Perspectives

The Supreme Court decision to strike down the 50-year ruling on Roe v. Wade, which allowed legal abortion, will affect all patients and families seeking care in pediatric and adolescent medicine clinics. Regardless of how you view abortion, the reality is your adolescent female patients and their parents will seek your counsel.

The overturning of Roe has resulted in much confusion for both patients and providers. The overall effect of this decision in Wisconsin is yet to be known but currently we have had to create road maps to direct adolescent patients who experience an unplanned pregnancy and wish to abort. Unfortunately, these road maps include only resources out of state or online. Providing adolescents confidential care may be challenged as the teens may need to disclose the unplanned pregnancy to an adult to access resources.

Providers remain unsettled regarding their risk of assisting an adolescent who discloses an unplanned pregnancy. Recently, many questions arose regarding dispensing Plan B and the risk to prescribers. Communication was needed to assure providers that Plan B is contraception and at this time contraception remains legal in our state.

Daily I educate adolescent females on the risks of unplanned pregnancy and what the Supreme Court decision will mean to them if they become pregnant. Unfortunately, many teens do not understand the ruling and how this decision affects them personally. Education is needed today more than ever regarding pregnancy prevention.

The recent AAP policy statement reaffirms its position that the rights of adolescents to seek confidential care when considering abortion must be protected.¹ It further reaffirms access to safe and legal abortion is a core tenant of sexual and reproductive health care.

A recent article published in AAP News by Elise D. Berlan, MD, “AAP’s teen reproductive health policies reaffirm right to comprehensive care,” further advises on the role of the pediatric provider.² Pediatric providers should continue offering option counseling for pregnant adolescents, be prepared to provide accurate information regarding these options with awareness that some options such as the IUD may no longer be available, remain supportive of the decision they choose, and encourage discussion with a family member to support their decisions. It is imperative that we familiarize ourselves with the abortion policies in our states, advocate to prevent government interference with the patient-doctor relationship, and recognize the impact restrictive abortion has regarding marginalized individuals, she stated. Finally we must recognize our own bias regarding option counseling and refer appropriately to another professional if we are unable to confidently offer guidance.

Ms. Thew is the medical director of the department of adolescent medicine at Children’s Wisconsin in Milwaukee.

References

1. AAP Committee on Adolescence. Pediatrics. 2022. doi: 10.1542/peds.2022-058780.

2. Berlan ED. AAP’s teen reproductive health policies reaffirm right to comprehensive care. 2022. AAP News.

The Supreme Court decision to strike down the 50-year ruling on Roe v. Wade, which allowed legal abortion, will affect all patients and families seeking care in pediatric and adolescent medicine clinics. Regardless of how you view abortion, the reality is your adolescent female patients and their parents will seek your counsel.

The overturning of Roe has resulted in much confusion for both patients and providers. The overall effect of this decision in Wisconsin is yet to be known but currently we have had to create road maps to direct adolescent patients who experience an unplanned pregnancy and wish to abort. Unfortunately, these road maps include only resources out of state or online. Providing adolescents confidential care may be challenged as the teens may need to disclose the unplanned pregnancy to an adult to access resources.

Providers remain unsettled regarding their risk of assisting an adolescent who discloses an unplanned pregnancy. Recently, many questions arose regarding dispensing Plan B and the risk to prescribers. Communication was needed to assure providers that Plan B is contraception and at this time contraception remains legal in our state.

Daily I educate adolescent females on the risks of unplanned pregnancy and what the Supreme Court decision will mean to them if they become pregnant. Unfortunately, many teens do not understand the ruling and how this decision affects them personally. Education is needed today more than ever regarding pregnancy prevention.

The recent AAP policy statement reaffirms its position that the rights of adolescents to seek confidential care when considering abortion must be protected.¹ It further reaffirms access to safe and legal abortion is a core tenant of sexual and reproductive health care.

A recent article published in AAP News by Elise D. Berlan, MD, “AAP’s teen reproductive health policies reaffirm right to comprehensive care,” further advises on the role of the pediatric provider.² Pediatric providers should continue offering option counseling for pregnant adolescents, be prepared to provide accurate information regarding these options with awareness that some options such as the IUD may no longer be available, remain supportive of the decision they choose, and encourage discussion with a family member to support their decisions. It is imperative that we familiarize ourselves with the abortion policies in our states, advocate to prevent government interference with the patient-doctor relationship, and recognize the impact restrictive abortion has regarding marginalized individuals, she stated. Finally we must recognize our own bias regarding option counseling and refer appropriately to another professional if we are unable to confidently offer guidance.

Ms. Thew is the medical director of the department of adolescent medicine at Children’s Wisconsin in Milwaukee.

References

1. AAP Committee on Adolescence. Pediatrics. 2022. doi: 10.1542/peds.2022-058780.

2. Berlan ED. AAP’s teen reproductive health policies reaffirm right to comprehensive care. 2022. AAP News.

The Supreme Court decision to strike down the 50-year ruling on Roe v. Wade, which allowed legal abortion, will affect all patients and families seeking care in pediatric and adolescent medicine clinics. Regardless of how you view abortion, the reality is your adolescent female patients and their parents will seek your counsel.

The overturning of Roe has resulted in much confusion for both patients and providers. The overall effect of this decision in Wisconsin is yet to be known but currently we have had to create road maps to direct adolescent patients who experience an unplanned pregnancy and wish to abort. Unfortunately, these road maps include only resources out of state or online. Providing adolescents confidential care may be challenged as the teens may need to disclose the unplanned pregnancy to an adult to access resources.

Providers remain unsettled regarding their risk of assisting an adolescent who discloses an unplanned pregnancy. Recently, many questions arose regarding dispensing Plan B and the risk to prescribers. Communication was needed to assure providers that Plan B is contraception and at this time contraception remains legal in our state.

Daily I educate adolescent females on the risks of unplanned pregnancy and what the Supreme Court decision will mean to them if they become pregnant. Unfortunately, many teens do not understand the ruling and how this decision affects them personally. Education is needed today more than ever regarding pregnancy prevention.

The recent AAP policy statement reaffirms its position that the rights of adolescents to seek confidential care when considering abortion must be protected.¹ It further reaffirms access to safe and legal abortion is a core tenant of sexual and reproductive health care.

A recent article published in AAP News by Elise D. Berlan, MD, “AAP’s teen reproductive health policies reaffirm right to comprehensive care,” further advises on the role of the pediatric provider.² Pediatric providers should continue offering option counseling for pregnant adolescents, be prepared to provide accurate information regarding these options with awareness that some options such as the IUD may no longer be available, remain supportive of the decision they choose, and encourage discussion with a family member to support their decisions. It is imperative that we familiarize ourselves with the abortion policies in our states, advocate to prevent government interference with the patient-doctor relationship, and recognize the impact restrictive abortion has regarding marginalized individuals, she stated. Finally we must recognize our own bias regarding option counseling and refer appropriately to another professional if we are unable to confidently offer guidance.

Ms. Thew is the medical director of the department of adolescent medicine at Children’s Wisconsin in Milwaukee.

References

1. AAP Committee on Adolescence. Pediatrics. 2022. doi: 10.1542/peds.2022-058780.

2. Berlan ED. AAP’s teen reproductive health policies reaffirm right to comprehensive care. 2022. AAP News.

The No. 1 issue I have dealt with in my over 40 years of practicing medicine is racism.

As a Black man who grew up in this country, I can tell you first-hand what it does to you. The scars never go away, and your status is always in question, no matter your title or uniforms of respect. Eventually it wears you down.

I was born into poverty and the segregation of southwest Louisiana. I experienced the dehumanization intended for me: separate drinking fountains and poor foundational education. I was lucky to attend a historically Black college or university (Southern University, Baton Rouge, La.), that gave me my bearings. I then went to some of the very best, predominantly White institutions.

When I looked for a job after training, there were few integrated medical groups, so I started my own. It included practitioners who were White, Black, Jewish, Asian, Middle Eastern, Muslim, Christian, etc. We cross covered and treated patients from every corner of the globe.

In medicine, we treat human beings with disease. The disease should be the only difference that sets us apart. There is absolutely no place for racism.

It is difficult to be called a racist, and I have met only a handful of people in health care whom I would label as such. But racism is structural and institutionalized so that it is often hidden.

One way to overcome this is to make every effort possible to get to know people as individuals. Only then can we see that there are few real differences between us. I would often seek out a colleague from a different culture or race to have lunch with so I could learn more about them.

We all strive for the same things – validation, happiness, love, family, and a future. We all grieve over the same things.

What some caregivers may not realize is that, just as clinicians have been trained to recognize subtle signs and symptoms of disease, minorities can recognize racism immediately during a medical encounter. Our past experiences make us skilled at picking up a lack of eye contact or body language and tone of voice that are dismissive and disrespectful.

A patient who has felt racism may still return for care because of insurance coverage limitations, location, or a lack of alternatives. But trust and loyalty will never develop on the part of this patient, and empathy will be absent on the part of their caregiver.

To counter this in my own practice, I developed the Francis Commitment to avoid any hint of racism or bias toward my patients.

I commit to the following:

1. I see you.

2. I hear you.

3. I accept who you are.

4. I will try to understand how you must feel (empathy).

5. Treating you is very important to me.

6. I would like to gain your trust that I will do my very best to make you better.

7. I value you as a human being and will treat you as if you are family.

8. I care about what happens to you.

9. I want us to work together to fight this disease.

10. I am grateful that you chose me as your caregiver.

The INOVA health care system where I work has undertaken an initiative called What Matters Most to better understand the needs of every patient. We are currently working on a strategy of patient personalization to not only learn about their medical needs but also to discover who they are as a person. We incorporate Social Determinants of Health in our dealings with patients. We also have participated in a program called “A Long Talk”, where we learned that those of us who remain silent when we see or hear racism are responsible for its persistence and growth.

But we must do more. Racism will propagate if we live in silos surrounded by people whose ideas reflect our own. As long as we have nondiversified board rooms, departments, and staff, the problem will persist.

A lot of the biases that we unconsciously carry in our heads and hearts have no basis in reality and were placed there without our permission by parents, society, and friends. But we can replace these divisive thoughts and impulses.

What’s in your heart can only be known and controlled by you. How tolerant we are of racism is up to us: Do you call out racism; do you challenge any inkling of racism from friends or acquaintances; do you put pressure on institutions where you work to diversify in recruiting and hiring?

Think of all the advances in medicine that were achieved by people from different cultures and races. Racism has no place in what we have all devoted our lives to do – take care of our fellow humans.

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

The No. 1 issue I have dealt with in my over 40 years of practicing medicine is racism.

As a Black man who grew up in this country, I can tell you first-hand what it does to you. The scars never go away, and your status is always in question, no matter your title or uniforms of respect. Eventually it wears you down.

I was born into poverty and the segregation of southwest Louisiana. I experienced the dehumanization intended for me: separate drinking fountains and poor foundational education. I was lucky to attend a historically Black college or university (Southern University, Baton Rouge, La.), that gave me my bearings. I then went to some of the very best, predominantly White institutions.

When I looked for a job after training, there were few integrated medical groups, so I started my own. It included practitioners who were White, Black, Jewish, Asian, Middle Eastern, Muslim, Christian, etc. We cross covered and treated patients from every corner of the globe.

In medicine, we treat human beings with disease. The disease should be the only difference that sets us apart. There is absolutely no place for racism.

It is difficult to be called a racist, and I have met only a handful of people in health care whom I would label as such. But racism is structural and institutionalized so that it is often hidden.

One way to overcome this is to make every effort possible to get to know people as individuals. Only then can we see that there are few real differences between us. I would often seek out a colleague from a different culture or race to have lunch with so I could learn more about them.

We all strive for the same things – validation, happiness, love, family, and a future. We all grieve over the same things.

What some caregivers may not realize is that, just as clinicians have been trained to recognize subtle signs and symptoms of disease, minorities can recognize racism immediately during a medical encounter. Our past experiences make us skilled at picking up a lack of eye contact or body language and tone of voice that are dismissive and disrespectful.

A patient who has felt racism may still return for care because of insurance coverage limitations, location, or a lack of alternatives. But trust and loyalty will never develop on the part of this patient, and empathy will be absent on the part of their caregiver.

To counter this in my own practice, I developed the Francis Commitment to avoid any hint of racism or bias toward my patients.

I commit to the following:

1. I see you.

2. I hear you.

3. I accept who you are.

4. I will try to understand how you must feel (empathy).

5. Treating you is very important to me.

6. I would like to gain your trust that I will do my very best to make you better.

7. I value you as a human being and will treat you as if you are family.

8. I care about what happens to you.

9. I want us to work together to fight this disease.

10. I am grateful that you chose me as your caregiver.

The INOVA health care system where I work has undertaken an initiative called What Matters Most to better understand the needs of every patient. We are currently working on a strategy of patient personalization to not only learn about their medical needs but also to discover who they are as a person. We incorporate Social Determinants of Health in our dealings with patients. We also have participated in a program called “A Long Talk”, where we learned that those of us who remain silent when we see or hear racism are responsible for its persistence and growth.

But we must do more. Racism will propagate if we live in silos surrounded by people whose ideas reflect our own. As long as we have nondiversified board rooms, departments, and staff, the problem will persist.

A lot of the biases that we unconsciously carry in our heads and hearts have no basis in reality and were placed there without our permission by parents, society, and friends. But we can replace these divisive thoughts and impulses.

What’s in your heart can only be known and controlled by you. How tolerant we are of racism is up to us: Do you call out racism; do you challenge any inkling of racism from friends or acquaintances; do you put pressure on institutions where you work to diversify in recruiting and hiring?

Think of all the advances in medicine that were achieved by people from different cultures and races. Racism has no place in what we have all devoted our lives to do – take care of our fellow humans.

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

The No. 1 issue I have dealt with in my over 40 years of practicing medicine is racism.

As a Black man who grew up in this country, I can tell you first-hand what it does to you. The scars never go away, and your status is always in question, no matter your title or uniforms of respect. Eventually it wears you down.

I was born into poverty and the segregation of southwest Louisiana. I experienced the dehumanization intended for me: separate drinking fountains and poor foundational education. I was lucky to attend a historically Black college or university (Southern University, Baton Rouge, La.), that gave me my bearings. I then went to some of the very best, predominantly White institutions.

When I looked for a job after training, there were few integrated medical groups, so I started my own. It included practitioners who were White, Black, Jewish, Asian, Middle Eastern, Muslim, Christian, etc. We cross covered and treated patients from every corner of the globe.

In medicine, we treat human beings with disease. The disease should be the only difference that sets us apart. There is absolutely no place for racism.

It is difficult to be called a racist, and I have met only a handful of people in health care whom I would label as such. But racism is structural and institutionalized so that it is often hidden.

One way to overcome this is to make every effort possible to get to know people as individuals. Only then can we see that there are few real differences between us. I would often seek out a colleague from a different culture or race to have lunch with so I could learn more about them.

We all strive for the same things – validation, happiness, love, family, and a future. We all grieve over the same things.

What some caregivers may not realize is that, just as clinicians have been trained to recognize subtle signs and symptoms of disease, minorities can recognize racism immediately during a medical encounter. Our past experiences make us skilled at picking up a lack of eye contact or body language and tone of voice that are dismissive and disrespectful.

A patient who has felt racism may still return for care because of insurance coverage limitations, location, or a lack of alternatives. But trust and loyalty will never develop on the part of this patient, and empathy will be absent on the part of their caregiver.

To counter this in my own practice, I developed the Francis Commitment to avoid any hint of racism or bias toward my patients.

I commit to the following:

1. I see you.

2. I hear you.

3. I accept who you are.

4. I will try to understand how you must feel (empathy).

5. Treating you is very important to me.

6. I would like to gain your trust that I will do my very best to make you better.

7. I value you as a human being and will treat you as if you are family.

8. I care about what happens to you.

9. I want us to work together to fight this disease.

10. I am grateful that you chose me as your caregiver.

The INOVA health care system where I work has undertaken an initiative called What Matters Most to better understand the needs of every patient. We are currently working on a strategy of patient personalization to not only learn about their medical needs but also to discover who they are as a person. We incorporate Social Determinants of Health in our dealings with patients. We also have participated in a program called “A Long Talk”, where we learned that those of us who remain silent when we see or hear racism are responsible for its persistence and growth.

But we must do more. Racism will propagate if we live in silos surrounded by people whose ideas reflect our own. As long as we have nondiversified board rooms, departments, and staff, the problem will persist.

A lot of the biases that we unconsciously carry in our heads and hearts have no basis in reality and were placed there without our permission by parents, society, and friends. But we can replace these divisive thoughts and impulses.

What’s in your heart can only be known and controlled by you. How tolerant we are of racism is up to us: Do you call out racism; do you challenge any inkling of racism from friends or acquaintances; do you put pressure on institutions where you work to diversify in recruiting and hiring?

Think of all the advances in medicine that were achieved by people from different cultures and races. Racism has no place in what we have all devoted our lives to do – take care of our fellow humans.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Hi. I’m Dr. Vivek Kaul, and I’m professor of medicine in the division of gastroenterology and hepatology at the University of Rochester (N.Y.) Medical Center. It gives me great pleasure to do this presentation in collaboration with Medscape. I have just returned from Digestive Disease Week 2022, which is the largest international GI conference, and it was held in person for the first time in 3 years because of the pandemic.

Whereas there are a lot of “Best of DDW” presentations for gastroenterologists, there are not that many for primary care providers, so I thought it would be a good idea to do this. What I’ve tried to do is to bring some information that is here now and almost imminently translatable into clinical practice, talk a little about the middle-future range where things will become available in the next few months to years, and then, of course, reflect upon concepts that might become more standard paradigms of care in the distant future.

My collection of papers is divided into the esophagus and the colon, and then finishes up with the liver. [Editor’s note: Some of the abstracts that Dr Kaul refers to are available here.]

The first paper in the esophagus realm is a multicenter study called “The Association of Proton Pump Inhibitor Use and Cognitive Decline and Incident Dementia in Older Adults.” The researchers looked at about 19,000 patients, 65 years and older, who were on PPI therapy and had no significant disability or prior dementia. They followed them for about 5 years and found that a total of about 566 of them developed dementia in this time frame and 235 or so had Alzheimer’s. What they concluded based on that analysis was that PPI use was not associated with dementia or changes in the overall cognitive score.

This is important information. As the American Gastroenterological Association guidelines and others have recommended, those patients who do require a PPI on clinical grounds should definitely receive it, and the side-effect profiles are quite acceptable.

The second paper, “Double-Blind Randomized Trial of the Potassium-Competitive Acid Blocker Vonoprazan vs. the Proton Pump Inhibitor Lansoprazole in U.S. and European Patients with Erosive Esophagitis,” is also related to GERD [gastroesophageal reflux disease] therapy but introduces a new paradigm known as potassium-competitive channel blockers. This is a new drug that has now become available, called vonoprazan.

This was a double-blinded, randomized trial of the potassium-competitive acid blocker vonoprazan in comparison with lansoprazole, which is a well-established medical agent available for the treatment of esophagitis. These are patients with erosive esophagitis in a multicenter U.S. and European cohort of about 1,000 patients who were prospectively treated. The crux of this study was to say that vonoprazan is quicker to provide healing and symptom relief, and that these results are maintained in both the initial phase, which is the treatment phase, and the maintenance phase.

So, there might be some advantages in terms of how quickly we can treat these patients and get them symptom free. I thought that study was worth mentioning because it reflects, after a long period of time, a new class of acid-suppression therapy, which we should all be familiar with, and certainly at the primary care level.

The next paper relates to Barrett’s esophagus and esophageal cancer. This paper came out of the OneFlorida+ Clinical Research Network and was titled “Alarming Rise Found in Esophageal Cancer and Barrett’s Esophagus in Middle-Aged Adults: Findings From a Statewide Database of Over 5 Million Patients.” This paper talks about the increasing prevalence of esophageal cancer in Barrett’s in middle-aged patients – those in the 45- to 64-years age group; the prevalence of esophageal cancer is rising in this cohort. So, as is shown in the first graph, the orange line is depicting the 45-64 age group patients whose esophageal cancer prevalence has gone up. And in the second graph, it’s actually the gray line which looks at the Barrett’s esophagus prevalence, which is also increasing. And all the other cohorts have either plateaued or are declining.

This is important information because these patients who are at risk in these age groups with these demographic profiles should be referred on for endoscopic screening to rule out Barrett’s at least once in their lifetime. And most certainly a percentage of them will be found to have dysplasia and or early esophageal cancer that might be amenable to endoscopic therapy.

The next section that we’ll talk about is the colon section. We have a few very good, high-quality papers with some provocative information in this realm. The first paper (“Multi-modal Blood-based Colorectal Cancer Screening Is a Viable Colorectal Cancer Screening Option – a Prospective Study”) in the colonoscopy section involves the concept of colorectal cancer screening. While we have multiple modalities available for colorectal cancer screening today, a third of eligible patients are not getting screened.

This study looks at a blood test for colorectal cancer screening. We have colonoscopy, we have stool DNA and other tests, but now we have a blood test looking at circulating tumor DNA. For this prospective, multicenter study, researchers from Madrid enrolled about 550 patients between 45 and 84 years of age. The blood test was completed prior to the complete colonoscopy. The prevalence of colorectal cancer screening in this study was about 2%; the sensitivity ranged from about 90% to 95%, and the specificity ranged from about 100% to 88%, depending on what confidence levels you were looking at.

In this prospective study, a blood-based colorectal cancer screening test was able to perform very similarly to stool-based options. Therefore, it may further increase the probability that patients might come in for screening.

The message from this paper is that there’s yet another modality for colorectal cancer screening, and now we have a blood test potentially, but obviously we look forward to more data on how the test itself performs. And there probably will be other candidates in the same realm.

The second paper (“Real-World Comparative Effectiveness of Fidaxomicin vs. Vancomycin Among Medicare Beneficiaries with Clostridioides difficile Infection”) in the colon section is also about a very important topic in clinical practice for all of us, and that is C. difficile infection. As you may know, current guidelines have recommended the use of fidaxomicin over vancomycin as the initial treatment for C. diff infection. This paper looked retrospectively at a cohort of patients in the real world and compared the efficacy of fidaxomicin vs. vancomycin among Medicare beneficiaries with C. diff infection.

The initial results of this multicenter study suggest that treatment with fidaxomicin had higher sustained response compared with vancomycin at both weeks 4 and 8, as well as decreased recurrence of C. difficile.  

This retrospective study further confirms that C. diff  infection remains a problem and that we might have better solutions now with fidaxomicin compared with vancomycin. That’s important information and is already endorsed by the guidelines.

The next paper in the colon realm, “A Randomized Controlled Trial on the Effectiveness of Cognitive-Behavioral and Mindfulness Intervention on Pain, Fatigue and Impairments at Work and Daily Activity in Patients With Crohn’s Disease,” is also an important paradigm that has entered our medical practice. When we are treating patients with GI symptoms, the role for cognitive-behavioral therapy and mindfulness interventions has now come of age.

This paper was a randomized controlled trial on the effectiveness of cognitive-behavioral therapy and mindfulness intervention on the aspects of pain and fatigue, as well as impairments at work and daily activity in patients with Crohn’s disease.

This is a difficult population with chronic illness, and this study comes out of Israel. About 120 patients were randomized to seven 1-hour sessions of psychological training over 12 weeks. The placebo group was the control group that did not get this treatment.

These interventions reduced both fatigue as well as pain levels, and also reduced work and home impairment, and so overall led to a better quality of life.

This paper is important because it shows us in a randomized trial design fashion that a difficult clinical population with Crohn’s disease, with a multitude of systemic symptoms and psychological, psychosomatic issues as well, can be positively impacted by these newer strategies related to cognitive-behavioral therapy and mindfulness interventions. We’ll likely be seeing more of these types of papers coming out, not just for Crohn’s and inflammatory bowel disease, but also for functional disease, which is where this started.

Our final paper in the colon section relates to an interesting concept, which is the treatment of chronic idiopathic constipation – not irritable bowel syndrome with constipation, but chronic idiopathic constipation – being managed with a novel device known as the Vibrant capsule. The Vibrant capsule is exactly that: It’s a capsule that the patient ingests, and it vibrates and therefore creates a mechanical movement.

“Efficacy and Safety of Vibrant Capsule vs. Placebo for the Treatment of Chronic Idiopathic Constipation (Vibrant)” was a U.S. multicenter study. The device is an orally ingestible, programmable vibrating capsule developed in Israel. It basically mimics the biological clock and increases the stool frequency by augmenting the circadian rhythm. This was a prospective trial of around 350 patients, and there was significant improvement in the complete spontaneous bowel movement pattern, both for one and two bowel movements per week. This significant improvement persisted at week 3, peaked at about week 6, and then remained sustained through 8 weeks.

The Vibrant capsule also was able to improve stool consistency and the overall quality of life. So this is a novel treatment intervention over and above all the medical therapies in the bowel regimens, which of course our patients find somewhat difficult, understandably. But this might be a complementary direction to go in, and we’ll probably hear more of these novel interventions for chronic constipation, which is a huge problem both at the primary care level as well as in subspecialty practice.

In the final section, which is the liver section, I found one paper very interesting, which refers to the concept of lean nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) (“Lean NAFLD in the United States is Characterized by Increased Central and Visceral Adiposity That Is Comparable to Overweight and Obese Persons”). NAFLD is an epidemic throughout the country, with obvious implications both for the metabolic syndrome as well as chronic liver disease. This paper from Wisconsin looks at lean NALFD in the United States, characterizes the central and visceral adiposity, and compares it with that of overweight and obese patients. Lean NAFLD occurs in about 10%-20% of patients with a normal body mass index; 1,800 patients were evaluated in this particular study, and they underwent cross-sectional analysis and the so-called gap score, which looks at the measurement of fat in the liver, DEXA measurements, and so forth.

What they found was that patients with lean NAFLD are more likely to have hypertension, diabetes, high triglycerides, and are more likely to smoke, compared with lean patients without NAFLD, despite having similar BMIs.

A couple of additional observations from the study were that central adiposity was similar in lean NAFLD compared with the obese non-NAFLD population, and the visceral abdominal fat in patients who have lean NAFLD was slightly higher, actually, than in the obese NAFLD patients, but the P values were not significant.

The overall summary from this paper was that NAFLD should be considered in lean patients with risk factors of the metabolic syndrome. This is an important paper because it highlights the fact that we don’t necessarily have to be externally obese or have a high BMI to be at risk for the metabolic syndrome. I think the importance of evaluating for the metabolic syndrome, even in those patients who have a relatively lower BMI, is underscored by this paper, which has significant implications given the larger denominator of this population in this country.

So, with that, we come to the conclusion of these top papers from Digestive Disease Week 2022. We covered the gamut of conditions, from the esophagus to the colon and to the liver. And these represent some of the best science that was presented at this very large international meeting. I hope you will find value in this information for the care of your patients, and I look forward to presenting again when the next opportunity arises.

Vivek Kaul, MD, is Segal-Watson Professor of Medicine in the gastroenterology & hepatology division at the University of Rochester Medical Center in Rochester, N.Y.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Hi. I’m Dr. Vivek Kaul, and I’m professor of medicine in the division of gastroenterology and hepatology at the University of Rochester (N.Y.) Medical Center. It gives me great pleasure to do this presentation in collaboration with Medscape. I have just returned from Digestive Disease Week 2022, which is the largest international GI conference, and it was held in person for the first time in 3 years because of the pandemic.

Whereas there are a lot of “Best of DDW” presentations for gastroenterologists, there are not that many for primary care providers, so I thought it would be a good idea to do this. What I’ve tried to do is to bring some information that is here now and almost imminently translatable into clinical practice, talk a little about the middle-future range where things will become available in the next few months to years, and then, of course, reflect upon concepts that might become more standard paradigms of care in the distant future.

My collection of papers is divided into the esophagus and the colon, and then finishes up with the liver. [Editor’s note: Some of the abstracts that Dr Kaul refers to are available here.]

The first paper in the esophagus realm is a multicenter study called “The Association of Proton Pump Inhibitor Use and Cognitive Decline and Incident Dementia in Older Adults.” The researchers looked at about 19,000 patients, 65 years and older, who were on PPI therapy and had no significant disability or prior dementia. They followed them for about 5 years and found that a total of about 566 of them developed dementia in this time frame and 235 or so had Alzheimer’s. What they concluded based on that analysis was that PPI use was not associated with dementia or changes in the overall cognitive score.

This is important information. As the American Gastroenterological Association guidelines and others have recommended, those patients who do require a PPI on clinical grounds should definitely receive it, and the side-effect profiles are quite acceptable.

The second paper, “Double-Blind Randomized Trial of the Potassium-Competitive Acid Blocker Vonoprazan vs. the Proton Pump Inhibitor Lansoprazole in U.S. and European Patients with Erosive Esophagitis,” is also related to GERD [gastroesophageal reflux disease] therapy but introduces a new paradigm known as potassium-competitive channel blockers. This is a new drug that has now become available, called vonoprazan.

This was a double-blinded, randomized trial of the potassium-competitive acid blocker vonoprazan in comparison with lansoprazole, which is a well-established medical agent available for the treatment of esophagitis. These are patients with erosive esophagitis in a multicenter U.S. and European cohort of about 1,000 patients who were prospectively treated. The crux of this study was to say that vonoprazan is quicker to provide healing and symptom relief, and that these results are maintained in both the initial phase, which is the treatment phase, and the maintenance phase.

So, there might be some advantages in terms of how quickly we can treat these patients and get them symptom free. I thought that study was worth mentioning because it reflects, after a long period of time, a new class of acid-suppression therapy, which we should all be familiar with, and certainly at the primary care level.

The next paper relates to Barrett’s esophagus and esophageal cancer. This paper came out of the OneFlorida+ Clinical Research Network and was titled “Alarming Rise Found in Esophageal Cancer and Barrett’s Esophagus in Middle-Aged Adults: Findings From a Statewide Database of Over 5 Million Patients.” This paper talks about the increasing prevalence of esophageal cancer in Barrett’s in middle-aged patients – those in the 45- to 64-years age group; the prevalence of esophageal cancer is rising in this cohort. So, as is shown in the first graph, the orange line is depicting the 45-64 age group patients whose esophageal cancer prevalence has gone up. And in the second graph, it’s actually the gray line which looks at the Barrett’s esophagus prevalence, which is also increasing. And all the other cohorts have either plateaued or are declining.

This is important information because these patients who are at risk in these age groups with these demographic profiles should be referred on for endoscopic screening to rule out Barrett’s at least once in their lifetime. And most certainly a percentage of them will be found to have dysplasia and or early esophageal cancer that might be amenable to endoscopic therapy.

The next section that we’ll talk about is the colon section. We have a few very good, high-quality papers with some provocative information in this realm. The first paper (“Multi-modal Blood-based Colorectal Cancer Screening Is a Viable Colorectal Cancer Screening Option – a Prospective Study”) in the colonoscopy section involves the concept of colorectal cancer screening. While we have multiple modalities available for colorectal cancer screening today, a third of eligible patients are not getting screened.

This study looks at a blood test for colorectal cancer screening. We have colonoscopy, we have stool DNA and other tests, but now we have a blood test looking at circulating tumor DNA. For this prospective, multicenter study, researchers from Madrid enrolled about 550 patients between 45 and 84 years of age. The blood test was completed prior to the complete colonoscopy. The prevalence of colorectal cancer screening in this study was about 2%; the sensitivity ranged from about 90% to 95%, and the specificity ranged from about 100% to 88%, depending on what confidence levels you were looking at.

In this prospective study, a blood-based colorectal cancer screening test was able to perform very similarly to stool-based options. Therefore, it may further increase the probability that patients might come in for screening.

The message from this paper is that there’s yet another modality for colorectal cancer screening, and now we have a blood test potentially, but obviously we look forward to more data on how the test itself performs. And there probably will be other candidates in the same realm.

The second paper (“Real-World Comparative Effectiveness of Fidaxomicin vs. Vancomycin Among Medicare Beneficiaries with Clostridioides difficile Infection”) in the colon section is also about a very important topic in clinical practice for all of us, and that is C. difficile infection. As you may know, current guidelines have recommended the use of fidaxomicin over vancomycin as the initial treatment for C. diff infection. This paper looked retrospectively at a cohort of patients in the real world and compared the efficacy of fidaxomicin vs. vancomycin among Medicare beneficiaries with C. diff infection.

The initial results of this multicenter study suggest that treatment with fidaxomicin had higher sustained response compared with vancomycin at both weeks 4 and 8, as well as decreased recurrence of C. difficile.  

This retrospective study further confirms that C. diff  infection remains a problem and that we might have better solutions now with fidaxomicin compared with vancomycin. That’s important information and is already endorsed by the guidelines.

The next paper in the colon realm, “A Randomized Controlled Trial on the Effectiveness of Cognitive-Behavioral and Mindfulness Intervention on Pain, Fatigue and Impairments at Work and Daily Activity in Patients With Crohn’s Disease,” is also an important paradigm that has entered our medical practice. When we are treating patients with GI symptoms, the role for cognitive-behavioral therapy and mindfulness interventions has now come of age.

This paper was a randomized controlled trial on the effectiveness of cognitive-behavioral therapy and mindfulness intervention on the aspects of pain and fatigue, as well as impairments at work and daily activity in patients with Crohn’s disease.

This is a difficult population with chronic illness, and this study comes out of Israel. About 120 patients were randomized to seven 1-hour sessions of psychological training over 12 weeks. The placebo group was the control group that did not get this treatment.

These interventions reduced both fatigue as well as pain levels, and also reduced work and home impairment, and so overall led to a better quality of life.

This paper is important because it shows us in a randomized trial design fashion that a difficult clinical population with Crohn’s disease, with a multitude of systemic symptoms and psychological, psychosomatic issues as well, can be positively impacted by these newer strategies related to cognitive-behavioral therapy and mindfulness interventions. We’ll likely be seeing more of these types of papers coming out, not just for Crohn’s and inflammatory bowel disease, but also for functional disease, which is where this started.

Our final paper in the colon section relates to an interesting concept, which is the treatment of chronic idiopathic constipation – not irritable bowel syndrome with constipation, but chronic idiopathic constipation – being managed with a novel device known as the Vibrant capsule. The Vibrant capsule is exactly that: It’s a capsule that the patient ingests, and it vibrates and therefore creates a mechanical movement.

“Efficacy and Safety of Vibrant Capsule vs. Placebo for the Treatment of Chronic Idiopathic Constipation (Vibrant)” was a U.S. multicenter study. The device is an orally ingestible, programmable vibrating capsule developed in Israel. It basically mimics the biological clock and increases the stool frequency by augmenting the circadian rhythm. This was a prospective trial of around 350 patients, and there was significant improvement in the complete spontaneous bowel movement pattern, both for one and two bowel movements per week. This significant improvement persisted at week 3, peaked at about week 6, and then remained sustained through 8 weeks.

The Vibrant capsule also was able to improve stool consistency and the overall quality of life. So this is a novel treatment intervention over and above all the medical therapies in the bowel regimens, which of course our patients find somewhat difficult, understandably. But this might be a complementary direction to go in, and we’ll probably hear more of these novel interventions for chronic constipation, which is a huge problem both at the primary care level as well as in subspecialty practice.

In the final section, which is the liver section, I found one paper very interesting, which refers to the concept of lean nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) (“Lean NAFLD in the United States is Characterized by Increased Central and Visceral Adiposity That Is Comparable to Overweight and Obese Persons”). NAFLD is an epidemic throughout the country, with obvious implications both for the metabolic syndrome as well as chronic liver disease. This paper from Wisconsin looks at lean NALFD in the United States, characterizes the central and visceral adiposity, and compares it with that of overweight and obese patients. Lean NAFLD occurs in about 10%-20% of patients with a normal body mass index; 1,800 patients were evaluated in this particular study, and they underwent cross-sectional analysis and the so-called gap score, which looks at the measurement of fat in the liver, DEXA measurements, and so forth.

What they found was that patients with lean NAFLD are more likely to have hypertension, diabetes, high triglycerides, and are more likely to smoke, compared with lean patients without NAFLD, despite having similar BMIs.

A couple of additional observations from the study were that central adiposity was similar in lean NAFLD compared with the obese non-NAFLD population, and the visceral abdominal fat in patients who have lean NAFLD was slightly higher, actually, than in the obese NAFLD patients, but the P values were not significant.

The overall summary from this paper was that NAFLD should be considered in lean patients with risk factors of the metabolic syndrome. This is an important paper because it highlights the fact that we don’t necessarily have to be externally obese or have a high BMI to be at risk for the metabolic syndrome. I think the importance of evaluating for the metabolic syndrome, even in those patients who have a relatively lower BMI, is underscored by this paper, which has significant implications given the larger denominator of this population in this country.

So, with that, we come to the conclusion of these top papers from Digestive Disease Week 2022. We covered the gamut of conditions, from the esophagus to the colon and to the liver. And these represent some of the best science that was presented at this very large international meeting. I hope you will find value in this information for the care of your patients, and I look forward to presenting again when the next opportunity arises.

Vivek Kaul, MD, is Segal-Watson Professor of Medicine in the gastroenterology & hepatology division at the University of Rochester Medical Center in Rochester, N.Y.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Hi. I’m Dr. Vivek Kaul, and I’m professor of medicine in the division of gastroenterology and hepatology at the University of Rochester (N.Y.) Medical Center. It gives me great pleasure to do this presentation in collaboration with Medscape. I have just returned from Digestive Disease Week 2022, which is the largest international GI conference, and it was held in person for the first time in 3 years because of the pandemic.

Whereas there are a lot of “Best of DDW” presentations for gastroenterologists, there are not that many for primary care providers, so I thought it would be a good idea to do this. What I’ve tried to do is to bring some information that is here now and almost imminently translatable into clinical practice, talk a little about the middle-future range where things will become available in the next few months to years, and then, of course, reflect upon concepts that might become more standard paradigms of care in the distant future.

My collection of papers is divided into the esophagus and the colon, and then finishes up with the liver. [Editor’s note: Some of the abstracts that Dr Kaul refers to are available here.]

The first paper in the esophagus realm is a multicenter study called “The Association of Proton Pump Inhibitor Use and Cognitive Decline and Incident Dementia in Older Adults.” The researchers looked at about 19,000 patients, 65 years and older, who were on PPI therapy and had no significant disability or prior dementia. They followed them for about 5 years and found that a total of about 566 of them developed dementia in this time frame and 235 or so had Alzheimer’s. What they concluded based on that analysis was that PPI use was not associated with dementia or changes in the overall cognitive score.

This is important information. As the American Gastroenterological Association guidelines and others have recommended, those patients who do require a PPI on clinical grounds should definitely receive it, and the side-effect profiles are quite acceptable.

The second paper, “Double-Blind Randomized Trial of the Potassium-Competitive Acid Blocker Vonoprazan vs. the Proton Pump Inhibitor Lansoprazole in U.S. and European Patients with Erosive Esophagitis,” is also related to GERD [gastroesophageal reflux disease] therapy but introduces a new paradigm known as potassium-competitive channel blockers. This is a new drug that has now become available, called vonoprazan.

This was a double-blinded, randomized trial of the potassium-competitive acid blocker vonoprazan in comparison with lansoprazole, which is a well-established medical agent available for the treatment of esophagitis. These are patients with erosive esophagitis in a multicenter U.S. and European cohort of about 1,000 patients who were prospectively treated. The crux of this study was to say that vonoprazan is quicker to provide healing and symptom relief, and that these results are maintained in both the initial phase, which is the treatment phase, and the maintenance phase.

So, there might be some advantages in terms of how quickly we can treat these patients and get them symptom free. I thought that study was worth mentioning because it reflects, after a long period of time, a new class of acid-suppression therapy, which we should all be familiar with, and certainly at the primary care level.

The next paper relates to Barrett’s esophagus and esophageal cancer. This paper came out of the OneFlorida+ Clinical Research Network and was titled “Alarming Rise Found in Esophageal Cancer and Barrett’s Esophagus in Middle-Aged Adults: Findings From a Statewide Database of Over 5 Million Patients.” This paper talks about the increasing prevalence of esophageal cancer in Barrett’s in middle-aged patients – those in the 45- to 64-years age group; the prevalence of esophageal cancer is rising in this cohort. So, as is shown in the first graph, the orange line is depicting the 45-64 age group patients whose esophageal cancer prevalence has gone up. And in the second graph, it’s actually the gray line which looks at the Barrett’s esophagus prevalence, which is also increasing. And all the other cohorts have either plateaued or are declining.

This is important information because these patients who are at risk in these age groups with these demographic profiles should be referred on for endoscopic screening to rule out Barrett’s at least once in their lifetime. And most certainly a percentage of them will be found to have dysplasia and or early esophageal cancer that might be amenable to endoscopic therapy.

The next section that we’ll talk about is the colon section. We have a few very good, high-quality papers with some provocative information in this realm. The first paper (“Multi-modal Blood-based Colorectal Cancer Screening Is a Viable Colorectal Cancer Screening Option – a Prospective Study”) in the colonoscopy section involves the concept of colorectal cancer screening. While we have multiple modalities available for colorectal cancer screening today, a third of eligible patients are not getting screened.

This study looks at a blood test for colorectal cancer screening. We have colonoscopy, we have stool DNA and other tests, but now we have a blood test looking at circulating tumor DNA. For this prospective, multicenter study, researchers from Madrid enrolled about 550 patients between 45 and 84 years of age. The blood test was completed prior to the complete colonoscopy. The prevalence of colorectal cancer screening in this study was about 2%; the sensitivity ranged from about 90% to 95%, and the specificity ranged from about 100% to 88%, depending on what confidence levels you were looking at.

In this prospective study, a blood-based colorectal cancer screening test was able to perform very similarly to stool-based options. Therefore, it may further increase the probability that patients might come in for screening.

The message from this paper is that there’s yet another modality for colorectal cancer screening, and now we have a blood test potentially, but obviously we look forward to more data on how the test itself performs. And there probably will be other candidates in the same realm.

The second paper (“Real-World Comparative Effectiveness of Fidaxomicin vs. Vancomycin Among Medicare Beneficiaries with Clostridioides difficile Infection”) in the colon section is also about a very important topic in clinical practice for all of us, and that is C. difficile infection. As you may know, current guidelines have recommended the use of fidaxomicin over vancomycin as the initial treatment for C. diff infection. This paper looked retrospectively at a cohort of patients in the real world and compared the efficacy of fidaxomicin vs. vancomycin among Medicare beneficiaries with C. diff infection.

The initial results of this multicenter study suggest that treatment with fidaxomicin had higher sustained response compared with vancomycin at both weeks 4 and 8, as well as decreased recurrence of C. difficile.  

This retrospective study further confirms that C. diff  infection remains a problem and that we might have better solutions now with fidaxomicin compared with vancomycin. That’s important information and is already endorsed by the guidelines.

The next paper in the colon realm, “A Randomized Controlled Trial on the Effectiveness of Cognitive-Behavioral and Mindfulness Intervention on Pain, Fatigue and Impairments at Work and Daily Activity in Patients With Crohn’s Disease,” is also an important paradigm that has entered our medical practice. When we are treating patients with GI symptoms, the role for cognitive-behavioral therapy and mindfulness interventions has now come of age.

This paper was a randomized controlled trial on the effectiveness of cognitive-behavioral therapy and mindfulness intervention on the aspects of pain and fatigue, as well as impairments at work and daily activity in patients with Crohn’s disease.

This is a difficult population with chronic illness, and this study comes out of Israel. About 120 patients were randomized to seven 1-hour sessions of psychological training over 12 weeks. The placebo group was the control group that did not get this treatment.

These interventions reduced both fatigue as well as pain levels, and also reduced work and home impairment, and so overall led to a better quality of life.

This paper is important because it shows us in a randomized trial design fashion that a difficult clinical population with Crohn’s disease, with a multitude of systemic symptoms and psychological, psychosomatic issues as well, can be positively impacted by these newer strategies related to cognitive-behavioral therapy and mindfulness interventions. We’ll likely be seeing more of these types of papers coming out, not just for Crohn’s and inflammatory bowel disease, but also for functional disease, which is where this started.

Our final paper in the colon section relates to an interesting concept, which is the treatment of chronic idiopathic constipation – not irritable bowel syndrome with constipation, but chronic idiopathic constipation – being managed with a novel device known as the Vibrant capsule. The Vibrant capsule is exactly that: It’s a capsule that the patient ingests, and it vibrates and therefore creates a mechanical movement.

“Efficacy and Safety of Vibrant Capsule vs. Placebo for the Treatment of Chronic Idiopathic Constipation (Vibrant)” was a U.S. multicenter study. The device is an orally ingestible, programmable vibrating capsule developed in Israel. It basically mimics the biological clock and increases the stool frequency by augmenting the circadian rhythm. This was a prospective trial of around 350 patients, and there was significant improvement in the complete spontaneous bowel movement pattern, both for one and two bowel movements per week. This significant improvement persisted at week 3, peaked at about week 6, and then remained sustained through 8 weeks.

The Vibrant capsule also was able to improve stool consistency and the overall quality of life. So this is a novel treatment intervention over and above all the medical therapies in the bowel regimens, which of course our patients find somewhat difficult, understandably. But this might be a complementary direction to go in, and we’ll probably hear more of these novel interventions for chronic constipation, which is a huge problem both at the primary care level as well as in subspecialty practice.

In the final section, which is the liver section, I found one paper very interesting, which refers to the concept of lean nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) (“Lean NAFLD in the United States is Characterized by Increased Central and Visceral Adiposity That Is Comparable to Overweight and Obese Persons”). NAFLD is an epidemic throughout the country, with obvious implications both for the metabolic syndrome as well as chronic liver disease. This paper from Wisconsin looks at lean NALFD in the United States, characterizes the central and visceral adiposity, and compares it with that of overweight and obese patients. Lean NAFLD occurs in about 10%-20% of patients with a normal body mass index; 1,800 patients were evaluated in this particular study, and they underwent cross-sectional analysis and the so-called gap score, which looks at the measurement of fat in the liver, DEXA measurements, and so forth.

What they found was that patients with lean NAFLD are more likely to have hypertension, diabetes, high triglycerides, and are more likely to smoke, compared with lean patients without NAFLD, despite having similar BMIs.

A couple of additional observations from the study were that central adiposity was similar in lean NAFLD compared with the obese non-NAFLD population, and the visceral abdominal fat in patients who have lean NAFLD was slightly higher, actually, than in the obese NAFLD patients, but the P values were not significant.

The overall summary from this paper was that NAFLD should be considered in lean patients with risk factors of the metabolic syndrome. This is an important paper because it highlights the fact that we don’t necessarily have to be externally obese or have a high BMI to be at risk for the metabolic syndrome. I think the importance of evaluating for the metabolic syndrome, even in those patients who have a relatively lower BMI, is underscored by this paper, which has significant implications given the larger denominator of this population in this country.

So, with that, we come to the conclusion of these top papers from Digestive Disease Week 2022. We covered the gamut of conditions, from the esophagus to the colon and to the liver. And these represent some of the best science that was presented at this very large international meeting. I hope you will find value in this information for the care of your patients, and I look forward to presenting again when the next opportunity arises.

Vivek Kaul, MD, is Segal-Watson Professor of Medicine in the gastroenterology & hepatology division at the University of Rochester Medical Center in Rochester, N.Y.

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

As pediatricians, almost all of our clinic visits include some anticipatory guidance and recommendations on ways to promote well-being and prevent illness and injury for our patients. Because of minority stress, discrimination, and increased exposure to adverse childhood experiences, LGBTQ+ patients are disproportionately affected by certain health conditions including depression, anxiety, substance use, homelessness, as well as HIV and other sexually transmitted infections (STIs).¹ While LGBTQ+ youth could benefit from additional guidance, counseling, and interventions related to these health disparities and have expressed interest in talking about these topics with their providers, sexual and gender minority youth also stress that they want to be treated as any other youth.² Extending counseling for preventive care measures such as preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) for HIV to all sexually active youth could help to destigmatize LGBTQ+ youth as being “different” from other youth and also help to increase overall access to HIV prevention services.³

Described by some as the “birth control” for HIV infection, PrEP is taken on an ongoing basis by those who are HIV negative before potential exposures to HIV in order to prevent new HIV infections. PrEP was first approved as a daily pill for adults in 2015 by the Food and Drug Administration with extension in 2018 to all individuals at risk for HIV weighing at least 35 kg after safety and efficacy data showed it could be used routinely for adolescents.⁴ When taken daily, oral PrEP can decrease the risk of HIV from sexual contact by more than 90% and from injection drug use by around 70%. As PrEP is highly effective with low risk for side effects, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) gave PrEP a “Grade A” recommendation for use in those at high risk for HIV infection in 2019.⁵ Since efficacy is closely tied to adherence, the first injectable PrEP (given at 0, 1, and 2 months with dosing then every 2 months) was also recently FDA approved in late 2021.⁶

Since HIV infection disproportionately affects LBGTQ+ individuals, and particularly LBGTQ+ youth of color, counseling related to PrEP has been largely targeted to these groups.⁷ Insurance and financial barriers to PrEP have been greatly reduced over the past several years through changes in insurance coverage (strengthened by the USPSTF recommendation), supplemental insurance programs, and pharmaceutical copay programs. Many states (but not all) also include HIV in the definition of STIs and allow minors to consent to PrEP services without a parent or guardian. Unfortunately, despite the high efficacy of PrEP and efforts to decrease barriers, rates of PrEP use continue to be extremely low, especially in youth, with only 15.6% of those aged 16-24 who are at risk for HIV in the United States actually taking PrEP in 2019.⁸ Many barriers to PrEP continue to exist including lack of awareness of PrEP, stigma surrounding HIV and PrEP, and lack of PrEP providers.

In order to address these low rates of PrEP uptake, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention now recommends that medical providers discuss PrEP with all sexually active patients.⁶ PrEP should not be seen or discussed as something only relevant to LBGTQ+ populations, but rather as another tool in everyone’s “sexual health toolbox” that can allow us to experience human connection and pleasure through sexual activity while also having more control over what happens to our bodies. Not only will this allow more patients to access PrEP directly, it will also decrease the stigma of talking about HIV and PrEP and strengthen youths’ sense of autonomy and control over their own sexual health.

Since PrEP is a relatively new medical service, many providers will need to learn more about PrEP to at least have initial discussions with patients and to feel comfortable prescribing this themselves (See Resources). Below are also some suggestions to incorporate into your practice in order to advocate for the health and well-being of all your patients, including LGBTQ+ youth.

• Once your patients are 13 years and older, spend time with them alone to confidentially discuss more sensitive topics such as sexual health, mental health, and substance use.
• For all patients who are sexually active or considering sexual activity in the near future, discuss topics to help them control what happens to their bodies including consent, condoms, birth control, PrEP, and routine STI screening.
• Recommend PrEP to anyone who is sexually active and may be at increased risk for HIV infection or who is interested in taking PrEP for HIV prevention.
• Learn more about PrEP and start prescribing it to your own patients or become familiar with providers in your area to whom you could refer patients who are interested. While no certification is needed to prescribe PrEP, programs exist to help providers become more familiar with how to prescribe PrEP.

Dr. Warus is an adolescent medicine physician who specializes in care for transgender and gender-nonconforming youth, HIV prevention for adolescents and young adults, and LGBTQ health for youth at Children’s Hospital of Los Angeles. He is an assistant professor of clinical pediatrics and a University of Southern California faculty member.

Resources

CDC PrEP resources for clinicians: www.cdc.gov/hiv/clinicians/prevention/prep.html.Health HIV’s HIV Prevention Certified Provider Certification Program: https://healthhiv.org/programs/hpcp/.PrEP providers in the United States: https://preplocator.org/.Adolescent Health Working Group’s Sexual and Reproductive Health Toolkit for Adolescent Providers: https://ahwg.org/download/sexual-and-reproductive-health-toolkit-for-adolescent-providers/.

References

1. Lund EM and Burgess CM. Prim Care Clin Office Pract. 2021:48:179-89.

2. Hoffman ND et al. J Adolesc Health. 2009;45:222-9.

3. Mayer KH et al. Adv Ther. 2020;37:1778-811.

4. Hosek SG et al. JAMA Pediatr. 2017;171(11):1063-71.

5. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force; Owens DK et al. JAMA. 2019;321(22):2203-13.

6. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: U.S. Public Health Service: Preexposure Prophylaxis for the Prevention of HIV Infection in the United States – 2021 Update: A Clinical Practice Guideline. Published 2021. Accessed July 10, 2022.

7. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Estimated HIV Incidence and Prevalence in the United States, 2015-2019. HIV Surveillance Supplemental Report. 2021;26(1). Published May 2021. Accessed July 10, 2022.

8. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Monitoring Selected National HIV Prevention and Care Objectives by Using HIV Surveillance Data–United States and 6 Dependent Areas, 2020. HIV Surveillance Supplemental Report. 2022;27(3).

As pediatricians, almost all of our clinic visits include some anticipatory guidance and recommendations on ways to promote well-being and prevent illness and injury for our patients. Because of minority stress, discrimination, and increased exposure to adverse childhood experiences, LGBTQ+ patients are disproportionately affected by certain health conditions including depression, anxiety, substance use, homelessness, as well as HIV and other sexually transmitted infections (STIs).¹ While LGBTQ+ youth could benefit from additional guidance, counseling, and interventions related to these health disparities and have expressed interest in talking about these topics with their providers, sexual and gender minority youth also stress that they want to be treated as any other youth.² Extending counseling for preventive care measures such as preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) for HIV to all sexually active youth could help to destigmatize LGBTQ+ youth as being “different” from other youth and also help to increase overall access to HIV prevention services.³

Described by some as the “birth control” for HIV infection, PrEP is taken on an ongoing basis by those who are HIV negative before potential exposures to HIV in order to prevent new HIV infections. PrEP was first approved as a daily pill for adults in 2015 by the Food and Drug Administration with extension in 2018 to all individuals at risk for HIV weighing at least 35 kg after safety and efficacy data showed it could be used routinely for adolescents.⁴ When taken daily, oral PrEP can decrease the risk of HIV from sexual contact by more than 90% and from injection drug use by around 70%. As PrEP is highly effective with low risk for side effects, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) gave PrEP a “Grade A” recommendation for use in those at high risk for HIV infection in 2019.⁵ Since efficacy is closely tied to adherence, the first injectable PrEP (given at 0, 1, and 2 months with dosing then every 2 months) was also recently FDA approved in late 2021.⁶

Since HIV infection disproportionately affects LBGTQ+ individuals, and particularly LBGTQ+ youth of color, counseling related to PrEP has been largely targeted to these groups.⁷ Insurance and financial barriers to PrEP have been greatly reduced over the past several years through changes in insurance coverage (strengthened by the USPSTF recommendation), supplemental insurance programs, and pharmaceutical copay programs. Many states (but not all) also include HIV in the definition of STIs and allow minors to consent to PrEP services without a parent or guardian. Unfortunately, despite the high efficacy of PrEP and efforts to decrease barriers, rates of PrEP use continue to be extremely low, especially in youth, with only 15.6% of those aged 16-24 who are at risk for HIV in the United States actually taking PrEP in 2019.⁸ Many barriers to PrEP continue to exist including lack of awareness of PrEP, stigma surrounding HIV and PrEP, and lack of PrEP providers.

In order to address these low rates of PrEP uptake, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention now recommends that medical providers discuss PrEP with all sexually active patients.⁶ PrEP should not be seen or discussed as something only relevant to LBGTQ+ populations, but rather as another tool in everyone’s “sexual health toolbox” that can allow us to experience human connection and pleasure through sexual activity while also having more control over what happens to our bodies. Not only will this allow more patients to access PrEP directly, it will also decrease the stigma of talking about HIV and PrEP and strengthen youths’ sense of autonomy and control over their own sexual health.

Since PrEP is a relatively new medical service, many providers will need to learn more about PrEP to at least have initial discussions with patients and to feel comfortable prescribing this themselves (See Resources). Below are also some suggestions to incorporate into your practice in order to advocate for the health and well-being of all your patients, including LGBTQ+ youth.

• Once your patients are 13 years and older, spend time with them alone to confidentially discuss more sensitive topics such as sexual health, mental health, and substance use.
• For all patients who are sexually active or considering sexual activity in the near future, discuss topics to help them control what happens to their bodies including consent, condoms, birth control, PrEP, and routine STI screening.
• Recommend PrEP to anyone who is sexually active and may be at increased risk for HIV infection or who is interested in taking PrEP for HIV prevention.
• Learn more about PrEP and start prescribing it to your own patients or become familiar with providers in your area to whom you could refer patients who are interested. While no certification is needed to prescribe PrEP, programs exist to help providers become more familiar with how to prescribe PrEP.

Dr. Warus is an adolescent medicine physician who specializes in care for transgender and gender-nonconforming youth, HIV prevention for adolescents and young adults, and LGBTQ health for youth at Children’s Hospital of Los Angeles. He is an assistant professor of clinical pediatrics and a University of Southern California faculty member.

Resources

CDC PrEP resources for clinicians: www.cdc.gov/hiv/clinicians/prevention/prep.html.Health HIV’s HIV Prevention Certified Provider Certification Program: https://healthhiv.org/programs/hpcp/.PrEP providers in the United States: https://preplocator.org/.Adolescent Health Working Group’s Sexual and Reproductive Health Toolkit for Adolescent Providers: https://ahwg.org/download/sexual-and-reproductive-health-toolkit-for-adolescent-providers/.

References

1. Lund EM and Burgess CM. Prim Care Clin Office Pract. 2021:48:179-89.

2. Hoffman ND et al. J Adolesc Health. 2009;45:222-9.

3. Mayer KH et al. Adv Ther. 2020;37:1778-811.

4. Hosek SG et al. JAMA Pediatr. 2017;171(11):1063-71.

5. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force; Owens DK et al. JAMA. 2019;321(22):2203-13.

6. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: U.S. Public Health Service: Preexposure Prophylaxis for the Prevention of HIV Infection in the United States – 2021 Update: A Clinical Practice Guideline. Published 2021. Accessed July 10, 2022.

7. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Estimated HIV Incidence and Prevalence in the United States, 2015-2019. HIV Surveillance Supplemental Report. 2021;26(1). Published May 2021. Accessed July 10, 2022.

8. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Monitoring Selected National HIV Prevention and Care Objectives by Using HIV Surveillance Data–United States and 6 Dependent Areas, 2020. HIV Surveillance Supplemental Report. 2022;27(3).

As pediatricians, almost all of our clinic visits include some anticipatory guidance and recommendations on ways to promote well-being and prevent illness and injury for our patients. Because of minority stress, discrimination, and increased exposure to adverse childhood experiences, LGBTQ+ patients are disproportionately affected by certain health conditions including depression, anxiety, substance use, homelessness, as well as HIV and other sexually transmitted infections (STIs).¹ While LGBTQ+ youth could benefit from additional guidance, counseling, and interventions related to these health disparities and have expressed interest in talking about these topics with their providers, sexual and gender minority youth also stress that they want to be treated as any other youth.² Extending counseling for preventive care measures such as preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) for HIV to all sexually active youth could help to destigmatize LGBTQ+ youth as being “different” from other youth and also help to increase overall access to HIV prevention services.³

Described by some as the “birth control” for HIV infection, PrEP is taken on an ongoing basis by those who are HIV negative before potential exposures to HIV in order to prevent new HIV infections. PrEP was first approved as a daily pill for adults in 2015 by the Food and Drug Administration with extension in 2018 to all individuals at risk for HIV weighing at least 35 kg after safety and efficacy data showed it could be used routinely for adolescents.⁴ When taken daily, oral PrEP can decrease the risk of HIV from sexual contact by more than 90% and from injection drug use by around 70%. As PrEP is highly effective with low risk for side effects, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) gave PrEP a “Grade A” recommendation for use in those at high risk for HIV infection in 2019.⁵ Since efficacy is closely tied to adherence, the first injectable PrEP (given at 0, 1, and 2 months with dosing then every 2 months) was also recently FDA approved in late 2021.⁶

Since HIV infection disproportionately affects LBGTQ+ individuals, and particularly LBGTQ+ youth of color, counseling related to PrEP has been largely targeted to these groups.⁷ Insurance and financial barriers to PrEP have been greatly reduced over the past several years through changes in insurance coverage (strengthened by the USPSTF recommendation), supplemental insurance programs, and pharmaceutical copay programs. Many states (but not all) also include HIV in the definition of STIs and allow minors to consent to PrEP services without a parent or guardian. Unfortunately, despite the high efficacy of PrEP and efforts to decrease barriers, rates of PrEP use continue to be extremely low, especially in youth, with only 15.6% of those aged 16-24 who are at risk for HIV in the United States actually taking PrEP in 2019.⁸ Many barriers to PrEP continue to exist including lack of awareness of PrEP, stigma surrounding HIV and PrEP, and lack of PrEP providers.

In order to address these low rates of PrEP uptake, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention now recommends that medical providers discuss PrEP with all sexually active patients.⁶ PrEP should not be seen or discussed as something only relevant to LBGTQ+ populations, but rather as another tool in everyone’s “sexual health toolbox” that can allow us to experience human connection and pleasure through sexual activity while also having more control over what happens to our bodies. Not only will this allow more patients to access PrEP directly, it will also decrease the stigma of talking about HIV and PrEP and strengthen youths’ sense of autonomy and control over their own sexual health.

Since PrEP is a relatively new medical service, many providers will need to learn more about PrEP to at least have initial discussions with patients and to feel comfortable prescribing this themselves (See Resources). Below are also some suggestions to incorporate into your practice in order to advocate for the health and well-being of all your patients, including LGBTQ+ youth.

• Once your patients are 13 years and older, spend time with them alone to confidentially discuss more sensitive topics such as sexual health, mental health, and substance use.
• For all patients who are sexually active or considering sexual activity in the near future, discuss topics to help them control what happens to their bodies including consent, condoms, birth control, PrEP, and routine STI screening.
• Recommend PrEP to anyone who is sexually active and may be at increased risk for HIV infection or who is interested in taking PrEP for HIV prevention.
• Learn more about PrEP and start prescribing it to your own patients or become familiar with providers in your area to whom you could refer patients who are interested. While no certification is needed to prescribe PrEP, programs exist to help providers become more familiar with how to prescribe PrEP.

Dr. Warus is an adolescent medicine physician who specializes in care for transgender and gender-nonconforming youth, HIV prevention for adolescents and young adults, and LGBTQ health for youth at Children’s Hospital of Los Angeles. He is an assistant professor of clinical pediatrics and a University of Southern California faculty member.

Resources

CDC PrEP resources for clinicians: www.cdc.gov/hiv/clinicians/prevention/prep.html.Health HIV’s HIV Prevention Certified Provider Certification Program: https://healthhiv.org/programs/hpcp/.PrEP providers in the United States: https://preplocator.org/.Adolescent Health Working Group’s Sexual and Reproductive Health Toolkit for Adolescent Providers: https://ahwg.org/download/sexual-and-reproductive-health-toolkit-for-adolescent-providers/.

References

1. Lund EM and Burgess CM. Prim Care Clin Office Pract. 2021:48:179-89.

2. Hoffman ND et al. J Adolesc Health. 2009;45:222-9.

3. Mayer KH et al. Adv Ther. 2020;37:1778-811.

4. Hosek SG et al. JAMA Pediatr. 2017;171(11):1063-71.

5. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force; Owens DK et al. JAMA. 2019;321(22):2203-13.

6. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: U.S. Public Health Service: Preexposure Prophylaxis for the Prevention of HIV Infection in the United States – 2021 Update: A Clinical Practice Guideline. Published 2021. Accessed July 10, 2022.

7. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Estimated HIV Incidence and Prevalence in the United States, 2015-2019. HIV Surveillance Supplemental Report. 2021;26(1). Published May 2021. Accessed July 10, 2022.

8. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Monitoring Selected National HIV Prevention and Care Objectives by Using HIV Surveillance Data–United States and 6 Dependent Areas, 2020. HIV Surveillance Supplemental Report. 2022;27(3).

The American Academy of Pediatrics is built on good intentions. It wants the best for children in the world, and it hopes to support its members in their efforts to achieve this goal. But from time to time, the academy loses sight of reality and makes recommendations that are counterproductive to its stated goals.

The recent release of its new policy “Breastfeeding and the Use of Human Milk” is another unfortunate example of poorly aimed recommendations. A careful reading of the document reveals it to be a well-researched treatise on breastfeeding and the value of human milk, including a discussion of the numerous impediments to the universal adoption of breastfeeding in our society. However, when a document of this breadth and complexity is released to the public it is never surprising that the messages deserving the most attention are lost in the press coverage. Most of the headlines I saw mentioned pediatricians supporting breastfeeding for a year or 2.

Who was the target audience? If it was pediatricians, most of us don’t need a longer list of the health benefits of breastfeeding. We already believe it is the best nutritional source for human babies and realize that the institutional framework in this country continues to be unfriendly to women who intend to breastfeed.

If the audience is politicians and public health decision-makers, the new policy contains a wealth of supportive evidence. However, most pediatricians I know are too busy or lack the skills and enthusiasm to become political activists. For the rest of population, including parents, the recommendations represent a collection of TMI (too much information).

If the audience is women who are considering breastfeeding I suspect nearly 100% already know pediatricians think it is the preferred way to feed their babies. And, likewise, a longer list won’t convince them to try nursing. Additional evidence may simply make them feel more guilty when they aren’t successful.

Many pregnant women have already been told that breastfeeding can be a challenge and given their situation breast milk alone for the first 6 months may sound like an unreasonable goal. The new recommendation that breastfeeding for a year or 2 is good is not a message they want to hear.

On the other hand, if the target audience is women who will be comforted to hear an official statement that normalizes breastfeeding longer than a year, the new policy statement has hit the nail on the head.

Of course the new policy document is sprinkled with caveats that vaguely hint at the possibility that pediatricians are sensitive human beings who under certain circumstances may be able to compromise when it comes to the duration of breastfeeding and the introduction of formula. But this whiff of reality is certainly not the dominant odor in these new recommendations.

Don’t get me wrong: I think the academy was overdue for a policy revision on breastfeeding. However, it should have been one that was reality based. It should acknowledge that there are institutional and societal biases against breastfeeding, and it should remind pediatricians that they can effect change by discussing these realities honestly with parents, while making it clear that we are there for them and their children regardless of how they feed their baby. Pediatricians believe that breastfeeding is the best but not the only way to feed a baby. We have (or will provide) the skills to assist parents succeed in whatever method they choose and strive to minimize the impediments that are within our power to change.

If the academy had chosen to release a separate statement simply supporting mothers who chose to nurse longer than a year, then that would have been a good idea. However, when presented as part of the larger document, that message dominated in the media and only served to fuel the guilt that many new mothers must endure.
 

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

The American Academy of Pediatrics is built on good intentions. It wants the best for children in the world, and it hopes to support its members in their efforts to achieve this goal. But from time to time, the academy loses sight of reality and makes recommendations that are counterproductive to its stated goals.

The recent release of its new policy “Breastfeeding and the Use of Human Milk” is another unfortunate example of poorly aimed recommendations. A careful reading of the document reveals it to be a well-researched treatise on breastfeeding and the value of human milk, including a discussion of the numerous impediments to the universal adoption of breastfeeding in our society. However, when a document of this breadth and complexity is released to the public it is never surprising that the messages deserving the most attention are lost in the press coverage. Most of the headlines I saw mentioned pediatricians supporting breastfeeding for a year or 2.

Who was the target audience? If it was pediatricians, most of us don’t need a longer list of the health benefits of breastfeeding. We already believe it is the best nutritional source for human babies and realize that the institutional framework in this country continues to be unfriendly to women who intend to breastfeed.

If the audience is politicians and public health decision-makers, the new policy contains a wealth of supportive evidence. However, most pediatricians I know are too busy or lack the skills and enthusiasm to become political activists. For the rest of population, including parents, the recommendations represent a collection of TMI (too much information).

If the audience is women who are considering breastfeeding I suspect nearly 100% already know pediatricians think it is the preferred way to feed their babies. And, likewise, a longer list won’t convince them to try nursing. Additional evidence may simply make them feel more guilty when they aren’t successful.

Many pregnant women have already been told that breastfeeding can be a challenge and given their situation breast milk alone for the first 6 months may sound like an unreasonable goal. The new recommendation that breastfeeding for a year or 2 is good is not a message they want to hear.

On the other hand, if the target audience is women who will be comforted to hear an official statement that normalizes breastfeeding longer than a year, the new policy statement has hit the nail on the head.

Of course the new policy document is sprinkled with caveats that vaguely hint at the possibility that pediatricians are sensitive human beings who under certain circumstances may be able to compromise when it comes to the duration of breastfeeding and the introduction of formula. But this whiff of reality is certainly not the dominant odor in these new recommendations.

Don’t get me wrong: I think the academy was overdue for a policy revision on breastfeeding. However, it should have been one that was reality based. It should acknowledge that there are institutional and societal biases against breastfeeding, and it should remind pediatricians that they can effect change by discussing these realities honestly with parents, while making it clear that we are there for them and their children regardless of how they feed their baby. Pediatricians believe that breastfeeding is the best but not the only way to feed a baby. We have (or will provide) the skills to assist parents succeed in whatever method they choose and strive to minimize the impediments that are within our power to change.

If the academy had chosen to release a separate statement simply supporting mothers who chose to nurse longer than a year, then that would have been a good idea. However, when presented as part of the larger document, that message dominated in the media and only served to fuel the guilt that many new mothers must endure.
 

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

The American Academy of Pediatrics is built on good intentions. It wants the best for children in the world, and it hopes to support its members in their efforts to achieve this goal. But from time to time, the academy loses sight of reality and makes recommendations that are counterproductive to its stated goals.

The recent release of its new policy “Breastfeeding and the Use of Human Milk” is another unfortunate example of poorly aimed recommendations. A careful reading of the document reveals it to be a well-researched treatise on breastfeeding and the value of human milk, including a discussion of the numerous impediments to the universal adoption of breastfeeding in our society. However, when a document of this breadth and complexity is released to the public it is never surprising that the messages deserving the most attention are lost in the press coverage. Most of the headlines I saw mentioned pediatricians supporting breastfeeding for a year or 2.

Who was the target audience? If it was pediatricians, most of us don’t need a longer list of the health benefits of breastfeeding. We already believe it is the best nutritional source for human babies and realize that the institutional framework in this country continues to be unfriendly to women who intend to breastfeed.

If the audience is politicians and public health decision-makers, the new policy contains a wealth of supportive evidence. However, most pediatricians I know are too busy or lack the skills and enthusiasm to become political activists. For the rest of population, including parents, the recommendations represent a collection of TMI (too much information).

If the audience is women who are considering breastfeeding I suspect nearly 100% already know pediatricians think it is the preferred way to feed their babies. And, likewise, a longer list won’t convince them to try nursing. Additional evidence may simply make them feel more guilty when they aren’t successful.

Many pregnant women have already been told that breastfeeding can be a challenge and given their situation breast milk alone for the first 6 months may sound like an unreasonable goal. The new recommendation that breastfeeding for a year or 2 is good is not a message they want to hear.

On the other hand, if the target audience is women who will be comforted to hear an official statement that normalizes breastfeeding longer than a year, the new policy statement has hit the nail on the head.

Of course the new policy document is sprinkled with caveats that vaguely hint at the possibility that pediatricians are sensitive human beings who under certain circumstances may be able to compromise when it comes to the duration of breastfeeding and the introduction of formula. But this whiff of reality is certainly not the dominant odor in these new recommendations.

Don’t get me wrong: I think the academy was overdue for a policy revision on breastfeeding. However, it should have been one that was reality based. It should acknowledge that there are institutional and societal biases against breastfeeding, and it should remind pediatricians that they can effect change by discussing these realities honestly with parents, while making it clear that we are there for them and their children regardless of how they feed their baby. Pediatricians believe that breastfeeding is the best but not the only way to feed a baby. We have (or will provide) the skills to assist parents succeed in whatever method they choose and strive to minimize the impediments that are within our power to change.

If the academy had chosen to release a separate statement simply supporting mothers who chose to nurse longer than a year, then that would have been a good idea. However, when presented as part of the larger document, that message dominated in the media and only served to fuel the guilt that many new mothers must endure.
 

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

Luke is a 12-year-old who presents for a well-child visit accompanied by his foster mother. He appears ^more solemn and taciturn than at previous visits. He is not interested in talking about any topics, including things he enjoys. His foster mother states that he has been more irritable, oppositional, and behaviorally dysregulated over the past 2 months. She also notes that his sleep has been poor. He reports this is because of nightmares and trouble falling asleep. Luke states that he will at times remember seeing his mother being struck by his father and – even when he does not want to – will have thoughts about hiding from his dad after being hit. You learn from the foster mother that he has been residing with her for the past 2 months and that he is now in state custody following significant parental home substance use, witnessing domestic violence, and being physically abused by his father.

The above narrative may sound all too familiar to those in pediatric primary care. You may wonder if there is a potential posttraumatic response to the witnessed trauma, but does the patient meet criteria for a trauma-related disorder? If so, what are the best next steps?
 

Prevalence of posttraumatic stress disorder in the general pediatric population

According to the 2020 National Survey of Children’s Health, approximately 40% of children age 17 and under report experiencing at least one adverse childhood experience. Within the 12-17 age range, it rises to over 50%.¹ Adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) are potentially traumatic events and include items such as experiencing violence/abuse/neglect, witnessing violence in the home or community, having a family member attempt or die by suicide, and other adverse household and environmental situations. The accumulation of these ACEs can lead to long-term adverse emotional, physical, and behavioral outcomes.²

However, adverse childhood experiences do not always translate into PTSD. According to one national survey of 13- to 18-year-olds, the lifetime prevalence of PTSD is notably lower than exposure rates to ACEs and is estimated at 5% of adolescents, with higher rates among females (8%) versus males (2.3%).³

There are various risk factors for the development of PTSD that may play a role including genetic vulnerability, length of the trauma (for example, a one-time event versus repeated trauma for years), characteristics specific to the trauma, and the aftermath of the trauma. Again, it is important to note that not all youth exposed to a traumatic event will develop PTSD. Those who do make up a small percentage of at-risk children.⁴
 

Diagnosing PTSD in a child or adolescent

For a pediatric patient to be diagnosed with PTSD according to the DSM-5 criteria, they must experience a potentially traumatic event and meet criteria from four categories of symptoms. Trauma is defined as direct or indirect exposure to actual or threatened death, serious injury, or sexual violence. The four symptom categories are re-experiencing, avoidance, hyperarousal, and negative alteration in cognition and mood. The number of symptoms needed from each category varies based on the child’s age, with differing cutoffs based on whether the child is younger or older than 6 years old. Moreover, symptoms must be present for at least 1 month.⁵

Trauma can be assessed in the office by using a focused interview that includes the full DSM diagnostic criteria. There are additional trauma rating screeners and assessment tools that can be used including the Child PTSD Symptom Scale, Child Trauma Screening Questionnaire, UCLA Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Reaction Index, and the Trauma Symptom Checklist for Children, to name a few. Many of these allow for multiple informants, including the child/adolescent, thereby allowing for varying perspectives regarding trauma reactions.
 

Treatment options

Familiarity with evidence-based treatment for trauma may be useful to ensure that referral is targeted for the patient/family. There are no Food and Drug Administrations–approved medications for children with PTSD, though medications can be used to target specific PTSD symptoms (e.g. prazosin for trauma-related nightmares) as well as commonly comorbid conditions such as depression. Becoming familiar with the available therapeutic modalities offered in your area is recommended.

Highlighting trauma-focused cognitive behavioral therapy (TF-CBT)

The treatment with the most research evidence for traumatized children is trauma-focused cognitive behavioral therapy (TF-CBT), which is a 12- to 25-session therapeutic intervention for patients 3-18 years old (with some evidence for young adults as well) with PTSD and/or trauma-related behaviors. TF-CBT uses a components-based treatment model encompassed by the PRACTICE acronym/mnemonic.^6,7

• P – Psychoeducation and parenting skills.
• R – Relaxation techniques: Focused breathing, progressive muscle relaxation, and teaching the child to control their thoughts (thought stopping).
• A – Affective expression and regulation (feeling identification): To help the child and parent learn to control their emotional reaction to reminders by expanding their emotional vocabulary, enhancing their skills in identification and expression of emotions, and encouraging self-soothing activities
• C – Cognitive coping and processing: Through this component, the child learns to understand the relationships between thoughts, feelings, and behaviors and think in new and healthier ways.
• T – Trauma narrative and processing: Gradual exposure exercises including verbal, written, and/or symbolic recounting of traumatic event(s) so the child learns to be able to discuss the events when they choose to in ways that do not produce overwhelming emotions. Following the completion of the narrative, clients are supported in identifying, challenging, and correcting cognitive distortions and dysfunctional beliefs.
• I – In vivo exposure: Encourage the gradual exposure to innocuous trauma reminders in the child’s environment so the child learns they can control their emotional reactions to things that remind them of the trauma, starting with nonthreatening examples of reminders.
• C – Conjoint parent/child sessions: Sessions generally deal with psycho-education, sharing the trauma narrative, anxiety management, and correction of cognitive distortions. The family works to enhance communication and create opportunities for therapeutic discussion regarding the trauma.
• E – Enhancing personal safety and future growth: Provide training and education with respect to personal safety skills and healthy sexuality and interpersonal relationships; encourage the utilization of skills learned in managing future stressors and/or trauma reminders.

Of note, some elements of this therapy that could possibly be easily incorporated into a primary care office visit include relaxation techniques and focus on coping skills/strategies.
 

Summary

Children and adolescents often present with trauma-related symptoms to the primary care office. Having increasing familiarity with PTSD diagnostic criteria and treatment modalities will likely lead to increased confidence and comfort recognizing symptoms and when placing a referral. This may also lead to shorter wait times for receiving targeted treatment and ultimately should lead to better outcomes for affected children and families.

Dr. Abdul-Kareem is at the University of Vermont, Burlington.

References

1. National Survey of Children’s Health (2016 - present). https://nschdata.org/browse/survey.

2. Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/aces/index.html].

3. Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). National Institute of Mental Health. https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/statistics/post-traumatic-stress-disorder-ptsd,

4. Martin A et al. Lewis’s Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (5th edition). Lippincott Williams & Wilkins: Philadelphia, 2017.

5. American Psychiatric Association. Neurodevelopmental disorders. In: DSM-5.  2013.

6. Trauma-Focused Cognitive Behavioral Therapy. The National Child Traumatic Stress Network. https://www.nctsn.org/interventions/trauma-focused-cognitive-behavioral-therapy.

7. Trauma-Focused Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy (TF-CBT). California Evidence-Based Clearinghouse for Child Welfare. https://www.cebc4cw.org/program/trauma-focused-cognitive-behavioral-therapy/.

Luke is a 12-year-old who presents for a well-child visit accompanied by his foster mother. He appears ^more solemn and taciturn than at previous visits. He is not interested in talking about any topics, including things he enjoys. His foster mother states that he has been more irritable, oppositional, and behaviorally dysregulated over the past 2 months. She also notes that his sleep has been poor. He reports this is because of nightmares and trouble falling asleep. Luke states that he will at times remember seeing his mother being struck by his father and – even when he does not want to – will have thoughts about hiding from his dad after being hit. You learn from the foster mother that he has been residing with her for the past 2 months and that he is now in state custody following significant parental home substance use, witnessing domestic violence, and being physically abused by his father.

The above narrative may sound all too familiar to those in pediatric primary care. You may wonder if there is a potential posttraumatic response to the witnessed trauma, but does the patient meet criteria for a trauma-related disorder? If so, what are the best next steps?
 

Prevalence of posttraumatic stress disorder in the general pediatric population

According to the 2020 National Survey of Children’s Health, approximately 40% of children age 17 and under report experiencing at least one adverse childhood experience. Within the 12-17 age range, it rises to over 50%.¹ Adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) are potentially traumatic events and include items such as experiencing violence/abuse/neglect, witnessing violence in the home or community, having a family member attempt or die by suicide, and other adverse household and environmental situations. The accumulation of these ACEs can lead to long-term adverse emotional, physical, and behavioral outcomes.²

However, adverse childhood experiences do not always translate into PTSD. According to one national survey of 13- to 18-year-olds, the lifetime prevalence of PTSD is notably lower than exposure rates to ACEs and is estimated at 5% of adolescents, with higher rates among females (8%) versus males (2.3%).³

There are various risk factors for the development of PTSD that may play a role including genetic vulnerability, length of the trauma (for example, a one-time event versus repeated trauma for years), characteristics specific to the trauma, and the aftermath of the trauma. Again, it is important to note that not all youth exposed to a traumatic event will develop PTSD. Those who do make up a small percentage of at-risk children.⁴
 

Diagnosing PTSD in a child or adolescent

For a pediatric patient to be diagnosed with PTSD according to the DSM-5 criteria, they must experience a potentially traumatic event and meet criteria from four categories of symptoms. Trauma is defined as direct or indirect exposure to actual or threatened death, serious injury, or sexual violence. The four symptom categories are re-experiencing, avoidance, hyperarousal, and negative alteration in cognition and mood. The number of symptoms needed from each category varies based on the child’s age, with differing cutoffs based on whether the child is younger or older than 6 years old. Moreover, symptoms must be present for at least 1 month.⁵

Trauma can be assessed in the office by using a focused interview that includes the full DSM diagnostic criteria. There are additional trauma rating screeners and assessment tools that can be used including the Child PTSD Symptom Scale, Child Trauma Screening Questionnaire, UCLA Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Reaction Index, and the Trauma Symptom Checklist for Children, to name a few. Many of these allow for multiple informants, including the child/adolescent, thereby allowing for varying perspectives regarding trauma reactions.
 

Treatment options

Familiarity with evidence-based treatment for trauma may be useful to ensure that referral is targeted for the patient/family. There are no Food and Drug Administrations–approved medications for children with PTSD, though medications can be used to target specific PTSD symptoms (e.g. prazosin for trauma-related nightmares) as well as commonly comorbid conditions such as depression. Becoming familiar with the available therapeutic modalities offered in your area is recommended.

Highlighting trauma-focused cognitive behavioral therapy (TF-CBT)

The treatment with the most research evidence for traumatized children is trauma-focused cognitive behavioral therapy (TF-CBT), which is a 12- to 25-session therapeutic intervention for patients 3-18 years old (with some evidence for young adults as well) with PTSD and/or trauma-related behaviors. TF-CBT uses a components-based treatment model encompassed by the PRACTICE acronym/mnemonic.^6,7

• P – Psychoeducation and parenting skills.
• R – Relaxation techniques: Focused breathing, progressive muscle relaxation, and teaching the child to control their thoughts (thought stopping).
• A – Affective expression and regulation (feeling identification): To help the child and parent learn to control their emotional reaction to reminders by expanding their emotional vocabulary, enhancing their skills in identification and expression of emotions, and encouraging self-soothing activities
• C – Cognitive coping and processing: Through this component, the child learns to understand the relationships between thoughts, feelings, and behaviors and think in new and healthier ways.
• T – Trauma narrative and processing: Gradual exposure exercises including verbal, written, and/or symbolic recounting of traumatic event(s) so the child learns to be able to discuss the events when they choose to in ways that do not produce overwhelming emotions. Following the completion of the narrative, clients are supported in identifying, challenging, and correcting cognitive distortions and dysfunctional beliefs.
• I – In vivo exposure: Encourage the gradual exposure to innocuous trauma reminders in the child’s environment so the child learns they can control their emotional reactions to things that remind them of the trauma, starting with nonthreatening examples of reminders.
• C – Conjoint parent/child sessions: Sessions generally deal with psycho-education, sharing the trauma narrative, anxiety management, and correction of cognitive distortions. The family works to enhance communication and create opportunities for therapeutic discussion regarding the trauma.
• E – Enhancing personal safety and future growth: Provide training and education with respect to personal safety skills and healthy sexuality and interpersonal relationships; encourage the utilization of skills learned in managing future stressors and/or trauma reminders.

Of note, some elements of this therapy that could possibly be easily incorporated into a primary care office visit include relaxation techniques and focus on coping skills/strategies.
 

Summary

Children and adolescents often present with trauma-related symptoms to the primary care office. Having increasing familiarity with PTSD diagnostic criteria and treatment modalities will likely lead to increased confidence and comfort recognizing symptoms and when placing a referral. This may also lead to shorter wait times for receiving targeted treatment and ultimately should lead to better outcomes for affected children and families.

Dr. Abdul-Kareem is at the University of Vermont, Burlington.

References

1. National Survey of Children’s Health (2016 - present). https://nschdata.org/browse/survey.

2. Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/aces/index.html].

3. Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). National Institute of Mental Health. https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/statistics/post-traumatic-stress-disorder-ptsd,

4. Martin A et al. Lewis’s Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (5th edition). Lippincott Williams & Wilkins: Philadelphia, 2017.

5. American Psychiatric Association. Neurodevelopmental disorders. In: DSM-5.  2013.

6. Trauma-Focused Cognitive Behavioral Therapy. The National Child Traumatic Stress Network. https://www.nctsn.org/interventions/trauma-focused-cognitive-behavioral-therapy.

7. Trauma-Focused Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy (TF-CBT). California Evidence-Based Clearinghouse for Child Welfare. https://www.cebc4cw.org/program/trauma-focused-cognitive-behavioral-therapy/.

Luke is a 12-year-old who presents for a well-child visit accompanied by his foster mother. He appears ^more solemn and taciturn than at previous visits. He is not interested in talking about any topics, including things he enjoys. His foster mother states that he has been more irritable, oppositional, and behaviorally dysregulated over the past 2 months. She also notes that his sleep has been poor. He reports this is because of nightmares and trouble falling asleep. Luke states that he will at times remember seeing his mother being struck by his father and – even when he does not want to – will have thoughts about hiding from his dad after being hit. You learn from the foster mother that he has been residing with her for the past 2 months and that he is now in state custody following significant parental home substance use, witnessing domestic violence, and being physically abused by his father.

The above narrative may sound all too familiar to those in pediatric primary care. You may wonder if there is a potential posttraumatic response to the witnessed trauma, but does the patient meet criteria for a trauma-related disorder? If so, what are the best next steps?
 

Prevalence of posttraumatic stress disorder in the general pediatric population

According to the 2020 National Survey of Children’s Health, approximately 40% of children age 17 and under report experiencing at least one adverse childhood experience. Within the 12-17 age range, it rises to over 50%.¹ Adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) are potentially traumatic events and include items such as experiencing violence/abuse/neglect, witnessing violence in the home or community, having a family member attempt or die by suicide, and other adverse household and environmental situations. The accumulation of these ACEs can lead to long-term adverse emotional, physical, and behavioral outcomes.²

However, adverse childhood experiences do not always translate into PTSD. According to one national survey of 13- to 18-year-olds, the lifetime prevalence of PTSD is notably lower than exposure rates to ACEs and is estimated at 5% of adolescents, with higher rates among females (8%) versus males (2.3%).³

There are various risk factors for the development of PTSD that may play a role including genetic vulnerability, length of the trauma (for example, a one-time event versus repeated trauma for years), characteristics specific to the trauma, and the aftermath of the trauma. Again, it is important to note that not all youth exposed to a traumatic event will develop PTSD. Those who do make up a small percentage of at-risk children.⁴
 

Diagnosing PTSD in a child or adolescent

For a pediatric patient to be diagnosed with PTSD according to the DSM-5 criteria, they must experience a potentially traumatic event and meet criteria from four categories of symptoms. Trauma is defined as direct or indirect exposure to actual or threatened death, serious injury, or sexual violence. The four symptom categories are re-experiencing, avoidance, hyperarousal, and negative alteration in cognition and mood. The number of symptoms needed from each category varies based on the child’s age, with differing cutoffs based on whether the child is younger or older than 6 years old. Moreover, symptoms must be present for at least 1 month.⁵

Trauma can be assessed in the office by using a focused interview that includes the full DSM diagnostic criteria. There are additional trauma rating screeners and assessment tools that can be used including the Child PTSD Symptom Scale, Child Trauma Screening Questionnaire, UCLA Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Reaction Index, and the Trauma Symptom Checklist for Children, to name a few. Many of these allow for multiple informants, including the child/adolescent, thereby allowing for varying perspectives regarding trauma reactions.
 

Treatment options

Familiarity with evidence-based treatment for trauma may be useful to ensure that referral is targeted for the patient/family. There are no Food and Drug Administrations–approved medications for children with PTSD, though medications can be used to target specific PTSD symptoms (e.g. prazosin for trauma-related nightmares) as well as commonly comorbid conditions such as depression. Becoming familiar with the available therapeutic modalities offered in your area is recommended.

Highlighting trauma-focused cognitive behavioral therapy (TF-CBT)

The treatment with the most research evidence for traumatized children is trauma-focused cognitive behavioral therapy (TF-CBT), which is a 12- to 25-session therapeutic intervention for patients 3-18 years old (with some evidence for young adults as well) with PTSD and/or trauma-related behaviors. TF-CBT uses a components-based treatment model encompassed by the PRACTICE acronym/mnemonic.^6,7

• P – Psychoeducation and parenting skills.
• R – Relaxation techniques: Focused breathing, progressive muscle relaxation, and teaching the child to control their thoughts (thought stopping).
• A – Affective expression and regulation (feeling identification): To help the child and parent learn to control their emotional reaction to reminders by expanding their emotional vocabulary, enhancing their skills in identification and expression of emotions, and encouraging self-soothing activities
• C – Cognitive coping and processing: Through this component, the child learns to understand the relationships between thoughts, feelings, and behaviors and think in new and healthier ways.
• T – Trauma narrative and processing: Gradual exposure exercises including verbal, written, and/or symbolic recounting of traumatic event(s) so the child learns to be able to discuss the events when they choose to in ways that do not produce overwhelming emotions. Following the completion of the narrative, clients are supported in identifying, challenging, and correcting cognitive distortions and dysfunctional beliefs.
• I – In vivo exposure: Encourage the gradual exposure to innocuous trauma reminders in the child’s environment so the child learns they can control their emotional reactions to things that remind them of the trauma, starting with nonthreatening examples of reminders.
• C – Conjoint parent/child sessions: Sessions generally deal with psycho-education, sharing the trauma narrative, anxiety management, and correction of cognitive distortions. The family works to enhance communication and create opportunities for therapeutic discussion regarding the trauma.
• E – Enhancing personal safety and future growth: Provide training and education with respect to personal safety skills and healthy sexuality and interpersonal relationships; encourage the utilization of skills learned in managing future stressors and/or trauma reminders.

Of note, some elements of this therapy that could possibly be easily incorporated into a primary care office visit include relaxation techniques and focus on coping skills/strategies.
 

Summary

Children and adolescents often present with trauma-related symptoms to the primary care office. Having increasing familiarity with PTSD diagnostic criteria and treatment modalities will likely lead to increased confidence and comfort recognizing symptoms and when placing a referral. This may also lead to shorter wait times for receiving targeted treatment and ultimately should lead to better outcomes for affected children and families.

Dr. Abdul-Kareem is at the University of Vermont, Burlington.

References

1. National Survey of Children’s Health (2016 - present). https://nschdata.org/browse/survey.

2. Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/aces/index.html].

3. Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). National Institute of Mental Health. https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/statistics/post-traumatic-stress-disorder-ptsd,

4. Martin A et al. Lewis’s Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (5th edition). Lippincott Williams & Wilkins: Philadelphia, 2017.

5. American Psychiatric Association. Neurodevelopmental disorders. In: DSM-5.  2013.

6. Trauma-Focused Cognitive Behavioral Therapy. The National Child Traumatic Stress Network. https://www.nctsn.org/interventions/trauma-focused-cognitive-behavioral-therapy.

7. Trauma-Focused Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy (TF-CBT). California Evidence-Based Clearinghouse for Child Welfare. https://www.cebc4cw.org/program/trauma-focused-cognitive-behavioral-therapy/.

Adolescence is a time of growing autonomy fueled by puberty, intellectual development, and identity formation. Social media engages adolescents by giving them easy access to (semi) private communication with peers, the ability to safely explore their sexuality, and easily investigate issues of intellectual curiosity, as they move from childhood to older adolescence. Social media facilitates the creation of a teenager’s own world, separate and distinct from adult concern or scrutiny. It is clearly compelling for adolescents, but we are in the early days of understanding the effect of various types of digital activities on the health and well-being of youth. There is evidence that for some, the addictive potential of these applications is potent, exacerbating or triggering mood, anxiety, and eating disorder symptoms. Their drive to explore their identity and relationships and their immature capacity to regulate emotions and behaviors make the risks of overuse substantial. But it would be impossible (and probably socially very costly) to simply avoid social media. So how to discuss its healthy use with your patients and their parents?

The data

Social media are digital communication platforms that allow users to build a public profile and then accumulate a network of followers, and follow other users, based on shared interests. They include FaceBook, Instagram, Snapchat, YouTube, and Twitter. Surveys demonstrated that 90% of U.S. adolescents use social media, with 75% having at least one social media profile and over half visiting social media sites at least once daily. Adolescents spend over 7 hours daily on their phones, not including time devoted to online schoolwork, and 8- to 12-year-olds are not far behind at almost 5 hours of daily phone use. On average, 39% of adolescent screen time is spent on passive consumption, 26% on social media, 25% on interactive activities (browsing the web, interactive video gaming) and 3% on content creation (coding, etc). There was considerable variability in survey results, and differences between genders, with boys engaged in video games almost eight times as often as girls, and girls in social media nearly twice as often as boys.¹

The research

There is a growing body of research devoted to understanding the effects of all of this digital activity on youth health and well-being.

A large, longitudinal study of Canadian 13- to 17-year-olds found that time spent on social media or watching television was strongly associated with depressive and anxiety symptoms, with a robust dose-response relationship.² However, causality is not clear, as anxious, shy, and depressed adolescents may use more social media as a consequence of their mood. Interestingly, there was no such relationship with mood and anxiety symptoms and time spent on video games.³ For youth with depression and anxiety, time spent on social media has been strongly associated with increased levels of self-reported distress, self-injury and suicidality, but again, causality is hard to prove.

One very large study from the United Kingdom (including more than 10,000 participants), demonstrated a strong relationship between time spent on social media and severity of depressive symptoms, with a more pronounced effect in girls than in boys.⁴ Many more nuanced studies have demonstrated that excessive time spent on social media, the presence of an addictive pattern of use, and the degree to which an adolescent’s sense of well-being is connected to social media are the variables that strongly predict an association with worsening depressive or anxiety symptoms.⁵

Several studies have demonstrated that low to moderate use of social media, and use to gather information and make plans were associated with better scores of emotional self-regulation and lower rates of depressive symptoms in teens.⁶ It seems safe to say that social media can be useful and fun, but that too much can be bad for you. So help your adolescent patients to expand their perspective on its use by discussing it with them.
 

Make them curious about quantity

Most teens feel they do not have enough time for all of the things they need to do, so invite them to play detective by using their phone’s applications that can track their time spent online and in different apps.

Remind them that these apps were designed to be so engaging that for some addiction is a real problem. As with tobacco, addiction is the business model by which these companies earn advertising dollars. Indeed, adolescents are the target demographic, as they are most sensitive to social rewards and are the most valuable audience for advertisers. Engage their natural suspicion of authority by pointing out that with every hour on Insta, someone else is making a lot of money. They get to choose how they want to relax, connect with friends, and explore the world, so help them to be aware of how these apps are designed to keep them from choosing.

Raise awareness of vulnerability

Adolescents who have attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder already have difficulty with impulse control and with shifting their attention to less engaging activities. Adolescents with anxiety are prone to avoid stressful situations, but still hunger for knowledge and connections. Adolescents with depression are managing low motivation and self-esteem, and the rewards of social media may keep them from exercise and actual social engagement that are critical to their treatment. Youth with eating disorders are especially prone to critical comparison of themselves to others, feeding their distorted body images. Help your patients with these common illnesses to be aware of how social media may make their treatment harder, rather than being the source of relief it may feel like.

Protect their health

For all young people, too much time spent in virtual activities and passive media consumption may not leave enough time to explore potential interests, talents, or relationships. These are important activities throughout life, but they are the central developmental tasks of adolescence. They also need 8-10 hours of sleep nightly and regular exercise. And of course, they have homework! Help them to think about how to use their time wisely to support satisfying relationships and activities, with time for relaxation and good health.

Keep parents in the room for these discussions

State that most of us have difficulty putting down our phones. Children and teens need adults who model striving for balance in all areas of choice. Just as we try to teach them to make good choices about food, getting excellent nutrition while still valuing taste and pleasure, we can talk about how to balance virtual activities with actual activities, work with play, and effort with relaxation. You can help expand your young patients’ self-awareness, acknowledge the fun and utility of their digital time, and enhance their sense of how we must all learn how to put screens down sometimes. In so doing, you can help families to ensure that they are engaging with the digital tools and toys available to all of us in ways that can support their health and well-being.

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

References

1. Geena Davis Institute on Gender and Media. The Common Sense Census: Media Use by Teens and Tweens, 2015.

2. Abi-Jaoude E et al. CMAJ 2020;192(6):E136-41.

3. Boers E et al. Can J Psychiatry. 2020 Mar;65(3):206-8.

4. Kelly Y et al. EClinicalMedicine. 2019 Jan 4;6:59-68.

5. Vidal C et al. Int Rev Psychiatry. 2020 May;32(3):235-53.

6. Coyne SM et al. J Res Adolescence. 2019;29(4):897-907.

Adolescence is a time of growing autonomy fueled by puberty, intellectual development, and identity formation. Social media engages adolescents by giving them easy access to (semi) private communication with peers, the ability to safely explore their sexuality, and easily investigate issues of intellectual curiosity, as they move from childhood to older adolescence. Social media facilitates the creation of a teenager’s own world, separate and distinct from adult concern or scrutiny. It is clearly compelling for adolescents, but we are in the early days of understanding the effect of various types of digital activities on the health and well-being of youth. There is evidence that for some, the addictive potential of these applications is potent, exacerbating or triggering mood, anxiety, and eating disorder symptoms. Their drive to explore their identity and relationships and their immature capacity to regulate emotions and behaviors make the risks of overuse substantial. But it would be impossible (and probably socially very costly) to simply avoid social media. So how to discuss its healthy use with your patients and their parents?

The data

Social media are digital communication platforms that allow users to build a public profile and then accumulate a network of followers, and follow other users, based on shared interests. They include FaceBook, Instagram, Snapchat, YouTube, and Twitter. Surveys demonstrated that 90% of U.S. adolescents use social media, with 75% having at least one social media profile and over half visiting social media sites at least once daily. Adolescents spend over 7 hours daily on their phones, not including time devoted to online schoolwork, and 8- to 12-year-olds are not far behind at almost 5 hours of daily phone use. On average, 39% of adolescent screen time is spent on passive consumption, 26% on social media, 25% on interactive activities (browsing the web, interactive video gaming) and 3% on content creation (coding, etc). There was considerable variability in survey results, and differences between genders, with boys engaged in video games almost eight times as often as girls, and girls in social media nearly twice as often as boys.¹

The research

There is a growing body of research devoted to understanding the effects of all of this digital activity on youth health and well-being.

A large, longitudinal study of Canadian 13- to 17-year-olds found that time spent on social media or watching television was strongly associated with depressive and anxiety symptoms, with a robust dose-response relationship.² However, causality is not clear, as anxious, shy, and depressed adolescents may use more social media as a consequence of their mood. Interestingly, there was no such relationship with mood and anxiety symptoms and time spent on video games.³ For youth with depression and anxiety, time spent on social media has been strongly associated with increased levels of self-reported distress, self-injury and suicidality, but again, causality is hard to prove.

One very large study from the United Kingdom (including more than 10,000 participants), demonstrated a strong relationship between time spent on social media and severity of depressive symptoms, with a more pronounced effect in girls than in boys.⁴ Many more nuanced studies have demonstrated that excessive time spent on social media, the presence of an addictive pattern of use, and the degree to which an adolescent’s sense of well-being is connected to social media are the variables that strongly predict an association with worsening depressive or anxiety symptoms.⁵

Several studies have demonstrated that low to moderate use of social media, and use to gather information and make plans were associated with better scores of emotional self-regulation and lower rates of depressive symptoms in teens.⁶ It seems safe to say that social media can be useful and fun, but that too much can be bad for you. So help your adolescent patients to expand their perspective on its use by discussing it with them.
 

Make them curious about quantity

Most teens feel they do not have enough time for all of the things they need to do, so invite them to play detective by using their phone’s applications that can track their time spent online and in different apps.

Remind them that these apps were designed to be so engaging that for some addiction is a real problem. As with tobacco, addiction is the business model by which these companies earn advertising dollars. Indeed, adolescents are the target demographic, as they are most sensitive to social rewards and are the most valuable audience for advertisers. Engage their natural suspicion of authority by pointing out that with every hour on Insta, someone else is making a lot of money. They get to choose how they want to relax, connect with friends, and explore the world, so help them to be aware of how these apps are designed to keep them from choosing.

Raise awareness of vulnerability

Adolescents who have attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder already have difficulty with impulse control and with shifting their attention to less engaging activities. Adolescents with anxiety are prone to avoid stressful situations, but still hunger for knowledge and connections. Adolescents with depression are managing low motivation and self-esteem, and the rewards of social media may keep them from exercise and actual social engagement that are critical to their treatment. Youth with eating disorders are especially prone to critical comparison of themselves to others, feeding their distorted body images. Help your patients with these common illnesses to be aware of how social media may make their treatment harder, rather than being the source of relief it may feel like.

Protect their health

For all young people, too much time spent in virtual activities and passive media consumption may not leave enough time to explore potential interests, talents, or relationships. These are important activities throughout life, but they are the central developmental tasks of adolescence. They also need 8-10 hours of sleep nightly and regular exercise. And of course, they have homework! Help them to think about how to use their time wisely to support satisfying relationships and activities, with time for relaxation and good health.

Keep parents in the room for these discussions

State that most of us have difficulty putting down our phones. Children and teens need adults who model striving for balance in all areas of choice. Just as we try to teach them to make good choices about food, getting excellent nutrition while still valuing taste and pleasure, we can talk about how to balance virtual activities with actual activities, work with play, and effort with relaxation. You can help expand your young patients’ self-awareness, acknowledge the fun and utility of their digital time, and enhance their sense of how we must all learn how to put screens down sometimes. In so doing, you can help families to ensure that they are engaging with the digital tools and toys available to all of us in ways that can support their health and well-being.

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

References

1. Geena Davis Institute on Gender and Media. The Common Sense Census: Media Use by Teens and Tweens, 2015.

2. Abi-Jaoude E et al. CMAJ 2020;192(6):E136-41.

3. Boers E et al. Can J Psychiatry. 2020 Mar;65(3):206-8.

4. Kelly Y et al. EClinicalMedicine. 2019 Jan 4;6:59-68.

5. Vidal C et al. Int Rev Psychiatry. 2020 May;32(3):235-53.

6. Coyne SM et al. J Res Adolescence. 2019;29(4):897-907.

Adolescence is a time of growing autonomy fueled by puberty, intellectual development, and identity formation. Social media engages adolescents by giving them easy access to (semi) private communication with peers, the ability to safely explore their sexuality, and easily investigate issues of intellectual curiosity, as they move from childhood to older adolescence. Social media facilitates the creation of a teenager’s own world, separate and distinct from adult concern or scrutiny. It is clearly compelling for adolescents, but we are in the early days of understanding the effect of various types of digital activities on the health and well-being of youth. There is evidence that for some, the addictive potential of these applications is potent, exacerbating or triggering mood, anxiety, and eating disorder symptoms. Their drive to explore their identity and relationships and their immature capacity to regulate emotions and behaviors make the risks of overuse substantial. But it would be impossible (and probably socially very costly) to simply avoid social media. So how to discuss its healthy use with your patients and their parents?

The data

Social media are digital communication platforms that allow users to build a public profile and then accumulate a network of followers, and follow other users, based on shared interests. They include FaceBook, Instagram, Snapchat, YouTube, and Twitter. Surveys demonstrated that 90% of U.S. adolescents use social media, with 75% having at least one social media profile and over half visiting social media sites at least once daily. Adolescents spend over 7 hours daily on their phones, not including time devoted to online schoolwork, and 8- to 12-year-olds are not far behind at almost 5 hours of daily phone use. On average, 39% of adolescent screen time is spent on passive consumption, 26% on social media, 25% on interactive activities (browsing the web, interactive video gaming) and 3% on content creation (coding, etc). There was considerable variability in survey results, and differences between genders, with boys engaged in video games almost eight times as often as girls, and girls in social media nearly twice as often as boys.¹

The research

There is a growing body of research devoted to understanding the effects of all of this digital activity on youth health and well-being.

A large, longitudinal study of Canadian 13- to 17-year-olds found that time spent on social media or watching television was strongly associated with depressive and anxiety symptoms, with a robust dose-response relationship.² However, causality is not clear, as anxious, shy, and depressed adolescents may use more social media as a consequence of their mood. Interestingly, there was no such relationship with mood and anxiety symptoms and time spent on video games.³ For youth with depression and anxiety, time spent on social media has been strongly associated with increased levels of self-reported distress, self-injury and suicidality, but again, causality is hard to prove.

One very large study from the United Kingdom (including more than 10,000 participants), demonstrated a strong relationship between time spent on social media and severity of depressive symptoms, with a more pronounced effect in girls than in boys.⁴ Many more nuanced studies have demonstrated that excessive time spent on social media, the presence of an addictive pattern of use, and the degree to which an adolescent’s sense of well-being is connected to social media are the variables that strongly predict an association with worsening depressive or anxiety symptoms.⁵

Several studies have demonstrated that low to moderate use of social media, and use to gather information and make plans were associated with better scores of emotional self-regulation and lower rates of depressive symptoms in teens.⁶ It seems safe to say that social media can be useful and fun, but that too much can be bad for you. So help your adolescent patients to expand their perspective on its use by discussing it with them.
 

Make them curious about quantity

Most teens feel they do not have enough time for all of the things they need to do, so invite them to play detective by using their phone’s applications that can track their time spent online and in different apps.

Remind them that these apps were designed to be so engaging that for some addiction is a real problem. As with tobacco, addiction is the business model by which these companies earn advertising dollars. Indeed, adolescents are the target demographic, as they are most sensitive to social rewards and are the most valuable audience for advertisers. Engage their natural suspicion of authority by pointing out that with every hour on Insta, someone else is making a lot of money. They get to choose how they want to relax, connect with friends, and explore the world, so help them to be aware of how these apps are designed to keep them from choosing.

Raise awareness of vulnerability

Adolescents who have attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder already have difficulty with impulse control and with shifting their attention to less engaging activities. Adolescents with anxiety are prone to avoid stressful situations, but still hunger for knowledge and connections. Adolescents with depression are managing low motivation and self-esteem, and the rewards of social media may keep them from exercise and actual social engagement that are critical to their treatment. Youth with eating disorders are especially prone to critical comparison of themselves to others, feeding their distorted body images. Help your patients with these common illnesses to be aware of how social media may make their treatment harder, rather than being the source of relief it may feel like.

Protect their health

For all young people, too much time spent in virtual activities and passive media consumption may not leave enough time to explore potential interests, talents, or relationships. These are important activities throughout life, but they are the central developmental tasks of adolescence. They also need 8-10 hours of sleep nightly and regular exercise. And of course, they have homework! Help them to think about how to use their time wisely to support satisfying relationships and activities, with time for relaxation and good health.

Keep parents in the room for these discussions

State that most of us have difficulty putting down our phones. Children and teens need adults who model striving for balance in all areas of choice. Just as we try to teach them to make good choices about food, getting excellent nutrition while still valuing taste and pleasure, we can talk about how to balance virtual activities with actual activities, work with play, and effort with relaxation. You can help expand your young patients’ self-awareness, acknowledge the fun and utility of their digital time, and enhance their sense of how we must all learn how to put screens down sometimes. In so doing, you can help families to ensure that they are engaging with the digital tools and toys available to all of us in ways that can support their health and well-being.

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

References

1. Geena Davis Institute on Gender and Media. The Common Sense Census: Media Use by Teens and Tweens, 2015.

2. Abi-Jaoude E et al. CMAJ 2020;192(6):E136-41.

3. Boers E et al. Can J Psychiatry. 2020 Mar;65(3):206-8.

4. Kelly Y et al. EClinicalMedicine. 2019 Jan 4;6:59-68.

5. Vidal C et al. Int Rev Psychiatry. 2020 May;32(3):235-53.

6. Coyne SM et al. J Res Adolescence. 2019;29(4):897-907.

Long thought to be untreatable, KRAS is one of the most difficult to treat oncogenic drivers responsible for approximately 25% of all tumors, including 68% of pancreatic tumors and 20% of all non–small cell lung cancers (NSCLC).

We now have a treatment – sotorasib – for patients with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC that is driven by a KRAS mutation (G12C). And, now, there is a second treatment – adagrasib – under study, which, according to a presentation recently made at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, looks promising.

Ras is a membrane-bound regulatory protein (G protein) belonging to the family of guanosine triphosphatases (GTPases). Ras functions as a guanosine diphosphate/triphosphate binary switch by cycling between the active GTP-bound and the inactive GDP-bound states in response to extracellular stimuli. The KRAS (G12C) mutation affects the active form of KRAS and results in abnormally high concentrations of GTP-bound KRAS leading to hyperactivation of downstream oncogenic pathways and uncontrolled cell growth, specifically of ERK and MEK signaling pathways.

At the ASCO annual meeting in June, Spira and colleagues reported the results of cohort A of the KRYSTAL-1 study evaluating adagrasib as second-line therapy patients with advanced solid tumors harboring a KRAS (G12C) mutation. Like sotorasib, adagrasib is a KRAS (G12C) inhibitor that irreversibly and selectively binds KRAS (G12C), locking it in its inactive state. In this study, patients had to have failed first-line chemotherapy and immunotherapy with 43% of lung cancer patients responding. The 12-month overall survival (OS) was 51%, median overall survival was 12.6 and median progression-free survival (PFS) was 6.5 months. Twenty-five patients with KRAS (G12C)–mutant NSCLC and active, untreated central nervous system metastases received adagrasib in a phase 1b cohort. The intracranial overall response rate was 31.6% and median intracranial PFS was 4.2 months. Systemic ORR was 35.0% (7/20), the disease control rate was 80.0% (16/20) and median duration of response was 9.6 months. Based on these data, a phase 3 trial evaluating adagrasib monotherapy versus docetaxel in previously treated patients with KRAS (G12C) mutant NSCLC is ongoing.

The Food and Drug Administration approval of sotorasib in 2021 was, in part, based on the results of a single-arm, phase 2, second-line study of patients who had previously received platinum-based chemotherapy and/or immunotherapy. An ORR rate of 37.1% was reported with a median PFS of 6.8 months and median OS of 12.5 months leading to the FDA approval. Responses were observed across the range of baseline PD-L1 expression levels: 48% of PD-L1 negative, 39% with PD-L1 between 1%-49%, and 22% of patients with a PD-L1 of greater than 50% having a response.

The major toxicities observed in these studies were gastrointestinal (diarrhea, nausea, vomiting) and hepatic (elevated liver enzymes). About 97% of patients on adagrasib experienced any treatment-related adverse events, and 43% experienced a grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse event leading to dose reduction in 52% of patients, a dose interruption in 61% of patients, and a 7% discontinuation rate. About 70% of patients treated with sotorasib had a treatment-related adverse event of any grade, and 21% reported grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events.

A subgroup in the KRYSTAL-1 trial reported an intracranial ORR of 32% in patients with active, untreated CNS metastases. Median overall survival has not yet reached concordance between systemic and intracranial disease control was 88%. In addition, preliminary data from two patients with untreated CNS metastases from a phase 1b cohort found cerebrospinal fluid concentrations of adagrasib with a mean ratio of unbound brain-to-plasma concentration of 0.47, which is comparable or exceeds values for known CNS-penetrant tyrosine kinase inhibitors.

Unfortunately, KRAS (G12C) is not the only KRAS mutation out there. There are a myriad of others, such as G12V and G12D. Hopefully, we will be seeing more drugs aimed at this set of important mutations. Another question, of course, is when and if these drugs will move to the first-line setting.

Dr. Schiller is a medical oncologist and founding member of Oncologists United for Climate and Health. She is a former board member of the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer and a current board member of the Lung Cancer Research Foundation.

Long thought to be untreatable, KRAS is one of the most difficult to treat oncogenic drivers responsible for approximately 25% of all tumors, including 68% of pancreatic tumors and 20% of all non–small cell lung cancers (NSCLC).

We now have a treatment – sotorasib – for patients with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC that is driven by a KRAS mutation (G12C). And, now, there is a second treatment – adagrasib – under study, which, according to a presentation recently made at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, looks promising.

Ras is a membrane-bound regulatory protein (G protein) belonging to the family of guanosine triphosphatases (GTPases). Ras functions as a guanosine diphosphate/triphosphate binary switch by cycling between the active GTP-bound and the inactive GDP-bound states in response to extracellular stimuli. The KRAS (G12C) mutation affects the active form of KRAS and results in abnormally high concentrations of GTP-bound KRAS leading to hyperactivation of downstream oncogenic pathways and uncontrolled cell growth, specifically of ERK and MEK signaling pathways.

At the ASCO annual meeting in June, Spira and colleagues reported the results of cohort A of the KRYSTAL-1 study evaluating adagrasib as second-line therapy patients with advanced solid tumors harboring a KRAS (G12C) mutation. Like sotorasib, adagrasib is a KRAS (G12C) inhibitor that irreversibly and selectively binds KRAS (G12C), locking it in its inactive state. In this study, patients had to have failed first-line chemotherapy and immunotherapy with 43% of lung cancer patients responding. The 12-month overall survival (OS) was 51%, median overall survival was 12.6 and median progression-free survival (PFS) was 6.5 months. Twenty-five patients with KRAS (G12C)–mutant NSCLC and active, untreated central nervous system metastases received adagrasib in a phase 1b cohort. The intracranial overall response rate was 31.6% and median intracranial PFS was 4.2 months. Systemic ORR was 35.0% (7/20), the disease control rate was 80.0% (16/20) and median duration of response was 9.6 months. Based on these data, a phase 3 trial evaluating adagrasib monotherapy versus docetaxel in previously treated patients with KRAS (G12C) mutant NSCLC is ongoing.

The Food and Drug Administration approval of sotorasib in 2021 was, in part, based on the results of a single-arm, phase 2, second-line study of patients who had previously received platinum-based chemotherapy and/or immunotherapy. An ORR rate of 37.1% was reported with a median PFS of 6.8 months and median OS of 12.5 months leading to the FDA approval. Responses were observed across the range of baseline PD-L1 expression levels: 48% of PD-L1 negative, 39% with PD-L1 between 1%-49%, and 22% of patients with a PD-L1 of greater than 50% having a response.

The major toxicities observed in these studies were gastrointestinal (diarrhea, nausea, vomiting) and hepatic (elevated liver enzymes). About 97% of patients on adagrasib experienced any treatment-related adverse events, and 43% experienced a grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse event leading to dose reduction in 52% of patients, a dose interruption in 61% of patients, and a 7% discontinuation rate. About 70% of patients treated with sotorasib had a treatment-related adverse event of any grade, and 21% reported grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events.

A subgroup in the KRYSTAL-1 trial reported an intracranial ORR of 32% in patients with active, untreated CNS metastases. Median overall survival has not yet reached concordance between systemic and intracranial disease control was 88%. In addition, preliminary data from two patients with untreated CNS metastases from a phase 1b cohort found cerebrospinal fluid concentrations of adagrasib with a mean ratio of unbound brain-to-plasma concentration of 0.47, which is comparable or exceeds values for known CNS-penetrant tyrosine kinase inhibitors.

Unfortunately, KRAS (G12C) is not the only KRAS mutation out there. There are a myriad of others, such as G12V and G12D. Hopefully, we will be seeing more drugs aimed at this set of important mutations. Another question, of course, is when and if these drugs will move to the first-line setting.

Dr. Schiller is a medical oncologist and founding member of Oncologists United for Climate and Health. She is a former board member of the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer and a current board member of the Lung Cancer Research Foundation.

Long thought to be untreatable, KRAS is one of the most difficult to treat oncogenic drivers responsible for approximately 25% of all tumors, including 68% of pancreatic tumors and 20% of all non–small cell lung cancers (NSCLC).

We now have a treatment – sotorasib – for patients with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC that is driven by a KRAS mutation (G12C). And, now, there is a second treatment – adagrasib – under study, which, according to a presentation recently made at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, looks promising.

Ras is a membrane-bound regulatory protein (G protein) belonging to the family of guanosine triphosphatases (GTPases). Ras functions as a guanosine diphosphate/triphosphate binary switch by cycling between the active GTP-bound and the inactive GDP-bound states in response to extracellular stimuli. The KRAS (G12C) mutation affects the active form of KRAS and results in abnormally high concentrations of GTP-bound KRAS leading to hyperactivation of downstream oncogenic pathways and uncontrolled cell growth, specifically of ERK and MEK signaling pathways.

At the ASCO annual meeting in June, Spira and colleagues reported the results of cohort A of the KRYSTAL-1 study evaluating adagrasib as second-line therapy patients with advanced solid tumors harboring a KRAS (G12C) mutation. Like sotorasib, adagrasib is a KRAS (G12C) inhibitor that irreversibly and selectively binds KRAS (G12C), locking it in its inactive state. In this study, patients had to have failed first-line chemotherapy and immunotherapy with 43% of lung cancer patients responding. The 12-month overall survival (OS) was 51%, median overall survival was 12.6 and median progression-free survival (PFS) was 6.5 months. Twenty-five patients with KRAS (G12C)–mutant NSCLC and active, untreated central nervous system metastases received adagrasib in a phase 1b cohort. The intracranial overall response rate was 31.6% and median intracranial PFS was 4.2 months. Systemic ORR was 35.0% (7/20), the disease control rate was 80.0% (16/20) and median duration of response was 9.6 months. Based on these data, a phase 3 trial evaluating adagrasib monotherapy versus docetaxel in previously treated patients with KRAS (G12C) mutant NSCLC is ongoing.

The Food and Drug Administration approval of sotorasib in 2021 was, in part, based on the results of a single-arm, phase 2, second-line study of patients who had previously received platinum-based chemotherapy and/or immunotherapy. An ORR rate of 37.1% was reported with a median PFS of 6.8 months and median OS of 12.5 months leading to the FDA approval. Responses were observed across the range of baseline PD-L1 expression levels: 48% of PD-L1 negative, 39% with PD-L1 between 1%-49%, and 22% of patients with a PD-L1 of greater than 50% having a response.

The major toxicities observed in these studies were gastrointestinal (diarrhea, nausea, vomiting) and hepatic (elevated liver enzymes). About 97% of patients on adagrasib experienced any treatment-related adverse events, and 43% experienced a grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse event leading to dose reduction in 52% of patients, a dose interruption in 61% of patients, and a 7% discontinuation rate. About 70% of patients treated with sotorasib had a treatment-related adverse event of any grade, and 21% reported grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events.

A subgroup in the KRYSTAL-1 trial reported an intracranial ORR of 32% in patients with active, untreated CNS metastases. Median overall survival has not yet reached concordance between systemic and intracranial disease control was 88%. In addition, preliminary data from two patients with untreated CNS metastases from a phase 1b cohort found cerebrospinal fluid concentrations of adagrasib with a mean ratio of unbound brain-to-plasma concentration of 0.47, which is comparable or exceeds values for known CNS-penetrant tyrosine kinase inhibitors.

Unfortunately, KRAS (G12C) is not the only KRAS mutation out there. There are a myriad of others, such as G12V and G12D. Hopefully, we will be seeing more drugs aimed at this set of important mutations. Another question, of course, is when and if these drugs will move to the first-line setting.

Dr. Schiller is a medical oncologist and founding member of Oncologists United for Climate and Health. She is a former board member of the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer and a current board member of the Lung Cancer Research Foundation.

My first thought when I heard the Supreme Court’s ruling on Roe v. Wade was of a patient of mine who I had been privileged to meet earlier in my residency. She was a child when she became pregnant after a nonconsensual encounter with a much older man.

I remember how small and shy she looked, curled into herself in her too-large hospital gown. I remember thinking that it was autumn, and she should have been at her first homecoming dance, not sitting in the ER staring mutely at the hospital-issued safety socks on her feet. Her mother, puffy-eyed from crying, was sitting on the bed beside her, stroking her hair.

Together, my patients and I talked about the pregnancy. She told me how scared she was, how she didn’t want to “kill her baby”, but that she also wasn’t sure she could take care of a child. She told me that she was terrified of childbirth, that she didn’t want her friends at school to know and to judge her. We talked about how she was a victim; how she was an innocent child, too. I reassured her, and her mom emphatically agreed – her body was still her own.

The man who hurt her did not take that from her. She could make any choice she wanted, and it would be the right choice.

Eventually, she was able to make a decision which was best for her. I don’t know what became of her, but I hope she is well now, and I hope she’s thriving and happy. I also hope that she doesn’t see the news about Roe v. Wade and feel stripped of her personhood, as many women did.

When I heard about the Supreme Court decision I thought of her, and how important our conversation was to the trajectory of her life. I wondered if across the country these conversations might be silenced, and patients might be left to navigate this important facet of their health alone.

Some version of the conversation I had with my young patient occurs in exam rooms across the country countless times a day. Sometimes these conversations are cut and dry. Other times, they are accompanied by heartbreak and tears.

These conversations are common – one in four women in the United States have had an abortion. I have had many friends who were faced with deciding what to do after an unexpectedly positive pregnancy test. The reasons were different for each person – one was raped at a party, another’s birth control failed, the boyfriend of a third friend wouldn’t wear a condom – but the underlying sentiments were the same for each woman. They thought: “This is a difficult choice, but it’s a choice I’m ready to make. I’m not ready to have a baby at this point in my life.”

My friends talked to their doctors, who assisted them in making an informed choice. Some of them chose abortion. Others chose to deliver their baby. All were helped along in their decision by a physician who was there to support them and assist them in making a well-considered choice for their individual circumstance.
 

Economic and health consequences of restricting access to abortion

The facts are clear: Nearly half of all pregnancies in American women in 2011 were unplanned, and about 4 in 10 of them ended in an elective abortion, according to the Guttmacher Institute.¹ Restricting access to abortions does not stop abortions from happening; it limits the opportunity for women to seek advice from trusted friends and professionals and it reduces access to safe abortions.

The people who will be most harmed by these restrictions are the most socially and economically vulnerable. Wealthy, mobile women with the ability to travel to other states or countries will always be able to access abortion care; low-income, work-tethered women and women with other children to care for at home will struggle to do so.

Denying women abortion services puts them at increased risk for lifelong, multigenerational economic hardship. Women who sought abortions but were unable to obtain them experienced an increase in household poverty which lasted years relative to women who were able to receive an abortion, according to the authors of The Turnaway Study.² They were less socially, geographically, and economically mobile, and were less likely to go on to receive a higher education.

In a country where citizens do not have paid maternity leave, affordable and accessible childcare services, or universal health care, raising a child is an enormous financial burden. Women who are denied abortions also are much more likely to end up as a single parent, shouldering that burden alone.

Additionally, low socioeconomic status is associated with increased all-cause mortality. People who live in poverty are disproportionately affected by diabetes and other chronic health conditions, and have lower life expectancies overall.

The reversal of Roe v. Wade is not only going to lead directly to patient death by decreasing access to safe abortion, causing women to pursue unsafe alternatives; it will also indirectly result in more women being driven into and remaining in poverty and suffering the health consequences.

In addition to risking a woman’s life medically, pregnancy also significantly increases that individual’s risk of being a victim of intimate partner violence. The number one cause of death in pregnant women is homicide, most often by their sexual partner, said an article published in Nature in 2021.³ Therefore, restricting a woman’s ability to control if and when she has children could put her at risk for death from serious pregnancy-related complications and unsafe abortion consequences and increase her likelihood of dying by domestic violence.
 

Patient-physicians interactions are changed

As a physician I hope that I am able to convey my intense respect for and support of a woman’s autonomy into every family planning visit I conduct. Unfortunately, this ruling will not only have an immediate impact on the lives of women across the country – it will also alter the way many of us interact with our patients on a day-to-day basis. When patients can report doctors to authorities in some states for offering terminations, and doctors can report patients for seeking them, there will be absolutely no trust in the therapeutic relationship.

With this ruling, the content of private and protected conversations between patients and their physicians will be subject to censure and potentially criminal consequences.

Regardless of where I eventually practice medicine, I should not be in the position of talking to a patient and telling them that they do not have any agency over their body unless they have the money and resources to travel to a state where abortion is legal. I should not have to tell a child that she must carry and birth another child just to appease the often-fickle whims of lawmakers.

The conversation I had with my pediatric patient was important to her health and to her future, and she deserved to have the chance to discuss her feelings with a trusted physician. Every woman has the right to make her own decisions within the sanctity of the exam room, not from the distance of a courtroom.

Dr. Persampiere is a resident in the family medicine residency program at Abington (Pa.) Jefferson Health. You can contact her directly at victoria.persampiere@jefferson.edu or via fpnews@mdedge.com.

References

1. Unintended pregnancy in the United States. Guttmacher Institute. 2019 Jan 9. https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/unintended-pregnancy-united-states

2. Foster D et al. The harms of denying a woman a wanted abortion - ANSIRH. https://www.ansirh.org/sites/default/files/publications/files/the_harms_of_denying_a_woman_a_wanted_abortion_4-16-2020.pdf

3. Subbaraman N. 2021 Nov 12. Homicide is a top cause of maternal death in the United States. Nature News. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-03392-8

My first thought when I heard the Supreme Court’s ruling on Roe v. Wade was of a patient of mine who I had been privileged to meet earlier in my residency. She was a child when she became pregnant after a nonconsensual encounter with a much older man.

I remember how small and shy she looked, curled into herself in her too-large hospital gown. I remember thinking that it was autumn, and she should have been at her first homecoming dance, not sitting in the ER staring mutely at the hospital-issued safety socks on her feet. Her mother, puffy-eyed from crying, was sitting on the bed beside her, stroking her hair.

Together, my patients and I talked about the pregnancy. She told me how scared she was, how she didn’t want to “kill her baby”, but that she also wasn’t sure she could take care of a child. She told me that she was terrified of childbirth, that she didn’t want her friends at school to know and to judge her. We talked about how she was a victim; how she was an innocent child, too. I reassured her, and her mom emphatically agreed – her body was still her own.

The man who hurt her did not take that from her. She could make any choice she wanted, and it would be the right choice.

Eventually, she was able to make a decision which was best for her. I don’t know what became of her, but I hope she is well now, and I hope she’s thriving and happy. I also hope that she doesn’t see the news about Roe v. Wade and feel stripped of her personhood, as many women did.

When I heard about the Supreme Court decision I thought of her, and how important our conversation was to the trajectory of her life. I wondered if across the country these conversations might be silenced, and patients might be left to navigate this important facet of their health alone.

Some version of the conversation I had with my young patient occurs in exam rooms across the country countless times a day. Sometimes these conversations are cut and dry. Other times, they are accompanied by heartbreak and tears.

These conversations are common – one in four women in the United States have had an abortion. I have had many friends who were faced with deciding what to do after an unexpectedly positive pregnancy test. The reasons were different for each person – one was raped at a party, another’s birth control failed, the boyfriend of a third friend wouldn’t wear a condom – but the underlying sentiments were the same for each woman. They thought: “This is a difficult choice, but it’s a choice I’m ready to make. I’m not ready to have a baby at this point in my life.”

My friends talked to their doctors, who assisted them in making an informed choice. Some of them chose abortion. Others chose to deliver their baby. All were helped along in their decision by a physician who was there to support them and assist them in making a well-considered choice for their individual circumstance.
 

Economic and health consequences of restricting access to abortion

The facts are clear: Nearly half of all pregnancies in American women in 2011 were unplanned, and about 4 in 10 of them ended in an elective abortion, according to the Guttmacher Institute.¹ Restricting access to abortions does not stop abortions from happening; it limits the opportunity for women to seek advice from trusted friends and professionals and it reduces access to safe abortions.

The people who will be most harmed by these restrictions are the most socially and economically vulnerable. Wealthy, mobile women with the ability to travel to other states or countries will always be able to access abortion care; low-income, work-tethered women and women with other children to care for at home will struggle to do so.

Denying women abortion services puts them at increased risk for lifelong, multigenerational economic hardship. Women who sought abortions but were unable to obtain them experienced an increase in household poverty which lasted years relative to women who were able to receive an abortion, according to the authors of The Turnaway Study.² They were less socially, geographically, and economically mobile, and were less likely to go on to receive a higher education.

In a country where citizens do not have paid maternity leave, affordable and accessible childcare services, or universal health care, raising a child is an enormous financial burden. Women who are denied abortions also are much more likely to end up as a single parent, shouldering that burden alone.

Additionally, low socioeconomic status is associated with increased all-cause mortality. People who live in poverty are disproportionately affected by diabetes and other chronic health conditions, and have lower life expectancies overall.

The reversal of Roe v. Wade is not only going to lead directly to patient death by decreasing access to safe abortion, causing women to pursue unsafe alternatives; it will also indirectly result in more women being driven into and remaining in poverty and suffering the health consequences.

In addition to risking a woman’s life medically, pregnancy also significantly increases that individual’s risk of being a victim of intimate partner violence. The number one cause of death in pregnant women is homicide, most often by their sexual partner, said an article published in Nature in 2021.³ Therefore, restricting a woman’s ability to control if and when she has children could put her at risk for death from serious pregnancy-related complications and unsafe abortion consequences and increase her likelihood of dying by domestic violence.
 

Patient-physicians interactions are changed

As a physician I hope that I am able to convey my intense respect for and support of a woman’s autonomy into every family planning visit I conduct. Unfortunately, this ruling will not only have an immediate impact on the lives of women across the country – it will also alter the way many of us interact with our patients on a day-to-day basis. When patients can report doctors to authorities in some states for offering terminations, and doctors can report patients for seeking them, there will be absolutely no trust in the therapeutic relationship.

With this ruling, the content of private and protected conversations between patients and their physicians will be subject to censure and potentially criminal consequences.

Regardless of where I eventually practice medicine, I should not be in the position of talking to a patient and telling them that they do not have any agency over their body unless they have the money and resources to travel to a state where abortion is legal. I should not have to tell a child that she must carry and birth another child just to appease the often-fickle whims of lawmakers.

The conversation I had with my pediatric patient was important to her health and to her future, and she deserved to have the chance to discuss her feelings with a trusted physician. Every woman has the right to make her own decisions within the sanctity of the exam room, not from the distance of a courtroom.

Dr. Persampiere is a resident in the family medicine residency program at Abington (Pa.) Jefferson Health. You can contact her directly at victoria.persampiere@jefferson.edu or via fpnews@mdedge.com.

References

1. Unintended pregnancy in the United States. Guttmacher Institute. 2019 Jan 9. https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/unintended-pregnancy-united-states

2. Foster D et al. The harms of denying a woman a wanted abortion - ANSIRH. https://www.ansirh.org/sites/default/files/publications/files/the_harms_of_denying_a_woman_a_wanted_abortion_4-16-2020.pdf

3. Subbaraman N. 2021 Nov 12. Homicide is a top cause of maternal death in the United States. Nature News. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-03392-8

My first thought when I heard the Supreme Court’s ruling on Roe v. Wade was of a patient of mine who I had been privileged to meet earlier in my residency. She was a child when she became pregnant after a nonconsensual encounter with a much older man.

I remember how small and shy she looked, curled into herself in her too-large hospital gown. I remember thinking that it was autumn, and she should have been at her first homecoming dance, not sitting in the ER staring mutely at the hospital-issued safety socks on her feet. Her mother, puffy-eyed from crying, was sitting on the bed beside her, stroking her hair.

Together, my patients and I talked about the pregnancy. She told me how scared she was, how she didn’t want to “kill her baby”, but that she also wasn’t sure she could take care of a child. She told me that she was terrified of childbirth, that she didn’t want her friends at school to know and to judge her. We talked about how she was a victim; how she was an innocent child, too. I reassured her, and her mom emphatically agreed – her body was still her own.

The man who hurt her did not take that from her. She could make any choice she wanted, and it would be the right choice.

Eventually, she was able to make a decision which was best for her. I don’t know what became of her, but I hope she is well now, and I hope she’s thriving and happy. I also hope that she doesn’t see the news about Roe v. Wade and feel stripped of her personhood, as many women did.

When I heard about the Supreme Court decision I thought of her, and how important our conversation was to the trajectory of her life. I wondered if across the country these conversations might be silenced, and patients might be left to navigate this important facet of their health alone.

Some version of the conversation I had with my young patient occurs in exam rooms across the country countless times a day. Sometimes these conversations are cut and dry. Other times, they are accompanied by heartbreak and tears.

These conversations are common – one in four women in the United States have had an abortion. I have had many friends who were faced with deciding what to do after an unexpectedly positive pregnancy test. The reasons were different for each person – one was raped at a party, another’s birth control failed, the boyfriend of a third friend wouldn’t wear a condom – but the underlying sentiments were the same for each woman. They thought: “This is a difficult choice, but it’s a choice I’m ready to make. I’m not ready to have a baby at this point in my life.”

My friends talked to their doctors, who assisted them in making an informed choice. Some of them chose abortion. Others chose to deliver their baby. All were helped along in their decision by a physician who was there to support them and assist them in making a well-considered choice for their individual circumstance.
 

Economic and health consequences of restricting access to abortion

The facts are clear: Nearly half of all pregnancies in American women in 2011 were unplanned, and about 4 in 10 of them ended in an elective abortion, according to the Guttmacher Institute.¹ Restricting access to abortions does not stop abortions from happening; it limits the opportunity for women to seek advice from trusted friends and professionals and it reduces access to safe abortions.

The people who will be most harmed by these restrictions are the most socially and economically vulnerable. Wealthy, mobile women with the ability to travel to other states or countries will always be able to access abortion care; low-income, work-tethered women and women with other children to care for at home will struggle to do so.

Denying women abortion services puts them at increased risk for lifelong, multigenerational economic hardship. Women who sought abortions but were unable to obtain them experienced an increase in household poverty which lasted years relative to women who were able to receive an abortion, according to the authors of The Turnaway Study.² They were less socially, geographically, and economically mobile, and were less likely to go on to receive a higher education.

In a country where citizens do not have paid maternity leave, affordable and accessible childcare services, or universal health care, raising a child is an enormous financial burden. Women who are denied abortions also are much more likely to end up as a single parent, shouldering that burden alone.

Additionally, low socioeconomic status is associated with increased all-cause mortality. People who live in poverty are disproportionately affected by diabetes and other chronic health conditions, and have lower life expectancies overall.

The reversal of Roe v. Wade is not only going to lead directly to patient death by decreasing access to safe abortion, causing women to pursue unsafe alternatives; it will also indirectly result in more women being driven into and remaining in poverty and suffering the health consequences.

In addition to risking a woman’s life medically, pregnancy also significantly increases that individual’s risk of being a victim of intimate partner violence. The number one cause of death in pregnant women is homicide, most often by their sexual partner, said an article published in Nature in 2021.³ Therefore, restricting a woman’s ability to control if and when she has children could put her at risk for death from serious pregnancy-related complications and unsafe abortion consequences and increase her likelihood of dying by domestic violence.
 

Patient-physicians interactions are changed

As a physician I hope that I am able to convey my intense respect for and support of a woman’s autonomy into every family planning visit I conduct. Unfortunately, this ruling will not only have an immediate impact on the lives of women across the country – it will also alter the way many of us interact with our patients on a day-to-day basis. When patients can report doctors to authorities in some states for offering terminations, and doctors can report patients for seeking them, there will be absolutely no trust in the therapeutic relationship.

With this ruling, the content of private and protected conversations between patients and their physicians will be subject to censure and potentially criminal consequences.

Regardless of where I eventually practice medicine, I should not be in the position of talking to a patient and telling them that they do not have any agency over their body unless they have the money and resources to travel to a state where abortion is legal. I should not have to tell a child that she must carry and birth another child just to appease the often-fickle whims of lawmakers.

The conversation I had with my pediatric patient was important to her health and to her future, and she deserved to have the chance to discuss her feelings with a trusted physician. Every woman has the right to make her own decisions within the sanctity of the exam room, not from the distance of a courtroom.

Dr. Persampiere is a resident in the family medicine residency program at Abington (Pa.) Jefferson Health. You can contact her directly at victoria.persampiere@jefferson.edu or via fpnews@mdedge.com.

References

1. Unintended pregnancy in the United States. Guttmacher Institute. 2019 Jan 9. https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/unintended-pregnancy-united-states

2. Foster D et al. The harms of denying a woman a wanted abortion - ANSIRH. https://www.ansirh.org/sites/default/files/publications/files/the_harms_of_denying_a_woman_a_wanted_abortion_4-16-2020.pdf

3. Subbaraman N. 2021 Nov 12. Homicide is a top cause of maternal death in the United States. Nature News. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-03392-8

Multiple media outlets and numerous children’s professional organizations are discussing the child and adolescent mental health crisis. Finally, society at large seems to be taking notice that our kids are not okay, and that they haven’t been okay for a long time.

Over the past 5-7 years, both in my practice in tertiary children’s hospital emergency departments and in primary care pediatrics, I have seen a disturbing decline in kids’ mental well-being. What can a primary care physician do to make a difference? How do we capitalize on these discussions about mental health and illness now that it is rising to a priority status?

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recently drafted a statement of recommendations specifically discussing anxiety in children and adolescents. It shows supporting evidence that there is a moderate benefit to screening children 8-18 years old for anxiety. We know from the 2018-2019 National Survey of Children’s Health that almost 8% of children/adolescents ages 3-17 years old have an anxiety disorder. And among those 13-18 years old, the lifetime prevalence rises to nearly 33%, according to National Institutes of Health statistics.

Childhood anxiety unquestionably increases the chances of persistent anxiety or depression in adulthood. I have followed children who had excessive social anxiety from age 3 or 4 who progressed to generalized anxiety disorder as adolescents, usually when no intervention was done or when the family waited for the child to “outgrow” it. The DSM-5 has six separate categories for anxiety disorders in children and adolescents: generalized anxiety disorder, separation anxiety disorder, specific phobias, social phobia, agoraphobia, and panic disorder. Unfortunately, these illnesses cannot be wished away.
 

Screening, diagnosis, and follow-up

A few simple screening tools can be used to check for anxiety in children and adolescents. These include SCARED (Screen for Child Anxiety Related Emotional Disorders), GAD-7 (Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7), and/or the PHQ-A (Patient Health Questionnaire for Adolescents). Keep in mind that a screening tool is just that – a screen. Diagnostic confirmation and follow-up are appropriate after a positive screen. I like all of these particular screens as they are easy to administer and can be incorporated into a busy practice without extra training to administer. They are also easy for parents and patients to complete prior to a visit or during a visit.

Ideally, after a positive screen, the next step is to consult a child and adolescent psychiatrist (CAP); however, according to statistics from the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (AACAP), there are only 8,300 CAPs in the United States. The reality is that not a single state in the entire country has a “mostly sufficient supply” of CAP’s (defined as ≥ 47 per 100,000 children). In fact, most have a “severe shortage,” defined as 1-17 per 100,000 children

Adding a child/adolescent therapist is also necessary for patients 8 years old and up, but the harsh truth is that it may take up to several months before the child is seen. If a patient is in a rural or other underserved area, it may be even longer.

So, what does this mean for primary care physicians? When you are faced with a positive screening for childhood anxiety, the next step is “tag, you’re it!” Understandably, this is frightening for many physicians who feel unqualified.

Don’t be afraid! Like the old adage says, a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. Starting the conversation with patients and families is foremost. Physicians must be first in line to end the stigma surrounding mental illness, and the easiest way to do that is to start the conversation. Remember that anxiety in kids can present as classic fear or worry, but it also can present as irritability, anger outbursts, and attention issues. There have been so many patients referred to me for “being out of control” or “always angry” or “probable ADHD” who turned out to have significant anxiety.

Part of a routine medical evaluation includes obtaining personal, family, and social history; there should be no difference when considering an anxiety disorder. Obtaining information about family history, personality traits, environmental components, early attachment issues, developmental history, parental style, parental conflict, occupants in the home, any adverse childhood events, and history of child maltreatment is crucial. Assessing other risk factors, including socioeconomic status, race, ethnicity, and gender, is key as well. I have seen families literally breathe a sigh of relief when these questions are asked. Parents feel heard and seen. And, equally significant, so does the child/adolescent.
 

The ‘Big 4’

An in-depth assessment of patient and family lifestyle factors such as nutrition, sleep, physical activity/exercise, and screen time habits is also basic and essential. This kind of evaluation usually cannot be done in the typical 15-minute visit and often will need to be done over several patient visits. I have had numerous conversations with my patients regarding what I call the “Big 4” – simple but not easy concepts and actions. They include nutrition, sleep, exercise, and screen time. Parents will look at me and say, “I can’t believe I never thought of this!” Some of my favorite moments with patients over the years have involved partnering with the patient and family and encouraging them to do the “simple” but not “easy” things.

Nutrition

Does the child have proper nutrition? That is not meant to be an exercise in labeling foods as “good” or “bad” but meant to confirm whether there is a balance of different foods. It’s also a way of exploring whether there are family meals in the home. Family meals have been shown to have a protective factor for children’s social development and emotional regulation.

Sleep

Review the child’s sleep habits, such as difficulty falling/staying asleep, bedtime routine (soothing, relaxing activities vs. the opposite), nightmares, snoring, nighttime cough, etc. The physical sleeping environment is important as well. Is it quiet? Is it a crowded room?

Exercise

Discuss physical activity with the family. Is there time for the child to play outside without a defined goal? So much of a child’s day is structured, in school or with after-school activities, but can the kid simply be a kid? Does the family take walks together? Is it safe to play outside?

Screen time

Reviewing screen time is important for multiple reasons, especially because the more time spent in front of a TV, computer, or video game, the less time there is to be physically active. Numerous experts, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, recommend limits on screen time for children. For adolescents, there appears to be some evidence that excessive screen time contributes to depression/anxiety.

I am not embarrassed to say that with my own kids I felt so strongly about screen time that we did not own any kind of video games or iPad (that was theirs alone), and they spent the summers until they turned 14 building a two-story bamboo fort in our backyard instead of vegging out in front of the TV or computer. It didn’t hurt them a bit; one is an engineer and the other is in nursing school.

It is easy to see that lifestyle factors can come into play with childhood anxiety and are often ignored in the clinical setting. They do not involve technologically advanced techniques or procedures, which are more likely to be reimbursed. They are straightforward – but not easy – concepts, and require active participation from the patient and family. Some of my most exciting moments with families is when they return for follow up and say, “It worked!”

We need to be as comfortable taking care of a child’s mind and spirit as we are taking care of a child’s physical body. Is this easy in a busy office? No. Is this easy in a 15-minute visit? No. Is this easy with poor reimbursement from insurance companies? No. Is it necessary? Unequivocally YES. Start the conversation.

Tag, you’re it!
 

Dr. Contrucci is an assistant professor of pediatrics, clinical education department, Philadelphia College of Osteopathic Medicine, Georgia Campus, Suwanee. She disclosed no relevant conflict of interest.

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

Multiple media outlets and numerous children’s professional organizations are discussing the child and adolescent mental health crisis. Finally, society at large seems to be taking notice that our kids are not okay, and that they haven’t been okay for a long time.

Over the past 5-7 years, both in my practice in tertiary children’s hospital emergency departments and in primary care pediatrics, I have seen a disturbing decline in kids’ mental well-being. What can a primary care physician do to make a difference? How do we capitalize on these discussions about mental health and illness now that it is rising to a priority status?

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recently drafted a statement of recommendations specifically discussing anxiety in children and adolescents. It shows supporting evidence that there is a moderate benefit to screening children 8-18 years old for anxiety. We know from the 2018-2019 National Survey of Children’s Health that almost 8% of children/adolescents ages 3-17 years old have an anxiety disorder. And among those 13-18 years old, the lifetime prevalence rises to nearly 33%, according to National Institutes of Health statistics.

Childhood anxiety unquestionably increases the chances of persistent anxiety or depression in adulthood. I have followed children who had excessive social anxiety from age 3 or 4 who progressed to generalized anxiety disorder as adolescents, usually when no intervention was done or when the family waited for the child to “outgrow” it. The DSM-5 has six separate categories for anxiety disorders in children and adolescents: generalized anxiety disorder, separation anxiety disorder, specific phobias, social phobia, agoraphobia, and panic disorder. Unfortunately, these illnesses cannot be wished away.
 

Screening, diagnosis, and follow-up

A few simple screening tools can be used to check for anxiety in children and adolescents. These include SCARED (Screen for Child Anxiety Related Emotional Disorders), GAD-7 (Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7), and/or the PHQ-A (Patient Health Questionnaire for Adolescents). Keep in mind that a screening tool is just that – a screen. Diagnostic confirmation and follow-up are appropriate after a positive screen. I like all of these particular screens as they are easy to administer and can be incorporated into a busy practice without extra training to administer. They are also easy for parents and patients to complete prior to a visit or during a visit.

Ideally, after a positive screen, the next step is to consult a child and adolescent psychiatrist (CAP); however, according to statistics from the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (AACAP), there are only 8,300 CAPs in the United States. The reality is that not a single state in the entire country has a “mostly sufficient supply” of CAP’s (defined as ≥ 47 per 100,000 children). In fact, most have a “severe shortage,” defined as 1-17 per 100,000 children

Adding a child/adolescent therapist is also necessary for patients 8 years old and up, but the harsh truth is that it may take up to several months before the child is seen. If a patient is in a rural or other underserved area, it may be even longer.

So, what does this mean for primary care physicians? When you are faced with a positive screening for childhood anxiety, the next step is “tag, you’re it!” Understandably, this is frightening for many physicians who feel unqualified.

Don’t be afraid! Like the old adage says, a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. Starting the conversation with patients and families is foremost. Physicians must be first in line to end the stigma surrounding mental illness, and the easiest way to do that is to start the conversation. Remember that anxiety in kids can present as classic fear or worry, but it also can present as irritability, anger outbursts, and attention issues. There have been so many patients referred to me for “being out of control” or “always angry” or “probable ADHD” who turned out to have significant anxiety.

Part of a routine medical evaluation includes obtaining personal, family, and social history; there should be no difference when considering an anxiety disorder. Obtaining information about family history, personality traits, environmental components, early attachment issues, developmental history, parental style, parental conflict, occupants in the home, any adverse childhood events, and history of child maltreatment is crucial. Assessing other risk factors, including socioeconomic status, race, ethnicity, and gender, is key as well. I have seen families literally breathe a sigh of relief when these questions are asked. Parents feel heard and seen. And, equally significant, so does the child/adolescent.
 

The ‘Big 4’

An in-depth assessment of patient and family lifestyle factors such as nutrition, sleep, physical activity/exercise, and screen time habits is also basic and essential. This kind of evaluation usually cannot be done in the typical 15-minute visit and often will need to be done over several patient visits. I have had numerous conversations with my patients regarding what I call the “Big 4” – simple but not easy concepts and actions. They include nutrition, sleep, exercise, and screen time. Parents will look at me and say, “I can’t believe I never thought of this!” Some of my favorite moments with patients over the years have involved partnering with the patient and family and encouraging them to do the “simple” but not “easy” things.

Nutrition

Does the child have proper nutrition? That is not meant to be an exercise in labeling foods as “good” or “bad” but meant to confirm whether there is a balance of different foods. It’s also a way of exploring whether there are family meals in the home. Family meals have been shown to have a protective factor for children’s social development and emotional regulation.

Sleep

Review the child’s sleep habits, such as difficulty falling/staying asleep, bedtime routine (soothing, relaxing activities vs. the opposite), nightmares, snoring, nighttime cough, etc. The physical sleeping environment is important as well. Is it quiet? Is it a crowded room?

Exercise

Discuss physical activity with the family. Is there time for the child to play outside without a defined goal? So much of a child’s day is structured, in school or with after-school activities, but can the kid simply be a kid? Does the family take walks together? Is it safe to play outside?

Screen time

Reviewing screen time is important for multiple reasons, especially because the more time spent in front of a TV, computer, or video game, the less time there is to be physically active. Numerous experts, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, recommend limits on screen time for children. For adolescents, there appears to be some evidence that excessive screen time contributes to depression/anxiety.

I am not embarrassed to say that with my own kids I felt so strongly about screen time that we did not own any kind of video games or iPad (that was theirs alone), and they spent the summers until they turned 14 building a two-story bamboo fort in our backyard instead of vegging out in front of the TV or computer. It didn’t hurt them a bit; one is an engineer and the other is in nursing school.

It is easy to see that lifestyle factors can come into play with childhood anxiety and are often ignored in the clinical setting. They do not involve technologically advanced techniques or procedures, which are more likely to be reimbursed. They are straightforward – but not easy – concepts, and require active participation from the patient and family. Some of my most exciting moments with families is when they return for follow up and say, “It worked!”

We need to be as comfortable taking care of a child’s mind and spirit as we are taking care of a child’s physical body. Is this easy in a busy office? No. Is this easy in a 15-minute visit? No. Is this easy with poor reimbursement from insurance companies? No. Is it necessary? Unequivocally YES. Start the conversation.

Tag, you’re it!
 

Dr. Contrucci is an assistant professor of pediatrics, clinical education department, Philadelphia College of Osteopathic Medicine, Georgia Campus, Suwanee. She disclosed no relevant conflict of interest.

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

Multiple media outlets and numerous children’s professional organizations are discussing the child and adolescent mental health crisis. Finally, society at large seems to be taking notice that our kids are not okay, and that they haven’t been okay for a long time.

Over the past 5-7 years, both in my practice in tertiary children’s hospital emergency departments and in primary care pediatrics, I have seen a disturbing decline in kids’ mental well-being. What can a primary care physician do to make a difference? How do we capitalize on these discussions about mental health and illness now that it is rising to a priority status?

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recently drafted a statement of recommendations specifically discussing anxiety in children and adolescents. It shows supporting evidence that there is a moderate benefit to screening children 8-18 years old for anxiety. We know from the 2018-2019 National Survey of Children’s Health that almost 8% of children/adolescents ages 3-17 years old have an anxiety disorder. And among those 13-18 years old, the lifetime prevalence rises to nearly 33%, according to National Institutes of Health statistics.

Childhood anxiety unquestionably increases the chances of persistent anxiety or depression in adulthood. I have followed children who had excessive social anxiety from age 3 or 4 who progressed to generalized anxiety disorder as adolescents, usually when no intervention was done or when the family waited for the child to “outgrow” it. The DSM-5 has six separate categories for anxiety disorders in children and adolescents: generalized anxiety disorder, separation anxiety disorder, specific phobias, social phobia, agoraphobia, and panic disorder. Unfortunately, these illnesses cannot be wished away.
 

Screening, diagnosis, and follow-up

A few simple screening tools can be used to check for anxiety in children and adolescents. These include SCARED (Screen for Child Anxiety Related Emotional Disorders), GAD-7 (Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7), and/or the PHQ-A (Patient Health Questionnaire for Adolescents). Keep in mind that a screening tool is just that – a screen. Diagnostic confirmation and follow-up are appropriate after a positive screen. I like all of these particular screens as they are easy to administer and can be incorporated into a busy practice without extra training to administer. They are also easy for parents and patients to complete prior to a visit or during a visit.

Ideally, after a positive screen, the next step is to consult a child and adolescent psychiatrist (CAP); however, according to statistics from the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (AACAP), there are only 8,300 CAPs in the United States. The reality is that not a single state in the entire country has a “mostly sufficient supply” of CAP’s (defined as ≥ 47 per 100,000 children). In fact, most have a “severe shortage,” defined as 1-17 per 100,000 children

Adding a child/adolescent therapist is also necessary for patients 8 years old and up, but the harsh truth is that it may take up to several months before the child is seen. If a patient is in a rural or other underserved area, it may be even longer.

So, what does this mean for primary care physicians? When you are faced with a positive screening for childhood anxiety, the next step is “tag, you’re it!” Understandably, this is frightening for many physicians who feel unqualified.

Don’t be afraid! Like the old adage says, a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. Starting the conversation with patients and families is foremost. Physicians must be first in line to end the stigma surrounding mental illness, and the easiest way to do that is to start the conversation. Remember that anxiety in kids can present as classic fear or worry, but it also can present as irritability, anger outbursts, and attention issues. There have been so many patients referred to me for “being out of control” or “always angry” or “probable ADHD” who turned out to have significant anxiety.

Part of a routine medical evaluation includes obtaining personal, family, and social history; there should be no difference when considering an anxiety disorder. Obtaining information about family history, personality traits, environmental components, early attachment issues, developmental history, parental style, parental conflict, occupants in the home, any adverse childhood events, and history of child maltreatment is crucial. Assessing other risk factors, including socioeconomic status, race, ethnicity, and gender, is key as well. I have seen families literally breathe a sigh of relief when these questions are asked. Parents feel heard and seen. And, equally significant, so does the child/adolescent.
 

The ‘Big 4’

An in-depth assessment of patient and family lifestyle factors such as nutrition, sleep, physical activity/exercise, and screen time habits is also basic and essential. This kind of evaluation usually cannot be done in the typical 15-minute visit and often will need to be done over several patient visits. I have had numerous conversations with my patients regarding what I call the “Big 4” – simple but not easy concepts and actions. They include nutrition, sleep, exercise, and screen time. Parents will look at me and say, “I can’t believe I never thought of this!” Some of my favorite moments with patients over the years have involved partnering with the patient and family and encouraging them to do the “simple” but not “easy” things.

Nutrition

Does the child have proper nutrition? That is not meant to be an exercise in labeling foods as “good” or “bad” but meant to confirm whether there is a balance of different foods. It’s also a way of exploring whether there are family meals in the home. Family meals have been shown to have a protective factor for children’s social development and emotional regulation.

Sleep

Review the child’s sleep habits, such as difficulty falling/staying asleep, bedtime routine (soothing, relaxing activities vs. the opposite), nightmares, snoring, nighttime cough, etc. The physical sleeping environment is important as well. Is it quiet? Is it a crowded room?

Exercise

Discuss physical activity with the family. Is there time for the child to play outside without a defined goal? So much of a child’s day is structured, in school or with after-school activities, but can the kid simply be a kid? Does the family take walks together? Is it safe to play outside?

Screen time

Reviewing screen time is important for multiple reasons, especially because the more time spent in front of a TV, computer, or video game, the less time there is to be physically active. Numerous experts, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, recommend limits on screen time for children. For adolescents, there appears to be some evidence that excessive screen time contributes to depression/anxiety.

I am not embarrassed to say that with my own kids I felt so strongly about screen time that we did not own any kind of video games or iPad (that was theirs alone), and they spent the summers until they turned 14 building a two-story bamboo fort in our backyard instead of vegging out in front of the TV or computer. It didn’t hurt them a bit; one is an engineer and the other is in nursing school.

It is easy to see that lifestyle factors can come into play with childhood anxiety and are often ignored in the clinical setting. They do not involve technologically advanced techniques or procedures, which are more likely to be reimbursed. They are straightforward – but not easy – concepts, and require active participation from the patient and family. Some of my most exciting moments with families is when they return for follow up and say, “It worked!”

We need to be as comfortable taking care of a child’s mind and spirit as we are taking care of a child’s physical body. Is this easy in a busy office? No. Is this easy in a 15-minute visit? No. Is this easy with poor reimbursement from insurance companies? No. Is it necessary? Unequivocally YES. Start the conversation.

Tag, you’re it!
 

Dr. Contrucci is an assistant professor of pediatrics, clinical education department, Philadelphia College of Osteopathic Medicine, Georgia Campus, Suwanee. She disclosed no relevant conflict of interest.

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