through. Human beings are both enormously resilient and vulnerable.

Suicide, while complex, is a health issue. Therefore, it is important that we all do our part in approaching mental health and suicide risk in a similar manner to other health issues.

We all have a dynamic and continuous interplay going on between life circumstances and our internal biological, genetic, and psychological makeup. The more honest and the more we learn about our own vulnerabilities and strengths, the more proactive we can be in protecting and optimizing our mental health. All individuals should be able to receive support and access to care to have their mental health needs addressed.

It’s important to note that distress leads many people to instinctually withdraw, just at a time when receiving support is even more important. In addition, cultures that traditionally emphasize self-sufficiency or stoicism may unintentionally create additional barriers to reaching out for help. Therefore, many people who experience suicidal thoughts do not disclose them to anyone. If someone does mention they are struggling, you can thank them for opening up and let them know you want to support them, and that you are there to help them find the help they need.

Dr. Moutier is chief medical officer of the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention. She reported no disclosures.

Among patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and compensated advanced chronic liver disease, liver stiffness measurements (LSMs) are associated with risks of hepatic events, according to a retrospective analysis of more than 1,000 patients.

“[N]oninvasive markers that can predict liver disease severity and outcomes in patients with NAFLD and advanced fibrosis are a major unmet need,” wrote lead author Salvatore Petta, MD, of the University of Palermo, Italy, and colleagues. Their report is in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. “Data about the accuracy of LSM in the prediction of events in NAFLD, and especially in patients with NAFLD and F3-F4 fibrosis, are scarce.”

To address this knowledge gap, the investigators retrospectively analyzed data from 1,039 consecutive patients with NAFLD who had baseline LSMs of more than 10 kPa and/or histologically diagnosed F3-F4 fibrosis. Patients were prospectively recruited at 10 centers in 6 countries, then followed for a median of 35 months, ranging from 19 to 63 months.

All patients had their liver stiffness measured with an M or XL probe at baseline. In addition, approximately half of the patients (n = 533) had a follow-up measurement using the same method, generating a subgroup with changes in liver stiffness. “Improved” liver stiffness was defined as a decrease in LSM greater than 20% from baseline, “impaired” liver stiffness was defined as an increase in LSM greater than 20% from baseline, and “stable” liver stiffness was defined as a change falling between 20% lower and 20% higher than baseline.

At baseline, mean LSM was 17.6 kPa. Cox regression analysis revealed that baseline LSM was independently associated with HCC (hazard ratio, 1.03; 95% confidence interval, 1.00-1.04; P = .003), liver decompensation (HR, 1.03; 95% CI, 1.02-1.04; P < .001), and liver-related death (HR, 1.02; 95% CI, 1.00-1.03; P = .005), but not extrahepatic events.

According to the investigators, the association between LSM at baseline and risk of liver decompensation was maintained after adjustment for the severity of liver disease and for surrogate markers of portal hypertension, they noted. Furthermore, patients with a baseline LSM of at least 21 kPa – which indicates high risk of clinically significant portal hypertension (CSPH) – were at greater risk of liver decompensation than were those with an LSM less than 21 kPa (HR, 3.71; 95% CI, 1.89-6.78; P = .04).

In the subgroup with follow-up measurements, approximately half of the patients had an improved LSM (53.3%), while 27.2% had a stable LSM, and 19.5% had an impaired LSM, a pattern that was significantly associated with diabetes at baseline (P = .01).

“These data agree with the available literature identifying diabetes as a risk factor for liver disease progression and liver-related complications,” the investigators wrote.

Cox regression showed that, among those with follow-up LSM, changes in LSM were independently associated with HCC (HR, 1.72; 95% CI, 1.01-3.02; P = .04), liver decompensation (HR, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.05-2.51; P = . 04), liver-related mortality (HR, 1.96; 95% CI, 1.10-3.38; P = .02), and mortality of any cause (HR, 1.73; 95% CI, 1.11-2.69; P = .01).

These risks could be further stratified by level of change in liver stiffness, with greater impairment predicting greater risk: The crude rate of liver decompensation was 14.4% among those with impaired LSM, compared with 6.2% among those with stable LSM and 3.8% among those with LSM improvement. That said, the categories of changes in LSM were not predictive of decompensation among patients with high risk of CSPH at baseline; however, they remained predictive among those with low risk of CSPH at baseline.

“[T]his study … showed that an integrated assessment of baseline LSM or [changes in LSM] can help in stratifying the risk of development of liver-related complications and of both hepatic and overall mortality,” the investigators concluded. “These data, if further validated, could help personalize prognosis and follow-up in NAFLD with [compensated advanced chronic liver disease].”

The investigators disclosed relationships with AbbVie, Novo Nordisk, Gilead, and others.

Among patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and compensated advanced chronic liver disease, liver stiffness measurements (LSMs) are associated with risks of hepatic events, according to a retrospective analysis of more than 1,000 patients.

“[N]oninvasive markers that can predict liver disease severity and outcomes in patients with NAFLD and advanced fibrosis are a major unmet need,” wrote lead author Salvatore Petta, MD, of the University of Palermo, Italy, and colleagues. Their report is in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. “Data about the accuracy of LSM in the prediction of events in NAFLD, and especially in patients with NAFLD and F3-F4 fibrosis, are scarce.”

To address this knowledge gap, the investigators retrospectively analyzed data from 1,039 consecutive patients with NAFLD who had baseline LSMs of more than 10 kPa and/or histologically diagnosed F3-F4 fibrosis. Patients were prospectively recruited at 10 centers in 6 countries, then followed for a median of 35 months, ranging from 19 to 63 months.

All patients had their liver stiffness measured with an M or XL probe at baseline. In addition, approximately half of the patients (n = 533) had a follow-up measurement using the same method, generating a subgroup with changes in liver stiffness. “Improved” liver stiffness was defined as a decrease in LSM greater than 20% from baseline, “impaired” liver stiffness was defined as an increase in LSM greater than 20% from baseline, and “stable” liver stiffness was defined as a change falling between 20% lower and 20% higher than baseline.

At baseline, mean LSM was 17.6 kPa. Cox regression analysis revealed that baseline LSM was independently associated with HCC (hazard ratio, 1.03; 95% confidence interval, 1.00-1.04; P = .003), liver decompensation (HR, 1.03; 95% CI, 1.02-1.04; P < .001), and liver-related death (HR, 1.02; 95% CI, 1.00-1.03; P = .005), but not extrahepatic events.

According to the investigators, the association between LSM at baseline and risk of liver decompensation was maintained after adjustment for the severity of liver disease and for surrogate markers of portal hypertension, they noted. Furthermore, patients with a baseline LSM of at least 21 kPa – which indicates high risk of clinically significant portal hypertension (CSPH) – were at greater risk of liver decompensation than were those with an LSM less than 21 kPa (HR, 3.71; 95% CI, 1.89-6.78; P = .04).

In the subgroup with follow-up measurements, approximately half of the patients had an improved LSM (53.3%), while 27.2% had a stable LSM, and 19.5% had an impaired LSM, a pattern that was significantly associated with diabetes at baseline (P = .01).

“These data agree with the available literature identifying diabetes as a risk factor for liver disease progression and liver-related complications,” the investigators wrote.

Cox regression showed that, among those with follow-up LSM, changes in LSM were independently associated with HCC (HR, 1.72; 95% CI, 1.01-3.02; P = .04), liver decompensation (HR, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.05-2.51; P = . 04), liver-related mortality (HR, 1.96; 95% CI, 1.10-3.38; P = .02), and mortality of any cause (HR, 1.73; 95% CI, 1.11-2.69; P = .01).

These risks could be further stratified by level of change in liver stiffness, with greater impairment predicting greater risk: The crude rate of liver decompensation was 14.4% among those with impaired LSM, compared with 6.2% among those with stable LSM and 3.8% among those with LSM improvement. That said, the categories of changes in LSM were not predictive of decompensation among patients with high risk of CSPH at baseline; however, they remained predictive among those with low risk of CSPH at baseline.

“[T]his study … showed that an integrated assessment of baseline LSM or [changes in LSM] can help in stratifying the risk of development of liver-related complications and of both hepatic and overall mortality,” the investigators concluded. “These data, if further validated, could help personalize prognosis and follow-up in NAFLD with [compensated advanced chronic liver disease].”

The investigators disclosed relationships with AbbVie, Novo Nordisk, Gilead, and others.

Among patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and compensated advanced chronic liver disease, liver stiffness measurements (LSMs) are associated with risks of hepatic events, according to a retrospective analysis of more than 1,000 patients.

“[N]oninvasive markers that can predict liver disease severity and outcomes in patients with NAFLD and advanced fibrosis are a major unmet need,” wrote lead author Salvatore Petta, MD, of the University of Palermo, Italy, and colleagues. Their report is in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. “Data about the accuracy of LSM in the prediction of events in NAFLD, and especially in patients with NAFLD and F3-F4 fibrosis, are scarce.”

To address this knowledge gap, the investigators retrospectively analyzed data from 1,039 consecutive patients with NAFLD who had baseline LSMs of more than 10 kPa and/or histologically diagnosed F3-F4 fibrosis. Patients were prospectively recruited at 10 centers in 6 countries, then followed for a median of 35 months, ranging from 19 to 63 months.

All patients had their liver stiffness measured with an M or XL probe at baseline. In addition, approximately half of the patients (n = 533) had a follow-up measurement using the same method, generating a subgroup with changes in liver stiffness. “Improved” liver stiffness was defined as a decrease in LSM greater than 20% from baseline, “impaired” liver stiffness was defined as an increase in LSM greater than 20% from baseline, and “stable” liver stiffness was defined as a change falling between 20% lower and 20% higher than baseline.

At baseline, mean LSM was 17.6 kPa. Cox regression analysis revealed that baseline LSM was independently associated with HCC (hazard ratio, 1.03; 95% confidence interval, 1.00-1.04; P = .003), liver decompensation (HR, 1.03; 95% CI, 1.02-1.04; P < .001), and liver-related death (HR, 1.02; 95% CI, 1.00-1.03; P = .005), but not extrahepatic events.

According to the investigators, the association between LSM at baseline and risk of liver decompensation was maintained after adjustment for the severity of liver disease and for surrogate markers of portal hypertension, they noted. Furthermore, patients with a baseline LSM of at least 21 kPa – which indicates high risk of clinically significant portal hypertension (CSPH) – were at greater risk of liver decompensation than were those with an LSM less than 21 kPa (HR, 3.71; 95% CI, 1.89-6.78; P = .04).

In the subgroup with follow-up measurements, approximately half of the patients had an improved LSM (53.3%), while 27.2% had a stable LSM, and 19.5% had an impaired LSM, a pattern that was significantly associated with diabetes at baseline (P = .01).

“These data agree with the available literature identifying diabetes as a risk factor for liver disease progression and liver-related complications,” the investigators wrote.

Cox regression showed that, among those with follow-up LSM, changes in LSM were independently associated with HCC (HR, 1.72; 95% CI, 1.01-3.02; P = .04), liver decompensation (HR, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.05-2.51; P = . 04), liver-related mortality (HR, 1.96; 95% CI, 1.10-3.38; P = .02), and mortality of any cause (HR, 1.73; 95% CI, 1.11-2.69; P = .01).

These risks could be further stratified by level of change in liver stiffness, with greater impairment predicting greater risk: The crude rate of liver decompensation was 14.4% among those with impaired LSM, compared with 6.2% among those with stable LSM and 3.8% among those with LSM improvement. That said, the categories of changes in LSM were not predictive of decompensation among patients with high risk of CSPH at baseline; however, they remained predictive among those with low risk of CSPH at baseline.

“[T]his study … showed that an integrated assessment of baseline LSM or [changes in LSM] can help in stratifying the risk of development of liver-related complications and of both hepatic and overall mortality,” the investigators concluded. “These data, if further validated, could help personalize prognosis and follow-up in NAFLD with [compensated advanced chronic liver disease].”

The investigators disclosed relationships with AbbVie, Novo Nordisk, Gilead, and others.

The first rule about infantile hemangiomas: Make sure they’re actually infantile hemangiomas, a pediatric dermatologist urged colleagues. Then watch patients closely, refer to specialists when appropriate, and consider propranolol in complicated or high-risk cases, Andrea L. Zaenglein, MD, said at MedscapeLive’s Women’s & Pediatric Dermatology Seminar.

“In my career as a pediatric dermatologist, propranolol has been a life changer for us more than any other medicine,” said Dr. Zaenglein, professor of dermatology and pediatric dermatology, Penn State University, Hershey.

Before the point where propranolol is prescribed, confirm the diagnosis and use the correct terminology, she advised. It’s still appropriate to use the International Society for the Study of Vascular Anomalies (ISSVA) vascular lesion classification system released in 1982. “For most people, it serves the purpose well,” she said. Another option is an updated and more complex classification system from 2015.

Dr. Zaenglein highlighted two studies – one published in 2011 and the other published in 2020 – that revealed high levels of misclassification of vascular malformations in research reports. The earlier study found that 21% of patients with misclassified lesions were mistreated, compared with none of those who were classified using ISSVA terminology.

“I cannot stress [proper classification] enough when you’re dealing with babies and children with vascular lesions. If not sure, be vague. Say ‘a vascular tumor’ or a ‘vascular malformation.’ But only reserve ‘infantile hemangioma’ for that very diagnosis,” she said.

As Dr. Zaenglein noted, infantile hemangiomas affect 5%-10% of 1-year-olds, of whom 20% have multiple lesions. They’re more common in females by a 3-to-1 margin, and also seen more in premature infants, and in cases of multiple births, higher maternal age, and low birth weight.

The pathogenesis of these lesions is unclear, she said, although there are hints about genetic components and tissue hypoxia, among other possible causes. “Importantly, you get 80% of the growth by 3-4 months of age. Then it’ll slow in its growth and kind of slowly go away over time, but it’s not linear regression. It’s more that you get more improvement up front, usually until about 5, and then you can get some continued gradual evolution up until about 7 or 10 years of age.”

Complications can include ulceration, infection and – in rare cases – hemorrhage and high-output cardiac failure, she said. “Knowing which ones are at high risk for complications is important, and also there are systemic associations that we have to be mindful of. We also want to think about aesthetic outcomes as well when we talk about management of infantile hemangiomas.”

High-risk infantile hemangiomas include those with the following features:

• Extensive facial involvement. Dr. Zaenglein highlighted a case of a 2-year-old baby with a large, bulky hemangioma that distorted facial features around the eye. “This would be a medical emergency” requiring immediate evaluation and treatment, she said.
• Periocular involvement. Refer to ophthalmology, she recommended. “Even smaller hemangiomas can cause refractive errors or amblyopia, and oftentimes need to be treated with either systemic or topical therapy depending on the size and extent,” she said.
• PHACE syndrome (Posterior fossa malformations, hemangiomas, arterial anomalies, coarctation of the aorta and cardiac defects, eye abnormalities). “Propranolol has been safely used in PHACE, but every patient is different,” she said. “You need to make sure to do a good risk assessment before starting because if they have narrowed blood flow or limited blood flow, there is a question of whether there is potential risk for stroke if you drop a baby’s blood pressure. Make sure that the vasculature is evaluated before started on propranolol. Also, there are recent reports of risk of long-term risk of stroke with PHACE syndrome as patients are getting into their adulthood.”
• Beard distribution. Be aware of possible airway involvement that can be revealed by biphasic stridor. In those cases, immediate treatment – perhaps even with tracheostomy – is needed to avoid mortality, she said.
• Multiple sites: Patients with five or more hemangiomas may have liver involvement, she said, and should undergo hepatic evaluation. Consider evaluating if this is suspected, even if the number of hemangiomas is under five, she said.
• Perineal/lumbosacral involvement: A third of these cases are associated with spinal dysraphism. Refer to neurosurgery, she recommended.

Dr. Zaenglein highlighted a report on the use of propranolol published in 2008 and noted that clinical practice guidelines for managing infantile hemangiomas published in 2019 are also helpful.

Flat hemangiomas, meanwhile, can benefit from timolol maleate 0.5% solution or gel-forming solution – 1 drop twice daily or 2 drops once daily, she said. This treatment should be avoided in thick hemangiomas, she said.

MedscapeLive and this news organization are owned by the same parent company. Dr. Zaenglein disclosed consulting fees (Dermata, Cassiopea, and Regeneron), and fees for contracted research support (Incyte).

The first rule about infantile hemangiomas: Make sure they’re actually infantile hemangiomas, a pediatric dermatologist urged colleagues. Then watch patients closely, refer to specialists when appropriate, and consider propranolol in complicated or high-risk cases, Andrea L. Zaenglein, MD, said at MedscapeLive’s Women’s & Pediatric Dermatology Seminar.

“In my career as a pediatric dermatologist, propranolol has been a life changer for us more than any other medicine,” said Dr. Zaenglein, professor of dermatology and pediatric dermatology, Penn State University, Hershey.

Before the point where propranolol is prescribed, confirm the diagnosis and use the correct terminology, she advised. It’s still appropriate to use the International Society for the Study of Vascular Anomalies (ISSVA) vascular lesion classification system released in 1982. “For most people, it serves the purpose well,” she said. Another option is an updated and more complex classification system from 2015.

Dr. Zaenglein highlighted two studies – one published in 2011 and the other published in 2020 – that revealed high levels of misclassification of vascular malformations in research reports. The earlier study found that 21% of patients with misclassified lesions were mistreated, compared with none of those who were classified using ISSVA terminology.

“I cannot stress [proper classification] enough when you’re dealing with babies and children with vascular lesions. If not sure, be vague. Say ‘a vascular tumor’ or a ‘vascular malformation.’ But only reserve ‘infantile hemangioma’ for that very diagnosis,” she said.

As Dr. Zaenglein noted, infantile hemangiomas affect 5%-10% of 1-year-olds, of whom 20% have multiple lesions. They’re more common in females by a 3-to-1 margin, and also seen more in premature infants, and in cases of multiple births, higher maternal age, and low birth weight.

The pathogenesis of these lesions is unclear, she said, although there are hints about genetic components and tissue hypoxia, among other possible causes. “Importantly, you get 80% of the growth by 3-4 months of age. Then it’ll slow in its growth and kind of slowly go away over time, but it’s not linear regression. It’s more that you get more improvement up front, usually until about 5, and then you can get some continued gradual evolution up until about 7 or 10 years of age.”

Complications can include ulceration, infection and – in rare cases – hemorrhage and high-output cardiac failure, she said. “Knowing which ones are at high risk for complications is important, and also there are systemic associations that we have to be mindful of. We also want to think about aesthetic outcomes as well when we talk about management of infantile hemangiomas.”

High-risk infantile hemangiomas include those with the following features:

• Extensive facial involvement. Dr. Zaenglein highlighted a case of a 2-year-old baby with a large, bulky hemangioma that distorted facial features around the eye. “This would be a medical emergency” requiring immediate evaluation and treatment, she said.
• Periocular involvement. Refer to ophthalmology, she recommended. “Even smaller hemangiomas can cause refractive errors or amblyopia, and oftentimes need to be treated with either systemic or topical therapy depending on the size and extent,” she said.
• PHACE syndrome (Posterior fossa malformations, hemangiomas, arterial anomalies, coarctation of the aorta and cardiac defects, eye abnormalities). “Propranolol has been safely used in PHACE, but every patient is different,” she said. “You need to make sure to do a good risk assessment before starting because if they have narrowed blood flow or limited blood flow, there is a question of whether there is potential risk for stroke if you drop a baby’s blood pressure. Make sure that the vasculature is evaluated before started on propranolol. Also, there are recent reports of risk of long-term risk of stroke with PHACE syndrome as patients are getting into their adulthood.”
• Beard distribution. Be aware of possible airway involvement that can be revealed by biphasic stridor. In those cases, immediate treatment – perhaps even with tracheostomy – is needed to avoid mortality, she said.
• Multiple sites: Patients with five or more hemangiomas may have liver involvement, she said, and should undergo hepatic evaluation. Consider evaluating if this is suspected, even if the number of hemangiomas is under five, she said.
• Perineal/lumbosacral involvement: A third of these cases are associated with spinal dysraphism. Refer to neurosurgery, she recommended.

Dr. Zaenglein highlighted a report on the use of propranolol published in 2008 and noted that clinical practice guidelines for managing infantile hemangiomas published in 2019 are also helpful.

Flat hemangiomas, meanwhile, can benefit from timolol maleate 0.5% solution or gel-forming solution – 1 drop twice daily or 2 drops once daily, she said. This treatment should be avoided in thick hemangiomas, she said.

MedscapeLive and this news organization are owned by the same parent company. Dr. Zaenglein disclosed consulting fees (Dermata, Cassiopea, and Regeneron), and fees for contracted research support (Incyte).

The first rule about infantile hemangiomas: Make sure they’re actually infantile hemangiomas, a pediatric dermatologist urged colleagues. Then watch patients closely, refer to specialists when appropriate, and consider propranolol in complicated or high-risk cases, Andrea L. Zaenglein, MD, said at MedscapeLive’s Women’s & Pediatric Dermatology Seminar.

“In my career as a pediatric dermatologist, propranolol has been a life changer for us more than any other medicine,” said Dr. Zaenglein, professor of dermatology and pediatric dermatology, Penn State University, Hershey.

Before the point where propranolol is prescribed, confirm the diagnosis and use the correct terminology, she advised. It’s still appropriate to use the International Society for the Study of Vascular Anomalies (ISSVA) vascular lesion classification system released in 1982. “For most people, it serves the purpose well,” she said. Another option is an updated and more complex classification system from 2015.

Dr. Zaenglein highlighted two studies – one published in 2011 and the other published in 2020 – that revealed high levels of misclassification of vascular malformations in research reports. The earlier study found that 21% of patients with misclassified lesions were mistreated, compared with none of those who were classified using ISSVA terminology.

“I cannot stress [proper classification] enough when you’re dealing with babies and children with vascular lesions. If not sure, be vague. Say ‘a vascular tumor’ or a ‘vascular malformation.’ But only reserve ‘infantile hemangioma’ for that very diagnosis,” she said.

As Dr. Zaenglein noted, infantile hemangiomas affect 5%-10% of 1-year-olds, of whom 20% have multiple lesions. They’re more common in females by a 3-to-1 margin, and also seen more in premature infants, and in cases of multiple births, higher maternal age, and low birth weight.

The pathogenesis of these lesions is unclear, she said, although there are hints about genetic components and tissue hypoxia, among other possible causes. “Importantly, you get 80% of the growth by 3-4 months of age. Then it’ll slow in its growth and kind of slowly go away over time, but it’s not linear regression. It’s more that you get more improvement up front, usually until about 5, and then you can get some continued gradual evolution up until about 7 or 10 years of age.”

Complications can include ulceration, infection and – in rare cases – hemorrhage and high-output cardiac failure, she said. “Knowing which ones are at high risk for complications is important, and also there are systemic associations that we have to be mindful of. We also want to think about aesthetic outcomes as well when we talk about management of infantile hemangiomas.”

High-risk infantile hemangiomas include those with the following features:

• Extensive facial involvement. Dr. Zaenglein highlighted a case of a 2-year-old baby with a large, bulky hemangioma that distorted facial features around the eye. “This would be a medical emergency” requiring immediate evaluation and treatment, she said.
• Periocular involvement. Refer to ophthalmology, she recommended. “Even smaller hemangiomas can cause refractive errors or amblyopia, and oftentimes need to be treated with either systemic or topical therapy depending on the size and extent,” she said.
• PHACE syndrome (Posterior fossa malformations, hemangiomas, arterial anomalies, coarctation of the aorta and cardiac defects, eye abnormalities). “Propranolol has been safely used in PHACE, but every patient is different,” she said. “You need to make sure to do a good risk assessment before starting because if they have narrowed blood flow or limited blood flow, there is a question of whether there is potential risk for stroke if you drop a baby’s blood pressure. Make sure that the vasculature is evaluated before started on propranolol. Also, there are recent reports of risk of long-term risk of stroke with PHACE syndrome as patients are getting into their adulthood.”
• Beard distribution. Be aware of possible airway involvement that can be revealed by biphasic stridor. In those cases, immediate treatment – perhaps even with tracheostomy – is needed to avoid mortality, she said.
• Multiple sites: Patients with five or more hemangiomas may have liver involvement, she said, and should undergo hepatic evaluation. Consider evaluating if this is suspected, even if the number of hemangiomas is under five, she said.
• Perineal/lumbosacral involvement: A third of these cases are associated with spinal dysraphism. Refer to neurosurgery, she recommended.

Dr. Zaenglein highlighted a report on the use of propranolol published in 2008 and noted that clinical practice guidelines for managing infantile hemangiomas published in 2019 are also helpful.

Flat hemangiomas, meanwhile, can benefit from timolol maleate 0.5% solution or gel-forming solution – 1 drop twice daily or 2 drops once daily, she said. This treatment should be avoided in thick hemangiomas, she said.

MedscapeLive and this news organization are owned by the same parent company. Dr. Zaenglein disclosed consulting fees (Dermata, Cassiopea, and Regeneron), and fees for contracted research support (Incyte).

This spring may bring an unusual transition for families: a return to in-person school after nearly a year in a virtual classroom. This will undoubtedly come as a welcome relief to many parents worried about their children’s education and development and struggling with running school from home. But it is important for parents to remember that transitions, even happy ones, are difficult. You can help parents to anticipate what may be challenging about this transition for their children so that they are all prepared and can diminish struggles and support their children’s mastery.

Be curious about their children’s thoughts and feelings

Parents should adopt a truly curious and open-minded approach with their children. Remind parents that, while they are experts on their own children, they should not assume they know what their children are thinking or feeling about the return to school. Some children, especially ones struggling with learning problems or difficulty with peers, will have grown very comfortable being at home with parents or siblings. Some children, especially pre- and early teens, may have changed substantially in the year and might feel uncertain about returning to a prior team or group of friends. Some children may feel concerned about leaving a pet at home alone. Some children may be going to a new school and be anxious about facing such a big transition without the usual planning and supports. Those on a college track may be worried they are “behind” academically or in college preparation.

Parents can show up when and where their children are most likely to talk, perhaps bath time or bedtime for younger children or in the car together with their adolescents. They can ask: “Have you been thinking about what it might be like to go back to school? Have your friends been chatting about it?” They might be curious together about what might have changed in a year. What might be really great about being back in a classroom? What might they miss about home school? And what might be new? Are you worried about the work, any of your friends, or not being home? If children can begin to anticipate both the good and the difficult, they will be better equipped to face and manage the challenges and appreciate the delights.

Children in elementary school are built to master new situations but are also prone to anxiety about new expectations and demands. Parents can be calmly curious about what their thoughts, feelings, and questions are and look for answers together. Often all they need is to see parents being calm in the face of uncertainty, bearing the strong feelings that may come, and preserving curiosity and compassion. Adolescents may be grieving the things they have missed, or they may have concerns about relationships and practical matters such as the implications for applying to college. Parents can offer compassion and validation and help them to devise their own strategies to face the practical challenges they are concerned about.
 

Be mindful of their children’s vulnerabilities

While most children will find the transition back to school easier than they may anticipate, there will be some for whom the transition will be very challenging. Children who have been bullied at school may have found themselves able to concentrate and learn free of the fear and stress of a classmate’s taunts or stares. Children with learning disabilities or ADHD have probably struggled with online school, but they have also likely established strategies and supports during the year that have enabled them to get enough individualized help to get their work done. These children are vulnerable to falling behind and getting discouraged when these supports are lost, and possibly not replaced with new ones in the chaos of transition. Parents should reassure their children that they will work with the school to make sure that they can succeed in the classroom as they did at home.

Children with an inhibited or shy temperament might have found that it was easier to focus and listen in the comfortable setting of home than in a busy, stimulating classroom. Children who suffer from anxiety disorders that may make separating from parents or managing the performance and social demands of school extra difficult will find the return to school especially challenging. Some younger children may have experienced the emergence of an anxiety disorder during the past year, and the return to school may mark the challenge that brings heretofore quiet symptoms into full relief.

These children have all enjoyed being able to avoid the discomfort of certain anxiety-provoking situations, and they may be particularly stressed by anticipating a return to school. Younger children may begin to have stomach aches and other physical complaints as the return to school gets close, older children may seem more withdrawn or irritable or begin discussing ways to continue school from home. Parents should help their children try to identify and describe their worries. For anxious children, having a chance to practice may be very helpful. Visiting their school, especially if it is a new school, or having a planned hangout with a friend (with appropriate precautions) is the kind of exposure that can lessen anticipatory anxiety. If this is not enough, parents should not hesitate to bring in other caring, supportive adults, such as school counselors or therapists that may be essential to helping their children face and manage what may be intense anxiety.
 

Consider routines to support their transition

Just as parents begin to return their children to an earlier bedtime toward the end of summer, it will be helpful to consider how changing certain routines will support their children now. If children will need to get up earlier to be ready for a bus or a team practice, they should start moving bedtime and wake-up time earlier gradually. Uniforms or backpacks that have not been seen for a year should be dug out. Children who are planning a return to a sport may benefit from gradually increasing their exercise or starting training now. This will have the added benefit of improving sleep and energy and fortifying children for the challenges of change. Parents might consider reaching out to other parents in the same class as their children and having a virtual conversation to share their thoughts.

If their family has developed some new “COVID routines” that they have come to enjoy, they should find a way to preserve them. Perhaps they are having dinner together more often or have established a family game night or Netflix night. Help parents consider how to avoid falling back into overscheduling their children and themselves. If they created a time to Zoom with distant or vulnerable loved ones, they might decide to continue this. School may determine some of their routines, but they should also prioritize their family connections and well-being in deciding how to schedule their days.
 

Find opportunity for mastery and meaning

As parents are listening, validating, and planning with their children, they might use this time to reflect on valuable lessons. They might point out the value of patience: Adjusting to change takes time and happens in fits and starts. It has been 12 months since many of the pandemic changes started and it will take more than a few days to adjust as schools reopen. They might point out how proud they are of what their children have been able to learn, build, or do during this year, what they admire about them. It may be a time to consider what their family may have lost and gained during the past year, what they are eager to leave behind, and what they might like to keep. And it is also a chance for parents to observe that change is an inevitable part of life (especially when growing up). It is always challenging, and often brings loss and sadness. But if we pay attention, there are also the green shoots of what is new and possible.

Dr. Swick is physician in chief at Ohana, Center for Child and Adolescent Behavioral Health, Community Hospital of the Monterey (Calif.) Peninsula. Dr. Jellinek is professor emeritus of psychiatry and pediatrics, Harvard Medical School, Boston. Email them at [email protected].

This spring may bring an unusual transition for families: a return to in-person school after nearly a year in a virtual classroom. This will undoubtedly come as a welcome relief to many parents worried about their children’s education and development and struggling with running school from home. But it is important for parents to remember that transitions, even happy ones, are difficult. You can help parents to anticipate what may be challenging about this transition for their children so that they are all prepared and can diminish struggles and support their children’s mastery.

Be curious about their children’s thoughts and feelings

Parents should adopt a truly curious and open-minded approach with their children. Remind parents that, while they are experts on their own children, they should not assume they know what their children are thinking or feeling about the return to school. Some children, especially ones struggling with learning problems or difficulty with peers, will have grown very comfortable being at home with parents or siblings. Some children, especially pre- and early teens, may have changed substantially in the year and might feel uncertain about returning to a prior team or group of friends. Some children may feel concerned about leaving a pet at home alone. Some children may be going to a new school and be anxious about facing such a big transition without the usual planning and supports. Those on a college track may be worried they are “behind” academically or in college preparation.

Parents can show up when and where their children are most likely to talk, perhaps bath time or bedtime for younger children or in the car together with their adolescents. They can ask: “Have you been thinking about what it might be like to go back to school? Have your friends been chatting about it?” They might be curious together about what might have changed in a year. What might be really great about being back in a classroom? What might they miss about home school? And what might be new? Are you worried about the work, any of your friends, or not being home? If children can begin to anticipate both the good and the difficult, they will be better equipped to face and manage the challenges and appreciate the delights.

Children in elementary school are built to master new situations but are also prone to anxiety about new expectations and demands. Parents can be calmly curious about what their thoughts, feelings, and questions are and look for answers together. Often all they need is to see parents being calm in the face of uncertainty, bearing the strong feelings that may come, and preserving curiosity and compassion. Adolescents may be grieving the things they have missed, or they may have concerns about relationships and practical matters such as the implications for applying to college. Parents can offer compassion and validation and help them to devise their own strategies to face the practical challenges they are concerned about.
 

Be mindful of their children’s vulnerabilities

While most children will find the transition back to school easier than they may anticipate, there will be some for whom the transition will be very challenging. Children who have been bullied at school may have found themselves able to concentrate and learn free of the fear and stress of a classmate’s taunts or stares. Children with learning disabilities or ADHD have probably struggled with online school, but they have also likely established strategies and supports during the year that have enabled them to get enough individualized help to get their work done. These children are vulnerable to falling behind and getting discouraged when these supports are lost, and possibly not replaced with new ones in the chaos of transition. Parents should reassure their children that they will work with the school to make sure that they can succeed in the classroom as they did at home.

Children with an inhibited or shy temperament might have found that it was easier to focus and listen in the comfortable setting of home than in a busy, stimulating classroom. Children who suffer from anxiety disorders that may make separating from parents or managing the performance and social demands of school extra difficult will find the return to school especially challenging. Some younger children may have experienced the emergence of an anxiety disorder during the past year, and the return to school may mark the challenge that brings heretofore quiet symptoms into full relief.

These children have all enjoyed being able to avoid the discomfort of certain anxiety-provoking situations, and they may be particularly stressed by anticipating a return to school. Younger children may begin to have stomach aches and other physical complaints as the return to school gets close, older children may seem more withdrawn or irritable or begin discussing ways to continue school from home. Parents should help their children try to identify and describe their worries. For anxious children, having a chance to practice may be very helpful. Visiting their school, especially if it is a new school, or having a planned hangout with a friend (with appropriate precautions) is the kind of exposure that can lessen anticipatory anxiety. If this is not enough, parents should not hesitate to bring in other caring, supportive adults, such as school counselors or therapists that may be essential to helping their children face and manage what may be intense anxiety.
 

Consider routines to support their transition

Just as parents begin to return their children to an earlier bedtime toward the end of summer, it will be helpful to consider how changing certain routines will support their children now. If children will need to get up earlier to be ready for a bus or a team practice, they should start moving bedtime and wake-up time earlier gradually. Uniforms or backpacks that have not been seen for a year should be dug out. Children who are planning a return to a sport may benefit from gradually increasing their exercise or starting training now. This will have the added benefit of improving sleep and energy and fortifying children for the challenges of change. Parents might consider reaching out to other parents in the same class as their children and having a virtual conversation to share their thoughts.

If their family has developed some new “COVID routines” that they have come to enjoy, they should find a way to preserve them. Perhaps they are having dinner together more often or have established a family game night or Netflix night. Help parents consider how to avoid falling back into overscheduling their children and themselves. If they created a time to Zoom with distant or vulnerable loved ones, they might decide to continue this. School may determine some of their routines, but they should also prioritize their family connections and well-being in deciding how to schedule their days.
 

Find opportunity for mastery and meaning

As parents are listening, validating, and planning with their children, they might use this time to reflect on valuable lessons. They might point out the value of patience: Adjusting to change takes time and happens in fits and starts. It has been 12 months since many of the pandemic changes started and it will take more than a few days to adjust as schools reopen. They might point out how proud they are of what their children have been able to learn, build, or do during this year, what they admire about them. It may be a time to consider what their family may have lost and gained during the past year, what they are eager to leave behind, and what they might like to keep. And it is also a chance for parents to observe that change is an inevitable part of life (especially when growing up). It is always challenging, and often brings loss and sadness. But if we pay attention, there are also the green shoots of what is new and possible.

Dr. Swick is physician in chief at Ohana, Center for Child and Adolescent Behavioral Health, Community Hospital of the Monterey (Calif.) Peninsula. Dr. Jellinek is professor emeritus of psychiatry and pediatrics, Harvard Medical School, Boston. Email them at [email protected].

This spring may bring an unusual transition for families: a return to in-person school after nearly a year in a virtual classroom. This will undoubtedly come as a welcome relief to many parents worried about their children’s education and development and struggling with running school from home. But it is important for parents to remember that transitions, even happy ones, are difficult. You can help parents to anticipate what may be challenging about this transition for their children so that they are all prepared and can diminish struggles and support their children’s mastery.

Be curious about their children’s thoughts and feelings

Parents should adopt a truly curious and open-minded approach with their children. Remind parents that, while they are experts on their own children, they should not assume they know what their children are thinking or feeling about the return to school. Some children, especially ones struggling with learning problems or difficulty with peers, will have grown very comfortable being at home with parents or siblings. Some children, especially pre- and early teens, may have changed substantially in the year and might feel uncertain about returning to a prior team or group of friends. Some children may feel concerned about leaving a pet at home alone. Some children may be going to a new school and be anxious about facing such a big transition without the usual planning and supports. Those on a college track may be worried they are “behind” academically or in college preparation.

Parents can show up when and where their children are most likely to talk, perhaps bath time or bedtime for younger children or in the car together with their adolescents. They can ask: “Have you been thinking about what it might be like to go back to school? Have your friends been chatting about it?” They might be curious together about what might have changed in a year. What might be really great about being back in a classroom? What might they miss about home school? And what might be new? Are you worried about the work, any of your friends, or not being home? If children can begin to anticipate both the good and the difficult, they will be better equipped to face and manage the challenges and appreciate the delights.

Children in elementary school are built to master new situations but are also prone to anxiety about new expectations and demands. Parents can be calmly curious about what their thoughts, feelings, and questions are and look for answers together. Often all they need is to see parents being calm in the face of uncertainty, bearing the strong feelings that may come, and preserving curiosity and compassion. Adolescents may be grieving the things they have missed, or they may have concerns about relationships and practical matters such as the implications for applying to college. Parents can offer compassion and validation and help them to devise their own strategies to face the practical challenges they are concerned about.
 

Be mindful of their children’s vulnerabilities

While most children will find the transition back to school easier than they may anticipate, there will be some for whom the transition will be very challenging. Children who have been bullied at school may have found themselves able to concentrate and learn free of the fear and stress of a classmate’s taunts or stares. Children with learning disabilities or ADHD have probably struggled with online school, but they have also likely established strategies and supports during the year that have enabled them to get enough individualized help to get their work done. These children are vulnerable to falling behind and getting discouraged when these supports are lost, and possibly not replaced with new ones in the chaos of transition. Parents should reassure their children that they will work with the school to make sure that they can succeed in the classroom as they did at home.

Children with an inhibited or shy temperament might have found that it was easier to focus and listen in the comfortable setting of home than in a busy, stimulating classroom. Children who suffer from anxiety disorders that may make separating from parents or managing the performance and social demands of school extra difficult will find the return to school especially challenging. Some younger children may have experienced the emergence of an anxiety disorder during the past year, and the return to school may mark the challenge that brings heretofore quiet symptoms into full relief.

These children have all enjoyed being able to avoid the discomfort of certain anxiety-provoking situations, and they may be particularly stressed by anticipating a return to school. Younger children may begin to have stomach aches and other physical complaints as the return to school gets close, older children may seem more withdrawn or irritable or begin discussing ways to continue school from home. Parents should help their children try to identify and describe their worries. For anxious children, having a chance to practice may be very helpful. Visiting their school, especially if it is a new school, or having a planned hangout with a friend (with appropriate precautions) is the kind of exposure that can lessen anticipatory anxiety. If this is not enough, parents should not hesitate to bring in other caring, supportive adults, such as school counselors or therapists that may be essential to helping their children face and manage what may be intense anxiety.
 

Consider routines to support their transition

Just as parents begin to return their children to an earlier bedtime toward the end of summer, it will be helpful to consider how changing certain routines will support their children now. If children will need to get up earlier to be ready for a bus or a team practice, they should start moving bedtime and wake-up time earlier gradually. Uniforms or backpacks that have not been seen for a year should be dug out. Children who are planning a return to a sport may benefit from gradually increasing their exercise or starting training now. This will have the added benefit of improving sleep and energy and fortifying children for the challenges of change. Parents might consider reaching out to other parents in the same class as their children and having a virtual conversation to share their thoughts.

If their family has developed some new “COVID routines” that they have come to enjoy, they should find a way to preserve them. Perhaps they are having dinner together more often or have established a family game night or Netflix night. Help parents consider how to avoid falling back into overscheduling their children and themselves. If they created a time to Zoom with distant or vulnerable loved ones, they might decide to continue this. School may determine some of their routines, but they should also prioritize their family connections and well-being in deciding how to schedule their days.
 

Find opportunity for mastery and meaning

As parents are listening, validating, and planning with their children, they might use this time to reflect on valuable lessons. They might point out the value of patience: Adjusting to change takes time and happens in fits and starts. It has been 12 months since many of the pandemic changes started and it will take more than a few days to adjust as schools reopen. They might point out how proud they are of what their children have been able to learn, build, or do during this year, what they admire about them. It may be a time to consider what their family may have lost and gained during the past year, what they are eager to leave behind, and what they might like to keep. And it is also a chance for parents to observe that change is an inevitable part of life (especially when growing up). It is always challenging, and often brings loss and sadness. But if we pay attention, there are also the green shoots of what is new and possible.

Dr. Swick is physician in chief at Ohana, Center for Child and Adolescent Behavioral Health, Community Hospital of the Monterey (Calif.) Peninsula. Dr. Jellinek is professor emeritus of psychiatry and pediatrics, Harvard Medical School, Boston. Email them at [email protected].

A miniature camera the size of a capsule that is swallowed and then transmits images of the inside of the gut can reveal cancer and gastrointestinal diseases. The device, which will be studied in a trial conducted by the National Health Service in England, is used by patients at home as a substitute for endoscopy.

“What sounds like sci-fi is now becoming a reality,” said Sir Simon Stevens, chief executive of NHS England. “These minute cameras pass through your body. They take two pictures per second, checking for signs of cancer and other conditions like Crohn’s disease.”

The trial, announced on March 11, 2021, will initially involve 11,000 patients from 40 regions in England. Participants will be sent the colon capsule endoscopy to use at home.

The capsule typically takes 5-8 hours to pass through the digestive system. As the capsule passes through the bowel, images are sent to a data recorder in a shoulder bag.

The trial is being conducted by the University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust. The investigators have created a guide on using the device at home.

“Not only does colon capsule increase our diagnostic capacity, because it doesn’t require the resources of a dedicated hospital space to do the examination, it also allows us to do the examination in the patient’s home, so patients who may be shielding or cautious about going to a hospital can perform the procedure in the comfort of their own homes,” commented Ed Seward, MD, PhD, endoscopy lead at UCL.

The move is in response to a surge in patients coming forward for cancer checks after the slowdown in cancer services caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. In December 2020, more than 200,000 people came forward, an increase of 13,000 over the same month the previous year.

Traditional endoscopy services are still being offered, although endoscopies take longer to conduct because of infection control measures that must be employed to ensure that patients who undergo endoscopies do not develop COVID-19. This, in turn, means fewer people can undergo endoscopies over a given period.

“We welcome any initiative that seeks to simplify and improve the early diagnosis of gastrointestinal disease and, in particular, colorectal cancer, which unfortunately is still responsible for many avoidable deaths,” said Alastair McKinlay, MD, president of the British Society of Gastroenterology.

“Colon capsule is a promising new technology that may offer a real advantage for some patients. For this reason, we welcome the opportunity for a proper service evaluation so that both the limitations and advantages of this technique can be properly assessed,” he said.

“This has the potential to make a huge difference for people with bowel cancer symptoms and could help the NHS to prioritize those who urgently need further tests,” added Genevieve Edwards, chief executive at Bowel Cancer UK.

No funding for the study has been disclosed. No relevant financial relationships have been disclosed.

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

A miniature camera the size of a capsule that is swallowed and then transmits images of the inside of the gut can reveal cancer and gastrointestinal diseases. The device, which will be studied in a trial conducted by the National Health Service in England, is used by patients at home as a substitute for endoscopy.

“What sounds like sci-fi is now becoming a reality,” said Sir Simon Stevens, chief executive of NHS England. “These minute cameras pass through your body. They take two pictures per second, checking for signs of cancer and other conditions like Crohn’s disease.”

The trial, announced on March 11, 2021, will initially involve 11,000 patients from 40 regions in England. Participants will be sent the colon capsule endoscopy to use at home.

The capsule typically takes 5-8 hours to pass through the digestive system. As the capsule passes through the bowel, images are sent to a data recorder in a shoulder bag.

The trial is being conducted by the University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust. The investigators have created a guide on using the device at home.

“Not only does colon capsule increase our diagnostic capacity, because it doesn’t require the resources of a dedicated hospital space to do the examination, it also allows us to do the examination in the patient’s home, so patients who may be shielding or cautious about going to a hospital can perform the procedure in the comfort of their own homes,” commented Ed Seward, MD, PhD, endoscopy lead at UCL.

The move is in response to a surge in patients coming forward for cancer checks after the slowdown in cancer services caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. In December 2020, more than 200,000 people came forward, an increase of 13,000 over the same month the previous year.

Traditional endoscopy services are still being offered, although endoscopies take longer to conduct because of infection control measures that must be employed to ensure that patients who undergo endoscopies do not develop COVID-19. This, in turn, means fewer people can undergo endoscopies over a given period.

“We welcome any initiative that seeks to simplify and improve the early diagnosis of gastrointestinal disease and, in particular, colorectal cancer, which unfortunately is still responsible for many avoidable deaths,” said Alastair McKinlay, MD, president of the British Society of Gastroenterology.

“Colon capsule is a promising new technology that may offer a real advantage for some patients. For this reason, we welcome the opportunity for a proper service evaluation so that both the limitations and advantages of this technique can be properly assessed,” he said.

“This has the potential to make a huge difference for people with bowel cancer symptoms and could help the NHS to prioritize those who urgently need further tests,” added Genevieve Edwards, chief executive at Bowel Cancer UK.

No funding for the study has been disclosed. No relevant financial relationships have been disclosed.

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

A miniature camera the size of a capsule that is swallowed and then transmits images of the inside of the gut can reveal cancer and gastrointestinal diseases. The device, which will be studied in a trial conducted by the National Health Service in England, is used by patients at home as a substitute for endoscopy.

“What sounds like sci-fi is now becoming a reality,” said Sir Simon Stevens, chief executive of NHS England. “These minute cameras pass through your body. They take two pictures per second, checking for signs of cancer and other conditions like Crohn’s disease.”

The trial, announced on March 11, 2021, will initially involve 11,000 patients from 40 regions in England. Participants will be sent the colon capsule endoscopy to use at home.

The capsule typically takes 5-8 hours to pass through the digestive system. As the capsule passes through the bowel, images are sent to a data recorder in a shoulder bag.

The trial is being conducted by the University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust. The investigators have created a guide on using the device at home.

“Not only does colon capsule increase our diagnostic capacity, because it doesn’t require the resources of a dedicated hospital space to do the examination, it also allows us to do the examination in the patient’s home, so patients who may be shielding or cautious about going to a hospital can perform the procedure in the comfort of their own homes,” commented Ed Seward, MD, PhD, endoscopy lead at UCL.

The move is in response to a surge in patients coming forward for cancer checks after the slowdown in cancer services caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. In December 2020, more than 200,000 people came forward, an increase of 13,000 over the same month the previous year.

Traditional endoscopy services are still being offered, although endoscopies take longer to conduct because of infection control measures that must be employed to ensure that patients who undergo endoscopies do not develop COVID-19. This, in turn, means fewer people can undergo endoscopies over a given period.

“We welcome any initiative that seeks to simplify and improve the early diagnosis of gastrointestinal disease and, in particular, colorectal cancer, which unfortunately is still responsible for many avoidable deaths,” said Alastair McKinlay, MD, president of the British Society of Gastroenterology.

“Colon capsule is a promising new technology that may offer a real advantage for some patients. For this reason, we welcome the opportunity for a proper service evaluation so that both the limitations and advantages of this technique can be properly assessed,” he said.

“This has the potential to make a huge difference for people with bowel cancer symptoms and could help the NHS to prioritize those who urgently need further tests,” added Genevieve Edwards, chief executive at Bowel Cancer UK.

No funding for the study has been disclosed. No relevant financial relationships have been disclosed.

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