Pediatrics

A young boy with a habit of screaming when he didn’t get his way is among the patients Joannie Yeh, MD, a primary care physician at Nemours Children’s Health in Media, Pennsylvania, has helped in her practice.

Yeh taught the boy to stretch out his hands into the shape of a starfish, then trace around the edges of his fingers while breathing slowly and deeply. His parents later reported that after using the strategy at home, their son was no longer taking his rage out on his younger siblings.

Interventions like breathing exercises are just a few techniques Yeh hopes more primary care clinicians will teach young patients as mental health issues among this population soar to a national state of emergency, major medical groups say. But many children go without treatment because of shortages of mental health clinicians and long wait-lists for appointments.

“Knowledge of different types of interventions allows pediatricians to offer more options to families — more than just medication alone,” Yeh said. “There are some strategies, like cognitive behavioral therapy, that a therapist is equipped to deliver, but we can help explain them or teach simple skills that borrow from principles of higher-level techniques and can help patients and families while they wait to see a therapist.”

The use of techniques that are based on mindfulness, cognitive behavioral therapy, and psychotherapy are especially helpful to pediatricians after a child’s answers on a screener indicate they may be struggling with anxiety, depression, or attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), said Theresa Nguyen, MD, chair of pediatrics at Greater Baltimore Medical Center, Baltimore.

“It kind of sucks if you come in worried and then your doctor says, ‘Okay, let me send you to a psychiatrist who you can’t see for 6 months; let me send you to a therapist who’s going to take a couple of weeks to get in with,’” Nguyen said.

Yeh said over the past few years she has cared for more youth coming in as follow-ups after an emergency department visit for a mental health episode.

“Oftentimes, this is the first time we become aware that the child is struggling,” Yeh said. “We are seeing issues like intentional medication overdose, referrals after other self-harm actions, or even the discovery of a note indicating the intention to do harm to self.”

Suicide deaths among 10- to 14-year-olds tripled between 2007 and 2018 and held steady through 2021, with rates climbing even among children as young as 8 years, according to a research in JAMA Network Open. Meanwhile, one in five high school students seriously contemplated suicide in 2023 (27% girls, 14% boys).

 

Mental Health Strategies for Kids in Primary Care

While pediatricians cannot replace a mental health professional, they have the unique advantage of maintaining a long-term relationship with patients. Experts said clinicians should take an active role in supporting the mental health of patients through a variety of evidence-based strategies.

Changing Thought Patterns 

Cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) involves identifying and challenging automatic negative thoughts, which can affect a child’s emotional state and lead to behaviors like withdrawal or lashing out.

Yeh recommended asking a child about what is bothering them, pointing out unhelpful and negative thoughts, and then offering a different, positive one instead.

She also often draws a picture of the CBT chart, which is a visual representation of how feelings lead to thoughts, and then behaviors.

“I draw this diagram because it helps give the patients a visual understanding of how their feelings and emotions are connected,” Yeh said.

 

Tools to Tolerate Stressful Situations

Simple tools like breathing exercises, body scanning, and physical exercise can help children better tolerate distress.

Pediatricians can also recommend families use guided meditations, which have been shown to lower anxiety and increase positive social behavior, said Mollie Grow, MD, an associate professor of pediatrics at the University of Washington Medicine and Seattle Children’s Hospital, both in Seattle.

But a child might first need to get negative energy out before they can become calm.

“So I’m like, ‘okay, let’s do actual physical exercise. Give me 10 jumping jacks.’ No one’s nervous after those jumping jacks,” Nguyen said. “When you’ve already been triggered, your nerves have gotten going, and you’re starting to spiral, you can’t slow yourself down enough to do a breathing exercise.”

Nguyen also said that cold water quickly calms the nervous system.

“I’ll run cold water in the office and have them put their hand in it until it’s almost frozen,” and the child or teen is able to think more clearly, Nguyen said. “It’s a real physiological response. It works.”

 

The Origin of a Feeling 

Explaining how symptoms of anxiety, depression, or ADHD work can help children and teens better understand that what they are experiencing is normal and better cope, Yeh said.

Clinicians might teach patients about how shallow breathing — a symptom of anxiety — is a result of the brain scanning for danger, and how slowing breathing tricks the brain into feeling safe again.

 

Barriers Abound

The use of these interventions in pediatric settings is not yet widespread, Grow said.

But starting in July 2025, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education will require pediatric residencies to include 4 weeks of mental health training. How that requirement is fulfilled will be up to residencies, said Brian Alverson, MD, pediatric program director and vice-chair of education at Nemours Children’s Hospital in Wilmington, Delaware.

Even with training, many pediatricians lack the time to address mental health issues during an office visit, said Carlos Lerner, MD, a professor of clinical pediatrics at University of California, Los Angeles Health. And despite low or sometimes no reimbursement for discussing these issues with patients, “the reality is we end up doing it anyway.”

Treating issues like anxiety and depression “is a daily, constant part of the care that I provide for my patients,” said Lerner. “Whether the pandemic or social media exacerbated it, we are absolutely seeing a rise in mental health issues.”

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

A young boy with a habit of screaming when he didn’t get his way is among the patients Joannie Yeh, MD, a primary care physician at Nemours Children’s Health in Media, Pennsylvania, has helped in her practice.

Yeh taught the boy to stretch out his hands into the shape of a starfish, then trace around the edges of his fingers while breathing slowly and deeply. His parents later reported that after using the strategy at home, their son was no longer taking his rage out on his younger siblings.

Interventions like breathing exercises are just a few techniques Yeh hopes more primary care clinicians will teach young patients as mental health issues among this population soar to a national state of emergency, major medical groups say. But many children go without treatment because of shortages of mental health clinicians and long wait-lists for appointments.

“Knowledge of different types of interventions allows pediatricians to offer more options to families — more than just medication alone,” Yeh said. “There are some strategies, like cognitive behavioral therapy, that a therapist is equipped to deliver, but we can help explain them or teach simple skills that borrow from principles of higher-level techniques and can help patients and families while they wait to see a therapist.”

The use of techniques that are based on mindfulness, cognitive behavioral therapy, and psychotherapy are especially helpful to pediatricians after a child’s answers on a screener indicate they may be struggling with anxiety, depression, or attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), said Theresa Nguyen, MD, chair of pediatrics at Greater Baltimore Medical Center, Baltimore.

“It kind of sucks if you come in worried and then your doctor says, ‘Okay, let me send you to a psychiatrist who you can’t see for 6 months; let me send you to a therapist who’s going to take a couple of weeks to get in with,’” Nguyen said.

Yeh said over the past few years she has cared for more youth coming in as follow-ups after an emergency department visit for a mental health episode.

“Oftentimes, this is the first time we become aware that the child is struggling,” Yeh said. “We are seeing issues like intentional medication overdose, referrals after other self-harm actions, or even the discovery of a note indicating the intention to do harm to self.”

Suicide deaths among 10- to 14-year-olds tripled between 2007 and 2018 and held steady through 2021, with rates climbing even among children as young as 8 years, according to a research in JAMA Network Open. Meanwhile, one in five high school students seriously contemplated suicide in 2023 (27% girls, 14% boys).

 

Mental Health Strategies for Kids in Primary Care

While pediatricians cannot replace a mental health professional, they have the unique advantage of maintaining a long-term relationship with patients. Experts said clinicians should take an active role in supporting the mental health of patients through a variety of evidence-based strategies.

Changing Thought Patterns 

Cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) involves identifying and challenging automatic negative thoughts, which can affect a child’s emotional state and lead to behaviors like withdrawal or lashing out.

Yeh recommended asking a child about what is bothering them, pointing out unhelpful and negative thoughts, and then offering a different, positive one instead.

She also often draws a picture of the CBT chart, which is a visual representation of how feelings lead to thoughts, and then behaviors.

“I draw this diagram because it helps give the patients a visual understanding of how their feelings and emotions are connected,” Yeh said.

 

Tools to Tolerate Stressful Situations

Simple tools like breathing exercises, body scanning, and physical exercise can help children better tolerate distress.

Pediatricians can also recommend families use guided meditations, which have been shown to lower anxiety and increase positive social behavior, said Mollie Grow, MD, an associate professor of pediatrics at the University of Washington Medicine and Seattle Children’s Hospital, both in Seattle.

But a child might first need to get negative energy out before they can become calm.

“So I’m like, ‘okay, let’s do actual physical exercise. Give me 10 jumping jacks.’ No one’s nervous after those jumping jacks,” Nguyen said. “When you’ve already been triggered, your nerves have gotten going, and you’re starting to spiral, you can’t slow yourself down enough to do a breathing exercise.”

Nguyen also said that cold water quickly calms the nervous system.

“I’ll run cold water in the office and have them put their hand in it until it’s almost frozen,” and the child or teen is able to think more clearly, Nguyen said. “It’s a real physiological response. It works.”

 

The Origin of a Feeling 

Explaining how symptoms of anxiety, depression, or ADHD work can help children and teens better understand that what they are experiencing is normal and better cope, Yeh said.

Clinicians might teach patients about how shallow breathing — a symptom of anxiety — is a result of the brain scanning for danger, and how slowing breathing tricks the brain into feeling safe again.

 

Barriers Abound

The use of these interventions in pediatric settings is not yet widespread, Grow said.

But starting in July 2025, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education will require pediatric residencies to include 4 weeks of mental health training. How that requirement is fulfilled will be up to residencies, said Brian Alverson, MD, pediatric program director and vice-chair of education at Nemours Children’s Hospital in Wilmington, Delaware.

Even with training, many pediatricians lack the time to address mental health issues during an office visit, said Carlos Lerner, MD, a professor of clinical pediatrics at University of California, Los Angeles Health. And despite low or sometimes no reimbursement for discussing these issues with patients, “the reality is we end up doing it anyway.”

Treating issues like anxiety and depression “is a daily, constant part of the care that I provide for my patients,” said Lerner. “Whether the pandemic or social media exacerbated it, we are absolutely seeing a rise in mental health issues.”

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

A young boy with a habit of screaming when he didn’t get his way is among the patients Joannie Yeh, MD, a primary care physician at Nemours Children’s Health in Media, Pennsylvania, has helped in her practice.

Yeh taught the boy to stretch out his hands into the shape of a starfish, then trace around the edges of his fingers while breathing slowly and deeply. His parents later reported that after using the strategy at home, their son was no longer taking his rage out on his younger siblings.

Interventions like breathing exercises are just a few techniques Yeh hopes more primary care clinicians will teach young patients as mental health issues among this population soar to a national state of emergency, major medical groups say. But many children go without treatment because of shortages of mental health clinicians and long wait-lists for appointments.

“Knowledge of different types of interventions allows pediatricians to offer more options to families — more than just medication alone,” Yeh said. “There are some strategies, like cognitive behavioral therapy, that a therapist is equipped to deliver, but we can help explain them or teach simple skills that borrow from principles of higher-level techniques and can help patients and families while they wait to see a therapist.”

The use of techniques that are based on mindfulness, cognitive behavioral therapy, and psychotherapy are especially helpful to pediatricians after a child’s answers on a screener indicate they may be struggling with anxiety, depression, or attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), said Theresa Nguyen, MD, chair of pediatrics at Greater Baltimore Medical Center, Baltimore.

“It kind of sucks if you come in worried and then your doctor says, ‘Okay, let me send you to a psychiatrist who you can’t see for 6 months; let me send you to a therapist who’s going to take a couple of weeks to get in with,’” Nguyen said.

Yeh said over the past few years she has cared for more youth coming in as follow-ups after an emergency department visit for a mental health episode.

“Oftentimes, this is the first time we become aware that the child is struggling,” Yeh said. “We are seeing issues like intentional medication overdose, referrals after other self-harm actions, or even the discovery of a note indicating the intention to do harm to self.”

Suicide deaths among 10- to 14-year-olds tripled between 2007 and 2018 and held steady through 2021, with rates climbing even among children as young as 8 years, according to a research in JAMA Network Open. Meanwhile, one in five high school students seriously contemplated suicide in 2023 (27% girls, 14% boys).

 

Mental Health Strategies for Kids in Primary Care

While pediatricians cannot replace a mental health professional, they have the unique advantage of maintaining a long-term relationship with patients. Experts said clinicians should take an active role in supporting the mental health of patients through a variety of evidence-based strategies.

Changing Thought Patterns 

Cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) involves identifying and challenging automatic negative thoughts, which can affect a child’s emotional state and lead to behaviors like withdrawal or lashing out.

Yeh recommended asking a child about what is bothering them, pointing out unhelpful and negative thoughts, and then offering a different, positive one instead.

She also often draws a picture of the CBT chart, which is a visual representation of how feelings lead to thoughts, and then behaviors.

“I draw this diagram because it helps give the patients a visual understanding of how their feelings and emotions are connected,” Yeh said.

 

Tools to Tolerate Stressful Situations

Simple tools like breathing exercises, body scanning, and physical exercise can help children better tolerate distress.

Pediatricians can also recommend families use guided meditations, which have been shown to lower anxiety and increase positive social behavior, said Mollie Grow, MD, an associate professor of pediatrics at the University of Washington Medicine and Seattle Children’s Hospital, both in Seattle.

But a child might first need to get negative energy out before they can become calm.

“So I’m like, ‘okay, let’s do actual physical exercise. Give me 10 jumping jacks.’ No one’s nervous after those jumping jacks,” Nguyen said. “When you’ve already been triggered, your nerves have gotten going, and you’re starting to spiral, you can’t slow yourself down enough to do a breathing exercise.”

Nguyen also said that cold water quickly calms the nervous system.

“I’ll run cold water in the office and have them put their hand in it until it’s almost frozen,” and the child or teen is able to think more clearly, Nguyen said. “It’s a real physiological response. It works.”

 

The Origin of a Feeling 

Explaining how symptoms of anxiety, depression, or ADHD work can help children and teens better understand that what they are experiencing is normal and better cope, Yeh said.

Clinicians might teach patients about how shallow breathing — a symptom of anxiety — is a result of the brain scanning for danger, and how slowing breathing tricks the brain into feeling safe again.

 

Barriers Abound

The use of these interventions in pediatric settings is not yet widespread, Grow said.

But starting in July 2025, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education will require pediatric residencies to include 4 weeks of mental health training. How that requirement is fulfilled will be up to residencies, said Brian Alverson, MD, pediatric program director and vice-chair of education at Nemours Children’s Hospital in Wilmington, Delaware.

Even with training, many pediatricians lack the time to address mental health issues during an office visit, said Carlos Lerner, MD, a professor of clinical pediatrics at University of California, Los Angeles Health. And despite low or sometimes no reimbursement for discussing these issues with patients, “the reality is we end up doing it anyway.”

Treating issues like anxiety and depression “is a daily, constant part of the care that I provide for my patients,” said Lerner. “Whether the pandemic or social media exacerbated it, we are absolutely seeing a rise in mental health issues.”

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

Recently one of my keep-up-to-date apps alerted me to a study in Pediatric Dermatology on sleep and atopic dermatitis. When I chased down the abstract it was a shoulder-shrugging-so-what encounter. The authors reported that having a child with atopic dermatitis decreased the odds of a parent getting 7 hours of sleep a night and increased the odds that the parent was also taking sleep-aiding medications. The authors felt their data was meaningful enough to publish based on the size and the cross-sectional nature of their sample. However, anyone who has worked with families with atopic dermatitis shouldn’t be surprised at their findings.

Curious about what other investigators had discovered about the anecdotally obvious relationship between sleep and atopic dermatitis, I dug until I found a rather thorough discussion of the literature published in The Journal of Clinical Immunology Practice. These authors from the University of Rochester Medical School in New York begin by pointing out that, although 47%-80% of children with atopic dermatitis and 33%-90% of adults with atopic dermatitis have disturbed sleep, “literature on this topic remains sparse with most studies evaluating sleep as a secondary outcome using subjective measures.” They further note that sleep is one of the three most problematic symptoms for children with atopic dermatitis and their families. 

 

Characterizing the Sleep Loss

Difficulty falling asleep, frequent and long waking, and excessive daytime sleepiness are the most common symptoms reported. In the few sleep laboratory studies that have been done there has been no significant decrease in sleep duration, which is a bit of a surprise. However, as expected, sleep-onset latency, more wake time after sleep onset, sleep fragmentation, and decreased sleep efficiency have been observed in the atopic dermatitis patients. In other studies of younger children, female gender and lower socioeconomic status seem to be associated with poor sleep quality.

Most studies found that in general the prevalence and severity of sleep disturbances increases with the severity of the disease. As the disease flares, increased bedtime resistance, nocturnal wakings and daytime sleepiness become more likely. These parentally reported associations have also been confirmed by sleep laboratory observations. 

The sleep disturbances quickly become a family affair with 60% of siblings and parents reporting disturbed sleep. When the child with atopic dermatitis is having a flareup, nearly 90% of their parents report losing up to 2.5 hours of sleep. Not surprisingly sleep disturbances have been associated with behavioral and emotional problems including decreased happiness, poor cognitive performance, hyperactivity, and inattention. Mothers seem to bear the brunt of the problem and interpersonal conflicts and exhaustion are unfortunately not uncommon.

 

Probing the Causes

So why are atopic dermatitis patients and their families so prone to the ill effects of disturbed sleep? Although you might think it should be obvious, this review of the “sparse” literature doesn’t provide a satisfying answer. However, the authors provide three possible explanations.

The one with the least supporting evidence is circadian variations in the products of inflammation such as cytokines and their effect on melatonin production. The explanation which I think most of us have already considered is that pruritus disrupts sleep. This is the often-quoted itch-scratch feedback cycle which can release inflammatory mediators (“pruritogens”). However, the investigators have found that many studies report “conflicting results or only weak correlations.”

The third alternative posed by the authors is by far the most appealing and hinges on the assumption that, as with many other chronic conditions, atopic dermatitis renders the patient vulnerable to insomnia. “Nocturnal scratching disrupts sleep and sets the stage for cognitive and behavioral factors that reinforce insomnia as a conditioned response.” In other words, even after the “co-concurring condition” resolves insomnia related sleep behaviors continue. The investigators point to a study supporting this explanation which found that, even after a child’s skin cleared, his/her sleep arousals failed to return to normal suggesting that learned behavior patterns might be playing a role.

It may be a stretch to suggest that poor sleep hygiene might in and of itself cause atopic dermatitis, but it can’t be ruled out. At a minimum the current research suggests that there is a bidirectional relationship between sleep disturbances and atopic dermatitis. 

 

Next Steps

The authors of this study urge that we be more creative in using already-existing portable and relatively low-cost sleep monitoring technology to better define this relationship. While that is a worthwhile avenue for research, I think we who see children (both primary care providers and dermatologists) now have enough evidence to move managing the sleep hygiene of our atopic dermatitis patients to the front burner, along with moisturizers and topical medications, without needing to do costly and time-consuming studies.

This means taking a thorough sleep history. If, in the rare cases where the child’s sleep habits are normal, the parents should be warned that falling off the sleep wagon is likely to exacerbate the child’s skin. If the history reveals an inefficient and dysfunctional bedtime routine or other symptoms of insomnia, advise the parents on how it can be improved. Then follow up at each visit if there has been no improvement. Sleep management can be time-consuming as well but it should be part of every primary care pediatrician’s toolbox. For the dermatologist who doesn’t feel comfortable managing sleep problems, a consultation with a pediatrician or a sleep specialist is in order.

The adult with atopic dermatitis is a somewhat different animal and a formal sleep study may be indicated. Cognitive-behavioral therapy might be helpful for adult population but the investigators could find no trials of its use in patients with atopic dermatitis.

Convincing the parents of an atopic dermatitis patient that their family’s disturbed sleep may not only be the result of his/her itchy skin but may be a preexisting compounding problem may not be an easy sell. I hope if you can be open to the strong possibility that disordered sleep is not just the effect but in some ways may be a likely contributor to your patients’ atopic dermatitis, you may become more effective in managing the disease.

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.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].

Recently one of my keep-up-to-date apps alerted me to a study in Pediatric Dermatology on sleep and atopic dermatitis. When I chased down the abstract it was a shoulder-shrugging-so-what encounter. The authors reported that having a child with atopic dermatitis decreased the odds of a parent getting 7 hours of sleep a night and increased the odds that the parent was also taking sleep-aiding medications. The authors felt their data was meaningful enough to publish based on the size and the cross-sectional nature of their sample. However, anyone who has worked with families with atopic dermatitis shouldn’t be surprised at their findings.

Curious about what other investigators had discovered about the anecdotally obvious relationship between sleep and atopic dermatitis, I dug until I found a rather thorough discussion of the literature published in The Journal of Clinical Immunology Practice. These authors from the University of Rochester Medical School in New York begin by pointing out that, although 47%-80% of children with atopic dermatitis and 33%-90% of adults with atopic dermatitis have disturbed sleep, “literature on this topic remains sparse with most studies evaluating sleep as a secondary outcome using subjective measures.” They further note that sleep is one of the three most problematic symptoms for children with atopic dermatitis and their families. 

 

Characterizing the Sleep Loss

Difficulty falling asleep, frequent and long waking, and excessive daytime sleepiness are the most common symptoms reported. In the few sleep laboratory studies that have been done there has been no significant decrease in sleep duration, which is a bit of a surprise. However, as expected, sleep-onset latency, more wake time after sleep onset, sleep fragmentation, and decreased sleep efficiency have been observed in the atopic dermatitis patients. In other studies of younger children, female gender and lower socioeconomic status seem to be associated with poor sleep quality.

Most studies found that in general the prevalence and severity of sleep disturbances increases with the severity of the disease. As the disease flares, increased bedtime resistance, nocturnal wakings and daytime sleepiness become more likely. These parentally reported associations have also been confirmed by sleep laboratory observations. 

The sleep disturbances quickly become a family affair with 60% of siblings and parents reporting disturbed sleep. When the child with atopic dermatitis is having a flareup, nearly 90% of their parents report losing up to 2.5 hours of sleep. Not surprisingly sleep disturbances have been associated with behavioral and emotional problems including decreased happiness, poor cognitive performance, hyperactivity, and inattention. Mothers seem to bear the brunt of the problem and interpersonal conflicts and exhaustion are unfortunately not uncommon.

 

Probing the Causes

So why are atopic dermatitis patients and their families so prone to the ill effects of disturbed sleep? Although you might think it should be obvious, this review of the “sparse” literature doesn’t provide a satisfying answer. However, the authors provide three possible explanations.

The one with the least supporting evidence is circadian variations in the products of inflammation such as cytokines and their effect on melatonin production. The explanation which I think most of us have already considered is that pruritus disrupts sleep. This is the often-quoted itch-scratch feedback cycle which can release inflammatory mediators (“pruritogens”). However, the investigators have found that many studies report “conflicting results or only weak correlations.”

The third alternative posed by the authors is by far the most appealing and hinges on the assumption that, as with many other chronic conditions, atopic dermatitis renders the patient vulnerable to insomnia. “Nocturnal scratching disrupts sleep and sets the stage for cognitive and behavioral factors that reinforce insomnia as a conditioned response.” In other words, even after the “co-concurring condition” resolves insomnia related sleep behaviors continue. The investigators point to a study supporting this explanation which found that, even after a child’s skin cleared, his/her sleep arousals failed to return to normal suggesting that learned behavior patterns might be playing a role.

It may be a stretch to suggest that poor sleep hygiene might in and of itself cause atopic dermatitis, but it can’t be ruled out. At a minimum the current research suggests that there is a bidirectional relationship between sleep disturbances and atopic dermatitis. 

 

Next Steps

The authors of this study urge that we be more creative in using already-existing portable and relatively low-cost sleep monitoring technology to better define this relationship. While that is a worthwhile avenue for research, I think we who see children (both primary care providers and dermatologists) now have enough evidence to move managing the sleep hygiene of our atopic dermatitis patients to the front burner, along with moisturizers and topical medications, without needing to do costly and time-consuming studies.

This means taking a thorough sleep history. If, in the rare cases where the child’s sleep habits are normal, the parents should be warned that falling off the sleep wagon is likely to exacerbate the child’s skin. If the history reveals an inefficient and dysfunctional bedtime routine or other symptoms of insomnia, advise the parents on how it can be improved. Then follow up at each visit if there has been no improvement. Sleep management can be time-consuming as well but it should be part of every primary care pediatrician’s toolbox. For the dermatologist who doesn’t feel comfortable managing sleep problems, a consultation with a pediatrician or a sleep specialist is in order.

The adult with atopic dermatitis is a somewhat different animal and a formal sleep study may be indicated. Cognitive-behavioral therapy might be helpful for adult population but the investigators could find no trials of its use in patients with atopic dermatitis.

Convincing the parents of an atopic dermatitis patient that their family’s disturbed sleep may not only be the result of his/her itchy skin but may be a preexisting compounding problem may not be an easy sell. I hope if you can be open to the strong possibility that disordered sleep is not just the effect but in some ways may be a likely contributor to your patients’ atopic dermatitis, you may become more effective in managing the disease.

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.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].

Recently one of my keep-up-to-date apps alerted me to a study in Pediatric Dermatology on sleep and atopic dermatitis. When I chased down the abstract it was a shoulder-shrugging-so-what encounter. The authors reported that having a child with atopic dermatitis decreased the odds of a parent getting 7 hours of sleep a night and increased the odds that the parent was also taking sleep-aiding medications. The authors felt their data was meaningful enough to publish based on the size and the cross-sectional nature of their sample. However, anyone who has worked with families with atopic dermatitis shouldn’t be surprised at their findings.

Curious about what other investigators had discovered about the anecdotally obvious relationship between sleep and atopic dermatitis, I dug until I found a rather thorough discussion of the literature published in The Journal of Clinical Immunology Practice. These authors from the University of Rochester Medical School in New York begin by pointing out that, although 47%-80% of children with atopic dermatitis and 33%-90% of adults with atopic dermatitis have disturbed sleep, “literature on this topic remains sparse with most studies evaluating sleep as a secondary outcome using subjective measures.” They further note that sleep is one of the three most problematic symptoms for children with atopic dermatitis and their families. 

 

Characterizing the Sleep Loss

Difficulty falling asleep, frequent and long waking, and excessive daytime sleepiness are the most common symptoms reported. In the few sleep laboratory studies that have been done there has been no significant decrease in sleep duration, which is a bit of a surprise. However, as expected, sleep-onset latency, more wake time after sleep onset, sleep fragmentation, and decreased sleep efficiency have been observed in the atopic dermatitis patients. In other studies of younger children, female gender and lower socioeconomic status seem to be associated with poor sleep quality.

Most studies found that in general the prevalence and severity of sleep disturbances increases with the severity of the disease. As the disease flares, increased bedtime resistance, nocturnal wakings and daytime sleepiness become more likely. These parentally reported associations have also been confirmed by sleep laboratory observations. 

The sleep disturbances quickly become a family affair with 60% of siblings and parents reporting disturbed sleep. When the child with atopic dermatitis is having a flareup, nearly 90% of their parents report losing up to 2.5 hours of sleep. Not surprisingly sleep disturbances have been associated with behavioral and emotional problems including decreased happiness, poor cognitive performance, hyperactivity, and inattention. Mothers seem to bear the brunt of the problem and interpersonal conflicts and exhaustion are unfortunately not uncommon.

 

Probing the Causes

So why are atopic dermatitis patients and their families so prone to the ill effects of disturbed sleep? Although you might think it should be obvious, this review of the “sparse” literature doesn’t provide a satisfying answer. However, the authors provide three possible explanations.

The one with the least supporting evidence is circadian variations in the products of inflammation such as cytokines and their effect on melatonin production. The explanation which I think most of us have already considered is that pruritus disrupts sleep. This is the often-quoted itch-scratch feedback cycle which can release inflammatory mediators (“pruritogens”). However, the investigators have found that many studies report “conflicting results or only weak correlations.”

The third alternative posed by the authors is by far the most appealing and hinges on the assumption that, as with many other chronic conditions, atopic dermatitis renders the patient vulnerable to insomnia. “Nocturnal scratching disrupts sleep and sets the stage for cognitive and behavioral factors that reinforce insomnia as a conditioned response.” In other words, even after the “co-concurring condition” resolves insomnia related sleep behaviors continue. The investigators point to a study supporting this explanation which found that, even after a child’s skin cleared, his/her sleep arousals failed to return to normal suggesting that learned behavior patterns might be playing a role.

It may be a stretch to suggest that poor sleep hygiene might in and of itself cause atopic dermatitis, but it can’t be ruled out. At a minimum the current research suggests that there is a bidirectional relationship between sleep disturbances and atopic dermatitis. 

 

Next Steps

The authors of this study urge that we be more creative in using already-existing portable and relatively low-cost sleep monitoring technology to better define this relationship. While that is a worthwhile avenue for research, I think we who see children (both primary care providers and dermatologists) now have enough evidence to move managing the sleep hygiene of our atopic dermatitis patients to the front burner, along with moisturizers and topical medications, without needing to do costly and time-consuming studies.

This means taking a thorough sleep history. If, in the rare cases where the child’s sleep habits are normal, the parents should be warned that falling off the sleep wagon is likely to exacerbate the child’s skin. If the history reveals an inefficient and dysfunctional bedtime routine or other symptoms of insomnia, advise the parents on how it can be improved. Then follow up at each visit if there has been no improvement. Sleep management can be time-consuming as well but it should be part of every primary care pediatrician’s toolbox. For the dermatologist who doesn’t feel comfortable managing sleep problems, a consultation with a pediatrician or a sleep specialist is in order.

The adult with atopic dermatitis is a somewhat different animal and a formal sleep study may be indicated. Cognitive-behavioral therapy might be helpful for adult population but the investigators could find no trials of its use in patients with atopic dermatitis.

Convincing the parents of an atopic dermatitis patient that their family’s disturbed sleep may not only be the result of his/her itchy skin but may be a preexisting compounding problem may not be an easy sell. I hope if you can be open to the strong possibility that disordered sleep is not just the effect but in some ways may be a likely contributor to your patients’ atopic dermatitis, you may become more effective in managing the disease.

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.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].

Children who were severely ill with multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) related to COVID-19 infection appear to show excellent cardiovascular and noncardiovascular outcomes by 6 months, according to data published in JAMA Pediatrics.

MIS-C is a life-threatening complication of COVID-19 infection and data on outcomes are limited, wrote the authors, led by Dongngan T. Truong, MD, MSSI, with Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta Cardiology, Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta, Georgia. These 6-month results are from the Long-Term Outcomes After the Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome in Children (MUSIC) study, sponsored by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.

Researchers found in this cohort study of 1204 participants that by 6 months after hospital discharge, 99% had normalization of left ventricular systolic function, and 92.3% had normalized coronary artery dimensions. More than 95% reported being more than 90% back to baseline health.

Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information Systems (PROMIS) Global Health scores were at least equivalent to prepandemic population normative values. PROMIS Global Health parent/guardian proxy median T scores for fatigue, global health, and pain interference improved significantly from 2 weeks to 6 months: fatigue, 56.1 vs 48.9; global health, 48.8 vs 51.3; pain interference, 53.0 vs 43.3 (P < .001).

The most common symptoms reported at 2 weeks were fatigue (15.9%) and low stamina/energy (9.2%); both decreased to 3.4% and 3.3%, respectively, by 6 months. The most common cardiovascular symptom at 2 weeks was palpitations (1.5%), which decreased to 0.6%.

 

Chest Pain Increased Over Time

Reports of chest pain, however, reportedly increased over time, with 1.3% reporting chest pain at rest at 2 weeks and 2.2% at 6 months. Although gastrointestinal symptoms were common during the acute MIS-C, only 5.3% of respondents reported those symptoms at 2 weeks.

Children in the cohort had a median age of 9 years, and 60% were men. They self-identified with the following races and ethnicities: American Indian or Alaska Native (0.1%), Asian (3.3%), Black (27.0%), Hawaiian Native or Other Pacific Islander (0.2%), Hispanic or Latino (26.9%), multiracial (2.7%), White (31.2%), other (1.0%), and unknown or refused to specify (7.6%). Authors wrote that the cohort was followed-up to 2 years after illness onset and long-term results are not yet known.

 

Time to Exhale

David J. Goldberg, MD, with the Cardiac Center, Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and colleagues, wrote in an accompanying editorial that “the decreased frequency of the disease along (with) the reassuring reports on midterm outcomes can allow the pediatric community a moment of collective exhale.”

The editorialists note that of those who initially presented with myocardial dysfunction, all but one patient evaluated had a normal ejection fraction at follow-up. Energy, sleep, appetite, cognition, and mood also normalized by midterm.

“The results of the MUSIC study add to the emerging midterm outcomes data suggesting a near-complete cardiovascular recovery in the overwhelming majority of patients who develop MIS-C,” Goldberg and colleagues wrote. “Despite initial concerns, driven by the severity of acute presentation at diagnosis and longer-term questions that remain (for example, does coronary microvascular dysfunction persist even after normalization of coronary artery z score?), these data suggest an encouraging outlook for the long-term health of affected children.”

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and other agencies have reported a declining overall incidence of MIS-C and highlighted the protective value of vaccination. 

The editorialists add, however, that while the drop in MIS-C cases is encouraging, cases are still reported, especially amid high viral activity periods, “and nearly half of affected children continue to require intensive care in the acute phase of illness.”

Truong reported grants from the National Institutes of Health and serving as coprincipal investigator for Pfizer for research on COVID-19 vaccine-associated myocarditis funded by Pfizer and occurring through the framework of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute’s Pediatric Heart Network outside the submitted work. One coauthor reported grants from Pfizer and Boston Scientific outside the submitted work. One coauthor reported receiving grants from Additional Ventures Foundation outside the submitted work. One coauthor reported receiving consultant fees from Amryt Pharma, Chiesi, Esperion, and Ultragenyx outside the submitted work. A coauthor reported receiving consultant fees from Larimar Therapeutics for mitochondrial therapies outside the submitted work. One coauthor reported being an employee of Takeda Pharmaceuticals since July 2023. One editorialist reported grants from Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance and the Arthritis Foundation, Academy Health, and the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation during the conduct of the study.

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

Children who were severely ill with multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) related to COVID-19 infection appear to show excellent cardiovascular and noncardiovascular outcomes by 6 months, according to data published in JAMA Pediatrics.

MIS-C is a life-threatening complication of COVID-19 infection and data on outcomes are limited, wrote the authors, led by Dongngan T. Truong, MD, MSSI, with Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta Cardiology, Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta, Georgia. These 6-month results are from the Long-Term Outcomes After the Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome in Children (MUSIC) study, sponsored by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.

Researchers found in this cohort study of 1204 participants that by 6 months after hospital discharge, 99% had normalization of left ventricular systolic function, and 92.3% had normalized coronary artery dimensions. More than 95% reported being more than 90% back to baseline health.

Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information Systems (PROMIS) Global Health scores were at least equivalent to prepandemic population normative values. PROMIS Global Health parent/guardian proxy median T scores for fatigue, global health, and pain interference improved significantly from 2 weeks to 6 months: fatigue, 56.1 vs 48.9; global health, 48.8 vs 51.3; pain interference, 53.0 vs 43.3 (P < .001).

The most common symptoms reported at 2 weeks were fatigue (15.9%) and low stamina/energy (9.2%); both decreased to 3.4% and 3.3%, respectively, by 6 months. The most common cardiovascular symptom at 2 weeks was palpitations (1.5%), which decreased to 0.6%.

 

Chest Pain Increased Over Time

Reports of chest pain, however, reportedly increased over time, with 1.3% reporting chest pain at rest at 2 weeks and 2.2% at 6 months. Although gastrointestinal symptoms were common during the acute MIS-C, only 5.3% of respondents reported those symptoms at 2 weeks.

Children in the cohort had a median age of 9 years, and 60% were men. They self-identified with the following races and ethnicities: American Indian or Alaska Native (0.1%), Asian (3.3%), Black (27.0%), Hawaiian Native or Other Pacific Islander (0.2%), Hispanic or Latino (26.9%), multiracial (2.7%), White (31.2%), other (1.0%), and unknown or refused to specify (7.6%). Authors wrote that the cohort was followed-up to 2 years after illness onset and long-term results are not yet known.

 

Time to Exhale

David J. Goldberg, MD, with the Cardiac Center, Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and colleagues, wrote in an accompanying editorial that “the decreased frequency of the disease along (with) the reassuring reports on midterm outcomes can allow the pediatric community a moment of collective exhale.”

The editorialists note that of those who initially presented with myocardial dysfunction, all but one patient evaluated had a normal ejection fraction at follow-up. Energy, sleep, appetite, cognition, and mood also normalized by midterm.

“The results of the MUSIC study add to the emerging midterm outcomes data suggesting a near-complete cardiovascular recovery in the overwhelming majority of patients who develop MIS-C,” Goldberg and colleagues wrote. “Despite initial concerns, driven by the severity of acute presentation at diagnosis and longer-term questions that remain (for example, does coronary microvascular dysfunction persist even after normalization of coronary artery z score?), these data suggest an encouraging outlook for the long-term health of affected children.”

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and other agencies have reported a declining overall incidence of MIS-C and highlighted the protective value of vaccination. 

The editorialists add, however, that while the drop in MIS-C cases is encouraging, cases are still reported, especially amid high viral activity periods, “and nearly half of affected children continue to require intensive care in the acute phase of illness.”

Truong reported grants from the National Institutes of Health and serving as coprincipal investigator for Pfizer for research on COVID-19 vaccine-associated myocarditis funded by Pfizer and occurring through the framework of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute’s Pediatric Heart Network outside the submitted work. One coauthor reported grants from Pfizer and Boston Scientific outside the submitted work. One coauthor reported receiving grants from Additional Ventures Foundation outside the submitted work. One coauthor reported receiving consultant fees from Amryt Pharma, Chiesi, Esperion, and Ultragenyx outside the submitted work. A coauthor reported receiving consultant fees from Larimar Therapeutics for mitochondrial therapies outside the submitted work. One coauthor reported being an employee of Takeda Pharmaceuticals since July 2023. One editorialist reported grants from Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance and the Arthritis Foundation, Academy Health, and the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation during the conduct of the study.

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

Children who were severely ill with multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) related to COVID-19 infection appear to show excellent cardiovascular and noncardiovascular outcomes by 6 months, according to data published in JAMA Pediatrics.

MIS-C is a life-threatening complication of COVID-19 infection and data on outcomes are limited, wrote the authors, led by Dongngan T. Truong, MD, MSSI, with Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta Cardiology, Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta, Georgia. These 6-month results are from the Long-Term Outcomes After the Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome in Children (MUSIC) study, sponsored by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.

Researchers found in this cohort study of 1204 participants that by 6 months after hospital discharge, 99% had normalization of left ventricular systolic function, and 92.3% had normalized coronary artery dimensions. More than 95% reported being more than 90% back to baseline health.

Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information Systems (PROMIS) Global Health scores were at least equivalent to prepandemic population normative values. PROMIS Global Health parent/guardian proxy median T scores for fatigue, global health, and pain interference improved significantly from 2 weeks to 6 months: fatigue, 56.1 vs 48.9; global health, 48.8 vs 51.3; pain interference, 53.0 vs 43.3 (P < .001).

The most common symptoms reported at 2 weeks were fatigue (15.9%) and low stamina/energy (9.2%); both decreased to 3.4% and 3.3%, respectively, by 6 months. The most common cardiovascular symptom at 2 weeks was palpitations (1.5%), which decreased to 0.6%.

 

Chest Pain Increased Over Time

Reports of chest pain, however, reportedly increased over time, with 1.3% reporting chest pain at rest at 2 weeks and 2.2% at 6 months. Although gastrointestinal symptoms were common during the acute MIS-C, only 5.3% of respondents reported those symptoms at 2 weeks.

Children in the cohort had a median age of 9 years, and 60% were men. They self-identified with the following races and ethnicities: American Indian or Alaska Native (0.1%), Asian (3.3%), Black (27.0%), Hawaiian Native or Other Pacific Islander (0.2%), Hispanic or Latino (26.9%), multiracial (2.7%), White (31.2%), other (1.0%), and unknown or refused to specify (7.6%). Authors wrote that the cohort was followed-up to 2 years after illness onset and long-term results are not yet known.

 

Time to Exhale

David J. Goldberg, MD, with the Cardiac Center, Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and colleagues, wrote in an accompanying editorial that “the decreased frequency of the disease along (with) the reassuring reports on midterm outcomes can allow the pediatric community a moment of collective exhale.”

The editorialists note that of those who initially presented with myocardial dysfunction, all but one patient evaluated had a normal ejection fraction at follow-up. Energy, sleep, appetite, cognition, and mood also normalized by midterm.

“The results of the MUSIC study add to the emerging midterm outcomes data suggesting a near-complete cardiovascular recovery in the overwhelming majority of patients who develop MIS-C,” Goldberg and colleagues wrote. “Despite initial concerns, driven by the severity of acute presentation at diagnosis and longer-term questions that remain (for example, does coronary microvascular dysfunction persist even after normalization of coronary artery z score?), these data suggest an encouraging outlook for the long-term health of affected children.”

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and other agencies have reported a declining overall incidence of MIS-C and highlighted the protective value of vaccination. 

The editorialists add, however, that while the drop in MIS-C cases is encouraging, cases are still reported, especially amid high viral activity periods, “and nearly half of affected children continue to require intensive care in the acute phase of illness.”

Truong reported grants from the National Institutes of Health and serving as coprincipal investigator for Pfizer for research on COVID-19 vaccine-associated myocarditis funded by Pfizer and occurring through the framework of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute’s Pediatric Heart Network outside the submitted work. One coauthor reported grants from Pfizer and Boston Scientific outside the submitted work. One coauthor reported receiving grants from Additional Ventures Foundation outside the submitted work. One coauthor reported receiving consultant fees from Amryt Pharma, Chiesi, Esperion, and Ultragenyx outside the submitted work. A coauthor reported receiving consultant fees from Larimar Therapeutics for mitochondrial therapies outside the submitted work. One coauthor reported being an employee of Takeda Pharmaceuticals since July 2023. One editorialist reported grants from Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance and the Arthritis Foundation, Academy Health, and the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation during the conduct of the study.

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

It is no secret that we have a daycare problem in this country. Twenty percent of families spend more than $36,000 for child care annually. Three quarters of a single parent’s income is spent on infant care. The result is that more than $122 billion is syphoned out of our economy in lost productivity and income.

How we got into this situation is less clear. Women who once were stay-at-home moms have moved into the workplace. Families are more mobile and grandparents who had been a source of childcare may live hours away. And, when they are nearby grandparents may themselves been forced to remain employed for economic reasons.

 

Despite the increase demand the market has failed to respond with more daycare providers because with a median hourly wage of less than $15.00 it is difficult to attract applicants from a pool of potential employees that is already in great demand.

And, let’s be honest, long hours cooped up inside with infants and toddlers isn’t the right job for everyone. For the most successful, although maybe not financially, providing daycare is truly a labor of love. There are high school and community college courses taught on child development and day care management. Experienced providers can be a source of tips-of-the trade to those just starting out. But, when there are three infants crying, two diapers to be changed, and a toddler heading toward a tantrum, two experienced providers may not be enough to calm the turbulent waters. 

A recent article in my local newspaper provided stark evidence of how serious our daycare situation has become. Although the daycare owner denies the allegation, the Department of Health and Human Service told the parents that the investigation currently supports their complaints that the children had been given melatonin gummies without their permission. Final action is pending but it is likely the daycare will lose its license. Not surprisingly the parents have already removed their children.

Curious about whether this situation was an isolated event, it didn’t take Google too long to find evidence of other daycares in which children had been given sleep-related medications without their parents’ permission. In May 2024 a daycare provider and three of her employees in Manchester, New Hampshire, were arrested and charged with endangering the welfare of a child after allegedly spiking their charges food with melatonin. Lest you think drugging infants in daycare is just a New England thing, my research found a news story dating back to 2003 that reported on several cases in which daycare providers had been administering diphenhydramine without parents permission. In one instance there was a fatal outcome. While melatonin does not pose a health risk on a par with diphenhydramine, the issue is the fact that the parents were not consulted.

I suspect that these two incidents in Maine and New Hampshire are not isolated events and melatonin has replaced diphenhydramine as the daycare provider’s “little helper” nationwide. It’s not clear how we as pediatricians can help police this practice, other than suggesting to parents that they initiate dialogues about napping strategies with their daycare providers. Not with an accusatory tone but more of a sharing about what tricks each party uses to make napping happen. It may be that the daycare provider has some valuable and sound advice that the parents can adapt to their home situation. However, if the daycare provider’s explanation for why the child naps well doesn’t sound right or the child is unusually drowsy after daycare visits they should share their concerns with us a pediatric health care advisors. 

 

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.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].

It is no secret that we have a daycare problem in this country. Twenty percent of families spend more than $36,000 for child care annually. Three quarters of a single parent’s income is spent on infant care. The result is that more than $122 billion is syphoned out of our economy in lost productivity and income.

How we got into this situation is less clear. Women who once were stay-at-home moms have moved into the workplace. Families are more mobile and grandparents who had been a source of childcare may live hours away. And, when they are nearby grandparents may themselves been forced to remain employed for economic reasons.

 

Despite the increase demand the market has failed to respond with more daycare providers because with a median hourly wage of less than $15.00 it is difficult to attract applicants from a pool of potential employees that is already in great demand.

And, let’s be honest, long hours cooped up inside with infants and toddlers isn’t the right job for everyone. For the most successful, although maybe not financially, providing daycare is truly a labor of love. There are high school and community college courses taught on child development and day care management. Experienced providers can be a source of tips-of-the trade to those just starting out. But, when there are three infants crying, two diapers to be changed, and a toddler heading toward a tantrum, two experienced providers may not be enough to calm the turbulent waters. 

A recent article in my local newspaper provided stark evidence of how serious our daycare situation has become. Although the daycare owner denies the allegation, the Department of Health and Human Service told the parents that the investigation currently supports their complaints that the children had been given melatonin gummies without their permission. Final action is pending but it is likely the daycare will lose its license. Not surprisingly the parents have already removed their children.

Curious about whether this situation was an isolated event, it didn’t take Google too long to find evidence of other daycares in which children had been given sleep-related medications without their parents’ permission. In May 2024 a daycare provider and three of her employees in Manchester, New Hampshire, were arrested and charged with endangering the welfare of a child after allegedly spiking their charges food with melatonin. Lest you think drugging infants in daycare is just a New England thing, my research found a news story dating back to 2003 that reported on several cases in which daycare providers had been administering diphenhydramine without parents permission. In one instance there was a fatal outcome. While melatonin does not pose a health risk on a par with diphenhydramine, the issue is the fact that the parents were not consulted.

I suspect that these two incidents in Maine and New Hampshire are not isolated events and melatonin has replaced diphenhydramine as the daycare provider’s “little helper” nationwide. It’s not clear how we as pediatricians can help police this practice, other than suggesting to parents that they initiate dialogues about napping strategies with their daycare providers. Not with an accusatory tone but more of a sharing about what tricks each party uses to make napping happen. It may be that the daycare provider has some valuable and sound advice that the parents can adapt to their home situation. However, if the daycare provider’s explanation for why the child naps well doesn’t sound right or the child is unusually drowsy after daycare visits they should share their concerns with us a pediatric health care advisors. 

 

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.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].

It is no secret that we have a daycare problem in this country. Twenty percent of families spend more than $36,000 for child care annually. Three quarters of a single parent’s income is spent on infant care. The result is that more than $122 billion is syphoned out of our economy in lost productivity and income.

How we got into this situation is less clear. Women who once were stay-at-home moms have moved into the workplace. Families are more mobile and grandparents who had been a source of childcare may live hours away. And, when they are nearby grandparents may themselves been forced to remain employed for economic reasons.

 

Despite the increase demand the market has failed to respond with more daycare providers because with a median hourly wage of less than $15.00 it is difficult to attract applicants from a pool of potential employees that is already in great demand.

And, let’s be honest, long hours cooped up inside with infants and toddlers isn’t the right job for everyone. For the most successful, although maybe not financially, providing daycare is truly a labor of love. There are high school and community college courses taught on child development and day care management. Experienced providers can be a source of tips-of-the trade to those just starting out. But, when there are three infants crying, two diapers to be changed, and a toddler heading toward a tantrum, two experienced providers may not be enough to calm the turbulent waters. 

A recent article in my local newspaper provided stark evidence of how serious our daycare situation has become. Although the daycare owner denies the allegation, the Department of Health and Human Service told the parents that the investigation currently supports their complaints that the children had been given melatonin gummies without their permission. Final action is pending but it is likely the daycare will lose its license. Not surprisingly the parents have already removed their children.

Curious about whether this situation was an isolated event, it didn’t take Google too long to find evidence of other daycares in which children had been given sleep-related medications without their parents’ permission. In May 2024 a daycare provider and three of her employees in Manchester, New Hampshire, were arrested and charged with endangering the welfare of a child after allegedly spiking their charges food with melatonin. Lest you think drugging infants in daycare is just a New England thing, my research found a news story dating back to 2003 that reported on several cases in which daycare providers had been administering diphenhydramine without parents permission. In one instance there was a fatal outcome. While melatonin does not pose a health risk on a par with diphenhydramine, the issue is the fact that the parents were not consulted.

I suspect that these two incidents in Maine and New Hampshire are not isolated events and melatonin has replaced diphenhydramine as the daycare provider’s “little helper” nationwide. It’s not clear how we as pediatricians can help police this practice, other than suggesting to parents that they initiate dialogues about napping strategies with their daycare providers. Not with an accusatory tone but more of a sharing about what tricks each party uses to make napping happen. It may be that the daycare provider has some valuable and sound advice that the parents can adapt to their home situation. However, if the daycare provider’s explanation for why the child naps well doesn’t sound right or the child is unusually drowsy after daycare visits they should share their concerns with us a pediatric health care advisors. 

 

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.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].

TOPLINE:

According to a secondary analysis of the 24-month Myopia Outcome Study of Atropine in Children (MOSAIC) trial, 0.05% atropine eye drops were more effective in controlling myopia progression and axial elongation than placebo eye drops in children despite causing blurred vision and photophobia in some participants.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a secondary analysis of the 3-year results of the MOSAIC trial to investigate the efficacy and safety of different atropine regimens in treatment-naive children aged 6-16 years with a spherical equivalent ≤ −0.50 diopters (D).
• They analyzed data of 199 children in Europe with myopia (mean age, 13.9 years; 60.8% girls) who were randomly assigned to either group 1 (nightly placebo for 2 years followed by 0.05% atropine eye drops for 1 year; n = 66) or group 2 (nightly 0.01% atropine eye drops for 2 years followed by another random assignment to nightly placebo, tapering placebo, or tapering of 0.01% atropine eye drops for 1 year; n = 133).
• The nightly and tapered placebo groups were combined as a single treatment group for the sake of analysis.
• The primary outcome measures included observed changes in the progression of myopia, assessed using cycloplegic spherical equivalent refraction and axial length from month 24 to month 36.

TAKEAWAY:

• Children in the 0.01% atropine then placebo groups showed greater spherical equivalent progression (adjusted difference, –0.13 D; P = .01) and axial elongation (adjusted difference, 0.06 mm; P = .008) than those in the placebo then 0.05% atropine group.
• Children in the placebo then 0.05% atropine group also experienced less axial elongation (P = .04) than those in the 0.01% atropine then tapering 0.01% atropine group.
• Among participants using 0.05% atropine, 15% reported blurred near vision and 8% reported photophobia, whereas 3% reported blurred near vision and 0% reported photophobia in the 0.01% atropine then tapering 0.01% atropine group.
• Despite experiencing adverse events, no participants in the placebo then 0.05% atropine group discontinued treatment, with 92% completing the 36-month visit and 81% adhering to the treatment regimen.

IN PRACTICE:

“Recognizing a 2-year delay in treatment initiation in the group of children originally assigned to placebo, 0.05% atropine eyedrops slowed both myopia progression and axial eye growth over the course of a 1-year period,” the authors of the study wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by James Loughman, PhD, of the Centre for Eye Research Ireland, Dublin. It was published online in JAMA Ophthalmology.

LIMITATIONS:

Limitations included smaller sample sizes across treatment groups in year 3 and potential carry-over effects for participants transitioning from 0.01% atropine to placebo or tapered dosing. Because the study lacked an untreated control group, rebound myopia progression could be measured based only on the expected third-year results from the 0.01% atropine then placebo groups. The age of participants during the third year may have affected the ability to detect rebound progression.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported partly by a grant from the Health Research Board; Fighting Blindness, Ireland; and Vyluma. Some authors reported receiving grants, nonfinancial support, or consultant fees or having several other ties with Vyluma and other sources.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including artificial intelligence, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

According to a secondary analysis of the 24-month Myopia Outcome Study of Atropine in Children (MOSAIC) trial, 0.05% atropine eye drops were more effective in controlling myopia progression and axial elongation than placebo eye drops in children despite causing blurred vision and photophobia in some participants.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a secondary analysis of the 3-year results of the MOSAIC trial to investigate the efficacy and safety of different atropine regimens in treatment-naive children aged 6-16 years with a spherical equivalent ≤ −0.50 diopters (D).
• They analyzed data of 199 children in Europe with myopia (mean age, 13.9 years; 60.8% girls) who were randomly assigned to either group 1 (nightly placebo for 2 years followed by 0.05% atropine eye drops for 1 year; n = 66) or group 2 (nightly 0.01% atropine eye drops for 2 years followed by another random assignment to nightly placebo, tapering placebo, or tapering of 0.01% atropine eye drops for 1 year; n = 133).
• The nightly and tapered placebo groups were combined as a single treatment group for the sake of analysis.
• The primary outcome measures included observed changes in the progression of myopia, assessed using cycloplegic spherical equivalent refraction and axial length from month 24 to month 36.

TAKEAWAY:

• Children in the 0.01% atropine then placebo groups showed greater spherical equivalent progression (adjusted difference, –0.13 D; P = .01) and axial elongation (adjusted difference, 0.06 mm; P = .008) than those in the placebo then 0.05% atropine group.
• Children in the placebo then 0.05% atropine group also experienced less axial elongation (P = .04) than those in the 0.01% atropine then tapering 0.01% atropine group.
• Among participants using 0.05% atropine, 15% reported blurred near vision and 8% reported photophobia, whereas 3% reported blurred near vision and 0% reported photophobia in the 0.01% atropine then tapering 0.01% atropine group.
• Despite experiencing adverse events, no participants in the placebo then 0.05% atropine group discontinued treatment, with 92% completing the 36-month visit and 81% adhering to the treatment regimen.

IN PRACTICE:

“Recognizing a 2-year delay in treatment initiation in the group of children originally assigned to placebo, 0.05% atropine eyedrops slowed both myopia progression and axial eye growth over the course of a 1-year period,” the authors of the study wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by James Loughman, PhD, of the Centre for Eye Research Ireland, Dublin. It was published online in JAMA Ophthalmology.

LIMITATIONS:

Limitations included smaller sample sizes across treatment groups in year 3 and potential carry-over effects for participants transitioning from 0.01% atropine to placebo or tapered dosing. Because the study lacked an untreated control group, rebound myopia progression could be measured based only on the expected third-year results from the 0.01% atropine then placebo groups. The age of participants during the third year may have affected the ability to detect rebound progression.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported partly by a grant from the Health Research Board; Fighting Blindness, Ireland; and Vyluma. Some authors reported receiving grants, nonfinancial support, or consultant fees or having several other ties with Vyluma and other sources.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including artificial intelligence, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

According to a secondary analysis of the 24-month Myopia Outcome Study of Atropine in Children (MOSAIC) trial, 0.05% atropine eye drops were more effective in controlling myopia progression and axial elongation than placebo eye drops in children despite causing blurred vision and photophobia in some participants.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a secondary analysis of the 3-year results of the MOSAIC trial to investigate the efficacy and safety of different atropine regimens in treatment-naive children aged 6-16 years with a spherical equivalent ≤ −0.50 diopters (D).
• They analyzed data of 199 children in Europe with myopia (mean age, 13.9 years; 60.8% girls) who were randomly assigned to either group 1 (nightly placebo for 2 years followed by 0.05% atropine eye drops for 1 year; n = 66) or group 2 (nightly 0.01% atropine eye drops for 2 years followed by another random assignment to nightly placebo, tapering placebo, or tapering of 0.01% atropine eye drops for 1 year; n = 133).
• The nightly and tapered placebo groups were combined as a single treatment group for the sake of analysis.
• The primary outcome measures included observed changes in the progression of myopia, assessed using cycloplegic spherical equivalent refraction and axial length from month 24 to month 36.

TAKEAWAY:

• Children in the 0.01% atropine then placebo groups showed greater spherical equivalent progression (adjusted difference, –0.13 D; P = .01) and axial elongation (adjusted difference, 0.06 mm; P = .008) than those in the placebo then 0.05% atropine group.
• Children in the placebo then 0.05% atropine group also experienced less axial elongation (P = .04) than those in the 0.01% atropine then tapering 0.01% atropine group.
• Among participants using 0.05% atropine, 15% reported blurred near vision and 8% reported photophobia, whereas 3% reported blurred near vision and 0% reported photophobia in the 0.01% atropine then tapering 0.01% atropine group.
• Despite experiencing adverse events, no participants in the placebo then 0.05% atropine group discontinued treatment, with 92% completing the 36-month visit and 81% adhering to the treatment regimen.

IN PRACTICE:

“Recognizing a 2-year delay in treatment initiation in the group of children originally assigned to placebo, 0.05% atropine eyedrops slowed both myopia progression and axial eye growth over the course of a 1-year period,” the authors of the study wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by James Loughman, PhD, of the Centre for Eye Research Ireland, Dublin. It was published online in JAMA Ophthalmology.

LIMITATIONS:

Limitations included smaller sample sizes across treatment groups in year 3 and potential carry-over effects for participants transitioning from 0.01% atropine to placebo or tapered dosing. Because the study lacked an untreated control group, rebound myopia progression could be measured based only on the expected third-year results from the 0.01% atropine then placebo groups. The age of participants during the third year may have affected the ability to detect rebound progression.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported partly by a grant from the Health Research Board; Fighting Blindness, Ireland; and Vyluma. Some authors reported receiving grants, nonfinancial support, or consultant fees or having several other ties with Vyluma and other sources.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including artificial intelligence, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The pediatrician’s first patient of the day was an 8-year-old boy, accompanied by both of his parents. It was the boy’s third visit in just over a week for fever and left-sided neck swelling, and the family was understandably anxious for answers.

“The antibiotics don’t seem to be working,” the mother explained. “He still has fever every day, as high as 104, and his neck looks just as swollen.”

A quick review of the chart revealed the boy’s initial diagnosis had been bacterial lymphadenitis, for which amoxicillin-clavulanate had been prescribed. Three days later, given lack of clinical improvement, therapy was transitioned to clindamycin. On examination, the boy was febrile and ill-appearing with a 3-cm by 5-cm tender, non-fluctuant swelling over the left sternocleidomastoid muscle. 

 

The pediatrician ran through a quick mental checklist of diagnostic possibilities for his patient’s continued symptoms. Staphylococcal lymphadenitis still seemed possible. Could the boy be infected with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus that was also clindamycin resistant? Alternately, perhaps the problem was “source control” and the boy had developed an occult neck abscess that needed to be drained. An ultrasound could help sort that out. Finally, the pediatrician considered less common bacterial causes of lymph node swelling and fever. He placed Bartonella henselae, the cause of cat scratch disease, near the top of his list. “I’ve never seen it,” he told the parents, “But we could also consider tularemia.”

Tularemia is a rare zoonotic infection caused by Francisella tularenis. On average, 200 cases of tularemia are reported in the United States each year, and the incidence of disease is increasing, according to a surveillance report released by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in December 2023.¹

Between 2011 and 2022, 2462 tularemia cases were reported in the United States. That translated to an average annual incidence of 0.064 per 100,000 population, an increase of 56% compared with 2001-2010. Forty-seven states reported at least one case of tularemia, although half of all reported cases came from four states — Arkansas (18%), Kansas (11%), Missouri (11%), and Oklahoma (10%). The incidence of tularemia was highest in children ages 5-9 years old, older men, and American Indian or Alaska Natives individuals. Although cases occurred year-round, 78% had symptom onset May through September. 

In the United States, most human cases of tularemia have been arthropod borne, transmitted by the bite of an infected tick or deer fly. Infection also can be spread through contact with infected animals or animal tissue, particularly rabbits, hares, muskrats, prairie dogs, and other rodents, including hamsters. Outbreaks of tularemia have occurred among pet store hamsters, and at least one child in the United States developed tularemia after being bitten by a pet hamster.

Tularemia is almost always associated with fever but other clinical manifestations vary by the type of exposure. Ulceroglandular disease occurs after a tick or deer fly bite or after handling an infected animal. An ulcer develops at the site where the bacteria entered the body, along with enlargement of regional lymph nodes. Less commonly, lymph node swelling can occur without the development of an ulcer. If the bacteria enter through the eye, symptoms include conjunctivitis and swelling of pre-auricular lymph nodes. Eating or drinking contaminated food or water is associated with sore throat, mouth ulcers, tonsillitis, and swelling of lymph glands in the neck. Pneumonic tularemia, the most serious form of the disease, typically happens after inhaling bacteria-containing dust or aerosols and is associated with cough, chest pain, and difficulty breathing. Pneumonic tularemia can develop if other forms of tularemia are untreated, and the bacteria spread to the lung.

Back in the exam room, the pediatrician carefully re-examined the boy’s scalp. A 1-cm poorly healing ulcer on the left occiput added support for the diagnosis of ulceroglandular tularemia, the most common form of the disease in children. Serologic testing ultimately confirmed the diagnosis and the boy’s symptoms resolved with treatment.

Gentamicin administered intravenously or intramuscularly is the drug of choice for the treatment of tularemia in children. Ciprofloxacin is considered an alternative but is not approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for this indication.

The pediatrician reported the case of tularemia to his local health department. Tularemia is a nationally notifiable disease in the United States; state health departments report to the CDC through the National Notifiable Diseases Surveillance System. In turn, public health authorities shared information to prevent tularemia. Steps to prevent tick and deer fly bites include the use of an Environmental Protection Agency–registered insect repellent. Individuals who hunt, trap, or skin animals are encouraged to wear gloves when handling animals —especially rabbits, muskrats, and prairie dogs — and cook game meat thoroughly. Tularemia can be inadvertently aerosolized if an infected animal or carcass is run over with a tractor or lawnmower. Checking for carcasses before mowing may reduce the risk.

 

Bryant is a pediatrician specializing in infectious diseases at the University of Louisville (Ky.) and Norton Children’s Hospital, also in Louisville. She is a member of the AAP’s Committee on Infectious Diseases and one of the lead authors of the AAP’s Recommendations for Prevention and Control of Influenza in Children, 2022-2023. The opinions expressed in this article are her own. Bryant discloses that she has served as an investigator on clinical trials funded by Pfizer, Enanta and Gilead. Email her at [email protected]. (Also [email protected].) 

Reference

1. Rich SN et al. Tularemia—United States, 2011-2022. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2025;73:1152–1156. doi: 

The pediatrician’s first patient of the day was an 8-year-old boy, accompanied by both of his parents. It was the boy’s third visit in just over a week for fever and left-sided neck swelling, and the family was understandably anxious for answers.

“The antibiotics don’t seem to be working,” the mother explained. “He still has fever every day, as high as 104, and his neck looks just as swollen.”

A quick review of the chart revealed the boy’s initial diagnosis had been bacterial lymphadenitis, for which amoxicillin-clavulanate had been prescribed. Three days later, given lack of clinical improvement, therapy was transitioned to clindamycin. On examination, the boy was febrile and ill-appearing with a 3-cm by 5-cm tender, non-fluctuant swelling over the left sternocleidomastoid muscle. 

 

The pediatrician ran through a quick mental checklist of diagnostic possibilities for his patient’s continued symptoms. Staphylococcal lymphadenitis still seemed possible. Could the boy be infected with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus that was also clindamycin resistant? Alternately, perhaps the problem was “source control” and the boy had developed an occult neck abscess that needed to be drained. An ultrasound could help sort that out. Finally, the pediatrician considered less common bacterial causes of lymph node swelling and fever. He placed Bartonella henselae, the cause of cat scratch disease, near the top of his list. “I’ve never seen it,” he told the parents, “But we could also consider tularemia.”

Tularemia is a rare zoonotic infection caused by Francisella tularenis. On average, 200 cases of tularemia are reported in the United States each year, and the incidence of disease is increasing, according to a surveillance report released by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in December 2023.¹

Between 2011 and 2022, 2462 tularemia cases were reported in the United States. That translated to an average annual incidence of 0.064 per 100,000 population, an increase of 56% compared with 2001-2010. Forty-seven states reported at least one case of tularemia, although half of all reported cases came from four states — Arkansas (18%), Kansas (11%), Missouri (11%), and Oklahoma (10%). The incidence of tularemia was highest in children ages 5-9 years old, older men, and American Indian or Alaska Natives individuals. Although cases occurred year-round, 78% had symptom onset May through September. 

In the United States, most human cases of tularemia have been arthropod borne, transmitted by the bite of an infected tick or deer fly. Infection also can be spread through contact with infected animals or animal tissue, particularly rabbits, hares, muskrats, prairie dogs, and other rodents, including hamsters. Outbreaks of tularemia have occurred among pet store hamsters, and at least one child in the United States developed tularemia after being bitten by a pet hamster.

Tularemia is almost always associated with fever but other clinical manifestations vary by the type of exposure. Ulceroglandular disease occurs after a tick or deer fly bite or after handling an infected animal. An ulcer develops at the site where the bacteria entered the body, along with enlargement of regional lymph nodes. Less commonly, lymph node swelling can occur without the development of an ulcer. If the bacteria enter through the eye, symptoms include conjunctivitis and swelling of pre-auricular lymph nodes. Eating or drinking contaminated food or water is associated with sore throat, mouth ulcers, tonsillitis, and swelling of lymph glands in the neck. Pneumonic tularemia, the most serious form of the disease, typically happens after inhaling bacteria-containing dust or aerosols and is associated with cough, chest pain, and difficulty breathing. Pneumonic tularemia can develop if other forms of tularemia are untreated, and the bacteria spread to the lung.

Back in the exam room, the pediatrician carefully re-examined the boy’s scalp. A 1-cm poorly healing ulcer on the left occiput added support for the diagnosis of ulceroglandular tularemia, the most common form of the disease in children. Serologic testing ultimately confirmed the diagnosis and the boy’s symptoms resolved with treatment.

Gentamicin administered intravenously or intramuscularly is the drug of choice for the treatment of tularemia in children. Ciprofloxacin is considered an alternative but is not approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for this indication.

The pediatrician reported the case of tularemia to his local health department. Tularemia is a nationally notifiable disease in the United States; state health departments report to the CDC through the National Notifiable Diseases Surveillance System. In turn, public health authorities shared information to prevent tularemia. Steps to prevent tick and deer fly bites include the use of an Environmental Protection Agency–registered insect repellent. Individuals who hunt, trap, or skin animals are encouraged to wear gloves when handling animals —especially rabbits, muskrats, and prairie dogs — and cook game meat thoroughly. Tularemia can be inadvertently aerosolized if an infected animal or carcass is run over with a tractor or lawnmower. Checking for carcasses before mowing may reduce the risk.

 

Bryant is a pediatrician specializing in infectious diseases at the University of Louisville (Ky.) and Norton Children’s Hospital, also in Louisville. She is a member of the AAP’s Committee on Infectious Diseases and one of the lead authors of the AAP’s Recommendations for Prevention and Control of Influenza in Children, 2022-2023. The opinions expressed in this article are her own. Bryant discloses that she has served as an investigator on clinical trials funded by Pfizer, Enanta and Gilead. Email her at [email protected]. (Also [email protected].) 

Reference

1. Rich SN et al. Tularemia—United States, 2011-2022. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2025;73:1152–1156. doi: 

The pediatrician’s first patient of the day was an 8-year-old boy, accompanied by both of his parents. It was the boy’s third visit in just over a week for fever and left-sided neck swelling, and the family was understandably anxious for answers.

“The antibiotics don’t seem to be working,” the mother explained. “He still has fever every day, as high as 104, and his neck looks just as swollen.”

A quick review of the chart revealed the boy’s initial diagnosis had been bacterial lymphadenitis, for which amoxicillin-clavulanate had been prescribed. Three days later, given lack of clinical improvement, therapy was transitioned to clindamycin. On examination, the boy was febrile and ill-appearing with a 3-cm by 5-cm tender, non-fluctuant swelling over the left sternocleidomastoid muscle. 

 

The pediatrician ran through a quick mental checklist of diagnostic possibilities for his patient’s continued symptoms. Staphylococcal lymphadenitis still seemed possible. Could the boy be infected with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus that was also clindamycin resistant? Alternately, perhaps the problem was “source control” and the boy had developed an occult neck abscess that needed to be drained. An ultrasound could help sort that out. Finally, the pediatrician considered less common bacterial causes of lymph node swelling and fever. He placed Bartonella henselae, the cause of cat scratch disease, near the top of his list. “I’ve never seen it,” he told the parents, “But we could also consider tularemia.”

Tularemia is a rare zoonotic infection caused by Francisella tularenis. On average, 200 cases of tularemia are reported in the United States each year, and the incidence of disease is increasing, according to a surveillance report released by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in December 2023.¹

Between 2011 and 2022, 2462 tularemia cases were reported in the United States. That translated to an average annual incidence of 0.064 per 100,000 population, an increase of 56% compared with 2001-2010. Forty-seven states reported at least one case of tularemia, although half of all reported cases came from four states — Arkansas (18%), Kansas (11%), Missouri (11%), and Oklahoma (10%). The incidence of tularemia was highest in children ages 5-9 years old, older men, and American Indian or Alaska Natives individuals. Although cases occurred year-round, 78% had symptom onset May through September. 

In the United States, most human cases of tularemia have been arthropod borne, transmitted by the bite of an infected tick or deer fly. Infection also can be spread through contact with infected animals or animal tissue, particularly rabbits, hares, muskrats, prairie dogs, and other rodents, including hamsters. Outbreaks of tularemia have occurred among pet store hamsters, and at least one child in the United States developed tularemia after being bitten by a pet hamster.

Tularemia is almost always associated with fever but other clinical manifestations vary by the type of exposure. Ulceroglandular disease occurs after a tick or deer fly bite or after handling an infected animal. An ulcer develops at the site where the bacteria entered the body, along with enlargement of regional lymph nodes. Less commonly, lymph node swelling can occur without the development of an ulcer. If the bacteria enter through the eye, symptoms include conjunctivitis and swelling of pre-auricular lymph nodes. Eating or drinking contaminated food or water is associated with sore throat, mouth ulcers, tonsillitis, and swelling of lymph glands in the neck. Pneumonic tularemia, the most serious form of the disease, typically happens after inhaling bacteria-containing dust or aerosols and is associated with cough, chest pain, and difficulty breathing. Pneumonic tularemia can develop if other forms of tularemia are untreated, and the bacteria spread to the lung.

Back in the exam room, the pediatrician carefully re-examined the boy’s scalp. A 1-cm poorly healing ulcer on the left occiput added support for the diagnosis of ulceroglandular tularemia, the most common form of the disease in children. Serologic testing ultimately confirmed the diagnosis and the boy’s symptoms resolved with treatment.

Gentamicin administered intravenously or intramuscularly is the drug of choice for the treatment of tularemia in children. Ciprofloxacin is considered an alternative but is not approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for this indication.

The pediatrician reported the case of tularemia to his local health department. Tularemia is a nationally notifiable disease in the United States; state health departments report to the CDC through the National Notifiable Diseases Surveillance System. In turn, public health authorities shared information to prevent tularemia. Steps to prevent tick and deer fly bites include the use of an Environmental Protection Agency–registered insect repellent. Individuals who hunt, trap, or skin animals are encouraged to wear gloves when handling animals —especially rabbits, muskrats, and prairie dogs — and cook game meat thoroughly. Tularemia can be inadvertently aerosolized if an infected animal or carcass is run over with a tractor or lawnmower. Checking for carcasses before mowing may reduce the risk.

 

Bryant is a pediatrician specializing in infectious diseases at the University of Louisville (Ky.) and Norton Children’s Hospital, also in Louisville. She is a member of the AAP’s Committee on Infectious Diseases and one of the lead authors of the AAP’s Recommendations for Prevention and Control of Influenza in Children, 2022-2023. The opinions expressed in this article are her own. Bryant discloses that she has served as an investigator on clinical trials funded by Pfizer, Enanta and Gilead. Email her at [email protected]. (Also [email protected].) 

Reference

1. Rich SN et al. Tularemia—United States, 2011-2022. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2025;73:1152–1156. doi: 

Results published from a systematic review and meta-analysis find an inverse association and a dose-response link between fluoride exposure and children’s IQ scores.

Kyla W. Taylor, PhD, with the Division of Translational Toxicology at the National Institutes of Health, Morrisville, North Carolina, led the multicountry study published online in JAMA Pediatrics.

Two accompanying editorials offer two very different perspectives on how to interpret the researchers’ conclusions.
 

Study Results

The authors noted that, of the 74 studies included in the review (64 cross-sectional and 10 cohort studies), most (45) were conducted in China. Other countries included were Canada (3), Denmark (1), India (12), Iran (4), Mexico (4), New Zealand (1), Pakistan (2), Spain (1), and Taiwan (1). “Fifty-two studies were rated high risk of bias, and 22 were rated low risk of bias,” the authors stated.

Researchers found that 64 of the 74 studies reported inverse associations between fluoride exposure measures and children’s IQ scores. Their analysis of 59 studies with group-level measures of fluoride in drinking water, dental fluorosis, or other measures of fluoride exposure showed an inverse relationship between fluoride exposure and IQ (pooled standardized mean difference [SMD], −0.45; 95% CI, −0.57 to −0.33; P < .001). Of those 59 studies, encompassing 20,932 children, 47 had high risk for bias and 12 had low risk for bias.

In 31 studies that reported fluoride measurements in drinking water, a dose-response relationship was found between exposed and reference groups (SMD, –0.15; 95% CI, –0.20 to –0.11; P < .001). That relationship remained inverse when exposed groups were limited to less than 4 mg fluoride/L and less than 2 mg/L. However, the association was not seen at less than 1.5 mg/L.

In 20 studies reporting fluoride measured in urine, there was an inverse dose-response association (SMD, –0.15; 95% CI, –0.23 to –0.07; P < .001). Those inverse relationships held at levels less than 4 mg/L, less than 2 mg/L, and less than 1.5 mg/L fluoride in urine.

For perspective, in the United States, the US Public Health Service in 2015 lowered the recommended concentration of fluoride in drinking water from a range of 0.7-1.2 mg/L to 0.7 mg/L to reduce the risk for dental fluorosis while keeping its protective effect against dental caries. 

When Taylor’s team analyzed 13 studies with individual-level measures, they found an IQ score decrease of 1.63 points (95% CI, –2.33 to –0.93; P < .001) per 1-mg/L increase in urinary fluoride. Among studies with a low risk for bias, they observed an IQ score decrease of 1.14 points (95% CI, –1.68 to –0.61; P < .001). The inverse relationship remained when stratified by factors including risk for bias, sex, age, country, outcome assessment type, exposure timing (prenatal or postnatal), and exposure matrix (urinary fluoride, intake and water fluoride), the authors wrote.

The authors conclude both that inverse relationships and a dose-response association between fluoride measured in urine and drinking water and children’s IQs were found across the literature examined but also that “there were limited data and uncertainty in the dose-response association between fluoride exposure and children’s IQ when fluoride exposure was estimated by drinking water alone at concentrations less than 1.5 mg/L.”

The authors point out that, “To our knowledge, no studies of fluoride exposure and children’s IQ have been performed in the United States and no nationally representative urinary fluoride levels are available, hindering application of these findings to the US population.”
 

Editorial: Time to Reassess Systemic Fluoride

Bruce P. Lanphear, MD, MPH, with Simon Fraser University, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, is the lead author on an editorial that suggests these data point to the need to reassess systemic fluoride exposure.

“Their study is the largest and includes the most rigorous series of meta-analyses of fluoride ever conducted,” Lanphear and colleagues wrote. “It is time for health organizations and regulatory bodies to reassess the risks and benefits of fluoride, particularly for pregnant women and infants.”

Lanphear’s team says distinguishing between water fluoride and urinary fluoride levels is important in these results “because regulatory and public health agencies must consider total fluoride intake when assessing risks.”

Taylor and colleagues’ finding that there was no statistically significant association between water fluoride les than 1.5 mg/L and children’s IQ scores in the dose-response meta-analysis doesn’t mean fluoride is not a potential risk for lower IQ scores in fluoridated communities, they wrote. “Water fluoride concentration does not capture the amount of water ingested or other sources of ingested fluoride. In contrast, urinary fluoride is a biological measure of total fluoride exposure, including the dynamic interface between bone fluoride stores and blood fluoride.”
 

Editorial: Be Cautious About the Conclusions

Steven M. Levy, DDS, MPH, cites “major areas of concern” in the meta-analysis in his editorial.

He points to the large majority of studies in the meta-analysis that were at “high risk of bias” (47 high risk vs 12 that were low risk). He also cited information from a further look at the low-risk-of-bias studies included in the supplement.

“The studies with lower risk of bias showed a negligible effect (standardized mean difference [SMD], −0.19; 95% CI, −0.35 to −0.04) with very high heterogeneity (I2 = 87%), and a majority of publications (8 of 12) did not show a negative association between fluoride and childhood IQ,” Levy wrote. 

“Taylor et al do not adequately justify selection or omission of studies or explain or justify the calculated individual effect sizes presented in the main analysis. Also, readers are not told which studies with lower risk of bias are included in the subanalyses for water fluoride levels less than 1.5 mg/L, less than 2.0 mg/L, and less than 4.0 mg/L; therefore, readers cannot independently consider important differences across these studies.”

Levy also states that the magnitudes of the possible IQ differences are unfairly inflated. For the United Staes and most of the world, he points out, the recommended community water fluoridation level is 0.7 mg/L. Therefore, the difference between a community with low fluoride levels (about 0.2 mg/L) and one with optimal levels is about 0.5 mg/L. 

“However, Taylor and colleagues use a difference of 1.0 mg/L in their calculations, artificially doubling the estimated impact on IQ,” Levy wrote.

The meta-analysis should not affect public policy on adding fluoride to community water systems “and the widespread use of fluoride for caries prevention should continue,” Levy concluded.
 

Concerns About Quality of Studies Included

Charlotte Lewis, MD, MPH, associate professor of pediatrics at the University of Washington School of Medicine and part of Seattle Children’s Multidisciplinary Infant Nutrition and Feeding Team, Seattle, who was not involved in the meta-analysis or editorials, said that systemic fluoridation should not change based on these results, citing what she said are problems with methodology.

“There are many concerns about the quality of studies included in this meta-analysis,” Lewis said. “Although the authors claim to have separated out low-bias studies, it is important to note that many of these same studies have substantial methodological flaws.”

She said studies deemed low-bias and included in the meta-analysis “relied on multiple examiners for cognitive testing without consideration for inter-rater variation or reliability measures.” She added that “a number of the studies failed to account for maternal IQ scores, breastfeeding, lead exposure, or other factors that could affect cognitive development, further contributing to biased conclusions.”

Importantly, she said, many of the studies, including one by Rivka Green and colleagues published in JAMA Pediatrics, relied on maternal spot urinary fluoride to assess fetal exposure to fluoride. “This is not a valid way to assess fetal exposure to fluoride and including such studies in this meta-analysis has led to inappropriate conclusions because they are based on studies using a flawed exposure measure.” 

She pointed to recent longitudinal, population-based studies, including one by Jayant V Kumar and colleagues that have found no adverse impact on IQ, or other cognitive tests, of drinking water with low levels of fluoride present, comparable to US community water fluoridation standards. 

“Relative to the small convenience-sample, cross-sectional studies included in this meta-analysis, longitudinal, population-based studies are considered significantly more reliable for establishing cause and effect,” she said.
 

Fluoride Levels Different Globally

Lewis said in some parts of the world fluoride is present in the environment in much higher levels than in fluoridated water in the United States.

“There are known adverse health effects of high fluoride ingestion in these endemic regions found primarily in China, India, and Iran. This points to the importance of dose response. What is beneficial at low levels can be toxic at high levels and that appears to be the case, not surprisingly, for fluoride as well. However, at 0.7 ppm, the level of fluoride in community water fluoridation, we experience fluoride’s beneficial effects when we regularly drink optimally fluoridated water.”

“Water fluoridation is an important public health approach available and beneficial to all, even those unable to afford or access dental care,” she said. “Water fluoridation diminishes oral health disparities, and its removal threatens to worsen disparities and increased suffering from dental disease. I remain confident in the benefits and safety of community water fluoridation.”

Taylor and colleagues reported no relevant financial relationships. Lanphear reported grants from the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and the Canadian Institute for Health Research and having served as a nonretained and unpaid expert witness in a federal fluoride suit against the US EPA. Levy reported past grants from the National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research related to fluoride, dental caries, dental fluorosis, and bone development. He reported small grant funding from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention related to fluoride, dental caries, and fluorosis. He consults for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research and serves on the National Fluoride Advisory Committee for the American Dental Association.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Results published from a systematic review and meta-analysis find an inverse association and a dose-response link between fluoride exposure and children’s IQ scores.

Kyla W. Taylor, PhD, with the Division of Translational Toxicology at the National Institutes of Health, Morrisville, North Carolina, led the multicountry study published online in JAMA Pediatrics.

Two accompanying editorials offer two very different perspectives on how to interpret the researchers’ conclusions.
 

Study Results

The authors noted that, of the 74 studies included in the review (64 cross-sectional and 10 cohort studies), most (45) were conducted in China. Other countries included were Canada (3), Denmark (1), India (12), Iran (4), Mexico (4), New Zealand (1), Pakistan (2), Spain (1), and Taiwan (1). “Fifty-two studies were rated high risk of bias, and 22 were rated low risk of bias,” the authors stated.

Researchers found that 64 of the 74 studies reported inverse associations between fluoride exposure measures and children’s IQ scores. Their analysis of 59 studies with group-level measures of fluoride in drinking water, dental fluorosis, or other measures of fluoride exposure showed an inverse relationship between fluoride exposure and IQ (pooled standardized mean difference [SMD], −0.45; 95% CI, −0.57 to −0.33; P < .001). Of those 59 studies, encompassing 20,932 children, 47 had high risk for bias and 12 had low risk for bias.

In 31 studies that reported fluoride measurements in drinking water, a dose-response relationship was found between exposed and reference groups (SMD, –0.15; 95% CI, –0.20 to –0.11; P < .001). That relationship remained inverse when exposed groups were limited to less than 4 mg fluoride/L and less than 2 mg/L. However, the association was not seen at less than 1.5 mg/L.

In 20 studies reporting fluoride measured in urine, there was an inverse dose-response association (SMD, –0.15; 95% CI, –0.23 to –0.07; P < .001). Those inverse relationships held at levels less than 4 mg/L, less than 2 mg/L, and less than 1.5 mg/L fluoride in urine.

For perspective, in the United States, the US Public Health Service in 2015 lowered the recommended concentration of fluoride in drinking water from a range of 0.7-1.2 mg/L to 0.7 mg/L to reduce the risk for dental fluorosis while keeping its protective effect against dental caries. 

When Taylor’s team analyzed 13 studies with individual-level measures, they found an IQ score decrease of 1.63 points (95% CI, –2.33 to –0.93; P < .001) per 1-mg/L increase in urinary fluoride. Among studies with a low risk for bias, they observed an IQ score decrease of 1.14 points (95% CI, –1.68 to –0.61; P < .001). The inverse relationship remained when stratified by factors including risk for bias, sex, age, country, outcome assessment type, exposure timing (prenatal or postnatal), and exposure matrix (urinary fluoride, intake and water fluoride), the authors wrote.

The authors conclude both that inverse relationships and a dose-response association between fluoride measured in urine and drinking water and children’s IQs were found across the literature examined but also that “there were limited data and uncertainty in the dose-response association between fluoride exposure and children’s IQ when fluoride exposure was estimated by drinking water alone at concentrations less than 1.5 mg/L.”

The authors point out that, “To our knowledge, no studies of fluoride exposure and children’s IQ have been performed in the United States and no nationally representative urinary fluoride levels are available, hindering application of these findings to the US population.”
 

Editorial: Time to Reassess Systemic Fluoride

Bruce P. Lanphear, MD, MPH, with Simon Fraser University, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, is the lead author on an editorial that suggests these data point to the need to reassess systemic fluoride exposure.

“Their study is the largest and includes the most rigorous series of meta-analyses of fluoride ever conducted,” Lanphear and colleagues wrote. “It is time for health organizations and regulatory bodies to reassess the risks and benefits of fluoride, particularly for pregnant women and infants.”

Lanphear’s team says distinguishing between water fluoride and urinary fluoride levels is important in these results “because regulatory and public health agencies must consider total fluoride intake when assessing risks.”

Taylor and colleagues’ finding that there was no statistically significant association between water fluoride les than 1.5 mg/L and children’s IQ scores in the dose-response meta-analysis doesn’t mean fluoride is not a potential risk for lower IQ scores in fluoridated communities, they wrote. “Water fluoride concentration does not capture the amount of water ingested or other sources of ingested fluoride. In contrast, urinary fluoride is a biological measure of total fluoride exposure, including the dynamic interface between bone fluoride stores and blood fluoride.”
 

Editorial: Be Cautious About the Conclusions

Steven M. Levy, DDS, MPH, cites “major areas of concern” in the meta-analysis in his editorial.

He points to the large majority of studies in the meta-analysis that were at “high risk of bias” (47 high risk vs 12 that were low risk). He also cited information from a further look at the low-risk-of-bias studies included in the supplement.

“The studies with lower risk of bias showed a negligible effect (standardized mean difference [SMD], −0.19; 95% CI, −0.35 to −0.04) with very high heterogeneity (I2 = 87%), and a majority of publications (8 of 12) did not show a negative association between fluoride and childhood IQ,” Levy wrote. 

“Taylor et al do not adequately justify selection or omission of studies or explain or justify the calculated individual effect sizes presented in the main analysis. Also, readers are not told which studies with lower risk of bias are included in the subanalyses for water fluoride levels less than 1.5 mg/L, less than 2.0 mg/L, and less than 4.0 mg/L; therefore, readers cannot independently consider important differences across these studies.”

Levy also states that the magnitudes of the possible IQ differences are unfairly inflated. For the United Staes and most of the world, he points out, the recommended community water fluoridation level is 0.7 mg/L. Therefore, the difference between a community with low fluoride levels (about 0.2 mg/L) and one with optimal levels is about 0.5 mg/L. 

“However, Taylor and colleagues use a difference of 1.0 mg/L in their calculations, artificially doubling the estimated impact on IQ,” Levy wrote.

The meta-analysis should not affect public policy on adding fluoride to community water systems “and the widespread use of fluoride for caries prevention should continue,” Levy concluded.
 

Concerns About Quality of Studies Included

Charlotte Lewis, MD, MPH, associate professor of pediatrics at the University of Washington School of Medicine and part of Seattle Children’s Multidisciplinary Infant Nutrition and Feeding Team, Seattle, who was not involved in the meta-analysis or editorials, said that systemic fluoridation should not change based on these results, citing what she said are problems with methodology.

“There are many concerns about the quality of studies included in this meta-analysis,” Lewis said. “Although the authors claim to have separated out low-bias studies, it is important to note that many of these same studies have substantial methodological flaws.”

She said studies deemed low-bias and included in the meta-analysis “relied on multiple examiners for cognitive testing without consideration for inter-rater variation or reliability measures.” She added that “a number of the studies failed to account for maternal IQ scores, breastfeeding, lead exposure, or other factors that could affect cognitive development, further contributing to biased conclusions.”

Importantly, she said, many of the studies, including one by Rivka Green and colleagues published in JAMA Pediatrics, relied on maternal spot urinary fluoride to assess fetal exposure to fluoride. “This is not a valid way to assess fetal exposure to fluoride and including such studies in this meta-analysis has led to inappropriate conclusions because they are based on studies using a flawed exposure measure.” 

She pointed to recent longitudinal, population-based studies, including one by Jayant V Kumar and colleagues that have found no adverse impact on IQ, or other cognitive tests, of drinking water with low levels of fluoride present, comparable to US community water fluoridation standards. 

“Relative to the small convenience-sample, cross-sectional studies included in this meta-analysis, longitudinal, population-based studies are considered significantly more reliable for establishing cause and effect,” she said.
 

Fluoride Levels Different Globally

Lewis said in some parts of the world fluoride is present in the environment in much higher levels than in fluoridated water in the United States.

“There are known adverse health effects of high fluoride ingestion in these endemic regions found primarily in China, India, and Iran. This points to the importance of dose response. What is beneficial at low levels can be toxic at high levels and that appears to be the case, not surprisingly, for fluoride as well. However, at 0.7 ppm, the level of fluoride in community water fluoridation, we experience fluoride’s beneficial effects when we regularly drink optimally fluoridated water.”

“Water fluoridation is an important public health approach available and beneficial to all, even those unable to afford or access dental care,” she said. “Water fluoridation diminishes oral health disparities, and its removal threatens to worsen disparities and increased suffering from dental disease. I remain confident in the benefits and safety of community water fluoridation.”

Taylor and colleagues reported no relevant financial relationships. Lanphear reported grants from the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and the Canadian Institute for Health Research and having served as a nonretained and unpaid expert witness in a federal fluoride suit against the US EPA. Levy reported past grants from the National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research related to fluoride, dental caries, dental fluorosis, and bone development. He reported small grant funding from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention related to fluoride, dental caries, and fluorosis. He consults for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research and serves on the National Fluoride Advisory Committee for the American Dental Association.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Results published from a systematic review and meta-analysis find an inverse association and a dose-response link between fluoride exposure and children’s IQ scores.

Kyla W. Taylor, PhD, with the Division of Translational Toxicology at the National Institutes of Health, Morrisville, North Carolina, led the multicountry study published online in JAMA Pediatrics.

Two accompanying editorials offer two very different perspectives on how to interpret the researchers’ conclusions.
 

Study Results

The authors noted that, of the 74 studies included in the review (64 cross-sectional and 10 cohort studies), most (45) were conducted in China. Other countries included were Canada (3), Denmark (1), India (12), Iran (4), Mexico (4), New Zealand (1), Pakistan (2), Spain (1), and Taiwan (1). “Fifty-two studies were rated high risk of bias, and 22 were rated low risk of bias,” the authors stated.

Researchers found that 64 of the 74 studies reported inverse associations between fluoride exposure measures and children’s IQ scores. Their analysis of 59 studies with group-level measures of fluoride in drinking water, dental fluorosis, or other measures of fluoride exposure showed an inverse relationship between fluoride exposure and IQ (pooled standardized mean difference [SMD], −0.45; 95% CI, −0.57 to −0.33; P < .001). Of those 59 studies, encompassing 20,932 children, 47 had high risk for bias and 12 had low risk for bias.

In 31 studies that reported fluoride measurements in drinking water, a dose-response relationship was found between exposed and reference groups (SMD, –0.15; 95% CI, –0.20 to –0.11; P < .001). That relationship remained inverse when exposed groups were limited to less than 4 mg fluoride/L and less than 2 mg/L. However, the association was not seen at less than 1.5 mg/L.

In 20 studies reporting fluoride measured in urine, there was an inverse dose-response association (SMD, –0.15; 95% CI, –0.23 to –0.07; P < .001). Those inverse relationships held at levels less than 4 mg/L, less than 2 mg/L, and less than 1.5 mg/L fluoride in urine.

For perspective, in the United States, the US Public Health Service in 2015 lowered the recommended concentration of fluoride in drinking water from a range of 0.7-1.2 mg/L to 0.7 mg/L to reduce the risk for dental fluorosis while keeping its protective effect against dental caries. 

When Taylor’s team analyzed 13 studies with individual-level measures, they found an IQ score decrease of 1.63 points (95% CI, –2.33 to –0.93; P < .001) per 1-mg/L increase in urinary fluoride. Among studies with a low risk for bias, they observed an IQ score decrease of 1.14 points (95% CI, –1.68 to –0.61; P < .001). The inverse relationship remained when stratified by factors including risk for bias, sex, age, country, outcome assessment type, exposure timing (prenatal or postnatal), and exposure matrix (urinary fluoride, intake and water fluoride), the authors wrote.

The authors conclude both that inverse relationships and a dose-response association between fluoride measured in urine and drinking water and children’s IQs were found across the literature examined but also that “there were limited data and uncertainty in the dose-response association between fluoride exposure and children’s IQ when fluoride exposure was estimated by drinking water alone at concentrations less than 1.5 mg/L.”

The authors point out that, “To our knowledge, no studies of fluoride exposure and children’s IQ have been performed in the United States and no nationally representative urinary fluoride levels are available, hindering application of these findings to the US population.”
 

Editorial: Time to Reassess Systemic Fluoride

Bruce P. Lanphear, MD, MPH, with Simon Fraser University, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, is the lead author on an editorial that suggests these data point to the need to reassess systemic fluoride exposure.

“Their study is the largest and includes the most rigorous series of meta-analyses of fluoride ever conducted,” Lanphear and colleagues wrote. “It is time for health organizations and regulatory bodies to reassess the risks and benefits of fluoride, particularly for pregnant women and infants.”

Lanphear’s team says distinguishing between water fluoride and urinary fluoride levels is important in these results “because regulatory and public health agencies must consider total fluoride intake when assessing risks.”

Taylor and colleagues’ finding that there was no statistically significant association between water fluoride les than 1.5 mg/L and children’s IQ scores in the dose-response meta-analysis doesn’t mean fluoride is not a potential risk for lower IQ scores in fluoridated communities, they wrote. “Water fluoride concentration does not capture the amount of water ingested or other sources of ingested fluoride. In contrast, urinary fluoride is a biological measure of total fluoride exposure, including the dynamic interface between bone fluoride stores and blood fluoride.”
 

Editorial: Be Cautious About the Conclusions

Steven M. Levy, DDS, MPH, cites “major areas of concern” in the meta-analysis in his editorial.

He points to the large majority of studies in the meta-analysis that were at “high risk of bias” (47 high risk vs 12 that were low risk). He also cited information from a further look at the low-risk-of-bias studies included in the supplement.

“The studies with lower risk of bias showed a negligible effect (standardized mean difference [SMD], −0.19; 95% CI, −0.35 to −0.04) with very high heterogeneity (I2 = 87%), and a majority of publications (8 of 12) did not show a negative association between fluoride and childhood IQ,” Levy wrote. 

“Taylor et al do not adequately justify selection or omission of studies or explain or justify the calculated individual effect sizes presented in the main analysis. Also, readers are not told which studies with lower risk of bias are included in the subanalyses for water fluoride levels less than 1.5 mg/L, less than 2.0 mg/L, and less than 4.0 mg/L; therefore, readers cannot independently consider important differences across these studies.”

Levy also states that the magnitudes of the possible IQ differences are unfairly inflated. For the United Staes and most of the world, he points out, the recommended community water fluoridation level is 0.7 mg/L. Therefore, the difference between a community with low fluoride levels (about 0.2 mg/L) and one with optimal levels is about 0.5 mg/L. 

“However, Taylor and colleagues use a difference of 1.0 mg/L in their calculations, artificially doubling the estimated impact on IQ,” Levy wrote.

The meta-analysis should not affect public policy on adding fluoride to community water systems “and the widespread use of fluoride for caries prevention should continue,” Levy concluded.
 

Concerns About Quality of Studies Included

Charlotte Lewis, MD, MPH, associate professor of pediatrics at the University of Washington School of Medicine and part of Seattle Children’s Multidisciplinary Infant Nutrition and Feeding Team, Seattle, who was not involved in the meta-analysis or editorials, said that systemic fluoridation should not change based on these results, citing what she said are problems with methodology.

“There are many concerns about the quality of studies included in this meta-analysis,” Lewis said. “Although the authors claim to have separated out low-bias studies, it is important to note that many of these same studies have substantial methodological flaws.”

She said studies deemed low-bias and included in the meta-analysis “relied on multiple examiners for cognitive testing without consideration for inter-rater variation or reliability measures.” She added that “a number of the studies failed to account for maternal IQ scores, breastfeeding, lead exposure, or other factors that could affect cognitive development, further contributing to biased conclusions.”

Importantly, she said, many of the studies, including one by Rivka Green and colleagues published in JAMA Pediatrics, relied on maternal spot urinary fluoride to assess fetal exposure to fluoride. “This is not a valid way to assess fetal exposure to fluoride and including such studies in this meta-analysis has led to inappropriate conclusions because they are based on studies using a flawed exposure measure.” 

She pointed to recent longitudinal, population-based studies, including one by Jayant V Kumar and colleagues that have found no adverse impact on IQ, or other cognitive tests, of drinking water with low levels of fluoride present, comparable to US community water fluoridation standards. 

“Relative to the small convenience-sample, cross-sectional studies included in this meta-analysis, longitudinal, population-based studies are considered significantly more reliable for establishing cause and effect,” she said.
 

Fluoride Levels Different Globally

Lewis said in some parts of the world fluoride is present in the environment in much higher levels than in fluoridated water in the United States.

“There are known adverse health effects of high fluoride ingestion in these endemic regions found primarily in China, India, and Iran. This points to the importance of dose response. What is beneficial at low levels can be toxic at high levels and that appears to be the case, not surprisingly, for fluoride as well. However, at 0.7 ppm, the level of fluoride in community water fluoridation, we experience fluoride’s beneficial effects when we regularly drink optimally fluoridated water.”

“Water fluoridation is an important public health approach available and beneficial to all, even those unable to afford or access dental care,” she said. “Water fluoridation diminishes oral health disparities, and its removal threatens to worsen disparities and increased suffering from dental disease. I remain confident in the benefits and safety of community water fluoridation.”

Taylor and colleagues reported no relevant financial relationships. Lanphear reported grants from the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and the Canadian Institute for Health Research and having served as a nonretained and unpaid expert witness in a federal fluoride suit against the US EPA. Levy reported past grants from the National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research related to fluoride, dental caries, dental fluorosis, and bone development. He reported small grant funding from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention related to fluoride, dental caries, and fluorosis. He consults for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research and serves on the National Fluoride Advisory Committee for the American Dental Association.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Current management of children and adolescents with long COVID was the focus of various presentations at the 3rd Long COVID Congress in Berlin in November 2024. The congress aimed to facilitate in-depth discussions on recent research projects, diagnostic procedures, and therapeutic approaches to enhance care for long COVID patients. This year, the focus was on research into long COVID in children and adolescents and how to improve their care.

Uta Behrends, MD, head of the Munich Chronic Fatigue Center, Center for Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine at the Technical University of Munich, Germany, and Nicole Toepfner, MD, a pediatrician at the University Hospital in Dresden, Germany, provided an initial overview.

Prevalence Data Are Limited

Data on the incidence and prevalence of the condition in children and adolescents are limited because most studies have primarily examined adults. A 2022 Swiss study estimated that it affects between 2% and 3.5% of children and adolescents who contract COVID-19. A recent study published in JAMA involving 5367 children and adolescents found that 20% of children aged 6-11 years and 14% of adolescents met the researchers’ criteria for long COVID.

Impaired Mental Health

Initial data from the latest wave of the population-based longitudinal COPSY (Corona and Psyche) study showed that compared with their peer group children and adolescents diagnosed with long COVID exhibit significantly higher rates of psychological issues and depressive symptoms. Although no significant differences were found in anxiety levels, study leader Ulrike Ravens-Sieberer, PhD, from the University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Germany, told the congress that those with long COVID do also report more frequent somatic or psychological health complaints and lower health-related quality of life than peers.

Addressing Data Gaps

Another study due to launch in January 2025 and run through to 2028 is the COVYOUTH data study, which aims to better understand the nature, frequency, and risk factors of COVID-related sequelae in children and adolescents.

Study centers include Ruhr University Bochum, University Hospital Cologne, the Paul-Ehrlich-Institut, and University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf. Using routine data from statutory health insurance and newly developed case definitions, researchers aim to investigate:

• Psychological stress caused by COVID-19 measures 
• Post-COVID syndrome and myocarditis 
• Adverse effects of COVID-19 vaccinations 

Specialized Diagnostics and Care

The Post-COVID Kids Bavaria project offers specialized diagnostics and care for children and adolescents, including a day clinic, telemedical follow-ups, and an inpatient pain therapy module providing age-appropriate care as close to patients’ homes as possible.

MOVE-COVID is a model project for patient-focused research on long COVID and myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) involving university pediatric hospitals in Freiburg, Heidelberg, Tübingen, and Ulm. It also aims to establish a care network across the state of Baden-Württemberg, including the establishment of long COVID outpatient clinics at social pediatric centers in the network hospitals, as well as enhanced telemedical support and standardized diagnostic and treatment protocols. “MOVE-COVID has successfully consolidated competencies and capacities in patient care, health services research, and patient-focused studies across multiple centers,” Behrends said.

Chronic Pain and Fatigue

Post-COVID syndromes in children and adolescents may feature profound fatigue, unrefreshing sleep, post-exertional malaise, cognitive dysfunction, and orthostatic intolerance and overlap with conditions such as ME/CFS. According to the German patient association Fatigatio, Berlin, research and studies for these conditions in children remain limited compared with those in adults. However, the US Centers for Disease Control estimates that around 2% of ME/CFS patients are children or adolescents, with the majority being teenagers.

Two inpatient treatment concepts, SHARK and TIGER, developed by Lea Höfel, PhD, head of the Centre for Pain Therapy for Young People and the Psychological Service at the Children’s Hospital in Garmisch-Partenkirchen, address chronic pain, fatigue, and ME/CFS in young people. These programs integrate structured breaks and flexible access to multiple therapists as needed. The TIGER program focuses on those with post-exertional malaise, while the SHARK program is designed for adolescents without this symptom. Both programs last 4.5-5 weeks and emphasize symptom reduction, education, and energy management.

Preliminary Results

SHARK included 30 participants (7 men; average age, 16 years), of whom 12 had a history of SARS-CoV-2 infection. TIGER involved 100 participants (24 men; average age, 16.7 years), of whom 32 had a SARS-CoV-2 infection as a triggering event. Other triggers included Epstein-Barr virus and other infections.

Preliminary findings from the projects indicate that optimized management with outpatient and follow-up care can yield positive, sometimes lasting effects. No significant differences between SARS-CoV-2 and other triggers emerged, but pain proved more manageable in the SHARK group than in the TIGER group, suggesting they may involve different pathological mechanisms.

Hope for Improved Outcomes

“It’s important to move away from the idea that nothing can be done,” Behrends said. This is a common attitude with children and adolescents displaying these types of symptoms, but it’s simply not true. “Even in pediatrics, we have numerous therapeutic options that may offer relief, from medication to psychosocial interventions,” she concluded.

This story was translated from Medscape’s German edition using several editorial tools, including artificial intelligence, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Current management of children and adolescents with long COVID was the focus of various presentations at the 3rd Long COVID Congress in Berlin in November 2024. The congress aimed to facilitate in-depth discussions on recent research projects, diagnostic procedures, and therapeutic approaches to enhance care for long COVID patients. This year, the focus was on research into long COVID in children and adolescents and how to improve their care.

Uta Behrends, MD, head of the Munich Chronic Fatigue Center, Center for Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine at the Technical University of Munich, Germany, and Nicole Toepfner, MD, a pediatrician at the University Hospital in Dresden, Germany, provided an initial overview.

Prevalence Data Are Limited

Data on the incidence and prevalence of the condition in children and adolescents are limited because most studies have primarily examined adults. A 2022 Swiss study estimated that it affects between 2% and 3.5% of children and adolescents who contract COVID-19. A recent study published in JAMA involving 5367 children and adolescents found that 20% of children aged 6-11 years and 14% of adolescents met the researchers’ criteria for long COVID.

Impaired Mental Health

Initial data from the latest wave of the population-based longitudinal COPSY (Corona and Psyche) study showed that compared with their peer group children and adolescents diagnosed with long COVID exhibit significantly higher rates of psychological issues and depressive symptoms. Although no significant differences were found in anxiety levels, study leader Ulrike Ravens-Sieberer, PhD, from the University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Germany, told the congress that those with long COVID do also report more frequent somatic or psychological health complaints and lower health-related quality of life than peers.

Addressing Data Gaps

Another study due to launch in January 2025 and run through to 2028 is the COVYOUTH data study, which aims to better understand the nature, frequency, and risk factors of COVID-related sequelae in children and adolescents.

Study centers include Ruhr University Bochum, University Hospital Cologne, the Paul-Ehrlich-Institut, and University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf. Using routine data from statutory health insurance and newly developed case definitions, researchers aim to investigate:

• Psychological stress caused by COVID-19 measures 
• Post-COVID syndrome and myocarditis 
• Adverse effects of COVID-19 vaccinations 

Specialized Diagnostics and Care

The Post-COVID Kids Bavaria project offers specialized diagnostics and care for children and adolescents, including a day clinic, telemedical follow-ups, and an inpatient pain therapy module providing age-appropriate care as close to patients’ homes as possible.

MOVE-COVID is a model project for patient-focused research on long COVID and myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) involving university pediatric hospitals in Freiburg, Heidelberg, Tübingen, and Ulm. It also aims to establish a care network across the state of Baden-Württemberg, including the establishment of long COVID outpatient clinics at social pediatric centers in the network hospitals, as well as enhanced telemedical support and standardized diagnostic and treatment protocols. “MOVE-COVID has successfully consolidated competencies and capacities in patient care, health services research, and patient-focused studies across multiple centers,” Behrends said.

Chronic Pain and Fatigue

Post-COVID syndromes in children and adolescents may feature profound fatigue, unrefreshing sleep, post-exertional malaise, cognitive dysfunction, and orthostatic intolerance and overlap with conditions such as ME/CFS. According to the German patient association Fatigatio, Berlin, research and studies for these conditions in children remain limited compared with those in adults. However, the US Centers for Disease Control estimates that around 2% of ME/CFS patients are children or adolescents, with the majority being teenagers.

Two inpatient treatment concepts, SHARK and TIGER, developed by Lea Höfel, PhD, head of the Centre for Pain Therapy for Young People and the Psychological Service at the Children’s Hospital in Garmisch-Partenkirchen, address chronic pain, fatigue, and ME/CFS in young people. These programs integrate structured breaks and flexible access to multiple therapists as needed. The TIGER program focuses on those with post-exertional malaise, while the SHARK program is designed for adolescents without this symptom. Both programs last 4.5-5 weeks and emphasize symptom reduction, education, and energy management.

Preliminary Results

SHARK included 30 participants (7 men; average age, 16 years), of whom 12 had a history of SARS-CoV-2 infection. TIGER involved 100 participants (24 men; average age, 16.7 years), of whom 32 had a SARS-CoV-2 infection as a triggering event. Other triggers included Epstein-Barr virus and other infections.

Preliminary findings from the projects indicate that optimized management with outpatient and follow-up care can yield positive, sometimes lasting effects. No significant differences between SARS-CoV-2 and other triggers emerged, but pain proved more manageable in the SHARK group than in the TIGER group, suggesting they may involve different pathological mechanisms.

Hope for Improved Outcomes

“It’s important to move away from the idea that nothing can be done,” Behrends said. This is a common attitude with children and adolescents displaying these types of symptoms, but it’s simply not true. “Even in pediatrics, we have numerous therapeutic options that may offer relief, from medication to psychosocial interventions,” she concluded.

This story was translated from Medscape’s German edition using several editorial tools, including artificial intelligence, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Current management of children and adolescents with long COVID was the focus of various presentations at the 3rd Long COVID Congress in Berlin in November 2024. The congress aimed to facilitate in-depth discussions on recent research projects, diagnostic procedures, and therapeutic approaches to enhance care for long COVID patients. This year, the focus was on research into long COVID in children and adolescents and how to improve their care.

Uta Behrends, MD, head of the Munich Chronic Fatigue Center, Center for Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine at the Technical University of Munich, Germany, and Nicole Toepfner, MD, a pediatrician at the University Hospital in Dresden, Germany, provided an initial overview.

Prevalence Data Are Limited

Data on the incidence and prevalence of the condition in children and adolescents are limited because most studies have primarily examined adults. A 2022 Swiss study estimated that it affects between 2% and 3.5% of children and adolescents who contract COVID-19. A recent study published in JAMA involving 5367 children and adolescents found that 20% of children aged 6-11 years and 14% of adolescents met the researchers’ criteria for long COVID.

Impaired Mental Health

Initial data from the latest wave of the population-based longitudinal COPSY (Corona and Psyche) study showed that compared with their peer group children and adolescents diagnosed with long COVID exhibit significantly higher rates of psychological issues and depressive symptoms. Although no significant differences were found in anxiety levels, study leader Ulrike Ravens-Sieberer, PhD, from the University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Germany, told the congress that those with long COVID do also report more frequent somatic or psychological health complaints and lower health-related quality of life than peers.

Addressing Data Gaps

Another study due to launch in January 2025 and run through to 2028 is the COVYOUTH data study, which aims to better understand the nature, frequency, and risk factors of COVID-related sequelae in children and adolescents.

Study centers include Ruhr University Bochum, University Hospital Cologne, the Paul-Ehrlich-Institut, and University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf. Using routine data from statutory health insurance and newly developed case definitions, researchers aim to investigate:

• Psychological stress caused by COVID-19 measures 
• Post-COVID syndrome and myocarditis 
• Adverse effects of COVID-19 vaccinations 

Specialized Diagnostics and Care

The Post-COVID Kids Bavaria project offers specialized diagnostics and care for children and adolescents, including a day clinic, telemedical follow-ups, and an inpatient pain therapy module providing age-appropriate care as close to patients’ homes as possible.

MOVE-COVID is a model project for patient-focused research on long COVID and myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) involving university pediatric hospitals in Freiburg, Heidelberg, Tübingen, and Ulm. It also aims to establish a care network across the state of Baden-Württemberg, including the establishment of long COVID outpatient clinics at social pediatric centers in the network hospitals, as well as enhanced telemedical support and standardized diagnostic and treatment protocols. “MOVE-COVID has successfully consolidated competencies and capacities in patient care, health services research, and patient-focused studies across multiple centers,” Behrends said.

Chronic Pain and Fatigue

Post-COVID syndromes in children and adolescents may feature profound fatigue, unrefreshing sleep, post-exertional malaise, cognitive dysfunction, and orthostatic intolerance and overlap with conditions such as ME/CFS. According to the German patient association Fatigatio, Berlin, research and studies for these conditions in children remain limited compared with those in adults. However, the US Centers for Disease Control estimates that around 2% of ME/CFS patients are children or adolescents, with the majority being teenagers.

Two inpatient treatment concepts, SHARK and TIGER, developed by Lea Höfel, PhD, head of the Centre for Pain Therapy for Young People and the Psychological Service at the Children’s Hospital in Garmisch-Partenkirchen, address chronic pain, fatigue, and ME/CFS in young people. These programs integrate structured breaks and flexible access to multiple therapists as needed. The TIGER program focuses on those with post-exertional malaise, while the SHARK program is designed for adolescents without this symptom. Both programs last 4.5-5 weeks and emphasize symptom reduction, education, and energy management.

Preliminary Results

SHARK included 30 participants (7 men; average age, 16 years), of whom 12 had a history of SARS-CoV-2 infection. TIGER involved 100 participants (24 men; average age, 16.7 years), of whom 32 had a SARS-CoV-2 infection as a triggering event. Other triggers included Epstein-Barr virus and other infections.

Preliminary findings from the projects indicate that optimized management with outpatient and follow-up care can yield positive, sometimes lasting effects. No significant differences between SARS-CoV-2 and other triggers emerged, but pain proved more manageable in the SHARK group than in the TIGER group, suggesting they may involve different pathological mechanisms.

Hope for Improved Outcomes

“It’s important to move away from the idea that nothing can be done,” Behrends said. This is a common attitude with children and adolescents displaying these types of symptoms, but it’s simply not true. “Even in pediatrics, we have numerous therapeutic options that may offer relief, from medication to psychosocial interventions,” she concluded.

This story was translated from Medscape’s German edition using several editorial tools, including artificial intelligence, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In 2024, the Guttmacher Institute reported that eight states enacted or proposed limits on contraceptive access. Currently, more than 19 million women aged 13-44 years in the United States live in “contraceptive deserts” or places that lack access to a full range of birth control methods. About 1.2 million of those women live in counties that don’t have a single health center that has complete birth control services.

Providing contraceptive care in primary care settings has long been deemed a best practice by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). But the percentage of primary care physicians (PCPs) prescribing contraception or offering contraceptive procedures is strikingly low.

 

Only Half of Family Physicians (FPs) Prescribe Contraceptives

Research by Candice Chen, MD, MPH, and colleagues found that while 73.1% of obstetrician-gynecologists (OB/GYNs) and 72.6% of nurse-midwives prescribed the pill, patch, or vaginal ring; only 51% of FPs, 32.4% of pediatricians, and 19.8% of internal medicine physicians did so. And while 92.8% of OB/GYNs provided intrauterine device (IUD) services, only 16.4% of FPs, 2.6% of internists, and 0.6% of pediatricians did so.

One reason primary care is positioned so well to fill contraception gaps is found in the sheer numbers of PCPs. Chen and colleagues found that while the percentage of FPs prescribing contraception was much smaller (51.4%) than the percentage of OB/GYN prescribers (72.6%), the numbers translate to 72,725 FPs prescribing contraceptives, which is nearly double the number of OB/GYNs prescribing them (36,887).

Access to contraception services took a big hit with the COVID-19 pandemic as did access to healthcare in general. And the 2022 Supreme Court ruling that struck down Roe V. Wade has shaken up the landscape for reproductive services with potential consequences for contraceptive access.

 

Why Aren’t More PCPs Offering Contraceptive Services?

Reasons for the relatively low numbers of PCPs prescribing contraceptives include lack of training in residency, health systems’ financial choices, insurance barriers, and expectation by some physicians and many patients that birth control belongs in the OB/GYN sector. Access, patient awareness that PCPs can provide the care, expectations, and options vary by states and regions.

Angeline Ti, MD, an FP who teaches in a residency program at Wellstar Douglasville Medical Center in Douglasville, Georgia, told this news organization that the awareness issue might be the easiest change for PCPs as many patients aren’t aware you can get contraceptive services in primary care.

 

Things PCPs ‘Could Do Tomorrow’

Those physicians who want to add those services might want to start with universal screening, Ti said — having conversations with patients about contraceptive needs and letting them know they don’t have to get those prescriptions from an OB/GYN. The conversations could center on laying out the options and counseling on risks and benefits of various options and providing referrals, if that is the best option. “There are definitely things that you could do tomorrow,” she said.

PCPs should be familiar with the CDC’s Contraceptive Guidance for Health Care Providers and the federal Office of Population Affairs’ Quality Family Planning Recommendations for providers, which offer practice-level information, Ti said.

PCPs should not feel they need to be able to provide same-day contraceptive care to get started. Having nurses and medical assistants and practice managers on board who are passionate about adding the services can also help bring about change with a team approach, she said.

Even when the provider is enthusiastic about providing the care and is trained to do so, however, insurance barriers may exist, Ti acknowledged. For example, at her clinic a common IUD insertion requires prior authorization.

 

Including Other Providers

Julia Strasser, DrPH, MPH, a member of the core faculty at the Fitzhugh Mullan Institute for Health Workforce Equity in Washington, DC, told this news organization that including other clinicians could help expand contraceptive services in primary care. Her research showed that the proportion of the contraception workforce that is made up of advanced practice clinicians and nurse practitioners is increasing, whereas the proportion that includes physicians is either static or declining.

A paper by her team found that although OB/GYNs and nurse-midwives were more likely to prescribe the pill, patch, or ring, the largest numbers of contraception prescribers were FPs (72,725) and advanced practice nurses (70,115).

“We also know that pharmacists can safely prescribe contraception, and some states have authorized this practice, but uptake is low and policies vary by state,” she said. “Some health systems have pharmacists embedded in their practice — for example in federally qualified health centers and others.”

It’s important, she said, not to frame the gaps in contraceptive care as a failure on the part of individual clinicians but rather as: “How can we change some of the system-level factors that have gotten us to this point?”

Yalda Jabbarpour, MD, an FP and director of the Robert Graham Center of the American Academy of Family Physicians, said sometimes it’s the health center’s cost analysis that stands in the way. She gave an example from her own health system.

“The health system doesn’t want to pay for us to have the IUDs stored in our offices and provide that procedure because they feel it’s more cost effective if the OB/GYNs do it.” IUD insertions take more appointment time than the standard appointment, which also goes into the cost analysis. “Even though you’re trained to do it, you can’t necessarily do it when you get to the real world,” Jabbarpour said.

She said the thinking is that while OB/GYNs focus on women, FPs cover all ages and family members, so having the equipment and the storage space is best left to the OB/GYNs. She said that thinking may be short sighted.

“We have good data that the highest number of office visits in the United States actually happen in the family physician’s office,” she said. Not providing the services injects a barrier into the system as women are being referred for a simple procedure to a physician they’ve never seen. “That’s not very patient centered,” Jabbarpour noted.

In systems that refer contraceptive procedures to OB/GYNs, doctors also can’t practice skills they learned in residency and then may not feel comfortable performing the procedures when they enter a health system that offers the procedures in primary care.

 

Number of FPs Prescribing Long-Acting Contraception Growing

Jabbarpour said there has been some improvement in that area in terms of long-acting reversible contraception.

She pointed to a study of recertifying FPs that found that the percent of FPs who offer either IUDs or implants increased from 23.9% in 2018 to 30% in 2022. The share of FPs providing implant insertion increased from 12.9% to 20.8%; those providing IUDs also increased from 22.9% to 25.5% from 2018 to 2022.

FPs also have the advantage of being more widely distributed in rural and remote areas than OB/GYNs, she noted. “They are in almost every county in the United States.”

Jabbarpour said the education must start with health system leaders. If they deem it important to offer these services in primary care, then residency programs will see that their residents must be appropriately trained to provide it.

“Right now, it’s not an expectation of many of the employers that primary care physicians should do this,” she said.

Ti said that expectation should change. The value proposition for all PCPs and health systems, she said, is this: “Most of contraceptive care is well within the scope of primary care providers. This is care that we can do, and it’s care that we should be doing. So why aren’t we doing it?”

Ti, Strasser, and Jabbarpour reported no relevant financial disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In 2024, the Guttmacher Institute reported that eight states enacted or proposed limits on contraceptive access. Currently, more than 19 million women aged 13-44 years in the United States live in “contraceptive deserts” or places that lack access to a full range of birth control methods. About 1.2 million of those women live in counties that don’t have a single health center that has complete birth control services.

Providing contraceptive care in primary care settings has long been deemed a best practice by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). But the percentage of primary care physicians (PCPs) prescribing contraception or offering contraceptive procedures is strikingly low.

 

Only Half of Family Physicians (FPs) Prescribe Contraceptives

Research by Candice Chen, MD, MPH, and colleagues found that while 73.1% of obstetrician-gynecologists (OB/GYNs) and 72.6% of nurse-midwives prescribed the pill, patch, or vaginal ring; only 51% of FPs, 32.4% of pediatricians, and 19.8% of internal medicine physicians did so. And while 92.8% of OB/GYNs provided intrauterine device (IUD) services, only 16.4% of FPs, 2.6% of internists, and 0.6% of pediatricians did so.

One reason primary care is positioned so well to fill contraception gaps is found in the sheer numbers of PCPs. Chen and colleagues found that while the percentage of FPs prescribing contraception was much smaller (51.4%) than the percentage of OB/GYN prescribers (72.6%), the numbers translate to 72,725 FPs prescribing contraceptives, which is nearly double the number of OB/GYNs prescribing them (36,887).

Access to contraception services took a big hit with the COVID-19 pandemic as did access to healthcare in general. And the 2022 Supreme Court ruling that struck down Roe V. Wade has shaken up the landscape for reproductive services with potential consequences for contraceptive access.

 

Why Aren’t More PCPs Offering Contraceptive Services?

Reasons for the relatively low numbers of PCPs prescribing contraceptives include lack of training in residency, health systems’ financial choices, insurance barriers, and expectation by some physicians and many patients that birth control belongs in the OB/GYN sector. Access, patient awareness that PCPs can provide the care, expectations, and options vary by states and regions.

Angeline Ti, MD, an FP who teaches in a residency program at Wellstar Douglasville Medical Center in Douglasville, Georgia, told this news organization that the awareness issue might be the easiest change for PCPs as many patients aren’t aware you can get contraceptive services in primary care.

 

Things PCPs ‘Could Do Tomorrow’

Those physicians who want to add those services might want to start with universal screening, Ti said — having conversations with patients about contraceptive needs and letting them know they don’t have to get those prescriptions from an OB/GYN. The conversations could center on laying out the options and counseling on risks and benefits of various options and providing referrals, if that is the best option. “There are definitely things that you could do tomorrow,” she said.

PCPs should be familiar with the CDC’s Contraceptive Guidance for Health Care Providers and the federal Office of Population Affairs’ Quality Family Planning Recommendations for providers, which offer practice-level information, Ti said.

PCPs should not feel they need to be able to provide same-day contraceptive care to get started. Having nurses and medical assistants and practice managers on board who are passionate about adding the services can also help bring about change with a team approach, she said.

Even when the provider is enthusiastic about providing the care and is trained to do so, however, insurance barriers may exist, Ti acknowledged. For example, at her clinic a common IUD insertion requires prior authorization.

 

Including Other Providers

Julia Strasser, DrPH, MPH, a member of the core faculty at the Fitzhugh Mullan Institute for Health Workforce Equity in Washington, DC, told this news organization that including other clinicians could help expand contraceptive services in primary care. Her research showed that the proportion of the contraception workforce that is made up of advanced practice clinicians and nurse practitioners is increasing, whereas the proportion that includes physicians is either static or declining.

A paper by her team found that although OB/GYNs and nurse-midwives were more likely to prescribe the pill, patch, or ring, the largest numbers of contraception prescribers were FPs (72,725) and advanced practice nurses (70,115).

“We also know that pharmacists can safely prescribe contraception, and some states have authorized this practice, but uptake is low and policies vary by state,” she said. “Some health systems have pharmacists embedded in their practice — for example in federally qualified health centers and others.”

It’s important, she said, not to frame the gaps in contraceptive care as a failure on the part of individual clinicians but rather as: “How can we change some of the system-level factors that have gotten us to this point?”

Yalda Jabbarpour, MD, an FP and director of the Robert Graham Center of the American Academy of Family Physicians, said sometimes it’s the health center’s cost analysis that stands in the way. She gave an example from her own health system.

“The health system doesn’t want to pay for us to have the IUDs stored in our offices and provide that procedure because they feel it’s more cost effective if the OB/GYNs do it.” IUD insertions take more appointment time than the standard appointment, which also goes into the cost analysis. “Even though you’re trained to do it, you can’t necessarily do it when you get to the real world,” Jabbarpour said.

She said the thinking is that while OB/GYNs focus on women, FPs cover all ages and family members, so having the equipment and the storage space is best left to the OB/GYNs. She said that thinking may be short sighted.

“We have good data that the highest number of office visits in the United States actually happen in the family physician’s office,” she said. Not providing the services injects a barrier into the system as women are being referred for a simple procedure to a physician they’ve never seen. “That’s not very patient centered,” Jabbarpour noted.

In systems that refer contraceptive procedures to OB/GYNs, doctors also can’t practice skills they learned in residency and then may not feel comfortable performing the procedures when they enter a health system that offers the procedures in primary care.

 

Number of FPs Prescribing Long-Acting Contraception Growing

Jabbarpour said there has been some improvement in that area in terms of long-acting reversible contraception.

She pointed to a study of recertifying FPs that found that the percent of FPs who offer either IUDs or implants increased from 23.9% in 2018 to 30% in 2022. The share of FPs providing implant insertion increased from 12.9% to 20.8%; those providing IUDs also increased from 22.9% to 25.5% from 2018 to 2022.

FPs also have the advantage of being more widely distributed in rural and remote areas than OB/GYNs, she noted. “They are in almost every county in the United States.”

Jabbarpour said the education must start with health system leaders. If they deem it important to offer these services in primary care, then residency programs will see that their residents must be appropriately trained to provide it.

“Right now, it’s not an expectation of many of the employers that primary care physicians should do this,” she said.

Ti said that expectation should change. The value proposition for all PCPs and health systems, she said, is this: “Most of contraceptive care is well within the scope of primary care providers. This is care that we can do, and it’s care that we should be doing. So why aren’t we doing it?”

Ti, Strasser, and Jabbarpour reported no relevant financial disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In 2024, the Guttmacher Institute reported that eight states enacted or proposed limits on contraceptive access. Currently, more than 19 million women aged 13-44 years in the United States live in “contraceptive deserts” or places that lack access to a full range of birth control methods. About 1.2 million of those women live in counties that don’t have a single health center that has complete birth control services.

Providing contraceptive care in primary care settings has long been deemed a best practice by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). But the percentage of primary care physicians (PCPs) prescribing contraception or offering contraceptive procedures is strikingly low.

 

Only Half of Family Physicians (FPs) Prescribe Contraceptives

Research by Candice Chen, MD, MPH, and colleagues found that while 73.1% of obstetrician-gynecologists (OB/GYNs) and 72.6% of nurse-midwives prescribed the pill, patch, or vaginal ring; only 51% of FPs, 32.4% of pediatricians, and 19.8% of internal medicine physicians did so. And while 92.8% of OB/GYNs provided intrauterine device (IUD) services, only 16.4% of FPs, 2.6% of internists, and 0.6% of pediatricians did so.

One reason primary care is positioned so well to fill contraception gaps is found in the sheer numbers of PCPs. Chen and colleagues found that while the percentage of FPs prescribing contraception was much smaller (51.4%) than the percentage of OB/GYN prescribers (72.6%), the numbers translate to 72,725 FPs prescribing contraceptives, which is nearly double the number of OB/GYNs prescribing them (36,887).

Access to contraception services took a big hit with the COVID-19 pandemic as did access to healthcare in general. And the 2022 Supreme Court ruling that struck down Roe V. Wade has shaken up the landscape for reproductive services with potential consequences for contraceptive access.

 

Why Aren’t More PCPs Offering Contraceptive Services?

Reasons for the relatively low numbers of PCPs prescribing contraceptives include lack of training in residency, health systems’ financial choices, insurance barriers, and expectation by some physicians and many patients that birth control belongs in the OB/GYN sector. Access, patient awareness that PCPs can provide the care, expectations, and options vary by states and regions.

Angeline Ti, MD, an FP who teaches in a residency program at Wellstar Douglasville Medical Center in Douglasville, Georgia, told this news organization that the awareness issue might be the easiest change for PCPs as many patients aren’t aware you can get contraceptive services in primary care.

 

Things PCPs ‘Could Do Tomorrow’

Those physicians who want to add those services might want to start with universal screening, Ti said — having conversations with patients about contraceptive needs and letting them know they don’t have to get those prescriptions from an OB/GYN. The conversations could center on laying out the options and counseling on risks and benefits of various options and providing referrals, if that is the best option. “There are definitely things that you could do tomorrow,” she said.

PCPs should be familiar with the CDC’s Contraceptive Guidance for Health Care Providers and the federal Office of Population Affairs’ Quality Family Planning Recommendations for providers, which offer practice-level information, Ti said.

PCPs should not feel they need to be able to provide same-day contraceptive care to get started. Having nurses and medical assistants and practice managers on board who are passionate about adding the services can also help bring about change with a team approach, she said.

Even when the provider is enthusiastic about providing the care and is trained to do so, however, insurance barriers may exist, Ti acknowledged. For example, at her clinic a common IUD insertion requires prior authorization.

 

Including Other Providers

Julia Strasser, DrPH, MPH, a member of the core faculty at the Fitzhugh Mullan Institute for Health Workforce Equity in Washington, DC, told this news organization that including other clinicians could help expand contraceptive services in primary care. Her research showed that the proportion of the contraception workforce that is made up of advanced practice clinicians and nurse practitioners is increasing, whereas the proportion that includes physicians is either static or declining.

A paper by her team found that although OB/GYNs and nurse-midwives were more likely to prescribe the pill, patch, or ring, the largest numbers of contraception prescribers were FPs (72,725) and advanced practice nurses (70,115).

“We also know that pharmacists can safely prescribe contraception, and some states have authorized this practice, but uptake is low and policies vary by state,” she said. “Some health systems have pharmacists embedded in their practice — for example in federally qualified health centers and others.”

It’s important, she said, not to frame the gaps in contraceptive care as a failure on the part of individual clinicians but rather as: “How can we change some of the system-level factors that have gotten us to this point?”

Yalda Jabbarpour, MD, an FP and director of the Robert Graham Center of the American Academy of Family Physicians, said sometimes it’s the health center’s cost analysis that stands in the way. She gave an example from her own health system.

“The health system doesn’t want to pay for us to have the IUDs stored in our offices and provide that procedure because they feel it’s more cost effective if the OB/GYNs do it.” IUD insertions take more appointment time than the standard appointment, which also goes into the cost analysis. “Even though you’re trained to do it, you can’t necessarily do it when you get to the real world,” Jabbarpour said.

She said the thinking is that while OB/GYNs focus on women, FPs cover all ages and family members, so having the equipment and the storage space is best left to the OB/GYNs. She said that thinking may be short sighted.

“We have good data that the highest number of office visits in the United States actually happen in the family physician’s office,” she said. Not providing the services injects a barrier into the system as women are being referred for a simple procedure to a physician they’ve never seen. “That’s not very patient centered,” Jabbarpour noted.

In systems that refer contraceptive procedures to OB/GYNs, doctors also can’t practice skills they learned in residency and then may not feel comfortable performing the procedures when they enter a health system that offers the procedures in primary care.

 

Number of FPs Prescribing Long-Acting Contraception Growing

Jabbarpour said there has been some improvement in that area in terms of long-acting reversible contraception.

She pointed to a study of recertifying FPs that found that the percent of FPs who offer either IUDs or implants increased from 23.9% in 2018 to 30% in 2022. The share of FPs providing implant insertion increased from 12.9% to 20.8%; those providing IUDs also increased from 22.9% to 25.5% from 2018 to 2022.

FPs also have the advantage of being more widely distributed in rural and remote areas than OB/GYNs, she noted. “They are in almost every county in the United States.”

Jabbarpour said the education must start with health system leaders. If they deem it important to offer these services in primary care, then residency programs will see that their residents must be appropriately trained to provide it.

“Right now, it’s not an expectation of many of the employers that primary care physicians should do this,” she said.

Ti said that expectation should change. The value proposition for all PCPs and health systems, she said, is this: “Most of contraceptive care is well within the scope of primary care providers. This is care that we can do, and it’s care that we should be doing. So why aren’t we doing it?”

Ti, Strasser, and Jabbarpour reported no relevant financial disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In the second half of the school year, you may find that there is a surge of families coming to appointments with concerns about school performance, wondering if their child has ADHD. We expect you are very familiar with this condition, both diagnosing and treating it. So this month we will offer “mythbusters” for ADHD: Responding to common misperceptions about ADHD with a summary of what the research has demonstrated as emerging facts, what is clearly fiction and what falls into the gray space between.

Demographics

A CDC survey of parents from 2022 indicates that 11.4% of children aged 3-17 have ever been diagnosed with ADHD in the United States. This is more than double the ADHD global prevalence of 5%, suggesting that there is overdiagnosis of this condition in this country. Boys are almost twice as likely to be diagnosed (14.5%) as girls (8%), and White children were more likely to be diagnosed than were Black and Hispanic children. The prevalence of ADHD diagnosis decreases as family income increases, and the condition is more frequently diagnosed in 12- to 17-year-olds than in children 11 and younger. The great majority of youth with an ADHD diagnosis (78%) have at least one co-occurring psychiatric condition. Of the children diagnosed with ADHD, slightly over half receive medication treatment (53.6%) whereas nearly a third (30.1%) receive no ADHD-specific treatment.

The Multimodal Treatment of ADHD Study (MTA), a large (600 children, aged 7-9 years), multicenter, longitudinal study of treatment outcomes for medication as well as behavioral and combination therapies demonstrated in every site that medication alone and combination therapy were significantly superior to intensive behavioral treatment alone and to routine community care in the reduction of ADHD symptoms. Of note, problems commonly associated with ADHD (parent-child conflict, anxiety symptoms, poor academic performance, and limited social skills) improved only with the combination treatment. This suggests that while core ADHD symptoms require medication, associated problems will also require behavioral treatment.

The American Academy of Pediatrics has a useful resource guide (healthychildren.org) highlighting the possible symptoms of inattention, hyperactivity, and impulsivity that should be investigated when considering this diagnosis. It is a clinical diagnosis, but screening instruments (such as the Vanderbilt) can be very helpful to identifying symptoms that should be present in more than one setting (home and school). While a child with ADHD can appear calm and focused when receiving direct one-to-one attention (as during a pediatrician’s appointment), symptoms may flourish in less structured or supervised settings. Sometimes parents are keen reporters of a child’s behaviors, but some loving (and exhausted) parents may overreact to a normal degree of inattention or disobedience. This can be especially true when a parent has a more detail-oriented temperament than the child, or with younger children and first-time parents. It is important to consider ADHD when you hear about social difficulties as well as academic ones, where there is a family history of ADHD or when a child is more impulsive, hyperactive, or inattentive than you would expect given their age and developmental stage. Confirm your clinical exam with teacher and parent reports. If the reports don’t line up or there are persistent learning problems in school, consider neuropsychological testing to root out a learning disability.

 

Myth 1: “ADHD never starts in adolescence; you can’t diagnose it after elementary school.”

Diagnostic criteria used to require that symptoms were present before the age of 7 (DSM 3). But current criteria allow for diagnosis before 12 years of age or after. While the consensus is that ADHD is present in childhood, its symptoms are often not apparent. This is because normal development in much younger children is marked by higher levels of activity, distractibility, and impulsivity. Also, children with inattentive-type ADHD may not be apparent to adults if they are performing adequately in school. These youth often do not present for assessment until the challenges of a busy course load make their inattention and consequent inefficiency apparent, in high school or even college. Certainly, when a teenager presents complaining of trouble performing at school, it is critical to rule out an overburdened schedule, anxiety or mood disorder, poor sleep habits or sleep disorder, and substance use disorders, all of which are more common in adolescence. But inattentive-type ADHD that was previously missed is also a possibility worth investigating.

Myth 2: “Most children outgrow ADHD; it’s best to find natural solutions and wait it out.”

Early epidemiological studies suggested that as many as 30% of ADHD cases remitted by adulthood, but more recent data has adjusted that number down substantially, closer to 9%. Interestingly, it appears that 10% of patients will experience sustained symptoms, 9% will experience recovery (sustained remission without treatment), and a large majority will have a remitting and relapsing course into adulthood.¹

This emerging evidence suggests that ADHD is almost always a lifelong condition. Untreated, it can threaten healthy development (including social skills and self-esteem) and day-to-day function (academic, social and athletic performance and even vulnerability to accidents) in ways that can be profound. The MTA Study has powerfully demonstrated the efficacy of pharmacological treatment and of specific behavioral treatments for ADHD and associated problems.

 

Myth 3: “You should exhaust natural cures first before trying medications.”

There has been a large amount of research into a variety of “natural” treatments for ADHD: special diets, supplements, increased exercise, and interventions like neurofeedback. While high-dose omega 3 fatty acid supplementation has demonstrated mild improvement in ADHD symptoms, no “natural” treatment has come close to the efficacy of stimulant medications. Interventions such as neurofeedback are expensive and time-consuming without any demonstrated efficacy. That said, improving a child’s routines around sleep, nutrition, and regular exercise are broadly useful strategies to improve any child’s (or adult’s) energy, impulse control, attention, motivation, and capacity to manage adversity and stress. Start any treatment by addressing sleep and exercise, including moderating time spent on screens, to support healthy function. But only medication will achieve symptom remission if your patient has underlying ADHD.

Myth 4: “All medications are equally effective in ADHD.”

It is well-established that stimulants are more effective than non-stimulants in the treatment of ADHD symptoms, with an effect size that is almost double that of non-stimulants.²

Amphetamine-based medications are slightly more effective than methylphenidate-based medications, but they are also generally less well-tolerated. Individual patients commonly have a better response to one class than the other, but you will need a trial to determine which one. It is reasonable to start a patient with an extended formulation of one class, based on your assessment of their vulnerability to side effects or a family history of medication response. Non-stimulants are of use when stimulants are not tolerated (ie, use of atomoxetine with patients who have comorbid anxiety), or to target specific symptoms, such as guanfacine or clonidine for hyperactivity.

 

Myth 5: “You can’t treat ADHD in substance abusing teens, stimulant medications are addictive.”

ADHD itself (not medications) increases the risk for addiction; those with ADHD are almost twice as likely to develop a substance use disorder, with highest risk for marijuana, alcohol, and nicotine abuse.³

This may be a function of limited impulse control or increased sensitivity in the ADHD brain to a drug’s addictive potential. Importantly, there is growing evidence that youth whose ADHD is treated pharmacologically are at lower risk for addiction than their peers with untreated ADHD.⁴

Those youth who have both ADHD and addiction are more likely to stay engaged in treatment for addiction when their ADHD is effectively treated, and there are medication formulations (lisdexamfetamine) that are safe in addiction (cannot be absorbed nasally or intravenously). It is important for you to talk about the heightened vulnerability to addiction with your ADHD patients and their parents, and the value of effective treatment in preventing this complication.

 

Myth 6: “ADHD is usually behavioral. Help parents to set rules, expectations, and limits instead of medicating the problem.”

Bad parenting does not cause ADHD. ADHD is marked by difficulties with impulse control, hyperactivity, and sustaining attention with matters that are not intrinsically engaging. “Behavioral issues” are patterns of behavior children learn to seek rewards or avoid negative consequences. Youth with ADHD can develop behavioral problems, but these are usually driven by negative feedback about their activity level, forgetfulness, or impulse control, which they are not able to change. This can lead to frustration and irritability, poor self-esteem, and even hopelessness — in parents and children both!

While parents are not the source of ADHD symptoms, there is a great deal of parent education and support that can be powerfully effective for these families. Parents benefit from learning strategies that can help their children to shift their attention, plan ahead, and manage frustration, especially for times when their children are unmedicated (vacations and bedtime). It is worth noting that ADHD is among the most heritable of youth psychiatric illnesses, so it is not uncommon for a parent of a child with ADHD to have similar symptoms. If the parents’ ADHD is untreated, they may be more impulsive themselves. They may also be extra sensitive to the qualities they dislike in themselves, inadvertently adding to their children’s sense of shame. ADHD is very treatable, and those with it can learn executive function skills and organizational strategies that can equip them to manage residual symptoms. Parents will benefit from strategies to understand their children and to help them learn adaptive skills in a realistic way. Your discussions with parents could help the families in your practice make adjustments that can translate into big differences in their child’s healthiest development.

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

References

1. Sibley MH et al. MTA Cooperative Group. Variable Patterns of Remission From ADHD in the Multimodal Treatment Study of ADHD. Am J Psychiatry. 2022 Feb;179(2):142-151. doi: 10.1176/appi.ajp.2021.21010032.

2. Cortese S et al. Comparative Efficacy and Tolerability of Medications for Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder in Children, Adolescents, and Adults: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis. Lancet Psychiatry. 2018 Sep;5(9):727-738. doi: 10.1016/S2215-0366(18)30269-4.

3. Lee SS et al. Prospective Association of Childhood Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and Substance Use and Abuse/Dependence: A Meta-Analytic Review. Clin Psychol Rev. 2011 Apr;31(3):328-41. doi: 10.1016/j.cpr.2011.01.006. 

4. Chorniy A, Kitashima L. Sex, Drugs, and ADHD: The Effects of ADHD Pharmacological Treatment on Teens’ Risky Behaviors. Labour Economics. 2016;43:87-105. doi.org/10.1016/j.labeco.2016.06.014.

In the second half of the school year, you may find that there is a surge of families coming to appointments with concerns about school performance, wondering if their child has ADHD. We expect you are very familiar with this condition, both diagnosing and treating it. So this month we will offer “mythbusters” for ADHD: Responding to common misperceptions about ADHD with a summary of what the research has demonstrated as emerging facts, what is clearly fiction and what falls into the gray space between.

Demographics

A CDC survey of parents from 2022 indicates that 11.4% of children aged 3-17 have ever been diagnosed with ADHD in the United States. This is more than double the ADHD global prevalence of 5%, suggesting that there is overdiagnosis of this condition in this country. Boys are almost twice as likely to be diagnosed (14.5%) as girls (8%), and White children were more likely to be diagnosed than were Black and Hispanic children. The prevalence of ADHD diagnosis decreases as family income increases, and the condition is more frequently diagnosed in 12- to 17-year-olds than in children 11 and younger. The great majority of youth with an ADHD diagnosis (78%) have at least one co-occurring psychiatric condition. Of the children diagnosed with ADHD, slightly over half receive medication treatment (53.6%) whereas nearly a third (30.1%) receive no ADHD-specific treatment.

The Multimodal Treatment of ADHD Study (MTA), a large (600 children, aged 7-9 years), multicenter, longitudinal study of treatment outcomes for medication as well as behavioral and combination therapies demonstrated in every site that medication alone and combination therapy were significantly superior to intensive behavioral treatment alone and to routine community care in the reduction of ADHD symptoms. Of note, problems commonly associated with ADHD (parent-child conflict, anxiety symptoms, poor academic performance, and limited social skills) improved only with the combination treatment. This suggests that while core ADHD symptoms require medication, associated problems will also require behavioral treatment.

The American Academy of Pediatrics has a useful resource guide (healthychildren.org) highlighting the possible symptoms of inattention, hyperactivity, and impulsivity that should be investigated when considering this diagnosis. It is a clinical diagnosis, but screening instruments (such as the Vanderbilt) can be very helpful to identifying symptoms that should be present in more than one setting (home and school). While a child with ADHD can appear calm and focused when receiving direct one-to-one attention (as during a pediatrician’s appointment), symptoms may flourish in less structured or supervised settings. Sometimes parents are keen reporters of a child’s behaviors, but some loving (and exhausted) parents may overreact to a normal degree of inattention or disobedience. This can be especially true when a parent has a more detail-oriented temperament than the child, or with younger children and first-time parents. It is important to consider ADHD when you hear about social difficulties as well as academic ones, where there is a family history of ADHD or when a child is more impulsive, hyperactive, or inattentive than you would expect given their age and developmental stage. Confirm your clinical exam with teacher and parent reports. If the reports don’t line up or there are persistent learning problems in school, consider neuropsychological testing to root out a learning disability.

 

Myth 1: “ADHD never starts in adolescence; you can’t diagnose it after elementary school.”

Diagnostic criteria used to require that symptoms were present before the age of 7 (DSM 3). But current criteria allow for diagnosis before 12 years of age or after. While the consensus is that ADHD is present in childhood, its symptoms are often not apparent. This is because normal development in much younger children is marked by higher levels of activity, distractibility, and impulsivity. Also, children with inattentive-type ADHD may not be apparent to adults if they are performing adequately in school. These youth often do not present for assessment until the challenges of a busy course load make their inattention and consequent inefficiency apparent, in high school or even college. Certainly, when a teenager presents complaining of trouble performing at school, it is critical to rule out an overburdened schedule, anxiety or mood disorder, poor sleep habits or sleep disorder, and substance use disorders, all of which are more common in adolescence. But inattentive-type ADHD that was previously missed is also a possibility worth investigating.

Myth 2: “Most children outgrow ADHD; it’s best to find natural solutions and wait it out.”

Early epidemiological studies suggested that as many as 30% of ADHD cases remitted by adulthood, but more recent data has adjusted that number down substantially, closer to 9%. Interestingly, it appears that 10% of patients will experience sustained symptoms, 9% will experience recovery (sustained remission without treatment), and a large majority will have a remitting and relapsing course into adulthood.¹

This emerging evidence suggests that ADHD is almost always a lifelong condition. Untreated, it can threaten healthy development (including social skills and self-esteem) and day-to-day function (academic, social and athletic performance and even vulnerability to accidents) in ways that can be profound. The MTA Study has powerfully demonstrated the efficacy of pharmacological treatment and of specific behavioral treatments for ADHD and associated problems.

 

Myth 3: “You should exhaust natural cures first before trying medications.”

There has been a large amount of research into a variety of “natural” treatments for ADHD: special diets, supplements, increased exercise, and interventions like neurofeedback. While high-dose omega 3 fatty acid supplementation has demonstrated mild improvement in ADHD symptoms, no “natural” treatment has come close to the efficacy of stimulant medications. Interventions such as neurofeedback are expensive and time-consuming without any demonstrated efficacy. That said, improving a child’s routines around sleep, nutrition, and regular exercise are broadly useful strategies to improve any child’s (or adult’s) energy, impulse control, attention, motivation, and capacity to manage adversity and stress. Start any treatment by addressing sleep and exercise, including moderating time spent on screens, to support healthy function. But only medication will achieve symptom remission if your patient has underlying ADHD.

Myth 4: “All medications are equally effective in ADHD.”

It is well-established that stimulants are more effective than non-stimulants in the treatment of ADHD symptoms, with an effect size that is almost double that of non-stimulants.²

Amphetamine-based medications are slightly more effective than methylphenidate-based medications, but they are also generally less well-tolerated. Individual patients commonly have a better response to one class than the other, but you will need a trial to determine which one. It is reasonable to start a patient with an extended formulation of one class, based on your assessment of their vulnerability to side effects or a family history of medication response. Non-stimulants are of use when stimulants are not tolerated (ie, use of atomoxetine with patients who have comorbid anxiety), or to target specific symptoms, such as guanfacine or clonidine for hyperactivity.

 

Myth 5: “You can’t treat ADHD in substance abusing teens, stimulant medications are addictive.”

ADHD itself (not medications) increases the risk for addiction; those with ADHD are almost twice as likely to develop a substance use disorder, with highest risk for marijuana, alcohol, and nicotine abuse.³

This may be a function of limited impulse control or increased sensitivity in the ADHD brain to a drug’s addictive potential. Importantly, there is growing evidence that youth whose ADHD is treated pharmacologically are at lower risk for addiction than their peers with untreated ADHD.⁴

Those youth who have both ADHD and addiction are more likely to stay engaged in treatment for addiction when their ADHD is effectively treated, and there are medication formulations (lisdexamfetamine) that are safe in addiction (cannot be absorbed nasally or intravenously). It is important for you to talk about the heightened vulnerability to addiction with your ADHD patients and their parents, and the value of effective treatment in preventing this complication.

 

Myth 6: “ADHD is usually behavioral. Help parents to set rules, expectations, and limits instead of medicating the problem.”

Bad parenting does not cause ADHD. ADHD is marked by difficulties with impulse control, hyperactivity, and sustaining attention with matters that are not intrinsically engaging. “Behavioral issues” are patterns of behavior children learn to seek rewards or avoid negative consequences. Youth with ADHD can develop behavioral problems, but these are usually driven by negative feedback about their activity level, forgetfulness, or impulse control, which they are not able to change. This can lead to frustration and irritability, poor self-esteem, and even hopelessness — in parents and children both!

While parents are not the source of ADHD symptoms, there is a great deal of parent education and support that can be powerfully effective for these families. Parents benefit from learning strategies that can help their children to shift their attention, plan ahead, and manage frustration, especially for times when their children are unmedicated (vacations and bedtime). It is worth noting that ADHD is among the most heritable of youth psychiatric illnesses, so it is not uncommon for a parent of a child with ADHD to have similar symptoms. If the parents’ ADHD is untreated, they may be more impulsive themselves. They may also be extra sensitive to the qualities they dislike in themselves, inadvertently adding to their children’s sense of shame. ADHD is very treatable, and those with it can learn executive function skills and organizational strategies that can equip them to manage residual symptoms. Parents will benefit from strategies to understand their children and to help them learn adaptive skills in a realistic way. Your discussions with parents could help the families in your practice make adjustments that can translate into big differences in their child’s healthiest development.

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

References

1. Sibley MH et al. MTA Cooperative Group. Variable Patterns of Remission From ADHD in the Multimodal Treatment Study of ADHD. Am J Psychiatry. 2022 Feb;179(2):142-151. doi: 10.1176/appi.ajp.2021.21010032.

2. Cortese S et al. Comparative Efficacy and Tolerability of Medications for Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder in Children, Adolescents, and Adults: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis. Lancet Psychiatry. 2018 Sep;5(9):727-738. doi: 10.1016/S2215-0366(18)30269-4.

3. Lee SS et al. Prospective Association of Childhood Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and Substance Use and Abuse/Dependence: A Meta-Analytic Review. Clin Psychol Rev. 2011 Apr;31(3):328-41. doi: 10.1016/j.cpr.2011.01.006. 

4. Chorniy A, Kitashima L. Sex, Drugs, and ADHD: The Effects of ADHD Pharmacological Treatment on Teens’ Risky Behaviors. Labour Economics. 2016;43:87-105. doi.org/10.1016/j.labeco.2016.06.014.

In the second half of the school year, you may find that there is a surge of families coming to appointments with concerns about school performance, wondering if their child has ADHD. We expect you are very familiar with this condition, both diagnosing and treating it. So this month we will offer “mythbusters” for ADHD: Responding to common misperceptions about ADHD with a summary of what the research has demonstrated as emerging facts, what is clearly fiction and what falls into the gray space between.

Demographics

A CDC survey of parents from 2022 indicates that 11.4% of children aged 3-17 have ever been diagnosed with ADHD in the United States. This is more than double the ADHD global prevalence of 5%, suggesting that there is overdiagnosis of this condition in this country. Boys are almost twice as likely to be diagnosed (14.5%) as girls (8%), and White children were more likely to be diagnosed than were Black and Hispanic children. The prevalence of ADHD diagnosis decreases as family income increases, and the condition is more frequently diagnosed in 12- to 17-year-olds than in children 11 and younger. The great majority of youth with an ADHD diagnosis (78%) have at least one co-occurring psychiatric condition. Of the children diagnosed with ADHD, slightly over half receive medication treatment (53.6%) whereas nearly a third (30.1%) receive no ADHD-specific treatment.

The Multimodal Treatment of ADHD Study (MTA), a large (600 children, aged 7-9 years), multicenter, longitudinal study of treatment outcomes for medication as well as behavioral and combination therapies demonstrated in every site that medication alone and combination therapy were significantly superior to intensive behavioral treatment alone and to routine community care in the reduction of ADHD symptoms. Of note, problems commonly associated with ADHD (parent-child conflict, anxiety symptoms, poor academic performance, and limited social skills) improved only with the combination treatment. This suggests that while core ADHD symptoms require medication, associated problems will also require behavioral treatment.

The American Academy of Pediatrics has a useful resource guide (healthychildren.org) highlighting the possible symptoms of inattention, hyperactivity, and impulsivity that should be investigated when considering this diagnosis. It is a clinical diagnosis, but screening instruments (such as the Vanderbilt) can be very helpful to identifying symptoms that should be present in more than one setting (home and school). While a child with ADHD can appear calm and focused when receiving direct one-to-one attention (as during a pediatrician’s appointment), symptoms may flourish in less structured or supervised settings. Sometimes parents are keen reporters of a child’s behaviors, but some loving (and exhausted) parents may overreact to a normal degree of inattention or disobedience. This can be especially true when a parent has a more detail-oriented temperament than the child, or with younger children and first-time parents. It is important to consider ADHD when you hear about social difficulties as well as academic ones, where there is a family history of ADHD or when a child is more impulsive, hyperactive, or inattentive than you would expect given their age and developmental stage. Confirm your clinical exam with teacher and parent reports. If the reports don’t line up or there are persistent learning problems in school, consider neuropsychological testing to root out a learning disability.

 

Myth 1: “ADHD never starts in adolescence; you can’t diagnose it after elementary school.”

Diagnostic criteria used to require that symptoms were present before the age of 7 (DSM 3). But current criteria allow for diagnosis before 12 years of age or after. While the consensus is that ADHD is present in childhood, its symptoms are often not apparent. This is because normal development in much younger children is marked by higher levels of activity, distractibility, and impulsivity. Also, children with inattentive-type ADHD may not be apparent to adults if they are performing adequately in school. These youth often do not present for assessment until the challenges of a busy course load make their inattention and consequent inefficiency apparent, in high school or even college. Certainly, when a teenager presents complaining of trouble performing at school, it is critical to rule out an overburdened schedule, anxiety or mood disorder, poor sleep habits or sleep disorder, and substance use disorders, all of which are more common in adolescence. But inattentive-type ADHD that was previously missed is also a possibility worth investigating.

Myth 2: “Most children outgrow ADHD; it’s best to find natural solutions and wait it out.”

Early epidemiological studies suggested that as many as 30% of ADHD cases remitted by adulthood, but more recent data has adjusted that number down substantially, closer to 9%. Interestingly, it appears that 10% of patients will experience sustained symptoms, 9% will experience recovery (sustained remission without treatment), and a large majority will have a remitting and relapsing course into adulthood.¹

This emerging evidence suggests that ADHD is almost always a lifelong condition. Untreated, it can threaten healthy development (including social skills and self-esteem) and day-to-day function (academic, social and athletic performance and even vulnerability to accidents) in ways that can be profound. The MTA Study has powerfully demonstrated the efficacy of pharmacological treatment and of specific behavioral treatments for ADHD and associated problems.

 

Myth 3: “You should exhaust natural cures first before trying medications.”

There has been a large amount of research into a variety of “natural” treatments for ADHD: special diets, supplements, increased exercise, and interventions like neurofeedback. While high-dose omega 3 fatty acid supplementation has demonstrated mild improvement in ADHD symptoms, no “natural” treatment has come close to the efficacy of stimulant medications. Interventions such as neurofeedback are expensive and time-consuming without any demonstrated efficacy. That said, improving a child’s routines around sleep, nutrition, and regular exercise are broadly useful strategies to improve any child’s (or adult’s) energy, impulse control, attention, motivation, and capacity to manage adversity and stress. Start any treatment by addressing sleep and exercise, including moderating time spent on screens, to support healthy function. But only medication will achieve symptom remission if your patient has underlying ADHD.

Myth 4: “All medications are equally effective in ADHD.”

It is well-established that stimulants are more effective than non-stimulants in the treatment of ADHD symptoms, with an effect size that is almost double that of non-stimulants.²

Amphetamine-based medications are slightly more effective than methylphenidate-based medications, but they are also generally less well-tolerated. Individual patients commonly have a better response to one class than the other, but you will need a trial to determine which one. It is reasonable to start a patient with an extended formulation of one class, based on your assessment of their vulnerability to side effects or a family history of medication response. Non-stimulants are of use when stimulants are not tolerated (ie, use of atomoxetine with patients who have comorbid anxiety), or to target specific symptoms, such as guanfacine or clonidine for hyperactivity.

 

Myth 5: “You can’t treat ADHD in substance abusing teens, stimulant medications are addictive.”

ADHD itself (not medications) increases the risk for addiction; those with ADHD are almost twice as likely to develop a substance use disorder, with highest risk for marijuana, alcohol, and nicotine abuse.³

This may be a function of limited impulse control or increased sensitivity in the ADHD brain to a drug’s addictive potential. Importantly, there is growing evidence that youth whose ADHD is treated pharmacologically are at lower risk for addiction than their peers with untreated ADHD.⁴

Those youth who have both ADHD and addiction are more likely to stay engaged in treatment for addiction when their ADHD is effectively treated, and there are medication formulations (lisdexamfetamine) that are safe in addiction (cannot be absorbed nasally or intravenously). It is important for you to talk about the heightened vulnerability to addiction with your ADHD patients and their parents, and the value of effective treatment in preventing this complication.

 

Myth 6: “ADHD is usually behavioral. Help parents to set rules, expectations, and limits instead of medicating the problem.”

Bad parenting does not cause ADHD. ADHD is marked by difficulties with impulse control, hyperactivity, and sustaining attention with matters that are not intrinsically engaging. “Behavioral issues” are patterns of behavior children learn to seek rewards or avoid negative consequences. Youth with ADHD can develop behavioral problems, but these are usually driven by negative feedback about their activity level, forgetfulness, or impulse control, which they are not able to change. This can lead to frustration and irritability, poor self-esteem, and even hopelessness — in parents and children both!

While parents are not the source of ADHD symptoms, there is a great deal of parent education and support that can be powerfully effective for these families. Parents benefit from learning strategies that can help their children to shift their attention, plan ahead, and manage frustration, especially for times when their children are unmedicated (vacations and bedtime). It is worth noting that ADHD is among the most heritable of youth psychiatric illnesses, so it is not uncommon for a parent of a child with ADHD to have similar symptoms. If the parents’ ADHD is untreated, they may be more impulsive themselves. They may also be extra sensitive to the qualities they dislike in themselves, inadvertently adding to their children’s sense of shame. ADHD is very treatable, and those with it can learn executive function skills and organizational strategies that can equip them to manage residual symptoms. Parents will benefit from strategies to understand their children and to help them learn adaptive skills in a realistic way. Your discussions with parents could help the families in your practice make adjustments that can translate into big differences in their child’s healthiest development.

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

References

1. Sibley MH et al. MTA Cooperative Group. Variable Patterns of Remission From ADHD in the Multimodal Treatment Study of ADHD. Am J Psychiatry. 2022 Feb;179(2):142-151. doi: 10.1176/appi.ajp.2021.21010032.

2. Cortese S et al. Comparative Efficacy and Tolerability of Medications for Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder in Children, Adolescents, and Adults: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis. Lancet Psychiatry. 2018 Sep;5(9):727-738. doi: 10.1016/S2215-0366(18)30269-4.

3. Lee SS et al. Prospective Association of Childhood Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and Substance Use and Abuse/Dependence: A Meta-Analytic Review. Clin Psychol Rev. 2011 Apr;31(3):328-41. doi: 10.1016/j.cpr.2011.01.006. 

4. Chorniy A, Kitashima L. Sex, Drugs, and ADHD: The Effects of ADHD Pharmacological Treatment on Teens’ Risky Behaviors. Labour Economics. 2016;43:87-105. doi.org/10.1016/j.labeco.2016.06.014.