User login
What’s the most likely cause of this man’s severe headaches?
He reports that these started 3 days ago. His headache is worse when he stands, and resolves when he lies down. Valsalva maneuver makes the headache much worse. The headaches are present in the occipital region. He also has noticed the onset of tinnitus. A physical exam reveals that his blood pressure is 110/70 mm Hg, his pulse is 60 beats per minute, and his temperature is 36.4° C. His standing BP is 105/60 mm Hg and standing pulse is 66 bpm. Both his neurologic exam and noncontrast head CT scan are normal.
Which of the following is the most likely diagnosis?
A) Subarachnoid hemorrhage
B) POTS (Postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome)
C) Hypnic headache
D) Spontaneous intracranial hypotension (SIH)
E) Acoustic neuroma
The most likely cause for this patient’s headaches given his set of symptoms is spontaneous intracranial hypotension. Orthostatic headaches are common with POTS, but the absence of tachycardia with standing makes this diagnosis unlikely.
Spontaneous intracranial hypotension has symptoms that we are all familiar with in the post–lumbar puncture patient. In patients with post-LP headache, the positional nature makes it easy to diagnose. Patients who have had a lumbar puncture have a clear reason they have a cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) leak, leading to intracranial hypotension. Those with SIH do not.
Related research
Schievink summarized a lot of useful information in a review of patients with spontaneous intracranial hypotension.1 The incidence is about 5/100,000, with the most common age around 40 years old. The most common symptom is orthostatic headache. The headache usually occurs within 15 minutes upon standing, and many patients have the onset of headache rapidly upon standing.
Usually the headache improves with lying down, and it is often brought on with Valsalva maneuver. Many patients report headaches that are worse in the second half of the day.
Orthostatic headache occurs in almost all patients with spontaneous intracranial hypotension, but in one series it occurred only in 77% of patients with SIH.2 The patients who did not have typical headaches are more likely to have auditory symptoms such as tinnitus and muffled hearing.3
When you suspect SIH, appropriate workup is to start with brain MR imaging with contrast. Krantz and colleagues found dural enhancement was present in 83% of cases of SIH, venous distention sign in 75%, and brain sagging in 61%.4
About 10% of patients with SIH have normal brain imaging, so if the clinical features strongly suggest the diagnosis, moving on to spinal imaging with CT myelography or spinal MR are appropriate next steps.5
The causes of SIH are meningeal diverticula (usually in the thoracic or upper lumbar regions), ventral dural tears (usually from osteophytes), and cerebrospinal fluid–venous fistulas. Treatment of SIH has traditionally included a conservative approach of bed rest, oral hydration, and caffeine. The effectiveness of this is unknown, and, in one small series, 61% had headache symptoms at 6 months.6
Epidural blood patches are likely more rapidly effective than conservative therapy. In one study comparing the two treatments, Chung and colleagues found that 77% of the patients who received an epidural blood patch had complete headache relief at 4 weeks, compared with 40% of those who received conservative measures (P < .05).7
Clinical pearls
- Strongly consider SIH in patients with positional headache.
- Brain MR should be the first diagnostic test.
Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and serves as 3rd-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. He is a member of the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News. Dr. Paauw has no conflicts to disclose. Contact him at imnews@mdedge.com.
References
1. Schievink WI. Spontaneous spinal cerebrospinal fluid leaks and intracranial hypotension. JAMA. 2006;295:2286-96.
2. Mea E et al. Headache attributed to spontaneous intracranial hypotension. Neurol Sci. 2008;29:164-65.
3. Krantz PG et al. Spontaneous Intracranial Hypotension: 10 Myths and Misperceptions. Headache. 2018;58:948-59.
4. Krantz PG et. al. Imaging signs in spontaneous intracranial hypotension: prevalence and relationship to CSF pressure. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2016;37:1374-8.
5. Krantz PG et al. Spontaneous intracranial hypotension: Pathogenesis, diagnosis, and treatment. Neuroimaging Clin N Am. 2019;29:581-94.
6. Kong D-S et. al. Clinical features and long-term results of spontaneous intracranial hypotension. Neurosurgery. 2005;57:91-6.
7. Chung SJ et al. Short- and long-term outcomes of spontaneous CSF hypovolemia. Eur Neurol. 2005;54:63-7.
He reports that these started 3 days ago. His headache is worse when he stands, and resolves when he lies down. Valsalva maneuver makes the headache much worse. The headaches are present in the occipital region. He also has noticed the onset of tinnitus. A physical exam reveals that his blood pressure is 110/70 mm Hg, his pulse is 60 beats per minute, and his temperature is 36.4° C. His standing BP is 105/60 mm Hg and standing pulse is 66 bpm. Both his neurologic exam and noncontrast head CT scan are normal.
Which of the following is the most likely diagnosis?
A) Subarachnoid hemorrhage
B) POTS (Postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome)
C) Hypnic headache
D) Spontaneous intracranial hypotension (SIH)
E) Acoustic neuroma
The most likely cause for this patient’s headaches given his set of symptoms is spontaneous intracranial hypotension. Orthostatic headaches are common with POTS, but the absence of tachycardia with standing makes this diagnosis unlikely.
Spontaneous intracranial hypotension has symptoms that we are all familiar with in the post–lumbar puncture patient. In patients with post-LP headache, the positional nature makes it easy to diagnose. Patients who have had a lumbar puncture have a clear reason they have a cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) leak, leading to intracranial hypotension. Those with SIH do not.
Related research
Schievink summarized a lot of useful information in a review of patients with spontaneous intracranial hypotension.1 The incidence is about 5/100,000, with the most common age around 40 years old. The most common symptom is orthostatic headache. The headache usually occurs within 15 minutes upon standing, and many patients have the onset of headache rapidly upon standing.
Usually the headache improves with lying down, and it is often brought on with Valsalva maneuver. Many patients report headaches that are worse in the second half of the day.
Orthostatic headache occurs in almost all patients with spontaneous intracranial hypotension, but in one series it occurred only in 77% of patients with SIH.2 The patients who did not have typical headaches are more likely to have auditory symptoms such as tinnitus and muffled hearing.3
When you suspect SIH, appropriate workup is to start with brain MR imaging with contrast. Krantz and colleagues found dural enhancement was present in 83% of cases of SIH, venous distention sign in 75%, and brain sagging in 61%.4
About 10% of patients with SIH have normal brain imaging, so if the clinical features strongly suggest the diagnosis, moving on to spinal imaging with CT myelography or spinal MR are appropriate next steps.5
The causes of SIH are meningeal diverticula (usually in the thoracic or upper lumbar regions), ventral dural tears (usually from osteophytes), and cerebrospinal fluid–venous fistulas. Treatment of SIH has traditionally included a conservative approach of bed rest, oral hydration, and caffeine. The effectiveness of this is unknown, and, in one small series, 61% had headache symptoms at 6 months.6
Epidural blood patches are likely more rapidly effective than conservative therapy. In one study comparing the two treatments, Chung and colleagues found that 77% of the patients who received an epidural blood patch had complete headache relief at 4 weeks, compared with 40% of those who received conservative measures (P < .05).7
Clinical pearls
- Strongly consider SIH in patients with positional headache.
- Brain MR should be the first diagnostic test.
Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and serves as 3rd-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. He is a member of the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News. Dr. Paauw has no conflicts to disclose. Contact him at imnews@mdedge.com.
References
1. Schievink WI. Spontaneous spinal cerebrospinal fluid leaks and intracranial hypotension. JAMA. 2006;295:2286-96.
2. Mea E et al. Headache attributed to spontaneous intracranial hypotension. Neurol Sci. 2008;29:164-65.
3. Krantz PG et al. Spontaneous Intracranial Hypotension: 10 Myths and Misperceptions. Headache. 2018;58:948-59.
4. Krantz PG et. al. Imaging signs in spontaneous intracranial hypotension: prevalence and relationship to CSF pressure. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2016;37:1374-8.
5. Krantz PG et al. Spontaneous intracranial hypotension: Pathogenesis, diagnosis, and treatment. Neuroimaging Clin N Am. 2019;29:581-94.
6. Kong D-S et. al. Clinical features and long-term results of spontaneous intracranial hypotension. Neurosurgery. 2005;57:91-6.
7. Chung SJ et al. Short- and long-term outcomes of spontaneous CSF hypovolemia. Eur Neurol. 2005;54:63-7.
He reports that these started 3 days ago. His headache is worse when he stands, and resolves when he lies down. Valsalva maneuver makes the headache much worse. The headaches are present in the occipital region. He also has noticed the onset of tinnitus. A physical exam reveals that his blood pressure is 110/70 mm Hg, his pulse is 60 beats per minute, and his temperature is 36.4° C. His standing BP is 105/60 mm Hg and standing pulse is 66 bpm. Both his neurologic exam and noncontrast head CT scan are normal.
Which of the following is the most likely diagnosis?
A) Subarachnoid hemorrhage
B) POTS (Postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome)
C) Hypnic headache
D) Spontaneous intracranial hypotension (SIH)
E) Acoustic neuroma
The most likely cause for this patient’s headaches given his set of symptoms is spontaneous intracranial hypotension. Orthostatic headaches are common with POTS, but the absence of tachycardia with standing makes this diagnosis unlikely.
Spontaneous intracranial hypotension has symptoms that we are all familiar with in the post–lumbar puncture patient. In patients with post-LP headache, the positional nature makes it easy to diagnose. Patients who have had a lumbar puncture have a clear reason they have a cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) leak, leading to intracranial hypotension. Those with SIH do not.
Related research
Schievink summarized a lot of useful information in a review of patients with spontaneous intracranial hypotension.1 The incidence is about 5/100,000, with the most common age around 40 years old. The most common symptom is orthostatic headache. The headache usually occurs within 15 minutes upon standing, and many patients have the onset of headache rapidly upon standing.
Usually the headache improves with lying down, and it is often brought on with Valsalva maneuver. Many patients report headaches that are worse in the second half of the day.
Orthostatic headache occurs in almost all patients with spontaneous intracranial hypotension, but in one series it occurred only in 77% of patients with SIH.2 The patients who did not have typical headaches are more likely to have auditory symptoms such as tinnitus and muffled hearing.3
When you suspect SIH, appropriate workup is to start with brain MR imaging with contrast. Krantz and colleagues found dural enhancement was present in 83% of cases of SIH, venous distention sign in 75%, and brain sagging in 61%.4
About 10% of patients with SIH have normal brain imaging, so if the clinical features strongly suggest the diagnosis, moving on to spinal imaging with CT myelography or spinal MR are appropriate next steps.5
The causes of SIH are meningeal diverticula (usually in the thoracic or upper lumbar regions), ventral dural tears (usually from osteophytes), and cerebrospinal fluid–venous fistulas. Treatment of SIH has traditionally included a conservative approach of bed rest, oral hydration, and caffeine. The effectiveness of this is unknown, and, in one small series, 61% had headache symptoms at 6 months.6
Epidural blood patches are likely more rapidly effective than conservative therapy. In one study comparing the two treatments, Chung and colleagues found that 77% of the patients who received an epidural blood patch had complete headache relief at 4 weeks, compared with 40% of those who received conservative measures (P < .05).7
Clinical pearls
- Strongly consider SIH in patients with positional headache.
- Brain MR should be the first diagnostic test.
Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and serves as 3rd-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. He is a member of the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News. Dr. Paauw has no conflicts to disclose. Contact him at imnews@mdedge.com.
References
1. Schievink WI. Spontaneous spinal cerebrospinal fluid leaks and intracranial hypotension. JAMA. 2006;295:2286-96.
2. Mea E et al. Headache attributed to spontaneous intracranial hypotension. Neurol Sci. 2008;29:164-65.
3. Krantz PG et al. Spontaneous Intracranial Hypotension: 10 Myths and Misperceptions. Headache. 2018;58:948-59.
4. Krantz PG et. al. Imaging signs in spontaneous intracranial hypotension: prevalence and relationship to CSF pressure. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2016;37:1374-8.
5. Krantz PG et al. Spontaneous intracranial hypotension: Pathogenesis, diagnosis, and treatment. Neuroimaging Clin N Am. 2019;29:581-94.
6. Kong D-S et. al. Clinical features and long-term results of spontaneous intracranial hypotension. Neurosurgery. 2005;57:91-6.
7. Chung SJ et al. Short- and long-term outcomes of spontaneous CSF hypovolemia. Eur Neurol. 2005;54:63-7.
The work after work
Across the country, taxes unite us. Not that we all share the same, rather that we all have to do them. It was recently tax weekend in our house: The Saturday and Sunday that cap off weeks of hunting and gathering faded receipts and sorting through reams of credit card bills to find all the dollars we spent on work. The task is more tedious than all the Wednesdays of taking out trash bins combined, and equally as exciting. But wait, that’s not all.
This weekend I’ve been chatting with bots from a solar company trying to solve our drop in energy production and sat on terminal hold with apparently one person who answers the phone for Amazon. There’s also an homeowner’s association meeting to prepare for and research to be done on ceiling fans.
“Life admin” is a crisp phrase coined by Elizabeth Emens, JD, PhD, that captures the never-ending to-do list that comes with running a household. An accomplished law professor at Columbia University, New York, Dr. Emens noticed the negative impact this life admin has on our quality of life. Reading her book, “Life Admin: How I Learned to Do Less, Do Better, and Live More” (New York: HarperOne, 2019), your eyes widen as she magically makes salient all this hidden work that is stealing our time. Life admin, kidmin, mom and dadmin, just rattling them off feels like donning x-ray glasses allowing us to see how much work we do outside of our work. As doctors, I would add “family house calls,” as a contributing factor: Random family and friends who want to talk for a minute about their knee replacement or what drug the ICU should give Uncle Larry who is fighting COVID. (I only know ivermectin, but it would only help if he just had scabies).
By all accounts, the amount of life admin is growing insidiously, worsened by the great pandemic. There are events to plan and reply to, more DIY customer service to fix your own problems, more work to find a VRBO for a weekend getaway at the beach. (There are none on the entire coast of California this summer, so I just saved you time there. You’re welcome.)
There is no good time to do this work and combined with the heavy burden of our responsibilities as physicians, it can feel like fuel feeding the burnout fire.
Dr. Emens has some top tips to help. First up, know your admin type. Are you a super doer, reluctant doer, admin denier, or admin avoider? I’m mostly in the avoider quadrant, dropping into reluctant doer when consequences loom. Next, choose strategies that fit you. Instead of avoiding, there are some things I might deflect. For example, When your aunt in Peoria asks where she can get a COVID test, you can use LMGTFY.com to generate a link that will show them how to use Google to help with their question. Dr. Emens is joking, but the point rang true. We can lighten the load a bit if we delegate or push back the excessive or undue requests. For some tasks, we’d be better off paying someone to take it over. Last tip here, try doing life admin with a partner, be it spouse, friend, or colleague. This is particularly useful when your partner is a super doer, as mine is. Not only can they make the work lighter, but also less dreary.
We physicians are focused on fixing physician burnout. Maybe we should also be looking at what happens in the “second shift” at home. Tax season is over, but will be back soon.
Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com
Across the country, taxes unite us. Not that we all share the same, rather that we all have to do them. It was recently tax weekend in our house: The Saturday and Sunday that cap off weeks of hunting and gathering faded receipts and sorting through reams of credit card bills to find all the dollars we spent on work. The task is more tedious than all the Wednesdays of taking out trash bins combined, and equally as exciting. But wait, that’s not all.
This weekend I’ve been chatting with bots from a solar company trying to solve our drop in energy production and sat on terminal hold with apparently one person who answers the phone for Amazon. There’s also an homeowner’s association meeting to prepare for and research to be done on ceiling fans.
“Life admin” is a crisp phrase coined by Elizabeth Emens, JD, PhD, that captures the never-ending to-do list that comes with running a household. An accomplished law professor at Columbia University, New York, Dr. Emens noticed the negative impact this life admin has on our quality of life. Reading her book, “Life Admin: How I Learned to Do Less, Do Better, and Live More” (New York: HarperOne, 2019), your eyes widen as she magically makes salient all this hidden work that is stealing our time. Life admin, kidmin, mom and dadmin, just rattling them off feels like donning x-ray glasses allowing us to see how much work we do outside of our work. As doctors, I would add “family house calls,” as a contributing factor: Random family and friends who want to talk for a minute about their knee replacement or what drug the ICU should give Uncle Larry who is fighting COVID. (I only know ivermectin, but it would only help if he just had scabies).
By all accounts, the amount of life admin is growing insidiously, worsened by the great pandemic. There are events to plan and reply to, more DIY customer service to fix your own problems, more work to find a VRBO for a weekend getaway at the beach. (There are none on the entire coast of California this summer, so I just saved you time there. You’re welcome.)
There is no good time to do this work and combined with the heavy burden of our responsibilities as physicians, it can feel like fuel feeding the burnout fire.
Dr. Emens has some top tips to help. First up, know your admin type. Are you a super doer, reluctant doer, admin denier, or admin avoider? I’m mostly in the avoider quadrant, dropping into reluctant doer when consequences loom. Next, choose strategies that fit you. Instead of avoiding, there are some things I might deflect. For example, When your aunt in Peoria asks where she can get a COVID test, you can use LMGTFY.com to generate a link that will show them how to use Google to help with their question. Dr. Emens is joking, but the point rang true. We can lighten the load a bit if we delegate or push back the excessive or undue requests. For some tasks, we’d be better off paying someone to take it over. Last tip here, try doing life admin with a partner, be it spouse, friend, or colleague. This is particularly useful when your partner is a super doer, as mine is. Not only can they make the work lighter, but also less dreary.
We physicians are focused on fixing physician burnout. Maybe we should also be looking at what happens in the “second shift” at home. Tax season is over, but will be back soon.
Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com
Across the country, taxes unite us. Not that we all share the same, rather that we all have to do them. It was recently tax weekend in our house: The Saturday and Sunday that cap off weeks of hunting and gathering faded receipts and sorting through reams of credit card bills to find all the dollars we spent on work. The task is more tedious than all the Wednesdays of taking out trash bins combined, and equally as exciting. But wait, that’s not all.
This weekend I’ve been chatting with bots from a solar company trying to solve our drop in energy production and sat on terminal hold with apparently one person who answers the phone for Amazon. There’s also an homeowner’s association meeting to prepare for and research to be done on ceiling fans.
“Life admin” is a crisp phrase coined by Elizabeth Emens, JD, PhD, that captures the never-ending to-do list that comes with running a household. An accomplished law professor at Columbia University, New York, Dr. Emens noticed the negative impact this life admin has on our quality of life. Reading her book, “Life Admin: How I Learned to Do Less, Do Better, and Live More” (New York: HarperOne, 2019), your eyes widen as she magically makes salient all this hidden work that is stealing our time. Life admin, kidmin, mom and dadmin, just rattling them off feels like donning x-ray glasses allowing us to see how much work we do outside of our work. As doctors, I would add “family house calls,” as a contributing factor: Random family and friends who want to talk for a minute about their knee replacement or what drug the ICU should give Uncle Larry who is fighting COVID. (I only know ivermectin, but it would only help if he just had scabies).
By all accounts, the amount of life admin is growing insidiously, worsened by the great pandemic. There are events to plan and reply to, more DIY customer service to fix your own problems, more work to find a VRBO for a weekend getaway at the beach. (There are none on the entire coast of California this summer, so I just saved you time there. You’re welcome.)
There is no good time to do this work and combined with the heavy burden of our responsibilities as physicians, it can feel like fuel feeding the burnout fire.
Dr. Emens has some top tips to help. First up, know your admin type. Are you a super doer, reluctant doer, admin denier, or admin avoider? I’m mostly in the avoider quadrant, dropping into reluctant doer when consequences loom. Next, choose strategies that fit you. Instead of avoiding, there are some things I might deflect. For example, When your aunt in Peoria asks where she can get a COVID test, you can use LMGTFY.com to generate a link that will show them how to use Google to help with their question. Dr. Emens is joking, but the point rang true. We can lighten the load a bit if we delegate or push back the excessive or undue requests. For some tasks, we’d be better off paying someone to take it over. Last tip here, try doing life admin with a partner, be it spouse, friend, or colleague. This is particularly useful when your partner is a super doer, as mine is. Not only can they make the work lighter, but also less dreary.
We physicians are focused on fixing physician burnout. Maybe we should also be looking at what happens in the “second shift” at home. Tax season is over, but will be back soon.
Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com
Ukraine and PTSD: How psychiatry can help
The war in Ukraine is resulting in a devastating loss of life, catastrophic injuries, and physical destruction. But the war also will take an enormous mental health toll on millions of people, resulting in what I think will lead to an epidemic of posttraumatic stress disorder.
Think about the horrors that Ukrainians are experiencing. Millions of Ukrainians have been displaced to locations inside and outside of the country. People are being forced to leave behind family members, neighbors, and their pets and homes. In one recent news report, a Ukrainian woman who left Kyiv for Belgium reported having dreams in which she heard explosions. Smells, sounds, and even colors can trigger intrusive memories and a host of other problems. The mind can barely comprehend the scope of this human crisis.
Ukrainian soldiers are witnessing horrors that are unspeakable. Doctors, emergency service workers, and other medical professionals in Ukraine are being exposed to the catastrophe on a large scale. Children and youth are among the most affected victims, and it is difficult to predict the impact all of this upheaval is having on them.
The most important question for those of us who treat mental illness is “how will we help devastated people suffering from extreme trauma tied to death, dying, severe injuries, and torture by the invading soldiers?”
I have been treating patients with PTSD for many years. In my lifetime, the devastation in Ukraine will translate into what I expect will be the first overwhelming mass epidemic of PTSD – at least that I can recall. Yes, surely PTSD occurred during and after the Holocaust in the World War II era, but at that time, the mental health profession was not equipped to recognize it – even though the disorder most certainly existed. Even in ancient times, an Assyrian text from Mesopotamia (currently Iraq) described what we would define as PTSD symptoms in soldiers, such as sleep disturbances, flashbacks, and “low mood,” according to a 2014 article in the journal Early Science and Medicine.
The DSM-5 describes numerous criteria for PTSD mainly centering on trauma exposing a person to actual or threatened death, serious injury, or a variety of assaults, including direct exposure or witnessing the event. However, in my clinical experience, I’ve seen lesser events leading to PTSD. Much depends on how each individual processes what is occurring or has occurred.
What appears to be clear is that some key aspects of PTSD according to the DSM-5 – such as trauma-related thoughts or feelings, or trauma-related reminders, as well as nightmares and flashbacks – are likely occurring among Ukrainians. In addition, hypervigilance and exaggerated startle response seem to be key components of PTSD whether or not the cause is a major event or what one would perceive as less traumatic or dramatic.
I’ve certainly seen PTSD secondary to a hospitalization, especially in care involving ICUs or cardiac care units. In addition, I’ve had the occasion to note PTSD signs and symptoms after financial loss or divorce, situations in which some clinicians would never believe PTSD would occur, and would often diagnose as anxiety or depression. For me, again from a clinical point of view, it’s always been critical to assess how individuals process the event or events around them.
We know that there is already a shortage of mental health clinicians across the globe. This means that, in light of the hundreds of thousands – possibly millions – of Ukrainians affected by PTSD, a one-to-one approach will not do. For those Ukrainians who are able to find safe havens, I believe that PTSD symptoms can be debilitating, and the mental health community needs to begin putting supports in place now to address this trauma.
Specifically, proven cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) and guided imagery should be used to begin helping some of these people recover from the unbelievable trauma of war. For some, medication management might be helpful in those experiencing nightmares combined with anxiety and depression. But the main approach and first line of care should be CBT and guided imagery.
PTSD symptoms can make people feel like they are losing control, and prevent them from rebuilding their lives. We must do all we can in the mental health community to destigmatize care and develop support services to get ahead of this crisis. Only through medical, psychiatric, and health care organizations banding together using modern technology can the large number of people psychologically affected by this ongoing crisis be helped and saved.
Dr. London is a practicing psychiatrist who has been a newspaper columnist for 35 years, specializing in writing about short-term therapy, including cognitive-behavioral therapy and guided imagery. He is author of “Find Freedom Fast” (New York: Kettlehole Publishing, 2019). He has no conflicts of interest.
The war in Ukraine is resulting in a devastating loss of life, catastrophic injuries, and physical destruction. But the war also will take an enormous mental health toll on millions of people, resulting in what I think will lead to an epidemic of posttraumatic stress disorder.
Think about the horrors that Ukrainians are experiencing. Millions of Ukrainians have been displaced to locations inside and outside of the country. People are being forced to leave behind family members, neighbors, and their pets and homes. In one recent news report, a Ukrainian woman who left Kyiv for Belgium reported having dreams in which she heard explosions. Smells, sounds, and even colors can trigger intrusive memories and a host of other problems. The mind can barely comprehend the scope of this human crisis.
Ukrainian soldiers are witnessing horrors that are unspeakable. Doctors, emergency service workers, and other medical professionals in Ukraine are being exposed to the catastrophe on a large scale. Children and youth are among the most affected victims, and it is difficult to predict the impact all of this upheaval is having on them.
The most important question for those of us who treat mental illness is “how will we help devastated people suffering from extreme trauma tied to death, dying, severe injuries, and torture by the invading soldiers?”
I have been treating patients with PTSD for many years. In my lifetime, the devastation in Ukraine will translate into what I expect will be the first overwhelming mass epidemic of PTSD – at least that I can recall. Yes, surely PTSD occurred during and after the Holocaust in the World War II era, but at that time, the mental health profession was not equipped to recognize it – even though the disorder most certainly existed. Even in ancient times, an Assyrian text from Mesopotamia (currently Iraq) described what we would define as PTSD symptoms in soldiers, such as sleep disturbances, flashbacks, and “low mood,” according to a 2014 article in the journal Early Science and Medicine.
The DSM-5 describes numerous criteria for PTSD mainly centering on trauma exposing a person to actual or threatened death, serious injury, or a variety of assaults, including direct exposure or witnessing the event. However, in my clinical experience, I’ve seen lesser events leading to PTSD. Much depends on how each individual processes what is occurring or has occurred.
What appears to be clear is that some key aspects of PTSD according to the DSM-5 – such as trauma-related thoughts or feelings, or trauma-related reminders, as well as nightmares and flashbacks – are likely occurring among Ukrainians. In addition, hypervigilance and exaggerated startle response seem to be key components of PTSD whether or not the cause is a major event or what one would perceive as less traumatic or dramatic.
I’ve certainly seen PTSD secondary to a hospitalization, especially in care involving ICUs or cardiac care units. In addition, I’ve had the occasion to note PTSD signs and symptoms after financial loss or divorce, situations in which some clinicians would never believe PTSD would occur, and would often diagnose as anxiety or depression. For me, again from a clinical point of view, it’s always been critical to assess how individuals process the event or events around them.
We know that there is already a shortage of mental health clinicians across the globe. This means that, in light of the hundreds of thousands – possibly millions – of Ukrainians affected by PTSD, a one-to-one approach will not do. For those Ukrainians who are able to find safe havens, I believe that PTSD symptoms can be debilitating, and the mental health community needs to begin putting supports in place now to address this trauma.
Specifically, proven cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) and guided imagery should be used to begin helping some of these people recover from the unbelievable trauma of war. For some, medication management might be helpful in those experiencing nightmares combined with anxiety and depression. But the main approach and first line of care should be CBT and guided imagery.
PTSD symptoms can make people feel like they are losing control, and prevent them from rebuilding their lives. We must do all we can in the mental health community to destigmatize care and develop support services to get ahead of this crisis. Only through medical, psychiatric, and health care organizations banding together using modern technology can the large number of people psychologically affected by this ongoing crisis be helped and saved.
Dr. London is a practicing psychiatrist who has been a newspaper columnist for 35 years, specializing in writing about short-term therapy, including cognitive-behavioral therapy and guided imagery. He is author of “Find Freedom Fast” (New York: Kettlehole Publishing, 2019). He has no conflicts of interest.
The war in Ukraine is resulting in a devastating loss of life, catastrophic injuries, and physical destruction. But the war also will take an enormous mental health toll on millions of people, resulting in what I think will lead to an epidemic of posttraumatic stress disorder.
Think about the horrors that Ukrainians are experiencing. Millions of Ukrainians have been displaced to locations inside and outside of the country. People are being forced to leave behind family members, neighbors, and their pets and homes. In one recent news report, a Ukrainian woman who left Kyiv for Belgium reported having dreams in which she heard explosions. Smells, sounds, and even colors can trigger intrusive memories and a host of other problems. The mind can barely comprehend the scope of this human crisis.
Ukrainian soldiers are witnessing horrors that are unspeakable. Doctors, emergency service workers, and other medical professionals in Ukraine are being exposed to the catastrophe on a large scale. Children and youth are among the most affected victims, and it is difficult to predict the impact all of this upheaval is having on them.
The most important question for those of us who treat mental illness is “how will we help devastated people suffering from extreme trauma tied to death, dying, severe injuries, and torture by the invading soldiers?”
I have been treating patients with PTSD for many years. In my lifetime, the devastation in Ukraine will translate into what I expect will be the first overwhelming mass epidemic of PTSD – at least that I can recall. Yes, surely PTSD occurred during and after the Holocaust in the World War II era, but at that time, the mental health profession was not equipped to recognize it – even though the disorder most certainly existed. Even in ancient times, an Assyrian text from Mesopotamia (currently Iraq) described what we would define as PTSD symptoms in soldiers, such as sleep disturbances, flashbacks, and “low mood,” according to a 2014 article in the journal Early Science and Medicine.
The DSM-5 describes numerous criteria for PTSD mainly centering on trauma exposing a person to actual or threatened death, serious injury, or a variety of assaults, including direct exposure or witnessing the event. However, in my clinical experience, I’ve seen lesser events leading to PTSD. Much depends on how each individual processes what is occurring or has occurred.
What appears to be clear is that some key aspects of PTSD according to the DSM-5 – such as trauma-related thoughts or feelings, or trauma-related reminders, as well as nightmares and flashbacks – are likely occurring among Ukrainians. In addition, hypervigilance and exaggerated startle response seem to be key components of PTSD whether or not the cause is a major event or what one would perceive as less traumatic or dramatic.
I’ve certainly seen PTSD secondary to a hospitalization, especially in care involving ICUs or cardiac care units. In addition, I’ve had the occasion to note PTSD signs and symptoms after financial loss or divorce, situations in which some clinicians would never believe PTSD would occur, and would often diagnose as anxiety or depression. For me, again from a clinical point of view, it’s always been critical to assess how individuals process the event or events around them.
We know that there is already a shortage of mental health clinicians across the globe. This means that, in light of the hundreds of thousands – possibly millions – of Ukrainians affected by PTSD, a one-to-one approach will not do. For those Ukrainians who are able to find safe havens, I believe that PTSD symptoms can be debilitating, and the mental health community needs to begin putting supports in place now to address this trauma.
Specifically, proven cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) and guided imagery should be used to begin helping some of these people recover from the unbelievable trauma of war. For some, medication management might be helpful in those experiencing nightmares combined with anxiety and depression. But the main approach and first line of care should be CBT and guided imagery.
PTSD symptoms can make people feel like they are losing control, and prevent them from rebuilding their lives. We must do all we can in the mental health community to destigmatize care and develop support services to get ahead of this crisis. Only through medical, psychiatric, and health care organizations banding together using modern technology can the large number of people psychologically affected by this ongoing crisis be helped and saved.
Dr. London is a practicing psychiatrist who has been a newspaper columnist for 35 years, specializing in writing about short-term therapy, including cognitive-behavioral therapy and guided imagery. He is author of “Find Freedom Fast” (New York: Kettlehole Publishing, 2019). He has no conflicts of interest.
Unraveling primary ovarian insufficiency
In the presentation of secondary amenorrhea, pregnancy is the No. 1 differential diagnosis. Once this has been excluded, an algorithm is initiated to determine the etiology, including an assessment of the hypothalamic-pituitary-ovarian axis. While the early onset of ovarian failure can be physically and psychologically disrupting, the effect on fertility is an especially devastating event. Previously identified by terms including premature ovarian failure and premature menopause, “primary ovarian insufficiency” (POI) is now the preferred designation. This month’s article will address the diagnosis, evaluation, and management of POI.
The definition of POI is the development of primary hypogonadism before the age of 40 years. Spontaneous POI occurs in approximately 1 in 250 women by age 35 years and 1 in 100 by age 40 years. After excluding pregnancy, the clinician should determine signs and symptoms that can lead to expedited and cost-efficient testing.
Consequences
POI is an important risk factor for bone loss and osteoporosis, especially in young women who develop ovarian dysfunction before they achieve peak adult bone mass. At the time of diagnosis of POI, a bone density test (dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry) should be obtained. Women with POI may also develop depression and anxiety as well as experience an increased risk for cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, possibly related to endothelial dysfunction.
Young women with spontaneous POI are at increased risk of developing autoimmune adrenal insufficiency (AAI), a potentially fatal disorder. Consequently, to diagnose AAI, serum adrenal cortical and 21-hydroxylase antibodies should be measured in all women who have a karyotype of 46,XX and experience spontaneous POI. Women with AAI have a 50% risk of developing adrenal insufficiency. Despite initial normal adrenal function, women with positive adrenal cortical antibodies should be followed annually.
Causes (see table for a more complete list)
Iatrogenic
Known causes of POI include chemotherapy/radiation often in the setting of cancer treatment. The three most commonly used drugs, cyclophosphamide, cisplatin, and doxorubicin, cause POI by inducing death and/or accelerated activation of primordial follicles and increased atresia of growing follicles. The most damaging agents are alkylating drugs. A cyclophosphamide equivalent dose calculator has been established for ovarian failure risk stratification from chemotherapy based on the cumulative dose of alkylating agents received.
One study estimated the radiosensitivity of the oocyte to be less than 2 Gy. Based upon this estimate, the authors calculated the dose of radiotherapy that would result in immediate and permanent ovarian failure in 97.5% of patients as follows:
- 20.3 Gy at birth
- 18.4 Gy at age 10 years
- 16.5 Gy at age 20 years
- 14.3 Gy at age 30 years
Genetic
Approximately 10% of cases are familial. A family history of POI raises concern for a fragile X premutation. Fragile X syndrome is an X-linked form of intellectual disability that is one of the most common causes of mental retardation worldwide. There is a strong relationship between age at menopause, including POI, and premutations for fragile X syndrome. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends that women with POI or an elevated follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) level before age 40 years without known cause be screened for FMR1 premutations. Approximately 6% of cases of POI are associated with premutations in the FMR1 gene.
Turner syndrome is one of the most common causes of POI and results from the lack of a second X chromosome. The most common chromosomal defect in humans, TS occurs in up to 1.5% of conceptions, 10% of spontaneous abortions, and 1 of 2,500 live births.
Serum antiadrenal and/or anti–21-hydroxylase antibodies and antithyroid antiperoxidase antibodies, can aid in the diagnosis of adrenal gland, ovary, and thyroid autoimmune causes, which is found in 4% of women with spontaneous POI. Testing for the presence of 21-hydroxylase autoantibodies or adrenal autoantibodies is sufficient to make the diagnosis of autoimmune oophoritis in women with proven spontaneous POI.
The etiology of POI remains unknown in approximately 75%-90% of cases. However, studies using whole exome or whole genome sequencing have identified genetic variants in approximately 30%-35% of these patients.
Risk factors
Factors that are thought to play a role in determining the age of menopause, include genetics (e.g., FMR1 premutation and mosaic Turner syndrome), ethnicity (earlier among Hispanic women and later in Japanese American women when compared with White women), and smoking (reduced by approximately 2 years ).
Regarding ovarian aging, the holy grail of the reproductive life span is to predict menopause. While the definitive age eludes us, anti-Müllerian hormone levels appear to show promise. An ultrasensitive anti-Müllerian hormone assay (< 0.01 ng/mL) predicted a 79% probability of menopause within 12 months for women aged 51 and above; the probability was 51% for women below age 48.
Diagnosis
The three P’s of secondary amenorrhea are physiological, pharmacological, or pathological and can guide the clinician to a targeted evaluation. Physiological causes are pregnancy, the first 6 months of continuous breastfeeding (from elevated prolactin), and natural menopause. Pharmacological etiologies, excluding hormonal treatment that suppresses ovulation (combined oral contraceptives, gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist/antagonist, or danazol), include agents that inhibit dopamine thereby increasing serum prolactin, such as metoclopramide; phenothiazine antipsychotics, such as haloperidol; and tardive dystonia dopamine-depleting medications, such as reserpine. Pathological causes include pituitary adenomas, thyroid disease, functional hypothalamic amenorrhea from changes in weight, exercise regimen, and stress.
Management
About 50%-75% of women with 46,XX spontaneous POI experience intermittent ovarian function and 5%-10% of women remain able to conceive. Anecdotally, a 32-year-old woman presented to me with primary infertility, secondary amenorrhea, and suspected POI based on vasomotor symptoms and elevated FSH levels. Pelvic ultrasound showed a hemorrhagic cyst, suspicious for a corpus luteum. Two weeks thereafter she reported a positive home urine human chorionic gonadotropin test and ultimately delivered twins. Her diagnosis of POI with amenorrhea remained postpartum.
Unless there is an absolute contraindication, estrogen therapy should be prescribed to women with POI to reduce the risk of osteoporosis, cardiovascular disease, and urogenital atrophy as well as to maintain sexual health and quality of life. For those with an intact uterus, women should receive progesterone because of the risk of endometrial hyperplasia from unopposed estrogen. Rather than oral estrogen, the use of transdermal or vaginal delivery of estrogen is a more physiological approach and provides lower risks of venous thromboembolism and gallbladder disease. Of note, standard postmenopausal hormone therapy, which has a much lower dose of estrogen than combined estrogen-progestin contraceptives, does not provide effective contraception. Per ACOG, systemic hormone treatment should be prescribed until age 50-51 years to all women with POI.
For fertility, women with spontaneous POI can be offered oocyte or embryo donation. The uterus does not age reproductively, unlike oocytes, therefore women can achieve reasonable pregnancy success rates through egg donation despite experiencing menopause.
Future potential options
Female germline stem cells have been isolated from neonatal mice and transplanted into sterile adult mice, who then were able to produce offspring. In a second study, oogonial stem cells were isolated from neonatal and adult mouse ovaries; pups were subsequently born from the oocytes. Further experiments are needed before the implications for humans can be determined.
Emotionally traumatic for most women, POI disrupts life plans, hopes, and dreams of raising a family. The approach to the patient with POI involves the above evidence-based testing along with empathy from the health care provider.
Dr. Trolice is director of The IVF Center in Winter Park, Fla., and professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Central Florida, Orlando.
In the presentation of secondary amenorrhea, pregnancy is the No. 1 differential diagnosis. Once this has been excluded, an algorithm is initiated to determine the etiology, including an assessment of the hypothalamic-pituitary-ovarian axis. While the early onset of ovarian failure can be physically and psychologically disrupting, the effect on fertility is an especially devastating event. Previously identified by terms including premature ovarian failure and premature menopause, “primary ovarian insufficiency” (POI) is now the preferred designation. This month’s article will address the diagnosis, evaluation, and management of POI.
The definition of POI is the development of primary hypogonadism before the age of 40 years. Spontaneous POI occurs in approximately 1 in 250 women by age 35 years and 1 in 100 by age 40 years. After excluding pregnancy, the clinician should determine signs and symptoms that can lead to expedited and cost-efficient testing.
Consequences
POI is an important risk factor for bone loss and osteoporosis, especially in young women who develop ovarian dysfunction before they achieve peak adult bone mass. At the time of diagnosis of POI, a bone density test (dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry) should be obtained. Women with POI may also develop depression and anxiety as well as experience an increased risk for cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, possibly related to endothelial dysfunction.
Young women with spontaneous POI are at increased risk of developing autoimmune adrenal insufficiency (AAI), a potentially fatal disorder. Consequently, to diagnose AAI, serum adrenal cortical and 21-hydroxylase antibodies should be measured in all women who have a karyotype of 46,XX and experience spontaneous POI. Women with AAI have a 50% risk of developing adrenal insufficiency. Despite initial normal adrenal function, women with positive adrenal cortical antibodies should be followed annually.
Causes (see table for a more complete list)
Iatrogenic
Known causes of POI include chemotherapy/radiation often in the setting of cancer treatment. The three most commonly used drugs, cyclophosphamide, cisplatin, and doxorubicin, cause POI by inducing death and/or accelerated activation of primordial follicles and increased atresia of growing follicles. The most damaging agents are alkylating drugs. A cyclophosphamide equivalent dose calculator has been established for ovarian failure risk stratification from chemotherapy based on the cumulative dose of alkylating agents received.
One study estimated the radiosensitivity of the oocyte to be less than 2 Gy. Based upon this estimate, the authors calculated the dose of radiotherapy that would result in immediate and permanent ovarian failure in 97.5% of patients as follows:
- 20.3 Gy at birth
- 18.4 Gy at age 10 years
- 16.5 Gy at age 20 years
- 14.3 Gy at age 30 years
Genetic
Approximately 10% of cases are familial. A family history of POI raises concern for a fragile X premutation. Fragile X syndrome is an X-linked form of intellectual disability that is one of the most common causes of mental retardation worldwide. There is a strong relationship between age at menopause, including POI, and premutations for fragile X syndrome. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends that women with POI or an elevated follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) level before age 40 years without known cause be screened for FMR1 premutations. Approximately 6% of cases of POI are associated with premutations in the FMR1 gene.
Turner syndrome is one of the most common causes of POI and results from the lack of a second X chromosome. The most common chromosomal defect in humans, TS occurs in up to 1.5% of conceptions, 10% of spontaneous abortions, and 1 of 2,500 live births.
Serum antiadrenal and/or anti–21-hydroxylase antibodies and antithyroid antiperoxidase antibodies, can aid in the diagnosis of adrenal gland, ovary, and thyroid autoimmune causes, which is found in 4% of women with spontaneous POI. Testing for the presence of 21-hydroxylase autoantibodies or adrenal autoantibodies is sufficient to make the diagnosis of autoimmune oophoritis in women with proven spontaneous POI.
The etiology of POI remains unknown in approximately 75%-90% of cases. However, studies using whole exome or whole genome sequencing have identified genetic variants in approximately 30%-35% of these patients.
Risk factors
Factors that are thought to play a role in determining the age of menopause, include genetics (e.g., FMR1 premutation and mosaic Turner syndrome), ethnicity (earlier among Hispanic women and later in Japanese American women when compared with White women), and smoking (reduced by approximately 2 years ).
Regarding ovarian aging, the holy grail of the reproductive life span is to predict menopause. While the definitive age eludes us, anti-Müllerian hormone levels appear to show promise. An ultrasensitive anti-Müllerian hormone assay (< 0.01 ng/mL) predicted a 79% probability of menopause within 12 months for women aged 51 and above; the probability was 51% for women below age 48.
Diagnosis
The three P’s of secondary amenorrhea are physiological, pharmacological, or pathological and can guide the clinician to a targeted evaluation. Physiological causes are pregnancy, the first 6 months of continuous breastfeeding (from elevated prolactin), and natural menopause. Pharmacological etiologies, excluding hormonal treatment that suppresses ovulation (combined oral contraceptives, gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist/antagonist, or danazol), include agents that inhibit dopamine thereby increasing serum prolactin, such as metoclopramide; phenothiazine antipsychotics, such as haloperidol; and tardive dystonia dopamine-depleting medications, such as reserpine. Pathological causes include pituitary adenomas, thyroid disease, functional hypothalamic amenorrhea from changes in weight, exercise regimen, and stress.
Management
About 50%-75% of women with 46,XX spontaneous POI experience intermittent ovarian function and 5%-10% of women remain able to conceive. Anecdotally, a 32-year-old woman presented to me with primary infertility, secondary amenorrhea, and suspected POI based on vasomotor symptoms and elevated FSH levels. Pelvic ultrasound showed a hemorrhagic cyst, suspicious for a corpus luteum. Two weeks thereafter she reported a positive home urine human chorionic gonadotropin test and ultimately delivered twins. Her diagnosis of POI with amenorrhea remained postpartum.
Unless there is an absolute contraindication, estrogen therapy should be prescribed to women with POI to reduce the risk of osteoporosis, cardiovascular disease, and urogenital atrophy as well as to maintain sexual health and quality of life. For those with an intact uterus, women should receive progesterone because of the risk of endometrial hyperplasia from unopposed estrogen. Rather than oral estrogen, the use of transdermal or vaginal delivery of estrogen is a more physiological approach and provides lower risks of venous thromboembolism and gallbladder disease. Of note, standard postmenopausal hormone therapy, which has a much lower dose of estrogen than combined estrogen-progestin contraceptives, does not provide effective contraception. Per ACOG, systemic hormone treatment should be prescribed until age 50-51 years to all women with POI.
For fertility, women with spontaneous POI can be offered oocyte or embryo donation. The uterus does not age reproductively, unlike oocytes, therefore women can achieve reasonable pregnancy success rates through egg donation despite experiencing menopause.
Future potential options
Female germline stem cells have been isolated from neonatal mice and transplanted into sterile adult mice, who then were able to produce offspring. In a second study, oogonial stem cells were isolated from neonatal and adult mouse ovaries; pups were subsequently born from the oocytes. Further experiments are needed before the implications for humans can be determined.
Emotionally traumatic for most women, POI disrupts life plans, hopes, and dreams of raising a family. The approach to the patient with POI involves the above evidence-based testing along with empathy from the health care provider.
Dr. Trolice is director of The IVF Center in Winter Park, Fla., and professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Central Florida, Orlando.
In the presentation of secondary amenorrhea, pregnancy is the No. 1 differential diagnosis. Once this has been excluded, an algorithm is initiated to determine the etiology, including an assessment of the hypothalamic-pituitary-ovarian axis. While the early onset of ovarian failure can be physically and psychologically disrupting, the effect on fertility is an especially devastating event. Previously identified by terms including premature ovarian failure and premature menopause, “primary ovarian insufficiency” (POI) is now the preferred designation. This month’s article will address the diagnosis, evaluation, and management of POI.
The definition of POI is the development of primary hypogonadism before the age of 40 years. Spontaneous POI occurs in approximately 1 in 250 women by age 35 years and 1 in 100 by age 40 years. After excluding pregnancy, the clinician should determine signs and symptoms that can lead to expedited and cost-efficient testing.
Consequences
POI is an important risk factor for bone loss and osteoporosis, especially in young women who develop ovarian dysfunction before they achieve peak adult bone mass. At the time of diagnosis of POI, a bone density test (dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry) should be obtained. Women with POI may also develop depression and anxiety as well as experience an increased risk for cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, possibly related to endothelial dysfunction.
Young women with spontaneous POI are at increased risk of developing autoimmune adrenal insufficiency (AAI), a potentially fatal disorder. Consequently, to diagnose AAI, serum adrenal cortical and 21-hydroxylase antibodies should be measured in all women who have a karyotype of 46,XX and experience spontaneous POI. Women with AAI have a 50% risk of developing adrenal insufficiency. Despite initial normal adrenal function, women with positive adrenal cortical antibodies should be followed annually.
Causes (see table for a more complete list)
Iatrogenic
Known causes of POI include chemotherapy/radiation often in the setting of cancer treatment. The three most commonly used drugs, cyclophosphamide, cisplatin, and doxorubicin, cause POI by inducing death and/or accelerated activation of primordial follicles and increased atresia of growing follicles. The most damaging agents are alkylating drugs. A cyclophosphamide equivalent dose calculator has been established for ovarian failure risk stratification from chemotherapy based on the cumulative dose of alkylating agents received.
One study estimated the radiosensitivity of the oocyte to be less than 2 Gy. Based upon this estimate, the authors calculated the dose of radiotherapy that would result in immediate and permanent ovarian failure in 97.5% of patients as follows:
- 20.3 Gy at birth
- 18.4 Gy at age 10 years
- 16.5 Gy at age 20 years
- 14.3 Gy at age 30 years
Genetic
Approximately 10% of cases are familial. A family history of POI raises concern for a fragile X premutation. Fragile X syndrome is an X-linked form of intellectual disability that is one of the most common causes of mental retardation worldwide. There is a strong relationship between age at menopause, including POI, and premutations for fragile X syndrome. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends that women with POI or an elevated follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) level before age 40 years without known cause be screened for FMR1 premutations. Approximately 6% of cases of POI are associated with premutations in the FMR1 gene.
Turner syndrome is one of the most common causes of POI and results from the lack of a second X chromosome. The most common chromosomal defect in humans, TS occurs in up to 1.5% of conceptions, 10% of spontaneous abortions, and 1 of 2,500 live births.
Serum antiadrenal and/or anti–21-hydroxylase antibodies and antithyroid antiperoxidase antibodies, can aid in the diagnosis of adrenal gland, ovary, and thyroid autoimmune causes, which is found in 4% of women with spontaneous POI. Testing for the presence of 21-hydroxylase autoantibodies or adrenal autoantibodies is sufficient to make the diagnosis of autoimmune oophoritis in women with proven spontaneous POI.
The etiology of POI remains unknown in approximately 75%-90% of cases. However, studies using whole exome or whole genome sequencing have identified genetic variants in approximately 30%-35% of these patients.
Risk factors
Factors that are thought to play a role in determining the age of menopause, include genetics (e.g., FMR1 premutation and mosaic Turner syndrome), ethnicity (earlier among Hispanic women and later in Japanese American women when compared with White women), and smoking (reduced by approximately 2 years ).
Regarding ovarian aging, the holy grail of the reproductive life span is to predict menopause. While the definitive age eludes us, anti-Müllerian hormone levels appear to show promise. An ultrasensitive anti-Müllerian hormone assay (< 0.01 ng/mL) predicted a 79% probability of menopause within 12 months for women aged 51 and above; the probability was 51% for women below age 48.
Diagnosis
The three P’s of secondary amenorrhea are physiological, pharmacological, or pathological and can guide the clinician to a targeted evaluation. Physiological causes are pregnancy, the first 6 months of continuous breastfeeding (from elevated prolactin), and natural menopause. Pharmacological etiologies, excluding hormonal treatment that suppresses ovulation (combined oral contraceptives, gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist/antagonist, or danazol), include agents that inhibit dopamine thereby increasing serum prolactin, such as metoclopramide; phenothiazine antipsychotics, such as haloperidol; and tardive dystonia dopamine-depleting medications, such as reserpine. Pathological causes include pituitary adenomas, thyroid disease, functional hypothalamic amenorrhea from changes in weight, exercise regimen, and stress.
Management
About 50%-75% of women with 46,XX spontaneous POI experience intermittent ovarian function and 5%-10% of women remain able to conceive. Anecdotally, a 32-year-old woman presented to me with primary infertility, secondary amenorrhea, and suspected POI based on vasomotor symptoms and elevated FSH levels. Pelvic ultrasound showed a hemorrhagic cyst, suspicious for a corpus luteum. Two weeks thereafter she reported a positive home urine human chorionic gonadotropin test and ultimately delivered twins. Her diagnosis of POI with amenorrhea remained postpartum.
Unless there is an absolute contraindication, estrogen therapy should be prescribed to women with POI to reduce the risk of osteoporosis, cardiovascular disease, and urogenital atrophy as well as to maintain sexual health and quality of life. For those with an intact uterus, women should receive progesterone because of the risk of endometrial hyperplasia from unopposed estrogen. Rather than oral estrogen, the use of transdermal or vaginal delivery of estrogen is a more physiological approach and provides lower risks of venous thromboembolism and gallbladder disease. Of note, standard postmenopausal hormone therapy, which has a much lower dose of estrogen than combined estrogen-progestin contraceptives, does not provide effective contraception. Per ACOG, systemic hormone treatment should be prescribed until age 50-51 years to all women with POI.
For fertility, women with spontaneous POI can be offered oocyte or embryo donation. The uterus does not age reproductively, unlike oocytes, therefore women can achieve reasonable pregnancy success rates through egg donation despite experiencing menopause.
Future potential options
Female germline stem cells have been isolated from neonatal mice and transplanted into sterile adult mice, who then were able to produce offspring. In a second study, oogonial stem cells were isolated from neonatal and adult mouse ovaries; pups were subsequently born from the oocytes. Further experiments are needed before the implications for humans can be determined.
Emotionally traumatic for most women, POI disrupts life plans, hopes, and dreams of raising a family. The approach to the patient with POI involves the above evidence-based testing along with empathy from the health care provider.
Dr. Trolice is director of The IVF Center in Winter Park, Fla., and professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Central Florida, Orlando.
Depression in homeless patients: What can be done?
In a recent article published in JAMA Psychiatry, Joshua E. J. Buckman and coauthors described the results of a large research study which concludes that depression is harder to treat in those who are homeless or unemployed.
It is always good to get more data and this article adds to the literature about the social determinants of depression. A frustrating aspect is that this is no surprise at all, not least for anyone in the mental health field. We have known that intuitively for decades.
Again, data is always good to bolster intuition with science. But what are the actionable items to take from the paper?
However, there are a few policy and clinical points I would like to make, reflecting some of the chapters in a recently published book – edited by me and my colleague Maria D. Llorente – “Clinical Management of the Homeless Patient: Social Medical and Psychiatric Issues” (New York: Springer, May 2021).
The first is, if you really tackle homelessness, with a combination of federal, state, and local resources, you can make a difference. The Department of Veterans Affairs, under the leadership of former VA Secretary Eric Shinseki and others, has been markedly successful. Note, for instance, the Health Care for Homeless Veterans program , which conducts outreach to vulnerable veterans not currently receiving services and engages them in treatment and rehabilitative programs.
Secondly, there is a marked absence of shelters that can care for the homeless with medical problems. This leads to extended and extensive hospital stays. This is especially frustrating during the COVID era, when hospital beds are in such short supply. Having a safe place to discharge patients who still need wound or diabetes care would save money for the overall health care system and be best for the patient.
Third, it may be best to modify discharge regimens for those patients who are unhoused. For example, metformin, taken by mouth once a day, is more practical for unhoused patients with diabetes than insulin, which needs to be refrigerated and injected multiple times a day. While one can argue whether care for the homeless should differ from those who are housed, in practical terms, simplifying regimens is more likely to promote compliance.
My last take-home point is check the Feet. So many of our homeless patients who end up on hospital wards have been wearing ill-fitting or no shoes while they are out on the street. Their toenails may be long and thick. They may have cellulitis or ulcers. Or gangrene. Unfortunately, these medical issues can also cause surgical amputations of the lower extremities.
Back to the article by Buckman and colleagues. The data they provide is good to have. But we need more action to provide appropriate and compassionate care for those who are unhoused and ill – care that is good for them, good for the nation’s finances, and good for our moral standing in the world.
Dr. Ritchie is chair of psychiatry at Medstar Washington (D.C.) Hospital Center. She is a member of the Clinical Psychiatry News editorial advisory board, and has no conflicts of interest.
In a recent article published in JAMA Psychiatry, Joshua E. J. Buckman and coauthors described the results of a large research study which concludes that depression is harder to treat in those who are homeless or unemployed.
It is always good to get more data and this article adds to the literature about the social determinants of depression. A frustrating aspect is that this is no surprise at all, not least for anyone in the mental health field. We have known that intuitively for decades.
Again, data is always good to bolster intuition with science. But what are the actionable items to take from the paper?
However, there are a few policy and clinical points I would like to make, reflecting some of the chapters in a recently published book – edited by me and my colleague Maria D. Llorente – “Clinical Management of the Homeless Patient: Social Medical and Psychiatric Issues” (New York: Springer, May 2021).
The first is, if you really tackle homelessness, with a combination of federal, state, and local resources, you can make a difference. The Department of Veterans Affairs, under the leadership of former VA Secretary Eric Shinseki and others, has been markedly successful. Note, for instance, the Health Care for Homeless Veterans program , which conducts outreach to vulnerable veterans not currently receiving services and engages them in treatment and rehabilitative programs.
Secondly, there is a marked absence of shelters that can care for the homeless with medical problems. This leads to extended and extensive hospital stays. This is especially frustrating during the COVID era, when hospital beds are in such short supply. Having a safe place to discharge patients who still need wound or diabetes care would save money for the overall health care system and be best for the patient.
Third, it may be best to modify discharge regimens for those patients who are unhoused. For example, metformin, taken by mouth once a day, is more practical for unhoused patients with diabetes than insulin, which needs to be refrigerated and injected multiple times a day. While one can argue whether care for the homeless should differ from those who are housed, in practical terms, simplifying regimens is more likely to promote compliance.
My last take-home point is check the Feet. So many of our homeless patients who end up on hospital wards have been wearing ill-fitting or no shoes while they are out on the street. Their toenails may be long and thick. They may have cellulitis or ulcers. Or gangrene. Unfortunately, these medical issues can also cause surgical amputations of the lower extremities.
Back to the article by Buckman and colleagues. The data they provide is good to have. But we need more action to provide appropriate and compassionate care for those who are unhoused and ill – care that is good for them, good for the nation’s finances, and good for our moral standing in the world.
Dr. Ritchie is chair of psychiatry at Medstar Washington (D.C.) Hospital Center. She is a member of the Clinical Psychiatry News editorial advisory board, and has no conflicts of interest.
In a recent article published in JAMA Psychiatry, Joshua E. J. Buckman and coauthors described the results of a large research study which concludes that depression is harder to treat in those who are homeless or unemployed.
It is always good to get more data and this article adds to the literature about the social determinants of depression. A frustrating aspect is that this is no surprise at all, not least for anyone in the mental health field. We have known that intuitively for decades.
Again, data is always good to bolster intuition with science. But what are the actionable items to take from the paper?
However, there are a few policy and clinical points I would like to make, reflecting some of the chapters in a recently published book – edited by me and my colleague Maria D. Llorente – “Clinical Management of the Homeless Patient: Social Medical and Psychiatric Issues” (New York: Springer, May 2021).
The first is, if you really tackle homelessness, with a combination of federal, state, and local resources, you can make a difference. The Department of Veterans Affairs, under the leadership of former VA Secretary Eric Shinseki and others, has been markedly successful. Note, for instance, the Health Care for Homeless Veterans program , which conducts outreach to vulnerable veterans not currently receiving services and engages them in treatment and rehabilitative programs.
Secondly, there is a marked absence of shelters that can care for the homeless with medical problems. This leads to extended and extensive hospital stays. This is especially frustrating during the COVID era, when hospital beds are in such short supply. Having a safe place to discharge patients who still need wound or diabetes care would save money for the overall health care system and be best for the patient.
Third, it may be best to modify discharge regimens for those patients who are unhoused. For example, metformin, taken by mouth once a day, is more practical for unhoused patients with diabetes than insulin, which needs to be refrigerated and injected multiple times a day. While one can argue whether care for the homeless should differ from those who are housed, in practical terms, simplifying regimens is more likely to promote compliance.
My last take-home point is check the Feet. So many of our homeless patients who end up on hospital wards have been wearing ill-fitting or no shoes while they are out on the street. Their toenails may be long and thick. They may have cellulitis or ulcers. Or gangrene. Unfortunately, these medical issues can also cause surgical amputations of the lower extremities.
Back to the article by Buckman and colleagues. The data they provide is good to have. But we need more action to provide appropriate and compassionate care for those who are unhoused and ill – care that is good for them, good for the nation’s finances, and good for our moral standing in the world.
Dr. Ritchie is chair of psychiatry at Medstar Washington (D.C.) Hospital Center. She is a member of the Clinical Psychiatry News editorial advisory board, and has no conflicts of interest.
Weigh but don’t tell
Reports of long waiting times at mental health clinics and anecdotal observations by health care providers suggest the pandemic has generated a dramatic increase in the incidence of eating disorders among the pediatric population. Of course this should come as no surprise to pediatricians.
Eating disorders come in many different forms and a triggering event is sometimes difficult to define. Often the adolescent or preadolescent is searching for some sense of stability in a life tossed on a stormy sea roiled by hormonal and physical change. Wresting control of their bodies during a period of uncertainty may result in a downward spiral into dangerously unhealthy weight loss. If nothing else, the pandemic has been a period of dramatic uncertainty unlike what most children and few adults in this country have ever experienced.
With the unprecedented increase in eating disorder cases, providers in several disciplines are searching for novel strategies to ease the burden on their patients and their practices. I recently learned of a pediatric practice in California that is considering blinding all patients aged 12 and older to the body mass measurements obtained at their health maintenance visits.
Blind weight checks for children with eating disorders, particularly those who seem to be nearing recovery, has been a common and often helpful practice. However, I am unaware of any practice that has made it a universal office policy. I’m unsure of the rationale behind this practice’s policy, but on several fronts, suppressing body mass measurements in the age group most vulnerable to eating disorders makes some sense.
Universal blind weight checks could minimize the risk of in-office shaming. However, careful training of support staff and thoughtful placement of the scales could serve the same purpose. This new policy acknowledges not only the ubiquity of the problem but also that many, maybe even most, children with eating disorders appear normal. And of course, there is the unfortunate fact that body mass is a poor screening test for eating disorders.
As I thought more about this novel approach I came to see its educational value for patients, parents, and even physicians. I can envision how a 13-year-old’s first health maintenance visit would go after the roll-out of the new policy. “Dr. Smith, aren’t you going to tell us how much I (or my daughter Jenny) weigh(s)?” This could, or more likely, should launch a discussion about weight and body image. It might continue with questions like, “How much do you think you weigh?” Or, “Do you think you are too heavy or too thin?”
Or, the conversation could include the provider’s observations that weight is just one measure of health and in fact not a very good one. Other ingredients in a healthy life style, such as sleep and physical activity, are not as easy to measure as weight but in many cases are more important.
As my mind struggled to restructure a health maintenance schedule that included blind weight checks, I wondered why we should wait until age 12. Of course, it is unreasonable to expect parents to stick with a pediatric practice that seems to ignore their infant’s weight. I’m sure that, like me, you have always discouraged new parents from having a baby scale at home because in the first few months too-frequent weighings can usually cause more angst than good.
It might make sense to remove a within-earshot discussion of a child’s weight from the health maintenance visit as soon as the child can absorb and digest the discussion; say, around age 3 years. In a perfect world, the provider should have already elicited a history that suggested a young child’s vulnerability to obesity before the scale and the growth chart told the unfortunate story. But, neither you nor I are perfect providers and so we will always need the scale to document our concerns. However, when and how we report that one vital sign to the patient and his or her parents is a topic ripe for discussion and improvement.
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.
Reports of long waiting times at mental health clinics and anecdotal observations by health care providers suggest the pandemic has generated a dramatic increase in the incidence of eating disorders among the pediatric population. Of course this should come as no surprise to pediatricians.
Eating disorders come in many different forms and a triggering event is sometimes difficult to define. Often the adolescent or preadolescent is searching for some sense of stability in a life tossed on a stormy sea roiled by hormonal and physical change. Wresting control of their bodies during a period of uncertainty may result in a downward spiral into dangerously unhealthy weight loss. If nothing else, the pandemic has been a period of dramatic uncertainty unlike what most children and few adults in this country have ever experienced.
With the unprecedented increase in eating disorder cases, providers in several disciplines are searching for novel strategies to ease the burden on their patients and their practices. I recently learned of a pediatric practice in California that is considering blinding all patients aged 12 and older to the body mass measurements obtained at their health maintenance visits.
Blind weight checks for children with eating disorders, particularly those who seem to be nearing recovery, has been a common and often helpful practice. However, I am unaware of any practice that has made it a universal office policy. I’m unsure of the rationale behind this practice’s policy, but on several fronts, suppressing body mass measurements in the age group most vulnerable to eating disorders makes some sense.
Universal blind weight checks could minimize the risk of in-office shaming. However, careful training of support staff and thoughtful placement of the scales could serve the same purpose. This new policy acknowledges not only the ubiquity of the problem but also that many, maybe even most, children with eating disorders appear normal. And of course, there is the unfortunate fact that body mass is a poor screening test for eating disorders.
As I thought more about this novel approach I came to see its educational value for patients, parents, and even physicians. I can envision how a 13-year-old’s first health maintenance visit would go after the roll-out of the new policy. “Dr. Smith, aren’t you going to tell us how much I (or my daughter Jenny) weigh(s)?” This could, or more likely, should launch a discussion about weight and body image. It might continue with questions like, “How much do you think you weigh?” Or, “Do you think you are too heavy or too thin?”
Or, the conversation could include the provider’s observations that weight is just one measure of health and in fact not a very good one. Other ingredients in a healthy life style, such as sleep and physical activity, are not as easy to measure as weight but in many cases are more important.
As my mind struggled to restructure a health maintenance schedule that included blind weight checks, I wondered why we should wait until age 12. Of course, it is unreasonable to expect parents to stick with a pediatric practice that seems to ignore their infant’s weight. I’m sure that, like me, you have always discouraged new parents from having a baby scale at home because in the first few months too-frequent weighings can usually cause more angst than good.
It might make sense to remove a within-earshot discussion of a child’s weight from the health maintenance visit as soon as the child can absorb and digest the discussion; say, around age 3 years. In a perfect world, the provider should have already elicited a history that suggested a young child’s vulnerability to obesity before the scale and the growth chart told the unfortunate story. But, neither you nor I are perfect providers and so we will always need the scale to document our concerns. However, when and how we report that one vital sign to the patient and his or her parents is a topic ripe for discussion and improvement.
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.
Reports of long waiting times at mental health clinics and anecdotal observations by health care providers suggest the pandemic has generated a dramatic increase in the incidence of eating disorders among the pediatric population. Of course this should come as no surprise to pediatricians.
Eating disorders come in many different forms and a triggering event is sometimes difficult to define. Often the adolescent or preadolescent is searching for some sense of stability in a life tossed on a stormy sea roiled by hormonal and physical change. Wresting control of their bodies during a period of uncertainty may result in a downward spiral into dangerously unhealthy weight loss. If nothing else, the pandemic has been a period of dramatic uncertainty unlike what most children and few adults in this country have ever experienced.
With the unprecedented increase in eating disorder cases, providers in several disciplines are searching for novel strategies to ease the burden on their patients and their practices. I recently learned of a pediatric practice in California that is considering blinding all patients aged 12 and older to the body mass measurements obtained at their health maintenance visits.
Blind weight checks for children with eating disorders, particularly those who seem to be nearing recovery, has been a common and often helpful practice. However, I am unaware of any practice that has made it a universal office policy. I’m unsure of the rationale behind this practice’s policy, but on several fronts, suppressing body mass measurements in the age group most vulnerable to eating disorders makes some sense.
Universal blind weight checks could minimize the risk of in-office shaming. However, careful training of support staff and thoughtful placement of the scales could serve the same purpose. This new policy acknowledges not only the ubiquity of the problem but also that many, maybe even most, children with eating disorders appear normal. And of course, there is the unfortunate fact that body mass is a poor screening test for eating disorders.
As I thought more about this novel approach I came to see its educational value for patients, parents, and even physicians. I can envision how a 13-year-old’s first health maintenance visit would go after the roll-out of the new policy. “Dr. Smith, aren’t you going to tell us how much I (or my daughter Jenny) weigh(s)?” This could, or more likely, should launch a discussion about weight and body image. It might continue with questions like, “How much do you think you weigh?” Or, “Do you think you are too heavy or too thin?”
Or, the conversation could include the provider’s observations that weight is just one measure of health and in fact not a very good one. Other ingredients in a healthy life style, such as sleep and physical activity, are not as easy to measure as weight but in many cases are more important.
As my mind struggled to restructure a health maintenance schedule that included blind weight checks, I wondered why we should wait until age 12. Of course, it is unreasonable to expect parents to stick with a pediatric practice that seems to ignore their infant’s weight. I’m sure that, like me, you have always discouraged new parents from having a baby scale at home because in the first few months too-frequent weighings can usually cause more angst than good.
It might make sense to remove a within-earshot discussion of a child’s weight from the health maintenance visit as soon as the child can absorb and digest the discussion; say, around age 3 years. In a perfect world, the provider should have already elicited a history that suggested a young child’s vulnerability to obesity before the scale and the growth chart told the unfortunate story. But, neither you nor I are perfect providers and so we will always need the scale to document our concerns. However, when and how we report that one vital sign to the patient and his or her parents is a topic ripe for discussion and improvement.
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.
Has the anti-benzodiazepine backlash gone too far?
When benzodiazepines were first introduced, they were greeted with enthusiasm. Librium came first, in 1960, followed by Valium in 1962, and they were seen as an improvement over barbiturates for the treatment of anxiety, insomnia, and seizures. From 1968 to 1982, Valium (diazepam) was the No. 1–selling U.S. pharmaceutical: 2.3 billion tablets of Valium were sold in 1978 alone. Valium was even the subject of a 1966 Rolling Stones hit, “Mother’s Little Helper.”
By the 1980s, it became apparent that there was a downside to these medications: patients became tolerant, dependent, and some became addicted to the medications. In older patients an association was noted with falls and cognitive impairment. And while safe in overdoses when they are the only agent, combined with alcohol or opioids, benzodiazepines can be lethal and have played a significant role in the current overdose crisis.
Because of the problems that are associated with their use, benzodiazepines and their relatives, the Z-drugs used for sleep, have become stigmatized, as have the patients who use them and perhaps even the doctors who prescribe them. Still, there are circumstances where patients find these medications to be helpful, where other medications don’t work, or don’t work quickly enough. They provide fast relief in conditions where there are not always good alternatives.
In the Facebook group, “Psychiatry for All Physicians,” it’s not uncommon for physicians to ask what to do with older patients who are transferred to them on therapeutic doses of benzodiazepines or zolpidem. These are outpatients coming for routine care, and they find the medications helpful and don’t want to discontinue them. They have tried other medications that were not helpful. I’ve been surprised at how often the respondents insist the patient should be told he must taper off the medication. “Just say no,” is often the advice, and perhaps it’s more about the doctor’s discomfort than it is about the individual patient. For sleep issues, cognitive-behavioral therapy is given as the gold-standard treatment, while in my practice I have found it difficult to motivate patients to engage in it, and of those who do, it is sometimes helpful, but not a panacea. Severe anxiety and sleepless nights, however, are not benign conditions.
This “just say no, hold the line” sentiment has me wondering if our pendulum has swung too far with respect to prescribing benzodiazepines. Is this just one more issue that has become strongly polarized? Certainly the literature would support that idea, with some physicians writing about how benzodiazepines are underused, and others urging avoidance.
I posted a poll on Twitter: Has the anti-benzo movement gone too far? In addition, I started a Twitter thread of my own thoughts about prescribing and deprescribing these medications and will give a synopsis of those ideas here.
Clearly, benzodiazepines are harmful to some patients, they have side effects, can be difficult to stop because of withdrawal symptoms, and they carry the risk of addiction. That’s not in question. Many medications, however, have the potential to do more harm than good, for example ibuprofen can cause bleeding or renal problems, and Fosamax, used to treat osteoporosis, can cause osteonecrosis of the jaw and femur, to name just two.
It would be so much easier if we could know in advance who benzodiazepines will harm, just as it would be good if we could know in advance who will get tardive dyskinesia or dyslipidemia from antipsychotic medications, or who will have life-threatening adverse reactions from cancer chemotherapy with no tumor response. There are risks to both starting and stopping sedatives, and if we insist a patient stop a medication because of potential risk, then we are cutting them off from being a partner in their own care. It also creates an adversarial relationship that can be draining for the doctor and upsetting for the patient.
By definition, if someone needs hospitalization for a psychiatric condition, their outpatient benzodiazepine is not keeping them stable and stopping it may be a good idea. If someone is seen in an ED for a fall, it’s common to blame the benzodiazepine, but older people who are not on these medications also fall and have memory problems. In his book, “Being Mortal: Illness, Medicine, and What Matters Most in the End” (New York: Picador, 2014), Atul Gawande, MD, makes the point that taking more than four prescriptions medications increases the risk for falls in the elderly. Still, no one is suggesting patients be taken off their antidepressants, antihypertensives, or blood thinners.
Finally, the question is not should we be giving benzodiazepines out without careful consideration – the answer is clearly no. Physicians don’t pass out benzodiazepines “like candy” for all the above reasons. They are initiated because the patient is suffering and sometimes desperate. Anxiety, panic, intractable insomnia, and severe agitation are all miserable, and alternative treatments may take weeks to work, or not work at all. Yet these subjective symptoms may be dismissed by physicians.
So what do I do in my own practice? I don’t encourage patients to take potentially addictive medications, but I do sometimes use them. I give ‘as needed’ benzodiazepines to people in distress who don’t have a history of misusing them. I never plan to start them as a permanent standing medication, though once in a while that ends up happening. As with other medications, it is best to use the minimally effective dose.
There is some controversy as to whether it is best to use anxiety medications on an “as-needed” basis or as a standing dosage. Psychiatrists who prescribe benzodiazepines more liberally often feel it’s better to give standing doses and prevent breakthrough anxiety. Patients may appear to be ‘medication seeking’ not because they are addicted, but because the doses used are too low to adequately treat their anxiety.
My hope is that there is less risk of tolerance, dependence, or addiction with less-frequent dosing, and I prescribe as-needed benzodiazepines for panic attacks, agitated major depression while we wait for the antidepressant to “kick in,” insomnia during manic episodes, and to people who get very anxious in specific situations such as flying or for medical procedures. I sometimes prescribe them for people with insomnia that does not respond to other treatments, or for disabling generalized anxiety.
For patients who have taken benzodiazepines for many years, I continue to discuss the risks, but often they are not looking to fix something that isn’t broken, or to live a risk-free life. A few of the patients who have come to me on low standing doses of sedatives are now in their 80’s, yet they remain active, live independently, drive, travel, and have busy social lives. One could argue either that the medications are working, or that the patient has become dependent on them and needs them to prevent withdrawal.
These medications present a quandary: by denying patients treatment with benzodiazepines, we are sparing some people addictions (this is good, we should be careful), but we are leaving some people to suffer. There is no perfect answer.
What I do know is that doctors should think carefully and consider the patient in front of them. “No Benzos Ever For Anyone” or “you must come off because there is risk and people will think I am a bad doctor for prescribing them to you” can be done by a robot.
So, yes, I think the pendulum has swung a bit too far; there is a place for these medications in acute treatment for those at low risk of addiction, and there are people who benefit from them over the long run. At times, they provide immense relief to someone who is really struggling.
So what was the result of my Twitter poll? Of the 219 voters, 34.2% voted: “No, the pendulum has not swung too far, and these medications are harmful”; 65.8% voted: “Yes, these medications are helpful.” There were many comments expressing a wide variety of sentiments. Of those who had taken prescription benzodiazepines, some felt they had been harmed and wished they had never been started on them, and others continue to find them helpful. Psychiatrists, it seems, see them from the vantage point of the populations they treat.
People who are uncomfortable search for answers, and those answers may come in the form of meditation or exercise, medicines, or illicit drugs. It’s interesting that these same patients can now easily obtain “medical” marijuana, and the Rolling Stones’ “Mother’s Little Helper” is often replaced by a gin and tonic.
Dr. Dinah Miller is a coauthor of “Committed: The Battle Over Involuntary Psychiatric Care” (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2016). She has a private practice and is assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins in Baltimore. Dr. Miller has no conflicts of interest.
When benzodiazepines were first introduced, they were greeted with enthusiasm. Librium came first, in 1960, followed by Valium in 1962, and they were seen as an improvement over barbiturates for the treatment of anxiety, insomnia, and seizures. From 1968 to 1982, Valium (diazepam) was the No. 1–selling U.S. pharmaceutical: 2.3 billion tablets of Valium were sold in 1978 alone. Valium was even the subject of a 1966 Rolling Stones hit, “Mother’s Little Helper.”
By the 1980s, it became apparent that there was a downside to these medications: patients became tolerant, dependent, and some became addicted to the medications. In older patients an association was noted with falls and cognitive impairment. And while safe in overdoses when they are the only agent, combined with alcohol or opioids, benzodiazepines can be lethal and have played a significant role in the current overdose crisis.
Because of the problems that are associated with their use, benzodiazepines and their relatives, the Z-drugs used for sleep, have become stigmatized, as have the patients who use them and perhaps even the doctors who prescribe them. Still, there are circumstances where patients find these medications to be helpful, where other medications don’t work, or don’t work quickly enough. They provide fast relief in conditions where there are not always good alternatives.
In the Facebook group, “Psychiatry for All Physicians,” it’s not uncommon for physicians to ask what to do with older patients who are transferred to them on therapeutic doses of benzodiazepines or zolpidem. These are outpatients coming for routine care, and they find the medications helpful and don’t want to discontinue them. They have tried other medications that were not helpful. I’ve been surprised at how often the respondents insist the patient should be told he must taper off the medication. “Just say no,” is often the advice, and perhaps it’s more about the doctor’s discomfort than it is about the individual patient. For sleep issues, cognitive-behavioral therapy is given as the gold-standard treatment, while in my practice I have found it difficult to motivate patients to engage in it, and of those who do, it is sometimes helpful, but not a panacea. Severe anxiety and sleepless nights, however, are not benign conditions.
This “just say no, hold the line” sentiment has me wondering if our pendulum has swung too far with respect to prescribing benzodiazepines. Is this just one more issue that has become strongly polarized? Certainly the literature would support that idea, with some physicians writing about how benzodiazepines are underused, and others urging avoidance.
I posted a poll on Twitter: Has the anti-benzo movement gone too far? In addition, I started a Twitter thread of my own thoughts about prescribing and deprescribing these medications and will give a synopsis of those ideas here.
Clearly, benzodiazepines are harmful to some patients, they have side effects, can be difficult to stop because of withdrawal symptoms, and they carry the risk of addiction. That’s not in question. Many medications, however, have the potential to do more harm than good, for example ibuprofen can cause bleeding or renal problems, and Fosamax, used to treat osteoporosis, can cause osteonecrosis of the jaw and femur, to name just two.
It would be so much easier if we could know in advance who benzodiazepines will harm, just as it would be good if we could know in advance who will get tardive dyskinesia or dyslipidemia from antipsychotic medications, or who will have life-threatening adverse reactions from cancer chemotherapy with no tumor response. There are risks to both starting and stopping sedatives, and if we insist a patient stop a medication because of potential risk, then we are cutting them off from being a partner in their own care. It also creates an adversarial relationship that can be draining for the doctor and upsetting for the patient.
By definition, if someone needs hospitalization for a psychiatric condition, their outpatient benzodiazepine is not keeping them stable and stopping it may be a good idea. If someone is seen in an ED for a fall, it’s common to blame the benzodiazepine, but older people who are not on these medications also fall and have memory problems. In his book, “Being Mortal: Illness, Medicine, and What Matters Most in the End” (New York: Picador, 2014), Atul Gawande, MD, makes the point that taking more than four prescriptions medications increases the risk for falls in the elderly. Still, no one is suggesting patients be taken off their antidepressants, antihypertensives, or blood thinners.
Finally, the question is not should we be giving benzodiazepines out without careful consideration – the answer is clearly no. Physicians don’t pass out benzodiazepines “like candy” for all the above reasons. They are initiated because the patient is suffering and sometimes desperate. Anxiety, panic, intractable insomnia, and severe agitation are all miserable, and alternative treatments may take weeks to work, or not work at all. Yet these subjective symptoms may be dismissed by physicians.
So what do I do in my own practice? I don’t encourage patients to take potentially addictive medications, but I do sometimes use them. I give ‘as needed’ benzodiazepines to people in distress who don’t have a history of misusing them. I never plan to start them as a permanent standing medication, though once in a while that ends up happening. As with other medications, it is best to use the minimally effective dose.
There is some controversy as to whether it is best to use anxiety medications on an “as-needed” basis or as a standing dosage. Psychiatrists who prescribe benzodiazepines more liberally often feel it’s better to give standing doses and prevent breakthrough anxiety. Patients may appear to be ‘medication seeking’ not because they are addicted, but because the doses used are too low to adequately treat their anxiety.
My hope is that there is less risk of tolerance, dependence, or addiction with less-frequent dosing, and I prescribe as-needed benzodiazepines for panic attacks, agitated major depression while we wait for the antidepressant to “kick in,” insomnia during manic episodes, and to people who get very anxious in specific situations such as flying or for medical procedures. I sometimes prescribe them for people with insomnia that does not respond to other treatments, or for disabling generalized anxiety.
For patients who have taken benzodiazepines for many years, I continue to discuss the risks, but often they are not looking to fix something that isn’t broken, or to live a risk-free life. A few of the patients who have come to me on low standing doses of sedatives are now in their 80’s, yet they remain active, live independently, drive, travel, and have busy social lives. One could argue either that the medications are working, or that the patient has become dependent on them and needs them to prevent withdrawal.
These medications present a quandary: by denying patients treatment with benzodiazepines, we are sparing some people addictions (this is good, we should be careful), but we are leaving some people to suffer. There is no perfect answer.
What I do know is that doctors should think carefully and consider the patient in front of them. “No Benzos Ever For Anyone” or “you must come off because there is risk and people will think I am a bad doctor for prescribing them to you” can be done by a robot.
So, yes, I think the pendulum has swung a bit too far; there is a place for these medications in acute treatment for those at low risk of addiction, and there are people who benefit from them over the long run. At times, they provide immense relief to someone who is really struggling.
So what was the result of my Twitter poll? Of the 219 voters, 34.2% voted: “No, the pendulum has not swung too far, and these medications are harmful”; 65.8% voted: “Yes, these medications are helpful.” There were many comments expressing a wide variety of sentiments. Of those who had taken prescription benzodiazepines, some felt they had been harmed and wished they had never been started on them, and others continue to find them helpful. Psychiatrists, it seems, see them from the vantage point of the populations they treat.
People who are uncomfortable search for answers, and those answers may come in the form of meditation or exercise, medicines, or illicit drugs. It’s interesting that these same patients can now easily obtain “medical” marijuana, and the Rolling Stones’ “Mother’s Little Helper” is often replaced by a gin and tonic.
Dr. Dinah Miller is a coauthor of “Committed: The Battle Over Involuntary Psychiatric Care” (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2016). She has a private practice and is assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins in Baltimore. Dr. Miller has no conflicts of interest.
When benzodiazepines were first introduced, they were greeted with enthusiasm. Librium came first, in 1960, followed by Valium in 1962, and they were seen as an improvement over barbiturates for the treatment of anxiety, insomnia, and seizures. From 1968 to 1982, Valium (diazepam) was the No. 1–selling U.S. pharmaceutical: 2.3 billion tablets of Valium were sold in 1978 alone. Valium was even the subject of a 1966 Rolling Stones hit, “Mother’s Little Helper.”
By the 1980s, it became apparent that there was a downside to these medications: patients became tolerant, dependent, and some became addicted to the medications. In older patients an association was noted with falls and cognitive impairment. And while safe in overdoses when they are the only agent, combined with alcohol or opioids, benzodiazepines can be lethal and have played a significant role in the current overdose crisis.
Because of the problems that are associated with their use, benzodiazepines and their relatives, the Z-drugs used for sleep, have become stigmatized, as have the patients who use them and perhaps even the doctors who prescribe them. Still, there are circumstances where patients find these medications to be helpful, where other medications don’t work, or don’t work quickly enough. They provide fast relief in conditions where there are not always good alternatives.
In the Facebook group, “Psychiatry for All Physicians,” it’s not uncommon for physicians to ask what to do with older patients who are transferred to them on therapeutic doses of benzodiazepines or zolpidem. These are outpatients coming for routine care, and they find the medications helpful and don’t want to discontinue them. They have tried other medications that were not helpful. I’ve been surprised at how often the respondents insist the patient should be told he must taper off the medication. “Just say no,” is often the advice, and perhaps it’s more about the doctor’s discomfort than it is about the individual patient. For sleep issues, cognitive-behavioral therapy is given as the gold-standard treatment, while in my practice I have found it difficult to motivate patients to engage in it, and of those who do, it is sometimes helpful, but not a panacea. Severe anxiety and sleepless nights, however, are not benign conditions.
This “just say no, hold the line” sentiment has me wondering if our pendulum has swung too far with respect to prescribing benzodiazepines. Is this just one more issue that has become strongly polarized? Certainly the literature would support that idea, with some physicians writing about how benzodiazepines are underused, and others urging avoidance.
I posted a poll on Twitter: Has the anti-benzo movement gone too far? In addition, I started a Twitter thread of my own thoughts about prescribing and deprescribing these medications and will give a synopsis of those ideas here.
Clearly, benzodiazepines are harmful to some patients, they have side effects, can be difficult to stop because of withdrawal symptoms, and they carry the risk of addiction. That’s not in question. Many medications, however, have the potential to do more harm than good, for example ibuprofen can cause bleeding or renal problems, and Fosamax, used to treat osteoporosis, can cause osteonecrosis of the jaw and femur, to name just two.
It would be so much easier if we could know in advance who benzodiazepines will harm, just as it would be good if we could know in advance who will get tardive dyskinesia or dyslipidemia from antipsychotic medications, or who will have life-threatening adverse reactions from cancer chemotherapy with no tumor response. There are risks to both starting and stopping sedatives, and if we insist a patient stop a medication because of potential risk, then we are cutting them off from being a partner in their own care. It also creates an adversarial relationship that can be draining for the doctor and upsetting for the patient.
By definition, if someone needs hospitalization for a psychiatric condition, their outpatient benzodiazepine is not keeping them stable and stopping it may be a good idea. If someone is seen in an ED for a fall, it’s common to blame the benzodiazepine, but older people who are not on these medications also fall and have memory problems. In his book, “Being Mortal: Illness, Medicine, and What Matters Most in the End” (New York: Picador, 2014), Atul Gawande, MD, makes the point that taking more than four prescriptions medications increases the risk for falls in the elderly. Still, no one is suggesting patients be taken off their antidepressants, antihypertensives, or blood thinners.
Finally, the question is not should we be giving benzodiazepines out without careful consideration – the answer is clearly no. Physicians don’t pass out benzodiazepines “like candy” for all the above reasons. They are initiated because the patient is suffering and sometimes desperate. Anxiety, panic, intractable insomnia, and severe agitation are all miserable, and alternative treatments may take weeks to work, or not work at all. Yet these subjective symptoms may be dismissed by physicians.
So what do I do in my own practice? I don’t encourage patients to take potentially addictive medications, but I do sometimes use them. I give ‘as needed’ benzodiazepines to people in distress who don’t have a history of misusing them. I never plan to start them as a permanent standing medication, though once in a while that ends up happening. As with other medications, it is best to use the minimally effective dose.
There is some controversy as to whether it is best to use anxiety medications on an “as-needed” basis or as a standing dosage. Psychiatrists who prescribe benzodiazepines more liberally often feel it’s better to give standing doses and prevent breakthrough anxiety. Patients may appear to be ‘medication seeking’ not because they are addicted, but because the doses used are too low to adequately treat their anxiety.
My hope is that there is less risk of tolerance, dependence, or addiction with less-frequent dosing, and I prescribe as-needed benzodiazepines for panic attacks, agitated major depression while we wait for the antidepressant to “kick in,” insomnia during manic episodes, and to people who get very anxious in specific situations such as flying or for medical procedures. I sometimes prescribe them for people with insomnia that does not respond to other treatments, or for disabling generalized anxiety.
For patients who have taken benzodiazepines for many years, I continue to discuss the risks, but often they are not looking to fix something that isn’t broken, or to live a risk-free life. A few of the patients who have come to me on low standing doses of sedatives are now in their 80’s, yet they remain active, live independently, drive, travel, and have busy social lives. One could argue either that the medications are working, or that the patient has become dependent on them and needs them to prevent withdrawal.
These medications present a quandary: by denying patients treatment with benzodiazepines, we are sparing some people addictions (this is good, we should be careful), but we are leaving some people to suffer. There is no perfect answer.
What I do know is that doctors should think carefully and consider the patient in front of them. “No Benzos Ever For Anyone” or “you must come off because there is risk and people will think I am a bad doctor for prescribing them to you” can be done by a robot.
So, yes, I think the pendulum has swung a bit too far; there is a place for these medications in acute treatment for those at low risk of addiction, and there are people who benefit from them over the long run. At times, they provide immense relief to someone who is really struggling.
So what was the result of my Twitter poll? Of the 219 voters, 34.2% voted: “No, the pendulum has not swung too far, and these medications are harmful”; 65.8% voted: “Yes, these medications are helpful.” There were many comments expressing a wide variety of sentiments. Of those who had taken prescription benzodiazepines, some felt they had been harmed and wished they had never been started on them, and others continue to find them helpful. Psychiatrists, it seems, see them from the vantage point of the populations they treat.
People who are uncomfortable search for answers, and those answers may come in the form of meditation or exercise, medicines, or illicit drugs. It’s interesting that these same patients can now easily obtain “medical” marijuana, and the Rolling Stones’ “Mother’s Little Helper” is often replaced by a gin and tonic.
Dr. Dinah Miller is a coauthor of “Committed: The Battle Over Involuntary Psychiatric Care” (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2016). She has a private practice and is assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins in Baltimore. Dr. Miller has no conflicts of interest.
What can be new about developmental milestones?
The American Academy of Pediatrics, with funding from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, studied the CDC’s “Learn the Signs. Act Early” developmental surveillance milestones for children 0-5 years to update the milestones based on published studies. The goal was to improve this tool for developmental surveillance and use by the public. Developmental surveillance is not just observing a child at a check-up but rather “is a longitudinal process that involves eliciting concerns, taking a developmental history based on milestone attainment, observing milestones and other behaviors, examining the child, and applying clinical judgment during health supervision visits (HSVs).”1
While the milestones we were trained on were a good start and highlighted the developmental progression central to pediatrics, they were not based on norms or cut scores indicating significant developmental risk unless taught from a validated tool. The CDC was concerned that their public handouts and apps were based on median ages (middle number of the entire range) of attainment not the mode (most common) or even average ages. That means that about half of all typically developing children would “not have attained” that skill at the age noted, potentially evoking unnecessary concern for parents and a “wait-and-see” message from a knowledgeable provider who realized the statistical meaning and the broad range of normal. Another potential problem with using milestones set at the median age is that parents, especially those with several children or experienced friends, may see the provider as an alarmist when they have seen great variation in children who later were normal. This reaction can dampen provider willingness to discuss development or even to screen with validated tools. We have learned the hard way from COVID-19 that it is difficult to convey concepts of risk effectively both balancing fear and stimulating action.
The AAP experts reviewed the English literature for data-based milestones, finding 34 articles, 10 of which had an opinion for at least one milestone. If this sounds like a very small number, you are correct. You may not realize that almost all screening and diagnostic tools have been based on data collected by Gesell in 1928!2 While most of health care has changed since then, which milestones are measured in infants has not.
The biggest change from this review was deciding to use as milestones skills reported for 75% of children at each age of typical HSVs, adding ones for 15 and 30 months. The implication is that children not attaining these milestones are all at risk and deserving of more careful history, examination, and administration of a validated screening tool; not true when based on median data. Of the 94 existing CDC milestones retained after the review, one-third were moved to a different age with 21 of 31 assigned to an older age. Domains of functioning for the milestones were consolidated into social emotional, cognitive, language/communication, and motor, to help parents learn to distinguish these areas, and, although many milestones reflect several domains, each was included only once to reduce confusion.
Psychosocial assessment is recommended by the AAP and Bright Futures at every HSV but the fewest milestones with normative data were identified for this domain, often self-help rather than social engagement or emotion regulation skills. The cross-cultural study cited for many of the new milestones was reassuring overall in that the median ages for 67%-88% of milestones in most domains were equivalent across the four countries sampled, but only 22% of self-help skills were equivalent.3 This should remind us that parenting has more influence over psychosocial skills than other domains. Psychosocial and behavioral functioning, especially emotional regulation, also deserve “surveillance” as they have enormous impact on life outcomes but need to be measured and supported differently. Routine use of validated tools such as the Early Childhood Screening Assessment or the Ages & Stages Questionnaires: Social-Emotional for these domains are also needed.
Normal variations in temperament and patterns of attachment can affect many milestones including courage for walking, exploration, social engagement, and prosocial behaviors or self-control for social situations, attention, range of affect, and cooperation. All of these skills are among the 42 total (14 new) social-emotional milestones for 0- to 5-year-olds. Variations in these functions are at the root of the most common “challenging behaviors” in our studies in primary care. They are also the most vulnerable to suboptimal parent-child relationships, adverse childhood experiences, and social determinants of health.
As primary care providers, we not only need to detect children at risk for developmental problems but also promote and celebrate developmental progress. I hope that changing the threshold for concern to 75% will allow for a more positive review with the family (as fewer will be flagged as at risk) and chance to congratulate parents on all that is going well. But I also hope the change will not make us overlook parenting challenges, often from the psychosocial milestones most amenable to our guidance and support.
Early identification is mainly important to obtain the early intervention shown to improve outcomes. However, less than 25% of children with delays or disabilities receive early intervention before age 3 and most with emotional, behavioral, and developmental conditions, other than autism spectrum disorder, not before age 5. Since early intervention services are freely available in all states, we also need to do better at getting children to this care.
Let’s reconsider the process of developmental surveillance in this light of delayed referral: “Eliciting concerns” is key as parents have been shown to be usually correct in their worries. Listening to how they express the concerns can help you connect their specific issues when discussing reasons for referral. While most parent “recall of past milestones” is not accurate, current milestones reported are; thus, the need to have the new more accurate norms for all ages for comparison. When we make observations of a child’s abilities and behaviors ourselves we may not only pick up on issues missed by the parent, but will be more convincing in conveying the need for referral when indicated. When we “examine” the child we can use our professional skills to determine the very important risk factor of the quality of how a skill is performed, not just that it is. The recommended “use of validated screening tools” when the new milestones are not met give us an objective tool to share with parents, more confidence in when referral is warranted, which we will convey to parents (and perhaps skeptical relatives), and baseline documentation from which we can “track” referrals, progress, and, hopefully, better outcomes.
Dr. Howard is assistant professor of pediatrics at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and creator of CHADIS. She had no other relevant disclosures. Dr. Howard’s contribution to this publication was as a paid expert to MDedge News. Email her at pdnews@mdedge.com.
References
1. Zubler JM et al. Pediatrics. 2022;149(3):e2021052138.
2. Gessell A et al. Macmillan: New York, 1928.
3. Ertem IO et al. Lancet Glob Health. 2018 Mar;6(3):e279-91.
The American Academy of Pediatrics, with funding from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, studied the CDC’s “Learn the Signs. Act Early” developmental surveillance milestones for children 0-5 years to update the milestones based on published studies. The goal was to improve this tool for developmental surveillance and use by the public. Developmental surveillance is not just observing a child at a check-up but rather “is a longitudinal process that involves eliciting concerns, taking a developmental history based on milestone attainment, observing milestones and other behaviors, examining the child, and applying clinical judgment during health supervision visits (HSVs).”1
While the milestones we were trained on were a good start and highlighted the developmental progression central to pediatrics, they were not based on norms or cut scores indicating significant developmental risk unless taught from a validated tool. The CDC was concerned that their public handouts and apps were based on median ages (middle number of the entire range) of attainment not the mode (most common) or even average ages. That means that about half of all typically developing children would “not have attained” that skill at the age noted, potentially evoking unnecessary concern for parents and a “wait-and-see” message from a knowledgeable provider who realized the statistical meaning and the broad range of normal. Another potential problem with using milestones set at the median age is that parents, especially those with several children or experienced friends, may see the provider as an alarmist when they have seen great variation in children who later were normal. This reaction can dampen provider willingness to discuss development or even to screen with validated tools. We have learned the hard way from COVID-19 that it is difficult to convey concepts of risk effectively both balancing fear and stimulating action.
The AAP experts reviewed the English literature for data-based milestones, finding 34 articles, 10 of which had an opinion for at least one milestone. If this sounds like a very small number, you are correct. You may not realize that almost all screening and diagnostic tools have been based on data collected by Gesell in 1928!2 While most of health care has changed since then, which milestones are measured in infants has not.
The biggest change from this review was deciding to use as milestones skills reported for 75% of children at each age of typical HSVs, adding ones for 15 and 30 months. The implication is that children not attaining these milestones are all at risk and deserving of more careful history, examination, and administration of a validated screening tool; not true when based on median data. Of the 94 existing CDC milestones retained after the review, one-third were moved to a different age with 21 of 31 assigned to an older age. Domains of functioning for the milestones were consolidated into social emotional, cognitive, language/communication, and motor, to help parents learn to distinguish these areas, and, although many milestones reflect several domains, each was included only once to reduce confusion.
Psychosocial assessment is recommended by the AAP and Bright Futures at every HSV but the fewest milestones with normative data were identified for this domain, often self-help rather than social engagement or emotion regulation skills. The cross-cultural study cited for many of the new milestones was reassuring overall in that the median ages for 67%-88% of milestones in most domains were equivalent across the four countries sampled, but only 22% of self-help skills were equivalent.3 This should remind us that parenting has more influence over psychosocial skills than other domains. Psychosocial and behavioral functioning, especially emotional regulation, also deserve “surveillance” as they have enormous impact on life outcomes but need to be measured and supported differently. Routine use of validated tools such as the Early Childhood Screening Assessment or the Ages & Stages Questionnaires: Social-Emotional for these domains are also needed.
Normal variations in temperament and patterns of attachment can affect many milestones including courage for walking, exploration, social engagement, and prosocial behaviors or self-control for social situations, attention, range of affect, and cooperation. All of these skills are among the 42 total (14 new) social-emotional milestones for 0- to 5-year-olds. Variations in these functions are at the root of the most common “challenging behaviors” in our studies in primary care. They are also the most vulnerable to suboptimal parent-child relationships, adverse childhood experiences, and social determinants of health.
As primary care providers, we not only need to detect children at risk for developmental problems but also promote and celebrate developmental progress. I hope that changing the threshold for concern to 75% will allow for a more positive review with the family (as fewer will be flagged as at risk) and chance to congratulate parents on all that is going well. But I also hope the change will not make us overlook parenting challenges, often from the psychosocial milestones most amenable to our guidance and support.
Early identification is mainly important to obtain the early intervention shown to improve outcomes. However, less than 25% of children with delays or disabilities receive early intervention before age 3 and most with emotional, behavioral, and developmental conditions, other than autism spectrum disorder, not before age 5. Since early intervention services are freely available in all states, we also need to do better at getting children to this care.
Let’s reconsider the process of developmental surveillance in this light of delayed referral: “Eliciting concerns” is key as parents have been shown to be usually correct in their worries. Listening to how they express the concerns can help you connect their specific issues when discussing reasons for referral. While most parent “recall of past milestones” is not accurate, current milestones reported are; thus, the need to have the new more accurate norms for all ages for comparison. When we make observations of a child’s abilities and behaviors ourselves we may not only pick up on issues missed by the parent, but will be more convincing in conveying the need for referral when indicated. When we “examine” the child we can use our professional skills to determine the very important risk factor of the quality of how a skill is performed, not just that it is. The recommended “use of validated screening tools” when the new milestones are not met give us an objective tool to share with parents, more confidence in when referral is warranted, which we will convey to parents (and perhaps skeptical relatives), and baseline documentation from which we can “track” referrals, progress, and, hopefully, better outcomes.
Dr. Howard is assistant professor of pediatrics at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and creator of CHADIS. She had no other relevant disclosures. Dr. Howard’s contribution to this publication was as a paid expert to MDedge News. Email her at pdnews@mdedge.com.
References
1. Zubler JM et al. Pediatrics. 2022;149(3):e2021052138.
2. Gessell A et al. Macmillan: New York, 1928.
3. Ertem IO et al. Lancet Glob Health. 2018 Mar;6(3):e279-91.
The American Academy of Pediatrics, with funding from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, studied the CDC’s “Learn the Signs. Act Early” developmental surveillance milestones for children 0-5 years to update the milestones based on published studies. The goal was to improve this tool for developmental surveillance and use by the public. Developmental surveillance is not just observing a child at a check-up but rather “is a longitudinal process that involves eliciting concerns, taking a developmental history based on milestone attainment, observing milestones and other behaviors, examining the child, and applying clinical judgment during health supervision visits (HSVs).”1
While the milestones we were trained on were a good start and highlighted the developmental progression central to pediatrics, they were not based on norms or cut scores indicating significant developmental risk unless taught from a validated tool. The CDC was concerned that their public handouts and apps were based on median ages (middle number of the entire range) of attainment not the mode (most common) or even average ages. That means that about half of all typically developing children would “not have attained” that skill at the age noted, potentially evoking unnecessary concern for parents and a “wait-and-see” message from a knowledgeable provider who realized the statistical meaning and the broad range of normal. Another potential problem with using milestones set at the median age is that parents, especially those with several children or experienced friends, may see the provider as an alarmist when they have seen great variation in children who later were normal. This reaction can dampen provider willingness to discuss development or even to screen with validated tools. We have learned the hard way from COVID-19 that it is difficult to convey concepts of risk effectively both balancing fear and stimulating action.
The AAP experts reviewed the English literature for data-based milestones, finding 34 articles, 10 of which had an opinion for at least one milestone. If this sounds like a very small number, you are correct. You may not realize that almost all screening and diagnostic tools have been based on data collected by Gesell in 1928!2 While most of health care has changed since then, which milestones are measured in infants has not.
The biggest change from this review was deciding to use as milestones skills reported for 75% of children at each age of typical HSVs, adding ones for 15 and 30 months. The implication is that children not attaining these milestones are all at risk and deserving of more careful history, examination, and administration of a validated screening tool; not true when based on median data. Of the 94 existing CDC milestones retained after the review, one-third were moved to a different age with 21 of 31 assigned to an older age. Domains of functioning for the milestones were consolidated into social emotional, cognitive, language/communication, and motor, to help parents learn to distinguish these areas, and, although many milestones reflect several domains, each was included only once to reduce confusion.
Psychosocial assessment is recommended by the AAP and Bright Futures at every HSV but the fewest milestones with normative data were identified for this domain, often self-help rather than social engagement or emotion regulation skills. The cross-cultural study cited for many of the new milestones was reassuring overall in that the median ages for 67%-88% of milestones in most domains were equivalent across the four countries sampled, but only 22% of self-help skills were equivalent.3 This should remind us that parenting has more influence over psychosocial skills than other domains. Psychosocial and behavioral functioning, especially emotional regulation, also deserve “surveillance” as they have enormous impact on life outcomes but need to be measured and supported differently. Routine use of validated tools such as the Early Childhood Screening Assessment or the Ages & Stages Questionnaires: Social-Emotional for these domains are also needed.
Normal variations in temperament and patterns of attachment can affect many milestones including courage for walking, exploration, social engagement, and prosocial behaviors or self-control for social situations, attention, range of affect, and cooperation. All of these skills are among the 42 total (14 new) social-emotional milestones for 0- to 5-year-olds. Variations in these functions are at the root of the most common “challenging behaviors” in our studies in primary care. They are also the most vulnerable to suboptimal parent-child relationships, adverse childhood experiences, and social determinants of health.
As primary care providers, we not only need to detect children at risk for developmental problems but also promote and celebrate developmental progress. I hope that changing the threshold for concern to 75% will allow for a more positive review with the family (as fewer will be flagged as at risk) and chance to congratulate parents on all that is going well. But I also hope the change will not make us overlook parenting challenges, often from the psychosocial milestones most amenable to our guidance and support.
Early identification is mainly important to obtain the early intervention shown to improve outcomes. However, less than 25% of children with delays or disabilities receive early intervention before age 3 and most with emotional, behavioral, and developmental conditions, other than autism spectrum disorder, not before age 5. Since early intervention services are freely available in all states, we also need to do better at getting children to this care.
Let’s reconsider the process of developmental surveillance in this light of delayed referral: “Eliciting concerns” is key as parents have been shown to be usually correct in their worries. Listening to how they express the concerns can help you connect their specific issues when discussing reasons for referral. While most parent “recall of past milestones” is not accurate, current milestones reported are; thus, the need to have the new more accurate norms for all ages for comparison. When we make observations of a child’s abilities and behaviors ourselves we may not only pick up on issues missed by the parent, but will be more convincing in conveying the need for referral when indicated. When we “examine” the child we can use our professional skills to determine the very important risk factor of the quality of how a skill is performed, not just that it is. The recommended “use of validated screening tools” when the new milestones are not met give us an objective tool to share with parents, more confidence in when referral is warranted, which we will convey to parents (and perhaps skeptical relatives), and baseline documentation from which we can “track” referrals, progress, and, hopefully, better outcomes.
Dr. Howard is assistant professor of pediatrics at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and creator of CHADIS. She had no other relevant disclosures. Dr. Howard’s contribution to this publication was as a paid expert to MDedge News. Email her at pdnews@mdedge.com.
References
1. Zubler JM et al. Pediatrics. 2022;149(3):e2021052138.
2. Gessell A et al. Macmillan: New York, 1928.
3. Ertem IO et al. Lancet Glob Health. 2018 Mar;6(3):e279-91.
Transgender youth: Bringing evidence to the political debates
In 2021, state lawmakers introduced a record number of bills that would affect transgender and gender-diverse people. The vast majority were focused on transgender and gender-diverse youth in particular. We’ve seen bills that would take away gender-affirming medical care for minors, ones that would force trans kids to play on sports teams that don’t match their gender identity, and others that would ban trans kids from public facilities like bathrooms that match their gender identities.
These bills aren’t particularly new, but state lawmakers are putting more energy into them than ever. In response, some public figures have started pushing back. Ariana Grande just pledged to match up to 1.5 million dollars in donations to combat anti–trans youth legislative initiatives. However, doctors have been underrepresented in the political discourse.
Sadly, much of the discussion in this area has been driven by wild speculation and emotional rhetoric. It’s rare that we see actual data brought to the table. As clinicians and scientists, we have a responsibility to highlight the data relevant to these legislative debates, and to share them with our representatives. I’m going to break down what we know quantitatively about each of these issues, so that you’ll feel empowered to bring that information to these debates. My hope is that we can move toward evidence-based public policy instead of rhetoric-based public policy, so that we can ensure the best health possible for young people around the country.
Bathroom bills
Though they’ve been less of a focus recently, politicians for years have argued that trans people should be forced to use bathrooms and other public facilities that match their sex assigned at birth, not their gender identity. Their central argument is that trans-inclusive public facility policies will result in higher rates of assault. Published peer-review data show this isn’t true. A 2019 study in Sexuality Research and Social Policy examined the impacts of trans-inclusive public facility policies and found they resulted in no increase in assaults among the general (mostly cisgender) population. Another 2019 study in Pediatrics found that trans-inclusive facility policies were associated with lower odds of sexual assault victimization against transgender youth. The myth that trans-inclusive public facilities increase assault risk is simply that: a myth. All existing data indicate that trans-inclusive policies will improve public safety.
Sports bills
One of the hottest debates recently involves whether transgender girls should be allowed to participate in girls’ sports teams. Those in favor of these bills argue that transgender girls have an innate biological sports advantage over cisgender girls, and if allowed to compete in girls’ sports leagues, they will dominate the events, and cisgender girls will no longer win sports titles. The bills feed into longstanding assumptions – those who were assigned male at birth are strong, and those who were assigned female at birth are weak.
But evidence doesn’t show that trans women dominate female sports leagues. It turns out, there are shockingly few transgender athletes competing in sports leagues around the United States, and even fewer winning major titles. When the Associated Press conducted an investigation asking lawmakers introducing such sports bills to name trans athletes in their states, most couldn’t point to a single one. After Utah state legislators passed a trans sports ban, Governor Spencer Cox vetoed it, pointing out that, of 75,000 high school kids participating in sports in Utah, there was only a single transgender girl (the state legislature overrode the veto anyway).
California has explicitly protected the rights of trans athletes to compete on sports teams that match their gender identity since 2013. There’s still an underrepresentation of trans athletes in sports participation and titles. This is likely because the deck is stacked against these young people in so many other ways that are unrelated to testosterone levels. Trans youth suffer from high rates of harassment, discrimination, and subsequent anxiety and depression that make it difficult to compete in and excel in sports.
Medical bills
State legislators have introduced bills around the country that would criminalize the provision of gender-affirming medical care for transgender youth. Though such bills are opposed by all major medical organizations (including the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, and the American Psychiatric Association), misinformation continues to spread, and in some instances the bills have become law (though none are currently active due to legal challenges).
Clinicians should be aware that there have been sixteen studies to date, each with unique study designs, that have overall linked gender-affirming medical care for transgender youth to better mental health outcomes. While these interventions do (as with all medications) carry some risks (like delayed bone mineralization with pubertal suppression), the risks must be weighed against potential benefits. Unfortunately, these risks and benefits have not been accurately portrayed in state legislative debates. Politicians have spread a great deal of misinformation about gender-affirming medical care for transgender youth, including false assertions that puberty blockers cause infertility and that most transgender adolescents will grow up to identify as cisgender and regret gender-affirming medical interventions.
Minority stress
These bills have direct consequences for pediatric patients. For example, trans-inclusive bathroom policies are associated with lower rates of sexual assault. However, there are also important indirect effects to consider. The gender minority stress framework explains the ways in which stigmatizing national discourse drives higher rates of anxiety, depression, and suicidality among transgender youth. Under this model, so-called “distal factors” like the recent conversations at the national level that marginalize trans young people, are expected to drive higher rates of adverse mental health outcomes. As transgender youth hear high-profile politicians argue that they’re dangerous to their peers in bathrooms and on sports teams, it’s difficult to imagine their mental health would not worsen. Over time, such “distal factors” also lead to “proximal factors” like internalized transphobia in which youth begin to believe the negative things that are said about them. These dangerous processes can have dramatic negative impacts on self-esteem and emotional development. There is strong precedence that public policies have strong indirect mental health effects on LGBTQ youth.
We’ve entered a dangerous era in which politicians are legislating medical care and other aspects of public policy with the potential to hurt the mental health of our young patients. It’s imperative that clinicians and scientists contact their legislators to make sure they are voting for public policy based on data and fact, not misinformation and political rhetoric. The health of American children depends on it.
Dr. Turban (twitter.com/jack_turban) is a chief fellow in child and adolescent psychiatry at Stanford (Calif.) University.
In 2021, state lawmakers introduced a record number of bills that would affect transgender and gender-diverse people. The vast majority were focused on transgender and gender-diverse youth in particular. We’ve seen bills that would take away gender-affirming medical care for minors, ones that would force trans kids to play on sports teams that don’t match their gender identity, and others that would ban trans kids from public facilities like bathrooms that match their gender identities.
These bills aren’t particularly new, but state lawmakers are putting more energy into them than ever. In response, some public figures have started pushing back. Ariana Grande just pledged to match up to 1.5 million dollars in donations to combat anti–trans youth legislative initiatives. However, doctors have been underrepresented in the political discourse.
Sadly, much of the discussion in this area has been driven by wild speculation and emotional rhetoric. It’s rare that we see actual data brought to the table. As clinicians and scientists, we have a responsibility to highlight the data relevant to these legislative debates, and to share them with our representatives. I’m going to break down what we know quantitatively about each of these issues, so that you’ll feel empowered to bring that information to these debates. My hope is that we can move toward evidence-based public policy instead of rhetoric-based public policy, so that we can ensure the best health possible for young people around the country.
Bathroom bills
Though they’ve been less of a focus recently, politicians for years have argued that trans people should be forced to use bathrooms and other public facilities that match their sex assigned at birth, not their gender identity. Their central argument is that trans-inclusive public facility policies will result in higher rates of assault. Published peer-review data show this isn’t true. A 2019 study in Sexuality Research and Social Policy examined the impacts of trans-inclusive public facility policies and found they resulted in no increase in assaults among the general (mostly cisgender) population. Another 2019 study in Pediatrics found that trans-inclusive facility policies were associated with lower odds of sexual assault victimization against transgender youth. The myth that trans-inclusive public facilities increase assault risk is simply that: a myth. All existing data indicate that trans-inclusive policies will improve public safety.
Sports bills
One of the hottest debates recently involves whether transgender girls should be allowed to participate in girls’ sports teams. Those in favor of these bills argue that transgender girls have an innate biological sports advantage over cisgender girls, and if allowed to compete in girls’ sports leagues, they will dominate the events, and cisgender girls will no longer win sports titles. The bills feed into longstanding assumptions – those who were assigned male at birth are strong, and those who were assigned female at birth are weak.
But evidence doesn’t show that trans women dominate female sports leagues. It turns out, there are shockingly few transgender athletes competing in sports leagues around the United States, and even fewer winning major titles. When the Associated Press conducted an investigation asking lawmakers introducing such sports bills to name trans athletes in their states, most couldn’t point to a single one. After Utah state legislators passed a trans sports ban, Governor Spencer Cox vetoed it, pointing out that, of 75,000 high school kids participating in sports in Utah, there was only a single transgender girl (the state legislature overrode the veto anyway).
California has explicitly protected the rights of trans athletes to compete on sports teams that match their gender identity since 2013. There’s still an underrepresentation of trans athletes in sports participation and titles. This is likely because the deck is stacked against these young people in so many other ways that are unrelated to testosterone levels. Trans youth suffer from high rates of harassment, discrimination, and subsequent anxiety and depression that make it difficult to compete in and excel in sports.
Medical bills
State legislators have introduced bills around the country that would criminalize the provision of gender-affirming medical care for transgender youth. Though such bills are opposed by all major medical organizations (including the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, and the American Psychiatric Association), misinformation continues to spread, and in some instances the bills have become law (though none are currently active due to legal challenges).
Clinicians should be aware that there have been sixteen studies to date, each with unique study designs, that have overall linked gender-affirming medical care for transgender youth to better mental health outcomes. While these interventions do (as with all medications) carry some risks (like delayed bone mineralization with pubertal suppression), the risks must be weighed against potential benefits. Unfortunately, these risks and benefits have not been accurately portrayed in state legislative debates. Politicians have spread a great deal of misinformation about gender-affirming medical care for transgender youth, including false assertions that puberty blockers cause infertility and that most transgender adolescents will grow up to identify as cisgender and regret gender-affirming medical interventions.
Minority stress
These bills have direct consequences for pediatric patients. For example, trans-inclusive bathroom policies are associated with lower rates of sexual assault. However, there are also important indirect effects to consider. The gender minority stress framework explains the ways in which stigmatizing national discourse drives higher rates of anxiety, depression, and suicidality among transgender youth. Under this model, so-called “distal factors” like the recent conversations at the national level that marginalize trans young people, are expected to drive higher rates of adverse mental health outcomes. As transgender youth hear high-profile politicians argue that they’re dangerous to their peers in bathrooms and on sports teams, it’s difficult to imagine their mental health would not worsen. Over time, such “distal factors” also lead to “proximal factors” like internalized transphobia in which youth begin to believe the negative things that are said about them. These dangerous processes can have dramatic negative impacts on self-esteem and emotional development. There is strong precedence that public policies have strong indirect mental health effects on LGBTQ youth.
We’ve entered a dangerous era in which politicians are legislating medical care and other aspects of public policy with the potential to hurt the mental health of our young patients. It’s imperative that clinicians and scientists contact their legislators to make sure they are voting for public policy based on data and fact, not misinformation and political rhetoric. The health of American children depends on it.
Dr. Turban (twitter.com/jack_turban) is a chief fellow in child and adolescent psychiatry at Stanford (Calif.) University.
In 2021, state lawmakers introduced a record number of bills that would affect transgender and gender-diverse people. The vast majority were focused on transgender and gender-diverse youth in particular. We’ve seen bills that would take away gender-affirming medical care for minors, ones that would force trans kids to play on sports teams that don’t match their gender identity, and others that would ban trans kids from public facilities like bathrooms that match their gender identities.
These bills aren’t particularly new, but state lawmakers are putting more energy into them than ever. In response, some public figures have started pushing back. Ariana Grande just pledged to match up to 1.5 million dollars in donations to combat anti–trans youth legislative initiatives. However, doctors have been underrepresented in the political discourse.
Sadly, much of the discussion in this area has been driven by wild speculation and emotional rhetoric. It’s rare that we see actual data brought to the table. As clinicians and scientists, we have a responsibility to highlight the data relevant to these legislative debates, and to share them with our representatives. I’m going to break down what we know quantitatively about each of these issues, so that you’ll feel empowered to bring that information to these debates. My hope is that we can move toward evidence-based public policy instead of rhetoric-based public policy, so that we can ensure the best health possible for young people around the country.
Bathroom bills
Though they’ve been less of a focus recently, politicians for years have argued that trans people should be forced to use bathrooms and other public facilities that match their sex assigned at birth, not their gender identity. Their central argument is that trans-inclusive public facility policies will result in higher rates of assault. Published peer-review data show this isn’t true. A 2019 study in Sexuality Research and Social Policy examined the impacts of trans-inclusive public facility policies and found they resulted in no increase in assaults among the general (mostly cisgender) population. Another 2019 study in Pediatrics found that trans-inclusive facility policies were associated with lower odds of sexual assault victimization against transgender youth. The myth that trans-inclusive public facilities increase assault risk is simply that: a myth. All existing data indicate that trans-inclusive policies will improve public safety.
Sports bills
One of the hottest debates recently involves whether transgender girls should be allowed to participate in girls’ sports teams. Those in favor of these bills argue that transgender girls have an innate biological sports advantage over cisgender girls, and if allowed to compete in girls’ sports leagues, they will dominate the events, and cisgender girls will no longer win sports titles. The bills feed into longstanding assumptions – those who were assigned male at birth are strong, and those who were assigned female at birth are weak.
But evidence doesn’t show that trans women dominate female sports leagues. It turns out, there are shockingly few transgender athletes competing in sports leagues around the United States, and even fewer winning major titles. When the Associated Press conducted an investigation asking lawmakers introducing such sports bills to name trans athletes in their states, most couldn’t point to a single one. After Utah state legislators passed a trans sports ban, Governor Spencer Cox vetoed it, pointing out that, of 75,000 high school kids participating in sports in Utah, there was only a single transgender girl (the state legislature overrode the veto anyway).
California has explicitly protected the rights of trans athletes to compete on sports teams that match their gender identity since 2013. There’s still an underrepresentation of trans athletes in sports participation and titles. This is likely because the deck is stacked against these young people in so many other ways that are unrelated to testosterone levels. Trans youth suffer from high rates of harassment, discrimination, and subsequent anxiety and depression that make it difficult to compete in and excel in sports.
Medical bills
State legislators have introduced bills around the country that would criminalize the provision of gender-affirming medical care for transgender youth. Though such bills are opposed by all major medical organizations (including the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, and the American Psychiatric Association), misinformation continues to spread, and in some instances the bills have become law (though none are currently active due to legal challenges).
Clinicians should be aware that there have been sixteen studies to date, each with unique study designs, that have overall linked gender-affirming medical care for transgender youth to better mental health outcomes. While these interventions do (as with all medications) carry some risks (like delayed bone mineralization with pubertal suppression), the risks must be weighed against potential benefits. Unfortunately, these risks and benefits have not been accurately portrayed in state legislative debates. Politicians have spread a great deal of misinformation about gender-affirming medical care for transgender youth, including false assertions that puberty blockers cause infertility and that most transgender adolescents will grow up to identify as cisgender and regret gender-affirming medical interventions.
Minority stress
These bills have direct consequences for pediatric patients. For example, trans-inclusive bathroom policies are associated with lower rates of sexual assault. However, there are also important indirect effects to consider. The gender minority stress framework explains the ways in which stigmatizing national discourse drives higher rates of anxiety, depression, and suicidality among transgender youth. Under this model, so-called “distal factors” like the recent conversations at the national level that marginalize trans young people, are expected to drive higher rates of adverse mental health outcomes. As transgender youth hear high-profile politicians argue that they’re dangerous to their peers in bathrooms and on sports teams, it’s difficult to imagine their mental health would not worsen. Over time, such “distal factors” also lead to “proximal factors” like internalized transphobia in which youth begin to believe the negative things that are said about them. These dangerous processes can have dramatic negative impacts on self-esteem and emotional development. There is strong precedence that public policies have strong indirect mental health effects on LGBTQ youth.
We’ve entered a dangerous era in which politicians are legislating medical care and other aspects of public policy with the potential to hurt the mental health of our young patients. It’s imperative that clinicians and scientists contact their legislators to make sure they are voting for public policy based on data and fact, not misinformation and political rhetoric. The health of American children depends on it.
Dr. Turban (twitter.com/jack_turban) is a chief fellow in child and adolescent psychiatry at Stanford (Calif.) University.
On the receiving end of care
It’s tough being on the receiving end of care. I’ve tried to avoid it as much as possible, being ever mindful of the law from Samuel Shem’s The House of God: “They can always hurt you more.”
Fortunately, each procedure went more smoothly than the prior one.
The first was not so elective. I had some uncomfortable symptoms while exercising and, not wanting to totally be in denial, contacted my doctor to ensure that it was not cardiac in origin since symptoms are often atypical in women.
My physician promptly saw me, then scheduled a nuclear stress test. There was a series of needless glitches. Registration at the diagnostic center had me on their schedule but did not have an order. They would have canceled the procedure had I not been able to get hold of the doctor’s office. Why isn’t an order automatically entered when the physician schedules the test?
While I was given the euphemistic “Patient Rights” brochure, asking to have reports sent to a physician outside of the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center empire is apparently not included.
The staff canceled the stress test because I was not fasting. I had received no instructions from diagnostic cardiology. They suggested it was my internist’s responsibility.
I deliberately ate (2 hours earlier) because my trainer always wants me to eat a light meal so I don’t get hypoglycemic during our workouts, and an exercise stress test, is, of course, a workout. The nurse practitioner said that they were concerned I would vomit. I offered to sign a waiver. She parried, saying they would not be able to get adequate images, so I was out of luck.
When I expressed concern about getting hypoglycemic and having difficulty with the test if fasting, the tech said I should bring a soda and snack. Who tells a “borderline” diabetic to bring a soda?
The tech also said she had called our home to give instructions but encountered a busy signal and had not had time to call back. I had not left the house during the prior week (or most of the past 2 years), so this was a pretty lame excuse.
I suggested to the administration that the hospital offer to email the patient instructions well ahead of time (and perhaps ask for confirmation of receipt). If calling, they should try more than once. They should also have patient instruction sheets at the physician’s office and perhaps have them on their website.
It turns out that the hospital mailed me instructions, not on the date it was ordered, but with the postmark being the day of the procedure itself. With Trump donor Louis DeJoy in charge of the U.S. Postal Service, mail across town now has to travel to Baltimore, 3 hours away, be sorted, and returned.
I did finally have the stress test, which was reassuringly normal. I was not surprised, given that the fury I felt on the first attempt had not precipitated symptoms. The hospital sent a patient ombudsman to meet me there to discuss my previous complaints. I have no idea if they implemented any of the changes I had suggested. In 2021, when I urgently had to take my husband to the ED, I couldn’t see the sign pointing toward the ED and had to ask for directions at the main entrance. They said they would fix that promptly but still have not improved the signage. How I miss the friendly community hospital we had before!
Next was trigger-finger surgery. I had developed that in 1978 from using crutches after a fall. I figured that the relative lull in COVID and my activities made it as good a time as any to finally have it fixed. The surgicenter was great; the surgeon was someone I had worked with and respected for decades. The only glitch was not really knowing how long I was going to be out of commission.
The third encounter (at yet another institution) went really well, despite some early administrative glitches. My major complaint was with the lack of communication between preoperative anesthesia and the operating room and the lack of personalization of preoperative instructions. Despite EPIC, medicines were not correctly reconciled between the different encounters, even on the same day!
After about 15 years of diplopia, which has been gradually worsening, my eye doc had suggested that I consider strabismus surgery as a sort of last-ditch effort to improve my quality of life.
Anesthesiology has stock instructions, which they made no effort to individualize. For example, there is no reason to stop NSAIDs a week before such minor surgery. That’s a problem if you depend on NSAIDs for pain control. Similarly, nothing by mouth after midnight is passé and could be tailored for the patient. I felt particularly inconvenienced that I had to go out of town for the preoperative visit and then have a redundant preoperative clearance by my physician.
The nurses in the preoperative area made me feel quite comfortable and as relaxed as I could be under the circumstances. They had a good sense of humor, which helped too. And from the time I met him a few weeks earlier, I instantly liked my surgeon and felt very comfortable with him and had complete trust.
I was pleased that the chief anesthesiologist responded promptly and undefensively to my letter expressing concerns. I do believe that he will try to improve the systemic problems.
The best part: The surgery appears to have been successful and I should have a significantly improved quality of life.
Hospitals could do so much better by improving communications with patients and by viewing them as customers whose loyalty they must earn and will value. With monopolies growing, memories of such care are quickly fading, soon to be as extinct as the family doc who made house calls.
Dr. Stone is an infectious disease specialist and author of Resilience: One Family’s Story of Hope and Triumph over Evil and Conducting Clinical Research: A Practical Guide. She disclosed no relevant financial relationships. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
It’s tough being on the receiving end of care. I’ve tried to avoid it as much as possible, being ever mindful of the law from Samuel Shem’s The House of God: “They can always hurt you more.”
Fortunately, each procedure went more smoothly than the prior one.
The first was not so elective. I had some uncomfortable symptoms while exercising and, not wanting to totally be in denial, contacted my doctor to ensure that it was not cardiac in origin since symptoms are often atypical in women.
My physician promptly saw me, then scheduled a nuclear stress test. There was a series of needless glitches. Registration at the diagnostic center had me on their schedule but did not have an order. They would have canceled the procedure had I not been able to get hold of the doctor’s office. Why isn’t an order automatically entered when the physician schedules the test?
While I was given the euphemistic “Patient Rights” brochure, asking to have reports sent to a physician outside of the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center empire is apparently not included.
The staff canceled the stress test because I was not fasting. I had received no instructions from diagnostic cardiology. They suggested it was my internist’s responsibility.
I deliberately ate (2 hours earlier) because my trainer always wants me to eat a light meal so I don’t get hypoglycemic during our workouts, and an exercise stress test, is, of course, a workout. The nurse practitioner said that they were concerned I would vomit. I offered to sign a waiver. She parried, saying they would not be able to get adequate images, so I was out of luck.
When I expressed concern about getting hypoglycemic and having difficulty with the test if fasting, the tech said I should bring a soda and snack. Who tells a “borderline” diabetic to bring a soda?
The tech also said she had called our home to give instructions but encountered a busy signal and had not had time to call back. I had not left the house during the prior week (or most of the past 2 years), so this was a pretty lame excuse.
I suggested to the administration that the hospital offer to email the patient instructions well ahead of time (and perhaps ask for confirmation of receipt). If calling, they should try more than once. They should also have patient instruction sheets at the physician’s office and perhaps have them on their website.
It turns out that the hospital mailed me instructions, not on the date it was ordered, but with the postmark being the day of the procedure itself. With Trump donor Louis DeJoy in charge of the U.S. Postal Service, mail across town now has to travel to Baltimore, 3 hours away, be sorted, and returned.
I did finally have the stress test, which was reassuringly normal. I was not surprised, given that the fury I felt on the first attempt had not precipitated symptoms. The hospital sent a patient ombudsman to meet me there to discuss my previous complaints. I have no idea if they implemented any of the changes I had suggested. In 2021, when I urgently had to take my husband to the ED, I couldn’t see the sign pointing toward the ED and had to ask for directions at the main entrance. They said they would fix that promptly but still have not improved the signage. How I miss the friendly community hospital we had before!
Next was trigger-finger surgery. I had developed that in 1978 from using crutches after a fall. I figured that the relative lull in COVID and my activities made it as good a time as any to finally have it fixed. The surgicenter was great; the surgeon was someone I had worked with and respected for decades. The only glitch was not really knowing how long I was going to be out of commission.
The third encounter (at yet another institution) went really well, despite some early administrative glitches. My major complaint was with the lack of communication between preoperative anesthesia and the operating room and the lack of personalization of preoperative instructions. Despite EPIC, medicines were not correctly reconciled between the different encounters, even on the same day!
After about 15 years of diplopia, which has been gradually worsening, my eye doc had suggested that I consider strabismus surgery as a sort of last-ditch effort to improve my quality of life.
Anesthesiology has stock instructions, which they made no effort to individualize. For example, there is no reason to stop NSAIDs a week before such minor surgery. That’s a problem if you depend on NSAIDs for pain control. Similarly, nothing by mouth after midnight is passé and could be tailored for the patient. I felt particularly inconvenienced that I had to go out of town for the preoperative visit and then have a redundant preoperative clearance by my physician.
The nurses in the preoperative area made me feel quite comfortable and as relaxed as I could be under the circumstances. They had a good sense of humor, which helped too. And from the time I met him a few weeks earlier, I instantly liked my surgeon and felt very comfortable with him and had complete trust.
I was pleased that the chief anesthesiologist responded promptly and undefensively to my letter expressing concerns. I do believe that he will try to improve the systemic problems.
The best part: The surgery appears to have been successful and I should have a significantly improved quality of life.
Hospitals could do so much better by improving communications with patients and by viewing them as customers whose loyalty they must earn and will value. With monopolies growing, memories of such care are quickly fading, soon to be as extinct as the family doc who made house calls.
Dr. Stone is an infectious disease specialist and author of Resilience: One Family’s Story of Hope and Triumph over Evil and Conducting Clinical Research: A Practical Guide. She disclosed no relevant financial relationships. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
It’s tough being on the receiving end of care. I’ve tried to avoid it as much as possible, being ever mindful of the law from Samuel Shem’s The House of God: “They can always hurt you more.”
Fortunately, each procedure went more smoothly than the prior one.
The first was not so elective. I had some uncomfortable symptoms while exercising and, not wanting to totally be in denial, contacted my doctor to ensure that it was not cardiac in origin since symptoms are often atypical in women.
My physician promptly saw me, then scheduled a nuclear stress test. There was a series of needless glitches. Registration at the diagnostic center had me on their schedule but did not have an order. They would have canceled the procedure had I not been able to get hold of the doctor’s office. Why isn’t an order automatically entered when the physician schedules the test?
While I was given the euphemistic “Patient Rights” brochure, asking to have reports sent to a physician outside of the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center empire is apparently not included.
The staff canceled the stress test because I was not fasting. I had received no instructions from diagnostic cardiology. They suggested it was my internist’s responsibility.
I deliberately ate (2 hours earlier) because my trainer always wants me to eat a light meal so I don’t get hypoglycemic during our workouts, and an exercise stress test, is, of course, a workout. The nurse practitioner said that they were concerned I would vomit. I offered to sign a waiver. She parried, saying they would not be able to get adequate images, so I was out of luck.
When I expressed concern about getting hypoglycemic and having difficulty with the test if fasting, the tech said I should bring a soda and snack. Who tells a “borderline” diabetic to bring a soda?
The tech also said she had called our home to give instructions but encountered a busy signal and had not had time to call back. I had not left the house during the prior week (or most of the past 2 years), so this was a pretty lame excuse.
I suggested to the administration that the hospital offer to email the patient instructions well ahead of time (and perhaps ask for confirmation of receipt). If calling, they should try more than once. They should also have patient instruction sheets at the physician’s office and perhaps have them on their website.
It turns out that the hospital mailed me instructions, not on the date it was ordered, but with the postmark being the day of the procedure itself. With Trump donor Louis DeJoy in charge of the U.S. Postal Service, mail across town now has to travel to Baltimore, 3 hours away, be sorted, and returned.
I did finally have the stress test, which was reassuringly normal. I was not surprised, given that the fury I felt on the first attempt had not precipitated symptoms. The hospital sent a patient ombudsman to meet me there to discuss my previous complaints. I have no idea if they implemented any of the changes I had suggested. In 2021, when I urgently had to take my husband to the ED, I couldn’t see the sign pointing toward the ED and had to ask for directions at the main entrance. They said they would fix that promptly but still have not improved the signage. How I miss the friendly community hospital we had before!
Next was trigger-finger surgery. I had developed that in 1978 from using crutches after a fall. I figured that the relative lull in COVID and my activities made it as good a time as any to finally have it fixed. The surgicenter was great; the surgeon was someone I had worked with and respected for decades. The only glitch was not really knowing how long I was going to be out of commission.
The third encounter (at yet another institution) went really well, despite some early administrative glitches. My major complaint was with the lack of communication between preoperative anesthesia and the operating room and the lack of personalization of preoperative instructions. Despite EPIC, medicines were not correctly reconciled between the different encounters, even on the same day!
After about 15 years of diplopia, which has been gradually worsening, my eye doc had suggested that I consider strabismus surgery as a sort of last-ditch effort to improve my quality of life.
Anesthesiology has stock instructions, which they made no effort to individualize. For example, there is no reason to stop NSAIDs a week before such minor surgery. That’s a problem if you depend on NSAIDs for pain control. Similarly, nothing by mouth after midnight is passé and could be tailored for the patient. I felt particularly inconvenienced that I had to go out of town for the preoperative visit and then have a redundant preoperative clearance by my physician.
The nurses in the preoperative area made me feel quite comfortable and as relaxed as I could be under the circumstances. They had a good sense of humor, which helped too. And from the time I met him a few weeks earlier, I instantly liked my surgeon and felt very comfortable with him and had complete trust.
I was pleased that the chief anesthesiologist responded promptly and undefensively to my letter expressing concerns. I do believe that he will try to improve the systemic problems.
The best part: The surgery appears to have been successful and I should have a significantly improved quality of life.
Hospitals could do so much better by improving communications with patients and by viewing them as customers whose loyalty they must earn and will value. With monopolies growing, memories of such care are quickly fading, soon to be as extinct as the family doc who made house calls.
Dr. Stone is an infectious disease specialist and author of Resilience: One Family’s Story of Hope and Triumph over Evil and Conducting Clinical Research: A Practical Guide. She disclosed no relevant financial relationships. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.