Key clinical point: Anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) monoclonal antibodies (mAb) were more effective than onabotulinumtoxinA (BoNT-A) in reducing monthly headache days (MHD) in patients with chronic migraine (CM), although the safety profile of both treatments was comparable.

Major finding: Anti-CGRP mAb vs BoNT-A led to a significantly greater reduction in MHD at 6 months (adjusted mean difference ‒7.1; P < .001) and 12 months(adjusted mean difference ‒6.2; P < .001). Both treatments had favorable and comparable safety profiles.

Study details: Findings are from an observational, retrospective, multicenter, cohort study including 183 patients with CM who had at least two oral preventive treatment failures and received anti-CGRP mAb (n = 86) and BoNT-A (n = 97).

Disclosures: This study was supported by Italian Ministry of Health. Four authors declared receiving consultancy and advisory fees, travel grants, honoraria, or personal fees for participating in advisory boards, speaker panels, or clinical investigation studies from various sources.

Source: Grazzi L, Giossi R, Montisano DA et al. Real-world effectiveness of anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies compared to onabotulinumtoxinA (RAMO) in chronic migraine: A retrospective, observational, multicenter, cohort study. J Headache Pain. 2024;25:14. doi: 10.1186/s10194-024-01721-6 Source

Key clinical point: Anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) monoclonal antibodies (mAb) were more effective than onabotulinumtoxinA (BoNT-A) in reducing monthly headache days (MHD) in patients with chronic migraine (CM), although the safety profile of both treatments was comparable.

Major finding: Anti-CGRP mAb vs BoNT-A led to a significantly greater reduction in MHD at 6 months (adjusted mean difference ‒7.1; P < .001) and 12 months(adjusted mean difference ‒6.2; P < .001). Both treatments had favorable and comparable safety profiles.

Study details: Findings are from an observational, retrospective, multicenter, cohort study including 183 patients with CM who had at least two oral preventive treatment failures and received anti-CGRP mAb (n = 86) and BoNT-A (n = 97).

Disclosures: This study was supported by Italian Ministry of Health. Four authors declared receiving consultancy and advisory fees, travel grants, honoraria, or personal fees for participating in advisory boards, speaker panels, or clinical investigation studies from various sources.

Source: Grazzi L, Giossi R, Montisano DA et al. Real-world effectiveness of anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies compared to onabotulinumtoxinA (RAMO) in chronic migraine: A retrospective, observational, multicenter, cohort study. J Headache Pain. 2024;25:14. doi: 10.1186/s10194-024-01721-6 Source

Key clinical point: Anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) monoclonal antibodies (mAb) were more effective than onabotulinumtoxinA (BoNT-A) in reducing monthly headache days (MHD) in patients with chronic migraine (CM), although the safety profile of both treatments was comparable.

Major finding: Anti-CGRP mAb vs BoNT-A led to a significantly greater reduction in MHD at 6 months (adjusted mean difference ‒7.1; P < .001) and 12 months(adjusted mean difference ‒6.2; P < .001). Both treatments had favorable and comparable safety profiles.

Study details: Findings are from an observational, retrospective, multicenter, cohort study including 183 patients with CM who had at least two oral preventive treatment failures and received anti-CGRP mAb (n = 86) and BoNT-A (n = 97).

Disclosures: This study was supported by Italian Ministry of Health. Four authors declared receiving consultancy and advisory fees, travel grants, honoraria, or personal fees for participating in advisory boards, speaker panels, or clinical investigation studies from various sources.

Source: Grazzi L, Giossi R, Montisano DA et al. Real-world effectiveness of anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies compared to onabotulinumtoxinA (RAMO) in chronic migraine: A retrospective, observational, multicenter, cohort study. J Headache Pain. 2024;25:14. doi: 10.1186/s10194-024-01721-6 Source

and migraine or its subtypes, and vice versa.

Major finding: Genetic predispositions to AR were not casually associated with a higher risk for migraine (odds ratio [OR] 0.816; P = .394), both with aura (OR 0.690; P = .384) and without aura (OR 1.022; P = .954). Reciprocally, genetic predispositions to migraine or its subtypes showed no casual association with AR.

Study details: This two-sample Mendelian randomization analysis included 25,486 patients with AR and 87,907 control individuals without AR along with 3541 patients with migraine with aura, 3215 patients with migraine without aura, and 176,107 controls individuals without migraine.

Disclosures: This study was supported by grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of China and the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Lv H, Liu K, Xie Y et al. No causal association between allergic rhinitis and migraine: A Mendelian randomization study. Eur J Med Res. 2024;29:78. doi: 10.1186/s40001-024-01682-1 Source

and migraine or its subtypes, and vice versa.

Major finding: Genetic predispositions to AR were not casually associated with a higher risk for migraine (odds ratio [OR] 0.816; P = .394), both with aura (OR 0.690; P = .384) and without aura (OR 1.022; P = .954). Reciprocally, genetic predispositions to migraine or its subtypes showed no casual association with AR.

Study details: This two-sample Mendelian randomization analysis included 25,486 patients with AR and 87,907 control individuals without AR along with 3541 patients with migraine with aura, 3215 patients with migraine without aura, and 176,107 controls individuals without migraine.

Disclosures: This study was supported by grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of China and the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Lv H, Liu K, Xie Y et al. No causal association between allergic rhinitis and migraine: A Mendelian randomization study. Eur J Med Res. 2024;29:78. doi: 10.1186/s40001-024-01682-1 Source

and migraine or its subtypes, and vice versa.

Major finding: Genetic predispositions to AR were not casually associated with a higher risk for migraine (odds ratio [OR] 0.816; P = .394), both with aura (OR 0.690; P = .384) and without aura (OR 1.022; P = .954). Reciprocally, genetic predispositions to migraine or its subtypes showed no casual association with AR.

Study details: This two-sample Mendelian randomization analysis included 25,486 patients with AR and 87,907 control individuals without AR along with 3541 patients with migraine with aura, 3215 patients with migraine without aura, and 176,107 controls individuals without migraine.

Disclosures: This study was supported by grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of China and the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Lv H, Liu K, Xie Y et al. No causal association between allergic rhinitis and migraine: A Mendelian randomization study. Eur J Med Res. 2024;29:78. doi: 10.1186/s40001-024-01682-1 Source

Key clinical point: Resuming anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide (anti-CGRP) monoclonal antibodies (mAb) therapy was beneficial in patients with migraine who had responded to this treatment previously but relapsed upon discontinuation.

Major finding: The median monthly headache days (MHD) improved from 16 in the month before antibody reintroduction to 8 after 3 months of treatment re-introduction. The majority of patients achieved 30% reduction in MHD (75.3%) and monthly migraine days (80.8%) during the second treatment period with anti-CGRP mAb.

Study details: This observational prospective analytical multicentric study included 360 patients with migraine who had shown prior response to anti-CGRP mAb, with clinical worsening after withdrawal and were re-introduced anti-CGRP mAb therapy.

Disclosures: This study was funded by the Instituto de Salud Carlos III, European Union, and  Fondo Europeo de Desarrollo Regional (FEDER) funds. Several authors declared receiving speaker honoraria, payments or honoraria for lectures, or research support or grants from various sources.

Source: Romero Del Rincón C, Gonzalez-Martinez A, Quintas S et al. RE-START: Exploring the effectiveness of anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide resumption after discontinuation in migraine. Eur J Neurol. 2024 (Jan 25). doi: 10.1111/ene.16203 Source

Key clinical point: Resuming anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide (anti-CGRP) monoclonal antibodies (mAb) therapy was beneficial in patients with migraine who had responded to this treatment previously but relapsed upon discontinuation.

Major finding: The median monthly headache days (MHD) improved from 16 in the month before antibody reintroduction to 8 after 3 months of treatment re-introduction. The majority of patients achieved 30% reduction in MHD (75.3%) and monthly migraine days (80.8%) during the second treatment period with anti-CGRP mAb.

Study details: This observational prospective analytical multicentric study included 360 patients with migraine who had shown prior response to anti-CGRP mAb, with clinical worsening after withdrawal and were re-introduced anti-CGRP mAb therapy.

Disclosures: This study was funded by the Instituto de Salud Carlos III, European Union, and  Fondo Europeo de Desarrollo Regional (FEDER) funds. Several authors declared receiving speaker honoraria, payments or honoraria for lectures, or research support or grants from various sources.

Source: Romero Del Rincón C, Gonzalez-Martinez A, Quintas S et al. RE-START: Exploring the effectiveness of anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide resumption after discontinuation in migraine. Eur J Neurol. 2024 (Jan 25). doi: 10.1111/ene.16203 Source

Key clinical point: Resuming anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide (anti-CGRP) monoclonal antibodies (mAb) therapy was beneficial in patients with migraine who had responded to this treatment previously but relapsed upon discontinuation.

Major finding: The median monthly headache days (MHD) improved from 16 in the month before antibody reintroduction to 8 after 3 months of treatment re-introduction. The majority of patients achieved 30% reduction in MHD (75.3%) and monthly migraine days (80.8%) during the second treatment period with anti-CGRP mAb.

Study details: This observational prospective analytical multicentric study included 360 patients with migraine who had shown prior response to anti-CGRP mAb, with clinical worsening after withdrawal and were re-introduced anti-CGRP mAb therapy.

Disclosures: This study was funded by the Instituto de Salud Carlos III, European Union, and  Fondo Europeo de Desarrollo Regional (FEDER) funds. Several authors declared receiving speaker honoraria, payments or honoraria for lectures, or research support or grants from various sources.

Source: Romero Del Rincón C, Gonzalez-Martinez A, Quintas S et al. RE-START: Exploring the effectiveness of anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide resumption after discontinuation in migraine. Eur J Neurol. 2024 (Jan 25). doi: 10.1111/ene.16203 Source

Key clinical point: Body mass index (BMI) was positively correlated with an increased risk for severe headache or migraine, with the association being further increased in patients with diabetes and high BMI.

Major finding: BMI was positively associated with a higher risk for migraine (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.02; P < .001), with participants in the highest (≥30.0 kg/m²) vs lowest (<25.0 kg/m²) BMI groups reporting an increased risk for migraine (aOR 1.30; P = .0022). The positive association between BMI and migraine was further strengthened in patients with diabetes, who had BMI ≥ 29.71 kg/m² (aOR 1.30; P = . 003).

Study details: This cross-sectional study included 10,074 participants, of whom 2004 had migraine and 1020 had diabetes.

Disclosures: This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China and Jiangxi Province, Jiangxi Provincial Department of Education Science and Technology Program Project, and Jiangxi Province Postgraduate Innovation Special Fund. The authors declared no competing interests.

Source: Tian S, Cheng Z, Zheng H et al. Interaction between diabetes and body mass index on severe headache or migraine in adults: A cross-sectional study. BMC Geriatr. 2024;24:76. doi: 10.1186/s12877-024-04657-3 Source

Key clinical point: Body mass index (BMI) was positively correlated with an increased risk for severe headache or migraine, with the association being further increased in patients with diabetes and high BMI.

Major finding: BMI was positively associated with a higher risk for migraine (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.02; P < .001), with participants in the highest (≥30.0 kg/m²) vs lowest (<25.0 kg/m²) BMI groups reporting an increased risk for migraine (aOR 1.30; P = .0022). The positive association between BMI and migraine was further strengthened in patients with diabetes, who had BMI ≥ 29.71 kg/m² (aOR 1.30; P = . 003).

Study details: This cross-sectional study included 10,074 participants, of whom 2004 had migraine and 1020 had diabetes.

Disclosures: This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China and Jiangxi Province, Jiangxi Provincial Department of Education Science and Technology Program Project, and Jiangxi Province Postgraduate Innovation Special Fund. The authors declared no competing interests.

Source: Tian S, Cheng Z, Zheng H et al. Interaction between diabetes and body mass index on severe headache or migraine in adults: A cross-sectional study. BMC Geriatr. 2024;24:76. doi: 10.1186/s12877-024-04657-3 Source

Key clinical point: Body mass index (BMI) was positively correlated with an increased risk for severe headache or migraine, with the association being further increased in patients with diabetes and high BMI.

Major finding: BMI was positively associated with a higher risk for migraine (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.02; P < .001), with participants in the highest (≥30.0 kg/m²) vs lowest (<25.0 kg/m²) BMI groups reporting an increased risk for migraine (aOR 1.30; P = .0022). The positive association between BMI and migraine was further strengthened in patients with diabetes, who had BMI ≥ 29.71 kg/m² (aOR 1.30; P = . 003).

Study details: This cross-sectional study included 10,074 participants, of whom 2004 had migraine and 1020 had diabetes.

Disclosures: This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China and Jiangxi Province, Jiangxi Provincial Department of Education Science and Technology Program Project, and Jiangxi Province Postgraduate Innovation Special Fund. The authors declared no competing interests.

Source: Tian S, Cheng Z, Zheng H et al. Interaction between diabetes and body mass index on severe headache or migraine in adults: A cross-sectional study. BMC Geriatr. 2024;24:76. doi: 10.1186/s12877-024-04657-3 Source

Key clinical point: Eptinezumab vs placebo led to a greater reduction in migraine frequency and an improvement in migraine response in patients with migraine, irrespective of the type of prior treatment failure.

Major finding: Across weeks 1-12, patients receiving eptinezumab vs placebo experienced greater reductions in monthly migraine days (MMD) from baseline in all subgroups, with even greater improvements at weeks 13-24 (all P < .0001). Migraine responder rates (≥50% reduction in MMD) were also higher with eptinezumab vs placebo and increased following a second infusion (all P < .0001).

Study details: Findings are from a post hoc analysis of the DELIVER trial that included 890 patients with migraine who were randomly assigned to receive either 100 mg or 300 mg eptinezumab or placebo.

Disclosures: The study was sponsored and funded by H. Lundbeck A/S. Several authors declared receiving personal fees, research support, or research funding from various sources. Four authors declared being full-time employees of or holding stocks in Lundbeck or one of its subsidiary companies.

Source: Pozo-Rosich P, Ashina M, Tepper SJ et al. Eptinezumab demonstrated efficacy regardless of prior preventive migraine treatment failure type: Post hoc analyses of the DELIVER study. Neurol Ther. 2024 (Jan 18). doi: 10.1007/s40120-023-00575-5  Source

Key clinical point: Eptinezumab vs placebo led to a greater reduction in migraine frequency and an improvement in migraine response in patients with migraine, irrespective of the type of prior treatment failure.

Major finding: Across weeks 1-12, patients receiving eptinezumab vs placebo experienced greater reductions in monthly migraine days (MMD) from baseline in all subgroups, with even greater improvements at weeks 13-24 (all P < .0001). Migraine responder rates (≥50% reduction in MMD) were also higher with eptinezumab vs placebo and increased following a second infusion (all P < .0001).

Study details: Findings are from a post hoc analysis of the DELIVER trial that included 890 patients with migraine who were randomly assigned to receive either 100 mg or 300 mg eptinezumab or placebo.

Disclosures: The study was sponsored and funded by H. Lundbeck A/S. Several authors declared receiving personal fees, research support, or research funding from various sources. Four authors declared being full-time employees of or holding stocks in Lundbeck or one of its subsidiary companies.

Source: Pozo-Rosich P, Ashina M, Tepper SJ et al. Eptinezumab demonstrated efficacy regardless of prior preventive migraine treatment failure type: Post hoc analyses of the DELIVER study. Neurol Ther. 2024 (Jan 18). doi: 10.1007/s40120-023-00575-5  Source

Key clinical point: Eptinezumab vs placebo led to a greater reduction in migraine frequency and an improvement in migraine response in patients with migraine, irrespective of the type of prior treatment failure.

Major finding: Across weeks 1-12, patients receiving eptinezumab vs placebo experienced greater reductions in monthly migraine days (MMD) from baseline in all subgroups, with even greater improvements at weeks 13-24 (all P < .0001). Migraine responder rates (≥50% reduction in MMD) were also higher with eptinezumab vs placebo and increased following a second infusion (all P < .0001).

Study details: Findings are from a post hoc analysis of the DELIVER trial that included 890 patients with migraine who were randomly assigned to receive either 100 mg or 300 mg eptinezumab or placebo.

Disclosures: The study was sponsored and funded by H. Lundbeck A/S. Several authors declared receiving personal fees, research support, or research funding from various sources. Four authors declared being full-time employees of or holding stocks in Lundbeck or one of its subsidiary companies.

Source: Pozo-Rosich P, Ashina M, Tepper SJ et al. Eptinezumab demonstrated efficacy regardless of prior preventive migraine treatment failure type: Post hoc analyses of the DELIVER study. Neurol Ther. 2024 (Jan 18). doi: 10.1007/s40120-023-00575-5  Source

Key clinical point: Patients diagnosed with migraine should be monitored for the potential onset of inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD), including Crohn’s disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC); particularly, men with migraine may require increased monitoring for the development of UC.

Major finding: Patients with migraine had a higher risk for IBD (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.31; P < .0001), CD (aHR 1.58; P = .0002), and UC (aHR 1.26; P = .0004) than those without migraine. Presence of migraine increased the risk for UC more prominently in men (aHR 1.43; 95% CI 1.20-1.71) than in women (aHR 1.12; 95% CI 0.94-1.34; P_interaction = .042).

Study details: The data come from a nationwide population-based cohort study that included 10,131,193 individuals who had undergone a national health examination conducted by the Korean National Health Insurance Service in 2009, of which 281,144 patients had migraine.

Disclosures: This study did not disclose the funding source. The authors declared no competing interests.

Source: Lee CH, Han K, Lee HJ et al. Migraine is associated with the development of adult patients with inflammatory bowel disease: A nationwide, population-based study. Sci Rep. 2024;14:1157 (Jan 12).  doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-51455-3  Source.

Key clinical point: Patients diagnosed with migraine should be monitored for the potential onset of inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD), including Crohn’s disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC); particularly, men with migraine may require increased monitoring for the development of UC.

Major finding: Patients with migraine had a higher risk for IBD (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.31; P < .0001), CD (aHR 1.58; P = .0002), and UC (aHR 1.26; P = .0004) than those without migraine. Presence of migraine increased the risk for UC more prominently in men (aHR 1.43; 95% CI 1.20-1.71) than in women (aHR 1.12; 95% CI 0.94-1.34; P_interaction = .042).

Study details: The data come from a nationwide population-based cohort study that included 10,131,193 individuals who had undergone a national health examination conducted by the Korean National Health Insurance Service in 2009, of which 281,144 patients had migraine.

Disclosures: This study did not disclose the funding source. The authors declared no competing interests.

Source: Lee CH, Han K, Lee HJ et al. Migraine is associated with the development of adult patients with inflammatory bowel disease: A nationwide, population-based study. Sci Rep. 2024;14:1157 (Jan 12).  doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-51455-3  Source.

Key clinical point: Patients diagnosed with migraine should be monitored for the potential onset of inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD), including Crohn’s disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC); particularly, men with migraine may require increased monitoring for the development of UC.

Major finding: Patients with migraine had a higher risk for IBD (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.31; P < .0001), CD (aHR 1.58; P = .0002), and UC (aHR 1.26; P = .0004) than those without migraine. Presence of migraine increased the risk for UC more prominently in men (aHR 1.43; 95% CI 1.20-1.71) than in women (aHR 1.12; 95% CI 0.94-1.34; P_interaction = .042).

Study details: The data come from a nationwide population-based cohort study that included 10,131,193 individuals who had undergone a national health examination conducted by the Korean National Health Insurance Service in 2009, of which 281,144 patients had migraine.

Disclosures: This study did not disclose the funding source. The authors declared no competing interests.

Source: Lee CH, Han K, Lee HJ et al. Migraine is associated with the development of adult patients with inflammatory bowel disease: A nationwide, population-based study. Sci Rep. 2024;14:1157 (Jan 12).  doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-51455-3  Source.

Key clinical point: Patients with chronic migraine may be informed that they should not expect a consistent wearing-off effect when being treated with erenumab or fremanezumab as anxiety regarding attacks toward the end of the month may potentially trigger further migraine episodes.

Major finding: Overall, 62% of patients treated with erenumab and fremanezumab achieved a consistent ≥30% reduction in migraine days over 2 consecutive months (≥30% responders), with no consistent wearing-off effect (ie, an increase of ≥2 weekly migraine days from week 2 to 4 over 2 consecutive treatment months) in the erenumab (P = .194) and fremanezumab (P = .581) groups. Among ≥30% responders, there was no significant wearing-off effect from week 2 to 4 over 2 consecutive months (1.43 vs 1.52 days; P = .573).

Study details: This single-center, real-world, observational study included 100 patients with chronic migraine (age ≥ 18 years) who received either erenumab (n = 60) or fremanezumab (n = 40).

Disclosures: This study was supported by Lundbeck Foundation. Two authors declared receiving personal fees or honoraria from or serving on advisory boards for various sources.

Source: Florescu AM, Lannov LV, Younis S et al. No wearing-off effect of erenumab or fremanezumab for chronic migraine prevention: A single-center, real-world, observational study. Cephalalgia. 2024 (Jan 12). doi: 10.1177/03331024231222 Source.

Key clinical point: Patients with chronic migraine may be informed that they should not expect a consistent wearing-off effect when being treated with erenumab or fremanezumab as anxiety regarding attacks toward the end of the month may potentially trigger further migraine episodes.

Major finding: Overall, 62% of patients treated with erenumab and fremanezumab achieved a consistent ≥30% reduction in migraine days over 2 consecutive months (≥30% responders), with no consistent wearing-off effect (ie, an increase of ≥2 weekly migraine days from week 2 to 4 over 2 consecutive treatment months) in the erenumab (P = .194) and fremanezumab (P = .581) groups. Among ≥30% responders, there was no significant wearing-off effect from week 2 to 4 over 2 consecutive months (1.43 vs 1.52 days; P = .573).

Study details: This single-center, real-world, observational study included 100 patients with chronic migraine (age ≥ 18 years) who received either erenumab (n = 60) or fremanezumab (n = 40).

Disclosures: This study was supported by Lundbeck Foundation. Two authors declared receiving personal fees or honoraria from or serving on advisory boards for various sources.

Source: Florescu AM, Lannov LV, Younis S et al. No wearing-off effect of erenumab or fremanezumab for chronic migraine prevention: A single-center, real-world, observational study. Cephalalgia. 2024 (Jan 12). doi: 10.1177/03331024231222 Source.

Key clinical point: Patients with chronic migraine may be informed that they should not expect a consistent wearing-off effect when being treated with erenumab or fremanezumab as anxiety regarding attacks toward the end of the month may potentially trigger further migraine episodes.

Major finding: Overall, 62% of patients treated with erenumab and fremanezumab achieved a consistent ≥30% reduction in migraine days over 2 consecutive months (≥30% responders), with no consistent wearing-off effect (ie, an increase of ≥2 weekly migraine days from week 2 to 4 over 2 consecutive treatment months) in the erenumab (P = .194) and fremanezumab (P = .581) groups. Among ≥30% responders, there was no significant wearing-off effect from week 2 to 4 over 2 consecutive months (1.43 vs 1.52 days; P = .573).

Study details: This single-center, real-world, observational study included 100 patients with chronic migraine (age ≥ 18 years) who received either erenumab (n = 60) or fremanezumab (n = 40).

Disclosures: This study was supported by Lundbeck Foundation. Two authors declared receiving personal fees or honoraria from or serving on advisory boards for various sources.

Source: Florescu AM, Lannov LV, Younis S et al. No wearing-off effect of erenumab or fremanezumab for chronic migraine prevention: A single-center, real-world, observational study. Cephalalgia. 2024 (Jan 12). doi: 10.1177/03331024231222 Source.

Key clinical point: Women who had menarche at older age had a lower risk for migraine, whereas those who used oral contraceptives and those who had children had a higher risk for migraine.

Major finding: Older age at menarche decreased migraine risk (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.96; 95% CI 0.95-0.98), whereas oral contraceptive use (aHR 1.12; 95% CI 1.06-1.18) and having children (aHR 1.37; 95% CI 1.29-1.46) increased migraine risk.

Study details: This study evaluated the data of 62,959 women (age 30-70 years) from the Norwegian Women and Cancer Study, of whom 15,635 (24.8%) had migraine.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Bugge NS, Grøtta Vetvik K, Alstadhaug KB, Braaten T et al. Cumulative exposure to estrogen may increase the risk of migraine in women. Cephalalgia. 2024 (Jan 12). doi: 10.1177/03331024231225 Source.

Key clinical point: Women who had menarche at older age had a lower risk for migraine, whereas those who used oral contraceptives and those who had children had a higher risk for migraine.

Major finding: Older age at menarche decreased migraine risk (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.96; 95% CI 0.95-0.98), whereas oral contraceptive use (aHR 1.12; 95% CI 1.06-1.18) and having children (aHR 1.37; 95% CI 1.29-1.46) increased migraine risk.

Study details: This study evaluated the data of 62,959 women (age 30-70 years) from the Norwegian Women and Cancer Study, of whom 15,635 (24.8%) had migraine.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Bugge NS, Grøtta Vetvik K, Alstadhaug KB, Braaten T et al. Cumulative exposure to estrogen may increase the risk of migraine in women. Cephalalgia. 2024 (Jan 12). doi: 10.1177/03331024231225 Source.

Key clinical point: Women who had menarche at older age had a lower risk for migraine, whereas those who used oral contraceptives and those who had children had a higher risk for migraine.

Major finding: Older age at menarche decreased migraine risk (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.96; 95% CI 0.95-0.98), whereas oral contraceptive use (aHR 1.12; 95% CI 1.06-1.18) and having children (aHR 1.37; 95% CI 1.29-1.46) increased migraine risk.

Study details: This study evaluated the data of 62,959 women (age 30-70 years) from the Norwegian Women and Cancer Study, of whom 15,635 (24.8%) had migraine.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Bugge NS, Grøtta Vetvik K, Alstadhaug KB, Braaten T et al. Cumulative exposure to estrogen may increase the risk of migraine in women. Cephalalgia. 2024 (Jan 12). doi: 10.1177/03331024231225 Source.

I can’t remember where I heard it. Maybe I made it up myself. But, one definition of a family is a group of folks with whom you share your genes and germs. In that same vein, one could define daycare as a group of germ-sharing children. Of course that’s news to almost no one. Parents who decide, or are forced, to send their children to daycare expect that those children will get more colds, “stomach flu,” and ear infections than the children who spend their days in isolation at home. Everyone from the pediatrician to the little old lady next door has warned parents of the inevitable reality of daycare. Of course there are upsides that parents can cling to, including increased socialization and the hope that getting sick young will build a more robust immunity in the long run.

However, there has been little research exploring the nuances of the germ sharing that we all know is happening in these and other social settings.

A team of evolutionary biologists at Harvard is working to better define the “social microbiome” and its “role in individuals’ susceptibility to, and resilience against, both communicable and noncommunicable diseases.” These researchers point out that while we harbor our own unique collection of microbes, we share those with the microbiomes of the people with whom we interact socially. They report that studies by other investigators have shown that residents of a household share a significant proportion of their gastrointestinal flora. There are other studies that have shown that villages can be identified by their own social biome. There are few social settings more intimately involved in microbe sharing than daycares. I have a friends who calls them “petri dishes.”

The biologists point out that antibiotic-resistant microbes can become part of an individual’s microbiome and can be shared with other individuals in their social group, who can then go on and share them in a different social environment. Imagine there is one popular physician in a community whose sense of antibiotic stewardship is, shall we say, somewhat lacking. By inappropriately prescribing antibiotics to a child or two in a daycare, he may be altering the social biome in that daycare, which could then jeopardize the health of all the children and eventually their own home-based social biomes, that may include an immune deficient individual.

The researchers also remind us that different cultures and countries may have different antibiotic usage patterns. Does this mean I am taking a risk by traveling in these “culture-dependent transmission landscapes”? Am I more likely to encounter an antibiotic-resistant microbe when I am visiting a country whose healthcare providers are less prudent prescribers?

However, as these evolutionary biologists point out, not all shared microbes are bad. There is some evidence in animals that individuals can share microbes that have been found to “increase resilience against colitis or improve their responsiveness to cancer therapy.” If a microbe can contribute to a disease that was once considered to be “noncommunicable,” we may need to redefine “communicable” in the light this more nuanced view of the social biome.

It became standard practice during the COVID pandemic to test dormitory and community sewage water to determine the level of infection. Can sewage water be used as a proxy for a social biome? If a parent is lucky enough to have a choice of daycares, would knowing each facility’s biome, as reflected in an analysis of its sewage effluent, help him or her decide? Should a daycare ask for a stool sample from each child before accepting him or her? Seems like this would raise some privacy issues, not to mention the logistical messiness of the process. As we learn more about social biomes, can we imagine a time when a daycare or country or region might proudly advertise itself as having the healthiest spectrum of microbes in its sewage system?

Communal living certainly has its benefits, not just for children but also adults as we realize how loneliness is eating its way into our society. However, living in close social contact means that, for better or worse, we will be reconfiguring our own personal biomes thanks to the inevitable gifts from our cohabitants.

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 pdnews@mdedge.com.

I can’t remember where I heard it. Maybe I made it up myself. But, one definition of a family is a group of folks with whom you share your genes and germs. In that same vein, one could define daycare as a group of germ-sharing children. Of course that’s news to almost no one. Parents who decide, or are forced, to send their children to daycare expect that those children will get more colds, “stomach flu,” and ear infections than the children who spend their days in isolation at home. Everyone from the pediatrician to the little old lady next door has warned parents of the inevitable reality of daycare. Of course there are upsides that parents can cling to, including increased socialization and the hope that getting sick young will build a more robust immunity in the long run.

However, there has been little research exploring the nuances of the germ sharing that we all know is happening in these and other social settings.

A team of evolutionary biologists at Harvard is working to better define the “social microbiome” and its “role in individuals’ susceptibility to, and resilience against, both communicable and noncommunicable diseases.” These researchers point out that while we harbor our own unique collection of microbes, we share those with the microbiomes of the people with whom we interact socially. They report that studies by other investigators have shown that residents of a household share a significant proportion of their gastrointestinal flora. There are other studies that have shown that villages can be identified by their own social biome. There are few social settings more intimately involved in microbe sharing than daycares. I have a friends who calls them “petri dishes.”

The biologists point out that antibiotic-resistant microbes can become part of an individual’s microbiome and can be shared with other individuals in their social group, who can then go on and share them in a different social environment. Imagine there is one popular physician in a community whose sense of antibiotic stewardship is, shall we say, somewhat lacking. By inappropriately prescribing antibiotics to a child or two in a daycare, he may be altering the social biome in that daycare, which could then jeopardize the health of all the children and eventually their own home-based social biomes, that may include an immune deficient individual.

The researchers also remind us that different cultures and countries may have different antibiotic usage patterns. Does this mean I am taking a risk by traveling in these “culture-dependent transmission landscapes”? Am I more likely to encounter an antibiotic-resistant microbe when I am visiting a country whose healthcare providers are less prudent prescribers?

However, as these evolutionary biologists point out, not all shared microbes are bad. There is some evidence in animals that individuals can share microbes that have been found to “increase resilience against colitis or improve their responsiveness to cancer therapy.” If a microbe can contribute to a disease that was once considered to be “noncommunicable,” we may need to redefine “communicable” in the light this more nuanced view of the social biome.

It became standard practice during the COVID pandemic to test dormitory and community sewage water to determine the level of infection. Can sewage water be used as a proxy for a social biome? If a parent is lucky enough to have a choice of daycares, would knowing each facility’s biome, as reflected in an analysis of its sewage effluent, help him or her decide? Should a daycare ask for a stool sample from each child before accepting him or her? Seems like this would raise some privacy issues, not to mention the logistical messiness of the process. As we learn more about social biomes, can we imagine a time when a daycare or country or region might proudly advertise itself as having the healthiest spectrum of microbes in its sewage system?

Communal living certainly has its benefits, not just for children but also adults as we realize how loneliness is eating its way into our society. However, living in close social contact means that, for better or worse, we will be reconfiguring our own personal biomes thanks to the inevitable gifts from our cohabitants.

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 pdnews@mdedge.com.

I can’t remember where I heard it. Maybe I made it up myself. But, one definition of a family is a group of folks with whom you share your genes and germs. In that same vein, one could define daycare as a group of germ-sharing children. Of course that’s news to almost no one. Parents who decide, or are forced, to send their children to daycare expect that those children will get more colds, “stomach flu,” and ear infections than the children who spend their days in isolation at home. Everyone from the pediatrician to the little old lady next door has warned parents of the inevitable reality of daycare. Of course there are upsides that parents can cling to, including increased socialization and the hope that getting sick young will build a more robust immunity in the long run.

However, there has been little research exploring the nuances of the germ sharing that we all know is happening in these and other social settings.

A team of evolutionary biologists at Harvard is working to better define the “social microbiome” and its “role in individuals’ susceptibility to, and resilience against, both communicable and noncommunicable diseases.” These researchers point out that while we harbor our own unique collection of microbes, we share those with the microbiomes of the people with whom we interact socially. They report that studies by other investigators have shown that residents of a household share a significant proportion of their gastrointestinal flora. There are other studies that have shown that villages can be identified by their own social biome. There are few social settings more intimately involved in microbe sharing than daycares. I have a friends who calls them “petri dishes.”

The biologists point out that antibiotic-resistant microbes can become part of an individual’s microbiome and can be shared with other individuals in their social group, who can then go on and share them in a different social environment. Imagine there is one popular physician in a community whose sense of antibiotic stewardship is, shall we say, somewhat lacking. By inappropriately prescribing antibiotics to a child or two in a daycare, he may be altering the social biome in that daycare, which could then jeopardize the health of all the children and eventually their own home-based social biomes, that may include an immune deficient individual.

The researchers also remind us that different cultures and countries may have different antibiotic usage patterns. Does this mean I am taking a risk by traveling in these “culture-dependent transmission landscapes”? Am I more likely to encounter an antibiotic-resistant microbe when I am visiting a country whose healthcare providers are less prudent prescribers?

However, as these evolutionary biologists point out, not all shared microbes are bad. There is some evidence in animals that individuals can share microbes that have been found to “increase resilience against colitis or improve their responsiveness to cancer therapy.” If a microbe can contribute to a disease that was once considered to be “noncommunicable,” we may need to redefine “communicable” in the light this more nuanced view of the social biome.

It became standard practice during the COVID pandemic to test dormitory and community sewage water to determine the level of infection. Can sewage water be used as a proxy for a social biome? If a parent is lucky enough to have a choice of daycares, would knowing each facility’s biome, as reflected in an analysis of its sewage effluent, help him or her decide? Should a daycare ask for a stool sample from each child before accepting him or her? Seems like this would raise some privacy issues, not to mention the logistical messiness of the process. As we learn more about social biomes, can we imagine a time when a daycare or country or region might proudly advertise itself as having the healthiest spectrum of microbes in its sewage system?

Communal living certainly has its benefits, not just for children but also adults as we realize how loneliness is eating its way into our society. However, living in close social contact means that, for better or worse, we will be reconfiguring our own personal biomes thanks to the inevitable gifts from our cohabitants.

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 pdnews@mdedge.com.

In my previous article, “Mental Health Characteristics of Refugee Children,” we learned that in recent decades, refugeeism has become a growing problem that disproportionately affects children. Refugee children and their families experience a variety of traumas, often sustained across years and even decades, because of armed conflict, persecution, social upheavals, or environmental disasters. Refugees are at greater risks for PTSD and affective and psychotic disorders presumably due to increased traumatic life events before, during, and after migration. I used my own experience as a child refugee from Vietnam to elucidate the stressors evident in various phases of forced displacement.¹

Risk Factors and Protective Factors

To a certain extent, the experiences of refugees are universal. All refugees experience some sort of humanitarian crisis that forces an emergent escape from their home across international borders to a new resettlement area. It is important to note that internally displaced people do not meet the United Nations’ (UN) official designation of refugee status; however, some agencies use a broader definition where they are designated as such.^2,3 We will refer to those not meeting the UN criteria as displaced people, while refugees are those that do meet the UN criteria. Dr. Mina Fazel’s 2012 systematic review in The Lancet of mental health risk factors and protective factors for displaced and refugee children is the most comprehensive of its kind.⁴ It will be summarized in this section with some relevant personal reflection.

In terms of risk factors, external displacement likely results in additional stress and trauma, presumably from the lack of assess to one’s culture and the host country’s language. Understandably, this makes rebuilding of one’s life more difficult. Several studies show that displaced/refugee children experience more difficulty with psychosocial adaptation than non-displaced children. Violence, directly experienced or indirectly feared, both to the child and their parents, was the strongest predictor of mental health problems and withdrawn behavior. Children who were separated from their parents clearly fared worst in their mental health than those who did not, which is not surprising given the nature of their dependence on caregivers for protection and guidance. During resettlement, experienced or perceived discrimination from the host country was also a risk factor, as well as instability in housing and a drawn-out resettlement process. Female sex was a risk factor mainly for emotional problems. Poor financial support post-migration is associated with depression, but it is unclear whether pre-migration financial status was protective. From my own experience, it is likely not, given that once one becomes a refugee one does not have access to one’s wealth, except that which could be hidden on one’s body. Another risk factor was also if one’s parent had psychiatric problems or was single. Due to the migration, my mother was separated permanently from her husband, which caused her extraordinary isolation and loneliness, something that was palpably felt by myself as I grew up.

In terms of protective factors, family cohesion and cultural continuity appear critical. For myself, not only would I not have survived without my mother and aunt, but they constantly protected me from the harsh realities. My mother would distract me with seemingly trivial goals once we got to America, like finally tasting a hamburger, or talking about school and being reunited with my uncle. This is in line with another finding — that children have better mental health outcomes when their parents do not talk about their hardships. Once my family was resettled with my uncle and his family, they played a critical role in smoothing our transition, not only by providing us with housing, but also cultural knowledge. Cultural havens can restore some of the social position and way of life that refugees lose when they are able to reconnect with a society that recognizes their previous achievements and status. Finally, religion also seemed to be a protective factor.
 

Mental Health Interventions

In 2018, Dr. Fazel identified mental health interventions for refugee children in a narrative review.⁵ She acknowledged that these conclusions are limited by the paucity of preventive mental health research in children in general, as well as the mobile nature and complex cultural differences of refugee children. This is exacerbated by the small evidence base. Given that, she makes these recommendations for varying levels of interventions: individual, group, family, living circumstances, social interactions, and school.

On an individual level, effective interventions developed to address PTSD include narrative exposure therapy, trauma-focused cognitive behavior therapy, and eye-movement and desensitization therapy. Group-based interventions for trauma, for example school-based PTSD intervention programs in conflicted areas, have either been shown to not be effective, or only effective for reducing depression. The mental health of unaccompanied children separated from family fare better when placed in foster care, rather than other types of social support. This is further enhanced if the foster family is the same ethnicity.

On a family level, improvements in parenting style and parental mental health, family engagement with local culture and structures, and family-based mental health interventions all positively impact refugee children. Not surprisingly, refugee parents have a greater prevalence of mental health conditions. Several studies on refugeeism point out a greater occurrence of intimate partner violence (that negatively affects children) as well has harsher discipline and maltreatment of refugee children. Thus, mental health treatment for parents also directly improves the well-being of their children. Teaching parenting skills to mitigate the violent effect of their PTSD symptoms, as well as parenting classes that teach gentler styles, have been shown to reduce harsh parenting and mitigate aggressive behaviors in these children. These improvements are enhanced when these classes are taught by other refugees themselves.

School is key for helping refugee children since it is a site where they can access language proficiency, successful acculturation, and medical and mental health services. Several studies have identified the positive effects of better parental engagement with school, resulting in improved academic performance and reduced levels of depressive and PTSD symptoms. A review of learning problems in refugee children identified several factors for success. These include high academic and life ambition, parental involvement in education, accurate educational assessment and grade placement, teacher understanding of linguistic and cultural heritage, culturally appropriate school transition, supportive peer relationships, and successful acculturation. School certainly was key for my acculturation and language proficiency. When I arrived at 6 years old I was selectively mute for my year in first grade, namely because I did not know how to speak English and because I did not share the culture. However, my teacher correctly identified my deficiency and chose to place me in kindergarten, which allowed me the time to gain English proficiency. Though I was always the oldest one in class, that remediation was key in allowing eventual success in school leading up to my admission to UC Berkeley.
 

Summary

In recent decades, refugeeism has become a growing problem that disproportionately affects children leading to traumas sustained across years and even decades, and greater risks for PTSD, as well as affective and psychotic disorders. Risk factors include the experience of violence, the separation from family, female gender, discrimination in the host country, unstable housing, and a drawn-out resettlement process. Protective factors consist of family cohesion, cultural continuity, support at schools, being protected from the truth of their harsh reality, stable housing, language acquisition, and quick resettlement. From these factors, effective mental interventions have been found to be the promotion of these protective factors as well as support for parental mental health and parenting skills, better parental engagement at school, and schools that correctly identify and address these children’s educational needs.

Dr. Nguyen is a second-year resident at UCSF Fresno Psychiatry Residency. He was a public high school English teacher for 15 years previously.*

References

1. Nguyen D. Mental Health Characteristics of Refugee Children. Pediatric News. 2023 Nov. 14. https://www.mdedge.com/pediatrics/article/266518/mental-health/mental-health-characteristics-refugee-children.

2. Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. The Refugee Concept Under International Law. Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration. 2018 March 8. https://www.unhcr.org/sites/default/files/legacy-pdf/5aa290937.pdf.

3. Winer JP. Mental Health Practice with Immigrant and Refugee Youth [Power Point Slides]. Michigan Medicine. 2021 June 24. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ICkg4132SQY

4. Fazel M et al. Mental Health of Displaced and Refugee Children Resettled in High-Income Countries: Risk and Protective Factors. Lancet. 2012 Jan 21;379(9812):266-282. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(11)60051-2.

5. Fazel M, Betancourt TS. Preventive Mental Health Interventions for Refugee Children and Adolescents in High-Income Settings. Lancet Child Adolesc Health. 2018 Feb;2(2):121-132. doi: 10.1016/S2352-4642(17)30147-5.

*Correction, 2/27: An earlier version of this article misstated Dr. Nguyen's affiliation.

In my previous article, “Mental Health Characteristics of Refugee Children,” we learned that in recent decades, refugeeism has become a growing problem that disproportionately affects children. Refugee children and their families experience a variety of traumas, often sustained across years and even decades, because of armed conflict, persecution, social upheavals, or environmental disasters. Refugees are at greater risks for PTSD and affective and psychotic disorders presumably due to increased traumatic life events before, during, and after migration. I used my own experience as a child refugee from Vietnam to elucidate the stressors evident in various phases of forced displacement.¹

Risk Factors and Protective Factors

To a certain extent, the experiences of refugees are universal. All refugees experience some sort of humanitarian crisis that forces an emergent escape from their home across international borders to a new resettlement area. It is important to note that internally displaced people do not meet the United Nations’ (UN) official designation of refugee status; however, some agencies use a broader definition where they are designated as such.^2,3 We will refer to those not meeting the UN criteria as displaced people, while refugees are those that do meet the UN criteria. Dr. Mina Fazel’s 2012 systematic review in The Lancet of mental health risk factors and protective factors for displaced and refugee children is the most comprehensive of its kind.⁴ It will be summarized in this section with some relevant personal reflection.

In terms of risk factors, external displacement likely results in additional stress and trauma, presumably from the lack of assess to one’s culture and the host country’s language. Understandably, this makes rebuilding of one’s life more difficult. Several studies show that displaced/refugee children experience more difficulty with psychosocial adaptation than non-displaced children. Violence, directly experienced or indirectly feared, both to the child and their parents, was the strongest predictor of mental health problems and withdrawn behavior. Children who were separated from their parents clearly fared worst in their mental health than those who did not, which is not surprising given the nature of their dependence on caregivers for protection and guidance. During resettlement, experienced or perceived discrimination from the host country was also a risk factor, as well as instability in housing and a drawn-out resettlement process. Female sex was a risk factor mainly for emotional problems. Poor financial support post-migration is associated with depression, but it is unclear whether pre-migration financial status was protective. From my own experience, it is likely not, given that once one becomes a refugee one does not have access to one’s wealth, except that which could be hidden on one’s body. Another risk factor was also if one’s parent had psychiatric problems or was single. Due to the migration, my mother was separated permanently from her husband, which caused her extraordinary isolation and loneliness, something that was palpably felt by myself as I grew up.

In terms of protective factors, family cohesion and cultural continuity appear critical. For myself, not only would I not have survived without my mother and aunt, but they constantly protected me from the harsh realities. My mother would distract me with seemingly trivial goals once we got to America, like finally tasting a hamburger, or talking about school and being reunited with my uncle. This is in line with another finding — that children have better mental health outcomes when their parents do not talk about their hardships. Once my family was resettled with my uncle and his family, they played a critical role in smoothing our transition, not only by providing us with housing, but also cultural knowledge. Cultural havens can restore some of the social position and way of life that refugees lose when they are able to reconnect with a society that recognizes their previous achievements and status. Finally, religion also seemed to be a protective factor.
 

Mental Health Interventions

In 2018, Dr. Fazel identified mental health interventions for refugee children in a narrative review.⁵ She acknowledged that these conclusions are limited by the paucity of preventive mental health research in children in general, as well as the mobile nature and complex cultural differences of refugee children. This is exacerbated by the small evidence base. Given that, she makes these recommendations for varying levels of interventions: individual, group, family, living circumstances, social interactions, and school.

On an individual level, effective interventions developed to address PTSD include narrative exposure therapy, trauma-focused cognitive behavior therapy, and eye-movement and desensitization therapy. Group-based interventions for trauma, for example school-based PTSD intervention programs in conflicted areas, have either been shown to not be effective, or only effective for reducing depression. The mental health of unaccompanied children separated from family fare better when placed in foster care, rather than other types of social support. This is further enhanced if the foster family is the same ethnicity.

On a family level, improvements in parenting style and parental mental health, family engagement with local culture and structures, and family-based mental health interventions all positively impact refugee children. Not surprisingly, refugee parents have a greater prevalence of mental health conditions. Several studies on refugeeism point out a greater occurrence of intimate partner violence (that negatively affects children) as well has harsher discipline and maltreatment of refugee children. Thus, mental health treatment for parents also directly improves the well-being of their children. Teaching parenting skills to mitigate the violent effect of their PTSD symptoms, as well as parenting classes that teach gentler styles, have been shown to reduce harsh parenting and mitigate aggressive behaviors in these children. These improvements are enhanced when these classes are taught by other refugees themselves.

School is key for helping refugee children since it is a site where they can access language proficiency, successful acculturation, and medical and mental health services. Several studies have identified the positive effects of better parental engagement with school, resulting in improved academic performance and reduced levels of depressive and PTSD symptoms. A review of learning problems in refugee children identified several factors for success. These include high academic and life ambition, parental involvement in education, accurate educational assessment and grade placement, teacher understanding of linguistic and cultural heritage, culturally appropriate school transition, supportive peer relationships, and successful acculturation. School certainly was key for my acculturation and language proficiency. When I arrived at 6 years old I was selectively mute for my year in first grade, namely because I did not know how to speak English and because I did not share the culture. However, my teacher correctly identified my deficiency and chose to place me in kindergarten, which allowed me the time to gain English proficiency. Though I was always the oldest one in class, that remediation was key in allowing eventual success in school leading up to my admission to UC Berkeley.
 

Summary

In recent decades, refugeeism has become a growing problem that disproportionately affects children leading to traumas sustained across years and even decades, and greater risks for PTSD, as well as affective and psychotic disorders. Risk factors include the experience of violence, the separation from family, female gender, discrimination in the host country, unstable housing, and a drawn-out resettlement process. Protective factors consist of family cohesion, cultural continuity, support at schools, being protected from the truth of their harsh reality, stable housing, language acquisition, and quick resettlement. From these factors, effective mental interventions have been found to be the promotion of these protective factors as well as support for parental mental health and parenting skills, better parental engagement at school, and schools that correctly identify and address these children’s educational needs.

Dr. Nguyen is a second-year resident at UCSF Fresno Psychiatry Residency. He was a public high school English teacher for 15 years previously.*

References

1. Nguyen D. Mental Health Characteristics of Refugee Children. Pediatric News. 2023 Nov. 14. https://www.mdedge.com/pediatrics/article/266518/mental-health/mental-health-characteristics-refugee-children.

2. Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. The Refugee Concept Under International Law. Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration. 2018 March 8. https://www.unhcr.org/sites/default/files/legacy-pdf/5aa290937.pdf.

3. Winer JP. Mental Health Practice with Immigrant and Refugee Youth [Power Point Slides]. Michigan Medicine. 2021 June 24. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ICkg4132SQY

4. Fazel M et al. Mental Health of Displaced and Refugee Children Resettled in High-Income Countries: Risk and Protective Factors. Lancet. 2012 Jan 21;379(9812):266-282. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(11)60051-2.

5. Fazel M, Betancourt TS. Preventive Mental Health Interventions for Refugee Children and Adolescents in High-Income Settings. Lancet Child Adolesc Health. 2018 Feb;2(2):121-132. doi: 10.1016/S2352-4642(17)30147-5.

*Correction, 2/27: An earlier version of this article misstated Dr. Nguyen's affiliation.

In my previous article, “Mental Health Characteristics of Refugee Children,” we learned that in recent decades, refugeeism has become a growing problem that disproportionately affects children. Refugee children and their families experience a variety of traumas, often sustained across years and even decades, because of armed conflict, persecution, social upheavals, or environmental disasters. Refugees are at greater risks for PTSD and affective and psychotic disorders presumably due to increased traumatic life events before, during, and after migration. I used my own experience as a child refugee from Vietnam to elucidate the stressors evident in various phases of forced displacement.¹

Risk Factors and Protective Factors

To a certain extent, the experiences of refugees are universal. All refugees experience some sort of humanitarian crisis that forces an emergent escape from their home across international borders to a new resettlement area. It is important to note that internally displaced people do not meet the United Nations’ (UN) official designation of refugee status; however, some agencies use a broader definition where they are designated as such.^2,3 We will refer to those not meeting the UN criteria as displaced people, while refugees are those that do meet the UN criteria. Dr. Mina Fazel’s 2012 systematic review in The Lancet of mental health risk factors and protective factors for displaced and refugee children is the most comprehensive of its kind.⁴ It will be summarized in this section with some relevant personal reflection.

In terms of risk factors, external displacement likely results in additional stress and trauma, presumably from the lack of assess to one’s culture and the host country’s language. Understandably, this makes rebuilding of one’s life more difficult. Several studies show that displaced/refugee children experience more difficulty with psychosocial adaptation than non-displaced children. Violence, directly experienced or indirectly feared, both to the child and their parents, was the strongest predictor of mental health problems and withdrawn behavior. Children who were separated from their parents clearly fared worst in their mental health than those who did not, which is not surprising given the nature of their dependence on caregivers for protection and guidance. During resettlement, experienced or perceived discrimination from the host country was also a risk factor, as well as instability in housing and a drawn-out resettlement process. Female sex was a risk factor mainly for emotional problems. Poor financial support post-migration is associated with depression, but it is unclear whether pre-migration financial status was protective. From my own experience, it is likely not, given that once one becomes a refugee one does not have access to one’s wealth, except that which could be hidden on one’s body. Another risk factor was also if one’s parent had psychiatric problems or was single. Due to the migration, my mother was separated permanently from her husband, which caused her extraordinary isolation and loneliness, something that was palpably felt by myself as I grew up.

In terms of protective factors, family cohesion and cultural continuity appear critical. For myself, not only would I not have survived without my mother and aunt, but they constantly protected me from the harsh realities. My mother would distract me with seemingly trivial goals once we got to America, like finally tasting a hamburger, or talking about school and being reunited with my uncle. This is in line with another finding — that children have better mental health outcomes when their parents do not talk about their hardships. Once my family was resettled with my uncle and his family, they played a critical role in smoothing our transition, not only by providing us with housing, but also cultural knowledge. Cultural havens can restore some of the social position and way of life that refugees lose when they are able to reconnect with a society that recognizes their previous achievements and status. Finally, religion also seemed to be a protective factor.
 

Mental Health Interventions

In 2018, Dr. Fazel identified mental health interventions for refugee children in a narrative review.⁵ She acknowledged that these conclusions are limited by the paucity of preventive mental health research in children in general, as well as the mobile nature and complex cultural differences of refugee children. This is exacerbated by the small evidence base. Given that, she makes these recommendations for varying levels of interventions: individual, group, family, living circumstances, social interactions, and school.

On an individual level, effective interventions developed to address PTSD include narrative exposure therapy, trauma-focused cognitive behavior therapy, and eye-movement and desensitization therapy. Group-based interventions for trauma, for example school-based PTSD intervention programs in conflicted areas, have either been shown to not be effective, or only effective for reducing depression. The mental health of unaccompanied children separated from family fare better when placed in foster care, rather than other types of social support. This is further enhanced if the foster family is the same ethnicity.

On a family level, improvements in parenting style and parental mental health, family engagement with local culture and structures, and family-based mental health interventions all positively impact refugee children. Not surprisingly, refugee parents have a greater prevalence of mental health conditions. Several studies on refugeeism point out a greater occurrence of intimate partner violence (that negatively affects children) as well has harsher discipline and maltreatment of refugee children. Thus, mental health treatment for parents also directly improves the well-being of their children. Teaching parenting skills to mitigate the violent effect of their PTSD symptoms, as well as parenting classes that teach gentler styles, have been shown to reduce harsh parenting and mitigate aggressive behaviors in these children. These improvements are enhanced when these classes are taught by other refugees themselves.

School is key for helping refugee children since it is a site where they can access language proficiency, successful acculturation, and medical and mental health services. Several studies have identified the positive effects of better parental engagement with school, resulting in improved academic performance and reduced levels of depressive and PTSD symptoms. A review of learning problems in refugee children identified several factors for success. These include high academic and life ambition, parental involvement in education, accurate educational assessment and grade placement, teacher understanding of linguistic and cultural heritage, culturally appropriate school transition, supportive peer relationships, and successful acculturation. School certainly was key for my acculturation and language proficiency. When I arrived at 6 years old I was selectively mute for my year in first grade, namely because I did not know how to speak English and because I did not share the culture. However, my teacher correctly identified my deficiency and chose to place me in kindergarten, which allowed me the time to gain English proficiency. Though I was always the oldest one in class, that remediation was key in allowing eventual success in school leading up to my admission to UC Berkeley.
 

Summary

In recent decades, refugeeism has become a growing problem that disproportionately affects children leading to traumas sustained across years and even decades, and greater risks for PTSD, as well as affective and psychotic disorders. Risk factors include the experience of violence, the separation from family, female gender, discrimination in the host country, unstable housing, and a drawn-out resettlement process. Protective factors consist of family cohesion, cultural continuity, support at schools, being protected from the truth of their harsh reality, stable housing, language acquisition, and quick resettlement. From these factors, effective mental interventions have been found to be the promotion of these protective factors as well as support for parental mental health and parenting skills, better parental engagement at school, and schools that correctly identify and address these children’s educational needs.

Dr. Nguyen is a second-year resident at UCSF Fresno Psychiatry Residency. He was a public high school English teacher for 15 years previously.*

References

1. Nguyen D. Mental Health Characteristics of Refugee Children. Pediatric News. 2023 Nov. 14. https://www.mdedge.com/pediatrics/article/266518/mental-health/mental-health-characteristics-refugee-children.

2. Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. The Refugee Concept Under International Law. Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration. 2018 March 8. https://www.unhcr.org/sites/default/files/legacy-pdf/5aa290937.pdf.

3. Winer JP. Mental Health Practice with Immigrant and Refugee Youth [Power Point Slides]. Michigan Medicine. 2021 June 24. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ICkg4132SQY

4. Fazel M et al. Mental Health of Displaced and Refugee Children Resettled in High-Income Countries: Risk and Protective Factors. Lancet. 2012 Jan 21;379(9812):266-282. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(11)60051-2.

5. Fazel M, Betancourt TS. Preventive Mental Health Interventions for Refugee Children and Adolescents in High-Income Settings. Lancet Child Adolesc Health. 2018 Feb;2(2):121-132. doi: 10.1016/S2352-4642(17)30147-5.

*Correction, 2/27: An earlier version of this article misstated Dr. Nguyen's affiliation.