VIENNA — Artificial Intelligence (AI) can assist doctors in assessing and diagnosing respiratory illnesses in infants and children, according to two new studies presented at the European Respiratory Society (ERS) 2024 Congress.

Researchers can train artificial neural networks (ANNs) to detect lung disease in premature babies by analyzing their breathing patterns while they sleep. “Our noninvasive test is less distressing for the baby and their parents, meaning they can access treatment more quickly, and may also be relevant for their long-term prognosis,” said Edgar Delgado-Eckert, PhD, adjunct professor in the Department of Biomedical Engineering at The University of Basel, Switzerland, and a research group leader at the University Children’s Hospital, Switzerland.

Manjith Narayanan, MD, a consultant in pediatric pulmonology at the Royal Hospital for Children and Young People, Edinburgh, and honorary senior clinical lecturer at The University of Edinburgh, United Kingdom, said chatbots such as ChatGPT, Bard, and Bing can perform as well as or better than trainee doctors when assessing children with respiratory issues. He said chatbots could triage patients more quickly and ease pressure on health services.
 

Chatbots Show Promise in Triage of Pediatric Respiratory Illnesses

Researchers at The University of Edinburgh provided 10 trainee doctors with less than 4 months of clinical experience in pediatrics with clinical scenarios that covered topics such as cystic fibrosis, asthma, sleep-disordered breathing, breathlessness, chest infections, or no obvious diagnosis. 

The trainee doctors had 1 hour to use the internet, although they were not allowed to use chatbots to solve each scenario with a descriptive answer. 

Each scenario was also presented to the three large language models (LLMs): OpenAI’s ChatGPT, Google’s Bard, and Microsoft’s Bing.

Six pediatric respiratory experts assessed all responses, scoring correctness, comprehensiveness, usefulness, plausibility, and coherence on a scale of 0-9. They were also asked to say whether they thought a human or a chatbot generated each response.

ChatGPT scored an average of 7 out of 9 overall and was believed to be more human-like than responses from the other chatbots. Bard scored an average of 6 out of 9 and was more “coherent” than trainee doctors, but in other respects, it was no better or worse than trainee doctors. Bing and trainee doctors scored an average of 4 out of 9. The six pediatricians reliably identified Bing and Bard’s responses as nonhuman.

“Our study is the first, to our knowledge, to test LLMs against trainee doctors in situations that reflect real-life clinical practice,” Narayanan said. “We did this by allowing the trainee doctors to have full access to resources available on the internet, as they would in real life. This moves the focus away from testing memory, where LLMs have a clear advantage.”

Narayanan said that these models could help nurses, trainee doctors, and primary care physicians triage patients quickly and assist medical professionals in their studies by summarizing their thought processes. “The key word, though, is “assist.” They cannot replace conventional medical training yet,” he told Medscape Medical News. 

The researchers found no obvious hallucinations — seemingly made-up information — with any of the three LLMs. Still, Narayanan said, “We need to be aware of this possibility and build mitigations.”

Hilary Pinnock, ERS education council chair and professor of primary care respiratory medicine at The University of Edinburgh who was not involved in the research, said seeing how widely available AI tools can provide solutions to complex cases of respiratory illness in children is exciting and worrying at the same time. “It certainly points the way to a brave new world of AI-supported care.” 

“However, before we start to use AI in routine clinical practice, we need to be confident that it will not create errors either through ‘hallucinating’ fake information or because it has been trained on data that does not equitably represent the population we serve,” she said.
 

AI Predicts Lung Disease in Premature Babies

Identifying bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD) in premature babies remains a challenge. Lung function tests usually require blowing out on request, which is a task babies cannot perform. Current techniques require sophisticated equipment to measure an infant’s lung ventilation characteristics, so doctors usually diagnose BPD by the presence of its leading causes, prematurity and the need for respiratory support.

Researchers at the University of Basel in Switzerland trained an ANN model to predict BPD in premature babies.

The team studied a group of 139 full-term and 190 premature infants who had been assessed for BPD, recording their breathing for 10 minutes while they slept. For each baby, 100 consecutive regular breaths, carefully inspected to exclude sighs or other artifacts, were used to train, validate, and test an ANN called a Long Short-Term Memory model (LSTM), which is particularly effective at classifying sequential data such as tidal breathing.

Researchers used 60% of the data to teach the network how to recognize BPD, 20% to validate the model, and then fed the remaining 20% of the data to the model to see if it could correctly identify those babies with BPD.

The LSTM model classified a series of flow values in the unseen test data set as belonging to a patient diagnosed with BPD or not with 96% accuracy.

“Until recently, this need for large amounts of data has hindered efforts to create accurate models for lung disease in infants because it is so difficult to assess their lung function,” Delgado-Eckert said. “Our research delivers, for the first time, a comprehensive way of analyzing infants’ breathing and allows us to detect which babies have BPD as early as 1 month of corrected age.”

The study presented by Delgado-Eckert received funding from the Swiss National Science Foundation. Narayanan and Pinnock reported no relevant financial relationships. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

VIENNA — Artificial Intelligence (AI) can assist doctors in assessing and diagnosing respiratory illnesses in infants and children, according to two new studies presented at the European Respiratory Society (ERS) 2024 Congress.

Researchers can train artificial neural networks (ANNs) to detect lung disease in premature babies by analyzing their breathing patterns while they sleep. “Our noninvasive test is less distressing for the baby and their parents, meaning they can access treatment more quickly, and may also be relevant for their long-term prognosis,” said Edgar Delgado-Eckert, PhD, adjunct professor in the Department of Biomedical Engineering at The University of Basel, Switzerland, and a research group leader at the University Children’s Hospital, Switzerland.

Manjith Narayanan, MD, a consultant in pediatric pulmonology at the Royal Hospital for Children and Young People, Edinburgh, and honorary senior clinical lecturer at The University of Edinburgh, United Kingdom, said chatbots such as ChatGPT, Bard, and Bing can perform as well as or better than trainee doctors when assessing children with respiratory issues. He said chatbots could triage patients more quickly and ease pressure on health services.
 

Chatbots Show Promise in Triage of Pediatric Respiratory Illnesses

Researchers at The University of Edinburgh provided 10 trainee doctors with less than 4 months of clinical experience in pediatrics with clinical scenarios that covered topics such as cystic fibrosis, asthma, sleep-disordered breathing, breathlessness, chest infections, or no obvious diagnosis. 

The trainee doctors had 1 hour to use the internet, although they were not allowed to use chatbots to solve each scenario with a descriptive answer. 

Each scenario was also presented to the three large language models (LLMs): OpenAI’s ChatGPT, Google’s Bard, and Microsoft’s Bing.

Six pediatric respiratory experts assessed all responses, scoring correctness, comprehensiveness, usefulness, plausibility, and coherence on a scale of 0-9. They were also asked to say whether they thought a human or a chatbot generated each response.

ChatGPT scored an average of 7 out of 9 overall and was believed to be more human-like than responses from the other chatbots. Bard scored an average of 6 out of 9 and was more “coherent” than trainee doctors, but in other respects, it was no better or worse than trainee doctors. Bing and trainee doctors scored an average of 4 out of 9. The six pediatricians reliably identified Bing and Bard’s responses as nonhuman.

“Our study is the first, to our knowledge, to test LLMs against trainee doctors in situations that reflect real-life clinical practice,” Narayanan said. “We did this by allowing the trainee doctors to have full access to resources available on the internet, as they would in real life. This moves the focus away from testing memory, where LLMs have a clear advantage.”

Narayanan said that these models could help nurses, trainee doctors, and primary care physicians triage patients quickly and assist medical professionals in their studies by summarizing their thought processes. “The key word, though, is “assist.” They cannot replace conventional medical training yet,” he told Medscape Medical News. 

The researchers found no obvious hallucinations — seemingly made-up information — with any of the three LLMs. Still, Narayanan said, “We need to be aware of this possibility and build mitigations.”

Hilary Pinnock, ERS education council chair and professor of primary care respiratory medicine at The University of Edinburgh who was not involved in the research, said seeing how widely available AI tools can provide solutions to complex cases of respiratory illness in children is exciting and worrying at the same time. “It certainly points the way to a brave new world of AI-supported care.” 

“However, before we start to use AI in routine clinical practice, we need to be confident that it will not create errors either through ‘hallucinating’ fake information or because it has been trained on data that does not equitably represent the population we serve,” she said.
 

AI Predicts Lung Disease in Premature Babies

Identifying bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD) in premature babies remains a challenge. Lung function tests usually require blowing out on request, which is a task babies cannot perform. Current techniques require sophisticated equipment to measure an infant’s lung ventilation characteristics, so doctors usually diagnose BPD by the presence of its leading causes, prematurity and the need for respiratory support.

Researchers at the University of Basel in Switzerland trained an ANN model to predict BPD in premature babies.

The team studied a group of 139 full-term and 190 premature infants who had been assessed for BPD, recording their breathing for 10 minutes while they slept. For each baby, 100 consecutive regular breaths, carefully inspected to exclude sighs or other artifacts, were used to train, validate, and test an ANN called a Long Short-Term Memory model (LSTM), which is particularly effective at classifying sequential data such as tidal breathing.

Researchers used 60% of the data to teach the network how to recognize BPD, 20% to validate the model, and then fed the remaining 20% of the data to the model to see if it could correctly identify those babies with BPD.

The LSTM model classified a series of flow values in the unseen test data set as belonging to a patient diagnosed with BPD or not with 96% accuracy.

“Until recently, this need for large amounts of data has hindered efforts to create accurate models for lung disease in infants because it is so difficult to assess their lung function,” Delgado-Eckert said. “Our research delivers, for the first time, a comprehensive way of analyzing infants’ breathing and allows us to detect which babies have BPD as early as 1 month of corrected age.”

The study presented by Delgado-Eckert received funding from the Swiss National Science Foundation. Narayanan and Pinnock reported no relevant financial relationships. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

VIENNA — Artificial Intelligence (AI) can assist doctors in assessing and diagnosing respiratory illnesses in infants and children, according to two new studies presented at the European Respiratory Society (ERS) 2024 Congress.

Researchers can train artificial neural networks (ANNs) to detect lung disease in premature babies by analyzing their breathing patterns while they sleep. “Our noninvasive test is less distressing for the baby and their parents, meaning they can access treatment more quickly, and may also be relevant for their long-term prognosis,” said Edgar Delgado-Eckert, PhD, adjunct professor in the Department of Biomedical Engineering at The University of Basel, Switzerland, and a research group leader at the University Children’s Hospital, Switzerland.

Manjith Narayanan, MD, a consultant in pediatric pulmonology at the Royal Hospital for Children and Young People, Edinburgh, and honorary senior clinical lecturer at The University of Edinburgh, United Kingdom, said chatbots such as ChatGPT, Bard, and Bing can perform as well as or better than trainee doctors when assessing children with respiratory issues. He said chatbots could triage patients more quickly and ease pressure on health services.
 

Chatbots Show Promise in Triage of Pediatric Respiratory Illnesses

Researchers at The University of Edinburgh provided 10 trainee doctors with less than 4 months of clinical experience in pediatrics with clinical scenarios that covered topics such as cystic fibrosis, asthma, sleep-disordered breathing, breathlessness, chest infections, or no obvious diagnosis. 

The trainee doctors had 1 hour to use the internet, although they were not allowed to use chatbots to solve each scenario with a descriptive answer. 

Each scenario was also presented to the three large language models (LLMs): OpenAI’s ChatGPT, Google’s Bard, and Microsoft’s Bing.

Six pediatric respiratory experts assessed all responses, scoring correctness, comprehensiveness, usefulness, plausibility, and coherence on a scale of 0-9. They were also asked to say whether they thought a human or a chatbot generated each response.

ChatGPT scored an average of 7 out of 9 overall and was believed to be more human-like than responses from the other chatbots. Bard scored an average of 6 out of 9 and was more “coherent” than trainee doctors, but in other respects, it was no better or worse than trainee doctors. Bing and trainee doctors scored an average of 4 out of 9. The six pediatricians reliably identified Bing and Bard’s responses as nonhuman.

“Our study is the first, to our knowledge, to test LLMs against trainee doctors in situations that reflect real-life clinical practice,” Narayanan said. “We did this by allowing the trainee doctors to have full access to resources available on the internet, as they would in real life. This moves the focus away from testing memory, where LLMs have a clear advantage.”

Narayanan said that these models could help nurses, trainee doctors, and primary care physicians triage patients quickly and assist medical professionals in their studies by summarizing their thought processes. “The key word, though, is “assist.” They cannot replace conventional medical training yet,” he told Medscape Medical News. 

The researchers found no obvious hallucinations — seemingly made-up information — with any of the three LLMs. Still, Narayanan said, “We need to be aware of this possibility and build mitigations.”

Hilary Pinnock, ERS education council chair and professor of primary care respiratory medicine at The University of Edinburgh who was not involved in the research, said seeing how widely available AI tools can provide solutions to complex cases of respiratory illness in children is exciting and worrying at the same time. “It certainly points the way to a brave new world of AI-supported care.” 

“However, before we start to use AI in routine clinical practice, we need to be confident that it will not create errors either through ‘hallucinating’ fake information or because it has been trained on data that does not equitably represent the population we serve,” she said.
 

AI Predicts Lung Disease in Premature Babies

Identifying bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD) in premature babies remains a challenge. Lung function tests usually require blowing out on request, which is a task babies cannot perform. Current techniques require sophisticated equipment to measure an infant’s lung ventilation characteristics, so doctors usually diagnose BPD by the presence of its leading causes, prematurity and the need for respiratory support.

Researchers at the University of Basel in Switzerland trained an ANN model to predict BPD in premature babies.

The team studied a group of 139 full-term and 190 premature infants who had been assessed for BPD, recording their breathing for 10 minutes while they slept. For each baby, 100 consecutive regular breaths, carefully inspected to exclude sighs or other artifacts, were used to train, validate, and test an ANN called a Long Short-Term Memory model (LSTM), which is particularly effective at classifying sequential data such as tidal breathing.

Researchers used 60% of the data to teach the network how to recognize BPD, 20% to validate the model, and then fed the remaining 20% of the data to the model to see if it could correctly identify those babies with BPD.

The LSTM model classified a series of flow values in the unseen test data set as belonging to a patient diagnosed with BPD or not with 96% accuracy.

“Until recently, this need for large amounts of data has hindered efforts to create accurate models for lung disease in infants because it is so difficult to assess their lung function,” Delgado-Eckert said. “Our research delivers, for the first time, a comprehensive way of analyzing infants’ breathing and allows us to detect which babies have BPD as early as 1 month of corrected age.”

The study presented by Delgado-Eckert received funding from the Swiss National Science Foundation. Narayanan and Pinnock reported no relevant financial relationships. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

ORLANDO — It’s important for pediatricians not only to understand the causes and effects of climate change but also to know how to discuss this issue with families and make risk-based adjustments to their clinical practice based on the individual health and circumstances of each patient. That’s one of the key messages delivered at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) by Elizabeth C. Matsui, MD, MHS, professor of population health and pediatrics and director of the Center for Health and Environment Education and Research at the University of Texas at Austin Dell Medical School. 

“Even though climate change has been here and has been affecting health already for a while, it’s just really impossible to ignore right now,” she told attendees in a session focused on climate change impacts on allergies and asthma. “The challenge is connecting the dots between something that is much larger, or feels much larger, than the patient and the family that’s in front of you.” 

The reality, however, is that climate change is now impacting patients’ health on an individual level, and pediatricians have a responsibility to understand how that’s happening and to help their families prepare for it. 

“From the perspective of someone who went into medicine to practice and take care of the individual patient, I think it has been more difficult to connect those dots, and for the people in this room, it’s our job to connect those dots,” Matsui said. She also acknowledged that many of the solutions are frustratingly limited to the policy level and challenging to implement, “but it doesn’t mean that we can’t make a difference for the patients who are in front of us.” 

Charles Moon, MD, a pediatrician and Pediatric Environmental Health Fellow at the Children’s Environmental Health Center, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, found the talk particularly helpful in providing information about both the broader issue and what it means on a local practice level. 

“The biggest takeaway is that more people and more pediatricians are tuning in to this issue and realizing the dangers,” Moon said. “It’s clear that a larger community is forming around this, and I think we are at the cusp where more and more people will be coming in. We are really focusing on taking all the data and trying to figure out solutions. I think the solutions orientation is the most important part.” 
 

Understanding the Big Picture

Matsui opened with a general discussion of the human causes of climate change and the effects on a global scale presently and in the future. For example, over the past 800,000 years, carbon dioxide levels have never been above 300 ppm, but they surpassed that threshold in 1911 and have reached 420 ppm today. The trapping of heat in Earth’s atmosphere caused by the increase in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases is leading to multiple phenomena that impact health, such as longer growing seasons; increased droughts, heat waves, and wildfire seasons; and higher temperatures. These changes, in turn, affect allergens and asthma.

Children are particularly vulnerable to climate change impacts because they have a higher risk for developing asthma, allergic disease, and infections, Matsui said. Childhood is a critical period for lung and immune development, and the Environmental Protection Agency’s 2023 Climate Change and Children’s Health and Well-Being report projects that an increase of 2° C in global warming will result in an additional 34,500 pediatric asthma cases and 228,000 allergic rhinitis cases per year, driven largely by predicted increases in ozone and 2.5-µm particulate matter. The report also forecasts an increase in 6240 asthma emergency department visits and 332 additional respiratory hospitalizations per year. 

“We know that these associations that we see between climate change exposures and poor respiratory health outcomes in kids are biologically plausible,” Matsui said. “They’re not just correlation without causation. A lot of the mechanisms for how air pollution, allergies, and other factors directly affect the lungs of the airway epithelium have been worked out.” 
 

An Increase in Allergens and Viral Infections

Pediatricians should prepare for anticipated growth in allergens and viral infections. The longer growing seasons mean that pollen seasons will also lengthen. Meanwhile, higher concentrations of carbon dioxide cause individual plants to produce more pollen. 

“As the winters get warmer, mice that might not be able to survive during the winter are surviving, and mice reproduce at a very rapid rate,” she said. “The increase in moisture means that dust mites, which absorb their water — they drink by absorbing humidity that’s in the air — will be present in higher concentrations, and their range will expand.”

Fungal and mold exposures are also increasing, not just outdoors but also indoors, “and there are all sorts of allergic and respiratory health consequences of fungal exposure,” Matsui said. As hurricanes and flooding increase, storm damage can also make indoor environments more conducive to fungal and mold growth. 

Extreme weather from climate change also affects infrastructure. “When there’s healthcare infrastructure disruption and other infrastructure disruption, it adds to the challenge,” she said. “It compounds all the other threat to health from climate change, so this overall problem of climate change and health is multidimensional and very complicated.”

Then there’s the impact of climate change on respiratory viruses, which are a major driver of asthma exacerbations, Matsui said. The greater variability in daytime temperatures affects environmental reservoirs, transmission patterns, geographical ranges, and seasonality of various respiratory pathogens. The prevalence of respiratory syncytial virus infections, for example, increases during humid periods. 

“This is coupled with the fact that the projected increases in air pollution increase susceptibility to respiratory virus infections,” Matsui said. “In fact, climate change and air pollution are inextricably linked.” 
 

Climate Change and Air Pollution

Climate disruption creates extreme weather patterns that then lead to worsening air quality due to high temperatures; heavier precipitation; and more forest fires, droughts, dust storms, thunderstorms, hurricanes, stagnation events, and other extreme weather. Matsui shared a map showing the substantial increase in days with stagnant air since 1973. During stagnation events, air pollution builds up in the atmosphere because of a stable air mass that remains over a region for several days, with low-level winds and no precipitation. 

The pollutants can then contribute to rising temperatures. Black carbon particulate matter released from the burning of forests and other biomass absorbs more solar radiation, further contributing to temperature increases. Data from the National Bureau of Economic Research has shown that the US made big strides in reducing air pollution from 2009 through 2016, but it began to reverse in 2016 as severe weather events picked up. 

Pediatricians need to be cognizant of the synergistic effect of these different impacts as well. “We oftentimes talk about these problems in a silo, so we may talk about air pollution and health effects, or allergens and health effects, or heat and health effects, but all of these interact with each other and further compound the health effects,” compared to just one of them in isolation, Matsui said.

For example, air pollution increases sensitivity to allergen exposure and increases reaction severity, which disrupts the immune tolerance to allergens. “Heat and air pollution also interact, and the combination of the two is more deadly than either one alone,” she said. 

Air pollution from wildfire smoke is also more toxic to the lungs than air pollution from other sources, so if there’s wildfire-based air pollution, the impact on respiratory hospitalizations is significantly greater. Even in places that would not otherwise be at risk for wildfires, the threat remains of air pollution from more distant fires, as New York City experienced from Canadian wildfires last year. 

“This is a problem that is not just isolated to the parts of the world where the wildfires are located,” Matsui said.

Moon, who practices in New York City, said he really appreciated Matsui’s perspectives and nuanced advice as a subspecialist “because it’s obvious that the way we deliver healthcare is going to have to change based on climate change.” He hopes to see more subspecialists from other pediatric areas getting involved in looking at climate impacts and providing nuanced advice about changing clinical care similar to the examples Matsui provided. 

Air pollution can also be deadly, as a landmark case in the United Kingdom revealed a few years ago when the court ruled that a child’s death from an asthma attack was directly due to air pollution. In addition to causing worse asthma symptoms and exacerbations, air pollution also adds to the risk of developing asthma and impedes lung growth, all of which disproportionately affects disadvantaged and minoritized communities, she said. 
 

Greater Impact on Disadvantaged Populations

Matsui called attention to the equity implications of climate change impacts on health. 

“If you have a community that does not have the infrastructure and access to resources, and that same community has a prevalence of asthma that is double that of their more advantaged and white counterparts, then the impacts of climate change are going to be amplified even more,” she said.

For example, a 2019 study found that the biggest predictor of the location of ragweed plants has to do with vacant lots and demolition of housing. Ragweed plants being more common in neighborhoods with vacant lots will disproportionately affect disadvantaged neighborhoods, she said. Another study found in Baltimore that mouse allergens — specifically urine — were a bigger cause of asthma in low-income children than were cockroach allergens. 

“It’s important to consider context,” including age, gender and social and behavioral context, she said. “We as pediatricians know that children are particularly vulnerable, and what happens to them has an effect across the lifespan.” 

Furthermore, pediatricians are aware that disadvantaged and minoritized communities lack infrastructure; often live in areas with greater air pollution; often have heat islands in their communities without protection, such as tree canopy; and may be at greater flooding risk. “Poverty is also associated with increased vulnerability” because of poorer housing and infrastructure, less education, less access to care, more preexisting health conditions and greater discrimination, she said.
 

Three Cornerstone Interventions

Interventions fall into three main buckets, Matsui said: mitigation, adaption, and resilience. 

“Mitigation means reducing greenhouse gas and air pollution production and trying to enhance sinks for greenhouse gases,” she said. Mitigation strategies primarily occur at the policy level, with improved regulation, treaties, and market-based approaches, such as carbon tax and cap and trade. 

Adaptation includes actions that lessen the impact on health and environment, such as infrastructure changes and implementation of air conditioning. Examples of climate change adaptation strategies also mostly come from policy but largely at state and local levels, where individual pediatricians have a greater voice and influence. These can include changes in urban planning to address heat islands, flooding risk, and public transportation’s contribution to air pollution and climate change. It can also include changes in housing regulation and policy and investments in healthcare, such as expanded Medicaid and health insurance and investing in disaster planning and readiness. 

“Resilience is a more holistic concept,” Matsui said, “which advocates for system-wide, multilevel changes and involves a range of strategies to enhance social, human, natural, physical, and financial capacities.”
 

What Pediatricians Can Do

Pediatricians have an important role to play when it comes to climate change and health impacts. 

“The first step is sort of understanding the complexity of climate change in terms of its potential health effects, but also being prepared to talk with our patients and their families about it,” Matsui said. “The second step is advocacy.” She drew attention to the February policy statement in Pediatrics that discusses precisely the ways in which pediatricians can leverage their expertise and credibility. 

“Pediatricians are ideal advocates with whom to partner and uplift youth and community voices working to advance zero-carbon energy policy and climate justice,” she said. “There are many opportunities to advocate for climate solution policies at the local, state, national, and even international level.” 

These roles can include educating elected officials and health insurance entities about the risks that climate change poses to allergies, asthma, and child health more broadly, as well as the benefits of local solutions, including improved air quality, tree canopy, and green space. “There are lots of opportunities to engage with the community, including speaking at public hearings, serving as an expert testimony, and writing letters to the editor,” she said. 

The impact of these efforts can be further maximized by working with other healthcare professionals. Lori Byron, MD, a pediatrician from Red Lodge, Montana, who heads the AAP Chapter Climate Advocates program, noted during Q&A that every AAP chapter in the country has climate advocates. She added that the AAP is the first medical board to have climate modules in their maintenance of certification specifically designed to incorporate climate change education into well visits.
 

Adjusting Clinical Care

Meanwhile, in patient care, Matsui acknowledged it can be frustrating to think about what a massive impact climate has and simultaneously challenging to engage families in discussions about it. However, a wide range of resources are available that can be provided to patients. 

“For a patient in front of you, being informed and prepared to talk about it is the first step to being able to assess their climate change risk and provide tailored guidance,” she said. Tailored guidance takes into account the child’s specific health situation and the risks they’re most likely to encounter, such as wildfire smoke, air pollution, longer pollen seasons, environmental allergens, or disruption of infrastructure. 

“If I am seeing a patient with asthma who is allergic to a particular pollen, I can anticipate that pollen may be present in higher levels of the future, and that the season for that pollen may be longer,” Matsui said. “So if I’m thinking about allergen immunotherapy for that patient, future risk may be something that would push the conversation and the shared decision-making” from possible consideration to more serious consideration, depending on the child’s age. 

“Another example is a patient with asthma, thinking about wildfire risk and having them prepared, because we know from data that wildfire air pollution is going to be worse for that child than pollution from other sources, and there are ways for them to be prepared,” Matsui said. For instance, having an HVAC system with a high-grade air filter (at least a MERV 13) will filter the air better if a wildfire causes smoke to descend over an area. Portable, less expensive HEPA filters are also an option if a family cannot upgrade their system, and wearing an N95 or N95-equivalent mask can also reduce the impact of high air pollution levels. 

An example of thinking about the impact of potential infrastructure disruption could be ensuring patients have enough of all their medications if they’re close to running out. “It’s important for them to always have think about their medications and get those refills ahead of a storm,” she said.
 

Additional Resources 

Understanding that pediatricians may not have time to discuss all these issues or have broader conversations about climate change during visits, Matsui highlighted the AAP website of resources on climate change. In addition to resources for pediatricians, such as a basic fact sheet about climate change impacts on children’s health and the technical report that informed the policy statement, the site has multiple resources for families:

• Climate Change Impact: Safeguarding Your Family’s Health and Well-being (video), How to Talk With Children About Climate Change, Climate Change & Children’s Health: AAP Policy Explained, Climate Checkup for Children’s Health: Little Changes With Big Impact, How Climate Change Can Make Children Sick: What Parents Need to Know, Climate Change & Wildfires: Why Kids Are Most at Risk, Climate Change, Extreme Weather & Children: What Families Need to Know, Extreme Heat & Air Pollution: Health Effects on Babies & Pregnant People, and

The following resources can also be helpful to pediatricians and/or families:

• Ready.gov, AirNow, Patient Exposure and the Air Quality Index, Protecting Vulnerable Patient Populations from Climate Hazards: A Referral Guide for Health Professionals from the US Department of Health and Human Services, Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP), Weatherization Assistance Program, and the Disaster Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (D-SNAP)

In some states, Medicaid will provide or cover the cost of air conditioning and/or air filters.

The presentation did not involve external funding. Drs. Matsui and Moon had no disclosures. 
 

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

ORLANDO — It’s important for pediatricians not only to understand the causes and effects of climate change but also to know how to discuss this issue with families and make risk-based adjustments to their clinical practice based on the individual health and circumstances of each patient. That’s one of the key messages delivered at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) by Elizabeth C. Matsui, MD, MHS, professor of population health and pediatrics and director of the Center for Health and Environment Education and Research at the University of Texas at Austin Dell Medical School. 

“Even though climate change has been here and has been affecting health already for a while, it’s just really impossible to ignore right now,” she told attendees in a session focused on climate change impacts on allergies and asthma. “The challenge is connecting the dots between something that is much larger, or feels much larger, than the patient and the family that’s in front of you.” 

The reality, however, is that climate change is now impacting patients’ health on an individual level, and pediatricians have a responsibility to understand how that’s happening and to help their families prepare for it. 

“From the perspective of someone who went into medicine to practice and take care of the individual patient, I think it has been more difficult to connect those dots, and for the people in this room, it’s our job to connect those dots,” Matsui said. She also acknowledged that many of the solutions are frustratingly limited to the policy level and challenging to implement, “but it doesn’t mean that we can’t make a difference for the patients who are in front of us.” 

Charles Moon, MD, a pediatrician and Pediatric Environmental Health Fellow at the Children’s Environmental Health Center, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, found the talk particularly helpful in providing information about both the broader issue and what it means on a local practice level. 

“The biggest takeaway is that more people and more pediatricians are tuning in to this issue and realizing the dangers,” Moon said. “It’s clear that a larger community is forming around this, and I think we are at the cusp where more and more people will be coming in. We are really focusing on taking all the data and trying to figure out solutions. I think the solutions orientation is the most important part.” 
 

Understanding the Big Picture

Matsui opened with a general discussion of the human causes of climate change and the effects on a global scale presently and in the future. For example, over the past 800,000 years, carbon dioxide levels have never been above 300 ppm, but they surpassed that threshold in 1911 and have reached 420 ppm today. The trapping of heat in Earth’s atmosphere caused by the increase in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases is leading to multiple phenomena that impact health, such as longer growing seasons; increased droughts, heat waves, and wildfire seasons; and higher temperatures. These changes, in turn, affect allergens and asthma.

Children are particularly vulnerable to climate change impacts because they have a higher risk for developing asthma, allergic disease, and infections, Matsui said. Childhood is a critical period for lung and immune development, and the Environmental Protection Agency’s 2023 Climate Change and Children’s Health and Well-Being report projects that an increase of 2° C in global warming will result in an additional 34,500 pediatric asthma cases and 228,000 allergic rhinitis cases per year, driven largely by predicted increases in ozone and 2.5-µm particulate matter. The report also forecasts an increase in 6240 asthma emergency department visits and 332 additional respiratory hospitalizations per year. 

“We know that these associations that we see between climate change exposures and poor respiratory health outcomes in kids are biologically plausible,” Matsui said. “They’re not just correlation without causation. A lot of the mechanisms for how air pollution, allergies, and other factors directly affect the lungs of the airway epithelium have been worked out.” 
 

An Increase in Allergens and Viral Infections

Pediatricians should prepare for anticipated growth in allergens and viral infections. The longer growing seasons mean that pollen seasons will also lengthen. Meanwhile, higher concentrations of carbon dioxide cause individual plants to produce more pollen. 

“As the winters get warmer, mice that might not be able to survive during the winter are surviving, and mice reproduce at a very rapid rate,” she said. “The increase in moisture means that dust mites, which absorb their water — they drink by absorbing humidity that’s in the air — will be present in higher concentrations, and their range will expand.”

Fungal and mold exposures are also increasing, not just outdoors but also indoors, “and there are all sorts of allergic and respiratory health consequences of fungal exposure,” Matsui said. As hurricanes and flooding increase, storm damage can also make indoor environments more conducive to fungal and mold growth. 

Extreme weather from climate change also affects infrastructure. “When there’s healthcare infrastructure disruption and other infrastructure disruption, it adds to the challenge,” she said. “It compounds all the other threat to health from climate change, so this overall problem of climate change and health is multidimensional and very complicated.”

Then there’s the impact of climate change on respiratory viruses, which are a major driver of asthma exacerbations, Matsui said. The greater variability in daytime temperatures affects environmental reservoirs, transmission patterns, geographical ranges, and seasonality of various respiratory pathogens. The prevalence of respiratory syncytial virus infections, for example, increases during humid periods. 

“This is coupled with the fact that the projected increases in air pollution increase susceptibility to respiratory virus infections,” Matsui said. “In fact, climate change and air pollution are inextricably linked.” 
 

Climate Change and Air Pollution

Climate disruption creates extreme weather patterns that then lead to worsening air quality due to high temperatures; heavier precipitation; and more forest fires, droughts, dust storms, thunderstorms, hurricanes, stagnation events, and other extreme weather. Matsui shared a map showing the substantial increase in days with stagnant air since 1973. During stagnation events, air pollution builds up in the atmosphere because of a stable air mass that remains over a region for several days, with low-level winds and no precipitation. 

The pollutants can then contribute to rising temperatures. Black carbon particulate matter released from the burning of forests and other biomass absorbs more solar radiation, further contributing to temperature increases. Data from the National Bureau of Economic Research has shown that the US made big strides in reducing air pollution from 2009 through 2016, but it began to reverse in 2016 as severe weather events picked up. 

Pediatricians need to be cognizant of the synergistic effect of these different impacts as well. “We oftentimes talk about these problems in a silo, so we may talk about air pollution and health effects, or allergens and health effects, or heat and health effects, but all of these interact with each other and further compound the health effects,” compared to just one of them in isolation, Matsui said.

For example, air pollution increases sensitivity to allergen exposure and increases reaction severity, which disrupts the immune tolerance to allergens. “Heat and air pollution also interact, and the combination of the two is more deadly than either one alone,” she said. 

Air pollution from wildfire smoke is also more toxic to the lungs than air pollution from other sources, so if there’s wildfire-based air pollution, the impact on respiratory hospitalizations is significantly greater. Even in places that would not otherwise be at risk for wildfires, the threat remains of air pollution from more distant fires, as New York City experienced from Canadian wildfires last year. 

“This is a problem that is not just isolated to the parts of the world where the wildfires are located,” Matsui said.

Moon, who practices in New York City, said he really appreciated Matsui’s perspectives and nuanced advice as a subspecialist “because it’s obvious that the way we deliver healthcare is going to have to change based on climate change.” He hopes to see more subspecialists from other pediatric areas getting involved in looking at climate impacts and providing nuanced advice about changing clinical care similar to the examples Matsui provided. 

Air pollution can also be deadly, as a landmark case in the United Kingdom revealed a few years ago when the court ruled that a child’s death from an asthma attack was directly due to air pollution. In addition to causing worse asthma symptoms and exacerbations, air pollution also adds to the risk of developing asthma and impedes lung growth, all of which disproportionately affects disadvantaged and minoritized communities, she said. 
 

Greater Impact on Disadvantaged Populations

Matsui called attention to the equity implications of climate change impacts on health. 

“If you have a community that does not have the infrastructure and access to resources, and that same community has a prevalence of asthma that is double that of their more advantaged and white counterparts, then the impacts of climate change are going to be amplified even more,” she said.

For example, a 2019 study found that the biggest predictor of the location of ragweed plants has to do with vacant lots and demolition of housing. Ragweed plants being more common in neighborhoods with vacant lots will disproportionately affect disadvantaged neighborhoods, she said. Another study found in Baltimore that mouse allergens — specifically urine — were a bigger cause of asthma in low-income children than were cockroach allergens. 

“It’s important to consider context,” including age, gender and social and behavioral context, she said. “We as pediatricians know that children are particularly vulnerable, and what happens to them has an effect across the lifespan.” 

Furthermore, pediatricians are aware that disadvantaged and minoritized communities lack infrastructure; often live in areas with greater air pollution; often have heat islands in their communities without protection, such as tree canopy; and may be at greater flooding risk. “Poverty is also associated with increased vulnerability” because of poorer housing and infrastructure, less education, less access to care, more preexisting health conditions and greater discrimination, she said.
 

Three Cornerstone Interventions

Interventions fall into three main buckets, Matsui said: mitigation, adaption, and resilience. 

“Mitigation means reducing greenhouse gas and air pollution production and trying to enhance sinks for greenhouse gases,” she said. Mitigation strategies primarily occur at the policy level, with improved regulation, treaties, and market-based approaches, such as carbon tax and cap and trade. 

Adaptation includes actions that lessen the impact on health and environment, such as infrastructure changes and implementation of air conditioning. Examples of climate change adaptation strategies also mostly come from policy but largely at state and local levels, where individual pediatricians have a greater voice and influence. These can include changes in urban planning to address heat islands, flooding risk, and public transportation’s contribution to air pollution and climate change. It can also include changes in housing regulation and policy and investments in healthcare, such as expanded Medicaid and health insurance and investing in disaster planning and readiness. 

“Resilience is a more holistic concept,” Matsui said, “which advocates for system-wide, multilevel changes and involves a range of strategies to enhance social, human, natural, physical, and financial capacities.”
 

What Pediatricians Can Do

Pediatricians have an important role to play when it comes to climate change and health impacts. 

“The first step is sort of understanding the complexity of climate change in terms of its potential health effects, but also being prepared to talk with our patients and their families about it,” Matsui said. “The second step is advocacy.” She drew attention to the February policy statement in Pediatrics that discusses precisely the ways in which pediatricians can leverage their expertise and credibility. 

“Pediatricians are ideal advocates with whom to partner and uplift youth and community voices working to advance zero-carbon energy policy and climate justice,” she said. “There are many opportunities to advocate for climate solution policies at the local, state, national, and even international level.” 

These roles can include educating elected officials and health insurance entities about the risks that climate change poses to allergies, asthma, and child health more broadly, as well as the benefits of local solutions, including improved air quality, tree canopy, and green space. “There are lots of opportunities to engage with the community, including speaking at public hearings, serving as an expert testimony, and writing letters to the editor,” she said. 

The impact of these efforts can be further maximized by working with other healthcare professionals. Lori Byron, MD, a pediatrician from Red Lodge, Montana, who heads the AAP Chapter Climate Advocates program, noted during Q&A that every AAP chapter in the country has climate advocates. She added that the AAP is the first medical board to have climate modules in their maintenance of certification specifically designed to incorporate climate change education into well visits.
 

Adjusting Clinical Care

Meanwhile, in patient care, Matsui acknowledged it can be frustrating to think about what a massive impact climate has and simultaneously challenging to engage families in discussions about it. However, a wide range of resources are available that can be provided to patients. 

“For a patient in front of you, being informed and prepared to talk about it is the first step to being able to assess their climate change risk and provide tailored guidance,” she said. Tailored guidance takes into account the child’s specific health situation and the risks they’re most likely to encounter, such as wildfire smoke, air pollution, longer pollen seasons, environmental allergens, or disruption of infrastructure. 

“If I am seeing a patient with asthma who is allergic to a particular pollen, I can anticipate that pollen may be present in higher levels of the future, and that the season for that pollen may be longer,” Matsui said. “So if I’m thinking about allergen immunotherapy for that patient, future risk may be something that would push the conversation and the shared decision-making” from possible consideration to more serious consideration, depending on the child’s age. 

“Another example is a patient with asthma, thinking about wildfire risk and having them prepared, because we know from data that wildfire air pollution is going to be worse for that child than pollution from other sources, and there are ways for them to be prepared,” Matsui said. For instance, having an HVAC system with a high-grade air filter (at least a MERV 13) will filter the air better if a wildfire causes smoke to descend over an area. Portable, less expensive HEPA filters are also an option if a family cannot upgrade their system, and wearing an N95 or N95-equivalent mask can also reduce the impact of high air pollution levels. 

An example of thinking about the impact of potential infrastructure disruption could be ensuring patients have enough of all their medications if they’re close to running out. “It’s important for them to always have think about their medications and get those refills ahead of a storm,” she said.
 

Additional Resources 

Understanding that pediatricians may not have time to discuss all these issues or have broader conversations about climate change during visits, Matsui highlighted the AAP website of resources on climate change. In addition to resources for pediatricians, such as a basic fact sheet about climate change impacts on children’s health and the technical report that informed the policy statement, the site has multiple resources for families:

• Climate Change Impact: Safeguarding Your Family’s Health and Well-being (video), How to Talk With Children About Climate Change, Climate Change & Children’s Health: AAP Policy Explained, Climate Checkup for Children’s Health: Little Changes With Big Impact, How Climate Change Can Make Children Sick: What Parents Need to Know, Climate Change & Wildfires: Why Kids Are Most at Risk, Climate Change, Extreme Weather & Children: What Families Need to Know, Extreme Heat & Air Pollution: Health Effects on Babies & Pregnant People, and

The following resources can also be helpful to pediatricians and/or families:

• Ready.gov, AirNow, Patient Exposure and the Air Quality Index, Protecting Vulnerable Patient Populations from Climate Hazards: A Referral Guide for Health Professionals from the US Department of Health and Human Services, Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP), Weatherization Assistance Program, and the Disaster Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (D-SNAP)

In some states, Medicaid will provide or cover the cost of air conditioning and/or air filters.

The presentation did not involve external funding. Drs. Matsui and Moon had no disclosures. 
 

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

ORLANDO — It’s important for pediatricians not only to understand the causes and effects of climate change but also to know how to discuss this issue with families and make risk-based adjustments to their clinical practice based on the individual health and circumstances of each patient. That’s one of the key messages delivered at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) by Elizabeth C. Matsui, MD, MHS, professor of population health and pediatrics and director of the Center for Health and Environment Education and Research at the University of Texas at Austin Dell Medical School. 

“Even though climate change has been here and has been affecting health already for a while, it’s just really impossible to ignore right now,” she told attendees in a session focused on climate change impacts on allergies and asthma. “The challenge is connecting the dots between something that is much larger, or feels much larger, than the patient and the family that’s in front of you.” 

The reality, however, is that climate change is now impacting patients’ health on an individual level, and pediatricians have a responsibility to understand how that’s happening and to help their families prepare for it. 

“From the perspective of someone who went into medicine to practice and take care of the individual patient, I think it has been more difficult to connect those dots, and for the people in this room, it’s our job to connect those dots,” Matsui said. She also acknowledged that many of the solutions are frustratingly limited to the policy level and challenging to implement, “but it doesn’t mean that we can’t make a difference for the patients who are in front of us.” 

Charles Moon, MD, a pediatrician and Pediatric Environmental Health Fellow at the Children’s Environmental Health Center, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, found the talk particularly helpful in providing information about both the broader issue and what it means on a local practice level. 

“The biggest takeaway is that more people and more pediatricians are tuning in to this issue and realizing the dangers,” Moon said. “It’s clear that a larger community is forming around this, and I think we are at the cusp where more and more people will be coming in. We are really focusing on taking all the data and trying to figure out solutions. I think the solutions orientation is the most important part.” 
 

Understanding the Big Picture

Matsui opened with a general discussion of the human causes of climate change and the effects on a global scale presently and in the future. For example, over the past 800,000 years, carbon dioxide levels have never been above 300 ppm, but they surpassed that threshold in 1911 and have reached 420 ppm today. The trapping of heat in Earth’s atmosphere caused by the increase in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases is leading to multiple phenomena that impact health, such as longer growing seasons; increased droughts, heat waves, and wildfire seasons; and higher temperatures. These changes, in turn, affect allergens and asthma.

Children are particularly vulnerable to climate change impacts because they have a higher risk for developing asthma, allergic disease, and infections, Matsui said. Childhood is a critical period for lung and immune development, and the Environmental Protection Agency’s 2023 Climate Change and Children’s Health and Well-Being report projects that an increase of 2° C in global warming will result in an additional 34,500 pediatric asthma cases and 228,000 allergic rhinitis cases per year, driven largely by predicted increases in ozone and 2.5-µm particulate matter. The report also forecasts an increase in 6240 asthma emergency department visits and 332 additional respiratory hospitalizations per year. 

“We know that these associations that we see between climate change exposures and poor respiratory health outcomes in kids are biologically plausible,” Matsui said. “They’re not just correlation without causation. A lot of the mechanisms for how air pollution, allergies, and other factors directly affect the lungs of the airway epithelium have been worked out.” 
 

An Increase in Allergens and Viral Infections

Pediatricians should prepare for anticipated growth in allergens and viral infections. The longer growing seasons mean that pollen seasons will also lengthen. Meanwhile, higher concentrations of carbon dioxide cause individual plants to produce more pollen. 

“As the winters get warmer, mice that might not be able to survive during the winter are surviving, and mice reproduce at a very rapid rate,” she said. “The increase in moisture means that dust mites, which absorb their water — they drink by absorbing humidity that’s in the air — will be present in higher concentrations, and their range will expand.”

Fungal and mold exposures are also increasing, not just outdoors but also indoors, “and there are all sorts of allergic and respiratory health consequences of fungal exposure,” Matsui said. As hurricanes and flooding increase, storm damage can also make indoor environments more conducive to fungal and mold growth. 

Extreme weather from climate change also affects infrastructure. “When there’s healthcare infrastructure disruption and other infrastructure disruption, it adds to the challenge,” she said. “It compounds all the other threat to health from climate change, so this overall problem of climate change and health is multidimensional and very complicated.”

Then there’s the impact of climate change on respiratory viruses, which are a major driver of asthma exacerbations, Matsui said. The greater variability in daytime temperatures affects environmental reservoirs, transmission patterns, geographical ranges, and seasonality of various respiratory pathogens. The prevalence of respiratory syncytial virus infections, for example, increases during humid periods. 

“This is coupled with the fact that the projected increases in air pollution increase susceptibility to respiratory virus infections,” Matsui said. “In fact, climate change and air pollution are inextricably linked.” 
 

Climate Change and Air Pollution

Climate disruption creates extreme weather patterns that then lead to worsening air quality due to high temperatures; heavier precipitation; and more forest fires, droughts, dust storms, thunderstorms, hurricanes, stagnation events, and other extreme weather. Matsui shared a map showing the substantial increase in days with stagnant air since 1973. During stagnation events, air pollution builds up in the atmosphere because of a stable air mass that remains over a region for several days, with low-level winds and no precipitation. 

The pollutants can then contribute to rising temperatures. Black carbon particulate matter released from the burning of forests and other biomass absorbs more solar radiation, further contributing to temperature increases. Data from the National Bureau of Economic Research has shown that the US made big strides in reducing air pollution from 2009 through 2016, but it began to reverse in 2016 as severe weather events picked up. 

Pediatricians need to be cognizant of the synergistic effect of these different impacts as well. “We oftentimes talk about these problems in a silo, so we may talk about air pollution and health effects, or allergens and health effects, or heat and health effects, but all of these interact with each other and further compound the health effects,” compared to just one of them in isolation, Matsui said.

For example, air pollution increases sensitivity to allergen exposure and increases reaction severity, which disrupts the immune tolerance to allergens. “Heat and air pollution also interact, and the combination of the two is more deadly than either one alone,” she said. 

Air pollution from wildfire smoke is also more toxic to the lungs than air pollution from other sources, so if there’s wildfire-based air pollution, the impact on respiratory hospitalizations is significantly greater. Even in places that would not otherwise be at risk for wildfires, the threat remains of air pollution from more distant fires, as New York City experienced from Canadian wildfires last year. 

“This is a problem that is not just isolated to the parts of the world where the wildfires are located,” Matsui said.

Moon, who practices in New York City, said he really appreciated Matsui’s perspectives and nuanced advice as a subspecialist “because it’s obvious that the way we deliver healthcare is going to have to change based on climate change.” He hopes to see more subspecialists from other pediatric areas getting involved in looking at climate impacts and providing nuanced advice about changing clinical care similar to the examples Matsui provided. 

Air pollution can also be deadly, as a landmark case in the United Kingdom revealed a few years ago when the court ruled that a child’s death from an asthma attack was directly due to air pollution. In addition to causing worse asthma symptoms and exacerbations, air pollution also adds to the risk of developing asthma and impedes lung growth, all of which disproportionately affects disadvantaged and minoritized communities, she said. 
 

Greater Impact on Disadvantaged Populations

Matsui called attention to the equity implications of climate change impacts on health. 

“If you have a community that does not have the infrastructure and access to resources, and that same community has a prevalence of asthma that is double that of their more advantaged and white counterparts, then the impacts of climate change are going to be amplified even more,” she said.

For example, a 2019 study found that the biggest predictor of the location of ragweed plants has to do with vacant lots and demolition of housing. Ragweed plants being more common in neighborhoods with vacant lots will disproportionately affect disadvantaged neighborhoods, she said. Another study found in Baltimore that mouse allergens — specifically urine — were a bigger cause of asthma in low-income children than were cockroach allergens. 

“It’s important to consider context,” including age, gender and social and behavioral context, she said. “We as pediatricians know that children are particularly vulnerable, and what happens to them has an effect across the lifespan.” 

Furthermore, pediatricians are aware that disadvantaged and minoritized communities lack infrastructure; often live in areas with greater air pollution; often have heat islands in their communities without protection, such as tree canopy; and may be at greater flooding risk. “Poverty is also associated with increased vulnerability” because of poorer housing and infrastructure, less education, less access to care, more preexisting health conditions and greater discrimination, she said.
 

Three Cornerstone Interventions

Interventions fall into three main buckets, Matsui said: mitigation, adaption, and resilience. 

“Mitigation means reducing greenhouse gas and air pollution production and trying to enhance sinks for greenhouse gases,” she said. Mitigation strategies primarily occur at the policy level, with improved regulation, treaties, and market-based approaches, such as carbon tax and cap and trade. 

Adaptation includes actions that lessen the impact on health and environment, such as infrastructure changes and implementation of air conditioning. Examples of climate change adaptation strategies also mostly come from policy but largely at state and local levels, where individual pediatricians have a greater voice and influence. These can include changes in urban planning to address heat islands, flooding risk, and public transportation’s contribution to air pollution and climate change. It can also include changes in housing regulation and policy and investments in healthcare, such as expanded Medicaid and health insurance and investing in disaster planning and readiness. 

“Resilience is a more holistic concept,” Matsui said, “which advocates for system-wide, multilevel changes and involves a range of strategies to enhance social, human, natural, physical, and financial capacities.”
 

What Pediatricians Can Do

Pediatricians have an important role to play when it comes to climate change and health impacts. 

“The first step is sort of understanding the complexity of climate change in terms of its potential health effects, but also being prepared to talk with our patients and their families about it,” Matsui said. “The second step is advocacy.” She drew attention to the February policy statement in Pediatrics that discusses precisely the ways in which pediatricians can leverage their expertise and credibility. 

“Pediatricians are ideal advocates with whom to partner and uplift youth and community voices working to advance zero-carbon energy policy and climate justice,” she said. “There are many opportunities to advocate for climate solution policies at the local, state, national, and even international level.” 

These roles can include educating elected officials and health insurance entities about the risks that climate change poses to allergies, asthma, and child health more broadly, as well as the benefits of local solutions, including improved air quality, tree canopy, and green space. “There are lots of opportunities to engage with the community, including speaking at public hearings, serving as an expert testimony, and writing letters to the editor,” she said. 

The impact of these efforts can be further maximized by working with other healthcare professionals. Lori Byron, MD, a pediatrician from Red Lodge, Montana, who heads the AAP Chapter Climate Advocates program, noted during Q&A that every AAP chapter in the country has climate advocates. She added that the AAP is the first medical board to have climate modules in their maintenance of certification specifically designed to incorporate climate change education into well visits.
 

Adjusting Clinical Care

Meanwhile, in patient care, Matsui acknowledged it can be frustrating to think about what a massive impact climate has and simultaneously challenging to engage families in discussions about it. However, a wide range of resources are available that can be provided to patients. 

“For a patient in front of you, being informed and prepared to talk about it is the first step to being able to assess their climate change risk and provide tailored guidance,” she said. Tailored guidance takes into account the child’s specific health situation and the risks they’re most likely to encounter, such as wildfire smoke, air pollution, longer pollen seasons, environmental allergens, or disruption of infrastructure. 

“If I am seeing a patient with asthma who is allergic to a particular pollen, I can anticipate that pollen may be present in higher levels of the future, and that the season for that pollen may be longer,” Matsui said. “So if I’m thinking about allergen immunotherapy for that patient, future risk may be something that would push the conversation and the shared decision-making” from possible consideration to more serious consideration, depending on the child’s age. 

“Another example is a patient with asthma, thinking about wildfire risk and having them prepared, because we know from data that wildfire air pollution is going to be worse for that child than pollution from other sources, and there are ways for them to be prepared,” Matsui said. For instance, having an HVAC system with a high-grade air filter (at least a MERV 13) will filter the air better if a wildfire causes smoke to descend over an area. Portable, less expensive HEPA filters are also an option if a family cannot upgrade their system, and wearing an N95 or N95-equivalent mask can also reduce the impact of high air pollution levels. 

An example of thinking about the impact of potential infrastructure disruption could be ensuring patients have enough of all their medications if they’re close to running out. “It’s important for them to always have think about their medications and get those refills ahead of a storm,” she said.
 

Additional Resources 

Understanding that pediatricians may not have time to discuss all these issues or have broader conversations about climate change during visits, Matsui highlighted the AAP website of resources on climate change. In addition to resources for pediatricians, such as a basic fact sheet about climate change impacts on children’s health and the technical report that informed the policy statement, the site has multiple resources for families:

• Climate Change Impact: Safeguarding Your Family’s Health and Well-being (video), How to Talk With Children About Climate Change, Climate Change & Children’s Health: AAP Policy Explained, Climate Checkup for Children’s Health: Little Changes With Big Impact, How Climate Change Can Make Children Sick: What Parents Need to Know, Climate Change & Wildfires: Why Kids Are Most at Risk, Climate Change, Extreme Weather & Children: What Families Need to Know, Extreme Heat & Air Pollution: Health Effects on Babies & Pregnant People, and

The following resources can also be helpful to pediatricians and/or families:

• Ready.gov, AirNow, Patient Exposure and the Air Quality Index, Protecting Vulnerable Patient Populations from Climate Hazards: A Referral Guide for Health Professionals from the US Department of Health and Human Services, Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP), Weatherization Assistance Program, and the Disaster Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (D-SNAP)

In some states, Medicaid will provide or cover the cost of air conditioning and/or air filters.

The presentation did not involve external funding. Drs. Matsui and Moon had no disclosures. 
 

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

Higher concentrations of specific volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in daycare centers were significantly associated with an increased risk for wheezing in children who attended these centers, based on data from more than 500 children.

“There is an increasing concern about of the role of Indoor Air Quality (IAQ) in development of respiratory disorders like asthma, especially in children whose immune system is under development, and they are more vulnerable to the effects of poor air quality,” lead author Ioannis Sakellaris, PhD, of Université Paris-Saclay, Villejuif, France, said in an interview. However, the effects of specific pollutants on the health of young children in daycare settings has not been examined, he said. 

In a presentation at the European Respiratory Society Congress, Sakellaris reviewed data from the French CRESPI cohort study, an epidemiological study of the impact of exposures to disinfectants and cleaning products on workers and children in daycare centers in France.

The study population included 532 children (47.4% girls) with a mean age of 22.3 months (aged 3 months to 4 years) in 106 daycare centers. A total of 171 children reportedly experienced at least one episode of wheezing since birth. 

A total of 67 VOCs were measured during one day, and concentrations were studied in four categories based on quartiles. The researchers evaluated three child wheezing outcomes based on parental questionnaires: Ever wheeze since birth, recurrent wheeze (≥ 3 times since birth), and ever wheeze with inhaled corticosteroid use. The researchers adjusted for factors including child age and parental smoking status and education level.

Overall, ever wheezing was significantly associated with higher concentrations of 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene (odds ratio [OR] for Q4 vs Q1, 1.56; P = .08 for trend), 1-methoxy-2-propylacetate (OR, 1.62; P = .01), decamethylcyclopentasiloxane (OR, 2.12; P = .004), and methylisobutylcetone (OR, 1.85; P < .001).

The results emphasize the significant role of IAQ in respiratory health, said Sakellaris. “Further efforts to reduce pollutant concentrations and limit sources are needed,” he said. In addition, more studies on the combined effect of multiple VOCs are necessary for a deeper understanding of the complex relations between IAQ and children’s respiratory health, he said.
 

Pay Attention to Indoor Pollutants

“Since the COVID-19 pandemic, the use of cleaning products and disinfectants has exploded,” Alexander S. Rabin, MD, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, said in an interview. Although many of these cleaning agents contain chemicals, including VOCs, that are known respiratory irritants, little is known about the relationship between VOCs and children’s respiratory outcomes in daycare settings, said Rabin, who was not involved in the study.

“I was struck by the wide array of VOCs detected in daycare settings,” Rabin said. However, the relationship to childhood wheeze was not entirely surprising as the VOCs included the known irritants benzene and toluene, he added.

The results suggest that exposure to VOCs, not only in cleaning agents but also building materials and other consumer products in daycare settings, may be associated with an increased risk for wheeze in children, said Rabin. 

However, “it is important to know more about confounding variables, including concurrent rates of respiratory infection that are common among children,” said Rabin. “As the authors highlight, further work on the compound effects of multiple pollutants would be of interest. Lastly, it would be helpful to clearly identify the most common sources of VOCs that place children at greatest risk for wheeze, so that appropriate steps can be taken to mitigate risk,” he said.

The original CRESPI cohort study was supported by ANSES, ADEME, Fondation de France, and ARS Ile-de-France. Sakellaris and Rabin had no financial conflicts to disclose.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Higher concentrations of specific volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in daycare centers were significantly associated with an increased risk for wheezing in children who attended these centers, based on data from more than 500 children.

“There is an increasing concern about of the role of Indoor Air Quality (IAQ) in development of respiratory disorders like asthma, especially in children whose immune system is under development, and they are more vulnerable to the effects of poor air quality,” lead author Ioannis Sakellaris, PhD, of Université Paris-Saclay, Villejuif, France, said in an interview. However, the effects of specific pollutants on the health of young children in daycare settings has not been examined, he said. 

In a presentation at the European Respiratory Society Congress, Sakellaris reviewed data from the French CRESPI cohort study, an epidemiological study of the impact of exposures to disinfectants and cleaning products on workers and children in daycare centers in France.

The study population included 532 children (47.4% girls) with a mean age of 22.3 months (aged 3 months to 4 years) in 106 daycare centers. A total of 171 children reportedly experienced at least one episode of wheezing since birth. 

A total of 67 VOCs were measured during one day, and concentrations were studied in four categories based on quartiles. The researchers evaluated three child wheezing outcomes based on parental questionnaires: Ever wheeze since birth, recurrent wheeze (≥ 3 times since birth), and ever wheeze with inhaled corticosteroid use. The researchers adjusted for factors including child age and parental smoking status and education level.

Overall, ever wheezing was significantly associated with higher concentrations of 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene (odds ratio [OR] for Q4 vs Q1, 1.56; P = .08 for trend), 1-methoxy-2-propylacetate (OR, 1.62; P = .01), decamethylcyclopentasiloxane (OR, 2.12; P = .004), and methylisobutylcetone (OR, 1.85; P < .001).

The results emphasize the significant role of IAQ in respiratory health, said Sakellaris. “Further efforts to reduce pollutant concentrations and limit sources are needed,” he said. In addition, more studies on the combined effect of multiple VOCs are necessary for a deeper understanding of the complex relations between IAQ and children’s respiratory health, he said.
 

Pay Attention to Indoor Pollutants

“Since the COVID-19 pandemic, the use of cleaning products and disinfectants has exploded,” Alexander S. Rabin, MD, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, said in an interview. Although many of these cleaning agents contain chemicals, including VOCs, that are known respiratory irritants, little is known about the relationship between VOCs and children’s respiratory outcomes in daycare settings, said Rabin, who was not involved in the study.

“I was struck by the wide array of VOCs detected in daycare settings,” Rabin said. However, the relationship to childhood wheeze was not entirely surprising as the VOCs included the known irritants benzene and toluene, he added.

The results suggest that exposure to VOCs, not only in cleaning agents but also building materials and other consumer products in daycare settings, may be associated with an increased risk for wheeze in children, said Rabin. 

However, “it is important to know more about confounding variables, including concurrent rates of respiratory infection that are common among children,” said Rabin. “As the authors highlight, further work on the compound effects of multiple pollutants would be of interest. Lastly, it would be helpful to clearly identify the most common sources of VOCs that place children at greatest risk for wheeze, so that appropriate steps can be taken to mitigate risk,” he said.

The original CRESPI cohort study was supported by ANSES, ADEME, Fondation de France, and ARS Ile-de-France. Sakellaris and Rabin had no financial conflicts to disclose.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Higher concentrations of specific volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in daycare centers were significantly associated with an increased risk for wheezing in children who attended these centers, based on data from more than 500 children.

“There is an increasing concern about of the role of Indoor Air Quality (IAQ) in development of respiratory disorders like asthma, especially in children whose immune system is under development, and they are more vulnerable to the effects of poor air quality,” lead author Ioannis Sakellaris, PhD, of Université Paris-Saclay, Villejuif, France, said in an interview. However, the effects of specific pollutants on the health of young children in daycare settings has not been examined, he said. 

In a presentation at the European Respiratory Society Congress, Sakellaris reviewed data from the French CRESPI cohort study, an epidemiological study of the impact of exposures to disinfectants and cleaning products on workers and children in daycare centers in France.

The study population included 532 children (47.4% girls) with a mean age of 22.3 months (aged 3 months to 4 years) in 106 daycare centers. A total of 171 children reportedly experienced at least one episode of wheezing since birth. 

A total of 67 VOCs were measured during one day, and concentrations were studied in four categories based on quartiles. The researchers evaluated three child wheezing outcomes based on parental questionnaires: Ever wheeze since birth, recurrent wheeze (≥ 3 times since birth), and ever wheeze with inhaled corticosteroid use. The researchers adjusted for factors including child age and parental smoking status and education level.

Overall, ever wheezing was significantly associated with higher concentrations of 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene (odds ratio [OR] for Q4 vs Q1, 1.56; P = .08 for trend), 1-methoxy-2-propylacetate (OR, 1.62; P = .01), decamethylcyclopentasiloxane (OR, 2.12; P = .004), and methylisobutylcetone (OR, 1.85; P < .001).

The results emphasize the significant role of IAQ in respiratory health, said Sakellaris. “Further efforts to reduce pollutant concentrations and limit sources are needed,” he said. In addition, more studies on the combined effect of multiple VOCs are necessary for a deeper understanding of the complex relations between IAQ and children’s respiratory health, he said.
 

Pay Attention to Indoor Pollutants

“Since the COVID-19 pandemic, the use of cleaning products and disinfectants has exploded,” Alexander S. Rabin, MD, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, said in an interview. Although many of these cleaning agents contain chemicals, including VOCs, that are known respiratory irritants, little is known about the relationship between VOCs and children’s respiratory outcomes in daycare settings, said Rabin, who was not involved in the study.

“I was struck by the wide array of VOCs detected in daycare settings,” Rabin said. However, the relationship to childhood wheeze was not entirely surprising as the VOCs included the known irritants benzene and toluene, he added.

The results suggest that exposure to VOCs, not only in cleaning agents but also building materials and other consumer products in daycare settings, may be associated with an increased risk for wheeze in children, said Rabin. 

However, “it is important to know more about confounding variables, including concurrent rates of respiratory infection that are common among children,” said Rabin. “As the authors highlight, further work on the compound effects of multiple pollutants would be of interest. Lastly, it would be helpful to clearly identify the most common sources of VOCs that place children at greatest risk for wheeze, so that appropriate steps can be taken to mitigate risk,” he said.

The original CRESPI cohort study was supported by ANSES, ADEME, Fondation de France, and ARS Ile-de-France. Sakellaris and Rabin had no financial conflicts to disclose.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Editor’s Note: Sadly, this is the last column in the Master Class Obstetrics series. This award-winning column has been part of Ob.Gyn. News for 20 years. The deep discussion of cutting-edge topics in obstetrics by specialists and researchers will be missed as will the leadership and curation of topics by Dr. E. Albert Reece.
 

Introduction: The Need for Increased Vigilance About Maternal Immunization

Viruses are becoming increasingly prevalent in our world and the consequences of viral infections are implicated in a growing number of disease states. It is well established that certain cancers are caused by viruses and it is increasingly evident that viral infections can trigger the development of chronic illness. In pregnant women, viruses such as cytomegalovirus can cause infection in utero and lead to long-term impairments for the baby.

Likewise, it appears that the virulence of viruses is increasing, whether it be the respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) in children or the severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) coronaviruses in adults. Clearly, our environment is changing, with increases in population growth and urbanization, for instance, and an intensification of climate change and its effects. Viruses are part of this changing background.

Dr. Reece is the former Dean of Medicine & University Executive VP, and The Distinguished University and Endowed Professor & Director of the Center for Advanced Research Training and Innovation (CARTI) at the University of Maryland School of Medicine, as well as senior scientist at the Center for Birth Defects Research.

The alarming decline in maternal immunization rates that occurred in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic means that, now more than ever, we must fully embrace our responsibility to recommend immunizations in pregnancy and to communicate what is known about their efficacy and safety. Data show that vaccination rates drop when we do not offer vaccines in our offices, so whenever possible, we should administer them as well.

The ob.gyn. is the patient’s most trusted person in pregnancy. When patients decline or express hesitancy about vaccines, it is incumbent upon us to ask why. Oftentimes, we can identify areas in which patients lack knowledge or have misperceptions and we can successfully educate the patient or change their perspective or misunderstanding concerning the importance of vaccination for themselves and their babies. (See Table 1.) We can also successfully address concerns about safety.

Dr. Riley

New York Presbyterian

Counseling About Influenza and COVID-19 Vaccination

The COVID-19 pandemic took a toll on vaccination interest/receptivity broadly in pregnant and nonpregnant people. Among pregnant individuals, influenza vaccination coverage declined from 71% in the 2019-2020 influenza season to 56% in the 2021-2022 season, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Vaccine Safety Datalink.⁴ Coverage for the 2022-2023 and 2023-2024 influenza seasons was even worse: well under 50%.⁵

Fewer pregnant women have received updated COVID-19 vaccines. Only 13% of pregnant persons overall received the updated 2023-2024 COVID-19 booster vaccine (through March 30, 2024), according to the CDC.⁶

Maternal immunization for influenza has been recommended in the United States since 2004 (part of the recommendation that everyone over the age of 6 months receive an annual flu vaccine), and flu vaccines have been given to millions of pregnant women, but the H1N1 pandemic of 2009 reinforced its value as a priority for prenatal care. Most of the women who became severely ill from the H1N1 virus were young and healthy, without co-existing conditions known to increase risk.⁷

It became clearer during the H1N1 pandemic that pregnancy itself — which is associated with physiologic changes such as decreased lung capacity, increased nasal congestion and changes in the immune system – is its own significant risk factor for severe illness from the influenza virus. This increased risk applies to COVID-19 as well.

As COVID-19 has become endemic, with hospitalizations and deaths not reaching the levels of previous surges — and with mask-wearing and other preventive measures having declined — patients understandably have become more complacent. Some patients are vaccine deniers, but in my practice, these patients are a much smaller group than those who believe COVID-19 “is no big deal,” especially if they have had infections recently.

This is why it’s important to actively listen to concerns and to ask patients who decline a vaccination why they are hesitant. Blanket messages about vaccine efficacy and safety are the first step, but individualized, more pointed conversations based on the patient’s personal experiences and beliefs have become increasingly important.

I routinely tell pregnant patients about the risks of COVID-19 and I explain that it has been difficult to predict who will develop severe illness. Sometimes more conversation is needed. For those who are still hesitant or who tell me they feel protected by a recent infection, for instance, I provide more detail on the unique risks of pregnancy — the fact that “pregnancy is different” — and that natural immunity wanes while the protection afforded by immunization is believed to last longer. Many women are also concerned about the safety of the COVID-19 vaccine, so having safety data at your fingertips is helpful. (See Table 2.)

Dr. Riley

Counseling About RSV Vaccination

Importantly, for the 2024-2025 RSV season, the maternal RSV vaccine (Abrysvo, Pfizer) is recommended only for pregnant women who did not receive the vaccine during the 2023-2024 season. When more research is done and more data are obtained showing how long the immune response persists post vaccination, it may be that the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) will approve the maternal RSV vaccine for use in every pregnancy.

The later timing of the vaccination recommendation — 32-36 weeks’ gestation — reflects a conservative approach taken by the FDA in response to data from one of the pivotal trials showing a numerical trend toward more preterm deliveries among vaccinated compared with unvaccinated patients. This imbalance in the original trial, which administered the vaccine during 24-36 weeks of gestation, was seen only in low-income countries with no temporal association, however.

In our experience at two Weill Cornell Medical College–associated hospitals we did not see this trend. Our cohort study of almost 3000 pregnant patients who delivered at 32 weeks’ gestation or later found no increased risk of preterm birth among the 35% of patients who received the RSV vaccine during the 2023-2024 RSV season. We also did not see any difference in preeclampsia, in contrast with original trial data that showed a signal for increased risk.¹¹

When fewer than 2 weeks have elapsed between maternal vaccination and delivery, the monoclonal antibody nirsevimab is recommended for the newborn — ideally before the newborn leaves the hospital. Nirsevimab is also recommended for newborns of mothers who decline vaccination or were not candidates (e.g. vaccinated in a previous pregnancy), or when there is concern about the adequacy of the maternal immune response to the vaccine (e.g. in cases of immunosuppression).

While there was a limited supply of the monoclonal antibody last year, limitations are not expected this year, especially after October.

The ultimate goal is that patients choose the vaccine or the immunoglobulin, given the severity of RSV disease. Patient preferences should be considered. However, given that it takes 2 weeks after vaccination for protection to build up, I stress to patients that if they’ve vaccinated themselves, their newborn will leave the hospital with protection. If nirsevimab is relied upon, I explain, their newborn may not be protected for some period of time.
 

Take-home Messages

• When patients decline or are hesitant about vaccines, ask why. Listen actively, and work to correct misperceptions and knowledge gaps.
• Whenever possible, offer vaccines in your practice. Vaccination rates drop when this does not occur.
• COVID-vaccine safety is backed by many studies showing no increase in birth defects, preterm delivery, miscarriage, or stillbirth.
• Pregnant women are more likely to have severe illness from the influenza and SARS-CoV-2 viruses. Vaccines can prevent severe illness and can protect the newborn as well as the mother.
• Recommend/administer the maternal RSV vaccine at 32-36 weeks’ gestation in women who did not receive the vaccine in the 2023-2024 season. If mothers aren’t eligible their babies should be offered nirsevimab.

Dr. Riley is the Given Foundation Professor and Chair of Obstetrics and Gynecology at Weill Cornell Medicine and the obstetrician and gynecologist-in-chief at New York Presbyterian Hospital. She disclosed that she has provided one-time consultations to Pfizer (Abrysvo RSV vaccine) and GSK (cytomegalovirus vaccine), and is providing consultant education on CMV for Moderna. She is chair of ACOG’s task force on immunization and emerging infectious diseases, serves on the medical advisory board for MAVEN, and serves as an editor or editorial board member for several medical publications.



References

1. ACOG Committee Opinion No. 741: Maternal Immunization. Obstet Gynecol. 2018;131(6):e214-e217.

2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. COVID-19 Vaccination for People Who are Pregnant or Breastfeeding. https://www.cdc.gov/covid/vaccines/pregnant-or-breastfeeding.html.

3. ACOG Practice Advisory on Maternal Respiratory Syncytial Virus Vaccination, September 2023. (Updated August 2024).4. Irving S et al. Open Forum Infect Dis. 2023;10(Suppl 2):ofad500.1002.

5. Flu Vaccination Dashboard, CDC, National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases.

6. Weekly COVID-19 Vaccination Dashboard, CDC. https://www.cdc.gov/covidvaxview/weekly-dashboard/index.html

7. Louie JK et al. N Engl J Med. 2010;362:27-35. 8. Ciapponi A et al. Vaccine. 2021;39(40):5891-908.

9. Prasad S et al. Nature Communications. 2022;13:2414. 10. Fleming-Dutra KE et al. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am 2023;50(2):279-97. 11. Mouen S et al. JAMA Network Open 2024;7(7):e2419268.

Editor’s Note: Sadly, this is the last column in the Master Class Obstetrics series. This award-winning column has been part of Ob.Gyn. News for 20 years. The deep discussion of cutting-edge topics in obstetrics by specialists and researchers will be missed as will the leadership and curation of topics by Dr. E. Albert Reece.
 

Introduction: The Need for Increased Vigilance About Maternal Immunization

Viruses are becoming increasingly prevalent in our world and the consequences of viral infections are implicated in a growing number of disease states. It is well established that certain cancers are caused by viruses and it is increasingly evident that viral infections can trigger the development of chronic illness. In pregnant women, viruses such as cytomegalovirus can cause infection in utero and lead to long-term impairments for the baby.

Likewise, it appears that the virulence of viruses is increasing, whether it be the respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) in children or the severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) coronaviruses in adults. Clearly, our environment is changing, with increases in population growth and urbanization, for instance, and an intensification of climate change and its effects. Viruses are part of this changing background.

Dr. Reece is the former Dean of Medicine & University Executive VP, and The Distinguished University and Endowed Professor & Director of the Center for Advanced Research Training and Innovation (CARTI) at the University of Maryland School of Medicine, as well as senior scientist at the Center for Birth Defects Research.

The alarming decline in maternal immunization rates that occurred in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic means that, now more than ever, we must fully embrace our responsibility to recommend immunizations in pregnancy and to communicate what is known about their efficacy and safety. Data show that vaccination rates drop when we do not offer vaccines in our offices, so whenever possible, we should administer them as well.

The ob.gyn. is the patient’s most trusted person in pregnancy. When patients decline or express hesitancy about vaccines, it is incumbent upon us to ask why. Oftentimes, we can identify areas in which patients lack knowledge or have misperceptions and we can successfully educate the patient or change their perspective or misunderstanding concerning the importance of vaccination for themselves and their babies. (See Table 1.) We can also successfully address concerns about safety.

Dr. Riley

New York Presbyterian

Counseling About Influenza and COVID-19 Vaccination

The COVID-19 pandemic took a toll on vaccination interest/receptivity broadly in pregnant and nonpregnant people. Among pregnant individuals, influenza vaccination coverage declined from 71% in the 2019-2020 influenza season to 56% in the 2021-2022 season, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Vaccine Safety Datalink.⁴ Coverage for the 2022-2023 and 2023-2024 influenza seasons was even worse: well under 50%.⁵

Fewer pregnant women have received updated COVID-19 vaccines. Only 13% of pregnant persons overall received the updated 2023-2024 COVID-19 booster vaccine (through March 30, 2024), according to the CDC.⁶

Maternal immunization for influenza has been recommended in the United States since 2004 (part of the recommendation that everyone over the age of 6 months receive an annual flu vaccine), and flu vaccines have been given to millions of pregnant women, but the H1N1 pandemic of 2009 reinforced its value as a priority for prenatal care. Most of the women who became severely ill from the H1N1 virus were young and healthy, without co-existing conditions known to increase risk.⁷

It became clearer during the H1N1 pandemic that pregnancy itself — which is associated with physiologic changes such as decreased lung capacity, increased nasal congestion and changes in the immune system – is its own significant risk factor for severe illness from the influenza virus. This increased risk applies to COVID-19 as well.

As COVID-19 has become endemic, with hospitalizations and deaths not reaching the levels of previous surges — and with mask-wearing and other preventive measures having declined — patients understandably have become more complacent. Some patients are vaccine deniers, but in my practice, these patients are a much smaller group than those who believe COVID-19 “is no big deal,” especially if they have had infections recently.

This is why it’s important to actively listen to concerns and to ask patients who decline a vaccination why they are hesitant. Blanket messages about vaccine efficacy and safety are the first step, but individualized, more pointed conversations based on the patient’s personal experiences and beliefs have become increasingly important.

I routinely tell pregnant patients about the risks of COVID-19 and I explain that it has been difficult to predict who will develop severe illness. Sometimes more conversation is needed. For those who are still hesitant or who tell me they feel protected by a recent infection, for instance, I provide more detail on the unique risks of pregnancy — the fact that “pregnancy is different” — and that natural immunity wanes while the protection afforded by immunization is believed to last longer. Many women are also concerned about the safety of the COVID-19 vaccine, so having safety data at your fingertips is helpful. (See Table 2.)

Dr. Riley

Counseling About RSV Vaccination

Importantly, for the 2024-2025 RSV season, the maternal RSV vaccine (Abrysvo, Pfizer) is recommended only for pregnant women who did not receive the vaccine during the 2023-2024 season. When more research is done and more data are obtained showing how long the immune response persists post vaccination, it may be that the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) will approve the maternal RSV vaccine for use in every pregnancy.

The later timing of the vaccination recommendation — 32-36 weeks’ gestation — reflects a conservative approach taken by the FDA in response to data from one of the pivotal trials showing a numerical trend toward more preterm deliveries among vaccinated compared with unvaccinated patients. This imbalance in the original trial, which administered the vaccine during 24-36 weeks of gestation, was seen only in low-income countries with no temporal association, however.

In our experience at two Weill Cornell Medical College–associated hospitals we did not see this trend. Our cohort study of almost 3000 pregnant patients who delivered at 32 weeks’ gestation or later found no increased risk of preterm birth among the 35% of patients who received the RSV vaccine during the 2023-2024 RSV season. We also did not see any difference in preeclampsia, in contrast with original trial data that showed a signal for increased risk.¹¹

When fewer than 2 weeks have elapsed between maternal vaccination and delivery, the monoclonal antibody nirsevimab is recommended for the newborn — ideally before the newborn leaves the hospital. Nirsevimab is also recommended for newborns of mothers who decline vaccination or were not candidates (e.g. vaccinated in a previous pregnancy), or when there is concern about the adequacy of the maternal immune response to the vaccine (e.g. in cases of immunosuppression).

While there was a limited supply of the monoclonal antibody last year, limitations are not expected this year, especially after October.

The ultimate goal is that patients choose the vaccine or the immunoglobulin, given the severity of RSV disease. Patient preferences should be considered. However, given that it takes 2 weeks after vaccination for protection to build up, I stress to patients that if they’ve vaccinated themselves, their newborn will leave the hospital with protection. If nirsevimab is relied upon, I explain, their newborn may not be protected for some period of time.
 

Take-home Messages

• When patients decline or are hesitant about vaccines, ask why. Listen actively, and work to correct misperceptions and knowledge gaps.
• Whenever possible, offer vaccines in your practice. Vaccination rates drop when this does not occur.
• COVID-vaccine safety is backed by many studies showing no increase in birth defects, preterm delivery, miscarriage, or stillbirth.
• Pregnant women are more likely to have severe illness from the influenza and SARS-CoV-2 viruses. Vaccines can prevent severe illness and can protect the newborn as well as the mother.
• Recommend/administer the maternal RSV vaccine at 32-36 weeks’ gestation in women who did not receive the vaccine in the 2023-2024 season. If mothers aren’t eligible their babies should be offered nirsevimab.

Dr. Riley is the Given Foundation Professor and Chair of Obstetrics and Gynecology at Weill Cornell Medicine and the obstetrician and gynecologist-in-chief at New York Presbyterian Hospital. She disclosed that she has provided one-time consultations to Pfizer (Abrysvo RSV vaccine) and GSK (cytomegalovirus vaccine), and is providing consultant education on CMV for Moderna. She is chair of ACOG’s task force on immunization and emerging infectious diseases, serves on the medical advisory board for MAVEN, and serves as an editor or editorial board member for several medical publications.



References

1. ACOG Committee Opinion No. 741: Maternal Immunization. Obstet Gynecol. 2018;131(6):e214-e217.

2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. COVID-19 Vaccination for People Who are Pregnant or Breastfeeding. https://www.cdc.gov/covid/vaccines/pregnant-or-breastfeeding.html.

3. ACOG Practice Advisory on Maternal Respiratory Syncytial Virus Vaccination, September 2023. (Updated August 2024).4. Irving S et al. Open Forum Infect Dis. 2023;10(Suppl 2):ofad500.1002.

5. Flu Vaccination Dashboard, CDC, National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases.

6. Weekly COVID-19 Vaccination Dashboard, CDC. https://www.cdc.gov/covidvaxview/weekly-dashboard/index.html

7. Louie JK et al. N Engl J Med. 2010;362:27-35. 8. Ciapponi A et al. Vaccine. 2021;39(40):5891-908.

9. Prasad S et al. Nature Communications. 2022;13:2414. 10. Fleming-Dutra KE et al. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am 2023;50(2):279-97. 11. Mouen S et al. JAMA Network Open 2024;7(7):e2419268.

Editor’s Note: Sadly, this is the last column in the Master Class Obstetrics series. This award-winning column has been part of Ob.Gyn. News for 20 years. The deep discussion of cutting-edge topics in obstetrics by specialists and researchers will be missed as will the leadership and curation of topics by Dr. E. Albert Reece.
 

Introduction: The Need for Increased Vigilance About Maternal Immunization

Viruses are becoming increasingly prevalent in our world and the consequences of viral infections are implicated in a growing number of disease states. It is well established that certain cancers are caused by viruses and it is increasingly evident that viral infections can trigger the development of chronic illness. In pregnant women, viruses such as cytomegalovirus can cause infection in utero and lead to long-term impairments for the baby.

Likewise, it appears that the virulence of viruses is increasing, whether it be the respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) in children or the severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) coronaviruses in adults. Clearly, our environment is changing, with increases in population growth and urbanization, for instance, and an intensification of climate change and its effects. Viruses are part of this changing background.

Dr. Reece is the former Dean of Medicine & University Executive VP, and The Distinguished University and Endowed Professor & Director of the Center for Advanced Research Training and Innovation (CARTI) at the University of Maryland School of Medicine, as well as senior scientist at the Center for Birth Defects Research.

The alarming decline in maternal immunization rates that occurred in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic means that, now more than ever, we must fully embrace our responsibility to recommend immunizations in pregnancy and to communicate what is known about their efficacy and safety. Data show that vaccination rates drop when we do not offer vaccines in our offices, so whenever possible, we should administer them as well.

The ob.gyn. is the patient’s most trusted person in pregnancy. When patients decline or express hesitancy about vaccines, it is incumbent upon us to ask why. Oftentimes, we can identify areas in which patients lack knowledge or have misperceptions and we can successfully educate the patient or change their perspective or misunderstanding concerning the importance of vaccination for themselves and their babies. (See Table 1.) We can also successfully address concerns about safety.

Dr. Riley

New York Presbyterian

Counseling About Influenza and COVID-19 Vaccination

The COVID-19 pandemic took a toll on vaccination interest/receptivity broadly in pregnant and nonpregnant people. Among pregnant individuals, influenza vaccination coverage declined from 71% in the 2019-2020 influenza season to 56% in the 2021-2022 season, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Vaccine Safety Datalink.⁴ Coverage for the 2022-2023 and 2023-2024 influenza seasons was even worse: well under 50%.⁵

Fewer pregnant women have received updated COVID-19 vaccines. Only 13% of pregnant persons overall received the updated 2023-2024 COVID-19 booster vaccine (through March 30, 2024), according to the CDC.⁶

Maternal immunization for influenza has been recommended in the United States since 2004 (part of the recommendation that everyone over the age of 6 months receive an annual flu vaccine), and flu vaccines have been given to millions of pregnant women, but the H1N1 pandemic of 2009 reinforced its value as a priority for prenatal care. Most of the women who became severely ill from the H1N1 virus were young and healthy, without co-existing conditions known to increase risk.⁷

It became clearer during the H1N1 pandemic that pregnancy itself — which is associated with physiologic changes such as decreased lung capacity, increased nasal congestion and changes in the immune system – is its own significant risk factor for severe illness from the influenza virus. This increased risk applies to COVID-19 as well.

As COVID-19 has become endemic, with hospitalizations and deaths not reaching the levels of previous surges — and with mask-wearing and other preventive measures having declined — patients understandably have become more complacent. Some patients are vaccine deniers, but in my practice, these patients are a much smaller group than those who believe COVID-19 “is no big deal,” especially if they have had infections recently.

This is why it’s important to actively listen to concerns and to ask patients who decline a vaccination why they are hesitant. Blanket messages about vaccine efficacy and safety are the first step, but individualized, more pointed conversations based on the patient’s personal experiences and beliefs have become increasingly important.

I routinely tell pregnant patients about the risks of COVID-19 and I explain that it has been difficult to predict who will develop severe illness. Sometimes more conversation is needed. For those who are still hesitant or who tell me they feel protected by a recent infection, for instance, I provide more detail on the unique risks of pregnancy — the fact that “pregnancy is different” — and that natural immunity wanes while the protection afforded by immunization is believed to last longer. Many women are also concerned about the safety of the COVID-19 vaccine, so having safety data at your fingertips is helpful. (See Table 2.)

Dr. Riley

Counseling About RSV Vaccination

Importantly, for the 2024-2025 RSV season, the maternal RSV vaccine (Abrysvo, Pfizer) is recommended only for pregnant women who did not receive the vaccine during the 2023-2024 season. When more research is done and more data are obtained showing how long the immune response persists post vaccination, it may be that the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) will approve the maternal RSV vaccine for use in every pregnancy.

The later timing of the vaccination recommendation — 32-36 weeks’ gestation — reflects a conservative approach taken by the FDA in response to data from one of the pivotal trials showing a numerical trend toward more preterm deliveries among vaccinated compared with unvaccinated patients. This imbalance in the original trial, which administered the vaccine during 24-36 weeks of gestation, was seen only in low-income countries with no temporal association, however.

In our experience at two Weill Cornell Medical College–associated hospitals we did not see this trend. Our cohort study of almost 3000 pregnant patients who delivered at 32 weeks’ gestation or later found no increased risk of preterm birth among the 35% of patients who received the RSV vaccine during the 2023-2024 RSV season. We also did not see any difference in preeclampsia, in contrast with original trial data that showed a signal for increased risk.¹¹

When fewer than 2 weeks have elapsed between maternal vaccination and delivery, the monoclonal antibody nirsevimab is recommended for the newborn — ideally before the newborn leaves the hospital. Nirsevimab is also recommended for newborns of mothers who decline vaccination or were not candidates (e.g. vaccinated in a previous pregnancy), or when there is concern about the adequacy of the maternal immune response to the vaccine (e.g. in cases of immunosuppression).

While there was a limited supply of the monoclonal antibody last year, limitations are not expected this year, especially after October.

The ultimate goal is that patients choose the vaccine or the immunoglobulin, given the severity of RSV disease. Patient preferences should be considered. However, given that it takes 2 weeks after vaccination for protection to build up, I stress to patients that if they’ve vaccinated themselves, their newborn will leave the hospital with protection. If nirsevimab is relied upon, I explain, their newborn may not be protected for some period of time.
 

Take-home Messages

• When patients decline or are hesitant about vaccines, ask why. Listen actively, and work to correct misperceptions and knowledge gaps.
• Whenever possible, offer vaccines in your practice. Vaccination rates drop when this does not occur.
• COVID-vaccine safety is backed by many studies showing no increase in birth defects, preterm delivery, miscarriage, or stillbirth.
• Pregnant women are more likely to have severe illness from the influenza and SARS-CoV-2 viruses. Vaccines can prevent severe illness and can protect the newborn as well as the mother.
• Recommend/administer the maternal RSV vaccine at 32-36 weeks’ gestation in women who did not receive the vaccine in the 2023-2024 season. If mothers aren’t eligible their babies should be offered nirsevimab.

Dr. Riley is the Given Foundation Professor and Chair of Obstetrics and Gynecology at Weill Cornell Medicine and the obstetrician and gynecologist-in-chief at New York Presbyterian Hospital. She disclosed that she has provided one-time consultations to Pfizer (Abrysvo RSV vaccine) and GSK (cytomegalovirus vaccine), and is providing consultant education on CMV for Moderna. She is chair of ACOG’s task force on immunization and emerging infectious diseases, serves on the medical advisory board for MAVEN, and serves as an editor or editorial board member for several medical publications.



References

1. ACOG Committee Opinion No. 741: Maternal Immunization. Obstet Gynecol. 2018;131(6):e214-e217.

2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. COVID-19 Vaccination for People Who are Pregnant or Breastfeeding. https://www.cdc.gov/covid/vaccines/pregnant-or-breastfeeding.html.

3. ACOG Practice Advisory on Maternal Respiratory Syncytial Virus Vaccination, September 2023. (Updated August 2024).4. Irving S et al. Open Forum Infect Dis. 2023;10(Suppl 2):ofad500.1002.

5. Flu Vaccination Dashboard, CDC, National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases.

6. Weekly COVID-19 Vaccination Dashboard, CDC. https://www.cdc.gov/covidvaxview/weekly-dashboard/index.html

7. Louie JK et al. N Engl J Med. 2010;362:27-35. 8. Ciapponi A et al. Vaccine. 2021;39(40):5891-908.

9. Prasad S et al. Nature Communications. 2022;13:2414. 10. Fleming-Dutra KE et al. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am 2023;50(2):279-97. 11. Mouen S et al. JAMA Network Open 2024;7(7):e2419268.

ORLANDO — More than half of youth improved after receiving a dose of naloxone by emergency medical services (EMS) after an emergency dispatch call, according to research presented at the American Academy of Pediatrics 2024 National Conference.

“Emergency responders or EMS are often the first to arrive to an opioid poisoning, and they’re often the first to give naloxone, a potentially lifesaving medication,” said Christopher E. Gaw, MD, MPH, MBE, assistant professor of pediatrics at The Ohio State University College of Medicine and an emergency medicine physician at Nationwide Children’s Hospital in Columbus, Ohio.

Ohio State University

“Our study highlights and underscores its safety of use in the prehospital setting, and this is also supported by other data,” Gaw said. “Efforts to support public distribution and education on naloxone can really help each and every one of us as individual citizens prevent pediatric harm from the opioid crisis.”

Additional research at the meeting showed that teens’ knowledge, attitudes, and confidence about recognizing overdoses and assisting with naloxone administration improved following a peer-to-peer training program, suggesting that teens can play an important role in reducing youth mortality from overdoses.

An average of 22 American teens died from overdose every week in 2022, and as counterfeit pill use has increased among youth, research has found that fentanyl was detected in 93% of overdose deaths with counterfeit pills, according to Talia Puzantian, PharmD, BCPP, of the Keck Graduate Institute School of Pharmacy, Claremont, California, who led the study on peer education. Yet a recent survey had found that less than a third of teens (30%) knew what naloxone was, and only 14% knew how to administer it.

“Ensuring that adolescents have easy and confidential access to naloxone is important and can save lives,” said Taylor Nichols, MD, assistant clinical professor at the University of California San Francisco and an emergency medicine and addiction medicine–certified physician. “I have had teen patients who have told me that they have had to use naloxone obtained from our clinic on friends when they have accidentally overdosed.”

University of California

EMS Naloxone Administration to Youth

EMS clinicians are often the first healthcare providers to respond to an opioid overdose or poisoning event, and evidence-based guidelines for EMS naloxone administration were developed in 2019 to support this intervention. Gaw’s team investigated the frequency and demographics of pediatric administration of naloxone.

They analyzed data from the National Emergency Medical Services Information System on EMS activations for administration of at least one dose of naloxone during 2022 to those aged 0-17. There were 6215 EMS pediatric administrations of naloxone that year, and in the vast majority of cases (82%), the patient had not received a naloxone injection prior to EMS’s arrival.

Most patients (79%) were aged 13-17 years, but 10% were in the 6-12 age group. The remaining patients included 6% infants younger than 1 year and 4% aged 6-12 years. Just over half were for males (55%), and most were dispatched to a home or residential setting (61%). One in five incidents (22%) occurred at a non-healthcare business, 9% on a street or highway, and the rest at a healthcare facility or another location.

Most of the incidents occurred in urban areas (86%), followed by rural (7%), suburban (6%), and wilderness (1.4%). More occurred in the US South (42%) than in the West (29%), Midwest (22%), or Northeast (7.5%).

A key takeaway of those demographic findings is that ingestions and accidental poisonings with opioids can occur in children of any age, Nichols said. “Every single home that has any opioids in the home should absolutely have naloxone immediately available as well,” he said. “Every single person who is prescribed opioids should also have naloxone available and accessible and to be sure that the naloxone is not expired or otherwise tampered with and update that every few years.” He noted that Narcan expiration was recently extended from 3 years to 4 years by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

“I always advise that people who have opioid medications keep them stored safely and securely,” Nichols said. “However, I also acknowledge that even perfect systems fail and that people make mistakes and may accidentally leave medication out, within reach, or otherwise unsecured. If that happens, and someone were to intentionally or unintentionally get into that medication and potentially overdose as a result, we want to have that reversal medication immediately available to reverse the overdose.”

In nearly all cases (91%), EMS provided advanced life support, with only 7.5% patients receiving basic life support and 1.5% receiving specialty critical care. Just under a third (29%) of the dispatch calls were for “overdose/poisoning/ingestion.” Other dispatch calls included “unconscious/fainting/near-fainting” (21%) or “cardiac arrest/death” (17%), but the frequency of each dispatch label varied by age groups.

For example, 38% of calls for infants were for cardiac arrest, compared with 15% of calls for older teens and 18% of calls for 6-12 year olds. An overdose/poisoning dispatch was meanwhile more common for teens (32%) than for infants (13%), younger children (23%), and older children/tweens (18%). Other dispatch complaints included “sick person/person down/unknown problem” (12%) and “breathing problem” (5%).

A possible reason for these variations is that “an overdose might be mistaken for another medical emergency, or vice versa, because opioid poisonings can be challenging to recognize, especially in young children and in the pediatric population,” Gaw said. “Both the public and emergency responders should maintain a high level of suspicion” of possible overdose for children with the signs or symptoms of it, such as low breathing, unresponsiveness, or small pupils.

In most cases (87%), the patient was not in cardiac arrest, though the patient had entered cardiac arrest before EMS’s arrival in 11.5% of cases. Two thirds of cases only involved one dose of naloxone, while the other 33% involved two doses.

Ryan Marino, MD, an addiction medicine specialist and an associate professor of emergency medicine at Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine in Cleveland, Ohio, who was not involved in the study, took note of the high proportion of cases in which two doses were administered.

“While there is, in my professional opinion, almost no downside to giving naloxone in situations like this, and everybody should have it available and know how to use it, I would caution people on the risk of anchor bias, especially when more than two doses of naloxone are given, since we know that one should be an effective amount for any known opioid overdose,” Marino said. Anchoring bias refers to the tendency for individuals to rely more heavily on the first piece of information they receive about a topic or situation.

“For first responders and healthcare professionals, the importance of additional resuscitation measures like oxygenation and ventilation are just as crucial,” Marino said. “People should not be discouraged if someone doesn’t immediately respond to naloxone as overdose physiology can cause mental status to stay impaired for other reasons beyond direct drug effect, such as hypercarbia, but continue to seek and/or provide additional emergency care in these situations.”

Patients improved after one dose in just over half the cases (54%), and their conditions were unchanged in 46% of cases. There were only 11 cases in which the patient’s condition worsened after a naloxone dose (0.2%). Most of the cases (88%) were transported by EMS, and there were 13 total deaths at the scene (0.2%).

Nichols found the low incidence of worsening clinical status particularly striking. “This is further evidence of a critically important point — naloxone is purely an opioid antagonist, and only binds to opioid receptors, such that if a person has not overdosed on opioids or does not otherwise have opioids in their system, naloxone will not have a significant effect and will not cause them harm,” Nichols said.

“The most common causes of harm are due to rapid reversal of overdose and the potential risks involved in the rapid reversal of opioid effects and potentially precipitating withdrawal, and as this paper demonstrates, these are exceedingly rare,” he said. “Given that, we should have an incredibly low barrier to administer naloxone appropriately.”

The study was limited by inability to know how many true pediatric opioid poisonings are managed by EMS, so future research could look at linking EMS and emergency room hospital databases.
 

Improved Self-Efficacy in Teens

Another study showed that a peer-to-peer training program increased teens’ knowledge about overdoses from 34% before training to 79% after (P < .0001), and it substantially improved their confidence in recognizing an overdose and administering naloxone.

Nichols said the study shows the importance of ensuring “that adolescents know how to keep themselves and their friends safe in the case that they or anyone they know does end up using illicit substances which either intentionally or unintentionally contain opioids.”

This study assessed a training program with 206 students in a Los Angeles County high school who were trained by their peers between November 2023 and March 2024. The training included trends in teen overdose deaths, defining what opioids and fentanyl are, recognizing an overdose, and responding to one with naloxone.

The teens were an average 16 years old, about evenly split between boys and girls, and mostly in 11th (40%) or 12th (28%) grade, though nearly a third (29%) were 9th graders.

The students’ knowledge about fentanyl’s presence in counterfeit pills increased from 21% before the training to 68% afterward, and their correct identification of an overdose increased from 47% of participants to 90%.

The students’ confidence and attitudes toward helping with an overdose also improved substantially after the training. About two thirds agreed that non-medical people should be able to carry naloxone before the training, and that rose to 88% agreeing after the training. The proportion who agreed they would be willing to assist in an overdose rose from 77% before to 89% after training.

More dramatically, the teens’ confidence after training more than doubled in recognizing an overdose (from 31% to 81%) and more than tripled in their ability to give naloxone during an overdose (from 26% to 83%).

“The critical piece to keep in mind is that the concern about opioid overdose is respiratory depression leading to a lack of oxygen getting to the brain,” Nichols explained. “In the event of an overdose, time is brain — the longer the brain is deprived of oxygen, the lower the chance of survival. There is no specific time at which naloxone would become less effective at reversing an overdose.”

Therefore, people do not need to know the exact time that someone may have overdosed or how long they have been passed out in order to administer naloxone, he said. “The sooner naloxone is administered to someone who is unresponsive and who may have overdosed on opioids, the higher the likelihood of a successful reversal of an overdose and of saving a life.”

The peer-to-peer program was sponsored by the CARLOW Center for Medical Innovation, and the EMS study used no external funding. The authors of both studies and Marino had no disclosures. Nichols has consulted or clinically advised TV shows and health tech startup companies and has no disclosures related to naloxone or the pharmaceutical industry.
 

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

ORLANDO — More than half of youth improved after receiving a dose of naloxone by emergency medical services (EMS) after an emergency dispatch call, according to research presented at the American Academy of Pediatrics 2024 National Conference.

“Emergency responders or EMS are often the first to arrive to an opioid poisoning, and they’re often the first to give naloxone, a potentially lifesaving medication,” said Christopher E. Gaw, MD, MPH, MBE, assistant professor of pediatrics at The Ohio State University College of Medicine and an emergency medicine physician at Nationwide Children’s Hospital in Columbus, Ohio.

Ohio State University

“Our study highlights and underscores its safety of use in the prehospital setting, and this is also supported by other data,” Gaw said. “Efforts to support public distribution and education on naloxone can really help each and every one of us as individual citizens prevent pediatric harm from the opioid crisis.”

Additional research at the meeting showed that teens’ knowledge, attitudes, and confidence about recognizing overdoses and assisting with naloxone administration improved following a peer-to-peer training program, suggesting that teens can play an important role in reducing youth mortality from overdoses.

An average of 22 American teens died from overdose every week in 2022, and as counterfeit pill use has increased among youth, research has found that fentanyl was detected in 93% of overdose deaths with counterfeit pills, according to Talia Puzantian, PharmD, BCPP, of the Keck Graduate Institute School of Pharmacy, Claremont, California, who led the study on peer education. Yet a recent survey had found that less than a third of teens (30%) knew what naloxone was, and only 14% knew how to administer it.

“Ensuring that adolescents have easy and confidential access to naloxone is important and can save lives,” said Taylor Nichols, MD, assistant clinical professor at the University of California San Francisco and an emergency medicine and addiction medicine–certified physician. “I have had teen patients who have told me that they have had to use naloxone obtained from our clinic on friends when they have accidentally overdosed.”

University of California

EMS Naloxone Administration to Youth

EMS clinicians are often the first healthcare providers to respond to an opioid overdose or poisoning event, and evidence-based guidelines for EMS naloxone administration were developed in 2019 to support this intervention. Gaw’s team investigated the frequency and demographics of pediatric administration of naloxone.

They analyzed data from the National Emergency Medical Services Information System on EMS activations for administration of at least one dose of naloxone during 2022 to those aged 0-17. There were 6215 EMS pediatric administrations of naloxone that year, and in the vast majority of cases (82%), the patient had not received a naloxone injection prior to EMS’s arrival.

Most patients (79%) were aged 13-17 years, but 10% were in the 6-12 age group. The remaining patients included 6% infants younger than 1 year and 4% aged 6-12 years. Just over half were for males (55%), and most were dispatched to a home or residential setting (61%). One in five incidents (22%) occurred at a non-healthcare business, 9% on a street or highway, and the rest at a healthcare facility or another location.

Most of the incidents occurred in urban areas (86%), followed by rural (7%), suburban (6%), and wilderness (1.4%). More occurred in the US South (42%) than in the West (29%), Midwest (22%), or Northeast (7.5%).

A key takeaway of those demographic findings is that ingestions and accidental poisonings with opioids can occur in children of any age, Nichols said. “Every single home that has any opioids in the home should absolutely have naloxone immediately available as well,” he said. “Every single person who is prescribed opioids should also have naloxone available and accessible and to be sure that the naloxone is not expired or otherwise tampered with and update that every few years.” He noted that Narcan expiration was recently extended from 3 years to 4 years by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

“I always advise that people who have opioid medications keep them stored safely and securely,” Nichols said. “However, I also acknowledge that even perfect systems fail and that people make mistakes and may accidentally leave medication out, within reach, or otherwise unsecured. If that happens, and someone were to intentionally or unintentionally get into that medication and potentially overdose as a result, we want to have that reversal medication immediately available to reverse the overdose.”

In nearly all cases (91%), EMS provided advanced life support, with only 7.5% patients receiving basic life support and 1.5% receiving specialty critical care. Just under a third (29%) of the dispatch calls were for “overdose/poisoning/ingestion.” Other dispatch calls included “unconscious/fainting/near-fainting” (21%) or “cardiac arrest/death” (17%), but the frequency of each dispatch label varied by age groups.

For example, 38% of calls for infants were for cardiac arrest, compared with 15% of calls for older teens and 18% of calls for 6-12 year olds. An overdose/poisoning dispatch was meanwhile more common for teens (32%) than for infants (13%), younger children (23%), and older children/tweens (18%). Other dispatch complaints included “sick person/person down/unknown problem” (12%) and “breathing problem” (5%).

A possible reason for these variations is that “an overdose might be mistaken for another medical emergency, or vice versa, because opioid poisonings can be challenging to recognize, especially in young children and in the pediatric population,” Gaw said. “Both the public and emergency responders should maintain a high level of suspicion” of possible overdose for children with the signs or symptoms of it, such as low breathing, unresponsiveness, or small pupils.

In most cases (87%), the patient was not in cardiac arrest, though the patient had entered cardiac arrest before EMS’s arrival in 11.5% of cases. Two thirds of cases only involved one dose of naloxone, while the other 33% involved two doses.

Ryan Marino, MD, an addiction medicine specialist and an associate professor of emergency medicine at Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine in Cleveland, Ohio, who was not involved in the study, took note of the high proportion of cases in which two doses were administered.

“While there is, in my professional opinion, almost no downside to giving naloxone in situations like this, and everybody should have it available and know how to use it, I would caution people on the risk of anchor bias, especially when more than two doses of naloxone are given, since we know that one should be an effective amount for any known opioid overdose,” Marino said. Anchoring bias refers to the tendency for individuals to rely more heavily on the first piece of information they receive about a topic or situation.

“For first responders and healthcare professionals, the importance of additional resuscitation measures like oxygenation and ventilation are just as crucial,” Marino said. “People should not be discouraged if someone doesn’t immediately respond to naloxone as overdose physiology can cause mental status to stay impaired for other reasons beyond direct drug effect, such as hypercarbia, but continue to seek and/or provide additional emergency care in these situations.”

Patients improved after one dose in just over half the cases (54%), and their conditions were unchanged in 46% of cases. There were only 11 cases in which the patient’s condition worsened after a naloxone dose (0.2%). Most of the cases (88%) were transported by EMS, and there were 13 total deaths at the scene (0.2%).

Nichols found the low incidence of worsening clinical status particularly striking. “This is further evidence of a critically important point — naloxone is purely an opioid antagonist, and only binds to opioid receptors, such that if a person has not overdosed on opioids or does not otherwise have opioids in their system, naloxone will not have a significant effect and will not cause them harm,” Nichols said.

“The most common causes of harm are due to rapid reversal of overdose and the potential risks involved in the rapid reversal of opioid effects and potentially precipitating withdrawal, and as this paper demonstrates, these are exceedingly rare,” he said. “Given that, we should have an incredibly low barrier to administer naloxone appropriately.”

The study was limited by inability to know how many true pediatric opioid poisonings are managed by EMS, so future research could look at linking EMS and emergency room hospital databases.
 

Improved Self-Efficacy in Teens

Another study showed that a peer-to-peer training program increased teens’ knowledge about overdoses from 34% before training to 79% after (P < .0001), and it substantially improved their confidence in recognizing an overdose and administering naloxone.

Nichols said the study shows the importance of ensuring “that adolescents know how to keep themselves and their friends safe in the case that they or anyone they know does end up using illicit substances which either intentionally or unintentionally contain opioids.”

This study assessed a training program with 206 students in a Los Angeles County high school who were trained by their peers between November 2023 and March 2024. The training included trends in teen overdose deaths, defining what opioids and fentanyl are, recognizing an overdose, and responding to one with naloxone.

The teens were an average 16 years old, about evenly split between boys and girls, and mostly in 11th (40%) or 12th (28%) grade, though nearly a third (29%) were 9th graders.

The students’ knowledge about fentanyl’s presence in counterfeit pills increased from 21% before the training to 68% afterward, and their correct identification of an overdose increased from 47% of participants to 90%.

The students’ confidence and attitudes toward helping with an overdose also improved substantially after the training. About two thirds agreed that non-medical people should be able to carry naloxone before the training, and that rose to 88% agreeing after the training. The proportion who agreed they would be willing to assist in an overdose rose from 77% before to 89% after training.

More dramatically, the teens’ confidence after training more than doubled in recognizing an overdose (from 31% to 81%) and more than tripled in their ability to give naloxone during an overdose (from 26% to 83%).

“The critical piece to keep in mind is that the concern about opioid overdose is respiratory depression leading to a lack of oxygen getting to the brain,” Nichols explained. “In the event of an overdose, time is brain — the longer the brain is deprived of oxygen, the lower the chance of survival. There is no specific time at which naloxone would become less effective at reversing an overdose.”

Therefore, people do not need to know the exact time that someone may have overdosed or how long they have been passed out in order to administer naloxone, he said. “The sooner naloxone is administered to someone who is unresponsive and who may have overdosed on opioids, the higher the likelihood of a successful reversal of an overdose and of saving a life.”

The peer-to-peer program was sponsored by the CARLOW Center for Medical Innovation, and the EMS study used no external funding. The authors of both studies and Marino had no disclosures. Nichols has consulted or clinically advised TV shows and health tech startup companies and has no disclosures related to naloxone or the pharmaceutical industry.
 

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

ORLANDO — More than half of youth improved after receiving a dose of naloxone by emergency medical services (EMS) after an emergency dispatch call, according to research presented at the American Academy of Pediatrics 2024 National Conference.

“Emergency responders or EMS are often the first to arrive to an opioid poisoning, and they’re often the first to give naloxone, a potentially lifesaving medication,” said Christopher E. Gaw, MD, MPH, MBE, assistant professor of pediatrics at The Ohio State University College of Medicine and an emergency medicine physician at Nationwide Children’s Hospital in Columbus, Ohio.

Ohio State University

“Our study highlights and underscores its safety of use in the prehospital setting, and this is also supported by other data,” Gaw said. “Efforts to support public distribution and education on naloxone can really help each and every one of us as individual citizens prevent pediatric harm from the opioid crisis.”

Additional research at the meeting showed that teens’ knowledge, attitudes, and confidence about recognizing overdoses and assisting with naloxone administration improved following a peer-to-peer training program, suggesting that teens can play an important role in reducing youth mortality from overdoses.

An average of 22 American teens died from overdose every week in 2022, and as counterfeit pill use has increased among youth, research has found that fentanyl was detected in 93% of overdose deaths with counterfeit pills, according to Talia Puzantian, PharmD, BCPP, of the Keck Graduate Institute School of Pharmacy, Claremont, California, who led the study on peer education. Yet a recent survey had found that less than a third of teens (30%) knew what naloxone was, and only 14% knew how to administer it.

“Ensuring that adolescents have easy and confidential access to naloxone is important and can save lives,” said Taylor Nichols, MD, assistant clinical professor at the University of California San Francisco and an emergency medicine and addiction medicine–certified physician. “I have had teen patients who have told me that they have had to use naloxone obtained from our clinic on friends when they have accidentally overdosed.”

University of California

EMS Naloxone Administration to Youth

EMS clinicians are often the first healthcare providers to respond to an opioid overdose or poisoning event, and evidence-based guidelines for EMS naloxone administration were developed in 2019 to support this intervention. Gaw’s team investigated the frequency and demographics of pediatric administration of naloxone.

They analyzed data from the National Emergency Medical Services Information System on EMS activations for administration of at least one dose of naloxone during 2022 to those aged 0-17. There were 6215 EMS pediatric administrations of naloxone that year, and in the vast majority of cases (82%), the patient had not received a naloxone injection prior to EMS’s arrival.

Most patients (79%) were aged 13-17 years, but 10% were in the 6-12 age group. The remaining patients included 6% infants younger than 1 year and 4% aged 6-12 years. Just over half were for males (55%), and most were dispatched to a home or residential setting (61%). One in five incidents (22%) occurred at a non-healthcare business, 9% on a street or highway, and the rest at a healthcare facility or another location.

Most of the incidents occurred in urban areas (86%), followed by rural (7%), suburban (6%), and wilderness (1.4%). More occurred in the US South (42%) than in the West (29%), Midwest (22%), or Northeast (7.5%).

A key takeaway of those demographic findings is that ingestions and accidental poisonings with opioids can occur in children of any age, Nichols said. “Every single home that has any opioids in the home should absolutely have naloxone immediately available as well,” he said. “Every single person who is prescribed opioids should also have naloxone available and accessible and to be sure that the naloxone is not expired or otherwise tampered with and update that every few years.” He noted that Narcan expiration was recently extended from 3 years to 4 years by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

“I always advise that people who have opioid medications keep them stored safely and securely,” Nichols said. “However, I also acknowledge that even perfect systems fail and that people make mistakes and may accidentally leave medication out, within reach, or otherwise unsecured. If that happens, and someone were to intentionally or unintentionally get into that medication and potentially overdose as a result, we want to have that reversal medication immediately available to reverse the overdose.”

In nearly all cases (91%), EMS provided advanced life support, with only 7.5% patients receiving basic life support and 1.5% receiving specialty critical care. Just under a third (29%) of the dispatch calls were for “overdose/poisoning/ingestion.” Other dispatch calls included “unconscious/fainting/near-fainting” (21%) or “cardiac arrest/death” (17%), but the frequency of each dispatch label varied by age groups.

For example, 38% of calls for infants were for cardiac arrest, compared with 15% of calls for older teens and 18% of calls for 6-12 year olds. An overdose/poisoning dispatch was meanwhile more common for teens (32%) than for infants (13%), younger children (23%), and older children/tweens (18%). Other dispatch complaints included “sick person/person down/unknown problem” (12%) and “breathing problem” (5%).

A possible reason for these variations is that “an overdose might be mistaken for another medical emergency, or vice versa, because opioid poisonings can be challenging to recognize, especially in young children and in the pediatric population,” Gaw said. “Both the public and emergency responders should maintain a high level of suspicion” of possible overdose for children with the signs or symptoms of it, such as low breathing, unresponsiveness, or small pupils.

In most cases (87%), the patient was not in cardiac arrest, though the patient had entered cardiac arrest before EMS’s arrival in 11.5% of cases. Two thirds of cases only involved one dose of naloxone, while the other 33% involved two doses.

Ryan Marino, MD, an addiction medicine specialist and an associate professor of emergency medicine at Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine in Cleveland, Ohio, who was not involved in the study, took note of the high proportion of cases in which two doses were administered.

“While there is, in my professional opinion, almost no downside to giving naloxone in situations like this, and everybody should have it available and know how to use it, I would caution people on the risk of anchor bias, especially when more than two doses of naloxone are given, since we know that one should be an effective amount for any known opioid overdose,” Marino said. Anchoring bias refers to the tendency for individuals to rely more heavily on the first piece of information they receive about a topic or situation.

“For first responders and healthcare professionals, the importance of additional resuscitation measures like oxygenation and ventilation are just as crucial,” Marino said. “People should not be discouraged if someone doesn’t immediately respond to naloxone as overdose physiology can cause mental status to stay impaired for other reasons beyond direct drug effect, such as hypercarbia, but continue to seek and/or provide additional emergency care in these situations.”

Patients improved after one dose in just over half the cases (54%), and their conditions were unchanged in 46% of cases. There were only 11 cases in which the patient’s condition worsened after a naloxone dose (0.2%). Most of the cases (88%) were transported by EMS, and there were 13 total deaths at the scene (0.2%).

Nichols found the low incidence of worsening clinical status particularly striking. “This is further evidence of a critically important point — naloxone is purely an opioid antagonist, and only binds to opioid receptors, such that if a person has not overdosed on opioids or does not otherwise have opioids in their system, naloxone will not have a significant effect and will not cause them harm,” Nichols said.

“The most common causes of harm are due to rapid reversal of overdose and the potential risks involved in the rapid reversal of opioid effects and potentially precipitating withdrawal, and as this paper demonstrates, these are exceedingly rare,” he said. “Given that, we should have an incredibly low barrier to administer naloxone appropriately.”

The study was limited by inability to know how many true pediatric opioid poisonings are managed by EMS, so future research could look at linking EMS and emergency room hospital databases.
 

Improved Self-Efficacy in Teens

Another study showed that a peer-to-peer training program increased teens’ knowledge about overdoses from 34% before training to 79% after (P < .0001), and it substantially improved their confidence in recognizing an overdose and administering naloxone.

Nichols said the study shows the importance of ensuring “that adolescents know how to keep themselves and their friends safe in the case that they or anyone they know does end up using illicit substances which either intentionally or unintentionally contain opioids.”

This study assessed a training program with 206 students in a Los Angeles County high school who were trained by their peers between November 2023 and March 2024. The training included trends in teen overdose deaths, defining what opioids and fentanyl are, recognizing an overdose, and responding to one with naloxone.

The teens were an average 16 years old, about evenly split between boys and girls, and mostly in 11th (40%) or 12th (28%) grade, though nearly a third (29%) were 9th graders.

The students’ knowledge about fentanyl’s presence in counterfeit pills increased from 21% before the training to 68% afterward, and their correct identification of an overdose increased from 47% of participants to 90%.

The students’ confidence and attitudes toward helping with an overdose also improved substantially after the training. About two thirds agreed that non-medical people should be able to carry naloxone before the training, and that rose to 88% agreeing after the training. The proportion who agreed they would be willing to assist in an overdose rose from 77% before to 89% after training.

More dramatically, the teens’ confidence after training more than doubled in recognizing an overdose (from 31% to 81%) and more than tripled in their ability to give naloxone during an overdose (from 26% to 83%).

“The critical piece to keep in mind is that the concern about opioid overdose is respiratory depression leading to a lack of oxygen getting to the brain,” Nichols explained. “In the event of an overdose, time is brain — the longer the brain is deprived of oxygen, the lower the chance of survival. There is no specific time at which naloxone would become less effective at reversing an overdose.”

Therefore, people do not need to know the exact time that someone may have overdosed or how long they have been passed out in order to administer naloxone, he said. “The sooner naloxone is administered to someone who is unresponsive and who may have overdosed on opioids, the higher the likelihood of a successful reversal of an overdose and of saving a life.”

The peer-to-peer program was sponsored by the CARLOW Center for Medical Innovation, and the EMS study used no external funding. The authors of both studies and Marino had no disclosures. Nichols has consulted or clinically advised TV shows and health tech startup companies and has no disclosures related to naloxone or the pharmaceutical industry.
 

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

Primary care screening for celiac disease (CD) in kids could improve health outcomes, and it appears cost effective over time, according to a Dutch analysis.

If these screening strategies are deemed feasible by clinicians and patients, then implementation in routine care is needed, lead author Jan Heijdra Suasnabar, MSc, of Leiden University Medical Centre in the Netherlands, and colleagues reported.

courtesy Leiden University

“Cohort studies have shown that CD likely develops early in life and can be easily diagnosed by detection of CD-specific antibodies against the enzyme tissue transglutaminase type 2 (IgA-TG2),” the investigators wrote in Gastroenterology.

Despite the ease of diagnosis, as few as one in five cases of CD are detected using current clinical strategies, meaning many cases are diagnosed years after symptom onset.

“Such high rates of missed/delayed diagnoses have been attributed to CD’s varied and nonspecific symptoms, lack of awareness, and the resource-intensive process necessary to establish the diagnosis,” Heijdra Suasnabar and colleagues wrote. “From an economic perspective, the burden of CD translates into substantial excess healthcare and societal costs.”

These practice gaps prompted the present study, which explored the long-term cost effectiveness of mass CD screening and active case finding among pediatric patients.

The investigators employed a model-based cost-effectiveness analysis with a hypothetical cohort representing all children with CD in the Netherlands. Iterations of this model evaluated long-term costs as these children moved through the healthcare system along various CD detection strategies.

The first strategy was based on the current Dutch approach, which is the same as that in the United States: Patients are only evaluated for CD if they present with symptoms that prompt suspicion of disease. Based on data from population-based studies, the model assumed that approximately one in three cases would be detected using this strategy.

The second strategy involved mass screening using IgA-TG2 point-of-care testing (sensitivity, 0.94; specificity, 0.944) via youth health care clinics, regardless of symptoms.

The third strategy, called “active case finding,” represented something of an intermediate approach, in which children with at least 1 CD-related symptom underwent point-of-care antibody testing.

For both mass screening and active case finding strategies, a positive antibody test was followed with confirmatory diagnostic testing.

Compared with current clinical approach, mass screening added 7.46 more quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) per CD patient with an increased cost of €28,635 per CD patient. Active case finding gained 4.33 QALYs per CD patient while incurring an additional cost of €15,585 per CD patient.

Based on a willingness-to-pay threshold of €20,000 per QALY, the investigators deemed both strategies “highly cost effective,” compared with current standard of care. Some of these costs were offset by “substantial” reductions in productivity losses, they noted, including CD-related absences from work and school.

“Our results illustrate how an earlier detection of CD through screening or case finding, although more costly, leads to improved health outcomes and a reduction in disease burden, compared with current care,” Heijdra Suasnabar and colleagues wrote.

Their concluding remarks highlighted the conservative scenarios built into their model, and suggested that their findings offer solid evidence for implementing new CD-testing strategies.

“If found to be feasible and acceptable by clinicians and patients, these strategies should be implemented in the Netherlands,” they wrote.This study was supported by the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development. The investigators disclosed no conflicts of interest.

Primary care screening for celiac disease (CD) in kids could improve health outcomes, and it appears cost effective over time, according to a Dutch analysis.

If these screening strategies are deemed feasible by clinicians and patients, then implementation in routine care is needed, lead author Jan Heijdra Suasnabar, MSc, of Leiden University Medical Centre in the Netherlands, and colleagues reported.

courtesy Leiden University

“Cohort studies have shown that CD likely develops early in life and can be easily diagnosed by detection of CD-specific antibodies against the enzyme tissue transglutaminase type 2 (IgA-TG2),” the investigators wrote in Gastroenterology.

Despite the ease of diagnosis, as few as one in five cases of CD are detected using current clinical strategies, meaning many cases are diagnosed years after symptom onset.

“Such high rates of missed/delayed diagnoses have been attributed to CD’s varied and nonspecific symptoms, lack of awareness, and the resource-intensive process necessary to establish the diagnosis,” Heijdra Suasnabar and colleagues wrote. “From an economic perspective, the burden of CD translates into substantial excess healthcare and societal costs.”

These practice gaps prompted the present study, which explored the long-term cost effectiveness of mass CD screening and active case finding among pediatric patients.

The investigators employed a model-based cost-effectiveness analysis with a hypothetical cohort representing all children with CD in the Netherlands. Iterations of this model evaluated long-term costs as these children moved through the healthcare system along various CD detection strategies.

The first strategy was based on the current Dutch approach, which is the same as that in the United States: Patients are only evaluated for CD if they present with symptoms that prompt suspicion of disease. Based on data from population-based studies, the model assumed that approximately one in three cases would be detected using this strategy.

The second strategy involved mass screening using IgA-TG2 point-of-care testing (sensitivity, 0.94; specificity, 0.944) via youth health care clinics, regardless of symptoms.

The third strategy, called “active case finding,” represented something of an intermediate approach, in which children with at least 1 CD-related symptom underwent point-of-care antibody testing.

For both mass screening and active case finding strategies, a positive antibody test was followed with confirmatory diagnostic testing.

Compared with current clinical approach, mass screening added 7.46 more quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) per CD patient with an increased cost of €28,635 per CD patient. Active case finding gained 4.33 QALYs per CD patient while incurring an additional cost of €15,585 per CD patient.

Based on a willingness-to-pay threshold of €20,000 per QALY, the investigators deemed both strategies “highly cost effective,” compared with current standard of care. Some of these costs were offset by “substantial” reductions in productivity losses, they noted, including CD-related absences from work and school.

“Our results illustrate how an earlier detection of CD through screening or case finding, although more costly, leads to improved health outcomes and a reduction in disease burden, compared with current care,” Heijdra Suasnabar and colleagues wrote.

Their concluding remarks highlighted the conservative scenarios built into their model, and suggested that their findings offer solid evidence for implementing new CD-testing strategies.

“If found to be feasible and acceptable by clinicians and patients, these strategies should be implemented in the Netherlands,” they wrote.This study was supported by the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development. The investigators disclosed no conflicts of interest.

Primary care screening for celiac disease (CD) in kids could improve health outcomes, and it appears cost effective over time, according to a Dutch analysis.

If these screening strategies are deemed feasible by clinicians and patients, then implementation in routine care is needed, lead author Jan Heijdra Suasnabar, MSc, of Leiden University Medical Centre in the Netherlands, and colleagues reported.

courtesy Leiden University

“Cohort studies have shown that CD likely develops early in life and can be easily diagnosed by detection of CD-specific antibodies against the enzyme tissue transglutaminase type 2 (IgA-TG2),” the investigators wrote in Gastroenterology.

Despite the ease of diagnosis, as few as one in five cases of CD are detected using current clinical strategies, meaning many cases are diagnosed years after symptom onset.

“Such high rates of missed/delayed diagnoses have been attributed to CD’s varied and nonspecific symptoms, lack of awareness, and the resource-intensive process necessary to establish the diagnosis,” Heijdra Suasnabar and colleagues wrote. “From an economic perspective, the burden of CD translates into substantial excess healthcare and societal costs.”

These practice gaps prompted the present study, which explored the long-term cost effectiveness of mass CD screening and active case finding among pediatric patients.

The investigators employed a model-based cost-effectiveness analysis with a hypothetical cohort representing all children with CD in the Netherlands. Iterations of this model evaluated long-term costs as these children moved through the healthcare system along various CD detection strategies.

The first strategy was based on the current Dutch approach, which is the same as that in the United States: Patients are only evaluated for CD if they present with symptoms that prompt suspicion of disease. Based on data from population-based studies, the model assumed that approximately one in three cases would be detected using this strategy.

The second strategy involved mass screening using IgA-TG2 point-of-care testing (sensitivity, 0.94; specificity, 0.944) via youth health care clinics, regardless of symptoms.

The third strategy, called “active case finding,” represented something of an intermediate approach, in which children with at least 1 CD-related symptom underwent point-of-care antibody testing.

For both mass screening and active case finding strategies, a positive antibody test was followed with confirmatory diagnostic testing.

Compared with current clinical approach, mass screening added 7.46 more quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) per CD patient with an increased cost of €28,635 per CD patient. Active case finding gained 4.33 QALYs per CD patient while incurring an additional cost of €15,585 per CD patient.

Based on a willingness-to-pay threshold of €20,000 per QALY, the investigators deemed both strategies “highly cost effective,” compared with current standard of care. Some of these costs were offset by “substantial” reductions in productivity losses, they noted, including CD-related absences from work and school.

“Our results illustrate how an earlier detection of CD through screening or case finding, although more costly, leads to improved health outcomes and a reduction in disease burden, compared with current care,” Heijdra Suasnabar and colleagues wrote.

Their concluding remarks highlighted the conservative scenarios built into their model, and suggested that their findings offer solid evidence for implementing new CD-testing strategies.

“If found to be feasible and acceptable by clinicians and patients, these strategies should be implemented in the Netherlands,” they wrote.This study was supported by the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development. The investigators disclosed no conflicts of interest.

We pediatricians consider ourselves as compassionate professionals, optimistic about the potential of all children. This is reflected in the American Academy of Pediatrics’ equity statement of “its mission to ensure the health and well-being of all children. This includes promoting nurturing, inclusive environments and actively opposing intolerance, bigotry, bias, and discrimination.”

A committee of the Developmental Behavioral Pediatric Network developed and published a consensus statement specifically about problems in the care of individuals with neurodevelopmental disabilities (NDD) called the Supporting Access for Everyone (SAFE) initiative. All of us care for children with NDD as one in six are affected with these conditions that impact cognition, communication, motor, social, and/or behavior skills such as autism, ADHD, intellectual disabilities (ID), learning disorders, hearing or vision impairment, and motor disabilities such as cerebral palsy. Children with NDD are overrepresented in our daily practice schedule due to their multiple medical, behavioral, and social needs. NDD are also more common among marginalized children with racial, ethnic, sexual, or gender identity minority status compounding their difficulties in accessing quality care.

NDD present similar challenges to care as other chronic conditions that also require longer visits, more documentation, long-term monitoring, team-based care, care coordination, and often referrals. But most chronic medical conditions we care for such as asthma, diabetes, cancer, hypertension, and renal disease have clear national guidelines and appropriate billing codes and are not stigmatizing. Most also do not intrinsically affect the nervous system or cause disability as for NDD that alter the behavioral presentation of the individual in a way that changes their care.

Discrimination against individuals with NDD and other disabilities, called “ableism,” can take many forms: assuming a child with communication difficulty or ID is unable to understand explanations about their care; the presence of one NDD condition ending the clinician’s search for other issues; complicated problems or difficult behaviors in the medical setting truncating care, etc. To be equitable in the care of individuals with NDD we need to be aware of discrimination and also go beyond guidelines to personalize the accommodations we advise and make.
 

Adjustments Needed for Special Needs

As pediatricians we already adjust our interactions, starting instinctively, to the development level of the child we perceive before us. We approach infants slowly and softly, we speak in shorter sentences to toddlers, we joke around with school-aged children, and we take extra care about privacy with teens. This serves the relationships well for neurotypical children. But our (and our staff’s) perceptions of children with autism, ID, genetic syndromes that include NDD, or motor disabilities based on their behavioral presentation may not accurately recognize or accommodate their abilities or needs. Communication and environmental adjustments may need to be much more individualized to provide respectful care, comfort and even safety.

As an example, at this time 1 in 36 children have autism with or without ID. Defining features of autism include differences in social communication, repetitive or restrictive interests or behaviors, and hypersensitivity to the environment plus any coexisting conditions such as anxiety and hyperactivity. But most children with autism have completely age appropriate and typical physical appearance and their underlying condition may not even be known. The office setting, without special attention to the needs of a child with autism, may be frightening, loud, too bright, too crowded, fast paced, and confusing. The result of their sensitivities and difficulty communicating may lead to increased agitation, repetitive behaviors (sometimes called “stimming”), shrieking, attempts to escape the room, refusal to allow for vital signs or undressing, even aggression. Strategies for calming a neurotypical child such as talking or touching may make matters worse instead of better. We need help from the child and family and a plan to optimize their medical encounters.

If not adequately accommodated, children with many varieties of NDD end up not getting all the routine healthcare they need (eg vaccinations, blood tests, vital signs, even complete physical exams including dental) as well as having more adverse events during health care, including traumatizing seclusion, not allowing a support person to be present, restraint, injuries, and accidents. When more complex procedures are needed, eg x-ray, MRI, EEG, lab studies, or surgery, successful outcomes may be lower. Children with NDD have higher rates of often avoidable morbidity and mortality than those without, in part due to these barriers to complete care. While environmental accommodations to wheelchair users for accessibility has greatly improved in recent years, access to other kinds of individualized accommodations have lagged behind.
 

Accommodation Planning

There are a variety of factors that need to be taken into consideration in accommodating an individual with NDD. The family becomes the expert, along with the child, in knowing the child’s triggers, preferences, abilities, and level of understanding to accept and consent for care. An accommodation plan should be created using shared and supported decision making with the family and child and allowing for child preferences, regardless of their ability level, whenever possible. Development of an accommodation plan may benefit from multidisciplinary input, eg psychology, physical therapy, speech pathology, depending on the child’s needs and the practice’s ability to adapt.

The SAFE initiative is in the process of creating a checklist aiming to facilitate a description being created for each individual to help plan for a successful medical encounter while optimizing the child’s comfort, participation, and safety. While the checklist is not yet ready, we can start now by asking families and children in preparation for or at the start of a visit about their needs and writing a shared document that can also be placed in the electronic health record for the entire care team for informing care going forward.

It is especially important for the family to keep a copy of the care plan and for it to be sent as part of referrals for procedures or specialty visits so that the professionals can prepare and adapt the encounter. An excellent example is a how some hospitals schedule a practice visit for the child to experience the sights and sounds and people the child will encounter, for example, before an EEG, when nothing is required of the child. Scheduling the actual procedure at times of day when clinics are less crowded and wait times are shorter can improve the chances of success.

Some categories and details that might be included in an accommodation plan are listed below:

You might start the plan with the child’s preferred name/nickname, family member or support person names, and diagnoses along with a brief overview of the child’s level of functioning. Then list categories of needs and preferences along with suggestions or requests.

• Motor: Does the child have or need assistance entering the building, visit room, bathroom, or transferring to the exam table? What kind of assistance, if any, and by whom?
• Sensory: Is the child disturbed by noise, lights, or being touched? Does the child want to use equipment to be comfortable such as headphones, earplugs, or sunglasses or need a quiet room, care without perfumes, or dimmed lighting? Does the child typically refuse aspects of the physical examination?
• Behavioral regulation: What helps the child to stay calm? Are there certain triggers to becoming upset? Are there early cues that an upset is coming? What and who can help in the case of an upset?
• Habits/preferences: Are there certain comfort objects or habits your child needs? Are there habits your child needs to do, such as a certain order of events, or use of social stories or pictures, to cooperate or feel comfortable?
• Communication: How does the child make his/her needs known? Does the child/family speak English or another language? Does he/she use sign language or an augmentative communication device? What level of understanding does your child have; for example, similar to what age for a typical child? Is there a care plan with accommodations already available that needs review or needs revision with the child’s development or is a new one needed? Was the care plan developed including the child’s participation and assent or is more collaboration needed?
• History: Has your child had any very upsetting experiences in healthcare settings? What happened? Has the trauma been addressed? Are there reminders of the trauma that should be avoided?
• Other: Are there other things we should know about your child as an individual to provide the best care?

There are many actions needed to do better at ensuring equitable care for individuals with NDD. We should educate our office and medical staff about NDD in children and the importance of accommodating their needs, and ways to do it. The morning huddle can be used to remind staff of upcoming visits of children who may need accommodations. We then need to use quality improvement methods to check in periodically on how the changes are working for the children, families, and practice in order to continually improve.

The overall healthcare system also needs to change. Billing codes should reflect the time, complexity of accommodations, and documentation that were required for care. Episodes of the visit may need to be broken up within the day or over several days to allow the child to practice, calm down, and cooperate and this should be accounted for in billing. Given that NDD are generally lifelong conditions, payment systems that require measures of progress such as value-based payment based on improved outcomes will need to be adjusted to measure quality of care rather than significant progress.

We need to advocate for both individual children and for system changes to work toward equity of care for those with disabilities to make their lives more comfortable as well as ours.

Dr. Howard is assistant professor of pediatrics at The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, and creator of CHADIS. She had no other relevant disclosures. Dr. Howard’s contribution to this publication was as a paid expert to MDedge News. E-mail her at pdnews@mdedge.com.

We pediatricians consider ourselves as compassionate professionals, optimistic about the potential of all children. This is reflected in the American Academy of Pediatrics’ equity statement of “its mission to ensure the health and well-being of all children. This includes promoting nurturing, inclusive environments and actively opposing intolerance, bigotry, bias, and discrimination.”

A committee of the Developmental Behavioral Pediatric Network developed and published a consensus statement specifically about problems in the care of individuals with neurodevelopmental disabilities (NDD) called the Supporting Access for Everyone (SAFE) initiative. All of us care for children with NDD as one in six are affected with these conditions that impact cognition, communication, motor, social, and/or behavior skills such as autism, ADHD, intellectual disabilities (ID), learning disorders, hearing or vision impairment, and motor disabilities such as cerebral palsy. Children with NDD are overrepresented in our daily practice schedule due to their multiple medical, behavioral, and social needs. NDD are also more common among marginalized children with racial, ethnic, sexual, or gender identity minority status compounding their difficulties in accessing quality care.

NDD present similar challenges to care as other chronic conditions that also require longer visits, more documentation, long-term monitoring, team-based care, care coordination, and often referrals. But most chronic medical conditions we care for such as asthma, diabetes, cancer, hypertension, and renal disease have clear national guidelines and appropriate billing codes and are not stigmatizing. Most also do not intrinsically affect the nervous system or cause disability as for NDD that alter the behavioral presentation of the individual in a way that changes their care.

Discrimination against individuals with NDD and other disabilities, called “ableism,” can take many forms: assuming a child with communication difficulty or ID is unable to understand explanations about their care; the presence of one NDD condition ending the clinician’s search for other issues; complicated problems or difficult behaviors in the medical setting truncating care, etc. To be equitable in the care of individuals with NDD we need to be aware of discrimination and also go beyond guidelines to personalize the accommodations we advise and make.
 

Adjustments Needed for Special Needs

As pediatricians we already adjust our interactions, starting instinctively, to the development level of the child we perceive before us. We approach infants slowly and softly, we speak in shorter sentences to toddlers, we joke around with school-aged children, and we take extra care about privacy with teens. This serves the relationships well for neurotypical children. But our (and our staff’s) perceptions of children with autism, ID, genetic syndromes that include NDD, or motor disabilities based on their behavioral presentation may not accurately recognize or accommodate their abilities or needs. Communication and environmental adjustments may need to be much more individualized to provide respectful care, comfort and even safety.

As an example, at this time 1 in 36 children have autism with or without ID. Defining features of autism include differences in social communication, repetitive or restrictive interests or behaviors, and hypersensitivity to the environment plus any coexisting conditions such as anxiety and hyperactivity. But most children with autism have completely age appropriate and typical physical appearance and their underlying condition may not even be known. The office setting, without special attention to the needs of a child with autism, may be frightening, loud, too bright, too crowded, fast paced, and confusing. The result of their sensitivities and difficulty communicating may lead to increased agitation, repetitive behaviors (sometimes called “stimming”), shrieking, attempts to escape the room, refusal to allow for vital signs or undressing, even aggression. Strategies for calming a neurotypical child such as talking or touching may make matters worse instead of better. We need help from the child and family and a plan to optimize their medical encounters.

If not adequately accommodated, children with many varieties of NDD end up not getting all the routine healthcare they need (eg vaccinations, blood tests, vital signs, even complete physical exams including dental) as well as having more adverse events during health care, including traumatizing seclusion, not allowing a support person to be present, restraint, injuries, and accidents. When more complex procedures are needed, eg x-ray, MRI, EEG, lab studies, or surgery, successful outcomes may be lower. Children with NDD have higher rates of often avoidable morbidity and mortality than those without, in part due to these barriers to complete care. While environmental accommodations to wheelchair users for accessibility has greatly improved in recent years, access to other kinds of individualized accommodations have lagged behind.
 

Accommodation Planning

There are a variety of factors that need to be taken into consideration in accommodating an individual with NDD. The family becomes the expert, along with the child, in knowing the child’s triggers, preferences, abilities, and level of understanding to accept and consent for care. An accommodation plan should be created using shared and supported decision making with the family and child and allowing for child preferences, regardless of their ability level, whenever possible. Development of an accommodation plan may benefit from multidisciplinary input, eg psychology, physical therapy, speech pathology, depending on the child’s needs and the practice’s ability to adapt.

The SAFE initiative is in the process of creating a checklist aiming to facilitate a description being created for each individual to help plan for a successful medical encounter while optimizing the child’s comfort, participation, and safety. While the checklist is not yet ready, we can start now by asking families and children in preparation for or at the start of a visit about their needs and writing a shared document that can also be placed in the electronic health record for the entire care team for informing care going forward.

It is especially important for the family to keep a copy of the care plan and for it to be sent as part of referrals for procedures or specialty visits so that the professionals can prepare and adapt the encounter. An excellent example is a how some hospitals schedule a practice visit for the child to experience the sights and sounds and people the child will encounter, for example, before an EEG, when nothing is required of the child. Scheduling the actual procedure at times of day when clinics are less crowded and wait times are shorter can improve the chances of success.

Some categories and details that might be included in an accommodation plan are listed below:

You might start the plan with the child’s preferred name/nickname, family member or support person names, and diagnoses along with a brief overview of the child’s level of functioning. Then list categories of needs and preferences along with suggestions or requests.

• Motor: Does the child have or need assistance entering the building, visit room, bathroom, or transferring to the exam table? What kind of assistance, if any, and by whom?
• Sensory: Is the child disturbed by noise, lights, or being touched? Does the child want to use equipment to be comfortable such as headphones, earplugs, or sunglasses or need a quiet room, care without perfumes, or dimmed lighting? Does the child typically refuse aspects of the physical examination?
• Behavioral regulation: What helps the child to stay calm? Are there certain triggers to becoming upset? Are there early cues that an upset is coming? What and who can help in the case of an upset?
• Habits/preferences: Are there certain comfort objects or habits your child needs? Are there habits your child needs to do, such as a certain order of events, or use of social stories or pictures, to cooperate or feel comfortable?
• Communication: How does the child make his/her needs known? Does the child/family speak English or another language? Does he/she use sign language or an augmentative communication device? What level of understanding does your child have; for example, similar to what age for a typical child? Is there a care plan with accommodations already available that needs review or needs revision with the child’s development or is a new one needed? Was the care plan developed including the child’s participation and assent or is more collaboration needed?
• History: Has your child had any very upsetting experiences in healthcare settings? What happened? Has the trauma been addressed? Are there reminders of the trauma that should be avoided?
• Other: Are there other things we should know about your child as an individual to provide the best care?

There are many actions needed to do better at ensuring equitable care for individuals with NDD. We should educate our office and medical staff about NDD in children and the importance of accommodating their needs, and ways to do it. The morning huddle can be used to remind staff of upcoming visits of children who may need accommodations. We then need to use quality improvement methods to check in periodically on how the changes are working for the children, families, and practice in order to continually improve.

The overall healthcare system also needs to change. Billing codes should reflect the time, complexity of accommodations, and documentation that were required for care. Episodes of the visit may need to be broken up within the day or over several days to allow the child to practice, calm down, and cooperate and this should be accounted for in billing. Given that NDD are generally lifelong conditions, payment systems that require measures of progress such as value-based payment based on improved outcomes will need to be adjusted to measure quality of care rather than significant progress.

We need to advocate for both individual children and for system changes to work toward equity of care for those with disabilities to make their lives more comfortable as well as ours.

Dr. Howard is assistant professor of pediatrics at The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, and creator of CHADIS. She had no other relevant disclosures. Dr. Howard’s contribution to this publication was as a paid expert to MDedge News. E-mail her at pdnews@mdedge.com.

We pediatricians consider ourselves as compassionate professionals, optimistic about the potential of all children. This is reflected in the American Academy of Pediatrics’ equity statement of “its mission to ensure the health and well-being of all children. This includes promoting nurturing, inclusive environments and actively opposing intolerance, bigotry, bias, and discrimination.”

A committee of the Developmental Behavioral Pediatric Network developed and published a consensus statement specifically about problems in the care of individuals with neurodevelopmental disabilities (NDD) called the Supporting Access for Everyone (SAFE) initiative. All of us care for children with NDD as one in six are affected with these conditions that impact cognition, communication, motor, social, and/or behavior skills such as autism, ADHD, intellectual disabilities (ID), learning disorders, hearing or vision impairment, and motor disabilities such as cerebral palsy. Children with NDD are overrepresented in our daily practice schedule due to their multiple medical, behavioral, and social needs. NDD are also more common among marginalized children with racial, ethnic, sexual, or gender identity minority status compounding their difficulties in accessing quality care.

NDD present similar challenges to care as other chronic conditions that also require longer visits, more documentation, long-term monitoring, team-based care, care coordination, and often referrals. But most chronic medical conditions we care for such as asthma, diabetes, cancer, hypertension, and renal disease have clear national guidelines and appropriate billing codes and are not stigmatizing. Most also do not intrinsically affect the nervous system or cause disability as for NDD that alter the behavioral presentation of the individual in a way that changes their care.

Discrimination against individuals with NDD and other disabilities, called “ableism,” can take many forms: assuming a child with communication difficulty or ID is unable to understand explanations about their care; the presence of one NDD condition ending the clinician’s search for other issues; complicated problems or difficult behaviors in the medical setting truncating care, etc. To be equitable in the care of individuals with NDD we need to be aware of discrimination and also go beyond guidelines to personalize the accommodations we advise and make.
 

Adjustments Needed for Special Needs

As pediatricians we already adjust our interactions, starting instinctively, to the development level of the child we perceive before us. We approach infants slowly and softly, we speak in shorter sentences to toddlers, we joke around with school-aged children, and we take extra care about privacy with teens. This serves the relationships well for neurotypical children. But our (and our staff’s) perceptions of children with autism, ID, genetic syndromes that include NDD, or motor disabilities based on their behavioral presentation may not accurately recognize or accommodate their abilities or needs. Communication and environmental adjustments may need to be much more individualized to provide respectful care, comfort and even safety.

As an example, at this time 1 in 36 children have autism with or without ID. Defining features of autism include differences in social communication, repetitive or restrictive interests or behaviors, and hypersensitivity to the environment plus any coexisting conditions such as anxiety and hyperactivity. But most children with autism have completely age appropriate and typical physical appearance and their underlying condition may not even be known. The office setting, without special attention to the needs of a child with autism, may be frightening, loud, too bright, too crowded, fast paced, and confusing. The result of their sensitivities and difficulty communicating may lead to increased agitation, repetitive behaviors (sometimes called “stimming”), shrieking, attempts to escape the room, refusal to allow for vital signs or undressing, even aggression. Strategies for calming a neurotypical child such as talking or touching may make matters worse instead of better. We need help from the child and family and a plan to optimize their medical encounters.

If not adequately accommodated, children with many varieties of NDD end up not getting all the routine healthcare they need (eg vaccinations, blood tests, vital signs, even complete physical exams including dental) as well as having more adverse events during health care, including traumatizing seclusion, not allowing a support person to be present, restraint, injuries, and accidents. When more complex procedures are needed, eg x-ray, MRI, EEG, lab studies, or surgery, successful outcomes may be lower. Children with NDD have higher rates of often avoidable morbidity and mortality than those without, in part due to these barriers to complete care. While environmental accommodations to wheelchair users for accessibility has greatly improved in recent years, access to other kinds of individualized accommodations have lagged behind.
 

Accommodation Planning

There are a variety of factors that need to be taken into consideration in accommodating an individual with NDD. The family becomes the expert, along with the child, in knowing the child’s triggers, preferences, abilities, and level of understanding to accept and consent for care. An accommodation plan should be created using shared and supported decision making with the family and child and allowing for child preferences, regardless of their ability level, whenever possible. Development of an accommodation plan may benefit from multidisciplinary input, eg psychology, physical therapy, speech pathology, depending on the child’s needs and the practice’s ability to adapt.

The SAFE initiative is in the process of creating a checklist aiming to facilitate a description being created for each individual to help plan for a successful medical encounter while optimizing the child’s comfort, participation, and safety. While the checklist is not yet ready, we can start now by asking families and children in preparation for or at the start of a visit about their needs and writing a shared document that can also be placed in the electronic health record for the entire care team for informing care going forward.

It is especially important for the family to keep a copy of the care plan and for it to be sent as part of referrals for procedures or specialty visits so that the professionals can prepare and adapt the encounter. An excellent example is a how some hospitals schedule a practice visit for the child to experience the sights and sounds and people the child will encounter, for example, before an EEG, when nothing is required of the child. Scheduling the actual procedure at times of day when clinics are less crowded and wait times are shorter can improve the chances of success.

Some categories and details that might be included in an accommodation plan are listed below:

You might start the plan with the child’s preferred name/nickname, family member or support person names, and diagnoses along with a brief overview of the child’s level of functioning. Then list categories of needs and preferences along with suggestions or requests.

• Motor: Does the child have or need assistance entering the building, visit room, bathroom, or transferring to the exam table? What kind of assistance, if any, and by whom?
• Sensory: Is the child disturbed by noise, lights, or being touched? Does the child want to use equipment to be comfortable such as headphones, earplugs, or sunglasses or need a quiet room, care without perfumes, or dimmed lighting? Does the child typically refuse aspects of the physical examination?
• Behavioral regulation: What helps the child to stay calm? Are there certain triggers to becoming upset? Are there early cues that an upset is coming? What and who can help in the case of an upset?
• Habits/preferences: Are there certain comfort objects or habits your child needs? Are there habits your child needs to do, such as a certain order of events, or use of social stories or pictures, to cooperate or feel comfortable?
• Communication: How does the child make his/her needs known? Does the child/family speak English or another language? Does he/she use sign language or an augmentative communication device? What level of understanding does your child have; for example, similar to what age for a typical child? Is there a care plan with accommodations already available that needs review or needs revision with the child’s development or is a new one needed? Was the care plan developed including the child’s participation and assent or is more collaboration needed?
• History: Has your child had any very upsetting experiences in healthcare settings? What happened? Has the trauma been addressed? Are there reminders of the trauma that should be avoided?
• Other: Are there other things we should know about your child as an individual to provide the best care?

There are many actions needed to do better at ensuring equitable care for individuals with NDD. We should educate our office and medical staff about NDD in children and the importance of accommodating their needs, and ways to do it. The morning huddle can be used to remind staff of upcoming visits of children who may need accommodations. We then need to use quality improvement methods to check in periodically on how the changes are working for the children, families, and practice in order to continually improve.

The overall healthcare system also needs to change. Billing codes should reflect the time, complexity of accommodations, and documentation that were required for care. Episodes of the visit may need to be broken up within the day or over several days to allow the child to practice, calm down, and cooperate and this should be accounted for in billing. Given that NDD are generally lifelong conditions, payment systems that require measures of progress such as value-based payment based on improved outcomes will need to be adjusted to measure quality of care rather than significant progress.

We need to advocate for both individual children and for system changes to work toward equity of care for those with disabilities to make their lives more comfortable as well as ours.

Dr. Howard is assistant professor of pediatrics at The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, and creator of CHADIS. She had no other relevant disclosures. Dr. Howard’s contribution to this publication was as a paid expert to MDedge News. E-mail her at pdnews@mdedge.com.

A strategy developed by Canadian researchers for encouraging older patients with insomnia to wean themselves from sleeping pills and improve their sleep through behavioral techniques is effective, data suggest. If proven helpful for the millions of older Canadians who currently rely on nightly benzodiazepines (BZDs) and non-BZDs (colloquially known as Z drugs) for their sleep, it might yield an additional benefit: Reducing resource utilization.

“We know that cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia (CBTI) works. It’s recommended as first-line therapy because it works,” study author David Gardner, PharmD, professor of psychiatry at Dalhousie University in Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada, told this news organization.

“We’re sharing information about sleeping pills, information that has been embedded with behavior-change techniques that lead people to second-guess or rethink their long-term use of sedative hypnotics and then bring that information to their provider or pharmacist to discuss it,” he said.

The results were published in JAMA Psychiatry.
 

Better Sleep, Fewer Pills

Dr. Gardner and his team created a direct-to-patient, patient-directed, multicomponent knowledge mobilization intervention called Sleepwell. It incorporates best practice– and guideline-based evidence and multiple behavioral change techniques with content and graphics. Dr. Gardner emphasized that it represents a directional shift in care that alleviates providers’ burden without removing it entirely.

To test the intervention’s effectiveness, Dr. Gardner and his team chose New Brunswick as a location for a 6-month, three-arm, open-label, randomized controlled trial; the province has one of the highest rates of sedative use and an older adult population that is vulnerable to the serious side effects of these drugs (eg, cognitive impairment, falls, and frailty). The study was called Your Answers When Needing Sleep in New Brunswick (YAWNS NB).

Eligible participants were aged ≥ 65 years, lived in the community, and had taken benzodiazepine receptor agonists (BZRAs) for ≥ 3 nights per week for 3 or more months. Participants were randomly assigned to a control group or one of the two intervention groups. The YAWNS-1 intervention group (n = 195) received a mailed package containing a cover letter, a booklet outlining how to stop sleeping pills, a booklet on how to “get your sleep back,” and a companion website. The YAWNS-2 group (n = 193) received updated versions of the booklets used in a prior trial. The control group (n = 192) was assigned treatment as usual (TAU).

A greater proportion of YAWNS-1 participants discontinued BZRAs at 6 months (26.2%) and had dose reductions (20.4%), compared with YAWNS-2 participants (20.3% and 14.4%, respectively) and TAU participants (7.5% and 12.8%, respectively). The corresponding numbers needed to mail to achieve an additional discontinuation was 5.3 YAWNS-1 packages and 7.8 YAWNS-2 packages.

At 6 months, BZRA cessation was sustained a mean 13.6 weeks for YAWNS-1, 14.3 weeks for YAWNS-2, and 16.9 weeks for TAU.

Sleep measures also improved with YAWNS-1, compared with YAWNs-2 and TAU. Sleep onset latency was reduced by 26.1 minutes among YAWNS-1 participants, compared with YAWNS-2 (P < .001), and by 27.7 minutes, compared with TAU (P < .001). Wake after sleep onset increased by 4.1 minutes in YAWNS-1, 11.1 minutes in YAWNS-2, and 7.5 minutes in TAU.

Although all participants underwent rigorous assessment before inclusion, less than half of participants receiving either intervention (36% in YAWNS-1 and 43% in YAWNS-2) contacted their provider or pharmacist to discuss BZD dose reductions. This finding may have resulted partly from limited access because of the COVID-19 pandemic, according to the authors.
 

A Stepped-Care Model

The intervention is intended to help patients “change their approach from sleeping pills to a short-term CBTI course for long-term sleep benefits, and then speak to their provider,” said Dr. Gardner.

He pointed to a post-study follow-up of the study participants’ health providers, most of whom had moderate to extensive experience deprescribing BZRAs, which showed that 87.5%-100% fully or nearly fully agreed with or supported using the Sleepwell strategy and its content with older patients who rely on sedatives.

“Providers said that deprescribing is difficult, time-consuming, and often not a productive use of their time,” said Dr. Gardner. “I see insomnia as a health issue well set up for a stepped-care model. Self-help approaches are at the very bottom of that model and can help shift the initial burden to patients and out of the healthcare system.”

Poor uptake has prevented CBTI from demonstrating its potential, which is a challenge that Charles M. Morin, PhD, professor of psychology at Laval University in Quebec City, Quebec, Canada, attributes to two factors. “Clearly, there aren’t enough providers with this kind of expertise, and it’s not always covered by public health insurance, so people have to pay out of pocket to treat their insomnia,” he said.

“Overall, I think that this was a very nice study, well conducted, with an impressive sample size,” said Dr. Morin, who was not involved in the study. “The results are quite encouraging, telling us that even when older adults have used sleep medications for an average of 10 years, it’s still possible to reduce the medication. But this doesn’t happen alone. People need to be guided in doing that, not only to decrease medication use, but they also need an alternative,” he said.

Dr. Morin questioned how many patients agree to start with a low intensity. “Ideally, it should be a shared decision paradigm, where the physician or whoever sees the patient first presents the available options and explains the pluses and minuses of each. Some patients might choose medication because it’s a quick fix,” he said. “But some might want to do CBTI, even if it takes more work. The results are sustainable over time,” he added.

The study was jointly funded by the Public Health Agency of Canada and the government of New Brunswick as a Healthy Seniors Pilot Project. Dr. Gardner and Dr. Morin reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

A strategy developed by Canadian researchers for encouraging older patients with insomnia to wean themselves from sleeping pills and improve their sleep through behavioral techniques is effective, data suggest. If proven helpful for the millions of older Canadians who currently rely on nightly benzodiazepines (BZDs) and non-BZDs (colloquially known as Z drugs) for their sleep, it might yield an additional benefit: Reducing resource utilization.

“We know that cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia (CBTI) works. It’s recommended as first-line therapy because it works,” study author David Gardner, PharmD, professor of psychiatry at Dalhousie University in Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada, told this news organization.

“We’re sharing information about sleeping pills, information that has been embedded with behavior-change techniques that lead people to second-guess or rethink their long-term use of sedative hypnotics and then bring that information to their provider or pharmacist to discuss it,” he said.

The results were published in JAMA Psychiatry.
 

Better Sleep, Fewer Pills

Dr. Gardner and his team created a direct-to-patient, patient-directed, multicomponent knowledge mobilization intervention called Sleepwell. It incorporates best practice– and guideline-based evidence and multiple behavioral change techniques with content and graphics. Dr. Gardner emphasized that it represents a directional shift in care that alleviates providers’ burden without removing it entirely.

To test the intervention’s effectiveness, Dr. Gardner and his team chose New Brunswick as a location for a 6-month, three-arm, open-label, randomized controlled trial; the province has one of the highest rates of sedative use and an older adult population that is vulnerable to the serious side effects of these drugs (eg, cognitive impairment, falls, and frailty). The study was called Your Answers When Needing Sleep in New Brunswick (YAWNS NB).

Eligible participants were aged ≥ 65 years, lived in the community, and had taken benzodiazepine receptor agonists (BZRAs) for ≥ 3 nights per week for 3 or more months. Participants were randomly assigned to a control group or one of the two intervention groups. The YAWNS-1 intervention group (n = 195) received a mailed package containing a cover letter, a booklet outlining how to stop sleeping pills, a booklet on how to “get your sleep back,” and a companion website. The YAWNS-2 group (n = 193) received updated versions of the booklets used in a prior trial. The control group (n = 192) was assigned treatment as usual (TAU).

A greater proportion of YAWNS-1 participants discontinued BZRAs at 6 months (26.2%) and had dose reductions (20.4%), compared with YAWNS-2 participants (20.3% and 14.4%, respectively) and TAU participants (7.5% and 12.8%, respectively). The corresponding numbers needed to mail to achieve an additional discontinuation was 5.3 YAWNS-1 packages and 7.8 YAWNS-2 packages.

At 6 months, BZRA cessation was sustained a mean 13.6 weeks for YAWNS-1, 14.3 weeks for YAWNS-2, and 16.9 weeks for TAU.

Sleep measures also improved with YAWNS-1, compared with YAWNs-2 and TAU. Sleep onset latency was reduced by 26.1 minutes among YAWNS-1 participants, compared with YAWNS-2 (P < .001), and by 27.7 minutes, compared with TAU (P < .001). Wake after sleep onset increased by 4.1 minutes in YAWNS-1, 11.1 minutes in YAWNS-2, and 7.5 minutes in TAU.

Although all participants underwent rigorous assessment before inclusion, less than half of participants receiving either intervention (36% in YAWNS-1 and 43% in YAWNS-2) contacted their provider or pharmacist to discuss BZD dose reductions. This finding may have resulted partly from limited access because of the COVID-19 pandemic, according to the authors.
 

A Stepped-Care Model

The intervention is intended to help patients “change their approach from sleeping pills to a short-term CBTI course for long-term sleep benefits, and then speak to their provider,” said Dr. Gardner.

He pointed to a post-study follow-up of the study participants’ health providers, most of whom had moderate to extensive experience deprescribing BZRAs, which showed that 87.5%-100% fully or nearly fully agreed with or supported using the Sleepwell strategy and its content with older patients who rely on sedatives.

“Providers said that deprescribing is difficult, time-consuming, and often not a productive use of their time,” said Dr. Gardner. “I see insomnia as a health issue well set up for a stepped-care model. Self-help approaches are at the very bottom of that model and can help shift the initial burden to patients and out of the healthcare system.”

Poor uptake has prevented CBTI from demonstrating its potential, which is a challenge that Charles M. Morin, PhD, professor of psychology at Laval University in Quebec City, Quebec, Canada, attributes to two factors. “Clearly, there aren’t enough providers with this kind of expertise, and it’s not always covered by public health insurance, so people have to pay out of pocket to treat their insomnia,” he said.

“Overall, I think that this was a very nice study, well conducted, with an impressive sample size,” said Dr. Morin, who was not involved in the study. “The results are quite encouraging, telling us that even when older adults have used sleep medications for an average of 10 years, it’s still possible to reduce the medication. But this doesn’t happen alone. People need to be guided in doing that, not only to decrease medication use, but they also need an alternative,” he said.

Dr. Morin questioned how many patients agree to start with a low intensity. “Ideally, it should be a shared decision paradigm, where the physician or whoever sees the patient first presents the available options and explains the pluses and minuses of each. Some patients might choose medication because it’s a quick fix,” he said. “But some might want to do CBTI, even if it takes more work. The results are sustainable over time,” he added.

The study was jointly funded by the Public Health Agency of Canada and the government of New Brunswick as a Healthy Seniors Pilot Project. Dr. Gardner and Dr. Morin reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

A strategy developed by Canadian researchers for encouraging older patients with insomnia to wean themselves from sleeping pills and improve their sleep through behavioral techniques is effective, data suggest. If proven helpful for the millions of older Canadians who currently rely on nightly benzodiazepines (BZDs) and non-BZDs (colloquially known as Z drugs) for their sleep, it might yield an additional benefit: Reducing resource utilization.

“We know that cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia (CBTI) works. It’s recommended as first-line therapy because it works,” study author David Gardner, PharmD, professor of psychiatry at Dalhousie University in Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada, told this news organization.

“We’re sharing information about sleeping pills, information that has been embedded with behavior-change techniques that lead people to second-guess or rethink their long-term use of sedative hypnotics and then bring that information to their provider or pharmacist to discuss it,” he said.

The results were published in JAMA Psychiatry.
 

Better Sleep, Fewer Pills

Dr. Gardner and his team created a direct-to-patient, patient-directed, multicomponent knowledge mobilization intervention called Sleepwell. It incorporates best practice– and guideline-based evidence and multiple behavioral change techniques with content and graphics. Dr. Gardner emphasized that it represents a directional shift in care that alleviates providers’ burden without removing it entirely.

To test the intervention’s effectiveness, Dr. Gardner and his team chose New Brunswick as a location for a 6-month, three-arm, open-label, randomized controlled trial; the province has one of the highest rates of sedative use and an older adult population that is vulnerable to the serious side effects of these drugs (eg, cognitive impairment, falls, and frailty). The study was called Your Answers When Needing Sleep in New Brunswick (YAWNS NB).

Eligible participants were aged ≥ 65 years, lived in the community, and had taken benzodiazepine receptor agonists (BZRAs) for ≥ 3 nights per week for 3 or more months. Participants were randomly assigned to a control group or one of the two intervention groups. The YAWNS-1 intervention group (n = 195) received a mailed package containing a cover letter, a booklet outlining how to stop sleeping pills, a booklet on how to “get your sleep back,” and a companion website. The YAWNS-2 group (n = 193) received updated versions of the booklets used in a prior trial. The control group (n = 192) was assigned treatment as usual (TAU).

A greater proportion of YAWNS-1 participants discontinued BZRAs at 6 months (26.2%) and had dose reductions (20.4%), compared with YAWNS-2 participants (20.3% and 14.4%, respectively) and TAU participants (7.5% and 12.8%, respectively). The corresponding numbers needed to mail to achieve an additional discontinuation was 5.3 YAWNS-1 packages and 7.8 YAWNS-2 packages.

At 6 months, BZRA cessation was sustained a mean 13.6 weeks for YAWNS-1, 14.3 weeks for YAWNS-2, and 16.9 weeks for TAU.

Sleep measures also improved with YAWNS-1, compared with YAWNs-2 and TAU. Sleep onset latency was reduced by 26.1 minutes among YAWNS-1 participants, compared with YAWNS-2 (P < .001), and by 27.7 minutes, compared with TAU (P < .001). Wake after sleep onset increased by 4.1 minutes in YAWNS-1, 11.1 minutes in YAWNS-2, and 7.5 minutes in TAU.

Although all participants underwent rigorous assessment before inclusion, less than half of participants receiving either intervention (36% in YAWNS-1 and 43% in YAWNS-2) contacted their provider or pharmacist to discuss BZD dose reductions. This finding may have resulted partly from limited access because of the COVID-19 pandemic, according to the authors.
 

A Stepped-Care Model

The intervention is intended to help patients “change their approach from sleeping pills to a short-term CBTI course for long-term sleep benefits, and then speak to their provider,” said Dr. Gardner.

He pointed to a post-study follow-up of the study participants’ health providers, most of whom had moderate to extensive experience deprescribing BZRAs, which showed that 87.5%-100% fully or nearly fully agreed with or supported using the Sleepwell strategy and its content with older patients who rely on sedatives.

“Providers said that deprescribing is difficult, time-consuming, and often not a productive use of their time,” said Dr. Gardner. “I see insomnia as a health issue well set up for a stepped-care model. Self-help approaches are at the very bottom of that model and can help shift the initial burden to patients and out of the healthcare system.”

Poor uptake has prevented CBTI from demonstrating its potential, which is a challenge that Charles M. Morin, PhD, professor of psychology at Laval University in Quebec City, Quebec, Canada, attributes to two factors. “Clearly, there aren’t enough providers with this kind of expertise, and it’s not always covered by public health insurance, so people have to pay out of pocket to treat their insomnia,” he said.

“Overall, I think that this was a very nice study, well conducted, with an impressive sample size,” said Dr. Morin, who was not involved in the study. “The results are quite encouraging, telling us that even when older adults have used sleep medications for an average of 10 years, it’s still possible to reduce the medication. But this doesn’t happen alone. People need to be guided in doing that, not only to decrease medication use, but they also need an alternative,” he said.

Dr. Morin questioned how many patients agree to start with a low intensity. “Ideally, it should be a shared decision paradigm, where the physician or whoever sees the patient first presents the available options and explains the pluses and minuses of each. Some patients might choose medication because it’s a quick fix,” he said. “But some might want to do CBTI, even if it takes more work. The results are sustainable over time,” he added.

The study was jointly funded by the Public Health Agency of Canada and the government of New Brunswick as a Healthy Seniors Pilot Project. Dr. Gardner and Dr. Morin reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

BOSTON — With the remarkable advances made in therapy over the past decade, many patients with cystic fibrosis (CF) can expect to survive into their 50s and even well beyond. But as patients with CF live longer, they are increasingly likely to develop complications such as cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) that beset many older adults. And as evidence from a new study suggests, there is an increasing need for cardiovascular screening and specialized cardiac care for these patients.

Among more than 83,000 patients with CF hospitalized for any reason from 2016 through 2021, less than 1% of patients had a cardiac cause listed, but in unadjusted analyses, these patients had a more than twofold risk for in-hospital death than those with CF hospitalized for other causes, reported Adnan Bhat, MD, assistant professor of hospital medicine at the University of Florida, Gainesville.

Although the excess mortality was no longer statistically significant in analyses adjusted for potential confounding factors, the data highlight a trend that requires further exploration, he said during an oral abstract session at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST).

“There’s a trend for people with cystic fibrosis admitted for cardiac causes to have a higher in-hospital mortality and increased rate of discharge to nursing facilities, especially for patients admitted for heart failure. The clinical implication is that there is an increased need to start screening for cardiovascular risk factors,” he said.
 

National Database Sample

Bhat and colleagues conducted a retrospective study using the National Inpatient Sample database to identify all hospitalizations among patients with CF in the United States from 2016 through 2021.

They included all hospitalizations with a principal diagnosis code for atrial fibrillation, heart failure, or myocardial infarction.

Of 83,250 total hospitalizations during the study period, 415 (0.5%) were for primary cardiac causes. These included 170 hospitalizations for atrial fibrillation, 95 for heart failure, and 150 for myocardial infarction.

Patients hospitalized for cardiac causes had a higher mean age (59.5 vs 34.5 years) and more comorbidities than patients hospitalized for other causes. These comorbidities included hyperlipidemia, chronic kidney disease, obesity, and a family history of coronary artery disease.

In all, 5% of patients hospitalized for cardiac cause died in hospital, compared with 2% of patients hospitalized for other reasons (P = .044).

However, in logistic regression analyses adjusting for age, sex, and race, this difference was no longer significant.

Similarly, an unadjusted analysis showed that patients with cardiac disease were twice as likely to be discharged to a nursing facility (8% vs 4%, respectively), but this difference too disappeared in adjusted analyses.

The risk for in-hospital mortality appeared to be highest among those patients with a primary diagnosis of heart failure, who had an 11% rate of in-hospital death, compared with 2% among patients with CF hospitalized for other causes.

The total number of deaths was too small, however, to allow for regression analysis, Bhat said.

Nonetheless, taken together, the data indicate a trend toward increased mortality from cardiovascular causes among older patients with CF, as well as the need for further research into the cardiovascular health of these patients, Bhat concluded.
 

Better Nutrition, Higher Risk

In an interview, Yuqing A. Gao, MD, from the Santa Monica Pulmonary Sleep Clinic in California, who was not involved in the study, commented that with the advent of elexacaftor/tezacaftor/ivacaftor modulator therapy, patients with CF tend to have increases in body mass index and improved nutritional intake and absorption, which in turn could increase hyperlipidemia and other factors that might in turn contribute to increased CVD risk.

“It’s really an interesting area of research, and there’s hope that this will bring more focus on how to better screen [for CVD risk] because that’s something that’s very much not known at this time,” she said.

Gao was co-moderator for the session where Bhat presented the data. Bhat did not report a study funding source. Bhat and Gao reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

BOSTON — With the remarkable advances made in therapy over the past decade, many patients with cystic fibrosis (CF) can expect to survive into their 50s and even well beyond. But as patients with CF live longer, they are increasingly likely to develop complications such as cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) that beset many older adults. And as evidence from a new study suggests, there is an increasing need for cardiovascular screening and specialized cardiac care for these patients.

Among more than 83,000 patients with CF hospitalized for any reason from 2016 through 2021, less than 1% of patients had a cardiac cause listed, but in unadjusted analyses, these patients had a more than twofold risk for in-hospital death than those with CF hospitalized for other causes, reported Adnan Bhat, MD, assistant professor of hospital medicine at the University of Florida, Gainesville.

Although the excess mortality was no longer statistically significant in analyses adjusted for potential confounding factors, the data highlight a trend that requires further exploration, he said during an oral abstract session at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST).

“There’s a trend for people with cystic fibrosis admitted for cardiac causes to have a higher in-hospital mortality and increased rate of discharge to nursing facilities, especially for patients admitted for heart failure. The clinical implication is that there is an increased need to start screening for cardiovascular risk factors,” he said.
 

National Database Sample

Bhat and colleagues conducted a retrospective study using the National Inpatient Sample database to identify all hospitalizations among patients with CF in the United States from 2016 through 2021.

They included all hospitalizations with a principal diagnosis code for atrial fibrillation, heart failure, or myocardial infarction.

Of 83,250 total hospitalizations during the study period, 415 (0.5%) were for primary cardiac causes. These included 170 hospitalizations for atrial fibrillation, 95 for heart failure, and 150 for myocardial infarction.

Patients hospitalized for cardiac causes had a higher mean age (59.5 vs 34.5 years) and more comorbidities than patients hospitalized for other causes. These comorbidities included hyperlipidemia, chronic kidney disease, obesity, and a family history of coronary artery disease.

In all, 5% of patients hospitalized for cardiac cause died in hospital, compared with 2% of patients hospitalized for other reasons (P = .044).

However, in logistic regression analyses adjusting for age, sex, and race, this difference was no longer significant.

Similarly, an unadjusted analysis showed that patients with cardiac disease were twice as likely to be discharged to a nursing facility (8% vs 4%, respectively), but this difference too disappeared in adjusted analyses.

The risk for in-hospital mortality appeared to be highest among those patients with a primary diagnosis of heart failure, who had an 11% rate of in-hospital death, compared with 2% among patients with CF hospitalized for other causes.

The total number of deaths was too small, however, to allow for regression analysis, Bhat said.

Nonetheless, taken together, the data indicate a trend toward increased mortality from cardiovascular causes among older patients with CF, as well as the need for further research into the cardiovascular health of these patients, Bhat concluded.
 

Better Nutrition, Higher Risk

In an interview, Yuqing A. Gao, MD, from the Santa Monica Pulmonary Sleep Clinic in California, who was not involved in the study, commented that with the advent of elexacaftor/tezacaftor/ivacaftor modulator therapy, patients with CF tend to have increases in body mass index and improved nutritional intake and absorption, which in turn could increase hyperlipidemia and other factors that might in turn contribute to increased CVD risk.

“It’s really an interesting area of research, and there’s hope that this will bring more focus on how to better screen [for CVD risk] because that’s something that’s very much not known at this time,” she said.

Gao was co-moderator for the session where Bhat presented the data. Bhat did not report a study funding source. Bhat and Gao reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

BOSTON — With the remarkable advances made in therapy over the past decade, many patients with cystic fibrosis (CF) can expect to survive into their 50s and even well beyond. But as patients with CF live longer, they are increasingly likely to develop complications such as cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) that beset many older adults. And as evidence from a new study suggests, there is an increasing need for cardiovascular screening and specialized cardiac care for these patients.

Among more than 83,000 patients with CF hospitalized for any reason from 2016 through 2021, less than 1% of patients had a cardiac cause listed, but in unadjusted analyses, these patients had a more than twofold risk for in-hospital death than those with CF hospitalized for other causes, reported Adnan Bhat, MD, assistant professor of hospital medicine at the University of Florida, Gainesville.

Although the excess mortality was no longer statistically significant in analyses adjusted for potential confounding factors, the data highlight a trend that requires further exploration, he said during an oral abstract session at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST).

“There’s a trend for people with cystic fibrosis admitted for cardiac causes to have a higher in-hospital mortality and increased rate of discharge to nursing facilities, especially for patients admitted for heart failure. The clinical implication is that there is an increased need to start screening for cardiovascular risk factors,” he said.
 

National Database Sample

Bhat and colleagues conducted a retrospective study using the National Inpatient Sample database to identify all hospitalizations among patients with CF in the United States from 2016 through 2021.

They included all hospitalizations with a principal diagnosis code for atrial fibrillation, heart failure, or myocardial infarction.

Of 83,250 total hospitalizations during the study period, 415 (0.5%) were for primary cardiac causes. These included 170 hospitalizations for atrial fibrillation, 95 for heart failure, and 150 for myocardial infarction.

Patients hospitalized for cardiac causes had a higher mean age (59.5 vs 34.5 years) and more comorbidities than patients hospitalized for other causes. These comorbidities included hyperlipidemia, chronic kidney disease, obesity, and a family history of coronary artery disease.

In all, 5% of patients hospitalized for cardiac cause died in hospital, compared with 2% of patients hospitalized for other reasons (P = .044).

However, in logistic regression analyses adjusting for age, sex, and race, this difference was no longer significant.

Similarly, an unadjusted analysis showed that patients with cardiac disease were twice as likely to be discharged to a nursing facility (8% vs 4%, respectively), but this difference too disappeared in adjusted analyses.

The risk for in-hospital mortality appeared to be highest among those patients with a primary diagnosis of heart failure, who had an 11% rate of in-hospital death, compared with 2% among patients with CF hospitalized for other causes.

The total number of deaths was too small, however, to allow for regression analysis, Bhat said.

Nonetheless, taken together, the data indicate a trend toward increased mortality from cardiovascular causes among older patients with CF, as well as the need for further research into the cardiovascular health of these patients, Bhat concluded.
 

Better Nutrition, Higher Risk

In an interview, Yuqing A. Gao, MD, from the Santa Monica Pulmonary Sleep Clinic in California, who was not involved in the study, commented that with the advent of elexacaftor/tezacaftor/ivacaftor modulator therapy, patients with CF tend to have increases in body mass index and improved nutritional intake and absorption, which in turn could increase hyperlipidemia and other factors that might in turn contribute to increased CVD risk.

“It’s really an interesting area of research, and there’s hope that this will bring more focus on how to better screen [for CVD risk] because that’s something that’s very much not known at this time,” she said.

Gao was co-moderator for the session where Bhat presented the data. Bhat did not report a study funding source. Bhat and Gao reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

BOSTON — The sooner that patients with acute pulmonary embolism (PE) get treated with mechanical thrombectomy, the greater the likelihood that they will have favorable short- and long-term outcomes, regardless of their degree of initial risk, a study of registry data showed.

Among nearly 800 patients with acute PE whose data are recorded in the FlowTriever All-Comer Registry for Patient Safety and Hemodynamics (FLASH), a prospective multicenter registry of individuals treated with mechanical thrombectomy using the FlowTriever system (Inari Medical), shorter time from admission to mechanical thrombectomy was associated with significantly greater reductions in intraprocedural mean and systolic pulmonary artery pressures (PAP), greater reductions in the right ventricular/left ventricular (RV/LV) ratio, and longer 6-minute walk times at 6 months, reported Krunal H. Patel, MD, a pulmonary and critical care fellow at the Lewis Katz School of Medicine at Temple University Hospital in Philadelphia.

“Mechanical thrombectomy in the FLASH registry showed a mortality benefit. I think as time progresses and mechanical thrombectomy becomes more popular, we’re just going to need to figure out what is the ideal time for intervention,” he said during an oral abstract session at the American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST) 2024 Annual Meeting.

“There’s mortality benefit in any case whether the patient is high-risk or intermediate-high. This is a thought-provoking retrospective analysis that says that early intervention is probably better than doing it late, but regardless, the FLASH registry trial showed that early thrombectomy or thrombectomy in general shows positive mortality benefit,” Patel said in an interview.

He likened the challenge for pulmonary and critical care specialists to that of interventional cardiologists, who have determined that the ideal window for starting percutaneous coronary interventions is within 90 minutes of the patient’s arrival at the facility.

“I think we have to get our ‘door-to-balloon’ time for PE care,” he said.
 

Study Details

Patel and colleague Parth M. Rali, MD, FCCP, associate professor of thoracic medicine at Temple, conducted a retrospective review of data on 787 US patients in the FLASH registry for whom time to mechanical thrombectomy data were available. They stratified the patients into short and long time to mechanical thrombectomy groups, with “short” defined as ≤ 12 hours of presentation and “long” as > 12 hours.

They found that the median time to thrombectomy was 19.68 hours. In all, 242 patients (31%) were treated within the short window, and the remaining 545 patients (69%) were treated after at least 12 hours had passed.

Comparing clinical characteristics between the groups, the investigators noted that significantly more patients in the short time group vs long time group were categorized as high-risk (11.2% vs 6.2%; P = .0026). This difference is likely due to the need for greater urgency among high-risk patients, Patel said.

Patients in the short time group also had significantly higher baseline RV/LV ratios and lactate levels, but baseline dyspnea scores and pre-procedure median and systolic PAP were similar between the groups.

The mean time to thrombectomy was 6.08 hours in the short time group vs 34.04 hours in the long time group. Their respective median times were 6.01 and 24.73 hours.

The procedural time was similar between the groups, at 45 and 42 minutes, respectively.

The location of the treated thrombus was central only in 35.1% and 26.5% patients in the short and long time groups, respectively. Lobar-only thrombi were treated in 7.9% and 14.3%, respectively, and both central and lobar thrombi were treated in 57.0% and 59.2%, respectively.

Both 48-hour and 30-day all-cause mortality rates were similar between the groups (0.4%/0.2% and 0.5%/1.0%).

Patients in the short time group had slightly but significantly longer post-procedure hospital and intensive care unit stays, but 30-day readmission rates — whether for PE- or non-PE–related causes — were similar.

Where the differences between the groups really showed, however, were PAP reductions over baseline, with decline in median pressures of −8.7 mm Hg in the short group vs −7.2 mm Hg in the long group (P = .0008), and drops in systolic PAP of −14.4 vs −12.1 mm Hg, respectively (P = .0011).

In addition, reductions in RV/LV ratios from baseline were also significantly greater among patients whose thrombectomies had been expedited at the 48-hour, 30-day, and 6-month follow-up periods.

At 6 months, patients who had received mechanical thrombectomy within 12 hours also had significantly longer 6-minute walk distances (442.2 vs 390.5 m; P = .0032).
 

Low Thrombolysis Rate

Following his presentation, session co-moderator Galina Glazman-Kuczaj, MD, from the Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine at Albany Med Health System, Albany, New York, asked Patel what percentage of patients, if any, had received thrombolytic therapy before the thrombectomy procedure.

He noted that only 1% or 2% patients in the FLASH registry received thrombolysis.

In an interview, Glazman-Kuczaj said that “it was reassuring for [Patel] to report that it was only a small population of patients who got thrombolysis beforehand in either group because you would expect that maybe people in the group that took longer to have a thrombectomy got some thrombolysis beforehand and that perhaps they were more stable, but it seems like thrombectomy was the first-line treatment in both groups.”

The FLASH Registry is funded by Inari Medical. Patel and Glazman-Kuczaj reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

BOSTON — The sooner that patients with acute pulmonary embolism (PE) get treated with mechanical thrombectomy, the greater the likelihood that they will have favorable short- and long-term outcomes, regardless of their degree of initial risk, a study of registry data showed.

Among nearly 800 patients with acute PE whose data are recorded in the FlowTriever All-Comer Registry for Patient Safety and Hemodynamics (FLASH), a prospective multicenter registry of individuals treated with mechanical thrombectomy using the FlowTriever system (Inari Medical), shorter time from admission to mechanical thrombectomy was associated with significantly greater reductions in intraprocedural mean and systolic pulmonary artery pressures (PAP), greater reductions in the right ventricular/left ventricular (RV/LV) ratio, and longer 6-minute walk times at 6 months, reported Krunal H. Patel, MD, a pulmonary and critical care fellow at the Lewis Katz School of Medicine at Temple University Hospital in Philadelphia.

“Mechanical thrombectomy in the FLASH registry showed a mortality benefit. I think as time progresses and mechanical thrombectomy becomes more popular, we’re just going to need to figure out what is the ideal time for intervention,” he said during an oral abstract session at the American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST) 2024 Annual Meeting.

“There’s mortality benefit in any case whether the patient is high-risk or intermediate-high. This is a thought-provoking retrospective analysis that says that early intervention is probably better than doing it late, but regardless, the FLASH registry trial showed that early thrombectomy or thrombectomy in general shows positive mortality benefit,” Patel said in an interview.

He likened the challenge for pulmonary and critical care specialists to that of interventional cardiologists, who have determined that the ideal window for starting percutaneous coronary interventions is within 90 minutes of the patient’s arrival at the facility.

“I think we have to get our ‘door-to-balloon’ time for PE care,” he said.
 

Study Details

Patel and colleague Parth M. Rali, MD, FCCP, associate professor of thoracic medicine at Temple, conducted a retrospective review of data on 787 US patients in the FLASH registry for whom time to mechanical thrombectomy data were available. They stratified the patients into short and long time to mechanical thrombectomy groups, with “short” defined as ≤ 12 hours of presentation and “long” as > 12 hours.

They found that the median time to thrombectomy was 19.68 hours. In all, 242 patients (31%) were treated within the short window, and the remaining 545 patients (69%) were treated after at least 12 hours had passed.

Comparing clinical characteristics between the groups, the investigators noted that significantly more patients in the short time group vs long time group were categorized as high-risk (11.2% vs 6.2%; P = .0026). This difference is likely due to the need for greater urgency among high-risk patients, Patel said.

Patients in the short time group also had significantly higher baseline RV/LV ratios and lactate levels, but baseline dyspnea scores and pre-procedure median and systolic PAP were similar between the groups.

The mean time to thrombectomy was 6.08 hours in the short time group vs 34.04 hours in the long time group. Their respective median times were 6.01 and 24.73 hours.

The procedural time was similar between the groups, at 45 and 42 minutes, respectively.

The location of the treated thrombus was central only in 35.1% and 26.5% patients in the short and long time groups, respectively. Lobar-only thrombi were treated in 7.9% and 14.3%, respectively, and both central and lobar thrombi were treated in 57.0% and 59.2%, respectively.

Both 48-hour and 30-day all-cause mortality rates were similar between the groups (0.4%/0.2% and 0.5%/1.0%).

Patients in the short time group had slightly but significantly longer post-procedure hospital and intensive care unit stays, but 30-day readmission rates — whether for PE- or non-PE–related causes — were similar.

Where the differences between the groups really showed, however, were PAP reductions over baseline, with decline in median pressures of −8.7 mm Hg in the short group vs −7.2 mm Hg in the long group (P = .0008), and drops in systolic PAP of −14.4 vs −12.1 mm Hg, respectively (P = .0011).

In addition, reductions in RV/LV ratios from baseline were also significantly greater among patients whose thrombectomies had been expedited at the 48-hour, 30-day, and 6-month follow-up periods.

At 6 months, patients who had received mechanical thrombectomy within 12 hours also had significantly longer 6-minute walk distances (442.2 vs 390.5 m; P = .0032).
 

Low Thrombolysis Rate

Following his presentation, session co-moderator Galina Glazman-Kuczaj, MD, from the Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine at Albany Med Health System, Albany, New York, asked Patel what percentage of patients, if any, had received thrombolytic therapy before the thrombectomy procedure.

He noted that only 1% or 2% patients in the FLASH registry received thrombolysis.

In an interview, Glazman-Kuczaj said that “it was reassuring for [Patel] to report that it was only a small population of patients who got thrombolysis beforehand in either group because you would expect that maybe people in the group that took longer to have a thrombectomy got some thrombolysis beforehand and that perhaps they were more stable, but it seems like thrombectomy was the first-line treatment in both groups.”

The FLASH Registry is funded by Inari Medical. Patel and Glazman-Kuczaj reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

BOSTON — The sooner that patients with acute pulmonary embolism (PE) get treated with mechanical thrombectomy, the greater the likelihood that they will have favorable short- and long-term outcomes, regardless of their degree of initial risk, a study of registry data showed.

Among nearly 800 patients with acute PE whose data are recorded in the FlowTriever All-Comer Registry for Patient Safety and Hemodynamics (FLASH), a prospective multicenter registry of individuals treated with mechanical thrombectomy using the FlowTriever system (Inari Medical), shorter time from admission to mechanical thrombectomy was associated with significantly greater reductions in intraprocedural mean and systolic pulmonary artery pressures (PAP), greater reductions in the right ventricular/left ventricular (RV/LV) ratio, and longer 6-minute walk times at 6 months, reported Krunal H. Patel, MD, a pulmonary and critical care fellow at the Lewis Katz School of Medicine at Temple University Hospital in Philadelphia.

“Mechanical thrombectomy in the FLASH registry showed a mortality benefit. I think as time progresses and mechanical thrombectomy becomes more popular, we’re just going to need to figure out what is the ideal time for intervention,” he said during an oral abstract session at the American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST) 2024 Annual Meeting.

“There’s mortality benefit in any case whether the patient is high-risk or intermediate-high. This is a thought-provoking retrospective analysis that says that early intervention is probably better than doing it late, but regardless, the FLASH registry trial showed that early thrombectomy or thrombectomy in general shows positive mortality benefit,” Patel said in an interview.

He likened the challenge for pulmonary and critical care specialists to that of interventional cardiologists, who have determined that the ideal window for starting percutaneous coronary interventions is within 90 minutes of the patient’s arrival at the facility.

“I think we have to get our ‘door-to-balloon’ time for PE care,” he said.
 

Study Details

Patel and colleague Parth M. Rali, MD, FCCP, associate professor of thoracic medicine at Temple, conducted a retrospective review of data on 787 US patients in the FLASH registry for whom time to mechanical thrombectomy data were available. They stratified the patients into short and long time to mechanical thrombectomy groups, with “short” defined as ≤ 12 hours of presentation and “long” as > 12 hours.

They found that the median time to thrombectomy was 19.68 hours. In all, 242 patients (31%) were treated within the short window, and the remaining 545 patients (69%) were treated after at least 12 hours had passed.

Comparing clinical characteristics between the groups, the investigators noted that significantly more patients in the short time group vs long time group were categorized as high-risk (11.2% vs 6.2%; P = .0026). This difference is likely due to the need for greater urgency among high-risk patients, Patel said.

Patients in the short time group also had significantly higher baseline RV/LV ratios and lactate levels, but baseline dyspnea scores and pre-procedure median and systolic PAP were similar between the groups.

The mean time to thrombectomy was 6.08 hours in the short time group vs 34.04 hours in the long time group. Their respective median times were 6.01 and 24.73 hours.

The procedural time was similar between the groups, at 45 and 42 minutes, respectively.

The location of the treated thrombus was central only in 35.1% and 26.5% patients in the short and long time groups, respectively. Lobar-only thrombi were treated in 7.9% and 14.3%, respectively, and both central and lobar thrombi were treated in 57.0% and 59.2%, respectively.

Both 48-hour and 30-day all-cause mortality rates were similar between the groups (0.4%/0.2% and 0.5%/1.0%).

Patients in the short time group had slightly but significantly longer post-procedure hospital and intensive care unit stays, but 30-day readmission rates — whether for PE- or non-PE–related causes — were similar.

Where the differences between the groups really showed, however, were PAP reductions over baseline, with decline in median pressures of −8.7 mm Hg in the short group vs −7.2 mm Hg in the long group (P = .0008), and drops in systolic PAP of −14.4 vs −12.1 mm Hg, respectively (P = .0011).

In addition, reductions in RV/LV ratios from baseline were also significantly greater among patients whose thrombectomies had been expedited at the 48-hour, 30-day, and 6-month follow-up periods.

At 6 months, patients who had received mechanical thrombectomy within 12 hours also had significantly longer 6-minute walk distances (442.2 vs 390.5 m; P = .0032).
 

Low Thrombolysis Rate

Following his presentation, session co-moderator Galina Glazman-Kuczaj, MD, from the Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine at Albany Med Health System, Albany, New York, asked Patel what percentage of patients, if any, had received thrombolytic therapy before the thrombectomy procedure.

He noted that only 1% or 2% patients in the FLASH registry received thrombolysis.

In an interview, Glazman-Kuczaj said that “it was reassuring for [Patel] to report that it was only a small population of patients who got thrombolysis beforehand in either group because you would expect that maybe people in the group that took longer to have a thrombectomy got some thrombolysis beforehand and that perhaps they were more stable, but it seems like thrombectomy was the first-line treatment in both groups.”

The FLASH Registry is funded by Inari Medical. Patel and Glazman-Kuczaj reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.