Pediatrics

Eating disorders are among the most prevalent, disabling, and potentially fatal psychiatric illnesses, and the COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated their burden, with a 15.3% increase in incidence in 2020 compared with previous years.¹ This increase was almost solely among adolescent girls with anorexia nervosa (AN), which is often insidious in onset and more difficult to treat as it advances. Adolescents with AN are most likely to present to their pediatricians, so awareness and early recognition of the symptoms is critical. Pediatricians are also an integral part of the treatment team in AN and can offer monitoring for serious complications, alongside valuable guidance to parents, who are central to treatment and the reestablishment of healthy eating habits in their children. Here we will review the epidemiology, diagnosis, and treatment of anorexia, with an emphasis on what pediatricians need to know to screen and to facilitate treatment.

Epidemiology

AN is marked by a fear of gaining weight or behaviors that interfere with weight gain and a self-evaluation unduly influenced by weight and body shape. Youth with AN often deny the seriousness of their malnutrition, although that is not required for diagnosis. AN can be of a restrictive or binge-purge subtype, and amenorrhea is no longer a requirement for diagnosis. There is not a specific weight or body mass index cutoff for the diagnosis, but the severity of AN is determined by the BMI percentile normed to age and sex. The average age of onset is 18, and the prepandemic prevalence of AN was about 1% of the population. It affects about 10 times as many females as males. It is quite rare prior to puberty, affecting about 0.01% of that age group. There is a heritable component, with a fivefold relative risk in youth with a parent with AN, and twin studies suggest heritability rates as high as 75%. Youth with rigid cognitive styles appear more vulnerable, as do those who participate in activities such as ballet, gymnastics, modeling, and wrestling because of the role of appearance and weight in performance. More than half of patients with AN will have another psychiatric illness, most commonly anxiety disorders, depression, or obsessive-compulsive disorder. AN becomes chronic in up to 15% of sufferers and the mortality rate is close to 10%, with approximately half dying from medical complications and half dying by suicide.

Screening

Parents and pediatricians are usually the first to notice that a child has started to lose weight or is falling off the growth curve. But weight changes usually emerge after feelings of preoccupation with weight, body shape, and body satisfaction. If parents report escalating pickiness around food, increased or compulsive exercise, persistent self-consciousness and self-criticism around weight and body shape, it is worth starting with screening questions.

If you notice preoccupation or anxiety around being weighed, even if the weight or growth curve are still normal, it is worthwhile to screen. Screening questions, such as the SCOFF questionnaire with five simple questions, can be very sensitive for both AN and bulimia nervosa.² There are also many validated screening instruments, such as the Eating Disorder Inventory or Eating Attitudes Test (for adolescents) and the Kids Eating Disorder Survey and the Child Eating Attitudes Test (for younger children), that are short self-reports that you can have your patients fill out when you have a higher index of suspicion. Weight loss or growth failure without a preoccupation around weight or appearance needs a thorough a medical workup, and could be a function of other psychiatric problems, such as depression.

If a child screens positive for an eating disorder, your full physical examination, growth curves, and longitudinal growth charts are critical for diagnosis. Percentile BMIs must be used, given the inaccuracy of standard BMI calculations in this age group. (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention age and sex growth charts include methods for this calculation). Laboratory assessment, including metabolic, kidney, pancreatic, and thyroid function, and an EKG can illuminate if there are consequences of restricting or purging. Of course, you want to evaluate for significant medical symptoms, including bradycardia, orthostasis, and hypokalemia. These medical symptoms are not limited to the severely underweight and merit referral to an emergency department and possible medical admission.

Then, a referral to a clinician who is expert in the assessment and treatment of eating disorders is needed. This may be a child psychiatrist, psychologist, or a colleague pediatrician with this specialization. It is also very important to begin the conversation with the family to introduce your concerns, describe what you have noticed, and discuss the need for further assessment and possibly treatment.

Treatment

Family-based therapy (FBT) is the first-line treatment of shorter-duration AN in children and adolescents. It focuses on the parents, helping them to calmly and effectively manage their child’s eating behaviors until their weight and behaviors have normalized. As a patient’s nutritional status improves, so does cognitive function, emotional flexibility, and mood. Individual therapy and psychopharmacologic treatment can be very effective for comorbid anxiety, mood, attentional, and thought disorders. Family-based work does include the child and is often done in group-based settings with clinicians from multiple disciplines. Dietitians provide education and guidance about healthy nutrition to the child and parents. Therapists may work with the child, parents, or full family to focus on behavior modification and managing distress. Most academic medical centers provide access to FBT, but there are many regions with no providers of this evidence-based treatment. One of the silver linings of the COVID-19 pandemic is that several online services have emerged offering FBT, working with families to manage mealtimes and treatment entirely at home.³ Pediatricians provide regular medical checks to measure progress and help with decisions about when it is safe to permit exercise or advance privileges and independence around eating. Some pediatricians have discovered a deep interest in this area of pediatrics and built their practices on it. Given the surge in prevalence of AN and the needs for adolescent mental health services, we hope more will do so.

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

References

1. Taquet M et al. Br J Psychiatry. 2022;220:262-4.

2. Morgan JF et al. West J Med. 2000 Mar;172(3):164-5.

3. Matheson BE et al. Int J Eat Disord. 2020 Jul;53(7):1142-54.

Eating disorders are among the most prevalent, disabling, and potentially fatal psychiatric illnesses, and the COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated their burden, with a 15.3% increase in incidence in 2020 compared with previous years.¹ This increase was almost solely among adolescent girls with anorexia nervosa (AN), which is often insidious in onset and more difficult to treat as it advances. Adolescents with AN are most likely to present to their pediatricians, so awareness and early recognition of the symptoms is critical. Pediatricians are also an integral part of the treatment team in AN and can offer monitoring for serious complications, alongside valuable guidance to parents, who are central to treatment and the reestablishment of healthy eating habits in their children. Here we will review the epidemiology, diagnosis, and treatment of anorexia, with an emphasis on what pediatricians need to know to screen and to facilitate treatment.

Epidemiology

AN is marked by a fear of gaining weight or behaviors that interfere with weight gain and a self-evaluation unduly influenced by weight and body shape. Youth with AN often deny the seriousness of their malnutrition, although that is not required for diagnosis. AN can be of a restrictive or binge-purge subtype, and amenorrhea is no longer a requirement for diagnosis. There is not a specific weight or body mass index cutoff for the diagnosis, but the severity of AN is determined by the BMI percentile normed to age and sex. The average age of onset is 18, and the prepandemic prevalence of AN was about 1% of the population. It affects about 10 times as many females as males. It is quite rare prior to puberty, affecting about 0.01% of that age group. There is a heritable component, with a fivefold relative risk in youth with a parent with AN, and twin studies suggest heritability rates as high as 75%. Youth with rigid cognitive styles appear more vulnerable, as do those who participate in activities such as ballet, gymnastics, modeling, and wrestling because of the role of appearance and weight in performance. More than half of patients with AN will have another psychiatric illness, most commonly anxiety disorders, depression, or obsessive-compulsive disorder. AN becomes chronic in up to 15% of sufferers and the mortality rate is close to 10%, with approximately half dying from medical complications and half dying by suicide.

Screening

Parents and pediatricians are usually the first to notice that a child has started to lose weight or is falling off the growth curve. But weight changes usually emerge after feelings of preoccupation with weight, body shape, and body satisfaction. If parents report escalating pickiness around food, increased or compulsive exercise, persistent self-consciousness and self-criticism around weight and body shape, it is worth starting with screening questions.

If you notice preoccupation or anxiety around being weighed, even if the weight or growth curve are still normal, it is worthwhile to screen. Screening questions, such as the SCOFF questionnaire with five simple questions, can be very sensitive for both AN and bulimia nervosa.² There are also many validated screening instruments, such as the Eating Disorder Inventory or Eating Attitudes Test (for adolescents) and the Kids Eating Disorder Survey and the Child Eating Attitudes Test (for younger children), that are short self-reports that you can have your patients fill out when you have a higher index of suspicion. Weight loss or growth failure without a preoccupation around weight or appearance needs a thorough a medical workup, and could be a function of other psychiatric problems, such as depression.

If a child screens positive for an eating disorder, your full physical examination, growth curves, and longitudinal growth charts are critical for diagnosis. Percentile BMIs must be used, given the inaccuracy of standard BMI calculations in this age group. (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention age and sex growth charts include methods for this calculation). Laboratory assessment, including metabolic, kidney, pancreatic, and thyroid function, and an EKG can illuminate if there are consequences of restricting or purging. Of course, you want to evaluate for significant medical symptoms, including bradycardia, orthostasis, and hypokalemia. These medical symptoms are not limited to the severely underweight and merit referral to an emergency department and possible medical admission.

Then, a referral to a clinician who is expert in the assessment and treatment of eating disorders is needed. This may be a child psychiatrist, psychologist, or a colleague pediatrician with this specialization. It is also very important to begin the conversation with the family to introduce your concerns, describe what you have noticed, and discuss the need for further assessment and possibly treatment.

Treatment

Family-based therapy (FBT) is the first-line treatment of shorter-duration AN in children and adolescents. It focuses on the parents, helping them to calmly and effectively manage their child’s eating behaviors until their weight and behaviors have normalized. As a patient’s nutritional status improves, so does cognitive function, emotional flexibility, and mood. Individual therapy and psychopharmacologic treatment can be very effective for comorbid anxiety, mood, attentional, and thought disorders. Family-based work does include the child and is often done in group-based settings with clinicians from multiple disciplines. Dietitians provide education and guidance about healthy nutrition to the child and parents. Therapists may work with the child, parents, or full family to focus on behavior modification and managing distress. Most academic medical centers provide access to FBT, but there are many regions with no providers of this evidence-based treatment. One of the silver linings of the COVID-19 pandemic is that several online services have emerged offering FBT, working with families to manage mealtimes and treatment entirely at home.³ Pediatricians provide regular medical checks to measure progress and help with decisions about when it is safe to permit exercise or advance privileges and independence around eating. Some pediatricians have discovered a deep interest in this area of pediatrics and built their practices on it. Given the surge in prevalence of AN and the needs for adolescent mental health services, we hope more will do so.

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

References

1. Taquet M et al. Br J Psychiatry. 2022;220:262-4.

2. Morgan JF et al. West J Med. 2000 Mar;172(3):164-5.

3. Matheson BE et al. Int J Eat Disord. 2020 Jul;53(7):1142-54.

Eating disorders are among the most prevalent, disabling, and potentially fatal psychiatric illnesses, and the COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated their burden, with a 15.3% increase in incidence in 2020 compared with previous years.¹ This increase was almost solely among adolescent girls with anorexia nervosa (AN), which is often insidious in onset and more difficult to treat as it advances. Adolescents with AN are most likely to present to their pediatricians, so awareness and early recognition of the symptoms is critical. Pediatricians are also an integral part of the treatment team in AN and can offer monitoring for serious complications, alongside valuable guidance to parents, who are central to treatment and the reestablishment of healthy eating habits in their children. Here we will review the epidemiology, diagnosis, and treatment of anorexia, with an emphasis on what pediatricians need to know to screen and to facilitate treatment.

Epidemiology

AN is marked by a fear of gaining weight or behaviors that interfere with weight gain and a self-evaluation unduly influenced by weight and body shape. Youth with AN often deny the seriousness of their malnutrition, although that is not required for diagnosis. AN can be of a restrictive or binge-purge subtype, and amenorrhea is no longer a requirement for diagnosis. There is not a specific weight or body mass index cutoff for the diagnosis, but the severity of AN is determined by the BMI percentile normed to age and sex. The average age of onset is 18, and the prepandemic prevalence of AN was about 1% of the population. It affects about 10 times as many females as males. It is quite rare prior to puberty, affecting about 0.01% of that age group. There is a heritable component, with a fivefold relative risk in youth with a parent with AN, and twin studies suggest heritability rates as high as 75%. Youth with rigid cognitive styles appear more vulnerable, as do those who participate in activities such as ballet, gymnastics, modeling, and wrestling because of the role of appearance and weight in performance. More than half of patients with AN will have another psychiatric illness, most commonly anxiety disorders, depression, or obsessive-compulsive disorder. AN becomes chronic in up to 15% of sufferers and the mortality rate is close to 10%, with approximately half dying from medical complications and half dying by suicide.

Screening

Parents and pediatricians are usually the first to notice that a child has started to lose weight or is falling off the growth curve. But weight changes usually emerge after feelings of preoccupation with weight, body shape, and body satisfaction. If parents report escalating pickiness around food, increased or compulsive exercise, persistent self-consciousness and self-criticism around weight and body shape, it is worth starting with screening questions.

If you notice preoccupation or anxiety around being weighed, even if the weight or growth curve are still normal, it is worthwhile to screen. Screening questions, such as the SCOFF questionnaire with five simple questions, can be very sensitive for both AN and bulimia nervosa.² There are also many validated screening instruments, such as the Eating Disorder Inventory or Eating Attitudes Test (for adolescents) and the Kids Eating Disorder Survey and the Child Eating Attitudes Test (for younger children), that are short self-reports that you can have your patients fill out when you have a higher index of suspicion. Weight loss or growth failure without a preoccupation around weight or appearance needs a thorough a medical workup, and could be a function of other psychiatric problems, such as depression.

If a child screens positive for an eating disorder, your full physical examination, growth curves, and longitudinal growth charts are critical for diagnosis. Percentile BMIs must be used, given the inaccuracy of standard BMI calculations in this age group. (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention age and sex growth charts include methods for this calculation). Laboratory assessment, including metabolic, kidney, pancreatic, and thyroid function, and an EKG can illuminate if there are consequences of restricting or purging. Of course, you want to evaluate for significant medical symptoms, including bradycardia, orthostasis, and hypokalemia. These medical symptoms are not limited to the severely underweight and merit referral to an emergency department and possible medical admission.

Then, a referral to a clinician who is expert in the assessment and treatment of eating disorders is needed. This may be a child psychiatrist, psychologist, or a colleague pediatrician with this specialization. It is also very important to begin the conversation with the family to introduce your concerns, describe what you have noticed, and discuss the need for further assessment and possibly treatment.

Treatment

Family-based therapy (FBT) is the first-line treatment of shorter-duration AN in children and adolescents. It focuses on the parents, helping them to calmly and effectively manage their child’s eating behaviors until their weight and behaviors have normalized. As a patient’s nutritional status improves, so does cognitive function, emotional flexibility, and mood. Individual therapy and psychopharmacologic treatment can be very effective for comorbid anxiety, mood, attentional, and thought disorders. Family-based work does include the child and is often done in group-based settings with clinicians from multiple disciplines. Dietitians provide education and guidance about healthy nutrition to the child and parents. Therapists may work with the child, parents, or full family to focus on behavior modification and managing distress. Most academic medical centers provide access to FBT, but there are many regions with no providers of this evidence-based treatment. One of the silver linings of the COVID-19 pandemic is that several online services have emerged offering FBT, working with families to manage mealtimes and treatment entirely at home.³ Pediatricians provide regular medical checks to measure progress and help with decisions about when it is safe to permit exercise or advance privileges and independence around eating. Some pediatricians have discovered a deep interest in this area of pediatrics and built their practices on it. Given the surge in prevalence of AN and the needs for adolescent mental health services, we hope more will do so.

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

References

1. Taquet M et al. Br J Psychiatry. 2022;220:262-4.

2. Morgan JF et al. West J Med. 2000 Mar;172(3):164-5.

3. Matheson BE et al. Int J Eat Disord. 2020 Jul;53(7):1142-54.

You have an appointment with a 14-year-old youth you last saw for an annual camp physical. He had screened positive for depression, and you had referred him to a local therapist. He did not have an appointment until after camp, and you have only met a few times, but since you had spoken with him about his depression, he set up an appointment with you to ask about medications. When you meet him you ask about what he had been doing in therapy and he says, “I’m learning ‘coping skills,’ but they don’t work.”

From breathing exercises and sticker charts to mindfulness and grounding exercise, coping skills can be crucial for learning how to manage distress, regulate emotions, become more effective interpersonally, and function better. Similarly, parenting interventions, which change the way parents and youth interact, are a central family intervention for behavioral problems in youth.

It is very common, however, to hear that they “don’t work” or have a parent say, “We tried that, it doesn’t work.”

When kids and parents reject coping skills and behavioral interventions by saying they do not work, the consequences can be substantial. It can mean the rejection of coping skills and strategies that actually would have helped, given time and support; that kids and families bounce between services with increasing frustration; that they search for a magic bullet (which also won’t work); and, particularly concerning for physicians, a belief that the youth have not received the right medication, resulting in potentially unhelpful concoctions of medication.

One of the biggest challenges in helping youth and parents overcome their difficulties – whether these difficulties are depression and anxiety or being better parents to struggling kids – is helping them understand that despite the fact that coping skills and behavioral interventions do not seem to work, they work.

We just have to do a better job explaining what that “work” is.

There are five points you can make.

• First, the coping skill or behavioral intervention is not supposed to work if that means solving the underlying problem. Coping skills and behavioral interventions do not immediately cure anxiety, mend broken hearts, correct disruptive behaviors, disentangle power struggles, or alleviate depression. That is not what their job is. Coping skills and behavioral interventions are there to help us get better at handling complex situations and feelings. In particular, they are good at helping us manage our thoughts (“I can’t do it,” “He should behave better”) and our affect (anger, frustration, rage, anxiety, sadness), so that over time we get better at solving the problems, and break out of the patterns that perpetuate these problems.
• Second, kids and parents do not give skills credit for when they do work. That time you were spiraling out of control and told your mom you needed a break and watched some YouTube videos and then joined the family for dinner? Your coping skills worked, but nobody noticed because they worked. We need to help our young patients and families identify those times that coping skills and behavioral interventions worked.
• Third, let’s face it: Nothing works all the time. It is no wonder kids and families are disappointed by coping skills and behavioral interventions if they think they magically work once and forever. We need to manage expectations.
• Fourth, we know they are supposed to fail, and we should discuss this openly up front. This may sound surprising, but challenging behaviors often get worse when we begin to work on them. “Extinction bursts” is probably the easiest explanation, but for psychodynamically oriented youth and families we could talk about “resistance.” No matter what, things tend to get worse before they get better. We should let people know this ahead of time.
• Fifth, and this is the one that forces youth and parents to ask how hard they actually tried, these skills need to be practiced. You can’t be in the middle of a panic attack and for the first time start trying to pace your breathing with a technique a therapist told you about 3 weeks ago. This makes about as much sense as not training for a marathon. You need to practice and build up the skills, recognizing that as you become more familiar with them, they will help you manage during stressful situations. Every skill should be practiced, preferably several times or more in sessions, maybe every session, and definitely outside of sessions when not in distress.

We cannot blame children and parents for thinking that coping skills and behavioral interventions do not work. They are struggling, suffering, fighting, frightened, angry, anxious, frustrated, and often desperate for something to make everything better. Helping them recognize this desire for things to be better while managing expectations is an essential complement to supporting the use of coping skills and behavioral interventions, and a fairly easy conversation to have with youth.

So when you are talking about coping skills and parental behavioral interventions, it is important to be prepared for the “it didn’t work” conversation, and even to address these issues up front. After all, these strategies may not solve all the problems in the world, but can be lifelong ways of coping with life’s challenges.
 

Dr. Henderson is associate professor of clinical psychiatry at New York University and deputy director of child and adolescent psychiatry at Bellevue Hospital, New York.

You have an appointment with a 14-year-old youth you last saw for an annual camp physical. He had screened positive for depression, and you had referred him to a local therapist. He did not have an appointment until after camp, and you have only met a few times, but since you had spoken with him about his depression, he set up an appointment with you to ask about medications. When you meet him you ask about what he had been doing in therapy and he says, “I’m learning ‘coping skills,’ but they don’t work.”

From breathing exercises and sticker charts to mindfulness and grounding exercise, coping skills can be crucial for learning how to manage distress, regulate emotions, become more effective interpersonally, and function better. Similarly, parenting interventions, which change the way parents and youth interact, are a central family intervention for behavioral problems in youth.

It is very common, however, to hear that they “don’t work” or have a parent say, “We tried that, it doesn’t work.”

When kids and parents reject coping skills and behavioral interventions by saying they do not work, the consequences can be substantial. It can mean the rejection of coping skills and strategies that actually would have helped, given time and support; that kids and families bounce between services with increasing frustration; that they search for a magic bullet (which also won’t work); and, particularly concerning for physicians, a belief that the youth have not received the right medication, resulting in potentially unhelpful concoctions of medication.

One of the biggest challenges in helping youth and parents overcome their difficulties – whether these difficulties are depression and anxiety or being better parents to struggling kids – is helping them understand that despite the fact that coping skills and behavioral interventions do not seem to work, they work.

We just have to do a better job explaining what that “work” is.

There are five points you can make.

• First, the coping skill or behavioral intervention is not supposed to work if that means solving the underlying problem. Coping skills and behavioral interventions do not immediately cure anxiety, mend broken hearts, correct disruptive behaviors, disentangle power struggles, or alleviate depression. That is not what their job is. Coping skills and behavioral interventions are there to help us get better at handling complex situations and feelings. In particular, they are good at helping us manage our thoughts (“I can’t do it,” “He should behave better”) and our affect (anger, frustration, rage, anxiety, sadness), so that over time we get better at solving the problems, and break out of the patterns that perpetuate these problems.
• Second, kids and parents do not give skills credit for when they do work. That time you were spiraling out of control and told your mom you needed a break and watched some YouTube videos and then joined the family for dinner? Your coping skills worked, but nobody noticed because they worked. We need to help our young patients and families identify those times that coping skills and behavioral interventions worked.
• Third, let’s face it: Nothing works all the time. It is no wonder kids and families are disappointed by coping skills and behavioral interventions if they think they magically work once and forever. We need to manage expectations.
• Fourth, we know they are supposed to fail, and we should discuss this openly up front. This may sound surprising, but challenging behaviors often get worse when we begin to work on them. “Extinction bursts” is probably the easiest explanation, but for psychodynamically oriented youth and families we could talk about “resistance.” No matter what, things tend to get worse before they get better. We should let people know this ahead of time.
• Fifth, and this is the one that forces youth and parents to ask how hard they actually tried, these skills need to be practiced. You can’t be in the middle of a panic attack and for the first time start trying to pace your breathing with a technique a therapist told you about 3 weeks ago. This makes about as much sense as not training for a marathon. You need to practice and build up the skills, recognizing that as you become more familiar with them, they will help you manage during stressful situations. Every skill should be practiced, preferably several times or more in sessions, maybe every session, and definitely outside of sessions when not in distress.

We cannot blame children and parents for thinking that coping skills and behavioral interventions do not work. They are struggling, suffering, fighting, frightened, angry, anxious, frustrated, and often desperate for something to make everything better. Helping them recognize this desire for things to be better while managing expectations is an essential complement to supporting the use of coping skills and behavioral interventions, and a fairly easy conversation to have with youth.

So when you are talking about coping skills and parental behavioral interventions, it is important to be prepared for the “it didn’t work” conversation, and even to address these issues up front. After all, these strategies may not solve all the problems in the world, but can be lifelong ways of coping with life’s challenges.
 

Dr. Henderson is associate professor of clinical psychiatry at New York University and deputy director of child and adolescent psychiatry at Bellevue Hospital, New York.

You have an appointment with a 14-year-old youth you last saw for an annual camp physical. He had screened positive for depression, and you had referred him to a local therapist. He did not have an appointment until after camp, and you have only met a few times, but since you had spoken with him about his depression, he set up an appointment with you to ask about medications. When you meet him you ask about what he had been doing in therapy and he says, “I’m learning ‘coping skills,’ but they don’t work.”

From breathing exercises and sticker charts to mindfulness and grounding exercise, coping skills can be crucial for learning how to manage distress, regulate emotions, become more effective interpersonally, and function better. Similarly, parenting interventions, which change the way parents and youth interact, are a central family intervention for behavioral problems in youth.

It is very common, however, to hear that they “don’t work” or have a parent say, “We tried that, it doesn’t work.”

When kids and parents reject coping skills and behavioral interventions by saying they do not work, the consequences can be substantial. It can mean the rejection of coping skills and strategies that actually would have helped, given time and support; that kids and families bounce between services with increasing frustration; that they search for a magic bullet (which also won’t work); and, particularly concerning for physicians, a belief that the youth have not received the right medication, resulting in potentially unhelpful concoctions of medication.

One of the biggest challenges in helping youth and parents overcome their difficulties – whether these difficulties are depression and anxiety or being better parents to struggling kids – is helping them understand that despite the fact that coping skills and behavioral interventions do not seem to work, they work.

We just have to do a better job explaining what that “work” is.

There are five points you can make.

• First, the coping skill or behavioral intervention is not supposed to work if that means solving the underlying problem. Coping skills and behavioral interventions do not immediately cure anxiety, mend broken hearts, correct disruptive behaviors, disentangle power struggles, or alleviate depression. That is not what their job is. Coping skills and behavioral interventions are there to help us get better at handling complex situations and feelings. In particular, they are good at helping us manage our thoughts (“I can’t do it,” “He should behave better”) and our affect (anger, frustration, rage, anxiety, sadness), so that over time we get better at solving the problems, and break out of the patterns that perpetuate these problems.
• Second, kids and parents do not give skills credit for when they do work. That time you were spiraling out of control and told your mom you needed a break and watched some YouTube videos and then joined the family for dinner? Your coping skills worked, but nobody noticed because they worked. We need to help our young patients and families identify those times that coping skills and behavioral interventions worked.
• Third, let’s face it: Nothing works all the time. It is no wonder kids and families are disappointed by coping skills and behavioral interventions if they think they magically work once and forever. We need to manage expectations.
• Fourth, we know they are supposed to fail, and we should discuss this openly up front. This may sound surprising, but challenging behaviors often get worse when we begin to work on them. “Extinction bursts” is probably the easiest explanation, but for psychodynamically oriented youth and families we could talk about “resistance.” No matter what, things tend to get worse before they get better. We should let people know this ahead of time.
• Fifth, and this is the one that forces youth and parents to ask how hard they actually tried, these skills need to be practiced. You can’t be in the middle of a panic attack and for the first time start trying to pace your breathing with a technique a therapist told you about 3 weeks ago. This makes about as much sense as not training for a marathon. You need to practice and build up the skills, recognizing that as you become more familiar with them, they will help you manage during stressful situations. Every skill should be practiced, preferably several times or more in sessions, maybe every session, and definitely outside of sessions when not in distress.

We cannot blame children and parents for thinking that coping skills and behavioral interventions do not work. They are struggling, suffering, fighting, frightened, angry, anxious, frustrated, and often desperate for something to make everything better. Helping them recognize this desire for things to be better while managing expectations is an essential complement to supporting the use of coping skills and behavioral interventions, and a fairly easy conversation to have with youth.

So when you are talking about coping skills and parental behavioral interventions, it is important to be prepared for the “it didn’t work” conversation, and even to address these issues up front. After all, these strategies may not solve all the problems in the world, but can be lifelong ways of coping with life’s challenges.
 

Dr. Henderson is associate professor of clinical psychiatry at New York University and deputy director of child and adolescent psychiatry at Bellevue Hospital, New York.

Recently, I encountered a study in Pediatrics that hoped to answer the question of whether there was any benefit to tactile stimulation in those nerve-rattling moments when a newborn didn’t seem to take much interest in breathing: “Tactile stimulation in newborn infants with inadequate respiration at birth: A systematic review.” Now there is a title that grabs the attention of every frontline pediatrician who has sweated through those minutes that seemed like hours in the delivery room when some little rascal has decided that breathing isn’t a priority.

Of course, your great grandmother and everyone else knew what needed to be done – the obstetrician hung the baby by his or her ankles and slapped it on the bottom a couple of times. But you went to medical school and learned that was barbaric. Instead, you modeled the behavior of the residents and delivery room nurses who had more refined techniques such as heel flicking and vigorous spine rubbing. You never thought to ask if there was any science behind those activities because everyone did them.

Well, the authors of the article in Pediatrics, writing on behalf of the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation and Neonatal Life Support Task Force, thought the time had come to turn over a few stones and see if tactile stimulation was a benefit in resuscitation. Beginning with 2,455 possibly relevant articles, they quickly (I suspect they would quibble with the “quickly” part) winnowed these down to two observational studies, one of which was rejected because of “critical risk of bias.” The surviving study showed a reduction in tracheal intubation in infants who had received tactile stimulation. However, the authors felt that the “certainty of evidence was very low.”

So, there you have it. Aren’t you glad you didn’t invest 15 or 20 minutes discovering what you probably had guessed already? You can thank me later.

You already suspected that it may not help. However, like any good physician, what you really wanted to know is whether were you doing any harm by heel flicking and spine rubbing. And I bet you already had an opinion about the answer to that question. During your training, you may have seen delivery room personnel who were clearly too vigorous in their tactile stimulation and/or too persistent in their heel flicking and spine rubbing when the next steps in resuscitation needed to be taken. That’s the next study that needs to be done. I hope that study finds that tactile stimulation may not help but as long as it is done using specific techniques and within certain temporal parameters it does no harm.

I was never much for heel flicking. My favorite tactile stimulation was encircling the pokey infant’s chest in my hand, gently compressing and then quickly releasing a couple of times. My hope was that by mimicking the birth process the sensors in the infant’s chest wall would remind him it was time to breathe. That, and a silent plea to Mother Nature, worked most of the time.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].

Recently, I encountered a study in Pediatrics that hoped to answer the question of whether there was any benefit to tactile stimulation in those nerve-rattling moments when a newborn didn’t seem to take much interest in breathing: “Tactile stimulation in newborn infants with inadequate respiration at birth: A systematic review.” Now there is a title that grabs the attention of every frontline pediatrician who has sweated through those minutes that seemed like hours in the delivery room when some little rascal has decided that breathing isn’t a priority.

Of course, your great grandmother and everyone else knew what needed to be done – the obstetrician hung the baby by his or her ankles and slapped it on the bottom a couple of times. But you went to medical school and learned that was barbaric. Instead, you modeled the behavior of the residents and delivery room nurses who had more refined techniques such as heel flicking and vigorous spine rubbing. You never thought to ask if there was any science behind those activities because everyone did them.

Well, the authors of the article in Pediatrics, writing on behalf of the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation and Neonatal Life Support Task Force, thought the time had come to turn over a few stones and see if tactile stimulation was a benefit in resuscitation. Beginning with 2,455 possibly relevant articles, they quickly (I suspect they would quibble with the “quickly” part) winnowed these down to two observational studies, one of which was rejected because of “critical risk of bias.” The surviving study showed a reduction in tracheal intubation in infants who had received tactile stimulation. However, the authors felt that the “certainty of evidence was very low.”

So, there you have it. Aren’t you glad you didn’t invest 15 or 20 minutes discovering what you probably had guessed already? You can thank me later.

You already suspected that it may not help. However, like any good physician, what you really wanted to know is whether were you doing any harm by heel flicking and spine rubbing. And I bet you already had an opinion about the answer to that question. During your training, you may have seen delivery room personnel who were clearly too vigorous in their tactile stimulation and/or too persistent in their heel flicking and spine rubbing when the next steps in resuscitation needed to be taken. That’s the next study that needs to be done. I hope that study finds that tactile stimulation may not help but as long as it is done using specific techniques and within certain temporal parameters it does no harm.

I was never much for heel flicking. My favorite tactile stimulation was encircling the pokey infant’s chest in my hand, gently compressing and then quickly releasing a couple of times. My hope was that by mimicking the birth process the sensors in the infant’s chest wall would remind him it was time to breathe. That, and a silent plea to Mother Nature, worked most of the time.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].

Recently, I encountered a study in Pediatrics that hoped to answer the question of whether there was any benefit to tactile stimulation in those nerve-rattling moments when a newborn didn’t seem to take much interest in breathing: “Tactile stimulation in newborn infants with inadequate respiration at birth: A systematic review.” Now there is a title that grabs the attention of every frontline pediatrician who has sweated through those minutes that seemed like hours in the delivery room when some little rascal has decided that breathing isn’t a priority.

Of course, your great grandmother and everyone else knew what needed to be done – the obstetrician hung the baby by his or her ankles and slapped it on the bottom a couple of times. But you went to medical school and learned that was barbaric. Instead, you modeled the behavior of the residents and delivery room nurses who had more refined techniques such as heel flicking and vigorous spine rubbing. You never thought to ask if there was any science behind those activities because everyone did them.

Well, the authors of the article in Pediatrics, writing on behalf of the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation and Neonatal Life Support Task Force, thought the time had come to turn over a few stones and see if tactile stimulation was a benefit in resuscitation. Beginning with 2,455 possibly relevant articles, they quickly (I suspect they would quibble with the “quickly” part) winnowed these down to two observational studies, one of which was rejected because of “critical risk of bias.” The surviving study showed a reduction in tracheal intubation in infants who had received tactile stimulation. However, the authors felt that the “certainty of evidence was very low.”

So, there you have it. Aren’t you glad you didn’t invest 15 or 20 minutes discovering what you probably had guessed already? You can thank me later.

You already suspected that it may not help. However, like any good physician, what you really wanted to know is whether were you doing any harm by heel flicking and spine rubbing. And I bet you already had an opinion about the answer to that question. During your training, you may have seen delivery room personnel who were clearly too vigorous in their tactile stimulation and/or too persistent in their heel flicking and spine rubbing when the next steps in resuscitation needed to be taken. That’s the next study that needs to be done. I hope that study finds that tactile stimulation may not help but as long as it is done using specific techniques and within certain temporal parameters it does no harm.

I was never much for heel flicking. My favorite tactile stimulation was encircling the pokey infant’s chest in my hand, gently compressing and then quickly releasing a couple of times. My hope was that by mimicking the birth process the sensors in the infant’s chest wall would remind him it was time to breathe. That, and a silent plea to Mother Nature, worked most of the time.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].

In 2021, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) considered 13 topics and made a total of 23 recommendations. They reviewed only 1 new topic. The other 12 were updates of topics previously addressed; no changes were made in 9 of them. In 3, the recommended age of screening or the criteria for screening were expanded. This Practice Alert will review the recommendations made and highlight new recommendations and any changes to previous ones. All complete recommendation statements, rationales, clinical considerations, and evidence reports can be found on the USPSTF website at https://uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/uspstf/home.¹

Dental caries in children

Dental caries affect about 23% of children between the ages of 2 and 5 years and are associated with multiple adverse social outcomes and medical conditions.² The best way to prevent tooth decay, other than regular brushing with fluoride toothpaste, is to drink water with recommended amounts of fluoride (≥ 0.6 parts fluoride per million parts water).² The USPSTF reaffirmed its recommendation from 2014 that stated when a local water supply lacks sufficient fluoride, primary care clinicians should prescribe oral supplementation for infants and children in the form of fluoride drops starting at age 6 months. The dosage of fluoride depends on patient age and fluoride concentration in the local water (TABLE 1³). The USPSTF also recommends applying topical fluoride as 5% sodium fluoride varnish, every 6 months, starting when the primary teeth erupt.²

BREAKING NEWS At press time, the USPSTF issued its final recommendation on the use of aspirin for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease; see https:// bit.ly/3vklQEe for details.

In addition to fluoride supplements and topical varnish, should clinicians perform screening examinations looking for dental caries? The USPSTF feels there is not enough evidence to assess this practice and gives it an “I” rating (insufficient evidence).

Preventive interventions in pregnancy 

In 2021, the USPSTF assessed 3 topics related to pregnancy and prenatal care.

Screening for gestational diabetes. The USPSTF gave a “B” recommendation for screening at 24 weeks of pregnancy or after, but an “I” statement for screening prior to 24 weeks.⁴ Screening can involve a 1-step or 2-step protocol.

The 2-step protocol is most commonly used in the United States. It involves first measuring serum glucose after a nonfasting 50-g oral glucose challenge; if the resulting level is high, the second step is a 75- or 100-g oral glucose tolerance test lasting 3 hours. The 1-step protocol involves measuring a fasting glucose level, followed by a 75-g oral glucose challenge with glucose levels measured at 1 and 2 hours.

Healthy weight gain in pregnancy. This was the only new topic the USPSTF assessed last year. The resulting recommendation is to offer pregnant women behavioral counseling to promote healthy weight gain and to prevent excessive weight gain in pregnancy. The recommended weight gain depends on the mother’s prepregnancy weight status: 28 to 40 lbs if the mother is underweight; 25 to 35 lbs if she is not under- or overweight; 15 to 25 lbs if she is overweight; and 11 to 20 lbs if she is obese.⁵ Healthy weight gain contributes to preventing gestational diabetes, emergency cesarean sections, and infant macrosomia.

Continue to: Low-dose aspirin

Low-dose aspirin. Reaffirming a recommendation from 2014, the USPSTF advises low-dose aspirin (81 mg/d) starting after 12 weeks’ gestation for all pregnant women who are at high risk for preeclampsia. TABLE 2⁶ lists high- and moderate-risk conditions for preeclampsia and the recommendation for the use of low-dose aspirin.

Sexually transmitted infections

Screening for both chlamydia and gonorrhea in sexually active females through age 24 years was given a “B” recommendation, reaffirming the 2014 recommendation.⁷ Screening for these 2 sexually transmitted infections (STIs) is also recommended for women 25 years and older who are at increased risk of STIs. Risk is defined as having a new sex partner, more than 1 sex partner, a sex partner who has other sex partners, or a sex partner who has an STI; not using condoms consistently; having a previous STI; exchanging sex for money or drugs; or having a history of incarceration.

Screen for both infections simultaneously using a nucleic acid amplification test, testing all sites of sexual exposure. Urine testing can replace cervical, vaginal, and urethral testing. Those found to be positive for either STI should be treated according to the most recent treatment guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). And sexual partners should be advised to undergo testing.^8,9

The USPSTF could not find evidence for the benefits and harms of screening for STIs in men. Remember that screening applies to those who are asymptomatic. Male sex partners of those found to be infected should be tested, as should those who show any signs or symptoms of an STI. A recent Practice Alert described the most current CDC guidance for diagnosing and treating STIs.⁹

Type 2 diabetes and prediabetes

Screening for type 2 diabetes (T2D) and prediabetes is now recommended for adults ages 35 to 70 years who are overweight or obese.¹⁰ The age to start screening has been lowered to 35 years from the previous recommendation in 2015, which recommended starting at age 40. In addition, the recommendation states that patients with prediabetes should be referred for preventive interventions. It is important that referral is included in the statement because the Affordable Care Act mandates that USPSTF “A” and “B” recommendations must be covered by commercial health insurance with no copay or deductible.

Continue to: Screening can be conducted...

Screening can be conducted using a fasting plasma glucose or A1C level, or with an oral glucose tolerance test. Interventions that can prevent or delay the onset of T2D in those with prediabetes include lifestyle interventions that focus on diet and physical activity, and the use of metformin (although metformin has not been approved for this by the US Food and Drug Administration).

Changes to cancer screening recommendations

In 2021, the USPSTF reviewed and modified its recommendations on screening for 2 types of cancer: colorectal and lung.

For colorectal cancer, the age at which to start screening was lowered from 50 years to 45 years.¹¹ Screening at this earlier age is a “B” recommendation, because, while there is benefit from screening, it is less than for older age groups. Screening individuals ages 50 to 75 years remains an “A” recommendation, and for those ages 76 to 85 years it remains a “C” recommendation. A “C” recommendation means that the overall benefits are small but some individuals might benefit based on their overall health and prior screening results. In its clinical considerations, the USPSTF recommends against screening in those ages 85 and older but, curiously, does not list it as a “D” recommendation. The screening methods and recommended screening intervals for each appear in TABLE 3.¹¹

For lung cancer, annual screening using low-dose computed tomography (CT) was first recommended by the USPSTF in 2013 for adults ages 55 to 80 years with a 30-pack-year smoking history. Screening could stop once 15 years had passed since smoking cessation. In 2021, the USPSTF lowered the age to initiate screening to 50 years, and the smoking history threshold to 20 pack-years.¹² If these recommendations are followed, a current smoker who does not quit smoking could possibly receive 30 annual CT scans. The recommendation does state that screening should stop once a person develops a health condition that significantly affects life expectancy or ability to have lung surgery.

For primary prevention of lung cancer and other chronic diseases through smoking cessation, the USPSTF also reassessed its 2015 recommendations. It reaffirmed the “A” recommendation to ask adults about tobacco use and, for tobacco users, to recommend cessation and provide behavioral therapy and approved pharmacotherapy.¹³ The recommendation differed for pregnant adults in that the USPSTF is unsure about the potential harms of pharmacotherapy in pregnancy and gives that an “I” statement.¹³ An additional “I” statement was made about the use of electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation; the USPSTF recommends using behavioral and pharmacotherapy interventions with proven effectiveness and safety instead.

Continue to: 4 additional recommendation updates with no changes

4 additional recommendation updates with no changes

Screening for high blood pressure in adults ages 18 years and older continues to receive an “A” recommendation.¹⁴ Importantly, the recommendation states that confirmation of high blood pressure should be made in an out-of-­office setting before initiating treatment. Screening for vitamin D deficiency in adults and hearing loss in older adults both continue with “I” statements,^15,16 and screening for asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis continues to receive a “D” recommendation.¹⁷ The implications of the vitamin D “I” statement were discussed in a previous Practice Alert.¹⁸

Continuing value of the USPSTF

The USPSTF continues to set the gold standard for assessment of preventive interventions, and its decisions affect first-dollar coverage by commercial health insurance. The reaffirmation of past recommendations demonstrates the value of adhering to rigorous evidence-based methods (if they are done correctly, they rarely must be markedly changed). And the updating of screening criteria shows the need to constantly review the evolving evidence for current recommendations. Once again, however, funding and staffing limitations allowed the USPSTF to assess only 1 new topic. A listing of all the 2021 recommendations is in TABLE 4.¹

In 2021, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) considered 13 topics and made a total of 23 recommendations. They reviewed only 1 new topic. The other 12 were updates of topics previously addressed; no changes were made in 9 of them. In 3, the recommended age of screening or the criteria for screening were expanded. This Practice Alert will review the recommendations made and highlight new recommendations and any changes to previous ones. All complete recommendation statements, rationales, clinical considerations, and evidence reports can be found on the USPSTF website at https://uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/uspstf/home.¹

Dental caries in children

Dental caries affect about 23% of children between the ages of 2 and 5 years and are associated with multiple adverse social outcomes and medical conditions.² The best way to prevent tooth decay, other than regular brushing with fluoride toothpaste, is to drink water with recommended amounts of fluoride (≥ 0.6 parts fluoride per million parts water).² The USPSTF reaffirmed its recommendation from 2014 that stated when a local water supply lacks sufficient fluoride, primary care clinicians should prescribe oral supplementation for infants and children in the form of fluoride drops starting at age 6 months. The dosage of fluoride depends on patient age and fluoride concentration in the local water (TABLE 1³). The USPSTF also recommends applying topical fluoride as 5% sodium fluoride varnish, every 6 months, starting when the primary teeth erupt.²

BREAKING NEWS At press time, the USPSTF issued its final recommendation on the use of aspirin for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease; see https:// bit.ly/3vklQEe for details.

In addition to fluoride supplements and topical varnish, should clinicians perform screening examinations looking for dental caries? The USPSTF feels there is not enough evidence to assess this practice and gives it an “I” rating (insufficient evidence).

Preventive interventions in pregnancy 

In 2021, the USPSTF assessed 3 topics related to pregnancy and prenatal care.

Screening for gestational diabetes. The USPSTF gave a “B” recommendation for screening at 24 weeks of pregnancy or after, but an “I” statement for screening prior to 24 weeks.⁴ Screening can involve a 1-step or 2-step protocol.

The 2-step protocol is most commonly used in the United States. It involves first measuring serum glucose after a nonfasting 50-g oral glucose challenge; if the resulting level is high, the second step is a 75- or 100-g oral glucose tolerance test lasting 3 hours. The 1-step protocol involves measuring a fasting glucose level, followed by a 75-g oral glucose challenge with glucose levels measured at 1 and 2 hours.

Healthy weight gain in pregnancy. This was the only new topic the USPSTF assessed last year. The resulting recommendation is to offer pregnant women behavioral counseling to promote healthy weight gain and to prevent excessive weight gain in pregnancy. The recommended weight gain depends on the mother’s prepregnancy weight status: 28 to 40 lbs if the mother is underweight; 25 to 35 lbs if she is not under- or overweight; 15 to 25 lbs if she is overweight; and 11 to 20 lbs if she is obese.⁵ Healthy weight gain contributes to preventing gestational diabetes, emergency cesarean sections, and infant macrosomia.

Continue to: Low-dose aspirin

Low-dose aspirin. Reaffirming a recommendation from 2014, the USPSTF advises low-dose aspirin (81 mg/d) starting after 12 weeks’ gestation for all pregnant women who are at high risk for preeclampsia. TABLE 2⁶ lists high- and moderate-risk conditions for preeclampsia and the recommendation for the use of low-dose aspirin.

Sexually transmitted infections

Screening for both chlamydia and gonorrhea in sexually active females through age 24 years was given a “B” recommendation, reaffirming the 2014 recommendation.⁷ Screening for these 2 sexually transmitted infections (STIs) is also recommended for women 25 years and older who are at increased risk of STIs. Risk is defined as having a new sex partner, more than 1 sex partner, a sex partner who has other sex partners, or a sex partner who has an STI; not using condoms consistently; having a previous STI; exchanging sex for money or drugs; or having a history of incarceration.

Screen for both infections simultaneously using a nucleic acid amplification test, testing all sites of sexual exposure. Urine testing can replace cervical, vaginal, and urethral testing. Those found to be positive for either STI should be treated according to the most recent treatment guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). And sexual partners should be advised to undergo testing.^8,9

The USPSTF could not find evidence for the benefits and harms of screening for STIs in men. Remember that screening applies to those who are asymptomatic. Male sex partners of those found to be infected should be tested, as should those who show any signs or symptoms of an STI. A recent Practice Alert described the most current CDC guidance for diagnosing and treating STIs.⁹

Type 2 diabetes and prediabetes

Screening for type 2 diabetes (T2D) and prediabetes is now recommended for adults ages 35 to 70 years who are overweight or obese.¹⁰ The age to start screening has been lowered to 35 years from the previous recommendation in 2015, which recommended starting at age 40. In addition, the recommendation states that patients with prediabetes should be referred for preventive interventions. It is important that referral is included in the statement because the Affordable Care Act mandates that USPSTF “A” and “B” recommendations must be covered by commercial health insurance with no copay or deductible.

Continue to: Screening can be conducted...

Screening can be conducted using a fasting plasma glucose or A1C level, or with an oral glucose tolerance test. Interventions that can prevent or delay the onset of T2D in those with prediabetes include lifestyle interventions that focus on diet and physical activity, and the use of metformin (although metformin has not been approved for this by the US Food and Drug Administration).

Changes to cancer screening recommendations

In 2021, the USPSTF reviewed and modified its recommendations on screening for 2 types of cancer: colorectal and lung.

For colorectal cancer, the age at which to start screening was lowered from 50 years to 45 years.¹¹ Screening at this earlier age is a “B” recommendation, because, while there is benefit from screening, it is less than for older age groups. Screening individuals ages 50 to 75 years remains an “A” recommendation, and for those ages 76 to 85 years it remains a “C” recommendation. A “C” recommendation means that the overall benefits are small but some individuals might benefit based on their overall health and prior screening results. In its clinical considerations, the USPSTF recommends against screening in those ages 85 and older but, curiously, does not list it as a “D” recommendation. The screening methods and recommended screening intervals for each appear in TABLE 3.¹¹

For lung cancer, annual screening using low-dose computed tomography (CT) was first recommended by the USPSTF in 2013 for adults ages 55 to 80 years with a 30-pack-year smoking history. Screening could stop once 15 years had passed since smoking cessation. In 2021, the USPSTF lowered the age to initiate screening to 50 years, and the smoking history threshold to 20 pack-years.¹² If these recommendations are followed, a current smoker who does not quit smoking could possibly receive 30 annual CT scans. The recommendation does state that screening should stop once a person develops a health condition that significantly affects life expectancy or ability to have lung surgery.

For primary prevention of lung cancer and other chronic diseases through smoking cessation, the USPSTF also reassessed its 2015 recommendations. It reaffirmed the “A” recommendation to ask adults about tobacco use and, for tobacco users, to recommend cessation and provide behavioral therapy and approved pharmacotherapy.¹³ The recommendation differed for pregnant adults in that the USPSTF is unsure about the potential harms of pharmacotherapy in pregnancy and gives that an “I” statement.¹³ An additional “I” statement was made about the use of electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation; the USPSTF recommends using behavioral and pharmacotherapy interventions with proven effectiveness and safety instead.

Continue to: 4 additional recommendation updates with no changes

4 additional recommendation updates with no changes

Screening for high blood pressure in adults ages 18 years and older continues to receive an “A” recommendation.¹⁴ Importantly, the recommendation states that confirmation of high blood pressure should be made in an out-of-­office setting before initiating treatment. Screening for vitamin D deficiency in adults and hearing loss in older adults both continue with “I” statements,^15,16 and screening for asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis continues to receive a “D” recommendation.¹⁷ The implications of the vitamin D “I” statement were discussed in a previous Practice Alert.¹⁸

Continuing value of the USPSTF

The USPSTF continues to set the gold standard for assessment of preventive interventions, and its decisions affect first-dollar coverage by commercial health insurance. The reaffirmation of past recommendations demonstrates the value of adhering to rigorous evidence-based methods (if they are done correctly, they rarely must be markedly changed). And the updating of screening criteria shows the need to constantly review the evolving evidence for current recommendations. Once again, however, funding and staffing limitations allowed the USPSTF to assess only 1 new topic. A listing of all the 2021 recommendations is in TABLE 4.¹

In 2021, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) considered 13 topics and made a total of 23 recommendations. They reviewed only 1 new topic. The other 12 were updates of topics previously addressed; no changes were made in 9 of them. In 3, the recommended age of screening or the criteria for screening were expanded. This Practice Alert will review the recommendations made and highlight new recommendations and any changes to previous ones. All complete recommendation statements, rationales, clinical considerations, and evidence reports can be found on the USPSTF website at https://uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/uspstf/home.¹

Dental caries in children

Dental caries affect about 23% of children between the ages of 2 and 5 years and are associated with multiple adverse social outcomes and medical conditions.² The best way to prevent tooth decay, other than regular brushing with fluoride toothpaste, is to drink water with recommended amounts of fluoride (≥ 0.6 parts fluoride per million parts water).² The USPSTF reaffirmed its recommendation from 2014 that stated when a local water supply lacks sufficient fluoride, primary care clinicians should prescribe oral supplementation for infants and children in the form of fluoride drops starting at age 6 months. The dosage of fluoride depends on patient age and fluoride concentration in the local water (TABLE 1³). The USPSTF also recommends applying topical fluoride as 5% sodium fluoride varnish, every 6 months, starting when the primary teeth erupt.²

BREAKING NEWS At press time, the USPSTF issued its final recommendation on the use of aspirin for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease; see https:// bit.ly/3vklQEe for details.

In addition to fluoride supplements and topical varnish, should clinicians perform screening examinations looking for dental caries? The USPSTF feels there is not enough evidence to assess this practice and gives it an “I” rating (insufficient evidence).

Preventive interventions in pregnancy 

In 2021, the USPSTF assessed 3 topics related to pregnancy and prenatal care.

Screening for gestational diabetes. The USPSTF gave a “B” recommendation for screening at 24 weeks of pregnancy or after, but an “I” statement for screening prior to 24 weeks.⁴ Screening can involve a 1-step or 2-step protocol.

The 2-step protocol is most commonly used in the United States. It involves first measuring serum glucose after a nonfasting 50-g oral glucose challenge; if the resulting level is high, the second step is a 75- or 100-g oral glucose tolerance test lasting 3 hours. The 1-step protocol involves measuring a fasting glucose level, followed by a 75-g oral glucose challenge with glucose levels measured at 1 and 2 hours.

Healthy weight gain in pregnancy. This was the only new topic the USPSTF assessed last year. The resulting recommendation is to offer pregnant women behavioral counseling to promote healthy weight gain and to prevent excessive weight gain in pregnancy. The recommended weight gain depends on the mother’s prepregnancy weight status: 28 to 40 lbs if the mother is underweight; 25 to 35 lbs if she is not under- or overweight; 15 to 25 lbs if she is overweight; and 11 to 20 lbs if she is obese.⁵ Healthy weight gain contributes to preventing gestational diabetes, emergency cesarean sections, and infant macrosomia.

Continue to: Low-dose aspirin

Low-dose aspirin. Reaffirming a recommendation from 2014, the USPSTF advises low-dose aspirin (81 mg/d) starting after 12 weeks’ gestation for all pregnant women who are at high risk for preeclampsia. TABLE 2⁶ lists high- and moderate-risk conditions for preeclampsia and the recommendation for the use of low-dose aspirin.

Sexually transmitted infections

Screening for both chlamydia and gonorrhea in sexually active females through age 24 years was given a “B” recommendation, reaffirming the 2014 recommendation.⁷ Screening for these 2 sexually transmitted infections (STIs) is also recommended for women 25 years and older who are at increased risk of STIs. Risk is defined as having a new sex partner, more than 1 sex partner, a sex partner who has other sex partners, or a sex partner who has an STI; not using condoms consistently; having a previous STI; exchanging sex for money or drugs; or having a history of incarceration.

Screen for both infections simultaneously using a nucleic acid amplification test, testing all sites of sexual exposure. Urine testing can replace cervical, vaginal, and urethral testing. Those found to be positive for either STI should be treated according to the most recent treatment guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). And sexual partners should be advised to undergo testing.^8,9

The USPSTF could not find evidence for the benefits and harms of screening for STIs in men. Remember that screening applies to those who are asymptomatic. Male sex partners of those found to be infected should be tested, as should those who show any signs or symptoms of an STI. A recent Practice Alert described the most current CDC guidance for diagnosing and treating STIs.⁹

Type 2 diabetes and prediabetes

Screening for type 2 diabetes (T2D) and prediabetes is now recommended for adults ages 35 to 70 years who are overweight or obese.¹⁰ The age to start screening has been lowered to 35 years from the previous recommendation in 2015, which recommended starting at age 40. In addition, the recommendation states that patients with prediabetes should be referred for preventive interventions. It is important that referral is included in the statement because the Affordable Care Act mandates that USPSTF “A” and “B” recommendations must be covered by commercial health insurance with no copay or deductible.

Continue to: Screening can be conducted...

Screening can be conducted using a fasting plasma glucose or A1C level, or with an oral glucose tolerance test. Interventions that can prevent or delay the onset of T2D in those with prediabetes include lifestyle interventions that focus on diet and physical activity, and the use of metformin (although metformin has not been approved for this by the US Food and Drug Administration).

Changes to cancer screening recommendations

In 2021, the USPSTF reviewed and modified its recommendations on screening for 2 types of cancer: colorectal and lung.

For colorectal cancer, the age at which to start screening was lowered from 50 years to 45 years.¹¹ Screening at this earlier age is a “B” recommendation, because, while there is benefit from screening, it is less than for older age groups. Screening individuals ages 50 to 75 years remains an “A” recommendation, and for those ages 76 to 85 years it remains a “C” recommendation. A “C” recommendation means that the overall benefits are small but some individuals might benefit based on their overall health and prior screening results. In its clinical considerations, the USPSTF recommends against screening in those ages 85 and older but, curiously, does not list it as a “D” recommendation. The screening methods and recommended screening intervals for each appear in TABLE 3.¹¹

For lung cancer, annual screening using low-dose computed tomography (CT) was first recommended by the USPSTF in 2013 for adults ages 55 to 80 years with a 30-pack-year smoking history. Screening could stop once 15 years had passed since smoking cessation. In 2021, the USPSTF lowered the age to initiate screening to 50 years, and the smoking history threshold to 20 pack-years.¹² If these recommendations are followed, a current smoker who does not quit smoking could possibly receive 30 annual CT scans. The recommendation does state that screening should stop once a person develops a health condition that significantly affects life expectancy or ability to have lung surgery.

For primary prevention of lung cancer and other chronic diseases through smoking cessation, the USPSTF also reassessed its 2015 recommendations. It reaffirmed the “A” recommendation to ask adults about tobacco use and, for tobacco users, to recommend cessation and provide behavioral therapy and approved pharmacotherapy.¹³ The recommendation differed for pregnant adults in that the USPSTF is unsure about the potential harms of pharmacotherapy in pregnancy and gives that an “I” statement.¹³ An additional “I” statement was made about the use of electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation; the USPSTF recommends using behavioral and pharmacotherapy interventions with proven effectiveness and safety instead.

Continue to: 4 additional recommendation updates with no changes

4 additional recommendation updates with no changes

Screening for high blood pressure in adults ages 18 years and older continues to receive an “A” recommendation.¹⁴ Importantly, the recommendation states that confirmation of high blood pressure should be made in an out-of-­office setting before initiating treatment. Screening for vitamin D deficiency in adults and hearing loss in older adults both continue with “I” statements,^15,16 and screening for asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis continues to receive a “D” recommendation.¹⁷ The implications of the vitamin D “I” statement were discussed in a previous Practice Alert.¹⁸

Continuing value of the USPSTF

The USPSTF continues to set the gold standard for assessment of preventive interventions, and its decisions affect first-dollar coverage by commercial health insurance. The reaffirmation of past recommendations demonstrates the value of adhering to rigorous evidence-based methods (if they are done correctly, they rarely must be markedly changed). And the updating of screening criteria shows the need to constantly review the evolving evidence for current recommendations. Once again, however, funding and staffing limitations allowed the USPSTF to assess only 1 new topic. A listing of all the 2021 recommendations is in TABLE 4.¹

This spring, global health advisories have been issued regarding an alarming – and as-yet unexplained – uptick of hepatitis in children. Currently, over 200 cases have been reported worldwide, a relatively small amount that nonetheless belies a considerable toll, including several deaths and the need for liver transplantation in a number of patients. The long-term implications are not yet known. Global health officials are working hard to determine a cause, with many focusing on the underlying cases of adenovirus that several patients have presented with.

To understand more, this news organization reached out to frequent contributor William F. Balistreri, MD, a specialist in pediatric gastroenterology and hepatology at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, where to date they have treated at least six cases of hepatitis in otherwise healthy young children, with one requiring a liver transplant. Dr. Balistreri discussed how the outbreak has developed to date, his advice to hepatologists and pediatricians, and where we stand now in this fast-evolving crisis.
 

Tracing the outbreak in the United States

How has this outbreak played out thus far in the United States, and what have we learned from that?

Sporadic reports of cases in multiple states are appearing. On April 21, 2022, a health alert was issued by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, recommending testing for adenovirus in children with acute hepatitis of an unknown etiology.

Baker and colleagues recently described five children with severe hepatitis and adenovirus viremia who were admitted to a children’s hospital in Birmingham, Ala., between October and November 2021. In collaboration with local and state officials, the CDC reviewed clinical records in order to identify patients with hepatitis and concomitant adenovirus infection, confirmed by polymerase chain reaction (PCR).

By February 2022, a total of nine children were identified. There was no epidemiologic linkage among these nine patients; all were well and immunocompetent. The prodromal features were somewhat similar: upper respiratory infection, vomiting, diarrhea, and jaundice. All children had markedly elevated aminotransferase levels and variably elevated total bilirubin levels. Extensive workup for other causes of acute liver injury (for example, other viruses, toxins/drugs, metabolic and autoimmune diseases) was unrevealing.

Specifically, none had documented SARS-CoV-2 infection. However, in all nine children, adenovirus was detected in whole blood samples. In the six children who underwent liver biopsy, there was nonspecific hepatitis, without inclusions or immunohistochemical detection of viral agents, including adenovirus. In three patients, the liver injury progressed, and despite the administration of antiviral agents, two underwent liver transplantation.

Baker and colleagues also suggested that measurement of adenovirus titers in whole blood (rather than plasma) may be more sensitive.

The CDC has recommended monitoring and surveillance in order to more fully understand the nature of the illness.
 

European and global cases

What has been the experience with this in Europe and elsewhere globally?

In mid-to-late 2021, several cases of acute hepatitis of unknown nature in children were identified in Europe. Public health officials in the United Kingdom investigated the high number of cases seen in children from England, Scotland, and Wales. They noted approximately 60 cases in England, mostly in children aged 2-5 years.

Marsh and colleagues reported a cluster of cases of severe hepatitis of unknown origin in Scotland affecting children aged 3-5 years. In Scotland, admitted cases were routinely tested for SARS-CoV-2. Of the 13 cases, five had a recent positive test. They discussed the possibility of increased severity of disease following infection with Omicron BA.2 (the dominant SARS-CoV-2 virus circulating in Scotland at that time) or infection by an uncharacterized SARS-CoV-2 variant. None of the children had been vaccinated for SARS-CoV-2.

On April 15, 2022, the World Health Organization Disease Outbreak News published a report of acute hepatitis of unknown etiology occurring in Great Britain and Northern Ireland. By April 21, 2022, 169 cases of acute hepatitis of unknown origin in children younger than 16 years had been reported from 11 countries in the WHO European region and 1 country in the WHO region of the Americas. Approximately 10% required a liver transplantation and at least one death was reported.

What has been established about the possible connection to the SARS-CoV-2 virus, particularly as it relates to coinfection with adenovirus?

In that WHO report of 169 cases, adenovirus was detected in 74 and SARS-CoV-2 in 20. Of note, 19 cases had a SARS-CoV-2 and adenovirus coinfection.

The report’s authors emphasized that, “while adenovirus is a possible hypothesis, investigations are ongoing for the causative agent.” The authors questioned whether this represents a continuing increase in cases of hepatitis or reflects an increased awareness.

The stated priority of the WHO is to determine the cause and to further refine control and prevention actions.

Given the worldwide nature of this outbreak, have connections between any of the cases been made yet?

Not to my knowledge.
 

What clinicians need to know

What makes this outbreak of hepatitis cases particularly concerning to the health care community, in comparison to other childhood diseases that occur globally? Is it because the cause is unknown or is it for other reasons?

It may be a collective heightened concern following the emergence of COVID.

Whether it represents a new form of acute hepatitis, a continuing increase in cases of hepatitis, or an increased awareness because of the well-publicized alerts remains to be determined. We certainly saw “viral-induced hepatitis” in the past.

Young patients may first be brought to pediatricians. What, if anything, should pediatricians be on the lookout for? Do they need a heightened index of suspicion or are the cases too rare at this point?

An awareness of the “outbreak” may allow the clinician to extend the typical workup of a child presenting with an undefined, presumably viral illness.

In the cases reported, the prodromal and/or presenting symptoms were respiratory and gastrointestinal in nature. They include nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and abdominal pain.

Specifically, if jaundice and/or scleral icterus is noted, then hepatitis should be suspected.

Should pediatricians consider early referral to a pediatric gastroenterologist or hepatologist?

Yes, because there is the potential for finding a treatable cause (for example, autoimmune hepatitis or a specific metabolic disease) in a patient presenting in this fashion.

In addition, the potential for progression to acute liver failure (with coagulopathy and encephalopathy), albeit rare, exists.

What do hepatologists need to be doing when presented with suspected cases?

The typical clinical picture holds and the workup is standard. The one new key, given the recent data, is to test for adenovirus, using whole blood versus plasma, as the former may be more sensitive.

In addition, it is prudent to check for SARS-CoV-2 by PCR.

What are the major questions that remain and that you’d like to see elucidated going forward?

There are many. Is this a new disease? A new variant of adenovirus? A synergy or susceptibility related to SARS-CoV-2? Is it related to a variant of SARS-CoV-2? Is it triggering an adverse immune response? Are there other epigenetic factors involved? And finally, is this an increase, or is it related to a collective heightened concern following the pandemic?

Dr. Balistreri is the Dorothy M.M. Kersten Professor of Pediatrics, director emeritus of the Pediatric Liver Care Center, medical director emeritus of liver transplantation, and professor at the University of Cincinnati; he is also with the department of pediatrics at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center.

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

This spring, global health advisories have been issued regarding an alarming – and as-yet unexplained – uptick of hepatitis in children. Currently, over 200 cases have been reported worldwide, a relatively small amount that nonetheless belies a considerable toll, including several deaths and the need for liver transplantation in a number of patients. The long-term implications are not yet known. Global health officials are working hard to determine a cause, with many focusing on the underlying cases of adenovirus that several patients have presented with.

To understand more, this news organization reached out to frequent contributor William F. Balistreri, MD, a specialist in pediatric gastroenterology and hepatology at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, where to date they have treated at least six cases of hepatitis in otherwise healthy young children, with one requiring a liver transplant. Dr. Balistreri discussed how the outbreak has developed to date, his advice to hepatologists and pediatricians, and where we stand now in this fast-evolving crisis.
 

Tracing the outbreak in the United States

How has this outbreak played out thus far in the United States, and what have we learned from that?

Sporadic reports of cases in multiple states are appearing. On April 21, 2022, a health alert was issued by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, recommending testing for adenovirus in children with acute hepatitis of an unknown etiology.

Baker and colleagues recently described five children with severe hepatitis and adenovirus viremia who were admitted to a children’s hospital in Birmingham, Ala., between October and November 2021. In collaboration with local and state officials, the CDC reviewed clinical records in order to identify patients with hepatitis and concomitant adenovirus infection, confirmed by polymerase chain reaction (PCR).

By February 2022, a total of nine children were identified. There was no epidemiologic linkage among these nine patients; all were well and immunocompetent. The prodromal features were somewhat similar: upper respiratory infection, vomiting, diarrhea, and jaundice. All children had markedly elevated aminotransferase levels and variably elevated total bilirubin levels. Extensive workup for other causes of acute liver injury (for example, other viruses, toxins/drugs, metabolic and autoimmune diseases) was unrevealing.

Specifically, none had documented SARS-CoV-2 infection. However, in all nine children, adenovirus was detected in whole blood samples. In the six children who underwent liver biopsy, there was nonspecific hepatitis, without inclusions or immunohistochemical detection of viral agents, including adenovirus. In three patients, the liver injury progressed, and despite the administration of antiviral agents, two underwent liver transplantation.

Baker and colleagues also suggested that measurement of adenovirus titers in whole blood (rather than plasma) may be more sensitive.

The CDC has recommended monitoring and surveillance in order to more fully understand the nature of the illness.
 

European and global cases

What has been the experience with this in Europe and elsewhere globally?

In mid-to-late 2021, several cases of acute hepatitis of unknown nature in children were identified in Europe. Public health officials in the United Kingdom investigated the high number of cases seen in children from England, Scotland, and Wales. They noted approximately 60 cases in England, mostly in children aged 2-5 years.

Marsh and colleagues reported a cluster of cases of severe hepatitis of unknown origin in Scotland affecting children aged 3-5 years. In Scotland, admitted cases were routinely tested for SARS-CoV-2. Of the 13 cases, five had a recent positive test. They discussed the possibility of increased severity of disease following infection with Omicron BA.2 (the dominant SARS-CoV-2 virus circulating in Scotland at that time) or infection by an uncharacterized SARS-CoV-2 variant. None of the children had been vaccinated for SARS-CoV-2.

On April 15, 2022, the World Health Organization Disease Outbreak News published a report of acute hepatitis of unknown etiology occurring in Great Britain and Northern Ireland. By April 21, 2022, 169 cases of acute hepatitis of unknown origin in children younger than 16 years had been reported from 11 countries in the WHO European region and 1 country in the WHO region of the Americas. Approximately 10% required a liver transplantation and at least one death was reported.

What has been established about the possible connection to the SARS-CoV-2 virus, particularly as it relates to coinfection with adenovirus?

In that WHO report of 169 cases, adenovirus was detected in 74 and SARS-CoV-2 in 20. Of note, 19 cases had a SARS-CoV-2 and adenovirus coinfection.

The report’s authors emphasized that, “while adenovirus is a possible hypothesis, investigations are ongoing for the causative agent.” The authors questioned whether this represents a continuing increase in cases of hepatitis or reflects an increased awareness.

The stated priority of the WHO is to determine the cause and to further refine control and prevention actions.

Given the worldwide nature of this outbreak, have connections between any of the cases been made yet?

Not to my knowledge.
 

What clinicians need to know

What makes this outbreak of hepatitis cases particularly concerning to the health care community, in comparison to other childhood diseases that occur globally? Is it because the cause is unknown or is it for other reasons?

It may be a collective heightened concern following the emergence of COVID.

Whether it represents a new form of acute hepatitis, a continuing increase in cases of hepatitis, or an increased awareness because of the well-publicized alerts remains to be determined. We certainly saw “viral-induced hepatitis” in the past.

Young patients may first be brought to pediatricians. What, if anything, should pediatricians be on the lookout for? Do they need a heightened index of suspicion or are the cases too rare at this point?

An awareness of the “outbreak” may allow the clinician to extend the typical workup of a child presenting with an undefined, presumably viral illness.

In the cases reported, the prodromal and/or presenting symptoms were respiratory and gastrointestinal in nature. They include nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and abdominal pain.

Specifically, if jaundice and/or scleral icterus is noted, then hepatitis should be suspected.

Should pediatricians consider early referral to a pediatric gastroenterologist or hepatologist?

Yes, because there is the potential for finding a treatable cause (for example, autoimmune hepatitis or a specific metabolic disease) in a patient presenting in this fashion.

In addition, the potential for progression to acute liver failure (with coagulopathy and encephalopathy), albeit rare, exists.

What do hepatologists need to be doing when presented with suspected cases?

The typical clinical picture holds and the workup is standard. The one new key, given the recent data, is to test for adenovirus, using whole blood versus plasma, as the former may be more sensitive.

In addition, it is prudent to check for SARS-CoV-2 by PCR.

What are the major questions that remain and that you’d like to see elucidated going forward?

There are many. Is this a new disease? A new variant of adenovirus? A synergy or susceptibility related to SARS-CoV-2? Is it related to a variant of SARS-CoV-2? Is it triggering an adverse immune response? Are there other epigenetic factors involved? And finally, is this an increase, or is it related to a collective heightened concern following the pandemic?

Dr. Balistreri is the Dorothy M.M. Kersten Professor of Pediatrics, director emeritus of the Pediatric Liver Care Center, medical director emeritus of liver transplantation, and professor at the University of Cincinnati; he is also with the department of pediatrics at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center.

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

This spring, global health advisories have been issued regarding an alarming – and as-yet unexplained – uptick of hepatitis in children. Currently, over 200 cases have been reported worldwide, a relatively small amount that nonetheless belies a considerable toll, including several deaths and the need for liver transplantation in a number of patients. The long-term implications are not yet known. Global health officials are working hard to determine a cause, with many focusing on the underlying cases of adenovirus that several patients have presented with.

To understand more, this news organization reached out to frequent contributor William F. Balistreri, MD, a specialist in pediatric gastroenterology and hepatology at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, where to date they have treated at least six cases of hepatitis in otherwise healthy young children, with one requiring a liver transplant. Dr. Balistreri discussed how the outbreak has developed to date, his advice to hepatologists and pediatricians, and where we stand now in this fast-evolving crisis.
 

Tracing the outbreak in the United States

How has this outbreak played out thus far in the United States, and what have we learned from that?

Sporadic reports of cases in multiple states are appearing. On April 21, 2022, a health alert was issued by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, recommending testing for adenovirus in children with acute hepatitis of an unknown etiology.

Baker and colleagues recently described five children with severe hepatitis and adenovirus viremia who were admitted to a children’s hospital in Birmingham, Ala., between October and November 2021. In collaboration with local and state officials, the CDC reviewed clinical records in order to identify patients with hepatitis and concomitant adenovirus infection, confirmed by polymerase chain reaction (PCR).

By February 2022, a total of nine children were identified. There was no epidemiologic linkage among these nine patients; all were well and immunocompetent. The prodromal features were somewhat similar: upper respiratory infection, vomiting, diarrhea, and jaundice. All children had markedly elevated aminotransferase levels and variably elevated total bilirubin levels. Extensive workup for other causes of acute liver injury (for example, other viruses, toxins/drugs, metabolic and autoimmune diseases) was unrevealing.

Specifically, none had documented SARS-CoV-2 infection. However, in all nine children, adenovirus was detected in whole blood samples. In the six children who underwent liver biopsy, there was nonspecific hepatitis, without inclusions or immunohistochemical detection of viral agents, including adenovirus. In three patients, the liver injury progressed, and despite the administration of antiviral agents, two underwent liver transplantation.

Baker and colleagues also suggested that measurement of adenovirus titers in whole blood (rather than plasma) may be more sensitive.

The CDC has recommended monitoring and surveillance in order to more fully understand the nature of the illness.
 

European and global cases

What has been the experience with this in Europe and elsewhere globally?

In mid-to-late 2021, several cases of acute hepatitis of unknown nature in children were identified in Europe. Public health officials in the United Kingdom investigated the high number of cases seen in children from England, Scotland, and Wales. They noted approximately 60 cases in England, mostly in children aged 2-5 years.

Marsh and colleagues reported a cluster of cases of severe hepatitis of unknown origin in Scotland affecting children aged 3-5 years. In Scotland, admitted cases were routinely tested for SARS-CoV-2. Of the 13 cases, five had a recent positive test. They discussed the possibility of increased severity of disease following infection with Omicron BA.2 (the dominant SARS-CoV-2 virus circulating in Scotland at that time) or infection by an uncharacterized SARS-CoV-2 variant. None of the children had been vaccinated for SARS-CoV-2.

On April 15, 2022, the World Health Organization Disease Outbreak News published a report of acute hepatitis of unknown etiology occurring in Great Britain and Northern Ireland. By April 21, 2022, 169 cases of acute hepatitis of unknown origin in children younger than 16 years had been reported from 11 countries in the WHO European region and 1 country in the WHO region of the Americas. Approximately 10% required a liver transplantation and at least one death was reported.

What has been established about the possible connection to the SARS-CoV-2 virus, particularly as it relates to coinfection with adenovirus?

In that WHO report of 169 cases, adenovirus was detected in 74 and SARS-CoV-2 in 20. Of note, 19 cases had a SARS-CoV-2 and adenovirus coinfection.

The report’s authors emphasized that, “while adenovirus is a possible hypothesis, investigations are ongoing for the causative agent.” The authors questioned whether this represents a continuing increase in cases of hepatitis or reflects an increased awareness.

The stated priority of the WHO is to determine the cause and to further refine control and prevention actions.

Given the worldwide nature of this outbreak, have connections between any of the cases been made yet?

Not to my knowledge.
 

What clinicians need to know

What makes this outbreak of hepatitis cases particularly concerning to the health care community, in comparison to other childhood diseases that occur globally? Is it because the cause is unknown or is it for other reasons?

It may be a collective heightened concern following the emergence of COVID.

Whether it represents a new form of acute hepatitis, a continuing increase in cases of hepatitis, or an increased awareness because of the well-publicized alerts remains to be determined. We certainly saw “viral-induced hepatitis” in the past.

Young patients may first be brought to pediatricians. What, if anything, should pediatricians be on the lookout for? Do they need a heightened index of suspicion or are the cases too rare at this point?

An awareness of the “outbreak” may allow the clinician to extend the typical workup of a child presenting with an undefined, presumably viral illness.

In the cases reported, the prodromal and/or presenting symptoms were respiratory and gastrointestinal in nature. They include nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and abdominal pain.

Specifically, if jaundice and/or scleral icterus is noted, then hepatitis should be suspected.

Should pediatricians consider early referral to a pediatric gastroenterologist or hepatologist?

Yes, because there is the potential for finding a treatable cause (for example, autoimmune hepatitis or a specific metabolic disease) in a patient presenting in this fashion.

In addition, the potential for progression to acute liver failure (with coagulopathy and encephalopathy), albeit rare, exists.

What do hepatologists need to be doing when presented with suspected cases?

The typical clinical picture holds and the workup is standard. The one new key, given the recent data, is to test for adenovirus, using whole blood versus plasma, as the former may be more sensitive.

In addition, it is prudent to check for SARS-CoV-2 by PCR.

What are the major questions that remain and that you’d like to see elucidated going forward?

There are many. Is this a new disease? A new variant of adenovirus? A synergy or susceptibility related to SARS-CoV-2? Is it related to a variant of SARS-CoV-2? Is it triggering an adverse immune response? Are there other epigenetic factors involved? And finally, is this an increase, or is it related to a collective heightened concern following the pandemic?

Dr. Balistreri is the Dorothy M.M. Kersten Professor of Pediatrics, director emeritus of the Pediatric Liver Care Center, medical director emeritus of liver transplantation, and professor at the University of Cincinnati; he is also with the department of pediatrics at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center.

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

Concerns about the side effects of topical corticosteroids continue to be a source of anxiety for parents of children with atopic dermatitis (AD), leading some medical providers to prescribe weaker products, Nanette B. Silverberg, MD, said at the Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis meeting.

Up to 40% of parents of children with chronic AD cite anxiety surrounding corticosteroids, according to Dr. Silverberg, chief of pediatric dermatology at the Mount Sinai Health System, New York.

When the potential for adverse events are explained to parents who are anxious about a drug, “they take it in a different way than other individuals,” noted Dr. Silverberg, clinical professor of pediatrics and dermatology at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai.

In a systematic review of 16 studies examining topical corticosteroid phobia in AD, published between 1946 and 2016, the prevalence of corticosteroid phobia among patients with AD or their caregivers ranged from 21% to 83.7%, with definitions of phobia that ranged from “concern” to “irrational fear.” In two studies where adherence was evaluated, patients with corticosteroid phobia had a higher rate of partial adherence (49.4%) or nonadherence (14.1%) when compared with patients who didn’t have a phobia of corticosteroids (29.3 % and 9.8%, respectively)..

The source of these fears can be information from friends, relatives, media, the Internet, as well as doctors, Dr. Silverberg noted. “We have to be responsible for providing proper data to these individuals,” she said.

Primary care providers also treat young children with AD differently from older children, when compared with other specialties, according to the results of one study that involved a survey and a retrospective chart review, published in 2020. In the survey, 88% of primary care providers in Chicago said they managed AD differently in children under aged 2 years than in older children, with 65% reporting they were more likely to refer a child under 2 years to a specialist, and 64% said they were less likely to prescribe high-potency topical corticosteroids to children in this age group. The retrospective review found that at PCP visits, significantly more children with AD between aged 2 and 5 years were more likely to be prescribed medium-potency topical corticosteroids (0.66% vs. 0.37%, P < .01) and high-potency topical corticosteroids (0.15% vs. 0.05%; P < .01) than children under 2 years old, respectively.

Of the children who had seen a specialist, more dermatologists (57%) prescribed medium-potency and high-potency topical corticosteroids for children under aged 2 years than did allergists (30%) and pediatricians (15%) (P < .01), according to the study.

“These are our colleagues who are often very strong prescribers using systemic agents, and only 15% of pediatricians will do this,” Dr. Silverberg said. “We’re really looking at a big divide between us and other subspecialties and primary care, and [topical corticosteroids] are frequently underutilized because of these fears.”

In another study looking at the use of topical corticosteroids for AD in the pediatric emergency department (mean age of patients, 6.3 years), from 2012 to 2017, patients at 46 of 167 visits were prescribed over-the-counter topical hydrocortisone, while at 63 of 167 visits, patients were not prescribed or recommended any corticosteroid.

The mean class of the topical corticosteroid prescribed was 5.5, and the most commonly recommended corticosteroid was class 7 (the least potent available) in 61 of 104 patients (P < .001). A dermatologist was consulted in 14 of 167 visits (8.6%), and in those cases, topical corticosteroids were often prescribed (P = .018), as was a higher class of corticosteroids (a mean of 3.1 vs. 5.9; P < .001).

Topical corticosteroids also tend to be prescribed less by internal medicine physicians than by family medicine physicians or dermatologists. A 2020 study of ambulatory care data in the United States from 2006 to 2016 found that internists were 22 times less likely to prescribe topical corticosteroids for AD compared with dermatologists (5.1% vs. 52.2%; P = .001). But there was no significant difference in prescribing between family medicine physicians and dermatologists (39.1% vs. 52.2%, P = .27).

“We know they [corticosteroids] work, but so many people are fearful of them ... even with a low, low side effect profile,” Dr. Silverberg said.

For children with AD, corticosteroid use is “suboptimal” across the United States, with evidence that Medicaid-insured pediatric patients with AD are less likely to see a specialist and less likely to be prescribed high-potency topical corticosteroids compared with commercially-insured patients.

 

Discussing efficacy and safety
 

Dr. Silverberg said providers who care for children with AD should talk about the fear surrounding these medications and educate parents with anxiety surrounding corticosteroids. “Side effects are usually short term and limited, so we really can assure parents that there is a long safety profile,” she said.

Asked to comment on this topic, Adelaide Hebert, MD, professor of dermatology and director of pediatric dermatology at the University of Texas, Houston, said that she often sees concerns surrounding the use of topical corticosteroids, both in her practice with parents and when teaching residents in other disciplines, such as pediatrics, family medicine, and emergency medicine.

“We don’t do a good job in medical school educating the students about the safety, applicability, and proper use of topical steroids, and I think that leads to some of the confusion when it comes to properly using this class of medications in treating atopic dermatitis,” she said in an interview.

The use of a high-potency topical steroid is important, she noted, as lower doses may not adequately control AD. “If the patient has very mild disease, this may be just fine,” she noted. Those patients often do not see a pediatric dermatologist, “but the ones with moderate or severe atopic dermatitis often do, and I would say [the problem of] undertreatment is all too common.”

Like Dr. Silverberg, Dr. Hebert said that in her clinical experience, side effects from topical corticosteroids have been rare. “I could count on one hand the number of patients in a 38-year pediatric dermatology practice where they had an adverse effect from a topical steroid,” she said.

Dr. Silverberg reports receiving consulting fees from Amryt Pharma, Galderma, Incyte, and Vyne; non-CME related fees from Pfizer and Regeneron; and contracted research fees from Incyte and the Vitiligo Research Foundation. Dr. Hebert reports receiving research funds from GSK, Leo, Ortho Dermatologics, Galderma, Dermavant, Pfizer, and Arcutis Biotherapeutics paid to her institution; honoraria from Pfizer, Arcutis, Incyte; and having served on the data safety monitoring board for Regeneron-Sanofi, GSK, and Ortho Dermatologics.

Concerns about the side effects of topical corticosteroids continue to be a source of anxiety for parents of children with atopic dermatitis (AD), leading some medical providers to prescribe weaker products, Nanette B. Silverberg, MD, said at the Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis meeting.

Up to 40% of parents of children with chronic AD cite anxiety surrounding corticosteroids, according to Dr. Silverberg, chief of pediatric dermatology at the Mount Sinai Health System, New York.

When the potential for adverse events are explained to parents who are anxious about a drug, “they take it in a different way than other individuals,” noted Dr. Silverberg, clinical professor of pediatrics and dermatology at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai.

In a systematic review of 16 studies examining topical corticosteroid phobia in AD, published between 1946 and 2016, the prevalence of corticosteroid phobia among patients with AD or their caregivers ranged from 21% to 83.7%, with definitions of phobia that ranged from “concern” to “irrational fear.” In two studies where adherence was evaluated, patients with corticosteroid phobia had a higher rate of partial adherence (49.4%) or nonadherence (14.1%) when compared with patients who didn’t have a phobia of corticosteroids (29.3 % and 9.8%, respectively)..

The source of these fears can be information from friends, relatives, media, the Internet, as well as doctors, Dr. Silverberg noted. “We have to be responsible for providing proper data to these individuals,” she said.

Primary care providers also treat young children with AD differently from older children, when compared with other specialties, according to the results of one study that involved a survey and a retrospective chart review, published in 2020. In the survey, 88% of primary care providers in Chicago said they managed AD differently in children under aged 2 years than in older children, with 65% reporting they were more likely to refer a child under 2 years to a specialist, and 64% said they were less likely to prescribe high-potency topical corticosteroids to children in this age group. The retrospective review found that at PCP visits, significantly more children with AD between aged 2 and 5 years were more likely to be prescribed medium-potency topical corticosteroids (0.66% vs. 0.37%, P < .01) and high-potency topical corticosteroids (0.15% vs. 0.05%; P < .01) than children under 2 years old, respectively.

Of the children who had seen a specialist, more dermatologists (57%) prescribed medium-potency and high-potency topical corticosteroids for children under aged 2 years than did allergists (30%) and pediatricians (15%) (P < .01), according to the study.

“These are our colleagues who are often very strong prescribers using systemic agents, and only 15% of pediatricians will do this,” Dr. Silverberg said. “We’re really looking at a big divide between us and other subspecialties and primary care, and [topical corticosteroids] are frequently underutilized because of these fears.”

In another study looking at the use of topical corticosteroids for AD in the pediatric emergency department (mean age of patients, 6.3 years), from 2012 to 2017, patients at 46 of 167 visits were prescribed over-the-counter topical hydrocortisone, while at 63 of 167 visits, patients were not prescribed or recommended any corticosteroid.

The mean class of the topical corticosteroid prescribed was 5.5, and the most commonly recommended corticosteroid was class 7 (the least potent available) in 61 of 104 patients (P < .001). A dermatologist was consulted in 14 of 167 visits (8.6%), and in those cases, topical corticosteroids were often prescribed (P = .018), as was a higher class of corticosteroids (a mean of 3.1 vs. 5.9; P < .001).

Topical corticosteroids also tend to be prescribed less by internal medicine physicians than by family medicine physicians or dermatologists. A 2020 study of ambulatory care data in the United States from 2006 to 2016 found that internists were 22 times less likely to prescribe topical corticosteroids for AD compared with dermatologists (5.1% vs. 52.2%; P = .001). But there was no significant difference in prescribing between family medicine physicians and dermatologists (39.1% vs. 52.2%, P = .27).

“We know they [corticosteroids] work, but so many people are fearful of them ... even with a low, low side effect profile,” Dr. Silverberg said.

For children with AD, corticosteroid use is “suboptimal” across the United States, with evidence that Medicaid-insured pediatric patients with AD are less likely to see a specialist and less likely to be prescribed high-potency topical corticosteroids compared with commercially-insured patients.

 

Discussing efficacy and safety
 

Dr. Silverberg said providers who care for children with AD should talk about the fear surrounding these medications and educate parents with anxiety surrounding corticosteroids. “Side effects are usually short term and limited, so we really can assure parents that there is a long safety profile,” she said.

Asked to comment on this topic, Adelaide Hebert, MD, professor of dermatology and director of pediatric dermatology at the University of Texas, Houston, said that she often sees concerns surrounding the use of topical corticosteroids, both in her practice with parents and when teaching residents in other disciplines, such as pediatrics, family medicine, and emergency medicine.

“We don’t do a good job in medical school educating the students about the safety, applicability, and proper use of topical steroids, and I think that leads to some of the confusion when it comes to properly using this class of medications in treating atopic dermatitis,” she said in an interview.

The use of a high-potency topical steroid is important, she noted, as lower doses may not adequately control AD. “If the patient has very mild disease, this may be just fine,” she noted. Those patients often do not see a pediatric dermatologist, “but the ones with moderate or severe atopic dermatitis often do, and I would say [the problem of] undertreatment is all too common.”

Like Dr. Silverberg, Dr. Hebert said that in her clinical experience, side effects from topical corticosteroids have been rare. “I could count on one hand the number of patients in a 38-year pediatric dermatology practice where they had an adverse effect from a topical steroid,” she said.

Dr. Silverberg reports receiving consulting fees from Amryt Pharma, Galderma, Incyte, and Vyne; non-CME related fees from Pfizer and Regeneron; and contracted research fees from Incyte and the Vitiligo Research Foundation. Dr. Hebert reports receiving research funds from GSK, Leo, Ortho Dermatologics, Galderma, Dermavant, Pfizer, and Arcutis Biotherapeutics paid to her institution; honoraria from Pfizer, Arcutis, Incyte; and having served on the data safety monitoring board for Regeneron-Sanofi, GSK, and Ortho Dermatologics.

Concerns about the side effects of topical corticosteroids continue to be a source of anxiety for parents of children with atopic dermatitis (AD), leading some medical providers to prescribe weaker products, Nanette B. Silverberg, MD, said at the Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis meeting.

Up to 40% of parents of children with chronic AD cite anxiety surrounding corticosteroids, according to Dr. Silverberg, chief of pediatric dermatology at the Mount Sinai Health System, New York.

When the potential for adverse events are explained to parents who are anxious about a drug, “they take it in a different way than other individuals,” noted Dr. Silverberg, clinical professor of pediatrics and dermatology at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai.

In a systematic review of 16 studies examining topical corticosteroid phobia in AD, published between 1946 and 2016, the prevalence of corticosteroid phobia among patients with AD or their caregivers ranged from 21% to 83.7%, with definitions of phobia that ranged from “concern” to “irrational fear.” In two studies where adherence was evaluated, patients with corticosteroid phobia had a higher rate of partial adherence (49.4%) or nonadherence (14.1%) when compared with patients who didn’t have a phobia of corticosteroids (29.3 % and 9.8%, respectively)..

The source of these fears can be information from friends, relatives, media, the Internet, as well as doctors, Dr. Silverberg noted. “We have to be responsible for providing proper data to these individuals,” she said.

Primary care providers also treat young children with AD differently from older children, when compared with other specialties, according to the results of one study that involved a survey and a retrospective chart review, published in 2020. In the survey, 88% of primary care providers in Chicago said they managed AD differently in children under aged 2 years than in older children, with 65% reporting they were more likely to refer a child under 2 years to a specialist, and 64% said they were less likely to prescribe high-potency topical corticosteroids to children in this age group. The retrospective review found that at PCP visits, significantly more children with AD between aged 2 and 5 years were more likely to be prescribed medium-potency topical corticosteroids (0.66% vs. 0.37%, P < .01) and high-potency topical corticosteroids (0.15% vs. 0.05%; P < .01) than children under 2 years old, respectively.

Of the children who had seen a specialist, more dermatologists (57%) prescribed medium-potency and high-potency topical corticosteroids for children under aged 2 years than did allergists (30%) and pediatricians (15%) (P < .01), according to the study.

“These are our colleagues who are often very strong prescribers using systemic agents, and only 15% of pediatricians will do this,” Dr. Silverberg said. “We’re really looking at a big divide between us and other subspecialties and primary care, and [topical corticosteroids] are frequently underutilized because of these fears.”

In another study looking at the use of topical corticosteroids for AD in the pediatric emergency department (mean age of patients, 6.3 years), from 2012 to 2017, patients at 46 of 167 visits were prescribed over-the-counter topical hydrocortisone, while at 63 of 167 visits, patients were not prescribed or recommended any corticosteroid.

The mean class of the topical corticosteroid prescribed was 5.5, and the most commonly recommended corticosteroid was class 7 (the least potent available) in 61 of 104 patients (P < .001). A dermatologist was consulted in 14 of 167 visits (8.6%), and in those cases, topical corticosteroids were often prescribed (P = .018), as was a higher class of corticosteroids (a mean of 3.1 vs. 5.9; P < .001).

Topical corticosteroids also tend to be prescribed less by internal medicine physicians than by family medicine physicians or dermatologists. A 2020 study of ambulatory care data in the United States from 2006 to 2016 found that internists were 22 times less likely to prescribe topical corticosteroids for AD compared with dermatologists (5.1% vs. 52.2%; P = .001). But there was no significant difference in prescribing between family medicine physicians and dermatologists (39.1% vs. 52.2%, P = .27).

“We know they [corticosteroids] work, but so many people are fearful of them ... even with a low, low side effect profile,” Dr. Silverberg said.

For children with AD, corticosteroid use is “suboptimal” across the United States, with evidence that Medicaid-insured pediatric patients with AD are less likely to see a specialist and less likely to be prescribed high-potency topical corticosteroids compared with commercially-insured patients.

 

Discussing efficacy and safety
 

Dr. Silverberg said providers who care for children with AD should talk about the fear surrounding these medications and educate parents with anxiety surrounding corticosteroids. “Side effects are usually short term and limited, so we really can assure parents that there is a long safety profile,” she said.

Asked to comment on this topic, Adelaide Hebert, MD, professor of dermatology and director of pediatric dermatology at the University of Texas, Houston, said that she often sees concerns surrounding the use of topical corticosteroids, both in her practice with parents and when teaching residents in other disciplines, such as pediatrics, family medicine, and emergency medicine.

“We don’t do a good job in medical school educating the students about the safety, applicability, and proper use of topical steroids, and I think that leads to some of the confusion when it comes to properly using this class of medications in treating atopic dermatitis,” she said in an interview.

The use of a high-potency topical steroid is important, she noted, as lower doses may not adequately control AD. “If the patient has very mild disease, this may be just fine,” she noted. Those patients often do not see a pediatric dermatologist, “but the ones with moderate or severe atopic dermatitis often do, and I would say [the problem of] undertreatment is all too common.”

Like Dr. Silverberg, Dr. Hebert said that in her clinical experience, side effects from topical corticosteroids have been rare. “I could count on one hand the number of patients in a 38-year pediatric dermatology practice where they had an adverse effect from a topical steroid,” she said.

Dr. Silverberg reports receiving consulting fees from Amryt Pharma, Galderma, Incyte, and Vyne; non-CME related fees from Pfizer and Regeneron; and contracted research fees from Incyte and the Vitiligo Research Foundation. Dr. Hebert reports receiving research funds from GSK, Leo, Ortho Dermatologics, Galderma, Dermavant, Pfizer, and Arcutis Biotherapeutics paid to her institution; honoraria from Pfizer, Arcutis, Incyte; and having served on the data safety monitoring board for Regeneron-Sanofi, GSK, and Ortho Dermatologics.

New research from 10 countries around the globe, including 1,164 participants from the United Kingdom, presented at this year’s European Congress on Obesity shows that nearly one-quarter (24%) of adolescents living with obesity (ALwO) do not know they have obesity.

“The impact of obesity – in children and adults – on individuals, society, and our health care systems should not be underestimated,” said lead author Professor Jason C.G. Halford, PhD, C.Psychol, AFBPS, head of the school of psychology, University of Leeds (England), and president of the European Association for the Study of Obesity.

The new findings come from the ACTION teens global survey study, a quantitative survey-based study that collected data in 10 countries (Australia, Colombia, Italy, Korea, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, Spain, Taiwan, Turkey, and the United Kingdom) and included ALwO, their caregivers, and health care professionals (HCPs) who had direct, recent experience of clinical obesity management in adolescents.

Included in the survey were:

• 5,275 ALwO aged 12-17 years with current body mass index–for-age (based on self-reported sex, age, height, and weight) in the top 5% (≥95th percentile) for age and sex.
• 5,389 caregivers aged 25 years and over, who were the parent or legal guardian of an ALwO who lived in the same household at least 50% of the time and were involved in their ALwO’s health care decisions.
• 2,323 HCP, primary care physicians, pediatricians, or other specialists, who had been in clinical practice for at least 2 years, spent at least 50% of their time in direct patient care, and treated at least 10 ALwO in a typical month

An online panel, telephone calls, and in-person meetings were utilized to survey participants on a wide range of topics, including attitudes towards obesity and its impact, number of weight-loss attempts, and motivations/barriers to weight loss.
 

Many believe losing weight is their sole responsibility

The authors reported that around 9 out of 10 (89%) HCPs indicated that obesity has a strong impact on a person’s overall health and wellbeing. Fewer ALwO and caregivers, however, had similar views about this (72% and 67% respectively). In addition, the authors said that “most participants thought obesity was at least as, or more, impactful than heart disease, cancer, or diabetes.”

Despite many ALwO not recognizing being obese, most surveyed (85%) were worried about the impact of their weight on their future health, with two-thirds (65%) feeling it was their sole responsibility to deal with their excess weight. This compared to 37% of caregivers and around one in four HCPs (27%) feeling that losing weight was solely the ALwO’s responsibility.

Study coauthor Vicki Mooney, chairwoman of the Irish Coalition for People Living with Obesity and executive director of the European Coalition for People living with Obesity, said: “It is hard to fathom the pressure for these teenagers, especially as two-thirds believe it is their sole responsibility to lose weight, with many of their parents/caregivers struggling to know how to best care for their child.”
 

Teenagers unable to speak to parents about losing weight

Many ALwO said they struggled to talk to those closest to them about their weight, with 1 in 3 saying they couldn’t talk to either parent about their weight, and alarmingly 1 in 10 feeling they couldn’t talk to anyone about their weight. However, around one in three could talk to their doctor, and 74% said that they trusted the advice of a HCP about weight management.

Ms. Mooney said: “The results show us teenagers want to lose weight and improve their health, however, one in three teenagers feel unable to speak to their parents about it and many revert to social media for guidance.”

When it came to sources of information YouTube (34%), social media (28%), family and friends (25%), search engines (25%), and doctors (24%) were the most popular.
 

Motivation, barriers, and attempts

Weight-loss attempts by ALwO appeared to be underestimated by HCPs, the authors explained, while caregivers tended to underestimate both the impact of obesity on health and wellbeing, and ALwO’s weight-loss attempts.

Efforts had been made to try and lose weight in the past year by more than half (58%) of ALwO, with three-quarters (75%) being somewhat/very likely to attempt to lose weight in the next 6 months. However, fewer (41%) caregivers reported that their ‘linked’ ALwO attempted weight loss over the past year or that their ALwO was somewhat/very likely (63%) to attempt to lose weight in the next 6 months. Amongst HCPs, only about two out of five (38%) responded that their ALwO patients had made a serious weight loss attempt in the past year.

Motivation is a key component of successful weight reduction and wanting to be more fit/in better shape (40%), not being happy with their weight (37%), and wanting to feel more confident (35%) were the most common motivators for ALwO, and also the most common motivators reported by caregivers for their ALwO. For HCPs, though, things were somewhat different, with the top three motivators they reported for ALwO to lose weight were wanting the have more confidence/self-esteem (69%), improved social life and popularity (69%), and wanting to look like peers their age (65%).

The top three barriers to losing weight reported by ALwO and by caregivers for their ALwO were not being able to control hunger (38%), lack of motivation (34%), and enjoying eating unhealthy food (32%). For HCPs, the top three barriers they reported for ALwO losing weight were unhealthy eating habits (93%), lack of exercise (92%), and enjoying eating unhealthy food (91%).

“Key motivations and barriers for weight loss were not aligned between ALwO and HCPs,” said the authors. They pointed out that these disconnects may “negatively impact the level of support and effectiveness” of obesity care ALwO receive from caregivers and HCPs.

Prof. Halford said: “There is urgent need for governments and society to recognize and treat obesity as a disease, so that more teens can get the right support to help them live happier and healthier lives.”

The conference posters have yet to be published in a journal but were peer reviewed by the ECO selection committee.

The studies were sponsored by Novo Nordisk A/S.

A version of this article first appeared on Univadis.

New research from 10 countries around the globe, including 1,164 participants from the United Kingdom, presented at this year’s European Congress on Obesity shows that nearly one-quarter (24%) of adolescents living with obesity (ALwO) do not know they have obesity.

“The impact of obesity – in children and adults – on individuals, society, and our health care systems should not be underestimated,” said lead author Professor Jason C.G. Halford, PhD, C.Psychol, AFBPS, head of the school of psychology, University of Leeds (England), and president of the European Association for the Study of Obesity.

The new findings come from the ACTION teens global survey study, a quantitative survey-based study that collected data in 10 countries (Australia, Colombia, Italy, Korea, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, Spain, Taiwan, Turkey, and the United Kingdom) and included ALwO, their caregivers, and health care professionals (HCPs) who had direct, recent experience of clinical obesity management in adolescents.

Included in the survey were:

• 5,275 ALwO aged 12-17 years with current body mass index–for-age (based on self-reported sex, age, height, and weight) in the top 5% (≥95th percentile) for age and sex.
• 5,389 caregivers aged 25 years and over, who were the parent or legal guardian of an ALwO who lived in the same household at least 50% of the time and were involved in their ALwO’s health care decisions.
• 2,323 HCP, primary care physicians, pediatricians, or other specialists, who had been in clinical practice for at least 2 years, spent at least 50% of their time in direct patient care, and treated at least 10 ALwO in a typical month

An online panel, telephone calls, and in-person meetings were utilized to survey participants on a wide range of topics, including attitudes towards obesity and its impact, number of weight-loss attempts, and motivations/barriers to weight loss.
 

Many believe losing weight is their sole responsibility

The authors reported that around 9 out of 10 (89%) HCPs indicated that obesity has a strong impact on a person’s overall health and wellbeing. Fewer ALwO and caregivers, however, had similar views about this (72% and 67% respectively). In addition, the authors said that “most participants thought obesity was at least as, or more, impactful than heart disease, cancer, or diabetes.”

Despite many ALwO not recognizing being obese, most surveyed (85%) were worried about the impact of their weight on their future health, with two-thirds (65%) feeling it was their sole responsibility to deal with their excess weight. This compared to 37% of caregivers and around one in four HCPs (27%) feeling that losing weight was solely the ALwO’s responsibility.

Study coauthor Vicki Mooney, chairwoman of the Irish Coalition for People Living with Obesity and executive director of the European Coalition for People living with Obesity, said: “It is hard to fathom the pressure for these teenagers, especially as two-thirds believe it is their sole responsibility to lose weight, with many of their parents/caregivers struggling to know how to best care for their child.”
 

Teenagers unable to speak to parents about losing weight

Many ALwO said they struggled to talk to those closest to them about their weight, with 1 in 3 saying they couldn’t talk to either parent about their weight, and alarmingly 1 in 10 feeling they couldn’t talk to anyone about their weight. However, around one in three could talk to their doctor, and 74% said that they trusted the advice of a HCP about weight management.

Ms. Mooney said: “The results show us teenagers want to lose weight and improve their health, however, one in three teenagers feel unable to speak to their parents about it and many revert to social media for guidance.”

When it came to sources of information YouTube (34%), social media (28%), family and friends (25%), search engines (25%), and doctors (24%) were the most popular.
 

Motivation, barriers, and attempts

Weight-loss attempts by ALwO appeared to be underestimated by HCPs, the authors explained, while caregivers tended to underestimate both the impact of obesity on health and wellbeing, and ALwO’s weight-loss attempts.

Efforts had been made to try and lose weight in the past year by more than half (58%) of ALwO, with three-quarters (75%) being somewhat/very likely to attempt to lose weight in the next 6 months. However, fewer (41%) caregivers reported that their ‘linked’ ALwO attempted weight loss over the past year or that their ALwO was somewhat/very likely (63%) to attempt to lose weight in the next 6 months. Amongst HCPs, only about two out of five (38%) responded that their ALwO patients had made a serious weight loss attempt in the past year.

Motivation is a key component of successful weight reduction and wanting to be more fit/in better shape (40%), not being happy with their weight (37%), and wanting to feel more confident (35%) were the most common motivators for ALwO, and also the most common motivators reported by caregivers for their ALwO. For HCPs, though, things were somewhat different, with the top three motivators they reported for ALwO to lose weight were wanting the have more confidence/self-esteem (69%), improved social life and popularity (69%), and wanting to look like peers their age (65%).

The top three barriers to losing weight reported by ALwO and by caregivers for their ALwO were not being able to control hunger (38%), lack of motivation (34%), and enjoying eating unhealthy food (32%). For HCPs, the top three barriers they reported for ALwO losing weight were unhealthy eating habits (93%), lack of exercise (92%), and enjoying eating unhealthy food (91%).

“Key motivations and barriers for weight loss were not aligned between ALwO and HCPs,” said the authors. They pointed out that these disconnects may “negatively impact the level of support and effectiveness” of obesity care ALwO receive from caregivers and HCPs.

Prof. Halford said: “There is urgent need for governments and society to recognize and treat obesity as a disease, so that more teens can get the right support to help them live happier and healthier lives.”

The conference posters have yet to be published in a journal but were peer reviewed by the ECO selection committee.

The studies were sponsored by Novo Nordisk A/S.

A version of this article first appeared on Univadis.

New research from 10 countries around the globe, including 1,164 participants from the United Kingdom, presented at this year’s European Congress on Obesity shows that nearly one-quarter (24%) of adolescents living with obesity (ALwO) do not know they have obesity.

“The impact of obesity – in children and adults – on individuals, society, and our health care systems should not be underestimated,” said lead author Professor Jason C.G. Halford, PhD, C.Psychol, AFBPS, head of the school of psychology, University of Leeds (England), and president of the European Association for the Study of Obesity.

The new findings come from the ACTION teens global survey study, a quantitative survey-based study that collected data in 10 countries (Australia, Colombia, Italy, Korea, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, Spain, Taiwan, Turkey, and the United Kingdom) and included ALwO, their caregivers, and health care professionals (HCPs) who had direct, recent experience of clinical obesity management in adolescents.

Included in the survey were:

• 5,275 ALwO aged 12-17 years with current body mass index–for-age (based on self-reported sex, age, height, and weight) in the top 5% (≥95th percentile) for age and sex.
• 5,389 caregivers aged 25 years and over, who were the parent or legal guardian of an ALwO who lived in the same household at least 50% of the time and were involved in their ALwO’s health care decisions.
• 2,323 HCP, primary care physicians, pediatricians, or other specialists, who had been in clinical practice for at least 2 years, spent at least 50% of their time in direct patient care, and treated at least 10 ALwO in a typical month

An online panel, telephone calls, and in-person meetings were utilized to survey participants on a wide range of topics, including attitudes towards obesity and its impact, number of weight-loss attempts, and motivations/barriers to weight loss.
 

Many believe losing weight is their sole responsibility

The authors reported that around 9 out of 10 (89%) HCPs indicated that obesity has a strong impact on a person’s overall health and wellbeing. Fewer ALwO and caregivers, however, had similar views about this (72% and 67% respectively). In addition, the authors said that “most participants thought obesity was at least as, or more, impactful than heart disease, cancer, or diabetes.”

Despite many ALwO not recognizing being obese, most surveyed (85%) were worried about the impact of their weight on their future health, with two-thirds (65%) feeling it was their sole responsibility to deal with their excess weight. This compared to 37% of caregivers and around one in four HCPs (27%) feeling that losing weight was solely the ALwO’s responsibility.

Study coauthor Vicki Mooney, chairwoman of the Irish Coalition for People Living with Obesity and executive director of the European Coalition for People living with Obesity, said: “It is hard to fathom the pressure for these teenagers, especially as two-thirds believe it is their sole responsibility to lose weight, with many of their parents/caregivers struggling to know how to best care for their child.”
 

Teenagers unable to speak to parents about losing weight

Many ALwO said they struggled to talk to those closest to them about their weight, with 1 in 3 saying they couldn’t talk to either parent about their weight, and alarmingly 1 in 10 feeling they couldn’t talk to anyone about their weight. However, around one in three could talk to their doctor, and 74% said that they trusted the advice of a HCP about weight management.

Ms. Mooney said: “The results show us teenagers want to lose weight and improve their health, however, one in three teenagers feel unable to speak to their parents about it and many revert to social media for guidance.”

When it came to sources of information YouTube (34%), social media (28%), family and friends (25%), search engines (25%), and doctors (24%) were the most popular.
 

Motivation, barriers, and attempts

Weight-loss attempts by ALwO appeared to be underestimated by HCPs, the authors explained, while caregivers tended to underestimate both the impact of obesity on health and wellbeing, and ALwO’s weight-loss attempts.

Efforts had been made to try and lose weight in the past year by more than half (58%) of ALwO, with three-quarters (75%) being somewhat/very likely to attempt to lose weight in the next 6 months. However, fewer (41%) caregivers reported that their ‘linked’ ALwO attempted weight loss over the past year or that their ALwO was somewhat/very likely (63%) to attempt to lose weight in the next 6 months. Amongst HCPs, only about two out of five (38%) responded that their ALwO patients had made a serious weight loss attempt in the past year.

Motivation is a key component of successful weight reduction and wanting to be more fit/in better shape (40%), not being happy with their weight (37%), and wanting to feel more confident (35%) were the most common motivators for ALwO, and also the most common motivators reported by caregivers for their ALwO. For HCPs, though, things were somewhat different, with the top three motivators they reported for ALwO to lose weight were wanting the have more confidence/self-esteem (69%), improved social life and popularity (69%), and wanting to look like peers their age (65%).

The top three barriers to losing weight reported by ALwO and by caregivers for their ALwO were not being able to control hunger (38%), lack of motivation (34%), and enjoying eating unhealthy food (32%). For HCPs, the top three barriers they reported for ALwO losing weight were unhealthy eating habits (93%), lack of exercise (92%), and enjoying eating unhealthy food (91%).

“Key motivations and barriers for weight loss were not aligned between ALwO and HCPs,” said the authors. They pointed out that these disconnects may “negatively impact the level of support and effectiveness” of obesity care ALwO receive from caregivers and HCPs.

Prof. Halford said: “There is urgent need for governments and society to recognize and treat obesity as a disease, so that more teens can get the right support to help them live happier and healthier lives.”

The conference posters have yet to be published in a journal but were peer reviewed by the ECO selection committee.

The studies were sponsored by Novo Nordisk A/S.

A version of this article first appeared on Univadis.

Signs of cardiometabolic damage in children who are overweight appear as early as 6-8 years of age, but were not evident in preschoolers, providing a window of opportunity for intervention, show the latest results from a long-running Danish study of childhood weight.

The proportion of children who were overweight (nearly 14% in 2015) was similar between the two groups – those of preschool age (2-5 years) and school age (6-8 years) – but only the latter showed significant signs of cardiometabolic abnormalities.

The results, published in Obesity Research & Clinical Practice, are the latest in a series of many findings from the HOLBAEK study (formerly known as The Danish Childhood Obesity Biobank) that have emerged since it began in 2007. They were presented, along with a meta-analysis of much of their work, at the European Congress on Obesity (ECO) 2022.

“When comparing children with and without overweight, there were only barely significant differences among the preschool children,” said investigator Christine Frithioff-Bøjsøe, MD, but in contrast, “the school children with overweight exhibited significantly higher systolic blood pressure, glucose, insulin, and higher HDL cholesterol,” among other markers, she noted.

“Detection needs to start as early as age 2-5 years because if you wait just a few years longer these children will show early signs of disease starting to take hold. This could provide a critical window to detect and manage overweight,” said Frithioff-Bøjsøe, PhD, of the Children’s Obesity Clinic, Copenhagen University, Hospital Holbaek, Denmark.

Asked to comment, Aaron S. Kelly, PhD, professor of pediatrics, codirector, University of Minnesota Center for Pediatric Obesity Medicine in Minneapolis, said: “Recent results from HOLBAEK highlight the critical importance of identifying obesity early in life, before its complications spring up.

“Ideally, we should be in the business of managing and reducing excess adiposity as soon as it surfaces with the goal of preventing the onset of cardiometabolic risk factors, not watchful waiting and hoping for the best.”
 

Routine dental visits checked overweight

In the newest study, the researchers trained dental assistants to measure weight and height and carried out body mass index assessments during routine appointments.

A total of 335 preschool and 657 school-age children were recruited for the study. Of these, 40% attended additional hospital-based examinations including blood pressure measurement and a blood sample. Children were reexamined approximately 1 year later.

Systolic blood pressure, for example, was significantly higher in 6- to 8-year-olds with overweight compared to those of normal weight (P = .001). There was no significant difference between systolic blood pressure of 2.5- to 5-year-olds without and with overweight.

Likewise, with insulin resistance, there was no significant difference between preschoolers with and without overweight. However, in schoolchildren, homoeostasis model of assessment–insulin resistance (HOMA-IR) was significantly higher in those with overweight, at 2.2, compared to those without, at 0.9 (P < .001).

Also, during follow-up (around a year later), the prevalence of overweight did not change in preschool children but increased from 13.7% to 17.0% in schoolchildren.

The researchers noted that, in Europe, it is the primary health care sector that has continuous contact with the pediatric population, with the potential for early evaluation of children at risk. Their decision to use dental health care assistants to assess weight in this particular study is novel, but feasible, they observed.
 

Danish model for treating overweight and obesity is ‘game-changing’

As part of the HOLBAEK initiative, clinical data and biological samples have been collected from children and adolescents receiving treatment at The Children’s Obesity Clinic, Holbaek Hospital, using a population-based cohort as a reference group. Data have been collected on about 8,000 children and adolescents so far.

Jens-Christian Holm, PhD, along with colleague and research assistant Maria Frauland, both from Copenhagen University, Hospital Holbaek, presented a review of the HOLBAEK studies (2007-2021) at ECO 2022. They said the results highlight the importance of taking an integrated approach to managing children and adolescents with obesity.

The review, which included 82 papers, found a wide variety of obesity-related complications already present at a young age in some of the cross-sectional studies, including dyslipidemia in 28% of children with obesity, hepatic steatosis in 31%, obstructive sleep apnea in 45%, and prehypertension or hypertension in 52%.

The family-based interventional weight management programs adopted by HOLBAEK showed a 75% reduction in the “degree of obesity,” which comprised a measure of dyslipidemia, hypertension, hepatic steatosis, sleep apnea, and parental obesity.

“The HOLBAEK method is a holistic approach where we integrate everything,” Dr. Holm told this news organization.

Ms. Frauland said: “The HOLBAEK study has provided important insights into childhood overweight. It has highlighted that obesity is a serious multisystem disease that can be managed and treated effectively, reducing the degree of overweight and improving overweight-related complications.”

Dr. Kelly, the U.S. pediatrician, applauded the HOLBAEK philosophy, which emphasizes that obesity is not the fault of the child or parent, but rather the manifestation of dysregulated energy metabolism. “The recognition that obesity is a biologically driven, chronic, refractory, and relapsing disease is interwoven into the approach, which shifts the responsibility to the care provider for ensuring positive outcomes of treatment.

“Highlighting this fact to the parents and child can be game-changing since it removes the blame and shame associated with obesity and unburdens the family by framing the problem in a different light,” Dr. Kelly stressed.

Dr. Frithioff-Bøjsøe has reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Holm has an obesity management company called Holm. Dr. Kelly serves as an unpaid consultant for Novo Nordisk, Vivus, Eli Lilly, and Boehringer Ingelheim and receives donated drug/placebo from Vivus for a clinical trial funded by the National Institutes of Health.

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

Signs of cardiometabolic damage in children who are overweight appear as early as 6-8 years of age, but were not evident in preschoolers, providing a window of opportunity for intervention, show the latest results from a long-running Danish study of childhood weight.

The proportion of children who were overweight (nearly 14% in 2015) was similar between the two groups – those of preschool age (2-5 years) and school age (6-8 years) – but only the latter showed significant signs of cardiometabolic abnormalities.

The results, published in Obesity Research & Clinical Practice, are the latest in a series of many findings from the HOLBAEK study (formerly known as The Danish Childhood Obesity Biobank) that have emerged since it began in 2007. They were presented, along with a meta-analysis of much of their work, at the European Congress on Obesity (ECO) 2022.

“When comparing children with and without overweight, there were only barely significant differences among the preschool children,” said investigator Christine Frithioff-Bøjsøe, MD, but in contrast, “the school children with overweight exhibited significantly higher systolic blood pressure, glucose, insulin, and higher HDL cholesterol,” among other markers, she noted.

“Detection needs to start as early as age 2-5 years because if you wait just a few years longer these children will show early signs of disease starting to take hold. This could provide a critical window to detect and manage overweight,” said Frithioff-Bøjsøe, PhD, of the Children’s Obesity Clinic, Copenhagen University, Hospital Holbaek, Denmark.

Asked to comment, Aaron S. Kelly, PhD, professor of pediatrics, codirector, University of Minnesota Center for Pediatric Obesity Medicine in Minneapolis, said: “Recent results from HOLBAEK highlight the critical importance of identifying obesity early in life, before its complications spring up.

“Ideally, we should be in the business of managing and reducing excess adiposity as soon as it surfaces with the goal of preventing the onset of cardiometabolic risk factors, not watchful waiting and hoping for the best.”
 

Routine dental visits checked overweight

In the newest study, the researchers trained dental assistants to measure weight and height and carried out body mass index assessments during routine appointments.

A total of 335 preschool and 657 school-age children were recruited for the study. Of these, 40% attended additional hospital-based examinations including blood pressure measurement and a blood sample. Children were reexamined approximately 1 year later.

Systolic blood pressure, for example, was significantly higher in 6- to 8-year-olds with overweight compared to those of normal weight (P = .001). There was no significant difference between systolic blood pressure of 2.5- to 5-year-olds without and with overweight.

Likewise, with insulin resistance, there was no significant difference between preschoolers with and without overweight. However, in schoolchildren, homoeostasis model of assessment–insulin resistance (HOMA-IR) was significantly higher in those with overweight, at 2.2, compared to those without, at 0.9 (P < .001).

Also, during follow-up (around a year later), the prevalence of overweight did not change in preschool children but increased from 13.7% to 17.0% in schoolchildren.

The researchers noted that, in Europe, it is the primary health care sector that has continuous contact with the pediatric population, with the potential for early evaluation of children at risk. Their decision to use dental health care assistants to assess weight in this particular study is novel, but feasible, they observed.
 

Danish model for treating overweight and obesity is ‘game-changing’

As part of the HOLBAEK initiative, clinical data and biological samples have been collected from children and adolescents receiving treatment at The Children’s Obesity Clinic, Holbaek Hospital, using a population-based cohort as a reference group. Data have been collected on about 8,000 children and adolescents so far.

Jens-Christian Holm, PhD, along with colleague and research assistant Maria Frauland, both from Copenhagen University, Hospital Holbaek, presented a review of the HOLBAEK studies (2007-2021) at ECO 2022. They said the results highlight the importance of taking an integrated approach to managing children and adolescents with obesity.

The review, which included 82 papers, found a wide variety of obesity-related complications already present at a young age in some of the cross-sectional studies, including dyslipidemia in 28% of children with obesity, hepatic steatosis in 31%, obstructive sleep apnea in 45%, and prehypertension or hypertension in 52%.

The family-based interventional weight management programs adopted by HOLBAEK showed a 75% reduction in the “degree of obesity,” which comprised a measure of dyslipidemia, hypertension, hepatic steatosis, sleep apnea, and parental obesity.

“The HOLBAEK method is a holistic approach where we integrate everything,” Dr. Holm told this news organization.

Ms. Frauland said: “The HOLBAEK study has provided important insights into childhood overweight. It has highlighted that obesity is a serious multisystem disease that can be managed and treated effectively, reducing the degree of overweight and improving overweight-related complications.”

Dr. Kelly, the U.S. pediatrician, applauded the HOLBAEK philosophy, which emphasizes that obesity is not the fault of the child or parent, but rather the manifestation of dysregulated energy metabolism. “The recognition that obesity is a biologically driven, chronic, refractory, and relapsing disease is interwoven into the approach, which shifts the responsibility to the care provider for ensuring positive outcomes of treatment.

“Highlighting this fact to the parents and child can be game-changing since it removes the blame and shame associated with obesity and unburdens the family by framing the problem in a different light,” Dr. Kelly stressed.

Dr. Frithioff-Bøjsøe has reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Holm has an obesity management company called Holm. Dr. Kelly serves as an unpaid consultant for Novo Nordisk, Vivus, Eli Lilly, and Boehringer Ingelheim and receives donated drug/placebo from Vivus for a clinical trial funded by the National Institutes of Health.

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

Signs of cardiometabolic damage in children who are overweight appear as early as 6-8 years of age, but were not evident in preschoolers, providing a window of opportunity for intervention, show the latest results from a long-running Danish study of childhood weight.

The proportion of children who were overweight (nearly 14% in 2015) was similar between the two groups – those of preschool age (2-5 years) and school age (6-8 years) – but only the latter showed significant signs of cardiometabolic abnormalities.

The results, published in Obesity Research & Clinical Practice, are the latest in a series of many findings from the HOLBAEK study (formerly known as The Danish Childhood Obesity Biobank) that have emerged since it began in 2007. They were presented, along with a meta-analysis of much of their work, at the European Congress on Obesity (ECO) 2022.

“When comparing children with and without overweight, there were only barely significant differences among the preschool children,” said investigator Christine Frithioff-Bøjsøe, MD, but in contrast, “the school children with overweight exhibited significantly higher systolic blood pressure, glucose, insulin, and higher HDL cholesterol,” among other markers, she noted.

“Detection needs to start as early as age 2-5 years because if you wait just a few years longer these children will show early signs of disease starting to take hold. This could provide a critical window to detect and manage overweight,” said Frithioff-Bøjsøe, PhD, of the Children’s Obesity Clinic, Copenhagen University, Hospital Holbaek, Denmark.

Asked to comment, Aaron S. Kelly, PhD, professor of pediatrics, codirector, University of Minnesota Center for Pediatric Obesity Medicine in Minneapolis, said: “Recent results from HOLBAEK highlight the critical importance of identifying obesity early in life, before its complications spring up.

“Ideally, we should be in the business of managing and reducing excess adiposity as soon as it surfaces with the goal of preventing the onset of cardiometabolic risk factors, not watchful waiting and hoping for the best.”
 

Routine dental visits checked overweight

In the newest study, the researchers trained dental assistants to measure weight and height and carried out body mass index assessments during routine appointments.

A total of 335 preschool and 657 school-age children were recruited for the study. Of these, 40% attended additional hospital-based examinations including blood pressure measurement and a blood sample. Children were reexamined approximately 1 year later.

Systolic blood pressure, for example, was significantly higher in 6- to 8-year-olds with overweight compared to those of normal weight (P = .001). There was no significant difference between systolic blood pressure of 2.5- to 5-year-olds without and with overweight.

Likewise, with insulin resistance, there was no significant difference between preschoolers with and without overweight. However, in schoolchildren, homoeostasis model of assessment–insulin resistance (HOMA-IR) was significantly higher in those with overweight, at 2.2, compared to those without, at 0.9 (P < .001).

Also, during follow-up (around a year later), the prevalence of overweight did not change in preschool children but increased from 13.7% to 17.0% in schoolchildren.

The researchers noted that, in Europe, it is the primary health care sector that has continuous contact with the pediatric population, with the potential for early evaluation of children at risk. Their decision to use dental health care assistants to assess weight in this particular study is novel, but feasible, they observed.
 

Danish model for treating overweight and obesity is ‘game-changing’

As part of the HOLBAEK initiative, clinical data and biological samples have been collected from children and adolescents receiving treatment at The Children’s Obesity Clinic, Holbaek Hospital, using a population-based cohort as a reference group. Data have been collected on about 8,000 children and adolescents so far.

Jens-Christian Holm, PhD, along with colleague and research assistant Maria Frauland, both from Copenhagen University, Hospital Holbaek, presented a review of the HOLBAEK studies (2007-2021) at ECO 2022. They said the results highlight the importance of taking an integrated approach to managing children and adolescents with obesity.

The review, which included 82 papers, found a wide variety of obesity-related complications already present at a young age in some of the cross-sectional studies, including dyslipidemia in 28% of children with obesity, hepatic steatosis in 31%, obstructive sleep apnea in 45%, and prehypertension or hypertension in 52%.

The family-based interventional weight management programs adopted by HOLBAEK showed a 75% reduction in the “degree of obesity,” which comprised a measure of dyslipidemia, hypertension, hepatic steatosis, sleep apnea, and parental obesity.

“The HOLBAEK method is a holistic approach where we integrate everything,” Dr. Holm told this news organization.

Ms. Frauland said: “The HOLBAEK study has provided important insights into childhood overweight. It has highlighted that obesity is a serious multisystem disease that can be managed and treated effectively, reducing the degree of overweight and improving overweight-related complications.”

Dr. Kelly, the U.S. pediatrician, applauded the HOLBAEK philosophy, which emphasizes that obesity is not the fault of the child or parent, but rather the manifestation of dysregulated energy metabolism. “The recognition that obesity is a biologically driven, chronic, refractory, and relapsing disease is interwoven into the approach, which shifts the responsibility to the care provider for ensuring positive outcomes of treatment.

“Highlighting this fact to the parents and child can be game-changing since it removes the blame and shame associated with obesity and unburdens the family by framing the problem in a different light,” Dr. Kelly stressed.

Dr. Frithioff-Bøjsøe has reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Holm has an obesity management company called Holm. Dr. Kelly serves as an unpaid consultant for Novo Nordisk, Vivus, Eli Lilly, and Boehringer Ingelheim and receives donated drug/placebo from Vivus for a clinical trial funded by the National Institutes of Health.

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

Just in time for Memorial Day outings, a new report on sunscreens is out.

The news isn’t all sunny. About 75% of more than 1,850 sunscreen products evaluated offer inferior sun protection or have worrisome ingredients, according to the Environmental Working Group, a nonprofit research and advocacy group that just issued its 16th annual Guide to Sunscreens.

In response, dermatologists, including the president of the American Academy of Dermatology, say that although some concerns have been raised about the safety of some sunscreen ingredients, sunscreens themselves remain an important tool in the fight against skin cancer. According to the Skin Cancer Foundation, 1 in 5 Americans will get skin cancer by age 70. Melanoma, the most deadly, has a 5-year survival rate of 99% if caught early.
 

2022 report

Overall, the Environmental Working Group found that about 1 in 4 sunscreens, or about 500 products, met their standards for providing adequate sun protection and avoiding ingredients linked to known health harms. Products meant for babies and children did slightly better, with about 1 in 3 meeting the standards. The group evaluated mineral sunscreens, also called physical sunscreens, and non-mineral sunscreens, also called chemical sunscreens. Mineral sunscreens contain zinc oxide or titanium dioxide and sit on the skin to deflect the sun’s rays. Chemical sunscreens, with ingredients such as oxybenzone or avobenzone, are partially absorbed into the skin.

Among the group’s concerns:

• The use of oxybenzone in the non-mineral sunscreens. About 30% of the non-mineral sunscreens have it, says Carla Burns, senior director for cosmetic science for the Environmental Working Group. Oxybenzone is a potential hormone disrupter and a skin sensitizer that may harm children and adults, she says. Some progress has been made, as the group found oxybenzone in 66% of the non-mineral sunscreens it reviewed in 2019. (The FDA is seeking more information on oxybenzone and many other sunscreen ingredients.)
• Contamination of sunscreens with benzene, which has been linked to leukemia and other blood disorders, according to the National Cancer Institute. But industry experts stress that that chemical is found in trace amounts in personal care products and does not pose a safety concern. “Benzene is a chemical that is ubiquitous in the environment and not an intentionally added ingredient in personal care products. People worldwide are exposed daily to benzene from indoor and outdoor sources, including air, drinking water, and food and beverages,” the Personal Care Products Council, an industry group, said in a statement.
• Protection from ultraviolet A (UVA) rays is often inadequate, according to research published last year by the Environmental Working Group.

Products on the ‘best’ list

The Environmental Working Group found that 282 recreational sunscreens met its criteria. Among them:

• Coral Safe Sunscreen Lotion, SPF 30
• Neutrogena Sheer Zinc Mineral Sunscreen Lotion, SPF 30
• Mad Hippie Facial Sunscreen Lotion, SPF 30+

The group chose 86 non-mineral sunscreens as better options, including:

• Alba Botanica Hawaiian Sunscreen Lotion, Aloe Vera, SPF 30
• Banana Boat Sport Ultra Sunscreen Stick, SPF 50+
• Black Girl Sunscreen Melanin Boosting Moisturizing Sunscreen Lotion, SPF 30

And 70 sunscreens made the kids’ best list, including:

• True Baby Everyday Play Sunscreen Lotion, SPF 30+
• Sun Biologic Kids’ Sunscreen Stick, SPF 30+
• Kiss My Face Organic Kids’ Defense Sunscreen Lotion, SPF 30

Industry response, FDA actions

In a statement, Alexandra Kowcz, chief scientist at the Personal Care Products Council, pointed out that “as part of a daily safe-sun regimen, sunscreen products help prevent sunburn and reduce skin cancer risk. It is unfortunate that as Americans spend more time outdoors, the Environmental Working Group’s (EWG) 2022 Guide to Sunscreens resorts to fear-mongering with misleading information that could keep consumers from using sunscreens altogether.”

The FDA has asked for more information about certain ingredients to further evaluate products, she says, and industry is working with the agency. The FDA says it is attempting to improve the quality, safety and effectiveness of over-the-counter sunscreen products. In September, 2021, the FDA issued a proposal for regulating OTC sunscreen products, as required under the CARES (Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security) Act. The effective date for the final order can’t be earlier than September 2022, the CARES Act says.
 

Dermatologists weigh in

“Every time something like this gets published, my patients come in hysterical,” says Michele Green, MD, a New York City dermatologist who reviewed the report for WebMD. She acknowledges that more research is needed on some sunscreen ingredients. “We really do not know the long-term consequence of oxybenzone,” she says.

Her advice: If her patients have melasma (a skin condition with brown patches on the face), she advises them to use both a chemical and a mineral sunscreen. “I don’t tell my patients in general not to use the chemical [sunscreens].”

For children, she says, the mineral sunscreens may be preferred. On her own children, who are teens, she uses the mineral sunscreens, due to possible concern about hormone disruption.

In a statement, Mark D. Kaufmann, MD, president of the American Academy of Dermatology, says that “sunscreen is an important part of a comprehensive sun protection strategy.”

Besides a broad-spectrum, water-resistant sunscreen with an SPF of 30 or higher for exposed skin, the academy recommends seeking shade and wearing sun-protective clothing to reduce skin cancer risk.

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

Just in time for Memorial Day outings, a new report on sunscreens is out.

The news isn’t all sunny. About 75% of more than 1,850 sunscreen products evaluated offer inferior sun protection or have worrisome ingredients, according to the Environmental Working Group, a nonprofit research and advocacy group that just issued its 16th annual Guide to Sunscreens.

In response, dermatologists, including the president of the American Academy of Dermatology, say that although some concerns have been raised about the safety of some sunscreen ingredients, sunscreens themselves remain an important tool in the fight against skin cancer. According to the Skin Cancer Foundation, 1 in 5 Americans will get skin cancer by age 70. Melanoma, the most deadly, has a 5-year survival rate of 99% if caught early.
 

2022 report

Overall, the Environmental Working Group found that about 1 in 4 sunscreens, or about 500 products, met their standards for providing adequate sun protection and avoiding ingredients linked to known health harms. Products meant for babies and children did slightly better, with about 1 in 3 meeting the standards. The group evaluated mineral sunscreens, also called physical sunscreens, and non-mineral sunscreens, also called chemical sunscreens. Mineral sunscreens contain zinc oxide or titanium dioxide and sit on the skin to deflect the sun’s rays. Chemical sunscreens, with ingredients such as oxybenzone or avobenzone, are partially absorbed into the skin.

Among the group’s concerns:

• The use of oxybenzone in the non-mineral sunscreens. About 30% of the non-mineral sunscreens have it, says Carla Burns, senior director for cosmetic science for the Environmental Working Group. Oxybenzone is a potential hormone disrupter and a skin sensitizer that may harm children and adults, she says. Some progress has been made, as the group found oxybenzone in 66% of the non-mineral sunscreens it reviewed in 2019. (The FDA is seeking more information on oxybenzone and many other sunscreen ingredients.)
• Contamination of sunscreens with benzene, which has been linked to leukemia and other blood disorders, according to the National Cancer Institute. But industry experts stress that that chemical is found in trace amounts in personal care products and does not pose a safety concern. “Benzene is a chemical that is ubiquitous in the environment and not an intentionally added ingredient in personal care products. People worldwide are exposed daily to benzene from indoor and outdoor sources, including air, drinking water, and food and beverages,” the Personal Care Products Council, an industry group, said in a statement.
• Protection from ultraviolet A (UVA) rays is often inadequate, according to research published last year by the Environmental Working Group.

Products on the ‘best’ list

The Environmental Working Group found that 282 recreational sunscreens met its criteria. Among them:

• Coral Safe Sunscreen Lotion, SPF 30
• Neutrogena Sheer Zinc Mineral Sunscreen Lotion, SPF 30
• Mad Hippie Facial Sunscreen Lotion, SPF 30+

The group chose 86 non-mineral sunscreens as better options, including:

• Alba Botanica Hawaiian Sunscreen Lotion, Aloe Vera, SPF 30
• Banana Boat Sport Ultra Sunscreen Stick, SPF 50+
• Black Girl Sunscreen Melanin Boosting Moisturizing Sunscreen Lotion, SPF 30

And 70 sunscreens made the kids’ best list, including:

• True Baby Everyday Play Sunscreen Lotion, SPF 30+
• Sun Biologic Kids’ Sunscreen Stick, SPF 30+
• Kiss My Face Organic Kids’ Defense Sunscreen Lotion, SPF 30

Industry response, FDA actions

In a statement, Alexandra Kowcz, chief scientist at the Personal Care Products Council, pointed out that “as part of a daily safe-sun regimen, sunscreen products help prevent sunburn and reduce skin cancer risk. It is unfortunate that as Americans spend more time outdoors, the Environmental Working Group’s (EWG) 2022 Guide to Sunscreens resorts to fear-mongering with misleading information that could keep consumers from using sunscreens altogether.”

The FDA has asked for more information about certain ingredients to further evaluate products, she says, and industry is working with the agency. The FDA says it is attempting to improve the quality, safety and effectiveness of over-the-counter sunscreen products. In September, 2021, the FDA issued a proposal for regulating OTC sunscreen products, as required under the CARES (Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security) Act. The effective date for the final order can’t be earlier than September 2022, the CARES Act says.
 

Dermatologists weigh in

“Every time something like this gets published, my patients come in hysterical,” says Michele Green, MD, a New York City dermatologist who reviewed the report for WebMD. She acknowledges that more research is needed on some sunscreen ingredients. “We really do not know the long-term consequence of oxybenzone,” she says.

Her advice: If her patients have melasma (a skin condition with brown patches on the face), she advises them to use both a chemical and a mineral sunscreen. “I don’t tell my patients in general not to use the chemical [sunscreens].”

For children, she says, the mineral sunscreens may be preferred. On her own children, who are teens, she uses the mineral sunscreens, due to possible concern about hormone disruption.

In a statement, Mark D. Kaufmann, MD, president of the American Academy of Dermatology, says that “sunscreen is an important part of a comprehensive sun protection strategy.”

Besides a broad-spectrum, water-resistant sunscreen with an SPF of 30 or higher for exposed skin, the academy recommends seeking shade and wearing sun-protective clothing to reduce skin cancer risk.

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

Just in time for Memorial Day outings, a new report on sunscreens is out.

The news isn’t all sunny. About 75% of more than 1,850 sunscreen products evaluated offer inferior sun protection or have worrisome ingredients, according to the Environmental Working Group, a nonprofit research and advocacy group that just issued its 16th annual Guide to Sunscreens.

In response, dermatologists, including the president of the American Academy of Dermatology, say that although some concerns have been raised about the safety of some sunscreen ingredients, sunscreens themselves remain an important tool in the fight against skin cancer. According to the Skin Cancer Foundation, 1 in 5 Americans will get skin cancer by age 70. Melanoma, the most deadly, has a 5-year survival rate of 99% if caught early.
 

2022 report

Overall, the Environmental Working Group found that about 1 in 4 sunscreens, or about 500 products, met their standards for providing adequate sun protection and avoiding ingredients linked to known health harms. Products meant for babies and children did slightly better, with about 1 in 3 meeting the standards. The group evaluated mineral sunscreens, also called physical sunscreens, and non-mineral sunscreens, also called chemical sunscreens. Mineral sunscreens contain zinc oxide or titanium dioxide and sit on the skin to deflect the sun’s rays. Chemical sunscreens, with ingredients such as oxybenzone or avobenzone, are partially absorbed into the skin.

Among the group’s concerns:

• The use of oxybenzone in the non-mineral sunscreens. About 30% of the non-mineral sunscreens have it, says Carla Burns, senior director for cosmetic science for the Environmental Working Group. Oxybenzone is a potential hormone disrupter and a skin sensitizer that may harm children and adults, she says. Some progress has been made, as the group found oxybenzone in 66% of the non-mineral sunscreens it reviewed in 2019. (The FDA is seeking more information on oxybenzone and many other sunscreen ingredients.)
• Contamination of sunscreens with benzene, which has been linked to leukemia and other blood disorders, according to the National Cancer Institute. But industry experts stress that that chemical is found in trace amounts in personal care products and does not pose a safety concern. “Benzene is a chemical that is ubiquitous in the environment and not an intentionally added ingredient in personal care products. People worldwide are exposed daily to benzene from indoor and outdoor sources, including air, drinking water, and food and beverages,” the Personal Care Products Council, an industry group, said in a statement.
• Protection from ultraviolet A (UVA) rays is often inadequate, according to research published last year by the Environmental Working Group.

Products on the ‘best’ list

The Environmental Working Group found that 282 recreational sunscreens met its criteria. Among them:

• Coral Safe Sunscreen Lotion, SPF 30
• Neutrogena Sheer Zinc Mineral Sunscreen Lotion, SPF 30
• Mad Hippie Facial Sunscreen Lotion, SPF 30+

The group chose 86 non-mineral sunscreens as better options, including:

• Alba Botanica Hawaiian Sunscreen Lotion, Aloe Vera, SPF 30
• Banana Boat Sport Ultra Sunscreen Stick, SPF 50+
• Black Girl Sunscreen Melanin Boosting Moisturizing Sunscreen Lotion, SPF 30

And 70 sunscreens made the kids’ best list, including:

• True Baby Everyday Play Sunscreen Lotion, SPF 30+
• Sun Biologic Kids’ Sunscreen Stick, SPF 30+
• Kiss My Face Organic Kids’ Defense Sunscreen Lotion, SPF 30

Industry response, FDA actions

In a statement, Alexandra Kowcz, chief scientist at the Personal Care Products Council, pointed out that “as part of a daily safe-sun regimen, sunscreen products help prevent sunburn and reduce skin cancer risk. It is unfortunate that as Americans spend more time outdoors, the Environmental Working Group’s (EWG) 2022 Guide to Sunscreens resorts to fear-mongering with misleading information that could keep consumers from using sunscreens altogether.”

The FDA has asked for more information about certain ingredients to further evaluate products, she says, and industry is working with the agency. The FDA says it is attempting to improve the quality, safety and effectiveness of over-the-counter sunscreen products. In September, 2021, the FDA issued a proposal for regulating OTC sunscreen products, as required under the CARES (Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security) Act. The effective date for the final order can’t be earlier than September 2022, the CARES Act says.
 

Dermatologists weigh in

“Every time something like this gets published, my patients come in hysterical,” says Michele Green, MD, a New York City dermatologist who reviewed the report for WebMD. She acknowledges that more research is needed on some sunscreen ingredients. “We really do not know the long-term consequence of oxybenzone,” she says.

Her advice: If her patients have melasma (a skin condition with brown patches on the face), she advises them to use both a chemical and a mineral sunscreen. “I don’t tell my patients in general not to use the chemical [sunscreens].”

For children, she says, the mineral sunscreens may be preferred. On her own children, who are teens, she uses the mineral sunscreens, due to possible concern about hormone disruption.

In a statement, Mark D. Kaufmann, MD, president of the American Academy of Dermatology, says that “sunscreen is an important part of a comprehensive sun protection strategy.”

Besides a broad-spectrum, water-resistant sunscreen with an SPF of 30 or higher for exposed skin, the academy recommends seeking shade and wearing sun-protective clothing to reduce skin cancer risk.

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

Children who have greater acute appendicitis pain may be less likely to improve if they’re treated with antibiotics alone, according to a secondary analysis of a nonrandomized clinical trial.

“While approximately 35% of families chose nonoperative management, a high pain score between 7-10 on a 10-point scale nearly doubled in-hospital treatment failure,” Rebecca M. Rentea, MD, a pediatric surgeon and the director of the Comprehensive Colorectal Center at Children’s Mercy Kansas City, Mo., told this news organization in an email.

“Even if nonoperative management of pediatric appendicitis did not work – resulting in the need to remove the appendix in 34% of cases – families were happy with their decisions 1 year later,” added Dr. Rentea, who coauthored an invited commentary about the study.

Lead study author Peter C. Minneci, MD, MHSc, a pediatric surgeon at Nationwide Children’s Hospital, Columbus, Ohio, and colleagues analyzed a subgroup of patients from a larger study in 10 tertiary children’s hospitals in the Midwest Pediatric Surgery Consortium.

As they reported in JAMA Network Open, the larger prospective, nonrandomized clinical trial enrolled 1,068 children between 2015 and 2018. The children ranged in age from 7 to 17 years, and they had imaging-confirmed appendicitis with an appendix diameter of 1.1 cm or less, no abscess, no appendicolith, and no phlegmon. White blood cell count was between 5,000 and 18,000 cells/μL, and abdominal pain began less than 48 hours before they received antibiotic therapy.

Caregivers chose either surgery or nonoperative antibiotic management. Patients who were treated first with antibiotics alone and who did not undergo appendectomy within 1 year were considered to have successfully completed nonoperative treatment.

The secondary analysis included the 370 children enrolled in the nonoperative group. Of these, 229 were boys, and the median age was 12.3 years. In this subgroup, the researchers compared outcomes after nonoperative, antibiotic management vs. surgery.

At 1 year, treatment failure had occurred in 125 patients, with 53 having undergone appendectomy during their first hospitalization, and 72 having experienced delayed treatment failure after being discharged.

• Higher patient-reported pain at presentation was linked to higher risk for in-hospital treatment failure (relative risk, 2.1; 95% confidence interval, 1.0-4.4) but not for delayed treatment failure (RR, 1.3; 95% CI, 0.7-2.3) or overall treatment failure at 1 year (RR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.0-2.2).
• Pain lasting longer than 24 hours was linked to lower risk for delayed treatment failure (RR, 0.3; 95% CI, 0.1-1.0) but not for in-hospital treatment failure (RR, 1.2; 95% CI, 0.5-2.7) or treatment failure at 1 year (RR, 0.7; 95% CI, 0.4-1.2).
• Satisfaction with the decision was higher with successful nonoperative management at 30 days (28.0 vs. 27.0; difference, 1.0; 95% CI, 0.01-2.0) and at 1 year (28.1 vs 27.0; difference, 1.1; 95% CI, 0.2-2.0).

The researchers found no increased risk for treatment failure based on age, sex, race, ethnicity, white blood cell count, primary language, insurance status, transfer status, presentation symptoms, or imaging results.

Antibiotics-only is a safe option for children

“This study suggests that pediatric patients with uncomplicated acute appendicitis should be offered treatment options, including nonoperative management,” the authors write. “Treatment with antibiotics alone is a safe and equitable option for children, with no increased risk of treatment failure based on sociodemographic or objective clinical characteristics at presentation.”

But, the authors advise: “Families need to be made aware that treatment failure is not uncommon, and they should be provided with anticipatory guidance on how to proceed should symptoms recur.”

The investigators acknowledged limitations to the study, including the nonrandomized design that may have introduced bias, the loss to follow-up, and the study population being U.S. Midwest children, who may differ from children elsewhere in the country.

Shawn D. St Peter, MD, a pediatric surgeon, medical chair, and a senior vice president at Children’s Mercy Kansas City told this news organization in an email that having a nonoperative alternative to surgical appendectomy is important.

“Antibiotics are the initial treatment for appendicitis and can be the definitive treatment,” he said.

“Surprisingly, no sociodemographic or clinical characteristics were associated with an increased risk of nonoperative appendicitis treatment failure,” added Dr. St Peter, who coauthored the commentary with Dr. Rentea.

Howard C. Jen, MD, a pediatric surgeon at University of California, Los Angeles, Mattel Children’s Hospital, was not surprised by the findings.

“Nonoperative management for acute noncomplicated appendicitis in children continues to be safe and effective in highly selected patients,” he said in an email. “This alternative to surgery should be offered routinely to patients with early acute appendicitis.” 

Dr. Jen, who was not involved with the current study, noted that it did not address the impact and costs to families of nonoperative management vs. surgery.

“For the most vulnerable children who had difficulties accessing medical care, what is the best treatment option? What factors are important to the families when making this decision?” he asked.

All study and editorial authors report no relevant financial relationships. The study was funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences.

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

Children who have greater acute appendicitis pain may be less likely to improve if they’re treated with antibiotics alone, according to a secondary analysis of a nonrandomized clinical trial.

“While approximately 35% of families chose nonoperative management, a high pain score between 7-10 on a 10-point scale nearly doubled in-hospital treatment failure,” Rebecca M. Rentea, MD, a pediatric surgeon and the director of the Comprehensive Colorectal Center at Children’s Mercy Kansas City, Mo., told this news organization in an email.

“Even if nonoperative management of pediatric appendicitis did not work – resulting in the need to remove the appendix in 34% of cases – families were happy with their decisions 1 year later,” added Dr. Rentea, who coauthored an invited commentary about the study.

Lead study author Peter C. Minneci, MD, MHSc, a pediatric surgeon at Nationwide Children’s Hospital, Columbus, Ohio, and colleagues analyzed a subgroup of patients from a larger study in 10 tertiary children’s hospitals in the Midwest Pediatric Surgery Consortium.

As they reported in JAMA Network Open, the larger prospective, nonrandomized clinical trial enrolled 1,068 children between 2015 and 2018. The children ranged in age from 7 to 17 years, and they had imaging-confirmed appendicitis with an appendix diameter of 1.1 cm or less, no abscess, no appendicolith, and no phlegmon. White blood cell count was between 5,000 and 18,000 cells/μL, and abdominal pain began less than 48 hours before they received antibiotic therapy.

Caregivers chose either surgery or nonoperative antibiotic management. Patients who were treated first with antibiotics alone and who did not undergo appendectomy within 1 year were considered to have successfully completed nonoperative treatment.

The secondary analysis included the 370 children enrolled in the nonoperative group. Of these, 229 were boys, and the median age was 12.3 years. In this subgroup, the researchers compared outcomes after nonoperative, antibiotic management vs. surgery.

At 1 year, treatment failure had occurred in 125 patients, with 53 having undergone appendectomy during their first hospitalization, and 72 having experienced delayed treatment failure after being discharged.

• Higher patient-reported pain at presentation was linked to higher risk for in-hospital treatment failure (relative risk, 2.1; 95% confidence interval, 1.0-4.4) but not for delayed treatment failure (RR, 1.3; 95% CI, 0.7-2.3) or overall treatment failure at 1 year (RR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.0-2.2).
• Pain lasting longer than 24 hours was linked to lower risk for delayed treatment failure (RR, 0.3; 95% CI, 0.1-1.0) but not for in-hospital treatment failure (RR, 1.2; 95% CI, 0.5-2.7) or treatment failure at 1 year (RR, 0.7; 95% CI, 0.4-1.2).
• Satisfaction with the decision was higher with successful nonoperative management at 30 days (28.0 vs. 27.0; difference, 1.0; 95% CI, 0.01-2.0) and at 1 year (28.1 vs 27.0; difference, 1.1; 95% CI, 0.2-2.0).

The researchers found no increased risk for treatment failure based on age, sex, race, ethnicity, white blood cell count, primary language, insurance status, transfer status, presentation symptoms, or imaging results.

Antibiotics-only is a safe option for children

“This study suggests that pediatric patients with uncomplicated acute appendicitis should be offered treatment options, including nonoperative management,” the authors write. “Treatment with antibiotics alone is a safe and equitable option for children, with no increased risk of treatment failure based on sociodemographic or objective clinical characteristics at presentation.”

But, the authors advise: “Families need to be made aware that treatment failure is not uncommon, and they should be provided with anticipatory guidance on how to proceed should symptoms recur.”

The investigators acknowledged limitations to the study, including the nonrandomized design that may have introduced bias, the loss to follow-up, and the study population being U.S. Midwest children, who may differ from children elsewhere in the country.

Shawn D. St Peter, MD, a pediatric surgeon, medical chair, and a senior vice president at Children’s Mercy Kansas City told this news organization in an email that having a nonoperative alternative to surgical appendectomy is important.

“Antibiotics are the initial treatment for appendicitis and can be the definitive treatment,” he said.

“Surprisingly, no sociodemographic or clinical characteristics were associated with an increased risk of nonoperative appendicitis treatment failure,” added Dr. St Peter, who coauthored the commentary with Dr. Rentea.

Howard C. Jen, MD, a pediatric surgeon at University of California, Los Angeles, Mattel Children’s Hospital, was not surprised by the findings.

“Nonoperative management for acute noncomplicated appendicitis in children continues to be safe and effective in highly selected patients,” he said in an email. “This alternative to surgery should be offered routinely to patients with early acute appendicitis.” 

Dr. Jen, who was not involved with the current study, noted that it did not address the impact and costs to families of nonoperative management vs. surgery.

“For the most vulnerable children who had difficulties accessing medical care, what is the best treatment option? What factors are important to the families when making this decision?” he asked.

All study and editorial authors report no relevant financial relationships. The study was funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences.

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

Children who have greater acute appendicitis pain may be less likely to improve if they’re treated with antibiotics alone, according to a secondary analysis of a nonrandomized clinical trial.

“While approximately 35% of families chose nonoperative management, a high pain score between 7-10 on a 10-point scale nearly doubled in-hospital treatment failure,” Rebecca M. Rentea, MD, a pediatric surgeon and the director of the Comprehensive Colorectal Center at Children’s Mercy Kansas City, Mo., told this news organization in an email.

“Even if nonoperative management of pediatric appendicitis did not work – resulting in the need to remove the appendix in 34% of cases – families were happy with their decisions 1 year later,” added Dr. Rentea, who coauthored an invited commentary about the study.

Lead study author Peter C. Minneci, MD, MHSc, a pediatric surgeon at Nationwide Children’s Hospital, Columbus, Ohio, and colleagues analyzed a subgroup of patients from a larger study in 10 tertiary children’s hospitals in the Midwest Pediatric Surgery Consortium.

As they reported in JAMA Network Open, the larger prospective, nonrandomized clinical trial enrolled 1,068 children between 2015 and 2018. The children ranged in age from 7 to 17 years, and they had imaging-confirmed appendicitis with an appendix diameter of 1.1 cm or less, no abscess, no appendicolith, and no phlegmon. White blood cell count was between 5,000 and 18,000 cells/μL, and abdominal pain began less than 48 hours before they received antibiotic therapy.

Caregivers chose either surgery or nonoperative antibiotic management. Patients who were treated first with antibiotics alone and who did not undergo appendectomy within 1 year were considered to have successfully completed nonoperative treatment.

The secondary analysis included the 370 children enrolled in the nonoperative group. Of these, 229 were boys, and the median age was 12.3 years. In this subgroup, the researchers compared outcomes after nonoperative, antibiotic management vs. surgery.

At 1 year, treatment failure had occurred in 125 patients, with 53 having undergone appendectomy during their first hospitalization, and 72 having experienced delayed treatment failure after being discharged.

• Higher patient-reported pain at presentation was linked to higher risk for in-hospital treatment failure (relative risk, 2.1; 95% confidence interval, 1.0-4.4) but not for delayed treatment failure (RR, 1.3; 95% CI, 0.7-2.3) or overall treatment failure at 1 year (RR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.0-2.2).
• Pain lasting longer than 24 hours was linked to lower risk for delayed treatment failure (RR, 0.3; 95% CI, 0.1-1.0) but not for in-hospital treatment failure (RR, 1.2; 95% CI, 0.5-2.7) or treatment failure at 1 year (RR, 0.7; 95% CI, 0.4-1.2).
• Satisfaction with the decision was higher with successful nonoperative management at 30 days (28.0 vs. 27.0; difference, 1.0; 95% CI, 0.01-2.0) and at 1 year (28.1 vs 27.0; difference, 1.1; 95% CI, 0.2-2.0).

The researchers found no increased risk for treatment failure based on age, sex, race, ethnicity, white blood cell count, primary language, insurance status, transfer status, presentation symptoms, or imaging results.

Antibiotics-only is a safe option for children

“This study suggests that pediatric patients with uncomplicated acute appendicitis should be offered treatment options, including nonoperative management,” the authors write. “Treatment with antibiotics alone is a safe and equitable option for children, with no increased risk of treatment failure based on sociodemographic or objective clinical characteristics at presentation.”

But, the authors advise: “Families need to be made aware that treatment failure is not uncommon, and they should be provided with anticipatory guidance on how to proceed should symptoms recur.”

The investigators acknowledged limitations to the study, including the nonrandomized design that may have introduced bias, the loss to follow-up, and the study population being U.S. Midwest children, who may differ from children elsewhere in the country.

Shawn D. St Peter, MD, a pediatric surgeon, medical chair, and a senior vice president at Children’s Mercy Kansas City told this news organization in an email that having a nonoperative alternative to surgical appendectomy is important.

“Antibiotics are the initial treatment for appendicitis and can be the definitive treatment,” he said.

“Surprisingly, no sociodemographic or clinical characteristics were associated with an increased risk of nonoperative appendicitis treatment failure,” added Dr. St Peter, who coauthored the commentary with Dr. Rentea.

Howard C. Jen, MD, a pediatric surgeon at University of California, Los Angeles, Mattel Children’s Hospital, was not surprised by the findings.

“Nonoperative management for acute noncomplicated appendicitis in children continues to be safe and effective in highly selected patients,” he said in an email. “This alternative to surgery should be offered routinely to patients with early acute appendicitis.” 

Dr. Jen, who was not involved with the current study, noted that it did not address the impact and costs to families of nonoperative management vs. surgery.

“For the most vulnerable children who had difficulties accessing medical care, what is the best treatment option? What factors are important to the families when making this decision?” he asked.

All study and editorial authors report no relevant financial relationships. The study was funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences.

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