Weeks after Jeannie Volpe caught COVID-19 in November 2020, she could no longer do her job running sexual assault support groups in Anniston, Ala., because she kept forgetting the details that survivors had shared with her. “People were telling me they were having to revisit their traumatic memories, which isn’t fair to anybody,” the 47-year-old says.

Ms. Volpe has been diagnosed with long-COVID autonomic dysfunction, which includes severe muscle pain, depression, anxiety, and a loss of thinking skills. Some of her symptoms are more commonly known as brain fog, and they’re among the most frequent problems reported by people who have long-term issues after a bout of COVID-19.

Many experts and medical professionals say they haven’t even begun to scratch the surface of what impact this will have in years to come. 

“I’m very worried that we have an epidemic of neurologic dysfunction coming down the pike,” says Pamela Davis, MD, PhD, a research professor at Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland.

In the 2 years Ms. Volpe has been living with long COVID, her executive function – the mental processes that enable people to focus attention, retain information, and multitask – has been so diminished that she had to relearn to drive. One of the various doctors assessing her has suggested speech therapy to help Ms. Volpe relearn how to form words. “I can see the words I want to say in my mind, but I can’t make them come out of my mouth,” she says in a sluggish voice that gives away her condition. 

All of those symptoms make it difficult for her to care for herself. Without a job and health insurance, Ms. Volpe says she’s researched assisted suicide in the states that allow it but has ultimately decided she wants to live. 

“People tell you things like you should be grateful you survived it, and you should; but you shouldn’t expect somebody to not grieve after losing their autonomy, their career, their finances.”

The findings of researchers studying the brain effects of COVID-19 reinforce what people with long COVID have been dealing with from the start. Their experiences aren’t imaginary; they’re consistent with neurological disorders – including myalgic encephalomyelitis, also known as chronic fatigue syndrome, or ME/CFS – which carry much more weight in the public imagination than the term brain fog, which can often be used dismissively.

Studies have found that COVID-19 is linked to conditions such as strokes; seizures; and mood, memory, and movement disorders. 

While there are still a lot of unanswered questions about exactly how COVID-19 affects the brain and what the long-term effects are, there’s enough reason to suggest people should be trying to avoid both infection and reinfection until researchers get more answers.

Worldwide, it’s estimated that COVID-19 has contributed to more than 40 million new cases of neurological disorders, says Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, a clinical epidemiologist and long COVID researcher at Washington University in St. Louis. In his latest study of 14 million medical records of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, the country’s largest integrated health care system, researchers found that regardless of age, gender, race, and lifestyle, people who have had COVID-19 are at a higher risk of getting a wide array of 44 neurological conditions after the first year of infection.

He noted that some of the conditions, such as headaches and mild decline in memory and sharpness, may improve and go away over time. But others that showed up, such as stroke, encephalitis (inflammation of the brain), and Guillain-Barré syndrome (a rare disorder in which the body’s immune system attacks the nerves), often lead to lasting damage. Dr. Al-Aly’s team found that neurological conditions were 7% more likely in those who had COVID-19 than in those who had never been infected. 

What’s more, researchers noticed that compared with control groups, the risk of post-COVID thinking problems was more pronounced in people in their 30s, 40s, and 50s – a group that usually would be very unlikely to have these problems. For those over the age of 60, the risks stood out less because at that stage of life, such thinking problems aren’t as rare.

Another study of the veterans system last year showed that COVID-19 survivors were at a 46% higher risk of considering suicide after 1 year.

“We need to be paying attention to this,” says Dr. Al-Aly.  “What we’ve seen is really the tip of the iceberg.” He worries that millions of people, including youths, will lose out on employment and education while dealing with long-term disabilities – and the economic and societal implications of such a fallout. “What we will all be left with is the aftermath of sheer devastation in some people’s lives,” he says.

Igor Koralnik, MD, chief of neuro-infectious disease and global neurology at Northwestern University, Chicago, has been running a specialized long COVID clinic. His team published a paper in March 2021 detailing what they saw in their first 100 patients. “About half the population in the study missed at least 10 days of work. This is going to have persistent impact on the workforce,” Dr. Koralnik said in a podcast posted on the Northwestern website. “We have seen that not only [do] patients have symptoms, but they have decreased quality of life.”

For older people and their caregivers, the risk of potential neurodegenerative diseases that the virus has shown to accelerate, such as dementia, is also a big concern. Alzheimer’s is already the fifth leading cause of death for people 65 and older. 

In a recent study of more than 6 million people over the age of 65, Dr. Davis and her team at Case Western found the risk of Alzheimer’s in the year after COVID-19 increased by 50%-80%. The chances were especially high for women older than 85.

To date, there are no good treatments for Alzheimer’s, yet total health care costs for long-term care and hospice services for people with dementia topped $300 billion in 2020. That doesn’t even include the related costs to families.

“The downstream effect of having someone with Alzheimer’s being taken care of by a family member can be devastating on everyone,” she says. “Sometimes the caregivers don’t weather that very well.” 

When Dr. Davis’s own father got Alzheimer’s at age 86, her mother took care of him until she had a stroke one morning while making breakfast. Dr. Davis attributes the stroke to the stress of caregiving. That left Dr. Davis no choice but to seek housing where both her parents could get care. 

Looking at the broader picture, Dr. Davis believes widespread isolation, loneliness, and grief during the pandemic, and the disease of COVID-19 itself, will continue to have a profound impact on psychiatric diagnoses. This in turn could trigger a wave of new substance abuse as a result of unchecked mental health problems.

Still, not all brain experts are jumping to worst-case scenarios, with a lot yet to be understood before sounding the alarm. Joanna Hellmuth, MD, a neurologist and researcher at the University of California, San Francisco, cautions against reading too much into early data, including any assumptions that COVID-19 causes neurodegeneration or irreversible damage in the brain. 

Even with before-and-after brain scans by University of Oxford, England, researchers that show structural changes to the brain after infection, she points out that they didn’t actually study the clinical symptoms of the people in the study, so it’s too soon to reach conclusions about associated cognitive problems.

“It’s an important piece of the puzzle, but we don’t know how that fits together with everything else,” says Dr. Hellmuth. “Some of my patients get better. … I haven’t seen a single person get worse since the pandemic started, and so I’m hopeful.”

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

Weeks after Jeannie Volpe caught COVID-19 in November 2020, she could no longer do her job running sexual assault support groups in Anniston, Ala., because she kept forgetting the details that survivors had shared with her. “People were telling me they were having to revisit their traumatic memories, which isn’t fair to anybody,” the 47-year-old says.

Ms. Volpe has been diagnosed with long-COVID autonomic dysfunction, which includes severe muscle pain, depression, anxiety, and a loss of thinking skills. Some of her symptoms are more commonly known as brain fog, and they’re among the most frequent problems reported by people who have long-term issues after a bout of COVID-19.

Many experts and medical professionals say they haven’t even begun to scratch the surface of what impact this will have in years to come. 

“I’m very worried that we have an epidemic of neurologic dysfunction coming down the pike,” says Pamela Davis, MD, PhD, a research professor at Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland.

In the 2 years Ms. Volpe has been living with long COVID, her executive function – the mental processes that enable people to focus attention, retain information, and multitask – has been so diminished that she had to relearn to drive. One of the various doctors assessing her has suggested speech therapy to help Ms. Volpe relearn how to form words. “I can see the words I want to say in my mind, but I can’t make them come out of my mouth,” she says in a sluggish voice that gives away her condition. 

All of those symptoms make it difficult for her to care for herself. Without a job and health insurance, Ms. Volpe says she’s researched assisted suicide in the states that allow it but has ultimately decided she wants to live. 

“People tell you things like you should be grateful you survived it, and you should; but you shouldn’t expect somebody to not grieve after losing their autonomy, their career, their finances.”

The findings of researchers studying the brain effects of COVID-19 reinforce what people with long COVID have been dealing with from the start. Their experiences aren’t imaginary; they’re consistent with neurological disorders – including myalgic encephalomyelitis, also known as chronic fatigue syndrome, or ME/CFS – which carry much more weight in the public imagination than the term brain fog, which can often be used dismissively.

Studies have found that COVID-19 is linked to conditions such as strokes; seizures; and mood, memory, and movement disorders. 

While there are still a lot of unanswered questions about exactly how COVID-19 affects the brain and what the long-term effects are, there’s enough reason to suggest people should be trying to avoid both infection and reinfection until researchers get more answers.

Worldwide, it’s estimated that COVID-19 has contributed to more than 40 million new cases of neurological disorders, says Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, a clinical epidemiologist and long COVID researcher at Washington University in St. Louis. In his latest study of 14 million medical records of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, the country’s largest integrated health care system, researchers found that regardless of age, gender, race, and lifestyle, people who have had COVID-19 are at a higher risk of getting a wide array of 44 neurological conditions after the first year of infection.

He noted that some of the conditions, such as headaches and mild decline in memory and sharpness, may improve and go away over time. But others that showed up, such as stroke, encephalitis (inflammation of the brain), and Guillain-Barré syndrome (a rare disorder in which the body’s immune system attacks the nerves), often lead to lasting damage. Dr. Al-Aly’s team found that neurological conditions were 7% more likely in those who had COVID-19 than in those who had never been infected. 

What’s more, researchers noticed that compared with control groups, the risk of post-COVID thinking problems was more pronounced in people in their 30s, 40s, and 50s – a group that usually would be very unlikely to have these problems. For those over the age of 60, the risks stood out less because at that stage of life, such thinking problems aren’t as rare.

Another study of the veterans system last year showed that COVID-19 survivors were at a 46% higher risk of considering suicide after 1 year.

“We need to be paying attention to this,” says Dr. Al-Aly.  “What we’ve seen is really the tip of the iceberg.” He worries that millions of people, including youths, will lose out on employment and education while dealing with long-term disabilities – and the economic and societal implications of such a fallout. “What we will all be left with is the aftermath of sheer devastation in some people’s lives,” he says.

Igor Koralnik, MD, chief of neuro-infectious disease and global neurology at Northwestern University, Chicago, has been running a specialized long COVID clinic. His team published a paper in March 2021 detailing what they saw in their first 100 patients. “About half the population in the study missed at least 10 days of work. This is going to have persistent impact on the workforce,” Dr. Koralnik said in a podcast posted on the Northwestern website. “We have seen that not only [do] patients have symptoms, but they have decreased quality of life.”

For older people and their caregivers, the risk of potential neurodegenerative diseases that the virus has shown to accelerate, such as dementia, is also a big concern. Alzheimer’s is already the fifth leading cause of death for people 65 and older. 

In a recent study of more than 6 million people over the age of 65, Dr. Davis and her team at Case Western found the risk of Alzheimer’s in the year after COVID-19 increased by 50%-80%. The chances were especially high for women older than 85.

To date, there are no good treatments for Alzheimer’s, yet total health care costs for long-term care and hospice services for people with dementia topped $300 billion in 2020. That doesn’t even include the related costs to families.

“The downstream effect of having someone with Alzheimer’s being taken care of by a family member can be devastating on everyone,” she says. “Sometimes the caregivers don’t weather that very well.” 

When Dr. Davis’s own father got Alzheimer’s at age 86, her mother took care of him until she had a stroke one morning while making breakfast. Dr. Davis attributes the stroke to the stress of caregiving. That left Dr. Davis no choice but to seek housing where both her parents could get care. 

Looking at the broader picture, Dr. Davis believes widespread isolation, loneliness, and grief during the pandemic, and the disease of COVID-19 itself, will continue to have a profound impact on psychiatric diagnoses. This in turn could trigger a wave of new substance abuse as a result of unchecked mental health problems.

Still, not all brain experts are jumping to worst-case scenarios, with a lot yet to be understood before sounding the alarm. Joanna Hellmuth, MD, a neurologist and researcher at the University of California, San Francisco, cautions against reading too much into early data, including any assumptions that COVID-19 causes neurodegeneration or irreversible damage in the brain. 

Even with before-and-after brain scans by University of Oxford, England, researchers that show structural changes to the brain after infection, she points out that they didn’t actually study the clinical symptoms of the people in the study, so it’s too soon to reach conclusions about associated cognitive problems.

“It’s an important piece of the puzzle, but we don’t know how that fits together with everything else,” says Dr. Hellmuth. “Some of my patients get better. … I haven’t seen a single person get worse since the pandemic started, and so I’m hopeful.”

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

Weeks after Jeannie Volpe caught COVID-19 in November 2020, she could no longer do her job running sexual assault support groups in Anniston, Ala., because she kept forgetting the details that survivors had shared with her. “People were telling me they were having to revisit their traumatic memories, which isn’t fair to anybody,” the 47-year-old says.

Ms. Volpe has been diagnosed with long-COVID autonomic dysfunction, which includes severe muscle pain, depression, anxiety, and a loss of thinking skills. Some of her symptoms are more commonly known as brain fog, and they’re among the most frequent problems reported by people who have long-term issues after a bout of COVID-19.

Many experts and medical professionals say they haven’t even begun to scratch the surface of what impact this will have in years to come. 

“I’m very worried that we have an epidemic of neurologic dysfunction coming down the pike,” says Pamela Davis, MD, PhD, a research professor at Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland.

In the 2 years Ms. Volpe has been living with long COVID, her executive function – the mental processes that enable people to focus attention, retain information, and multitask – has been so diminished that she had to relearn to drive. One of the various doctors assessing her has suggested speech therapy to help Ms. Volpe relearn how to form words. “I can see the words I want to say in my mind, but I can’t make them come out of my mouth,” she says in a sluggish voice that gives away her condition. 

All of those symptoms make it difficult for her to care for herself. Without a job and health insurance, Ms. Volpe says she’s researched assisted suicide in the states that allow it but has ultimately decided she wants to live. 

“People tell you things like you should be grateful you survived it, and you should; but you shouldn’t expect somebody to not grieve after losing their autonomy, their career, their finances.”

The findings of researchers studying the brain effects of COVID-19 reinforce what people with long COVID have been dealing with from the start. Their experiences aren’t imaginary; they’re consistent with neurological disorders – including myalgic encephalomyelitis, also known as chronic fatigue syndrome, or ME/CFS – which carry much more weight in the public imagination than the term brain fog, which can often be used dismissively.

Studies have found that COVID-19 is linked to conditions such as strokes; seizures; and mood, memory, and movement disorders. 

While there are still a lot of unanswered questions about exactly how COVID-19 affects the brain and what the long-term effects are, there’s enough reason to suggest people should be trying to avoid both infection and reinfection until researchers get more answers.

Worldwide, it’s estimated that COVID-19 has contributed to more than 40 million new cases of neurological disorders, says Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, a clinical epidemiologist and long COVID researcher at Washington University in St. Louis. In his latest study of 14 million medical records of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, the country’s largest integrated health care system, researchers found that regardless of age, gender, race, and lifestyle, people who have had COVID-19 are at a higher risk of getting a wide array of 44 neurological conditions after the first year of infection.

He noted that some of the conditions, such as headaches and mild decline in memory and sharpness, may improve and go away over time. But others that showed up, such as stroke, encephalitis (inflammation of the brain), and Guillain-Barré syndrome (a rare disorder in which the body’s immune system attacks the nerves), often lead to lasting damage. Dr. Al-Aly’s team found that neurological conditions were 7% more likely in those who had COVID-19 than in those who had never been infected. 

What’s more, researchers noticed that compared with control groups, the risk of post-COVID thinking problems was more pronounced in people in their 30s, 40s, and 50s – a group that usually would be very unlikely to have these problems. For those over the age of 60, the risks stood out less because at that stage of life, such thinking problems aren’t as rare.

Another study of the veterans system last year showed that COVID-19 survivors were at a 46% higher risk of considering suicide after 1 year.

“We need to be paying attention to this,” says Dr. Al-Aly.  “What we’ve seen is really the tip of the iceberg.” He worries that millions of people, including youths, will lose out on employment and education while dealing with long-term disabilities – and the economic and societal implications of such a fallout. “What we will all be left with is the aftermath of sheer devastation in some people’s lives,” he says.

Igor Koralnik, MD, chief of neuro-infectious disease and global neurology at Northwestern University, Chicago, has been running a specialized long COVID clinic. His team published a paper in March 2021 detailing what they saw in their first 100 patients. “About half the population in the study missed at least 10 days of work. This is going to have persistent impact on the workforce,” Dr. Koralnik said in a podcast posted on the Northwestern website. “We have seen that not only [do] patients have symptoms, but they have decreased quality of life.”

For older people and their caregivers, the risk of potential neurodegenerative diseases that the virus has shown to accelerate, such as dementia, is also a big concern. Alzheimer’s is already the fifth leading cause of death for people 65 and older. 

In a recent study of more than 6 million people over the age of 65, Dr. Davis and her team at Case Western found the risk of Alzheimer’s in the year after COVID-19 increased by 50%-80%. The chances were especially high for women older than 85.

To date, there are no good treatments for Alzheimer’s, yet total health care costs for long-term care and hospice services for people with dementia topped $300 billion in 2020. That doesn’t even include the related costs to families.

“The downstream effect of having someone with Alzheimer’s being taken care of by a family member can be devastating on everyone,” she says. “Sometimes the caregivers don’t weather that very well.” 

When Dr. Davis’s own father got Alzheimer’s at age 86, her mother took care of him until she had a stroke one morning while making breakfast. Dr. Davis attributes the stroke to the stress of caregiving. That left Dr. Davis no choice but to seek housing where both her parents could get care. 

Looking at the broader picture, Dr. Davis believes widespread isolation, loneliness, and grief during the pandemic, and the disease of COVID-19 itself, will continue to have a profound impact on psychiatric diagnoses. This in turn could trigger a wave of new substance abuse as a result of unchecked mental health problems.

Still, not all brain experts are jumping to worst-case scenarios, with a lot yet to be understood before sounding the alarm. Joanna Hellmuth, MD, a neurologist and researcher at the University of California, San Francisco, cautions against reading too much into early data, including any assumptions that COVID-19 causes neurodegeneration or irreversible damage in the brain. 

Even with before-and-after brain scans by University of Oxford, England, researchers that show structural changes to the brain after infection, she points out that they didn’t actually study the clinical symptoms of the people in the study, so it’s too soon to reach conclusions about associated cognitive problems.

“It’s an important piece of the puzzle, but we don’t know how that fits together with everything else,” says Dr. Hellmuth. “Some of my patients get better. … I haven’t seen a single person get worse since the pandemic started, and so I’m hopeful.”

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

The American College of Cardiology has released an Expert Consensus Decision Pathway on the evaluation and disposition of acute chest pain in the emergency department.

Chest pain accounts for more than 7 million ED visits annually. A major challenge is to quickly identify the small number of patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) among the large number of patients who have noncardiac conditions.

The new document is intended to provide guidance on how to “practically apply” recommendations from the 2021 American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology Guideline for the Evaluation and Diagnosis of Chest Pain, focusing specifically on patients who present to the ED, the writing group explains.

“A systematic approach – both at the level of the institution and the individual patient – is essential to achieve optimal outcomes for patients presenting with chest pain to the ED,” say writing group chair Michael Kontos, MD, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, and colleagues.

At the institution level, this decision pathway recommends high-sensitivity cardiac troponin (hs-cTn) assays coupled with a clinical decision pathway (CDP) to reduce ED “dwell” times and increase the number of patients with chest pain who can safely be discharged without additional testing. This will decrease ED crowding and limit unnecessary testing, they point out. 

At the individual patient level, this document aims to provide structure for the ED evaluation of chest pain, accelerating the evaluation process and matching the intensity of testing and treatment to patient risk.

The 36-page document was published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Key summary points in the document include the following:

• Electrocardiogram remains the best initial test for evaluation of chest pain in the ED and should be performed and interpreted within 10 minutes of ED arrival.
• In patients who arrive via ambulance, the prehospital ECG should be reviewed, because ischemic changes may have resolved before ED arrival.
• When the ECG shows evidence of acute infarction or ischemia, subsequent care should follow current guidelines for management of acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and non–ST-segment elevation ACS (NSTE-ACS).
• Patients with a nonischemic ECG can enter an accelerated CDP designed to provide rapid risk assessment and exclusion of ACS.
• Patients who are hemodynamically unstable, have significant arrhythmias, or evidence of significant heart failure should be evaluated and treated appropriately and are not candidates for an accelerated CDP.
• High-sensitivity cardiac troponin T (hs-cTnT) and high-sensitivity cardiac troponin I (hs-cTnI) are the preferred biomarkers for evaluation of possible ACS.
• Patients classified as low risk (rule out) using the current hs-cTn-based CDPs can generally be discharged directly from the ED without additional testing, although outpatient testing may be considered in selected cases.
• Patients with substantially elevated initial hs-cTn values or those with significant dynamic changes over 1-3 hours are assigned to the abnormal/high-risk category and should be further classified according to the universal definition of myocardial infarction type 1 or 2 or acute or chronic nonischemic cardiac injury.
• High-risk patients should usually be admitted to an inpatient setting for further evaluation and treatment.
• Patients determined to be intermediate risk with the CDP should undergo additional observation with repeat hs-cTn measurements at 3-6 hours and risk assessment using either the modified HEART (history, ECG, age, risk factors, and troponin) score or the ED assessment of chest pain score (EDACS).
• Noninvasive testing should be considered for the intermediate-risk group unless low-risk features are identified using risk scores or noninvasive testing has been performed recently with normal or low-risk findings.

The writing group notes that “safe and efficient” management of chest pain in the ED requires appropriate follow-up after discharge. Timing of follow-up and referral for outpatient noninvasive testing should be influenced by patient risk and results of cardiac testing.

Disclosures for members of the writing group are available with the original article.

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

The American College of Cardiology has released an Expert Consensus Decision Pathway on the evaluation and disposition of acute chest pain in the emergency department.

Chest pain accounts for more than 7 million ED visits annually. A major challenge is to quickly identify the small number of patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) among the large number of patients who have noncardiac conditions.

The new document is intended to provide guidance on how to “practically apply” recommendations from the 2021 American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology Guideline for the Evaluation and Diagnosis of Chest Pain, focusing specifically on patients who present to the ED, the writing group explains.

“A systematic approach – both at the level of the institution and the individual patient – is essential to achieve optimal outcomes for patients presenting with chest pain to the ED,” say writing group chair Michael Kontos, MD, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, and colleagues.

At the institution level, this decision pathway recommends high-sensitivity cardiac troponin (hs-cTn) assays coupled with a clinical decision pathway (CDP) to reduce ED “dwell” times and increase the number of patients with chest pain who can safely be discharged without additional testing. This will decrease ED crowding and limit unnecessary testing, they point out. 

At the individual patient level, this document aims to provide structure for the ED evaluation of chest pain, accelerating the evaluation process and matching the intensity of testing and treatment to patient risk.

The 36-page document was published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Key summary points in the document include the following:

• Electrocardiogram remains the best initial test for evaluation of chest pain in the ED and should be performed and interpreted within 10 minutes of ED arrival.
• In patients who arrive via ambulance, the prehospital ECG should be reviewed, because ischemic changes may have resolved before ED arrival.
• When the ECG shows evidence of acute infarction or ischemia, subsequent care should follow current guidelines for management of acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and non–ST-segment elevation ACS (NSTE-ACS).
• Patients with a nonischemic ECG can enter an accelerated CDP designed to provide rapid risk assessment and exclusion of ACS.
• Patients who are hemodynamically unstable, have significant arrhythmias, or evidence of significant heart failure should be evaluated and treated appropriately and are not candidates for an accelerated CDP.
• High-sensitivity cardiac troponin T (hs-cTnT) and high-sensitivity cardiac troponin I (hs-cTnI) are the preferred biomarkers for evaluation of possible ACS.
• Patients classified as low risk (rule out) using the current hs-cTn-based CDPs can generally be discharged directly from the ED without additional testing, although outpatient testing may be considered in selected cases.
• Patients with substantially elevated initial hs-cTn values or those with significant dynamic changes over 1-3 hours are assigned to the abnormal/high-risk category and should be further classified according to the universal definition of myocardial infarction type 1 or 2 or acute or chronic nonischemic cardiac injury.
• High-risk patients should usually be admitted to an inpatient setting for further evaluation and treatment.
• Patients determined to be intermediate risk with the CDP should undergo additional observation with repeat hs-cTn measurements at 3-6 hours and risk assessment using either the modified HEART (history, ECG, age, risk factors, and troponin) score or the ED assessment of chest pain score (EDACS).
• Noninvasive testing should be considered for the intermediate-risk group unless low-risk features are identified using risk scores or noninvasive testing has been performed recently with normal or low-risk findings.

The writing group notes that “safe and efficient” management of chest pain in the ED requires appropriate follow-up after discharge. Timing of follow-up and referral for outpatient noninvasive testing should be influenced by patient risk and results of cardiac testing.

Disclosures for members of the writing group are available with the original article.

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

The American College of Cardiology has released an Expert Consensus Decision Pathway on the evaluation and disposition of acute chest pain in the emergency department.

Chest pain accounts for more than 7 million ED visits annually. A major challenge is to quickly identify the small number of patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) among the large number of patients who have noncardiac conditions.

The new document is intended to provide guidance on how to “practically apply” recommendations from the 2021 American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology Guideline for the Evaluation and Diagnosis of Chest Pain, focusing specifically on patients who present to the ED, the writing group explains.

“A systematic approach – both at the level of the institution and the individual patient – is essential to achieve optimal outcomes for patients presenting with chest pain to the ED,” say writing group chair Michael Kontos, MD, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, and colleagues.

At the institution level, this decision pathway recommends high-sensitivity cardiac troponin (hs-cTn) assays coupled with a clinical decision pathway (CDP) to reduce ED “dwell” times and increase the number of patients with chest pain who can safely be discharged without additional testing. This will decrease ED crowding and limit unnecessary testing, they point out. 

At the individual patient level, this document aims to provide structure for the ED evaluation of chest pain, accelerating the evaluation process and matching the intensity of testing and treatment to patient risk.

The 36-page document was published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Key summary points in the document include the following:

• Electrocardiogram remains the best initial test for evaluation of chest pain in the ED and should be performed and interpreted within 10 minutes of ED arrival.
• In patients who arrive via ambulance, the prehospital ECG should be reviewed, because ischemic changes may have resolved before ED arrival.
• When the ECG shows evidence of acute infarction or ischemia, subsequent care should follow current guidelines for management of acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and non–ST-segment elevation ACS (NSTE-ACS).
• Patients with a nonischemic ECG can enter an accelerated CDP designed to provide rapid risk assessment and exclusion of ACS.
• Patients who are hemodynamically unstable, have significant arrhythmias, or evidence of significant heart failure should be evaluated and treated appropriately and are not candidates for an accelerated CDP.
• High-sensitivity cardiac troponin T (hs-cTnT) and high-sensitivity cardiac troponin I (hs-cTnI) are the preferred biomarkers for evaluation of possible ACS.
• Patients classified as low risk (rule out) using the current hs-cTn-based CDPs can generally be discharged directly from the ED without additional testing, although outpatient testing may be considered in selected cases.
• Patients with substantially elevated initial hs-cTn values or those with significant dynamic changes over 1-3 hours are assigned to the abnormal/high-risk category and should be further classified according to the universal definition of myocardial infarction type 1 or 2 or acute or chronic nonischemic cardiac injury.
• High-risk patients should usually be admitted to an inpatient setting for further evaluation and treatment.
• Patients determined to be intermediate risk with the CDP should undergo additional observation with repeat hs-cTn measurements at 3-6 hours and risk assessment using either the modified HEART (history, ECG, age, risk factors, and troponin) score or the ED assessment of chest pain score (EDACS).
• Noninvasive testing should be considered for the intermediate-risk group unless low-risk features are identified using risk scores or noninvasive testing has been performed recently with normal or low-risk findings.

The writing group notes that “safe and efficient” management of chest pain in the ED requires appropriate follow-up after discharge. Timing of follow-up and referral for outpatient noninvasive testing should be influenced by patient risk and results of cardiac testing.

Disclosures for members of the writing group are available with the original article.

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

In 2019 the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency invested $27 million in the Focused Pharma program to develop new, more efficacious, rapid-acting drugs, including hallucinogens.¹ While Focused Pharma does not include human studies, the Veterans Health Administration’s (VHA) newly launched psychedelics program research does include clinical trials.² When I read of these ambitious projects, I recalled 2 prescient memories from my youth.

The first memory was of a dinner table conversation between my father, then chief of pediatrics at a military hospital, and one of my older brothers, a burgeoning hippie. My father mentioned that the military was doing research on lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD), and my brother asked whether he could bring some home for my brother to try. My father looked up from the dinner table with incredulity and in an ironic monotone replied, “No you would not qualify for the research, you are not in the Army.”

The second was about 10 years later, when I visited the state psychiatric hospital where my father directed the adolescent ward. I saw a group of young adults watching test patterns on an old-fashioned television set. When I asked my father what was wrong with them, he shook his head and said, “Too much LSD.”

Albert Hoffman was a Sandoz chemist when in 1938 he serendipitously developed LSD while working on a fungus that grew on grain. LSD’s psychoactive properties were not discovered until 1943. About a decade later, as the Cold War chilled international relations, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) began conducting experiments on military personnel in the MKUltra program using LSD, electroshock, hypnosis, and other techniques to develop a mind control program before its rivals did.³

Beginning in the 1950s, the US government collaborated with pharmaceutical companies and research universities to develop LSD as part of a campaign of psychological warfare. Though planned to be used against enemies, the program instead exploited US service members to develop hallucinogens as a form of chemical warfare that could render enemy troops mentally incapacitated. That psychiatrists, who then (as now) led much of this research, raised a host of ethical concerns about dual roles, disclosure, and duty.⁴

Government investigations and academic studies have shown that even soldiers who volunteered for the research were not given adequate information about the nature of the experiments and the potential adverse effects, such as persisting flashbacks. The military’s research on LSD ended in 1963, not because of the unethical aspects of the research, but because the effects of LSD were so unpredictable that the drug could not be effectively weaponized. Like Tuskegee and other research abuses of the time, when the MKUltra program was exposed, there were congressional investigations.⁵ Later studies found that many of the active-duty research subjects experienced a plethora of lasting and serious psychiatric symptoms. VHA practitioners had to put back together many of these broken service members. This program was rife with violations of research ethics and human rights, and those abuses tainted the field of hallucinogenic research in US Department of Defense (DoD) and VHA circles for decades.⁵ These research abuses, in part, have led to hallucinogens being categorized as Schedule I controlled substances, effectively blocking federal funding for research until recently.

LSD, Psilocybin (4-phosphoryloxy-N,N-dimethyltryptamine), and 3,4-methylenedioxy-methamphetamine (MDMA), popularly known as psychedelics, are again receiving attention. However, the current investigations into psychedelics are vastly different—scientifically and ethically. The most important difference is that the context and leadership of these studies is not national security—it is health care.

The goal of this new wave of psychedelic research is not mind control or brain alteration, but liberation of the mind from cycles of rumination and trauma and empowerment to change patterns of self-destruction to affirmation of life. The impetus for this research is not international espionage but to find better treatments for chronic posttraumatic stress disorder, severe substance use disorders, and treatment-resistant depression that contribute to unquantifiable mental pain, psychosocial dysfunction, and an epidemic of suicide among military service members and veterans.⁶ Though we have some effective treatments for these often combat-inflicted maladies—primarily evidence-based psychotherapies—yet these treatments are not tolerable or safe, fast-acting, or long-lasting enough to succor each and every troubled soul. The success of ketamine, a dissociative drug, in relieving the most distressing service-connected psychiatric diagnoses has provided a proof of concept to reinvigorate the moribund hallucinogenic research idea.⁷

This dark chapter in US military research is a cautionary tale. The often quoted and more often ignored advice of the Spanish American philosopher George Santayana, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it,” should serve as the guiding principle of the new hallucinogenic research.⁸ Human subjects’ protections have exponentially improved since the days of the secret LSD project even for active-duty personnel. The Common Rule governs that all research participants are given adequate information that includes whatever is known about the risks and benefits of the research.¹⁰ Participants must provide full and free informed consent to enroll in these clinical trials, a consent that encompasses the right to withdraw from the research at any time without jeopardizing their careers, benefits, or ongoing health care.¹⁰

These rules, though, can be bent, broken, avoided, or worked around. Only the moral integrity of study personnel, administrators, oversight agencies, research compliance officers, and most important, principal investigators can assure that the rules are upheld and the rights they guarantee are respected.⁹ It would be a tragic shame if the promised hope for the relief of psychic pain went unrealized due to media hype, shared desperation of clinicians and patients, and conflicts of interests that today are more likely to come from profit-driven pharmaceutical companies than national security agencies. And for all of us in federal practice, remembering the sordid past forays with LSD can redeem the present research so future service members and veterans and the clinicians who care for them have better balms to heal the wounds of war.

In 2019 the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency invested $27 million in the Focused Pharma program to develop new, more efficacious, rapid-acting drugs, including hallucinogens.¹ While Focused Pharma does not include human studies, the Veterans Health Administration’s (VHA) newly launched psychedelics program research does include clinical trials.² When I read of these ambitious projects, I recalled 2 prescient memories from my youth.

The first memory was of a dinner table conversation between my father, then chief of pediatrics at a military hospital, and one of my older brothers, a burgeoning hippie. My father mentioned that the military was doing research on lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD), and my brother asked whether he could bring some home for my brother to try. My father looked up from the dinner table with incredulity and in an ironic monotone replied, “No you would not qualify for the research, you are not in the Army.”

The second was about 10 years later, when I visited the state psychiatric hospital where my father directed the adolescent ward. I saw a group of young adults watching test patterns on an old-fashioned television set. When I asked my father what was wrong with them, he shook his head and said, “Too much LSD.”

Albert Hoffman was a Sandoz chemist when in 1938 he serendipitously developed LSD while working on a fungus that grew on grain. LSD’s psychoactive properties were not discovered until 1943. About a decade later, as the Cold War chilled international relations, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) began conducting experiments on military personnel in the MKUltra program using LSD, electroshock, hypnosis, and other techniques to develop a mind control program before its rivals did.³

Beginning in the 1950s, the US government collaborated with pharmaceutical companies and research universities to develop LSD as part of a campaign of psychological warfare. Though planned to be used against enemies, the program instead exploited US service members to develop hallucinogens as a form of chemical warfare that could render enemy troops mentally incapacitated. That psychiatrists, who then (as now) led much of this research, raised a host of ethical concerns about dual roles, disclosure, and duty.⁴

Government investigations and academic studies have shown that even soldiers who volunteered for the research were not given adequate information about the nature of the experiments and the potential adverse effects, such as persisting flashbacks. The military’s research on LSD ended in 1963, not because of the unethical aspects of the research, but because the effects of LSD were so unpredictable that the drug could not be effectively weaponized. Like Tuskegee and other research abuses of the time, when the MKUltra program was exposed, there were congressional investigations.⁵ Later studies found that many of the active-duty research subjects experienced a plethora of lasting and serious psychiatric symptoms. VHA practitioners had to put back together many of these broken service members. This program was rife with violations of research ethics and human rights, and those abuses tainted the field of hallucinogenic research in US Department of Defense (DoD) and VHA circles for decades.⁵ These research abuses, in part, have led to hallucinogens being categorized as Schedule I controlled substances, effectively blocking federal funding for research until recently.

LSD, Psilocybin (4-phosphoryloxy-N,N-dimethyltryptamine), and 3,4-methylenedioxy-methamphetamine (MDMA), popularly known as psychedelics, are again receiving attention. However, the current investigations into psychedelics are vastly different—scientifically and ethically. The most important difference is that the context and leadership of these studies is not national security—it is health care.

The goal of this new wave of psychedelic research is not mind control or brain alteration, but liberation of the mind from cycles of rumination and trauma and empowerment to change patterns of self-destruction to affirmation of life. The impetus for this research is not international espionage but to find better treatments for chronic posttraumatic stress disorder, severe substance use disorders, and treatment-resistant depression that contribute to unquantifiable mental pain, psychosocial dysfunction, and an epidemic of suicide among military service members and veterans.⁶ Though we have some effective treatments for these often combat-inflicted maladies—primarily evidence-based psychotherapies—yet these treatments are not tolerable or safe, fast-acting, or long-lasting enough to succor each and every troubled soul. The success of ketamine, a dissociative drug, in relieving the most distressing service-connected psychiatric diagnoses has provided a proof of concept to reinvigorate the moribund hallucinogenic research idea.⁷

This dark chapter in US military research is a cautionary tale. The often quoted and more often ignored advice of the Spanish American philosopher George Santayana, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it,” should serve as the guiding principle of the new hallucinogenic research.⁸ Human subjects’ protections have exponentially improved since the days of the secret LSD project even for active-duty personnel. The Common Rule governs that all research participants are given adequate information that includes whatever is known about the risks and benefits of the research.¹⁰ Participants must provide full and free informed consent to enroll in these clinical trials, a consent that encompasses the right to withdraw from the research at any time without jeopardizing their careers, benefits, or ongoing health care.¹⁰

These rules, though, can be bent, broken, avoided, or worked around. Only the moral integrity of study personnel, administrators, oversight agencies, research compliance officers, and most important, principal investigators can assure that the rules are upheld and the rights they guarantee are respected.⁹ It would be a tragic shame if the promised hope for the relief of psychic pain went unrealized due to media hype, shared desperation of clinicians and patients, and conflicts of interests that today are more likely to come from profit-driven pharmaceutical companies than national security agencies. And for all of us in federal practice, remembering the sordid past forays with LSD can redeem the present research so future service members and veterans and the clinicians who care for them have better balms to heal the wounds of war.

In 2019 the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency invested $27 million in the Focused Pharma program to develop new, more efficacious, rapid-acting drugs, including hallucinogens.¹ While Focused Pharma does not include human studies, the Veterans Health Administration’s (VHA) newly launched psychedelics program research does include clinical trials.² When I read of these ambitious projects, I recalled 2 prescient memories from my youth.

The first memory was of a dinner table conversation between my father, then chief of pediatrics at a military hospital, and one of my older brothers, a burgeoning hippie. My father mentioned that the military was doing research on lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD), and my brother asked whether he could bring some home for my brother to try. My father looked up from the dinner table with incredulity and in an ironic monotone replied, “No you would not qualify for the research, you are not in the Army.”

The second was about 10 years later, when I visited the state psychiatric hospital where my father directed the adolescent ward. I saw a group of young adults watching test patterns on an old-fashioned television set. When I asked my father what was wrong with them, he shook his head and said, “Too much LSD.”

Albert Hoffman was a Sandoz chemist when in 1938 he serendipitously developed LSD while working on a fungus that grew on grain. LSD’s psychoactive properties were not discovered until 1943. About a decade later, as the Cold War chilled international relations, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) began conducting experiments on military personnel in the MKUltra program using LSD, electroshock, hypnosis, and other techniques to develop a mind control program before its rivals did.³

Beginning in the 1950s, the US government collaborated with pharmaceutical companies and research universities to develop LSD as part of a campaign of psychological warfare. Though planned to be used against enemies, the program instead exploited US service members to develop hallucinogens as a form of chemical warfare that could render enemy troops mentally incapacitated. That psychiatrists, who then (as now) led much of this research, raised a host of ethical concerns about dual roles, disclosure, and duty.⁴

Government investigations and academic studies have shown that even soldiers who volunteered for the research were not given adequate information about the nature of the experiments and the potential adverse effects, such as persisting flashbacks. The military’s research on LSD ended in 1963, not because of the unethical aspects of the research, but because the effects of LSD were so unpredictable that the drug could not be effectively weaponized. Like Tuskegee and other research abuses of the time, when the MKUltra program was exposed, there were congressional investigations.⁵ Later studies found that many of the active-duty research subjects experienced a plethora of lasting and serious psychiatric symptoms. VHA practitioners had to put back together many of these broken service members. This program was rife with violations of research ethics and human rights, and those abuses tainted the field of hallucinogenic research in US Department of Defense (DoD) and VHA circles for decades.⁵ These research abuses, in part, have led to hallucinogens being categorized as Schedule I controlled substances, effectively blocking federal funding for research until recently.

LSD, Psilocybin (4-phosphoryloxy-N,N-dimethyltryptamine), and 3,4-methylenedioxy-methamphetamine (MDMA), popularly known as psychedelics, are again receiving attention. However, the current investigations into psychedelics are vastly different—scientifically and ethically. The most important difference is that the context and leadership of these studies is not national security—it is health care.

The goal of this new wave of psychedelic research is not mind control or brain alteration, but liberation of the mind from cycles of rumination and trauma and empowerment to change patterns of self-destruction to affirmation of life. The impetus for this research is not international espionage but to find better treatments for chronic posttraumatic stress disorder, severe substance use disorders, and treatment-resistant depression that contribute to unquantifiable mental pain, psychosocial dysfunction, and an epidemic of suicide among military service members and veterans.⁶ Though we have some effective treatments for these often combat-inflicted maladies—primarily evidence-based psychotherapies—yet these treatments are not tolerable or safe, fast-acting, or long-lasting enough to succor each and every troubled soul. The success of ketamine, a dissociative drug, in relieving the most distressing service-connected psychiatric diagnoses has provided a proof of concept to reinvigorate the moribund hallucinogenic research idea.⁷

This dark chapter in US military research is a cautionary tale. The often quoted and more often ignored advice of the Spanish American philosopher George Santayana, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it,” should serve as the guiding principle of the new hallucinogenic research.⁸ Human subjects’ protections have exponentially improved since the days of the secret LSD project even for active-duty personnel. The Common Rule governs that all research participants are given adequate information that includes whatever is known about the risks and benefits of the research.¹⁰ Participants must provide full and free informed consent to enroll in these clinical trials, a consent that encompasses the right to withdraw from the research at any time without jeopardizing their careers, benefits, or ongoing health care.¹⁰

These rules, though, can be bent, broken, avoided, or worked around. Only the moral integrity of study personnel, administrators, oversight agencies, research compliance officers, and most important, principal investigators can assure that the rules are upheld and the rights they guarantee are respected.⁹ It would be a tragic shame if the promised hope for the relief of psychic pain went unrealized due to media hype, shared desperation of clinicians and patients, and conflicts of interests that today are more likely to come from profit-driven pharmaceutical companies than national security agencies. And for all of us in federal practice, remembering the sordid past forays with LSD can redeem the present research so future service members and veterans and the clinicians who care for them have better balms to heal the wounds of war.

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force on Oct. 11 posted final recommendations on screening for anxiety, depression, and suicide risk in children and adolescents.

For the first time, the task force recommended screening for anxiety in children aged 8-18 years who do not have a diagnosed anxiety disorder and are not showing signs or symptoms of anxiety.

This “B” recommendation reflects “moderate certainty” evidence that screening for anxiety in 8- to 18-year-olds has a moderate net benefit, the task force said.

However, the task force found “insufficient” evidence to weigh the balance of benefits and harms of screening for anxiety in children aged 7 and younger and therefore issued an “I” statement.

The task force also recommended screening for children aged 12-18 years for major depressive disorder (“B” recommendation) but said there is insufficient evidence to weigh the balance of benefits and harms of screening for depression in children aged 11 and younger (“I” statement). 

These recommendations are in line with the 2016 recommendations on depression screening from the USPSTF.

“Fortunately, screening older children for anxiety and depression can identify these conditions so children and teens can receive the care that they need,” task force member Martha Kubik, PhD, RN, with George Mason University, Fairfax, Va., said in a statement.

“Unfortunately, there are key evidence gaps related to screening for anxiety and depression in younger children and screening for suicide risk in all youth,” added task force member Lori Pbert, PhD, University of Massachusetts, Worcester.

“We are calling for more research in these critical areas so we can provide health care professionals with evidence-based ways to keep their young patients healthy,” Dr. Pbert said.
 

Suicide screening

Turning to suicide, the task force says there is not enough evidence to recommend for or against screening for suicide risk in children and adolescents, and therefore issued an “I” statement – in line with the 2014 recommendation statement from the task force.

The task force acknowledged that the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, and experts from the National Institute of Mental Health have released a “Blueprint for Youth Suicide Prevention” that recommends universal screening for suicide risk in youth 12 years or older, while children aged 8-11 years should be screened as clinically indicated.

The task force’s final recommendation statements and corresponding evidence summaries on screening children and adolescents for anxiety, depression and suicide were published online Oct. 11, 2022, in JAMA and the USPSTF website.

The final recommendations are consistent with the 2022 draft recommendation statements on these topics.

The task force emphasized that screening is only the first step in helping children and adolescents with anxiety and depression. Youth who screen positive need further evaluation to determine if they have anxiety or depression.

After diagnosis, youth should participate in shared decision-making with their parents and healthcare professional to identify the best treatment or combination of treatments.
 

Only a first step

In an accompanying editorial, John Walkup, MD, with Ann and Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital, Chicago, and coauthors made the point that, for the potential of screening for pediatric anxiety disorders to be fully realized, research focused on the process of screening from evaluation to treatment needs to be a priority.

“Perhaps most critical is developing a smart and sophisticated process of screening aligned with evidence-based treatment strategies that brings added value to routine pediatric medical care and that improves physical and mental health outcomes for children and adolescents,” they wrote.

Members of the USPSTF disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Walkup reported serving as an unpaid member of the scientific council of the Anxiety and Depression Association of America, receiving royalties for anxiety-related continuing medical education activities from Wolters Kluwer and honoraria for anxiety presentations from the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and the American Academy of Pediatrics.

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

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force on Oct. 11 posted final recommendations on screening for anxiety, depression, and suicide risk in children and adolescents.

For the first time, the task force recommended screening for anxiety in children aged 8-18 years who do not have a diagnosed anxiety disorder and are not showing signs or symptoms of anxiety.

This “B” recommendation reflects “moderate certainty” evidence that screening for anxiety in 8- to 18-year-olds has a moderate net benefit, the task force said.

However, the task force found “insufficient” evidence to weigh the balance of benefits and harms of screening for anxiety in children aged 7 and younger and therefore issued an “I” statement.

The task force also recommended screening for children aged 12-18 years for major depressive disorder (“B” recommendation) but said there is insufficient evidence to weigh the balance of benefits and harms of screening for depression in children aged 11 and younger (“I” statement). 

These recommendations are in line with the 2016 recommendations on depression screening from the USPSTF.

“Fortunately, screening older children for anxiety and depression can identify these conditions so children and teens can receive the care that they need,” task force member Martha Kubik, PhD, RN, with George Mason University, Fairfax, Va., said in a statement.

“Unfortunately, there are key evidence gaps related to screening for anxiety and depression in younger children and screening for suicide risk in all youth,” added task force member Lori Pbert, PhD, University of Massachusetts, Worcester.

“We are calling for more research in these critical areas so we can provide health care professionals with evidence-based ways to keep their young patients healthy,” Dr. Pbert said.
 

Suicide screening

Turning to suicide, the task force says there is not enough evidence to recommend for or against screening for suicide risk in children and adolescents, and therefore issued an “I” statement – in line with the 2014 recommendation statement from the task force.

The task force acknowledged that the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, and experts from the National Institute of Mental Health have released a “Blueprint for Youth Suicide Prevention” that recommends universal screening for suicide risk in youth 12 years or older, while children aged 8-11 years should be screened as clinically indicated.

The task force’s final recommendation statements and corresponding evidence summaries on screening children and adolescents for anxiety, depression and suicide were published online Oct. 11, 2022, in JAMA and the USPSTF website.

The final recommendations are consistent with the 2022 draft recommendation statements on these topics.

The task force emphasized that screening is only the first step in helping children and adolescents with anxiety and depression. Youth who screen positive need further evaluation to determine if they have anxiety or depression.

After diagnosis, youth should participate in shared decision-making with their parents and healthcare professional to identify the best treatment or combination of treatments.
 

Only a first step

In an accompanying editorial, John Walkup, MD, with Ann and Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital, Chicago, and coauthors made the point that, for the potential of screening for pediatric anxiety disorders to be fully realized, research focused on the process of screening from evaluation to treatment needs to be a priority.

“Perhaps most critical is developing a smart and sophisticated process of screening aligned with evidence-based treatment strategies that brings added value to routine pediatric medical care and that improves physical and mental health outcomes for children and adolescents,” they wrote.

Members of the USPSTF disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Walkup reported serving as an unpaid member of the scientific council of the Anxiety and Depression Association of America, receiving royalties for anxiety-related continuing medical education activities from Wolters Kluwer and honoraria for anxiety presentations from the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and the American Academy of Pediatrics.

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

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force on Oct. 11 posted final recommendations on screening for anxiety, depression, and suicide risk in children and adolescents.

For the first time, the task force recommended screening for anxiety in children aged 8-18 years who do not have a diagnosed anxiety disorder and are not showing signs or symptoms of anxiety.

This “B” recommendation reflects “moderate certainty” evidence that screening for anxiety in 8- to 18-year-olds has a moderate net benefit, the task force said.

However, the task force found “insufficient” evidence to weigh the balance of benefits and harms of screening for anxiety in children aged 7 and younger and therefore issued an “I” statement.

The task force also recommended screening for children aged 12-18 years for major depressive disorder (“B” recommendation) but said there is insufficient evidence to weigh the balance of benefits and harms of screening for depression in children aged 11 and younger (“I” statement). 

These recommendations are in line with the 2016 recommendations on depression screening from the USPSTF.

“Fortunately, screening older children for anxiety and depression can identify these conditions so children and teens can receive the care that they need,” task force member Martha Kubik, PhD, RN, with George Mason University, Fairfax, Va., said in a statement.

“Unfortunately, there are key evidence gaps related to screening for anxiety and depression in younger children and screening for suicide risk in all youth,” added task force member Lori Pbert, PhD, University of Massachusetts, Worcester.

“We are calling for more research in these critical areas so we can provide health care professionals with evidence-based ways to keep their young patients healthy,” Dr. Pbert said.
 

Suicide screening

Turning to suicide, the task force says there is not enough evidence to recommend for or against screening for suicide risk in children and adolescents, and therefore issued an “I” statement – in line with the 2014 recommendation statement from the task force.

The task force acknowledged that the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, and experts from the National Institute of Mental Health have released a “Blueprint for Youth Suicide Prevention” that recommends universal screening for suicide risk in youth 12 years or older, while children aged 8-11 years should be screened as clinically indicated.

The task force’s final recommendation statements and corresponding evidence summaries on screening children and adolescents for anxiety, depression and suicide were published online Oct. 11, 2022, in JAMA and the USPSTF website.

The final recommendations are consistent with the 2022 draft recommendation statements on these topics.

The task force emphasized that screening is only the first step in helping children and adolescents with anxiety and depression. Youth who screen positive need further evaluation to determine if they have anxiety or depression.

After diagnosis, youth should participate in shared decision-making with their parents and healthcare professional to identify the best treatment or combination of treatments.
 

Only a first step

In an accompanying editorial, John Walkup, MD, with Ann and Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital, Chicago, and coauthors made the point that, for the potential of screening for pediatric anxiety disorders to be fully realized, research focused on the process of screening from evaluation to treatment needs to be a priority.

“Perhaps most critical is developing a smart and sophisticated process of screening aligned with evidence-based treatment strategies that brings added value to routine pediatric medical care and that improves physical and mental health outcomes for children and adolescents,” they wrote.

Members of the USPSTF disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Walkup reported serving as an unpaid member of the scientific council of the Anxiety and Depression Association of America, receiving royalties for anxiety-related continuing medical education activities from Wolters Kluwer and honoraria for anxiety presentations from the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and the American Academy of Pediatrics.

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

A symptom-based screening tool can identify 2-year-olds at increased risk of asthma, persistent symptoms of wheeze, and health care burden by the age of 5, according to researchers.

The validated CHILDhood Asthma Risk Tool (CHART) determines high, moderate, or low risk of asthma based on symptoms reported before the age of 3 years. It also recommends follow-up.

Potentially, CHART could be used “to identify children who need monitoring, timely symptom control, and introduction of preventive therapies,” said Padmaja Subbarao, MD, MSc, associate chief of clinical research at the Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, and colleagues in JAMA Network Open.

“The implementation of CHART as a first-step screening tool in general practice could promote timely treatment control and, in turn, improve quality of life for patients and reduce the clinical and economic burden of asthma,” they wrote.

Dr. Subbarao and colleagues developed CHART using data from parent questionnaires and 3- and 5-year clinic visits in the CHILD study. Children were categorized as “high risk” when they experienced two or more episodes of wheeze annually at both 3 and 5 years of age, concurrent with ED visits, hospitalizations, asthma medication, or frequent dry cough. Children with only cough episodes or with cough episodes plus one episode of wheeze in the past 12 months were categorized as “low risk.”

“Our unique approach to classification of wheeze symptoms is important because it helps busy practitioners identify the smaller subset of children with more frequent or severe wheezing episodes who have a higher probability of continued symptoms and impaired lung function in adult life among most children with infrequent wheeze,” Dr. Sabbarao and coauthors said.

Their diagnostic study to evaluate CHART’s predictive capacity showed that the tool had the highest proportion of true-positive asthma at 5 years (sensitivity, 50.0%), compared with physicians’ diagnosis at 3 years (sensitivity, 43.5%), and positive standardized modified Asthma Predictive Index (mAPI) at 3 years (sensitivity, 24.4%).

CHART also outperformed physician assessments and mAPI for predicting persistent wheeze at 5 years and provided the highest predictive capacity for subsequent health care use at 5 years of age. The study showed that it identified 20% more children with emergency department visits or hospitalizations than the standardized mAPI (sensitivity 45.5% vs. 25.0%), and approximately 10% more at-risk children than physician diagnosis.

“These findings are especially important given that many hospitalizations are avoidable if appropriate treatment and management of asthma are implemented at primary care,” Dr. Subbarao and colleagues wrote.

CHART has been validated in two external cohorts: a general-population cohort of 2,185 children from the Raine Study in Australia at 5 years of age; and the other a high-risk cohort of 349 children from the Canadian Asthma Primary Prevention Study at 7 years of age.

“We want to highlight the importance of periodic monitoring of wheeze symptoms and simplify the identification of high-risk children for primary care providers and parents or caregivers,” said Dr. Subbarao, who is director of the CHILD study and professor of pediatrics at the University of Toronto.

The tool “does not identify the underlying biology, which could impact the efficacy of our current standard asthma treatment,” Dr. Subbarao emphasized. CHART has not been tested in low-prevalence settings or in countries in which the term “wheeze” is not commonly recognized, she added.

“CHART helps you focus your crystal ball a little bit, look into the future, and see what’s going to happen,” said Harold Farber, MD, a pediatric pulmonologist who was not involved in the study. “It’s useful even if it just confirms what I’m already doing clinically.”

Dr. Farber, who is professor of pediatrics at Baylor College of Medicine and the Texas Children’s Hospital, Houston, cautioned that the predictive value of CHART is based on the diagnosis of asthma, and that this can differ across health care communities. “Between the extremes and what’s considered borderline, there’s a lot of diagnostic variation in what we call asthma,” he explained in an interview. “The diagnosis is, to some extent, subjective.”

However, Dr. Farber agreed that two or more wheezing episodes in the past 12 months – enough to require treatment – puts a child at very high risk for future wheezing. “Kids with a bunch of wheezing problems at 3 years are likely to have wheezing problems at 5. We have to think about what we can do for a toddler today to keep him from wheezing later.”

CHART is simple to use, the investigators said. The information needed can be easily gathered through interviews and parent-reported questionnaires, then put into the electronic medical record to flag children at high risk for further investigation, and well as those at low or moderate risk for monitoring.

Parents and caregivers can also use CHART to document symptoms every 6 months in children older than 1 year of age, said Dr. Subbarao. This information can be brought to the attention of the doctor “to facilitate a deeper discussion,” she suggested.

This study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Allergy, Genes and Environment Network of Centers of Excellence; Don and Debbie Morrison; Women’s and Children Health Research Institute; and Canada Research Chairs. Dr Subbarao reported having no potential conflicts of interest. Coauthor Vanessa Breton, PhD, disclosed being employed by F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd., and coauthor Elinor Simons, MD, PhD, reported membership on the Sanofi-Genzyme Data Monitoring Board. No other conflicts of interest were reported by the study authors. Dr Farber disclosed having no potential conflicts of interest.

A symptom-based screening tool can identify 2-year-olds at increased risk of asthma, persistent symptoms of wheeze, and health care burden by the age of 5, according to researchers.

The validated CHILDhood Asthma Risk Tool (CHART) determines high, moderate, or low risk of asthma based on symptoms reported before the age of 3 years. It also recommends follow-up.

Potentially, CHART could be used “to identify children who need monitoring, timely symptom control, and introduction of preventive therapies,” said Padmaja Subbarao, MD, MSc, associate chief of clinical research at the Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, and colleagues in JAMA Network Open.

“The implementation of CHART as a first-step screening tool in general practice could promote timely treatment control and, in turn, improve quality of life for patients and reduce the clinical and economic burden of asthma,” they wrote.

Dr. Subbarao and colleagues developed CHART using data from parent questionnaires and 3- and 5-year clinic visits in the CHILD study. Children were categorized as “high risk” when they experienced two or more episodes of wheeze annually at both 3 and 5 years of age, concurrent with ED visits, hospitalizations, asthma medication, or frequent dry cough. Children with only cough episodes or with cough episodes plus one episode of wheeze in the past 12 months were categorized as “low risk.”

“Our unique approach to classification of wheeze symptoms is important because it helps busy practitioners identify the smaller subset of children with more frequent or severe wheezing episodes who have a higher probability of continued symptoms and impaired lung function in adult life among most children with infrequent wheeze,” Dr. Sabbarao and coauthors said.

Their diagnostic study to evaluate CHART’s predictive capacity showed that the tool had the highest proportion of true-positive asthma at 5 years (sensitivity, 50.0%), compared with physicians’ diagnosis at 3 years (sensitivity, 43.5%), and positive standardized modified Asthma Predictive Index (mAPI) at 3 years (sensitivity, 24.4%).

CHART also outperformed physician assessments and mAPI for predicting persistent wheeze at 5 years and provided the highest predictive capacity for subsequent health care use at 5 years of age. The study showed that it identified 20% more children with emergency department visits or hospitalizations than the standardized mAPI (sensitivity 45.5% vs. 25.0%), and approximately 10% more at-risk children than physician diagnosis.

“These findings are especially important given that many hospitalizations are avoidable if appropriate treatment and management of asthma are implemented at primary care,” Dr. Subbarao and colleagues wrote.

CHART has been validated in two external cohorts: a general-population cohort of 2,185 children from the Raine Study in Australia at 5 years of age; and the other a high-risk cohort of 349 children from the Canadian Asthma Primary Prevention Study at 7 years of age.

“We want to highlight the importance of periodic monitoring of wheeze symptoms and simplify the identification of high-risk children for primary care providers and parents or caregivers,” said Dr. Subbarao, who is director of the CHILD study and professor of pediatrics at the University of Toronto.

The tool “does not identify the underlying biology, which could impact the efficacy of our current standard asthma treatment,” Dr. Subbarao emphasized. CHART has not been tested in low-prevalence settings or in countries in which the term “wheeze” is not commonly recognized, she added.

“CHART helps you focus your crystal ball a little bit, look into the future, and see what’s going to happen,” said Harold Farber, MD, a pediatric pulmonologist who was not involved in the study. “It’s useful even if it just confirms what I’m already doing clinically.”

Dr. Farber, who is professor of pediatrics at Baylor College of Medicine and the Texas Children’s Hospital, Houston, cautioned that the predictive value of CHART is based on the diagnosis of asthma, and that this can differ across health care communities. “Between the extremes and what’s considered borderline, there’s a lot of diagnostic variation in what we call asthma,” he explained in an interview. “The diagnosis is, to some extent, subjective.”

However, Dr. Farber agreed that two or more wheezing episodes in the past 12 months – enough to require treatment – puts a child at very high risk for future wheezing. “Kids with a bunch of wheezing problems at 3 years are likely to have wheezing problems at 5. We have to think about what we can do for a toddler today to keep him from wheezing later.”

CHART is simple to use, the investigators said. The information needed can be easily gathered through interviews and parent-reported questionnaires, then put into the electronic medical record to flag children at high risk for further investigation, and well as those at low or moderate risk for monitoring.

Parents and caregivers can also use CHART to document symptoms every 6 months in children older than 1 year of age, said Dr. Subbarao. This information can be brought to the attention of the doctor “to facilitate a deeper discussion,” she suggested.

This study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Allergy, Genes and Environment Network of Centers of Excellence; Don and Debbie Morrison; Women’s and Children Health Research Institute; and Canada Research Chairs. Dr Subbarao reported having no potential conflicts of interest. Coauthor Vanessa Breton, PhD, disclosed being employed by F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd., and coauthor Elinor Simons, MD, PhD, reported membership on the Sanofi-Genzyme Data Monitoring Board. No other conflicts of interest were reported by the study authors. Dr Farber disclosed having no potential conflicts of interest.

A symptom-based screening tool can identify 2-year-olds at increased risk of asthma, persistent symptoms of wheeze, and health care burden by the age of 5, according to researchers.

The validated CHILDhood Asthma Risk Tool (CHART) determines high, moderate, or low risk of asthma based on symptoms reported before the age of 3 years. It also recommends follow-up.

Potentially, CHART could be used “to identify children who need monitoring, timely symptom control, and introduction of preventive therapies,” said Padmaja Subbarao, MD, MSc, associate chief of clinical research at the Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, and colleagues in JAMA Network Open.

“The implementation of CHART as a first-step screening tool in general practice could promote timely treatment control and, in turn, improve quality of life for patients and reduce the clinical and economic burden of asthma,” they wrote.

Dr. Subbarao and colleagues developed CHART using data from parent questionnaires and 3- and 5-year clinic visits in the CHILD study. Children were categorized as “high risk” when they experienced two or more episodes of wheeze annually at both 3 and 5 years of age, concurrent with ED visits, hospitalizations, asthma medication, or frequent dry cough. Children with only cough episodes or with cough episodes plus one episode of wheeze in the past 12 months were categorized as “low risk.”

“Our unique approach to classification of wheeze symptoms is important because it helps busy practitioners identify the smaller subset of children with more frequent or severe wheezing episodes who have a higher probability of continued symptoms and impaired lung function in adult life among most children with infrequent wheeze,” Dr. Sabbarao and coauthors said.

Their diagnostic study to evaluate CHART’s predictive capacity showed that the tool had the highest proportion of true-positive asthma at 5 years (sensitivity, 50.0%), compared with physicians’ diagnosis at 3 years (sensitivity, 43.5%), and positive standardized modified Asthma Predictive Index (mAPI) at 3 years (sensitivity, 24.4%).

CHART also outperformed physician assessments and mAPI for predicting persistent wheeze at 5 years and provided the highest predictive capacity for subsequent health care use at 5 years of age. The study showed that it identified 20% more children with emergency department visits or hospitalizations than the standardized mAPI (sensitivity 45.5% vs. 25.0%), and approximately 10% more at-risk children than physician diagnosis.

“These findings are especially important given that many hospitalizations are avoidable if appropriate treatment and management of asthma are implemented at primary care,” Dr. Subbarao and colleagues wrote.

CHART has been validated in two external cohorts: a general-population cohort of 2,185 children from the Raine Study in Australia at 5 years of age; and the other a high-risk cohort of 349 children from the Canadian Asthma Primary Prevention Study at 7 years of age.

“We want to highlight the importance of periodic monitoring of wheeze symptoms and simplify the identification of high-risk children for primary care providers and parents or caregivers,” said Dr. Subbarao, who is director of the CHILD study and professor of pediatrics at the University of Toronto.

The tool “does not identify the underlying biology, which could impact the efficacy of our current standard asthma treatment,” Dr. Subbarao emphasized. CHART has not been tested in low-prevalence settings or in countries in which the term “wheeze” is not commonly recognized, she added.

“CHART helps you focus your crystal ball a little bit, look into the future, and see what’s going to happen,” said Harold Farber, MD, a pediatric pulmonologist who was not involved in the study. “It’s useful even if it just confirms what I’m already doing clinically.”

Dr. Farber, who is professor of pediatrics at Baylor College of Medicine and the Texas Children’s Hospital, Houston, cautioned that the predictive value of CHART is based on the diagnosis of asthma, and that this can differ across health care communities. “Between the extremes and what’s considered borderline, there’s a lot of diagnostic variation in what we call asthma,” he explained in an interview. “The diagnosis is, to some extent, subjective.”

However, Dr. Farber agreed that two or more wheezing episodes in the past 12 months – enough to require treatment – puts a child at very high risk for future wheezing. “Kids with a bunch of wheezing problems at 3 years are likely to have wheezing problems at 5. We have to think about what we can do for a toddler today to keep him from wheezing later.”

CHART is simple to use, the investigators said. The information needed can be easily gathered through interviews and parent-reported questionnaires, then put into the electronic medical record to flag children at high risk for further investigation, and well as those at low or moderate risk for monitoring.

Parents and caregivers can also use CHART to document symptoms every 6 months in children older than 1 year of age, said Dr. Subbarao. This information can be brought to the attention of the doctor “to facilitate a deeper discussion,” she suggested.

This study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Allergy, Genes and Environment Network of Centers of Excellence; Don and Debbie Morrison; Women’s and Children Health Research Institute; and Canada Research Chairs. Dr Subbarao reported having no potential conflicts of interest. Coauthor Vanessa Breton, PhD, disclosed being employed by F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd., and coauthor Elinor Simons, MD, PhD, reported membership on the Sanofi-Genzyme Data Monitoring Board. No other conflicts of interest were reported by the study authors. Dr Farber disclosed having no potential conflicts of interest.

A real-world analysis in the United Kingdom found that a fully covered metal stent is safe and effective at controlling anastomotic strictures (AS) following liver transplants.

Biliary AS occurs in an estimated 5%-32% of patients following a liver transplant. Generally, these have been managed by insertion of side-by-side plastic stents to remodel the stricture, but this often required multiple procedures to resolve the problem. More recently, transpapillary fully covered self-expanding metallic stents (FCSEMSs) have been introduced and they appear to perform equivalently to their plastic counterparts while requiring fewer procedures.

The new study “is yet another large experience demonstrating that use of fully covered metal stents for treating anastomotic biliary strictures is highly effective and also cost-effective because you really decrease the number of ERCPs [endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatographies] that are required to treat an anastomotic stricture,” said Vladimir Kushnir, MD, who was asked to comment on the study, which was published in Therapeutic Advances in Gastroenterology.

The researchers analyzed retrospective data from 162 consecutive patients who underwent ERCP with intraductal self-expanding metal stent (IDSEMS) insertion at nine tertiary centers. The procedures employed the Kaffes (Taewoong Niti-S) biliary covered stent, which is not available in the United States. Unlike conventional FCSEMSs, the device does not have to traverse the papilla. It is also shorter and includes an antimigration waist and removal wires that may reduce the risk of silent migration. Small case series suggested efficacy in the treatment of post–liver transplant AS.

There were 176 episodes of stent insertion among the 162 included patients; 62% of patients were male, and the median age at transplant was 54 years. Etiologies included hepatocellular carcinoma (22%), alcohol-related liver disease (18%), and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (12%). The median time to development of a stricture was 24.9 weeks. Among all patients, 35% had previously received stents; 75% of those were plastic stents.

Overall, 10% of patients experienced stricture recurrence at a median interval of 19 weeks following stent removal. Median stent emplacement was 15 weeks, and 81% of patients had a resolution of their strictures.

Dr. Kushnir, from Washington University in St. Louis, highlighted the differences between the stent used in the study and those currently available in the United States. “This type of stent is a self-expanding metal stent that’s covered, but what’s different about it is that it’s designed to go completely within the bile duct, whereas a traditional fully covered metal stent traverses the major duodenal papilla.”

Despite those differences, he believes that the study can inform current practice in the United States. “In situations where you’re faced with a question of whether or not you leave multiple plastic stents in, or you put a full metal stent in that’s going to be fully within the bile duct, I think this data does provide some reassurance. If you’re using one of the traditional stents that we have in the United States and putting it fully within the bile duct, you do need to be prepared to have a little bit of a harder time removing the stent when the time comes for the removal procedure, which could require cholangioscopy. But this does provide some evidence to back up the practice of using fully covered metal stents fully within the bile duct to remediate anastomotic strictures that may be just a little too high up to treat traditionally with a stent that remains transpapillary,” said Dr. Kushnir.

The study also suggests an avenue for further research. “What’s also interesting about this study is that they only left the stents in for 3 months. In most clinical trials, where we’ve used fully covered metal stents for treating anastomotic biliary strictures, you leave the stent in from anywhere from 6 to 12 months. So with only 3 months dwell time they were able to get pretty impressive results, at least in the short term, in a retrospective study, so it does raise the question of should we be evaluating shorter dwell times for stents in treating anastomotic strictures when we’re using a fully covered metal stent that’s a larger diameter?” said Dr. Kushnir.

The authors noted some limitations, such as the retrospective design, small sample size, and lack of control group. They also noted that the multicenter design may have introduced heterogeneity in patient management and follow-up.

“In conclusion, IDSEMS appear to be safe and highly efficacious in the management of [post–liver transplant] AS,” concluded the authors. “Long-term outcomes appear good with low rates of AS recurrence.”

The authors declare no conflicts of interest. Dr. Kushnir is a consultant for ConMed and Boston Scientific.

A real-world analysis in the United Kingdom found that a fully covered metal stent is safe and effective at controlling anastomotic strictures (AS) following liver transplants.

Biliary AS occurs in an estimated 5%-32% of patients following a liver transplant. Generally, these have been managed by insertion of side-by-side plastic stents to remodel the stricture, but this often required multiple procedures to resolve the problem. More recently, transpapillary fully covered self-expanding metallic stents (FCSEMSs) have been introduced and they appear to perform equivalently to their plastic counterparts while requiring fewer procedures.

The new study “is yet another large experience demonstrating that use of fully covered metal stents for treating anastomotic biliary strictures is highly effective and also cost-effective because you really decrease the number of ERCPs [endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatographies] that are required to treat an anastomotic stricture,” said Vladimir Kushnir, MD, who was asked to comment on the study, which was published in Therapeutic Advances in Gastroenterology.

The researchers analyzed retrospective data from 162 consecutive patients who underwent ERCP with intraductal self-expanding metal stent (IDSEMS) insertion at nine tertiary centers. The procedures employed the Kaffes (Taewoong Niti-S) biliary covered stent, which is not available in the United States. Unlike conventional FCSEMSs, the device does not have to traverse the papilla. It is also shorter and includes an antimigration waist and removal wires that may reduce the risk of silent migration. Small case series suggested efficacy in the treatment of post–liver transplant AS.

There were 176 episodes of stent insertion among the 162 included patients; 62% of patients were male, and the median age at transplant was 54 years. Etiologies included hepatocellular carcinoma (22%), alcohol-related liver disease (18%), and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (12%). The median time to development of a stricture was 24.9 weeks. Among all patients, 35% had previously received stents; 75% of those were plastic stents.

Overall, 10% of patients experienced stricture recurrence at a median interval of 19 weeks following stent removal. Median stent emplacement was 15 weeks, and 81% of patients had a resolution of their strictures.

Dr. Kushnir, from Washington University in St. Louis, highlighted the differences between the stent used in the study and those currently available in the United States. “This type of stent is a self-expanding metal stent that’s covered, but what’s different about it is that it’s designed to go completely within the bile duct, whereas a traditional fully covered metal stent traverses the major duodenal papilla.”

Despite those differences, he believes that the study can inform current practice in the United States. “In situations where you’re faced with a question of whether or not you leave multiple plastic stents in, or you put a full metal stent in that’s going to be fully within the bile duct, I think this data does provide some reassurance. If you’re using one of the traditional stents that we have in the United States and putting it fully within the bile duct, you do need to be prepared to have a little bit of a harder time removing the stent when the time comes for the removal procedure, which could require cholangioscopy. But this does provide some evidence to back up the practice of using fully covered metal stents fully within the bile duct to remediate anastomotic strictures that may be just a little too high up to treat traditionally with a stent that remains transpapillary,” said Dr. Kushnir.

The study also suggests an avenue for further research. “What’s also interesting about this study is that they only left the stents in for 3 months. In most clinical trials, where we’ve used fully covered metal stents for treating anastomotic biliary strictures, you leave the stent in from anywhere from 6 to 12 months. So with only 3 months dwell time they were able to get pretty impressive results, at least in the short term, in a retrospective study, so it does raise the question of should we be evaluating shorter dwell times for stents in treating anastomotic strictures when we’re using a fully covered metal stent that’s a larger diameter?” said Dr. Kushnir.

The authors noted some limitations, such as the retrospective design, small sample size, and lack of control group. They also noted that the multicenter design may have introduced heterogeneity in patient management and follow-up.

“In conclusion, IDSEMS appear to be safe and highly efficacious in the management of [post–liver transplant] AS,” concluded the authors. “Long-term outcomes appear good with low rates of AS recurrence.”

The authors declare no conflicts of interest. Dr. Kushnir is a consultant for ConMed and Boston Scientific.

A real-world analysis in the United Kingdom found that a fully covered metal stent is safe and effective at controlling anastomotic strictures (AS) following liver transplants.

Biliary AS occurs in an estimated 5%-32% of patients following a liver transplant. Generally, these have been managed by insertion of side-by-side plastic stents to remodel the stricture, but this often required multiple procedures to resolve the problem. More recently, transpapillary fully covered self-expanding metallic stents (FCSEMSs) have been introduced and they appear to perform equivalently to their plastic counterparts while requiring fewer procedures.

The new study “is yet another large experience demonstrating that use of fully covered metal stents for treating anastomotic biliary strictures is highly effective and also cost-effective because you really decrease the number of ERCPs [endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatographies] that are required to treat an anastomotic stricture,” said Vladimir Kushnir, MD, who was asked to comment on the study, which was published in Therapeutic Advances in Gastroenterology.

The researchers analyzed retrospective data from 162 consecutive patients who underwent ERCP with intraductal self-expanding metal stent (IDSEMS) insertion at nine tertiary centers. The procedures employed the Kaffes (Taewoong Niti-S) biliary covered stent, which is not available in the United States. Unlike conventional FCSEMSs, the device does not have to traverse the papilla. It is also shorter and includes an antimigration waist and removal wires that may reduce the risk of silent migration. Small case series suggested efficacy in the treatment of post–liver transplant AS.

There were 176 episodes of stent insertion among the 162 included patients; 62% of patients were male, and the median age at transplant was 54 years. Etiologies included hepatocellular carcinoma (22%), alcohol-related liver disease (18%), and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (12%). The median time to development of a stricture was 24.9 weeks. Among all patients, 35% had previously received stents; 75% of those were plastic stents.

Overall, 10% of patients experienced stricture recurrence at a median interval of 19 weeks following stent removal. Median stent emplacement was 15 weeks, and 81% of patients had a resolution of their strictures.

Dr. Kushnir, from Washington University in St. Louis, highlighted the differences between the stent used in the study and those currently available in the United States. “This type of stent is a self-expanding metal stent that’s covered, but what’s different about it is that it’s designed to go completely within the bile duct, whereas a traditional fully covered metal stent traverses the major duodenal papilla.”

Despite those differences, he believes that the study can inform current practice in the United States. “In situations where you’re faced with a question of whether or not you leave multiple plastic stents in, or you put a full metal stent in that’s going to be fully within the bile duct, I think this data does provide some reassurance. If you’re using one of the traditional stents that we have in the United States and putting it fully within the bile duct, you do need to be prepared to have a little bit of a harder time removing the stent when the time comes for the removal procedure, which could require cholangioscopy. But this does provide some evidence to back up the practice of using fully covered metal stents fully within the bile duct to remediate anastomotic strictures that may be just a little too high up to treat traditionally with a stent that remains transpapillary,” said Dr. Kushnir.

The study also suggests an avenue for further research. “What’s also interesting about this study is that they only left the stents in for 3 months. In most clinical trials, where we’ve used fully covered metal stents for treating anastomotic biliary strictures, you leave the stent in from anywhere from 6 to 12 months. So with only 3 months dwell time they were able to get pretty impressive results, at least in the short term, in a retrospective study, so it does raise the question of should we be evaluating shorter dwell times for stents in treating anastomotic strictures when we’re using a fully covered metal stent that’s a larger diameter?” said Dr. Kushnir.

The authors noted some limitations, such as the retrospective design, small sample size, and lack of control group. They also noted that the multicenter design may have introduced heterogeneity in patient management and follow-up.

“In conclusion, IDSEMS appear to be safe and highly efficacious in the management of [post–liver transplant] AS,” concluded the authors. “Long-term outcomes appear good with low rates of AS recurrence.”

The authors declare no conflicts of interest. Dr. Kushnir is a consultant for ConMed and Boston Scientific.

A new consensus statement summarizes the benefits, limitations, and challenges of using automated insulin delivery (AID) systems and provides recommendations for use by people with diabetes.  

“Automated insulin delivery systems” is becoming the standard terminology – including by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration – to refer to systems that integrate data from a continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) system via a control algorithm into an insulin pump in order to automate subcutaneous insulin delivery. “Hybrid AID” or “hybrid closed-loop” refers to the current status of these systems, which still require some degree of user input to control glucose levels.

The term “artificial pancreas” was used interchangeably with AID in the past, but it doesn’t take into account exocrine pancreatic function. The term “bionic pancreas” refers to a specific system in development that would ultimately include glucagon along with insulin.

The new consensus report, titled “Automated insulin delivery: Benefits, challenges, and recommendations,” was published online in Diabetes Care and Diabetologia.  

The document is geared toward not only diabetologists and other specialists, but also diabetes nurses and specialist dietitians. Colleagues working at regulatory agencies, health care organizations, and related media might also benefit from reading it.

It is endorsed by two professional societies – the European Association for the Study of Diabetes and the American Diabetes Association – and contrasts with other statements about AID systems that are sponsored by their manufacturers, noted document co-author Mark Evans, PhD, professor of diabetic medicine, University of Cambridge, England, in a statement.

“Many clinically relevant aspects, including safety, are addressed in this report. The aim ... is to encourage ongoing improvement of this technology, its safe and effective use, and its accessibility to all who can benefit from it,” Dr. Evans said.

Lead author Jennifer Sherr, MD, PhD, pediatric endocrinology, Yale University, New Haven, Conn., commented that the report “addresses the clinical usage of AID systems from a practical point of view rather than as ... a meta-analysis or a review of all relevant clinical studies. ... As such, the benefits and limitations of systems are discussed while also considering safety, regulatory pathways, and access to this technology.”
 

AID systems do not mean diabetes is “cured”

Separate recommendations provided at the end of the document are aimed at specific stakeholders, including health care providers, patients and their caregivers, manufacturers, regulatory agencies, and the research community.  

The authors make clear in the introduction that, while representing “a significant movement toward optimizing glucose management for individuals with diabetes,” the use of AID systems doesn’t mean that diabetes is “cured.” Rather, “expectations need to be set adequately so that individuals with diabetes and providers understand what such systems can and cannot do.”

In particular, current commercially available AID systems require user input for mealtime insulin dosing and sometimes for correction doses of high blood glucose levels, although the systems at least partially automate that.

“When integrated into care, AID systems hold promise to relieve some of the daily burdens of diabetes care,” the authors write.

The statement also details problems that may arise with the physical devices, including skin irritation from adhesives, occlusion of insulin infusion sets, early CGM sensor failure, and inadequate dosing algorithms.

“Individuals with diabetes who are considering this type of advanced diabetes therapy should not only have appropriate technical understanding of the system but also be able to revert to standard diabetes treatment (that is, nonautomated subcutaneous insulin delivery by pump or injections) in case the AID system fails. They should be able to independently troubleshoot and have access to their health care provider if needed.”

To monitor the impact of the technology, the authors emphasize the importance of the time-in-range metric derived from CGM, with the goal of achieving 70% or greater time in target blood glucose range.

Separate sections of the document address the benefits and limitations of AID systems, education and expectations for both patients and providers, and patient and provider perspectives, including how to handle urgent questions.

Other sections cover special populations such as pregnant women and people with type 2 diabetes, considerations for patient selection for current AID systems, safety, improving access to the technology, liability, and do-it-yourself systems.
 

Recommendations for health care professionals

A table near the end of the document provides specific recommendations for health care professionals, including the following:

• Be knowledgeable about AID systems and nuances of different systems, including their distinguishing features as well as strengths and weaknesses.
• Inform patients with diabetes about AID systems, including review of currently available systems, and create realistic expectations for device use.
• Involve patients with diabetes in shared decision-making when considering use of AID systems.
• Share information with patients with diabetes, as well as their peers, about general standards set by national and international guidelines on AID systems.
• Provide an on-call number or method by which a person with diabetes can always access support from a health care provider at the practice, including weekends and nights.
• Implement, potentially, protocols on times when AID systems should not be used.
• Use an individual’s health data to improve quality of care and health outcomes.

Most members of the ADA/EASD Diabetes Technology Working Group work with industry, but industry had no input on the project. Dr. Sherr has reported conducting clinical trials for Eli Lilly, Insulet, and Medtronic, and has received in-kind support for research studies from Dexcom and Medtronic. She has also reported consulting for Eli Lilly, Lexicon, Medtronic, and Sanofi, and being an advisory board member for Bigfoot Biomedical, Cecelia Health, Eli Lilly, Insulet, T1D Fund, and Vertex Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Evans has reported conducting clinical trials or research collaborations for, serving on advisory boards for, or receiving speakers fees or travel support from Medtronic, Roche, Abbott Diabetes Care, Dexcom, Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly, Sanofi, Zucara Therapeutics, Pila Pharma, and AstraZeneca. The University of Cambridge has received salary support for Dr. Evans from the National Health Service.

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

A new consensus statement summarizes the benefits, limitations, and challenges of using automated insulin delivery (AID) systems and provides recommendations for use by people with diabetes.  

“Automated insulin delivery systems” is becoming the standard terminology – including by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration – to refer to systems that integrate data from a continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) system via a control algorithm into an insulin pump in order to automate subcutaneous insulin delivery. “Hybrid AID” or “hybrid closed-loop” refers to the current status of these systems, which still require some degree of user input to control glucose levels.

The term “artificial pancreas” was used interchangeably with AID in the past, but it doesn’t take into account exocrine pancreatic function. The term “bionic pancreas” refers to a specific system in development that would ultimately include glucagon along with insulin.

The new consensus report, titled “Automated insulin delivery: Benefits, challenges, and recommendations,” was published online in Diabetes Care and Diabetologia.  

The document is geared toward not only diabetologists and other specialists, but also diabetes nurses and specialist dietitians. Colleagues working at regulatory agencies, health care organizations, and related media might also benefit from reading it.

It is endorsed by two professional societies – the European Association for the Study of Diabetes and the American Diabetes Association – and contrasts with other statements about AID systems that are sponsored by their manufacturers, noted document co-author Mark Evans, PhD, professor of diabetic medicine, University of Cambridge, England, in a statement.

“Many clinically relevant aspects, including safety, are addressed in this report. The aim ... is to encourage ongoing improvement of this technology, its safe and effective use, and its accessibility to all who can benefit from it,” Dr. Evans said.

Lead author Jennifer Sherr, MD, PhD, pediatric endocrinology, Yale University, New Haven, Conn., commented that the report “addresses the clinical usage of AID systems from a practical point of view rather than as ... a meta-analysis or a review of all relevant clinical studies. ... As such, the benefits and limitations of systems are discussed while also considering safety, regulatory pathways, and access to this technology.”
 

AID systems do not mean diabetes is “cured”

Separate recommendations provided at the end of the document are aimed at specific stakeholders, including health care providers, patients and their caregivers, manufacturers, regulatory agencies, and the research community.  

The authors make clear in the introduction that, while representing “a significant movement toward optimizing glucose management for individuals with diabetes,” the use of AID systems doesn’t mean that diabetes is “cured.” Rather, “expectations need to be set adequately so that individuals with diabetes and providers understand what such systems can and cannot do.”

In particular, current commercially available AID systems require user input for mealtime insulin dosing and sometimes for correction doses of high blood glucose levels, although the systems at least partially automate that.

“When integrated into care, AID systems hold promise to relieve some of the daily burdens of diabetes care,” the authors write.

The statement also details problems that may arise with the physical devices, including skin irritation from adhesives, occlusion of insulin infusion sets, early CGM sensor failure, and inadequate dosing algorithms.

“Individuals with diabetes who are considering this type of advanced diabetes therapy should not only have appropriate technical understanding of the system but also be able to revert to standard diabetes treatment (that is, nonautomated subcutaneous insulin delivery by pump or injections) in case the AID system fails. They should be able to independently troubleshoot and have access to their health care provider if needed.”

To monitor the impact of the technology, the authors emphasize the importance of the time-in-range metric derived from CGM, with the goal of achieving 70% or greater time in target blood glucose range.

Separate sections of the document address the benefits and limitations of AID systems, education and expectations for both patients and providers, and patient and provider perspectives, including how to handle urgent questions.

Other sections cover special populations such as pregnant women and people with type 2 diabetes, considerations for patient selection for current AID systems, safety, improving access to the technology, liability, and do-it-yourself systems.
 

Recommendations for health care professionals

A table near the end of the document provides specific recommendations for health care professionals, including the following:

• Be knowledgeable about AID systems and nuances of different systems, including their distinguishing features as well as strengths and weaknesses.
• Inform patients with diabetes about AID systems, including review of currently available systems, and create realistic expectations for device use.
• Involve patients with diabetes in shared decision-making when considering use of AID systems.
• Share information with patients with diabetes, as well as their peers, about general standards set by national and international guidelines on AID systems.
• Provide an on-call number or method by which a person with diabetes can always access support from a health care provider at the practice, including weekends and nights.
• Implement, potentially, protocols on times when AID systems should not be used.
• Use an individual’s health data to improve quality of care and health outcomes.

Most members of the ADA/EASD Diabetes Technology Working Group work with industry, but industry had no input on the project. Dr. Sherr has reported conducting clinical trials for Eli Lilly, Insulet, and Medtronic, and has received in-kind support for research studies from Dexcom and Medtronic. She has also reported consulting for Eli Lilly, Lexicon, Medtronic, and Sanofi, and being an advisory board member for Bigfoot Biomedical, Cecelia Health, Eli Lilly, Insulet, T1D Fund, and Vertex Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Evans has reported conducting clinical trials or research collaborations for, serving on advisory boards for, or receiving speakers fees or travel support from Medtronic, Roche, Abbott Diabetes Care, Dexcom, Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly, Sanofi, Zucara Therapeutics, Pila Pharma, and AstraZeneca. The University of Cambridge has received salary support for Dr. Evans from the National Health Service.

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

A new consensus statement summarizes the benefits, limitations, and challenges of using automated insulin delivery (AID) systems and provides recommendations for use by people with diabetes.  

“Automated insulin delivery systems” is becoming the standard terminology – including by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration – to refer to systems that integrate data from a continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) system via a control algorithm into an insulin pump in order to automate subcutaneous insulin delivery. “Hybrid AID” or “hybrid closed-loop” refers to the current status of these systems, which still require some degree of user input to control glucose levels.

The term “artificial pancreas” was used interchangeably with AID in the past, but it doesn’t take into account exocrine pancreatic function. The term “bionic pancreas” refers to a specific system in development that would ultimately include glucagon along with insulin.

The new consensus report, titled “Automated insulin delivery: Benefits, challenges, and recommendations,” was published online in Diabetes Care and Diabetologia.  

The document is geared toward not only diabetologists and other specialists, but also diabetes nurses and specialist dietitians. Colleagues working at regulatory agencies, health care organizations, and related media might also benefit from reading it.

It is endorsed by two professional societies – the European Association for the Study of Diabetes and the American Diabetes Association – and contrasts with other statements about AID systems that are sponsored by their manufacturers, noted document co-author Mark Evans, PhD, professor of diabetic medicine, University of Cambridge, England, in a statement.

“Many clinically relevant aspects, including safety, are addressed in this report. The aim ... is to encourage ongoing improvement of this technology, its safe and effective use, and its accessibility to all who can benefit from it,” Dr. Evans said.

Lead author Jennifer Sherr, MD, PhD, pediatric endocrinology, Yale University, New Haven, Conn., commented that the report “addresses the clinical usage of AID systems from a practical point of view rather than as ... a meta-analysis or a review of all relevant clinical studies. ... As such, the benefits and limitations of systems are discussed while also considering safety, regulatory pathways, and access to this technology.”
 

AID systems do not mean diabetes is “cured”

Separate recommendations provided at the end of the document are aimed at specific stakeholders, including health care providers, patients and their caregivers, manufacturers, regulatory agencies, and the research community.  

The authors make clear in the introduction that, while representing “a significant movement toward optimizing glucose management for individuals with diabetes,” the use of AID systems doesn’t mean that diabetes is “cured.” Rather, “expectations need to be set adequately so that individuals with diabetes and providers understand what such systems can and cannot do.”

In particular, current commercially available AID systems require user input for mealtime insulin dosing and sometimes for correction doses of high blood glucose levels, although the systems at least partially automate that.

“When integrated into care, AID systems hold promise to relieve some of the daily burdens of diabetes care,” the authors write.

The statement also details problems that may arise with the physical devices, including skin irritation from adhesives, occlusion of insulin infusion sets, early CGM sensor failure, and inadequate dosing algorithms.

“Individuals with diabetes who are considering this type of advanced diabetes therapy should not only have appropriate technical understanding of the system but also be able to revert to standard diabetes treatment (that is, nonautomated subcutaneous insulin delivery by pump or injections) in case the AID system fails. They should be able to independently troubleshoot and have access to their health care provider if needed.”

To monitor the impact of the technology, the authors emphasize the importance of the time-in-range metric derived from CGM, with the goal of achieving 70% or greater time in target blood glucose range.

Separate sections of the document address the benefits and limitations of AID systems, education and expectations for both patients and providers, and patient and provider perspectives, including how to handle urgent questions.

Other sections cover special populations such as pregnant women and people with type 2 diabetes, considerations for patient selection for current AID systems, safety, improving access to the technology, liability, and do-it-yourself systems.
 

Recommendations for health care professionals

A table near the end of the document provides specific recommendations for health care professionals, including the following:

• Be knowledgeable about AID systems and nuances of different systems, including their distinguishing features as well as strengths and weaknesses.
• Inform patients with diabetes about AID systems, including review of currently available systems, and create realistic expectations for device use.
• Involve patients with diabetes in shared decision-making when considering use of AID systems.
• Share information with patients with diabetes, as well as their peers, about general standards set by national and international guidelines on AID systems.
• Provide an on-call number or method by which a person with diabetes can always access support from a health care provider at the practice, including weekends and nights.
• Implement, potentially, protocols on times when AID systems should not be used.
• Use an individual’s health data to improve quality of care and health outcomes.

Most members of the ADA/EASD Diabetes Technology Working Group work with industry, but industry had no input on the project. Dr. Sherr has reported conducting clinical trials for Eli Lilly, Insulet, and Medtronic, and has received in-kind support for research studies from Dexcom and Medtronic. She has also reported consulting for Eli Lilly, Lexicon, Medtronic, and Sanofi, and being an advisory board member for Bigfoot Biomedical, Cecelia Health, Eli Lilly, Insulet, T1D Fund, and Vertex Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Evans has reported conducting clinical trials or research collaborations for, serving on advisory boards for, or receiving speakers fees or travel support from Medtronic, Roche, Abbott Diabetes Care, Dexcom, Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly, Sanofi, Zucara Therapeutics, Pila Pharma, and AstraZeneca. The University of Cambridge has received salary support for Dr. Evans from the National Health Service.

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

The diversity of neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) – which includes variation in location, mutational profile, and response to therapy – may be due to divergent cellular origins in different tissue sites, according to a new study.

The pathogenesis of gastroenteropancreatic neoplasms (GEP-NENs) is poorly understood, in part because of a lack of modeling systems, according to Suzann Duan, PhD, and colleagues. They are a heterogeneous group of tumors that are increasingly prevalent in the United States. GEP-NENs arise from endocrine-producing cells and include gastric carcinoids, gastrinomas, and pancreatic NETs.

Despite the general mystery surrounding GEP-NENs, there is at least one clue in the form of the MEN1 gene. Both inherited and sporadic mutations of this gene are associated with GEP-NENs. Menin is a tumor suppressor protein, and previous studies have shown that inactivation of MEN1 leads to loss of that protein and is associated with endocrine tumors in the pancreas, pituitary, and upper GI tract.

In new research published in Cellular and Molecular Gastroenterology and Hepatology, researchers investigated the role of MEN1 in neuroendocrine cell development and traced it to a potential role in the development of NETs.

Patients with MEN1 mutations are at increased risk of gastrinomas, which lead to increased production of the peptide hormone gastrin. Gastrin increases acid production and can lead to hyperplasia in parietal and enterochromaffin cells. These generally develop in Brunner’s glands within the submucosa of the duodenum. At time of diagnosis, more than half of such tumors have developed lymph node metastases.

It remains unclear how loss of MEN1 suppresses gastrin production. Previous research showed that homozygous MEN1 deletion in mice is lethal to embryos, while leaving one copy intact leads to heightened risk of endocrine tumors in the pancreas and pituitary gland, but not in the GI tract. The studies did not reveal the tumor’s origin cell.

The researchers developed a novel mouse model in which MEN1 is conditionally deleted from the GI tract epithelium. This led to hyperplasia of gastrin-producing cells (G cells) in the antrum, as well as hypergastrinemia and development of gastric NETs. Exposure to a proton pump inhibitor accelerated gastric NET development, and the researchers identified expansion of enteric glial cells that expressed gastrin and GFAP. Glial cells that differentiated into endocrine phenotype were associated with a reversible loss of menin. “Taken together, these observations suggest that hyperplastic G cells might emerge from reprogrammed neural crest–derived cells in addition to endoderm-derived enteroendocrine cells,” the authors wrote.

That idea is supported by previous research indicating that multipotent glial cells expressing GFAP or SOX10 may play a developmental role in formation of neuroendocrine cells.

With this in mind, the researchers deleted MEN1 in GFAP-expressing cells to see if it would promote neuroendocrine cell development.

The result was hyperplasia in the gastric antrum and NETs in the pituitary and pancreas. To the researchers’ surprise, NET development was associated with loss of GFAP expression as well as activation of neuronal and neuroendocrine-related genes in the stomach, pancreas, and pituitary. There was universal reduction of GFAP protein expression in pituitary and pancreatic NETs, but GFAP transcript levels stayed steady in the gastric antra despite a reduction in GFAP-reporter expression. This could indicate that the menin protein interacts with GFAP. If so, eliminating menin in GFAP-positive cells could change the localization of GFAP, which may in turn lead to changes in glial cell identity.

When the researchers compared transcriptomes of hyperplastic antral tissues to well-differentiated NETs, they found that NETs exhibited a greater loss of glial-restricted progenitor lineage–associated genes as well as more downregulation of gliogenesis-directing factors. “Thus, the transition from a glial-to-neuronal cell phenotype appears to promote the progression from neuroendocrine cell hyperplasia to tumor development,” the authors wrote. They also found that NETs have higher levels of expression of genes associated with neural stem and progenitor cells, as well as upregulation of factors secreted from neural crest cells that promote neurogenesis and restrict the glial cell fate. Many of these factors are part of the Hedgehog signaling pathway, and menin is known to repress Hedgehog signaling.

Intestinal glial cells have a high degree of plasticity. They can become neuronal progenitor cells and yet they can dedifferentiate to differentiate again into other cell lineages.

The research could eventually lead to identification of unique cells-of-origin for these tumors. The authors say that the diversity of the tumors – which includes variation in location, mutational profile, and response to therapy – may be due to divergent cellular origins in different tissue sites. “Defining the cells-of-origin and the events preceding neoplastic transformation will be critical to informing molecular signaling pathways that can then be targeted therapeutically,” the authors wrote.

The authors disclosed no conflicts of interest.

The diversity of neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) – which includes variation in location, mutational profile, and response to therapy – may be due to divergent cellular origins in different tissue sites, according to a new study.

The pathogenesis of gastroenteropancreatic neoplasms (GEP-NENs) is poorly understood, in part because of a lack of modeling systems, according to Suzann Duan, PhD, and colleagues. They are a heterogeneous group of tumors that are increasingly prevalent in the United States. GEP-NENs arise from endocrine-producing cells and include gastric carcinoids, gastrinomas, and pancreatic NETs.

Despite the general mystery surrounding GEP-NENs, there is at least one clue in the form of the MEN1 gene. Both inherited and sporadic mutations of this gene are associated with GEP-NENs. Menin is a tumor suppressor protein, and previous studies have shown that inactivation of MEN1 leads to loss of that protein and is associated with endocrine tumors in the pancreas, pituitary, and upper GI tract.

In new research published in Cellular and Molecular Gastroenterology and Hepatology, researchers investigated the role of MEN1 in neuroendocrine cell development and traced it to a potential role in the development of NETs.

Patients with MEN1 mutations are at increased risk of gastrinomas, which lead to increased production of the peptide hormone gastrin. Gastrin increases acid production and can lead to hyperplasia in parietal and enterochromaffin cells. These generally develop in Brunner’s glands within the submucosa of the duodenum. At time of diagnosis, more than half of such tumors have developed lymph node metastases.

It remains unclear how loss of MEN1 suppresses gastrin production. Previous research showed that homozygous MEN1 deletion in mice is lethal to embryos, while leaving one copy intact leads to heightened risk of endocrine tumors in the pancreas and pituitary gland, but not in the GI tract. The studies did not reveal the tumor’s origin cell.

The researchers developed a novel mouse model in which MEN1 is conditionally deleted from the GI tract epithelium. This led to hyperplasia of gastrin-producing cells (G cells) in the antrum, as well as hypergastrinemia and development of gastric NETs. Exposure to a proton pump inhibitor accelerated gastric NET development, and the researchers identified expansion of enteric glial cells that expressed gastrin and GFAP. Glial cells that differentiated into endocrine phenotype were associated with a reversible loss of menin. “Taken together, these observations suggest that hyperplastic G cells might emerge from reprogrammed neural crest–derived cells in addition to endoderm-derived enteroendocrine cells,” the authors wrote.

That idea is supported by previous research indicating that multipotent glial cells expressing GFAP or SOX10 may play a developmental role in formation of neuroendocrine cells.

With this in mind, the researchers deleted MEN1 in GFAP-expressing cells to see if it would promote neuroendocrine cell development.

The result was hyperplasia in the gastric antrum and NETs in the pituitary and pancreas. To the researchers’ surprise, NET development was associated with loss of GFAP expression as well as activation of neuronal and neuroendocrine-related genes in the stomach, pancreas, and pituitary. There was universal reduction of GFAP protein expression in pituitary and pancreatic NETs, but GFAP transcript levels stayed steady in the gastric antra despite a reduction in GFAP-reporter expression. This could indicate that the menin protein interacts with GFAP. If so, eliminating menin in GFAP-positive cells could change the localization of GFAP, which may in turn lead to changes in glial cell identity.

When the researchers compared transcriptomes of hyperplastic antral tissues to well-differentiated NETs, they found that NETs exhibited a greater loss of glial-restricted progenitor lineage–associated genes as well as more downregulation of gliogenesis-directing factors. “Thus, the transition from a glial-to-neuronal cell phenotype appears to promote the progression from neuroendocrine cell hyperplasia to tumor development,” the authors wrote. They also found that NETs have higher levels of expression of genes associated with neural stem and progenitor cells, as well as upregulation of factors secreted from neural crest cells that promote neurogenesis and restrict the glial cell fate. Many of these factors are part of the Hedgehog signaling pathway, and menin is known to repress Hedgehog signaling.

Intestinal glial cells have a high degree of plasticity. They can become neuronal progenitor cells and yet they can dedifferentiate to differentiate again into other cell lineages.

The research could eventually lead to identification of unique cells-of-origin for these tumors. The authors say that the diversity of the tumors – which includes variation in location, mutational profile, and response to therapy – may be due to divergent cellular origins in different tissue sites. “Defining the cells-of-origin and the events preceding neoplastic transformation will be critical to informing molecular signaling pathways that can then be targeted therapeutically,” the authors wrote.

The authors disclosed no conflicts of interest.

The diversity of neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) – which includes variation in location, mutational profile, and response to therapy – may be due to divergent cellular origins in different tissue sites, according to a new study.

The pathogenesis of gastroenteropancreatic neoplasms (GEP-NENs) is poorly understood, in part because of a lack of modeling systems, according to Suzann Duan, PhD, and colleagues. They are a heterogeneous group of tumors that are increasingly prevalent in the United States. GEP-NENs arise from endocrine-producing cells and include gastric carcinoids, gastrinomas, and pancreatic NETs.

Despite the general mystery surrounding GEP-NENs, there is at least one clue in the form of the MEN1 gene. Both inherited and sporadic mutations of this gene are associated with GEP-NENs. Menin is a tumor suppressor protein, and previous studies have shown that inactivation of MEN1 leads to loss of that protein and is associated with endocrine tumors in the pancreas, pituitary, and upper GI tract.

In new research published in Cellular and Molecular Gastroenterology and Hepatology, researchers investigated the role of MEN1 in neuroendocrine cell development and traced it to a potential role in the development of NETs.

Patients with MEN1 mutations are at increased risk of gastrinomas, which lead to increased production of the peptide hormone gastrin. Gastrin increases acid production and can lead to hyperplasia in parietal and enterochromaffin cells. These generally develop in Brunner’s glands within the submucosa of the duodenum. At time of diagnosis, more than half of such tumors have developed lymph node metastases.

It remains unclear how loss of MEN1 suppresses gastrin production. Previous research showed that homozygous MEN1 deletion in mice is lethal to embryos, while leaving one copy intact leads to heightened risk of endocrine tumors in the pancreas and pituitary gland, but not in the GI tract. The studies did not reveal the tumor’s origin cell.

The researchers developed a novel mouse model in which MEN1 is conditionally deleted from the GI tract epithelium. This led to hyperplasia of gastrin-producing cells (G cells) in the antrum, as well as hypergastrinemia and development of gastric NETs. Exposure to a proton pump inhibitor accelerated gastric NET development, and the researchers identified expansion of enteric glial cells that expressed gastrin and GFAP. Glial cells that differentiated into endocrine phenotype were associated with a reversible loss of menin. “Taken together, these observations suggest that hyperplastic G cells might emerge from reprogrammed neural crest–derived cells in addition to endoderm-derived enteroendocrine cells,” the authors wrote.

That idea is supported by previous research indicating that multipotent glial cells expressing GFAP or SOX10 may play a developmental role in formation of neuroendocrine cells.

With this in mind, the researchers deleted MEN1 in GFAP-expressing cells to see if it would promote neuroendocrine cell development.

The result was hyperplasia in the gastric antrum and NETs in the pituitary and pancreas. To the researchers’ surprise, NET development was associated with loss of GFAP expression as well as activation of neuronal and neuroendocrine-related genes in the stomach, pancreas, and pituitary. There was universal reduction of GFAP protein expression in pituitary and pancreatic NETs, but GFAP transcript levels stayed steady in the gastric antra despite a reduction in GFAP-reporter expression. This could indicate that the menin protein interacts with GFAP. If so, eliminating menin in GFAP-positive cells could change the localization of GFAP, which may in turn lead to changes in glial cell identity.

When the researchers compared transcriptomes of hyperplastic antral tissues to well-differentiated NETs, they found that NETs exhibited a greater loss of glial-restricted progenitor lineage–associated genes as well as more downregulation of gliogenesis-directing factors. “Thus, the transition from a glial-to-neuronal cell phenotype appears to promote the progression from neuroendocrine cell hyperplasia to tumor development,” the authors wrote. They also found that NETs have higher levels of expression of genes associated with neural stem and progenitor cells, as well as upregulation of factors secreted from neural crest cells that promote neurogenesis and restrict the glial cell fate. Many of these factors are part of the Hedgehog signaling pathway, and menin is known to repress Hedgehog signaling.

Intestinal glial cells have a high degree of plasticity. They can become neuronal progenitor cells and yet they can dedifferentiate to differentiate again into other cell lineages.

The research could eventually lead to identification of unique cells-of-origin for these tumors. The authors say that the diversity of the tumors – which includes variation in location, mutational profile, and response to therapy – may be due to divergent cellular origins in different tissue sites. “Defining the cells-of-origin and the events preceding neoplastic transformation will be critical to informing molecular signaling pathways that can then be targeted therapeutically,” the authors wrote.

The authors disclosed no conflicts of interest.

ANAHEIM, CALIF. – Opioids are the most common cause of fatal poisonings in young children, and their contribution to children’s deaths has been increasing, according to research presented at the American Academy of Pediatrics National Conference.

The study found that the proportion of deaths in U.S. children linked to opioids has doubled since the mid-2000s, tracking the course of the epidemic in adults in this country.

“What is striking about our study is how the opioid epidemic has not spared our nation’s infants or young children,” Christopher Gaw, MD, MA, a pediatric emergency medicine fellow physician at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, said in an interview. “There is important work being done to reduce unnecessary opioid prescribing, drug diversion, and treatment of substance use disorders. These efforts – though not directly related to children – also help protect them, since they can reduce the chance of exposure to opioids in the home.”

Dr. Gaw and his colleagues analyzed data in Child Death Reviews from 40 states that participate in the National Fatality Review Case Reporting System, focusing on children aged 5 years and younger who died from a poisoning between 2005 and 2018. During that time, 731 child poisoning deaths were reported to the system – of which nearly half (47%) involved opioids as the poisoning agent – up from 24% in 2005. More than 4 in 10 deaths (42%) involved children under age 1.

Most of the deaths (61%) occurred in the child’s home, and in even more cases (71%) the child was being supervised when the poisoning occurred, most often by a parent (58.5%). The others supervising children were usually a grandparent (11%) or another relative (5.5%). The child was in view of the supervising individual in 28.5% of the deaths. A child protective services case was opened in 13% of the cases.

“Supervising a child is hard. Kids are constantly exploring and moving,” Dr. Gaw said. “A child may find a dropped medication on the floor that a caregiver doesn’t see, or a child may get into a bag or a purse when a caregiver is looking the other way. Poisonings can happen in a split second.”

Expecting caregivers to be able to watch kids every moment and always be within arm’s reach to prevent an accident is unrealistic, Dr. Gaw said, so families should focus on preparedness.

“Young children can’t tell the difference between a deadly substance versus a substance that is harmless or would only cause some harm. The best way to protect children is to prevent the poisoning from happening in the first place,” Dr. Gaw said. ”

It is recommended that caregivers keep the Poison Control Center’s national 24/7 hotline in their phones: (800) 222-1222.

Two-thirds of the cases Dr. Gaw examined did not involve a call to a poison control center, but most did involve a call to 911.

“My guess is that caregivers likely called 911 instead of poison control because the child was likely critically ill or deceased when found,” Dr. Gaw said, noting that his group did not have access to descriptive information about 911 calls. “If a child is critically ill and a caregiver called poison control first, they would be referred to 911.”

If a child looks healthy but has just swallowed something dangerous or deadly, Dr. Gaw said poison control can guide the family to getting prompt medical attention that could be lifesaving.

“We don’t expect the public to know what substances are harmless, harmful, or deadly,” he said. “People should always call poison control if there is any concern, even if the child looks well.”

Some poison control centers are working to increase the ways people can reach them, including through texting, apps, or online chat, he added.

Gary A. Smith, MD, DrPH, president of the nonprofit Child Injury Prevention Alliance in Columbus, Ohio, and director of the Center for Injury Research and Policy at Nationwide Children’s Hospital, said the high level of supervision in these cases was not surprising.

”We have shown that most children are being directly supervised at the moment of injury for baby walker–related injuries, firework-related injuries, and other types of injuries that we have studied,” Dr. Smith said in an interview. “Injuries happen quickly and generally do not give a parent or caregiver time to react.”

“This dispels the myth that parental supervision is the key to injury prevention,” Dr. Smith said. “Although supervision helps, it is not adequate. These injuries occur to children of good and caring parents. The message for pediatricians is that we must create safe environments for children and design hazards out of existence to effectively prevent poisoning and other injuries.”

That preventive approach has been used for infectious disease and other public health problems, he added.

“Prescription opioids must be kept in their original containers with children-resistant closures and be stored up, away, and out of sight of children, preferably in a locked location,” Dr. Smith said. “If adults use illicit opioids or any other illicit substances – which are commonly laced with fentanyl – they should not use or store them in the home where children can access them.”

Over-the-counter pain, cold, and allergy medications were the second most common cause of death, occurring in 15% of cases.

“There has been a lot of work over the years among health care providers to counsel families on the proper dosing and use of medications such as Tylenol, Motrin, and Benadryl,” Dr. Gaw said. “There has also been a push to educate families that using antihistamines, such as Benadryl, to sedate their children can be dangerous and, depending on the dose, potentially deadly.”

Another 14% of cases were an unspecified illicit drug, and 10% were an unspecified over-the-counter or prescription medication. Carbon monoxide poisoning made up 6% of cases, and the remaining substances included amphetamines, antidepressants, cocaine, and alcohol.

Over half the deaths in 1-year-olds (61%) and children aged 2-5 (54%) were due to opioid poisoning, as were a third of deaths in infants (34%). Most of the poisonings involving amphetamines (81%), cocaine (84%), and alcohol (61.5%) occurred in infants under age 1.

Dr. Smith said that harm-reduction strategies, such as having naloxone on hand and using fentanyl test strips, can reduce the likelihood of death from illicit drugs.
 

Reducing stigma can save lives

“Referring parents to services for individuals who use drugs is key,” Dr. Smith said. “Treating this as a public health problem without stigmatizing the behavior is something that pediatricians and other health care professionals must remember.” As a resource for other pediatricians, Dr. Gaw noted that CHOP’s poison control center medical director Kevin Osterhoudt, MD produced a 25-minute podcast that covers common causes of poisonings, use of naloxone in children, and prevention tips.

“Naloxone is an effective antidote to opioid poisonings,” Dr. Gaw said. “We often think of using it in adults, but this is also a lifesaving medication for children poisoned by opioids. Educating people on recognizing the signs and symptoms of opioid poisoning and helping them feel empowered to use naloxone is something the public health world is working on.”

Dr. Gaw and Dr. Smith had no relevant disclosures. No external funding was noted for the study.

ANAHEIM, CALIF. – Opioids are the most common cause of fatal poisonings in young children, and their contribution to children’s deaths has been increasing, according to research presented at the American Academy of Pediatrics National Conference.

The study found that the proportion of deaths in U.S. children linked to opioids has doubled since the mid-2000s, tracking the course of the epidemic in adults in this country.

“What is striking about our study is how the opioid epidemic has not spared our nation’s infants or young children,” Christopher Gaw, MD, MA, a pediatric emergency medicine fellow physician at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, said in an interview. “There is important work being done to reduce unnecessary opioid prescribing, drug diversion, and treatment of substance use disorders. These efforts – though not directly related to children – also help protect them, since they can reduce the chance of exposure to opioids in the home.”

Dr. Gaw and his colleagues analyzed data in Child Death Reviews from 40 states that participate in the National Fatality Review Case Reporting System, focusing on children aged 5 years and younger who died from a poisoning between 2005 and 2018. During that time, 731 child poisoning deaths were reported to the system – of which nearly half (47%) involved opioids as the poisoning agent – up from 24% in 2005. More than 4 in 10 deaths (42%) involved children under age 1.

Most of the deaths (61%) occurred in the child’s home, and in even more cases (71%) the child was being supervised when the poisoning occurred, most often by a parent (58.5%). The others supervising children were usually a grandparent (11%) or another relative (5.5%). The child was in view of the supervising individual in 28.5% of the deaths. A child protective services case was opened in 13% of the cases.

“Supervising a child is hard. Kids are constantly exploring and moving,” Dr. Gaw said. “A child may find a dropped medication on the floor that a caregiver doesn’t see, or a child may get into a bag or a purse when a caregiver is looking the other way. Poisonings can happen in a split second.”

Expecting caregivers to be able to watch kids every moment and always be within arm’s reach to prevent an accident is unrealistic, Dr. Gaw said, so families should focus on preparedness.

“Young children can’t tell the difference between a deadly substance versus a substance that is harmless or would only cause some harm. The best way to protect children is to prevent the poisoning from happening in the first place,” Dr. Gaw said. ”

It is recommended that caregivers keep the Poison Control Center’s national 24/7 hotline in their phones: (800) 222-1222.

Two-thirds of the cases Dr. Gaw examined did not involve a call to a poison control center, but most did involve a call to 911.

“My guess is that caregivers likely called 911 instead of poison control because the child was likely critically ill or deceased when found,” Dr. Gaw said, noting that his group did not have access to descriptive information about 911 calls. “If a child is critically ill and a caregiver called poison control first, they would be referred to 911.”

If a child looks healthy but has just swallowed something dangerous or deadly, Dr. Gaw said poison control can guide the family to getting prompt medical attention that could be lifesaving.

“We don’t expect the public to know what substances are harmless, harmful, or deadly,” he said. “People should always call poison control if there is any concern, even if the child looks well.”

Some poison control centers are working to increase the ways people can reach them, including through texting, apps, or online chat, he added.

Gary A. Smith, MD, DrPH, president of the nonprofit Child Injury Prevention Alliance in Columbus, Ohio, and director of the Center for Injury Research and Policy at Nationwide Children’s Hospital, said the high level of supervision in these cases was not surprising.

”We have shown that most children are being directly supervised at the moment of injury for baby walker–related injuries, firework-related injuries, and other types of injuries that we have studied,” Dr. Smith said in an interview. “Injuries happen quickly and generally do not give a parent or caregiver time to react.”

“This dispels the myth that parental supervision is the key to injury prevention,” Dr. Smith said. “Although supervision helps, it is not adequate. These injuries occur to children of good and caring parents. The message for pediatricians is that we must create safe environments for children and design hazards out of existence to effectively prevent poisoning and other injuries.”

That preventive approach has been used for infectious disease and other public health problems, he added.

“Prescription opioids must be kept in their original containers with children-resistant closures and be stored up, away, and out of sight of children, preferably in a locked location,” Dr. Smith said. “If adults use illicit opioids or any other illicit substances – which are commonly laced with fentanyl – they should not use or store them in the home where children can access them.”

Over-the-counter pain, cold, and allergy medications were the second most common cause of death, occurring in 15% of cases.

“There has been a lot of work over the years among health care providers to counsel families on the proper dosing and use of medications such as Tylenol, Motrin, and Benadryl,” Dr. Gaw said. “There has also been a push to educate families that using antihistamines, such as Benadryl, to sedate their children can be dangerous and, depending on the dose, potentially deadly.”

Another 14% of cases were an unspecified illicit drug, and 10% were an unspecified over-the-counter or prescription medication. Carbon monoxide poisoning made up 6% of cases, and the remaining substances included amphetamines, antidepressants, cocaine, and alcohol.

Over half the deaths in 1-year-olds (61%) and children aged 2-5 (54%) were due to opioid poisoning, as were a third of deaths in infants (34%). Most of the poisonings involving amphetamines (81%), cocaine (84%), and alcohol (61.5%) occurred in infants under age 1.

Dr. Smith said that harm-reduction strategies, such as having naloxone on hand and using fentanyl test strips, can reduce the likelihood of death from illicit drugs.
 

Reducing stigma can save lives

“Referring parents to services for individuals who use drugs is key,” Dr. Smith said. “Treating this as a public health problem without stigmatizing the behavior is something that pediatricians and other health care professionals must remember.” As a resource for other pediatricians, Dr. Gaw noted that CHOP’s poison control center medical director Kevin Osterhoudt, MD produced a 25-minute podcast that covers common causes of poisonings, use of naloxone in children, and prevention tips.

“Naloxone is an effective antidote to opioid poisonings,” Dr. Gaw said. “We often think of using it in adults, but this is also a lifesaving medication for children poisoned by opioids. Educating people on recognizing the signs and symptoms of opioid poisoning and helping them feel empowered to use naloxone is something the public health world is working on.”

Dr. Gaw and Dr. Smith had no relevant disclosures. No external funding was noted for the study.

ANAHEIM, CALIF. – Opioids are the most common cause of fatal poisonings in young children, and their contribution to children’s deaths has been increasing, according to research presented at the American Academy of Pediatrics National Conference.

The study found that the proportion of deaths in U.S. children linked to opioids has doubled since the mid-2000s, tracking the course of the epidemic in adults in this country.

“What is striking about our study is how the opioid epidemic has not spared our nation’s infants or young children,” Christopher Gaw, MD, MA, a pediatric emergency medicine fellow physician at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, said in an interview. “There is important work being done to reduce unnecessary opioid prescribing, drug diversion, and treatment of substance use disorders. These efforts – though not directly related to children – also help protect them, since they can reduce the chance of exposure to opioids in the home.”

Dr. Gaw and his colleagues analyzed data in Child Death Reviews from 40 states that participate in the National Fatality Review Case Reporting System, focusing on children aged 5 years and younger who died from a poisoning between 2005 and 2018. During that time, 731 child poisoning deaths were reported to the system – of which nearly half (47%) involved opioids as the poisoning agent – up from 24% in 2005. More than 4 in 10 deaths (42%) involved children under age 1.

Most of the deaths (61%) occurred in the child’s home, and in even more cases (71%) the child was being supervised when the poisoning occurred, most often by a parent (58.5%). The others supervising children were usually a grandparent (11%) or another relative (5.5%). The child was in view of the supervising individual in 28.5% of the deaths. A child protective services case was opened in 13% of the cases.

“Supervising a child is hard. Kids are constantly exploring and moving,” Dr. Gaw said. “A child may find a dropped medication on the floor that a caregiver doesn’t see, or a child may get into a bag or a purse when a caregiver is looking the other way. Poisonings can happen in a split second.”

Expecting caregivers to be able to watch kids every moment and always be within arm’s reach to prevent an accident is unrealistic, Dr. Gaw said, so families should focus on preparedness.

“Young children can’t tell the difference between a deadly substance versus a substance that is harmless or would only cause some harm. The best way to protect children is to prevent the poisoning from happening in the first place,” Dr. Gaw said. ”

It is recommended that caregivers keep the Poison Control Center’s national 24/7 hotline in their phones: (800) 222-1222.

Two-thirds of the cases Dr. Gaw examined did not involve a call to a poison control center, but most did involve a call to 911.

“My guess is that caregivers likely called 911 instead of poison control because the child was likely critically ill or deceased when found,” Dr. Gaw said, noting that his group did not have access to descriptive information about 911 calls. “If a child is critically ill and a caregiver called poison control first, they would be referred to 911.”

If a child looks healthy but has just swallowed something dangerous or deadly, Dr. Gaw said poison control can guide the family to getting prompt medical attention that could be lifesaving.

“We don’t expect the public to know what substances are harmless, harmful, or deadly,” he said. “People should always call poison control if there is any concern, even if the child looks well.”

Some poison control centers are working to increase the ways people can reach them, including through texting, apps, or online chat, he added.

Gary A. Smith, MD, DrPH, president of the nonprofit Child Injury Prevention Alliance in Columbus, Ohio, and director of the Center for Injury Research and Policy at Nationwide Children’s Hospital, said the high level of supervision in these cases was not surprising.

”We have shown that most children are being directly supervised at the moment of injury for baby walker–related injuries, firework-related injuries, and other types of injuries that we have studied,” Dr. Smith said in an interview. “Injuries happen quickly and generally do not give a parent or caregiver time to react.”

“This dispels the myth that parental supervision is the key to injury prevention,” Dr. Smith said. “Although supervision helps, it is not adequate. These injuries occur to children of good and caring parents. The message for pediatricians is that we must create safe environments for children and design hazards out of existence to effectively prevent poisoning and other injuries.”

That preventive approach has been used for infectious disease and other public health problems, he added.

“Prescription opioids must be kept in their original containers with children-resistant closures and be stored up, away, and out of sight of children, preferably in a locked location,” Dr. Smith said. “If adults use illicit opioids or any other illicit substances – which are commonly laced with fentanyl – they should not use or store them in the home where children can access them.”

Over-the-counter pain, cold, and allergy medications were the second most common cause of death, occurring in 15% of cases.

“There has been a lot of work over the years among health care providers to counsel families on the proper dosing and use of medications such as Tylenol, Motrin, and Benadryl,” Dr. Gaw said. “There has also been a push to educate families that using antihistamines, such as Benadryl, to sedate their children can be dangerous and, depending on the dose, potentially deadly.”

Another 14% of cases were an unspecified illicit drug, and 10% were an unspecified over-the-counter or prescription medication. Carbon monoxide poisoning made up 6% of cases, and the remaining substances included amphetamines, antidepressants, cocaine, and alcohol.

Over half the deaths in 1-year-olds (61%) and children aged 2-5 (54%) were due to opioid poisoning, as were a third of deaths in infants (34%). Most of the poisonings involving amphetamines (81%), cocaine (84%), and alcohol (61.5%) occurred in infants under age 1.

Dr. Smith said that harm-reduction strategies, such as having naloxone on hand and using fentanyl test strips, can reduce the likelihood of death from illicit drugs.
 

Reducing stigma can save lives

“Referring parents to services for individuals who use drugs is key,” Dr. Smith said. “Treating this as a public health problem without stigmatizing the behavior is something that pediatricians and other health care professionals must remember.” As a resource for other pediatricians, Dr. Gaw noted that CHOP’s poison control center medical director Kevin Osterhoudt, MD produced a 25-minute podcast that covers common causes of poisonings, use of naloxone in children, and prevention tips.

“Naloxone is an effective antidote to opioid poisonings,” Dr. Gaw said. “We often think of using it in adults, but this is also a lifesaving medication for children poisoned by opioids. Educating people on recognizing the signs and symptoms of opioid poisoning and helping them feel empowered to use naloxone is something the public health world is working on.”

Dr. Gaw and Dr. Smith had no relevant disclosures. No external funding was noted for the study.

Big-name hospital chains across the United States are opening dedicated centers to help patients dealing with long COVID. But so are the lower-profile clinics and hospitals run by cities, counties and states – including Harborview Medical Center in Seattle.

The Harborview clinic, operated by King County, is an example of how public health agencies are stepping up to treat people experiencing long COVID.

They serve areas ranging from Campbell County, Wyo., with 47,000 residents, to New York City, with its 8.4 million people. Many providers working there are searching for innovative ways to approach this lingering illness with its variety of symptoms, from brain fog to shortness of breath to depression and more.

Their efforts often fall below the radar, with still-scant serious media attention to long COVID or the public health employees working to treat ailing patients.

Why are state and local health agencies taking on these duties?

They’re leading the way in part because the federal government has made only limited efforts, said Lisa McCorkell, a cofounder of the Patient-Led Research Collaborative. The international group was founded in spring 2020 by researchers who are also long COVID patients.

“It’s a big reason why long COVID isn’t talked about as much,” Ms. McCorkell said. “It’s definitely a national issue. But it trickles down to state and local health departments, and there’s not enough resources.”

The government clinics may be accessible to people without insurance and often are cheaper than clinics at private hospitals.

Harborview has treated more than 1,000 patients with long COVID, and another 200 patients are awaiting treatment, said Jessica Bender, MD, a codirector of the University of Washington Post-COVID Rehabilitation and Recovery Clinic in Seattle’s First Hill neighborhood.

The group Survivor Corps offers lists by states of clinics. While the publicly run clinics may be less expensive or even free for some patients, methods of payment vary from clinic to clinic. Federally qualified health clinics offer treatment on a sliding scale. For instance, the Riverside University Health System in California has federally qualified centers. And other providers who are not federally qualified also offer care paid for on a sliding scale. They include Campbell County Health, where some residents are eligible for discounts of 25%-100%, said spokesperson Norberto Orellana.

At Harborview, Dr. Bender said the public hospital’s post-COVID clinic initially began with a staff of rehabilitation doctors but expanded in 2021 to include family and internal medicine doctors. And it offers mental health programs with rehabilitation psychologists who instruct on how to deal with doctors or loved ones who don’t believe that long COVID exists.

“I have patients who really have been devastated by the lack of support from coworkers [and] family,” Dr. Bender said.

In Campbell County, Wyo., the pandemic surge did not arrive in earnest until late 2021. Physical therapists at Campbell County’s Health Rehabilitation Services organized a rehabilitation program for residents with long COVID after recognizing the need, said Shannon Sorensen, rehabilitation director at Campbell County Health.

“We had patients coming in showing chest pain, or heart palpitations. There were people trying to get back to work. They were frustrated,” Ms. Sorensen said.

Myalgic encephalomyelitis and chronic fatigue syndrome activists have embraced the fight to recognize and help long COVID patients, noting the similarities between the conditions, and hope to help kickstart more organized research, treatment and benefits for long COVID sufferers and myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome patients alike.

In Ft. Collins, Colo., disability activist Alison Sbrana has long had myalgic encephalomyelitis. She and other members of the local chapter of ME Action have met with state officials for several years and are finally seeing the results of those efforts.

Colorado Gov. Jared Polis has created the full-time position of policy adviser for long COVID and post–viral infection planning.

“This is one way forward of how state governments are (finally) paying attention to infection-triggered chronic illnesses and starting to think ahead on them,” Ms. Sbrana said.

New York City’s Health + Hospitals launched what may be the most expansive long COVID treatment program in the nation in April 2021. Called AfterCare, it provides physical and mental health services as well as community support systems and financial assistance.

A persistent issue for patients is that there isn’t yet a test for long COVID, like there is for COVID-19, said Amanda Johnson, MD, assistant vice president for ambulatory care and population health at New York Health + Hospitals. “It’s in many ways a diagnosis of exclusion. You have to make sure their shortness of breath isn’t caused by something else. The same with anemia,” she said.

California’s Department of Public Health has a detailed website devoted to the topic, including videos of “long haulers” describing their experiences.

Vermont is one of several states studying long COVID, said Mark Levine, MD, the state health commissioner. The state, in collaboration with the University of Vermont, has established a surveillance project to determine how many people have long COVID, as well as how severe it is, how long it lasts, and potential predispositions.

The University of Utah, Salt Lake City, established a comprehensive COVID-19 clinic more than a year ago that also handles long COVID patients, said Jeannette Brown, MD, PhD, an associate professor at the school and director of the COVID-19 clinic.

Jennifer Chevinsky, MD, MPH, already had a deep understanding of long COVID when she landed in Riverside County, Calif., in the summer of 2021. She came from Atlanta, where as part of her job as an epidemic intelligence service officer at the CDC, she heard stories of COVID-19 patients who were not getting better.

Now she is a deputy public health officer for Riverside County, in a region known for its deserts, sizzling summer temperatures and diverse populations. She said her department has helped launch programs such as post–COVID-19 follow-up phone calls and long COVID training programs that reach out to the many Latino residents in this county of 2.4 million people. It also includes Black and Native American residents.

“We’re making sure information is circulated with community and faith-based organizations, and community health workers,” she said.

Ms. McCorkell said there is still much work to do to raise public awareness of the risks of long COVID and how to obtain care for patients. She would like to see a national public health campaign about long COVID, possibly spearheaded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in partnership with local health workers and community-based organizations.

“That,” she said, “could make a big difference.”

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

Big-name hospital chains across the United States are opening dedicated centers to help patients dealing with long COVID. But so are the lower-profile clinics and hospitals run by cities, counties and states – including Harborview Medical Center in Seattle.

The Harborview clinic, operated by King County, is an example of how public health agencies are stepping up to treat people experiencing long COVID.

They serve areas ranging from Campbell County, Wyo., with 47,000 residents, to New York City, with its 8.4 million people. Many providers working there are searching for innovative ways to approach this lingering illness with its variety of symptoms, from brain fog to shortness of breath to depression and more.

Their efforts often fall below the radar, with still-scant serious media attention to long COVID or the public health employees working to treat ailing patients.

Why are state and local health agencies taking on these duties?

They’re leading the way in part because the federal government has made only limited efforts, said Lisa McCorkell, a cofounder of the Patient-Led Research Collaborative. The international group was founded in spring 2020 by researchers who are also long COVID patients.

“It’s a big reason why long COVID isn’t talked about as much,” Ms. McCorkell said. “It’s definitely a national issue. But it trickles down to state and local health departments, and there’s not enough resources.”

The government clinics may be accessible to people without insurance and often are cheaper than clinics at private hospitals.

Harborview has treated more than 1,000 patients with long COVID, and another 200 patients are awaiting treatment, said Jessica Bender, MD, a codirector of the University of Washington Post-COVID Rehabilitation and Recovery Clinic in Seattle’s First Hill neighborhood.

The group Survivor Corps offers lists by states of clinics. While the publicly run clinics may be less expensive or even free for some patients, methods of payment vary from clinic to clinic. Federally qualified health clinics offer treatment on a sliding scale. For instance, the Riverside University Health System in California has federally qualified centers. And other providers who are not federally qualified also offer care paid for on a sliding scale. They include Campbell County Health, where some residents are eligible for discounts of 25%-100%, said spokesperson Norberto Orellana.

At Harborview, Dr. Bender said the public hospital’s post-COVID clinic initially began with a staff of rehabilitation doctors but expanded in 2021 to include family and internal medicine doctors. And it offers mental health programs with rehabilitation psychologists who instruct on how to deal with doctors or loved ones who don’t believe that long COVID exists.

“I have patients who really have been devastated by the lack of support from coworkers [and] family,” Dr. Bender said.

In Campbell County, Wyo., the pandemic surge did not arrive in earnest until late 2021. Physical therapists at Campbell County’s Health Rehabilitation Services organized a rehabilitation program for residents with long COVID after recognizing the need, said Shannon Sorensen, rehabilitation director at Campbell County Health.

“We had patients coming in showing chest pain, or heart palpitations. There were people trying to get back to work. They were frustrated,” Ms. Sorensen said.

Myalgic encephalomyelitis and chronic fatigue syndrome activists have embraced the fight to recognize and help long COVID patients, noting the similarities between the conditions, and hope to help kickstart more organized research, treatment and benefits for long COVID sufferers and myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome patients alike.

In Ft. Collins, Colo., disability activist Alison Sbrana has long had myalgic encephalomyelitis. She and other members of the local chapter of ME Action have met with state officials for several years and are finally seeing the results of those efforts.

Colorado Gov. Jared Polis has created the full-time position of policy adviser for long COVID and post–viral infection planning.

“This is one way forward of how state governments are (finally) paying attention to infection-triggered chronic illnesses and starting to think ahead on them,” Ms. Sbrana said.

New York City’s Health + Hospitals launched what may be the most expansive long COVID treatment program in the nation in April 2021. Called AfterCare, it provides physical and mental health services as well as community support systems and financial assistance.

A persistent issue for patients is that there isn’t yet a test for long COVID, like there is for COVID-19, said Amanda Johnson, MD, assistant vice president for ambulatory care and population health at New York Health + Hospitals. “It’s in many ways a diagnosis of exclusion. You have to make sure their shortness of breath isn’t caused by something else. The same with anemia,” she said.

California’s Department of Public Health has a detailed website devoted to the topic, including videos of “long haulers” describing their experiences.

Vermont is one of several states studying long COVID, said Mark Levine, MD, the state health commissioner. The state, in collaboration with the University of Vermont, has established a surveillance project to determine how many people have long COVID, as well as how severe it is, how long it lasts, and potential predispositions.

The University of Utah, Salt Lake City, established a comprehensive COVID-19 clinic more than a year ago that also handles long COVID patients, said Jeannette Brown, MD, PhD, an associate professor at the school and director of the COVID-19 clinic.

Jennifer Chevinsky, MD, MPH, already had a deep understanding of long COVID when she landed in Riverside County, Calif., in the summer of 2021. She came from Atlanta, where as part of her job as an epidemic intelligence service officer at the CDC, she heard stories of COVID-19 patients who were not getting better.

Now she is a deputy public health officer for Riverside County, in a region known for its deserts, sizzling summer temperatures and diverse populations. She said her department has helped launch programs such as post–COVID-19 follow-up phone calls and long COVID training programs that reach out to the many Latino residents in this county of 2.4 million people. It also includes Black and Native American residents.

“We’re making sure information is circulated with community and faith-based organizations, and community health workers,” she said.

Ms. McCorkell said there is still much work to do to raise public awareness of the risks of long COVID and how to obtain care for patients. She would like to see a national public health campaign about long COVID, possibly spearheaded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in partnership with local health workers and community-based organizations.

“That,” she said, “could make a big difference.”

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

Big-name hospital chains across the United States are opening dedicated centers to help patients dealing with long COVID. But so are the lower-profile clinics and hospitals run by cities, counties and states – including Harborview Medical Center in Seattle.

The Harborview clinic, operated by King County, is an example of how public health agencies are stepping up to treat people experiencing long COVID.

They serve areas ranging from Campbell County, Wyo., with 47,000 residents, to New York City, with its 8.4 million people. Many providers working there are searching for innovative ways to approach this lingering illness with its variety of symptoms, from brain fog to shortness of breath to depression and more.

Their efforts often fall below the radar, with still-scant serious media attention to long COVID or the public health employees working to treat ailing patients.

Why are state and local health agencies taking on these duties?

They’re leading the way in part because the federal government has made only limited efforts, said Lisa McCorkell, a cofounder of the Patient-Led Research Collaborative. The international group was founded in spring 2020 by researchers who are also long COVID patients.

“It’s a big reason why long COVID isn’t talked about as much,” Ms. McCorkell said. “It’s definitely a national issue. But it trickles down to state and local health departments, and there’s not enough resources.”

The government clinics may be accessible to people without insurance and often are cheaper than clinics at private hospitals.

Harborview has treated more than 1,000 patients with long COVID, and another 200 patients are awaiting treatment, said Jessica Bender, MD, a codirector of the University of Washington Post-COVID Rehabilitation and Recovery Clinic in Seattle’s First Hill neighborhood.

The group Survivor Corps offers lists by states of clinics. While the publicly run clinics may be less expensive or even free for some patients, methods of payment vary from clinic to clinic. Federally qualified health clinics offer treatment on a sliding scale. For instance, the Riverside University Health System in California has federally qualified centers. And other providers who are not federally qualified also offer care paid for on a sliding scale. They include Campbell County Health, where some residents are eligible for discounts of 25%-100%, said spokesperson Norberto Orellana.

At Harborview, Dr. Bender said the public hospital’s post-COVID clinic initially began with a staff of rehabilitation doctors but expanded in 2021 to include family and internal medicine doctors. And it offers mental health programs with rehabilitation psychologists who instruct on how to deal with doctors or loved ones who don’t believe that long COVID exists.

“I have patients who really have been devastated by the lack of support from coworkers [and] family,” Dr. Bender said.

In Campbell County, Wyo., the pandemic surge did not arrive in earnest until late 2021. Physical therapists at Campbell County’s Health Rehabilitation Services organized a rehabilitation program for residents with long COVID after recognizing the need, said Shannon Sorensen, rehabilitation director at Campbell County Health.

“We had patients coming in showing chest pain, or heart palpitations. There were people trying to get back to work. They were frustrated,” Ms. Sorensen said.

Myalgic encephalomyelitis and chronic fatigue syndrome activists have embraced the fight to recognize and help long COVID patients, noting the similarities between the conditions, and hope to help kickstart more organized research, treatment and benefits for long COVID sufferers and myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome patients alike.

In Ft. Collins, Colo., disability activist Alison Sbrana has long had myalgic encephalomyelitis. She and other members of the local chapter of ME Action have met with state officials for several years and are finally seeing the results of those efforts.

Colorado Gov. Jared Polis has created the full-time position of policy adviser for long COVID and post–viral infection planning.

“This is one way forward of how state governments are (finally) paying attention to infection-triggered chronic illnesses and starting to think ahead on them,” Ms. Sbrana said.

New York City’s Health + Hospitals launched what may be the most expansive long COVID treatment program in the nation in April 2021. Called AfterCare, it provides physical and mental health services as well as community support systems and financial assistance.

A persistent issue for patients is that there isn’t yet a test for long COVID, like there is for COVID-19, said Amanda Johnson, MD, assistant vice president for ambulatory care and population health at New York Health + Hospitals. “It’s in many ways a diagnosis of exclusion. You have to make sure their shortness of breath isn’t caused by something else. The same with anemia,” she said.

California’s Department of Public Health has a detailed website devoted to the topic, including videos of “long haulers” describing their experiences.

Vermont is one of several states studying long COVID, said Mark Levine, MD, the state health commissioner. The state, in collaboration with the University of Vermont, has established a surveillance project to determine how many people have long COVID, as well as how severe it is, how long it lasts, and potential predispositions.

The University of Utah, Salt Lake City, established a comprehensive COVID-19 clinic more than a year ago that also handles long COVID patients, said Jeannette Brown, MD, PhD, an associate professor at the school and director of the COVID-19 clinic.

Jennifer Chevinsky, MD, MPH, already had a deep understanding of long COVID when she landed in Riverside County, Calif., in the summer of 2021. She came from Atlanta, where as part of her job as an epidemic intelligence service officer at the CDC, she heard stories of COVID-19 patients who were not getting better.

Now she is a deputy public health officer for Riverside County, in a region known for its deserts, sizzling summer temperatures and diverse populations. She said her department has helped launch programs such as post–COVID-19 follow-up phone calls and long COVID training programs that reach out to the many Latino residents in this county of 2.4 million people. It also includes Black and Native American residents.

“We’re making sure information is circulated with community and faith-based organizations, and community health workers,” she said.

Ms. McCorkell said there is still much work to do to raise public awareness of the risks of long COVID and how to obtain care for patients. She would like to see a national public health campaign about long COVID, possibly spearheaded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in partnership with local health workers and community-based organizations.

“That,” she said, “could make a big difference.”

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