DUBLIN – Patients with psoriatic disease (PsD) face an elevated risk for depression and suicidality that stems from both pathologic inflammatory factors associated with the disease as well as societal stigma, warranting routine screening and having community contacts for mental health professional referrals, Elizabeth Wallace, MD, said at the annual meeting of the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis.

Dr. Wallace, of Cherry Hills Dermatology, Englewood, Colo., discussed the complex interactions between mental illness and psoriatic disease and the potential pitfalls of this comorbidity for these patients.

The topic of mental health is “consistently at the top of our patients’ minds, and certainly our minds too,” said session comoderator and GRAPPA president-elect Joseph F. Merola, MD, MMSc.

“In the U.S., around 17% of people with psoriasis have depression vs. 9% in those without psoriasis,” Dr. Wallace explained. “Psoriasis patients are twice as likely to have depression, compared to those without psoriasis, and psoriasis patients are 33% more likely to attempt suicide and 20% more likely to complete suicide, compared to those without psoriasis.” More severe psoriasis and younger age of onset are also associated with a greater likelihood of suicidality, she added.
 

Mediators of depression

“The inflammatory mechanisms driving PsD can drive depression and anxiety, and vice-versa,” she said. “There are often also genetic links, for example genetic variations in serotonin receptors, and psychological issues in psoriatic disease are predictably worsened by feelings of stigmatization, embarrassment, and social isolation.”

There are also efforts underway in clinics to “normalize” screening for anxiety and depression among this patient cohort, Dr. Wallace said. “We know that our psoriasis patients face social stigma from the visibility of their disease, and that stress can lead to flares of their condition,” she told the attendees. “We also know that patients who experience stigma also have an increased risk of depressive symptoms. We all know now that psoriasis has well-established pathways with upregulated proinflammatory cytokines.

“Increased cytokines stimulate indoleamine 2,3-dioxygenase, which converts tryptophan to kynurenine. Kynurenine is metabolized to quinolinic acid, which is neurotoxic.” She explained that because serotonin derives from tryptophan, decreases in tryptophan lead to reduced serotonin, and therefore increased risk of depression.

Interleukin-6 is known to be upregulated in depression and downregulated with the use of antidepressant medications, Dr. Wallace said. Mouse models in research have shown that deletion of the IL-6 gene produces antidepressant effects, and studies in humans have shown that IL-6, more than any other serum cytokine, is found at higher levels in humans with depression and psoriatic disease.

IL-17 is also implicated in psoriatic disease and mental health problems, Dr. Wallace said. “With stress, you get upregulation of the Tc17 cells, which produce IL-17,” she explained. “IL-17, along with other inflammatory markers, can actually make the blood-brain barrier more permeable, and when you get more permeability to the blood-brain barrier, you get these cytokines that can cross from the periphery and into the brain.

“With this crossing into the brain, you get further activation of more Th17 [cells] and that, on neurons, leads to increased potassium production, which is directly neurotoxic, so you get neuron destruction.”
 

Talking about depression

“So, what can we share with our patients?” Dr. Wallace asked. “We can discuss with them that psoriatic patients in general are more likely to be depressed or to have higher rates of suicide. The literature consistently shows that patients whose psoriasis is successfully treated experience reduced depression, and we can provide an understandable review of systemic medications, with warnings on depression and/or suicidality.”

Dr. Wallace advised to screen for depression with the Patient Health Questionnaire-2 (PHQ-2), a validated, two-item tool that asks, “Over the past 2 weeks, how often have you been bothered by having little interest or pleasure in doing things?” and “Over the past 2 weeks, how often have you been bothered by feeling down, depressed, or hopeless?”

She presented a case study illustrative of the type of presentation she sees in her clinic. It involved a 32-year-old man with plaque psoriasis and a high degree of body surface affected. “It’s now July in Colorado, it’s getting warm, people want to wear their shorts and T-shirts, but he said he could no longer hide his psoriasis,” said Dr. Wallace. “Further, it’s in areas that he cannot hide, such as his scalp, his beard, and he also has nail disease. Often, these patients don’t want to shake hands with their bosses or their colleagues and that’s very embarrassing for them.”

Dr. Wallace explained that this patient had seen advertisements for biologic drugs and requested to commence a treatment course. “During the exam, and now that you are developing some rapport with him, you discover that he is feeling down, is embarrassed at work, and has started to avoid social situations.” This is illustrative of a patient who should be screened for mental health conditions, specifically using PHQ-2, she said.

“You can be the person at the front line to screen these patients for mental health conditions, and, specifically for depression, with PHQ-2,” she said. PHQ-2 scores range from 0 to 6, and a score of 3 or higher is considered a positive screen.

“This is where your relationship with another health provider who is most qualified to care for these patients and validate them for their mental health condition can be absolutely critical,” Dr. Wallace said.

Successful PsD treatment lessens the risk for mental health comorbidities, and this is also seen in psoriatic arthritis, Dr. Wallace pointed out. Patient education is critical regarding their increased risk for depression and potential suicidal ideation, she added.

“It’s our job as clinicians to provide patients with an understandable, easy-to-digest review of systemic medications and warnings on depression and suicidality so that they can be aware of these factors.”

Perspective from Dr. Merola

In an interview, Dr. Merola, a double board-certified dermatologist and rheumatologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, discussed the interactions between mental and physical illness.

“One of the things we are learning is that it’s very much a multifactorial issue, in that skin and joints contribute, in some obvious ways, to anxiety and depression, like the fact that somebody doesn’t feel good about their appearance, or they can’t complete daily activities,” he said. “Those are the more obvious ones. But there is data and evidence that there is a biology behind that as well – inflammatory cytokines that drive skin disease probably also have a direct impact on the CNS and probably also drive anxiety and depression.

“We know that disordered sleep contributes to anxiety – think about how we feel if we get a horrible night’s sleep ... it’s hard to pick apart: ‘Am I depressed, am I anxious because I am having too much coffee? Because I am fatigued?’ So, we get into these circles, but the point is, we have to break these cycles, and we have to do it in multiple places. Yes, we have to fix the skin and the joints, but we also have to have interventions and think about how to screen for anxiety and depression. We also have to think about identifying disordered sleep, and how we intervene there as well.”

These challenges require a collaborative approach among physicians. “We can help patients to build their team that gets them help for their skin, for their joints, for their anxiety or depression, their disordered sleep, for their nutritional disorders, their obesity, and so on. So, we are trying to pick apart and unpack those complexities,” he said.

In regard to the potential impacts of this holistic strategy on physician workloads, Dr. Merola acknowledged it is important to consider physician wellness. “There’s no question that we want to be doing the best we can for our colleagues, but we don’t want to overload our colleagues by saying, ‘By the way, not only should we be treating their skin and joints,’ which of course we should be doing, but ‘could you also manage their diabetes, their obesity, their disordered sleep, their anxiety, their depression, difficulties with insurance, getting access to treatments, etc.’ 

“This is where effective collaboration between physicians becomes important,” he stressed. “We can’t manage every single piece, but we can make sure our patients are informed, are aware, and assist them to get the help that they need.”

In the United States, there “is a real issue” with access to mental health care and greater awareness needs to be created around this issue, he added.

Dr. Wallace and Dr. Merola report no relevant financial relationships.

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

DUBLIN – Patients with psoriatic disease (PsD) face an elevated risk for depression and suicidality that stems from both pathologic inflammatory factors associated with the disease as well as societal stigma, warranting routine screening and having community contacts for mental health professional referrals, Elizabeth Wallace, MD, said at the annual meeting of the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis.

Dr. Wallace, of Cherry Hills Dermatology, Englewood, Colo., discussed the complex interactions between mental illness and psoriatic disease and the potential pitfalls of this comorbidity for these patients.

The topic of mental health is “consistently at the top of our patients’ minds, and certainly our minds too,” said session comoderator and GRAPPA president-elect Joseph F. Merola, MD, MMSc.

“In the U.S., around 17% of people with psoriasis have depression vs. 9% in those without psoriasis,” Dr. Wallace explained. “Psoriasis patients are twice as likely to have depression, compared to those without psoriasis, and psoriasis patients are 33% more likely to attempt suicide and 20% more likely to complete suicide, compared to those without psoriasis.” More severe psoriasis and younger age of onset are also associated with a greater likelihood of suicidality, she added.
 

Mediators of depression

“The inflammatory mechanisms driving PsD can drive depression and anxiety, and vice-versa,” she said. “There are often also genetic links, for example genetic variations in serotonin receptors, and psychological issues in psoriatic disease are predictably worsened by feelings of stigmatization, embarrassment, and social isolation.”

There are also efforts underway in clinics to “normalize” screening for anxiety and depression among this patient cohort, Dr. Wallace said. “We know that our psoriasis patients face social stigma from the visibility of their disease, and that stress can lead to flares of their condition,” she told the attendees. “We also know that patients who experience stigma also have an increased risk of depressive symptoms. We all know now that psoriasis has well-established pathways with upregulated proinflammatory cytokines.

“Increased cytokines stimulate indoleamine 2,3-dioxygenase, which converts tryptophan to kynurenine. Kynurenine is metabolized to quinolinic acid, which is neurotoxic.” She explained that because serotonin derives from tryptophan, decreases in tryptophan lead to reduced serotonin, and therefore increased risk of depression.

Interleukin-6 is known to be upregulated in depression and downregulated with the use of antidepressant medications, Dr. Wallace said. Mouse models in research have shown that deletion of the IL-6 gene produces antidepressant effects, and studies in humans have shown that IL-6, more than any other serum cytokine, is found at higher levels in humans with depression and psoriatic disease.

IL-17 is also implicated in psoriatic disease and mental health problems, Dr. Wallace said. “With stress, you get upregulation of the Tc17 cells, which produce IL-17,” she explained. “IL-17, along with other inflammatory markers, can actually make the blood-brain barrier more permeable, and when you get more permeability to the blood-brain barrier, you get these cytokines that can cross from the periphery and into the brain.

“With this crossing into the brain, you get further activation of more Th17 [cells] and that, on neurons, leads to increased potassium production, which is directly neurotoxic, so you get neuron destruction.”
 

Talking about depression

“So, what can we share with our patients?” Dr. Wallace asked. “We can discuss with them that psoriatic patients in general are more likely to be depressed or to have higher rates of suicide. The literature consistently shows that patients whose psoriasis is successfully treated experience reduced depression, and we can provide an understandable review of systemic medications, with warnings on depression and/or suicidality.”

Dr. Wallace advised to screen for depression with the Patient Health Questionnaire-2 (PHQ-2), a validated, two-item tool that asks, “Over the past 2 weeks, how often have you been bothered by having little interest or pleasure in doing things?” and “Over the past 2 weeks, how often have you been bothered by feeling down, depressed, or hopeless?”

She presented a case study illustrative of the type of presentation she sees in her clinic. It involved a 32-year-old man with plaque psoriasis and a high degree of body surface affected. “It’s now July in Colorado, it’s getting warm, people want to wear their shorts and T-shirts, but he said he could no longer hide his psoriasis,” said Dr. Wallace. “Further, it’s in areas that he cannot hide, such as his scalp, his beard, and he also has nail disease. Often, these patients don’t want to shake hands with their bosses or their colleagues and that’s very embarrassing for them.”

Dr. Wallace explained that this patient had seen advertisements for biologic drugs and requested to commence a treatment course. “During the exam, and now that you are developing some rapport with him, you discover that he is feeling down, is embarrassed at work, and has started to avoid social situations.” This is illustrative of a patient who should be screened for mental health conditions, specifically using PHQ-2, she said.

“You can be the person at the front line to screen these patients for mental health conditions, and, specifically for depression, with PHQ-2,” she said. PHQ-2 scores range from 0 to 6, and a score of 3 or higher is considered a positive screen.

“This is where your relationship with another health provider who is most qualified to care for these patients and validate them for their mental health condition can be absolutely critical,” Dr. Wallace said.

Successful PsD treatment lessens the risk for mental health comorbidities, and this is also seen in psoriatic arthritis, Dr. Wallace pointed out. Patient education is critical regarding their increased risk for depression and potential suicidal ideation, she added.

“It’s our job as clinicians to provide patients with an understandable, easy-to-digest review of systemic medications and warnings on depression and suicidality so that they can be aware of these factors.”

Perspective from Dr. Merola

In an interview, Dr. Merola, a double board-certified dermatologist and rheumatologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, discussed the interactions between mental and physical illness.

“One of the things we are learning is that it’s very much a multifactorial issue, in that skin and joints contribute, in some obvious ways, to anxiety and depression, like the fact that somebody doesn’t feel good about their appearance, or they can’t complete daily activities,” he said. “Those are the more obvious ones. But there is data and evidence that there is a biology behind that as well – inflammatory cytokines that drive skin disease probably also have a direct impact on the CNS and probably also drive anxiety and depression.

“We know that disordered sleep contributes to anxiety – think about how we feel if we get a horrible night’s sleep ... it’s hard to pick apart: ‘Am I depressed, am I anxious because I am having too much coffee? Because I am fatigued?’ So, we get into these circles, but the point is, we have to break these cycles, and we have to do it in multiple places. Yes, we have to fix the skin and the joints, but we also have to have interventions and think about how to screen for anxiety and depression. We also have to think about identifying disordered sleep, and how we intervene there as well.”

These challenges require a collaborative approach among physicians. “We can help patients to build their team that gets them help for their skin, for their joints, for their anxiety or depression, their disordered sleep, for their nutritional disorders, their obesity, and so on. So, we are trying to pick apart and unpack those complexities,” he said.

In regard to the potential impacts of this holistic strategy on physician workloads, Dr. Merola acknowledged it is important to consider physician wellness. “There’s no question that we want to be doing the best we can for our colleagues, but we don’t want to overload our colleagues by saying, ‘By the way, not only should we be treating their skin and joints,’ which of course we should be doing, but ‘could you also manage their diabetes, their obesity, their disordered sleep, their anxiety, their depression, difficulties with insurance, getting access to treatments, etc.’ 

“This is where effective collaboration between physicians becomes important,” he stressed. “We can’t manage every single piece, but we can make sure our patients are informed, are aware, and assist them to get the help that they need.”

In the United States, there “is a real issue” with access to mental health care and greater awareness needs to be created around this issue, he added.

Dr. Wallace and Dr. Merola report no relevant financial relationships.

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

DUBLIN – Patients with psoriatic disease (PsD) face an elevated risk for depression and suicidality that stems from both pathologic inflammatory factors associated with the disease as well as societal stigma, warranting routine screening and having community contacts for mental health professional referrals, Elizabeth Wallace, MD, said at the annual meeting of the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis.

Dr. Wallace, of Cherry Hills Dermatology, Englewood, Colo., discussed the complex interactions between mental illness and psoriatic disease and the potential pitfalls of this comorbidity for these patients.

The topic of mental health is “consistently at the top of our patients’ minds, and certainly our minds too,” said session comoderator and GRAPPA president-elect Joseph F. Merola, MD, MMSc.

“In the U.S., around 17% of people with psoriasis have depression vs. 9% in those without psoriasis,” Dr. Wallace explained. “Psoriasis patients are twice as likely to have depression, compared to those without psoriasis, and psoriasis patients are 33% more likely to attempt suicide and 20% more likely to complete suicide, compared to those without psoriasis.” More severe psoriasis and younger age of onset are also associated with a greater likelihood of suicidality, she added.
 

Mediators of depression

“The inflammatory mechanisms driving PsD can drive depression and anxiety, and vice-versa,” she said. “There are often also genetic links, for example genetic variations in serotonin receptors, and psychological issues in psoriatic disease are predictably worsened by feelings of stigmatization, embarrassment, and social isolation.”

There are also efforts underway in clinics to “normalize” screening for anxiety and depression among this patient cohort, Dr. Wallace said. “We know that our psoriasis patients face social stigma from the visibility of their disease, and that stress can lead to flares of their condition,” she told the attendees. “We also know that patients who experience stigma also have an increased risk of depressive symptoms. We all know now that psoriasis has well-established pathways with upregulated proinflammatory cytokines.

“Increased cytokines stimulate indoleamine 2,3-dioxygenase, which converts tryptophan to kynurenine. Kynurenine is metabolized to quinolinic acid, which is neurotoxic.” She explained that because serotonin derives from tryptophan, decreases in tryptophan lead to reduced serotonin, and therefore increased risk of depression.

Interleukin-6 is known to be upregulated in depression and downregulated with the use of antidepressant medications, Dr. Wallace said. Mouse models in research have shown that deletion of the IL-6 gene produces antidepressant effects, and studies in humans have shown that IL-6, more than any other serum cytokine, is found at higher levels in humans with depression and psoriatic disease.

IL-17 is also implicated in psoriatic disease and mental health problems, Dr. Wallace said. “With stress, you get upregulation of the Tc17 cells, which produce IL-17,” she explained. “IL-17, along with other inflammatory markers, can actually make the blood-brain barrier more permeable, and when you get more permeability to the blood-brain barrier, you get these cytokines that can cross from the periphery and into the brain.

“With this crossing into the brain, you get further activation of more Th17 [cells] and that, on neurons, leads to increased potassium production, which is directly neurotoxic, so you get neuron destruction.”
 

Talking about depression

“So, what can we share with our patients?” Dr. Wallace asked. “We can discuss with them that psoriatic patients in general are more likely to be depressed or to have higher rates of suicide. The literature consistently shows that patients whose psoriasis is successfully treated experience reduced depression, and we can provide an understandable review of systemic medications, with warnings on depression and/or suicidality.”

Dr. Wallace advised to screen for depression with the Patient Health Questionnaire-2 (PHQ-2), a validated, two-item tool that asks, “Over the past 2 weeks, how often have you been bothered by having little interest or pleasure in doing things?” and “Over the past 2 weeks, how often have you been bothered by feeling down, depressed, or hopeless?”

She presented a case study illustrative of the type of presentation she sees in her clinic. It involved a 32-year-old man with plaque psoriasis and a high degree of body surface affected. “It’s now July in Colorado, it’s getting warm, people want to wear their shorts and T-shirts, but he said he could no longer hide his psoriasis,” said Dr. Wallace. “Further, it’s in areas that he cannot hide, such as his scalp, his beard, and he also has nail disease. Often, these patients don’t want to shake hands with their bosses or their colleagues and that’s very embarrassing for them.”

Dr. Wallace explained that this patient had seen advertisements for biologic drugs and requested to commence a treatment course. “During the exam, and now that you are developing some rapport with him, you discover that he is feeling down, is embarrassed at work, and has started to avoid social situations.” This is illustrative of a patient who should be screened for mental health conditions, specifically using PHQ-2, she said.

“You can be the person at the front line to screen these patients for mental health conditions, and, specifically for depression, with PHQ-2,” she said. PHQ-2 scores range from 0 to 6, and a score of 3 or higher is considered a positive screen.

“This is where your relationship with another health provider who is most qualified to care for these patients and validate them for their mental health condition can be absolutely critical,” Dr. Wallace said.

Successful PsD treatment lessens the risk for mental health comorbidities, and this is also seen in psoriatic arthritis, Dr. Wallace pointed out. Patient education is critical regarding their increased risk for depression and potential suicidal ideation, she added.

“It’s our job as clinicians to provide patients with an understandable, easy-to-digest review of systemic medications and warnings on depression and suicidality so that they can be aware of these factors.”

Perspective from Dr. Merola

In an interview, Dr. Merola, a double board-certified dermatologist and rheumatologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, discussed the interactions between mental and physical illness.

“One of the things we are learning is that it’s very much a multifactorial issue, in that skin and joints contribute, in some obvious ways, to anxiety and depression, like the fact that somebody doesn’t feel good about their appearance, or they can’t complete daily activities,” he said. “Those are the more obvious ones. But there is data and evidence that there is a biology behind that as well – inflammatory cytokines that drive skin disease probably also have a direct impact on the CNS and probably also drive anxiety and depression.

“We know that disordered sleep contributes to anxiety – think about how we feel if we get a horrible night’s sleep ... it’s hard to pick apart: ‘Am I depressed, am I anxious because I am having too much coffee? Because I am fatigued?’ So, we get into these circles, but the point is, we have to break these cycles, and we have to do it in multiple places. Yes, we have to fix the skin and the joints, but we also have to have interventions and think about how to screen for anxiety and depression. We also have to think about identifying disordered sleep, and how we intervene there as well.”

These challenges require a collaborative approach among physicians. “We can help patients to build their team that gets them help for their skin, for their joints, for their anxiety or depression, their disordered sleep, for their nutritional disorders, their obesity, and so on. So, we are trying to pick apart and unpack those complexities,” he said.

In regard to the potential impacts of this holistic strategy on physician workloads, Dr. Merola acknowledged it is important to consider physician wellness. “There’s no question that we want to be doing the best we can for our colleagues, but we don’t want to overload our colleagues by saying, ‘By the way, not only should we be treating their skin and joints,’ which of course we should be doing, but ‘could you also manage their diabetes, their obesity, their disordered sleep, their anxiety, their depression, difficulties with insurance, getting access to treatments, etc.’ 

“This is where effective collaboration between physicians becomes important,” he stressed. “We can’t manage every single piece, but we can make sure our patients are informed, are aware, and assist them to get the help that they need.”

In the United States, there “is a real issue” with access to mental health care and greater awareness needs to be created around this issue, he added.

Dr. Wallace and Dr. Merola report no relevant financial relationships.

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

It’s “summertime and the livin’ is easy” according to the lyric from an old George Gershwin song. But sometimes, summer activities can lead to illnesses that can disrupt a child’s easy living.

Case: An otherwise healthy 11-year-old presents with four to five loose stools per day, mild nausea, excess flatulence, and cramps for 12 days with a 5-pound weight loss. His loose-to-mushy stools have no blood or mucous but smell worse than usual. He has had no fever, vomiting, rashes, or joint symptoms. A month ago, he went hiking/camping on the Appalachian Trail, drank boiled stream water. and slept in a common-use semi-enclosed shelter. He waded through streams and shared “Trail Magic” (soft drinks being cooled in a fresh mountain stream). Two other campers report similar symptoms.

Differential diagnosis: Broadly, we should consider bacteria, viruses, and parasites. But generally, bacteria are likely to produce more systemic symptoms and usually do not last 12 days. That said, this could be Clostridioides difficile, yet that seems unlikely because he is otherwise healthy and has no apparent risk factors. Salmonella spp., Campylobacter spp. and some Escherichia coli infections may drag on for more than a week but the lack of systemic symptoms or blood/mucous lowers the likelihood. Viral agents (rotavirus, norovirus, adenovirus, astrovirus, calicivirus, or sapovirus) seem unlikely because of the long symptom duration and the child’s preteen age.

The history and presentation seem more likely attributable to a parasite. Uncommonly detected protozoa include Microsporidium (mostly Enterocytozoon bieneusi) and amoeba. Microsporidium is very rare and seen mostly in immune compromised hosts, for example, those living with HIV. Amebiasis occurs mostly after travel to endemic areas, and stools usually contain blood or mucous. Some roundworm or tapeworm infestations cause abdominal pain and abnormal stools, but the usual exposures are absent. Giardia spp., Cryptosporidium spp., Cyclospora cayetanensis, and/or Cystoisospora belli best fit this presentation given his hiking/camping trip.
 

Workup. Laboratory testing of stool is warranted (because of weight loss and persistent diarrhea) despite a lack of systemic signs. Initially, bacterial culture, C. difficile testing, and viral testing seem unwarranted. The best initial approach, given our most likely suspects, is protozoan/parasite testing.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends testing up to three stools collected on separate days.¹ Initially, stool testing for giardia and cryptosporidium antigens by EIA assays could be done as a point-of-care test. Such antigen tests are often the first step because of their ease of use, relatively low expense, reasonably high sensitivity and specificity, and rapid turnaround (as little as 1 hour). Alternatively, direct examination of three stools for ova and parasites (O&P) and acid-fast stain or direct fluorescent antibody testing can usually detect our main suspects (giardia, cryptosporidium, cyclospora, and cystoisospora) along with other less likely parasites.

Some laboratories, however, use syndromic stool testing approaches (multiplex nucleic acid panels) that detect over 20 different bacteria, viruses, and select parasites. Multiplex testing has yielded increased detection rates, compared with microscopic examination alone in some settings. Further, they also share ease-of-use and rapid turnaround times with parasite antigen assays while requiring less hands-on time by laboratory personnel, compared with direct microscopic examination. However, multiplex assays are expensive and more readily detect commensal organisms, so they are not necessarily the ideal test in all diarrheal illnesses.

Diagnosis. You decide to first order giardia and cryptosporidium antigen testing because you are highly suspicious that giardia is the cause, based on wild-water exposure, the presentation, and symptom duration. You also order full microscopic O&P examination because you know that parasites can “run in packs.” Results of testing the first stool are positive for giardia. Microscopic examination on each of three stools is negative except for giardia trophozoites (the noninfectious form) in stools two and three.

Giardia overview. Giardia is the most common protozoan causing diarrhea in the United States, is fecal-oral spread, and like Shigella spp., is a low-inoculum infection (ingestion of as few as 10-100 cysts). Acquisition in the United States has been estimated as being 75% from contaminated water (streams are a classic source.² Other sources are contaminated food (fresh produce is classic) and in some cases sexual encounters (mostly in men who have sex with men). Most detections are sporadic, but outbreaks can occur with case numbers usually below 20; 40% of outbreaks are attributable to contaminated water or food.³ Evaluating symptomatic household members can be important as transmission in families can occur.

After ingestion, the cysts uncoat and form trophozoites, which reside mostly in the small bowel (Figure), causing inflammation and altering gut membrane permeability, thereby reducing nutrient absorption and circulating amino acids. Along with decreased food intake, altered absorption can lead to weight loss and potentially reduce growth in young children. Some trophozoites replicate while others encyst, eventually passing into stool. The cysts can survive for months in water or the environment (lakes, swimming pools, and clear mountain streams). Giardia has been linked to beavers’ feces contaminating wild-water sources, hence the moniker “Beaver fever” and warnings about stream water related to wilderness hiking.⁴

CDC / Science Direct

Dr. Harrison is professor of pediatrics and pediatric infectious diseases at Children’s Mercy Hospital–Kansas City, Mo. Children’s Mercy Hospital receives grant funding to study two candidate RSV vaccines. The hospital also receives CDC funding under the New Vaccine Surveillance Network for multicenter surveillance of acute respiratory infections, including influenza, RSV, and parainfluenza virus. Email Dr. Harrison at [email protected].

References

1. Diagnosis and Treatment Information for Medical Professionals, Giardia, Parasites. CDC.

2. Krumrie S et al. Curr Res Parasitol Vector Borne Dis. 2022;2:100084. doi: 10.1016/j.crpvbd.2022.100084.

3. Baldursson S and Karanis P. Water Res. 2011 Dec 15. doi: 10.1016/j.watres.2011.10.013.

4. “Water on the Appalachian Trail” AppalachianTrail.com.

5. Giardiasis: Treatment and prevention. UpToDate.

6. Kimberlin D et al. Red Book: 2021-2024 Report of the Committee on Infectious Diseases (Itasca, Ill.: American Academy of Pediatrics, 2021. 32nd ed.) Giardia duodenalis infections. pp. 335-8; and p. 961 (Table 4.11).

It’s “summertime and the livin’ is easy” according to the lyric from an old George Gershwin song. But sometimes, summer activities can lead to illnesses that can disrupt a child’s easy living.

Case: An otherwise healthy 11-year-old presents with four to five loose stools per day, mild nausea, excess flatulence, and cramps for 12 days with a 5-pound weight loss. His loose-to-mushy stools have no blood or mucous but smell worse than usual. He has had no fever, vomiting, rashes, or joint symptoms. A month ago, he went hiking/camping on the Appalachian Trail, drank boiled stream water. and slept in a common-use semi-enclosed shelter. He waded through streams and shared “Trail Magic” (soft drinks being cooled in a fresh mountain stream). Two other campers report similar symptoms.

Differential diagnosis: Broadly, we should consider bacteria, viruses, and parasites. But generally, bacteria are likely to produce more systemic symptoms and usually do not last 12 days. That said, this could be Clostridioides difficile, yet that seems unlikely because he is otherwise healthy and has no apparent risk factors. Salmonella spp., Campylobacter spp. and some Escherichia coli infections may drag on for more than a week but the lack of systemic symptoms or blood/mucous lowers the likelihood. Viral agents (rotavirus, norovirus, adenovirus, astrovirus, calicivirus, or sapovirus) seem unlikely because of the long symptom duration and the child’s preteen age.

The history and presentation seem more likely attributable to a parasite. Uncommonly detected protozoa include Microsporidium (mostly Enterocytozoon bieneusi) and amoeba. Microsporidium is very rare and seen mostly in immune compromised hosts, for example, those living with HIV. Amebiasis occurs mostly after travel to endemic areas, and stools usually contain blood or mucous. Some roundworm or tapeworm infestations cause abdominal pain and abnormal stools, but the usual exposures are absent. Giardia spp., Cryptosporidium spp., Cyclospora cayetanensis, and/or Cystoisospora belli best fit this presentation given his hiking/camping trip.
 

Workup. Laboratory testing of stool is warranted (because of weight loss and persistent diarrhea) despite a lack of systemic signs. Initially, bacterial culture, C. difficile testing, and viral testing seem unwarranted. The best initial approach, given our most likely suspects, is protozoan/parasite testing.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends testing up to three stools collected on separate days.¹ Initially, stool testing for giardia and cryptosporidium antigens by EIA assays could be done as a point-of-care test. Such antigen tests are often the first step because of their ease of use, relatively low expense, reasonably high sensitivity and specificity, and rapid turnaround (as little as 1 hour). Alternatively, direct examination of three stools for ova and parasites (O&P) and acid-fast stain or direct fluorescent antibody testing can usually detect our main suspects (giardia, cryptosporidium, cyclospora, and cystoisospora) along with other less likely parasites.

Some laboratories, however, use syndromic stool testing approaches (multiplex nucleic acid panels) that detect over 20 different bacteria, viruses, and select parasites. Multiplex testing has yielded increased detection rates, compared with microscopic examination alone in some settings. Further, they also share ease-of-use and rapid turnaround times with parasite antigen assays while requiring less hands-on time by laboratory personnel, compared with direct microscopic examination. However, multiplex assays are expensive and more readily detect commensal organisms, so they are not necessarily the ideal test in all diarrheal illnesses.

Diagnosis. You decide to first order giardia and cryptosporidium antigen testing because you are highly suspicious that giardia is the cause, based on wild-water exposure, the presentation, and symptom duration. You also order full microscopic O&P examination because you know that parasites can “run in packs.” Results of testing the first stool are positive for giardia. Microscopic examination on each of three stools is negative except for giardia trophozoites (the noninfectious form) in stools two and three.

Giardia overview. Giardia is the most common protozoan causing diarrhea in the United States, is fecal-oral spread, and like Shigella spp., is a low-inoculum infection (ingestion of as few as 10-100 cysts). Acquisition in the United States has been estimated as being 75% from contaminated water (streams are a classic source.² Other sources are contaminated food (fresh produce is classic) and in some cases sexual encounters (mostly in men who have sex with men). Most detections are sporadic, but outbreaks can occur with case numbers usually below 20; 40% of outbreaks are attributable to contaminated water or food.³ Evaluating symptomatic household members can be important as transmission in families can occur.

After ingestion, the cysts uncoat and form trophozoites, which reside mostly in the small bowel (Figure), causing inflammation and altering gut membrane permeability, thereby reducing nutrient absorption and circulating amino acids. Along with decreased food intake, altered absorption can lead to weight loss and potentially reduce growth in young children. Some trophozoites replicate while others encyst, eventually passing into stool. The cysts can survive for months in water or the environment (lakes, swimming pools, and clear mountain streams). Giardia has been linked to beavers’ feces contaminating wild-water sources, hence the moniker “Beaver fever” and warnings about stream water related to wilderness hiking.⁴

CDC / Science Direct

Dr. Harrison is professor of pediatrics and pediatric infectious diseases at Children’s Mercy Hospital–Kansas City, Mo. Children’s Mercy Hospital receives grant funding to study two candidate RSV vaccines. The hospital also receives CDC funding under the New Vaccine Surveillance Network for multicenter surveillance of acute respiratory infections, including influenza, RSV, and parainfluenza virus. Email Dr. Harrison at [email protected].

References

1. Diagnosis and Treatment Information for Medical Professionals, Giardia, Parasites. CDC.

2. Krumrie S et al. Curr Res Parasitol Vector Borne Dis. 2022;2:100084. doi: 10.1016/j.crpvbd.2022.100084.

3. Baldursson S and Karanis P. Water Res. 2011 Dec 15. doi: 10.1016/j.watres.2011.10.013.

4. “Water on the Appalachian Trail” AppalachianTrail.com.

5. Giardiasis: Treatment and prevention. UpToDate.

6. Kimberlin D et al. Red Book: 2021-2024 Report of the Committee on Infectious Diseases (Itasca, Ill.: American Academy of Pediatrics, 2021. 32nd ed.) Giardia duodenalis infections. pp. 335-8; and p. 961 (Table 4.11).

It’s “summertime and the livin’ is easy” according to the lyric from an old George Gershwin song. But sometimes, summer activities can lead to illnesses that can disrupt a child’s easy living.

Case: An otherwise healthy 11-year-old presents with four to five loose stools per day, mild nausea, excess flatulence, and cramps for 12 days with a 5-pound weight loss. His loose-to-mushy stools have no blood or mucous but smell worse than usual. He has had no fever, vomiting, rashes, or joint symptoms. A month ago, he went hiking/camping on the Appalachian Trail, drank boiled stream water. and slept in a common-use semi-enclosed shelter. He waded through streams and shared “Trail Magic” (soft drinks being cooled in a fresh mountain stream). Two other campers report similar symptoms.

Differential diagnosis: Broadly, we should consider bacteria, viruses, and parasites. But generally, bacteria are likely to produce more systemic symptoms and usually do not last 12 days. That said, this could be Clostridioides difficile, yet that seems unlikely because he is otherwise healthy and has no apparent risk factors. Salmonella spp., Campylobacter spp. and some Escherichia coli infections may drag on for more than a week but the lack of systemic symptoms or blood/mucous lowers the likelihood. Viral agents (rotavirus, norovirus, adenovirus, astrovirus, calicivirus, or sapovirus) seem unlikely because of the long symptom duration and the child’s preteen age.

The history and presentation seem more likely attributable to a parasite. Uncommonly detected protozoa include Microsporidium (mostly Enterocytozoon bieneusi) and amoeba. Microsporidium is very rare and seen mostly in immune compromised hosts, for example, those living with HIV. Amebiasis occurs mostly after travel to endemic areas, and stools usually contain blood or mucous. Some roundworm or tapeworm infestations cause abdominal pain and abnormal stools, but the usual exposures are absent. Giardia spp., Cryptosporidium spp., Cyclospora cayetanensis, and/or Cystoisospora belli best fit this presentation given his hiking/camping trip.
 

Workup. Laboratory testing of stool is warranted (because of weight loss and persistent diarrhea) despite a lack of systemic signs. Initially, bacterial culture, C. difficile testing, and viral testing seem unwarranted. The best initial approach, given our most likely suspects, is protozoan/parasite testing.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends testing up to three stools collected on separate days.¹ Initially, stool testing for giardia and cryptosporidium antigens by EIA assays could be done as a point-of-care test. Such antigen tests are often the first step because of their ease of use, relatively low expense, reasonably high sensitivity and specificity, and rapid turnaround (as little as 1 hour). Alternatively, direct examination of three stools for ova and parasites (O&P) and acid-fast stain or direct fluorescent antibody testing can usually detect our main suspects (giardia, cryptosporidium, cyclospora, and cystoisospora) along with other less likely parasites.

Some laboratories, however, use syndromic stool testing approaches (multiplex nucleic acid panels) that detect over 20 different bacteria, viruses, and select parasites. Multiplex testing has yielded increased detection rates, compared with microscopic examination alone in some settings. Further, they also share ease-of-use and rapid turnaround times with parasite antigen assays while requiring less hands-on time by laboratory personnel, compared with direct microscopic examination. However, multiplex assays are expensive and more readily detect commensal organisms, so they are not necessarily the ideal test in all diarrheal illnesses.

Diagnosis. You decide to first order giardia and cryptosporidium antigen testing because you are highly suspicious that giardia is the cause, based on wild-water exposure, the presentation, and symptom duration. You also order full microscopic O&P examination because you know that parasites can “run in packs.” Results of testing the first stool are positive for giardia. Microscopic examination on each of three stools is negative except for giardia trophozoites (the noninfectious form) in stools two and three.

Giardia overview. Giardia is the most common protozoan causing diarrhea in the United States, is fecal-oral spread, and like Shigella spp., is a low-inoculum infection (ingestion of as few as 10-100 cysts). Acquisition in the United States has been estimated as being 75% from contaminated water (streams are a classic source.² Other sources are contaminated food (fresh produce is classic) and in some cases sexual encounters (mostly in men who have sex with men). Most detections are sporadic, but outbreaks can occur with case numbers usually below 20; 40% of outbreaks are attributable to contaminated water or food.³ Evaluating symptomatic household members can be important as transmission in families can occur.

After ingestion, the cysts uncoat and form trophozoites, which reside mostly in the small bowel (Figure), causing inflammation and altering gut membrane permeability, thereby reducing nutrient absorption and circulating amino acids. Along with decreased food intake, altered absorption can lead to weight loss and potentially reduce growth in young children. Some trophozoites replicate while others encyst, eventually passing into stool. The cysts can survive for months in water or the environment (lakes, swimming pools, and clear mountain streams). Giardia has been linked to beavers’ feces contaminating wild-water sources, hence the moniker “Beaver fever” and warnings about stream water related to wilderness hiking.⁴

CDC / Science Direct

Dr. Harrison is professor of pediatrics and pediatric infectious diseases at Children’s Mercy Hospital–Kansas City, Mo. Children’s Mercy Hospital receives grant funding to study two candidate RSV vaccines. The hospital also receives CDC funding under the New Vaccine Surveillance Network for multicenter surveillance of acute respiratory infections, including influenza, RSV, and parainfluenza virus. Email Dr. Harrison at [email protected].

References

1. Diagnosis and Treatment Information for Medical Professionals, Giardia, Parasites. CDC.

2. Krumrie S et al. Curr Res Parasitol Vector Borne Dis. 2022;2:100084. doi: 10.1016/j.crpvbd.2022.100084.

3. Baldursson S and Karanis P. Water Res. 2011 Dec 15. doi: 10.1016/j.watres.2011.10.013.

4. “Water on the Appalachian Trail” AppalachianTrail.com.

5. Giardiasis: Treatment and prevention. UpToDate.

6. Kimberlin D et al. Red Book: 2021-2024 Report of the Committee on Infectious Diseases (Itasca, Ill.: American Academy of Pediatrics, 2021. 32nd ed.) Giardia duodenalis infections. pp. 335-8; and p. 961 (Table 4.11).

About one-third of older patients in a cohort study who were considered frail and then required resuscitation from cardiac arrest during noncardiac surgery survived to at least a month after hospital discharge.

And the frailer that patients were going into surgery, according to their scores on an established frailty index, the greater their adjusted mortality risk at 30 days and the likelier they were to be discharged to a location other than their home.

The findings are based on more than 3,000 patients in an American College of Surgeons (ACS) quality improvement registry who underwent CPR at noncardiac surgery, about one-fourth of whom scored a least 40 on the revised Risk Analysis Index (RAI). The frailty index accounts for the patient’s comorbidities, cognition, functional and nutritional status, and other factors as predictors of postoperative mortality risk.

Such CPR for perioperative cardiac arrest “should not be considered futile just because a patient is frail, but neither should cardiac arrest be considered as ‘reversible’ in this population, as previously thought,” lead author Matthew B. Allen, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, said in an interview.

“We know that patients who are frail have higher risk of complications and mortality after surgery, and recent studies have demonstrated that frailty is associated with very poor outcomes following CPR in nonsurgical settings,” said Dr. Allen, an attending physician in the department of anesthesiology, perioperative, and pain medicine at his center.

Although cardiac arrest is typically regarded as being “more reversible” in the setting of surgery and anesthesia than elsewhere in the hospital, he observed, there’s very little data on whether that is indeed the case for frail patients.

The current analysis provides “a heretofore absent base of evidence to guide decision-making regarding CPR in patients with frailty who undergo surgery,” states the report, published in JAMA Network Open.

The 3,058 patients in the analysis, from the ACS National Surgical Quality Improvement database, received CPR for cardiac arrest during or soon after noncardiac surgery. Their mean age was 71 and 44% were women.

Their RAI scores ranged from 14 to 71 and averaged 37.7; one-fourth of the patients had scores of 40 or higher, the study’s threshold for identifying patients as “frail.”

Overall in the cohort, more cardiac arrests occurred during surgeries that entailed  low-to-moderate physiologic stress (an Operative Stress Score of 1 to 3) than in the setting of emergency surgery: 67.9% vs. 39.1%, respectively.

During emergency surgeries, a greater proportion of frail than nonfrail patients experienced cardiac arrest, 42% and 38%, respectively. The same relationship was observed during low-to-moderate stress surgeries: 76.6% of frail patients and 64.8% of nonfrail patients. General anesthesia was used in about 93% of procedures for both frail and nonfrail patients, the report states.

The primary endpoint, 30-day mortality, was 58.6% overall, 67.4% in frail patients, and 55.6% for nonfrail patients. Frailty and mortality were positively associated, with an adjusted odds ratio (AOR) of 1.35 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.11-1.65, P = .003) in multivariate analysis.

Of the cohort’s 1,164 patients who had been admitted from home and survived to discharge, 38.6% were discharged to a destination other than home; the corresponding rates for frail and nonfrail patients were 59.3% and 33.9%, respectively. Frailty and nonhome discharge were positively correlated with an AOR of 1.85 (95% CI, 1.31-2.62, P  < .001).

“There is no such thing as a low-risk procedure in patients who are frail,” Dr. Allen said in an interview. “Frail patients should be medically optimized prior to undergoing surgery and anesthesia, and plans should be tailored to patients’ vulnerabilities to reduce the risk of complications and facilitate rapid recognition and treatment when they occur.”

Moreover, he said, management of clinical decompensation in the perioperative period should be a part of the shared decision-making process “to establish a plan aligned with the patients’ priorities whenever possible.”

The current study quantifies risk associated with frailty in the surgical setting, and “this quantification can help providers, patients, and insurers better grasp the growing frailty problem,” Balachundhar Subramaniam, MD, MPH, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in an interview.

Universal screening for frailty is “a must in all surgical patients” to help identify those who are high-risk and reduce their chances for perioperative adverse events, said Dr. Subramaniam, who was not involved in the study.

“Prehabilitation with education, nutrition, physical fitness, and psychological support offer the best chance of significantly reducing poor outcomes” in frail patients, he said, along with “continuous education” in the care of frail patients.

University of Colorado surgeon Joseph Cleveland, MD, not part of the current study, said that it “provides a framework for counseling patients” regarding their do-not-resuscitate status.

“We can counsel patients with frailty with this information,” he said, “that if their heart should stop or go into in irregular rhythm, their chances of surviving are not greater than 50% and they have a more than 50% chance of not being discharged home.”

Dr. Allen reported receiving a clinical translational starter grant from Brigham and Women’s Hospital Department of Anesthesiology; disclosures for the other authors are in the original article. Dr. Subramaniam disclosed research funding from Masimo and Merck and serving as an education consultant for Masimo. Dr. Cleveland reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

About one-third of older patients in a cohort study who were considered frail and then required resuscitation from cardiac arrest during noncardiac surgery survived to at least a month after hospital discharge.

And the frailer that patients were going into surgery, according to their scores on an established frailty index, the greater their adjusted mortality risk at 30 days and the likelier they were to be discharged to a location other than their home.

The findings are based on more than 3,000 patients in an American College of Surgeons (ACS) quality improvement registry who underwent CPR at noncardiac surgery, about one-fourth of whom scored a least 40 on the revised Risk Analysis Index (RAI). The frailty index accounts for the patient’s comorbidities, cognition, functional and nutritional status, and other factors as predictors of postoperative mortality risk.

Such CPR for perioperative cardiac arrest “should not be considered futile just because a patient is frail, but neither should cardiac arrest be considered as ‘reversible’ in this population, as previously thought,” lead author Matthew B. Allen, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, said in an interview.

“We know that patients who are frail have higher risk of complications and mortality after surgery, and recent studies have demonstrated that frailty is associated with very poor outcomes following CPR in nonsurgical settings,” said Dr. Allen, an attending physician in the department of anesthesiology, perioperative, and pain medicine at his center.

Although cardiac arrest is typically regarded as being “more reversible” in the setting of surgery and anesthesia than elsewhere in the hospital, he observed, there’s very little data on whether that is indeed the case for frail patients.

The current analysis provides “a heretofore absent base of evidence to guide decision-making regarding CPR in patients with frailty who undergo surgery,” states the report, published in JAMA Network Open.

The 3,058 patients in the analysis, from the ACS National Surgical Quality Improvement database, received CPR for cardiac arrest during or soon after noncardiac surgery. Their mean age was 71 and 44% were women.

Their RAI scores ranged from 14 to 71 and averaged 37.7; one-fourth of the patients had scores of 40 or higher, the study’s threshold for identifying patients as “frail.”

Overall in the cohort, more cardiac arrests occurred during surgeries that entailed  low-to-moderate physiologic stress (an Operative Stress Score of 1 to 3) than in the setting of emergency surgery: 67.9% vs. 39.1%, respectively.

During emergency surgeries, a greater proportion of frail than nonfrail patients experienced cardiac arrest, 42% and 38%, respectively. The same relationship was observed during low-to-moderate stress surgeries: 76.6% of frail patients and 64.8% of nonfrail patients. General anesthesia was used in about 93% of procedures for both frail and nonfrail patients, the report states.

The primary endpoint, 30-day mortality, was 58.6% overall, 67.4% in frail patients, and 55.6% for nonfrail patients. Frailty and mortality were positively associated, with an adjusted odds ratio (AOR) of 1.35 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.11-1.65, P = .003) in multivariate analysis.

Of the cohort’s 1,164 patients who had been admitted from home and survived to discharge, 38.6% were discharged to a destination other than home; the corresponding rates for frail and nonfrail patients were 59.3% and 33.9%, respectively. Frailty and nonhome discharge were positively correlated with an AOR of 1.85 (95% CI, 1.31-2.62, P  < .001).

“There is no such thing as a low-risk procedure in patients who are frail,” Dr. Allen said in an interview. “Frail patients should be medically optimized prior to undergoing surgery and anesthesia, and plans should be tailored to patients’ vulnerabilities to reduce the risk of complications and facilitate rapid recognition and treatment when they occur.”

Moreover, he said, management of clinical decompensation in the perioperative period should be a part of the shared decision-making process “to establish a plan aligned with the patients’ priorities whenever possible.”

The current study quantifies risk associated with frailty in the surgical setting, and “this quantification can help providers, patients, and insurers better grasp the growing frailty problem,” Balachundhar Subramaniam, MD, MPH, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in an interview.

Universal screening for frailty is “a must in all surgical patients” to help identify those who are high-risk and reduce their chances for perioperative adverse events, said Dr. Subramaniam, who was not involved in the study.

“Prehabilitation with education, nutrition, physical fitness, and psychological support offer the best chance of significantly reducing poor outcomes” in frail patients, he said, along with “continuous education” in the care of frail patients.

University of Colorado surgeon Joseph Cleveland, MD, not part of the current study, said that it “provides a framework for counseling patients” regarding their do-not-resuscitate status.

“We can counsel patients with frailty with this information,” he said, “that if their heart should stop or go into in irregular rhythm, their chances of surviving are not greater than 50% and they have a more than 50% chance of not being discharged home.”

Dr. Allen reported receiving a clinical translational starter grant from Brigham and Women’s Hospital Department of Anesthesiology; disclosures for the other authors are in the original article. Dr. Subramaniam disclosed research funding from Masimo and Merck and serving as an education consultant for Masimo. Dr. Cleveland reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

About one-third of older patients in a cohort study who were considered frail and then required resuscitation from cardiac arrest during noncardiac surgery survived to at least a month after hospital discharge.

And the frailer that patients were going into surgery, according to their scores on an established frailty index, the greater their adjusted mortality risk at 30 days and the likelier they were to be discharged to a location other than their home.

The findings are based on more than 3,000 patients in an American College of Surgeons (ACS) quality improvement registry who underwent CPR at noncardiac surgery, about one-fourth of whom scored a least 40 on the revised Risk Analysis Index (RAI). The frailty index accounts for the patient’s comorbidities, cognition, functional and nutritional status, and other factors as predictors of postoperative mortality risk.

Such CPR for perioperative cardiac arrest “should not be considered futile just because a patient is frail, but neither should cardiac arrest be considered as ‘reversible’ in this population, as previously thought,” lead author Matthew B. Allen, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, said in an interview.

“We know that patients who are frail have higher risk of complications and mortality after surgery, and recent studies have demonstrated that frailty is associated with very poor outcomes following CPR in nonsurgical settings,” said Dr. Allen, an attending physician in the department of anesthesiology, perioperative, and pain medicine at his center.

Although cardiac arrest is typically regarded as being “more reversible” in the setting of surgery and anesthesia than elsewhere in the hospital, he observed, there’s very little data on whether that is indeed the case for frail patients.

The current analysis provides “a heretofore absent base of evidence to guide decision-making regarding CPR in patients with frailty who undergo surgery,” states the report, published in JAMA Network Open.

The 3,058 patients in the analysis, from the ACS National Surgical Quality Improvement database, received CPR for cardiac arrest during or soon after noncardiac surgery. Their mean age was 71 and 44% were women.

Their RAI scores ranged from 14 to 71 and averaged 37.7; one-fourth of the patients had scores of 40 or higher, the study’s threshold for identifying patients as “frail.”

Overall in the cohort, more cardiac arrests occurred during surgeries that entailed  low-to-moderate physiologic stress (an Operative Stress Score of 1 to 3) than in the setting of emergency surgery: 67.9% vs. 39.1%, respectively.

During emergency surgeries, a greater proportion of frail than nonfrail patients experienced cardiac arrest, 42% and 38%, respectively. The same relationship was observed during low-to-moderate stress surgeries: 76.6% of frail patients and 64.8% of nonfrail patients. General anesthesia was used in about 93% of procedures for both frail and nonfrail patients, the report states.

The primary endpoint, 30-day mortality, was 58.6% overall, 67.4% in frail patients, and 55.6% for nonfrail patients. Frailty and mortality were positively associated, with an adjusted odds ratio (AOR) of 1.35 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.11-1.65, P = .003) in multivariate analysis.

Of the cohort’s 1,164 patients who had been admitted from home and survived to discharge, 38.6% were discharged to a destination other than home; the corresponding rates for frail and nonfrail patients were 59.3% and 33.9%, respectively. Frailty and nonhome discharge were positively correlated with an AOR of 1.85 (95% CI, 1.31-2.62, P  < .001).

“There is no such thing as a low-risk procedure in patients who are frail,” Dr. Allen said in an interview. “Frail patients should be medically optimized prior to undergoing surgery and anesthesia, and plans should be tailored to patients’ vulnerabilities to reduce the risk of complications and facilitate rapid recognition and treatment when they occur.”

Moreover, he said, management of clinical decompensation in the perioperative period should be a part of the shared decision-making process “to establish a plan aligned with the patients’ priorities whenever possible.”

The current study quantifies risk associated with frailty in the surgical setting, and “this quantification can help providers, patients, and insurers better grasp the growing frailty problem,” Balachundhar Subramaniam, MD, MPH, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in an interview.

Universal screening for frailty is “a must in all surgical patients” to help identify those who are high-risk and reduce their chances for perioperative adverse events, said Dr. Subramaniam, who was not involved in the study.

“Prehabilitation with education, nutrition, physical fitness, and psychological support offer the best chance of significantly reducing poor outcomes” in frail patients, he said, along with “continuous education” in the care of frail patients.

University of Colorado surgeon Joseph Cleveland, MD, not part of the current study, said that it “provides a framework for counseling patients” regarding their do-not-resuscitate status.

“We can counsel patients with frailty with this information,” he said, “that if their heart should stop or go into in irregular rhythm, their chances of surviving are not greater than 50% and they have a more than 50% chance of not being discharged home.”

Dr. Allen reported receiving a clinical translational starter grant from Brigham and Women’s Hospital Department of Anesthesiology; disclosures for the other authors are in the original article. Dr. Subramaniam disclosed research funding from Masimo and Merck and serving as an education consultant for Masimo. Dr. Cleveland reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The Diagnosis: Extragenital Lichen Sclerosus et Atrophicus

A punch biopsy of the lesion revealed epidermal hyperkeratosis, atrophy, follicular plugs with basal vacuolar degeneration, and homogenous dense fibrosis in the papillary dermis with a dense lymphocytic infiltrate beneath the fibrosis (Figure 1). Dermoscopic examination was remarkable for a distinctive rainbow pattern. Clinical, histopathologic, and dermoscopic findings led to the diagnosis of extragenital lichen sclerosus et atrophicus (LSEA). A potent corticosteroid cream was prescribed twice daily for 2 months, after which the lesions completely resolved. At 2-year follow-up, a relapse was not observed (Figure 2).

Lichen sclerosus et atrophicus is an inflammatory dermatosis that clinically presents as atrophic or hypertrophic plaques that may show pigmentation changes with anogenital and extragenital involvement. It is common among females and predominantly occurs in prepubescent girls and postmenopausal women. The exact etiology is unclear; however, it is hypothesized to occur secondary to autoimmunity with an underlying genetic predisposition. Local trauma, hormonal influences, and infections are other suspected etiologic factors. Genital lesions often lead to itching, pain, and dyspareunia, whereas extragenital lesions predominantly are asymptomatic. When symptomatic, itching usually is the main concern. Unlike genital LSEA, extragenital lesions are not associated with squamous cell carcinoma development. Reported dermoscopic features of LSEA are white structureless areas with scaling, comedolike openings, follicular plugs, white shiny streaks, blue-gray peppering, pigment network, and red-purple globules.¹ In our case, the dermoscopic finding of a rainbow pattern in LSEA is rare.² Although the mechanism behind this appearance unclear, it can be the result of the birefringence effect—local variations in refractive index—influenced by the direction of structures within the dermis such as collagen. In this case, there was diffuse and dense homogenous fibrosis in the superficial dermis that corresponded to dermoscopic white polygonal clods.

Extragenital LSEA commonly is located on the neck, shoulders, wrists, and upper trunk and manifests clinically as whitish papules coalescing into scarlike plaques. Of all patients who have LSEA, 20% have extragenital lesions, and most of these lesions are seen in patients who also have genital LSEA. Approximately 6% of all LSEA patients have extragenital LSEA without genital involvement.³

For experienced dermatologists, clinical symptoms and lesion characteristics usually are sufficient for diagnosis; however, a differential diagnosis of atypical lesions and isolated extragenital presentations such as morphea, lichen simplex chronicus, lichen planus, and vitiligo requires the correlation of clinical findings with histopathology and dermoscopy. Morphea, known as localized scleroderma, is an idiopathic inflammatory skin disease with sclerotic changes. It manifests as inflammatory plaques that vary in color from red to purple. If there is moderate sclerosis in the center of this plaque, the color progressively fades to white, leaving a purplish ring around the edges. Dermoscopic features of morphea are reported as areas of erythema; red-focused vessels of linear, irregular, or dotted morphology; white fibrotic beams; and pigmentary structures.² Lichen simplex chronicus is characterized by single or multiple dry and patchy skin lesions that are intensely pruritic. It commonly occurs on the neck, scalp, extremities, genital areas, and buttocks. Scratching the lesions leads to scarring, thickening of the skin, and increased frequency of itching. Histopathology of lichen simplex chronicus most frequently demonstrates a thickening of the epidermis and papillary dermis, irregularly elongated rete ridges, and fibroplasia with stellate or multinucleated fibroblasts completed by perivascular lymphocytic inflammation.⁴ Lichen planus presents with pruritic, polygonal, purple papules and/or plaques that can present in a variety of clinical forms, including atrophic and hypertrophic lichen planus.⁵ Lichen planus was an unlikely diagnosis for our patient due to the presence of patchy scarlike lesions and dermoscopic features that are well described in patients with LSEA. Lichen sclerosus et atrophicus presents with hypopigmented and/or hyperpigmented patches and plaques, distinguishing itself from vitiligo, which has flat lesions.

Topical steroids are the first-line therapeutic agents in the treatment of LSEA.6 Despite frequent use in this setting, common side effects such as localized scarring and atrophic degenerations have led to debate about their use. In our patient, the lesions resolved almost completely in 2 months, and no relapse was observed in the following 2 years. In the setting of topical steroid resistance, topical calcineurin inhibitors, UVA/UVB phototherapy, and topical tacrolimus can be used for treatment.⁶

The diagnosis of isolated extragenital LSEA may be a clinical challenge and generally requires further workup. When evaluating extragenital lesions, dermatologists should keep in mind extragenital LSEA as a differential diagnosis in the presence of a dermoscopic rainbow pattern arranged over white polygonal clods.

The Diagnosis: Extragenital Lichen Sclerosus et Atrophicus

A punch biopsy of the lesion revealed epidermal hyperkeratosis, atrophy, follicular plugs with basal vacuolar degeneration, and homogenous dense fibrosis in the papillary dermis with a dense lymphocytic infiltrate beneath the fibrosis (Figure 1). Dermoscopic examination was remarkable for a distinctive rainbow pattern. Clinical, histopathologic, and dermoscopic findings led to the diagnosis of extragenital lichen sclerosus et atrophicus (LSEA). A potent corticosteroid cream was prescribed twice daily for 2 months, after which the lesions completely resolved. At 2-year follow-up, a relapse was not observed (Figure 2).

Lichen sclerosus et atrophicus is an inflammatory dermatosis that clinically presents as atrophic or hypertrophic plaques that may show pigmentation changes with anogenital and extragenital involvement. It is common among females and predominantly occurs in prepubescent girls and postmenopausal women. The exact etiology is unclear; however, it is hypothesized to occur secondary to autoimmunity with an underlying genetic predisposition. Local trauma, hormonal influences, and infections are other suspected etiologic factors. Genital lesions often lead to itching, pain, and dyspareunia, whereas extragenital lesions predominantly are asymptomatic. When symptomatic, itching usually is the main concern. Unlike genital LSEA, extragenital lesions are not associated with squamous cell carcinoma development. Reported dermoscopic features of LSEA are white structureless areas with scaling, comedolike openings, follicular plugs, white shiny streaks, blue-gray peppering, pigment network, and red-purple globules.¹ In our case, the dermoscopic finding of a rainbow pattern in LSEA is rare.² Although the mechanism behind this appearance unclear, it can be the result of the birefringence effect—local variations in refractive index—influenced by the direction of structures within the dermis such as collagen. In this case, there was diffuse and dense homogenous fibrosis in the superficial dermis that corresponded to dermoscopic white polygonal clods.

Extragenital LSEA commonly is located on the neck, shoulders, wrists, and upper trunk and manifests clinically as whitish papules coalescing into scarlike plaques. Of all patients who have LSEA, 20% have extragenital lesions, and most of these lesions are seen in patients who also have genital LSEA. Approximately 6% of all LSEA patients have extragenital LSEA without genital involvement.³

For experienced dermatologists, clinical symptoms and lesion characteristics usually are sufficient for diagnosis; however, a differential diagnosis of atypical lesions and isolated extragenital presentations such as morphea, lichen simplex chronicus, lichen planus, and vitiligo requires the correlation of clinical findings with histopathology and dermoscopy. Morphea, known as localized scleroderma, is an idiopathic inflammatory skin disease with sclerotic changes. It manifests as inflammatory plaques that vary in color from red to purple. If there is moderate sclerosis in the center of this plaque, the color progressively fades to white, leaving a purplish ring around the edges. Dermoscopic features of morphea are reported as areas of erythema; red-focused vessels of linear, irregular, or dotted morphology; white fibrotic beams; and pigmentary structures.² Lichen simplex chronicus is characterized by single or multiple dry and patchy skin lesions that are intensely pruritic. It commonly occurs on the neck, scalp, extremities, genital areas, and buttocks. Scratching the lesions leads to scarring, thickening of the skin, and increased frequency of itching. Histopathology of lichen simplex chronicus most frequently demonstrates a thickening of the epidermis and papillary dermis, irregularly elongated rete ridges, and fibroplasia with stellate or multinucleated fibroblasts completed by perivascular lymphocytic inflammation.⁴ Lichen planus presents with pruritic, polygonal, purple papules and/or plaques that can present in a variety of clinical forms, including atrophic and hypertrophic lichen planus.⁵ Lichen planus was an unlikely diagnosis for our patient due to the presence of patchy scarlike lesions and dermoscopic features that are well described in patients with LSEA. Lichen sclerosus et atrophicus presents with hypopigmented and/or hyperpigmented patches and plaques, distinguishing itself from vitiligo, which has flat lesions.

Topical steroids are the first-line therapeutic agents in the treatment of LSEA.6 Despite frequent use in this setting, common side effects such as localized scarring and atrophic degenerations have led to debate about their use. In our patient, the lesions resolved almost completely in 2 months, and no relapse was observed in the following 2 years. In the setting of topical steroid resistance, topical calcineurin inhibitors, UVA/UVB phototherapy, and topical tacrolimus can be used for treatment.⁶

The diagnosis of isolated extragenital LSEA may be a clinical challenge and generally requires further workup. When evaluating extragenital lesions, dermatologists should keep in mind extragenital LSEA as a differential diagnosis in the presence of a dermoscopic rainbow pattern arranged over white polygonal clods.

The Diagnosis: Extragenital Lichen Sclerosus et Atrophicus

A punch biopsy of the lesion revealed epidermal hyperkeratosis, atrophy, follicular plugs with basal vacuolar degeneration, and homogenous dense fibrosis in the papillary dermis with a dense lymphocytic infiltrate beneath the fibrosis (Figure 1). Dermoscopic examination was remarkable for a distinctive rainbow pattern. Clinical, histopathologic, and dermoscopic findings led to the diagnosis of extragenital lichen sclerosus et atrophicus (LSEA). A potent corticosteroid cream was prescribed twice daily for 2 months, after which the lesions completely resolved. At 2-year follow-up, a relapse was not observed (Figure 2).

Lichen sclerosus et atrophicus is an inflammatory dermatosis that clinically presents as atrophic or hypertrophic plaques that may show pigmentation changes with anogenital and extragenital involvement. It is common among females and predominantly occurs in prepubescent girls and postmenopausal women. The exact etiology is unclear; however, it is hypothesized to occur secondary to autoimmunity with an underlying genetic predisposition. Local trauma, hormonal influences, and infections are other suspected etiologic factors. Genital lesions often lead to itching, pain, and dyspareunia, whereas extragenital lesions predominantly are asymptomatic. When symptomatic, itching usually is the main concern. Unlike genital LSEA, extragenital lesions are not associated with squamous cell carcinoma development. Reported dermoscopic features of LSEA are white structureless areas with scaling, comedolike openings, follicular plugs, white shiny streaks, blue-gray peppering, pigment network, and red-purple globules.¹ In our case, the dermoscopic finding of a rainbow pattern in LSEA is rare.² Although the mechanism behind this appearance unclear, it can be the result of the birefringence effect—local variations in refractive index—influenced by the direction of structures within the dermis such as collagen. In this case, there was diffuse and dense homogenous fibrosis in the superficial dermis that corresponded to dermoscopic white polygonal clods.

Extragenital LSEA commonly is located on the neck, shoulders, wrists, and upper trunk and manifests clinically as whitish papules coalescing into scarlike plaques. Of all patients who have LSEA, 20% have extragenital lesions, and most of these lesions are seen in patients who also have genital LSEA. Approximately 6% of all LSEA patients have extragenital LSEA without genital involvement.³

For experienced dermatologists, clinical symptoms and lesion characteristics usually are sufficient for diagnosis; however, a differential diagnosis of atypical lesions and isolated extragenital presentations such as morphea, lichen simplex chronicus, lichen planus, and vitiligo requires the correlation of clinical findings with histopathology and dermoscopy. Morphea, known as localized scleroderma, is an idiopathic inflammatory skin disease with sclerotic changes. It manifests as inflammatory plaques that vary in color from red to purple. If there is moderate sclerosis in the center of this plaque, the color progressively fades to white, leaving a purplish ring around the edges. Dermoscopic features of morphea are reported as areas of erythema; red-focused vessels of linear, irregular, or dotted morphology; white fibrotic beams; and pigmentary structures.² Lichen simplex chronicus is characterized by single or multiple dry and patchy skin lesions that are intensely pruritic. It commonly occurs on the neck, scalp, extremities, genital areas, and buttocks. Scratching the lesions leads to scarring, thickening of the skin, and increased frequency of itching. Histopathology of lichen simplex chronicus most frequently demonstrates a thickening of the epidermis and papillary dermis, irregularly elongated rete ridges, and fibroplasia with stellate or multinucleated fibroblasts completed by perivascular lymphocytic inflammation.⁴ Lichen planus presents with pruritic, polygonal, purple papules and/or plaques that can present in a variety of clinical forms, including atrophic and hypertrophic lichen planus.⁵ Lichen planus was an unlikely diagnosis for our patient due to the presence of patchy scarlike lesions and dermoscopic features that are well described in patients with LSEA. Lichen sclerosus et atrophicus presents with hypopigmented and/or hyperpigmented patches and plaques, distinguishing itself from vitiligo, which has flat lesions.

Topical steroids are the first-line therapeutic agents in the treatment of LSEA.6 Despite frequent use in this setting, common side effects such as localized scarring and atrophic degenerations have led to debate about their use. In our patient, the lesions resolved almost completely in 2 months, and no relapse was observed in the following 2 years. In the setting of topical steroid resistance, topical calcineurin inhibitors, UVA/UVB phototherapy, and topical tacrolimus can be used for treatment.⁶

The diagnosis of isolated extragenital LSEA may be a clinical challenge and generally requires further workup. When evaluating extragenital lesions, dermatologists should keep in mind extragenital LSEA as a differential diagnosis in the presence of a dermoscopic rainbow pattern arranged over white polygonal clods.

Performing coronary reactivity (CR) testing during angiography in patients with angina without obstructive coronary disease (ANOCA) adds complexity and cost to the procedure but may, in the end, turn out to be a bargain.
 

A retrospective, single-center study suggests that CR testing in ANOCA patients can save money, perhaps a lot of money, probably by helping to limit downstream procedures and other use of health care resources. 

In the retrospective study, CR testing included both adenosine and acetylcholine challenges to differentiate endothelium-dependent from endothelium-independent coronary reactivity as the physiological cause of ANOCA in individuals. Clarifying the cause at this stage of the patient’s clinical journey seemed to sharpen subsequent testing and management decisions, the researchers said.

Of the 414 patients with ANOCA who underwent invasive diagnostic angiography, 207 also received CR testing during the procedure. The difference in total healthcare costs between the two groups over 2 years averaged about $20,000, largely because of the CR-testing group’s reduced use of downstream imaging, interventional procedures, and other tests, notes a report on the study published in Circulation: Cardiovascular Interventions.

For such patients referred for coronary angiography found to be without obstructive disease, “the right thing to do is a vascular reactivity test to assess if there is any abnormality that can contribute to this patient’s symptoms and events,” senior author Amir Lerman, MD, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., said in an interview. Coronary reactivity testing “is expensive to set up initially, but it actually saves money by reducing the need for additional unnecessary testing and hospitalizations in these patients.”

The financial burden linked to the diagnosis and treatment of patients with chest pain is considerable, Dr. Lerman observed. It can involve a series of tests and culminate in a coronary angiogram. However, symptoms may continue if therapy does not correctly target one or more of several different potential mechanisms, including microvascular dysfunction and vasospastic disorders.

“This paper says that if you establish a program of coronary reactivity testing you will ultimately reduce health care costs, because patients stop coming back to the hospital, or their physician stops ordering more tests or repeat angiograms because the patient has a true diagnosis,” observed Morton J. Kern, MD, University of California, Irvine, and VA Long Beach (Calif.) Health Care.

“That elimination of uncertainty and reduction of testing has a good payoff,” Dr. Kern said in an interview. “The concept is good; the only challenge is that this is a complicated set of manipulations in the cath lab to get to the results.”

A minority of cardiac cath labs in the United States perform CR testing, despite its inclusion for ANOCA in guidelines from both the European Society of Cardiology and the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology, the authors noted. Cost and its requirement for specialized expertise may contribute to its poor uptake in practice.

In an editorial accompanying the report, Dr. Kern and David J. Cohen, MD, Cardiovascular Research Foundation, New York, and St. Francis Hospital and Heart Center, Roslyn, N.Y., said they agree with the authors’ recommendation for more widespread use of CR testing.

However, the initiation of a CR testing program is no small task. “In addition to motivated practitioners, operators with specific procedural expertise must have formalized technical training to produce valid results and to limit the procedural risks,” they wrote.

Moreover, expenses for a CR testing program “will likely be incurred without balanced reimbursement, but the health care system will benefit in the long run.”

The total health-related costs for the two groups of 207 in the analysis were tracked for 2 years after the procedure and found to be significantly higher (P < .001) in the group that had received coronary angiography without CR testing. Their average annual cost was $37,804 (range, $26,933-$48,674), compared with $13,679 (range, $9,447-$17,910) for those that had undergone CR testing.

The angiography-only group’s costs for procedures (including surgical or percutaneous intervention, endoscopy, and bronchoscopy) averaged $5,872 (range, $3,798-$7,946), compared with $2,104 (range, $1,202-$3,006) in the CR testing group (P = .001).

Similarly, costs for any type of imaging, including at cardiac catheterization, averaged $2,639 (range, $2,093 to $3,185) and $1,426 (range, $1,090 to $1,761), respectively (P < .001).

Annual total hospital services costs were also higher in the angiography-only group at $21,820 versus $6,409 (P < .001) for the group that underwent CR testing.

Caution is required when interpreting these results, Matthew Tomey, MD, Mount Sinai Morningside Hospital and Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said in an interview.

“The observed cost differences are interesting and hypothesis generating but they fall short of providing strong evidence that [CR testing] saves money or that [it] should be incorporated into routine practice,” Dr. Tomey said. “Multiple biases can skew findings of retrospective observational studies. A prospective, randomized study would be needed to draw stronger conclusions.”

Still, it’s true that “there is substantial opportunity to do better in diagnosing chest pain in our patients with no apparent, explanatory obstructive coronary atherosclerosis,” he said. “There are emerging invasive and noninvasive ways to do so. Helping our patients get to the right diagnosis is the right thing to do. It will lead to better treatment recommendations, improved patient symptoms, improved patient confidence, and – it stands to reason – cost benefits in the long term.”

The study was funded by a grant from Philips. Dr. Lerman reported receiving honoraria from Philips Volcano. Dr. Kern disclosed speaking for Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, Acist, Opsens, and Zoll. Dr. Cohen disclosed receiving institutional grant support from Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, CathWorks, and Philips; and consulting income from Abbott, Boston Scientific, and Medtronic. Dr. Tomey reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Performing coronary reactivity (CR) testing during angiography in patients with angina without obstructive coronary disease (ANOCA) adds complexity and cost to the procedure but may, in the end, turn out to be a bargain.
 

A retrospective, single-center study suggests that CR testing in ANOCA patients can save money, perhaps a lot of money, probably by helping to limit downstream procedures and other use of health care resources. 

In the retrospective study, CR testing included both adenosine and acetylcholine challenges to differentiate endothelium-dependent from endothelium-independent coronary reactivity as the physiological cause of ANOCA in individuals. Clarifying the cause at this stage of the patient’s clinical journey seemed to sharpen subsequent testing and management decisions, the researchers said.

Of the 414 patients with ANOCA who underwent invasive diagnostic angiography, 207 also received CR testing during the procedure. The difference in total healthcare costs between the two groups over 2 years averaged about $20,000, largely because of the CR-testing group’s reduced use of downstream imaging, interventional procedures, and other tests, notes a report on the study published in Circulation: Cardiovascular Interventions.

For such patients referred for coronary angiography found to be without obstructive disease, “the right thing to do is a vascular reactivity test to assess if there is any abnormality that can contribute to this patient’s symptoms and events,” senior author Amir Lerman, MD, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., said in an interview. Coronary reactivity testing “is expensive to set up initially, but it actually saves money by reducing the need for additional unnecessary testing and hospitalizations in these patients.”

The financial burden linked to the diagnosis and treatment of patients with chest pain is considerable, Dr. Lerman observed. It can involve a series of tests and culminate in a coronary angiogram. However, symptoms may continue if therapy does not correctly target one or more of several different potential mechanisms, including microvascular dysfunction and vasospastic disorders.

“This paper says that if you establish a program of coronary reactivity testing you will ultimately reduce health care costs, because patients stop coming back to the hospital, or their physician stops ordering more tests or repeat angiograms because the patient has a true diagnosis,” observed Morton J. Kern, MD, University of California, Irvine, and VA Long Beach (Calif.) Health Care.

“That elimination of uncertainty and reduction of testing has a good payoff,” Dr. Kern said in an interview. “The concept is good; the only challenge is that this is a complicated set of manipulations in the cath lab to get to the results.”

A minority of cardiac cath labs in the United States perform CR testing, despite its inclusion for ANOCA in guidelines from both the European Society of Cardiology and the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology, the authors noted. Cost and its requirement for specialized expertise may contribute to its poor uptake in practice.

In an editorial accompanying the report, Dr. Kern and David J. Cohen, MD, Cardiovascular Research Foundation, New York, and St. Francis Hospital and Heart Center, Roslyn, N.Y., said they agree with the authors’ recommendation for more widespread use of CR testing.

However, the initiation of a CR testing program is no small task. “In addition to motivated practitioners, operators with specific procedural expertise must have formalized technical training to produce valid results and to limit the procedural risks,” they wrote.

Moreover, expenses for a CR testing program “will likely be incurred without balanced reimbursement, but the health care system will benefit in the long run.”

The total health-related costs for the two groups of 207 in the analysis were tracked for 2 years after the procedure and found to be significantly higher (P < .001) in the group that had received coronary angiography without CR testing. Their average annual cost was $37,804 (range, $26,933-$48,674), compared with $13,679 (range, $9,447-$17,910) for those that had undergone CR testing.

The angiography-only group’s costs for procedures (including surgical or percutaneous intervention, endoscopy, and bronchoscopy) averaged $5,872 (range, $3,798-$7,946), compared with $2,104 (range, $1,202-$3,006) in the CR testing group (P = .001).

Similarly, costs for any type of imaging, including at cardiac catheterization, averaged $2,639 (range, $2,093 to $3,185) and $1,426 (range, $1,090 to $1,761), respectively (P < .001).

Annual total hospital services costs were also higher in the angiography-only group at $21,820 versus $6,409 (P < .001) for the group that underwent CR testing.

Caution is required when interpreting these results, Matthew Tomey, MD, Mount Sinai Morningside Hospital and Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said in an interview.

“The observed cost differences are interesting and hypothesis generating but they fall short of providing strong evidence that [CR testing] saves money or that [it] should be incorporated into routine practice,” Dr. Tomey said. “Multiple biases can skew findings of retrospective observational studies. A prospective, randomized study would be needed to draw stronger conclusions.”

Still, it’s true that “there is substantial opportunity to do better in diagnosing chest pain in our patients with no apparent, explanatory obstructive coronary atherosclerosis,” he said. “There are emerging invasive and noninvasive ways to do so. Helping our patients get to the right diagnosis is the right thing to do. It will lead to better treatment recommendations, improved patient symptoms, improved patient confidence, and – it stands to reason – cost benefits in the long term.”

The study was funded by a grant from Philips. Dr. Lerman reported receiving honoraria from Philips Volcano. Dr. Kern disclosed speaking for Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, Acist, Opsens, and Zoll. Dr. Cohen disclosed receiving institutional grant support from Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, CathWorks, and Philips; and consulting income from Abbott, Boston Scientific, and Medtronic. Dr. Tomey reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Performing coronary reactivity (CR) testing during angiography in patients with angina without obstructive coronary disease (ANOCA) adds complexity and cost to the procedure but may, in the end, turn out to be a bargain.
 

A retrospective, single-center study suggests that CR testing in ANOCA patients can save money, perhaps a lot of money, probably by helping to limit downstream procedures and other use of health care resources. 

In the retrospective study, CR testing included both adenosine and acetylcholine challenges to differentiate endothelium-dependent from endothelium-independent coronary reactivity as the physiological cause of ANOCA in individuals. Clarifying the cause at this stage of the patient’s clinical journey seemed to sharpen subsequent testing and management decisions, the researchers said.

Of the 414 patients with ANOCA who underwent invasive diagnostic angiography, 207 also received CR testing during the procedure. The difference in total healthcare costs between the two groups over 2 years averaged about $20,000, largely because of the CR-testing group’s reduced use of downstream imaging, interventional procedures, and other tests, notes a report on the study published in Circulation: Cardiovascular Interventions.

For such patients referred for coronary angiography found to be without obstructive disease, “the right thing to do is a vascular reactivity test to assess if there is any abnormality that can contribute to this patient’s symptoms and events,” senior author Amir Lerman, MD, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., said in an interview. Coronary reactivity testing “is expensive to set up initially, but it actually saves money by reducing the need for additional unnecessary testing and hospitalizations in these patients.”

The financial burden linked to the diagnosis and treatment of patients with chest pain is considerable, Dr. Lerman observed. It can involve a series of tests and culminate in a coronary angiogram. However, symptoms may continue if therapy does not correctly target one or more of several different potential mechanisms, including microvascular dysfunction and vasospastic disorders.

“This paper says that if you establish a program of coronary reactivity testing you will ultimately reduce health care costs, because patients stop coming back to the hospital, or their physician stops ordering more tests or repeat angiograms because the patient has a true diagnosis,” observed Morton J. Kern, MD, University of California, Irvine, and VA Long Beach (Calif.) Health Care.

“That elimination of uncertainty and reduction of testing has a good payoff,” Dr. Kern said in an interview. “The concept is good; the only challenge is that this is a complicated set of manipulations in the cath lab to get to the results.”

A minority of cardiac cath labs in the United States perform CR testing, despite its inclusion for ANOCA in guidelines from both the European Society of Cardiology and the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology, the authors noted. Cost and its requirement for specialized expertise may contribute to its poor uptake in practice.

In an editorial accompanying the report, Dr. Kern and David J. Cohen, MD, Cardiovascular Research Foundation, New York, and St. Francis Hospital and Heart Center, Roslyn, N.Y., said they agree with the authors’ recommendation for more widespread use of CR testing.

However, the initiation of a CR testing program is no small task. “In addition to motivated practitioners, operators with specific procedural expertise must have formalized technical training to produce valid results and to limit the procedural risks,” they wrote.

Moreover, expenses for a CR testing program “will likely be incurred without balanced reimbursement, but the health care system will benefit in the long run.”

The total health-related costs for the two groups of 207 in the analysis were tracked for 2 years after the procedure and found to be significantly higher (P < .001) in the group that had received coronary angiography without CR testing. Their average annual cost was $37,804 (range, $26,933-$48,674), compared with $13,679 (range, $9,447-$17,910) for those that had undergone CR testing.

The angiography-only group’s costs for procedures (including surgical or percutaneous intervention, endoscopy, and bronchoscopy) averaged $5,872 (range, $3,798-$7,946), compared with $2,104 (range, $1,202-$3,006) in the CR testing group (P = .001).

Similarly, costs for any type of imaging, including at cardiac catheterization, averaged $2,639 (range, $2,093 to $3,185) and $1,426 (range, $1,090 to $1,761), respectively (P < .001).

Annual total hospital services costs were also higher in the angiography-only group at $21,820 versus $6,409 (P < .001) for the group that underwent CR testing.

Caution is required when interpreting these results, Matthew Tomey, MD, Mount Sinai Morningside Hospital and Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said in an interview.

“The observed cost differences are interesting and hypothesis generating but they fall short of providing strong evidence that [CR testing] saves money or that [it] should be incorporated into routine practice,” Dr. Tomey said. “Multiple biases can skew findings of retrospective observational studies. A prospective, randomized study would be needed to draw stronger conclusions.”

Still, it’s true that “there is substantial opportunity to do better in diagnosing chest pain in our patients with no apparent, explanatory obstructive coronary atherosclerosis,” he said. “There are emerging invasive and noninvasive ways to do so. Helping our patients get to the right diagnosis is the right thing to do. It will lead to better treatment recommendations, improved patient symptoms, improved patient confidence, and – it stands to reason – cost benefits in the long term.”

The study was funded by a grant from Philips. Dr. Lerman reported receiving honoraria from Philips Volcano. Dr. Kern disclosed speaking for Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, Acist, Opsens, and Zoll. Dr. Cohen disclosed receiving institutional grant support from Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, CathWorks, and Philips; and consulting income from Abbott, Boston Scientific, and Medtronic. Dr. Tomey reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

MADRID – A late diagnosis of chronic kidney disease is cause for concern. Scientific societies are therefore advocating for screening at younger ages to reverse this trend and slow the progression of the disease. Nearly all patients seen in primary care are candidates for screening because of their risk factors for kidney disease.

During the 29th National Conference of General and Family Medicine of the Spanish Society for General and Family Physicians, Teresa Benedito, MD, family doctor and member of the society’s cardiovascular group, and Roberto Alcázar, MD, nephrologist at the Infanta Leonor University Hospital, Madrid, presented a clinical case encountered in primary care. They used this case to frame a strong argument for the importance of early screening for chronic kidney disease, and they discussed how to properly manage such screening.

The presentation followed the guidelines in the SEMG publication regarding the management and referral of patients with type 2 diabetes. Dr. Benedito explained that the first thing to ask oneself during a patient visit is “whether they present risk factors for kidney disease. If so, we can’t let them leave before we do a kidney screening.” She then listed the factors in question: age older than 60 years, African heritage, family history of chronic kidney disease, decreased kidney mass, weight loss at birth, hypertension, diabetes, smoking, obesity, and low socioeconomic status.

For his part, Dr. Alcázar mentioned how these factors are similar to cardiovascular risk factors, because “the kidneys are a ball of vessels with double capillarization for purifying blood. They’re the organs with the most arteries per unit of weight, so anything that can damage the arteries can damage the kidneys.”
 

Candidates for screening

“Chronic kidney disease develops in 15% of the adult population in Spain. So, it’s worth asking how many patients have been diagnosed and who should we should be screening.” To the factors listed above, Dr. Alcázar added treatment with nephrotoxic drugs (including nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs) for patients with obstructive urinary tract disease, and a history of acute kidney injury for patients with chronic autoimmune disease or neoplasms. “Thus, nearly all patients seen in primary care would need to be screened.”

Another fundamental question raised was whether patients should be screened before age 60 years. “As a nephrologist, I feel that we have been diagnosing chronic kidney disease late, even though we’ve been doing everything by the book,” said Dr. Alcázar. In his opinion, “the answer to whether we should be screening earlier ... is yes, for two reasons: first, because it’s cost-effective, and second, because it’s very inexpensive.”

Dr. Benedito explained in detail the process for diagnosing this disease. She began by defining the disease as changes in kidney structure and function that last longer than 3 months. These changes are identified by use of two criteria: glomerular filtration rate less than 60 mL/min and kidney injury or lesions with or without reduced filtration rate (renal biopsy, albumin/creatinine ratio greater than 30 mg/g, proteinuria, alterations in urinary sediment or in imaging tests). Thus, “if one of these two criteria persists for more than 3 months, the diagnosis is chronic kidney disease. Also, high creatinine levels are not diagnostic for the disease,” she emphasized.
 

Two related parameters

Glomerular filtration and albuminuria “are highly relevant, because screening for chronic kidney disease is based on these two parameters,” said Dr. Benedito. Glomerular filtration rate varies with age, sex, ethnicity, and body mass. It is useful for identifying the stage of the disease and for monitoring disease progression. Albuminuria, on the other hand, is an indication of the severity of the disease. It’s an early marker for kidney injury and systemic disease and is more sensitive than proteinuria. Therefore, “this factor, together with glomerular filtration rate, allows us to detect, classify, and monitor the progression of chronic kidney disease.”

On this point, Dr. Alcázar emphasized the importance of trends, since variation in glomerular filtration depends on serum creatinine, which can vary by nearly 9%. He explained that glomerular filtration rate is related to the number of nephrons remaining. A glomerular filtration rate of less than 60 mL/min implies that more than half of the nephrons in each kidney have been lost. Albuminuria informs about structural damage (that is, the condition of the remaining nephrons). It’s therefore essential to test for both parameters. “We need to be actively monitoring and then making our decisions based on trends and not on isolated results. We need to be aware of albuminuria when we make our decisions,” said Dr. Alcázar. Some studies have shown the importance of testing for albuminuria whenever creatinine level is assessed. “We need to buy into this. If we don’t do this, we’ll only ever have half the information we need.”
 

Reducing late diagnosis

According to the IBERICAN study, 14% of patients seen in primary care in Spain have chronic kidney disease. “This statistic should make us stop and think, own our responsibility, and ask ourselves why this screening isn’t taking place [earlier],” said Dr. Benedito. She added, “We need to head off this trend toward late diagnosis. As the disease progresses, it significantly increases cardiovascular risk and leads to higher mortality, going on dialysis, transplants, et cetera.”

Dr. Alcázar noted that 80% of nephrology cases that are referred to him come from primary care. He explained the need to understand that “these patients have a sevenfold greater risk of suffering a serious cardiovascular event within the next year than people without kidney problems.” Most of these patients will experience an event, even if they don’t undergo dialysis (stage 3 and those near stage 4).
 

Correct staging

Also fundamental is having a detailed understanding of how staging is performed. Dr. Benedito explained that a chart that pairs glomerular filtration rate (six categories) with the level of albuminuria (three categories) should be used during the visit. For example, a case might be classified as G3a-A2. However, the simplified form of the chart may prove more practical. It classifies chronic kidney disease as being associated with mild, moderate, and severe risk, using different colors to aid comprehension.

Dr. Alcázar noted that the latest guidelines from the European Society of Hypertension for 2023 include albuminuria as an important parameter. The guidelines indicate that for a patient with moderate or severe risk, it is not necessary to calculate their score. “It’s considered high cardiovascular risk, and steps would need to be taken for intervention.”

He then listed the tools available for reversing albuminuria. The process begins by reducing salt consumption and involves the use of medications (angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin II receptor antagonists, aldosterone receptor antagonists, glucagon-like peptide-1 analogues, and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors, which slow kidney damage regardless of other measures) and strict management of cardiovascular risk factors (smoking, weight management, blood glucose, hypertension, and moderate physical activity).
 

Reducing cardiovascular risk

Dr. Alcázar highlighted important factors to keep in mind when managing each of the cardiovascular risk factors. For hypertension, the aim is to achieve levels less than 130/80 mm Hg, although recommendations vary, depending on the guidelines consulted. “KDIGO (Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes) 2021 states that there is no evidence for monitoring diastolic blood pressure, only systolic blood pressure. If we measure it according to the standardized form, SBP should be less than 120 mm Hg, and if not, we would fall back on readings of 130/80 mm Hg.”

For lipid control (specifically, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol), the staging chart indicates that for patients at mild risk, levels should be less than 100 mg/dL; for those at moderate risk, less than 70 mg/dL; and for those at severe risk, less than 55 mg/dL. Hypertriglyceridemia “should only be treated with fibrates if it comes in over 1,000 mg/dL. Also, care must be taken, because these drugs interfere with creatinine excretion, increasing it,” said Dr. Alcázar.

Guidelines from the KDIGO and the American Diabetes Association state that anyone with diabetes and chronic kidney disease should receive a sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor if their glomerular filtration rate exceeds 20 mL/min, “which may contradict slightly what it says on the label. Also, if they have hypertension, they should take an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor,” said Dr. Alcázar. He added that “oral antidiabetics, including metformin, must be adjusted based on renal function if glomerular filtration rate is under 30 mL/min.”
 

Act immediately

When asked whether the course of chronic kidney disease can be changed, Dr. Alcázar responded with an emphatic yes and added that cardiovascular risk can also be substantially reduced. “As nephrologists, we don’t have access to patients in early stages. But family doctors do. Hence the importance of early screening, because going on dialysis at age 60 isn’t the same as at 80.” Currently, “scientific societies are encouraging authorities to screen for chronic kidney disease at earlier ages.”

Regarding drug-based therapy, Dr. Alcázar said that “empagliflozin is not currently indicated for chronic kidney disease in adults.” This sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor delays kidney disease and reduces morbidity. Both benefits were highlighted in two recent studies (DAPA-CKD and CREDENCE). Published in January, EMPA-KIDNEY presents a new twist on nephroprotection for patients with chronic kidney disease (diabetic or not) whose glomerular filtration rates are between 20 and 40 mL/min without albuminuria or whose glomerular filtration rates are between 45 and 90 mL/min with albuminuria. For more than 6,000 patients, empagliflozin was observed “to clearly reduce kidney disease progression, cardiovascular mortality and all-cause mortality, and the need to go on dialysis,” stated Dr. Alcázar.
 

What professionals expect

Dr. Benedito also explained the criteria for referral to a specialist: glomerular filtration rate less than 30 mL/min (unless the patient is older than 80 years and does not have progressively worsening renal function), albumin/creatinine ratio greater than 300 mg/g, acute worsening of renal function, progressive worsening of renal function of greater than 5 mL/min/yr, chronic kidney disease, hypertension treated with triple therapy (including a diuretic) at maximum doses, anemia of less than 10 g/dL, and nonurologic hematuria, especially in combination with albuminuria.

Dr. Benedito explained what nephrologists expect from family doctors in the management of chronic kidney disease: “screening for early detection, identifying and treating risk factors for chronic kidney disease, detecting progression and complications, adjusting drugs based on glomerular filtration rate, and ensuring that our patients are benefiting from sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors. These are among the most important steps to be taken.”

Dr. Alcázar mentioned what family doctors expect from nephrologists: “two-way communication, accessibility, coordination of actions to be taken, and using shared and mutually agreed-upon protocols.”

This article was translated from the Medscape Spanish Edition and a version appeared on Medscape.com.

MADRID – A late diagnosis of chronic kidney disease is cause for concern. Scientific societies are therefore advocating for screening at younger ages to reverse this trend and slow the progression of the disease. Nearly all patients seen in primary care are candidates for screening because of their risk factors for kidney disease.

During the 29th National Conference of General and Family Medicine of the Spanish Society for General and Family Physicians, Teresa Benedito, MD, family doctor and member of the society’s cardiovascular group, and Roberto Alcázar, MD, nephrologist at the Infanta Leonor University Hospital, Madrid, presented a clinical case encountered in primary care. They used this case to frame a strong argument for the importance of early screening for chronic kidney disease, and they discussed how to properly manage such screening.

The presentation followed the guidelines in the SEMG publication regarding the management and referral of patients with type 2 diabetes. Dr. Benedito explained that the first thing to ask oneself during a patient visit is “whether they present risk factors for kidney disease. If so, we can’t let them leave before we do a kidney screening.” She then listed the factors in question: age older than 60 years, African heritage, family history of chronic kidney disease, decreased kidney mass, weight loss at birth, hypertension, diabetes, smoking, obesity, and low socioeconomic status.

For his part, Dr. Alcázar mentioned how these factors are similar to cardiovascular risk factors, because “the kidneys are a ball of vessels with double capillarization for purifying blood. They’re the organs with the most arteries per unit of weight, so anything that can damage the arteries can damage the kidneys.”
 

Candidates for screening

“Chronic kidney disease develops in 15% of the adult population in Spain. So, it’s worth asking how many patients have been diagnosed and who should we should be screening.” To the factors listed above, Dr. Alcázar added treatment with nephrotoxic drugs (including nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs) for patients with obstructive urinary tract disease, and a history of acute kidney injury for patients with chronic autoimmune disease or neoplasms. “Thus, nearly all patients seen in primary care would need to be screened.”

Another fundamental question raised was whether patients should be screened before age 60 years. “As a nephrologist, I feel that we have been diagnosing chronic kidney disease late, even though we’ve been doing everything by the book,” said Dr. Alcázar. In his opinion, “the answer to whether we should be screening earlier ... is yes, for two reasons: first, because it’s cost-effective, and second, because it’s very inexpensive.”

Dr. Benedito explained in detail the process for diagnosing this disease. She began by defining the disease as changes in kidney structure and function that last longer than 3 months. These changes are identified by use of two criteria: glomerular filtration rate less than 60 mL/min and kidney injury or lesions with or without reduced filtration rate (renal biopsy, albumin/creatinine ratio greater than 30 mg/g, proteinuria, alterations in urinary sediment or in imaging tests). Thus, “if one of these two criteria persists for more than 3 months, the diagnosis is chronic kidney disease. Also, high creatinine levels are not diagnostic for the disease,” she emphasized.
 

Two related parameters

Glomerular filtration and albuminuria “are highly relevant, because screening for chronic kidney disease is based on these two parameters,” said Dr. Benedito. Glomerular filtration rate varies with age, sex, ethnicity, and body mass. It is useful for identifying the stage of the disease and for monitoring disease progression. Albuminuria, on the other hand, is an indication of the severity of the disease. It’s an early marker for kidney injury and systemic disease and is more sensitive than proteinuria. Therefore, “this factor, together with glomerular filtration rate, allows us to detect, classify, and monitor the progression of chronic kidney disease.”

On this point, Dr. Alcázar emphasized the importance of trends, since variation in glomerular filtration depends on serum creatinine, which can vary by nearly 9%. He explained that glomerular filtration rate is related to the number of nephrons remaining. A glomerular filtration rate of less than 60 mL/min implies that more than half of the nephrons in each kidney have been lost. Albuminuria informs about structural damage (that is, the condition of the remaining nephrons). It’s therefore essential to test for both parameters. “We need to be actively monitoring and then making our decisions based on trends and not on isolated results. We need to be aware of albuminuria when we make our decisions,” said Dr. Alcázar. Some studies have shown the importance of testing for albuminuria whenever creatinine level is assessed. “We need to buy into this. If we don’t do this, we’ll only ever have half the information we need.”
 

Reducing late diagnosis

According to the IBERICAN study, 14% of patients seen in primary care in Spain have chronic kidney disease. “This statistic should make us stop and think, own our responsibility, and ask ourselves why this screening isn’t taking place [earlier],” said Dr. Benedito. She added, “We need to head off this trend toward late diagnosis. As the disease progresses, it significantly increases cardiovascular risk and leads to higher mortality, going on dialysis, transplants, et cetera.”

Dr. Alcázar noted that 80% of nephrology cases that are referred to him come from primary care. He explained the need to understand that “these patients have a sevenfold greater risk of suffering a serious cardiovascular event within the next year than people without kidney problems.” Most of these patients will experience an event, even if they don’t undergo dialysis (stage 3 and those near stage 4).
 

Correct staging

Also fundamental is having a detailed understanding of how staging is performed. Dr. Benedito explained that a chart that pairs glomerular filtration rate (six categories) with the level of albuminuria (three categories) should be used during the visit. For example, a case might be classified as G3a-A2. However, the simplified form of the chart may prove more practical. It classifies chronic kidney disease as being associated with mild, moderate, and severe risk, using different colors to aid comprehension.

Dr. Alcázar noted that the latest guidelines from the European Society of Hypertension for 2023 include albuminuria as an important parameter. The guidelines indicate that for a patient with moderate or severe risk, it is not necessary to calculate their score. “It’s considered high cardiovascular risk, and steps would need to be taken for intervention.”

He then listed the tools available for reversing albuminuria. The process begins by reducing salt consumption and involves the use of medications (angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin II receptor antagonists, aldosterone receptor antagonists, glucagon-like peptide-1 analogues, and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors, which slow kidney damage regardless of other measures) and strict management of cardiovascular risk factors (smoking, weight management, blood glucose, hypertension, and moderate physical activity).
 

Reducing cardiovascular risk

Dr. Alcázar highlighted important factors to keep in mind when managing each of the cardiovascular risk factors. For hypertension, the aim is to achieve levels less than 130/80 mm Hg, although recommendations vary, depending on the guidelines consulted. “KDIGO (Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes) 2021 states that there is no evidence for monitoring diastolic blood pressure, only systolic blood pressure. If we measure it according to the standardized form, SBP should be less than 120 mm Hg, and if not, we would fall back on readings of 130/80 mm Hg.”

For lipid control (specifically, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol), the staging chart indicates that for patients at mild risk, levels should be less than 100 mg/dL; for those at moderate risk, less than 70 mg/dL; and for those at severe risk, less than 55 mg/dL. Hypertriglyceridemia “should only be treated with fibrates if it comes in over 1,000 mg/dL. Also, care must be taken, because these drugs interfere with creatinine excretion, increasing it,” said Dr. Alcázar.

Guidelines from the KDIGO and the American Diabetes Association state that anyone with diabetes and chronic kidney disease should receive a sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor if their glomerular filtration rate exceeds 20 mL/min, “which may contradict slightly what it says on the label. Also, if they have hypertension, they should take an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor,” said Dr. Alcázar. He added that “oral antidiabetics, including metformin, must be adjusted based on renal function if glomerular filtration rate is under 30 mL/min.”
 

Act immediately

When asked whether the course of chronic kidney disease can be changed, Dr. Alcázar responded with an emphatic yes and added that cardiovascular risk can also be substantially reduced. “As nephrologists, we don’t have access to patients in early stages. But family doctors do. Hence the importance of early screening, because going on dialysis at age 60 isn’t the same as at 80.” Currently, “scientific societies are encouraging authorities to screen for chronic kidney disease at earlier ages.”

Regarding drug-based therapy, Dr. Alcázar said that “empagliflozin is not currently indicated for chronic kidney disease in adults.” This sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor delays kidney disease and reduces morbidity. Both benefits were highlighted in two recent studies (DAPA-CKD and CREDENCE). Published in January, EMPA-KIDNEY presents a new twist on nephroprotection for patients with chronic kidney disease (diabetic or not) whose glomerular filtration rates are between 20 and 40 mL/min without albuminuria or whose glomerular filtration rates are between 45 and 90 mL/min with albuminuria. For more than 6,000 patients, empagliflozin was observed “to clearly reduce kidney disease progression, cardiovascular mortality and all-cause mortality, and the need to go on dialysis,” stated Dr. Alcázar.
 

What professionals expect

Dr. Benedito also explained the criteria for referral to a specialist: glomerular filtration rate less than 30 mL/min (unless the patient is older than 80 years and does not have progressively worsening renal function), albumin/creatinine ratio greater than 300 mg/g, acute worsening of renal function, progressive worsening of renal function of greater than 5 mL/min/yr, chronic kidney disease, hypertension treated with triple therapy (including a diuretic) at maximum doses, anemia of less than 10 g/dL, and nonurologic hematuria, especially in combination with albuminuria.

Dr. Benedito explained what nephrologists expect from family doctors in the management of chronic kidney disease: “screening for early detection, identifying and treating risk factors for chronic kidney disease, detecting progression and complications, adjusting drugs based on glomerular filtration rate, and ensuring that our patients are benefiting from sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors. These are among the most important steps to be taken.”

Dr. Alcázar mentioned what family doctors expect from nephrologists: “two-way communication, accessibility, coordination of actions to be taken, and using shared and mutually agreed-upon protocols.”

This article was translated from the Medscape Spanish Edition and a version appeared on Medscape.com.

MADRID – A late diagnosis of chronic kidney disease is cause for concern. Scientific societies are therefore advocating for screening at younger ages to reverse this trend and slow the progression of the disease. Nearly all patients seen in primary care are candidates for screening because of their risk factors for kidney disease.

During the 29th National Conference of General and Family Medicine of the Spanish Society for General and Family Physicians, Teresa Benedito, MD, family doctor and member of the society’s cardiovascular group, and Roberto Alcázar, MD, nephrologist at the Infanta Leonor University Hospital, Madrid, presented a clinical case encountered in primary care. They used this case to frame a strong argument for the importance of early screening for chronic kidney disease, and they discussed how to properly manage such screening.

The presentation followed the guidelines in the SEMG publication regarding the management and referral of patients with type 2 diabetes. Dr. Benedito explained that the first thing to ask oneself during a patient visit is “whether they present risk factors for kidney disease. If so, we can’t let them leave before we do a kidney screening.” She then listed the factors in question: age older than 60 years, African heritage, family history of chronic kidney disease, decreased kidney mass, weight loss at birth, hypertension, diabetes, smoking, obesity, and low socioeconomic status.

For his part, Dr. Alcázar mentioned how these factors are similar to cardiovascular risk factors, because “the kidneys are a ball of vessels with double capillarization for purifying blood. They’re the organs with the most arteries per unit of weight, so anything that can damage the arteries can damage the kidneys.”
 

Candidates for screening

“Chronic kidney disease develops in 15% of the adult population in Spain. So, it’s worth asking how many patients have been diagnosed and who should we should be screening.” To the factors listed above, Dr. Alcázar added treatment with nephrotoxic drugs (including nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs) for patients with obstructive urinary tract disease, and a history of acute kidney injury for patients with chronic autoimmune disease or neoplasms. “Thus, nearly all patients seen in primary care would need to be screened.”

Another fundamental question raised was whether patients should be screened before age 60 years. “As a nephrologist, I feel that we have been diagnosing chronic kidney disease late, even though we’ve been doing everything by the book,” said Dr. Alcázar. In his opinion, “the answer to whether we should be screening earlier ... is yes, for two reasons: first, because it’s cost-effective, and second, because it’s very inexpensive.”

Dr. Benedito explained in detail the process for diagnosing this disease. She began by defining the disease as changes in kidney structure and function that last longer than 3 months. These changes are identified by use of two criteria: glomerular filtration rate less than 60 mL/min and kidney injury or lesions with or without reduced filtration rate (renal biopsy, albumin/creatinine ratio greater than 30 mg/g, proteinuria, alterations in urinary sediment or in imaging tests). Thus, “if one of these two criteria persists for more than 3 months, the diagnosis is chronic kidney disease. Also, high creatinine levels are not diagnostic for the disease,” she emphasized.
 

Two related parameters

Glomerular filtration and albuminuria “are highly relevant, because screening for chronic kidney disease is based on these two parameters,” said Dr. Benedito. Glomerular filtration rate varies with age, sex, ethnicity, and body mass. It is useful for identifying the stage of the disease and for monitoring disease progression. Albuminuria, on the other hand, is an indication of the severity of the disease. It’s an early marker for kidney injury and systemic disease and is more sensitive than proteinuria. Therefore, “this factor, together with glomerular filtration rate, allows us to detect, classify, and monitor the progression of chronic kidney disease.”

On this point, Dr. Alcázar emphasized the importance of trends, since variation in glomerular filtration depends on serum creatinine, which can vary by nearly 9%. He explained that glomerular filtration rate is related to the number of nephrons remaining. A glomerular filtration rate of less than 60 mL/min implies that more than half of the nephrons in each kidney have been lost. Albuminuria informs about structural damage (that is, the condition of the remaining nephrons). It’s therefore essential to test for both parameters. “We need to be actively monitoring and then making our decisions based on trends and not on isolated results. We need to be aware of albuminuria when we make our decisions,” said Dr. Alcázar. Some studies have shown the importance of testing for albuminuria whenever creatinine level is assessed. “We need to buy into this. If we don’t do this, we’ll only ever have half the information we need.”
 

Reducing late diagnosis

According to the IBERICAN study, 14% of patients seen in primary care in Spain have chronic kidney disease. “This statistic should make us stop and think, own our responsibility, and ask ourselves why this screening isn’t taking place [earlier],” said Dr. Benedito. She added, “We need to head off this trend toward late diagnosis. As the disease progresses, it significantly increases cardiovascular risk and leads to higher mortality, going on dialysis, transplants, et cetera.”

Dr. Alcázar noted that 80% of nephrology cases that are referred to him come from primary care. He explained the need to understand that “these patients have a sevenfold greater risk of suffering a serious cardiovascular event within the next year than people without kidney problems.” Most of these patients will experience an event, even if they don’t undergo dialysis (stage 3 and those near stage 4).
 

Correct staging

Also fundamental is having a detailed understanding of how staging is performed. Dr. Benedito explained that a chart that pairs glomerular filtration rate (six categories) with the level of albuminuria (three categories) should be used during the visit. For example, a case might be classified as G3a-A2. However, the simplified form of the chart may prove more practical. It classifies chronic kidney disease as being associated with mild, moderate, and severe risk, using different colors to aid comprehension.

Dr. Alcázar noted that the latest guidelines from the European Society of Hypertension for 2023 include albuminuria as an important parameter. The guidelines indicate that for a patient with moderate or severe risk, it is not necessary to calculate their score. “It’s considered high cardiovascular risk, and steps would need to be taken for intervention.”

He then listed the tools available for reversing albuminuria. The process begins by reducing salt consumption and involves the use of medications (angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin II receptor antagonists, aldosterone receptor antagonists, glucagon-like peptide-1 analogues, and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors, which slow kidney damage regardless of other measures) and strict management of cardiovascular risk factors (smoking, weight management, blood glucose, hypertension, and moderate physical activity).
 

Reducing cardiovascular risk

Dr. Alcázar highlighted important factors to keep in mind when managing each of the cardiovascular risk factors. For hypertension, the aim is to achieve levels less than 130/80 mm Hg, although recommendations vary, depending on the guidelines consulted. “KDIGO (Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes) 2021 states that there is no evidence for monitoring diastolic blood pressure, only systolic blood pressure. If we measure it according to the standardized form, SBP should be less than 120 mm Hg, and if not, we would fall back on readings of 130/80 mm Hg.”

For lipid control (specifically, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol), the staging chart indicates that for patients at mild risk, levels should be less than 100 mg/dL; for those at moderate risk, less than 70 mg/dL; and for those at severe risk, less than 55 mg/dL. Hypertriglyceridemia “should only be treated with fibrates if it comes in over 1,000 mg/dL. Also, care must be taken, because these drugs interfere with creatinine excretion, increasing it,” said Dr. Alcázar.

Guidelines from the KDIGO and the American Diabetes Association state that anyone with diabetes and chronic kidney disease should receive a sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor if their glomerular filtration rate exceeds 20 mL/min, “which may contradict slightly what it says on the label. Also, if they have hypertension, they should take an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor,” said Dr. Alcázar. He added that “oral antidiabetics, including metformin, must be adjusted based on renal function if glomerular filtration rate is under 30 mL/min.”
 

Act immediately

When asked whether the course of chronic kidney disease can be changed, Dr. Alcázar responded with an emphatic yes and added that cardiovascular risk can also be substantially reduced. “As nephrologists, we don’t have access to patients in early stages. But family doctors do. Hence the importance of early screening, because going on dialysis at age 60 isn’t the same as at 80.” Currently, “scientific societies are encouraging authorities to screen for chronic kidney disease at earlier ages.”

Regarding drug-based therapy, Dr. Alcázar said that “empagliflozin is not currently indicated for chronic kidney disease in adults.” This sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor delays kidney disease and reduces morbidity. Both benefits were highlighted in two recent studies (DAPA-CKD and CREDENCE). Published in January, EMPA-KIDNEY presents a new twist on nephroprotection for patients with chronic kidney disease (diabetic or not) whose glomerular filtration rates are between 20 and 40 mL/min without albuminuria or whose glomerular filtration rates are between 45 and 90 mL/min with albuminuria. For more than 6,000 patients, empagliflozin was observed “to clearly reduce kidney disease progression, cardiovascular mortality and all-cause mortality, and the need to go on dialysis,” stated Dr. Alcázar.
 

What professionals expect

Dr. Benedito also explained the criteria for referral to a specialist: glomerular filtration rate less than 30 mL/min (unless the patient is older than 80 years and does not have progressively worsening renal function), albumin/creatinine ratio greater than 300 mg/g, acute worsening of renal function, progressive worsening of renal function of greater than 5 mL/min/yr, chronic kidney disease, hypertension treated with triple therapy (including a diuretic) at maximum doses, anemia of less than 10 g/dL, and nonurologic hematuria, especially in combination with albuminuria.

Dr. Benedito explained what nephrologists expect from family doctors in the management of chronic kidney disease: “screening for early detection, identifying and treating risk factors for chronic kidney disease, detecting progression and complications, adjusting drugs based on glomerular filtration rate, and ensuring that our patients are benefiting from sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors. These are among the most important steps to be taken.”

Dr. Alcázar mentioned what family doctors expect from nephrologists: “two-way communication, accessibility, coordination of actions to be taken, and using shared and mutually agreed-upon protocols.”

This article was translated from the Medscape Spanish Edition and a version appeared on Medscape.com.

Recent news highlights advancements in the understanding of Alzheimer’s disease: Increased information on biomarkers to be used for evaluation and diagnosis and recent studies on lifestyle factors or medications that do and do not correlate with Alzheimer’s disease.

It is helpful for family medicine physicians and other primary care physicians to be aware of this information to better help our patients and their families. When we have patients with strong family history of cognitive decline, they often will ask us for an early assessment or help with next steps and requests for treatment. Patients and their families want to understand what testing will be done by the neurologist they will likely be seeing.

An article published in Alzheimer’s and Dementia put forward a consensus statement by 11 European scientific societies on diagnosis and management of the disease. These societies defined work flows for processes to utilize biomarkers to diagnose Alzheimer’s disease. Although these work flows may help with diagnosis, they are not able to definitively rule out other causes of dementia. However, they may lead to consistency in how treatments are determined.¹ More consistency will be helpful in counseling patients and their families on the next steps in the treatment plan.

Another study evaluated the correlation between lean mass and dementia. This study demonstrated a decreased risk of dementia in patients with higher lean mass. It is unclear from this study whether the higher lean mass is protective or if decreased cognitive function decreases the amount of lean mass. However, this study does provide hope in two possible ways: it provides potentially predictive information on who may be more at risk of declining cognitive function as well as a modifiable risk factor to address.² Family physicians may use this as part of their counseling for patients who are concerned about their potential risk of dementia. It is yet another reason why we may counsel on healthy diet and weight-bearing exercise to help maintain lean mass.

Other associations related to dementia have been disproven. An article in Gastroenterology discussed the association between cognitive decline and use of proton pump inhibitors and H₂ blockers – indicating that there is no association.³ Although there are reasons why we want to limit the use of these medications – particularly when they are not needed, it is a relief that they are not causing cognitive decline in patients.

Most of these studies provide information that is helpful for both family medicine physicians and patients. We are learning more about cognitive decline and Alzheimer’s disease. This gives hope to patients with strong family history that we may be able to reduce their risks. These studies also give us possible risk factors on which we can counsel our patients.

Developments in Alzheimer’s disease research are speeding ahead and give family physicians a bit more information to discuss with patients and their families as they face the challenging symptoms of cognitive decline. Future research, it is hoped, will help with treatment plans and modifiable risk factors to improve the outcomes for patients at high risk of cognitive decline.

Dr. Wheat is associate professor of family and community medicine at Northwestern University in Chicago. She has no conflicts of interest.

References

1. Massa F et al. Alzheimer’s and Dementia. 2023;19(S2):e062216.

2. Daghlas I et al. BMJ Medicine. 2023;2(1):e000354.

3. Mehta R et al. Gastroenterology. 2023 Jun 12. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2023.05.052.

Recent news highlights advancements in the understanding of Alzheimer’s disease: Increased information on biomarkers to be used for evaluation and diagnosis and recent studies on lifestyle factors or medications that do and do not correlate with Alzheimer’s disease.

It is helpful for family medicine physicians and other primary care physicians to be aware of this information to better help our patients and their families. When we have patients with strong family history of cognitive decline, they often will ask us for an early assessment or help with next steps and requests for treatment. Patients and their families want to understand what testing will be done by the neurologist they will likely be seeing.

An article published in Alzheimer’s and Dementia put forward a consensus statement by 11 European scientific societies on diagnosis and management of the disease. These societies defined work flows for processes to utilize biomarkers to diagnose Alzheimer’s disease. Although these work flows may help with diagnosis, they are not able to definitively rule out other causes of dementia. However, they may lead to consistency in how treatments are determined.¹ More consistency will be helpful in counseling patients and their families on the next steps in the treatment plan.

Another study evaluated the correlation between lean mass and dementia. This study demonstrated a decreased risk of dementia in patients with higher lean mass. It is unclear from this study whether the higher lean mass is protective or if decreased cognitive function decreases the amount of lean mass. However, this study does provide hope in two possible ways: it provides potentially predictive information on who may be more at risk of declining cognitive function as well as a modifiable risk factor to address.² Family physicians may use this as part of their counseling for patients who are concerned about their potential risk of dementia. It is yet another reason why we may counsel on healthy diet and weight-bearing exercise to help maintain lean mass.

Other associations related to dementia have been disproven. An article in Gastroenterology discussed the association between cognitive decline and use of proton pump inhibitors and H₂ blockers – indicating that there is no association.³ Although there are reasons why we want to limit the use of these medications – particularly when they are not needed, it is a relief that they are not causing cognitive decline in patients.

Most of these studies provide information that is helpful for both family medicine physicians and patients. We are learning more about cognitive decline and Alzheimer’s disease. This gives hope to patients with strong family history that we may be able to reduce their risks. These studies also give us possible risk factors on which we can counsel our patients.

Developments in Alzheimer’s disease research are speeding ahead and give family physicians a bit more information to discuss with patients and their families as they face the challenging symptoms of cognitive decline. Future research, it is hoped, will help with treatment plans and modifiable risk factors to improve the outcomes for patients at high risk of cognitive decline.

Dr. Wheat is associate professor of family and community medicine at Northwestern University in Chicago. She has no conflicts of interest.

References

1. Massa F et al. Alzheimer’s and Dementia. 2023;19(S2):e062216.

2. Daghlas I et al. BMJ Medicine. 2023;2(1):e000354.

3. Mehta R et al. Gastroenterology. 2023 Jun 12. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2023.05.052.

Recent news highlights advancements in the understanding of Alzheimer’s disease: Increased information on biomarkers to be used for evaluation and diagnosis and recent studies on lifestyle factors or medications that do and do not correlate with Alzheimer’s disease.

It is helpful for family medicine physicians and other primary care physicians to be aware of this information to better help our patients and their families. When we have patients with strong family history of cognitive decline, they often will ask us for an early assessment or help with next steps and requests for treatment. Patients and their families want to understand what testing will be done by the neurologist they will likely be seeing.

An article published in Alzheimer’s and Dementia put forward a consensus statement by 11 European scientific societies on diagnosis and management of the disease. These societies defined work flows for processes to utilize biomarkers to diagnose Alzheimer’s disease. Although these work flows may help with diagnosis, they are not able to definitively rule out other causes of dementia. However, they may lead to consistency in how treatments are determined.¹ More consistency will be helpful in counseling patients and their families on the next steps in the treatment plan.

Another study evaluated the correlation between lean mass and dementia. This study demonstrated a decreased risk of dementia in patients with higher lean mass. It is unclear from this study whether the higher lean mass is protective or if decreased cognitive function decreases the amount of lean mass. However, this study does provide hope in two possible ways: it provides potentially predictive information on who may be more at risk of declining cognitive function as well as a modifiable risk factor to address.² Family physicians may use this as part of their counseling for patients who are concerned about their potential risk of dementia. It is yet another reason why we may counsel on healthy diet and weight-bearing exercise to help maintain lean mass.

Other associations related to dementia have been disproven. An article in Gastroenterology discussed the association between cognitive decline and use of proton pump inhibitors and H₂ blockers – indicating that there is no association.³ Although there are reasons why we want to limit the use of these medications – particularly when they are not needed, it is a relief that they are not causing cognitive decline in patients.

Most of these studies provide information that is helpful for both family medicine physicians and patients. We are learning more about cognitive decline and Alzheimer’s disease. This gives hope to patients with strong family history that we may be able to reduce their risks. These studies also give us possible risk factors on which we can counsel our patients.

Developments in Alzheimer’s disease research are speeding ahead and give family physicians a bit more information to discuss with patients and their families as they face the challenging symptoms of cognitive decline. Future research, it is hoped, will help with treatment plans and modifiable risk factors to improve the outcomes for patients at high risk of cognitive decline.

Dr. Wheat is associate professor of family and community medicine at Northwestern University in Chicago. She has no conflicts of interest.

References

1. Massa F et al. Alzheimer’s and Dementia. 2023;19(S2):e062216.

2. Daghlas I et al. BMJ Medicine. 2023;2(1):e000354.

3. Mehta R et al. Gastroenterology. 2023 Jun 12. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2023.05.052.

According to the World Health Organization (WHO), approximately 5% of adults (or 280 million people) suffer from depression globally. Although depression is more common in women, it can affect anyone. It is seen in all socioeconomic classes, ages, and races. In response, the WHO developed the Mental Health Gap Action Programme to bring mental health care services to those in need.

Depression can lead to severe consequences, such as loss of employment, relationships difficulties, and suicide. In fact, suicide is the 10th leading cause of death in the United States.

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), in past years, concluded that there was insufficient evidence to screen adolescents and adults for depression, However, new guidelines were issued this year in which the task force concluded there was a moderate benefit to screening adults for depression but insufficient evidence to screen for suicide risk. The agency now recommends screening for depression in all adults, even in the absence of risk factors, by using brief screening instruments such as the PHQ (Patient Health Questionnaire).

As family doctors, we have witnessed the burden of depression in our practices. The previous recommendations neglected the fact that mental health disorders were often purposely hidden because of stigma. Many patients do not readily come for treatment for mental illness and sometimes do not even accept these diagnoses. It is good that screening is now recommended, but we need to do more to tear down the stigma attached to mental illness.

These new guidelines do not address the effect that the lack of available mental health services has on treatment. It can take months to get an appointment for a patient with a mental health disorder, even if that person is potentially suicidal. Primary care physicians are often left treating these disorders; sometimes we are treating mental illness whether we feel comfortable doing so or not. Patients may not receive the best care but it is better than no care at all.

Although treating anxiety and depression is common for primary care doctors, specialists should be contacted when cases get more complicated. Even a call to crisis intervention can lead to an emergency department visit with discharge back to the family doctor because there is nowhere else to send the patient. The burden falls on us when we are already burdened by many other things, such as the rising rates of obesity with the resultant consequences of diabetes and heart disease. We simply do not have the time or expertise to treat complicated mental illness.

Creating guidelines to diagnose more undetected cases of depression without increasing the infrastructure to handle it is only going to lead to more pressure on family doctors. Many of us are already burnt out and at our limits. Yes, we want to diagnose every case of depression we can and to treat these patients for these disorders, but we need help.

Another problem with the guidelines is the recommendation to screen for depression and not suicide risk. As family doctors, we ask all patients who are depressed if they have thoughts of hurting themselves or others. Also, some people who commit suicide are not clinically depressed. These questions are simple to ask on an intake form.

Screening for depression is a pretty simple process. A patient can complete a screening tool or the clinician can directly ask the questions. It is a quick, noninvasive process. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders criteria for diagnosing depression are pretty rigid and straightforward so misdiagnoses are not likely to be common.

The new guidelines do not make recommendations for treatment. In the real world, we often see patients unable to get the medications we prescribe because their insurance won’t cover it. Having guidelines supporting medication use would be very helpful.

In the area where I practice, it is difficult to refer a patient for counseling despite there being a plethora of counselors, therapists, and psychologists. These mental health providers often take only cash-paying patients, which eliminates access for many patients.

If we truly want to address the ever-increasing rates of depression in our country, we need to do much more than create new screening guidelines (screening that many family doctors were already doing). We must remove stigma, especially in the health care setting, fund mental health services, make them more readily available, and provide care that is affordable and covered by insurance. Until then, we are just going to add to the load of family doctors until we either break or leave our profession. Patients deserve better.
 

Dr. Girgis practices family medicine in South River, N.J., and is a clinical assistant professor of family medicine at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, N.J. She was paid by Pfizer as a consultant on Paxlovid and is the editor in chief of Physician’s Weekly.

According to the World Health Organization (WHO), approximately 5% of adults (or 280 million people) suffer from depression globally. Although depression is more common in women, it can affect anyone. It is seen in all socioeconomic classes, ages, and races. In response, the WHO developed the Mental Health Gap Action Programme to bring mental health care services to those in need.

Depression can lead to severe consequences, such as loss of employment, relationships difficulties, and suicide. In fact, suicide is the 10th leading cause of death in the United States.

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), in past years, concluded that there was insufficient evidence to screen adolescents and adults for depression, However, new guidelines were issued this year in which the task force concluded there was a moderate benefit to screening adults for depression but insufficient evidence to screen for suicide risk. The agency now recommends screening for depression in all adults, even in the absence of risk factors, by using brief screening instruments such as the PHQ (Patient Health Questionnaire).

As family doctors, we have witnessed the burden of depression in our practices. The previous recommendations neglected the fact that mental health disorders were often purposely hidden because of stigma. Many patients do not readily come for treatment for mental illness and sometimes do not even accept these diagnoses. It is good that screening is now recommended, but we need to do more to tear down the stigma attached to mental illness.

These new guidelines do not address the effect that the lack of available mental health services has on treatment. It can take months to get an appointment for a patient with a mental health disorder, even if that person is potentially suicidal. Primary care physicians are often left treating these disorders; sometimes we are treating mental illness whether we feel comfortable doing so or not. Patients may not receive the best care but it is better than no care at all.

Although treating anxiety and depression is common for primary care doctors, specialists should be contacted when cases get more complicated. Even a call to crisis intervention can lead to an emergency department visit with discharge back to the family doctor because there is nowhere else to send the patient. The burden falls on us when we are already burdened by many other things, such as the rising rates of obesity with the resultant consequences of diabetes and heart disease. We simply do not have the time or expertise to treat complicated mental illness.

Creating guidelines to diagnose more undetected cases of depression without increasing the infrastructure to handle it is only going to lead to more pressure on family doctors. Many of us are already burnt out and at our limits. Yes, we want to diagnose every case of depression we can and to treat these patients for these disorders, but we need help.

Another problem with the guidelines is the recommendation to screen for depression and not suicide risk. As family doctors, we ask all patients who are depressed if they have thoughts of hurting themselves or others. Also, some people who commit suicide are not clinically depressed. These questions are simple to ask on an intake form.

Screening for depression is a pretty simple process. A patient can complete a screening tool or the clinician can directly ask the questions. It is a quick, noninvasive process. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders criteria for diagnosing depression are pretty rigid and straightforward so misdiagnoses are not likely to be common.

The new guidelines do not make recommendations for treatment. In the real world, we often see patients unable to get the medications we prescribe because their insurance won’t cover it. Having guidelines supporting medication use would be very helpful.

In the area where I practice, it is difficult to refer a patient for counseling despite there being a plethora of counselors, therapists, and psychologists. These mental health providers often take only cash-paying patients, which eliminates access for many patients.

If we truly want to address the ever-increasing rates of depression in our country, we need to do much more than create new screening guidelines (screening that many family doctors were already doing). We must remove stigma, especially in the health care setting, fund mental health services, make them more readily available, and provide care that is affordable and covered by insurance. Until then, we are just going to add to the load of family doctors until we either break or leave our profession. Patients deserve better.
 

Dr. Girgis practices family medicine in South River, N.J., and is a clinical assistant professor of family medicine at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, N.J. She was paid by Pfizer as a consultant on Paxlovid and is the editor in chief of Physician’s Weekly.

According to the World Health Organization (WHO), approximately 5% of adults (or 280 million people) suffer from depression globally. Although depression is more common in women, it can affect anyone. It is seen in all socioeconomic classes, ages, and races. In response, the WHO developed the Mental Health Gap Action Programme to bring mental health care services to those in need.

Depression can lead to severe consequences, such as loss of employment, relationships difficulties, and suicide. In fact, suicide is the 10th leading cause of death in the United States.

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), in past years, concluded that there was insufficient evidence to screen adolescents and adults for depression, However, new guidelines were issued this year in which the task force concluded there was a moderate benefit to screening adults for depression but insufficient evidence to screen for suicide risk. The agency now recommends screening for depression in all adults, even in the absence of risk factors, by using brief screening instruments such as the PHQ (Patient Health Questionnaire).

As family doctors, we have witnessed the burden of depression in our practices. The previous recommendations neglected the fact that mental health disorders were often purposely hidden because of stigma. Many patients do not readily come for treatment for mental illness and sometimes do not even accept these diagnoses. It is good that screening is now recommended, but we need to do more to tear down the stigma attached to mental illness.

These new guidelines do not address the effect that the lack of available mental health services has on treatment. It can take months to get an appointment for a patient with a mental health disorder, even if that person is potentially suicidal. Primary care physicians are often left treating these disorders; sometimes we are treating mental illness whether we feel comfortable doing so or not. Patients may not receive the best care but it is better than no care at all.

Although treating anxiety and depression is common for primary care doctors, specialists should be contacted when cases get more complicated. Even a call to crisis intervention can lead to an emergency department visit with discharge back to the family doctor because there is nowhere else to send the patient. The burden falls on us when we are already burdened by many other things, such as the rising rates of obesity with the resultant consequences of diabetes and heart disease. We simply do not have the time or expertise to treat complicated mental illness.

Creating guidelines to diagnose more undetected cases of depression without increasing the infrastructure to handle it is only going to lead to more pressure on family doctors. Many of us are already burnt out and at our limits. Yes, we want to diagnose every case of depression we can and to treat these patients for these disorders, but we need help.

Another problem with the guidelines is the recommendation to screen for depression and not suicide risk. As family doctors, we ask all patients who are depressed if they have thoughts of hurting themselves or others. Also, some people who commit suicide are not clinically depressed. These questions are simple to ask on an intake form.

Screening for depression is a pretty simple process. A patient can complete a screening tool or the clinician can directly ask the questions. It is a quick, noninvasive process. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders criteria for diagnosing depression are pretty rigid and straightforward so misdiagnoses are not likely to be common.

The new guidelines do not make recommendations for treatment. In the real world, we often see patients unable to get the medications we prescribe because their insurance won’t cover it. Having guidelines supporting medication use would be very helpful.

In the area where I practice, it is difficult to refer a patient for counseling despite there being a plethora of counselors, therapists, and psychologists. These mental health providers often take only cash-paying patients, which eliminates access for many patients.

If we truly want to address the ever-increasing rates of depression in our country, we need to do much more than create new screening guidelines (screening that many family doctors were already doing). We must remove stigma, especially in the health care setting, fund mental health services, make them more readily available, and provide care that is affordable and covered by insurance. Until then, we are just going to add to the load of family doctors until we either break or leave our profession. Patients deserve better.
 

Dr. Girgis practices family medicine in South River, N.J., and is a clinical assistant professor of family medicine at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, N.J. She was paid by Pfizer as a consultant on Paxlovid and is the editor in chief of Physician’s Weekly.

A new generation of medications designed to help individuals lose weight is in the news and stirring considerable debate within medical, insurer, and employer circles. Indeed, these drugs show striking results, compared with weight loss drugs of the past, with some research reporting a 15%-20% loss in body weight when used as an adjunct to intensive behavior therapy and intensive lifestyle intervention.
 

Obesity and associated chronic diseases are at an epidemic level in the United States and carry enormous personal, family, and societal burdens. As an exercise physiologist and a dual board-certified cardiologist and lifestyle medicine specialist, I am grateful for modern medicine and have leveraged the efficacy of many medications in patient care. I also recognize that it is in my patients’ and my own best interests to strive for health restoration rather than default to a lifetime of disease management. This is especially urgent when it comes to children.

That’s why as physicians we must not allow these new medications to overshadow an evidence-based comprehensive lifestyle approach – the first recommended treatment in most chronic disease care guidelines – as the optimal step toward achieving long-term health improvement.

As a matter of fact, too often lost in news stories about the success of obesity drugs like tirzepatide and semaglutide is that research study participants also received intensive lifestyle interventions. Regardless of whether clinicians ultimately prescribe weight loss medications, it is important that they first engage in patient-centered discussions that provide information about all the available treatment options and explore with patients an adequate dose of lifestyle intervention before pronouncing this approach a failure.

Merely advising a patient to eat better or exercise more is rarely sufficient information, much less sufficient dosing information, for significant weight loss. As a recent American College of Lifestyle Medicine position statement on the treatment of obesity put it: “While adequately dosed lifestyle interventions may unilaterally achieve success, obesity is a complex, multifactorial disease wherein patients may require approaches beyond lifestyle alone. However, lifestyle interventions are too often not adequately ‘dosed’ for success.”

Appetite suppression may reduce food intake, but optimal health requires eating nutrient-dense foods high in fiber and healthy fats, and preserving muscle mass through physical activity. Simply reducing the portion size of the same unhealthy, ultraprocessed foods that the patient ate before starting medication does not achieve optimal health, no matter what the scale says. ACLM’s position statement emphasizes that “a comprehensive lifestyle medicine approach prevents and treats many other comorbidities associated with overweight and obesity, including, but not limited to, hypertension, high cholesterol, heart disease, type 2 diabetes, and arthritis, and a lifestyle medicine approach can also reduce the risk of many types of cancer.”

This is even more critical in children, who may not fully understand how to eat healthfully. Furthermore, the long-term effects of weight loss medication on their still-developing bodies are unclear. Decades ago, we didn’t face an epidemic of childhood obesity; type 2 diabetes was called “adult-onset” because it was a lifestyle-related chronic disease that didn’t manifest until adulthood. We would never have considered weight-loss medications for children or gastric bypass for teens. Yet, this lifestyle-related chronic disease is now afflicting our youth.

We have allowed an abnormal food environment to fester, with nearly 60% of the American diet now consisting of ultraprocessed foods. Obesity within families may be related to shared genetics but may also be due to shared food, lifestyle, and environmental factors passed down through generations. A successful obesity treatment plan should address as many of those drivers of obesity as possible, as well as access to healthy food, transportation, and other social determinants of health.

Cost is a major consideration in clinical decision-making for weight loss treatment. The new obesity drugs are expensive, and patients probably must continue to take them throughout their lives to avoid regaining lost weight. With 70% of Americans and 90% of seniors already taking prescription drugs, the United States already spends more on pharmaceuticals than the rest of the world combined. Not all insurance plans cover these medications for the treatment of obesity, and as patients covered through one insurance plan may lose coverage on their next plan, they could be forced to stop the medications and pay out of pocket or experience fluctuations in their weight. Health care providers should consider the physical and emotional burden of weight cycling and strategically advance lifestyle measures to mitigate weight fluctuations in such patients.

Shared decisions between patients and their families and health care providers will become even more important in the rollout of new medications and obesity management guidelines. I’m hopeful that the elevated attention to obesity solutions will shepherd in thoughtful collaborations among board-certified obesity specialists, lifestyle medicine specialists, and primary care providers. ACLM, in support of the White House Conference on Hunger, Nutrition and Health, has offered 5.5 hours of complimentary CE/CME coursework in nutrition and food as medicine to 100,000 health professionals. This free opportunity (valued at $220) is an excellent step toward establishing a foundation of lifestyle medicine knowledge for health professionals treating patients for obesity. Clinicians can register here.

Let’s all get this right: Lifestyle behavior is the foundation of patients’ health and wellness at every stage of life, with or without adjunctive medication therapy. New tools like weight loss medications will arise but cannot truly achieve optimal health without lifestyle medicine as a continuum throughout a patient’s life.

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

A new generation of medications designed to help individuals lose weight is in the news and stirring considerable debate within medical, insurer, and employer circles. Indeed, these drugs show striking results, compared with weight loss drugs of the past, with some research reporting a 15%-20% loss in body weight when used as an adjunct to intensive behavior therapy and intensive lifestyle intervention.
 

Obesity and associated chronic diseases are at an epidemic level in the United States and carry enormous personal, family, and societal burdens. As an exercise physiologist and a dual board-certified cardiologist and lifestyle medicine specialist, I am grateful for modern medicine and have leveraged the efficacy of many medications in patient care. I also recognize that it is in my patients’ and my own best interests to strive for health restoration rather than default to a lifetime of disease management. This is especially urgent when it comes to children.

That’s why as physicians we must not allow these new medications to overshadow an evidence-based comprehensive lifestyle approach – the first recommended treatment in most chronic disease care guidelines – as the optimal step toward achieving long-term health improvement.

As a matter of fact, too often lost in news stories about the success of obesity drugs like tirzepatide and semaglutide is that research study participants also received intensive lifestyle interventions. Regardless of whether clinicians ultimately prescribe weight loss medications, it is important that they first engage in patient-centered discussions that provide information about all the available treatment options and explore with patients an adequate dose of lifestyle intervention before pronouncing this approach a failure.

Merely advising a patient to eat better or exercise more is rarely sufficient information, much less sufficient dosing information, for significant weight loss. As a recent American College of Lifestyle Medicine position statement on the treatment of obesity put it: “While adequately dosed lifestyle interventions may unilaterally achieve success, obesity is a complex, multifactorial disease wherein patients may require approaches beyond lifestyle alone. However, lifestyle interventions are too often not adequately ‘dosed’ for success.”

Appetite suppression may reduce food intake, but optimal health requires eating nutrient-dense foods high in fiber and healthy fats, and preserving muscle mass through physical activity. Simply reducing the portion size of the same unhealthy, ultraprocessed foods that the patient ate before starting medication does not achieve optimal health, no matter what the scale says. ACLM’s position statement emphasizes that “a comprehensive lifestyle medicine approach prevents and treats many other comorbidities associated with overweight and obesity, including, but not limited to, hypertension, high cholesterol, heart disease, type 2 diabetes, and arthritis, and a lifestyle medicine approach can also reduce the risk of many types of cancer.”

This is even more critical in children, who may not fully understand how to eat healthfully. Furthermore, the long-term effects of weight loss medication on their still-developing bodies are unclear. Decades ago, we didn’t face an epidemic of childhood obesity; type 2 diabetes was called “adult-onset” because it was a lifestyle-related chronic disease that didn’t manifest until adulthood. We would never have considered weight-loss medications for children or gastric bypass for teens. Yet, this lifestyle-related chronic disease is now afflicting our youth.

We have allowed an abnormal food environment to fester, with nearly 60% of the American diet now consisting of ultraprocessed foods. Obesity within families may be related to shared genetics but may also be due to shared food, lifestyle, and environmental factors passed down through generations. A successful obesity treatment plan should address as many of those drivers of obesity as possible, as well as access to healthy food, transportation, and other social determinants of health.

Cost is a major consideration in clinical decision-making for weight loss treatment. The new obesity drugs are expensive, and patients probably must continue to take them throughout their lives to avoid regaining lost weight. With 70% of Americans and 90% of seniors already taking prescription drugs, the United States already spends more on pharmaceuticals than the rest of the world combined. Not all insurance plans cover these medications for the treatment of obesity, and as patients covered through one insurance plan may lose coverage on their next plan, they could be forced to stop the medications and pay out of pocket or experience fluctuations in their weight. Health care providers should consider the physical and emotional burden of weight cycling and strategically advance lifestyle measures to mitigate weight fluctuations in such patients.

Shared decisions between patients and their families and health care providers will become even more important in the rollout of new medications and obesity management guidelines. I’m hopeful that the elevated attention to obesity solutions will shepherd in thoughtful collaborations among board-certified obesity specialists, lifestyle medicine specialists, and primary care providers. ACLM, in support of the White House Conference on Hunger, Nutrition and Health, has offered 5.5 hours of complimentary CE/CME coursework in nutrition and food as medicine to 100,000 health professionals. This free opportunity (valued at $220) is an excellent step toward establishing a foundation of lifestyle medicine knowledge for health professionals treating patients for obesity. Clinicians can register here.

Let’s all get this right: Lifestyle behavior is the foundation of patients’ health and wellness at every stage of life, with or without adjunctive medication therapy. New tools like weight loss medications will arise but cannot truly achieve optimal health without lifestyle medicine as a continuum throughout a patient’s life.

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

A new generation of medications designed to help individuals lose weight is in the news and stirring considerable debate within medical, insurer, and employer circles. Indeed, these drugs show striking results, compared with weight loss drugs of the past, with some research reporting a 15%-20% loss in body weight when used as an adjunct to intensive behavior therapy and intensive lifestyle intervention.
 

Obesity and associated chronic diseases are at an epidemic level in the United States and carry enormous personal, family, and societal burdens. As an exercise physiologist and a dual board-certified cardiologist and lifestyle medicine specialist, I am grateful for modern medicine and have leveraged the efficacy of many medications in patient care. I also recognize that it is in my patients’ and my own best interests to strive for health restoration rather than default to a lifetime of disease management. This is especially urgent when it comes to children.

That’s why as physicians we must not allow these new medications to overshadow an evidence-based comprehensive lifestyle approach – the first recommended treatment in most chronic disease care guidelines – as the optimal step toward achieving long-term health improvement.

As a matter of fact, too often lost in news stories about the success of obesity drugs like tirzepatide and semaglutide is that research study participants also received intensive lifestyle interventions. Regardless of whether clinicians ultimately prescribe weight loss medications, it is important that they first engage in patient-centered discussions that provide information about all the available treatment options and explore with patients an adequate dose of lifestyle intervention before pronouncing this approach a failure.

Merely advising a patient to eat better or exercise more is rarely sufficient information, much less sufficient dosing information, for significant weight loss. As a recent American College of Lifestyle Medicine position statement on the treatment of obesity put it: “While adequately dosed lifestyle interventions may unilaterally achieve success, obesity is a complex, multifactorial disease wherein patients may require approaches beyond lifestyle alone. However, lifestyle interventions are too often not adequately ‘dosed’ for success.”

Appetite suppression may reduce food intake, but optimal health requires eating nutrient-dense foods high in fiber and healthy fats, and preserving muscle mass through physical activity. Simply reducing the portion size of the same unhealthy, ultraprocessed foods that the patient ate before starting medication does not achieve optimal health, no matter what the scale says. ACLM’s position statement emphasizes that “a comprehensive lifestyle medicine approach prevents and treats many other comorbidities associated with overweight and obesity, including, but not limited to, hypertension, high cholesterol, heart disease, type 2 diabetes, and arthritis, and a lifestyle medicine approach can also reduce the risk of many types of cancer.”

This is even more critical in children, who may not fully understand how to eat healthfully. Furthermore, the long-term effects of weight loss medication on their still-developing bodies are unclear. Decades ago, we didn’t face an epidemic of childhood obesity; type 2 diabetes was called “adult-onset” because it was a lifestyle-related chronic disease that didn’t manifest until adulthood. We would never have considered weight-loss medications for children or gastric bypass for teens. Yet, this lifestyle-related chronic disease is now afflicting our youth.

We have allowed an abnormal food environment to fester, with nearly 60% of the American diet now consisting of ultraprocessed foods. Obesity within families may be related to shared genetics but may also be due to shared food, lifestyle, and environmental factors passed down through generations. A successful obesity treatment plan should address as many of those drivers of obesity as possible, as well as access to healthy food, transportation, and other social determinants of health.

Cost is a major consideration in clinical decision-making for weight loss treatment. The new obesity drugs are expensive, and patients probably must continue to take them throughout their lives to avoid regaining lost weight. With 70% of Americans and 90% of seniors already taking prescription drugs, the United States already spends more on pharmaceuticals than the rest of the world combined. Not all insurance plans cover these medications for the treatment of obesity, and as patients covered through one insurance plan may lose coverage on their next plan, they could be forced to stop the medications and pay out of pocket or experience fluctuations in their weight. Health care providers should consider the physical and emotional burden of weight cycling and strategically advance lifestyle measures to mitigate weight fluctuations in such patients.

Shared decisions between patients and their families and health care providers will become even more important in the rollout of new medications and obesity management guidelines. I’m hopeful that the elevated attention to obesity solutions will shepherd in thoughtful collaborations among board-certified obesity specialists, lifestyle medicine specialists, and primary care providers. ACLM, in support of the White House Conference on Hunger, Nutrition and Health, has offered 5.5 hours of complimentary CE/CME coursework in nutrition and food as medicine to 100,000 health professionals. This free opportunity (valued at $220) is an excellent step toward establishing a foundation of lifestyle medicine knowledge for health professionals treating patients for obesity. Clinicians can register here.

Let’s all get this right: Lifestyle behavior is the foundation of patients’ health and wellness at every stage of life, with or without adjunctive medication therapy. New tools like weight loss medications will arise but cannot truly achieve optimal health without lifestyle medicine as a continuum throughout a patient’s life.

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

Over the past few years, there has been rampant misinformation regarding gender-affirming care for transgender youth. In particular, there has been confusion regarding how care is administered, and what types of care are considered at various stages of development. This primer will help you understand the developmental approach to supporting transgender youth.

Gender-affirming care is a broad term that can encapsulate many different domains: social, legal, medical, and surgical affirmation. While people generally think of medical and surgical aspects of gender-affirming care, other domains can be just as important. For example, a 2020 publication in The Lancet Public Health found that access to gender-congruent government identification documents was associated with lower odds of severe psychological distress and suicidality.¹ 

Stanford Lucille Packard Children&#039;s Hospital.

Considerations for prepubertal children

The youngest developmental stage at which a young person may seek care regarding gender diversity is the prepubertal childhood stage. Guidelines set forth by The Endocrine Society and The World Professional Association for Transgender Health make it clear that no medical or surgical interventions are considered at this developmental stage.^2,3 However, some young people may choose to pursue a “social transition.” Though this may sound like one thing, social transition can mean very different things for different people. It may include any combination of adopting a new name, pronouns, hairstyle, clothing, etc. Young people may also choose to pursue these various aspects of social transition in all settings, or sometimes only in some settings (for example, only at home if they don’t yet feel comfortable doing so at school). Research so far shows that prepubertal children who are allowed to socially transition have levels of anxiety and depression nearly indistinguishable from their cisgender peers.⁴ While some in the past have raised the question of whether a social transition increases a child’s degree of gender incongruence and thus their likelihood to “persist” in a transgender identity, research has suggested this is not the case, and that gender identity does not meaningfully differ before and after a social transition.⁵ It’s worth noting, that “desistance” of a young person’s transgender identity is generally not considered an ethical goal and that gender identity conversion efforts (that is, attempts to force transgender people to be cisgender) have been labeled unethical by the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry.

Sadly, transgender children are victims of bullying at high rates in their schools and communities. Creating safe and affirming school and community environments can be some of the highest yield ways in which providers can support the mental health of gender-diverse youth at this stage. Gender Spectrum is an excellent nonprofit that provides resources to help families and communities with some of these nonmedical supports.

 

Early adolescence and pubertal suppression

The earliest gender-affirming medical intervention that may be considered is pubertal suppression. Pubertal suppression is achieved with gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists. This class of medications is Food and Drug Administration approved in pediatrics for precocious puberty – a condition in which young people enter puberty much earlier than expected (sometimes as early as age 3). For that condition, the rationale is to delay puberty until the patient reaches a more developmentally normative age for puberty to begin. The rationale for pubertal suppression for adolescent gender dysphoria is somewhat similar – these medications allow for the temporary pausing of puberty, which can be particularly helpful for adolescents who are having severe negative psychological reactions to the ways in which their bodies are developing. The major advantage here is that pubertal suppression can be reversed (if the medication is stopped, endogenous puberty will proceed), whereas puberty itself cannot be easily reversed (resulting in adult transgender people needing surgery and other interventions later in life, if these changes can be fully undone at all). As with all medications, puberty blockers do carry known side effects, including falling behind on bone density (sex hormones are needed to mineralize bones). Because of this, it is generally recommended that adolescents have their bone density monitored during treatment, pursue avenues to improve bone health (for example, exercise), and either stop the puberty blocker to undergo endogenous puberty or start gender-affirming hormones (estrogen or testosterone) by around age 16. 

It is also important to note that, under current guidelines, an adolescent must first undergo a comprehensive biopsychosocial mental health evaluation prior to starting pubertal suppression to ensure the clinical team has a comprehensive understanding of the adolescent’s mental health, that all potential gender supports that are needed are put into place, and that the adolescent and their guardians have a strong understanding of the medical intervention, its risks, side effects, and potential benefits. In addition, consent must be provided by parents or legal guardians, whereas adolescents themselves provide assent. Several studies have linked access to pubertal suppression, when indicated for gender dysphoria, to improved mental health outcomes (for example, van der Miesen and colleagues, Turban and colleagues, de Vries and colleagues, and Costa and colleagues).^6-9

 

Later adolescence and gender-affirming hormones

Later in adolescence, transgender youth may be candidates for gender-affirming hormone treatment (for example, estrogen or testosterone) to induce pubertal changes that align with their gender identities. Once again, under current guidelines, a comprehensive mental health biopsychosocial evaluation must be conducted prior to initiation of these treatments. Part of this evaluation includes fertility counseling and consideration of fertility preservation (for example, oocyte or semen cryopreservation), given the potential for these medications to impact fertility. It also involves discussion of several of the physiologic changes from these medications that can be irreversible (for example, voice changes from testosterone are particularly difficult to reverse in the future). Tables of the physical changes from these medications, when they begin after starting, and when they generally reach their maximum are available in the Endocrine Society guidelines.² The past endocrine society guidelines recommended not initiating gender-affirming hormones until age 16. The most recent guidelines note that there may be instances in which providers may consider starting them as early as age 13 (for example, to reduce risk of falling behind on bone density, or if a patient is having psychological distress related to their peers going through puberty while they are still in a prepubertal state). The latest World Professional Association for Transgender Health Standards of Care removed specific age cutoffs, highlighting the importance of a multidisciplinary team of mental health and hormone prescribing providers working together to understand the best course of action for a particular patient. As with pubertal suppression, several studies have linked access to gender-affirming hormones to improve mental health for adolescents with gender dysphoria (for example, Turban and colleagues, Chen and colleagues, de Vries and colleagues, Allen and colleagues, and Tordoff and colleagues).^10-14

Gender-affirming surgeries

The vast majority of gender-affirming surgeries are not considered until adulthood. The most notable exception to this is masculinizing top surgery for trans masculine and nonbinary adolescents. As with all surgeries, this is a major decision, and requires agreement from a mental health provider, a medical provider, and the surgeon. Early research suggests such surgeries result in improved chest dysphoria and that regret rates appear to be low.^15,16 While the latest World Professional Association for Transgender Health similarly removed strict age cutoffs for gender-affirming surgery, again noting the importance of individualized care, I suspect most will read this change in the context of the Endocrine Society guidelines and past WPATH guidelines that noted gender-affirming genital surgeries are not offered until adulthood (a rare exception perhaps being someone pursuing a gender-affirming vaginoplasty at say age 17 in the summer prior to college to avoid needing to take off from school for surgical recovery). Gender-affirming genital surgeries are generally much more involved surgeries with prolonged recovery times. 

Given the substantial proportion of young people who openly identify as transgender,¹⁷ and the proliferation of misinformation, political rhetoric, and legislation that can impact gender-affirming care for adolescents with gender dysphoria,¹⁸ it is essential that providers have accurate, up-to-date information on what this care entails and how it is provided.

Dr. Turban is director of the gender psychiatry program at the University of California, San Francisco, where he is an assistant professor of child & adolescent psychiatry and affiliate faculty at the Philip R. Lee Institute for Health Policy Studies. He is on Twitter @jack_turban.
 

References

1. Malta M et al. Lancet Public Health. 2020 Apr;5(4):e178-9.

2. Hembree WC et al. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2017 Nov 1;102(11):3869-903.

3. Coleman E et al. Int J Transgend Health. 2022 Sep 6;23(Suppl 1):S1-259.

4. Durwood L et al. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2017 Feb;56(2):116-23.e2.

5. Rae JR et al. Psychol Sci. 2019 May;30(5):669-81.

6. van der Miesen AIR et al. J Adolesc Health. 2020 Jun;66(6):699-704.

7. Turban JL et al. Pediatrics. 2020 Feb;145(2):e20191725.

8. de Vries ALC et al. J Sex Med. 2011 Aug;8(8):2276-83.

9. Costa R et al. J Sex Med. 2015 Nov;12(11):2206-14.

10. Turban JL et al. PLoS One. 2022 Jan 12;17(1):e0261039.

11. Chen D et al. N Engl J Med. 2023;388:240-50.

12. de Vries ALC et al. Pediatrics. 2014 Oct;134(4):696-70.

13. Allen LR et al. Clin Pract Pediatr Psychol. 2019. doi: 10.1037/cpp0000288.

14. Tordoff DM et al. JAMA Netw Open. 2022 Feb 1;5(2):e220978.

15. Olson-Kennedy J et al. JAMA Pediatr. 2018;172(5):431-6.

16. Tang A et al. Ann Plast Surg. 2022 May;88(4 Suppl):S325-31

17. Johns MM et al. Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2019 Jan 25;68(3):67-71.

18. Turban JL et al. JAMA. 2021;325(22):2251-2.

Over the past few years, there has been rampant misinformation regarding gender-affirming care for transgender youth. In particular, there has been confusion regarding how care is administered, and what types of care are considered at various stages of development. This primer will help you understand the developmental approach to supporting transgender youth.

Gender-affirming care is a broad term that can encapsulate many different domains: social, legal, medical, and surgical affirmation. While people generally think of medical and surgical aspects of gender-affirming care, other domains can be just as important. For example, a 2020 publication in The Lancet Public Health found that access to gender-congruent government identification documents was associated with lower odds of severe psychological distress and suicidality.¹ 

Stanford Lucille Packard Children&#039;s Hospital.

Considerations for prepubertal children

The youngest developmental stage at which a young person may seek care regarding gender diversity is the prepubertal childhood stage. Guidelines set forth by The Endocrine Society and The World Professional Association for Transgender Health make it clear that no medical or surgical interventions are considered at this developmental stage.^2,3 However, some young people may choose to pursue a “social transition.” Though this may sound like one thing, social transition can mean very different things for different people. It may include any combination of adopting a new name, pronouns, hairstyle, clothing, etc. Young people may also choose to pursue these various aspects of social transition in all settings, or sometimes only in some settings (for example, only at home if they don’t yet feel comfortable doing so at school). Research so far shows that prepubertal children who are allowed to socially transition have levels of anxiety and depression nearly indistinguishable from their cisgender peers.⁴ While some in the past have raised the question of whether a social transition increases a child’s degree of gender incongruence and thus their likelihood to “persist” in a transgender identity, research has suggested this is not the case, and that gender identity does not meaningfully differ before and after a social transition.⁵ It’s worth noting, that “desistance” of a young person’s transgender identity is generally not considered an ethical goal and that gender identity conversion efforts (that is, attempts to force transgender people to be cisgender) have been labeled unethical by the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry.

Sadly, transgender children are victims of bullying at high rates in their schools and communities. Creating safe and affirming school and community environments can be some of the highest yield ways in which providers can support the mental health of gender-diverse youth at this stage. Gender Spectrum is an excellent nonprofit that provides resources to help families and communities with some of these nonmedical supports.

 

Early adolescence and pubertal suppression

The earliest gender-affirming medical intervention that may be considered is pubertal suppression. Pubertal suppression is achieved with gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists. This class of medications is Food and Drug Administration approved in pediatrics for precocious puberty – a condition in which young people enter puberty much earlier than expected (sometimes as early as age 3). For that condition, the rationale is to delay puberty until the patient reaches a more developmentally normative age for puberty to begin. The rationale for pubertal suppression for adolescent gender dysphoria is somewhat similar – these medications allow for the temporary pausing of puberty, which can be particularly helpful for adolescents who are having severe negative psychological reactions to the ways in which their bodies are developing. The major advantage here is that pubertal suppression can be reversed (if the medication is stopped, endogenous puberty will proceed), whereas puberty itself cannot be easily reversed (resulting in adult transgender people needing surgery and other interventions later in life, if these changes can be fully undone at all). As with all medications, puberty blockers do carry known side effects, including falling behind on bone density (sex hormones are needed to mineralize bones). Because of this, it is generally recommended that adolescents have their bone density monitored during treatment, pursue avenues to improve bone health (for example, exercise), and either stop the puberty blocker to undergo endogenous puberty or start gender-affirming hormones (estrogen or testosterone) by around age 16. 

It is also important to note that, under current guidelines, an adolescent must first undergo a comprehensive biopsychosocial mental health evaluation prior to starting pubertal suppression to ensure the clinical team has a comprehensive understanding of the adolescent’s mental health, that all potential gender supports that are needed are put into place, and that the adolescent and their guardians have a strong understanding of the medical intervention, its risks, side effects, and potential benefits. In addition, consent must be provided by parents or legal guardians, whereas adolescents themselves provide assent. Several studies have linked access to pubertal suppression, when indicated for gender dysphoria, to improved mental health outcomes (for example, van der Miesen and colleagues, Turban and colleagues, de Vries and colleagues, and Costa and colleagues).^6-9

 

Later adolescence and gender-affirming hormones

Later in adolescence, transgender youth may be candidates for gender-affirming hormone treatment (for example, estrogen or testosterone) to induce pubertal changes that align with their gender identities. Once again, under current guidelines, a comprehensive mental health biopsychosocial evaluation must be conducted prior to initiation of these treatments. Part of this evaluation includes fertility counseling and consideration of fertility preservation (for example, oocyte or semen cryopreservation), given the potential for these medications to impact fertility. It also involves discussion of several of the physiologic changes from these medications that can be irreversible (for example, voice changes from testosterone are particularly difficult to reverse in the future). Tables of the physical changes from these medications, when they begin after starting, and when they generally reach their maximum are available in the Endocrine Society guidelines.² The past endocrine society guidelines recommended not initiating gender-affirming hormones until age 16. The most recent guidelines note that there may be instances in which providers may consider starting them as early as age 13 (for example, to reduce risk of falling behind on bone density, or if a patient is having psychological distress related to their peers going through puberty while they are still in a prepubertal state). The latest World Professional Association for Transgender Health Standards of Care removed specific age cutoffs, highlighting the importance of a multidisciplinary team of mental health and hormone prescribing providers working together to understand the best course of action for a particular patient. As with pubertal suppression, several studies have linked access to gender-affirming hormones to improve mental health for adolescents with gender dysphoria (for example, Turban and colleagues, Chen and colleagues, de Vries and colleagues, Allen and colleagues, and Tordoff and colleagues).^10-14

Gender-affirming surgeries

The vast majority of gender-affirming surgeries are not considered until adulthood. The most notable exception to this is masculinizing top surgery for trans masculine and nonbinary adolescents. As with all surgeries, this is a major decision, and requires agreement from a mental health provider, a medical provider, and the surgeon. Early research suggests such surgeries result in improved chest dysphoria and that regret rates appear to be low.^15,16 While the latest World Professional Association for Transgender Health similarly removed strict age cutoffs for gender-affirming surgery, again noting the importance of individualized care, I suspect most will read this change in the context of the Endocrine Society guidelines and past WPATH guidelines that noted gender-affirming genital surgeries are not offered until adulthood (a rare exception perhaps being someone pursuing a gender-affirming vaginoplasty at say age 17 in the summer prior to college to avoid needing to take off from school for surgical recovery). Gender-affirming genital surgeries are generally much more involved surgeries with prolonged recovery times. 

Given the substantial proportion of young people who openly identify as transgender,¹⁷ and the proliferation of misinformation, political rhetoric, and legislation that can impact gender-affirming care for adolescents with gender dysphoria,¹⁸ it is essential that providers have accurate, up-to-date information on what this care entails and how it is provided.

Dr. Turban is director of the gender psychiatry program at the University of California, San Francisco, where he is an assistant professor of child & adolescent psychiatry and affiliate faculty at the Philip R. Lee Institute for Health Policy Studies. He is on Twitter @jack_turban.
 

References

1. Malta M et al. Lancet Public Health. 2020 Apr;5(4):e178-9.

2. Hembree WC et al. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2017 Nov 1;102(11):3869-903.

3. Coleman E et al. Int J Transgend Health. 2022 Sep 6;23(Suppl 1):S1-259.

4. Durwood L et al. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2017 Feb;56(2):116-23.e2.

5. Rae JR et al. Psychol Sci. 2019 May;30(5):669-81.

6. van der Miesen AIR et al. J Adolesc Health. 2020 Jun;66(6):699-704.

7. Turban JL et al. Pediatrics. 2020 Feb;145(2):e20191725.

8. de Vries ALC et al. J Sex Med. 2011 Aug;8(8):2276-83.

9. Costa R et al. J Sex Med. 2015 Nov;12(11):2206-14.

10. Turban JL et al. PLoS One. 2022 Jan 12;17(1):e0261039.

11. Chen D et al. N Engl J Med. 2023;388:240-50.

12. de Vries ALC et al. Pediatrics. 2014 Oct;134(4):696-70.

13. Allen LR et al. Clin Pract Pediatr Psychol. 2019. doi: 10.1037/cpp0000288.

14. Tordoff DM et al. JAMA Netw Open. 2022 Feb 1;5(2):e220978.

15. Olson-Kennedy J et al. JAMA Pediatr. 2018;172(5):431-6.

16. Tang A et al. Ann Plast Surg. 2022 May;88(4 Suppl):S325-31

17. Johns MM et al. Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2019 Jan 25;68(3):67-71.

18. Turban JL et al. JAMA. 2021;325(22):2251-2.

Over the past few years, there has been rampant misinformation regarding gender-affirming care for transgender youth. In particular, there has been confusion regarding how care is administered, and what types of care are considered at various stages of development. This primer will help you understand the developmental approach to supporting transgender youth.

Gender-affirming care is a broad term that can encapsulate many different domains: social, legal, medical, and surgical affirmation. While people generally think of medical and surgical aspects of gender-affirming care, other domains can be just as important. For example, a 2020 publication in The Lancet Public Health found that access to gender-congruent government identification documents was associated with lower odds of severe psychological distress and suicidality.¹ 

Stanford Lucille Packard Children&#039;s Hospital.

Considerations for prepubertal children

The youngest developmental stage at which a young person may seek care regarding gender diversity is the prepubertal childhood stage. Guidelines set forth by The Endocrine Society and The World Professional Association for Transgender Health make it clear that no medical or surgical interventions are considered at this developmental stage.^2,3 However, some young people may choose to pursue a “social transition.” Though this may sound like one thing, social transition can mean very different things for different people. It may include any combination of adopting a new name, pronouns, hairstyle, clothing, etc. Young people may also choose to pursue these various aspects of social transition in all settings, or sometimes only in some settings (for example, only at home if they don’t yet feel comfortable doing so at school). Research so far shows that prepubertal children who are allowed to socially transition have levels of anxiety and depression nearly indistinguishable from their cisgender peers.⁴ While some in the past have raised the question of whether a social transition increases a child’s degree of gender incongruence and thus their likelihood to “persist” in a transgender identity, research has suggested this is not the case, and that gender identity does not meaningfully differ before and after a social transition.⁵ It’s worth noting, that “desistance” of a young person’s transgender identity is generally not considered an ethical goal and that gender identity conversion efforts (that is, attempts to force transgender people to be cisgender) have been labeled unethical by the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry.

Sadly, transgender children are victims of bullying at high rates in their schools and communities. Creating safe and affirming school and community environments can be some of the highest yield ways in which providers can support the mental health of gender-diverse youth at this stage. Gender Spectrum is an excellent nonprofit that provides resources to help families and communities with some of these nonmedical supports.

 

Early adolescence and pubertal suppression

The earliest gender-affirming medical intervention that may be considered is pubertal suppression. Pubertal suppression is achieved with gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists. This class of medications is Food and Drug Administration approved in pediatrics for precocious puberty – a condition in which young people enter puberty much earlier than expected (sometimes as early as age 3). For that condition, the rationale is to delay puberty until the patient reaches a more developmentally normative age for puberty to begin. The rationale for pubertal suppression for adolescent gender dysphoria is somewhat similar – these medications allow for the temporary pausing of puberty, which can be particularly helpful for adolescents who are having severe negative psychological reactions to the ways in which their bodies are developing. The major advantage here is that pubertal suppression can be reversed (if the medication is stopped, endogenous puberty will proceed), whereas puberty itself cannot be easily reversed (resulting in adult transgender people needing surgery and other interventions later in life, if these changes can be fully undone at all). As with all medications, puberty blockers do carry known side effects, including falling behind on bone density (sex hormones are needed to mineralize bones). Because of this, it is generally recommended that adolescents have their bone density monitored during treatment, pursue avenues to improve bone health (for example, exercise), and either stop the puberty blocker to undergo endogenous puberty or start gender-affirming hormones (estrogen or testosterone) by around age 16. 

It is also important to note that, under current guidelines, an adolescent must first undergo a comprehensive biopsychosocial mental health evaluation prior to starting pubertal suppression to ensure the clinical team has a comprehensive understanding of the adolescent’s mental health, that all potential gender supports that are needed are put into place, and that the adolescent and their guardians have a strong understanding of the medical intervention, its risks, side effects, and potential benefits. In addition, consent must be provided by parents or legal guardians, whereas adolescents themselves provide assent. Several studies have linked access to pubertal suppression, when indicated for gender dysphoria, to improved mental health outcomes (for example, van der Miesen and colleagues, Turban and colleagues, de Vries and colleagues, and Costa and colleagues).^6-9

 

Later adolescence and gender-affirming hormones

Later in adolescence, transgender youth may be candidates for gender-affirming hormone treatment (for example, estrogen or testosterone) to induce pubertal changes that align with their gender identities. Once again, under current guidelines, a comprehensive mental health biopsychosocial evaluation must be conducted prior to initiation of these treatments. Part of this evaluation includes fertility counseling and consideration of fertility preservation (for example, oocyte or semen cryopreservation), given the potential for these medications to impact fertility. It also involves discussion of several of the physiologic changes from these medications that can be irreversible (for example, voice changes from testosterone are particularly difficult to reverse in the future). Tables of the physical changes from these medications, when they begin after starting, and when they generally reach their maximum are available in the Endocrine Society guidelines.² The past endocrine society guidelines recommended not initiating gender-affirming hormones until age 16. The most recent guidelines note that there may be instances in which providers may consider starting them as early as age 13 (for example, to reduce risk of falling behind on bone density, or if a patient is having psychological distress related to their peers going through puberty while they are still in a prepubertal state). The latest World Professional Association for Transgender Health Standards of Care removed specific age cutoffs, highlighting the importance of a multidisciplinary team of mental health and hormone prescribing providers working together to understand the best course of action for a particular patient. As with pubertal suppression, several studies have linked access to gender-affirming hormones to improve mental health for adolescents with gender dysphoria (for example, Turban and colleagues, Chen and colleagues, de Vries and colleagues, Allen and colleagues, and Tordoff and colleagues).^10-14

Gender-affirming surgeries

The vast majority of gender-affirming surgeries are not considered until adulthood. The most notable exception to this is masculinizing top surgery for trans masculine and nonbinary adolescents. As with all surgeries, this is a major decision, and requires agreement from a mental health provider, a medical provider, and the surgeon. Early research suggests such surgeries result in improved chest dysphoria and that regret rates appear to be low.^15,16 While the latest World Professional Association for Transgender Health similarly removed strict age cutoffs for gender-affirming surgery, again noting the importance of individualized care, I suspect most will read this change in the context of the Endocrine Society guidelines and past WPATH guidelines that noted gender-affirming genital surgeries are not offered until adulthood (a rare exception perhaps being someone pursuing a gender-affirming vaginoplasty at say age 17 in the summer prior to college to avoid needing to take off from school for surgical recovery). Gender-affirming genital surgeries are generally much more involved surgeries with prolonged recovery times. 

Given the substantial proportion of young people who openly identify as transgender,¹⁷ and the proliferation of misinformation, political rhetoric, and legislation that can impact gender-affirming care for adolescents with gender dysphoria,¹⁸ it is essential that providers have accurate, up-to-date information on what this care entails and how it is provided.

Dr. Turban is director of the gender psychiatry program at the University of California, San Francisco, where he is an assistant professor of child & adolescent psychiatry and affiliate faculty at the Philip R. Lee Institute for Health Policy Studies. He is on Twitter @jack_turban.
 

References

1. Malta M et al. Lancet Public Health. 2020 Apr;5(4):e178-9.

2. Hembree WC et al. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2017 Nov 1;102(11):3869-903.

3. Coleman E et al. Int J Transgend Health. 2022 Sep 6;23(Suppl 1):S1-259.

4. Durwood L et al. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2017 Feb;56(2):116-23.e2.

5. Rae JR et al. Psychol Sci. 2019 May;30(5):669-81.

6. van der Miesen AIR et al. J Adolesc Health. 2020 Jun;66(6):699-704.

7. Turban JL et al. Pediatrics. 2020 Feb;145(2):e20191725.

8. de Vries ALC et al. J Sex Med. 2011 Aug;8(8):2276-83.

9. Costa R et al. J Sex Med. 2015 Nov;12(11):2206-14.

10. Turban JL et al. PLoS One. 2022 Jan 12;17(1):e0261039.

11. Chen D et al. N Engl J Med. 2023;388:240-50.

12. de Vries ALC et al. Pediatrics. 2014 Oct;134(4):696-70.

13. Allen LR et al. Clin Pract Pediatr Psychol. 2019. doi: 10.1037/cpp0000288.

14. Tordoff DM et al. JAMA Netw Open. 2022 Feb 1;5(2):e220978.

15. Olson-Kennedy J et al. JAMA Pediatr. 2018;172(5):431-6.

16. Tang A et al. Ann Plast Surg. 2022 May;88(4 Suppl):S325-31

17. Johns MM et al. Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2019 Jan 25;68(3):67-71.

18. Turban JL et al. JAMA. 2021;325(22):2251-2.