MDedge Pediatrics

The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends against low-carbohydrate diets for most children and adolescents with or at risk for diabetes, according to a new clinical report.

Citing a lack of high-quality data and potential for adverse effects with carbohydrate restriction among younger individuals, lead author Anna Neyman, MD, of Indiana University, Indianapolis, and colleagues suggested that pediatric patients with type 2 diabetes should focus on reducing nutrient-poor carbohydrate intake, while those with type 1 diabetes should only pursue broader carbohydrate restriction under close medical supervision.

“There are no guidelines for restricting dietary carbohydrate consumption to reduce risk for diabetes or improve diabetes outcomes in youth,” the investigators wrote in Pediatrics. “Thus, there is a need to provide practical recommendations for pediatricians regarding the use of low-carbohydrate diets in patients who elect to follow these diets, including those with type 1 diabetes and for patients with obesity, prediabetes, and type 2 diabetes.”

Their new report includes a summary of the various types of carbohydrate-restricted diets, a review of available evidence for these diets among pediatric patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes, and several practical recommendations based on their findings.

Dr. Neyman and colleagues first noted a lack of standardization in describing the various tiers of carbohydrate restriction; however, they offered some rough guidelines. Compared with a typical, balanced diet, which includes 45%-65% of calories from carbohydrates, a moderately restrictive diet includes 26%-44% of calories from carbohydrates, while a low-carb diet includes less than 26% of calories from carbs. Further down the scale, very low-carb diets and ketogenic diets call for 20-50 g of carbs per day or less than 20 g of carbs per day, respectively.

“There is evidence from adult studies that these diets can be associated with significant weight loss, reduction in insulin levels or insulin requirements, and improvement in glucose control,” the investigators noted. “Nevertheless, there is a lack of long-term safety and efficacy outcomes in youth.”

They went on to cite a range of safety concerns, including “growth deceleration, nutritional deficiencies, poor bone health, nutritional ketosis that cannot be distinguished from ketosis resulting from insulin deficiency, and disordered eating behaviors.”

“Body dissatisfaction associated with restrictive dieting practices places children and adolescents at risk for inadequate dietary intake, excessive weight gain resulting from binge-eating after restricting food intake, and use of harmful weight-control strategies,” the investigators wrote. “Moreover, restrictive dieting practices may negatively impact mental health and self-concept and are directly associated with decreased mood and increased feelings of anxiety.”

Until more evidence is available, Dr. Neyman and colleagues advised adherence to a balanced diet, including increased dietary fiber and reduced consumption of ultra-processed carbohydrates.

“Eliminating sugary beverages and juices significantly improves blood glucose and weight management in children and adolescents,” they noted.

For pediatric patients with type 1 diabetes, the investigators suggested that low-carb and very low-carb diets should only be pursued “under close diabetes care team supervision utilizing safety guidelines.”
 

Lack of evidence is the problem

David Ludwig, MD, PhD, codirector of the New Balance Foundation Obesity Prevention Center, Boston Children’s Hospital, and professor of pediatrics at Harvard Medical School, also in Boston, said the review is “rather general” and “reiterates common, although not always fair, concerns about carbohydrate restriction.”

courtesy Boston Children's Hospital

“The main issue they highlight is the lack of evidence, especially from clinical trials, for a low-carbohydrate diet in children, as related to diabetes,” Dr. Ludwig said in a written comment, noting that this is indeed an issue. “However, what needs to be recognized is that a conventional high-carbohydrate diet has never been shown to be superior in adults or children for diabetes. Furthermore, whereas a poorly formulated low-carb diet may have adverse effects and risks (e.g., nutrient deficiencies), so can a high-carbohydrate diet – including an increase in triglycerides and other risk factors comprising metabolic syndrome.”

He said that the “main challenge in diabetes is to control blood glucose after eating,” and a high-carb makes this more difficult, as it requires more insulin after a meal than a low-carb meal would require, and increases risk of subsequent hypoglycemia.

For those interested in an alternative perspective to the AAP clinical report, Dr. Ludwig recommended two of his recent review articles, including one published in the Journal of Nutrition and another from the Journal of Clinical Investigation. In both, notes the long history of carbohydrate restriction for patients with diabetes, with usage dating back to the 1700s. Although the diet fell out of favor with the introduction of insulin, Dr. Ludwig believes that it needs to be reconsidered, and is more than a passing fad.

“Preliminary research suggests that this dietary approach might transform clinical management and perhaps normalize HbA1c for many people with diabetes, at substantially reduced treatment costs,” Dr. Ludwig and colleagues wrote in the JCI review. “High-quality randomized controlled trials, with intensive support for behavior changes, will be needed to address this possibility and assess long-term safety and sustainability. With total medical costs of diabetes in the United States approaching $1 billion a day, this research must assume high priority.”

This clinical report was commissioned by the AAP. Dr. Ludwig received royalties for books that recommend a carbohydrate-modified diet.

This article was updated 9/20/23.

The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends against low-carbohydrate diets for most children and adolescents with or at risk for diabetes, according to a new clinical report.

Citing a lack of high-quality data and potential for adverse effects with carbohydrate restriction among younger individuals, lead author Anna Neyman, MD, of Indiana University, Indianapolis, and colleagues suggested that pediatric patients with type 2 diabetes should focus on reducing nutrient-poor carbohydrate intake, while those with type 1 diabetes should only pursue broader carbohydrate restriction under close medical supervision.

“There are no guidelines for restricting dietary carbohydrate consumption to reduce risk for diabetes or improve diabetes outcomes in youth,” the investigators wrote in Pediatrics. “Thus, there is a need to provide practical recommendations for pediatricians regarding the use of low-carbohydrate diets in patients who elect to follow these diets, including those with type 1 diabetes and for patients with obesity, prediabetes, and type 2 diabetes.”

Their new report includes a summary of the various types of carbohydrate-restricted diets, a review of available evidence for these diets among pediatric patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes, and several practical recommendations based on their findings.

Dr. Neyman and colleagues first noted a lack of standardization in describing the various tiers of carbohydrate restriction; however, they offered some rough guidelines. Compared with a typical, balanced diet, which includes 45%-65% of calories from carbohydrates, a moderately restrictive diet includes 26%-44% of calories from carbohydrates, while a low-carb diet includes less than 26% of calories from carbs. Further down the scale, very low-carb diets and ketogenic diets call for 20-50 g of carbs per day or less than 20 g of carbs per day, respectively.

“There is evidence from adult studies that these diets can be associated with significant weight loss, reduction in insulin levels or insulin requirements, and improvement in glucose control,” the investigators noted. “Nevertheless, there is a lack of long-term safety and efficacy outcomes in youth.”

They went on to cite a range of safety concerns, including “growth deceleration, nutritional deficiencies, poor bone health, nutritional ketosis that cannot be distinguished from ketosis resulting from insulin deficiency, and disordered eating behaviors.”

“Body dissatisfaction associated with restrictive dieting practices places children and adolescents at risk for inadequate dietary intake, excessive weight gain resulting from binge-eating after restricting food intake, and use of harmful weight-control strategies,” the investigators wrote. “Moreover, restrictive dieting practices may negatively impact mental health and self-concept and are directly associated with decreased mood and increased feelings of anxiety.”

Until more evidence is available, Dr. Neyman and colleagues advised adherence to a balanced diet, including increased dietary fiber and reduced consumption of ultra-processed carbohydrates.

“Eliminating sugary beverages and juices significantly improves blood glucose and weight management in children and adolescents,” they noted.

For pediatric patients with type 1 diabetes, the investigators suggested that low-carb and very low-carb diets should only be pursued “under close diabetes care team supervision utilizing safety guidelines.”
 

Lack of evidence is the problem

David Ludwig, MD, PhD, codirector of the New Balance Foundation Obesity Prevention Center, Boston Children’s Hospital, and professor of pediatrics at Harvard Medical School, also in Boston, said the review is “rather general” and “reiterates common, although not always fair, concerns about carbohydrate restriction.”

courtesy Boston Children's Hospital

“The main issue they highlight is the lack of evidence, especially from clinical trials, for a low-carbohydrate diet in children, as related to diabetes,” Dr. Ludwig said in a written comment, noting that this is indeed an issue. “However, what needs to be recognized is that a conventional high-carbohydrate diet has never been shown to be superior in adults or children for diabetes. Furthermore, whereas a poorly formulated low-carb diet may have adverse effects and risks (e.g., nutrient deficiencies), so can a high-carbohydrate diet – including an increase in triglycerides and other risk factors comprising metabolic syndrome.”

He said that the “main challenge in diabetes is to control blood glucose after eating,” and a high-carb makes this more difficult, as it requires more insulin after a meal than a low-carb meal would require, and increases risk of subsequent hypoglycemia.

For those interested in an alternative perspective to the AAP clinical report, Dr. Ludwig recommended two of his recent review articles, including one published in the Journal of Nutrition and another from the Journal of Clinical Investigation. In both, notes the long history of carbohydrate restriction for patients with diabetes, with usage dating back to the 1700s. Although the diet fell out of favor with the introduction of insulin, Dr. Ludwig believes that it needs to be reconsidered, and is more than a passing fad.

“Preliminary research suggests that this dietary approach might transform clinical management and perhaps normalize HbA1c for many people with diabetes, at substantially reduced treatment costs,” Dr. Ludwig and colleagues wrote in the JCI review. “High-quality randomized controlled trials, with intensive support for behavior changes, will be needed to address this possibility and assess long-term safety and sustainability. With total medical costs of diabetes in the United States approaching $1 billion a day, this research must assume high priority.”

This clinical report was commissioned by the AAP. Dr. Ludwig received royalties for books that recommend a carbohydrate-modified diet.

This article was updated 9/20/23.

The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends against low-carbohydrate diets for most children and adolescents with or at risk for diabetes, according to a new clinical report.

Citing a lack of high-quality data and potential for adverse effects with carbohydrate restriction among younger individuals, lead author Anna Neyman, MD, of Indiana University, Indianapolis, and colleagues suggested that pediatric patients with type 2 diabetes should focus on reducing nutrient-poor carbohydrate intake, while those with type 1 diabetes should only pursue broader carbohydrate restriction under close medical supervision.

“There are no guidelines for restricting dietary carbohydrate consumption to reduce risk for diabetes or improve diabetes outcomes in youth,” the investigators wrote in Pediatrics. “Thus, there is a need to provide practical recommendations for pediatricians regarding the use of low-carbohydrate diets in patients who elect to follow these diets, including those with type 1 diabetes and for patients with obesity, prediabetes, and type 2 diabetes.”

Their new report includes a summary of the various types of carbohydrate-restricted diets, a review of available evidence for these diets among pediatric patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes, and several practical recommendations based on their findings.

Dr. Neyman and colleagues first noted a lack of standardization in describing the various tiers of carbohydrate restriction; however, they offered some rough guidelines. Compared with a typical, balanced diet, which includes 45%-65% of calories from carbohydrates, a moderately restrictive diet includes 26%-44% of calories from carbohydrates, while a low-carb diet includes less than 26% of calories from carbs. Further down the scale, very low-carb diets and ketogenic diets call for 20-50 g of carbs per day or less than 20 g of carbs per day, respectively.

“There is evidence from adult studies that these diets can be associated with significant weight loss, reduction in insulin levels or insulin requirements, and improvement in glucose control,” the investigators noted. “Nevertheless, there is a lack of long-term safety and efficacy outcomes in youth.”

They went on to cite a range of safety concerns, including “growth deceleration, nutritional deficiencies, poor bone health, nutritional ketosis that cannot be distinguished from ketosis resulting from insulin deficiency, and disordered eating behaviors.”

“Body dissatisfaction associated with restrictive dieting practices places children and adolescents at risk for inadequate dietary intake, excessive weight gain resulting from binge-eating after restricting food intake, and use of harmful weight-control strategies,” the investigators wrote. “Moreover, restrictive dieting practices may negatively impact mental health and self-concept and are directly associated with decreased mood and increased feelings of anxiety.”

Until more evidence is available, Dr. Neyman and colleagues advised adherence to a balanced diet, including increased dietary fiber and reduced consumption of ultra-processed carbohydrates.

“Eliminating sugary beverages and juices significantly improves blood glucose and weight management in children and adolescents,” they noted.

For pediatric patients with type 1 diabetes, the investigators suggested that low-carb and very low-carb diets should only be pursued “under close diabetes care team supervision utilizing safety guidelines.”
 

Lack of evidence is the problem

David Ludwig, MD, PhD, codirector of the New Balance Foundation Obesity Prevention Center, Boston Children’s Hospital, and professor of pediatrics at Harvard Medical School, also in Boston, said the review is “rather general” and “reiterates common, although not always fair, concerns about carbohydrate restriction.”

courtesy Boston Children's Hospital

“The main issue they highlight is the lack of evidence, especially from clinical trials, for a low-carbohydrate diet in children, as related to diabetes,” Dr. Ludwig said in a written comment, noting that this is indeed an issue. “However, what needs to be recognized is that a conventional high-carbohydrate diet has never been shown to be superior in adults or children for diabetes. Furthermore, whereas a poorly formulated low-carb diet may have adverse effects and risks (e.g., nutrient deficiencies), so can a high-carbohydrate diet – including an increase in triglycerides and other risk factors comprising metabolic syndrome.”

He said that the “main challenge in diabetes is to control blood glucose after eating,” and a high-carb makes this more difficult, as it requires more insulin after a meal than a low-carb meal would require, and increases risk of subsequent hypoglycemia.

For those interested in an alternative perspective to the AAP clinical report, Dr. Ludwig recommended two of his recent review articles, including one published in the Journal of Nutrition and another from the Journal of Clinical Investigation. In both, notes the long history of carbohydrate restriction for patients with diabetes, with usage dating back to the 1700s. Although the diet fell out of favor with the introduction of insulin, Dr. Ludwig believes that it needs to be reconsidered, and is more than a passing fad.

“Preliminary research suggests that this dietary approach might transform clinical management and perhaps normalize HbA1c for many people with diabetes, at substantially reduced treatment costs,” Dr. Ludwig and colleagues wrote in the JCI review. “High-quality randomized controlled trials, with intensive support for behavior changes, will be needed to address this possibility and assess long-term safety and sustainability. With total medical costs of diabetes in the United States approaching $1 billion a day, this research must assume high priority.”

This clinical report was commissioned by the AAP. Dr. Ludwig received royalties for books that recommend a carbohydrate-modified diet.

This article was updated 9/20/23.

Antibiotic resistance is a major public health problem. Few new molecules are in development, but a new antibiotic called clovibactin brings hope.

This drug, isolated from bacteria that haven’t previously been studied, seems to be capable of combating multidrug-resistant “superbugs” thanks to unusual mechanisms of action.

The drug was discovered and has been studied by scientists from Utrecht University in the Netherlands, the University of Bonn in Germany, the German Center for Infection Research, Northeastern University in Boston, and NovoBiotic Pharmaceuticals in Cambridge, Mass.

Their research was published in Cell.

“Since clovibactin was isolated from bacteria that could not be grown before, pathogenic bacteria have not seen such an antibiotic before and had no time to develop resistance,” Markus Weingarth, MD, PhD, a researcher in Utrecht University’s chemistry department, said in a press release.
 

Microbial “dark matter”

Researchers isolated clovibactin from sandy soil from North Carolina and studied it using the iChip device, which was developed in 2015. This technique allowed them to grow “bacterial dark matter,” so-called unculturable bacteria, which compose a group to which 99% of bacteria belong.

This device also paved the way for the discovery of the antibiotic teixobactin in 2020. Teixobactin is effective against gram-positive bacteria and is one of the first truly new antibiotics in decades. Its mechanism of action is like that of clovibactin.
 

Combats resistant bacteria

In the Cell article, the researchers showed that clovibactin acts via several mechanisms and that it successfully treated mice infected with the superbug Staphylococcus aureus.

Clovibactin exhibited antibacterial activity against a broad range of gram-positive pathogens, including methicillin-resistant S. aureus, daptomycin-resistant and vancomycin-resistant S. aureus strains, and difficult-to-treat vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecalis and E faecium (vancomycin-resistant enterococci). Escherichia coli was only marginally affected “compared with an outer membrane deficient E. coli WO153 strain, probably reflecting insufficient penetration of the compound,” the authors wrote.
 

Original mechanism of action

Clovibactin acts not on one but three molecules, all of which are essential to the construction of bacterial walls: C55PP, lipid II, and lipid IIIWTA, which are from different cell wall biosynthetic pathways. Clovibactin binds to the pyrophosphate portion of these precursors.

“Clovibactin wraps around the pyrophosphate like [a] tight glove, like a cage that encloses its target,” said Dr. Weingarth. This is what gives clovibactin its name, which is derived from Greek word klouvi, meaning cage.

The remarkable aspect of clovibactin’s mechanism is that it only binds to the immutable pyrophosphate that is common to cell wall precursors, but it also ignores the variable sugar-peptide part of the targets. The bacteria therefore have a much harder time developing resistance against it. “In fact, we did not observe any resistance to clovibactin in our studies,” Dr. Weingarth confirmed.

Upon binding the target molecules, it self-assembles into large fibrils on the surface of bacterial membranes. These fibrils are stable for a long time and thereby ensure that the target molecules remain sequestered for as long as necessary to kill bacteria.
 

Few side effects

Because of the mechanism of action of the antibiotic, few side effects are predicted. Indeed, clovibactin targets bacteria cells but not human cells.

“Since these fibrils only form on bacterial membranes and not on human membranes, they are presumably also the reason why clovibactin selectively damages bacterial cells but is not toxic to human cells,” said Dr. Weingarth.

Other studies – in particular, studies in humans – are needed before the antibiotic can be considered a potential treatment. In the meantime, regulations regarding the proper use of antibiotics must continue to be applied to limit antibiotic resistance.

In 2019, 4.95 million deaths worldwide were associated with bacterial antimicrobial resistance, including 1.27 million deaths directly attributable to bacterial antimicrobial resistance. If this trend continues without new medicines becoming available to treat bacterial infections, it is estimated that by 2050, 10 million people will die every year from antimicrobial drug resistance.
 

This article was translated from the Medscape French Edition. A version appeared on Medscape.com.

Antibiotic resistance is a major public health problem. Few new molecules are in development, but a new antibiotic called clovibactin brings hope.

This drug, isolated from bacteria that haven’t previously been studied, seems to be capable of combating multidrug-resistant “superbugs” thanks to unusual mechanisms of action.

The drug was discovered and has been studied by scientists from Utrecht University in the Netherlands, the University of Bonn in Germany, the German Center for Infection Research, Northeastern University in Boston, and NovoBiotic Pharmaceuticals in Cambridge, Mass.

Their research was published in Cell.

“Since clovibactin was isolated from bacteria that could not be grown before, pathogenic bacteria have not seen such an antibiotic before and had no time to develop resistance,” Markus Weingarth, MD, PhD, a researcher in Utrecht University’s chemistry department, said in a press release.
 

Microbial “dark matter”

Researchers isolated clovibactin from sandy soil from North Carolina and studied it using the iChip device, which was developed in 2015. This technique allowed them to grow “bacterial dark matter,” so-called unculturable bacteria, which compose a group to which 99% of bacteria belong.

This device also paved the way for the discovery of the antibiotic teixobactin in 2020. Teixobactin is effective against gram-positive bacteria and is one of the first truly new antibiotics in decades. Its mechanism of action is like that of clovibactin.
 

Combats resistant bacteria

In the Cell article, the researchers showed that clovibactin acts via several mechanisms and that it successfully treated mice infected with the superbug Staphylococcus aureus.

Clovibactin exhibited antibacterial activity against a broad range of gram-positive pathogens, including methicillin-resistant S. aureus, daptomycin-resistant and vancomycin-resistant S. aureus strains, and difficult-to-treat vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecalis and E faecium (vancomycin-resistant enterococci). Escherichia coli was only marginally affected “compared with an outer membrane deficient E. coli WO153 strain, probably reflecting insufficient penetration of the compound,” the authors wrote.
 

Original mechanism of action

Clovibactin acts not on one but three molecules, all of which are essential to the construction of bacterial walls: C55PP, lipid II, and lipid IIIWTA, which are from different cell wall biosynthetic pathways. Clovibactin binds to the pyrophosphate portion of these precursors.

“Clovibactin wraps around the pyrophosphate like [a] tight glove, like a cage that encloses its target,” said Dr. Weingarth. This is what gives clovibactin its name, which is derived from Greek word klouvi, meaning cage.

The remarkable aspect of clovibactin’s mechanism is that it only binds to the immutable pyrophosphate that is common to cell wall precursors, but it also ignores the variable sugar-peptide part of the targets. The bacteria therefore have a much harder time developing resistance against it. “In fact, we did not observe any resistance to clovibactin in our studies,” Dr. Weingarth confirmed.

Upon binding the target molecules, it self-assembles into large fibrils on the surface of bacterial membranes. These fibrils are stable for a long time and thereby ensure that the target molecules remain sequestered for as long as necessary to kill bacteria.
 

Few side effects

Because of the mechanism of action of the antibiotic, few side effects are predicted. Indeed, clovibactin targets bacteria cells but not human cells.

“Since these fibrils only form on bacterial membranes and not on human membranes, they are presumably also the reason why clovibactin selectively damages bacterial cells but is not toxic to human cells,” said Dr. Weingarth.

Other studies – in particular, studies in humans – are needed before the antibiotic can be considered a potential treatment. In the meantime, regulations regarding the proper use of antibiotics must continue to be applied to limit antibiotic resistance.

In 2019, 4.95 million deaths worldwide were associated with bacterial antimicrobial resistance, including 1.27 million deaths directly attributable to bacterial antimicrobial resistance. If this trend continues without new medicines becoming available to treat bacterial infections, it is estimated that by 2050, 10 million people will die every year from antimicrobial drug resistance.
 

This article was translated from the Medscape French Edition. A version appeared on Medscape.com.

Antibiotic resistance is a major public health problem. Few new molecules are in development, but a new antibiotic called clovibactin brings hope.

This drug, isolated from bacteria that haven’t previously been studied, seems to be capable of combating multidrug-resistant “superbugs” thanks to unusual mechanisms of action.

The drug was discovered and has been studied by scientists from Utrecht University in the Netherlands, the University of Bonn in Germany, the German Center for Infection Research, Northeastern University in Boston, and NovoBiotic Pharmaceuticals in Cambridge, Mass.

Their research was published in Cell.

“Since clovibactin was isolated from bacteria that could not be grown before, pathogenic bacteria have not seen such an antibiotic before and had no time to develop resistance,” Markus Weingarth, MD, PhD, a researcher in Utrecht University’s chemistry department, said in a press release.
 

Microbial “dark matter”

Researchers isolated clovibactin from sandy soil from North Carolina and studied it using the iChip device, which was developed in 2015. This technique allowed them to grow “bacterial dark matter,” so-called unculturable bacteria, which compose a group to which 99% of bacteria belong.

This device also paved the way for the discovery of the antibiotic teixobactin in 2020. Teixobactin is effective against gram-positive bacteria and is one of the first truly new antibiotics in decades. Its mechanism of action is like that of clovibactin.
 

Combats resistant bacteria

In the Cell article, the researchers showed that clovibactin acts via several mechanisms and that it successfully treated mice infected with the superbug Staphylococcus aureus.

Clovibactin exhibited antibacterial activity against a broad range of gram-positive pathogens, including methicillin-resistant S. aureus, daptomycin-resistant and vancomycin-resistant S. aureus strains, and difficult-to-treat vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecalis and E faecium (vancomycin-resistant enterococci). Escherichia coli was only marginally affected “compared with an outer membrane deficient E. coli WO153 strain, probably reflecting insufficient penetration of the compound,” the authors wrote.
 

Original mechanism of action

Clovibactin acts not on one but three molecules, all of which are essential to the construction of bacterial walls: C55PP, lipid II, and lipid IIIWTA, which are from different cell wall biosynthetic pathways. Clovibactin binds to the pyrophosphate portion of these precursors.

“Clovibactin wraps around the pyrophosphate like [a] tight glove, like a cage that encloses its target,” said Dr. Weingarth. This is what gives clovibactin its name, which is derived from Greek word klouvi, meaning cage.

The remarkable aspect of clovibactin’s mechanism is that it only binds to the immutable pyrophosphate that is common to cell wall precursors, but it also ignores the variable sugar-peptide part of the targets. The bacteria therefore have a much harder time developing resistance against it. “In fact, we did not observe any resistance to clovibactin in our studies,” Dr. Weingarth confirmed.

Upon binding the target molecules, it self-assembles into large fibrils on the surface of bacterial membranes. These fibrils are stable for a long time and thereby ensure that the target molecules remain sequestered for as long as necessary to kill bacteria.
 

Few side effects

Because of the mechanism of action of the antibiotic, few side effects are predicted. Indeed, clovibactin targets bacteria cells but not human cells.

“Since these fibrils only form on bacterial membranes and not on human membranes, they are presumably also the reason why clovibactin selectively damages bacterial cells but is not toxic to human cells,” said Dr. Weingarth.

Other studies – in particular, studies in humans – are needed before the antibiotic can be considered a potential treatment. In the meantime, regulations regarding the proper use of antibiotics must continue to be applied to limit antibiotic resistance.

In 2019, 4.95 million deaths worldwide were associated with bacterial antimicrobial resistance, including 1.27 million deaths directly attributable to bacterial antimicrobial resistance. If this trend continues without new medicines becoming available to treat bacterial infections, it is estimated that by 2050, 10 million people will die every year from antimicrobial drug resistance.
 

This article was translated from the Medscape French Edition. A version appeared on Medscape.com.

The frequency of medication errors among children who take drugs to treat attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder reported to U.S. poison control centers increased by nearly 300% over a 22-year period, according to results of a study published in the journal Pediatrics.

The dramatic jump is likely attributable to an increase in the prescribing of ADHD medications for children. According to the study authors, in 2019, nearly 10% of children in the United States had been diagnosed with ADHD, and some 3.3 million – or about 5% of all children in the country – had received a prescription for an ADHD medication.

“Because therapeutic errors are preventable, more attention should be given to patient and caregiver education and development of improved child-resistant medication dispensing and tracking systems,” the authors commented.

The investigators analyzed data from the National Poison Data System from 2000 through 2021 for therapeutic errors associated with ADHD medication among patients younger than 20 years.

“As medicine changes, it’s nice to look back at some of these things and see how some of these problems have changed,” said Natalie I. Rine, PharmD, a coauthor of the study and director of the Central Ohio Poison Center at Nationwide Children’s Hospital in Columbus.

The researchers identified 124,383 such errors reported to U.S. poison centers during the study period. The frequency increased by 299%.

Two-thirds (66.6%) of the exposures involved children aged 6-12 years, three-fourths (76.4%) were among males, and half (50.5%) involved amphetamines and related compounds. Most (79.7%) therapeutic errors were linked to exposure to a single substance. Nearly 83% of patients did not receive treatment at a health care facility; however, 2.3% were admitted to the hospital, and 4.2% had a “serious medical outcome,” the researchers found.

The most common scenarios were “inadvertently took or given medication twice” (53.9%), followed by “inadvertently took or given someone else’s medication” (13.4%) and “wrong medication taken or given” (12.9%), according to the researchers. Two percent involved mistakes by a pharmacist or nurse.
 

Easily preventable

Dr. Rine attributed the errors to simple mistakes and said they were likely the product of busy households and distracted caregivers. She added that the errors are easily avoided by storing the medication properly, keeping a sheet with the medication to document what was taken and when, and using a pillbox or one of many apps that can assist in documenting the dispensing of medications.

“I think the biggest thing is that a lot of these errors are preventable, more than anything else,” Dr. Rine said.

The increase in ADHD diagnoses among children and the subsequent prescribing of medications are reasons for the nearly 300% increase in poison control calls. A 2018 study showed that the estimated prevalence of ADHD diagnoses among U.S. children and adolescents increased from 6.1% in 1997-1998 to 10.2% in 2015-2016. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention states that 6 million children and adolescents aged 3-17 years have been diagnosed with ADHD, and 62% have received ADHD medication.

Colleen Kraft, MD, a pediatrician at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles, said she was not surprised by the reported increase in errors. In addition to the simple uptick in ADHD diagnoses and prescriptions in the past 2 decades, Dr. Kraft said the growing variety of ADHD medication is a cause for more errors.

“Because we have so many more different types of these medications, it’s easy to confuse them, and it’s easy to make an error when you give this to a child,” she said in an interview.

Dr. Kraft also hypothesized that because ADHD can have a genetic component, some parents with undiagnosed and untreated ADHD are responsible for their child’s medication, a scenario ripe for mistakes.
 

Potential dangers

Not all ADHD medicinal overdosing is created equal, Dr. Kraft pointed out. Doubling up on a stimulant such as methylphenidate (Ritalin) or the combination of amphetamine and dextroamphetamine (Adderall) may cause headaches, suppress appetite, and cause an upset stomach, although those symptoms usually clear up in a few hours.

However, she noted, the use of alpha-1 adrenergic blockers is more concerning. Also used to treat high blood pressure, medications such as guanfacine and clonidine cause sedation. A double dose can cause blood pressure to decrease to dangerous levels.

The study’s primary limitation was bias in self-reporting, which may have led to underreporting of incidences, according to the researchers. Not every case in which an error occurs that involves a child’s taking ADHD medication gets reported to poison control, because some will take a wait-and-see approach and may not call if their child is asymptomatic.

“Our data is only as good as what the callers report to us,” Dr. Rine said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The frequency of medication errors among children who take drugs to treat attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder reported to U.S. poison control centers increased by nearly 300% over a 22-year period, according to results of a study published in the journal Pediatrics.

The dramatic jump is likely attributable to an increase in the prescribing of ADHD medications for children. According to the study authors, in 2019, nearly 10% of children in the United States had been diagnosed with ADHD, and some 3.3 million – or about 5% of all children in the country – had received a prescription for an ADHD medication.

“Because therapeutic errors are preventable, more attention should be given to patient and caregiver education and development of improved child-resistant medication dispensing and tracking systems,” the authors commented.

The investigators analyzed data from the National Poison Data System from 2000 through 2021 for therapeutic errors associated with ADHD medication among patients younger than 20 years.

“As medicine changes, it’s nice to look back at some of these things and see how some of these problems have changed,” said Natalie I. Rine, PharmD, a coauthor of the study and director of the Central Ohio Poison Center at Nationwide Children’s Hospital in Columbus.

The researchers identified 124,383 such errors reported to U.S. poison centers during the study period. The frequency increased by 299%.

Two-thirds (66.6%) of the exposures involved children aged 6-12 years, three-fourths (76.4%) were among males, and half (50.5%) involved amphetamines and related compounds. Most (79.7%) therapeutic errors were linked to exposure to a single substance. Nearly 83% of patients did not receive treatment at a health care facility; however, 2.3% were admitted to the hospital, and 4.2% had a “serious medical outcome,” the researchers found.

The most common scenarios were “inadvertently took or given medication twice” (53.9%), followed by “inadvertently took or given someone else’s medication” (13.4%) and “wrong medication taken or given” (12.9%), according to the researchers. Two percent involved mistakes by a pharmacist or nurse.
 

Easily preventable

Dr. Rine attributed the errors to simple mistakes and said they were likely the product of busy households and distracted caregivers. She added that the errors are easily avoided by storing the medication properly, keeping a sheet with the medication to document what was taken and when, and using a pillbox or one of many apps that can assist in documenting the dispensing of medications.

“I think the biggest thing is that a lot of these errors are preventable, more than anything else,” Dr. Rine said.

The increase in ADHD diagnoses among children and the subsequent prescribing of medications are reasons for the nearly 300% increase in poison control calls. A 2018 study showed that the estimated prevalence of ADHD diagnoses among U.S. children and adolescents increased from 6.1% in 1997-1998 to 10.2% in 2015-2016. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention states that 6 million children and adolescents aged 3-17 years have been diagnosed with ADHD, and 62% have received ADHD medication.

Colleen Kraft, MD, a pediatrician at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles, said she was not surprised by the reported increase in errors. In addition to the simple uptick in ADHD diagnoses and prescriptions in the past 2 decades, Dr. Kraft said the growing variety of ADHD medication is a cause for more errors.

“Because we have so many more different types of these medications, it’s easy to confuse them, and it’s easy to make an error when you give this to a child,” she said in an interview.

Dr. Kraft also hypothesized that because ADHD can have a genetic component, some parents with undiagnosed and untreated ADHD are responsible for their child’s medication, a scenario ripe for mistakes.
 

Potential dangers

Not all ADHD medicinal overdosing is created equal, Dr. Kraft pointed out. Doubling up on a stimulant such as methylphenidate (Ritalin) or the combination of amphetamine and dextroamphetamine (Adderall) may cause headaches, suppress appetite, and cause an upset stomach, although those symptoms usually clear up in a few hours.

However, she noted, the use of alpha-1 adrenergic blockers is more concerning. Also used to treat high blood pressure, medications such as guanfacine and clonidine cause sedation. A double dose can cause blood pressure to decrease to dangerous levels.

The study’s primary limitation was bias in self-reporting, which may have led to underreporting of incidences, according to the researchers. Not every case in which an error occurs that involves a child’s taking ADHD medication gets reported to poison control, because some will take a wait-and-see approach and may not call if their child is asymptomatic.

“Our data is only as good as what the callers report to us,” Dr. Rine said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The frequency of medication errors among children who take drugs to treat attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder reported to U.S. poison control centers increased by nearly 300% over a 22-year period, according to results of a study published in the journal Pediatrics.

The dramatic jump is likely attributable to an increase in the prescribing of ADHD medications for children. According to the study authors, in 2019, nearly 10% of children in the United States had been diagnosed with ADHD, and some 3.3 million – or about 5% of all children in the country – had received a prescription for an ADHD medication.

“Because therapeutic errors are preventable, more attention should be given to patient and caregiver education and development of improved child-resistant medication dispensing and tracking systems,” the authors commented.

The investigators analyzed data from the National Poison Data System from 2000 through 2021 for therapeutic errors associated with ADHD medication among patients younger than 20 years.

“As medicine changes, it’s nice to look back at some of these things and see how some of these problems have changed,” said Natalie I. Rine, PharmD, a coauthor of the study and director of the Central Ohio Poison Center at Nationwide Children’s Hospital in Columbus.

The researchers identified 124,383 such errors reported to U.S. poison centers during the study period. The frequency increased by 299%.

Two-thirds (66.6%) of the exposures involved children aged 6-12 years, three-fourths (76.4%) were among males, and half (50.5%) involved amphetamines and related compounds. Most (79.7%) therapeutic errors were linked to exposure to a single substance. Nearly 83% of patients did not receive treatment at a health care facility; however, 2.3% were admitted to the hospital, and 4.2% had a “serious medical outcome,” the researchers found.

The most common scenarios were “inadvertently took or given medication twice” (53.9%), followed by “inadvertently took or given someone else’s medication” (13.4%) and “wrong medication taken or given” (12.9%), according to the researchers. Two percent involved mistakes by a pharmacist or nurse.
 

Easily preventable

Dr. Rine attributed the errors to simple mistakes and said they were likely the product of busy households and distracted caregivers. She added that the errors are easily avoided by storing the medication properly, keeping a sheet with the medication to document what was taken and when, and using a pillbox or one of many apps that can assist in documenting the dispensing of medications.

“I think the biggest thing is that a lot of these errors are preventable, more than anything else,” Dr. Rine said.

The increase in ADHD diagnoses among children and the subsequent prescribing of medications are reasons for the nearly 300% increase in poison control calls. A 2018 study showed that the estimated prevalence of ADHD diagnoses among U.S. children and adolescents increased from 6.1% in 1997-1998 to 10.2% in 2015-2016. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention states that 6 million children and adolescents aged 3-17 years have been diagnosed with ADHD, and 62% have received ADHD medication.

Colleen Kraft, MD, a pediatrician at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles, said she was not surprised by the reported increase in errors. In addition to the simple uptick in ADHD diagnoses and prescriptions in the past 2 decades, Dr. Kraft said the growing variety of ADHD medication is a cause for more errors.

“Because we have so many more different types of these medications, it’s easy to confuse them, and it’s easy to make an error when you give this to a child,” she said in an interview.

Dr. Kraft also hypothesized that because ADHD can have a genetic component, some parents with undiagnosed and untreated ADHD are responsible for their child’s medication, a scenario ripe for mistakes.
 

Potential dangers

Not all ADHD medicinal overdosing is created equal, Dr. Kraft pointed out. Doubling up on a stimulant such as methylphenidate (Ritalin) or the combination of amphetamine and dextroamphetamine (Adderall) may cause headaches, suppress appetite, and cause an upset stomach, although those symptoms usually clear up in a few hours.

However, she noted, the use of alpha-1 adrenergic blockers is more concerning. Also used to treat high blood pressure, medications such as guanfacine and clonidine cause sedation. A double dose can cause blood pressure to decrease to dangerous levels.

The study’s primary limitation was bias in self-reporting, which may have led to underreporting of incidences, according to the researchers. Not every case in which an error occurs that involves a child’s taking ADHD medication gets reported to poison control, because some will take a wait-and-see approach and may not call if their child is asymptomatic.

“Our data is only as good as what the callers report to us,” Dr. Rine said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

My young patient with type 1 diabetes (T1D) had her cell phone out to provide a share code for her Dexcom clarity app as she was checking into her visit. As my nurse was recording the code, the patient asked him, “Hey, can you add me on Snapchat?”

Her father scrolled through his own Facebook feed in the chair next to her, showing no concern that his daughter was looking to connect with an adult on a social media platform. Meanwhile, we were all grateful that the little girl, who had had a seizure due to hypoglycemia in her preschool and pre–continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) years, had access to the tools harnessed within the sparkly encased phone she held in her small hands. But did anyone in the room fully understand the potential dangers?

We are living in an exhilarating era of diabetes technology, a treatment environment that I couldn’t have dreamed of during my pediatric endocrinology fellowship. T1D is a volatile condition that changes day to day, especially in growing children. A short decade ago, the best CGM available was a bulky device on loan to patients for 3 days at a time. Information was later downloaded in-office to get a better idea of general glucose trends, if insurance would approve its use at all.

Now, we have a variety of very wearable and accurate disposable CGMs accessible to most patients. Every major insulin pump has available closed-loop capabilities. Some patients can dose from apps on their cell phones rather than juggle another device or draw attention to an insulin pump at the cafeteria table.

These developments have been game changers for children and teenagers with diabetes and for their families. When wondering whether an athlete’s dazed appearance on a soccer field was due to hypoglycemia, a parent no longer must demand that a coach pull the player – a quick glance at a smartphone app can verify the blood glucose and change rate. Children can use programs and search engines to quickly verify carbohydrate counts. Life360 and other tracking programs have increased parental feelings of security, especially with young drivers living with a chronic medical condition.

The inevitable outcome of this available technology is that children living with T1D are given cell phones far earlier than are their siblings or peers owing to “necessity.” Parents understandably want a means to stay in close contact with their children in case of a medical emergency. As a physician and mother of young children, I am thankful for the technology that keeps my patients safer and that allows them to fully participate in everything from sports to travel to an uninterrupted night’s sleep. But I am also growing more concerned that we have not completely counted the cost of early smartphone use in children.

Smartphone presence in classrooms empowers teachers, students, parents, and school nurses to be aware of glycemic trends and prevent hypoglycemic emergencies. Smartphones have also shown to be a major distraction in that setting, causing many schools to ban their use entirely. Video apps such as YouTube and TikTok can provide a wealth of support and medical information but may also open the door to misinformation and dangerous social contagion, particularly surrounding disordered eating. Informative podcasts such as The Juicebox Podcast and online forums provide incredible support for families, but the constant siren call of a phone in their pockets leads to distracted parents constantly tending to other conversations or responding to ever more demanding employers rather than focusing on face-to-face education sessions.

The Surgeon General recently released a report concerning social media use in children. This eye-opening report revealed that one-third of children admitted to using their cell phones “almost constantly.” Social media use is associated with higher rates of anxiety and depression, especially in teen girls. This is particularly concerning for children with T1D, who are more likely to suffer from these conditions.

Beyond mental health concerns, especially to developing brains, unfettered Internet use increases the risk that children are exposed to predators and harmful content. The online safety monitoring platform Bark shared data from its 2021 surveillance. Bark found that 72% of tweens and 85% of teens were involved in an online bullying situation. Sixty-nine percent of tweens and 91% of teens encountered nudity or sexual content. Ten percent of tweens and 21% of teens encountered predatory behavior.

These alarming finds mirror the prevalence suggested by conversations in my office. I hear reports of my patients sneaking out at night to meet adults they met through social media, having suicidal ideation and attempts after Internet bullying, and sharing earnest belief in bizarre conspiracy theories gleaned from online forums that lead to dangerous health care practices.

Furthermore, time is a finite resource. Teens who are spending an average of 3.5 hours daily on their devices are running out of time to play, study, and grow extracurricular interests. My friend who coaches high school baseball lamented recently the poor athleticism in his recent teams. He theorized that his players had spent their summers on tablets rather than playing catch or climbing trees. The resulting declines in exercise in young people only serve to worsen the childhood obesity epidemic.

What is a concerned parent to do? First, all phones have controls that allow parents to choose which apps are allowed and which are blocked. Caregivers must understand how various social media platforms work. Installing programs such as Bark provides an additional layer of monitoring, though these are no substitute for parental vigilance. Importantly, parents should talk to their children about their concerns regarding social media.

Sadly, I have often noticed that caregivers pity the extra hardships their children endure as the result of T1D and other chronic diseases. Being lax with rules to attempt to compensate for other suffering is far too tempting. The goal is for children and teens living with T1D to have a full and normal childhood, and unrestricted smartphone access and early social media use should not be the goal for any child. For every family, a media use plan is a smart approach. The American Academy of Pediatrics suggests several commonsense steps to use technology wisely, and parents often must address their own relationships with their devices to model healthy engagement.

As health care professionals, we owe it to our patients to discuss the ups and downs of technology with our patients. We can’t ostrich our way through this. We can point our patients and families to supportive groups such as Osprey (Old School Parents Raising Engaged Youth), founded by Ben and Erin Napier from the HGTV show Home Town along with my college friends Taylor and Dr. Catherine Sledge. Wait Until 8th provides information and motivation for parents to make wise choices regarding phone use for their children. The documentary Childhood 2.0 is another compelling resource developed by pediatric emergency physician Dr. Free Hess and her team that summarizes many of these concerns.

In another decade, many of these dangers will be far clearer. As ubiquitous as smartphone misuse is in our society, I remain hopeful that our society will change its behaviors. Just because “everyone else” allows an unhealthy relationship with technology doesn’t mean that we should for our children.

When I was a child, smoking was glamorized in movies and restaurants had dedicated smoking sections. After strong public policy efforts, many geared toward children, smoking is now almost unthinkable. My 8-year-old asked me lately whether a lady smoking a cigarette in the car next to us would have to go to jail. I chose a career in pediatrics because I am an optimist at my very core. We can’t ignore the dangers associated with the wide door opened by mobile devices. We can celebrate the benefits while clearly facing the pitfalls.

Dr. Lilley is director of the pediatric diabetes and lipid program at the Mississippi Center for Advanced Medicine, Madison. She reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

My young patient with type 1 diabetes (T1D) had her cell phone out to provide a share code for her Dexcom clarity app as she was checking into her visit. As my nurse was recording the code, the patient asked him, “Hey, can you add me on Snapchat?”

Her father scrolled through his own Facebook feed in the chair next to her, showing no concern that his daughter was looking to connect with an adult on a social media platform. Meanwhile, we were all grateful that the little girl, who had had a seizure due to hypoglycemia in her preschool and pre–continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) years, had access to the tools harnessed within the sparkly encased phone she held in her small hands. But did anyone in the room fully understand the potential dangers?

We are living in an exhilarating era of diabetes technology, a treatment environment that I couldn’t have dreamed of during my pediatric endocrinology fellowship. T1D is a volatile condition that changes day to day, especially in growing children. A short decade ago, the best CGM available was a bulky device on loan to patients for 3 days at a time. Information was later downloaded in-office to get a better idea of general glucose trends, if insurance would approve its use at all.

Now, we have a variety of very wearable and accurate disposable CGMs accessible to most patients. Every major insulin pump has available closed-loop capabilities. Some patients can dose from apps on their cell phones rather than juggle another device or draw attention to an insulin pump at the cafeteria table.

These developments have been game changers for children and teenagers with diabetes and for their families. When wondering whether an athlete’s dazed appearance on a soccer field was due to hypoglycemia, a parent no longer must demand that a coach pull the player – a quick glance at a smartphone app can verify the blood glucose and change rate. Children can use programs and search engines to quickly verify carbohydrate counts. Life360 and other tracking programs have increased parental feelings of security, especially with young drivers living with a chronic medical condition.

The inevitable outcome of this available technology is that children living with T1D are given cell phones far earlier than are their siblings or peers owing to “necessity.” Parents understandably want a means to stay in close contact with their children in case of a medical emergency. As a physician and mother of young children, I am thankful for the technology that keeps my patients safer and that allows them to fully participate in everything from sports to travel to an uninterrupted night’s sleep. But I am also growing more concerned that we have not completely counted the cost of early smartphone use in children.

Smartphone presence in classrooms empowers teachers, students, parents, and school nurses to be aware of glycemic trends and prevent hypoglycemic emergencies. Smartphones have also shown to be a major distraction in that setting, causing many schools to ban their use entirely. Video apps such as YouTube and TikTok can provide a wealth of support and medical information but may also open the door to misinformation and dangerous social contagion, particularly surrounding disordered eating. Informative podcasts such as The Juicebox Podcast and online forums provide incredible support for families, but the constant siren call of a phone in their pockets leads to distracted parents constantly tending to other conversations or responding to ever more demanding employers rather than focusing on face-to-face education sessions.

The Surgeon General recently released a report concerning social media use in children. This eye-opening report revealed that one-third of children admitted to using their cell phones “almost constantly.” Social media use is associated with higher rates of anxiety and depression, especially in teen girls. This is particularly concerning for children with T1D, who are more likely to suffer from these conditions.

Beyond mental health concerns, especially to developing brains, unfettered Internet use increases the risk that children are exposed to predators and harmful content. The online safety monitoring platform Bark shared data from its 2021 surveillance. Bark found that 72% of tweens and 85% of teens were involved in an online bullying situation. Sixty-nine percent of tweens and 91% of teens encountered nudity or sexual content. Ten percent of tweens and 21% of teens encountered predatory behavior.

These alarming finds mirror the prevalence suggested by conversations in my office. I hear reports of my patients sneaking out at night to meet adults they met through social media, having suicidal ideation and attempts after Internet bullying, and sharing earnest belief in bizarre conspiracy theories gleaned from online forums that lead to dangerous health care practices.

Furthermore, time is a finite resource. Teens who are spending an average of 3.5 hours daily on their devices are running out of time to play, study, and grow extracurricular interests. My friend who coaches high school baseball lamented recently the poor athleticism in his recent teams. He theorized that his players had spent their summers on tablets rather than playing catch or climbing trees. The resulting declines in exercise in young people only serve to worsen the childhood obesity epidemic.

What is a concerned parent to do? First, all phones have controls that allow parents to choose which apps are allowed and which are blocked. Caregivers must understand how various social media platforms work. Installing programs such as Bark provides an additional layer of monitoring, though these are no substitute for parental vigilance. Importantly, parents should talk to their children about their concerns regarding social media.

Sadly, I have often noticed that caregivers pity the extra hardships their children endure as the result of T1D and other chronic diseases. Being lax with rules to attempt to compensate for other suffering is far too tempting. The goal is for children and teens living with T1D to have a full and normal childhood, and unrestricted smartphone access and early social media use should not be the goal for any child. For every family, a media use plan is a smart approach. The American Academy of Pediatrics suggests several commonsense steps to use technology wisely, and parents often must address their own relationships with their devices to model healthy engagement.

As health care professionals, we owe it to our patients to discuss the ups and downs of technology with our patients. We can’t ostrich our way through this. We can point our patients and families to supportive groups such as Osprey (Old School Parents Raising Engaged Youth), founded by Ben and Erin Napier from the HGTV show Home Town along with my college friends Taylor and Dr. Catherine Sledge. Wait Until 8th provides information and motivation for parents to make wise choices regarding phone use for their children. The documentary Childhood 2.0 is another compelling resource developed by pediatric emergency physician Dr. Free Hess and her team that summarizes many of these concerns.

In another decade, many of these dangers will be far clearer. As ubiquitous as smartphone misuse is in our society, I remain hopeful that our society will change its behaviors. Just because “everyone else” allows an unhealthy relationship with technology doesn’t mean that we should for our children.

When I was a child, smoking was glamorized in movies and restaurants had dedicated smoking sections. After strong public policy efforts, many geared toward children, smoking is now almost unthinkable. My 8-year-old asked me lately whether a lady smoking a cigarette in the car next to us would have to go to jail. I chose a career in pediatrics because I am an optimist at my very core. We can’t ignore the dangers associated with the wide door opened by mobile devices. We can celebrate the benefits while clearly facing the pitfalls.

Dr. Lilley is director of the pediatric diabetes and lipid program at the Mississippi Center for Advanced Medicine, Madison. She reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

My young patient with type 1 diabetes (T1D) had her cell phone out to provide a share code for her Dexcom clarity app as she was checking into her visit. As my nurse was recording the code, the patient asked him, “Hey, can you add me on Snapchat?”

Her father scrolled through his own Facebook feed in the chair next to her, showing no concern that his daughter was looking to connect with an adult on a social media platform. Meanwhile, we were all grateful that the little girl, who had had a seizure due to hypoglycemia in her preschool and pre–continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) years, had access to the tools harnessed within the sparkly encased phone she held in her small hands. But did anyone in the room fully understand the potential dangers?

We are living in an exhilarating era of diabetes technology, a treatment environment that I couldn’t have dreamed of during my pediatric endocrinology fellowship. T1D is a volatile condition that changes day to day, especially in growing children. A short decade ago, the best CGM available was a bulky device on loan to patients for 3 days at a time. Information was later downloaded in-office to get a better idea of general glucose trends, if insurance would approve its use at all.

Now, we have a variety of very wearable and accurate disposable CGMs accessible to most patients. Every major insulin pump has available closed-loop capabilities. Some patients can dose from apps on their cell phones rather than juggle another device or draw attention to an insulin pump at the cafeteria table.

These developments have been game changers for children and teenagers with diabetes and for their families. When wondering whether an athlete’s dazed appearance on a soccer field was due to hypoglycemia, a parent no longer must demand that a coach pull the player – a quick glance at a smartphone app can verify the blood glucose and change rate. Children can use programs and search engines to quickly verify carbohydrate counts. Life360 and other tracking programs have increased parental feelings of security, especially with young drivers living with a chronic medical condition.

The inevitable outcome of this available technology is that children living with T1D are given cell phones far earlier than are their siblings or peers owing to “necessity.” Parents understandably want a means to stay in close contact with their children in case of a medical emergency. As a physician and mother of young children, I am thankful for the technology that keeps my patients safer and that allows them to fully participate in everything from sports to travel to an uninterrupted night’s sleep. But I am also growing more concerned that we have not completely counted the cost of early smartphone use in children.

Smartphone presence in classrooms empowers teachers, students, parents, and school nurses to be aware of glycemic trends and prevent hypoglycemic emergencies. Smartphones have also shown to be a major distraction in that setting, causing many schools to ban their use entirely. Video apps such as YouTube and TikTok can provide a wealth of support and medical information but may also open the door to misinformation and dangerous social contagion, particularly surrounding disordered eating. Informative podcasts such as The Juicebox Podcast and online forums provide incredible support for families, but the constant siren call of a phone in their pockets leads to distracted parents constantly tending to other conversations or responding to ever more demanding employers rather than focusing on face-to-face education sessions.

The Surgeon General recently released a report concerning social media use in children. This eye-opening report revealed that one-third of children admitted to using their cell phones “almost constantly.” Social media use is associated with higher rates of anxiety and depression, especially in teen girls. This is particularly concerning for children with T1D, who are more likely to suffer from these conditions.

Beyond mental health concerns, especially to developing brains, unfettered Internet use increases the risk that children are exposed to predators and harmful content. The online safety monitoring platform Bark shared data from its 2021 surveillance. Bark found that 72% of tweens and 85% of teens were involved in an online bullying situation. Sixty-nine percent of tweens and 91% of teens encountered nudity or sexual content. Ten percent of tweens and 21% of teens encountered predatory behavior.

These alarming finds mirror the prevalence suggested by conversations in my office. I hear reports of my patients sneaking out at night to meet adults they met through social media, having suicidal ideation and attempts after Internet bullying, and sharing earnest belief in bizarre conspiracy theories gleaned from online forums that lead to dangerous health care practices.

Furthermore, time is a finite resource. Teens who are spending an average of 3.5 hours daily on their devices are running out of time to play, study, and grow extracurricular interests. My friend who coaches high school baseball lamented recently the poor athleticism in his recent teams. He theorized that his players had spent their summers on tablets rather than playing catch or climbing trees. The resulting declines in exercise in young people only serve to worsen the childhood obesity epidemic.

What is a concerned parent to do? First, all phones have controls that allow parents to choose which apps are allowed and which are blocked. Caregivers must understand how various social media platforms work. Installing programs such as Bark provides an additional layer of monitoring, though these are no substitute for parental vigilance. Importantly, parents should talk to their children about their concerns regarding social media.

Sadly, I have often noticed that caregivers pity the extra hardships their children endure as the result of T1D and other chronic diseases. Being lax with rules to attempt to compensate for other suffering is far too tempting. The goal is for children and teens living with T1D to have a full and normal childhood, and unrestricted smartphone access and early social media use should not be the goal for any child. For every family, a media use plan is a smart approach. The American Academy of Pediatrics suggests several commonsense steps to use technology wisely, and parents often must address their own relationships with their devices to model healthy engagement.

As health care professionals, we owe it to our patients to discuss the ups and downs of technology with our patients. We can’t ostrich our way through this. We can point our patients and families to supportive groups such as Osprey (Old School Parents Raising Engaged Youth), founded by Ben and Erin Napier from the HGTV show Home Town along with my college friends Taylor and Dr. Catherine Sledge. Wait Until 8th provides information and motivation for parents to make wise choices regarding phone use for their children. The documentary Childhood 2.0 is another compelling resource developed by pediatric emergency physician Dr. Free Hess and her team that summarizes many of these concerns.

In another decade, many of these dangers will be far clearer. As ubiquitous as smartphone misuse is in our society, I remain hopeful that our society will change its behaviors. Just because “everyone else” allows an unhealthy relationship with technology doesn’t mean that we should for our children.

When I was a child, smoking was glamorized in movies and restaurants had dedicated smoking sections. After strong public policy efforts, many geared toward children, smoking is now almost unthinkable. My 8-year-old asked me lately whether a lady smoking a cigarette in the car next to us would have to go to jail. I chose a career in pediatrics because I am an optimist at my very core. We can’t ignore the dangers associated with the wide door opened by mobile devices. We can celebrate the benefits while clearly facing the pitfalls.

Dr. Lilley is director of the pediatric diabetes and lipid program at the Mississippi Center for Advanced Medicine, Madison. She reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

The Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) of the European Medicines Agency (EMA) has recommended marketing authorization of lebrikizumab for the treatment of adult and adolescent patients with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis (AD) who are candidates for systemic therapy.

Lebrikizumab is an investigational, monoclonal antibody that binds to cytokine interleukin (IL)-13, which has been implicated in driving the type-2 inflammatory loop in the skin, leading to skin barrier dysfunction, itch, skin thickening, and infection. The biologic is being developed by Almirall and is designed to be administered once per month. Lebrikizumab is not yet available in the United States.

According to a press release from Almirall, the CHMP opinion was based on three pivotal phase 3 studies that showed long-term response in skin clearance and itch control. ADvocate 1 and ADvocate 2 evaluated lebrikizumab as monotherapy, while ADhere assessed lebrikizumab in combination with topical corticosteroids (TCS) in adult and adolescent patients with moderate to severe AD. At week 16, more than 50% of patients with moderate to severe AD experienced at least a 75% reduction in disease severity (EASI-75) when receiving lebrikizumab monotherapy in the ADvocate studies and nearly 70% of patients receiving lebrikizumab combined with standard-of-care TCS achieved EASI-75 in the ADhere trial.

Most adverse events across the studies were mild or moderate. The most common reactions were conjunctivitis, injection site reactions, allergic conjunctivitis, and dry eye.

The Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) of the European Medicines Agency (EMA) has recommended marketing authorization of lebrikizumab for the treatment of adult and adolescent patients with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis (AD) who are candidates for systemic therapy.

Lebrikizumab is an investigational, monoclonal antibody that binds to cytokine interleukin (IL)-13, which has been implicated in driving the type-2 inflammatory loop in the skin, leading to skin barrier dysfunction, itch, skin thickening, and infection. The biologic is being developed by Almirall and is designed to be administered once per month. Lebrikizumab is not yet available in the United States.

According to a press release from Almirall, the CHMP opinion was based on three pivotal phase 3 studies that showed long-term response in skin clearance and itch control. ADvocate 1 and ADvocate 2 evaluated lebrikizumab as monotherapy, while ADhere assessed lebrikizumab in combination with topical corticosteroids (TCS) in adult and adolescent patients with moderate to severe AD. At week 16, more than 50% of patients with moderate to severe AD experienced at least a 75% reduction in disease severity (EASI-75) when receiving lebrikizumab monotherapy in the ADvocate studies and nearly 70% of patients receiving lebrikizumab combined with standard-of-care TCS achieved EASI-75 in the ADhere trial.

Most adverse events across the studies were mild or moderate. The most common reactions were conjunctivitis, injection site reactions, allergic conjunctivitis, and dry eye.

The Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) of the European Medicines Agency (EMA) has recommended marketing authorization of lebrikizumab for the treatment of adult and adolescent patients with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis (AD) who are candidates for systemic therapy.

Lebrikizumab is an investigational, monoclonal antibody that binds to cytokine interleukin (IL)-13, which has been implicated in driving the type-2 inflammatory loop in the skin, leading to skin barrier dysfunction, itch, skin thickening, and infection. The biologic is being developed by Almirall and is designed to be administered once per month. Lebrikizumab is not yet available in the United States.

According to a press release from Almirall, the CHMP opinion was based on three pivotal phase 3 studies that showed long-term response in skin clearance and itch control. ADvocate 1 and ADvocate 2 evaluated lebrikizumab as monotherapy, while ADhere assessed lebrikizumab in combination with topical corticosteroids (TCS) in adult and adolescent patients with moderate to severe AD. At week 16, more than 50% of patients with moderate to severe AD experienced at least a 75% reduction in disease severity (EASI-75) when receiving lebrikizumab monotherapy in the ADvocate studies and nearly 70% of patients receiving lebrikizumab combined with standard-of-care TCS achieved EASI-75 in the ADhere trial.

Most adverse events across the studies were mild or moderate. The most common reactions were conjunctivitis, injection site reactions, allergic conjunctivitis, and dry eye.

The years go by, and nothing much changes: The first 2 weeks of the new school year have brought with them a rise in emergency department (ED) admissions for asthma in patients under age 15 years. A more relaxed approach to maintenance therapy for the condition over the summer holidays, exposure to allergens at school, and the surge in viral respiratory infections that accompanies the return to group settings explain this trend, which can be foreseen.

As soon as September begins, asthma cases increase rapidly in children. According to Public Health France, which has just relaunched its epidemiological monitoring, these cases reach their peak around 2 weeks after the start of the new term.

In its first weekly review on Aug. 22, 2023, the authority reported a slight uptick in cases in its Indian Ocean overseas departments, and the calm before the storm in mainland France.

Last year, between weeks 35 and 36, the increases were 82% for SOS Médecins (the French home doctor visit service), 169% for EDs, and 33% for hospital admissions.

These data are similar to the figures obtained over the past 3 years. The authors of this monitoring, using the SurSaUD system, France’s program for monitoring emergency cases and deaths, attribute these increases to the surge in viral respiratory infections seen after the return to group settings after the school summer holidays.

Indeed, viral-induced exacerbations are mostly caused by rhinoviruses, which circulate throughout the year, but more so during the autumn and winter months. These are probably the main culprits behind the epidemics seen once schools have reopened. Yet relaxation of maintenance asthma treatment (inhaled corticosteroids alone or in combination with long-acting bronchodilators) during the summer holidays also plays a significant role in this yearly recurrence.
 

Compliance ends with school

Flore Amat, MD, PhD, pediatric respiratory and allergy specialist and coordinating doctor at the Zephyr asthma clinic (Robert-Debré Hospital, Paris Public Hospitals) acknowledged, “The summer holidays are often a time when compliance with maintenance therapy is relaxed.” Aware of this fact, doctors prefer to strike a deal with their young patients. “For some of our young and teenage asthma patients, we support their relaxed approach to medication during the summer holidays,” she admitted. “In July and August, there are fewer viruses circulating, and the weather is often dry, which limits the risk of an asthma attack, meaning we can ease off the maintenance therapy, or even stop taking it altogether. We tell parents and children to start taking them again 2 weeks before school starts; 2 weeks being the minimum time needed for inhaled corticosteroids to start taking effect again.” Unsurprisingly, some forget to do so or simply don’t.

Two other things contribute to the rise in asthma attacks in children in early September. The first relates to exposure to allergens, especially dust mites. “Ninety percent of asthmatic children are allergic,” said Frédéric le Guillou, MD, respiratory medicine specialist and chair of the French Society for Respiratory Health, an organization aimed at patients and health care professionals. “Don’t forget that asthma is the leading chronic condition in childhood, with a prevalence estimated at between 8% and 10% of children and adolescents. So, we’re talking about considerable numbers of children being affected.”

Although dust mites are a year-round problem, their peak period of reproduction mainly occurs during the wetter months (March to April and September to November). This means that there is a risk of relapse in asthmatic children who are allergic to dust mites when school starts again after the summer holidays. “In such children, any signs of unmanageable allergic rhinitis should be examined,” said Dr. Amat, “these signs being permanent nasal congestion, runny nose, et cetera.”

Finally, we can also add “the stress and anxiety generated by the school setting and settling back into a routine” to the list of likely explanations for this peak in asthma attacks, Dr. Amat concluded.
 

Check-up time

Children and teenagers with asthma should have a check-up with their respiratory medicine specialists at the start of the new term to confirm that their condition is under control and to determine whether any changes need to be made to their maintenance therapy. “Looking back at previous Septembers and winters is informative in adapting a patient’s treatment plan,” said Dr. Amat. “If maintenance therapy has been stopped during the summer, take the opportunity to represcribe it or modify it if, for example, the dose of inhaled corticosteroids has not been enough to prevent attacks in years gone by. Adequate control of symptoms over the summer months suggests that treatment should be bolstered with preventive therapy to cope with the autumn and winter months. Finally, the factors aggravating poor management of asthma should be dealt with, such as intranasal antihistamines and corticosteroids in allergic rhinitis, specific immunotherapy in patients with controlled asthma but with significant allergy symptoms.”

The start-of-term visit to the doctor’s office is also the perfect opportunity to carry out respiratory function testing (RFT), if this has not been done for over a year in patients whose asthma is well managed. “RFT is indicated in the 3 months following any changes to maintenance therapy, every 3 to 6 months in patients with poorly controlled asthma, and after stopping maintenance therapy or when considering stopping treatment permanently or for an extended period of time,” noted Dr. Amat.

The distinction between difficult asthma (suboptimal treatment plan, poor compliance, persisting allergen exposure, etc.) and severe asthma may be made during this back-to-school asthma review. In specialist clinics, children with severe asthma (not controlled by combined treatment with maximum-dose corticosteroids and maximum-dose bronchodilators) may, like adults, benefit from some biotherapies.
 

Commentary from Madiha Ellaffi, MD, respiratory medicine specialist

When children experience relatively calm summers without seasonal summer allergies to certain pollens or molds (such as Alternaria, some grasses, etc.) that require maintenance therapy to be continued, we know full well that compliance is often left up to the child. What would be better would be striking a “deal” with these young people: Maintenance treatment can be stopped over the summer, providing that their usual dose is quite low or their asthma is considered mild to moderate, but it must be restarted before going back to school in September. An action plan should be discussed in the event of an asthma attack, and treatment bolstered to overcome this hurdle, should it occur, such as double inhaled corticosteroid doses, etc. Indeed, this period is conducive to asthma exacerbations due to stress, the return of students to confined classrooms, pollutants released by the deep cleaning of school buildings that occurs at the start of term (particularly the release of volatile organic compounds that irritate the airways), and the lack of ventilation in classrooms, which is conducive to the spread of viruses that can cause worsening asthma symptoms. I’d also like to remind parents of the importance of detecting early symptoms (such as wheezing, cough, bronchitis, itchy throat and nose, etc.) in warding off asthma attacks or severe symptoms. I insist on basic measures, such as nasal irrigation, treating allergic rhinitis, which can exacerbate asthma, and ensuring good habits at home to prevent dust mites and mold, such as vacuuming, airing houses, etc. It is sensible to assess the risk of asthma attacks at the start of term according to the child’s allergy profile and their previous history, like starting treatment for allergic rhinitis if not already being taken.

This article was translated from Medscape’s French edition. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The years go by, and nothing much changes: The first 2 weeks of the new school year have brought with them a rise in emergency department (ED) admissions for asthma in patients under age 15 years. A more relaxed approach to maintenance therapy for the condition over the summer holidays, exposure to allergens at school, and the surge in viral respiratory infections that accompanies the return to group settings explain this trend, which can be foreseen.

As soon as September begins, asthma cases increase rapidly in children. According to Public Health France, which has just relaunched its epidemiological monitoring, these cases reach their peak around 2 weeks after the start of the new term.

In its first weekly review on Aug. 22, 2023, the authority reported a slight uptick in cases in its Indian Ocean overseas departments, and the calm before the storm in mainland France.

Last year, between weeks 35 and 36, the increases were 82% for SOS Médecins (the French home doctor visit service), 169% for EDs, and 33% for hospital admissions.

These data are similar to the figures obtained over the past 3 years. The authors of this monitoring, using the SurSaUD system, France’s program for monitoring emergency cases and deaths, attribute these increases to the surge in viral respiratory infections seen after the return to group settings after the school summer holidays.

Indeed, viral-induced exacerbations are mostly caused by rhinoviruses, which circulate throughout the year, but more so during the autumn and winter months. These are probably the main culprits behind the epidemics seen once schools have reopened. Yet relaxation of maintenance asthma treatment (inhaled corticosteroids alone or in combination with long-acting bronchodilators) during the summer holidays also plays a significant role in this yearly recurrence.
 

Compliance ends with school

Flore Amat, MD, PhD, pediatric respiratory and allergy specialist and coordinating doctor at the Zephyr asthma clinic (Robert-Debré Hospital, Paris Public Hospitals) acknowledged, “The summer holidays are often a time when compliance with maintenance therapy is relaxed.” Aware of this fact, doctors prefer to strike a deal with their young patients. “For some of our young and teenage asthma patients, we support their relaxed approach to medication during the summer holidays,” she admitted. “In July and August, there are fewer viruses circulating, and the weather is often dry, which limits the risk of an asthma attack, meaning we can ease off the maintenance therapy, or even stop taking it altogether. We tell parents and children to start taking them again 2 weeks before school starts; 2 weeks being the minimum time needed for inhaled corticosteroids to start taking effect again.” Unsurprisingly, some forget to do so or simply don’t.

Two other things contribute to the rise in asthma attacks in children in early September. The first relates to exposure to allergens, especially dust mites. “Ninety percent of asthmatic children are allergic,” said Frédéric le Guillou, MD, respiratory medicine specialist and chair of the French Society for Respiratory Health, an organization aimed at patients and health care professionals. “Don’t forget that asthma is the leading chronic condition in childhood, with a prevalence estimated at between 8% and 10% of children and adolescents. So, we’re talking about considerable numbers of children being affected.”

Although dust mites are a year-round problem, their peak period of reproduction mainly occurs during the wetter months (March to April and September to November). This means that there is a risk of relapse in asthmatic children who are allergic to dust mites when school starts again after the summer holidays. “In such children, any signs of unmanageable allergic rhinitis should be examined,” said Dr. Amat, “these signs being permanent nasal congestion, runny nose, et cetera.”

Finally, we can also add “the stress and anxiety generated by the school setting and settling back into a routine” to the list of likely explanations for this peak in asthma attacks, Dr. Amat concluded.
 

Check-up time

Children and teenagers with asthma should have a check-up with their respiratory medicine specialists at the start of the new term to confirm that their condition is under control and to determine whether any changes need to be made to their maintenance therapy. “Looking back at previous Septembers and winters is informative in adapting a patient’s treatment plan,” said Dr. Amat. “If maintenance therapy has been stopped during the summer, take the opportunity to represcribe it or modify it if, for example, the dose of inhaled corticosteroids has not been enough to prevent attacks in years gone by. Adequate control of symptoms over the summer months suggests that treatment should be bolstered with preventive therapy to cope with the autumn and winter months. Finally, the factors aggravating poor management of asthma should be dealt with, such as intranasal antihistamines and corticosteroids in allergic rhinitis, specific immunotherapy in patients with controlled asthma but with significant allergy symptoms.”

The start-of-term visit to the doctor’s office is also the perfect opportunity to carry out respiratory function testing (RFT), if this has not been done for over a year in patients whose asthma is well managed. “RFT is indicated in the 3 months following any changes to maintenance therapy, every 3 to 6 months in patients with poorly controlled asthma, and after stopping maintenance therapy or when considering stopping treatment permanently or for an extended period of time,” noted Dr. Amat.

The distinction between difficult asthma (suboptimal treatment plan, poor compliance, persisting allergen exposure, etc.) and severe asthma may be made during this back-to-school asthma review. In specialist clinics, children with severe asthma (not controlled by combined treatment with maximum-dose corticosteroids and maximum-dose bronchodilators) may, like adults, benefit from some biotherapies.
 

Commentary from Madiha Ellaffi, MD, respiratory medicine specialist

When children experience relatively calm summers without seasonal summer allergies to certain pollens or molds (such as Alternaria, some grasses, etc.) that require maintenance therapy to be continued, we know full well that compliance is often left up to the child. What would be better would be striking a “deal” with these young people: Maintenance treatment can be stopped over the summer, providing that their usual dose is quite low or their asthma is considered mild to moderate, but it must be restarted before going back to school in September. An action plan should be discussed in the event of an asthma attack, and treatment bolstered to overcome this hurdle, should it occur, such as double inhaled corticosteroid doses, etc. Indeed, this period is conducive to asthma exacerbations due to stress, the return of students to confined classrooms, pollutants released by the deep cleaning of school buildings that occurs at the start of term (particularly the release of volatile organic compounds that irritate the airways), and the lack of ventilation in classrooms, which is conducive to the spread of viruses that can cause worsening asthma symptoms. I’d also like to remind parents of the importance of detecting early symptoms (such as wheezing, cough, bronchitis, itchy throat and nose, etc.) in warding off asthma attacks or severe symptoms. I insist on basic measures, such as nasal irrigation, treating allergic rhinitis, which can exacerbate asthma, and ensuring good habits at home to prevent dust mites and mold, such as vacuuming, airing houses, etc. It is sensible to assess the risk of asthma attacks at the start of term according to the child’s allergy profile and their previous history, like starting treatment for allergic rhinitis if not already being taken.

This article was translated from Medscape’s French edition. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The years go by, and nothing much changes: The first 2 weeks of the new school year have brought with them a rise in emergency department (ED) admissions for asthma in patients under age 15 years. A more relaxed approach to maintenance therapy for the condition over the summer holidays, exposure to allergens at school, and the surge in viral respiratory infections that accompanies the return to group settings explain this trend, which can be foreseen.

As soon as September begins, asthma cases increase rapidly in children. According to Public Health France, which has just relaunched its epidemiological monitoring, these cases reach their peak around 2 weeks after the start of the new term.

In its first weekly review on Aug. 22, 2023, the authority reported a slight uptick in cases in its Indian Ocean overseas departments, and the calm before the storm in mainland France.

Last year, between weeks 35 and 36, the increases were 82% for SOS Médecins (the French home doctor visit service), 169% for EDs, and 33% for hospital admissions.

These data are similar to the figures obtained over the past 3 years. The authors of this monitoring, using the SurSaUD system, France’s program for monitoring emergency cases and deaths, attribute these increases to the surge in viral respiratory infections seen after the return to group settings after the school summer holidays.

Indeed, viral-induced exacerbations are mostly caused by rhinoviruses, which circulate throughout the year, but more so during the autumn and winter months. These are probably the main culprits behind the epidemics seen once schools have reopened. Yet relaxation of maintenance asthma treatment (inhaled corticosteroids alone or in combination with long-acting bronchodilators) during the summer holidays also plays a significant role in this yearly recurrence.
 

Compliance ends with school

Flore Amat, MD, PhD, pediatric respiratory and allergy specialist and coordinating doctor at the Zephyr asthma clinic (Robert-Debré Hospital, Paris Public Hospitals) acknowledged, “The summer holidays are often a time when compliance with maintenance therapy is relaxed.” Aware of this fact, doctors prefer to strike a deal with their young patients. “For some of our young and teenage asthma patients, we support their relaxed approach to medication during the summer holidays,” she admitted. “In July and August, there are fewer viruses circulating, and the weather is often dry, which limits the risk of an asthma attack, meaning we can ease off the maintenance therapy, or even stop taking it altogether. We tell parents and children to start taking them again 2 weeks before school starts; 2 weeks being the minimum time needed for inhaled corticosteroids to start taking effect again.” Unsurprisingly, some forget to do so or simply don’t.

Two other things contribute to the rise in asthma attacks in children in early September. The first relates to exposure to allergens, especially dust mites. “Ninety percent of asthmatic children are allergic,” said Frédéric le Guillou, MD, respiratory medicine specialist and chair of the French Society for Respiratory Health, an organization aimed at patients and health care professionals. “Don’t forget that asthma is the leading chronic condition in childhood, with a prevalence estimated at between 8% and 10% of children and adolescents. So, we’re talking about considerable numbers of children being affected.”

Although dust mites are a year-round problem, their peak period of reproduction mainly occurs during the wetter months (March to April and September to November). This means that there is a risk of relapse in asthmatic children who are allergic to dust mites when school starts again after the summer holidays. “In such children, any signs of unmanageable allergic rhinitis should be examined,” said Dr. Amat, “these signs being permanent nasal congestion, runny nose, et cetera.”

Finally, we can also add “the stress and anxiety generated by the school setting and settling back into a routine” to the list of likely explanations for this peak in asthma attacks, Dr. Amat concluded.
 

Check-up time

Children and teenagers with asthma should have a check-up with their respiratory medicine specialists at the start of the new term to confirm that their condition is under control and to determine whether any changes need to be made to their maintenance therapy. “Looking back at previous Septembers and winters is informative in adapting a patient’s treatment plan,” said Dr. Amat. “If maintenance therapy has been stopped during the summer, take the opportunity to represcribe it or modify it if, for example, the dose of inhaled corticosteroids has not been enough to prevent attacks in years gone by. Adequate control of symptoms over the summer months suggests that treatment should be bolstered with preventive therapy to cope with the autumn and winter months. Finally, the factors aggravating poor management of asthma should be dealt with, such as intranasal antihistamines and corticosteroids in allergic rhinitis, specific immunotherapy in patients with controlled asthma but with significant allergy symptoms.”

The start-of-term visit to the doctor’s office is also the perfect opportunity to carry out respiratory function testing (RFT), if this has not been done for over a year in patients whose asthma is well managed. “RFT is indicated in the 3 months following any changes to maintenance therapy, every 3 to 6 months in patients with poorly controlled asthma, and after stopping maintenance therapy or when considering stopping treatment permanently or for an extended period of time,” noted Dr. Amat.

The distinction between difficult asthma (suboptimal treatment plan, poor compliance, persisting allergen exposure, etc.) and severe asthma may be made during this back-to-school asthma review. In specialist clinics, children with severe asthma (not controlled by combined treatment with maximum-dose corticosteroids and maximum-dose bronchodilators) may, like adults, benefit from some biotherapies.
 

Commentary from Madiha Ellaffi, MD, respiratory medicine specialist

When children experience relatively calm summers without seasonal summer allergies to certain pollens or molds (such as Alternaria, some grasses, etc.) that require maintenance therapy to be continued, we know full well that compliance is often left up to the child. What would be better would be striking a “deal” with these young people: Maintenance treatment can be stopped over the summer, providing that their usual dose is quite low or their asthma is considered mild to moderate, but it must be restarted before going back to school in September. An action plan should be discussed in the event of an asthma attack, and treatment bolstered to overcome this hurdle, should it occur, such as double inhaled corticosteroid doses, etc. Indeed, this period is conducive to asthma exacerbations due to stress, the return of students to confined classrooms, pollutants released by the deep cleaning of school buildings that occurs at the start of term (particularly the release of volatile organic compounds that irritate the airways), and the lack of ventilation in classrooms, which is conducive to the spread of viruses that can cause worsening asthma symptoms. I’d also like to remind parents of the importance of detecting early symptoms (such as wheezing, cough, bronchitis, itchy throat and nose, etc.) in warding off asthma attacks or severe symptoms. I insist on basic measures, such as nasal irrigation, treating allergic rhinitis, which can exacerbate asthma, and ensuring good habits at home to prevent dust mites and mold, such as vacuuming, airing houses, etc. It is sensible to assess the risk of asthma attacks at the start of term according to the child’s allergy profile and their previous history, like starting treatment for allergic rhinitis if not already being taken.

This article was translated from Medscape’s French edition. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

It is difficult to go through any publication or website these days without finding an article about artificial intelligence (AI). Many discuss its current status, while others speculate on potential future applications. Often, AI is described as an “existential threat to human health” by commentators who aren’t even aware of the definition of that term as Kierkegaard conceived it, the role of the individual to breathe meaning into life. Others characterize such cataclysmic predictions as “overblown and misdirected”.

The long-term potential for abuse of AI requires discussion, and should be addressed by policy makers, but that is beyond the scope of this column.

Meanwhile, there are many near-term opportunities for AI to improve health care and reduce tedious and time consuming tasks. Specifically, some AI-based tools are available to use in your office right now, with no “existential” threat to anybody.

The most popular current AI-based medical applications are automated scribes. They transcribe live consultations between physician and patient automatically and create a searchable report, plus notes for charts and billing.

I’ve written about AI scribes before, but the quality and user-friendliness of these products have improved dramatically in recent years. Language processing capabilities now permit you to speak naturally, without having to memorize specific commands. Some scribes can mimic your writing style based on sample notes that you enter into the system. Others allow you to integrate your own knowledge base, or a bibliography of research studies. With some systems, you can dictate notes directly into most EHR software, ask questions regarding medication dosages, or access a patient’s medical history from hospitals or other offices.

Current popular medical scribe products include DeepCura, DeepScribe, Nuance, Suki, Augmedix, Tali AI, Iodine Software, and ScribeLink. Amazon Web Services recently launched its own product, HealthScribe, as well. (As always, I have no financial interest in any product or service mentioned in this column.)

AI scribes aren’t entirely autonomous, of course; you need to read the output and check for potential inaccuracies. Still, users claim that they substantially reduce documentation and charting time, permitting more patient visits and less after-hours work.

AI can also be used to provide useful content for your patients. If you are not particularly good at writing, or don’t have the time for it, generative algorithms like the much-vaunted ChatGPT can generate posts, FAQs, and other informational content for your website, blog, or social media pages. You can ask for ideas about timely health topics and write general information articles, or create content specific to your location or specialty. You can use it to write emails informing your patients about upcoming office events or educate them on a range of topics, from getting their annual flu shots to scheduling regular screening skin exams.

With some of the same techniques and additional software, you can create entire videos for your website at a fraction of the cost of hiring a video production team. After using ChatGPT to write the content – for example, a 5-minute script on the importance of sunscreen in preventing skin cancer – you can employ a text-to-speech algorithm such as Revoicer to transform the script into audio content, and then a preproduction algorithm like Yepic or Synthesia to generate a video with a synthetic human. 

If you are unhappy with your current online presence, you can use AI to create an entire website. Through a series of questions, AI website builders such as Wix ADI, Jimdo, Hostinger, and 10Web gather all the information needed to set up a website draft that is already personalized with medical-specific content. Most offer the option to connect to Instagram, Facebook, Google My Business, and similar sites, to which they can import your office’s logo, images, and descriptive texts.

Some of them are capable of pulling up responsive site pages that automatically adjust to the device – mobile or computer – that the visitor is using. This is important, as I’ve written before, because more than half of all searches for doctors are now made on smartphones, so the more “mobile friendly” your site is, the higher it will be ranked. You can test how easily a visitor can use your website on a mobile device with Google’s free Mobile-Friendly Test.

If you give talks at medical meetings, you know how cumbersome and time-consuming it can be to create Powerpoint presentations. Once again, AI can save you time and trouble. Presentation designers such as Presentations.AI, Deck Robot, iA Presenter, and Beautiful.AI can assemble very acceptable presentations from your primary inputs. You typically choose a template, input your basic data, and AI will format the slides and offer you visuals, animations, voice-overs, and other fancy features. You will also have flexibility in changing segments or images or sizes you don’t like.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].

It is difficult to go through any publication or website these days without finding an article about artificial intelligence (AI). Many discuss its current status, while others speculate on potential future applications. Often, AI is described as an “existential threat to human health” by commentators who aren’t even aware of the definition of that term as Kierkegaard conceived it, the role of the individual to breathe meaning into life. Others characterize such cataclysmic predictions as “overblown and misdirected”.

The long-term potential for abuse of AI requires discussion, and should be addressed by policy makers, but that is beyond the scope of this column.

Meanwhile, there are many near-term opportunities for AI to improve health care and reduce tedious and time consuming tasks. Specifically, some AI-based tools are available to use in your office right now, with no “existential” threat to anybody.

The most popular current AI-based medical applications are automated scribes. They transcribe live consultations between physician and patient automatically and create a searchable report, plus notes for charts and billing.

I’ve written about AI scribes before, but the quality and user-friendliness of these products have improved dramatically in recent years. Language processing capabilities now permit you to speak naturally, without having to memorize specific commands. Some scribes can mimic your writing style based on sample notes that you enter into the system. Others allow you to integrate your own knowledge base, or a bibliography of research studies. With some systems, you can dictate notes directly into most EHR software, ask questions regarding medication dosages, or access a patient’s medical history from hospitals or other offices.

Current popular medical scribe products include DeepCura, DeepScribe, Nuance, Suki, Augmedix, Tali AI, Iodine Software, and ScribeLink. Amazon Web Services recently launched its own product, HealthScribe, as well. (As always, I have no financial interest in any product or service mentioned in this column.)

AI scribes aren’t entirely autonomous, of course; you need to read the output and check for potential inaccuracies. Still, users claim that they substantially reduce documentation and charting time, permitting more patient visits and less after-hours work.

AI can also be used to provide useful content for your patients. If you are not particularly good at writing, or don’t have the time for it, generative algorithms like the much-vaunted ChatGPT can generate posts, FAQs, and other informational content for your website, blog, or social media pages. You can ask for ideas about timely health topics and write general information articles, or create content specific to your location or specialty. You can use it to write emails informing your patients about upcoming office events or educate them on a range of topics, from getting their annual flu shots to scheduling regular screening skin exams.

With some of the same techniques and additional software, you can create entire videos for your website at a fraction of the cost of hiring a video production team. After using ChatGPT to write the content – for example, a 5-minute script on the importance of sunscreen in preventing skin cancer – you can employ a text-to-speech algorithm such as Revoicer to transform the script into audio content, and then a preproduction algorithm like Yepic or Synthesia to generate a video with a synthetic human. 

If you are unhappy with your current online presence, you can use AI to create an entire website. Through a series of questions, AI website builders such as Wix ADI, Jimdo, Hostinger, and 10Web gather all the information needed to set up a website draft that is already personalized with medical-specific content. Most offer the option to connect to Instagram, Facebook, Google My Business, and similar sites, to which they can import your office’s logo, images, and descriptive texts.

Some of them are capable of pulling up responsive site pages that automatically adjust to the device – mobile or computer – that the visitor is using. This is important, as I’ve written before, because more than half of all searches for doctors are now made on smartphones, so the more “mobile friendly” your site is, the higher it will be ranked. You can test how easily a visitor can use your website on a mobile device with Google’s free Mobile-Friendly Test.

If you give talks at medical meetings, you know how cumbersome and time-consuming it can be to create Powerpoint presentations. Once again, AI can save you time and trouble. Presentation designers such as Presentations.AI, Deck Robot, iA Presenter, and Beautiful.AI can assemble very acceptable presentations from your primary inputs. You typically choose a template, input your basic data, and AI will format the slides and offer you visuals, animations, voice-overs, and other fancy features. You will also have flexibility in changing segments or images or sizes you don’t like.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].

It is difficult to go through any publication or website these days without finding an article about artificial intelligence (AI). Many discuss its current status, while others speculate on potential future applications. Often, AI is described as an “existential threat to human health” by commentators who aren’t even aware of the definition of that term as Kierkegaard conceived it, the role of the individual to breathe meaning into life. Others characterize such cataclysmic predictions as “overblown and misdirected”.

The long-term potential for abuse of AI requires discussion, and should be addressed by policy makers, but that is beyond the scope of this column.

Meanwhile, there are many near-term opportunities for AI to improve health care and reduce tedious and time consuming tasks. Specifically, some AI-based tools are available to use in your office right now, with no “existential” threat to anybody.

The most popular current AI-based medical applications are automated scribes. They transcribe live consultations between physician and patient automatically and create a searchable report, plus notes for charts and billing.

I’ve written about AI scribes before, but the quality and user-friendliness of these products have improved dramatically in recent years. Language processing capabilities now permit you to speak naturally, without having to memorize specific commands. Some scribes can mimic your writing style based on sample notes that you enter into the system. Others allow you to integrate your own knowledge base, or a bibliography of research studies. With some systems, you can dictate notes directly into most EHR software, ask questions regarding medication dosages, or access a patient’s medical history from hospitals or other offices.

Current popular medical scribe products include DeepCura, DeepScribe, Nuance, Suki, Augmedix, Tali AI, Iodine Software, and ScribeLink. Amazon Web Services recently launched its own product, HealthScribe, as well. (As always, I have no financial interest in any product or service mentioned in this column.)

AI scribes aren’t entirely autonomous, of course; you need to read the output and check for potential inaccuracies. Still, users claim that they substantially reduce documentation and charting time, permitting more patient visits and less after-hours work.

AI can also be used to provide useful content for your patients. If you are not particularly good at writing, or don’t have the time for it, generative algorithms like the much-vaunted ChatGPT can generate posts, FAQs, and other informational content for your website, blog, or social media pages. You can ask for ideas about timely health topics and write general information articles, or create content specific to your location or specialty. You can use it to write emails informing your patients about upcoming office events or educate them on a range of topics, from getting their annual flu shots to scheduling regular screening skin exams.

With some of the same techniques and additional software, you can create entire videos for your website at a fraction of the cost of hiring a video production team. After using ChatGPT to write the content – for example, a 5-minute script on the importance of sunscreen in preventing skin cancer – you can employ a text-to-speech algorithm such as Revoicer to transform the script into audio content, and then a preproduction algorithm like Yepic or Synthesia to generate a video with a synthetic human. 

If you are unhappy with your current online presence, you can use AI to create an entire website. Through a series of questions, AI website builders such as Wix ADI, Jimdo, Hostinger, and 10Web gather all the information needed to set up a website draft that is already personalized with medical-specific content. Most offer the option to connect to Instagram, Facebook, Google My Business, and similar sites, to which they can import your office’s logo, images, and descriptive texts.

Some of them are capable of pulling up responsive site pages that automatically adjust to the device – mobile or computer – that the visitor is using. This is important, as I’ve written before, because more than half of all searches for doctors are now made on smartphones, so the more “mobile friendly” your site is, the higher it will be ranked. You can test how easily a visitor can use your website on a mobile device with Google’s free Mobile-Friendly Test.

If you give talks at medical meetings, you know how cumbersome and time-consuming it can be to create Powerpoint presentations. Once again, AI can save you time and trouble. Presentation designers such as Presentations.AI, Deck Robot, iA Presenter, and Beautiful.AI can assemble very acceptable presentations from your primary inputs. You typically choose a template, input your basic data, and AI will format the slides and offer you visuals, animations, voice-overs, and other fancy features. You will also have flexibility in changing segments or images or sizes you don’t like.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].

This month we are following up on our previous piece on anxiety disorders. We wrote about how these disorders are common, amenable to treatment, and often curable, but are often missed as many children suffer silently or their symptoms are mistaken for signs of other problems. We reviewed the screening instruments that can help you to catch these “quiet” illnesses. Now, we are going to offer some detail about the effective treatments for the most common anxiety disorders and how to approach getting treatment started when a screen has turned up positive. If you are interested in a deeper dive, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry has detailed practice parameters for the disorders discussed below.

Anxiety disorders in young children

Separation anxiety disorder, specific phobia, generalized anxiety disorder, and social phobia are the anxiety disorders that most commonly affect the youngest children. Separation anxiety disorder is the most common childhood anxiety disorder and has an average age of onset of 6 years, whereas specific phobia peaks between 5 and 8 years of age, generalized anxiety disorder peaks at 8 years old and social phobia (or social anxiety disorder) has a peak age of onset of 13 years. The first-line treatment for each disorder is cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT), and specifically a variant called exposure and response prevention. This treatment essentially helps patients to “learn” to have a different response, not anxiety, to the triggering thought or stimulus. CBT can be very effective, curative even, but these disorders can be difficult to treat when a child’s level of anxiety exceeds their ability to engage in treatment. In these cases, treatment can be facilitated by the addition of an SSRI, which is recommended by the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry as a second-line treatment in children aged 6-18 years. Given the anxious child’s sensitivity to some side effects (such as GI distress) starting at a low dose and titrating up slowly is the recommendation, and effective dose ranges are higher than for the treatment of mood disorders. Without treatment, these disorders may become learned over years and predict complicating anxiety, mood, and substance use disorders in adolescence and adulthood. Any treatment can be helped by the addition of parent guidance, in which parents learn how to be emotionally supportive to their anxious children without accommodating to their demands or asking them to avoid of the source of anxiety.
 

Obsessive-compulsive disorder

Mild obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) describes what many of us do, like double-checking we have locked our door or put our work into our briefcase. OCD as a diagnosis with substantial dysfunction has a peak onset at age 10 and again at the age of 21. Over 50% of childhood-onset OCD will have a comorbid anxiety, attention, eating, or tic disorder. Without treatment, OCD is likely to become chronic, and the symptoms (intrusive thoughts, obsessive rumination, and compulsive behaviors) interfere with social and academic function. The behavioral accommodations and avoidance of distress that mark untreated OCD interfere with the healthy development of normal stress management skills that are a critical part of early and later adolescence. First-line treatment is CBT (with exposure and response prevention) with a therapist experienced in the treatment of OCD. A detailed symptom inventory (the Children’s Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale) is relatively simple to complete, will confirm a suspected OCD diagnosis, and will create a valuable baseline by which treatment efficacy can be assessed. For those children with moderate to severe OCD, addition of an SSRI to augment and facilitate CBT therapy is recommended. Sertraline, fluvoxamine, fluoxetine, and paroxetine have all been studied and demonstrated efficacy. Clomipramine has well-established efficacy, but its more serious side effects and poorer tolerability make SSRIs the first choice. As with other anxiety disorders, starting at very low doses and titrating upward gradually is recommended. The efficacy of medication treatments is lower in those patients who have other psychiatric illnesses occurring with OCD. Again, parent guidance can be invaluable in supporting the child and improving family well-being.

PTSD

Studies have suggested that between 15% and 45% of children and adolescents in the United States experience a traumatic event, but of those children less than 15% of girls and 6% of boys will develop PTSD in the months that follow. It is important to consider other mood and anxiety disorders in assessing youth with a trauma history who present with symptoms of anxiety and impaired function more than 1 month after the traumatic event. With a history of a traumatic event, it can be helpful to use a specific screening instrument for PTSD, such as the Child PTSD Symptoms Scale or the UCLA PTSD Reaction Index. The symptoms of other disorders (including ADHD) can mimic PTSD, and these disorders may be comorbid with mood, substance use, and eating disorders. Treatment is trauma-focused CBT, with careful use of medications to manage specific symptoms (such as nightmares). Evidence has shown that inclusion of parents in the CBT treatment results in greater reduction in both mood and behavioral symptoms than treating the children alone.

Special cases: School refusal

School refusal affects between 2% and 5% of children, and it is critical to address it promptly or else it can become entrenched and much more difficult to treat. It peaks at 6 and again at 14 years old and often comes to the attention of the pediatrician as children complain of somatic concerns that prove to have no clear cause. It is important to screen for trauma, mood, and anxiety disorders so that you might make reasonable treatment recommendations. But the critical intervention is a behavioral plan that supports the child’s prompt return to school. This requires communication with school personnel and parents to create a plan for the child’s return to school (using natural rewards like friends and trusted teachers) and staying at school (with detailed contingency planning). Parents may need help finding ways to “demagnetize” home and “remagnetize” school, such as turning off the Internet at home and not allowing a child to play sports or with friends when not attending school. Psychotherapy will be helpful for an underlying anxiety or mood disorder, and medications may also be helpful, but education and support for parents to understand how to manage the distress avoidance and rewards of school refusal are generally the critical components of an effective response to this serious problem.

Special cases: Adolescents with new anxiety symptoms

Most childhood anxiety disorders occur before puberty, but anxiety is a common symptom of mood and substance use disorders in teenagers, and often the symptom that drives help-seeking. It is important to screen teens who present with anxiety for underlying mood or substance use disorders. For example, panic disorder is relatively common in young adults, while in teenagers, panic attacks are a frequent symptom of depression or of withdrawal from regular cannabis use. If anxiety has been present and untreated since childhood, adolescents may present with complex comorbid mood and anxiety disorders and struggle with distress tolerance, social difficulties, and perfectionism. Anxiety itself is a very regular developmental feature of adolescence as this is a time of navigating peer relationships, identity, gradual separation from family, and transition to college or work. Every teen would likely benefit from advice about their sleep, exercise, use of any substances, and screen time habits.

For all of your patients with anxiety (and their parents), recognize that anxiety about being liked, making a varsity team, competing for college entrance, and becoming a young adult is expected: uncomfortable, but part of life. It’s adaptive. It helps people to stay safe, get their homework done, and avoid accidents. When people have high levels of anxiety, they can learn to identify their feelings, distinguish between facts and feelings, and learn to manage the anxiety adaptively. If anxiety causes dysfunction in major areas (school, family, friends, activities, and mood), prompt attention is required.

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

This month we are following up on our previous piece on anxiety disorders. We wrote about how these disorders are common, amenable to treatment, and often curable, but are often missed as many children suffer silently or their symptoms are mistaken for signs of other problems. We reviewed the screening instruments that can help you to catch these “quiet” illnesses. Now, we are going to offer some detail about the effective treatments for the most common anxiety disorders and how to approach getting treatment started when a screen has turned up positive. If you are interested in a deeper dive, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry has detailed practice parameters for the disorders discussed below.

Anxiety disorders in young children

Separation anxiety disorder, specific phobia, generalized anxiety disorder, and social phobia are the anxiety disorders that most commonly affect the youngest children. Separation anxiety disorder is the most common childhood anxiety disorder and has an average age of onset of 6 years, whereas specific phobia peaks between 5 and 8 years of age, generalized anxiety disorder peaks at 8 years old and social phobia (or social anxiety disorder) has a peak age of onset of 13 years. The first-line treatment for each disorder is cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT), and specifically a variant called exposure and response prevention. This treatment essentially helps patients to “learn” to have a different response, not anxiety, to the triggering thought or stimulus. CBT can be very effective, curative even, but these disorders can be difficult to treat when a child’s level of anxiety exceeds their ability to engage in treatment. In these cases, treatment can be facilitated by the addition of an SSRI, which is recommended by the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry as a second-line treatment in children aged 6-18 years. Given the anxious child’s sensitivity to some side effects (such as GI distress) starting at a low dose and titrating up slowly is the recommendation, and effective dose ranges are higher than for the treatment of mood disorders. Without treatment, these disorders may become learned over years and predict complicating anxiety, mood, and substance use disorders in adolescence and adulthood. Any treatment can be helped by the addition of parent guidance, in which parents learn how to be emotionally supportive to their anxious children without accommodating to their demands or asking them to avoid of the source of anxiety.
 

Obsessive-compulsive disorder

Mild obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) describes what many of us do, like double-checking we have locked our door or put our work into our briefcase. OCD as a diagnosis with substantial dysfunction has a peak onset at age 10 and again at the age of 21. Over 50% of childhood-onset OCD will have a comorbid anxiety, attention, eating, or tic disorder. Without treatment, OCD is likely to become chronic, and the symptoms (intrusive thoughts, obsessive rumination, and compulsive behaviors) interfere with social and academic function. The behavioral accommodations and avoidance of distress that mark untreated OCD interfere with the healthy development of normal stress management skills that are a critical part of early and later adolescence. First-line treatment is CBT (with exposure and response prevention) with a therapist experienced in the treatment of OCD. A detailed symptom inventory (the Children’s Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale) is relatively simple to complete, will confirm a suspected OCD diagnosis, and will create a valuable baseline by which treatment efficacy can be assessed. For those children with moderate to severe OCD, addition of an SSRI to augment and facilitate CBT therapy is recommended. Sertraline, fluvoxamine, fluoxetine, and paroxetine have all been studied and demonstrated efficacy. Clomipramine has well-established efficacy, but its more serious side effects and poorer tolerability make SSRIs the first choice. As with other anxiety disorders, starting at very low doses and titrating upward gradually is recommended. The efficacy of medication treatments is lower in those patients who have other psychiatric illnesses occurring with OCD. Again, parent guidance can be invaluable in supporting the child and improving family well-being.

PTSD

Studies have suggested that between 15% and 45% of children and adolescents in the United States experience a traumatic event, but of those children less than 15% of girls and 6% of boys will develop PTSD in the months that follow. It is important to consider other mood and anxiety disorders in assessing youth with a trauma history who present with symptoms of anxiety and impaired function more than 1 month after the traumatic event. With a history of a traumatic event, it can be helpful to use a specific screening instrument for PTSD, such as the Child PTSD Symptoms Scale or the UCLA PTSD Reaction Index. The symptoms of other disorders (including ADHD) can mimic PTSD, and these disorders may be comorbid with mood, substance use, and eating disorders. Treatment is trauma-focused CBT, with careful use of medications to manage specific symptoms (such as nightmares). Evidence has shown that inclusion of parents in the CBT treatment results in greater reduction in both mood and behavioral symptoms than treating the children alone.

Special cases: School refusal

School refusal affects between 2% and 5% of children, and it is critical to address it promptly or else it can become entrenched and much more difficult to treat. It peaks at 6 and again at 14 years old and often comes to the attention of the pediatrician as children complain of somatic concerns that prove to have no clear cause. It is important to screen for trauma, mood, and anxiety disorders so that you might make reasonable treatment recommendations. But the critical intervention is a behavioral plan that supports the child’s prompt return to school. This requires communication with school personnel and parents to create a plan for the child’s return to school (using natural rewards like friends and trusted teachers) and staying at school (with detailed contingency planning). Parents may need help finding ways to “demagnetize” home and “remagnetize” school, such as turning off the Internet at home and not allowing a child to play sports or with friends when not attending school. Psychotherapy will be helpful for an underlying anxiety or mood disorder, and medications may also be helpful, but education and support for parents to understand how to manage the distress avoidance and rewards of school refusal are generally the critical components of an effective response to this serious problem.

Special cases: Adolescents with new anxiety symptoms

Most childhood anxiety disorders occur before puberty, but anxiety is a common symptom of mood and substance use disorders in teenagers, and often the symptom that drives help-seeking. It is important to screen teens who present with anxiety for underlying mood or substance use disorders. For example, panic disorder is relatively common in young adults, while in teenagers, panic attacks are a frequent symptom of depression or of withdrawal from regular cannabis use. If anxiety has been present and untreated since childhood, adolescents may present with complex comorbid mood and anxiety disorders and struggle with distress tolerance, social difficulties, and perfectionism. Anxiety itself is a very regular developmental feature of adolescence as this is a time of navigating peer relationships, identity, gradual separation from family, and transition to college or work. Every teen would likely benefit from advice about their sleep, exercise, use of any substances, and screen time habits.

For all of your patients with anxiety (and their parents), recognize that anxiety about being liked, making a varsity team, competing for college entrance, and becoming a young adult is expected: uncomfortable, but part of life. It’s adaptive. It helps people to stay safe, get their homework done, and avoid accidents. When people have high levels of anxiety, they can learn to identify their feelings, distinguish between facts and feelings, and learn to manage the anxiety adaptively. If anxiety causes dysfunction in major areas (school, family, friends, activities, and mood), prompt attention is required.

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

This month we are following up on our previous piece on anxiety disorders. We wrote about how these disorders are common, amenable to treatment, and often curable, but are often missed as many children suffer silently or their symptoms are mistaken for signs of other problems. We reviewed the screening instruments that can help you to catch these “quiet” illnesses. Now, we are going to offer some detail about the effective treatments for the most common anxiety disorders and how to approach getting treatment started when a screen has turned up positive. If you are interested in a deeper dive, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry has detailed practice parameters for the disorders discussed below.

Anxiety disorders in young children

Separation anxiety disorder, specific phobia, generalized anxiety disorder, and social phobia are the anxiety disorders that most commonly affect the youngest children. Separation anxiety disorder is the most common childhood anxiety disorder and has an average age of onset of 6 years, whereas specific phobia peaks between 5 and 8 years of age, generalized anxiety disorder peaks at 8 years old and social phobia (or social anxiety disorder) has a peak age of onset of 13 years. The first-line treatment for each disorder is cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT), and specifically a variant called exposure and response prevention. This treatment essentially helps patients to “learn” to have a different response, not anxiety, to the triggering thought or stimulus. CBT can be very effective, curative even, but these disorders can be difficult to treat when a child’s level of anxiety exceeds their ability to engage in treatment. In these cases, treatment can be facilitated by the addition of an SSRI, which is recommended by the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry as a second-line treatment in children aged 6-18 years. Given the anxious child’s sensitivity to some side effects (such as GI distress) starting at a low dose and titrating up slowly is the recommendation, and effective dose ranges are higher than for the treatment of mood disorders. Without treatment, these disorders may become learned over years and predict complicating anxiety, mood, and substance use disorders in adolescence and adulthood. Any treatment can be helped by the addition of parent guidance, in which parents learn how to be emotionally supportive to their anxious children without accommodating to their demands or asking them to avoid of the source of anxiety.
 

Obsessive-compulsive disorder

Mild obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) describes what many of us do, like double-checking we have locked our door or put our work into our briefcase. OCD as a diagnosis with substantial dysfunction has a peak onset at age 10 and again at the age of 21. Over 50% of childhood-onset OCD will have a comorbid anxiety, attention, eating, or tic disorder. Without treatment, OCD is likely to become chronic, and the symptoms (intrusive thoughts, obsessive rumination, and compulsive behaviors) interfere with social and academic function. The behavioral accommodations and avoidance of distress that mark untreated OCD interfere with the healthy development of normal stress management skills that are a critical part of early and later adolescence. First-line treatment is CBT (with exposure and response prevention) with a therapist experienced in the treatment of OCD. A detailed symptom inventory (the Children’s Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale) is relatively simple to complete, will confirm a suspected OCD diagnosis, and will create a valuable baseline by which treatment efficacy can be assessed. For those children with moderate to severe OCD, addition of an SSRI to augment and facilitate CBT therapy is recommended. Sertraline, fluvoxamine, fluoxetine, and paroxetine have all been studied and demonstrated efficacy. Clomipramine has well-established efficacy, but its more serious side effects and poorer tolerability make SSRIs the first choice. As with other anxiety disorders, starting at very low doses and titrating upward gradually is recommended. The efficacy of medication treatments is lower in those patients who have other psychiatric illnesses occurring with OCD. Again, parent guidance can be invaluable in supporting the child and improving family well-being.

PTSD

Studies have suggested that between 15% and 45% of children and adolescents in the United States experience a traumatic event, but of those children less than 15% of girls and 6% of boys will develop PTSD in the months that follow. It is important to consider other mood and anxiety disorders in assessing youth with a trauma history who present with symptoms of anxiety and impaired function more than 1 month after the traumatic event. With a history of a traumatic event, it can be helpful to use a specific screening instrument for PTSD, such as the Child PTSD Symptoms Scale or the UCLA PTSD Reaction Index. The symptoms of other disorders (including ADHD) can mimic PTSD, and these disorders may be comorbid with mood, substance use, and eating disorders. Treatment is trauma-focused CBT, with careful use of medications to manage specific symptoms (such as nightmares). Evidence has shown that inclusion of parents in the CBT treatment results in greater reduction in both mood and behavioral symptoms than treating the children alone.

Special cases: School refusal

School refusal affects between 2% and 5% of children, and it is critical to address it promptly or else it can become entrenched and much more difficult to treat. It peaks at 6 and again at 14 years old and often comes to the attention of the pediatrician as children complain of somatic concerns that prove to have no clear cause. It is important to screen for trauma, mood, and anxiety disorders so that you might make reasonable treatment recommendations. But the critical intervention is a behavioral plan that supports the child’s prompt return to school. This requires communication with school personnel and parents to create a plan for the child’s return to school (using natural rewards like friends and trusted teachers) and staying at school (with detailed contingency planning). Parents may need help finding ways to “demagnetize” home and “remagnetize” school, such as turning off the Internet at home and not allowing a child to play sports or with friends when not attending school. Psychotherapy will be helpful for an underlying anxiety or mood disorder, and medications may also be helpful, but education and support for parents to understand how to manage the distress avoidance and rewards of school refusal are generally the critical components of an effective response to this serious problem.

Special cases: Adolescents with new anxiety symptoms

Most childhood anxiety disorders occur before puberty, but anxiety is a common symptom of mood and substance use disorders in teenagers, and often the symptom that drives help-seeking. It is important to screen teens who present with anxiety for underlying mood or substance use disorders. For example, panic disorder is relatively common in young adults, while in teenagers, panic attacks are a frequent symptom of depression or of withdrawal from regular cannabis use. If anxiety has been present and untreated since childhood, adolescents may present with complex comorbid mood and anxiety disorders and struggle with distress tolerance, social difficulties, and perfectionism. Anxiety itself is a very regular developmental feature of adolescence as this is a time of navigating peer relationships, identity, gradual separation from family, and transition to college or work. Every teen would likely benefit from advice about their sleep, exercise, use of any substances, and screen time habits.

For all of your patients with anxiety (and their parents), recognize that anxiety about being liked, making a varsity team, competing for college entrance, and becoming a young adult is expected: uncomfortable, but part of life. It’s adaptive. It helps people to stay safe, get their homework done, and avoid accidents. When people have high levels of anxiety, they can learn to identify their feelings, distinguish between facts and feelings, and learn to manage the anxiety adaptively. If anxiety causes dysfunction in major areas (school, family, friends, activities, and mood), prompt attention is required.

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

TOPLINE:

Globally, lead exposure is linked to more than 5.5 million adult cardiovascular deaths in 2019, as well as loss of 765 million intelligence quotient (IQ) points in children younger than 5 years, which cost U.S. $6 trillion in lost productivity, new research suggests.

METHODOLOGY:

• Global lead exposure has declined substantially since leaded gasoline was phased out, but several sources of lead remain, resulting in adverse health and economic effects, particularly in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs).
• Estimates of cardiovascular disease (CVD) deaths from lead exposure have been limited to effects of increased blood pressure, but studies show that lead exposure has cardiovascular impacts through mechanisms other than hypertension.
• Drawing from various sources and studies, researchers estimated global blood lead levels and the impact of lead exposure on CVD mortality in 2019 among adults aged 25 years or older, IQ loss in children younger than 5 years, and the related economic costs.

TAKEAWAY:

• Researchers estimated that there were 5,545,000 (95% confidence interval, 2,305,000-8,271,000) cardiovascular deaths in adults from lead exposure in 2019, with as many as 90.2% of these deaths in LMICs; however, this estimate may be incomplete because it does not include the effect of lead exposure on CVD mortality mediated through hypertension.
• The estimated global IQ loss in children younger than 5 years due to lead exposure was 765 million (95% CI, 443 million-1,098 million) IQ points in 2019, 95.3% of which occurred in LMICs.
• These estimates place lead exposure on a par with ambient particulate matter and household air pollution combined, and ahead of unsafe household drinking water, sanitation, and handwashing, as an environmental risk factor.
• The estimated global cost of lead exposure from CVD mortality and IQ loss combined is U.S. $6.0 trillion (range, $2.6 trillion-9.0 trillion) in 2019, equivalent to 6.9% of the 2019 global gross domestic product.

IN PRACTICE:

Given the magnitude of the estimated health effects of lead exposure, particularly in LMICs, “it is imperative that nationally representative periodic blood lead level measurements be institutionalized,” write the authors, adding that these measurements could be incorporated into existing household surveys.

STUDY DETAILS:

The study was conducted by Bjorn Larsen, PhD, environmental economist and consultant to the World Bank, and Ernesto Sánchez-Triana. It was published online in The Lancet Planetary Health.

LIMITATIONS:

• Global blood lead level estimates may be inaccurate, given that measurements are absent for many countries.
• Certain income projections and income losses are uncertain.
• Because the study does not capture the detrimental effects of lead exposure other than IQ loss and CVD mortality, the estimates of global costs are conservative.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received support from the Korea Green Growth Trust Fund and the World Bank’s Pollution Management and Environmental Health Program. The authors have no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

Globally, lead exposure is linked to more than 5.5 million adult cardiovascular deaths in 2019, as well as loss of 765 million intelligence quotient (IQ) points in children younger than 5 years, which cost U.S. $6 trillion in lost productivity, new research suggests.

METHODOLOGY:

• Global lead exposure has declined substantially since leaded gasoline was phased out, but several sources of lead remain, resulting in adverse health and economic effects, particularly in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs).
• Estimates of cardiovascular disease (CVD) deaths from lead exposure have been limited to effects of increased blood pressure, but studies show that lead exposure has cardiovascular impacts through mechanisms other than hypertension.
• Drawing from various sources and studies, researchers estimated global blood lead levels and the impact of lead exposure on CVD mortality in 2019 among adults aged 25 years or older, IQ loss in children younger than 5 years, and the related economic costs.

TAKEAWAY:

• Researchers estimated that there were 5,545,000 (95% confidence interval, 2,305,000-8,271,000) cardiovascular deaths in adults from lead exposure in 2019, with as many as 90.2% of these deaths in LMICs; however, this estimate may be incomplete because it does not include the effect of lead exposure on CVD mortality mediated through hypertension.
• The estimated global IQ loss in children younger than 5 years due to lead exposure was 765 million (95% CI, 443 million-1,098 million) IQ points in 2019, 95.3% of which occurred in LMICs.
• These estimates place lead exposure on a par with ambient particulate matter and household air pollution combined, and ahead of unsafe household drinking water, sanitation, and handwashing, as an environmental risk factor.
• The estimated global cost of lead exposure from CVD mortality and IQ loss combined is U.S. $6.0 trillion (range, $2.6 trillion-9.0 trillion) in 2019, equivalent to 6.9% of the 2019 global gross domestic product.

IN PRACTICE:

Given the magnitude of the estimated health effects of lead exposure, particularly in LMICs, “it is imperative that nationally representative periodic blood lead level measurements be institutionalized,” write the authors, adding that these measurements could be incorporated into existing household surveys.

STUDY DETAILS:

The study was conducted by Bjorn Larsen, PhD, environmental economist and consultant to the World Bank, and Ernesto Sánchez-Triana. It was published online in The Lancet Planetary Health.

LIMITATIONS:

• Global blood lead level estimates may be inaccurate, given that measurements are absent for many countries.
• Certain income projections and income losses are uncertain.
• Because the study does not capture the detrimental effects of lead exposure other than IQ loss and CVD mortality, the estimates of global costs are conservative.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received support from the Korea Green Growth Trust Fund and the World Bank’s Pollution Management and Environmental Health Program. The authors have no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

Globally, lead exposure is linked to more than 5.5 million adult cardiovascular deaths in 2019, as well as loss of 765 million intelligence quotient (IQ) points in children younger than 5 years, which cost U.S. $6 trillion in lost productivity, new research suggests.

METHODOLOGY:

• Global lead exposure has declined substantially since leaded gasoline was phased out, but several sources of lead remain, resulting in adverse health and economic effects, particularly in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs).
• Estimates of cardiovascular disease (CVD) deaths from lead exposure have been limited to effects of increased blood pressure, but studies show that lead exposure has cardiovascular impacts through mechanisms other than hypertension.
• Drawing from various sources and studies, researchers estimated global blood lead levels and the impact of lead exposure on CVD mortality in 2019 among adults aged 25 years or older, IQ loss in children younger than 5 years, and the related economic costs.

TAKEAWAY:

• Researchers estimated that there were 5,545,000 (95% confidence interval, 2,305,000-8,271,000) cardiovascular deaths in adults from lead exposure in 2019, with as many as 90.2% of these deaths in LMICs; however, this estimate may be incomplete because it does not include the effect of lead exposure on CVD mortality mediated through hypertension.
• The estimated global IQ loss in children younger than 5 years due to lead exposure was 765 million (95% CI, 443 million-1,098 million) IQ points in 2019, 95.3% of which occurred in LMICs.
• These estimates place lead exposure on a par with ambient particulate matter and household air pollution combined, and ahead of unsafe household drinking water, sanitation, and handwashing, as an environmental risk factor.
• The estimated global cost of lead exposure from CVD mortality and IQ loss combined is U.S. $6.0 trillion (range, $2.6 trillion-9.0 trillion) in 2019, equivalent to 6.9% of the 2019 global gross domestic product.

IN PRACTICE:

Given the magnitude of the estimated health effects of lead exposure, particularly in LMICs, “it is imperative that nationally representative periodic blood lead level measurements be institutionalized,” write the authors, adding that these measurements could be incorporated into existing household surveys.

STUDY DETAILS:

The study was conducted by Bjorn Larsen, PhD, environmental economist and consultant to the World Bank, and Ernesto Sánchez-Triana. It was published online in The Lancet Planetary Health.

LIMITATIONS:

• Global blood lead level estimates may be inaccurate, given that measurements are absent for many countries.
• Certain income projections and income losses are uncertain.
• Because the study does not capture the detrimental effects of lead exposure other than IQ loss and CVD mortality, the estimates of global costs are conservative.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received support from the Korea Green Growth Trust Fund and the World Bank’s Pollution Management and Environmental Health Program. The authors have no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

A physician in your office is hot-tempered, critical, and upsets both the physicians and staff. Two of your partners are arguing over a software vendor and refuse to compromise. One doctor’s spouse is the office manager and snipes at everyone; the lead partner micromanages and second-guesses other doctors’ treatment plans, and no one will stand up to her.

If your practice has similar scenarios, you’re likely dealing with your own anger, irritation, and dread at work. You’re struggling with a toxic practice atmosphere, and you must make changes – fast.

However, this isn’t easy, given that what goes on in a doctor’s office is “high consequence,” says Leonard J. Marcus, PhD, founding director of the program for health care negotiation and conflict resolution at the Harvard School of Public Health in Boston.

The two things that tend to plague medical practices most: A culture of fear and someone who is letting ego run the day-to-day, he says.

“Fear overwhelms any chance for good morale among colleagues,” says Dr. Marcus, who is also the coauthor of “Renegotiating Health Care: Resolving Conflict to Build Collaboration.” “In a work environment where the fear is overwhelming, the ego can take over, and someone at the practice becomes overly concerned about getting credit, taking control, ordering other people around, and deciding who is on top and who is on the bottom.”

Tension, stress, back-biting, and rudeness are also symptoms of a more significant problem, says Jes Montgomery, MD, a psychiatrist and medical director of APN Dallas, a mental health–focused practice.

“If you don’t get toxicity under control, it will blow the office apart,” Dr. Montgomery says.

Here are five tips to turn around a toxic practice culture.
 

1. Recognize the signs

Part of the problem with a toxic medical practice is that, culturally, we don’t treat mental health and burnout as real illnesses. “A physician who is depressed is not going to be melancholy or bursting into tears with patients,” Dr. Montgomery says. “They’ll get behind on paperwork, skip meals, or find that it’s difficult to sleep at night. Next, they’ll yell at the partners and staff, always be in a foul mood, and gripe about inconsequential things. Their behavior affects everyone.”

Dr. Montgomery says that physicians aren’t taught to ask for help, making it difficult to see what’s really going on when someone displays toxic behavior in the practice. If it’s a partner, take time to ask what’s going on. If it’s yourself, step back and see if you can ask someone for the help you need.
 

2. Have difficult conversations

This is tough for most of us, says Jeremy Pollack, PhD, CEO and founder of Pollack Peacebuilding Systems, a conflict resolution consulting firm. If a team member is hot-tempered, disrespectful, or talking to patients in an unproductive manner, see if you can have an effective conversation with that person. The tricky part is critiquing in a way that doesn’t make them feel defensive – and wanting to push back.

For a micromanaging office manager, for example, you could say something like,”You’re doing a great job with the inventory, but I need you to let the staff have some autonomy and not hover over every supply they use in the break room, so that people won’t feel resentful toward us.” Make it clear you’re a team, and this is a team challenge. “However, if a doctor feels like they’ve tried to communicate to that colleague and are still walking on eggshells, it’s time to try to get help from someone – perhaps a practice management organization,” says Dr. Pollack.
 

3. Open lines of communication

It’s critical to create a comfortable space to speak with your colleagues, says Marisa Garshick, MD, a dermatologist in private practice in New York. “Creating an environment where there is an open line of communication, whether it’s directly to somebody in charge or having a system where you can give feedback more privately or anonymously, is important so that tension doesn’t build.”

“Being a doctor is a social enterprise,” Dr. Marcus says. “The science of medicine is critically important, but patients and the other health care workers on your team are also critically important. In the long run, the most successful physicians pay attention to both. It’s a full package.”
 

4. Emphasize the positive

Instead of discussing things only when they go wrong, try optimism, Dr. Garshick said. When positive things happen, whether it’s an excellent patient encounter or the office did something really well together, highlight it so everyone has a sense of accomplishment. If a patient compliments a medical assistant or raves about a nurse, share those compliments with the employees so that not every encounter you have calls out problems and staff missteps.

Suppose partners have a conflict with one another or are arguing over something. In that case, you may need to mediate or invest in a meaningful intervention so people can reflect on the narrative they’re contributing to the culture.
 

5. Practice self-care

Finally, the work of a physician is exhausting, so it’s crucial to practice personal TLC. That may mean taking micro breaks, getting adequate sleep, maintaining a healthy diet, and exercising well and managing stress to maintain energy levels and patience.

“Sometimes, when I’m fed up with the office, I need to get away,” Dr. Montgomery says. “I’ll take a day to go fishing, golfing, and not think about the office.” Just a small break can shift the lens that you see through when you return to the office and put problems in perspective.

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

A physician in your office is hot-tempered, critical, and upsets both the physicians and staff. Two of your partners are arguing over a software vendor and refuse to compromise. One doctor’s spouse is the office manager and snipes at everyone; the lead partner micromanages and second-guesses other doctors’ treatment plans, and no one will stand up to her.

If your practice has similar scenarios, you’re likely dealing with your own anger, irritation, and dread at work. You’re struggling with a toxic practice atmosphere, and you must make changes – fast.

However, this isn’t easy, given that what goes on in a doctor’s office is “high consequence,” says Leonard J. Marcus, PhD, founding director of the program for health care negotiation and conflict resolution at the Harvard School of Public Health in Boston.

The two things that tend to plague medical practices most: A culture of fear and someone who is letting ego run the day-to-day, he says.

“Fear overwhelms any chance for good morale among colleagues,” says Dr. Marcus, who is also the coauthor of “Renegotiating Health Care: Resolving Conflict to Build Collaboration.” “In a work environment where the fear is overwhelming, the ego can take over, and someone at the practice becomes overly concerned about getting credit, taking control, ordering other people around, and deciding who is on top and who is on the bottom.”

Tension, stress, back-biting, and rudeness are also symptoms of a more significant problem, says Jes Montgomery, MD, a psychiatrist and medical director of APN Dallas, a mental health–focused practice.

“If you don’t get toxicity under control, it will blow the office apart,” Dr. Montgomery says.

Here are five tips to turn around a toxic practice culture.
 

1. Recognize the signs

Part of the problem with a toxic medical practice is that, culturally, we don’t treat mental health and burnout as real illnesses. “A physician who is depressed is not going to be melancholy or bursting into tears with patients,” Dr. Montgomery says. “They’ll get behind on paperwork, skip meals, or find that it’s difficult to sleep at night. Next, they’ll yell at the partners and staff, always be in a foul mood, and gripe about inconsequential things. Their behavior affects everyone.”

Dr. Montgomery says that physicians aren’t taught to ask for help, making it difficult to see what’s really going on when someone displays toxic behavior in the practice. If it’s a partner, take time to ask what’s going on. If it’s yourself, step back and see if you can ask someone for the help you need.
 

2. Have difficult conversations

This is tough for most of us, says Jeremy Pollack, PhD, CEO and founder of Pollack Peacebuilding Systems, a conflict resolution consulting firm. If a team member is hot-tempered, disrespectful, or talking to patients in an unproductive manner, see if you can have an effective conversation with that person. The tricky part is critiquing in a way that doesn’t make them feel defensive – and wanting to push back.

For a micromanaging office manager, for example, you could say something like,”You’re doing a great job with the inventory, but I need you to let the staff have some autonomy and not hover over every supply they use in the break room, so that people won’t feel resentful toward us.” Make it clear you’re a team, and this is a team challenge. “However, if a doctor feels like they’ve tried to communicate to that colleague and are still walking on eggshells, it’s time to try to get help from someone – perhaps a practice management organization,” says Dr. Pollack.
 

3. Open lines of communication

It’s critical to create a comfortable space to speak with your colleagues, says Marisa Garshick, MD, a dermatologist in private practice in New York. “Creating an environment where there is an open line of communication, whether it’s directly to somebody in charge or having a system where you can give feedback more privately or anonymously, is important so that tension doesn’t build.”

“Being a doctor is a social enterprise,” Dr. Marcus says. “The science of medicine is critically important, but patients and the other health care workers on your team are also critically important. In the long run, the most successful physicians pay attention to both. It’s a full package.”
 

4. Emphasize the positive

Instead of discussing things only when they go wrong, try optimism, Dr. Garshick said. When positive things happen, whether it’s an excellent patient encounter or the office did something really well together, highlight it so everyone has a sense of accomplishment. If a patient compliments a medical assistant or raves about a nurse, share those compliments with the employees so that not every encounter you have calls out problems and staff missteps.

Suppose partners have a conflict with one another or are arguing over something. In that case, you may need to mediate or invest in a meaningful intervention so people can reflect on the narrative they’re contributing to the culture.
 

5. Practice self-care

Finally, the work of a physician is exhausting, so it’s crucial to practice personal TLC. That may mean taking micro breaks, getting adequate sleep, maintaining a healthy diet, and exercising well and managing stress to maintain energy levels and patience.

“Sometimes, when I’m fed up with the office, I need to get away,” Dr. Montgomery says. “I’ll take a day to go fishing, golfing, and not think about the office.” Just a small break can shift the lens that you see through when you return to the office and put problems in perspective.

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

A physician in your office is hot-tempered, critical, and upsets both the physicians and staff. Two of your partners are arguing over a software vendor and refuse to compromise. One doctor’s spouse is the office manager and snipes at everyone; the lead partner micromanages and second-guesses other doctors’ treatment plans, and no one will stand up to her.

If your practice has similar scenarios, you’re likely dealing with your own anger, irritation, and dread at work. You’re struggling with a toxic practice atmosphere, and you must make changes – fast.

However, this isn’t easy, given that what goes on in a doctor’s office is “high consequence,” says Leonard J. Marcus, PhD, founding director of the program for health care negotiation and conflict resolution at the Harvard School of Public Health in Boston.

The two things that tend to plague medical practices most: A culture of fear and someone who is letting ego run the day-to-day, he says.

“Fear overwhelms any chance for good morale among colleagues,” says Dr. Marcus, who is also the coauthor of “Renegotiating Health Care: Resolving Conflict to Build Collaboration.” “In a work environment where the fear is overwhelming, the ego can take over, and someone at the practice becomes overly concerned about getting credit, taking control, ordering other people around, and deciding who is on top and who is on the bottom.”

Tension, stress, back-biting, and rudeness are also symptoms of a more significant problem, says Jes Montgomery, MD, a psychiatrist and medical director of APN Dallas, a mental health–focused practice.

“If you don’t get toxicity under control, it will blow the office apart,” Dr. Montgomery says.

Here are five tips to turn around a toxic practice culture.
 

1. Recognize the signs

Part of the problem with a toxic medical practice is that, culturally, we don’t treat mental health and burnout as real illnesses. “A physician who is depressed is not going to be melancholy or bursting into tears with patients,” Dr. Montgomery says. “They’ll get behind on paperwork, skip meals, or find that it’s difficult to sleep at night. Next, they’ll yell at the partners and staff, always be in a foul mood, and gripe about inconsequential things. Their behavior affects everyone.”

Dr. Montgomery says that physicians aren’t taught to ask for help, making it difficult to see what’s really going on when someone displays toxic behavior in the practice. If it’s a partner, take time to ask what’s going on. If it’s yourself, step back and see if you can ask someone for the help you need.
 

2. Have difficult conversations

This is tough for most of us, says Jeremy Pollack, PhD, CEO and founder of Pollack Peacebuilding Systems, a conflict resolution consulting firm. If a team member is hot-tempered, disrespectful, or talking to patients in an unproductive manner, see if you can have an effective conversation with that person. The tricky part is critiquing in a way that doesn’t make them feel defensive – and wanting to push back.

For a micromanaging office manager, for example, you could say something like,”You’re doing a great job with the inventory, but I need you to let the staff have some autonomy and not hover over every supply they use in the break room, so that people won’t feel resentful toward us.” Make it clear you’re a team, and this is a team challenge. “However, if a doctor feels like they’ve tried to communicate to that colleague and are still walking on eggshells, it’s time to try to get help from someone – perhaps a practice management organization,” says Dr. Pollack.
 

3. Open lines of communication

It’s critical to create a comfortable space to speak with your colleagues, says Marisa Garshick, MD, a dermatologist in private practice in New York. “Creating an environment where there is an open line of communication, whether it’s directly to somebody in charge or having a system where you can give feedback more privately or anonymously, is important so that tension doesn’t build.”

“Being a doctor is a social enterprise,” Dr. Marcus says. “The science of medicine is critically important, but patients and the other health care workers on your team are also critically important. In the long run, the most successful physicians pay attention to both. It’s a full package.”
 

4. Emphasize the positive

Instead of discussing things only when they go wrong, try optimism, Dr. Garshick said. When positive things happen, whether it’s an excellent patient encounter or the office did something really well together, highlight it so everyone has a sense of accomplishment. If a patient compliments a medical assistant or raves about a nurse, share those compliments with the employees so that not every encounter you have calls out problems and staff missteps.

Suppose partners have a conflict with one another or are arguing over something. In that case, you may need to mediate or invest in a meaningful intervention so people can reflect on the narrative they’re contributing to the culture.
 

5. Practice self-care

Finally, the work of a physician is exhausting, so it’s crucial to practice personal TLC. That may mean taking micro breaks, getting adequate sleep, maintaining a healthy diet, and exercising well and managing stress to maintain energy levels and patience.

“Sometimes, when I’m fed up with the office, I need to get away,” Dr. Montgomery says. “I’ll take a day to go fishing, golfing, and not think about the office.” Just a small break can shift the lens that you see through when you return to the office and put problems in perspective.

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