User login
Weight bias against teens: Understand it and combat it
NEW ORLEANS – and support your patients regardless of weight.
Rebecca Puhl, PhD, a deputy director of the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity at the University of Connecticut, Hartford, said that weight-based discrimination can occur whatever a person’s size or body shape, but it’s most often targeted at youth who are overweight or obese.
These children and teens commonly face teasing, harassment, cyberbullying, physical aggression, and social bullying from peers, coaches, teachers, and even parents, Dr. Puhl told attendees at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Pediatrics.
Common beliefs about overweight people – that they have little self discipline or poor eating and activity habits – only perpetuate stereotypes, she said. Common stereotypes are that people with obesity are noncompliant, lazy, sloppy, unsuccessful, unintelligent, dishonest, and awkward.
And health professionals of every type have been found to harbor these biases. In one study of more than 4,000 first-year medical students, well over half the respondents revealed explicit (74%) and implicit (67%) weight bias (Obesity. 2014 Apr;22[4]:1201-8). The study also found that explicit weight bias was stronger than explicit bias against blacks, Hispanics, LGBTQ people, and poor people.
Know the effects of weight stigma
Far from a minor issue, the discrimination that begins in childhood against those who are overweight can have a long-lasting impact on their future prospects and mental health. Being overweight is overwhelmingly cited as the most common reason for bullying (Pediatr Obes. 2016 Aug;11[4]:241-50). Dr. Puhl described to attendees how weight bias shifts throughout a lifetime, beginning as early as preschool. In childhood, the stereotypes about being overweight worsen, and the teasing and bullying increase. By adolescence, this treatment affects teens’ psychological, social, and physical well-being. It then translates in adulthood into reduced opportunities in employment and education, and poorer access and treatment in health care.
The mental distress caused by weight bullying often takes the form of depression, anxiety, and substance use, Dr. Puhl said, and children’s academic success can be hampered by bullying about their weight. One study found a higher risk of poor grades and school avoidance with each additional teasing incident (J Youth Adolesc. 2012 Jan;41[1]:27-40).
Weight stigma also can contribute to more weight gain, obesity, and lower physical activity levels. Maladaptive eating behaviors can result from weight stigmatization as well: binge eating, emotional eating, increased consumption in general, and other eating disorders. Severe binge eating is 80% more likely among teens who are bullied about their weight, Dr. Puhl said, and the risk increases with increased frequency and types of bullying.
Children who are teased about their weight often become less willing to engage in physical activity, she noted. They may skip gym class, feel less competent about physical activity, and end up enjoying sports participation less.
Further, sexual- and gender-minority youth report high rates of weight-related teasing from friends and family regardless of their body mass index (BMI) percentile, Dr. Puhl emphasized. Researchers have found bullying about weight in this population linked to dieting, difficulty sleeping, high stress levels, binge drinking, smoking, and marijuana use.
Know how to combat weight bias
Dr. Puhl described strategies for reducing weight bias based on clinical practice recommendations in the American Academy of Pediatrics’ policy statement entitled “Stigma Experienced by Children and Adolescents With Obesity” (Pediatrics. 2017 Dec;140[6]:e20173034).
Be aware. Consider how personal assumptions and attitudes about weight can affect your body language, tone of voice, facial expression, gestures, eye contact (or lack thereof), and spatial distance from the patient.
Recognizing the biological, genetic, and environmental causes of obesity can reduce stigma and improve understanding of the complexity of obesity etiology. It’s also important that you help parents understand this complexity and the negative impact of weight stigma.
Consider language and word choice. “Carefully consider language that might unintentionally communicate bias, blame, or negative judgment,” Dr. Puhl told attendees. “Use language that is supportive and empowering.”
Terms such as “unhealthy weight” and “high BMI” are less stigmatizing than “fat” and “morbidly obese” to parents, she said, and research has found nearly a quarter of parents would avoid future doctor appointments if their child’s doctor used stigmatizing terms to discuss weight (Pediatrics. 2011 Oct;128[4]:e786-93).
Teens themselves may have diverse preferences for the language used. Start by asking: “Could we talk about your weight today?” and then follow up by directly asking, “what words would you feel most comfortable with as we talk about your weight?”
Person-first language – such as “person with obesity” instead of “obese person” also is important to reducing stigma, she said.
It’s normal for you to feel uneasy about bringing up weight with patients, so Dr. Puhl recommended you practice dialogue out loud.
“Acknowledge your strengths,” she said. “You already have the skills and experience of engaging in difficult conversations with patients and families on a range of other health issues,” so apply that in this context as well.
Screen for negative experiences that could indicate weight-based bullying. These could include teasing and bullying, low self-esteem, poor school performance, depression, and anxiety.
“Remember that weight-based victimization can occur at diverse body sizes, not just in youth with obesity,” Dr. Puhl said. If you discover your patient is experiencing weight-related bullying, determine whether they have a support system in place and whether a mental health referral is appropriate. Provide or refer for behavior change counseling with motivational interviewing and patient-centered, empathic approaches. Parents should be aware of the issue and should contact the child’s teachers and school administration to help address it.
But before you do that, keep in mind that it’s not just peers doing the bullying. According to a study of teens with obesity enrolled in a national weight-loss camp, 37% of teen participants in 2012 said that their parents bully them (Pediatrics. 2013 Jan;131[1]:e1-9).
You should assess whether family interactions or the parents’ own history with weight is involved. If parents make disparaging comments about their child’s weight, “use this as an opportunity to model appropriate language and educate parents about weight bias,” Dr. Puhl said.
It’s also important to realize that parents themselves often are frustrated, so critical comments about their language or approach can backfire, she warned. Instead, help parents understand how to create a home setting that encourages healthy food choices, praises children for healthy decision making, and models positive health behaviors. It is key for them to focus on improving their children’s health behaviors rather than focusing on weight.
And before you contact the school, remember teachers also are common perpetrators of weight stigma, Dr. Puhl noted. She gave as an example a study in which investigators assessed 133 teachers’ perceptions of middle or high school students’ abilities based on photos that had been digitally altered to show each girl both as average weight or as overweight. Each photo was associated with an essay specifically chosen because it was neither particularly good nor bad (Brit J Educ Psychol. 2019 Oct 26. doi: 10.1111/bjep.12322). The teachers judged the essays believed to be submitted by overweight girls to be “similar in structural quality,” but they gave the overweight girls lower grades than the average-weight girls. They also indicated that they considered the overweight girls “put forth more effort, needed more remedial assistance, and had lower overall grades in school.” The teachers also rated other teachers’ weight bias to be at a low level, and their own weight bias to be “significantly lower” than the others.
Assess your clinical environment. Be aware of your clinical environment and whether it meets the needs of youth with diverse body sizes. That includes having a range of sturdy armless seating options and adequately sized doorways, hallways, and restrooms. You also should have beds, wheelchairs, and exam tables with adequate weight capacity. Also check that you have supplies, such as robes or blood pressure cuffs, on hand for a variety of body sizes.
NEW ORLEANS – and support your patients regardless of weight.
Rebecca Puhl, PhD, a deputy director of the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity at the University of Connecticut, Hartford, said that weight-based discrimination can occur whatever a person’s size or body shape, but it’s most often targeted at youth who are overweight or obese.
These children and teens commonly face teasing, harassment, cyberbullying, physical aggression, and social bullying from peers, coaches, teachers, and even parents, Dr. Puhl told attendees at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Pediatrics.
Common beliefs about overweight people – that they have little self discipline or poor eating and activity habits – only perpetuate stereotypes, she said. Common stereotypes are that people with obesity are noncompliant, lazy, sloppy, unsuccessful, unintelligent, dishonest, and awkward.
And health professionals of every type have been found to harbor these biases. In one study of more than 4,000 first-year medical students, well over half the respondents revealed explicit (74%) and implicit (67%) weight bias (Obesity. 2014 Apr;22[4]:1201-8). The study also found that explicit weight bias was stronger than explicit bias against blacks, Hispanics, LGBTQ people, and poor people.
Know the effects of weight stigma
Far from a minor issue, the discrimination that begins in childhood against those who are overweight can have a long-lasting impact on their future prospects and mental health. Being overweight is overwhelmingly cited as the most common reason for bullying (Pediatr Obes. 2016 Aug;11[4]:241-50). Dr. Puhl described to attendees how weight bias shifts throughout a lifetime, beginning as early as preschool. In childhood, the stereotypes about being overweight worsen, and the teasing and bullying increase. By adolescence, this treatment affects teens’ psychological, social, and physical well-being. It then translates in adulthood into reduced opportunities in employment and education, and poorer access and treatment in health care.
The mental distress caused by weight bullying often takes the form of depression, anxiety, and substance use, Dr. Puhl said, and children’s academic success can be hampered by bullying about their weight. One study found a higher risk of poor grades and school avoidance with each additional teasing incident (J Youth Adolesc. 2012 Jan;41[1]:27-40).
Weight stigma also can contribute to more weight gain, obesity, and lower physical activity levels. Maladaptive eating behaviors can result from weight stigmatization as well: binge eating, emotional eating, increased consumption in general, and other eating disorders. Severe binge eating is 80% more likely among teens who are bullied about their weight, Dr. Puhl said, and the risk increases with increased frequency and types of bullying.
Children who are teased about their weight often become less willing to engage in physical activity, she noted. They may skip gym class, feel less competent about physical activity, and end up enjoying sports participation less.
Further, sexual- and gender-minority youth report high rates of weight-related teasing from friends and family regardless of their body mass index (BMI) percentile, Dr. Puhl emphasized. Researchers have found bullying about weight in this population linked to dieting, difficulty sleeping, high stress levels, binge drinking, smoking, and marijuana use.
Know how to combat weight bias
Dr. Puhl described strategies for reducing weight bias based on clinical practice recommendations in the American Academy of Pediatrics’ policy statement entitled “Stigma Experienced by Children and Adolescents With Obesity” (Pediatrics. 2017 Dec;140[6]:e20173034).
Be aware. Consider how personal assumptions and attitudes about weight can affect your body language, tone of voice, facial expression, gestures, eye contact (or lack thereof), and spatial distance from the patient.
Recognizing the biological, genetic, and environmental causes of obesity can reduce stigma and improve understanding of the complexity of obesity etiology. It’s also important that you help parents understand this complexity and the negative impact of weight stigma.
Consider language and word choice. “Carefully consider language that might unintentionally communicate bias, blame, or negative judgment,” Dr. Puhl told attendees. “Use language that is supportive and empowering.”
Terms such as “unhealthy weight” and “high BMI” are less stigmatizing than “fat” and “morbidly obese” to parents, she said, and research has found nearly a quarter of parents would avoid future doctor appointments if their child’s doctor used stigmatizing terms to discuss weight (Pediatrics. 2011 Oct;128[4]:e786-93).
Teens themselves may have diverse preferences for the language used. Start by asking: “Could we talk about your weight today?” and then follow up by directly asking, “what words would you feel most comfortable with as we talk about your weight?”
Person-first language – such as “person with obesity” instead of “obese person” also is important to reducing stigma, she said.
It’s normal for you to feel uneasy about bringing up weight with patients, so Dr. Puhl recommended you practice dialogue out loud.
“Acknowledge your strengths,” she said. “You already have the skills and experience of engaging in difficult conversations with patients and families on a range of other health issues,” so apply that in this context as well.
Screen for negative experiences that could indicate weight-based bullying. These could include teasing and bullying, low self-esteem, poor school performance, depression, and anxiety.
“Remember that weight-based victimization can occur at diverse body sizes, not just in youth with obesity,” Dr. Puhl said. If you discover your patient is experiencing weight-related bullying, determine whether they have a support system in place and whether a mental health referral is appropriate. Provide or refer for behavior change counseling with motivational interviewing and patient-centered, empathic approaches. Parents should be aware of the issue and should contact the child’s teachers and school administration to help address it.
But before you do that, keep in mind that it’s not just peers doing the bullying. According to a study of teens with obesity enrolled in a national weight-loss camp, 37% of teen participants in 2012 said that their parents bully them (Pediatrics. 2013 Jan;131[1]:e1-9).
You should assess whether family interactions or the parents’ own history with weight is involved. If parents make disparaging comments about their child’s weight, “use this as an opportunity to model appropriate language and educate parents about weight bias,” Dr. Puhl said.
It’s also important to realize that parents themselves often are frustrated, so critical comments about their language or approach can backfire, she warned. Instead, help parents understand how to create a home setting that encourages healthy food choices, praises children for healthy decision making, and models positive health behaviors. It is key for them to focus on improving their children’s health behaviors rather than focusing on weight.
And before you contact the school, remember teachers also are common perpetrators of weight stigma, Dr. Puhl noted. She gave as an example a study in which investigators assessed 133 teachers’ perceptions of middle or high school students’ abilities based on photos that had been digitally altered to show each girl both as average weight or as overweight. Each photo was associated with an essay specifically chosen because it was neither particularly good nor bad (Brit J Educ Psychol. 2019 Oct 26. doi: 10.1111/bjep.12322). The teachers judged the essays believed to be submitted by overweight girls to be “similar in structural quality,” but they gave the overweight girls lower grades than the average-weight girls. They also indicated that they considered the overweight girls “put forth more effort, needed more remedial assistance, and had lower overall grades in school.” The teachers also rated other teachers’ weight bias to be at a low level, and their own weight bias to be “significantly lower” than the others.
Assess your clinical environment. Be aware of your clinical environment and whether it meets the needs of youth with diverse body sizes. That includes having a range of sturdy armless seating options and adequately sized doorways, hallways, and restrooms. You also should have beds, wheelchairs, and exam tables with adequate weight capacity. Also check that you have supplies, such as robes or blood pressure cuffs, on hand for a variety of body sizes.
NEW ORLEANS – and support your patients regardless of weight.
Rebecca Puhl, PhD, a deputy director of the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity at the University of Connecticut, Hartford, said that weight-based discrimination can occur whatever a person’s size or body shape, but it’s most often targeted at youth who are overweight or obese.
These children and teens commonly face teasing, harassment, cyberbullying, physical aggression, and social bullying from peers, coaches, teachers, and even parents, Dr. Puhl told attendees at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Pediatrics.
Common beliefs about overweight people – that they have little self discipline or poor eating and activity habits – only perpetuate stereotypes, she said. Common stereotypes are that people with obesity are noncompliant, lazy, sloppy, unsuccessful, unintelligent, dishonest, and awkward.
And health professionals of every type have been found to harbor these biases. In one study of more than 4,000 first-year medical students, well over half the respondents revealed explicit (74%) and implicit (67%) weight bias (Obesity. 2014 Apr;22[4]:1201-8). The study also found that explicit weight bias was stronger than explicit bias against blacks, Hispanics, LGBTQ people, and poor people.
Know the effects of weight stigma
Far from a minor issue, the discrimination that begins in childhood against those who are overweight can have a long-lasting impact on their future prospects and mental health. Being overweight is overwhelmingly cited as the most common reason for bullying (Pediatr Obes. 2016 Aug;11[4]:241-50). Dr. Puhl described to attendees how weight bias shifts throughout a lifetime, beginning as early as preschool. In childhood, the stereotypes about being overweight worsen, and the teasing and bullying increase. By adolescence, this treatment affects teens’ psychological, social, and physical well-being. It then translates in adulthood into reduced opportunities in employment and education, and poorer access and treatment in health care.
The mental distress caused by weight bullying often takes the form of depression, anxiety, and substance use, Dr. Puhl said, and children’s academic success can be hampered by bullying about their weight. One study found a higher risk of poor grades and school avoidance with each additional teasing incident (J Youth Adolesc. 2012 Jan;41[1]:27-40).
Weight stigma also can contribute to more weight gain, obesity, and lower physical activity levels. Maladaptive eating behaviors can result from weight stigmatization as well: binge eating, emotional eating, increased consumption in general, and other eating disorders. Severe binge eating is 80% more likely among teens who are bullied about their weight, Dr. Puhl said, and the risk increases with increased frequency and types of bullying.
Children who are teased about their weight often become less willing to engage in physical activity, she noted. They may skip gym class, feel less competent about physical activity, and end up enjoying sports participation less.
Further, sexual- and gender-minority youth report high rates of weight-related teasing from friends and family regardless of their body mass index (BMI) percentile, Dr. Puhl emphasized. Researchers have found bullying about weight in this population linked to dieting, difficulty sleeping, high stress levels, binge drinking, smoking, and marijuana use.
Know how to combat weight bias
Dr. Puhl described strategies for reducing weight bias based on clinical practice recommendations in the American Academy of Pediatrics’ policy statement entitled “Stigma Experienced by Children and Adolescents With Obesity” (Pediatrics. 2017 Dec;140[6]:e20173034).
Be aware. Consider how personal assumptions and attitudes about weight can affect your body language, tone of voice, facial expression, gestures, eye contact (or lack thereof), and spatial distance from the patient.
Recognizing the biological, genetic, and environmental causes of obesity can reduce stigma and improve understanding of the complexity of obesity etiology. It’s also important that you help parents understand this complexity and the negative impact of weight stigma.
Consider language and word choice. “Carefully consider language that might unintentionally communicate bias, blame, or negative judgment,” Dr. Puhl told attendees. “Use language that is supportive and empowering.”
Terms such as “unhealthy weight” and “high BMI” are less stigmatizing than “fat” and “morbidly obese” to parents, she said, and research has found nearly a quarter of parents would avoid future doctor appointments if their child’s doctor used stigmatizing terms to discuss weight (Pediatrics. 2011 Oct;128[4]:e786-93).
Teens themselves may have diverse preferences for the language used. Start by asking: “Could we talk about your weight today?” and then follow up by directly asking, “what words would you feel most comfortable with as we talk about your weight?”
Person-first language – such as “person with obesity” instead of “obese person” also is important to reducing stigma, she said.
It’s normal for you to feel uneasy about bringing up weight with patients, so Dr. Puhl recommended you practice dialogue out loud.
“Acknowledge your strengths,” she said. “You already have the skills and experience of engaging in difficult conversations with patients and families on a range of other health issues,” so apply that in this context as well.
Screen for negative experiences that could indicate weight-based bullying. These could include teasing and bullying, low self-esteem, poor school performance, depression, and anxiety.
“Remember that weight-based victimization can occur at diverse body sizes, not just in youth with obesity,” Dr. Puhl said. If you discover your patient is experiencing weight-related bullying, determine whether they have a support system in place and whether a mental health referral is appropriate. Provide or refer for behavior change counseling with motivational interviewing and patient-centered, empathic approaches. Parents should be aware of the issue and should contact the child’s teachers and school administration to help address it.
But before you do that, keep in mind that it’s not just peers doing the bullying. According to a study of teens with obesity enrolled in a national weight-loss camp, 37% of teen participants in 2012 said that their parents bully them (Pediatrics. 2013 Jan;131[1]:e1-9).
You should assess whether family interactions or the parents’ own history with weight is involved. If parents make disparaging comments about their child’s weight, “use this as an opportunity to model appropriate language and educate parents about weight bias,” Dr. Puhl said.
It’s also important to realize that parents themselves often are frustrated, so critical comments about their language or approach can backfire, she warned. Instead, help parents understand how to create a home setting that encourages healthy food choices, praises children for healthy decision making, and models positive health behaviors. It is key for them to focus on improving their children’s health behaviors rather than focusing on weight.
And before you contact the school, remember teachers also are common perpetrators of weight stigma, Dr. Puhl noted. She gave as an example a study in which investigators assessed 133 teachers’ perceptions of middle or high school students’ abilities based on photos that had been digitally altered to show each girl both as average weight or as overweight. Each photo was associated with an essay specifically chosen because it was neither particularly good nor bad (Brit J Educ Psychol. 2019 Oct 26. doi: 10.1111/bjep.12322). The teachers judged the essays believed to be submitted by overweight girls to be “similar in structural quality,” but they gave the overweight girls lower grades than the average-weight girls. They also indicated that they considered the overweight girls “put forth more effort, needed more remedial assistance, and had lower overall grades in school.” The teachers also rated other teachers’ weight bias to be at a low level, and their own weight bias to be “significantly lower” than the others.
Assess your clinical environment. Be aware of your clinical environment and whether it meets the needs of youth with diverse body sizes. That includes having a range of sturdy armless seating options and adequately sized doorways, hallways, and restrooms. You also should have beds, wheelchairs, and exam tables with adequate weight capacity. Also check that you have supplies, such as robes or blood pressure cuffs, on hand for a variety of body sizes.
EXPERT ANALYSIS FROM AAP 19
Pharmacologic prophylaxis fails in pediatric migraine
Clinicians hoped that medications used in adults – such as antidepressants, antiepileptics, antihypertensive agents, calcium channel blockers, and food supplements – would find similar success in children. Unfortunately, researchers found only short-term signs of efficacy over placebo, with no benefit lasting more than 6 months.
The study, conducted by a team led by Cosima Locher, PhD, of Boston Children’s Hospital, included 23 double-blind, randomized, controlled trials with a total of 2,217 patients; the mean age was 11 years. They compared 12 pharmacologic agents with each other or with placebo in the study, published online in JAMA Pediatrics.
In a main efficacy analysis that included 19 studies, only two treatments outperformed placebo: propranolol (standardized mean difference, 0.60; 95% confidence interval, 0.03-1.17) and topiramate (SMD, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.03-1.15). There were no statistically significant between-treatment differences.
The results had an overall low to moderate certainty.
When propranolol was compared to placebo, the 95% prediction interval (–0.62 to 1.82) was wider than the significant confidence interval (0.03-1.17), and comprised both beneficial and detrimental effects. A similar result was found with topiramate, with a prediction interval of –0.62 to 1.80 extending into nonsignificant effects (95% CI, 0.03-1.15). In both cases, significant effects were found only when the prediction interval was 70%.
In a long-term analysis (greater than 6 months), no treatment outperformed placebo.
The treatments generally were acceptable. The researchers found no significant difference in tolerability between any of the treatments and each other or placebo. Safety data analyzed from 13 trials revealed no significant differences between treatments and placebo.
“Because specific effects of drugs are associated with the size of the placebo effect, the lack of drug efficacy in our NMA [network meta-analysis] could be owing to a comparatively high placebo effect in children. In fact, there is indirect evidence [from other studies] that the placebo effect is more pronounced in children and adolescents than in adults,” Dr. Locher and associates said. They suggested that studies were needed to quantify the placebo effect in pediatric migraine, and if it was large, to develop innovative therapies making use of this.
The findings should lead to some changes in practice, Boris Zernikow, MD, PhD, of Children’s and Adolescents’ Hospital Datteln (Germany) wrote in an accompanying editorial.
Pharmacological prophylactic treatment of childhood migraine should be an exception rather than the rule, and nonpharmacologic approaches should be emphasized, particularly because the placebo effect is magnified in children, he said.
Many who suffer migraines in childhood will continue to be affected in adulthood, so pediatric intervention is a good opportunity to instill effective strategies. These include: using abortive medication early in an attack and using antimigraine medications for only that specific type of headache; engaging in physical activity to reduce migraine attacks; getting sufficient sleep; and learning relaxation and other psychological approaches to counter migraines.
Dr. Zernikow had no relevant financial disclosures. One study author received grants from Amgen and other support from Grunenthal and Akelos. The study received funding from the Sara Page Mayo Endowment for Pediatric Pain Research, Education, and Treatment; the Swiss National Science Foundation; the Schweizer-Arau-Foundation; and the Theophrastus Foundation.
SOURCES: Locher C et al. JAMA Pediatrics. 2020 Feb 10. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2019.5856; Zernikow B. JAMA Pediatrics. 2020 Feb 10. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2019.5907.
Clinicians hoped that medications used in adults – such as antidepressants, antiepileptics, antihypertensive agents, calcium channel blockers, and food supplements – would find similar success in children. Unfortunately, researchers found only short-term signs of efficacy over placebo, with no benefit lasting more than 6 months.
The study, conducted by a team led by Cosima Locher, PhD, of Boston Children’s Hospital, included 23 double-blind, randomized, controlled trials with a total of 2,217 patients; the mean age was 11 years. They compared 12 pharmacologic agents with each other or with placebo in the study, published online in JAMA Pediatrics.
In a main efficacy analysis that included 19 studies, only two treatments outperformed placebo: propranolol (standardized mean difference, 0.60; 95% confidence interval, 0.03-1.17) and topiramate (SMD, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.03-1.15). There were no statistically significant between-treatment differences.
The results had an overall low to moderate certainty.
When propranolol was compared to placebo, the 95% prediction interval (–0.62 to 1.82) was wider than the significant confidence interval (0.03-1.17), and comprised both beneficial and detrimental effects. A similar result was found with topiramate, with a prediction interval of –0.62 to 1.80 extending into nonsignificant effects (95% CI, 0.03-1.15). In both cases, significant effects were found only when the prediction interval was 70%.
In a long-term analysis (greater than 6 months), no treatment outperformed placebo.
The treatments generally were acceptable. The researchers found no significant difference in tolerability between any of the treatments and each other or placebo. Safety data analyzed from 13 trials revealed no significant differences between treatments and placebo.
“Because specific effects of drugs are associated with the size of the placebo effect, the lack of drug efficacy in our NMA [network meta-analysis] could be owing to a comparatively high placebo effect in children. In fact, there is indirect evidence [from other studies] that the placebo effect is more pronounced in children and adolescents than in adults,” Dr. Locher and associates said. They suggested that studies were needed to quantify the placebo effect in pediatric migraine, and if it was large, to develop innovative therapies making use of this.
The findings should lead to some changes in practice, Boris Zernikow, MD, PhD, of Children’s and Adolescents’ Hospital Datteln (Germany) wrote in an accompanying editorial.
Pharmacological prophylactic treatment of childhood migraine should be an exception rather than the rule, and nonpharmacologic approaches should be emphasized, particularly because the placebo effect is magnified in children, he said.
Many who suffer migraines in childhood will continue to be affected in adulthood, so pediatric intervention is a good opportunity to instill effective strategies. These include: using abortive medication early in an attack and using antimigraine medications for only that specific type of headache; engaging in physical activity to reduce migraine attacks; getting sufficient sleep; and learning relaxation and other psychological approaches to counter migraines.
Dr. Zernikow had no relevant financial disclosures. One study author received grants from Amgen and other support from Grunenthal and Akelos. The study received funding from the Sara Page Mayo Endowment for Pediatric Pain Research, Education, and Treatment; the Swiss National Science Foundation; the Schweizer-Arau-Foundation; and the Theophrastus Foundation.
SOURCES: Locher C et al. JAMA Pediatrics. 2020 Feb 10. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2019.5856; Zernikow B. JAMA Pediatrics. 2020 Feb 10. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2019.5907.
Clinicians hoped that medications used in adults – such as antidepressants, antiepileptics, antihypertensive agents, calcium channel blockers, and food supplements – would find similar success in children. Unfortunately, researchers found only short-term signs of efficacy over placebo, with no benefit lasting more than 6 months.
The study, conducted by a team led by Cosima Locher, PhD, of Boston Children’s Hospital, included 23 double-blind, randomized, controlled trials with a total of 2,217 patients; the mean age was 11 years. They compared 12 pharmacologic agents with each other or with placebo in the study, published online in JAMA Pediatrics.
In a main efficacy analysis that included 19 studies, only two treatments outperformed placebo: propranolol (standardized mean difference, 0.60; 95% confidence interval, 0.03-1.17) and topiramate (SMD, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.03-1.15). There were no statistically significant between-treatment differences.
The results had an overall low to moderate certainty.
When propranolol was compared to placebo, the 95% prediction interval (–0.62 to 1.82) was wider than the significant confidence interval (0.03-1.17), and comprised both beneficial and detrimental effects. A similar result was found with topiramate, with a prediction interval of –0.62 to 1.80 extending into nonsignificant effects (95% CI, 0.03-1.15). In both cases, significant effects were found only when the prediction interval was 70%.
In a long-term analysis (greater than 6 months), no treatment outperformed placebo.
The treatments generally were acceptable. The researchers found no significant difference in tolerability between any of the treatments and each other or placebo. Safety data analyzed from 13 trials revealed no significant differences between treatments and placebo.
“Because specific effects of drugs are associated with the size of the placebo effect, the lack of drug efficacy in our NMA [network meta-analysis] could be owing to a comparatively high placebo effect in children. In fact, there is indirect evidence [from other studies] that the placebo effect is more pronounced in children and adolescents than in adults,” Dr. Locher and associates said. They suggested that studies were needed to quantify the placebo effect in pediatric migraine, and if it was large, to develop innovative therapies making use of this.
The findings should lead to some changes in practice, Boris Zernikow, MD, PhD, of Children’s and Adolescents’ Hospital Datteln (Germany) wrote in an accompanying editorial.
Pharmacological prophylactic treatment of childhood migraine should be an exception rather than the rule, and nonpharmacologic approaches should be emphasized, particularly because the placebo effect is magnified in children, he said.
Many who suffer migraines in childhood will continue to be affected in adulthood, so pediatric intervention is a good opportunity to instill effective strategies. These include: using abortive medication early in an attack and using antimigraine medications for only that specific type of headache; engaging in physical activity to reduce migraine attacks; getting sufficient sleep; and learning relaxation and other psychological approaches to counter migraines.
Dr. Zernikow had no relevant financial disclosures. One study author received grants from Amgen and other support from Grunenthal and Akelos. The study received funding from the Sara Page Mayo Endowment for Pediatric Pain Research, Education, and Treatment; the Swiss National Science Foundation; the Schweizer-Arau-Foundation; and the Theophrastus Foundation.
SOURCES: Locher C et al. JAMA Pediatrics. 2020 Feb 10. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2019.5856; Zernikow B. JAMA Pediatrics. 2020 Feb 10. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2019.5907.
FROM JAMA PEDIATRICS
Any dose of HPV vaccine is better than none
A single dose of the human papillomavirus vaccine is as effective as two or three doses for preventing cervical cancer in girls and women vaccinated at 15-19 years of age, based on data from a retrospective study of more than 100,000 girls and women.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s current recommendations include a two-dose vaccine schedule for the HPV vaccine for girls and boys younger than 15 years, and a three-dose schedule for girls and young women aged 16-26 years who had their first dose before turning 15.
However, rates of HPV vaccination in the United States fall short of those in other developed nations, and evidence supporting the protective value of a specific number of vaccine doses are mixed, wrote Ana M. Rodriguez, MD, MPH, of the University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston, and colleagues. Fewer than three doses could have benefits, including easier logistics, lower costs, higher acceptance rates, and fewer side effects, they said. The study was published in Cancer.
The researchers reviewed data from 66,541 girls and women aged 9-26 years who had received at least one dose of HPV vaccine (4vHPV) between Jan. 1, 2006, and June 30, 2015, and 66,541 matched unvaccinated controls. The primary outcomes were histologically confirmed preinvasive cervical disease and high-grade cytology.
Overall, the adjusted hazard ratios for histologically confirmed preinvasive cervical disease among patients vaccinated at the ages of 15-19 years with one, two, and three doses were similar, at 0.64, 0.72, and 0.66, respectively, compared with unvaccinated individuals.
The risk of high-grade cytology was significantly lower for girls and women who received three doses at age 15-19 years, compared with unvaccinated individuals, but no difference was seen in high-grade cytology between unvaccinated individuals and those who received one or two doses. In addition, the unadjusted rate of preinvasive cervical disease at 5 years was 2.65% for unvaccinated teens aged 15-19 years, compared with 1.62%, 1.99%, and 1.86% in the one-, two- and three-dose groups, respectively.The findings were limited by several factors, including the use of billing codes to determine outcomes and the inability to determine potential vaccination through multiple insurance carriers, and the inclusion only of privately insured patients from the claims database, the researchers noted.
However, the results support findings from previous studies and show a similar level of association between varying vaccine doses and preinvasive cervical lesions in the 15- to 19-year-old population, they said.
“Efforts should focus on not only the need to initiate the HPV vaccine but also the need for beginning and continuing cervical cancer screening among young women who are vaccinated at older ages (18 years and older),” they said.
In an editorial accompanying the study, Julia M.L. Brotherton, PhD, MPH, and Karin Sundström, MD, PhD, of the University of Melbourne, Australia, and the Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, respectively, wrote that the study’s strengths included the large numbers of girls and women who received a single dose of the HPV vaccine, compared with previous studies, as well as the adjustments for histories of sexually transmitted infections and pregnancy (Cancer. 2020 Feb 10. doi: 10.1002/cncr.32696). “Initial observational data from vaccination programs did not support equivalent one-dose protection against genital warts or cervical disease, but such data may have been confounded by potentially higher risk characteristics of women who only ever received one or two doses of an intended three-dose course i.e., women noncompliant with the vaccine program [amplified by the monitoring of outcomes among the initial catch-up populations of already infected women]) and by the inherent bias that prevalent infection/disease is more likely to become apparent coincidently with the earlier doses in a vaccine course,” they said. The study findings have implications for global goals to eliminate cervical cancer, the editorial authors noted.
“If one dose of an HPV vaccine were sufficient for effective protection, HPV vaccine implementation and scale-up would require less logistics (while being amenable to a periodic campaign approach), available doses could be extended further, and the overall cost would be lower,” they said.
The study was supported in part by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences of the National Institutes of Health, and by the Cancer Prevention Research Institute of Texas. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.
Dr. Brotherton disclosed serving as an investigator for Seqirus and Merck; Dr. Sundström disclosed research funding for her institution from Merck and MSD Sweden.
SOURCE: Rodriguez AM et al. Cancer. 2020 Feb 10. doi: 10.1002/cncr.32700.
A single dose of the human papillomavirus vaccine is as effective as two or three doses for preventing cervical cancer in girls and women vaccinated at 15-19 years of age, based on data from a retrospective study of more than 100,000 girls and women.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s current recommendations include a two-dose vaccine schedule for the HPV vaccine for girls and boys younger than 15 years, and a three-dose schedule for girls and young women aged 16-26 years who had their first dose before turning 15.
However, rates of HPV vaccination in the United States fall short of those in other developed nations, and evidence supporting the protective value of a specific number of vaccine doses are mixed, wrote Ana M. Rodriguez, MD, MPH, of the University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston, and colleagues. Fewer than three doses could have benefits, including easier logistics, lower costs, higher acceptance rates, and fewer side effects, they said. The study was published in Cancer.
The researchers reviewed data from 66,541 girls and women aged 9-26 years who had received at least one dose of HPV vaccine (4vHPV) between Jan. 1, 2006, and June 30, 2015, and 66,541 matched unvaccinated controls. The primary outcomes were histologically confirmed preinvasive cervical disease and high-grade cytology.
Overall, the adjusted hazard ratios for histologically confirmed preinvasive cervical disease among patients vaccinated at the ages of 15-19 years with one, two, and three doses were similar, at 0.64, 0.72, and 0.66, respectively, compared with unvaccinated individuals.
The risk of high-grade cytology was significantly lower for girls and women who received three doses at age 15-19 years, compared with unvaccinated individuals, but no difference was seen in high-grade cytology between unvaccinated individuals and those who received one or two doses. In addition, the unadjusted rate of preinvasive cervical disease at 5 years was 2.65% for unvaccinated teens aged 15-19 years, compared with 1.62%, 1.99%, and 1.86% in the one-, two- and three-dose groups, respectively.The findings were limited by several factors, including the use of billing codes to determine outcomes and the inability to determine potential vaccination through multiple insurance carriers, and the inclusion only of privately insured patients from the claims database, the researchers noted.
However, the results support findings from previous studies and show a similar level of association between varying vaccine doses and preinvasive cervical lesions in the 15- to 19-year-old population, they said.
“Efforts should focus on not only the need to initiate the HPV vaccine but also the need for beginning and continuing cervical cancer screening among young women who are vaccinated at older ages (18 years and older),” they said.
In an editorial accompanying the study, Julia M.L. Brotherton, PhD, MPH, and Karin Sundström, MD, PhD, of the University of Melbourne, Australia, and the Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, respectively, wrote that the study’s strengths included the large numbers of girls and women who received a single dose of the HPV vaccine, compared with previous studies, as well as the adjustments for histories of sexually transmitted infections and pregnancy (Cancer. 2020 Feb 10. doi: 10.1002/cncr.32696). “Initial observational data from vaccination programs did not support equivalent one-dose protection against genital warts or cervical disease, but such data may have been confounded by potentially higher risk characteristics of women who only ever received one or two doses of an intended three-dose course i.e., women noncompliant with the vaccine program [amplified by the monitoring of outcomes among the initial catch-up populations of already infected women]) and by the inherent bias that prevalent infection/disease is more likely to become apparent coincidently with the earlier doses in a vaccine course,” they said. The study findings have implications for global goals to eliminate cervical cancer, the editorial authors noted.
“If one dose of an HPV vaccine were sufficient for effective protection, HPV vaccine implementation and scale-up would require less logistics (while being amenable to a periodic campaign approach), available doses could be extended further, and the overall cost would be lower,” they said.
The study was supported in part by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences of the National Institutes of Health, and by the Cancer Prevention Research Institute of Texas. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.
Dr. Brotherton disclosed serving as an investigator for Seqirus and Merck; Dr. Sundström disclosed research funding for her institution from Merck and MSD Sweden.
SOURCE: Rodriguez AM et al. Cancer. 2020 Feb 10. doi: 10.1002/cncr.32700.
A single dose of the human papillomavirus vaccine is as effective as two or three doses for preventing cervical cancer in girls and women vaccinated at 15-19 years of age, based on data from a retrospective study of more than 100,000 girls and women.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s current recommendations include a two-dose vaccine schedule for the HPV vaccine for girls and boys younger than 15 years, and a three-dose schedule for girls and young women aged 16-26 years who had their first dose before turning 15.
However, rates of HPV vaccination in the United States fall short of those in other developed nations, and evidence supporting the protective value of a specific number of vaccine doses are mixed, wrote Ana M. Rodriguez, MD, MPH, of the University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston, and colleagues. Fewer than three doses could have benefits, including easier logistics, lower costs, higher acceptance rates, and fewer side effects, they said. The study was published in Cancer.
The researchers reviewed data from 66,541 girls and women aged 9-26 years who had received at least one dose of HPV vaccine (4vHPV) between Jan. 1, 2006, and June 30, 2015, and 66,541 matched unvaccinated controls. The primary outcomes were histologically confirmed preinvasive cervical disease and high-grade cytology.
Overall, the adjusted hazard ratios for histologically confirmed preinvasive cervical disease among patients vaccinated at the ages of 15-19 years with one, two, and three doses were similar, at 0.64, 0.72, and 0.66, respectively, compared with unvaccinated individuals.
The risk of high-grade cytology was significantly lower for girls and women who received three doses at age 15-19 years, compared with unvaccinated individuals, but no difference was seen in high-grade cytology between unvaccinated individuals and those who received one or two doses. In addition, the unadjusted rate of preinvasive cervical disease at 5 years was 2.65% for unvaccinated teens aged 15-19 years, compared with 1.62%, 1.99%, and 1.86% in the one-, two- and three-dose groups, respectively.The findings were limited by several factors, including the use of billing codes to determine outcomes and the inability to determine potential vaccination through multiple insurance carriers, and the inclusion only of privately insured patients from the claims database, the researchers noted.
However, the results support findings from previous studies and show a similar level of association between varying vaccine doses and preinvasive cervical lesions in the 15- to 19-year-old population, they said.
“Efforts should focus on not only the need to initiate the HPV vaccine but also the need for beginning and continuing cervical cancer screening among young women who are vaccinated at older ages (18 years and older),” they said.
In an editorial accompanying the study, Julia M.L. Brotherton, PhD, MPH, and Karin Sundström, MD, PhD, of the University of Melbourne, Australia, and the Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, respectively, wrote that the study’s strengths included the large numbers of girls and women who received a single dose of the HPV vaccine, compared with previous studies, as well as the adjustments for histories of sexually transmitted infections and pregnancy (Cancer. 2020 Feb 10. doi: 10.1002/cncr.32696). “Initial observational data from vaccination programs did not support equivalent one-dose protection against genital warts or cervical disease, but such data may have been confounded by potentially higher risk characteristics of women who only ever received one or two doses of an intended three-dose course i.e., women noncompliant with the vaccine program [amplified by the monitoring of outcomes among the initial catch-up populations of already infected women]) and by the inherent bias that prevalent infection/disease is more likely to become apparent coincidently with the earlier doses in a vaccine course,” they said. The study findings have implications for global goals to eliminate cervical cancer, the editorial authors noted.
“If one dose of an HPV vaccine were sufficient for effective protection, HPV vaccine implementation and scale-up would require less logistics (while being amenable to a periodic campaign approach), available doses could be extended further, and the overall cost would be lower,” they said.
The study was supported in part by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences of the National Institutes of Health, and by the Cancer Prevention Research Institute of Texas. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.
Dr. Brotherton disclosed serving as an investigator for Seqirus and Merck; Dr. Sundström disclosed research funding for her institution from Merck and MSD Sweden.
SOURCE: Rodriguez AM et al. Cancer. 2020 Feb 10. doi: 10.1002/cncr.32700.
FROM CANCER
Key clinical point: HPV vaccination was similarly effective for preventing cervical cancer in girls and women who received 1, 2, or 3 doses at age 15-19 years.
Major finding: The adjusted hazard ratios for preinvasive cervical disease for women vaccinated at age 15-19 years with 1, 2, and 3 doses of the HPV vaccine were 0.64, 0.72, and 0.66 respectively.
Study details: The data come from a retrospective matched cohort study of 133,082 women from the Optum Clinformatics DataMart Database.
Disclosures: The study was supported in part by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences of the National Institutes of Health and by the Cancer Prevention Research Institute of Texas. The researchers disclosed no financial conflicts.
Source: Rodriguez AM et al. Cancer. 2020 Feb 10. doi: 10.1002/cncr.32700.
Like a hot potato
Most of us did our postgraduate training in tertiary medical centers, ivory towers of medicine often attached to or closely affiliated with medical schools. These are the places where the buck stops. Occasionally, a very complex patient might be sent to another tertiary center that claims to have a supersubspecialist, a one-of-a-kind physician with nationally recognized expertise. But for most patients, the tertiary medical center is the end of the line, and his or her physicians must manage with the resources at hand. They may confer with one another but there is no place for them to pass the buck.
But most of us who chose primary care left the comforting cocoon of the teaching hospital complex when we finished our training. Those first few months and years in the hinterland can be angst producing. Until we have established our own personal networks of consultants and mentors, patients with more than run-of-the-mill complaints may prompt us to reach for the phone or fire off an email call for help to our recently departed mother ship.
It can take awhile to establish the self-confidence – or at least the appearance of self-confidence – that physicians are expected to exude. But even after years of experience, none of us wants to watch a patient die or suffer preventable complications under our care when we know there is another facility that can provide a higher lever of care just an ambulance ride or short helicopter trip away.
Our primary concern is of course assuring that our patient is receiving the best care. How quickly we reach for the phone to refer out the most fragile patients depends on several factors. Do we practice in a community that has a historic reputation of having a low threshold for malpractice suits? How well do we know the patient and her family? Have we had time to establish bidirectional trust?
Is the patient’s diagnosis one that we feel comfortable with or is the diagnosis one that we believe could quickly deteriorate without warning? For example, a recently published study revealed that 20% of pediatric trauma patients were overtriaged and that the mechanism of injury – firearms or motor vehicle accidents – appeared to have an outsized influence in the triage decision (Trauma Surg Acute Care Open. 2019 Dec 29. doi: 10.1136/tsaco-2019-000300).
Because I have no experience with firearm injuries and minimal experience with motor vehicle injuries I can understand why the emergency medical technicians might be quick to ship these patients to the trauma center. However, I hope that, were I offered better training and more opportunities to gain experience with these types of injuries, I would have a lower overtriage percentage.
Which begs the question of what is an acceptable rate of overtriage or overreferral? It’s the same old question of how many normal appendixes should one remove to avoid a fatal outcome. Each of us arrives at a given clinical crossroads with our own level of experience and comfort level.
But in the final analysis it boils down to a personal decision and our own basic level of anxiety. Let’s face it, some of us worry more than others. Physicians come in all shades of anxiety. A hot potato in your hands may feel only room temperature to me.
Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Email him at [email protected].
Most of us did our postgraduate training in tertiary medical centers, ivory towers of medicine often attached to or closely affiliated with medical schools. These are the places where the buck stops. Occasionally, a very complex patient might be sent to another tertiary center that claims to have a supersubspecialist, a one-of-a-kind physician with nationally recognized expertise. But for most patients, the tertiary medical center is the end of the line, and his or her physicians must manage with the resources at hand. They may confer with one another but there is no place for them to pass the buck.
But most of us who chose primary care left the comforting cocoon of the teaching hospital complex when we finished our training. Those first few months and years in the hinterland can be angst producing. Until we have established our own personal networks of consultants and mentors, patients with more than run-of-the-mill complaints may prompt us to reach for the phone or fire off an email call for help to our recently departed mother ship.
It can take awhile to establish the self-confidence – or at least the appearance of self-confidence – that physicians are expected to exude. But even after years of experience, none of us wants to watch a patient die or suffer preventable complications under our care when we know there is another facility that can provide a higher lever of care just an ambulance ride or short helicopter trip away.
Our primary concern is of course assuring that our patient is receiving the best care. How quickly we reach for the phone to refer out the most fragile patients depends on several factors. Do we practice in a community that has a historic reputation of having a low threshold for malpractice suits? How well do we know the patient and her family? Have we had time to establish bidirectional trust?
Is the patient’s diagnosis one that we feel comfortable with or is the diagnosis one that we believe could quickly deteriorate without warning? For example, a recently published study revealed that 20% of pediatric trauma patients were overtriaged and that the mechanism of injury – firearms or motor vehicle accidents – appeared to have an outsized influence in the triage decision (Trauma Surg Acute Care Open. 2019 Dec 29. doi: 10.1136/tsaco-2019-000300).
Because I have no experience with firearm injuries and minimal experience with motor vehicle injuries I can understand why the emergency medical technicians might be quick to ship these patients to the trauma center. However, I hope that, were I offered better training and more opportunities to gain experience with these types of injuries, I would have a lower overtriage percentage.
Which begs the question of what is an acceptable rate of overtriage or overreferral? It’s the same old question of how many normal appendixes should one remove to avoid a fatal outcome. Each of us arrives at a given clinical crossroads with our own level of experience and comfort level.
But in the final analysis it boils down to a personal decision and our own basic level of anxiety. Let’s face it, some of us worry more than others. Physicians come in all shades of anxiety. A hot potato in your hands may feel only room temperature to me.
Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Email him at [email protected].
Most of us did our postgraduate training in tertiary medical centers, ivory towers of medicine often attached to or closely affiliated with medical schools. These are the places where the buck stops. Occasionally, a very complex patient might be sent to another tertiary center that claims to have a supersubspecialist, a one-of-a-kind physician with nationally recognized expertise. But for most patients, the tertiary medical center is the end of the line, and his or her physicians must manage with the resources at hand. They may confer with one another but there is no place for them to pass the buck.
But most of us who chose primary care left the comforting cocoon of the teaching hospital complex when we finished our training. Those first few months and years in the hinterland can be angst producing. Until we have established our own personal networks of consultants and mentors, patients with more than run-of-the-mill complaints may prompt us to reach for the phone or fire off an email call for help to our recently departed mother ship.
It can take awhile to establish the self-confidence – or at least the appearance of self-confidence – that physicians are expected to exude. But even after years of experience, none of us wants to watch a patient die or suffer preventable complications under our care when we know there is another facility that can provide a higher lever of care just an ambulance ride or short helicopter trip away.
Our primary concern is of course assuring that our patient is receiving the best care. How quickly we reach for the phone to refer out the most fragile patients depends on several factors. Do we practice in a community that has a historic reputation of having a low threshold for malpractice suits? How well do we know the patient and her family? Have we had time to establish bidirectional trust?
Is the patient’s diagnosis one that we feel comfortable with or is the diagnosis one that we believe could quickly deteriorate without warning? For example, a recently published study revealed that 20% of pediatric trauma patients were overtriaged and that the mechanism of injury – firearms or motor vehicle accidents – appeared to have an outsized influence in the triage decision (Trauma Surg Acute Care Open. 2019 Dec 29. doi: 10.1136/tsaco-2019-000300).
Because I have no experience with firearm injuries and minimal experience with motor vehicle injuries I can understand why the emergency medical technicians might be quick to ship these patients to the trauma center. However, I hope that, were I offered better training and more opportunities to gain experience with these types of injuries, I would have a lower overtriage percentage.
Which begs the question of what is an acceptable rate of overtriage or overreferral? It’s the same old question of how many normal appendixes should one remove to avoid a fatal outcome. Each of us arrives at a given clinical crossroads with our own level of experience and comfort level.
But in the final analysis it boils down to a personal decision and our own basic level of anxiety. Let’s face it, some of us worry more than others. Physicians come in all shades of anxiety. A hot potato in your hands may feel only room temperature to me.
Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Email him at [email protected].
Cannabis use in pregnancy and lactation: A changing landscape
National survey data from 2007-2012 of more than 93,000 pregnant women suggest that around 7% of pregnant respondents reported any cannabis use in the last 2-12 months; of those, 16% reported daily or almost daily use. Among pregnant past-year users in the same survey, 70% perceived slight or no risk of harm from cannabis use 1-2 times a week in pregnancy.1
Data from the Kaiser Northern California health plan involving more than 279,000 pregnancies followed during 2009-2016 suggest that there has been a significant upward trend in use of cannabis during pregnancy, from 4% to 7%, as reported by the mother and/or identified by routine urine screening. The highest prevalence in that study was seen among 18- to 24-year-old pregnant women, increasing from 13% to 22% over the 7-year study period. Importantly, more than 50% of cannabis users in the sample were identified by toxicology screening alone.2,3 Common reasons given for use of cannabis in pregnancy include anxiety, pain, and nausea and vomiting of pregnancy.4
With respect to adverse perinatal outcomes, several case-control studies have examined risks for major birth defects with maternal self-report of cannabis use. Some have noted very modest increased risks for selected major birth defects (odds ratios less than 2); however, data still are very limited.5,6
A number of prospective studies have addressed risks of preterm birth and growth restriction, accounting for mother’s concomitant tobacco use.7-11 Some of these studies have suggested about a twofold to threefold increased risk for preterm delivery and an increased risk for reduced birth weight – particularly with heavier or regular cannabis use – but study findings have not been entirely consistent.
Given its psychoactive properties, there has been high interest in understanding whether there are any short- or long-term neurodevelopmental effects on children prenatally exposed to cannabis. These outcomes have been studied in two small older cohorts in the United States and Canada and one more recent cohort in the Netherlands.12-15 Deficits in several measures of cognition and behavior were noted in follow-up of those children from birth to adulthood. However, it is unclear to what extent these findings may have been influenced by heredity, environment, or other factors.
There have been limitations in almost all studies published to date, including small sample sizes, no biomarker validation of maternal report of dose and gestational timing of cannabis use, and lack of detailed data on common coexposures, such as alcohol, tobacco, and other drugs. In addition, newer studies of pregnancy outcomes in women who use currently available cannabis products are needed, given the substantial increase in the potency of cannabis used today, compared with that of 20 years ago. For example, the tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) concentration in commonly cultivated marijuana plants has increased threefold from 4% to 12% between 1995 and 2014.16
There are very limited data on the presence of cannabis in breast milk and the potential effects of exposure to THC and other metabolites for breastfed infants. However, two recent studies have demonstrated there are low but measurable levels of some cannabis metabolites in breast milk.17-18 Further work is needed to determine if these metabolites accumulate in milk and if at a given dose and age of the breastfed infant, there are any growth, neurodevelopmental, or other clinically important adverse effects.
Related questions, such as potential differences in the effects of exposure during pregnancy or lactation based on the route of administration (edible vs. inhaled) and the use of cannabidiol (CBD) products, have not been studied.
At the present time, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends that women who are pregnant or contemplating pregnancy be encouraged to discontinue marijuana use. With respect to lactation and breastfeeding, ACOG concludes there are insufficient data to evaluate the effects on infants, and in the absence of such data, marijuana use is discouraged. Similarly, the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends women of childbearing age abstain from marijuana use while pregnant or breastfeeding because of potential adverse consequences to the fetus, infant, or child.
In August 2019, the U.S. Surgeon General issued an advisory regarding potential harm to developing brains from the use of marijuana during pregnancy and lactation. The Food and Drug Administration issued a similar statement in October 2019 strongly advising against the use of CBD, THC, and marijuana in any form during pregnancy or while breastfeeding.
Dr. Chambers is professor of pediatrics and director of clinical research at Rady Children’s Hospital and associate director of the Clinical and Translational Research Institute at the University of California, San Diego. She is also director of MotherToBaby California, president of the Organization of Teratology Information Specialists, and past president of the Teratology Society.
References
1. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015 Aug;213(2):201.e1-10.
2. JAMA. 2017 Dec 26;318(24):2490-1.
3. JAMA. 2017 Jan 10;317(2):207-9.
4. Complement Ther Clin Pract. 2009 Nov;15(4)242-6.
5. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 2014 Sep; 28(5): 424-33.
6. J Toxicol Environ Health A. 2007 Jan;70(1):7-18.
7. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1983 Aug 15;146(8):992-4.
8. Clin Perinatol. 1991 Mar;18(1):77-91.
9. Am J Epidemiol. 1986 Dec;124(6):986-93.
10. Pediatr Res. 2012 Feb;71(2):215-9.
11. Reprod Toxicol. 2016;62:77-86.
12. Neurotoxicol Teratol. 1987 Jan-Feb;9(1):1-7.
13. Neurotoxicol Teratol. 1994 Mar-Apr;16(2):169-75.
14. Biol Psychiatry. 2016 Jun 15;79(12):971-9.
15. Pharmacol Ther. 2018 Feb;182:133-51.
16. Biol Psychiatry. 2016 Apr 1;79(7):613-9.
17. Obstet Gynecol. 2018 May;131(5):783-8.
18. Pediatrics. 2018 Sep;142(3):e20181076.
National survey data from 2007-2012 of more than 93,000 pregnant women suggest that around 7% of pregnant respondents reported any cannabis use in the last 2-12 months; of those, 16% reported daily or almost daily use. Among pregnant past-year users in the same survey, 70% perceived slight or no risk of harm from cannabis use 1-2 times a week in pregnancy.1
Data from the Kaiser Northern California health plan involving more than 279,000 pregnancies followed during 2009-2016 suggest that there has been a significant upward trend in use of cannabis during pregnancy, from 4% to 7%, as reported by the mother and/or identified by routine urine screening. The highest prevalence in that study was seen among 18- to 24-year-old pregnant women, increasing from 13% to 22% over the 7-year study period. Importantly, more than 50% of cannabis users in the sample were identified by toxicology screening alone.2,3 Common reasons given for use of cannabis in pregnancy include anxiety, pain, and nausea and vomiting of pregnancy.4
With respect to adverse perinatal outcomes, several case-control studies have examined risks for major birth defects with maternal self-report of cannabis use. Some have noted very modest increased risks for selected major birth defects (odds ratios less than 2); however, data still are very limited.5,6
A number of prospective studies have addressed risks of preterm birth and growth restriction, accounting for mother’s concomitant tobacco use.7-11 Some of these studies have suggested about a twofold to threefold increased risk for preterm delivery and an increased risk for reduced birth weight – particularly with heavier or regular cannabis use – but study findings have not been entirely consistent.
Given its psychoactive properties, there has been high interest in understanding whether there are any short- or long-term neurodevelopmental effects on children prenatally exposed to cannabis. These outcomes have been studied in two small older cohorts in the United States and Canada and one more recent cohort in the Netherlands.12-15 Deficits in several measures of cognition and behavior were noted in follow-up of those children from birth to adulthood. However, it is unclear to what extent these findings may have been influenced by heredity, environment, or other factors.
There have been limitations in almost all studies published to date, including small sample sizes, no biomarker validation of maternal report of dose and gestational timing of cannabis use, and lack of detailed data on common coexposures, such as alcohol, tobacco, and other drugs. In addition, newer studies of pregnancy outcomes in women who use currently available cannabis products are needed, given the substantial increase in the potency of cannabis used today, compared with that of 20 years ago. For example, the tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) concentration in commonly cultivated marijuana plants has increased threefold from 4% to 12% between 1995 and 2014.16
There are very limited data on the presence of cannabis in breast milk and the potential effects of exposure to THC and other metabolites for breastfed infants. However, two recent studies have demonstrated there are low but measurable levels of some cannabis metabolites in breast milk.17-18 Further work is needed to determine if these metabolites accumulate in milk and if at a given dose and age of the breastfed infant, there are any growth, neurodevelopmental, or other clinically important adverse effects.
Related questions, such as potential differences in the effects of exposure during pregnancy or lactation based on the route of administration (edible vs. inhaled) and the use of cannabidiol (CBD) products, have not been studied.
At the present time, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends that women who are pregnant or contemplating pregnancy be encouraged to discontinue marijuana use. With respect to lactation and breastfeeding, ACOG concludes there are insufficient data to evaluate the effects on infants, and in the absence of such data, marijuana use is discouraged. Similarly, the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends women of childbearing age abstain from marijuana use while pregnant or breastfeeding because of potential adverse consequences to the fetus, infant, or child.
In August 2019, the U.S. Surgeon General issued an advisory regarding potential harm to developing brains from the use of marijuana during pregnancy and lactation. The Food and Drug Administration issued a similar statement in October 2019 strongly advising against the use of CBD, THC, and marijuana in any form during pregnancy or while breastfeeding.
Dr. Chambers is professor of pediatrics and director of clinical research at Rady Children’s Hospital and associate director of the Clinical and Translational Research Institute at the University of California, San Diego. She is also director of MotherToBaby California, president of the Organization of Teratology Information Specialists, and past president of the Teratology Society.
References
1. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015 Aug;213(2):201.e1-10.
2. JAMA. 2017 Dec 26;318(24):2490-1.
3. JAMA. 2017 Jan 10;317(2):207-9.
4. Complement Ther Clin Pract. 2009 Nov;15(4)242-6.
5. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 2014 Sep; 28(5): 424-33.
6. J Toxicol Environ Health A. 2007 Jan;70(1):7-18.
7. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1983 Aug 15;146(8):992-4.
8. Clin Perinatol. 1991 Mar;18(1):77-91.
9. Am J Epidemiol. 1986 Dec;124(6):986-93.
10. Pediatr Res. 2012 Feb;71(2):215-9.
11. Reprod Toxicol. 2016;62:77-86.
12. Neurotoxicol Teratol. 1987 Jan-Feb;9(1):1-7.
13. Neurotoxicol Teratol. 1994 Mar-Apr;16(2):169-75.
14. Biol Psychiatry. 2016 Jun 15;79(12):971-9.
15. Pharmacol Ther. 2018 Feb;182:133-51.
16. Biol Psychiatry. 2016 Apr 1;79(7):613-9.
17. Obstet Gynecol. 2018 May;131(5):783-8.
18. Pediatrics. 2018 Sep;142(3):e20181076.
National survey data from 2007-2012 of more than 93,000 pregnant women suggest that around 7% of pregnant respondents reported any cannabis use in the last 2-12 months; of those, 16% reported daily or almost daily use. Among pregnant past-year users in the same survey, 70% perceived slight or no risk of harm from cannabis use 1-2 times a week in pregnancy.1
Data from the Kaiser Northern California health plan involving more than 279,000 pregnancies followed during 2009-2016 suggest that there has been a significant upward trend in use of cannabis during pregnancy, from 4% to 7%, as reported by the mother and/or identified by routine urine screening. The highest prevalence in that study was seen among 18- to 24-year-old pregnant women, increasing from 13% to 22% over the 7-year study period. Importantly, more than 50% of cannabis users in the sample were identified by toxicology screening alone.2,3 Common reasons given for use of cannabis in pregnancy include anxiety, pain, and nausea and vomiting of pregnancy.4
With respect to adverse perinatal outcomes, several case-control studies have examined risks for major birth defects with maternal self-report of cannabis use. Some have noted very modest increased risks for selected major birth defects (odds ratios less than 2); however, data still are very limited.5,6
A number of prospective studies have addressed risks of preterm birth and growth restriction, accounting for mother’s concomitant tobacco use.7-11 Some of these studies have suggested about a twofold to threefold increased risk for preterm delivery and an increased risk for reduced birth weight – particularly with heavier or regular cannabis use – but study findings have not been entirely consistent.
Given its psychoactive properties, there has been high interest in understanding whether there are any short- or long-term neurodevelopmental effects on children prenatally exposed to cannabis. These outcomes have been studied in two small older cohorts in the United States and Canada and one more recent cohort in the Netherlands.12-15 Deficits in several measures of cognition and behavior were noted in follow-up of those children from birth to adulthood. However, it is unclear to what extent these findings may have been influenced by heredity, environment, or other factors.
There have been limitations in almost all studies published to date, including small sample sizes, no biomarker validation of maternal report of dose and gestational timing of cannabis use, and lack of detailed data on common coexposures, such as alcohol, tobacco, and other drugs. In addition, newer studies of pregnancy outcomes in women who use currently available cannabis products are needed, given the substantial increase in the potency of cannabis used today, compared with that of 20 years ago. For example, the tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) concentration in commonly cultivated marijuana plants has increased threefold from 4% to 12% between 1995 and 2014.16
There are very limited data on the presence of cannabis in breast milk and the potential effects of exposure to THC and other metabolites for breastfed infants. However, two recent studies have demonstrated there are low but measurable levels of some cannabis metabolites in breast milk.17-18 Further work is needed to determine if these metabolites accumulate in milk and if at a given dose and age of the breastfed infant, there are any growth, neurodevelopmental, or other clinically important adverse effects.
Related questions, such as potential differences in the effects of exposure during pregnancy or lactation based on the route of administration (edible vs. inhaled) and the use of cannabidiol (CBD) products, have not been studied.
At the present time, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends that women who are pregnant or contemplating pregnancy be encouraged to discontinue marijuana use. With respect to lactation and breastfeeding, ACOG concludes there are insufficient data to evaluate the effects on infants, and in the absence of such data, marijuana use is discouraged. Similarly, the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends women of childbearing age abstain from marijuana use while pregnant or breastfeeding because of potential adverse consequences to the fetus, infant, or child.
In August 2019, the U.S. Surgeon General issued an advisory regarding potential harm to developing brains from the use of marijuana during pregnancy and lactation. The Food and Drug Administration issued a similar statement in October 2019 strongly advising against the use of CBD, THC, and marijuana in any form during pregnancy or while breastfeeding.
Dr. Chambers is professor of pediatrics and director of clinical research at Rady Children’s Hospital and associate director of the Clinical and Translational Research Institute at the University of California, San Diego. She is also director of MotherToBaby California, president of the Organization of Teratology Information Specialists, and past president of the Teratology Society.
References
1. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015 Aug;213(2):201.e1-10.
2. JAMA. 2017 Dec 26;318(24):2490-1.
3. JAMA. 2017 Jan 10;317(2):207-9.
4. Complement Ther Clin Pract. 2009 Nov;15(4)242-6.
5. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 2014 Sep; 28(5): 424-33.
6. J Toxicol Environ Health A. 2007 Jan;70(1):7-18.
7. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1983 Aug 15;146(8):992-4.
8. Clin Perinatol. 1991 Mar;18(1):77-91.
9. Am J Epidemiol. 1986 Dec;124(6):986-93.
10. Pediatr Res. 2012 Feb;71(2):215-9.
11. Reprod Toxicol. 2016;62:77-86.
12. Neurotoxicol Teratol. 1987 Jan-Feb;9(1):1-7.
13. Neurotoxicol Teratol. 1994 Mar-Apr;16(2):169-75.
14. Biol Psychiatry. 2016 Jun 15;79(12):971-9.
15. Pharmacol Ther. 2018 Feb;182:133-51.
16. Biol Psychiatry. 2016 Apr 1;79(7):613-9.
17. Obstet Gynecol. 2018 May;131(5):783-8.
18. Pediatrics. 2018 Sep;142(3):e20181076.
Pubertal suppression reduces risk of later suicidal ideation in transgender people
Transgender adults who, as adolescents, desired and received pubertal suppression had reduced odds of suicidal ideation, compared with those who wanted but didn’t receive pubertal suppression during their teen years.
Raw frequency of lifetime suicidal ideation was 90% in transgender adults who wanted, but did not receive, pubertal suppression in adolescence, compared with 75% in those who did receive pubertal suppression in adolescence, according to a new analysis of a nationwide survey of transgender people reported in Pediatrics. After controlling for demographic variables, the lifetime adjusted odds ratio for suicidal ideation was 0.3 for those receiving pubertal suppression, compared with those who wanted but didn’t receive pubertal suppression.
The study was the first to examine this association, and findings were drawn from the 2015 U.S. Transgender Survey, the largest known dataset of transgender adults, wrote the study’s lead author Jack Turban, MD, and coinvestigators.
“Suicidality is of particular concern for this population because the estimated lifetime prevalence of suicide attempts among transgender people is as high as 40%,” noted Dr. Turban, a psychiatry resident at Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and McLean Hospital, Belmont, Mass., and coauthors. Anxiety, depression, and suicidality all are more common among transgender youth, who make up almost 2% of the nation’s adolescent population, they said.
Among transgender youth, the researchers explained, a spectrum exists: “Some have minimal body dysphoria and do not desire pubertal suppression, whereas others report significant dysphoria around the physical changes related to puberty.” Accordingly, they said, “We examined only those youth who desired pubertal suppression,” because this is the population of youth about whom clinicians need to make treatment decisions.
For individuals who might experience distress from the irreversible bodily changes of endogenous puberty, suppression via gonadotropin releasing hormone analogues (GnRHas) “allows these adolescents more time to decide if they wish to either induce exogenous gender-congruent puberty or allow endogenous puberty to progress,” wrote Dr. Turban and his collaborators.
The U.S. Transgender Survey dataset includes response from over 27,000 transgender adults with nationwide representation. However, this study included only participants who were younger than 17 years in 1998, when GnRHas for pubertal suppression became available. Filtering this group further to just those respondents between the ages of 18 and 36 years whose survey responses indicated they had ever wanted pubertal suppression yielded 3,494 individuals. Of these individuals, just 2.5% (89 participants) had ever received pubertal suppression.
“Results from this study suggest that the majority of transgender adults in the United States who have wanted pubertal suppression did not receive it,” noted the authors. Even among the youngest respondents – who received care during puberty most recently – just 5% of the 18-year-olds in 2015 desiring pubertal suppression actually received the treatment.
Among other associations, individuals who were younger, those with feminine gender identity, those with male sex assigned at birth, and those reporting heterosexual sexual orientation were more likely to have received pubertal suppression.
Receiving GnRHas also was more likely for individuals with higher household income and more family support of their gender identity. Without insurance, studies have indicated that the annual cost of GnRHA treatment can be $4,000-$25,000. Another study noted that at the Boston Children’s Hospital Gender Management Service before 2012, fewer than 20% of patients were able to get insurance coverage for pubertal suppression, according to Dr. Turban and colleagues.
The study looked at suicidality over the past year and lifetime suicidality, as well as severe psychological distress and binge drinking over the past month. Investigators also asked about lifetime history of illicit drug use, hypothesizing that those who received pubertal suppression would have “superior mental health outcomes” when compared to those who desired – but didn’t receive – pubertal suppression, wrote Dr. Turban and coauthors.
Suicidality within the past 12 months and severe psychological distress were both significantly more common among those who did not receive pubertal suppression, but these associations lost significance after multivariable analysis. There was no difference in odds of suicide attempts, although the study may have been underpowered to detect some of these associations, said the investigators.
After statistical analysis to control for demographic variables, pubertal suppression still was associated with decreased odds of having suicidal ideation over the lifespan.
Dr. Turban and colleagues acknowledged that reverse causation may have been in play, because adolescents with better mental health might have been considered better candidates for GnRHa therapy. But the study’s large sample size and wide geographic reach are strengths, they said, concluding that overall, the findings lend support to existing recommendations from the Endocrine Society and the World Professional Association for Transgender Health that pubertal suppression therapy be available to those adolescents who desire it.
Investigators were supported by the U.S. Health Resources and Services Administration, the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, and the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry. The authors reported that they had no financial conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Turban JL et al. Pediatrics. 2020;145(2):e20191725.
Access to good medical care for transgender adolescents remains very limited. When it is available, puberty blockers are an excellent, conservative option for trans adolescents entering puberty so that they have time to consider longer-term treatment options with their providers and families. As demonstrated by the data in this study, good attention to transgender children can substantially improve their mental health.
The biggest barrier to health care for trans adolescents is access to knowledgeable providers – even more than affordability, which is improving with better coverage by payers. As noted in the study by Turban et al., the lack of access to care remains a huge problem.
It is not surprising that, when we neglect health care, we get bad outcomes. In that sense, the study by Turban et al. is quite intuitive. The few adolescents with access to the appropriate health care had better immediate outcomes. Still, as a scientist I take nothing for granted, and a study confirming what seems logical is important confirmation.
Joshua D. Safer, MD, who is the executive director of the Center for Transgender Medicine and Surgery at Mount Sinai Health System, and professor of medicine at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, both in New York, was asked to comment on the article by Turban et al. He said he had no relevant financial disclosures.
Access to good medical care for transgender adolescents remains very limited. When it is available, puberty blockers are an excellent, conservative option for trans adolescents entering puberty so that they have time to consider longer-term treatment options with their providers and families. As demonstrated by the data in this study, good attention to transgender children can substantially improve their mental health.
The biggest barrier to health care for trans adolescents is access to knowledgeable providers – even more than affordability, which is improving with better coverage by payers. As noted in the study by Turban et al., the lack of access to care remains a huge problem.
It is not surprising that, when we neglect health care, we get bad outcomes. In that sense, the study by Turban et al. is quite intuitive. The few adolescents with access to the appropriate health care had better immediate outcomes. Still, as a scientist I take nothing for granted, and a study confirming what seems logical is important confirmation.
Joshua D. Safer, MD, who is the executive director of the Center for Transgender Medicine and Surgery at Mount Sinai Health System, and professor of medicine at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, both in New York, was asked to comment on the article by Turban et al. He said he had no relevant financial disclosures.
Access to good medical care for transgender adolescents remains very limited. When it is available, puberty blockers are an excellent, conservative option for trans adolescents entering puberty so that they have time to consider longer-term treatment options with their providers and families. As demonstrated by the data in this study, good attention to transgender children can substantially improve their mental health.
The biggest barrier to health care for trans adolescents is access to knowledgeable providers – even more than affordability, which is improving with better coverage by payers. As noted in the study by Turban et al., the lack of access to care remains a huge problem.
It is not surprising that, when we neglect health care, we get bad outcomes. In that sense, the study by Turban et al. is quite intuitive. The few adolescents with access to the appropriate health care had better immediate outcomes. Still, as a scientist I take nothing for granted, and a study confirming what seems logical is important confirmation.
Joshua D. Safer, MD, who is the executive director of the Center for Transgender Medicine and Surgery at Mount Sinai Health System, and professor of medicine at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, both in New York, was asked to comment on the article by Turban et al. He said he had no relevant financial disclosures.
Transgender adults who, as adolescents, desired and received pubertal suppression had reduced odds of suicidal ideation, compared with those who wanted but didn’t receive pubertal suppression during their teen years.
Raw frequency of lifetime suicidal ideation was 90% in transgender adults who wanted, but did not receive, pubertal suppression in adolescence, compared with 75% in those who did receive pubertal suppression in adolescence, according to a new analysis of a nationwide survey of transgender people reported in Pediatrics. After controlling for demographic variables, the lifetime adjusted odds ratio for suicidal ideation was 0.3 for those receiving pubertal suppression, compared with those who wanted but didn’t receive pubertal suppression.
The study was the first to examine this association, and findings were drawn from the 2015 U.S. Transgender Survey, the largest known dataset of transgender adults, wrote the study’s lead author Jack Turban, MD, and coinvestigators.
“Suicidality is of particular concern for this population because the estimated lifetime prevalence of suicide attempts among transgender people is as high as 40%,” noted Dr. Turban, a psychiatry resident at Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and McLean Hospital, Belmont, Mass., and coauthors. Anxiety, depression, and suicidality all are more common among transgender youth, who make up almost 2% of the nation’s adolescent population, they said.
Among transgender youth, the researchers explained, a spectrum exists: “Some have minimal body dysphoria and do not desire pubertal suppression, whereas others report significant dysphoria around the physical changes related to puberty.” Accordingly, they said, “We examined only those youth who desired pubertal suppression,” because this is the population of youth about whom clinicians need to make treatment decisions.
For individuals who might experience distress from the irreversible bodily changes of endogenous puberty, suppression via gonadotropin releasing hormone analogues (GnRHas) “allows these adolescents more time to decide if they wish to either induce exogenous gender-congruent puberty or allow endogenous puberty to progress,” wrote Dr. Turban and his collaborators.
The U.S. Transgender Survey dataset includes response from over 27,000 transgender adults with nationwide representation. However, this study included only participants who were younger than 17 years in 1998, when GnRHas for pubertal suppression became available. Filtering this group further to just those respondents between the ages of 18 and 36 years whose survey responses indicated they had ever wanted pubertal suppression yielded 3,494 individuals. Of these individuals, just 2.5% (89 participants) had ever received pubertal suppression.
“Results from this study suggest that the majority of transgender adults in the United States who have wanted pubertal suppression did not receive it,” noted the authors. Even among the youngest respondents – who received care during puberty most recently – just 5% of the 18-year-olds in 2015 desiring pubertal suppression actually received the treatment.
Among other associations, individuals who were younger, those with feminine gender identity, those with male sex assigned at birth, and those reporting heterosexual sexual orientation were more likely to have received pubertal suppression.
Receiving GnRHas also was more likely for individuals with higher household income and more family support of their gender identity. Without insurance, studies have indicated that the annual cost of GnRHA treatment can be $4,000-$25,000. Another study noted that at the Boston Children’s Hospital Gender Management Service before 2012, fewer than 20% of patients were able to get insurance coverage for pubertal suppression, according to Dr. Turban and colleagues.
The study looked at suicidality over the past year and lifetime suicidality, as well as severe psychological distress and binge drinking over the past month. Investigators also asked about lifetime history of illicit drug use, hypothesizing that those who received pubertal suppression would have “superior mental health outcomes” when compared to those who desired – but didn’t receive – pubertal suppression, wrote Dr. Turban and coauthors.
Suicidality within the past 12 months and severe psychological distress were both significantly more common among those who did not receive pubertal suppression, but these associations lost significance after multivariable analysis. There was no difference in odds of suicide attempts, although the study may have been underpowered to detect some of these associations, said the investigators.
After statistical analysis to control for demographic variables, pubertal suppression still was associated with decreased odds of having suicidal ideation over the lifespan.
Dr. Turban and colleagues acknowledged that reverse causation may have been in play, because adolescents with better mental health might have been considered better candidates for GnRHa therapy. But the study’s large sample size and wide geographic reach are strengths, they said, concluding that overall, the findings lend support to existing recommendations from the Endocrine Society and the World Professional Association for Transgender Health that pubertal suppression therapy be available to those adolescents who desire it.
Investigators were supported by the U.S. Health Resources and Services Administration, the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, and the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry. The authors reported that they had no financial conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Turban JL et al. Pediatrics. 2020;145(2):e20191725.
Transgender adults who, as adolescents, desired and received pubertal suppression had reduced odds of suicidal ideation, compared with those who wanted but didn’t receive pubertal suppression during their teen years.
Raw frequency of lifetime suicidal ideation was 90% in transgender adults who wanted, but did not receive, pubertal suppression in adolescence, compared with 75% in those who did receive pubertal suppression in adolescence, according to a new analysis of a nationwide survey of transgender people reported in Pediatrics. After controlling for demographic variables, the lifetime adjusted odds ratio for suicidal ideation was 0.3 for those receiving pubertal suppression, compared with those who wanted but didn’t receive pubertal suppression.
The study was the first to examine this association, and findings were drawn from the 2015 U.S. Transgender Survey, the largest known dataset of transgender adults, wrote the study’s lead author Jack Turban, MD, and coinvestigators.
“Suicidality is of particular concern for this population because the estimated lifetime prevalence of suicide attempts among transgender people is as high as 40%,” noted Dr. Turban, a psychiatry resident at Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and McLean Hospital, Belmont, Mass., and coauthors. Anxiety, depression, and suicidality all are more common among transgender youth, who make up almost 2% of the nation’s adolescent population, they said.
Among transgender youth, the researchers explained, a spectrum exists: “Some have minimal body dysphoria and do not desire pubertal suppression, whereas others report significant dysphoria around the physical changes related to puberty.” Accordingly, they said, “We examined only those youth who desired pubertal suppression,” because this is the population of youth about whom clinicians need to make treatment decisions.
For individuals who might experience distress from the irreversible bodily changes of endogenous puberty, suppression via gonadotropin releasing hormone analogues (GnRHas) “allows these adolescents more time to decide if they wish to either induce exogenous gender-congruent puberty or allow endogenous puberty to progress,” wrote Dr. Turban and his collaborators.
The U.S. Transgender Survey dataset includes response from over 27,000 transgender adults with nationwide representation. However, this study included only participants who were younger than 17 years in 1998, when GnRHas for pubertal suppression became available. Filtering this group further to just those respondents between the ages of 18 and 36 years whose survey responses indicated they had ever wanted pubertal suppression yielded 3,494 individuals. Of these individuals, just 2.5% (89 participants) had ever received pubertal suppression.
“Results from this study suggest that the majority of transgender adults in the United States who have wanted pubertal suppression did not receive it,” noted the authors. Even among the youngest respondents – who received care during puberty most recently – just 5% of the 18-year-olds in 2015 desiring pubertal suppression actually received the treatment.
Among other associations, individuals who were younger, those with feminine gender identity, those with male sex assigned at birth, and those reporting heterosexual sexual orientation were more likely to have received pubertal suppression.
Receiving GnRHas also was more likely for individuals with higher household income and more family support of their gender identity. Without insurance, studies have indicated that the annual cost of GnRHA treatment can be $4,000-$25,000. Another study noted that at the Boston Children’s Hospital Gender Management Service before 2012, fewer than 20% of patients were able to get insurance coverage for pubertal suppression, according to Dr. Turban and colleagues.
The study looked at suicidality over the past year and lifetime suicidality, as well as severe psychological distress and binge drinking over the past month. Investigators also asked about lifetime history of illicit drug use, hypothesizing that those who received pubertal suppression would have “superior mental health outcomes” when compared to those who desired – but didn’t receive – pubertal suppression, wrote Dr. Turban and coauthors.
Suicidality within the past 12 months and severe psychological distress were both significantly more common among those who did not receive pubertal suppression, but these associations lost significance after multivariable analysis. There was no difference in odds of suicide attempts, although the study may have been underpowered to detect some of these associations, said the investigators.
After statistical analysis to control for demographic variables, pubertal suppression still was associated with decreased odds of having suicidal ideation over the lifespan.
Dr. Turban and colleagues acknowledged that reverse causation may have been in play, because adolescents with better mental health might have been considered better candidates for GnRHa therapy. But the study’s large sample size and wide geographic reach are strengths, they said, concluding that overall, the findings lend support to existing recommendations from the Endocrine Society and the World Professional Association for Transgender Health that pubertal suppression therapy be available to those adolescents who desire it.
Investigators were supported by the U.S. Health Resources and Services Administration, the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, and the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry. The authors reported that they had no financial conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Turban JL et al. Pediatrics. 2020;145(2):e20191725.
FROM PEDIATRICS
Anxiety may be a part of healthy development, sometimes
Anxiety is probably the most common behavioral health complaint that presents in the pediatrician’s office. The prevalence of anxiety is going up every year, and we do not have a good understanding why. Is it the pressure to perform at earlier and earlier ages? Is it the press of information or rapid communication of every disaster on Earth? Or are children not developing appropriate coping skills for the expectable challenges and stresses they will face through development? We do not know.
Anxiety disorders are most likely to present in the early school years – latency – between the ages of 6 and 12 years. Teenagers may present with new anxiety disorders or may disclose symptoms that they have been quietly managing since they were younger, when they were thought to be “shy.” These disorders include separation anxiety disorder, social phobia, selective mutism, specific phobia, and generalized anxiety disorder. This age period also is marked by high levels of normal anxiety because children’s cognitive development has advanced beyond their emotional development. They are capable of logic, can understand cause and effect, and can appreciate the passage of time and serious matters such as the permanence of death. Gone is the magical thinking of the preschool years! When an elementary student learns about global warming or a refugee crisis, they can fully appreciate the serious implications of the subject. What they lack is experience with tolerating uncertainty and worry and proceeding with life, focusing on what they might address or even bearing the fact that life is sometimes unfair. This mismatch of relative cognitive maturity with emotional immaturity can lead to anxiety and distress. This is particularly true as they face these challenges while they have new independence, spending longer days at school and less time with parents. Bearing this distress with caring adults, learning to focus on what they can do, and discovering that they and the world can go on even when something very unfair has happened is central to how they develop emotional maturity.
How a child learns to manage anxiety is very much determined by how their parents manage anxiety and how well their parents can tolerate their children’s distress. A parent who becomes overwhelmed when their child is upset about missing a goal in soccer will have a difficult time helping their child learn how to manage distress. And children who are facing chronic severe stress, such as poverty, domestic violence, or chronic illness in a parent, are facing the double challenge of managing persistent anxiety that may be impairing their parents’ ability to support them. When the child and their family are connected to a community that has not been able to effectively respond to larger problems, such as creating safe schools or neighborhoods, anxiety can become entrenched in despair.
It often is tempting to jump in with reassurance when your patient or their parents present with anxiety. But when you calmly show curiosity, you model tolerance of their distress. Are they fearful about very specific situations, such as being called on in class? Or do they become dysregulated when facing a separation from their parents, such as at bedtime or before school, seeking contact with their parents with endless questions? Find out how the parents are managing separations and whether they may be inadvertently rewarding by staying with them to negotiate or answer endless questions. Find out if parents may be accommodating anxiety by allowing their children to avoid normal situations that are stirring anxiety. Do they give in anytime their child shows resistance or have they learned to pick their battles and help their children face more-modest stress while avoiding only the most intensely anxious situations? Are the parents able to speak calmly and with good humor about these challenges or do they become very stressed and defensive? Is there a family history of anxiety? Managing a child’s anxiety every day can be exhausting, and parents might need a referral in addition to a discussion about how anxiety is developmentally normal.
For those parents that can manage this discussion, suggest that, like you, if they can remain calm during these times with their child (even if they don’t feel calm), it will help their child get better at managing anxiety, even if their child has an anxiety disorder. They also should be curious about their child’s worries, learning about the details and scenarios their children may be anticipating. They should express compassion about how uncomfortable anxiety is, coupled with their confident belief that the child will be able to tolerate and manage the situation even though it’s uncomfortable. This acknowledgment should not be a dismissal of the anxiety, instead it should be confidence that the child will learn to bear it.
When your patient is a teenager describing anxiety, unpack. Are they anxious about their performance on their five Advanced Placement exams? If their anxiety sounds more like appropriate stress, be compassionate and then curious about how they are learning to relax. Are they using drugs and alcohol? Or have they found healthy ways to unwind and recharge? Focusing on ways in which they are learning to care for themselves, making time for sleep and exercise, live time with friends, and senseless fun is therapeutic. Find out if their parents are supportive of their self-care. You might even give them a prescription!
Anxiety is often a private experience, and parents might not know about it until it presents with an explosion of distress or obstinacy when an anxious child is pushed into scary territory. Asking questions about specific worries (something happening to parents, germs, weather events) can illuminate the extent of anxiety. It also is worth exploring if there are rituals that help them manage their worries, whether they are common (finding a parent, hugging a pet, prayer) or more compulsive (repetitive undoing, hair pulling). Find out if there has recently been any serious stress or change for the family, such as the loss of a job or illness in a grandparent, that may be contributing to a child’s anxiety.
Anytime you see anxieties that are broad or extreme, disrupt their ability to function (go to school, participate in activities, build friendships), or if their parents are clearly struggling with managing their child’s distress, it is worthwhile to find a referral to a psychiatrist or psychologist for evaluation and further treatment. School avoidance constitutes an urgent need for evaluation, as every day of school missed makes it harder for the child to return to school. For all of your anxious patients, even when you make a referral to a psychiatrist for evaluation, teach your patients and parents about how critical adequate sleep and regular exercise are to managing anxiety. Remind them that an appropriate level of anxiety is normal and promotes performance and grit, despite the discomfort, and that learning how to manage anxiety is essential to growing up and building mental health.
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 at Harvard Medical School, Boston. Email them at [email protected].
Anxiety is probably the most common behavioral health complaint that presents in the pediatrician’s office. The prevalence of anxiety is going up every year, and we do not have a good understanding why. Is it the pressure to perform at earlier and earlier ages? Is it the press of information or rapid communication of every disaster on Earth? Or are children not developing appropriate coping skills for the expectable challenges and stresses they will face through development? We do not know.
Anxiety disorders are most likely to present in the early school years – latency – between the ages of 6 and 12 years. Teenagers may present with new anxiety disorders or may disclose symptoms that they have been quietly managing since they were younger, when they were thought to be “shy.” These disorders include separation anxiety disorder, social phobia, selective mutism, specific phobia, and generalized anxiety disorder. This age period also is marked by high levels of normal anxiety because children’s cognitive development has advanced beyond their emotional development. They are capable of logic, can understand cause and effect, and can appreciate the passage of time and serious matters such as the permanence of death. Gone is the magical thinking of the preschool years! When an elementary student learns about global warming or a refugee crisis, they can fully appreciate the serious implications of the subject. What they lack is experience with tolerating uncertainty and worry and proceeding with life, focusing on what they might address or even bearing the fact that life is sometimes unfair. This mismatch of relative cognitive maturity with emotional immaturity can lead to anxiety and distress. This is particularly true as they face these challenges while they have new independence, spending longer days at school and less time with parents. Bearing this distress with caring adults, learning to focus on what they can do, and discovering that they and the world can go on even when something very unfair has happened is central to how they develop emotional maturity.
How a child learns to manage anxiety is very much determined by how their parents manage anxiety and how well their parents can tolerate their children’s distress. A parent who becomes overwhelmed when their child is upset about missing a goal in soccer will have a difficult time helping their child learn how to manage distress. And children who are facing chronic severe stress, such as poverty, domestic violence, or chronic illness in a parent, are facing the double challenge of managing persistent anxiety that may be impairing their parents’ ability to support them. When the child and their family are connected to a community that has not been able to effectively respond to larger problems, such as creating safe schools or neighborhoods, anxiety can become entrenched in despair.
It often is tempting to jump in with reassurance when your patient or their parents present with anxiety. But when you calmly show curiosity, you model tolerance of their distress. Are they fearful about very specific situations, such as being called on in class? Or do they become dysregulated when facing a separation from their parents, such as at bedtime or before school, seeking contact with their parents with endless questions? Find out how the parents are managing separations and whether they may be inadvertently rewarding by staying with them to negotiate or answer endless questions. Find out if parents may be accommodating anxiety by allowing their children to avoid normal situations that are stirring anxiety. Do they give in anytime their child shows resistance or have they learned to pick their battles and help their children face more-modest stress while avoiding only the most intensely anxious situations? Are the parents able to speak calmly and with good humor about these challenges or do they become very stressed and defensive? Is there a family history of anxiety? Managing a child’s anxiety every day can be exhausting, and parents might need a referral in addition to a discussion about how anxiety is developmentally normal.
For those parents that can manage this discussion, suggest that, like you, if they can remain calm during these times with their child (even if they don’t feel calm), it will help their child get better at managing anxiety, even if their child has an anxiety disorder. They also should be curious about their child’s worries, learning about the details and scenarios their children may be anticipating. They should express compassion about how uncomfortable anxiety is, coupled with their confident belief that the child will be able to tolerate and manage the situation even though it’s uncomfortable. This acknowledgment should not be a dismissal of the anxiety, instead it should be confidence that the child will learn to bear it.
When your patient is a teenager describing anxiety, unpack. Are they anxious about their performance on their five Advanced Placement exams? If their anxiety sounds more like appropriate stress, be compassionate and then curious about how they are learning to relax. Are they using drugs and alcohol? Or have they found healthy ways to unwind and recharge? Focusing on ways in which they are learning to care for themselves, making time for sleep and exercise, live time with friends, and senseless fun is therapeutic. Find out if their parents are supportive of their self-care. You might even give them a prescription!
Anxiety is often a private experience, and parents might not know about it until it presents with an explosion of distress or obstinacy when an anxious child is pushed into scary territory. Asking questions about specific worries (something happening to parents, germs, weather events) can illuminate the extent of anxiety. It also is worth exploring if there are rituals that help them manage their worries, whether they are common (finding a parent, hugging a pet, prayer) or more compulsive (repetitive undoing, hair pulling). Find out if there has recently been any serious stress or change for the family, such as the loss of a job or illness in a grandparent, that may be contributing to a child’s anxiety.
Anytime you see anxieties that are broad or extreme, disrupt their ability to function (go to school, participate in activities, build friendships), or if their parents are clearly struggling with managing their child’s distress, it is worthwhile to find a referral to a psychiatrist or psychologist for evaluation and further treatment. School avoidance constitutes an urgent need for evaluation, as every day of school missed makes it harder for the child to return to school. For all of your anxious patients, even when you make a referral to a psychiatrist for evaluation, teach your patients and parents about how critical adequate sleep and regular exercise are to managing anxiety. Remind them that an appropriate level of anxiety is normal and promotes performance and grit, despite the discomfort, and that learning how to manage anxiety is essential to growing up and building mental health.
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 at Harvard Medical School, Boston. Email them at [email protected].
Anxiety is probably the most common behavioral health complaint that presents in the pediatrician’s office. The prevalence of anxiety is going up every year, and we do not have a good understanding why. Is it the pressure to perform at earlier and earlier ages? Is it the press of information or rapid communication of every disaster on Earth? Or are children not developing appropriate coping skills for the expectable challenges and stresses they will face through development? We do not know.
Anxiety disorders are most likely to present in the early school years – latency – between the ages of 6 and 12 years. Teenagers may present with new anxiety disorders or may disclose symptoms that they have been quietly managing since they were younger, when they were thought to be “shy.” These disorders include separation anxiety disorder, social phobia, selective mutism, specific phobia, and generalized anxiety disorder. This age period also is marked by high levels of normal anxiety because children’s cognitive development has advanced beyond their emotional development. They are capable of logic, can understand cause and effect, and can appreciate the passage of time and serious matters such as the permanence of death. Gone is the magical thinking of the preschool years! When an elementary student learns about global warming or a refugee crisis, they can fully appreciate the serious implications of the subject. What they lack is experience with tolerating uncertainty and worry and proceeding with life, focusing on what they might address or even bearing the fact that life is sometimes unfair. This mismatch of relative cognitive maturity with emotional immaturity can lead to anxiety and distress. This is particularly true as they face these challenges while they have new independence, spending longer days at school and less time with parents. Bearing this distress with caring adults, learning to focus on what they can do, and discovering that they and the world can go on even when something very unfair has happened is central to how they develop emotional maturity.
How a child learns to manage anxiety is very much determined by how their parents manage anxiety and how well their parents can tolerate their children’s distress. A parent who becomes overwhelmed when their child is upset about missing a goal in soccer will have a difficult time helping their child learn how to manage distress. And children who are facing chronic severe stress, such as poverty, domestic violence, or chronic illness in a parent, are facing the double challenge of managing persistent anxiety that may be impairing their parents’ ability to support them. When the child and their family are connected to a community that has not been able to effectively respond to larger problems, such as creating safe schools or neighborhoods, anxiety can become entrenched in despair.
It often is tempting to jump in with reassurance when your patient or their parents present with anxiety. But when you calmly show curiosity, you model tolerance of their distress. Are they fearful about very specific situations, such as being called on in class? Or do they become dysregulated when facing a separation from their parents, such as at bedtime or before school, seeking contact with their parents with endless questions? Find out how the parents are managing separations and whether they may be inadvertently rewarding by staying with them to negotiate or answer endless questions. Find out if parents may be accommodating anxiety by allowing their children to avoid normal situations that are stirring anxiety. Do they give in anytime their child shows resistance or have they learned to pick their battles and help their children face more-modest stress while avoiding only the most intensely anxious situations? Are the parents able to speak calmly and with good humor about these challenges or do they become very stressed and defensive? Is there a family history of anxiety? Managing a child’s anxiety every day can be exhausting, and parents might need a referral in addition to a discussion about how anxiety is developmentally normal.
For those parents that can manage this discussion, suggest that, like you, if they can remain calm during these times with their child (even if they don’t feel calm), it will help their child get better at managing anxiety, even if their child has an anxiety disorder. They also should be curious about their child’s worries, learning about the details and scenarios their children may be anticipating. They should express compassion about how uncomfortable anxiety is, coupled with their confident belief that the child will be able to tolerate and manage the situation even though it’s uncomfortable. This acknowledgment should not be a dismissal of the anxiety, instead it should be confidence that the child will learn to bear it.
When your patient is a teenager describing anxiety, unpack. Are they anxious about their performance on their five Advanced Placement exams? If their anxiety sounds more like appropriate stress, be compassionate and then curious about how they are learning to relax. Are they using drugs and alcohol? Or have they found healthy ways to unwind and recharge? Focusing on ways in which they are learning to care for themselves, making time for sleep and exercise, live time with friends, and senseless fun is therapeutic. Find out if their parents are supportive of their self-care. You might even give them a prescription!
Anxiety is often a private experience, and parents might not know about it until it presents with an explosion of distress or obstinacy when an anxious child is pushed into scary territory. Asking questions about specific worries (something happening to parents, germs, weather events) can illuminate the extent of anxiety. It also is worth exploring if there are rituals that help them manage their worries, whether they are common (finding a parent, hugging a pet, prayer) or more compulsive (repetitive undoing, hair pulling). Find out if there has recently been any serious stress or change for the family, such as the loss of a job or illness in a grandparent, that may be contributing to a child’s anxiety.
Anytime you see anxieties that are broad or extreme, disrupt their ability to function (go to school, participate in activities, build friendships), or if their parents are clearly struggling with managing their child’s distress, it is worthwhile to find a referral to a psychiatrist or psychologist for evaluation and further treatment. School avoidance constitutes an urgent need for evaluation, as every day of school missed makes it harder for the child to return to school. For all of your anxious patients, even when you make a referral to a psychiatrist for evaluation, teach your patients and parents about how critical adequate sleep and regular exercise are to managing anxiety. Remind them that an appropriate level of anxiety is normal and promotes performance and grit, despite the discomfort, and that learning how to manage anxiety is essential to growing up and building mental health.
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 at Harvard Medical School, Boston. Email them at [email protected].
Runaway youth: Knowing the risk factors and care needs
As many as 1 in 20 youth run away from home each year, and you can play a critical role in identifying adolescents at high risk through confidential social histories and discussions, according to a clinical report from the American Academy of Pediatrics.
The academy’s data-rich report, “Runaway Youth: Caring for the Nation’s Largest Segment of Missing Children,” details how unaccompanied youth who run away – either on their own or who are asked to leave home – have high rates of trauma and neglect, mental illness, substance abuse, family dysfunction, and disengagement from school.
Children who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and questioning or queer (LGBTQ) and youth in protective custody also are at high risk of running away and of becoming homeless – and once away from home, they and other runaways are at high risk for additional trauma, victimization, and violence, including sexual exploitation, according to the report published in Pediatrics.
“There clearly are certain populations at higher risk, and we really need to be aware of and in tune with these risks, and ask about the home and the household in order to try to decrease the risk of these kids getting into dangerous situations,” Thresia B. Gambon, MD, said in an interview. She is coauthor of the report and a pediatrician with the Citrus Health Network in Miami.
Among the AAP’s recommendations for practice is the guidance to conduct a thorough and confidential psychosocial assessment such as the HEEADSSS assessment (home environment, education and employment, eating peer-related activities, drugs, sexuality, suicide/depression, and safety) and to use a validated depression screening tool for adolescents, such as the Patient Health Questionnaire for Adolescents (PHQ-A) and the primary care version of the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI).
Broadly speaking, which involves being aware of trauma and adverse childhood experiences that can affect health,” according to the report. The AAP Trauma Toolbox for Primary Care is mentioned as a resource.
Most surprising to Dr. Gambon in the research and report-writing process were data showing that disengagement from school is a significant risk factor. “This stood out to me,” she said. “If there are school problems [of various types], kids might run away to avoid attending school.”
Tasked with updating the AAP’s 2004 clinical report, “The Pediatrician’s Role in the Prevention of Missing Children,” Dr. Gambon and coauthor, Janna R. Gewirtz O’Brien, MD, decided to look more closely at runaway youth after studying the numbers – some studies estimate that between 5% and 8% of adolescents run away every year. They saw that, “in general, the number of kids who just go missing has actually decreased [with the help of] cell phones,” Dr. Gambon said in an interview.
“The numbers of kids who are actually running away are high,” she said, “and probably we’re underidentifying these in our primary care clinics.”
Because a significant number of runaway youth become homeless, data on the homeless offers a valuable window not only into the health risks of homelessness for teens (substance abuse, pregnancy, STDs,) but also into risk factors for leaving home in the first place, she noted. Research shows, for instance, that about 20%-40% of teenagers who are homeless identify as LGBTQ, compared with 4%-10% of their nonhomeless peers.
When an adolescent at high risk for running away is identified, you should use practice- and community-based resources to address key issues, support psychological and behavioral health needs of the child and family, and ensure safety.
For youth who have run away, you can share information on local resources, as well as the national Runaway Safeline (1-800-RUNAWAY), which provides 24-hour referrals to community resources, including shelter, food banks, social services, and counseling. You also can ask adolescents whether they have sources of support and shelter (safe, supportive adults who might help in a crisis), and discuss safety plans for leaving home that include health care to mitigate risk, such as reliable contraception and access to mental health care.
“The goal with talking about a safety plan isn’t, of course, to encourage a child to run away, but if they feel as if they need to find somewhere else to live or stay, to discuss what resources are available to them to try to keep them as safe as possible when they’re out of their home,” Dr. Gambon said.
Dr. Gambon speaks partly from experience. She works routinely with youth who have run away from foster care homes, youth who have been trafficked, and other runaways. “I always try to talk with them about safety. I try not to put them down for their decisions but to work with them to make better decisions,” she said. “I work closely with a psychologist because a big part of this is getting them to have self-worth. They often feel as if no one cares, and some just want to be heard and to be able to talk about their situations.”
The AAP report notes that, of more than 70,000 contacts made to Runaway Safeline in 2017, 31% were about youth who were contemplating running away, 16% were about youth who had run away, 5% were about youth asked to leave home or prevented from returning, and 9% concerned youth experiencing homelessness. About three-quarters of the calls came from the youth themselves.
Dr. Gambon and Dr. Gewirtz O’Brien, of the department of pediatrics at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis, worked with the AAP Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child and Family Health and the AAP Council on Community Pediatrics in producing the report. There was no external funding for this report and the authors said they had no conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Gambon TB et al. Pediatrics. 2020 Jan 21. doi: 10.1542/peds.2019-3752.
As many as 1 in 20 youth run away from home each year, and you can play a critical role in identifying adolescents at high risk through confidential social histories and discussions, according to a clinical report from the American Academy of Pediatrics.
The academy’s data-rich report, “Runaway Youth: Caring for the Nation’s Largest Segment of Missing Children,” details how unaccompanied youth who run away – either on their own or who are asked to leave home – have high rates of trauma and neglect, mental illness, substance abuse, family dysfunction, and disengagement from school.
Children who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and questioning or queer (LGBTQ) and youth in protective custody also are at high risk of running away and of becoming homeless – and once away from home, they and other runaways are at high risk for additional trauma, victimization, and violence, including sexual exploitation, according to the report published in Pediatrics.
“There clearly are certain populations at higher risk, and we really need to be aware of and in tune with these risks, and ask about the home and the household in order to try to decrease the risk of these kids getting into dangerous situations,” Thresia B. Gambon, MD, said in an interview. She is coauthor of the report and a pediatrician with the Citrus Health Network in Miami.
Among the AAP’s recommendations for practice is the guidance to conduct a thorough and confidential psychosocial assessment such as the HEEADSSS assessment (home environment, education and employment, eating peer-related activities, drugs, sexuality, suicide/depression, and safety) and to use a validated depression screening tool for adolescents, such as the Patient Health Questionnaire for Adolescents (PHQ-A) and the primary care version of the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI).
Broadly speaking, which involves being aware of trauma and adverse childhood experiences that can affect health,” according to the report. The AAP Trauma Toolbox for Primary Care is mentioned as a resource.
Most surprising to Dr. Gambon in the research and report-writing process were data showing that disengagement from school is a significant risk factor. “This stood out to me,” she said. “If there are school problems [of various types], kids might run away to avoid attending school.”
Tasked with updating the AAP’s 2004 clinical report, “The Pediatrician’s Role in the Prevention of Missing Children,” Dr. Gambon and coauthor, Janna R. Gewirtz O’Brien, MD, decided to look more closely at runaway youth after studying the numbers – some studies estimate that between 5% and 8% of adolescents run away every year. They saw that, “in general, the number of kids who just go missing has actually decreased [with the help of] cell phones,” Dr. Gambon said in an interview.
“The numbers of kids who are actually running away are high,” she said, “and probably we’re underidentifying these in our primary care clinics.”
Because a significant number of runaway youth become homeless, data on the homeless offers a valuable window not only into the health risks of homelessness for teens (substance abuse, pregnancy, STDs,) but also into risk factors for leaving home in the first place, she noted. Research shows, for instance, that about 20%-40% of teenagers who are homeless identify as LGBTQ, compared with 4%-10% of their nonhomeless peers.
When an adolescent at high risk for running away is identified, you should use practice- and community-based resources to address key issues, support psychological and behavioral health needs of the child and family, and ensure safety.
For youth who have run away, you can share information on local resources, as well as the national Runaway Safeline (1-800-RUNAWAY), which provides 24-hour referrals to community resources, including shelter, food banks, social services, and counseling. You also can ask adolescents whether they have sources of support and shelter (safe, supportive adults who might help in a crisis), and discuss safety plans for leaving home that include health care to mitigate risk, such as reliable contraception and access to mental health care.
“The goal with talking about a safety plan isn’t, of course, to encourage a child to run away, but if they feel as if they need to find somewhere else to live or stay, to discuss what resources are available to them to try to keep them as safe as possible when they’re out of their home,” Dr. Gambon said.
Dr. Gambon speaks partly from experience. She works routinely with youth who have run away from foster care homes, youth who have been trafficked, and other runaways. “I always try to talk with them about safety. I try not to put them down for their decisions but to work with them to make better decisions,” she said. “I work closely with a psychologist because a big part of this is getting them to have self-worth. They often feel as if no one cares, and some just want to be heard and to be able to talk about their situations.”
The AAP report notes that, of more than 70,000 contacts made to Runaway Safeline in 2017, 31% were about youth who were contemplating running away, 16% were about youth who had run away, 5% were about youth asked to leave home or prevented from returning, and 9% concerned youth experiencing homelessness. About three-quarters of the calls came from the youth themselves.
Dr. Gambon and Dr. Gewirtz O’Brien, of the department of pediatrics at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis, worked with the AAP Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child and Family Health and the AAP Council on Community Pediatrics in producing the report. There was no external funding for this report and the authors said they had no conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Gambon TB et al. Pediatrics. 2020 Jan 21. doi: 10.1542/peds.2019-3752.
As many as 1 in 20 youth run away from home each year, and you can play a critical role in identifying adolescents at high risk through confidential social histories and discussions, according to a clinical report from the American Academy of Pediatrics.
The academy’s data-rich report, “Runaway Youth: Caring for the Nation’s Largest Segment of Missing Children,” details how unaccompanied youth who run away – either on their own or who are asked to leave home – have high rates of trauma and neglect, mental illness, substance abuse, family dysfunction, and disengagement from school.
Children who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and questioning or queer (LGBTQ) and youth in protective custody also are at high risk of running away and of becoming homeless – and once away from home, they and other runaways are at high risk for additional trauma, victimization, and violence, including sexual exploitation, according to the report published in Pediatrics.
“There clearly are certain populations at higher risk, and we really need to be aware of and in tune with these risks, and ask about the home and the household in order to try to decrease the risk of these kids getting into dangerous situations,” Thresia B. Gambon, MD, said in an interview. She is coauthor of the report and a pediatrician with the Citrus Health Network in Miami.
Among the AAP’s recommendations for practice is the guidance to conduct a thorough and confidential psychosocial assessment such as the HEEADSSS assessment (home environment, education and employment, eating peer-related activities, drugs, sexuality, suicide/depression, and safety) and to use a validated depression screening tool for adolescents, such as the Patient Health Questionnaire for Adolescents (PHQ-A) and the primary care version of the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI).
Broadly speaking, which involves being aware of trauma and adverse childhood experiences that can affect health,” according to the report. The AAP Trauma Toolbox for Primary Care is mentioned as a resource.
Most surprising to Dr. Gambon in the research and report-writing process were data showing that disengagement from school is a significant risk factor. “This stood out to me,” she said. “If there are school problems [of various types], kids might run away to avoid attending school.”
Tasked with updating the AAP’s 2004 clinical report, “The Pediatrician’s Role in the Prevention of Missing Children,” Dr. Gambon and coauthor, Janna R. Gewirtz O’Brien, MD, decided to look more closely at runaway youth after studying the numbers – some studies estimate that between 5% and 8% of adolescents run away every year. They saw that, “in general, the number of kids who just go missing has actually decreased [with the help of] cell phones,” Dr. Gambon said in an interview.
“The numbers of kids who are actually running away are high,” she said, “and probably we’re underidentifying these in our primary care clinics.”
Because a significant number of runaway youth become homeless, data on the homeless offers a valuable window not only into the health risks of homelessness for teens (substance abuse, pregnancy, STDs,) but also into risk factors for leaving home in the first place, she noted. Research shows, for instance, that about 20%-40% of teenagers who are homeless identify as LGBTQ, compared with 4%-10% of their nonhomeless peers.
When an adolescent at high risk for running away is identified, you should use practice- and community-based resources to address key issues, support psychological and behavioral health needs of the child and family, and ensure safety.
For youth who have run away, you can share information on local resources, as well as the national Runaway Safeline (1-800-RUNAWAY), which provides 24-hour referrals to community resources, including shelter, food banks, social services, and counseling. You also can ask adolescents whether they have sources of support and shelter (safe, supportive adults who might help in a crisis), and discuss safety plans for leaving home that include health care to mitigate risk, such as reliable contraception and access to mental health care.
“The goal with talking about a safety plan isn’t, of course, to encourage a child to run away, but if they feel as if they need to find somewhere else to live or stay, to discuss what resources are available to them to try to keep them as safe as possible when they’re out of their home,” Dr. Gambon said.
Dr. Gambon speaks partly from experience. She works routinely with youth who have run away from foster care homes, youth who have been trafficked, and other runaways. “I always try to talk with them about safety. I try not to put them down for their decisions but to work with them to make better decisions,” she said. “I work closely with a psychologist because a big part of this is getting them to have self-worth. They often feel as if no one cares, and some just want to be heard and to be able to talk about their situations.”
The AAP report notes that, of more than 70,000 contacts made to Runaway Safeline in 2017, 31% were about youth who were contemplating running away, 16% were about youth who had run away, 5% were about youth asked to leave home or prevented from returning, and 9% concerned youth experiencing homelessness. About three-quarters of the calls came from the youth themselves.
Dr. Gambon and Dr. Gewirtz O’Brien, of the department of pediatrics at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis, worked with the AAP Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child and Family Health and the AAP Council on Community Pediatrics in producing the report. There was no external funding for this report and the authors said they had no conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Gambon TB et al. Pediatrics. 2020 Jan 21. doi: 10.1542/peds.2019-3752.
FROM PEDIATRICS
Frequent lab testing is common, but low-yield, for isotretinoin patients
Abnormalities in lipids, liver enzymes, and blood counts were rare, and
In a review of 1,863 patients receiving isotretinoin, there were no cases of grade 4 abnormalities of lipids, liver enzymes, or complete blood count (CBC). Further, fewer than 1% of patients had grade 2-3 laboratory abnormalities, and no patients had cholesterol or CBC abnormalities of grade 3 or higher.
The retrospective cohort study used an electronic database to identify patients who were prescribed isotretinoin for acne from 2007 to 2017, with inclusion criteria structured to “increase the likelihood of capturing a complete course of isotretinoin therapy,” wrote John Barbieri, MD, and coauthors. The database allowed the investigators to group lab values into baseline testing, and testing by month of therapy for individual deidentified patient records.
Dr. Barbieri, a dermatologist and postdoctoral research fellow at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and coinvestigators found that over half of all patients had baseline triglyceride, total cholesterol, AST, ALT, and platelet and white blood cell count levels.
Though the number of patients who had any of these levels checked in a given month of treatment declined over time, as did the total number of patients still on isotretinoin therapy, monthly AST and ALT monitoring occurred in 37.6%-58.5% of patients. Monthly triglyceride monitoring was conducted in between 39.6% and 61.4% of participants, and CBCs were obtained in 26.8%-37.4% of participants.
In terms of the abnormalities that were seen, grade 1 triglyceride elevations of 150-300 mg/dL were present in about 13% of patients at baseline, rising to 39% of participants who were still receiving isotretinoin at month 6. However, grade 2 elevations of up to 500 mg/dL were seen in 1.4% of patients at baseline and 2.4%-5.6% of patients during subsequent months.
Grade 1 liver enzyme abnormalities of less than three times the upper limit of normal values were seen at baseline in under 4% of patients, and in no more than 6.7% of patients through the course of treatment.
Leukopenia of between 3 x 103/mcL and the lower limit of normal occurred in 4.1% of baseline tests and in 6.6%-10.1% of tests in subsequent months. Grade 1 thrombocytopenia (values between 75 x 103/mcL and the lower limit of normal) occurred in 1.9% of baseline tests and no more than 2.9% of tests in the following months.
The results, wrote Dr. Barbieri and coauthors, affirm that most patients fare well on isotretinoin, and frequent laboratory testing is likely to be low-yield. Even using relatively low Medicare reimbursement rates for these tests yielded an estimated $134 in per-patient charges for the studied population. If baseline lipid and liver functions were followed only by repeat testing when peak isotretinoin dose was reached, charges would drop to about $87 per patient. Using the iPLEDGE database figures, this would save $17.4 million in monitoring costs annually, they wrote.
They also calculated that the monitoring regimen they observed puts the cost of detecting one single grade 3 hepatic enzyme elevation at $6,000; one grade 3 triglyceride elevation would cost $7,750.
Of the patients, 49% were female, the median age was 18.2 years, and the median duration of isotretinoin therapy was under 5 months (148 days). Nearly 90% of patients were white and non-Hispanic; 2.5% were black.
The data used for the analysis did not give the investigators access to clinician notes, but they did observe that, even when abnormal test values were seen, isotretinoin prescribing continued. This, they added, pointed toward reassuring clinical scenarios, even in cases of abnormal lab values.
“These findings are consistent with prior studies and suggest that extensive laboratory monitoring observed in this population may be of low value,” concluded Dr. Barbieri and colleagues. “In addition, changes to lipid levels observed in this study typically occurred during the first 2-3 months of therapy before stabilizing, which is consistent with findings in prior studies.”
The investigators noted that, despite mounting evidence of isotretinoin’s safety, there was no trend toward decreased CBC testing over the decade-long period of the study, and there were only “modest” decreases in hepatic enzyme and lipid monitoring. They called for an awareness campaign on the part of professional societies, and consideration for “more specific guideline recommendations” that may ease the testing burden on the adolescent and young adult population receiving isotretinoin.
The study was funded in part by the National Institutes of Health, and Dr. Barbieri receives partial salary support from Pfizer through a grant to the University of Pennsylvania. He has received support for unrelated work from Eli Lilly and Novartis. The other authors reported no conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Barbieri J et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2020 Jan;82(1):72-9.
Abnormalities in lipids, liver enzymes, and blood counts were rare, and
In a review of 1,863 patients receiving isotretinoin, there were no cases of grade 4 abnormalities of lipids, liver enzymes, or complete blood count (CBC). Further, fewer than 1% of patients had grade 2-3 laboratory abnormalities, and no patients had cholesterol or CBC abnormalities of grade 3 or higher.
The retrospective cohort study used an electronic database to identify patients who were prescribed isotretinoin for acne from 2007 to 2017, with inclusion criteria structured to “increase the likelihood of capturing a complete course of isotretinoin therapy,” wrote John Barbieri, MD, and coauthors. The database allowed the investigators to group lab values into baseline testing, and testing by month of therapy for individual deidentified patient records.
Dr. Barbieri, a dermatologist and postdoctoral research fellow at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and coinvestigators found that over half of all patients had baseline triglyceride, total cholesterol, AST, ALT, and platelet and white blood cell count levels.
Though the number of patients who had any of these levels checked in a given month of treatment declined over time, as did the total number of patients still on isotretinoin therapy, monthly AST and ALT monitoring occurred in 37.6%-58.5% of patients. Monthly triglyceride monitoring was conducted in between 39.6% and 61.4% of participants, and CBCs were obtained in 26.8%-37.4% of participants.
In terms of the abnormalities that were seen, grade 1 triglyceride elevations of 150-300 mg/dL were present in about 13% of patients at baseline, rising to 39% of participants who were still receiving isotretinoin at month 6. However, grade 2 elevations of up to 500 mg/dL were seen in 1.4% of patients at baseline and 2.4%-5.6% of patients during subsequent months.
Grade 1 liver enzyme abnormalities of less than three times the upper limit of normal values were seen at baseline in under 4% of patients, and in no more than 6.7% of patients through the course of treatment.
Leukopenia of between 3 x 103/mcL and the lower limit of normal occurred in 4.1% of baseline tests and in 6.6%-10.1% of tests in subsequent months. Grade 1 thrombocytopenia (values between 75 x 103/mcL and the lower limit of normal) occurred in 1.9% of baseline tests and no more than 2.9% of tests in the following months.
The results, wrote Dr. Barbieri and coauthors, affirm that most patients fare well on isotretinoin, and frequent laboratory testing is likely to be low-yield. Even using relatively low Medicare reimbursement rates for these tests yielded an estimated $134 in per-patient charges for the studied population. If baseline lipid and liver functions were followed only by repeat testing when peak isotretinoin dose was reached, charges would drop to about $87 per patient. Using the iPLEDGE database figures, this would save $17.4 million in monitoring costs annually, they wrote.
They also calculated that the monitoring regimen they observed puts the cost of detecting one single grade 3 hepatic enzyme elevation at $6,000; one grade 3 triglyceride elevation would cost $7,750.
Of the patients, 49% were female, the median age was 18.2 years, and the median duration of isotretinoin therapy was under 5 months (148 days). Nearly 90% of patients were white and non-Hispanic; 2.5% were black.
The data used for the analysis did not give the investigators access to clinician notes, but they did observe that, even when abnormal test values were seen, isotretinoin prescribing continued. This, they added, pointed toward reassuring clinical scenarios, even in cases of abnormal lab values.
“These findings are consistent with prior studies and suggest that extensive laboratory monitoring observed in this population may be of low value,” concluded Dr. Barbieri and colleagues. “In addition, changes to lipid levels observed in this study typically occurred during the first 2-3 months of therapy before stabilizing, which is consistent with findings in prior studies.”
The investigators noted that, despite mounting evidence of isotretinoin’s safety, there was no trend toward decreased CBC testing over the decade-long period of the study, and there were only “modest” decreases in hepatic enzyme and lipid monitoring. They called for an awareness campaign on the part of professional societies, and consideration for “more specific guideline recommendations” that may ease the testing burden on the adolescent and young adult population receiving isotretinoin.
The study was funded in part by the National Institutes of Health, and Dr. Barbieri receives partial salary support from Pfizer through a grant to the University of Pennsylvania. He has received support for unrelated work from Eli Lilly and Novartis. The other authors reported no conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Barbieri J et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2020 Jan;82(1):72-9.
Abnormalities in lipids, liver enzymes, and blood counts were rare, and
In a review of 1,863 patients receiving isotretinoin, there were no cases of grade 4 abnormalities of lipids, liver enzymes, or complete blood count (CBC). Further, fewer than 1% of patients had grade 2-3 laboratory abnormalities, and no patients had cholesterol or CBC abnormalities of grade 3 or higher.
The retrospective cohort study used an electronic database to identify patients who were prescribed isotretinoin for acne from 2007 to 2017, with inclusion criteria structured to “increase the likelihood of capturing a complete course of isotretinoin therapy,” wrote John Barbieri, MD, and coauthors. The database allowed the investigators to group lab values into baseline testing, and testing by month of therapy for individual deidentified patient records.
Dr. Barbieri, a dermatologist and postdoctoral research fellow at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and coinvestigators found that over half of all patients had baseline triglyceride, total cholesterol, AST, ALT, and platelet and white blood cell count levels.
Though the number of patients who had any of these levels checked in a given month of treatment declined over time, as did the total number of patients still on isotretinoin therapy, monthly AST and ALT monitoring occurred in 37.6%-58.5% of patients. Monthly triglyceride monitoring was conducted in between 39.6% and 61.4% of participants, and CBCs were obtained in 26.8%-37.4% of participants.
In terms of the abnormalities that were seen, grade 1 triglyceride elevations of 150-300 mg/dL were present in about 13% of patients at baseline, rising to 39% of participants who were still receiving isotretinoin at month 6. However, grade 2 elevations of up to 500 mg/dL were seen in 1.4% of patients at baseline and 2.4%-5.6% of patients during subsequent months.
Grade 1 liver enzyme abnormalities of less than three times the upper limit of normal values were seen at baseline in under 4% of patients, and in no more than 6.7% of patients through the course of treatment.
Leukopenia of between 3 x 103/mcL and the lower limit of normal occurred in 4.1% of baseline tests and in 6.6%-10.1% of tests in subsequent months. Grade 1 thrombocytopenia (values between 75 x 103/mcL and the lower limit of normal) occurred in 1.9% of baseline tests and no more than 2.9% of tests in the following months.
The results, wrote Dr. Barbieri and coauthors, affirm that most patients fare well on isotretinoin, and frequent laboratory testing is likely to be low-yield. Even using relatively low Medicare reimbursement rates for these tests yielded an estimated $134 in per-patient charges for the studied population. If baseline lipid and liver functions were followed only by repeat testing when peak isotretinoin dose was reached, charges would drop to about $87 per patient. Using the iPLEDGE database figures, this would save $17.4 million in monitoring costs annually, they wrote.
They also calculated that the monitoring regimen they observed puts the cost of detecting one single grade 3 hepatic enzyme elevation at $6,000; one grade 3 triglyceride elevation would cost $7,750.
Of the patients, 49% were female, the median age was 18.2 years, and the median duration of isotretinoin therapy was under 5 months (148 days). Nearly 90% of patients were white and non-Hispanic; 2.5% were black.
The data used for the analysis did not give the investigators access to clinician notes, but they did observe that, even when abnormal test values were seen, isotretinoin prescribing continued. This, they added, pointed toward reassuring clinical scenarios, even in cases of abnormal lab values.
“These findings are consistent with prior studies and suggest that extensive laboratory monitoring observed in this population may be of low value,” concluded Dr. Barbieri and colleagues. “In addition, changes to lipid levels observed in this study typically occurred during the first 2-3 months of therapy before stabilizing, which is consistent with findings in prior studies.”
The investigators noted that, despite mounting evidence of isotretinoin’s safety, there was no trend toward decreased CBC testing over the decade-long period of the study, and there were only “modest” decreases in hepatic enzyme and lipid monitoring. They called for an awareness campaign on the part of professional societies, and consideration for “more specific guideline recommendations” that may ease the testing burden on the adolescent and young adult population receiving isotretinoin.
The study was funded in part by the National Institutes of Health, and Dr. Barbieri receives partial salary support from Pfizer through a grant to the University of Pennsylvania. He has received support for unrelated work from Eli Lilly and Novartis. The other authors reported no conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Barbieri J et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2020 Jan;82(1):72-9.
FROM THE JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY OF DERMATOLOGY
Unnecessary pelvic exams, Pap tests common in young women
according to estimates from a study published online in JAMA Internal Medicine.
Approximately 2.6 million young women – about a quarter of those in this age group – reported receiving a pelvic exam in the previous year even though fewer than 10% were pregnant or receiving treatment for a sexually transmitted infection (STI) at the time.
Similarly, an estimated three in four Pap tests given to women aged 15-20 years likely were unnecessary. Based on Medicare payments for screening Pap tests and pelvic exams, the unnecessary procedures represented an estimated $123 million in a year.
“The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recognizes that no evidence supports routine speculum examination or BPE in healthy, asymptomatic women younger than 21 years and recommends that these examinations be performed only when medically indicated,” said Jin Qin, ScD, of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and colleagues.
“Our results showed that, despite the recommendation, many young women without discernible medical indication received potentially unnecessary BPE or Pap tests, which may be a reflection of a long-standing clinical practice in the United States.”
These findings “demonstrate what happens to vulnerable populations (in this case, girls and young women) when clinicians do not keep up with or do not adhere to new guidelines,” Melissa A. Simon, MD, MPH, wrote in an invited commentary. She acknowledged the challenges of keeping up with new guidelines but noted the potential for harm from unnecessary screening. Dr. Simon is vice chair for clinical research in the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Northwestern University, Chicago.
The researchers analyzed responses from 3,410 young women aged 15-20 years in the National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG) during 2011-2017 and extrapolated the results to estimate nationwide statistics. The researchers found that 23% of young women – 2.6 million in the United States – had received a bimanual pelvic exam during the previous year.
“This analysis focused on the bimanual component of the pelvic examination because it is the most invasive of the pelvic examination components and less likely to be confused with a speculum examination for cervical cancer or STI screening,” the authors note.
More than half of these pelvic exams (54%) – an estimated 1.4 million exams – potentially were unnecessary. The authors classified these pelvic exams as potentially unnecessary if it was not indicated for pregnancy, intrauterine device (IUD) use, or STI treatment in the past 12 months or for another medical problem.
Among the respondents, 5% were pregnant, 22% had been tested for an STI, and 5% had been treated for an STI during the previous year. About a third of respondents (33%) had used at least one type of hormonal contraception besides an IUD in the past year, but only 2% had used an IUD.
Dr. Simon said that some have advocated for routine bimanual pelvic exams to prompt women to see their provider every year, but without evidence to support the practice.
“In fact, many women (younger and older) associate the bimanual pelvic and speculum examinations with fear, anxiety, embarrassment, discomfort, and pain,” Dr. Simon emphasized. “Girls and women with a history of sexual violence may be more vulnerable to these harms. In addition, adolescent girls may delay starting contraception use or obtaining screening for sexually transmitted infections because of fear of pelvic examination, which thus creates unnecessary barriers to obtaining important screening and family-planning methods.”
The researchers also found that 19% of young women, about 2.2 million, had received a Pap test in the previous year. The majority of these (72%) likely were unnecessary, they wrote, explaining that cervical cancer screening is not recommended for those younger than 21 years unless they are HIV positive and sexually active.
“Because HIV infection status is not available in the NSFG, we estimated prevalence of Pap tests performed as part of a routine examination and considered them potentially unnecessary,” the authors explained.
Young women were seven times more likely to have undergone a bimanual pelvic exam if they received a Pap test (adjusted prevalence ratio [aPR], 7.12). In fact, the authors reported that nearly all potentially unnecessary bimanual pelvic exams (98%) occurred during the same visit as a Pap test that was potentially unnecessary as well.
Young women also were more likely to receive a bimanual pelvic exam if they underwent STI testing or used any hormonal contraception besides an IUD (aPR, 1.6 and 1.31, respectively). Those with public insurance or no insurance were less likely to receive a pelvic exam compared with those who had private insurance, although no associations were found with race/ethnicity.
Young women were about four times more likely to have a Pap test if they had STI testing (aPR, 3.77). Odds of a Pap test also were greater among those aged 18-20 years (aPR, 1.54), those with a pregnancy (aPR, 2.31), those with an IUD (aPR, 1.54), and those using any non-IUD hormonal contraception (aPR, 1.75).
Staying up to date on current guidelines and consistently delivering evidence-based care according to those guidelines “is not easy,” Dr. Simon commented. It involves building and maintaining a trusting clinician-patient relationship that centers on shared decision making, keeping up with research, and “unlearn[ing] deeply ingrained practices,” which is difficult.
“Clinicians are not well instructed on how to pivot or unlearn a practice,” Dr. Simon continued. “The science of deimplementation, especially with respect to guideline-concordant care, is in its infancy.” She also noted the value of annual visits, even without routine pelvic exams.
“Rethinking the goals of the annual health examination for young women and learning to unlearn will not put anyone out of business,” Dr. Simon concluded. “Rather, change can increase patients’ connectivity, trust, and engagement with primary care clinicians and, most importantly, avoid harms, especially to those who are most vulnerable.”
No external funding was used. The study authors and Dr. Simon have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
SOURCE: Qin J et al. JAMA Intern Med. 2019 Jan 6. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.5727.
An earlier version of this story appeared on Medscape.com.
A call for shared decision making
The experts who wrote American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists’ clinical guideline on the pelvic exam (Obstet Gynecol. 2018 Oct;132[4]:e174-80) reviewed available evidence and found insufficient evidence to support routine screening for asymptomatic nonpregnant women who have no increased risk for specific gynecologic conditions (e.g., history of gynecologic cancer). Hence, ACOG recommends routine screening based on a shared decision between the asymptomatic woman and her doctor keeping in mind her medical and family history and her preference. This decision should be made after reviewing the limitations of the exam with regard to insufficient evidence to support its accuracy in screening for ovarian cancer, bacterial vaginosis, trichomoniasis, and genital herpes, plus lack of evidence for other gynecologic conditions.
In addition, we physicians must educate women, especially vulnerable populations, that deferring a pelvic exam for asymptomatic women entails judicious care. Deferring an exam does not mean that we are withholding medical care. If she wants an exam, understanding its limitations, then this preference is an indication itself for the exam as stated in our guideline.
It is important to emphasize to patients that we are deferring Pap smears until age 21 years per ACOG and the American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology, and that there is no need for a pelvic exam for sexually transmitted infection screening per the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Likewise, there is no need for a pelvic exam prior initiation of contraception except for intrauterine device insertion also according to the CDC.
Catherine Cansino, MD, MPH , is associate clinical professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of California, Davis. She was asked to comment on the Qin et al. article. Dr. Cansino is a coauthor of the ACOG 2018 guideline on the utility of pelvic exam. She also is a member of the Ob.Gyn. News editorial advisory board. She reported no relevant financial disclosures.
A call for shared decision making
The experts who wrote American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists’ clinical guideline on the pelvic exam (Obstet Gynecol. 2018 Oct;132[4]:e174-80) reviewed available evidence and found insufficient evidence to support routine screening for asymptomatic nonpregnant women who have no increased risk for specific gynecologic conditions (e.g., history of gynecologic cancer). Hence, ACOG recommends routine screening based on a shared decision between the asymptomatic woman and her doctor keeping in mind her medical and family history and her preference. This decision should be made after reviewing the limitations of the exam with regard to insufficient evidence to support its accuracy in screening for ovarian cancer, bacterial vaginosis, trichomoniasis, and genital herpes, plus lack of evidence for other gynecologic conditions.
In addition, we physicians must educate women, especially vulnerable populations, that deferring a pelvic exam for asymptomatic women entails judicious care. Deferring an exam does not mean that we are withholding medical care. If she wants an exam, understanding its limitations, then this preference is an indication itself for the exam as stated in our guideline.
It is important to emphasize to patients that we are deferring Pap smears until age 21 years per ACOG and the American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology, and that there is no need for a pelvic exam for sexually transmitted infection screening per the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Likewise, there is no need for a pelvic exam prior initiation of contraception except for intrauterine device insertion also according to the CDC.
Catherine Cansino, MD, MPH , is associate clinical professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of California, Davis. She was asked to comment on the Qin et al. article. Dr. Cansino is a coauthor of the ACOG 2018 guideline on the utility of pelvic exam. She also is a member of the Ob.Gyn. News editorial advisory board. She reported no relevant financial disclosures.
A call for shared decision making
The experts who wrote American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists’ clinical guideline on the pelvic exam (Obstet Gynecol. 2018 Oct;132[4]:e174-80) reviewed available evidence and found insufficient evidence to support routine screening for asymptomatic nonpregnant women who have no increased risk for specific gynecologic conditions (e.g., history of gynecologic cancer). Hence, ACOG recommends routine screening based on a shared decision between the asymptomatic woman and her doctor keeping in mind her medical and family history and her preference. This decision should be made after reviewing the limitations of the exam with regard to insufficient evidence to support its accuracy in screening for ovarian cancer, bacterial vaginosis, trichomoniasis, and genital herpes, plus lack of evidence for other gynecologic conditions.
In addition, we physicians must educate women, especially vulnerable populations, that deferring a pelvic exam for asymptomatic women entails judicious care. Deferring an exam does not mean that we are withholding medical care. If she wants an exam, understanding its limitations, then this preference is an indication itself for the exam as stated in our guideline.
It is important to emphasize to patients that we are deferring Pap smears until age 21 years per ACOG and the American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology, and that there is no need for a pelvic exam for sexually transmitted infection screening per the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Likewise, there is no need for a pelvic exam prior initiation of contraception except for intrauterine device insertion also according to the CDC.
Catherine Cansino, MD, MPH , is associate clinical professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of California, Davis. She was asked to comment on the Qin et al. article. Dr. Cansino is a coauthor of the ACOG 2018 guideline on the utility of pelvic exam. She also is a member of the Ob.Gyn. News editorial advisory board. She reported no relevant financial disclosures.
according to estimates from a study published online in JAMA Internal Medicine.
Approximately 2.6 million young women – about a quarter of those in this age group – reported receiving a pelvic exam in the previous year even though fewer than 10% were pregnant or receiving treatment for a sexually transmitted infection (STI) at the time.
Similarly, an estimated three in four Pap tests given to women aged 15-20 years likely were unnecessary. Based on Medicare payments for screening Pap tests and pelvic exams, the unnecessary procedures represented an estimated $123 million in a year.
“The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recognizes that no evidence supports routine speculum examination or BPE in healthy, asymptomatic women younger than 21 years and recommends that these examinations be performed only when medically indicated,” said Jin Qin, ScD, of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and colleagues.
“Our results showed that, despite the recommendation, many young women without discernible medical indication received potentially unnecessary BPE or Pap tests, which may be a reflection of a long-standing clinical practice in the United States.”
These findings “demonstrate what happens to vulnerable populations (in this case, girls and young women) when clinicians do not keep up with or do not adhere to new guidelines,” Melissa A. Simon, MD, MPH, wrote in an invited commentary. She acknowledged the challenges of keeping up with new guidelines but noted the potential for harm from unnecessary screening. Dr. Simon is vice chair for clinical research in the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Northwestern University, Chicago.
The researchers analyzed responses from 3,410 young women aged 15-20 years in the National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG) during 2011-2017 and extrapolated the results to estimate nationwide statistics. The researchers found that 23% of young women – 2.6 million in the United States – had received a bimanual pelvic exam during the previous year.
“This analysis focused on the bimanual component of the pelvic examination because it is the most invasive of the pelvic examination components and less likely to be confused with a speculum examination for cervical cancer or STI screening,” the authors note.
More than half of these pelvic exams (54%) – an estimated 1.4 million exams – potentially were unnecessary. The authors classified these pelvic exams as potentially unnecessary if it was not indicated for pregnancy, intrauterine device (IUD) use, or STI treatment in the past 12 months or for another medical problem.
Among the respondents, 5% were pregnant, 22% had been tested for an STI, and 5% had been treated for an STI during the previous year. About a third of respondents (33%) had used at least one type of hormonal contraception besides an IUD in the past year, but only 2% had used an IUD.
Dr. Simon said that some have advocated for routine bimanual pelvic exams to prompt women to see their provider every year, but without evidence to support the practice.
“In fact, many women (younger and older) associate the bimanual pelvic and speculum examinations with fear, anxiety, embarrassment, discomfort, and pain,” Dr. Simon emphasized. “Girls and women with a history of sexual violence may be more vulnerable to these harms. In addition, adolescent girls may delay starting contraception use or obtaining screening for sexually transmitted infections because of fear of pelvic examination, which thus creates unnecessary barriers to obtaining important screening and family-planning methods.”
The researchers also found that 19% of young women, about 2.2 million, had received a Pap test in the previous year. The majority of these (72%) likely were unnecessary, they wrote, explaining that cervical cancer screening is not recommended for those younger than 21 years unless they are HIV positive and sexually active.
“Because HIV infection status is not available in the NSFG, we estimated prevalence of Pap tests performed as part of a routine examination and considered them potentially unnecessary,” the authors explained.
Young women were seven times more likely to have undergone a bimanual pelvic exam if they received a Pap test (adjusted prevalence ratio [aPR], 7.12). In fact, the authors reported that nearly all potentially unnecessary bimanual pelvic exams (98%) occurred during the same visit as a Pap test that was potentially unnecessary as well.
Young women also were more likely to receive a bimanual pelvic exam if they underwent STI testing or used any hormonal contraception besides an IUD (aPR, 1.6 and 1.31, respectively). Those with public insurance or no insurance were less likely to receive a pelvic exam compared with those who had private insurance, although no associations were found with race/ethnicity.
Young women were about four times more likely to have a Pap test if they had STI testing (aPR, 3.77). Odds of a Pap test also were greater among those aged 18-20 years (aPR, 1.54), those with a pregnancy (aPR, 2.31), those with an IUD (aPR, 1.54), and those using any non-IUD hormonal contraception (aPR, 1.75).
Staying up to date on current guidelines and consistently delivering evidence-based care according to those guidelines “is not easy,” Dr. Simon commented. It involves building and maintaining a trusting clinician-patient relationship that centers on shared decision making, keeping up with research, and “unlearn[ing] deeply ingrained practices,” which is difficult.
“Clinicians are not well instructed on how to pivot or unlearn a practice,” Dr. Simon continued. “The science of deimplementation, especially with respect to guideline-concordant care, is in its infancy.” She also noted the value of annual visits, even without routine pelvic exams.
“Rethinking the goals of the annual health examination for young women and learning to unlearn will not put anyone out of business,” Dr. Simon concluded. “Rather, change can increase patients’ connectivity, trust, and engagement with primary care clinicians and, most importantly, avoid harms, especially to those who are most vulnerable.”
No external funding was used. The study authors and Dr. Simon have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
SOURCE: Qin J et al. JAMA Intern Med. 2019 Jan 6. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.5727.
An earlier version of this story appeared on Medscape.com.
according to estimates from a study published online in JAMA Internal Medicine.
Approximately 2.6 million young women – about a quarter of those in this age group – reported receiving a pelvic exam in the previous year even though fewer than 10% were pregnant or receiving treatment for a sexually transmitted infection (STI) at the time.
Similarly, an estimated three in four Pap tests given to women aged 15-20 years likely were unnecessary. Based on Medicare payments for screening Pap tests and pelvic exams, the unnecessary procedures represented an estimated $123 million in a year.
“The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recognizes that no evidence supports routine speculum examination or BPE in healthy, asymptomatic women younger than 21 years and recommends that these examinations be performed only when medically indicated,” said Jin Qin, ScD, of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and colleagues.
“Our results showed that, despite the recommendation, many young women without discernible medical indication received potentially unnecessary BPE or Pap tests, which may be a reflection of a long-standing clinical practice in the United States.”
These findings “demonstrate what happens to vulnerable populations (in this case, girls and young women) when clinicians do not keep up with or do not adhere to new guidelines,” Melissa A. Simon, MD, MPH, wrote in an invited commentary. She acknowledged the challenges of keeping up with new guidelines but noted the potential for harm from unnecessary screening. Dr. Simon is vice chair for clinical research in the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Northwestern University, Chicago.
The researchers analyzed responses from 3,410 young women aged 15-20 years in the National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG) during 2011-2017 and extrapolated the results to estimate nationwide statistics. The researchers found that 23% of young women – 2.6 million in the United States – had received a bimanual pelvic exam during the previous year.
“This analysis focused on the bimanual component of the pelvic examination because it is the most invasive of the pelvic examination components and less likely to be confused with a speculum examination for cervical cancer or STI screening,” the authors note.
More than half of these pelvic exams (54%) – an estimated 1.4 million exams – potentially were unnecessary. The authors classified these pelvic exams as potentially unnecessary if it was not indicated for pregnancy, intrauterine device (IUD) use, or STI treatment in the past 12 months or for another medical problem.
Among the respondents, 5% were pregnant, 22% had been tested for an STI, and 5% had been treated for an STI during the previous year. About a third of respondents (33%) had used at least one type of hormonal contraception besides an IUD in the past year, but only 2% had used an IUD.
Dr. Simon said that some have advocated for routine bimanual pelvic exams to prompt women to see their provider every year, but without evidence to support the practice.
“In fact, many women (younger and older) associate the bimanual pelvic and speculum examinations with fear, anxiety, embarrassment, discomfort, and pain,” Dr. Simon emphasized. “Girls and women with a history of sexual violence may be more vulnerable to these harms. In addition, adolescent girls may delay starting contraception use or obtaining screening for sexually transmitted infections because of fear of pelvic examination, which thus creates unnecessary barriers to obtaining important screening and family-planning methods.”
The researchers also found that 19% of young women, about 2.2 million, had received a Pap test in the previous year. The majority of these (72%) likely were unnecessary, they wrote, explaining that cervical cancer screening is not recommended for those younger than 21 years unless they are HIV positive and sexually active.
“Because HIV infection status is not available in the NSFG, we estimated prevalence of Pap tests performed as part of a routine examination and considered them potentially unnecessary,” the authors explained.
Young women were seven times more likely to have undergone a bimanual pelvic exam if they received a Pap test (adjusted prevalence ratio [aPR], 7.12). In fact, the authors reported that nearly all potentially unnecessary bimanual pelvic exams (98%) occurred during the same visit as a Pap test that was potentially unnecessary as well.
Young women also were more likely to receive a bimanual pelvic exam if they underwent STI testing or used any hormonal contraception besides an IUD (aPR, 1.6 and 1.31, respectively). Those with public insurance or no insurance were less likely to receive a pelvic exam compared with those who had private insurance, although no associations were found with race/ethnicity.
Young women were about four times more likely to have a Pap test if they had STI testing (aPR, 3.77). Odds of a Pap test also were greater among those aged 18-20 years (aPR, 1.54), those with a pregnancy (aPR, 2.31), those with an IUD (aPR, 1.54), and those using any non-IUD hormonal contraception (aPR, 1.75).
Staying up to date on current guidelines and consistently delivering evidence-based care according to those guidelines “is not easy,” Dr. Simon commented. It involves building and maintaining a trusting clinician-patient relationship that centers on shared decision making, keeping up with research, and “unlearn[ing] deeply ingrained practices,” which is difficult.
“Clinicians are not well instructed on how to pivot or unlearn a practice,” Dr. Simon continued. “The science of deimplementation, especially with respect to guideline-concordant care, is in its infancy.” She also noted the value of annual visits, even without routine pelvic exams.
“Rethinking the goals of the annual health examination for young women and learning to unlearn will not put anyone out of business,” Dr. Simon concluded. “Rather, change can increase patients’ connectivity, trust, and engagement with primary care clinicians and, most importantly, avoid harms, especially to those who are most vulnerable.”
No external funding was used. The study authors and Dr. Simon have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
SOURCE: Qin J et al. JAMA Intern Med. 2019 Jan 6. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.5727.
An earlier version of this story appeared on Medscape.com.