Pediatrics

Less than 10% of parents followed recommended safe sleep practices for their infants aged 12 months and younger at both sleep onset and after nighttime waking, based on data from a survey of 1,500 parents published in Pediatrics.

Sleep-related death remains a major cause of infant mortality in the United States despite the early success of public health campaigns for safe sleep practices, such as “Back to Sleep,” and many parents persist in unsafe practices such as prone positioning and bed-sharing, Mersine A. Bryan, MD, of the University of Washington, Seattle, and colleagues wrote. “Though nighttime waking is common for infants, less attention has been paid to the safety of second-sleep practices.”

To examine the prevalence and safety of infant second-sleep practices, the researchers used a cross-sectional online survey to collect information on sleep practices from parents of infants aged 12 months and younger; 74% of the respondents were female, 65% were White, 12% were Black, and 17% were Hispanic. The mean age of the infants was 6.6 months, and 24% were aged 3 months and younger.

The survey included parent reports of three safe sleep practices based on the American Academy of Pediatrics 2016 Safe Infant Sleep Guidelines: supine infant sleep position, use of a separate sleep space (vs. bed sharing), and use of an approved surface/safe location (such as a bassinet, crib, cradle, or play yard vs. an adult bed).

Parents were asked to report sleep practices at sleep onset and at nighttime waking, and the researchers used a composite score to determine safe practices were met at each of these two time points.

Of the 1,500 participants, 581 (39%), reported any second-sleep practice. Of the 482 who reported on all three sleep practices at both time points, 29% met all three safe sleep criteria at sleep onset and 9% met all three safe sleep criteria at sleep onset and nighttime waking.

Of the parents who reported second sleep practices, 39% reported changes in practice after nighttime waking from sleep onset. Significantly more parents who switched practices between sleep onset and nighttime waking shifted from a safer to a less safe practice, the researchers noted.

For positioning, 67% of respondents overall reported placing infants on their backs at sleep onset. Among the 564 who reported a second sleep position, 42% placed infants on their backs again; 13% switched from supine to nonsupine positions and 7% changed from nonsupine to supine.

For sleep spaces, 72% of participants overall reported a separate sleep space for infants at sleep onset. Of the 508 who reported on second-sleep spaces, 54% kept infants in a separate space after nighttime waking, 18% shifted to a shared space after nighttime waking. Of those in shared spaces at sleep onset, 8% shifted to separate spaces after nighttime waking.

For sleep location, 71% of respondents overall used an approved sleep surface at sleep onset. Of the 560 who reported sleep location at both time points, 42% remained in a safe location after nighttime waking, while 30% were moved from a safe to an unsafe location, and 10% of those in an unsafe location were moved from an unsafe to a safe location.

In a multivariate analysis, the researchers examined the demographics associated with changes in sleep practice after nighttime waking. Parents younger than 25 years, first-time parents, those who identified as Black non-Hispanic or Hispanic, smokers, and those with preterm infants (less than 37 weeks’ gestation) were more likely to change sleep practices after nighttime waking. However, parents who reported a safe sleep practice at sleep onset were more likely to do so after nighttime waking.

“We hypothesize that expansion of existing strategies to promote infant safe sleep practices to include sleep practices after nighttime waking can have a positive impact on infant safe sleep,” the researchers wrote.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the use of an online survey, which limited the study population to those with internet and computer access, and the reliance on self-reports and only two time points, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the inclusion of only three of the AAP sleep recommendations, and the inclusion of only English speakers.

However, the results were strengthened by the large, diverse, and geographically representative sample of parents.

“When advising families about infant sleep, pediatricians should discuss nighttime wakings with parents because they are common and reinforce the need for safe sleep practices every time,” the researchers noted.
 

Increase opportunities for education

The current study is important because infants continue to die or experience life-long catastrophic health outcomes as a result of not following safe sleep practices, Cathy Haut, DNP, CPNP-AC, CPNP-PC, a pediatric nurse practitioner in Rehoboth Beach, Del., said in an interview.

“I am not surprised by the study findings,” said Dr. Haut, who was not involved in the study. “As a pediatric nurse practitioner for over 35 years, I see infant sleep as a continuing challenge for families. In today’s fast-paced world, multiple priorities leave parents few resources for managing their own well-being, with adequate sleep being one health requirement that is often not met for them.”

To improve safe sleep practices, “it is imperative for health care providers in any setting to address safe sleep practices for infants and children,” said Dr. Haut. “In addition to safety, opportunity for adequate hours of sleep is also important.” She acknowledged that, “in the office setting, time is a huge barrier to completing comprehensive anticipatory guidance. When parents ask questions about sleep, they are often doing everything they can to physically make it through the night with a crying infant. Enforcing safe practices at this point is extremely difficult.”

However, some opportunities for safe sleep education include the prenatal period when parents can take time to listen and plan, not just for feeding preferences but for safe infant sleep practices, Dr. Haut noted.

“When sleep is a problem, families can be invited back to the office for additional counseling and education, which allows more time than within a scheduled health visit,” Dr. Haut emphasized. “Finally, enhanced public awareness is an aspect of learning. In my career I have seen the devastating results of suffocation while cosleeping as well as injuries from falling from a bed or inappropriate sleeping space, and other poor outcomes from inadequate support for safe sleep habits.”

As for additional research, studies are needed to include larger populations and “to further quantify positive outcomes of following safe sleeping practices,” said Dr. Haut. The results of these studies should be made available to the general public, not only to health care professionals. 

The study was supported by Seattle Children’s Research Institute. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Haut had no financial conflicts to disclose and serves on the editorial advisory board of Pediatric News.

Less than 10% of parents followed recommended safe sleep practices for their infants aged 12 months and younger at both sleep onset and after nighttime waking, based on data from a survey of 1,500 parents published in Pediatrics.

Sleep-related death remains a major cause of infant mortality in the United States despite the early success of public health campaigns for safe sleep practices, such as “Back to Sleep,” and many parents persist in unsafe practices such as prone positioning and bed-sharing, Mersine A. Bryan, MD, of the University of Washington, Seattle, and colleagues wrote. “Though nighttime waking is common for infants, less attention has been paid to the safety of second-sleep practices.”

To examine the prevalence and safety of infant second-sleep practices, the researchers used a cross-sectional online survey to collect information on sleep practices from parents of infants aged 12 months and younger; 74% of the respondents were female, 65% were White, 12% were Black, and 17% were Hispanic. The mean age of the infants was 6.6 months, and 24% were aged 3 months and younger.

The survey included parent reports of three safe sleep practices based on the American Academy of Pediatrics 2016 Safe Infant Sleep Guidelines: supine infant sleep position, use of a separate sleep space (vs. bed sharing), and use of an approved surface/safe location (such as a bassinet, crib, cradle, or play yard vs. an adult bed).

Parents were asked to report sleep practices at sleep onset and at nighttime waking, and the researchers used a composite score to determine safe practices were met at each of these two time points.

Of the 1,500 participants, 581 (39%), reported any second-sleep practice. Of the 482 who reported on all three sleep practices at both time points, 29% met all three safe sleep criteria at sleep onset and 9% met all three safe sleep criteria at sleep onset and nighttime waking.

Of the parents who reported second sleep practices, 39% reported changes in practice after nighttime waking from sleep onset. Significantly more parents who switched practices between sleep onset and nighttime waking shifted from a safer to a less safe practice, the researchers noted.

For positioning, 67% of respondents overall reported placing infants on their backs at sleep onset. Among the 564 who reported a second sleep position, 42% placed infants on their backs again; 13% switched from supine to nonsupine positions and 7% changed from nonsupine to supine.

For sleep spaces, 72% of participants overall reported a separate sleep space for infants at sleep onset. Of the 508 who reported on second-sleep spaces, 54% kept infants in a separate space after nighttime waking, 18% shifted to a shared space after nighttime waking. Of those in shared spaces at sleep onset, 8% shifted to separate spaces after nighttime waking.

For sleep location, 71% of respondents overall used an approved sleep surface at sleep onset. Of the 560 who reported sleep location at both time points, 42% remained in a safe location after nighttime waking, while 30% were moved from a safe to an unsafe location, and 10% of those in an unsafe location were moved from an unsafe to a safe location.

In a multivariate analysis, the researchers examined the demographics associated with changes in sleep practice after nighttime waking. Parents younger than 25 years, first-time parents, those who identified as Black non-Hispanic or Hispanic, smokers, and those with preterm infants (less than 37 weeks’ gestation) were more likely to change sleep practices after nighttime waking. However, parents who reported a safe sleep practice at sleep onset were more likely to do so after nighttime waking.

“We hypothesize that expansion of existing strategies to promote infant safe sleep practices to include sleep practices after nighttime waking can have a positive impact on infant safe sleep,” the researchers wrote.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the use of an online survey, which limited the study population to those with internet and computer access, and the reliance on self-reports and only two time points, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the inclusion of only three of the AAP sleep recommendations, and the inclusion of only English speakers.

However, the results were strengthened by the large, diverse, and geographically representative sample of parents.

“When advising families about infant sleep, pediatricians should discuss nighttime wakings with parents because they are common and reinforce the need for safe sleep practices every time,” the researchers noted.
 

Increase opportunities for education

The current study is important because infants continue to die or experience life-long catastrophic health outcomes as a result of not following safe sleep practices, Cathy Haut, DNP, CPNP-AC, CPNP-PC, a pediatric nurse practitioner in Rehoboth Beach, Del., said in an interview.

“I am not surprised by the study findings,” said Dr. Haut, who was not involved in the study. “As a pediatric nurse practitioner for over 35 years, I see infant sleep as a continuing challenge for families. In today’s fast-paced world, multiple priorities leave parents few resources for managing their own well-being, with adequate sleep being one health requirement that is often not met for them.”

To improve safe sleep practices, “it is imperative for health care providers in any setting to address safe sleep practices for infants and children,” said Dr. Haut. “In addition to safety, opportunity for adequate hours of sleep is also important.” She acknowledged that, “in the office setting, time is a huge barrier to completing comprehensive anticipatory guidance. When parents ask questions about sleep, they are often doing everything they can to physically make it through the night with a crying infant. Enforcing safe practices at this point is extremely difficult.”

However, some opportunities for safe sleep education include the prenatal period when parents can take time to listen and plan, not just for feeding preferences but for safe infant sleep practices, Dr. Haut noted.

“When sleep is a problem, families can be invited back to the office for additional counseling and education, which allows more time than within a scheduled health visit,” Dr. Haut emphasized. “Finally, enhanced public awareness is an aspect of learning. In my career I have seen the devastating results of suffocation while cosleeping as well as injuries from falling from a bed or inappropriate sleeping space, and other poor outcomes from inadequate support for safe sleep habits.”

As for additional research, studies are needed to include larger populations and “to further quantify positive outcomes of following safe sleeping practices,” said Dr. Haut. The results of these studies should be made available to the general public, not only to health care professionals. 

The study was supported by Seattle Children’s Research Institute. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Haut had no financial conflicts to disclose and serves on the editorial advisory board of Pediatric News.

Less than 10% of parents followed recommended safe sleep practices for their infants aged 12 months and younger at both sleep onset and after nighttime waking, based on data from a survey of 1,500 parents published in Pediatrics.

Sleep-related death remains a major cause of infant mortality in the United States despite the early success of public health campaigns for safe sleep practices, such as “Back to Sleep,” and many parents persist in unsafe practices such as prone positioning and bed-sharing, Mersine A. Bryan, MD, of the University of Washington, Seattle, and colleagues wrote. “Though nighttime waking is common for infants, less attention has been paid to the safety of second-sleep practices.”

To examine the prevalence and safety of infant second-sleep practices, the researchers used a cross-sectional online survey to collect information on sleep practices from parents of infants aged 12 months and younger; 74% of the respondents were female, 65% were White, 12% were Black, and 17% were Hispanic. The mean age of the infants was 6.6 months, and 24% were aged 3 months and younger.

The survey included parent reports of three safe sleep practices based on the American Academy of Pediatrics 2016 Safe Infant Sleep Guidelines: supine infant sleep position, use of a separate sleep space (vs. bed sharing), and use of an approved surface/safe location (such as a bassinet, crib, cradle, or play yard vs. an adult bed).

Parents were asked to report sleep practices at sleep onset and at nighttime waking, and the researchers used a composite score to determine safe practices were met at each of these two time points.

Of the 1,500 participants, 581 (39%), reported any second-sleep practice. Of the 482 who reported on all three sleep practices at both time points, 29% met all three safe sleep criteria at sleep onset and 9% met all three safe sleep criteria at sleep onset and nighttime waking.

Of the parents who reported second sleep practices, 39% reported changes in practice after nighttime waking from sleep onset. Significantly more parents who switched practices between sleep onset and nighttime waking shifted from a safer to a less safe practice, the researchers noted.

For positioning, 67% of respondents overall reported placing infants on their backs at sleep onset. Among the 564 who reported a second sleep position, 42% placed infants on their backs again; 13% switched from supine to nonsupine positions and 7% changed from nonsupine to supine.

For sleep spaces, 72% of participants overall reported a separate sleep space for infants at sleep onset. Of the 508 who reported on second-sleep spaces, 54% kept infants in a separate space after nighttime waking, 18% shifted to a shared space after nighttime waking. Of those in shared spaces at sleep onset, 8% shifted to separate spaces after nighttime waking.

For sleep location, 71% of respondents overall used an approved sleep surface at sleep onset. Of the 560 who reported sleep location at both time points, 42% remained in a safe location after nighttime waking, while 30% were moved from a safe to an unsafe location, and 10% of those in an unsafe location were moved from an unsafe to a safe location.

In a multivariate analysis, the researchers examined the demographics associated with changes in sleep practice after nighttime waking. Parents younger than 25 years, first-time parents, those who identified as Black non-Hispanic or Hispanic, smokers, and those with preterm infants (less than 37 weeks’ gestation) were more likely to change sleep practices after nighttime waking. However, parents who reported a safe sleep practice at sleep onset were more likely to do so after nighttime waking.

“We hypothesize that expansion of existing strategies to promote infant safe sleep practices to include sleep practices after nighttime waking can have a positive impact on infant safe sleep,” the researchers wrote.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the use of an online survey, which limited the study population to those with internet and computer access, and the reliance on self-reports and only two time points, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the inclusion of only three of the AAP sleep recommendations, and the inclusion of only English speakers.

However, the results were strengthened by the large, diverse, and geographically representative sample of parents.

“When advising families about infant sleep, pediatricians should discuss nighttime wakings with parents because they are common and reinforce the need for safe sleep practices every time,” the researchers noted.
 

Increase opportunities for education

The current study is important because infants continue to die or experience life-long catastrophic health outcomes as a result of not following safe sleep practices, Cathy Haut, DNP, CPNP-AC, CPNP-PC, a pediatric nurse practitioner in Rehoboth Beach, Del., said in an interview.

“I am not surprised by the study findings,” said Dr. Haut, who was not involved in the study. “As a pediatric nurse practitioner for over 35 years, I see infant sleep as a continuing challenge for families. In today’s fast-paced world, multiple priorities leave parents few resources for managing their own well-being, with adequate sleep being one health requirement that is often not met for them.”

To improve safe sleep practices, “it is imperative for health care providers in any setting to address safe sleep practices for infants and children,” said Dr. Haut. “In addition to safety, opportunity for adequate hours of sleep is also important.” She acknowledged that, “in the office setting, time is a huge barrier to completing comprehensive anticipatory guidance. When parents ask questions about sleep, they are often doing everything they can to physically make it through the night with a crying infant. Enforcing safe practices at this point is extremely difficult.”

However, some opportunities for safe sleep education include the prenatal period when parents can take time to listen and plan, not just for feeding preferences but for safe infant sleep practices, Dr. Haut noted.

“When sleep is a problem, families can be invited back to the office for additional counseling and education, which allows more time than within a scheduled health visit,” Dr. Haut emphasized. “Finally, enhanced public awareness is an aspect of learning. In my career I have seen the devastating results of suffocation while cosleeping as well as injuries from falling from a bed or inappropriate sleeping space, and other poor outcomes from inadequate support for safe sleep habits.”

As for additional research, studies are needed to include larger populations and “to further quantify positive outcomes of following safe sleeping practices,” said Dr. Haut. The results of these studies should be made available to the general public, not only to health care professionals. 

The study was supported by Seattle Children’s Research Institute. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Haut had no financial conflicts to disclose and serves on the editorial advisory board of Pediatric News.

Here we go again, and again, and again.

There just aren’t enough tears, and before the bodies of 19 small children are identified, the political noise starts up. Mass shootings are a part of the American landscape, but when they happen at schools, we all feel a distinct sense of violation and gaping grief. Those children are so innocent, so deserving of a right to live their lives, hold their place with their families, create their own legacies, and die of natural causes at a ripe old age. And those children could have been our children. There was nothing special about them; they were just sent to school that day like every child who is sent to school every day.

Here is how the politics goes: The Republicans will blame the Democrats and the Democrats will blame the Republicans. Is Rachel Maddow at fault, or is it Tucker Carlson? Social media accounts blamed both of them for the racially motivated mass murder in a Buffalo grocery store on May 14.

Mass murders were previously defined as a shooting where four or more victims are killed, excluding the shooter, in a public place that is not related to the commission of another crime. In 2012, the definition was changed to include events with three victims. This definition excludes gang violence and the murder of family members.

When it comes to explaining mass murder, the camps divide: They are the result of some combination of mental illness, easy access to firearms, and terrorism and hate. For psychiatry, there is a unique place in the argument – half of all mass shooters have exhibited signs or symptoms of psychiatric illness, and for those who want to deflect the issue away from issues related to the regulation of firearms, it becomes easy to blame “mental illness,” as though that explains it all. Either the gunman “snapped” in such a way that no one could have predicted, or the mental health system is at fault for not preventing it.

There are many ways to be emotionally disturbed; mental illness is only one of them, and there is no psychiatric diagnosis that includes the symptom of shooting strangers, or shooting children. The vast majority of people, including nearly all psychiatrists, will never know someone who perpetrates a mass shooting. 

Can mental illness give us any insight into these senseless killings? Sometimes, but rarely. Take John Hinckley Jr., who shot President Ronald Reagan as a means to impress actress Jodie Foster. Sometimes these killings are motivated by delusional beliefs. But the planning and preparation that goes into most mass shootings involves a degree of organization and forethought that we don’t typically see in those with severe psychotic disorders.

The other psychological explanation that satisfies some of a nonmedical population is that these killers “just snap.” This, too, is a term that is not included in our diagnostic vocabulary, but it remains a way for some to explain that which can’t be explained. If mental illness, however, is the cause of mass murders, then more stringent gun control is unnecessary. Every state already has a mechanism to prevent those with criminal and specified psychiatric histories from buying legal firearms, and it may be inevitable that these screens are not perfect. 

The next line of political thinking moves to the psychiatric “if only.” If only there were more state hospital beds and if only it were easier to compel people with psychiatric disorders to get treatment against their will, then we could eliminate these crimes. The Virginia tech shooter was mandated to get outpatient psychiatric treatment after a brief hospitalization, yet he never went and there was no mechanism in place to track him.

In cases where a person with a psychotic illness has a history of repeated violent episodes after stopping medications, it does make sense to mandate treatment, not because they are likely to shoot strangers, but because some people do become violent when they are ill and mental illness is believed to play a role in 10% of murders.

Mass murders remain rare, and while advocates for legislation that would make it easier to mandate involuntary care have cited violence prevention as a reason, it is hard to imagine that we would force people to get care because they “might” commit such a crime – unless there was convincing evidence that someone was at risk of committing such a heinous act.

For those who oppose stronger gun control laws, the “what if” may circulate around the need for even more firearms. What if teachers carried guns? What if schools were more heavily policed? What if the criminals were made to be afraid?

We are left with the fact that other countries do not see these numbers of mass shooting events, yet mental illness is ubiquitous. While the presence of psychiatric disorders does little to explain school shootings, we still have no understanding of what motivated the Sandy Hook killer, and it remains to be seen what we will come to understand about the gunman in Uvalde, Texas.

Mental illness is not unique to the United States; however, the number of available firearms is. In a country of 323 million people (including children and people who live in institutions where they have no access to firearms), there are estimated to be over 400 million guns in the United States, 98% of which are owned by civilians. 

Hate crimes and terrorism are another explanation for mass murders. In these instances, the gunman makes his motive obvious: There are social media announcements, or the site of the shooting is a synagogue, a mosque, or a location where the victims are of a specific race or religion. But hate may come out of a psychotic illness, and easy access to firearms allows for these crimes to continue. 

Firearms are now the No. 1 cause of mortality in children. Very few of these deaths are the result of mass murders. Many more are from accidental deaths, targeted crime, or suicide. Still, school shootings rip at our hearts. Neither the victims nor their grieving families have any role in the act, and suffering leaves its mark on families, communities, and all of us.
 

Are there answers?

In many states, physicians can now request emergency removal of firearms from the home of someone who is both mentally ill and threatening either suicide or homicide. During the era when high-capacity firearms were banned, from 1994 to 2004, mass murders decreased in our country. While most gunmen use legal firearms they have purchased, I would contend that “smart guns” – firearms that allow only the legal owner to operate them based on biometrics – would prevent some mass shootings and many accidents, crimes, and suicides. Universal background checks and tracking gun purchases in the way we monitor controlled medications, or even Sudafed, might allow authorities to predict who might be at risk of committing these heinous acts.

In his newly released book, Trigger Points: Inside the Mission to Stop Mass Murders in America, journalist Mark Follman argues for a proactive community approach using threat assessment methods and providing wraparound services to those who are deemed to be at risk for violent acts. Mr. Follman’s voice is one of the few out there saying that these events are not random and are, in fact, preventable.

In psychiatry, we struggle with school shootings such as the one we just saw in Uvalde. Our own hearts ache as we hold our children close and empathize with the loss of strangers who have been through the unthinkable. We help our patients as they process their emotions. And we wonder whether any of our patients might ever do anything so horrific. The feelings get complicated, the sadness and anger intermingle while the frustration builds, and we are left with our fears and the hope that if that very rare person were to walk through our office door, we would know what to do.

Dr. Miller is a coauthor of Committed: The Battle Over Involuntary Psychiatric Care (Johns Hopkins University Press, 2016). She has a private practice and is assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins in Baltimore. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Here we go again, and again, and again.

There just aren’t enough tears, and before the bodies of 19 small children are identified, the political noise starts up. Mass shootings are a part of the American landscape, but when they happen at schools, we all feel a distinct sense of violation and gaping grief. Those children are so innocent, so deserving of a right to live their lives, hold their place with their families, create their own legacies, and die of natural causes at a ripe old age. And those children could have been our children. There was nothing special about them; they were just sent to school that day like every child who is sent to school every day.

Here is how the politics goes: The Republicans will blame the Democrats and the Democrats will blame the Republicans. Is Rachel Maddow at fault, or is it Tucker Carlson? Social media accounts blamed both of them for the racially motivated mass murder in a Buffalo grocery store on May 14.

Mass murders were previously defined as a shooting where four or more victims are killed, excluding the shooter, in a public place that is not related to the commission of another crime. In 2012, the definition was changed to include events with three victims. This definition excludes gang violence and the murder of family members.

When it comes to explaining mass murder, the camps divide: They are the result of some combination of mental illness, easy access to firearms, and terrorism and hate. For psychiatry, there is a unique place in the argument – half of all mass shooters have exhibited signs or symptoms of psychiatric illness, and for those who want to deflect the issue away from issues related to the regulation of firearms, it becomes easy to blame “mental illness,” as though that explains it all. Either the gunman “snapped” in such a way that no one could have predicted, or the mental health system is at fault for not preventing it.

There are many ways to be emotionally disturbed; mental illness is only one of them, and there is no psychiatric diagnosis that includes the symptom of shooting strangers, or shooting children. The vast majority of people, including nearly all psychiatrists, will never know someone who perpetrates a mass shooting. 

Can mental illness give us any insight into these senseless killings? Sometimes, but rarely. Take John Hinckley Jr., who shot President Ronald Reagan as a means to impress actress Jodie Foster. Sometimes these killings are motivated by delusional beliefs. But the planning and preparation that goes into most mass shootings involves a degree of organization and forethought that we don’t typically see in those with severe psychotic disorders.

The other psychological explanation that satisfies some of a nonmedical population is that these killers “just snap.” This, too, is a term that is not included in our diagnostic vocabulary, but it remains a way for some to explain that which can’t be explained. If mental illness, however, is the cause of mass murders, then more stringent gun control is unnecessary. Every state already has a mechanism to prevent those with criminal and specified psychiatric histories from buying legal firearms, and it may be inevitable that these screens are not perfect. 

The next line of political thinking moves to the psychiatric “if only.” If only there were more state hospital beds and if only it were easier to compel people with psychiatric disorders to get treatment against their will, then we could eliminate these crimes. The Virginia tech shooter was mandated to get outpatient psychiatric treatment after a brief hospitalization, yet he never went and there was no mechanism in place to track him.

In cases where a person with a psychotic illness has a history of repeated violent episodes after stopping medications, it does make sense to mandate treatment, not because they are likely to shoot strangers, but because some people do become violent when they are ill and mental illness is believed to play a role in 10% of murders.

Mass murders remain rare, and while advocates for legislation that would make it easier to mandate involuntary care have cited violence prevention as a reason, it is hard to imagine that we would force people to get care because they “might” commit such a crime – unless there was convincing evidence that someone was at risk of committing such a heinous act.

For those who oppose stronger gun control laws, the “what if” may circulate around the need for even more firearms. What if teachers carried guns? What if schools were more heavily policed? What if the criminals were made to be afraid?

We are left with the fact that other countries do not see these numbers of mass shooting events, yet mental illness is ubiquitous. While the presence of psychiatric disorders does little to explain school shootings, we still have no understanding of what motivated the Sandy Hook killer, and it remains to be seen what we will come to understand about the gunman in Uvalde, Texas.

Mental illness is not unique to the United States; however, the number of available firearms is. In a country of 323 million people (including children and people who live in institutions where they have no access to firearms), there are estimated to be over 400 million guns in the United States, 98% of which are owned by civilians. 

Hate crimes and terrorism are another explanation for mass murders. In these instances, the gunman makes his motive obvious: There are social media announcements, or the site of the shooting is a synagogue, a mosque, or a location where the victims are of a specific race or religion. But hate may come out of a psychotic illness, and easy access to firearms allows for these crimes to continue. 

Firearms are now the No. 1 cause of mortality in children. Very few of these deaths are the result of mass murders. Many more are from accidental deaths, targeted crime, or suicide. Still, school shootings rip at our hearts. Neither the victims nor their grieving families have any role in the act, and suffering leaves its mark on families, communities, and all of us.
 

Are there answers?

In many states, physicians can now request emergency removal of firearms from the home of someone who is both mentally ill and threatening either suicide or homicide. During the era when high-capacity firearms were banned, from 1994 to 2004, mass murders decreased in our country. While most gunmen use legal firearms they have purchased, I would contend that “smart guns” – firearms that allow only the legal owner to operate them based on biometrics – would prevent some mass shootings and many accidents, crimes, and suicides. Universal background checks and tracking gun purchases in the way we monitor controlled medications, or even Sudafed, might allow authorities to predict who might be at risk of committing these heinous acts.

In his newly released book, Trigger Points: Inside the Mission to Stop Mass Murders in America, journalist Mark Follman argues for a proactive community approach using threat assessment methods and providing wraparound services to those who are deemed to be at risk for violent acts. Mr. Follman’s voice is one of the few out there saying that these events are not random and are, in fact, preventable.

In psychiatry, we struggle with school shootings such as the one we just saw in Uvalde. Our own hearts ache as we hold our children close and empathize with the loss of strangers who have been through the unthinkable. We help our patients as they process their emotions. And we wonder whether any of our patients might ever do anything so horrific. The feelings get complicated, the sadness and anger intermingle while the frustration builds, and we are left with our fears and the hope that if that very rare person were to walk through our office door, we would know what to do.

Dr. Miller is a coauthor of Committed: The Battle Over Involuntary Psychiatric Care (Johns Hopkins University Press, 2016). She has a private practice and is assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins in Baltimore. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Here we go again, and again, and again.

There just aren’t enough tears, and before the bodies of 19 small children are identified, the political noise starts up. Mass shootings are a part of the American landscape, but when they happen at schools, we all feel a distinct sense of violation and gaping grief. Those children are so innocent, so deserving of a right to live their lives, hold their place with their families, create their own legacies, and die of natural causes at a ripe old age. And those children could have been our children. There was nothing special about them; they were just sent to school that day like every child who is sent to school every day.

Here is how the politics goes: The Republicans will blame the Democrats and the Democrats will blame the Republicans. Is Rachel Maddow at fault, or is it Tucker Carlson? Social media accounts blamed both of them for the racially motivated mass murder in a Buffalo grocery store on May 14.

Mass murders were previously defined as a shooting where four or more victims are killed, excluding the shooter, in a public place that is not related to the commission of another crime. In 2012, the definition was changed to include events with three victims. This definition excludes gang violence and the murder of family members.

When it comes to explaining mass murder, the camps divide: They are the result of some combination of mental illness, easy access to firearms, and terrorism and hate. For psychiatry, there is a unique place in the argument – half of all mass shooters have exhibited signs or symptoms of psychiatric illness, and for those who want to deflect the issue away from issues related to the regulation of firearms, it becomes easy to blame “mental illness,” as though that explains it all. Either the gunman “snapped” in such a way that no one could have predicted, or the mental health system is at fault for not preventing it.

There are many ways to be emotionally disturbed; mental illness is only one of them, and there is no psychiatric diagnosis that includes the symptom of shooting strangers, or shooting children. The vast majority of people, including nearly all psychiatrists, will never know someone who perpetrates a mass shooting. 

Can mental illness give us any insight into these senseless killings? Sometimes, but rarely. Take John Hinckley Jr., who shot President Ronald Reagan as a means to impress actress Jodie Foster. Sometimes these killings are motivated by delusional beliefs. But the planning and preparation that goes into most mass shootings involves a degree of organization and forethought that we don’t typically see in those with severe psychotic disorders.

The other psychological explanation that satisfies some of a nonmedical population is that these killers “just snap.” This, too, is a term that is not included in our diagnostic vocabulary, but it remains a way for some to explain that which can’t be explained. If mental illness, however, is the cause of mass murders, then more stringent gun control is unnecessary. Every state already has a mechanism to prevent those with criminal and specified psychiatric histories from buying legal firearms, and it may be inevitable that these screens are not perfect. 

The next line of political thinking moves to the psychiatric “if only.” If only there were more state hospital beds and if only it were easier to compel people with psychiatric disorders to get treatment against their will, then we could eliminate these crimes. The Virginia tech shooter was mandated to get outpatient psychiatric treatment after a brief hospitalization, yet he never went and there was no mechanism in place to track him.

In cases where a person with a psychotic illness has a history of repeated violent episodes after stopping medications, it does make sense to mandate treatment, not because they are likely to shoot strangers, but because some people do become violent when they are ill and mental illness is believed to play a role in 10% of murders.

Mass murders remain rare, and while advocates for legislation that would make it easier to mandate involuntary care have cited violence prevention as a reason, it is hard to imagine that we would force people to get care because they “might” commit such a crime – unless there was convincing evidence that someone was at risk of committing such a heinous act.

For those who oppose stronger gun control laws, the “what if” may circulate around the need for even more firearms. What if teachers carried guns? What if schools were more heavily policed? What if the criminals were made to be afraid?

We are left with the fact that other countries do not see these numbers of mass shooting events, yet mental illness is ubiquitous. While the presence of psychiatric disorders does little to explain school shootings, we still have no understanding of what motivated the Sandy Hook killer, and it remains to be seen what we will come to understand about the gunman in Uvalde, Texas.

Mental illness is not unique to the United States; however, the number of available firearms is. In a country of 323 million people (including children and people who live in institutions where they have no access to firearms), there are estimated to be over 400 million guns in the United States, 98% of which are owned by civilians. 

Hate crimes and terrorism are another explanation for mass murders. In these instances, the gunman makes his motive obvious: There are social media announcements, or the site of the shooting is a synagogue, a mosque, or a location where the victims are of a specific race or religion. But hate may come out of a psychotic illness, and easy access to firearms allows for these crimes to continue. 

Firearms are now the No. 1 cause of mortality in children. Very few of these deaths are the result of mass murders. Many more are from accidental deaths, targeted crime, or suicide. Still, school shootings rip at our hearts. Neither the victims nor their grieving families have any role in the act, and suffering leaves its mark on families, communities, and all of us.
 

Are there answers?

In many states, physicians can now request emergency removal of firearms from the home of someone who is both mentally ill and threatening either suicide or homicide. During the era when high-capacity firearms were banned, from 1994 to 2004, mass murders decreased in our country. While most gunmen use legal firearms they have purchased, I would contend that “smart guns” – firearms that allow only the legal owner to operate them based on biometrics – would prevent some mass shootings and many accidents, crimes, and suicides. Universal background checks and tracking gun purchases in the way we monitor controlled medications, or even Sudafed, might allow authorities to predict who might be at risk of committing these heinous acts.

In his newly released book, Trigger Points: Inside the Mission to Stop Mass Murders in America, journalist Mark Follman argues for a proactive community approach using threat assessment methods and providing wraparound services to those who are deemed to be at risk for violent acts. Mr. Follman’s voice is one of the few out there saying that these events are not random and are, in fact, preventable.

In psychiatry, we struggle with school shootings such as the one we just saw in Uvalde. Our own hearts ache as we hold our children close and empathize with the loss of strangers who have been through the unthinkable. We help our patients as they process their emotions. And we wonder whether any of our patients might ever do anything so horrific. The feelings get complicated, the sadness and anger intermingle while the frustration builds, and we are left with our fears and the hope that if that very rare person were to walk through our office door, we would know what to do.

Dr. Miller is a coauthor of Committed: The Battle Over Involuntary Psychiatric Care (Johns Hopkins University Press, 2016). She has a private practice and is assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins in Baltimore. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

“It must be mental illness. My mind cannot possibly conceive of an alternative. A rational healthy mind cannot be capable of this, Doc.”

These were the opening words of one of many discussions that I had with patients in the wake of yet another gut-wrenching tragedy where we saw innocent children and their teachers murdered in school.

Courtesy of Mena Mirhom

Do any mass shooters have untreated mental illness?

There are data to suggest that of 14,785 murders studied in a database to track death by guns, 1,315 mass shootings were identified. Of these mass shootings, 11% of the shooters had serious mental illness. Could we have diagnosed those cases earlier? Intervened sooner? Offered more effective treatment? Certainly. Would that have explain away the rest of the cases? Unfortunately, no.

What is it, then?

The scary answer is that the people who are capable of doing this are not so far away. They are not the folks that we would image locking up in a “psych ward” and throwing away the key. They are, rather, people who are lonely, neglected, rejected, bullied, and broken down by life. Anger, hatred, racism, and evil may be ailments of the soul, but they are not mental illnesses. The carnage they produce is just as tangible. As a psychiatrist, I must admit to you that I do not have a good medication to treat these manifestations of the human condition.

What do we do as a society?

Gun reform is the first obvious and essential answer, without which little else is truly as impactful. We must advocate for it and fight tirelessly.

But at the time you will read this article, your disgruntled coworker will be able to walk into a local store in a moment of despair, anguish, and hopelessness and purchase a semiautomatic weapon of war.

What if we were to start seeing, as a society, that our lives are interwoven? What if we saw that our health is truly interdependent? The COVID-19 pandemic shattered many things in our lives, but one element in particular is our radical individualism. We saw that the choices you make certainly affect me and vice versa. We saw that public health is just that – a public matter, not a private one. We saw that there are some areas of our lives that force us to come together for our own survival.

Perhaps politicians will not save us here. Perhaps kindness will. Empathy can be as potent as legislation, and compassion as impactful as a Twitter hashtag. We each know a lonely coworker, an isolated neighbor, a bullied student, or someone beaten down by life.

What if some of the prevention is in fact in our hands? Together.

“Darkness cannot drive out darkness. Only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.” – Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Mena Mirhom, MD, is an assistant professor of psychiatry at Columbia University and teaches writing to public psychiatry fellows. He is a board-certified psychiatrist and a consultant for the National Basketball Players Association, treating NBA players and staff.

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

“It must be mental illness. My mind cannot possibly conceive of an alternative. A rational healthy mind cannot be capable of this, Doc.”

These were the opening words of one of many discussions that I had with patients in the wake of yet another gut-wrenching tragedy where we saw innocent children and their teachers murdered in school.

Courtesy of Mena Mirhom

Do any mass shooters have untreated mental illness?

There are data to suggest that of 14,785 murders studied in a database to track death by guns, 1,315 mass shootings were identified. Of these mass shootings, 11% of the shooters had serious mental illness. Could we have diagnosed those cases earlier? Intervened sooner? Offered more effective treatment? Certainly. Would that have explain away the rest of the cases? Unfortunately, no.

What is it, then?

The scary answer is that the people who are capable of doing this are not so far away. They are not the folks that we would image locking up in a “psych ward” and throwing away the key. They are, rather, people who are lonely, neglected, rejected, bullied, and broken down by life. Anger, hatred, racism, and evil may be ailments of the soul, but they are not mental illnesses. The carnage they produce is just as tangible. As a psychiatrist, I must admit to you that I do not have a good medication to treat these manifestations of the human condition.

What do we do as a society?

Gun reform is the first obvious and essential answer, without which little else is truly as impactful. We must advocate for it and fight tirelessly.

But at the time you will read this article, your disgruntled coworker will be able to walk into a local store in a moment of despair, anguish, and hopelessness and purchase a semiautomatic weapon of war.

What if we were to start seeing, as a society, that our lives are interwoven? What if we saw that our health is truly interdependent? The COVID-19 pandemic shattered many things in our lives, but one element in particular is our radical individualism. We saw that the choices you make certainly affect me and vice versa. We saw that public health is just that – a public matter, not a private one. We saw that there are some areas of our lives that force us to come together for our own survival.

Perhaps politicians will not save us here. Perhaps kindness will. Empathy can be as potent as legislation, and compassion as impactful as a Twitter hashtag. We each know a lonely coworker, an isolated neighbor, a bullied student, or someone beaten down by life.

What if some of the prevention is in fact in our hands? Together.

“Darkness cannot drive out darkness. Only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.” – Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Mena Mirhom, MD, is an assistant professor of psychiatry at Columbia University and teaches writing to public psychiatry fellows. He is a board-certified psychiatrist and a consultant for the National Basketball Players Association, treating NBA players and staff.

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

“It must be mental illness. My mind cannot possibly conceive of an alternative. A rational healthy mind cannot be capable of this, Doc.”

These were the opening words of one of many discussions that I had with patients in the wake of yet another gut-wrenching tragedy where we saw innocent children and their teachers murdered in school.

Courtesy of Mena Mirhom

Do any mass shooters have untreated mental illness?

There are data to suggest that of 14,785 murders studied in a database to track death by guns, 1,315 mass shootings were identified. Of these mass shootings, 11% of the shooters had serious mental illness. Could we have diagnosed those cases earlier? Intervened sooner? Offered more effective treatment? Certainly. Would that have explain away the rest of the cases? Unfortunately, no.

What is it, then?

The scary answer is that the people who are capable of doing this are not so far away. They are not the folks that we would image locking up in a “psych ward” and throwing away the key. They are, rather, people who are lonely, neglected, rejected, bullied, and broken down by life. Anger, hatred, racism, and evil may be ailments of the soul, but they are not mental illnesses. The carnage they produce is just as tangible. As a psychiatrist, I must admit to you that I do not have a good medication to treat these manifestations of the human condition.

What do we do as a society?

Gun reform is the first obvious and essential answer, without which little else is truly as impactful. We must advocate for it and fight tirelessly.

But at the time you will read this article, your disgruntled coworker will be able to walk into a local store in a moment of despair, anguish, and hopelessness and purchase a semiautomatic weapon of war.

What if we were to start seeing, as a society, that our lives are interwoven? What if we saw that our health is truly interdependent? The COVID-19 pandemic shattered many things in our lives, but one element in particular is our radical individualism. We saw that the choices you make certainly affect me and vice versa. We saw that public health is just that – a public matter, not a private one. We saw that there are some areas of our lives that force us to come together for our own survival.

Perhaps politicians will not save us here. Perhaps kindness will. Empathy can be as potent as legislation, and compassion as impactful as a Twitter hashtag. We each know a lonely coworker, an isolated neighbor, a bullied student, or someone beaten down by life.

What if some of the prevention is in fact in our hands? Together.

“Darkness cannot drive out darkness. Only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.” – Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Mena Mirhom, MD, is an assistant professor of psychiatry at Columbia University and teaches writing to public psychiatry fellows. He is a board-certified psychiatrist and a consultant for the National Basketball Players Association, treating NBA players and staff.

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

Obstetrician Beverly Gray, MD, is already seeing the effects of the Roe v. Wade abortion debate in her North Carolina practice.

The state allows abortion but requires that women get counseling with a qualified health professional 72 hours before the procedure. “Aside from that, we still have patients asking for more efficacious contraceptive methods just in case,” said Dr. Gray, residency director and division director for women’s community and population health and associate professor for obstetrics and gynecology at Duke University, Durham, N.C.

Patients and staff in her clinic have also been approaching her about tubal ligation. “They’re asking about additional birth control methods because they’re concerned about what’s going to happen” with the challenge to the historic Roe v. Wade decision in the Supreme Court and subsequent actions in the states to restrict or ban abortion, she said.

This has implications not just for abortion but for medications known to affect pregnancy. “What I’m really worried about is physicians will be withholding medicine because they’re concerned about teratogenic effects,” said Dr. Gray.

With more states issuing restrictions on abortion, doctors are worried that patients needing certain drugs to maintain their lupus flares, cancer, or other diseases may decide not to take them in the event they accidentally become pregnant. If the drug is known to affect the fetus, the fear is a patient who lives in a state with abortion restrictions will no longer have the option to terminate a pregnancy.

zoranm/Getty Images

The U.S. landscape on abortion restrictions

A leaked draft of a U.S. Supreme Court opinion on Mississippi’s 15-week abortion ban has sent the medical community into a tailspin. The case, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, challenges the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that affirms the constitutional right to abortion. It’s anticipated the high court will decide on the case in June.

Although the upcoming decision is subject to change, the draft indicated the high court would uphold the Mississippi ban. This would essentially overturn the 1973 ruling. An earlier Supreme Court decision allowing a Texas law banning abortion at 6 weeks suggests the court may already be heading in this direction. At the state level, legislatures have been moving on divergent paths – some taking steps to preserve abortion rights, others initiating restrictions.

More than 100 abortion restrictions in 19 states took effect in 2021, according to the Guttmacher Institute, which tracks such metrics. In 2022, “two key themes are anti-abortion policymakers’ continued pursuit of various types of abortion bans and restrictions on medication abortion,” the institute reported.

Forty-six states and the District of Columbia have introduced 2,025 restrictions or proactive measures on sexual and reproductive health and rights so far this year. The latest tally from Guttmacher, updated in late May, revealed that 11 states so far have enacted 42 abortion restrictions. A total of 6 states (Arizona, Florida, Idaho, Kentucky, Oklahoma, and Wyoming) have issued nine bans on abortion.

Comparatively, 11 states have enacted 19 protective abortion measures.

Twenty-two states have introduced 117 restrictions on medication abortions, which account for 54% of U.S. abortions. This includes seven measures that would ban medication abortion outright, according to Guttmacher. Kentucky and South Dakota collectively have enacted 14 restrictions on medication abortion, as well as provisions that ban mailing of abortion pills.
 

Chilling effect on prescribing

Some physicians anticipate that drugs such as the “morning-after” pill (levonorgestrel) will become less available as restrictions go into effect, since these are medications designed to prevent pregnancy.*

However, the ongoing effort to put a lid on abortion measures has prompted concerns about a trickle-down effect on other medications that are otherwise life-changing or lifesaving to patients but pose a risk to the fetus.

Several drugs are well documented to affect fetal growth and development of the fetus, ranging from mild, transitory effects to severe, permanent birth defects, said Ronald G. Grifka, MD, chief medical officer of University of Michigan Health-West and clinical professor of pediatrics at the University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor. “As new medications are developed, we will need heightened attention to make sure they are safe for the fetus,” he added.

Christina Chambers

The iPLEDGE factor

Some rheumatology drugs like lenalidomide (Revlimid) require a valid negative pregnancy test in a lab every month. Similarly, the iPLEDGE Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy seeks to reduce the teratogenicity of isotretinoin by requiring two types of birth control and regular pregnancy tests by users.

For isotretinoin specifically, abortion restrictions “could lead to increased adherence to pregnancy prevention measures which are already stringent in iPLEDGE. But on the other hand, it could lead to reduced willingness of physicians to prescribe or patients to take the medication,” said Dr. Chambers.

With programs like iPLEDGE in effect, the rate of pregnancies and abortions that occur in dermatology are relatively low, said Jenny Murase, MD, associate clinical professor of dermatology at the University of California, San Francisco.

Fewer women in clinical trials?

Abortion restrictions could possibly discourage women of reproductive age to participate in a clinical trial for a new medication, said Dr. Chambers.

A female patient with a chronic disease who’s randomized to receive a new medication may be required to use certain types of birth control because of unknown potential adverse effects the drug may have on the fetus. But in some cases, accidental pregnancies happen.

The participant in the trial may say, “I don’t know enough about the safety of this drug in pregnancy, and I’ve already taken it. I want to terminate the pregnancy,” said Dr. Chambers. Thinking ahead, a woman may decide not to do the trial to avoid the risk of getting pregnant and not having the option to terminate the pregnancy.

This could apply to new drugs such as antiviral treatments, or medications for severe chronic disease that typically have no clinical trial data in pregnancy prior to initial release into the market.

Women may start taking the drug without thinking about getting pregnant, then realize there are no safety data and become concerned about its effects on a future pregnancy.

The question is: Will abortion restrictions have a chilling effect on these new drugs as well? Patients and their doctors may decide not to try it until more data are available. “I can see where abortion restrictions would change the risk or benefit calculation in thinking about what you do or don’t prescribe or take during reproductive age,” said Dr. Chambers.
 

The upside of restrictions?

If there’s a positive side to these developments with abortion bans, it may encourage women taking new medications or joining clinical trials to think even more carefully about adherence to effective contraception, said Dr. Chambers.

Some methods are more effective than others, she emphasized. “When you have an unplanned pregnancy, it could mean that the method you used wasn’t optimal or you weren’t using it as recommended.” A goal moving forward is to encourage more thoughtful use of highly effective contraceptives, thus reducing the number of unplanned pregnancies, she added.

If patients are taking methotrexate, “the time to think about pregnancy is before getting pregnant so you can switch to a drug that’s compatible with pregnancy,” she said.

This whole thought process regarding pregnancy planning could work toward useful health goals, said Dr. Chambers. “Nobody thinks termination is the preferred method, but planning ahead should involve a discussion of what works best for the patient.”

Patients do have other choices, said Dr. Grifka. “Fortunately, there are many commonly prescribed medications which cross the placenta and have no ill effects on the fetus.”

Talking to patients about choices

Dr. Clowse, who spends a lot of time training rheumatologists, encourages them to have conversations with patients about pregnancy planning. It’s a lot to manage, getting the right drug to a female patient with chronic illness, especially in this current climate of abortion upheaval, she noted.

Her approach is to have an open and honest conversation with patients about their concerns and fears, what the realities are, and what the potential future options are for certain rheumatology drugs in the United States.

Some women who see what’s happening across the country may become so risk averse that they may choose to die rather than take a lifesaving drug that poses certain risks under new restrictions.

“I think that’s tragic,” said Dr. Clowse.

To help their patients, Dr. Gray believes physicians across specialties should better educate themselves about physiology in pregnancy and how to counsel patients on the impact of not taking medications in pregnancy.

In her view, it’s almost coercive to say to a patient, “You really need to have effective contraception if I’m going to give you this lifesaving or quality-of-life-improving medication.”

When confronting such scenarios, Dr. Gray doesn’t think physicians need to change how they counsel patients about contraception. “I don’t think we should be putting pressure on patients to consider other permanent methods just because there’s a lack of abortion options.”

Patients will eventually make those decisions for themselves, she said. “They’re going to want a more efficacious method because they’re worried about not having access to abortion if they get pregnant.”

Dr. Gray reports being a site principal investigator for a phase 3 trial for VeraCept IUD, funded by Sebela Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Clowse reports receiving research funding and doing consulting for GlaxoSmithKline.

*Correction, 6/2/2022: A previous version of this article misstated the intended use of drugs such as the “morning-after” pill (levonorgestrel). They are taken to prevent unintended pregnancy.

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

Obstetrician Beverly Gray, MD, is already seeing the effects of the Roe v. Wade abortion debate in her North Carolina practice.

The state allows abortion but requires that women get counseling with a qualified health professional 72 hours before the procedure. “Aside from that, we still have patients asking for more efficacious contraceptive methods just in case,” said Dr. Gray, residency director and division director for women’s community and population health and associate professor for obstetrics and gynecology at Duke University, Durham, N.C.

Patients and staff in her clinic have also been approaching her about tubal ligation. “They’re asking about additional birth control methods because they’re concerned about what’s going to happen” with the challenge to the historic Roe v. Wade decision in the Supreme Court and subsequent actions in the states to restrict or ban abortion, she said.

This has implications not just for abortion but for medications known to affect pregnancy. “What I’m really worried about is physicians will be withholding medicine because they’re concerned about teratogenic effects,” said Dr. Gray.

With more states issuing restrictions on abortion, doctors are worried that patients needing certain drugs to maintain their lupus flares, cancer, or other diseases may decide not to take them in the event they accidentally become pregnant. If the drug is known to affect the fetus, the fear is a patient who lives in a state with abortion restrictions will no longer have the option to terminate a pregnancy.

zoranm/Getty Images

The U.S. landscape on abortion restrictions

A leaked draft of a U.S. Supreme Court opinion on Mississippi’s 15-week abortion ban has sent the medical community into a tailspin. The case, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, challenges the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that affirms the constitutional right to abortion. It’s anticipated the high court will decide on the case in June.

Although the upcoming decision is subject to change, the draft indicated the high court would uphold the Mississippi ban. This would essentially overturn the 1973 ruling. An earlier Supreme Court decision allowing a Texas law banning abortion at 6 weeks suggests the court may already be heading in this direction. At the state level, legislatures have been moving on divergent paths – some taking steps to preserve abortion rights, others initiating restrictions.

More than 100 abortion restrictions in 19 states took effect in 2021, according to the Guttmacher Institute, which tracks such metrics. In 2022, “two key themes are anti-abortion policymakers’ continued pursuit of various types of abortion bans and restrictions on medication abortion,” the institute reported.

Forty-six states and the District of Columbia have introduced 2,025 restrictions or proactive measures on sexual and reproductive health and rights so far this year. The latest tally from Guttmacher, updated in late May, revealed that 11 states so far have enacted 42 abortion restrictions. A total of 6 states (Arizona, Florida, Idaho, Kentucky, Oklahoma, and Wyoming) have issued nine bans on abortion.

Comparatively, 11 states have enacted 19 protective abortion measures.

Twenty-two states have introduced 117 restrictions on medication abortions, which account for 54% of U.S. abortions. This includes seven measures that would ban medication abortion outright, according to Guttmacher. Kentucky and South Dakota collectively have enacted 14 restrictions on medication abortion, as well as provisions that ban mailing of abortion pills.
 

Chilling effect on prescribing

Some physicians anticipate that drugs such as the “morning-after” pill (levonorgestrel) will become less available as restrictions go into effect, since these are medications designed to prevent pregnancy.*

However, the ongoing effort to put a lid on abortion measures has prompted concerns about a trickle-down effect on other medications that are otherwise life-changing or lifesaving to patients but pose a risk to the fetus.

Several drugs are well documented to affect fetal growth and development of the fetus, ranging from mild, transitory effects to severe, permanent birth defects, said Ronald G. Grifka, MD, chief medical officer of University of Michigan Health-West and clinical professor of pediatrics at the University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor. “As new medications are developed, we will need heightened attention to make sure they are safe for the fetus,” he added.

Christina Chambers

The iPLEDGE factor

Some rheumatology drugs like lenalidomide (Revlimid) require a valid negative pregnancy test in a lab every month. Similarly, the iPLEDGE Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy seeks to reduce the teratogenicity of isotretinoin by requiring two types of birth control and regular pregnancy tests by users.

For isotretinoin specifically, abortion restrictions “could lead to increased adherence to pregnancy prevention measures which are already stringent in iPLEDGE. But on the other hand, it could lead to reduced willingness of physicians to prescribe or patients to take the medication,” said Dr. Chambers.

With programs like iPLEDGE in effect, the rate of pregnancies and abortions that occur in dermatology are relatively low, said Jenny Murase, MD, associate clinical professor of dermatology at the University of California, San Francisco.

Fewer women in clinical trials?

Abortion restrictions could possibly discourage women of reproductive age to participate in a clinical trial for a new medication, said Dr. Chambers.

A female patient with a chronic disease who’s randomized to receive a new medication may be required to use certain types of birth control because of unknown potential adverse effects the drug may have on the fetus. But in some cases, accidental pregnancies happen.

The participant in the trial may say, “I don’t know enough about the safety of this drug in pregnancy, and I’ve already taken it. I want to terminate the pregnancy,” said Dr. Chambers. Thinking ahead, a woman may decide not to do the trial to avoid the risk of getting pregnant and not having the option to terminate the pregnancy.

This could apply to new drugs such as antiviral treatments, or medications for severe chronic disease that typically have no clinical trial data in pregnancy prior to initial release into the market.

Women may start taking the drug without thinking about getting pregnant, then realize there are no safety data and become concerned about its effects on a future pregnancy.

The question is: Will abortion restrictions have a chilling effect on these new drugs as well? Patients and their doctors may decide not to try it until more data are available. “I can see where abortion restrictions would change the risk or benefit calculation in thinking about what you do or don’t prescribe or take during reproductive age,” said Dr. Chambers.
 

The upside of restrictions?

If there’s a positive side to these developments with abortion bans, it may encourage women taking new medications or joining clinical trials to think even more carefully about adherence to effective contraception, said Dr. Chambers.

Some methods are more effective than others, she emphasized. “When you have an unplanned pregnancy, it could mean that the method you used wasn’t optimal or you weren’t using it as recommended.” A goal moving forward is to encourage more thoughtful use of highly effective contraceptives, thus reducing the number of unplanned pregnancies, she added.

If patients are taking methotrexate, “the time to think about pregnancy is before getting pregnant so you can switch to a drug that’s compatible with pregnancy,” she said.

This whole thought process regarding pregnancy planning could work toward useful health goals, said Dr. Chambers. “Nobody thinks termination is the preferred method, but planning ahead should involve a discussion of what works best for the patient.”

Patients do have other choices, said Dr. Grifka. “Fortunately, there are many commonly prescribed medications which cross the placenta and have no ill effects on the fetus.”

Talking to patients about choices

Dr. Clowse, who spends a lot of time training rheumatologists, encourages them to have conversations with patients about pregnancy planning. It’s a lot to manage, getting the right drug to a female patient with chronic illness, especially in this current climate of abortion upheaval, she noted.

Her approach is to have an open and honest conversation with patients about their concerns and fears, what the realities are, and what the potential future options are for certain rheumatology drugs in the United States.

Some women who see what’s happening across the country may become so risk averse that they may choose to die rather than take a lifesaving drug that poses certain risks under new restrictions.

“I think that’s tragic,” said Dr. Clowse.

To help their patients, Dr. Gray believes physicians across specialties should better educate themselves about physiology in pregnancy and how to counsel patients on the impact of not taking medications in pregnancy.

In her view, it’s almost coercive to say to a patient, “You really need to have effective contraception if I’m going to give you this lifesaving or quality-of-life-improving medication.”

When confronting such scenarios, Dr. Gray doesn’t think physicians need to change how they counsel patients about contraception. “I don’t think we should be putting pressure on patients to consider other permanent methods just because there’s a lack of abortion options.”

Patients will eventually make those decisions for themselves, she said. “They’re going to want a more efficacious method because they’re worried about not having access to abortion if they get pregnant.”

Dr. Gray reports being a site principal investigator for a phase 3 trial for VeraCept IUD, funded by Sebela Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Clowse reports receiving research funding and doing consulting for GlaxoSmithKline.

*Correction, 6/2/2022: A previous version of this article misstated the intended use of drugs such as the “morning-after” pill (levonorgestrel). They are taken to prevent unintended pregnancy.

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

Obstetrician Beverly Gray, MD, is already seeing the effects of the Roe v. Wade abortion debate in her North Carolina practice.

The state allows abortion but requires that women get counseling with a qualified health professional 72 hours before the procedure. “Aside from that, we still have patients asking for more efficacious contraceptive methods just in case,” said Dr. Gray, residency director and division director for women’s community and population health and associate professor for obstetrics and gynecology at Duke University, Durham, N.C.

Patients and staff in her clinic have also been approaching her about tubal ligation. “They’re asking about additional birth control methods because they’re concerned about what’s going to happen” with the challenge to the historic Roe v. Wade decision in the Supreme Court and subsequent actions in the states to restrict or ban abortion, she said.

This has implications not just for abortion but for medications known to affect pregnancy. “What I’m really worried about is physicians will be withholding medicine because they’re concerned about teratogenic effects,” said Dr. Gray.

With more states issuing restrictions on abortion, doctors are worried that patients needing certain drugs to maintain their lupus flares, cancer, or other diseases may decide not to take them in the event they accidentally become pregnant. If the drug is known to affect the fetus, the fear is a patient who lives in a state with abortion restrictions will no longer have the option to terminate a pregnancy.

zoranm/Getty Images

The U.S. landscape on abortion restrictions

A leaked draft of a U.S. Supreme Court opinion on Mississippi’s 15-week abortion ban has sent the medical community into a tailspin. The case, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, challenges the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that affirms the constitutional right to abortion. It’s anticipated the high court will decide on the case in June.

Although the upcoming decision is subject to change, the draft indicated the high court would uphold the Mississippi ban. This would essentially overturn the 1973 ruling. An earlier Supreme Court decision allowing a Texas law banning abortion at 6 weeks suggests the court may already be heading in this direction. At the state level, legislatures have been moving on divergent paths – some taking steps to preserve abortion rights, others initiating restrictions.

More than 100 abortion restrictions in 19 states took effect in 2021, according to the Guttmacher Institute, which tracks such metrics. In 2022, “two key themes are anti-abortion policymakers’ continued pursuit of various types of abortion bans and restrictions on medication abortion,” the institute reported.

Forty-six states and the District of Columbia have introduced 2,025 restrictions or proactive measures on sexual and reproductive health and rights so far this year. The latest tally from Guttmacher, updated in late May, revealed that 11 states so far have enacted 42 abortion restrictions. A total of 6 states (Arizona, Florida, Idaho, Kentucky, Oklahoma, and Wyoming) have issued nine bans on abortion.

Comparatively, 11 states have enacted 19 protective abortion measures.

Twenty-two states have introduced 117 restrictions on medication abortions, which account for 54% of U.S. abortions. This includes seven measures that would ban medication abortion outright, according to Guttmacher. Kentucky and South Dakota collectively have enacted 14 restrictions on medication abortion, as well as provisions that ban mailing of abortion pills.
 

Chilling effect on prescribing

Some physicians anticipate that drugs such as the “morning-after” pill (levonorgestrel) will become less available as restrictions go into effect, since these are medications designed to prevent pregnancy.*

However, the ongoing effort to put a lid on abortion measures has prompted concerns about a trickle-down effect on other medications that are otherwise life-changing or lifesaving to patients but pose a risk to the fetus.

Several drugs are well documented to affect fetal growth and development of the fetus, ranging from mild, transitory effects to severe, permanent birth defects, said Ronald G. Grifka, MD, chief medical officer of University of Michigan Health-West and clinical professor of pediatrics at the University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor. “As new medications are developed, we will need heightened attention to make sure they are safe for the fetus,” he added.

Christina Chambers

The iPLEDGE factor

Some rheumatology drugs like lenalidomide (Revlimid) require a valid negative pregnancy test in a lab every month. Similarly, the iPLEDGE Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy seeks to reduce the teratogenicity of isotretinoin by requiring two types of birth control and regular pregnancy tests by users.

For isotretinoin specifically, abortion restrictions “could lead to increased adherence to pregnancy prevention measures which are already stringent in iPLEDGE. But on the other hand, it could lead to reduced willingness of physicians to prescribe or patients to take the medication,” said Dr. Chambers.

With programs like iPLEDGE in effect, the rate of pregnancies and abortions that occur in dermatology are relatively low, said Jenny Murase, MD, associate clinical professor of dermatology at the University of California, San Francisco.

Fewer women in clinical trials?

Abortion restrictions could possibly discourage women of reproductive age to participate in a clinical trial for a new medication, said Dr. Chambers.

A female patient with a chronic disease who’s randomized to receive a new medication may be required to use certain types of birth control because of unknown potential adverse effects the drug may have on the fetus. But in some cases, accidental pregnancies happen.

The participant in the trial may say, “I don’t know enough about the safety of this drug in pregnancy, and I’ve already taken it. I want to terminate the pregnancy,” said Dr. Chambers. Thinking ahead, a woman may decide not to do the trial to avoid the risk of getting pregnant and not having the option to terminate the pregnancy.

This could apply to new drugs such as antiviral treatments, or medications for severe chronic disease that typically have no clinical trial data in pregnancy prior to initial release into the market.

Women may start taking the drug without thinking about getting pregnant, then realize there are no safety data and become concerned about its effects on a future pregnancy.

The question is: Will abortion restrictions have a chilling effect on these new drugs as well? Patients and their doctors may decide not to try it until more data are available. “I can see where abortion restrictions would change the risk or benefit calculation in thinking about what you do or don’t prescribe or take during reproductive age,” said Dr. Chambers.
 

The upside of restrictions?

If there’s a positive side to these developments with abortion bans, it may encourage women taking new medications or joining clinical trials to think even more carefully about adherence to effective contraception, said Dr. Chambers.

Some methods are more effective than others, she emphasized. “When you have an unplanned pregnancy, it could mean that the method you used wasn’t optimal or you weren’t using it as recommended.” A goal moving forward is to encourage more thoughtful use of highly effective contraceptives, thus reducing the number of unplanned pregnancies, she added.

If patients are taking methotrexate, “the time to think about pregnancy is before getting pregnant so you can switch to a drug that’s compatible with pregnancy,” she said.

This whole thought process regarding pregnancy planning could work toward useful health goals, said Dr. Chambers. “Nobody thinks termination is the preferred method, but planning ahead should involve a discussion of what works best for the patient.”

Patients do have other choices, said Dr. Grifka. “Fortunately, there are many commonly prescribed medications which cross the placenta and have no ill effects on the fetus.”

Talking to patients about choices

Dr. Clowse, who spends a lot of time training rheumatologists, encourages them to have conversations with patients about pregnancy planning. It’s a lot to manage, getting the right drug to a female patient with chronic illness, especially in this current climate of abortion upheaval, she noted.

Her approach is to have an open and honest conversation with patients about their concerns and fears, what the realities are, and what the potential future options are for certain rheumatology drugs in the United States.

Some women who see what’s happening across the country may become so risk averse that they may choose to die rather than take a lifesaving drug that poses certain risks under new restrictions.

“I think that’s tragic,” said Dr. Clowse.

To help their patients, Dr. Gray believes physicians across specialties should better educate themselves about physiology in pregnancy and how to counsel patients on the impact of not taking medications in pregnancy.

In her view, it’s almost coercive to say to a patient, “You really need to have effective contraception if I’m going to give you this lifesaving or quality-of-life-improving medication.”

When confronting such scenarios, Dr. Gray doesn’t think physicians need to change how they counsel patients about contraception. “I don’t think we should be putting pressure on patients to consider other permanent methods just because there’s a lack of abortion options.”

Patients will eventually make those decisions for themselves, she said. “They’re going to want a more efficacious method because they’re worried about not having access to abortion if they get pregnant.”

Dr. Gray reports being a site principal investigator for a phase 3 trial for VeraCept IUD, funded by Sebela Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Clowse reports receiving research funding and doing consulting for GlaxoSmithKline.

*Correction, 6/2/2022: A previous version of this article misstated the intended use of drugs such as the “morning-after” pill (levonorgestrel). They are taken to prevent unintended pregnancy.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is easing rules to allow infant formula imports from the United Kingdom, which would bring about 2 million cans to the U.S. in coming weeks.

Kendal Nutricare will be able to offer certain infant formula products under the Kendamil brand to ease the nationwide formula shortage.

“Importantly, we anticipate additional infant formula products may be safely and quickly imported in the U.S. in the near-term, based on ongoing discussions with manufacturers and suppliers worldwide,” Robert Califf, MD, the FDA commissioner, said in a statement.

Kendal Nutricare has more than 40,000 cans in stock for immediate dispatch, the FDA said, and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services is talking to the company about the best ways to get the products to the U.S. as quickly as possible.

Kendamil has set up a website for consumers to receive updates and find products once they arrive in the U.S.

After an evaluation, the FDA said it had no safety or nutrition concerns about the products. The evaluation reviewed the company’s microbiological testing, labeling, and information about facility production and inspection history.

On May 24, the FDA announced that Abbott Nutrition will release about 300,000 cans of its EleCare specialty amino acid-based formula to families that need urgent, life-sustaining supplies. The products had more tests for microbes before release.

Although some EleCare products were included in Abbott’s infant formula recall earlier this year, the cans that will be released were in different lots, have never been released, and have been maintained in storage, the FDA said.

“These EleCare product lots were not part of the recall but have been on hold due to concerns that they were produced under unsanitary conditions observed at Abbott Nutrition’s Sturgis, Michigan, facility,” the FDA wrote.

The FDA encourages parents and caregivers to talk with their health care providers to weigh the potential risk of bacterial infection with the critical need for the product, based on its special dietary formulation for infants with severe food allergies or gut disorders.

The FDA also said that Abbott confirmed the EleCare products will be the first formula produced at the Sturgis facility when it restarts production soon. Other specialty metabolic formulas will follow.

Abbott plans to restart production at the Sturgis facility on June 4, the company said in a statement, noting that the early batches of EleCare would be available to consumers around June 20.

The products being released now are EleCare (for infants under 1 year) and EleCare Jr. (for ages 1 and older). Those who want to request products should contact their health care providers or call Abbott directly at 800-881-0876.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is easing rules to allow infant formula imports from the United Kingdom, which would bring about 2 million cans to the U.S. in coming weeks.

Kendal Nutricare will be able to offer certain infant formula products under the Kendamil brand to ease the nationwide formula shortage.

“Importantly, we anticipate additional infant formula products may be safely and quickly imported in the U.S. in the near-term, based on ongoing discussions with manufacturers and suppliers worldwide,” Robert Califf, MD, the FDA commissioner, said in a statement.

Kendal Nutricare has more than 40,000 cans in stock for immediate dispatch, the FDA said, and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services is talking to the company about the best ways to get the products to the U.S. as quickly as possible.

Kendamil has set up a website for consumers to receive updates and find products once they arrive in the U.S.

After an evaluation, the FDA said it had no safety or nutrition concerns about the products. The evaluation reviewed the company’s microbiological testing, labeling, and information about facility production and inspection history.

On May 24, the FDA announced that Abbott Nutrition will release about 300,000 cans of its EleCare specialty amino acid-based formula to families that need urgent, life-sustaining supplies. The products had more tests for microbes before release.

Although some EleCare products were included in Abbott’s infant formula recall earlier this year, the cans that will be released were in different lots, have never been released, and have been maintained in storage, the FDA said.

“These EleCare product lots were not part of the recall but have been on hold due to concerns that they were produced under unsanitary conditions observed at Abbott Nutrition’s Sturgis, Michigan, facility,” the FDA wrote.

The FDA encourages parents and caregivers to talk with their health care providers to weigh the potential risk of bacterial infection with the critical need for the product, based on its special dietary formulation for infants with severe food allergies or gut disorders.

The FDA also said that Abbott confirmed the EleCare products will be the first formula produced at the Sturgis facility when it restarts production soon. Other specialty metabolic formulas will follow.

Abbott plans to restart production at the Sturgis facility on June 4, the company said in a statement, noting that the early batches of EleCare would be available to consumers around June 20.

The products being released now are EleCare (for infants under 1 year) and EleCare Jr. (for ages 1 and older). Those who want to request products should contact their health care providers or call Abbott directly at 800-881-0876.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is easing rules to allow infant formula imports from the United Kingdom, which would bring about 2 million cans to the U.S. in coming weeks.

Kendal Nutricare will be able to offer certain infant formula products under the Kendamil brand to ease the nationwide formula shortage.

“Importantly, we anticipate additional infant formula products may be safely and quickly imported in the U.S. in the near-term, based on ongoing discussions with manufacturers and suppliers worldwide,” Robert Califf, MD, the FDA commissioner, said in a statement.

Kendal Nutricare has more than 40,000 cans in stock for immediate dispatch, the FDA said, and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services is talking to the company about the best ways to get the products to the U.S. as quickly as possible.

Kendamil has set up a website for consumers to receive updates and find products once they arrive in the U.S.

After an evaluation, the FDA said it had no safety or nutrition concerns about the products. The evaluation reviewed the company’s microbiological testing, labeling, and information about facility production and inspection history.

On May 24, the FDA announced that Abbott Nutrition will release about 300,000 cans of its EleCare specialty amino acid-based formula to families that need urgent, life-sustaining supplies. The products had more tests for microbes before release.

Although some EleCare products were included in Abbott’s infant formula recall earlier this year, the cans that will be released were in different lots, have never been released, and have been maintained in storage, the FDA said.

“These EleCare product lots were not part of the recall but have been on hold due to concerns that they were produced under unsanitary conditions observed at Abbott Nutrition’s Sturgis, Michigan, facility,” the FDA wrote.

The FDA encourages parents and caregivers to talk with their health care providers to weigh the potential risk of bacterial infection with the critical need for the product, based on its special dietary formulation for infants with severe food allergies or gut disorders.

The FDA also said that Abbott confirmed the EleCare products will be the first formula produced at the Sturgis facility when it restarts production soon. Other specialty metabolic formulas will follow.

Abbott plans to restart production at the Sturgis facility on June 4, the company said in a statement, noting that the early batches of EleCare would be available to consumers around June 20.

The products being released now are EleCare (for infants under 1 year) and EleCare Jr. (for ages 1 and older). Those who want to request products should contact their health care providers or call Abbott directly at 800-881-0876.

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

As the parents of the 19 children shot dead Tuesday in Uvalde, Tex., by a teen gunman grapple with unspeakable grief and funeral preparations, the survivors and their families are dealing with their own angst and likely much more.

While the parents understandably feel lucky that their children made it out, what about the long-term effect on their children of witnessing that carnage, of seeing classmates, friends, and teachers die violently as they stood by helpless and fearful?

The outcome over the next few days, months, and years depends on many factors, but how parents address the trauma both immediately and long-term can make a huge difference, experts say.
 

Posttraumatic growth

Best long-term case scenario? Survivors can experience what experts call posttraumatic growth – reaching out to give back to society, to make the world a better place, and changing who they are and their view of the world.

A prime example of posttraumatic growth: A month after a teen gunman killed 17 students at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla., on Valentine’s Day 2018, an army of survivors from that day’s bloodbath headed to Washington, D.C., for the now-famous March for Our Lives. The student-led demonstration, with hundreds of thousands of supporters marching, called for gun control legislation and an end to gun violence. It remains a vibrant, nonprofit organization still advocating for universal background checks and increased support of mental health services.
 

No sign of future violence

While most children and teens who witness school violence won’t become high-profile activists, as survivors of Parkland and the numerous other school shootings have, neither will they become the next active shooter, mental health experts say. They can’t point to a study that follows the gun violence victims that shows who does OK and who doesn’t, but they know immediate support and therapy can go a long way to recovery.

“I can’t tell you how any particular child will do,” says Robin Gurwitch, PhD, psychologist and professor at Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C. “I can tell you the majority of kids will be OK.”

However, that doesn’t mean a surviving child won’t have behavior and other issues, she says. Research does suggest the next few days, weeks, or months will be rough.

What parents and other caretakers do in the days after the violence will help predict the long-term outcome. Dr. Gurwitch and other experts say it’s important to first focus on what they call “psychological first aid,” then phase in therapy such as trauma-focused cognitive behavioral therapy, if and when it’s needed.
 

First, ‘psychological first aid’

“Psychological first aid is designed to minimize the impact down the road,” Dr. Gurwitch says. “Validate that they are feeling scared or worried.”

Some may be angry, another understandable emotion. In the first few days of witnessing violence – or even just hearing about it – parents should expect clinginess, sleep problems, behavior meltdowns, and irritability, she says.

“Those kinds of changes are likely to last a few weeks,” she says.

If day-to-day functioning is very difficult, “don’t wait for those to pass,” Dr. Gurwitch says. “Reach out for help. Resources will be available. Check with your pediatrician or family physician.”

At home, parents can address specific problems related to the experience, Dr. Gurwitch says. If it’s sleep, she says, parents and kids can work together to figure out how to ease sleep, such as listening to their favorite music before bedtime.

While parents may be inclined to baby the kids after the violence, Dr. Gurwitch says it’s important to maintain routines. So it’s not cruel to insist they do their chores.
 

Expect change

Things won’t be the same.

“Anytime we go through a particular traumatic event, we are changed,” Dr. Gurwitch says. ‘’The question is, what do we do about it? How do we incorporate that change into who we are and have become?”

Also important is figuring out how to make meaning out of what happened.

“I am so impressed by the families at Sandy Hook (the Connecticut elementary school where a gunman killed 26 in 2012),” she says.

They set up foundations and did other advocacy work.

“These types of events are life-changing events,” agrees David Schonfeld, MD, a pediatrician and director of the National Center for Schools Crisis and Bereavement at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles, California. “They will change who children are as people, but it doesn’t mean they are damaged for life. They will remember it as long as they live, and it will also change who they are as a person.”

While people tend to stress the potential negative effects – and there certainly are some – ‘’some individuals actually emerge from these events with a renewed sense of purpose.’’

He tells parents: “Yes, your child has changed, and you can’t go back. But it doesn’t mean they are destined to never be able to cope [with trauma].”
 

Research

The effects of gun violence on children can be serious and dramatic, research shows.

• Exposure to neighborhood gun violence is linked with an increase in children’s mental health issues,  have found. Children living within two or three blocks of gun violence had nearly twice the risk of going to the emergency department with a mental health complaint in the 14 days following the shooting.  
• Exposure to gun violence should be classified, along with maltreatment, household dysfunction, and other issues known to impact children negatively, as an adverse childhood experience, other experts 
• Direct gun violence exposure, witnessing it, and hearing gunshots are all associated with children being victimized in other ways, another  found. And that poly-victimization, as it is called, was strongly associated with having posttraumatic symptoms.

Adverse Childhood Events, as these sorts of experiences are known, can have long-lasting effects on physical and mental health, as well as on even the economic future of a person, says Hansa Bhargava, MD, a pediatrician and chief medical officer of Medscape, WebMD’s sister site for medical professionals.

“Kids who have suffered through violent events can have brain development affected, as well as their immune systems,” she says. “They are more likely to have chronic disease, substance use disorder, sexually transmitted diseases, teen pregnancy, and lifelong depression. A high risk of [posttraumatic stress disorder] is likely for them and their families.”
 

The impact of family support

The gun violence and deaths are likely to remind children of other losses they have experienced, Dr. Schonfeld says, and that can make coping more difficult.

If the trauma from the Tuesday shootings is ‘’layered” on top of trauma from COVID-19 deaths or other trauma such as domestic violence, those children may have a more difficult time, says Allan Chrisman, MD, professor emeritus of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Duke University Health System. However, protective factors such as the family response and the community response can build resilience in survivors, he says.

“The way in which parents handle it for themselves will have a huge impact on the kids,” Dr. Chrisman says. “The worst outcomes are linked with [parents saying], ‘We don’t want to talk about it.’ ”

The parents are understandably upset, Dr. Gurwitch says. It’s OK to show sadness, anger, and other emotions, but she tells parents: “It’s not OK to completely decompose.” It’s important for the children to see that parents can pull themselves together.
 

Longer-term effects

As time goes on, ‘’a very large percentage will have posttraumatic reactions,” Dr. Schonfeld says. “Those reactions tend to improve over time.”

While people talk about PTSD directly after an incident such as a school shooting, it isn’t officially diagnosed as PTSD until the symptoms describing PTSD have persisted for a month, Dr. Schonfeld says. However, ‘’that doesn’t mean you don’t have a problem” that needs attention from a mental health professional.

“As a country we are already struggling with a mental health crisis,” Dr. Bhargava says. “Events such as this serve to exacerbate even more crisis in a group of innocent children whose only crime was to attend school. We must address the ‘epidemic’ of gun violence and school shootings head on. For the sake of our children and their health. For all of us.”
 

Therapy that works

Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) approaches are effective in reducing the trauma, Dr. Gurwitch says.

She often recommends one type of CBT, called trauma-focused cognitive behavioral therapy. This approach involves children and parents and focuses on safety, coping skills, and gradual exposure. It’s a structured and short-term treatment of about eight to 25 sessions.

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

As the parents of the 19 children shot dead Tuesday in Uvalde, Tex., by a teen gunman grapple with unspeakable grief and funeral preparations, the survivors and their families are dealing with their own angst and likely much more.

While the parents understandably feel lucky that their children made it out, what about the long-term effect on their children of witnessing that carnage, of seeing classmates, friends, and teachers die violently as they stood by helpless and fearful?

The outcome over the next few days, months, and years depends on many factors, but how parents address the trauma both immediately and long-term can make a huge difference, experts say.
 

Posttraumatic growth

Best long-term case scenario? Survivors can experience what experts call posttraumatic growth – reaching out to give back to society, to make the world a better place, and changing who they are and their view of the world.

A prime example of posttraumatic growth: A month after a teen gunman killed 17 students at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla., on Valentine’s Day 2018, an army of survivors from that day’s bloodbath headed to Washington, D.C., for the now-famous March for Our Lives. The student-led demonstration, with hundreds of thousands of supporters marching, called for gun control legislation and an end to gun violence. It remains a vibrant, nonprofit organization still advocating for universal background checks and increased support of mental health services.
 

No sign of future violence

While most children and teens who witness school violence won’t become high-profile activists, as survivors of Parkland and the numerous other school shootings have, neither will they become the next active shooter, mental health experts say. They can’t point to a study that follows the gun violence victims that shows who does OK and who doesn’t, but they know immediate support and therapy can go a long way to recovery.

“I can’t tell you how any particular child will do,” says Robin Gurwitch, PhD, psychologist and professor at Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C. “I can tell you the majority of kids will be OK.”

However, that doesn’t mean a surviving child won’t have behavior and other issues, she says. Research does suggest the next few days, weeks, or months will be rough.

What parents and other caretakers do in the days after the violence will help predict the long-term outcome. Dr. Gurwitch and other experts say it’s important to first focus on what they call “psychological first aid,” then phase in therapy such as trauma-focused cognitive behavioral therapy, if and when it’s needed.
 

First, ‘psychological first aid’

“Psychological first aid is designed to minimize the impact down the road,” Dr. Gurwitch says. “Validate that they are feeling scared or worried.”

Some may be angry, another understandable emotion. In the first few days of witnessing violence – or even just hearing about it – parents should expect clinginess, sleep problems, behavior meltdowns, and irritability, she says.

“Those kinds of changes are likely to last a few weeks,” she says.

If day-to-day functioning is very difficult, “don’t wait for those to pass,” Dr. Gurwitch says. “Reach out for help. Resources will be available. Check with your pediatrician or family physician.”

At home, parents can address specific problems related to the experience, Dr. Gurwitch says. If it’s sleep, she says, parents and kids can work together to figure out how to ease sleep, such as listening to their favorite music before bedtime.

While parents may be inclined to baby the kids after the violence, Dr. Gurwitch says it’s important to maintain routines. So it’s not cruel to insist they do their chores.
 

Expect change

Things won’t be the same.

“Anytime we go through a particular traumatic event, we are changed,” Dr. Gurwitch says. ‘’The question is, what do we do about it? How do we incorporate that change into who we are and have become?”

Also important is figuring out how to make meaning out of what happened.

“I am so impressed by the families at Sandy Hook (the Connecticut elementary school where a gunman killed 26 in 2012),” she says.

They set up foundations and did other advocacy work.

“These types of events are life-changing events,” agrees David Schonfeld, MD, a pediatrician and director of the National Center for Schools Crisis and Bereavement at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles, California. “They will change who children are as people, but it doesn’t mean they are damaged for life. They will remember it as long as they live, and it will also change who they are as a person.”

While people tend to stress the potential negative effects – and there certainly are some – ‘’some individuals actually emerge from these events with a renewed sense of purpose.’’

He tells parents: “Yes, your child has changed, and you can’t go back. But it doesn’t mean they are destined to never be able to cope [with trauma].”
 

Research

The effects of gun violence on children can be serious and dramatic, research shows.

• Exposure to neighborhood gun violence is linked with an increase in children’s mental health issues,  have found. Children living within two or three blocks of gun violence had nearly twice the risk of going to the emergency department with a mental health complaint in the 14 days following the shooting.  
• Exposure to gun violence should be classified, along with maltreatment, household dysfunction, and other issues known to impact children negatively, as an adverse childhood experience, other experts 
• Direct gun violence exposure, witnessing it, and hearing gunshots are all associated with children being victimized in other ways, another  found. And that poly-victimization, as it is called, was strongly associated with having posttraumatic symptoms.

Adverse Childhood Events, as these sorts of experiences are known, can have long-lasting effects on physical and mental health, as well as on even the economic future of a person, says Hansa Bhargava, MD, a pediatrician and chief medical officer of Medscape, WebMD’s sister site for medical professionals.

“Kids who have suffered through violent events can have brain development affected, as well as their immune systems,” she says. “They are more likely to have chronic disease, substance use disorder, sexually transmitted diseases, teen pregnancy, and lifelong depression. A high risk of [posttraumatic stress disorder] is likely for them and their families.”
 

The impact of family support

The gun violence and deaths are likely to remind children of other losses they have experienced, Dr. Schonfeld says, and that can make coping more difficult.

If the trauma from the Tuesday shootings is ‘’layered” on top of trauma from COVID-19 deaths or other trauma such as domestic violence, those children may have a more difficult time, says Allan Chrisman, MD, professor emeritus of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Duke University Health System. However, protective factors such as the family response and the community response can build resilience in survivors, he says.

“The way in which parents handle it for themselves will have a huge impact on the kids,” Dr. Chrisman says. “The worst outcomes are linked with [parents saying], ‘We don’t want to talk about it.’ ”

The parents are understandably upset, Dr. Gurwitch says. It’s OK to show sadness, anger, and other emotions, but she tells parents: “It’s not OK to completely decompose.” It’s important for the children to see that parents can pull themselves together.
 

Longer-term effects

As time goes on, ‘’a very large percentage will have posttraumatic reactions,” Dr. Schonfeld says. “Those reactions tend to improve over time.”

While people talk about PTSD directly after an incident such as a school shooting, it isn’t officially diagnosed as PTSD until the symptoms describing PTSD have persisted for a month, Dr. Schonfeld says. However, ‘’that doesn’t mean you don’t have a problem” that needs attention from a mental health professional.

“As a country we are already struggling with a mental health crisis,” Dr. Bhargava says. “Events such as this serve to exacerbate even more crisis in a group of innocent children whose only crime was to attend school. We must address the ‘epidemic’ of gun violence and school shootings head on. For the sake of our children and their health. For all of us.”
 

Therapy that works

Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) approaches are effective in reducing the trauma, Dr. Gurwitch says.

She often recommends one type of CBT, called trauma-focused cognitive behavioral therapy. This approach involves children and parents and focuses on safety, coping skills, and gradual exposure. It’s a structured and short-term treatment of about eight to 25 sessions.

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

As the parents of the 19 children shot dead Tuesday in Uvalde, Tex., by a teen gunman grapple with unspeakable grief and funeral preparations, the survivors and their families are dealing with their own angst and likely much more.

While the parents understandably feel lucky that their children made it out, what about the long-term effect on their children of witnessing that carnage, of seeing classmates, friends, and teachers die violently as they stood by helpless and fearful?

The outcome over the next few days, months, and years depends on many factors, but how parents address the trauma both immediately and long-term can make a huge difference, experts say.
 

Posttraumatic growth

Best long-term case scenario? Survivors can experience what experts call posttraumatic growth – reaching out to give back to society, to make the world a better place, and changing who they are and their view of the world.

A prime example of posttraumatic growth: A month after a teen gunman killed 17 students at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla., on Valentine’s Day 2018, an army of survivors from that day’s bloodbath headed to Washington, D.C., for the now-famous March for Our Lives. The student-led demonstration, with hundreds of thousands of supporters marching, called for gun control legislation and an end to gun violence. It remains a vibrant, nonprofit organization still advocating for universal background checks and increased support of mental health services.
 

No sign of future violence

While most children and teens who witness school violence won’t become high-profile activists, as survivors of Parkland and the numerous other school shootings have, neither will they become the next active shooter, mental health experts say. They can’t point to a study that follows the gun violence victims that shows who does OK and who doesn’t, but they know immediate support and therapy can go a long way to recovery.

“I can’t tell you how any particular child will do,” says Robin Gurwitch, PhD, psychologist and professor at Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C. “I can tell you the majority of kids will be OK.”

However, that doesn’t mean a surviving child won’t have behavior and other issues, she says. Research does suggest the next few days, weeks, or months will be rough.

What parents and other caretakers do in the days after the violence will help predict the long-term outcome. Dr. Gurwitch and other experts say it’s important to first focus on what they call “psychological first aid,” then phase in therapy such as trauma-focused cognitive behavioral therapy, if and when it’s needed.
 

First, ‘psychological first aid’

“Psychological first aid is designed to minimize the impact down the road,” Dr. Gurwitch says. “Validate that they are feeling scared or worried.”

Some may be angry, another understandable emotion. In the first few days of witnessing violence – or even just hearing about it – parents should expect clinginess, sleep problems, behavior meltdowns, and irritability, she says.

“Those kinds of changes are likely to last a few weeks,” she says.

If day-to-day functioning is very difficult, “don’t wait for those to pass,” Dr. Gurwitch says. “Reach out for help. Resources will be available. Check with your pediatrician or family physician.”

At home, parents can address specific problems related to the experience, Dr. Gurwitch says. If it’s sleep, she says, parents and kids can work together to figure out how to ease sleep, such as listening to their favorite music before bedtime.

While parents may be inclined to baby the kids after the violence, Dr. Gurwitch says it’s important to maintain routines. So it’s not cruel to insist they do their chores.
 

Expect change

Things won’t be the same.

“Anytime we go through a particular traumatic event, we are changed,” Dr. Gurwitch says. ‘’The question is, what do we do about it? How do we incorporate that change into who we are and have become?”

Also important is figuring out how to make meaning out of what happened.

“I am so impressed by the families at Sandy Hook (the Connecticut elementary school where a gunman killed 26 in 2012),” she says.

They set up foundations and did other advocacy work.

“These types of events are life-changing events,” agrees David Schonfeld, MD, a pediatrician and director of the National Center for Schools Crisis and Bereavement at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles, California. “They will change who children are as people, but it doesn’t mean they are damaged for life. They will remember it as long as they live, and it will also change who they are as a person.”

While people tend to stress the potential negative effects – and there certainly are some – ‘’some individuals actually emerge from these events with a renewed sense of purpose.’’

He tells parents: “Yes, your child has changed, and you can’t go back. But it doesn’t mean they are destined to never be able to cope [with trauma].”
 

Research

The effects of gun violence on children can be serious and dramatic, research shows.

• Exposure to neighborhood gun violence is linked with an increase in children’s mental health issues,  have found. Children living within two or three blocks of gun violence had nearly twice the risk of going to the emergency department with a mental health complaint in the 14 days following the shooting.  
• Exposure to gun violence should be classified, along with maltreatment, household dysfunction, and other issues known to impact children negatively, as an adverse childhood experience, other experts 
• Direct gun violence exposure, witnessing it, and hearing gunshots are all associated with children being victimized in other ways, another  found. And that poly-victimization, as it is called, was strongly associated with having posttraumatic symptoms.

Adverse Childhood Events, as these sorts of experiences are known, can have long-lasting effects on physical and mental health, as well as on even the economic future of a person, says Hansa Bhargava, MD, a pediatrician and chief medical officer of Medscape, WebMD’s sister site for medical professionals.

“Kids who have suffered through violent events can have brain development affected, as well as their immune systems,” she says. “They are more likely to have chronic disease, substance use disorder, sexually transmitted diseases, teen pregnancy, and lifelong depression. A high risk of [posttraumatic stress disorder] is likely for them and their families.”
 

The impact of family support

The gun violence and deaths are likely to remind children of other losses they have experienced, Dr. Schonfeld says, and that can make coping more difficult.

If the trauma from the Tuesday shootings is ‘’layered” on top of trauma from COVID-19 deaths or other trauma such as domestic violence, those children may have a more difficult time, says Allan Chrisman, MD, professor emeritus of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Duke University Health System. However, protective factors such as the family response and the community response can build resilience in survivors, he says.

“The way in which parents handle it for themselves will have a huge impact on the kids,” Dr. Chrisman says. “The worst outcomes are linked with [parents saying], ‘We don’t want to talk about it.’ ”

The parents are understandably upset, Dr. Gurwitch says. It’s OK to show sadness, anger, and other emotions, but she tells parents: “It’s not OK to completely decompose.” It’s important for the children to see that parents can pull themselves together.
 

Longer-term effects

As time goes on, ‘’a very large percentage will have posttraumatic reactions,” Dr. Schonfeld says. “Those reactions tend to improve over time.”

While people talk about PTSD directly after an incident such as a school shooting, it isn’t officially diagnosed as PTSD until the symptoms describing PTSD have persisted for a month, Dr. Schonfeld says. However, ‘’that doesn’t mean you don’t have a problem” that needs attention from a mental health professional.

“As a country we are already struggling with a mental health crisis,” Dr. Bhargava says. “Events such as this serve to exacerbate even more crisis in a group of innocent children whose only crime was to attend school. We must address the ‘epidemic’ of gun violence and school shootings head on. For the sake of our children and their health. For all of us.”
 

Therapy that works

Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) approaches are effective in reducing the trauma, Dr. Gurwitch says.

She often recommends one type of CBT, called trauma-focused cognitive behavioral therapy. This approach involves children and parents and focuses on safety, coping skills, and gradual exposure. It’s a structured and short-term treatment of about eight to 25 sessions.

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

Breastfeeding duration is associated with improved cognitive scores at ages 5-14, even after controlling for maternal socioeconomic position and cognitive ability, said the researchers behind a new study.

Despite previous studies demonstrating an association between breastfeeding and standardized intelligence test scores – with breastfed infants scoring higher on intelligence tests than non-breastfed infants – a causal relationship is still contested.

“There is some debate about whether breastfeeding a baby for a longer period of time improves their cognitive development,” the authors of the new study said. They went on to explain how improved cognitive outcomes in breastfed infants could potentially be explained by other characteristics of the women, such as “socioeconomics and maternal intelligence.”
 

Important at the population level

For the study, published in the open-access journal PLOS ONE, researchers from the University of Oxford (England) set out to investigate how much these confounders influenced the association between breastfeeding duration and cognitive development.

They analyzed data from the U.K. Millennium Cohort Study on 7,855 infants born in 2000 to 2002 and followed until age 14. They highlighted that although the cohort was not specifically designed to address the association between breastfeeding and cognition, it included information on duration of any breastfeeding, duration of exclusive breastfeeding, verbal cognitive scores at ages 5, 7, 11, and 14, spatial cognitive scores at ages 5, 7, and 11, as well as potential confounders, including socioeconomic characteristics and maternal cognition, based on a vocabulary test.

The researchers discovered that longer breastfeeding durations were associated with higher verbal and spatial cognitive scores at all ages up to 14 and 11, respectively.

After taking the differences in socioeconomic position and maternal cognitive ability into account, those children who were breastfed for longer scored higher in cognitive measures up to age 14, compared with children who were not breastfed. They also found that longer breastfeeding durations were associated with mean cognitive scores 0.08-0.26 standard deviations higher than the mean cognitive score of those who were never breastfed. “This difference may seem small for an individual child but could be important at the population level,” the authors commented.
 

Modest effect

In the United Kingdom, women who have more educational qualifications and are more economically advantaged tend to breastfeed for longer, said the authors. In addition, they added, this group tends to “score more highly on cognitive tests.”

These differences could explain why babies who breastfeed for longer do better in cognitive assessments. However, they said that in their study, “we found that even after taking these differences into account, children breastfed for longer scored higher in cognitive measures up to age 14, in comparison to children who were not breastfed.”

The authors explained that the association between breastfeeding duration and cognitive scores “persists after adjusting for socioeconomics and maternal intelligence.” However, they pointed out that “the effect was modest.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape UK.

Breastfeeding duration is associated with improved cognitive scores at ages 5-14, even after controlling for maternal socioeconomic position and cognitive ability, said the researchers behind a new study.

Despite previous studies demonstrating an association between breastfeeding and standardized intelligence test scores – with breastfed infants scoring higher on intelligence tests than non-breastfed infants – a causal relationship is still contested.

“There is some debate about whether breastfeeding a baby for a longer period of time improves their cognitive development,” the authors of the new study said. They went on to explain how improved cognitive outcomes in breastfed infants could potentially be explained by other characteristics of the women, such as “socioeconomics and maternal intelligence.”
 

Important at the population level

For the study, published in the open-access journal PLOS ONE, researchers from the University of Oxford (England) set out to investigate how much these confounders influenced the association between breastfeeding duration and cognitive development.

They analyzed data from the U.K. Millennium Cohort Study on 7,855 infants born in 2000 to 2002 and followed until age 14. They highlighted that although the cohort was not specifically designed to address the association between breastfeeding and cognition, it included information on duration of any breastfeeding, duration of exclusive breastfeeding, verbal cognitive scores at ages 5, 7, 11, and 14, spatial cognitive scores at ages 5, 7, and 11, as well as potential confounders, including socioeconomic characteristics and maternal cognition, based on a vocabulary test.

The researchers discovered that longer breastfeeding durations were associated with higher verbal and spatial cognitive scores at all ages up to 14 and 11, respectively.

After taking the differences in socioeconomic position and maternal cognitive ability into account, those children who were breastfed for longer scored higher in cognitive measures up to age 14, compared with children who were not breastfed. They also found that longer breastfeeding durations were associated with mean cognitive scores 0.08-0.26 standard deviations higher than the mean cognitive score of those who were never breastfed. “This difference may seem small for an individual child but could be important at the population level,” the authors commented.
 

Modest effect

In the United Kingdom, women who have more educational qualifications and are more economically advantaged tend to breastfeed for longer, said the authors. In addition, they added, this group tends to “score more highly on cognitive tests.”

These differences could explain why babies who breastfeed for longer do better in cognitive assessments. However, they said that in their study, “we found that even after taking these differences into account, children breastfed for longer scored higher in cognitive measures up to age 14, in comparison to children who were not breastfed.”

The authors explained that the association between breastfeeding duration and cognitive scores “persists after adjusting for socioeconomics and maternal intelligence.” However, they pointed out that “the effect was modest.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape UK.

Breastfeeding duration is associated with improved cognitive scores at ages 5-14, even after controlling for maternal socioeconomic position and cognitive ability, said the researchers behind a new study.

Despite previous studies demonstrating an association between breastfeeding and standardized intelligence test scores – with breastfed infants scoring higher on intelligence tests than non-breastfed infants – a causal relationship is still contested.

“There is some debate about whether breastfeeding a baby for a longer period of time improves their cognitive development,” the authors of the new study said. They went on to explain how improved cognitive outcomes in breastfed infants could potentially be explained by other characteristics of the women, such as “socioeconomics and maternal intelligence.”
 

Important at the population level

For the study, published in the open-access journal PLOS ONE, researchers from the University of Oxford (England) set out to investigate how much these confounders influenced the association between breastfeeding duration and cognitive development.

They analyzed data from the U.K. Millennium Cohort Study on 7,855 infants born in 2000 to 2002 and followed until age 14. They highlighted that although the cohort was not specifically designed to address the association between breastfeeding and cognition, it included information on duration of any breastfeeding, duration of exclusive breastfeeding, verbal cognitive scores at ages 5, 7, 11, and 14, spatial cognitive scores at ages 5, 7, and 11, as well as potential confounders, including socioeconomic characteristics and maternal cognition, based on a vocabulary test.

The researchers discovered that longer breastfeeding durations were associated with higher verbal and spatial cognitive scores at all ages up to 14 and 11, respectively.

After taking the differences in socioeconomic position and maternal cognitive ability into account, those children who were breastfed for longer scored higher in cognitive measures up to age 14, compared with children who were not breastfed. They also found that longer breastfeeding durations were associated with mean cognitive scores 0.08-0.26 standard deviations higher than the mean cognitive score of those who were never breastfed. “This difference may seem small for an individual child but could be important at the population level,” the authors commented.
 

Modest effect

In the United Kingdom, women who have more educational qualifications and are more economically advantaged tend to breastfeed for longer, said the authors. In addition, they added, this group tends to “score more highly on cognitive tests.”

These differences could explain why babies who breastfeed for longer do better in cognitive assessments. However, they said that in their study, “we found that even after taking these differences into account, children breastfed for longer scored higher in cognitive measures up to age 14, in comparison to children who were not breastfed.”

The authors explained that the association between breastfeeding duration and cognitive scores “persists after adjusting for socioeconomics and maternal intelligence.” However, they pointed out that “the effect was modest.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape UK.

Severe airway injuries are a “not infrequent” consequence after children swallow button batteries, which are commonly found in many household electronics, according to a systematic review published online in JAMA Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery.

Most literature has focused on esophageal injury, but “the direct apposition of the esophagus to the trachea and recurrent laryngeal nerves also places these children at risk of airway injury, such as tracheoesophageal fistula (TEF) (a life-threatening complication), vocal cord paresis and paralysis, tracheal stenosis, and tracheomalacia,” the researchers wrote.

Led by Justine Philteos, MD, of the department of otolaryngology–head and neck surgery at the University of Toronto, the researchers found that tracheoesophageal fistula and vocal cord paralyses were the two most common airway injuries and often required tracheostomy.

The review included 195 children pulled from the National Capital Poison Center (NCPC) database – more often young children – who had ingested the batteries. The average age at ingestion was 17.8 months and the average time between ingestion and removal was 5.8 days.

Of the 195 children, 29 (15%) underwent tracheostomy, and 11 of the 29 children (38%) ultimately had decannulation. There were 14 deaths from swallowing the batteries. All 14 patients had a TEF. The cause of death was identified for 12 of the patients: Four died of pneumonia or respiratory failure; three of massive hematemesis; three of sepsis; one of multiorgan failure, and one of anoxic encephalopathy.

Vocal cord injury occurred after a shorter button battery exposure than other airway injuries.

The authors concluded that prioritizing quick button battery removal is essential “to decrease the devastating consequences of these injuries.”

In an invited commentary, Hannah Gibbs, and Kris R. Jatana, MD, of The Ohio State University in Columbus, described what’s being done to prevent and treat these injuries and what’s next.

They noted that ingestion is often unseen so diagnosis is difficult. Therefore, they wrote, a novel coin-battery metal detector could be a radiation-free, quick screening tool. They noted a patent-pending technology has been developed at Ohio State and Nationwide Children’s Hospital.

Honey can help slow injury

Some measures can be taken at home or in the hospital if battery swallowing is discovered, the editorialists noted.

In the home or in transport to the hospital, caregivers can give 10 mL of honey every 10 minutes until arrival if the child is older than 12 months.

At the hospital, 10 mL of either honey or sucralfate may be given every 10 minutes to slow the rate of injury until the battery can be surgically removed.

“The current NCPC guidelines suggest up to six doses may be given in the prehospital setting, with three additional doses administered in the hospital,” they wrote.

“These strategies should be considered earlier than 12 hours from ingestion, when there is no clinical concern for mediastinitis or sepsis. A child with an esophageal button battery should proceed to the operating room immediately regardless of whether he or she has recently eaten,” Ms. Gibbs and Dr. Jatana wrote.
 

App adds convenience to boost physician reporting

Foreign body ingestions are also severely underreported, they noted. They cited a survey of more than 400 physicians who directly manage foreign body ingestions that found only 11% of button battery injuries and 4% of all foreign body ingestion or aspiration events were reported. The great majority (92%) of respondents said they would report the events if that were more convenient.

To that end, the Global Injury Research Collaborative (GIRC) has created and released a free smartphone application, the GIRC App. It is available free on the iOS system (through App Store) and soon will be available on the Android system (through Google Play), they wrote.

Ms. Gibbs and Dr. Jatana urge other measures, including safer battery compartments and battery design, to reduce the likelihood of ingestion.

They pointed out that a bill was introduced in Congress that would require the Consumer Product Safety Commission to mandate a new standard for child-resistant compartments on products containing button batteries. The act, called Reese’s Law, has been referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce and is under review.

Dr. Jatana reported having a patent pending for a coin or battery metal detector device under development; being a shareholder in Zotarix, Landsdowne Labs, and Tivic Health Systems; serving in a leadership position on the National Button Battery Task Force; and being a board member of the Global Injury Research Collaborative, which is a U.S. Internal Revenue Service–designated, 501(c)(3) nonprofit research organization. No other relevant disclosures were reported.

Severe airway injuries are a “not infrequent” consequence after children swallow button batteries, which are commonly found in many household electronics, according to a systematic review published online in JAMA Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery.

Most literature has focused on esophageal injury, but “the direct apposition of the esophagus to the trachea and recurrent laryngeal nerves also places these children at risk of airway injury, such as tracheoesophageal fistula (TEF) (a life-threatening complication), vocal cord paresis and paralysis, tracheal stenosis, and tracheomalacia,” the researchers wrote.

Led by Justine Philteos, MD, of the department of otolaryngology–head and neck surgery at the University of Toronto, the researchers found that tracheoesophageal fistula and vocal cord paralyses were the two most common airway injuries and often required tracheostomy.

The review included 195 children pulled from the National Capital Poison Center (NCPC) database – more often young children – who had ingested the batteries. The average age at ingestion was 17.8 months and the average time between ingestion and removal was 5.8 days.

Of the 195 children, 29 (15%) underwent tracheostomy, and 11 of the 29 children (38%) ultimately had decannulation. There were 14 deaths from swallowing the batteries. All 14 patients had a TEF. The cause of death was identified for 12 of the patients: Four died of pneumonia or respiratory failure; three of massive hematemesis; three of sepsis; one of multiorgan failure, and one of anoxic encephalopathy.

Vocal cord injury occurred after a shorter button battery exposure than other airway injuries.

The authors concluded that prioritizing quick button battery removal is essential “to decrease the devastating consequences of these injuries.”

In an invited commentary, Hannah Gibbs, and Kris R. Jatana, MD, of The Ohio State University in Columbus, described what’s being done to prevent and treat these injuries and what’s next.

They noted that ingestion is often unseen so diagnosis is difficult. Therefore, they wrote, a novel coin-battery metal detector could be a radiation-free, quick screening tool. They noted a patent-pending technology has been developed at Ohio State and Nationwide Children’s Hospital.

Honey can help slow injury

Some measures can be taken at home or in the hospital if battery swallowing is discovered, the editorialists noted.

In the home or in transport to the hospital, caregivers can give 10 mL of honey every 10 minutes until arrival if the child is older than 12 months.

At the hospital, 10 mL of either honey or sucralfate may be given every 10 minutes to slow the rate of injury until the battery can be surgically removed.

“The current NCPC guidelines suggest up to six doses may be given in the prehospital setting, with three additional doses administered in the hospital,” they wrote.

“These strategies should be considered earlier than 12 hours from ingestion, when there is no clinical concern for mediastinitis or sepsis. A child with an esophageal button battery should proceed to the operating room immediately regardless of whether he or she has recently eaten,” Ms. Gibbs and Dr. Jatana wrote.
 

App adds convenience to boost physician reporting

Foreign body ingestions are also severely underreported, they noted. They cited a survey of more than 400 physicians who directly manage foreign body ingestions that found only 11% of button battery injuries and 4% of all foreign body ingestion or aspiration events were reported. The great majority (92%) of respondents said they would report the events if that were more convenient.

To that end, the Global Injury Research Collaborative (GIRC) has created and released a free smartphone application, the GIRC App. It is available free on the iOS system (through App Store) and soon will be available on the Android system (through Google Play), they wrote.

Ms. Gibbs and Dr. Jatana urge other measures, including safer battery compartments and battery design, to reduce the likelihood of ingestion.

They pointed out that a bill was introduced in Congress that would require the Consumer Product Safety Commission to mandate a new standard for child-resistant compartments on products containing button batteries. The act, called Reese’s Law, has been referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce and is under review.

Dr. Jatana reported having a patent pending for a coin or battery metal detector device under development; being a shareholder in Zotarix, Landsdowne Labs, and Tivic Health Systems; serving in a leadership position on the National Button Battery Task Force; and being a board member of the Global Injury Research Collaborative, which is a U.S. Internal Revenue Service–designated, 501(c)(3) nonprofit research organization. No other relevant disclosures were reported.

Severe airway injuries are a “not infrequent” consequence after children swallow button batteries, which are commonly found in many household electronics, according to a systematic review published online in JAMA Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery.

Most literature has focused on esophageal injury, but “the direct apposition of the esophagus to the trachea and recurrent laryngeal nerves also places these children at risk of airway injury, such as tracheoesophageal fistula (TEF) (a life-threatening complication), vocal cord paresis and paralysis, tracheal stenosis, and tracheomalacia,” the researchers wrote.

Led by Justine Philteos, MD, of the department of otolaryngology–head and neck surgery at the University of Toronto, the researchers found that tracheoesophageal fistula and vocal cord paralyses were the two most common airway injuries and often required tracheostomy.

The review included 195 children pulled from the National Capital Poison Center (NCPC) database – more often young children – who had ingested the batteries. The average age at ingestion was 17.8 months and the average time between ingestion and removal was 5.8 days.

Of the 195 children, 29 (15%) underwent tracheostomy, and 11 of the 29 children (38%) ultimately had decannulation. There were 14 deaths from swallowing the batteries. All 14 patients had a TEF. The cause of death was identified for 12 of the patients: Four died of pneumonia or respiratory failure; three of massive hematemesis; three of sepsis; one of multiorgan failure, and one of anoxic encephalopathy.

Vocal cord injury occurred after a shorter button battery exposure than other airway injuries.

The authors concluded that prioritizing quick button battery removal is essential “to decrease the devastating consequences of these injuries.”

In an invited commentary, Hannah Gibbs, and Kris R. Jatana, MD, of The Ohio State University in Columbus, described what’s being done to prevent and treat these injuries and what’s next.

They noted that ingestion is often unseen so diagnosis is difficult. Therefore, they wrote, a novel coin-battery metal detector could be a radiation-free, quick screening tool. They noted a patent-pending technology has been developed at Ohio State and Nationwide Children’s Hospital.

Honey can help slow injury

Some measures can be taken at home or in the hospital if battery swallowing is discovered, the editorialists noted.

In the home or in transport to the hospital, caregivers can give 10 mL of honey every 10 minutes until arrival if the child is older than 12 months.

At the hospital, 10 mL of either honey or sucralfate may be given every 10 minutes to slow the rate of injury until the battery can be surgically removed.

“The current NCPC guidelines suggest up to six doses may be given in the prehospital setting, with three additional doses administered in the hospital,” they wrote.

“These strategies should be considered earlier than 12 hours from ingestion, when there is no clinical concern for mediastinitis or sepsis. A child with an esophageal button battery should proceed to the operating room immediately regardless of whether he or she has recently eaten,” Ms. Gibbs and Dr. Jatana wrote.
 

App adds convenience to boost physician reporting

Foreign body ingestions are also severely underreported, they noted. They cited a survey of more than 400 physicians who directly manage foreign body ingestions that found only 11% of button battery injuries and 4% of all foreign body ingestion or aspiration events were reported. The great majority (92%) of respondents said they would report the events if that were more convenient.

To that end, the Global Injury Research Collaborative (GIRC) has created and released a free smartphone application, the GIRC App. It is available free on the iOS system (through App Store) and soon will be available on the Android system (through Google Play), they wrote.

Ms. Gibbs and Dr. Jatana urge other measures, including safer battery compartments and battery design, to reduce the likelihood of ingestion.

They pointed out that a bill was introduced in Congress that would require the Consumer Product Safety Commission to mandate a new standard for child-resistant compartments on products containing button batteries. The act, called Reese’s Law, has been referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce and is under review.

Dr. Jatana reported having a patent pending for a coin or battery metal detector device under development; being a shareholder in Zotarix, Landsdowne Labs, and Tivic Health Systems; serving in a leadership position on the National Button Battery Task Force; and being a board member of the Global Injury Research Collaborative, which is a U.S. Internal Revenue Service–designated, 501(c)(3) nonprofit research organization. No other relevant disclosures were reported.

NEW ORLEANS – Research into video game addiction is turning up new insights, and some treatments seem to make a difference, according to addiction psychiatry experts speaking at the annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association. Still, understanding remains limited amid a general lack of clarity about definitions, measurements, and the most effective treatment strategies.

“Video games have the potential to be uniquely addictive, and it’s difficult to come up with treatment modalities that you can use for kids who have access to these things 24/7 on their mobile phones or laptops,” psychiatrist James C. Sherer, MD, of NYU Langone Health, said during the May 22 session, “Internet Gaming Disorder: From Harmless Fun to Dependence,” at the meeting. “It makes treating this a really complicated endeavor.”

iStock/Getty Images

The number of people with so-called Internet gaming disorder is unknown, but video games remain wildly popular among adults and children of all genders. According to a 2021 survey by Common Sense Media, U.S. individuals aged 8-12 and 13-18 spent an average of 1:27 hours and 1:46 hours per day, respectively, playing video games.

“Video games are an extremely important part of normal social networking among kids, and there’s a huge amount of social pressure to be good,” Dr. Sherer said. “If you’re in a particularly affluent neighborhood, it’s not unheard of for a parent to hire a coach to make their kid good at a game like Fortnite so they impress the other kids.”

The 2013 edition of the DSM-5 doesn’t list Internet gaming disorder as a mental illness but suggests that the topic warrants more research and evaluation, Dr. Sherer said.

Why are video games so addicting? According to Dr. Sherer, they’re simply designed that way. Game manufacturers “employ psychologists and behaviorists whose only job is to look at the game and determine what colors and what sounds are most likely to make you spend a little bit extra.” And with the help of the Internet, video games have evolved over the past 40 years to encourage users to make multiple purchases on single games such as Candy Crush instead of simply buying, say, a single 1980s-style Atari cartridge.

According to Dr. Sherer, research suggests that video games place users into something called the “flow state,” which a recent review article published in Frontiers in Psychology describes as “a state of full task engagement that is accompanied with low-levels of self-referential thinking” and “highly relevant for human performance and well-being.”
 

Diagnosing gaming addiction

How can psychiatrists diagnose video gaming addiction? Dr. Sherer, who is himself a devoted gamer, advised against focusing too much on time spent gaming in determining whether a patient has a problem. Instead, keep in mind that excessive gaming can displace exercise and normal socialization, he said, and lead to worsening mood.

Rober Aziz, MD, also of NYU Langone Health, suggested asking these questions: What types of games do you play? How long do you spend playing? What’s your reason for playing? What’s the meaning of your character choices? Does this game interfere with school or work? Have you neglected your self-care to play more?

He recommends other questions, too: Have you tried to limit your play time without success? How uncomfortable do you get if you must stop in the middle of playing? Do you get agitated if servers go down unexpectedly?

“There’s actually a lot of parallel here to other addictions that we’re very familiar with,” he said.

According to Dr. Sherer, it’s helpful to know that children who have attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder tend to struggle with gaming addiction the most. He highlighted a brain-scan study in the Journal of Attention Disorders that found that patients with gaming addiction and ADHD had less functional connectivity from the cortex to the subcortex compared to matched controls. But treatment helped increase connectivity in those with good prognoses.

The findings are “heartening,” he said. “Basically, if you’re treating ADHD, you’re treating Internet gaming disorder. And if you’re treating Internet gaming disorder, you’re treating ADHD.”

As for treatments, the speakers agreed that there is little research to point in the right direction regarding gaming addiction specifically.

According to Dr. Aziz, research has suggested that bupropion, methylphenidate, and escitalopram can be helpful. In terms of nondrug approaches, he recommends directing patients toward games that have distinct beginnings, middles, and ends instead of endlessly providing rewards. One such game is “Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild” on the Nintendo Switch platform, he said.

On the psychotherapy front, Dr. Aziz said, “reducing use rather than abstinence should be the treatment goal.” Research suggests that cognitive behavioral therapy may not help patients in the long term, he said. Other strategies, he said, include specific approaches known as “CBT for Internet addiction” and “motivational interviewing for Internet gaming disorder.”

Gaming addiction treatment centers have also popped up in the U.S., he said, and there’s now an organization called Gaming Addicts Anonymous.

The good news is that “there is a lot of active research that’s being done” into treating video game addiction, said psychiatrist Anil Thomas, MD, program director of the addiction psychiatry fellowship at NYU Langone Health and moderator of the APA session. “We just have to wait to see what the results are.”

NEW ORLEANS – Research into video game addiction is turning up new insights, and some treatments seem to make a difference, according to addiction psychiatry experts speaking at the annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association. Still, understanding remains limited amid a general lack of clarity about definitions, measurements, and the most effective treatment strategies.

“Video games have the potential to be uniquely addictive, and it’s difficult to come up with treatment modalities that you can use for kids who have access to these things 24/7 on their mobile phones or laptops,” psychiatrist James C. Sherer, MD, of NYU Langone Health, said during the May 22 session, “Internet Gaming Disorder: From Harmless Fun to Dependence,” at the meeting. “It makes treating this a really complicated endeavor.”

iStock/Getty Images

The number of people with so-called Internet gaming disorder is unknown, but video games remain wildly popular among adults and children of all genders. According to a 2021 survey by Common Sense Media, U.S. individuals aged 8-12 and 13-18 spent an average of 1:27 hours and 1:46 hours per day, respectively, playing video games.

“Video games are an extremely important part of normal social networking among kids, and there’s a huge amount of social pressure to be good,” Dr. Sherer said. “If you’re in a particularly affluent neighborhood, it’s not unheard of for a parent to hire a coach to make their kid good at a game like Fortnite so they impress the other kids.”

The 2013 edition of the DSM-5 doesn’t list Internet gaming disorder as a mental illness but suggests that the topic warrants more research and evaluation, Dr. Sherer said.

Why are video games so addicting? According to Dr. Sherer, they’re simply designed that way. Game manufacturers “employ psychologists and behaviorists whose only job is to look at the game and determine what colors and what sounds are most likely to make you spend a little bit extra.” And with the help of the Internet, video games have evolved over the past 40 years to encourage users to make multiple purchases on single games such as Candy Crush instead of simply buying, say, a single 1980s-style Atari cartridge.

According to Dr. Sherer, research suggests that video games place users into something called the “flow state,” which a recent review article published in Frontiers in Psychology describes as “a state of full task engagement that is accompanied with low-levels of self-referential thinking” and “highly relevant for human performance and well-being.”
 

Diagnosing gaming addiction

How can psychiatrists diagnose video gaming addiction? Dr. Sherer, who is himself a devoted gamer, advised against focusing too much on time spent gaming in determining whether a patient has a problem. Instead, keep in mind that excessive gaming can displace exercise and normal socialization, he said, and lead to worsening mood.

Rober Aziz, MD, also of NYU Langone Health, suggested asking these questions: What types of games do you play? How long do you spend playing? What’s your reason for playing? What’s the meaning of your character choices? Does this game interfere with school or work? Have you neglected your self-care to play more?

He recommends other questions, too: Have you tried to limit your play time without success? How uncomfortable do you get if you must stop in the middle of playing? Do you get agitated if servers go down unexpectedly?

“There’s actually a lot of parallel here to other addictions that we’re very familiar with,” he said.

According to Dr. Sherer, it’s helpful to know that children who have attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder tend to struggle with gaming addiction the most. He highlighted a brain-scan study in the Journal of Attention Disorders that found that patients with gaming addiction and ADHD had less functional connectivity from the cortex to the subcortex compared to matched controls. But treatment helped increase connectivity in those with good prognoses.

The findings are “heartening,” he said. “Basically, if you’re treating ADHD, you’re treating Internet gaming disorder. And if you’re treating Internet gaming disorder, you’re treating ADHD.”

As for treatments, the speakers agreed that there is little research to point in the right direction regarding gaming addiction specifically.

According to Dr. Aziz, research has suggested that bupropion, methylphenidate, and escitalopram can be helpful. In terms of nondrug approaches, he recommends directing patients toward games that have distinct beginnings, middles, and ends instead of endlessly providing rewards. One such game is “Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild” on the Nintendo Switch platform, he said.

On the psychotherapy front, Dr. Aziz said, “reducing use rather than abstinence should be the treatment goal.” Research suggests that cognitive behavioral therapy may not help patients in the long term, he said. Other strategies, he said, include specific approaches known as “CBT for Internet addiction” and “motivational interviewing for Internet gaming disorder.”

Gaming addiction treatment centers have also popped up in the U.S., he said, and there’s now an organization called Gaming Addicts Anonymous.

The good news is that “there is a lot of active research that’s being done” into treating video game addiction, said psychiatrist Anil Thomas, MD, program director of the addiction psychiatry fellowship at NYU Langone Health and moderator of the APA session. “We just have to wait to see what the results are.”

NEW ORLEANS – Research into video game addiction is turning up new insights, and some treatments seem to make a difference, according to addiction psychiatry experts speaking at the annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association. Still, understanding remains limited amid a general lack of clarity about definitions, measurements, and the most effective treatment strategies.

“Video games have the potential to be uniquely addictive, and it’s difficult to come up with treatment modalities that you can use for kids who have access to these things 24/7 on their mobile phones or laptops,” psychiatrist James C. Sherer, MD, of NYU Langone Health, said during the May 22 session, “Internet Gaming Disorder: From Harmless Fun to Dependence,” at the meeting. “It makes treating this a really complicated endeavor.”

iStock/Getty Images

The number of people with so-called Internet gaming disorder is unknown, but video games remain wildly popular among adults and children of all genders. According to a 2021 survey by Common Sense Media, U.S. individuals aged 8-12 and 13-18 spent an average of 1:27 hours and 1:46 hours per day, respectively, playing video games.

“Video games are an extremely important part of normal social networking among kids, and there’s a huge amount of social pressure to be good,” Dr. Sherer said. “If you’re in a particularly affluent neighborhood, it’s not unheard of for a parent to hire a coach to make their kid good at a game like Fortnite so they impress the other kids.”

The 2013 edition of the DSM-5 doesn’t list Internet gaming disorder as a mental illness but suggests that the topic warrants more research and evaluation, Dr. Sherer said.

Why are video games so addicting? According to Dr. Sherer, they’re simply designed that way. Game manufacturers “employ psychologists and behaviorists whose only job is to look at the game and determine what colors and what sounds are most likely to make you spend a little bit extra.” And with the help of the Internet, video games have evolved over the past 40 years to encourage users to make multiple purchases on single games such as Candy Crush instead of simply buying, say, a single 1980s-style Atari cartridge.

According to Dr. Sherer, research suggests that video games place users into something called the “flow state,” which a recent review article published in Frontiers in Psychology describes as “a state of full task engagement that is accompanied with low-levels of self-referential thinking” and “highly relevant for human performance and well-being.”
 

Diagnosing gaming addiction

How can psychiatrists diagnose video gaming addiction? Dr. Sherer, who is himself a devoted gamer, advised against focusing too much on time spent gaming in determining whether a patient has a problem. Instead, keep in mind that excessive gaming can displace exercise and normal socialization, he said, and lead to worsening mood.

Rober Aziz, MD, also of NYU Langone Health, suggested asking these questions: What types of games do you play? How long do you spend playing? What’s your reason for playing? What’s the meaning of your character choices? Does this game interfere with school or work? Have you neglected your self-care to play more?

He recommends other questions, too: Have you tried to limit your play time without success? How uncomfortable do you get if you must stop in the middle of playing? Do you get agitated if servers go down unexpectedly?

“There’s actually a lot of parallel here to other addictions that we’re very familiar with,” he said.

According to Dr. Sherer, it’s helpful to know that children who have attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder tend to struggle with gaming addiction the most. He highlighted a brain-scan study in the Journal of Attention Disorders that found that patients with gaming addiction and ADHD had less functional connectivity from the cortex to the subcortex compared to matched controls. But treatment helped increase connectivity in those with good prognoses.

The findings are “heartening,” he said. “Basically, if you’re treating ADHD, you’re treating Internet gaming disorder. And if you’re treating Internet gaming disorder, you’re treating ADHD.”

As for treatments, the speakers agreed that there is little research to point in the right direction regarding gaming addiction specifically.

According to Dr. Aziz, research has suggested that bupropion, methylphenidate, and escitalopram can be helpful. In terms of nondrug approaches, he recommends directing patients toward games that have distinct beginnings, middles, and ends instead of endlessly providing rewards. One such game is “Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild” on the Nintendo Switch platform, he said.

On the psychotherapy front, Dr. Aziz said, “reducing use rather than abstinence should be the treatment goal.” Research suggests that cognitive behavioral therapy may not help patients in the long term, he said. Other strategies, he said, include specific approaches known as “CBT for Internet addiction” and “motivational interviewing for Internet gaming disorder.”

Gaming addiction treatment centers have also popped up in the U.S., he said, and there’s now an organization called Gaming Addicts Anonymous.

The good news is that “there is a lot of active research that’s being done” into treating video game addiction, said psychiatrist Anil Thomas, MD, program director of the addiction psychiatry fellowship at NYU Langone Health and moderator of the APA session. “We just have to wait to see what the results are.”

The anticipated U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval of VP-102 for the treatment of molluscum contagiosum has been delayed because of deficiencies identified at a contract manufacturing organization, according to Verrica Pharmaceuticals, which is developing the product.

VP-102 is a proprietary drug-device combination of cantharidin 0.7% administered through a single-use precision applicator, which has been evaluated in phase 3 studies of patients with molluscum aged 2 years and older. It features a visualization agent so the person applying the drug can see which lesions have been treated. It also contains a bittering agent to mitigate oral ingestion by children.

According to a press release from Verrica, the only deficiency listed in the FDA’s complete response letter stemmed from a general reinspection of Sterling Pharmaceuticals Services, which manufactures Verrica’s bulk solution drug product. Although none of the issues identified by the FDA during the reinspection were specific to the manufacturing of VP-102, FDA policy prevents approval of a new drug application when a contract manufacturing organization has an unresolved classification status or is placed on “official action indicated” status.

According to the press release, Verrica will “continue to work collaboratively” with the FDA to bring VP-102 to the market as soon as possible. The company has completed phase 2 studies of VP-102 for the treatment of common warts and for the treatment of external genital warts, the release said.

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

The anticipated U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval of VP-102 for the treatment of molluscum contagiosum has been delayed because of deficiencies identified at a contract manufacturing organization, according to Verrica Pharmaceuticals, which is developing the product.

VP-102 is a proprietary drug-device combination of cantharidin 0.7% administered through a single-use precision applicator, which has been evaluated in phase 3 studies of patients with molluscum aged 2 years and older. It features a visualization agent so the person applying the drug can see which lesions have been treated. It also contains a bittering agent to mitigate oral ingestion by children.

According to a press release from Verrica, the only deficiency listed in the FDA’s complete response letter stemmed from a general reinspection of Sterling Pharmaceuticals Services, which manufactures Verrica’s bulk solution drug product. Although none of the issues identified by the FDA during the reinspection were specific to the manufacturing of VP-102, FDA policy prevents approval of a new drug application when a contract manufacturing organization has an unresolved classification status or is placed on “official action indicated” status.

According to the press release, Verrica will “continue to work collaboratively” with the FDA to bring VP-102 to the market as soon as possible. The company has completed phase 2 studies of VP-102 for the treatment of common warts and for the treatment of external genital warts, the release said.

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

The anticipated U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval of VP-102 for the treatment of molluscum contagiosum has been delayed because of deficiencies identified at a contract manufacturing organization, according to Verrica Pharmaceuticals, which is developing the product.

VP-102 is a proprietary drug-device combination of cantharidin 0.7% administered through a single-use precision applicator, which has been evaluated in phase 3 studies of patients with molluscum aged 2 years and older. It features a visualization agent so the person applying the drug can see which lesions have been treated. It also contains a bittering agent to mitigate oral ingestion by children.

According to a press release from Verrica, the only deficiency listed in the FDA’s complete response letter stemmed from a general reinspection of Sterling Pharmaceuticals Services, which manufactures Verrica’s bulk solution drug product. Although none of the issues identified by the FDA during the reinspection were specific to the manufacturing of VP-102, FDA policy prevents approval of a new drug application when a contract manufacturing organization has an unresolved classification status or is placed on “official action indicated” status.

According to the press release, Verrica will “continue to work collaboratively” with the FDA to bring VP-102 to the market as soon as possible. The company has completed phase 2 studies of VP-102 for the treatment of common warts and for the treatment of external genital warts, the release said.

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