User login
Recent Controversies in Pediatric Dermatology: The Usage of General Anesthesia in Young Children
Clinicians who have attempted to perform an in-office procedure on infants or young children will recognize the difficulties that arise from the developmental inability to cooperate with procedures.1 Potential problems mentioned in the literature include but are not limited to anxiety, which is identified in all age groups of patients undergoing dermatologic procedures2; limitation of pain control3; and poor outcomes due to movement by the patient.1 In one author’s experience (N.B.S.), anxious and scared children can potentially cause injury to themselves, parents/guardians, and health care professionals by flailing and kicking; children are flexible and can wriggle out of even fine grips, and some children, especially toddlers, can be strong.
The usage of topical anesthetics can only give superficial anesthesia. They can ostensibly reduce pain and are useful for anesthesia of curettage, but their use is limited in infants and young children by the minimal amount of drug that is safe for application, as risks of absorption include methemoglobinemia and seizure
General anesthesia seems to be the best alternative due to associated amnesia of the events occurring including pain; immobilization and ability to produce more accurate biopsy sampling; better immobilization leading to superior cosmetic results; and reduced risk to patients, parents/guardians, and health care professionals from a flailing child. In the field of pediatric dermatology, general anesthesia often is used for excision of larger lesions and cosmetic repairs. Operating room privileges are not always easy to obtain, but many pediatric dermatologists take advantage of outpatient surgical centers associated with their medical center. A retrospective review of 226 children receiving 681 procedures at a single institution documented low rates of complications.1
If it was that easy, most children would be anesthetized with general anesthesia. However, there are risks associated with general anesthesia. Parents/guardians often will do what they can to avoid risk and may therefore refuse general anesthesia, but it is not completely avoidable in complicated skin disease. Despite the risks, the benefit is present in a major anomaly correction such as a cleft palate in a 6-month-old but may not be there for the treatment of a wart. When procedures are nonessential or may be conducted without anesthesia, avoidance of general anesthesia is reasonable and a combination of topical and local infiltrative anesthesia can help. In the American Academy of Dermatology guidelines on in-office anesthesia, Kouba et al5 states: “Topical agents are recommended as a first-line method of anesthesia for the repair of dermal lacerations in children and for other minor dermatologic procedures, including curettage. For skin biopsy, excision, or other cases where topical agents alone are insufficient, adjunctive use of topical anesthesia to lessen the discomfort of infiltrative anesthetic should be considered.”
A new controversy recently has emerged concerning the potential risks of anesthesia on neurocognitive development in infants and young children. These concerns regardingthe labeling changes of anesthetic and sedation drugs by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in December 2016 specifically focused on these risks in children younger than 3 years with prolonged (>3 hours) and repeated exposures; however, this kind of exposure is unlikely with standard pediatric dermatologic procedures.6-9
There is compelling evidence from animal studies that exposure to all anesthetic agents in clinical use induces neurotoxicity and long-term adverse neurobehavioral deficits; however, whether these findings are applicable in human infants is unknown.6-9 Most of the studies in humans showing adverse outcomes have been retrospective observational studies subject to multiple sources of bias. Two recent large clinical studies—the GAS (General Anaesthesia compared to Spinal anaesthesia) trial10 and the PANDA (Pediatric Anesthesia and Neurodevelopment Assessment) study11—have shown no evidence of abnormal neurocognitive effects with a single brief exposure before 3 years of age (PANDA) or during infancy (GAS) in otherwise-healthy children.10,11
It is important to note that the FDA labeling change warning specifically stated that “[c]onsistent with animal studies, recent human data suggest that a single, relatively short exposure to general anesthetic and sedation drugs in infants or toddlers is unlikely to have negative effects on behavior or learning.” Moreover, the FDA emphasized that “Surgeries or procedures in children younger than 3 years should not be delayed or avoided when medically necessary.”12 Taking these points into consideration, we should offer our patients in-office care when possible and postpone elective procedures when advisable but proceed when necessary for our patients’ physical and emotional health.
- Juern AM, Cassidy LD, Lyon VB. More evidence confirming the safety of general anesthesia in pediatric dermatologic surgery. Pediatr Dermatol. 2010;27:355-360.
- Gerwels JW, Bezzant JL, Le Maire L, et al. Oral transmucosal fentanyl citrate premedication in patients undergoing outpatient dermatologic procedures. J Dermatol Surg Oncol. 1994;20:823-826.
- D’Acunto C, Raone B, Neri I, et al. Outpatient pediatric dermatologic surgery: experience in 296 patients. Pediatr Dermatol. 2015;32:424-426.
- Gunter JB. Benefit and risks of local anesthetics in infants and children. Paediatr Drugs. 2002;4:649-672.
- Kouba DJ, LoPiccolo MC, Alam M, et al. Guidelines for the use of local anesthesia in office-based dermatologic surgery [published online March 4, 2016]. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2016;74:1201-1219.
- Jevtovic-Todorovic V, Hartman RE, Izumi Y, et al. Early exposure to common anesthetic agents causes widespread neurodegeneration in the developing rat brain and persistent learning deficits. J Neurosci. 2003;23:876-882.
- Brambrink AM, Evers AS, Avidan MS, et al. Isoflurane-induced neuroapoptosis in the neonatal rhesus macaque brain. Anesthesiology. 2010;112:834-841.
- Raper J, Alvarado MC, Murphy KL, et al. Multiple anesthetic exposure in infant monkeys alters emotional reactivity to an acute stressor. Anesthesiology. 2015;123:1084-1092.
- Davidson AJ. Anesthesia and neurotoxicity to the developing brain: the clinical relevance. Paediatric Anaesthesia. 2011;21:716-721.
- Davidson AJ, Disma N, de Graaff JC, et al; GAS consortium. Neurodevelopmental outcome at 2 years of age after general anaesthesia and awake-regional anaesthesia in infancy (GAS): an international multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2016;387:239-250.
- Sun LS, Li G, Miller TL, et al. Association between a single general anesthesia exposure before age 36 months and neurocognitive outcomes in later childhood. JAMA. 2016;315:2312-2320.
- General anesthetic and sedation drugs: drug safety communication—new warnings for young children and pregnant women. US Food and Drug Administration website. https://www.fda.gov/safety/medwatch/safetyinformation/safetyalertsforhumanmedicalproducts/ucm533195.htm. Published December 14, 2016. Accessed July 25, 2017.
Clinicians who have attempted to perform an in-office procedure on infants or young children will recognize the difficulties that arise from the developmental inability to cooperate with procedures.1 Potential problems mentioned in the literature include but are not limited to anxiety, which is identified in all age groups of patients undergoing dermatologic procedures2; limitation of pain control3; and poor outcomes due to movement by the patient.1 In one author’s experience (N.B.S.), anxious and scared children can potentially cause injury to themselves, parents/guardians, and health care professionals by flailing and kicking; children are flexible and can wriggle out of even fine grips, and some children, especially toddlers, can be strong.
The usage of topical anesthetics can only give superficial anesthesia. They can ostensibly reduce pain and are useful for anesthesia of curettage, but their use is limited in infants and young children by the minimal amount of drug that is safe for application, as risks of absorption include methemoglobinemia and seizure
General anesthesia seems to be the best alternative due to associated amnesia of the events occurring including pain; immobilization and ability to produce more accurate biopsy sampling; better immobilization leading to superior cosmetic results; and reduced risk to patients, parents/guardians, and health care professionals from a flailing child. In the field of pediatric dermatology, general anesthesia often is used for excision of larger lesions and cosmetic repairs. Operating room privileges are not always easy to obtain, but many pediatric dermatologists take advantage of outpatient surgical centers associated with their medical center. A retrospective review of 226 children receiving 681 procedures at a single institution documented low rates of complications.1
If it was that easy, most children would be anesthetized with general anesthesia. However, there are risks associated with general anesthesia. Parents/guardians often will do what they can to avoid risk and may therefore refuse general anesthesia, but it is not completely avoidable in complicated skin disease. Despite the risks, the benefit is present in a major anomaly correction such as a cleft palate in a 6-month-old but may not be there for the treatment of a wart. When procedures are nonessential or may be conducted without anesthesia, avoidance of general anesthesia is reasonable and a combination of topical and local infiltrative anesthesia can help. In the American Academy of Dermatology guidelines on in-office anesthesia, Kouba et al5 states: “Topical agents are recommended as a first-line method of anesthesia for the repair of dermal lacerations in children and for other minor dermatologic procedures, including curettage. For skin biopsy, excision, or other cases where topical agents alone are insufficient, adjunctive use of topical anesthesia to lessen the discomfort of infiltrative anesthetic should be considered.”
A new controversy recently has emerged concerning the potential risks of anesthesia on neurocognitive development in infants and young children. These concerns regardingthe labeling changes of anesthetic and sedation drugs by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in December 2016 specifically focused on these risks in children younger than 3 years with prolonged (>3 hours) and repeated exposures; however, this kind of exposure is unlikely with standard pediatric dermatologic procedures.6-9
There is compelling evidence from animal studies that exposure to all anesthetic agents in clinical use induces neurotoxicity and long-term adverse neurobehavioral deficits; however, whether these findings are applicable in human infants is unknown.6-9 Most of the studies in humans showing adverse outcomes have been retrospective observational studies subject to multiple sources of bias. Two recent large clinical studies—the GAS (General Anaesthesia compared to Spinal anaesthesia) trial10 and the PANDA (Pediatric Anesthesia and Neurodevelopment Assessment) study11—have shown no evidence of abnormal neurocognitive effects with a single brief exposure before 3 years of age (PANDA) or during infancy (GAS) in otherwise-healthy children.10,11
It is important to note that the FDA labeling change warning specifically stated that “[c]onsistent with animal studies, recent human data suggest that a single, relatively short exposure to general anesthetic and sedation drugs in infants or toddlers is unlikely to have negative effects on behavior or learning.” Moreover, the FDA emphasized that “Surgeries or procedures in children younger than 3 years should not be delayed or avoided when medically necessary.”12 Taking these points into consideration, we should offer our patients in-office care when possible and postpone elective procedures when advisable but proceed when necessary for our patients’ physical and emotional health.
Clinicians who have attempted to perform an in-office procedure on infants or young children will recognize the difficulties that arise from the developmental inability to cooperate with procedures.1 Potential problems mentioned in the literature include but are not limited to anxiety, which is identified in all age groups of patients undergoing dermatologic procedures2; limitation of pain control3; and poor outcomes due to movement by the patient.1 In one author’s experience (N.B.S.), anxious and scared children can potentially cause injury to themselves, parents/guardians, and health care professionals by flailing and kicking; children are flexible and can wriggle out of even fine grips, and some children, especially toddlers, can be strong.
The usage of topical anesthetics can only give superficial anesthesia. They can ostensibly reduce pain and are useful for anesthesia of curettage, but their use is limited in infants and young children by the minimal amount of drug that is safe for application, as risks of absorption include methemoglobinemia and seizure
General anesthesia seems to be the best alternative due to associated amnesia of the events occurring including pain; immobilization and ability to produce more accurate biopsy sampling; better immobilization leading to superior cosmetic results; and reduced risk to patients, parents/guardians, and health care professionals from a flailing child. In the field of pediatric dermatology, general anesthesia often is used for excision of larger lesions and cosmetic repairs. Operating room privileges are not always easy to obtain, but many pediatric dermatologists take advantage of outpatient surgical centers associated with their medical center. A retrospective review of 226 children receiving 681 procedures at a single institution documented low rates of complications.1
If it was that easy, most children would be anesthetized with general anesthesia. However, there are risks associated with general anesthesia. Parents/guardians often will do what they can to avoid risk and may therefore refuse general anesthesia, but it is not completely avoidable in complicated skin disease. Despite the risks, the benefit is present in a major anomaly correction such as a cleft palate in a 6-month-old but may not be there for the treatment of a wart. When procedures are nonessential or may be conducted without anesthesia, avoidance of general anesthesia is reasonable and a combination of topical and local infiltrative anesthesia can help. In the American Academy of Dermatology guidelines on in-office anesthesia, Kouba et al5 states: “Topical agents are recommended as a first-line method of anesthesia for the repair of dermal lacerations in children and for other minor dermatologic procedures, including curettage. For skin biopsy, excision, or other cases where topical agents alone are insufficient, adjunctive use of topical anesthesia to lessen the discomfort of infiltrative anesthetic should be considered.”
A new controversy recently has emerged concerning the potential risks of anesthesia on neurocognitive development in infants and young children. These concerns regardingthe labeling changes of anesthetic and sedation drugs by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in December 2016 specifically focused on these risks in children younger than 3 years with prolonged (>3 hours) and repeated exposures; however, this kind of exposure is unlikely with standard pediatric dermatologic procedures.6-9
There is compelling evidence from animal studies that exposure to all anesthetic agents in clinical use induces neurotoxicity and long-term adverse neurobehavioral deficits; however, whether these findings are applicable in human infants is unknown.6-9 Most of the studies in humans showing adverse outcomes have been retrospective observational studies subject to multiple sources of bias. Two recent large clinical studies—the GAS (General Anaesthesia compared to Spinal anaesthesia) trial10 and the PANDA (Pediatric Anesthesia and Neurodevelopment Assessment) study11—have shown no evidence of abnormal neurocognitive effects with a single brief exposure before 3 years of age (PANDA) or during infancy (GAS) in otherwise-healthy children.10,11
It is important to note that the FDA labeling change warning specifically stated that “[c]onsistent with animal studies, recent human data suggest that a single, relatively short exposure to general anesthetic and sedation drugs in infants or toddlers is unlikely to have negative effects on behavior or learning.” Moreover, the FDA emphasized that “Surgeries or procedures in children younger than 3 years should not be delayed or avoided when medically necessary.”12 Taking these points into consideration, we should offer our patients in-office care when possible and postpone elective procedures when advisable but proceed when necessary for our patients’ physical and emotional health.
- Juern AM, Cassidy LD, Lyon VB. More evidence confirming the safety of general anesthesia in pediatric dermatologic surgery. Pediatr Dermatol. 2010;27:355-360.
- Gerwels JW, Bezzant JL, Le Maire L, et al. Oral transmucosal fentanyl citrate premedication in patients undergoing outpatient dermatologic procedures. J Dermatol Surg Oncol. 1994;20:823-826.
- D’Acunto C, Raone B, Neri I, et al. Outpatient pediatric dermatologic surgery: experience in 296 patients. Pediatr Dermatol. 2015;32:424-426.
- Gunter JB. Benefit and risks of local anesthetics in infants and children. Paediatr Drugs. 2002;4:649-672.
- Kouba DJ, LoPiccolo MC, Alam M, et al. Guidelines for the use of local anesthesia in office-based dermatologic surgery [published online March 4, 2016]. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2016;74:1201-1219.
- Jevtovic-Todorovic V, Hartman RE, Izumi Y, et al. Early exposure to common anesthetic agents causes widespread neurodegeneration in the developing rat brain and persistent learning deficits. J Neurosci. 2003;23:876-882.
- Brambrink AM, Evers AS, Avidan MS, et al. Isoflurane-induced neuroapoptosis in the neonatal rhesus macaque brain. Anesthesiology. 2010;112:834-841.
- Raper J, Alvarado MC, Murphy KL, et al. Multiple anesthetic exposure in infant monkeys alters emotional reactivity to an acute stressor. Anesthesiology. 2015;123:1084-1092.
- Davidson AJ. Anesthesia and neurotoxicity to the developing brain: the clinical relevance. Paediatric Anaesthesia. 2011;21:716-721.
- Davidson AJ, Disma N, de Graaff JC, et al; GAS consortium. Neurodevelopmental outcome at 2 years of age after general anaesthesia and awake-regional anaesthesia in infancy (GAS): an international multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2016;387:239-250.
- Sun LS, Li G, Miller TL, et al. Association between a single general anesthesia exposure before age 36 months and neurocognitive outcomes in later childhood. JAMA. 2016;315:2312-2320.
- General anesthetic and sedation drugs: drug safety communication—new warnings for young children and pregnant women. US Food and Drug Administration website. https://www.fda.gov/safety/medwatch/safetyinformation/safetyalertsforhumanmedicalproducts/ucm533195.htm. Published December 14, 2016. Accessed July 25, 2017.
- Juern AM, Cassidy LD, Lyon VB. More evidence confirming the safety of general anesthesia in pediatric dermatologic surgery. Pediatr Dermatol. 2010;27:355-360.
- Gerwels JW, Bezzant JL, Le Maire L, et al. Oral transmucosal fentanyl citrate premedication in patients undergoing outpatient dermatologic procedures. J Dermatol Surg Oncol. 1994;20:823-826.
- D’Acunto C, Raone B, Neri I, et al. Outpatient pediatric dermatologic surgery: experience in 296 patients. Pediatr Dermatol. 2015;32:424-426.
- Gunter JB. Benefit and risks of local anesthetics in infants and children. Paediatr Drugs. 2002;4:649-672.
- Kouba DJ, LoPiccolo MC, Alam M, et al. Guidelines for the use of local anesthesia in office-based dermatologic surgery [published online March 4, 2016]. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2016;74:1201-1219.
- Jevtovic-Todorovic V, Hartman RE, Izumi Y, et al. Early exposure to common anesthetic agents causes widespread neurodegeneration in the developing rat brain and persistent learning deficits. J Neurosci. 2003;23:876-882.
- Brambrink AM, Evers AS, Avidan MS, et al. Isoflurane-induced neuroapoptosis in the neonatal rhesus macaque brain. Anesthesiology. 2010;112:834-841.
- Raper J, Alvarado MC, Murphy KL, et al. Multiple anesthetic exposure in infant monkeys alters emotional reactivity to an acute stressor. Anesthesiology. 2015;123:1084-1092.
- Davidson AJ. Anesthesia and neurotoxicity to the developing brain: the clinical relevance. Paediatric Anaesthesia. 2011;21:716-721.
- Davidson AJ, Disma N, de Graaff JC, et al; GAS consortium. Neurodevelopmental outcome at 2 years of age after general anaesthesia and awake-regional anaesthesia in infancy (GAS): an international multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2016;387:239-250.
- Sun LS, Li G, Miller TL, et al. Association between a single general anesthesia exposure before age 36 months and neurocognitive outcomes in later childhood. JAMA. 2016;315:2312-2320.
- General anesthetic and sedation drugs: drug safety communication—new warnings for young children and pregnant women. US Food and Drug Administration website. https://www.fda.gov/safety/medwatch/safetyinformation/safetyalertsforhumanmedicalproducts/ucm533195.htm. Published December 14, 2016. Accessed July 25, 2017.
Studies support early use of genetic tests in early childhood disorders
Results from two new studies suggest that genetic testing early in the diagnostic pathway may allow for earlier and more precise diagnoses in early-life epilepsies and a range of other childhood-onset disorders, and potentially limit costs associated with a long diagnostic course.
Both papers, published online July 31 in JAMA Pediatrics, showed the diagnostic yield of genetic testing approaches, including whole-exome sequencing (WES), to be high.
The results also argue for the incorporation of genetic testing into the first diagnostic assessments; not limiting it to severe presentations only; and for broad testing methods to be employed in lieu of narrower ones.
Of these patients, just under half (n = 327) underwent various forms of genetic testing at the discretion of the treating physician, including karyotyping, microarrays, epilepsy gene panels, WES, mitochondrial panels, and other tests. Pathogenic variants were discovered in 132 children, or 40% of those receiving genetic testing (JAMA Pediatr. 2017 July 31. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2017.1743).
Of all the genetic testing methods employed in the study, diagnostic yields were significantly greater for epilepsy gene panels (29.2%) and WES (27.8%), compared with chromosome microarray (7.9%).
The results, the investigators said, provide “added impetus to move the diagnosis of the specific cause to the point of initial presentation ... it is time to provide greater emphasis on and support for thorough genetic evaluations, particularly sequencing-based evaluations, for children with newly presenting epilepsies in the first few years of life.”
In addition to aiding management decisions, early genetic testing “ends the diagnostic odyssey during which parents and physicians spend untold amounts of time searching for an explanation for a child’s epilepsy and reduces associated costs,” Dr. Berg and her colleagues concluded.
In a separate study led by Tiong Yang Tan, MBBS, PhD, of Victorian Clinical Genetics Services in Melbourne, Australia, and his colleagues, singleton WES was used in 44 children recruited at outpatient clinics of a Melbourne hospital system (JAMA Pediatr. 2017 July 31. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2017.1755).
Children in the study were aged 2-18 years (with mean age at presentation 28 months) and had a wide variety of suspected genetic disorders, including skeletal, skin, neurometabolic, and intellectual disorders. Some of these had features overlapping several conditions. The children in the cohort had not received prior genetic testing before undergoing WES.
The molecular test resulted in a diagnosis in 52% (n = 23) of the children, including unexpected diagnoses in eight of these. Clinical management was altered as result of sequencing findings in six children.
“Although phenotyping is critical, 35% of children had a diagnosis caused by a gene outside the initially prioritized gene list. This finding not only possibly reflects lack of clinical recognition but also underscores the utility of WES in achieving a diagnosis even when the a priori hypothesis is imprecise,” Dr. Tan and his associates wrote in their analysis.
Dr. Tan and his colleagues conducted a cost analysis that found WES performed at initial tertiary presentation resulted in a cost savings of U.S. $6,838 per additional diagnosis (95% confidence interval, U.S. $3,263-$11,678), compared with the standard diagnostic pathway. The figures reflect costs in an Australian care setting.
The children in the study had a mean diagnostic odyssey of 6 years, including a mean of 19 tests and four clinical genetics and four non–genetics specialist consultations. A quarter of them had undergone at least one diagnostic procedure under general anesthesia.
“The diagnostic odyssey of children suspected of having monogenic disorders is protracted and painful and may not provide a precise diagnosis,” Dr. Tan and his colleagues wrote in their analysis. “This paradigm has markedly shifted with the advent of WES.”
WES is best targeted to children “with genetically heterogeneous disorders or features overlapping several conditions,” the investigators concluded. “Our findings suggest that these children are best served by early recognition by their pediatrician and expedited referral to clinical genetics with WES applied after chromosomal microarray but before an extensive diagnostic process.”
Dr. Tan and his colleagues’ study was funded by the Melbourne Genomics Health Alliance and state and national governments in Australia. None of the authors declared conflicts of interest. Dr. Berg and her colleagues’ study was funded by the Pediatric Epilepsy Research Foundation, and none of its authors disclosed commercial conflicts of interest.
The studies by Tan et al. and Berg et al. demonstrate the dramatic effect of the diagnostic yield of different genetic testing approaches on cost-effectiveness and the potential design of testing strategies in children with suspected monogenic conditions. Both studies emphasize the effect of the results of genetic testing. Whereas Tan et al. showed that, in 26% of cases, the result enabled a specific modification of patient care, Berg et al. also demonstrated that there is no basis for identifying optimal, targeted treatments, when testing is not performed and genetic diagnoses are not made.
However, in the absence of targeted treatments, a genetic diagnosis is of high value for the patients, their families, and treating physicians. A clear diagnosis may not only be of prognostic value but also put an end to a possibly stressful and demanding diagnostic odyssey. It may enable patient care that is explicitly focused on the individual needs of the patient. A clear diagnosis usually also allows a better assessment of the risks of recurrence in the family and possibly enables prenatal testing in relatives. Finally, it enables research and a better scientific understanding of the underlying pathophysiology, which may ideally lead to the identification of novel therapeutic prospects. Seven years ago, an international consensus statement endorsed the replacement of classic cytogenetic karyotype analysis by chromosomal microarrays as a first-tier diagnostic test in individuals with developmental disabilities or congenital anomalies. The studies add to the growing evidence that this consensus may already be outdated, as high-throughput sequencing techniques may achieve even higher diagnostic yields and, thus, are capable to become the new first-tier diagnostic test in congenital and early-onset disorders.
Johannes R. Lemke, MD, is with the Institute of Human Genetics at the University of Leipzig (Germany) Hospitals and Clinics. He reports no conflicts of interest associated with his editorial, which accompanied the JAMA Pediatrics reports (JAMA Pediatr. 2017 July 31. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2017.1743).
The studies by Tan et al. and Berg et al. demonstrate the dramatic effect of the diagnostic yield of different genetic testing approaches on cost-effectiveness and the potential design of testing strategies in children with suspected monogenic conditions. Both studies emphasize the effect of the results of genetic testing. Whereas Tan et al. showed that, in 26% of cases, the result enabled a specific modification of patient care, Berg et al. also demonstrated that there is no basis for identifying optimal, targeted treatments, when testing is not performed and genetic diagnoses are not made.
However, in the absence of targeted treatments, a genetic diagnosis is of high value for the patients, their families, and treating physicians. A clear diagnosis may not only be of prognostic value but also put an end to a possibly stressful and demanding diagnostic odyssey. It may enable patient care that is explicitly focused on the individual needs of the patient. A clear diagnosis usually also allows a better assessment of the risks of recurrence in the family and possibly enables prenatal testing in relatives. Finally, it enables research and a better scientific understanding of the underlying pathophysiology, which may ideally lead to the identification of novel therapeutic prospects. Seven years ago, an international consensus statement endorsed the replacement of classic cytogenetic karyotype analysis by chromosomal microarrays as a first-tier diagnostic test in individuals with developmental disabilities or congenital anomalies. The studies add to the growing evidence that this consensus may already be outdated, as high-throughput sequencing techniques may achieve even higher diagnostic yields and, thus, are capable to become the new first-tier diagnostic test in congenital and early-onset disorders.
Johannes R. Lemke, MD, is with the Institute of Human Genetics at the University of Leipzig (Germany) Hospitals and Clinics. He reports no conflicts of interest associated with his editorial, which accompanied the JAMA Pediatrics reports (JAMA Pediatr. 2017 July 31. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2017.1743).
The studies by Tan et al. and Berg et al. demonstrate the dramatic effect of the diagnostic yield of different genetic testing approaches on cost-effectiveness and the potential design of testing strategies in children with suspected monogenic conditions. Both studies emphasize the effect of the results of genetic testing. Whereas Tan et al. showed that, in 26% of cases, the result enabled a specific modification of patient care, Berg et al. also demonstrated that there is no basis for identifying optimal, targeted treatments, when testing is not performed and genetic diagnoses are not made.
However, in the absence of targeted treatments, a genetic diagnosis is of high value for the patients, their families, and treating physicians. A clear diagnosis may not only be of prognostic value but also put an end to a possibly stressful and demanding diagnostic odyssey. It may enable patient care that is explicitly focused on the individual needs of the patient. A clear diagnosis usually also allows a better assessment of the risks of recurrence in the family and possibly enables prenatal testing in relatives. Finally, it enables research and a better scientific understanding of the underlying pathophysiology, which may ideally lead to the identification of novel therapeutic prospects. Seven years ago, an international consensus statement endorsed the replacement of classic cytogenetic karyotype analysis by chromosomal microarrays as a first-tier diagnostic test in individuals with developmental disabilities or congenital anomalies. The studies add to the growing evidence that this consensus may already be outdated, as high-throughput sequencing techniques may achieve even higher diagnostic yields and, thus, are capable to become the new first-tier diagnostic test in congenital and early-onset disorders.
Johannes R. Lemke, MD, is with the Institute of Human Genetics at the University of Leipzig (Germany) Hospitals and Clinics. He reports no conflicts of interest associated with his editorial, which accompanied the JAMA Pediatrics reports (JAMA Pediatr. 2017 July 31. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2017.1743).
Results from two new studies suggest that genetic testing early in the diagnostic pathway may allow for earlier and more precise diagnoses in early-life epilepsies and a range of other childhood-onset disorders, and potentially limit costs associated with a long diagnostic course.
Both papers, published online July 31 in JAMA Pediatrics, showed the diagnostic yield of genetic testing approaches, including whole-exome sequencing (WES), to be high.
The results also argue for the incorporation of genetic testing into the first diagnostic assessments; not limiting it to severe presentations only; and for broad testing methods to be employed in lieu of narrower ones.
Of these patients, just under half (n = 327) underwent various forms of genetic testing at the discretion of the treating physician, including karyotyping, microarrays, epilepsy gene panels, WES, mitochondrial panels, and other tests. Pathogenic variants were discovered in 132 children, or 40% of those receiving genetic testing (JAMA Pediatr. 2017 July 31. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2017.1743).
Of all the genetic testing methods employed in the study, diagnostic yields were significantly greater for epilepsy gene panels (29.2%) and WES (27.8%), compared with chromosome microarray (7.9%).
The results, the investigators said, provide “added impetus to move the diagnosis of the specific cause to the point of initial presentation ... it is time to provide greater emphasis on and support for thorough genetic evaluations, particularly sequencing-based evaluations, for children with newly presenting epilepsies in the first few years of life.”
In addition to aiding management decisions, early genetic testing “ends the diagnostic odyssey during which parents and physicians spend untold amounts of time searching for an explanation for a child’s epilepsy and reduces associated costs,” Dr. Berg and her colleagues concluded.
In a separate study led by Tiong Yang Tan, MBBS, PhD, of Victorian Clinical Genetics Services in Melbourne, Australia, and his colleagues, singleton WES was used in 44 children recruited at outpatient clinics of a Melbourne hospital system (JAMA Pediatr. 2017 July 31. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2017.1755).
Children in the study were aged 2-18 years (with mean age at presentation 28 months) and had a wide variety of suspected genetic disorders, including skeletal, skin, neurometabolic, and intellectual disorders. Some of these had features overlapping several conditions. The children in the cohort had not received prior genetic testing before undergoing WES.
The molecular test resulted in a diagnosis in 52% (n = 23) of the children, including unexpected diagnoses in eight of these. Clinical management was altered as result of sequencing findings in six children.
“Although phenotyping is critical, 35% of children had a diagnosis caused by a gene outside the initially prioritized gene list. This finding not only possibly reflects lack of clinical recognition but also underscores the utility of WES in achieving a diagnosis even when the a priori hypothesis is imprecise,” Dr. Tan and his associates wrote in their analysis.
Dr. Tan and his colleagues conducted a cost analysis that found WES performed at initial tertiary presentation resulted in a cost savings of U.S. $6,838 per additional diagnosis (95% confidence interval, U.S. $3,263-$11,678), compared with the standard diagnostic pathway. The figures reflect costs in an Australian care setting.
The children in the study had a mean diagnostic odyssey of 6 years, including a mean of 19 tests and four clinical genetics and four non–genetics specialist consultations. A quarter of them had undergone at least one diagnostic procedure under general anesthesia.
“The diagnostic odyssey of children suspected of having monogenic disorders is protracted and painful and may not provide a precise diagnosis,” Dr. Tan and his colleagues wrote in their analysis. “This paradigm has markedly shifted with the advent of WES.”
WES is best targeted to children “with genetically heterogeneous disorders or features overlapping several conditions,” the investigators concluded. “Our findings suggest that these children are best served by early recognition by their pediatrician and expedited referral to clinical genetics with WES applied after chromosomal microarray but before an extensive diagnostic process.”
Dr. Tan and his colleagues’ study was funded by the Melbourne Genomics Health Alliance and state and national governments in Australia. None of the authors declared conflicts of interest. Dr. Berg and her colleagues’ study was funded by the Pediatric Epilepsy Research Foundation, and none of its authors disclosed commercial conflicts of interest.
Results from two new studies suggest that genetic testing early in the diagnostic pathway may allow for earlier and more precise diagnoses in early-life epilepsies and a range of other childhood-onset disorders, and potentially limit costs associated with a long diagnostic course.
Both papers, published online July 31 in JAMA Pediatrics, showed the diagnostic yield of genetic testing approaches, including whole-exome sequencing (WES), to be high.
The results also argue for the incorporation of genetic testing into the first diagnostic assessments; not limiting it to severe presentations only; and for broad testing methods to be employed in lieu of narrower ones.
Of these patients, just under half (n = 327) underwent various forms of genetic testing at the discretion of the treating physician, including karyotyping, microarrays, epilepsy gene panels, WES, mitochondrial panels, and other tests. Pathogenic variants were discovered in 132 children, or 40% of those receiving genetic testing (JAMA Pediatr. 2017 July 31. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2017.1743).
Of all the genetic testing methods employed in the study, diagnostic yields were significantly greater for epilepsy gene panels (29.2%) and WES (27.8%), compared with chromosome microarray (7.9%).
The results, the investigators said, provide “added impetus to move the diagnosis of the specific cause to the point of initial presentation ... it is time to provide greater emphasis on and support for thorough genetic evaluations, particularly sequencing-based evaluations, for children with newly presenting epilepsies in the first few years of life.”
In addition to aiding management decisions, early genetic testing “ends the diagnostic odyssey during which parents and physicians spend untold amounts of time searching for an explanation for a child’s epilepsy and reduces associated costs,” Dr. Berg and her colleagues concluded.
In a separate study led by Tiong Yang Tan, MBBS, PhD, of Victorian Clinical Genetics Services in Melbourne, Australia, and his colleagues, singleton WES was used in 44 children recruited at outpatient clinics of a Melbourne hospital system (JAMA Pediatr. 2017 July 31. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2017.1755).
Children in the study were aged 2-18 years (with mean age at presentation 28 months) and had a wide variety of suspected genetic disorders, including skeletal, skin, neurometabolic, and intellectual disorders. Some of these had features overlapping several conditions. The children in the cohort had not received prior genetic testing before undergoing WES.
The molecular test resulted in a diagnosis in 52% (n = 23) of the children, including unexpected diagnoses in eight of these. Clinical management was altered as result of sequencing findings in six children.
“Although phenotyping is critical, 35% of children had a diagnosis caused by a gene outside the initially prioritized gene list. This finding not only possibly reflects lack of clinical recognition but also underscores the utility of WES in achieving a diagnosis even when the a priori hypothesis is imprecise,” Dr. Tan and his associates wrote in their analysis.
Dr. Tan and his colleagues conducted a cost analysis that found WES performed at initial tertiary presentation resulted in a cost savings of U.S. $6,838 per additional diagnosis (95% confidence interval, U.S. $3,263-$11,678), compared with the standard diagnostic pathway. The figures reflect costs in an Australian care setting.
The children in the study had a mean diagnostic odyssey of 6 years, including a mean of 19 tests and four clinical genetics and four non–genetics specialist consultations. A quarter of them had undergone at least one diagnostic procedure under general anesthesia.
“The diagnostic odyssey of children suspected of having monogenic disorders is protracted and painful and may not provide a precise diagnosis,” Dr. Tan and his colleagues wrote in their analysis. “This paradigm has markedly shifted with the advent of WES.”
WES is best targeted to children “with genetically heterogeneous disorders or features overlapping several conditions,” the investigators concluded. “Our findings suggest that these children are best served by early recognition by their pediatrician and expedited referral to clinical genetics with WES applied after chromosomal microarray but before an extensive diagnostic process.”
Dr. Tan and his colleagues’ study was funded by the Melbourne Genomics Health Alliance and state and national governments in Australia. None of the authors declared conflicts of interest. Dr. Berg and her colleagues’ study was funded by the Pediatric Epilepsy Research Foundation, and none of its authors disclosed commercial conflicts of interest.
FROM JAMA PEDIATRICS
Understanding childhood cancer in sub-Saharan Africa
Researchers say they have published the most extensive data ever collected on childhood cancer in sub-Saharan Africa.
On the African continent, only South Africa operates a childhood cancer registry on the national level.
Researchers brought together data from 16 of the smaller, local registries, collecting this information for the first time and presenting it in an accessible format.
The data were published in ecancermedicalscience.
Examining the data in context allowed the researchers to notice trends in cancer incidence. For example, they found that, in Blantyre, Malawi’s second-largest city, the cumulative risk of a child developing Burkitt lymphoma is 2 in every thousand.
The researchers called this incidence “remarkable” and noted that the global research community is largely unaware of this.
“Everything starts with awareness,” said study author Cristina Stefan, global clinical leader of oncology for Roche Diagnostics International Ltd of Switzerland and director of the African Medical Research and Innovation Institute.
“It is highly necessary to publicize these data, which, at the moment, represent the best image of the malignant disease in children in the respective regions.”
The researchers also noted that factors such as the prevalence of malaria and the Epstein-Barr virus contribute to the unique epidemiology of childhood cancer in Africa.
“Our colleagues can learn that the patterns and distribution of cancers in Africa are totally different from Europe, and there is a need for further research into the roles of factors such as genetic predispositions and the influence of infections and other comorbidities in the evolution of cancer,” Dr Stefan said.
“We have learned many universal lessons about data collection as we prepared this work. Our hope is that the publication of this monograph will open the forums for future discussions and that the work will be referenced for the better understanding of cancer in children in Africa and used to improve outcomes for children affected there.”
Researchers say they have published the most extensive data ever collected on childhood cancer in sub-Saharan Africa.
On the African continent, only South Africa operates a childhood cancer registry on the national level.
Researchers brought together data from 16 of the smaller, local registries, collecting this information for the first time and presenting it in an accessible format.
The data were published in ecancermedicalscience.
Examining the data in context allowed the researchers to notice trends in cancer incidence. For example, they found that, in Blantyre, Malawi’s second-largest city, the cumulative risk of a child developing Burkitt lymphoma is 2 in every thousand.
The researchers called this incidence “remarkable” and noted that the global research community is largely unaware of this.
“Everything starts with awareness,” said study author Cristina Stefan, global clinical leader of oncology for Roche Diagnostics International Ltd of Switzerland and director of the African Medical Research and Innovation Institute.
“It is highly necessary to publicize these data, which, at the moment, represent the best image of the malignant disease in children in the respective regions.”
The researchers also noted that factors such as the prevalence of malaria and the Epstein-Barr virus contribute to the unique epidemiology of childhood cancer in Africa.
“Our colleagues can learn that the patterns and distribution of cancers in Africa are totally different from Europe, and there is a need for further research into the roles of factors such as genetic predispositions and the influence of infections and other comorbidities in the evolution of cancer,” Dr Stefan said.
“We have learned many universal lessons about data collection as we prepared this work. Our hope is that the publication of this monograph will open the forums for future discussions and that the work will be referenced for the better understanding of cancer in children in Africa and used to improve outcomes for children affected there.”
Researchers say they have published the most extensive data ever collected on childhood cancer in sub-Saharan Africa.
On the African continent, only South Africa operates a childhood cancer registry on the national level.
Researchers brought together data from 16 of the smaller, local registries, collecting this information for the first time and presenting it in an accessible format.
The data were published in ecancermedicalscience.
Examining the data in context allowed the researchers to notice trends in cancer incidence. For example, they found that, in Blantyre, Malawi’s second-largest city, the cumulative risk of a child developing Burkitt lymphoma is 2 in every thousand.
The researchers called this incidence “remarkable” and noted that the global research community is largely unaware of this.
“Everything starts with awareness,” said study author Cristina Stefan, global clinical leader of oncology for Roche Diagnostics International Ltd of Switzerland and director of the African Medical Research and Innovation Institute.
“It is highly necessary to publicize these data, which, at the moment, represent the best image of the malignant disease in children in the respective regions.”
The researchers also noted that factors such as the prevalence of malaria and the Epstein-Barr virus contribute to the unique epidemiology of childhood cancer in Africa.
“Our colleagues can learn that the patterns and distribution of cancers in Africa are totally different from Europe, and there is a need for further research into the roles of factors such as genetic predispositions and the influence of infections and other comorbidities in the evolution of cancer,” Dr Stefan said.
“We have learned many universal lessons about data collection as we prepared this work. Our hope is that the publication of this monograph will open the forums for future discussions and that the work will be referenced for the better understanding of cancer in children in Africa and used to improve outcomes for children affected there.”
ASCO updates guidelines on antiemetic use in cancer patients
The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) has updated its clinical practice guidelines on the use of antiemetics in cancer patients.
The update, published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, provides new evidence-based information on the appropriate use of olanzapine, NK1 receptor antagonists, and dexamethasone.
“The adverse impact of inadequately controlled nausea and vomiting on patients’ quality of life is well documented,” said Paul J. Hesketh, MD, co-chair of the ASCO expert panel that updated the guidelines.
“By following the ASCO antiemetics guideline, clinicians have the opportunity to improve patients’ quality of life by minimizing treatment-induced emesis.”
To update ASCO’s guidelines on antiemetics, the expert panel conducted a systematic review of the medical literature published between November 2009 and June 2016. The panel included members with expertise in medical oncology, radiation oncology, nursing, pharmacy, and health services research, as well as a patient representative.
“Tremendous progress has been realized over the last 25 years in the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting with the introduction of new classes of antiemetic agents,” said Mark G. Kris, MD, co-chair of the expert panel that updated the guidelines.
“The full benefit of these treatment advances will only be realized, however, if evidence-based guidelines are fully implemented.”
Key recommendations in the updated guidelines include:
For adults receiving chemotherapy with a high risk for nausea and vomiting (eg, cisplatin or the combination of cyclophosphamide and an anthracycline), olanzapine should be added to standard antiemetic regimens (the combination of a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist, an NK1 receptor antagonist, and dexamethasone). Olanzapine also helps individuals who experience symptoms despite receiving medicines to prevent vomiting before chemotherapy is given.
For adults receiving carboplatin-based chemotherapy or high-dose chemotherapy and children receiving chemotherapy with a high risk for nausea and vomiting, an NK1 receptor antagonist should be added to the standard antiemetic regimen (the combination of 5-HT3 receptor antagonist and dexamethasone).
Dexamethasone treatment can be limited to the day of chemotherapy administration in patients receiving an anthracycline and cyclophosphamide.
Dronabinol and nabilone, cannabinoids approved by the US Food and Drug Administration, can be used to treat nausea and vomiting that is resistant to standard antiemetic therapies. Evidence remains insufficient to recommend medical marijuana for either prevention or treatment of nausea and vomiting in patients with cancer receiving chemotherapy or radiation therapy.
The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) has updated its clinical practice guidelines on the use of antiemetics in cancer patients.
The update, published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, provides new evidence-based information on the appropriate use of olanzapine, NK1 receptor antagonists, and dexamethasone.
“The adverse impact of inadequately controlled nausea and vomiting on patients’ quality of life is well documented,” said Paul J. Hesketh, MD, co-chair of the ASCO expert panel that updated the guidelines.
“By following the ASCO antiemetics guideline, clinicians have the opportunity to improve patients’ quality of life by minimizing treatment-induced emesis.”
To update ASCO’s guidelines on antiemetics, the expert panel conducted a systematic review of the medical literature published between November 2009 and June 2016. The panel included members with expertise in medical oncology, radiation oncology, nursing, pharmacy, and health services research, as well as a patient representative.
“Tremendous progress has been realized over the last 25 years in the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting with the introduction of new classes of antiemetic agents,” said Mark G. Kris, MD, co-chair of the expert panel that updated the guidelines.
“The full benefit of these treatment advances will only be realized, however, if evidence-based guidelines are fully implemented.”
Key recommendations in the updated guidelines include:
For adults receiving chemotherapy with a high risk for nausea and vomiting (eg, cisplatin or the combination of cyclophosphamide and an anthracycline), olanzapine should be added to standard antiemetic regimens (the combination of a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist, an NK1 receptor antagonist, and dexamethasone). Olanzapine also helps individuals who experience symptoms despite receiving medicines to prevent vomiting before chemotherapy is given.
For adults receiving carboplatin-based chemotherapy or high-dose chemotherapy and children receiving chemotherapy with a high risk for nausea and vomiting, an NK1 receptor antagonist should be added to the standard antiemetic regimen (the combination of 5-HT3 receptor antagonist and dexamethasone).
Dexamethasone treatment can be limited to the day of chemotherapy administration in patients receiving an anthracycline and cyclophosphamide.
Dronabinol and nabilone, cannabinoids approved by the US Food and Drug Administration, can be used to treat nausea and vomiting that is resistant to standard antiemetic therapies. Evidence remains insufficient to recommend medical marijuana for either prevention or treatment of nausea and vomiting in patients with cancer receiving chemotherapy or radiation therapy.
The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) has updated its clinical practice guidelines on the use of antiemetics in cancer patients.
The update, published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, provides new evidence-based information on the appropriate use of olanzapine, NK1 receptor antagonists, and dexamethasone.
“The adverse impact of inadequately controlled nausea and vomiting on patients’ quality of life is well documented,” said Paul J. Hesketh, MD, co-chair of the ASCO expert panel that updated the guidelines.
“By following the ASCO antiemetics guideline, clinicians have the opportunity to improve patients’ quality of life by minimizing treatment-induced emesis.”
To update ASCO’s guidelines on antiemetics, the expert panel conducted a systematic review of the medical literature published between November 2009 and June 2016. The panel included members with expertise in medical oncology, radiation oncology, nursing, pharmacy, and health services research, as well as a patient representative.
“Tremendous progress has been realized over the last 25 years in the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting with the introduction of new classes of antiemetic agents,” said Mark G. Kris, MD, co-chair of the expert panel that updated the guidelines.
“The full benefit of these treatment advances will only be realized, however, if evidence-based guidelines are fully implemented.”
Key recommendations in the updated guidelines include:
For adults receiving chemotherapy with a high risk for nausea and vomiting (eg, cisplatin or the combination of cyclophosphamide and an anthracycline), olanzapine should be added to standard antiemetic regimens (the combination of a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist, an NK1 receptor antagonist, and dexamethasone). Olanzapine also helps individuals who experience symptoms despite receiving medicines to prevent vomiting before chemotherapy is given.
For adults receiving carboplatin-based chemotherapy or high-dose chemotherapy and children receiving chemotherapy with a high risk for nausea and vomiting, an NK1 receptor antagonist should be added to the standard antiemetic regimen (the combination of 5-HT3 receptor antagonist and dexamethasone).
Dexamethasone treatment can be limited to the day of chemotherapy administration in patients receiving an anthracycline and cyclophosphamide.
Dronabinol and nabilone, cannabinoids approved by the US Food and Drug Administration, can be used to treat nausea and vomiting that is resistant to standard antiemetic therapies. Evidence remains insufficient to recommend medical marijuana for either prevention or treatment of nausea and vomiting in patients with cancer receiving chemotherapy or radiation therapy.
Lessons emerge from Europe’s first enterovirus-related brain stem encephalitis outbreak
MADRID – Ninety-two percent of Spanish children sickened during the first-ever outbreak of enterovirus-associated brain stem encephalitis in western Europe survived with no long-term sequelae, Nuria Worner, MD, reported at the annual meeting of the European Society for Paediatric Infectious Diseases.
“We think that aggressive treatments should be restricted to those patients with important neurologic involvement,” declared Dr. Worner of Vall d’Hebron University Hospital in Barcelona. “We can say that no patients with milder involvement and without warning signs during the first 24 hours after onset of neurologic involvement went on to develop fulminant symptoms.”
Notable outbreaks of enterovirus A71 (EV-A71)-associated brain stem encephalitis occurred in Southeast Asia, Australia, and China in the late 1990s.
Dr. Worner reported on 196 children treated for laboratory-confirmed EV-A71–associated brain stem encephalitis at 16 Spanish hospitals in April-December 2016. Their median age was 25 months, 57% were male, and a median of 2 days of symptoms of mild viral illness transpired before neurologic symptoms arose. Prior to presenting to a hospital, 21% of the children had been diagnosed with hand-foot-and-mouth disease, and 13% with herpangina.
Initial preadmission symptoms included fever in 94% of cases, sleepiness in 86%, ataxia in 75%, tremor in 47%, myoclonus in 40%, and a rash in 26%.
Fifty-five percent of the children had EV RNA isolated from both throat and feces, 26% from the throat only, and 19% only from their feces. Eighty-seven percent of serotyped EV were EV-A71.
Ninety percent of children underwent lumbar puncture. Particularly noteworthy was the finding that EV was detected in the cerebrospinal fluid of a mere 3% of patients, although pleocytosis was present in 84%.
Brain MRI showed brain stem encephalitis along with myelitis in 50% of patients, brain stem myelitis without encephalitis in 29%, myelitis elsewhere in 2%, and normal findings in 19%.
Ground zero for the outbreak was Barcelona and the surrounding region of Catalonia; indeed, 130 of the 196 (66%) affected children came from there. The Catalan health department and pediatric infectious disease specialists quickly created standardized case severity definitions and treatment recommendations; they distributed them nationally.
Mild EV-A71–associated brain stem disease was defined as two or more of the following: tremor, myoclonus, mild ataxia, and/or significant drowsiness. The recommendation in these mild cases was for no treatment other than supportive care and careful in-hospital monitoring.
Patients with moderate involvement had to meet the definition for mild disease plus more pronounced ataxia or bulbar motor neuron involvement marked by slurred speech, drooling, dysphagia, apnea, abolition of the gag reflex, and/or an abnormal respiratory pattern. Moderately affected patients received two doses of intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG), each dosed at 1 g/kg per 24 hours. Admission to the pediatric ICU was individualized for patients with moderate EV-A71–associated brain stem encephalitis.
Severe disease was categorized as bulbar motor neuron involvement plus neurogenic cardiorespiratory failure. Those patients were uniformly admitted to a pediatric ICU and given the two doses of IVIG. The need for systemic steroids was determined on an individual basis.
Forty percent of patients received IVIG and systemic steroids, 24% received IVIG only, 2% systemic steroids only, and 34% received no treatment other than supportive care.
Twenty-six percent of children were admitted to a pediatric ICU for a median stay of 3.5 days. Nine percent of children were placed on mechanical ventilation.
As the disease evolved, the most frequent neurologic complications included slurred speech in 15% of children, abnormal breathing pattern in 11%, seizures in 10%, acute flaccid paralysis in 9%, and cardiorespiratory failure with pulmonary edema in 9%, all occurring within the first hours after hospital admission.
The median hospital length of stay for the full study population was 6 days. The survival rate was 99.5%, with the sole death being due to cardiorespiratory failure.
With 1-6 months of follow-up since the acute episode of EV-A71–associated brain stem encephalitis, the long-term sequelae included two cases of limb paresis and two cases of paresis of a cranial nerve, one child with residual seizures, and one with hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy.
Asked why the fatality rate in the Spanish outbreak was so much lower than in the earlier Australasian outbreaks, Dr. Worner cited Catalan physicians’ quick recognition of what was underway – and, more importantly, a difference in the EV-A71 viral subgenotype. Most of the most severe cases in Asia and Australia involved the C-4 subgenotype, while in Spain, the predominant subgenotype involved in the outbreak was C-1.
As for the curious finding that EV was detectable in the cerebrospinal fluid of a mere 3% of the Spanish children, she said the explanation is unknown. The two main possibilities are that the CNS symptoms were due to a parenchymal brain infection rather than to EV-A71 infection of meningeal tissue. Alternatively, the CNS involvement may have been a manifestation of an immunologic response to the infection, rather than being due to the virus itself.
Dr. Worner reported having no financial conflicts of interest.
MADRID – Ninety-two percent of Spanish children sickened during the first-ever outbreak of enterovirus-associated brain stem encephalitis in western Europe survived with no long-term sequelae, Nuria Worner, MD, reported at the annual meeting of the European Society for Paediatric Infectious Diseases.
“We think that aggressive treatments should be restricted to those patients with important neurologic involvement,” declared Dr. Worner of Vall d’Hebron University Hospital in Barcelona. “We can say that no patients with milder involvement and without warning signs during the first 24 hours after onset of neurologic involvement went on to develop fulminant symptoms.”
Notable outbreaks of enterovirus A71 (EV-A71)-associated brain stem encephalitis occurred in Southeast Asia, Australia, and China in the late 1990s.
Dr. Worner reported on 196 children treated for laboratory-confirmed EV-A71–associated brain stem encephalitis at 16 Spanish hospitals in April-December 2016. Their median age was 25 months, 57% were male, and a median of 2 days of symptoms of mild viral illness transpired before neurologic symptoms arose. Prior to presenting to a hospital, 21% of the children had been diagnosed with hand-foot-and-mouth disease, and 13% with herpangina.
Initial preadmission symptoms included fever in 94% of cases, sleepiness in 86%, ataxia in 75%, tremor in 47%, myoclonus in 40%, and a rash in 26%.
Fifty-five percent of the children had EV RNA isolated from both throat and feces, 26% from the throat only, and 19% only from their feces. Eighty-seven percent of serotyped EV were EV-A71.
Ninety percent of children underwent lumbar puncture. Particularly noteworthy was the finding that EV was detected in the cerebrospinal fluid of a mere 3% of patients, although pleocytosis was present in 84%.
Brain MRI showed brain stem encephalitis along with myelitis in 50% of patients, brain stem myelitis without encephalitis in 29%, myelitis elsewhere in 2%, and normal findings in 19%.
Ground zero for the outbreak was Barcelona and the surrounding region of Catalonia; indeed, 130 of the 196 (66%) affected children came from there. The Catalan health department and pediatric infectious disease specialists quickly created standardized case severity definitions and treatment recommendations; they distributed them nationally.
Mild EV-A71–associated brain stem disease was defined as two or more of the following: tremor, myoclonus, mild ataxia, and/or significant drowsiness. The recommendation in these mild cases was for no treatment other than supportive care and careful in-hospital monitoring.
Patients with moderate involvement had to meet the definition for mild disease plus more pronounced ataxia or bulbar motor neuron involvement marked by slurred speech, drooling, dysphagia, apnea, abolition of the gag reflex, and/or an abnormal respiratory pattern. Moderately affected patients received two doses of intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG), each dosed at 1 g/kg per 24 hours. Admission to the pediatric ICU was individualized for patients with moderate EV-A71–associated brain stem encephalitis.
Severe disease was categorized as bulbar motor neuron involvement plus neurogenic cardiorespiratory failure. Those patients were uniformly admitted to a pediatric ICU and given the two doses of IVIG. The need for systemic steroids was determined on an individual basis.
Forty percent of patients received IVIG and systemic steroids, 24% received IVIG only, 2% systemic steroids only, and 34% received no treatment other than supportive care.
Twenty-six percent of children were admitted to a pediatric ICU for a median stay of 3.5 days. Nine percent of children were placed on mechanical ventilation.
As the disease evolved, the most frequent neurologic complications included slurred speech in 15% of children, abnormal breathing pattern in 11%, seizures in 10%, acute flaccid paralysis in 9%, and cardiorespiratory failure with pulmonary edema in 9%, all occurring within the first hours after hospital admission.
The median hospital length of stay for the full study population was 6 days. The survival rate was 99.5%, with the sole death being due to cardiorespiratory failure.
With 1-6 months of follow-up since the acute episode of EV-A71–associated brain stem encephalitis, the long-term sequelae included two cases of limb paresis and two cases of paresis of a cranial nerve, one child with residual seizures, and one with hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy.
Asked why the fatality rate in the Spanish outbreak was so much lower than in the earlier Australasian outbreaks, Dr. Worner cited Catalan physicians’ quick recognition of what was underway – and, more importantly, a difference in the EV-A71 viral subgenotype. Most of the most severe cases in Asia and Australia involved the C-4 subgenotype, while in Spain, the predominant subgenotype involved in the outbreak was C-1.
As for the curious finding that EV was detectable in the cerebrospinal fluid of a mere 3% of the Spanish children, she said the explanation is unknown. The two main possibilities are that the CNS symptoms were due to a parenchymal brain infection rather than to EV-A71 infection of meningeal tissue. Alternatively, the CNS involvement may have been a manifestation of an immunologic response to the infection, rather than being due to the virus itself.
Dr. Worner reported having no financial conflicts of interest.
MADRID – Ninety-two percent of Spanish children sickened during the first-ever outbreak of enterovirus-associated brain stem encephalitis in western Europe survived with no long-term sequelae, Nuria Worner, MD, reported at the annual meeting of the European Society for Paediatric Infectious Diseases.
“We think that aggressive treatments should be restricted to those patients with important neurologic involvement,” declared Dr. Worner of Vall d’Hebron University Hospital in Barcelona. “We can say that no patients with milder involvement and without warning signs during the first 24 hours after onset of neurologic involvement went on to develop fulminant symptoms.”
Notable outbreaks of enterovirus A71 (EV-A71)-associated brain stem encephalitis occurred in Southeast Asia, Australia, and China in the late 1990s.
Dr. Worner reported on 196 children treated for laboratory-confirmed EV-A71–associated brain stem encephalitis at 16 Spanish hospitals in April-December 2016. Their median age was 25 months, 57% were male, and a median of 2 days of symptoms of mild viral illness transpired before neurologic symptoms arose. Prior to presenting to a hospital, 21% of the children had been diagnosed with hand-foot-and-mouth disease, and 13% with herpangina.
Initial preadmission symptoms included fever in 94% of cases, sleepiness in 86%, ataxia in 75%, tremor in 47%, myoclonus in 40%, and a rash in 26%.
Fifty-five percent of the children had EV RNA isolated from both throat and feces, 26% from the throat only, and 19% only from their feces. Eighty-seven percent of serotyped EV were EV-A71.
Ninety percent of children underwent lumbar puncture. Particularly noteworthy was the finding that EV was detected in the cerebrospinal fluid of a mere 3% of patients, although pleocytosis was present in 84%.
Brain MRI showed brain stem encephalitis along with myelitis in 50% of patients, brain stem myelitis without encephalitis in 29%, myelitis elsewhere in 2%, and normal findings in 19%.
Ground zero for the outbreak was Barcelona and the surrounding region of Catalonia; indeed, 130 of the 196 (66%) affected children came from there. The Catalan health department and pediatric infectious disease specialists quickly created standardized case severity definitions and treatment recommendations; they distributed them nationally.
Mild EV-A71–associated brain stem disease was defined as two or more of the following: tremor, myoclonus, mild ataxia, and/or significant drowsiness. The recommendation in these mild cases was for no treatment other than supportive care and careful in-hospital monitoring.
Patients with moderate involvement had to meet the definition for mild disease plus more pronounced ataxia or bulbar motor neuron involvement marked by slurred speech, drooling, dysphagia, apnea, abolition of the gag reflex, and/or an abnormal respiratory pattern. Moderately affected patients received two doses of intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG), each dosed at 1 g/kg per 24 hours. Admission to the pediatric ICU was individualized for patients with moderate EV-A71–associated brain stem encephalitis.
Severe disease was categorized as bulbar motor neuron involvement plus neurogenic cardiorespiratory failure. Those patients were uniformly admitted to a pediatric ICU and given the two doses of IVIG. The need for systemic steroids was determined on an individual basis.
Forty percent of patients received IVIG and systemic steroids, 24% received IVIG only, 2% systemic steroids only, and 34% received no treatment other than supportive care.
Twenty-six percent of children were admitted to a pediatric ICU for a median stay of 3.5 days. Nine percent of children were placed on mechanical ventilation.
As the disease evolved, the most frequent neurologic complications included slurred speech in 15% of children, abnormal breathing pattern in 11%, seizures in 10%, acute flaccid paralysis in 9%, and cardiorespiratory failure with pulmonary edema in 9%, all occurring within the first hours after hospital admission.
The median hospital length of stay for the full study population was 6 days. The survival rate was 99.5%, with the sole death being due to cardiorespiratory failure.
With 1-6 months of follow-up since the acute episode of EV-A71–associated brain stem encephalitis, the long-term sequelae included two cases of limb paresis and two cases of paresis of a cranial nerve, one child with residual seizures, and one with hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy.
Asked why the fatality rate in the Spanish outbreak was so much lower than in the earlier Australasian outbreaks, Dr. Worner cited Catalan physicians’ quick recognition of what was underway – and, more importantly, a difference in the EV-A71 viral subgenotype. Most of the most severe cases in Asia and Australia involved the C-4 subgenotype, while in Spain, the predominant subgenotype involved in the outbreak was C-1.
As for the curious finding that EV was detectable in the cerebrospinal fluid of a mere 3% of the Spanish children, she said the explanation is unknown. The two main possibilities are that the CNS symptoms were due to a parenchymal brain infection rather than to EV-A71 infection of meningeal tissue. Alternatively, the CNS involvement may have been a manifestation of an immunologic response to the infection, rather than being due to the virus itself.
Dr. Worner reported having no financial conflicts of interest.
AT ESPID 2017
Key clinical point:
Major finding: Ninety-two percent of Spanish children involved in an outbreak of enterovirus-associated brain stem encephalitis survived with no long-term sequelae.
Data source: A retrospective review of 196 children treated for laboratory-confirmed EV-A71–associated brain stem encephalitis at 16 Spanish hospitals in April-December 2016 during the first-ever outbreak of this condition in western Europe.
Disclosures: Dr. Worner reported having no financial conflicts of interest.
First trimester antibiotics may increase birth defect risk
Exposure to clindamycin and doxycycline during the first trimester may be associated with an increased risk of organ-specific malformations such as ventricular/atrial septal defect, new research suggests.
In a population-based cohort study in 139,938 liveborn singletons, there was an 81% increased risk of ventricular/septal defect (adjusted odds ratio, 1.81) associated with clindamycin exposure during the first trimester, compared with no exposure. Similarly, there was a 67% greater risk of musculoskeletal system malformations (aOR, 1.67) associated with clindamycin exposure (Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2017 Jul 19. doi: 10.1111/bcp.13364).
Doxycycline exposure was associated with a greater than threefold increased risk of ventricular/atrial septal defect (aOR, 3.19), and greater than twofold increase in the risk of circulatory system malformation (aOR, 2.38) and cardiac malformations (aOR, 2.46).
The study also found a 46% higher risk of digestive system malformations associated with macrolide exposure (aOR, 1.46), while quinolone exposure was associated with an 89% higher risk of urinary system malformations (aOR, 1.89).
“There is currently a debate on a possible association between macrolide use and infantile pyloric stenosis,” the researchers wrote. “Though evidence suggested that late pregnancy and early infancy were the time windows of interest for this malformation, little attention has been paid to the first trimester of pregnancy.”
Phenoxymethylpenicillin exposure was associated with a 85% increased risk of nervous system malformations (aOR, 1.85), and erythromycin exposure doubled the risk of urinary system malformations (aOR, 2.12). Moxifloxacin exposure was associated with a fivefold increased risk of respiratory system malformations (aOR, 5.48), but the authors noted that there were just two exposed cases.
However, there was no increased risk for major congenital malformation seen with amoxicillin, cephalosporins, and nitrofurantoin.
Overall, 11% of pregnancies in the study recorded exposure to antibiotics during the first trimester, and 9.9% of the study population were diagnosed with a major congenital malformation in the first year of life.
“Though the absolute risks for specific birth defects was small, physicians should consider prescribing safer antibiotics for the treatment of maternal infections when possible until more data are available,” the researchers wrote.
The study was supported by the Réseau Québécois. One author reported being a consultant on litigation involving antidepressants and birth defects. No other conflicts of interest were declared.
Exposure to clindamycin and doxycycline during the first trimester may be associated with an increased risk of organ-specific malformations such as ventricular/atrial septal defect, new research suggests.
In a population-based cohort study in 139,938 liveborn singletons, there was an 81% increased risk of ventricular/septal defect (adjusted odds ratio, 1.81) associated with clindamycin exposure during the first trimester, compared with no exposure. Similarly, there was a 67% greater risk of musculoskeletal system malformations (aOR, 1.67) associated with clindamycin exposure (Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2017 Jul 19. doi: 10.1111/bcp.13364).
Doxycycline exposure was associated with a greater than threefold increased risk of ventricular/atrial septal defect (aOR, 3.19), and greater than twofold increase in the risk of circulatory system malformation (aOR, 2.38) and cardiac malformations (aOR, 2.46).
The study also found a 46% higher risk of digestive system malformations associated with macrolide exposure (aOR, 1.46), while quinolone exposure was associated with an 89% higher risk of urinary system malformations (aOR, 1.89).
“There is currently a debate on a possible association between macrolide use and infantile pyloric stenosis,” the researchers wrote. “Though evidence suggested that late pregnancy and early infancy were the time windows of interest for this malformation, little attention has been paid to the first trimester of pregnancy.”
Phenoxymethylpenicillin exposure was associated with a 85% increased risk of nervous system malformations (aOR, 1.85), and erythromycin exposure doubled the risk of urinary system malformations (aOR, 2.12). Moxifloxacin exposure was associated with a fivefold increased risk of respiratory system malformations (aOR, 5.48), but the authors noted that there were just two exposed cases.
However, there was no increased risk for major congenital malformation seen with amoxicillin, cephalosporins, and nitrofurantoin.
Overall, 11% of pregnancies in the study recorded exposure to antibiotics during the first trimester, and 9.9% of the study population were diagnosed with a major congenital malformation in the first year of life.
“Though the absolute risks for specific birth defects was small, physicians should consider prescribing safer antibiotics for the treatment of maternal infections when possible until more data are available,” the researchers wrote.
The study was supported by the Réseau Québécois. One author reported being a consultant on litigation involving antidepressants and birth defects. No other conflicts of interest were declared.
Exposure to clindamycin and doxycycline during the first trimester may be associated with an increased risk of organ-specific malformations such as ventricular/atrial septal defect, new research suggests.
In a population-based cohort study in 139,938 liveborn singletons, there was an 81% increased risk of ventricular/septal defect (adjusted odds ratio, 1.81) associated with clindamycin exposure during the first trimester, compared with no exposure. Similarly, there was a 67% greater risk of musculoskeletal system malformations (aOR, 1.67) associated with clindamycin exposure (Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2017 Jul 19. doi: 10.1111/bcp.13364).
Doxycycline exposure was associated with a greater than threefold increased risk of ventricular/atrial septal defect (aOR, 3.19), and greater than twofold increase in the risk of circulatory system malformation (aOR, 2.38) and cardiac malformations (aOR, 2.46).
The study also found a 46% higher risk of digestive system malformations associated with macrolide exposure (aOR, 1.46), while quinolone exposure was associated with an 89% higher risk of urinary system malformations (aOR, 1.89).
“There is currently a debate on a possible association between macrolide use and infantile pyloric stenosis,” the researchers wrote. “Though evidence suggested that late pregnancy and early infancy were the time windows of interest for this malformation, little attention has been paid to the first trimester of pregnancy.”
Phenoxymethylpenicillin exposure was associated with a 85% increased risk of nervous system malformations (aOR, 1.85), and erythromycin exposure doubled the risk of urinary system malformations (aOR, 2.12). Moxifloxacin exposure was associated with a fivefold increased risk of respiratory system malformations (aOR, 5.48), but the authors noted that there were just two exposed cases.
However, there was no increased risk for major congenital malformation seen with amoxicillin, cephalosporins, and nitrofurantoin.
Overall, 11% of pregnancies in the study recorded exposure to antibiotics during the first trimester, and 9.9% of the study population were diagnosed with a major congenital malformation in the first year of life.
“Though the absolute risks for specific birth defects was small, physicians should consider prescribing safer antibiotics for the treatment of maternal infections when possible until more data are available,” the researchers wrote.
The study was supported by the Réseau Québécois. One author reported being a consultant on litigation involving antidepressants and birth defects. No other conflicts of interest were declared.
FROM THE BRITISH JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PHARMACOLOGY
Key clinical point:
Major finding: Clindamycin exposure during the first trimester is associated with an 81% increased risk of ventricular/septal defect and 67% greater risk of musculoskeletal system malformations.
Data source: Population-based cohort study in 139,938 liveborn singletons.
Disclosures: The study was supported by the Réseau Québécois. One author reported being a consultant on litigation involving antidepressants and birth defects. No other conflicts of interest were declared.
New guidelines highlight rapid, interdisciplinary treatment of PANS/PANDAS
Prompt, symptomatic, multidisciplinary treatment is the best way to curtail the symptoms of pediatric acute-onset neuropsychiatric syndrome (PANS) and pediatric autoimmune neuropsychiatric syndrome associated with streptococcal infection (PANDAS), according to new guidelines.
Clinicians should tailor treatment to symptoms, wrote Margo Thienemann, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University and her coauthors in the clinical management section of the guidelines. For example, children with mild psychiatric symptoms might only need cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT), while more severe symptoms can merit a slow up-titration of psychoactive medications.
Clinical management of PANS/PANDAS includes psychoeducational, psychotherapeutic, behavioral, family- and school-based, and pharmacologic interventions, Dr. Thienemann and her associates wrote. Starting CBT (exposure-response prevention) has the best chance of halting OCD behaviors. Acutely ill children might not be ready for CBT, but parents still can learn to “hold the line” to avoid accommodating and worsening irrational fears.
Options for psychoactive medications include benzodiazepines for anxiety; aripiprazole, risperidone, olanzapine, haloperidol, or quetiapine for psychosis; and SSRIs, such as fluoxetine, sertraline, and fluvoxamine for depression and OCD. Severe depression merits both psychotherapy and an SSRI. Antipsychotics are not indicated for OCD unless children are incapacitated and only if their QTc interval does not exceed 450 milliseconds. Because PANS/PANDAS patients can react severely to psychotropics, clinicians should “start low” at about a quarter of a typical dose and “go slow,” gradually titrating up.
It’s best to rule out other medical disorders first when patients refuse or restrict food or fluids. Next, clinicians should assess medical stability and support nutrition and hydration while treating underlying brain inflammation. “Feeding tubes may be necessary, at least during the acute phases of the illness,” the authors wrote. Chronic symptoms can warrant treatments for eating disorders.
Bouts of aggression or irritability are classic and can be especially challenging for families. Parents can refocus the child with toys or by dancing, singing, or acting silly but should also make a safety plan, such as calling 911, if aggressive behaviors are endangering the patient or family members. Pharmacologic options for aggression include diphenhydramine, benzodiazepines, and antipsychotics.
For tics, options include comprehensive behavioral intervention for tics, habit reversal training, and cautiously monitored pharmacotherapy with alpha-2 adrenergic agonists, clonidine, guanfacine, or short-course antipsychotics. Symptoms of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder merit classroom accommodations; methylphenidate compounds can be added if needed. For children with sleep disturbances, the best strategy is to focus on sleep hygiene before considering low-dose diphenhydramine, melatonin, cyproheptadine, clonidine, trazodone, or zolpidem. Pain, however, needs early treatment to stop it from becoming refractory. Pain and stiffness after awakening can signal arthritis, enthesitis, or inflammatory back pain and warrant physical therapy and evaluation by a pediatric rheumatologist or pain specialist.
Part II of the guidelines covers immunomodulators. As in other severe brain disorders, early treatment improves outcomes and helps prevent relapses, wrote Jennifer Frankovich, MD, also of Stanford University, and her associates. Clinicians should start second-line therapies if first-line treatment fails. Acute impairment can remit with NSAIDs or a short course of oral corticosteroids, but chronic symptoms often need more aggressive and prolonged immunotherapy. Children with moderate to severe impairment should receive intravenous immunoglobulins, and those with severe, chronic impairment may need bursts of high-dose corticosteroids or longer-term corticosteroids with taper. Patients with extreme or life-threatening impairment should receive first-line therapeutic plasma exchange alone or with intravenous immunoglobulins, high-dose intravenous corticosteroids, and rituximab.
Part III of the guidelines covers infections. Most cases involve group A streptococci (GAS), but other culprits include Mycoplasma pneumoniae and viruses, such as influenza, wrote Michael S. Cooperstock, MD, MPH, of the University of Missouri-Columbia and his associates. They recommend antistreptococcal treatment for “essentially all” newly diagnosed cases. They also suggest secondary antistreptococcal prophylaxis for severe neuropsychiatric symptoms or intermittent exacerbations associated with GAS. “For all other [cases], vigilance for GAS infection in both the patient and close contacts is recommended,” they wrote. “Since any intercurrent infection may induce a symptom flare, close observation with appropriate therapy for any treatable intercurrent infection is warranted.” They also recommend standard childhood immunizations and monitoring vitamin D levels.
The National Institutes of Health supported the research summarized in the guidelines. Dr. Thienemann disclosed grants from Auspex, Shire, Pfizer, F. Hoffmann-La Roche, AstraZeneca, Sunovion, Neurocrine Biosciences, Psyadon, and the PANDAS Network, as well as personal fees from the International OCD Foundation and the Tourette Syndrome Association. Dr. Frankovich and Dr. Cooperstock had no relevant disclosures.
Prompt, symptomatic, multidisciplinary treatment is the best way to curtail the symptoms of pediatric acute-onset neuropsychiatric syndrome (PANS) and pediatric autoimmune neuropsychiatric syndrome associated with streptococcal infection (PANDAS), according to new guidelines.
Clinicians should tailor treatment to symptoms, wrote Margo Thienemann, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University and her coauthors in the clinical management section of the guidelines. For example, children with mild psychiatric symptoms might only need cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT), while more severe symptoms can merit a slow up-titration of psychoactive medications.
Clinical management of PANS/PANDAS includes psychoeducational, psychotherapeutic, behavioral, family- and school-based, and pharmacologic interventions, Dr. Thienemann and her associates wrote. Starting CBT (exposure-response prevention) has the best chance of halting OCD behaviors. Acutely ill children might not be ready for CBT, but parents still can learn to “hold the line” to avoid accommodating and worsening irrational fears.
Options for psychoactive medications include benzodiazepines for anxiety; aripiprazole, risperidone, olanzapine, haloperidol, or quetiapine for psychosis; and SSRIs, such as fluoxetine, sertraline, and fluvoxamine for depression and OCD. Severe depression merits both psychotherapy and an SSRI. Antipsychotics are not indicated for OCD unless children are incapacitated and only if their QTc interval does not exceed 450 milliseconds. Because PANS/PANDAS patients can react severely to psychotropics, clinicians should “start low” at about a quarter of a typical dose and “go slow,” gradually titrating up.
It’s best to rule out other medical disorders first when patients refuse or restrict food or fluids. Next, clinicians should assess medical stability and support nutrition and hydration while treating underlying brain inflammation. “Feeding tubes may be necessary, at least during the acute phases of the illness,” the authors wrote. Chronic symptoms can warrant treatments for eating disorders.
Bouts of aggression or irritability are classic and can be especially challenging for families. Parents can refocus the child with toys or by dancing, singing, or acting silly but should also make a safety plan, such as calling 911, if aggressive behaviors are endangering the patient or family members. Pharmacologic options for aggression include diphenhydramine, benzodiazepines, and antipsychotics.
For tics, options include comprehensive behavioral intervention for tics, habit reversal training, and cautiously monitored pharmacotherapy with alpha-2 adrenergic agonists, clonidine, guanfacine, or short-course antipsychotics. Symptoms of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder merit classroom accommodations; methylphenidate compounds can be added if needed. For children with sleep disturbances, the best strategy is to focus on sleep hygiene before considering low-dose diphenhydramine, melatonin, cyproheptadine, clonidine, trazodone, or zolpidem. Pain, however, needs early treatment to stop it from becoming refractory. Pain and stiffness after awakening can signal arthritis, enthesitis, or inflammatory back pain and warrant physical therapy and evaluation by a pediatric rheumatologist or pain specialist.
Part II of the guidelines covers immunomodulators. As in other severe brain disorders, early treatment improves outcomes and helps prevent relapses, wrote Jennifer Frankovich, MD, also of Stanford University, and her associates. Clinicians should start second-line therapies if first-line treatment fails. Acute impairment can remit with NSAIDs or a short course of oral corticosteroids, but chronic symptoms often need more aggressive and prolonged immunotherapy. Children with moderate to severe impairment should receive intravenous immunoglobulins, and those with severe, chronic impairment may need bursts of high-dose corticosteroids or longer-term corticosteroids with taper. Patients with extreme or life-threatening impairment should receive first-line therapeutic plasma exchange alone or with intravenous immunoglobulins, high-dose intravenous corticosteroids, and rituximab.
Part III of the guidelines covers infections. Most cases involve group A streptococci (GAS), but other culprits include Mycoplasma pneumoniae and viruses, such as influenza, wrote Michael S. Cooperstock, MD, MPH, of the University of Missouri-Columbia and his associates. They recommend antistreptococcal treatment for “essentially all” newly diagnosed cases. They also suggest secondary antistreptococcal prophylaxis for severe neuropsychiatric symptoms or intermittent exacerbations associated with GAS. “For all other [cases], vigilance for GAS infection in both the patient and close contacts is recommended,” they wrote. “Since any intercurrent infection may induce a symptom flare, close observation with appropriate therapy for any treatable intercurrent infection is warranted.” They also recommend standard childhood immunizations and monitoring vitamin D levels.
The National Institutes of Health supported the research summarized in the guidelines. Dr. Thienemann disclosed grants from Auspex, Shire, Pfizer, F. Hoffmann-La Roche, AstraZeneca, Sunovion, Neurocrine Biosciences, Psyadon, and the PANDAS Network, as well as personal fees from the International OCD Foundation and the Tourette Syndrome Association. Dr. Frankovich and Dr. Cooperstock had no relevant disclosures.
Prompt, symptomatic, multidisciplinary treatment is the best way to curtail the symptoms of pediatric acute-onset neuropsychiatric syndrome (PANS) and pediatric autoimmune neuropsychiatric syndrome associated with streptococcal infection (PANDAS), according to new guidelines.
Clinicians should tailor treatment to symptoms, wrote Margo Thienemann, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University and her coauthors in the clinical management section of the guidelines. For example, children with mild psychiatric symptoms might only need cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT), while more severe symptoms can merit a slow up-titration of psychoactive medications.
Clinical management of PANS/PANDAS includes psychoeducational, psychotherapeutic, behavioral, family- and school-based, and pharmacologic interventions, Dr. Thienemann and her associates wrote. Starting CBT (exposure-response prevention) has the best chance of halting OCD behaviors. Acutely ill children might not be ready for CBT, but parents still can learn to “hold the line” to avoid accommodating and worsening irrational fears.
Options for psychoactive medications include benzodiazepines for anxiety; aripiprazole, risperidone, olanzapine, haloperidol, or quetiapine for psychosis; and SSRIs, such as fluoxetine, sertraline, and fluvoxamine for depression and OCD. Severe depression merits both psychotherapy and an SSRI. Antipsychotics are not indicated for OCD unless children are incapacitated and only if their QTc interval does not exceed 450 milliseconds. Because PANS/PANDAS patients can react severely to psychotropics, clinicians should “start low” at about a quarter of a typical dose and “go slow,” gradually titrating up.
It’s best to rule out other medical disorders first when patients refuse or restrict food or fluids. Next, clinicians should assess medical stability and support nutrition and hydration while treating underlying brain inflammation. “Feeding tubes may be necessary, at least during the acute phases of the illness,” the authors wrote. Chronic symptoms can warrant treatments for eating disorders.
Bouts of aggression or irritability are classic and can be especially challenging for families. Parents can refocus the child with toys or by dancing, singing, or acting silly but should also make a safety plan, such as calling 911, if aggressive behaviors are endangering the patient or family members. Pharmacologic options for aggression include diphenhydramine, benzodiazepines, and antipsychotics.
For tics, options include comprehensive behavioral intervention for tics, habit reversal training, and cautiously monitored pharmacotherapy with alpha-2 adrenergic agonists, clonidine, guanfacine, or short-course antipsychotics. Symptoms of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder merit classroom accommodations; methylphenidate compounds can be added if needed. For children with sleep disturbances, the best strategy is to focus on sleep hygiene before considering low-dose diphenhydramine, melatonin, cyproheptadine, clonidine, trazodone, or zolpidem. Pain, however, needs early treatment to stop it from becoming refractory. Pain and stiffness after awakening can signal arthritis, enthesitis, or inflammatory back pain and warrant physical therapy and evaluation by a pediatric rheumatologist or pain specialist.
Part II of the guidelines covers immunomodulators. As in other severe brain disorders, early treatment improves outcomes and helps prevent relapses, wrote Jennifer Frankovich, MD, also of Stanford University, and her associates. Clinicians should start second-line therapies if first-line treatment fails. Acute impairment can remit with NSAIDs or a short course of oral corticosteroids, but chronic symptoms often need more aggressive and prolonged immunotherapy. Children with moderate to severe impairment should receive intravenous immunoglobulins, and those with severe, chronic impairment may need bursts of high-dose corticosteroids or longer-term corticosteroids with taper. Patients with extreme or life-threatening impairment should receive first-line therapeutic plasma exchange alone or with intravenous immunoglobulins, high-dose intravenous corticosteroids, and rituximab.
Part III of the guidelines covers infections. Most cases involve group A streptococci (GAS), but other culprits include Mycoplasma pneumoniae and viruses, such as influenza, wrote Michael S. Cooperstock, MD, MPH, of the University of Missouri-Columbia and his associates. They recommend antistreptococcal treatment for “essentially all” newly diagnosed cases. They also suggest secondary antistreptococcal prophylaxis for severe neuropsychiatric symptoms or intermittent exacerbations associated with GAS. “For all other [cases], vigilance for GAS infection in both the patient and close contacts is recommended,” they wrote. “Since any intercurrent infection may induce a symptom flare, close observation with appropriate therapy for any treatable intercurrent infection is warranted.” They also recommend standard childhood immunizations and monitoring vitamin D levels.
The National Institutes of Health supported the research summarized in the guidelines. Dr. Thienemann disclosed grants from Auspex, Shire, Pfizer, F. Hoffmann-La Roche, AstraZeneca, Sunovion, Neurocrine Biosciences, Psyadon, and the PANDAS Network, as well as personal fees from the International OCD Foundation and the Tourette Syndrome Association. Dr. Frankovich and Dr. Cooperstock had no relevant disclosures.
FROM JOURNAL OF CHILD AND ADOLESCENT PSYCHOPHARMACOLOGY
Bone marrow transplantation for epidermolysis bullosa continues to evolve
CHICAGO – Bone marrow transplantation is evolving as a promising treatment for patients with the most severe forms of epidermolysis bullosa.
“Is this a cure? It’s not,” Dr. Jakub Tolar, MD, PhD, said at the World Congress of Pediatric Dermatology. “It is, however, a path toward understanding how we can treat this grave disorder in a systemic way.”
The University of Minnesota BMT Team has also observed a correlation between the engraftment in the blood and engraftment in the skin. “We have skin engraftment as high as 50%, which is good,” Dr. Tolar said. “The more donor cells engrafted in the skin, the more types of collagen you express.”
The clinicians have also been able to reduce the amount of chemotherapy and radiation patients require prior to transplant, for the BMT to work and skin to heal. “We were able to make it so that the last 11 patients are surviving and having benefit from the transplant, with the exception of one,” Dr. Tolar said. “How does this work? We still don’t entirely know. This is not a shot in the dark, however, this is the continuation of a very long process where we were first able to show that bone marrow transplant is an efficient stem cell therapy for leukemia, and about 20 years ago for the lysosomal enzyme deficiencies.” Their hunt for the cell that travels from the bone marrow to skin and produces type 7 collagen is continuing. “What haunts me is that BMT, which works in recessive dystrophic EB, works only in some types of junctional EB, those with alpha-3 chain deficiency of laminin 322.” he continued. “There has been no benefit to bone marrow transplantation for children with mutations of beta-3 chain of laminin 322, so we have closed enrollment for this one form of junctional EB. Survival in this group was 40%. Other types of junctional EB continue to be eligible for the study.”
Dr. Tolar recommended keratinocyte-driven or thymic epithelium cell type–driven therapy for patients with mutations of beta-3. “The deficiency of thymic function seems to be key in the inability to benefit from BMT in this form of junctional EB,” he said. “We have seen children who have engrafted, their skin got better, and then they died of infection many months after transplant. When we look at the immune profile and the thymic epithelial cells, they are both deficient – very abnormal.”
Despite current challenges, Dr. Tolar expressed optimism about the future of BMT in EB patients. “We have the same approach that we have in cancer care: deep empathy for all patients, radical international collaboration, and rapid laboratory and clinical prototyping,” he said. “It’s time to move from two-dimensional science to three-dimensional science; we need to study all aspects of EB simultaneously, from gene to cell to tissue to individual to patient population, and to understand the properties of the whole EB pathobiology that emerge at each level of biological complexity. By connecting information from these layers of disease network, we can better understand EB and create comb
Dr. Tolar reported having no financial disclosures.
CHICAGO – Bone marrow transplantation is evolving as a promising treatment for patients with the most severe forms of epidermolysis bullosa.
“Is this a cure? It’s not,” Dr. Jakub Tolar, MD, PhD, said at the World Congress of Pediatric Dermatology. “It is, however, a path toward understanding how we can treat this grave disorder in a systemic way.”
The University of Minnesota BMT Team has also observed a correlation between the engraftment in the blood and engraftment in the skin. “We have skin engraftment as high as 50%, which is good,” Dr. Tolar said. “The more donor cells engrafted in the skin, the more types of collagen you express.”
The clinicians have also been able to reduce the amount of chemotherapy and radiation patients require prior to transplant, for the BMT to work and skin to heal. “We were able to make it so that the last 11 patients are surviving and having benefit from the transplant, with the exception of one,” Dr. Tolar said. “How does this work? We still don’t entirely know. This is not a shot in the dark, however, this is the continuation of a very long process where we were first able to show that bone marrow transplant is an efficient stem cell therapy for leukemia, and about 20 years ago for the lysosomal enzyme deficiencies.” Their hunt for the cell that travels from the bone marrow to skin and produces type 7 collagen is continuing. “What haunts me is that BMT, which works in recessive dystrophic EB, works only in some types of junctional EB, those with alpha-3 chain deficiency of laminin 322.” he continued. “There has been no benefit to bone marrow transplantation for children with mutations of beta-3 chain of laminin 322, so we have closed enrollment for this one form of junctional EB. Survival in this group was 40%. Other types of junctional EB continue to be eligible for the study.”
Dr. Tolar recommended keratinocyte-driven or thymic epithelium cell type–driven therapy for patients with mutations of beta-3. “The deficiency of thymic function seems to be key in the inability to benefit from BMT in this form of junctional EB,” he said. “We have seen children who have engrafted, their skin got better, and then they died of infection many months after transplant. When we look at the immune profile and the thymic epithelial cells, they are both deficient – very abnormal.”
Despite current challenges, Dr. Tolar expressed optimism about the future of BMT in EB patients. “We have the same approach that we have in cancer care: deep empathy for all patients, radical international collaboration, and rapid laboratory and clinical prototyping,” he said. “It’s time to move from two-dimensional science to three-dimensional science; we need to study all aspects of EB simultaneously, from gene to cell to tissue to individual to patient population, and to understand the properties of the whole EB pathobiology that emerge at each level of biological complexity. By connecting information from these layers of disease network, we can better understand EB and create comb
Dr. Tolar reported having no financial disclosures.
CHICAGO – Bone marrow transplantation is evolving as a promising treatment for patients with the most severe forms of epidermolysis bullosa.
“Is this a cure? It’s not,” Dr. Jakub Tolar, MD, PhD, said at the World Congress of Pediatric Dermatology. “It is, however, a path toward understanding how we can treat this grave disorder in a systemic way.”
The University of Minnesota BMT Team has also observed a correlation between the engraftment in the blood and engraftment in the skin. “We have skin engraftment as high as 50%, which is good,” Dr. Tolar said. “The more donor cells engrafted in the skin, the more types of collagen you express.”
The clinicians have also been able to reduce the amount of chemotherapy and radiation patients require prior to transplant, for the BMT to work and skin to heal. “We were able to make it so that the last 11 patients are surviving and having benefit from the transplant, with the exception of one,” Dr. Tolar said. “How does this work? We still don’t entirely know. This is not a shot in the dark, however, this is the continuation of a very long process where we were first able to show that bone marrow transplant is an efficient stem cell therapy for leukemia, and about 20 years ago for the lysosomal enzyme deficiencies.” Their hunt for the cell that travels from the bone marrow to skin and produces type 7 collagen is continuing. “What haunts me is that BMT, which works in recessive dystrophic EB, works only in some types of junctional EB, those with alpha-3 chain deficiency of laminin 322.” he continued. “There has been no benefit to bone marrow transplantation for children with mutations of beta-3 chain of laminin 322, so we have closed enrollment for this one form of junctional EB. Survival in this group was 40%. Other types of junctional EB continue to be eligible for the study.”
Dr. Tolar recommended keratinocyte-driven or thymic epithelium cell type–driven therapy for patients with mutations of beta-3. “The deficiency of thymic function seems to be key in the inability to benefit from BMT in this form of junctional EB,” he said. “We have seen children who have engrafted, their skin got better, and then they died of infection many months after transplant. When we look at the immune profile and the thymic epithelial cells, they are both deficient – very abnormal.”
Despite current challenges, Dr. Tolar expressed optimism about the future of BMT in EB patients. “We have the same approach that we have in cancer care: deep empathy for all patients, radical international collaboration, and rapid laboratory and clinical prototyping,” he said. “It’s time to move from two-dimensional science to three-dimensional science; we need to study all aspects of EB simultaneously, from gene to cell to tissue to individual to patient population, and to understand the properties of the whole EB pathobiology that emerge at each level of biological complexity. By connecting information from these layers of disease network, we can better understand EB and create comb
Dr. Tolar reported having no financial disclosures.
AT WCPD 2017
The team and I
As a physician or a patient, you probably have noticed that the quality of health care is better when there is a continuous relationship between the physician and the patient. Discontinuity can make doctor-patient communication less fluid, but familiarity can breed comfort and confidence. Patients often complain when they see a different physician at every visit. And physicians know they are less efficient when they are seeing a patient they have never seen before.
They discovered that less continuity was associated with more ambulatory sick visits and more ambulatory sensitive hospitalizations, particularly for children with chronic conditions. Interestingly, they could find no association between continuity measured at well visits and patients’ health outcomes.
With only a gut level and personal relationship with the subject, I wondered how the researchers measured something as nebulous as continuity. It turns out there are several ways to measure continuity, of which the investigators focused on two. The Usual Provider of Care is calculated by dividing the number of visits with the most common provider by the total number of primary care visits. The Bice and Boxerman Continuity of Care Index is more difficult to calculate because, rather than using a single provider, it lumps a small core of providers together (such as a team) as the most the common provider.
As a curmudgeonly, old school, egotistical kind of guy, I was surprised and disappointed to learn from this paper’s references of another study that found, in at least one scenario, the individual-based (Usual Provider of Care) and team-based (Bice and Boxerman Continuity of Care Index) methods of defining continuity yielded comparable results (Med Care. 2016 May;54[5]:e30-4). I always have assumed that, regardless of how well it had been crafted, that I could provide better continuity than a team of providers.
I know what you are thinking: This guy hasn’t bought into the maxim that “There is no I in team.” No, no, I do believe in it, but in the context of continuity of care, it seemed to me that sometimes the more links there are in the chain, the more chances there are for miscommunication. And we all know that primary care is 90% communication.
Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Email him at pdnews@frontlinemedcom.com.
As a physician or a patient, you probably have noticed that the quality of health care is better when there is a continuous relationship between the physician and the patient. Discontinuity can make doctor-patient communication less fluid, but familiarity can breed comfort and confidence. Patients often complain when they see a different physician at every visit. And physicians know they are less efficient when they are seeing a patient they have never seen before.
They discovered that less continuity was associated with more ambulatory sick visits and more ambulatory sensitive hospitalizations, particularly for children with chronic conditions. Interestingly, they could find no association between continuity measured at well visits and patients’ health outcomes.
With only a gut level and personal relationship with the subject, I wondered how the researchers measured something as nebulous as continuity. It turns out there are several ways to measure continuity, of which the investigators focused on two. The Usual Provider of Care is calculated by dividing the number of visits with the most common provider by the total number of primary care visits. The Bice and Boxerman Continuity of Care Index is more difficult to calculate because, rather than using a single provider, it lumps a small core of providers together (such as a team) as the most the common provider.
As a curmudgeonly, old school, egotistical kind of guy, I was surprised and disappointed to learn from this paper’s references of another study that found, in at least one scenario, the individual-based (Usual Provider of Care) and team-based (Bice and Boxerman Continuity of Care Index) methods of defining continuity yielded comparable results (Med Care. 2016 May;54[5]:e30-4). I always have assumed that, regardless of how well it had been crafted, that I could provide better continuity than a team of providers.
I know what you are thinking: This guy hasn’t bought into the maxim that “There is no I in team.” No, no, I do believe in it, but in the context of continuity of care, it seemed to me that sometimes the more links there are in the chain, the more chances there are for miscommunication. And we all know that primary care is 90% communication.
Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Email him at pdnews@frontlinemedcom.com.
As a physician or a patient, you probably have noticed that the quality of health care is better when there is a continuous relationship between the physician and the patient. Discontinuity can make doctor-patient communication less fluid, but familiarity can breed comfort and confidence. Patients often complain when they see a different physician at every visit. And physicians know they are less efficient when they are seeing a patient they have never seen before.
They discovered that less continuity was associated with more ambulatory sick visits and more ambulatory sensitive hospitalizations, particularly for children with chronic conditions. Interestingly, they could find no association between continuity measured at well visits and patients’ health outcomes.
With only a gut level and personal relationship with the subject, I wondered how the researchers measured something as nebulous as continuity. It turns out there are several ways to measure continuity, of which the investigators focused on two. The Usual Provider of Care is calculated by dividing the number of visits with the most common provider by the total number of primary care visits. The Bice and Boxerman Continuity of Care Index is more difficult to calculate because, rather than using a single provider, it lumps a small core of providers together (such as a team) as the most the common provider.
As a curmudgeonly, old school, egotistical kind of guy, I was surprised and disappointed to learn from this paper’s references of another study that found, in at least one scenario, the individual-based (Usual Provider of Care) and team-based (Bice and Boxerman Continuity of Care Index) methods of defining continuity yielded comparable results (Med Care. 2016 May;54[5]:e30-4). I always have assumed that, regardless of how well it had been crafted, that I could provide better continuity than a team of providers.
I know what you are thinking: This guy hasn’t bought into the maxim that “There is no I in team.” No, no, I do believe in it, but in the context of continuity of care, it seemed to me that sometimes the more links there are in the chain, the more chances there are for miscommunication. And we all know that primary care is 90% communication.
Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Email him at pdnews@frontlinemedcom.com.
VIDEO: How to discharge new pediatric diabetes cases in 2 days
NASHVILLE, TENN. – Pediatric endocrinologist Cassandra Brady, MD, caught the attention of her audience at Pediatric Hospital Medicine when she mentioned that children presenting with new-onset diabetes rarely spend more than 2 days at Vanderbilt University’s children’s hospital, even if they present in diabetic ketoacidosis.
In many places, children with new-onset diabetes spend quite a bit longer in the hospital – even if they are medically stable and feeling fine – for diabetes education.
That’s not the case at Vanderbilt, where Dr. Brady is an assistant professor. Once kids are stabilized, they and their parents undergo a 3-hour crash course – sometimes even in the PICU – on diabetes survival skills, and then they’re sent home with insulin. They learn the finer points about carbohydrate counting and tight glucose control at subsequent outpatient visits.
More and more payers are probably going to push for that model, Dr. Brady noted at the meeting, which was sponsored by the Society of Hospital Medicine, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the Academic Pediatric Association.
For those interested in making the transition to outpatient eduction, she explained in an interview exactly how Vanderbilt’s been doing it safely for years.
The video associated with this article is no longer available on this site. Please view all of our videos on the MDedge YouTube channel
NASHVILLE, TENN. – Pediatric endocrinologist Cassandra Brady, MD, caught the attention of her audience at Pediatric Hospital Medicine when she mentioned that children presenting with new-onset diabetes rarely spend more than 2 days at Vanderbilt University’s children’s hospital, even if they present in diabetic ketoacidosis.
In many places, children with new-onset diabetes spend quite a bit longer in the hospital – even if they are medically stable and feeling fine – for diabetes education.
That’s not the case at Vanderbilt, where Dr. Brady is an assistant professor. Once kids are stabilized, they and their parents undergo a 3-hour crash course – sometimes even in the PICU – on diabetes survival skills, and then they’re sent home with insulin. They learn the finer points about carbohydrate counting and tight glucose control at subsequent outpatient visits.
More and more payers are probably going to push for that model, Dr. Brady noted at the meeting, which was sponsored by the Society of Hospital Medicine, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the Academic Pediatric Association.
For those interested in making the transition to outpatient eduction, she explained in an interview exactly how Vanderbilt’s been doing it safely for years.
The video associated with this article is no longer available on this site. Please view all of our videos on the MDedge YouTube channel
NASHVILLE, TENN. – Pediatric endocrinologist Cassandra Brady, MD, caught the attention of her audience at Pediatric Hospital Medicine when she mentioned that children presenting with new-onset diabetes rarely spend more than 2 days at Vanderbilt University’s children’s hospital, even if they present in diabetic ketoacidosis.
In many places, children with new-onset diabetes spend quite a bit longer in the hospital – even if they are medically stable and feeling fine – for diabetes education.
That’s not the case at Vanderbilt, where Dr. Brady is an assistant professor. Once kids are stabilized, they and their parents undergo a 3-hour crash course – sometimes even in the PICU – on diabetes survival skills, and then they’re sent home with insulin. They learn the finer points about carbohydrate counting and tight glucose control at subsequent outpatient visits.
More and more payers are probably going to push for that model, Dr. Brady noted at the meeting, which was sponsored by the Society of Hospital Medicine, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the Academic Pediatric Association.
For those interested in making the transition to outpatient eduction, she explained in an interview exactly how Vanderbilt’s been doing it safely for years.
The video associated with this article is no longer available on this site. Please view all of our videos on the MDedge YouTube channel
AT PHM 2017