User login
EEG Predicts Epilepsy in Tuberous Sclerosis Complex
NATIONAL HARBOR, MD—Serial EEG has been confirmed as an accurate biomarker for risk of epilepsy in infants with tuberous sclerosis complex (TSC). In a prospective observational study involving five centers, the positive predictive value of epileptiform discharges for subsequent epilepsy was 100%, according to data presented at the 2015 Child Neurology Society Annual Meeting.
“The average interval between the time that EEG demonstrated epileptiform activity and the onset of the first seizure is between two to three months,” reported E. Martina Bebin, MD, a pediatric neurologist at the University of Alabama, Birmingham. She suggested that this interval is important because it may allow clinicians to pursue strategies designed to prevent or at least delay seizure onset.
While EEG is currently recommended at the time of TSC diagnosis, these data support the ability of serial EEG to screen for impending epilepsy, Dr. Bebin said. She noted that a recommendation for serial EEG had been issued in Europe through a consensus statement. The work by Dr. Bebin and colleagues, which was characterized as the first multicenter prospective study to establish EEG as a biomarker for epilepsy in TSC, also was published online ahead of print September 25 in Pediatric Neurology.
Heightened Risk
Studies have shown that as much as 80% of patients with TSC eventually develop epilepsy, and onset within the first six months of life is common. In a retrospective series conducted in Europe cited by Dr. Bebin, the majority of patients diagnosed with TSC early in life developed seizures before age 6 months. Many seizures were observed after a period of latent epileptogenesis. Other data linking EEG abnormalities to increased risk of overt seizures led to the multicenter trial to evaluate whether EEG could serve as a biomarker for epilepsy risk.
The investigators enrolled seizure-free children younger than 7 months old with a clinical or genetic diagnosis of TSC. Children previously treated with vigabatrin or inhibitors of the mammalian target of rapamycin were not eligible. Prematurity after at least 32 weeks’ gestation was not an exclusion criterion if there were no complications involving major organs. In addition to the University of Alabama, participating centers included Boston Children’s Hospital, Cincinnati Children’s Hospital, University of California at Los Angeles, and the University of Texas Medical School at Houston.
After enrollment, physical and neurologic evaluations were accompanied by a baseline one-hour EEG. The intent was to monitor brain activity during periods of wakefulness and sleep. Subsequent patient evaluations and EEGs were performed every six weeks for the first six months, every three months for another six months, and then every six months thereafter. The researchers considered more frequent monitoring over the first six months, which is the most common period of epilepsy onset, but the time commitment for families was a concern.
Forty children were enrolled. Dr. Bebin presented interim data on 28 children who had been followed past 12 months of age. Of the remaining children, six children were younger than 12 months, three had not yet had their EEG data fully analyzed, and three were treated with antiepileptic therapies on the basis of seizure activity observed on EEG and therefore excluded from analysis.
Initial Seizures
Clinical seizures developed in 19 children (67.8%) after enrollment. The average age at the time of first seizure was 6.7 months, with a range of 2 months to 20 months. Epileptic spasms were the most common type of initial seizures observed, accounting for 52.6%. In most other cases, patients had focal seizures either alone (26.3%) or in conjunction with epileptic spasms (15.8%).
EEG abnormalities, primarily in the form of epileptiform discharges, preceded the onset of the first seizure in 14 (73.7%) of the 19 infants. These EEG abnormalities were first observed between 1.2 and 9.0 months of age. The median interval between the epileptiform discharges and the first clinical seizure was 1.9 months and the average was 2.8 months. In the remaining five infants (26.3%) of the 19 who developed seizures, no EEG abnormalities were detected. Again, this group also largely developed focal seizures and epileptic spasms, but the only generalized tonic-clonic seizure occurred in this group.
Nine infants remained seizure-free off therapy, and all nine had normal EEGs over the period of evaluation.
As no infant demonstrated abnormal EEG without subsequently developing epilepsy, the positive predictive value was 100%. The negative predictive value, based on the five infants who developed epilepsy without first demonstrating an EEG abnormality, was 64%. Dr. Bebin pointed out that it is possible that abnormal EEG activity was missed in at least some of these infants due to the interval between EEG evaluations. In these patients, seizures developed at between two weeks and two months after the last EEG.
Opportunity for Trials
There were several strengths to this study, including the fact that independent reviewers, blinded to patient characteristics other than age, evaluated each EEG. At enrollment of the infants, parents received education about seizure recognition to improve the accuracy of identifying the time of onset.
Of the nine patients who remained seizure-free, eight showed normal development. The exception was a child who showed early signs of autism. Of the three patients who were excluded from the interim analysis because they were treated with vigabatrin on the basis of EEG abnormalities, only one remained seizure-free, according to Dr. Bebin, who reported that continued follow-up on all 40 patients initially enrolled is planned.
While the study has immediate practical implications for monitoring infants with TSC, it also identifies an opportunity to pursue clinical trials testing disease-modifying antiepileptogenic treatment strategies prior to the onset of epilepsy. The identification of this reliable EEG biomarker is expected to facilitate larger studies of preventive epilepsy treatment strategies.
—Ted Bosworth
Suggested Reading
Curatolo P, Józ´wiak S, Nabbout R, et al. Management of epilepsy associated with tuberous sclerosis complex (TSC): clinical recommendations. Eur J Paediatr Neurol. 2012;16(6):582-586.
Kotulska K, Jurkiewicz E, Doman´ska-Pakieła D, et al. Epilepsy in newborns with tuberous sclerosis complex. Eur J Paediatr Neurol. 2014;18(6):714-721.
Wu JY, Peters JM, Goyal M, et al. Clinical electroencephalographic biomarker for impending epilepsy in asymptomatic tuberous sclerosis complex infants. Pediatr Neurol. 2015 Sept 25 [Epub ahead of print].
NATIONAL HARBOR, MD—Serial EEG has been confirmed as an accurate biomarker for risk of epilepsy in infants with tuberous sclerosis complex (TSC). In a prospective observational study involving five centers, the positive predictive value of epileptiform discharges for subsequent epilepsy was 100%, according to data presented at the 2015 Child Neurology Society Annual Meeting.
“The average interval between the time that EEG demonstrated epileptiform activity and the onset of the first seizure is between two to three months,” reported E. Martina Bebin, MD, a pediatric neurologist at the University of Alabama, Birmingham. She suggested that this interval is important because it may allow clinicians to pursue strategies designed to prevent or at least delay seizure onset.
While EEG is currently recommended at the time of TSC diagnosis, these data support the ability of serial EEG to screen for impending epilepsy, Dr. Bebin said. She noted that a recommendation for serial EEG had been issued in Europe through a consensus statement. The work by Dr. Bebin and colleagues, which was characterized as the first multicenter prospective study to establish EEG as a biomarker for epilepsy in TSC, also was published online ahead of print September 25 in Pediatric Neurology.
Heightened Risk
Studies have shown that as much as 80% of patients with TSC eventually develop epilepsy, and onset within the first six months of life is common. In a retrospective series conducted in Europe cited by Dr. Bebin, the majority of patients diagnosed with TSC early in life developed seizures before age 6 months. Many seizures were observed after a period of latent epileptogenesis. Other data linking EEG abnormalities to increased risk of overt seizures led to the multicenter trial to evaluate whether EEG could serve as a biomarker for epilepsy risk.
The investigators enrolled seizure-free children younger than 7 months old with a clinical or genetic diagnosis of TSC. Children previously treated with vigabatrin or inhibitors of the mammalian target of rapamycin were not eligible. Prematurity after at least 32 weeks’ gestation was not an exclusion criterion if there were no complications involving major organs. In addition to the University of Alabama, participating centers included Boston Children’s Hospital, Cincinnati Children’s Hospital, University of California at Los Angeles, and the University of Texas Medical School at Houston.
After enrollment, physical and neurologic evaluations were accompanied by a baseline one-hour EEG. The intent was to monitor brain activity during periods of wakefulness and sleep. Subsequent patient evaluations and EEGs were performed every six weeks for the first six months, every three months for another six months, and then every six months thereafter. The researchers considered more frequent monitoring over the first six months, which is the most common period of epilepsy onset, but the time commitment for families was a concern.
Forty children were enrolled. Dr. Bebin presented interim data on 28 children who had been followed past 12 months of age. Of the remaining children, six children were younger than 12 months, three had not yet had their EEG data fully analyzed, and three were treated with antiepileptic therapies on the basis of seizure activity observed on EEG and therefore excluded from analysis.
Initial Seizures
Clinical seizures developed in 19 children (67.8%) after enrollment. The average age at the time of first seizure was 6.7 months, with a range of 2 months to 20 months. Epileptic spasms were the most common type of initial seizures observed, accounting for 52.6%. In most other cases, patients had focal seizures either alone (26.3%) or in conjunction with epileptic spasms (15.8%).
EEG abnormalities, primarily in the form of epileptiform discharges, preceded the onset of the first seizure in 14 (73.7%) of the 19 infants. These EEG abnormalities were first observed between 1.2 and 9.0 months of age. The median interval between the epileptiform discharges and the first clinical seizure was 1.9 months and the average was 2.8 months. In the remaining five infants (26.3%) of the 19 who developed seizures, no EEG abnormalities were detected. Again, this group also largely developed focal seizures and epileptic spasms, but the only generalized tonic-clonic seizure occurred in this group.
Nine infants remained seizure-free off therapy, and all nine had normal EEGs over the period of evaluation.
As no infant demonstrated abnormal EEG without subsequently developing epilepsy, the positive predictive value was 100%. The negative predictive value, based on the five infants who developed epilepsy without first demonstrating an EEG abnormality, was 64%. Dr. Bebin pointed out that it is possible that abnormal EEG activity was missed in at least some of these infants due to the interval between EEG evaluations. In these patients, seizures developed at between two weeks and two months after the last EEG.
Opportunity for Trials
There were several strengths to this study, including the fact that independent reviewers, blinded to patient characteristics other than age, evaluated each EEG. At enrollment of the infants, parents received education about seizure recognition to improve the accuracy of identifying the time of onset.
Of the nine patients who remained seizure-free, eight showed normal development. The exception was a child who showed early signs of autism. Of the three patients who were excluded from the interim analysis because they were treated with vigabatrin on the basis of EEG abnormalities, only one remained seizure-free, according to Dr. Bebin, who reported that continued follow-up on all 40 patients initially enrolled is planned.
While the study has immediate practical implications for monitoring infants with TSC, it also identifies an opportunity to pursue clinical trials testing disease-modifying antiepileptogenic treatment strategies prior to the onset of epilepsy. The identification of this reliable EEG biomarker is expected to facilitate larger studies of preventive epilepsy treatment strategies.
—Ted Bosworth
NATIONAL HARBOR, MD—Serial EEG has been confirmed as an accurate biomarker for risk of epilepsy in infants with tuberous sclerosis complex (TSC). In a prospective observational study involving five centers, the positive predictive value of epileptiform discharges for subsequent epilepsy was 100%, according to data presented at the 2015 Child Neurology Society Annual Meeting.
“The average interval between the time that EEG demonstrated epileptiform activity and the onset of the first seizure is between two to three months,” reported E. Martina Bebin, MD, a pediatric neurologist at the University of Alabama, Birmingham. She suggested that this interval is important because it may allow clinicians to pursue strategies designed to prevent or at least delay seizure onset.
While EEG is currently recommended at the time of TSC diagnosis, these data support the ability of serial EEG to screen for impending epilepsy, Dr. Bebin said. She noted that a recommendation for serial EEG had been issued in Europe through a consensus statement. The work by Dr. Bebin and colleagues, which was characterized as the first multicenter prospective study to establish EEG as a biomarker for epilepsy in TSC, also was published online ahead of print September 25 in Pediatric Neurology.
Heightened Risk
Studies have shown that as much as 80% of patients with TSC eventually develop epilepsy, and onset within the first six months of life is common. In a retrospective series conducted in Europe cited by Dr. Bebin, the majority of patients diagnosed with TSC early in life developed seizures before age 6 months. Many seizures were observed after a period of latent epileptogenesis. Other data linking EEG abnormalities to increased risk of overt seizures led to the multicenter trial to evaluate whether EEG could serve as a biomarker for epilepsy risk.
The investigators enrolled seizure-free children younger than 7 months old with a clinical or genetic diagnosis of TSC. Children previously treated with vigabatrin or inhibitors of the mammalian target of rapamycin were not eligible. Prematurity after at least 32 weeks’ gestation was not an exclusion criterion if there were no complications involving major organs. In addition to the University of Alabama, participating centers included Boston Children’s Hospital, Cincinnati Children’s Hospital, University of California at Los Angeles, and the University of Texas Medical School at Houston.
After enrollment, physical and neurologic evaluations were accompanied by a baseline one-hour EEG. The intent was to monitor brain activity during periods of wakefulness and sleep. Subsequent patient evaluations and EEGs were performed every six weeks for the first six months, every three months for another six months, and then every six months thereafter. The researchers considered more frequent monitoring over the first six months, which is the most common period of epilepsy onset, but the time commitment for families was a concern.
Forty children were enrolled. Dr. Bebin presented interim data on 28 children who had been followed past 12 months of age. Of the remaining children, six children were younger than 12 months, three had not yet had their EEG data fully analyzed, and three were treated with antiepileptic therapies on the basis of seizure activity observed on EEG and therefore excluded from analysis.
Initial Seizures
Clinical seizures developed in 19 children (67.8%) after enrollment. The average age at the time of first seizure was 6.7 months, with a range of 2 months to 20 months. Epileptic spasms were the most common type of initial seizures observed, accounting for 52.6%. In most other cases, patients had focal seizures either alone (26.3%) or in conjunction with epileptic spasms (15.8%).
EEG abnormalities, primarily in the form of epileptiform discharges, preceded the onset of the first seizure in 14 (73.7%) of the 19 infants. These EEG abnormalities were first observed between 1.2 and 9.0 months of age. The median interval between the epileptiform discharges and the first clinical seizure was 1.9 months and the average was 2.8 months. In the remaining five infants (26.3%) of the 19 who developed seizures, no EEG abnormalities were detected. Again, this group also largely developed focal seizures and epileptic spasms, but the only generalized tonic-clonic seizure occurred in this group.
Nine infants remained seizure-free off therapy, and all nine had normal EEGs over the period of evaluation.
As no infant demonstrated abnormal EEG without subsequently developing epilepsy, the positive predictive value was 100%. The negative predictive value, based on the five infants who developed epilepsy without first demonstrating an EEG abnormality, was 64%. Dr. Bebin pointed out that it is possible that abnormal EEG activity was missed in at least some of these infants due to the interval between EEG evaluations. In these patients, seizures developed at between two weeks and two months after the last EEG.
Opportunity for Trials
There were several strengths to this study, including the fact that independent reviewers, blinded to patient characteristics other than age, evaluated each EEG. At enrollment of the infants, parents received education about seizure recognition to improve the accuracy of identifying the time of onset.
Of the nine patients who remained seizure-free, eight showed normal development. The exception was a child who showed early signs of autism. Of the three patients who were excluded from the interim analysis because they were treated with vigabatrin on the basis of EEG abnormalities, only one remained seizure-free, according to Dr. Bebin, who reported that continued follow-up on all 40 patients initially enrolled is planned.
While the study has immediate practical implications for monitoring infants with TSC, it also identifies an opportunity to pursue clinical trials testing disease-modifying antiepileptogenic treatment strategies prior to the onset of epilepsy. The identification of this reliable EEG biomarker is expected to facilitate larger studies of preventive epilepsy treatment strategies.
—Ted Bosworth
Suggested Reading
Curatolo P, Józ´wiak S, Nabbout R, et al. Management of epilepsy associated with tuberous sclerosis complex (TSC): clinical recommendations. Eur J Paediatr Neurol. 2012;16(6):582-586.
Kotulska K, Jurkiewicz E, Doman´ska-Pakieła D, et al. Epilepsy in newborns with tuberous sclerosis complex. Eur J Paediatr Neurol. 2014;18(6):714-721.
Wu JY, Peters JM, Goyal M, et al. Clinical electroencephalographic biomarker for impending epilepsy in asymptomatic tuberous sclerosis complex infants. Pediatr Neurol. 2015 Sept 25 [Epub ahead of print].
Suggested Reading
Curatolo P, Józ´wiak S, Nabbout R, et al. Management of epilepsy associated with tuberous sclerosis complex (TSC): clinical recommendations. Eur J Paediatr Neurol. 2012;16(6):582-586.
Kotulska K, Jurkiewicz E, Doman´ska-Pakieła D, et al. Epilepsy in newborns with tuberous sclerosis complex. Eur J Paediatr Neurol. 2014;18(6):714-721.
Wu JY, Peters JM, Goyal M, et al. Clinical electroencephalographic biomarker for impending epilepsy in asymptomatic tuberous sclerosis complex infants. Pediatr Neurol. 2015 Sept 25 [Epub ahead of print].
Which Therapeutic Approaches to Infantile Spasms Are Effective?
NATIONAL HARBOR, MD—Clinicians often make “poor treatment choices” when presented with a patient with infantile spasms, said W. Donald Shields, MD, Past President of the Child Neurology Foundation and Emeritus Professor of Neurology and Pediatrics at the University of California, Los Angeles. “Some people think that the best way to go is to start with the dose low, but this is one where you make the diagnosis and you nuke it,” he said at the 2015 Child Neurology Society Annual Meeting. “You want to get to therapeutic levels as fast as you possibly can.”
Left untreated, infantile spasms can lead to serious outcomes, including an estimated infant mortality rate of between 5% and 6%. The most significant concern, however, is that infantile spasms are associated with autism and intellectual deficits that permanently affect quality of life. These outcomes are modifiable, said Dr. Shields.
In a 2004 study of long-term outcomes in cryptogenic infantile spasms, 100% of children seen within one month of parents’ recognition of the spasm developed IQs in the normal range, said Dr. Shields. When patients were treated later, less than 40% of them had good outcomes. Treatment is more likely to provide a sustained response if implemented within three weeks after the spasm, he explained.
“A huge challenge is that we have to get the child into effective treatment quickly,” said James Wheless, MD, Chief of Pediatric Neurology at the University of Tennessee Health Science Center, and Director of the Le Bonheur Comprehensive Epilepsy Program and the Neuroscience Institute at Le Bonheur Children’s Hospital in Memphis.
This goal is often difficult to achieve because of a lack of consensus on the best therapy, and treatment practices vary greatly by location, said Dr. Wheless. “Not all drugs are approved everywhere.” In Japan, only zonisamide is approved for the treatment of infantile spasms, while in the United States, vigabatrin and adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH) are the only agents with FDA approval.
Lack of Evidence-Based Medicine
These inconsistencies have contributed to a scarcity of data from evidence-based sources. “We have a lot of variation in treatment here, for different countries, which speaks to the fact that we need better data to review and [a better understanding] of the regulatory statutes that affect them,” said Dr. Wheless.
In recommendations published in 2006, the International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE) considered the data too limited to develop guidelines for infantile spasms, Dr. Wheless said. As late as 2013, “again, the data were not strong enough to make guidelines, so [the ILAE] made recommendations,” he observed. Level B evidence indicated that ACTH is preferable for short-term spasm control, and Level C evidence suggested that corticosteroids are probably effective for short-term spasm control. Updates to the recommendations in 2008 and 2013 indicated that vigabatrin is effective in the short term, especially in the treatment of tuberous sclerosis complex. “Treatment with ACTH or [an] oral steroid is better in the long term, especially in cases with no known etiology,” said Dr. Wheless.
Further review of the data revealed little evidence that one particular treatment was optimal, although high-dose ACTH was found to be more effective than prednisone. In the 2008 update, ACTH also was considered more effective than vigabatrin. The authors found that a high dose of prednisone was preferred to a low dose.
Goals of Therapy
Although neurologists have no clear guidelines on the best therapies for infantile spasms, clear indications about the best strategies have emerged. Neurologists should treat infantile spasms as an encephalopathic disorder that visually manifests on EEG, said Drs. Shields and Wheless. “We need to not only control the spasms, but we have to improve the EEG, because the EEG is the harbinger for the development of continuing problems,” added Dr. Wheless.
Regardless of the initial agent used, the goals of therapy for symptomatic infantile spasms are to treat early, to treat effectively with a known agent with demonstrated efficacy, and to try a second therapy if the first is not effective. “You really have to be using effective therapies,” Dr. Wheless said. Several studies indicate that high-dose protocols of drugs, including prednisone, vigabatrin, and particularly ACTH, produce better outcomes. “All ACTH studies showed a dose response,” said Dr. Wheless.
The American Academy of Neurology and Child Neurology Society reviewed 14 studies of ACTH therapy. Across those studies, high-dose ACTH treatment was associated with remission rates for infantile spasms estimated at 90% over two months. “High dose is where we get our bang for our buck,” said Dr. Wheless.
Clinical practice in the most recent studies has tended to proceed from high-dose oral prednisone to very-high-dose therapy, he continued. Outcome data from a study by Hussain et al showed that 63% of patients had a complete response to a very high dose (ie, 8 mg/kg/day and a maximum of 60 mg/day) of oral prednisolone for two weeks. Furthermore, 40% of nonresponders had a complete response to a subsequent two-week course of ACTH.
A similar study showed excellent responses to high-dose (ie, 40 mg/day) prednisolone with an increase to a very high dose (ie, 60 mg/day) if spasms continued, compared with moderate to high doses of synthetic ACTH. Response to very-high-dose prednisolone in this study was 58%. “It’s better than we used to see with 2 mg/kg/day, so very-high-dose prednisolone seems to be better than high-dose prednisolone, but it’s lower than what we’re used to seeing with high-dose ACTH,” said Dr. Wheless. He cited a need for a study comparing a very high dose of prednisolone with high-dose ACTH.
A dose comparison study by Elterman et al in 2010 supported the use of high-dose vigabatrin for infantile spasms. The study had a response rate of about 65%. Patients who did not respond had a much better response to high-dose synthetic ACTH than to high-dose prednisone as a second agent. “If vigabatrin doesn’t work, you might be better off going to a high-dose ACTH as a next step,” said Dr. Wheless.
—Linda Peckel
Suggested Reading
Elterman RD, Shields WD, Bittman RM, et al. Vigabatrin for the treatment of infantile spasms: final report of a randomized trial. J Child Neurol. 2010;25(11):1340-1347.
Glauser T, Ben-Menachem E, Bourgeois B, et al. ILAE treatment guidelines: evidence-based analysis of antiepileptic drug efficacy and effectiveness as initial monotherapy for epileptic seizures and syndromes. Epilepsia. 2006;47(7):1094-1120.
Glauser T, Ben-Menachem E, Bourgeois B, et al. Updated ILAE evidence review of antiepileptic drug efficacy and effectiveness as initial monotherapy for epileptic seizures and syndromes. Epilepsia. 2013;54(3):551-563.
Hussain SA, Shinnar S, Kwong G, et al. Treatment of infantile spasms with very high dose prednisolone before high dose adrenocorticotropic hormone. Epilepsia. 2014;55(1):103-107.
Kivity S, Lerman P, Ariel R, et al. Long-term cognitive outcomes of a cohort of children with cryptogenic infantile spasms treated with high-dose adrenocorticotropic hormone. Epilepsia. 2004;45(3):255-262.
Mackay MT, Weiss SK, Adams-Webber T, et al. Practice parameter: medical treatment of infantile spasms: report of the American Academy of Neurology and the Child Neurology Society. Neurology. 2004;62(10):1668-1681.
Wanigasinghe J, Arambepola C, Sri Ranganathan S, et al. Randomized, single-blind, parallel clinical trial on efficacy of oral prednisolone versus intramuscular corticotropin on immediate and continued spasm control in West syndrome. Pediatr Neurol. 2015;53(3):193-199.
Willmore LJ, Abelson MB, Ben-Menachem E, et al. Vigabatrin: 2008 update. Epilepsia. 2009;50(2):163-173.
NATIONAL HARBOR, MD—Clinicians often make “poor treatment choices” when presented with a patient with infantile spasms, said W. Donald Shields, MD, Past President of the Child Neurology Foundation and Emeritus Professor of Neurology and Pediatrics at the University of California, Los Angeles. “Some people think that the best way to go is to start with the dose low, but this is one where you make the diagnosis and you nuke it,” he said at the 2015 Child Neurology Society Annual Meeting. “You want to get to therapeutic levels as fast as you possibly can.”
Left untreated, infantile spasms can lead to serious outcomes, including an estimated infant mortality rate of between 5% and 6%. The most significant concern, however, is that infantile spasms are associated with autism and intellectual deficits that permanently affect quality of life. These outcomes are modifiable, said Dr. Shields.
In a 2004 study of long-term outcomes in cryptogenic infantile spasms, 100% of children seen within one month of parents’ recognition of the spasm developed IQs in the normal range, said Dr. Shields. When patients were treated later, less than 40% of them had good outcomes. Treatment is more likely to provide a sustained response if implemented within three weeks after the spasm, he explained.
“A huge challenge is that we have to get the child into effective treatment quickly,” said James Wheless, MD, Chief of Pediatric Neurology at the University of Tennessee Health Science Center, and Director of the Le Bonheur Comprehensive Epilepsy Program and the Neuroscience Institute at Le Bonheur Children’s Hospital in Memphis.
This goal is often difficult to achieve because of a lack of consensus on the best therapy, and treatment practices vary greatly by location, said Dr. Wheless. “Not all drugs are approved everywhere.” In Japan, only zonisamide is approved for the treatment of infantile spasms, while in the United States, vigabatrin and adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH) are the only agents with FDA approval.
Lack of Evidence-Based Medicine
These inconsistencies have contributed to a scarcity of data from evidence-based sources. “We have a lot of variation in treatment here, for different countries, which speaks to the fact that we need better data to review and [a better understanding] of the regulatory statutes that affect them,” said Dr. Wheless.
In recommendations published in 2006, the International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE) considered the data too limited to develop guidelines for infantile spasms, Dr. Wheless said. As late as 2013, “again, the data were not strong enough to make guidelines, so [the ILAE] made recommendations,” he observed. Level B evidence indicated that ACTH is preferable for short-term spasm control, and Level C evidence suggested that corticosteroids are probably effective for short-term spasm control. Updates to the recommendations in 2008 and 2013 indicated that vigabatrin is effective in the short term, especially in the treatment of tuberous sclerosis complex. “Treatment with ACTH or [an] oral steroid is better in the long term, especially in cases with no known etiology,” said Dr. Wheless.
Further review of the data revealed little evidence that one particular treatment was optimal, although high-dose ACTH was found to be more effective than prednisone. In the 2008 update, ACTH also was considered more effective than vigabatrin. The authors found that a high dose of prednisone was preferred to a low dose.
Goals of Therapy
Although neurologists have no clear guidelines on the best therapies for infantile spasms, clear indications about the best strategies have emerged. Neurologists should treat infantile spasms as an encephalopathic disorder that visually manifests on EEG, said Drs. Shields and Wheless. “We need to not only control the spasms, but we have to improve the EEG, because the EEG is the harbinger for the development of continuing problems,” added Dr. Wheless.
Regardless of the initial agent used, the goals of therapy for symptomatic infantile spasms are to treat early, to treat effectively with a known agent with demonstrated efficacy, and to try a second therapy if the first is not effective. “You really have to be using effective therapies,” Dr. Wheless said. Several studies indicate that high-dose protocols of drugs, including prednisone, vigabatrin, and particularly ACTH, produce better outcomes. “All ACTH studies showed a dose response,” said Dr. Wheless.
The American Academy of Neurology and Child Neurology Society reviewed 14 studies of ACTH therapy. Across those studies, high-dose ACTH treatment was associated with remission rates for infantile spasms estimated at 90% over two months. “High dose is where we get our bang for our buck,” said Dr. Wheless.
Clinical practice in the most recent studies has tended to proceed from high-dose oral prednisone to very-high-dose therapy, he continued. Outcome data from a study by Hussain et al showed that 63% of patients had a complete response to a very high dose (ie, 8 mg/kg/day and a maximum of 60 mg/day) of oral prednisolone for two weeks. Furthermore, 40% of nonresponders had a complete response to a subsequent two-week course of ACTH.
A similar study showed excellent responses to high-dose (ie, 40 mg/day) prednisolone with an increase to a very high dose (ie, 60 mg/day) if spasms continued, compared with moderate to high doses of synthetic ACTH. Response to very-high-dose prednisolone in this study was 58%. “It’s better than we used to see with 2 mg/kg/day, so very-high-dose prednisolone seems to be better than high-dose prednisolone, but it’s lower than what we’re used to seeing with high-dose ACTH,” said Dr. Wheless. He cited a need for a study comparing a very high dose of prednisolone with high-dose ACTH.
A dose comparison study by Elterman et al in 2010 supported the use of high-dose vigabatrin for infantile spasms. The study had a response rate of about 65%. Patients who did not respond had a much better response to high-dose synthetic ACTH than to high-dose prednisone as a second agent. “If vigabatrin doesn’t work, you might be better off going to a high-dose ACTH as a next step,” said Dr. Wheless.
—Linda Peckel
NATIONAL HARBOR, MD—Clinicians often make “poor treatment choices” when presented with a patient with infantile spasms, said W. Donald Shields, MD, Past President of the Child Neurology Foundation and Emeritus Professor of Neurology and Pediatrics at the University of California, Los Angeles. “Some people think that the best way to go is to start with the dose low, but this is one where you make the diagnosis and you nuke it,” he said at the 2015 Child Neurology Society Annual Meeting. “You want to get to therapeutic levels as fast as you possibly can.”
Left untreated, infantile spasms can lead to serious outcomes, including an estimated infant mortality rate of between 5% and 6%. The most significant concern, however, is that infantile spasms are associated with autism and intellectual deficits that permanently affect quality of life. These outcomes are modifiable, said Dr. Shields.
In a 2004 study of long-term outcomes in cryptogenic infantile spasms, 100% of children seen within one month of parents’ recognition of the spasm developed IQs in the normal range, said Dr. Shields. When patients were treated later, less than 40% of them had good outcomes. Treatment is more likely to provide a sustained response if implemented within three weeks after the spasm, he explained.
“A huge challenge is that we have to get the child into effective treatment quickly,” said James Wheless, MD, Chief of Pediatric Neurology at the University of Tennessee Health Science Center, and Director of the Le Bonheur Comprehensive Epilepsy Program and the Neuroscience Institute at Le Bonheur Children’s Hospital in Memphis.
This goal is often difficult to achieve because of a lack of consensus on the best therapy, and treatment practices vary greatly by location, said Dr. Wheless. “Not all drugs are approved everywhere.” In Japan, only zonisamide is approved for the treatment of infantile spasms, while in the United States, vigabatrin and adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH) are the only agents with FDA approval.
Lack of Evidence-Based Medicine
These inconsistencies have contributed to a scarcity of data from evidence-based sources. “We have a lot of variation in treatment here, for different countries, which speaks to the fact that we need better data to review and [a better understanding] of the regulatory statutes that affect them,” said Dr. Wheless.
In recommendations published in 2006, the International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE) considered the data too limited to develop guidelines for infantile spasms, Dr. Wheless said. As late as 2013, “again, the data were not strong enough to make guidelines, so [the ILAE] made recommendations,” he observed. Level B evidence indicated that ACTH is preferable for short-term spasm control, and Level C evidence suggested that corticosteroids are probably effective for short-term spasm control. Updates to the recommendations in 2008 and 2013 indicated that vigabatrin is effective in the short term, especially in the treatment of tuberous sclerosis complex. “Treatment with ACTH or [an] oral steroid is better in the long term, especially in cases with no known etiology,” said Dr. Wheless.
Further review of the data revealed little evidence that one particular treatment was optimal, although high-dose ACTH was found to be more effective than prednisone. In the 2008 update, ACTH also was considered more effective than vigabatrin. The authors found that a high dose of prednisone was preferred to a low dose.
Goals of Therapy
Although neurologists have no clear guidelines on the best therapies for infantile spasms, clear indications about the best strategies have emerged. Neurologists should treat infantile spasms as an encephalopathic disorder that visually manifests on EEG, said Drs. Shields and Wheless. “We need to not only control the spasms, but we have to improve the EEG, because the EEG is the harbinger for the development of continuing problems,” added Dr. Wheless.
Regardless of the initial agent used, the goals of therapy for symptomatic infantile spasms are to treat early, to treat effectively with a known agent with demonstrated efficacy, and to try a second therapy if the first is not effective. “You really have to be using effective therapies,” Dr. Wheless said. Several studies indicate that high-dose protocols of drugs, including prednisone, vigabatrin, and particularly ACTH, produce better outcomes. “All ACTH studies showed a dose response,” said Dr. Wheless.
The American Academy of Neurology and Child Neurology Society reviewed 14 studies of ACTH therapy. Across those studies, high-dose ACTH treatment was associated with remission rates for infantile spasms estimated at 90% over two months. “High dose is where we get our bang for our buck,” said Dr. Wheless.
Clinical practice in the most recent studies has tended to proceed from high-dose oral prednisone to very-high-dose therapy, he continued. Outcome data from a study by Hussain et al showed that 63% of patients had a complete response to a very high dose (ie, 8 mg/kg/day and a maximum of 60 mg/day) of oral prednisolone for two weeks. Furthermore, 40% of nonresponders had a complete response to a subsequent two-week course of ACTH.
A similar study showed excellent responses to high-dose (ie, 40 mg/day) prednisolone with an increase to a very high dose (ie, 60 mg/day) if spasms continued, compared with moderate to high doses of synthetic ACTH. Response to very-high-dose prednisolone in this study was 58%. “It’s better than we used to see with 2 mg/kg/day, so very-high-dose prednisolone seems to be better than high-dose prednisolone, but it’s lower than what we’re used to seeing with high-dose ACTH,” said Dr. Wheless. He cited a need for a study comparing a very high dose of prednisolone with high-dose ACTH.
A dose comparison study by Elterman et al in 2010 supported the use of high-dose vigabatrin for infantile spasms. The study had a response rate of about 65%. Patients who did not respond had a much better response to high-dose synthetic ACTH than to high-dose prednisone as a second agent. “If vigabatrin doesn’t work, you might be better off going to a high-dose ACTH as a next step,” said Dr. Wheless.
—Linda Peckel
Suggested Reading
Elterman RD, Shields WD, Bittman RM, et al. Vigabatrin for the treatment of infantile spasms: final report of a randomized trial. J Child Neurol. 2010;25(11):1340-1347.
Glauser T, Ben-Menachem E, Bourgeois B, et al. ILAE treatment guidelines: evidence-based analysis of antiepileptic drug efficacy and effectiveness as initial monotherapy for epileptic seizures and syndromes. Epilepsia. 2006;47(7):1094-1120.
Glauser T, Ben-Menachem E, Bourgeois B, et al. Updated ILAE evidence review of antiepileptic drug efficacy and effectiveness as initial monotherapy for epileptic seizures and syndromes. Epilepsia. 2013;54(3):551-563.
Hussain SA, Shinnar S, Kwong G, et al. Treatment of infantile spasms with very high dose prednisolone before high dose adrenocorticotropic hormone. Epilepsia. 2014;55(1):103-107.
Kivity S, Lerman P, Ariel R, et al. Long-term cognitive outcomes of a cohort of children with cryptogenic infantile spasms treated with high-dose adrenocorticotropic hormone. Epilepsia. 2004;45(3):255-262.
Mackay MT, Weiss SK, Adams-Webber T, et al. Practice parameter: medical treatment of infantile spasms: report of the American Academy of Neurology and the Child Neurology Society. Neurology. 2004;62(10):1668-1681.
Wanigasinghe J, Arambepola C, Sri Ranganathan S, et al. Randomized, single-blind, parallel clinical trial on efficacy of oral prednisolone versus intramuscular corticotropin on immediate and continued spasm control in West syndrome. Pediatr Neurol. 2015;53(3):193-199.
Willmore LJ, Abelson MB, Ben-Menachem E, et al. Vigabatrin: 2008 update. Epilepsia. 2009;50(2):163-173.
Suggested Reading
Elterman RD, Shields WD, Bittman RM, et al. Vigabatrin for the treatment of infantile spasms: final report of a randomized trial. J Child Neurol. 2010;25(11):1340-1347.
Glauser T, Ben-Menachem E, Bourgeois B, et al. ILAE treatment guidelines: evidence-based analysis of antiepileptic drug efficacy and effectiveness as initial monotherapy for epileptic seizures and syndromes. Epilepsia. 2006;47(7):1094-1120.
Glauser T, Ben-Menachem E, Bourgeois B, et al. Updated ILAE evidence review of antiepileptic drug efficacy and effectiveness as initial monotherapy for epileptic seizures and syndromes. Epilepsia. 2013;54(3):551-563.
Hussain SA, Shinnar S, Kwong G, et al. Treatment of infantile spasms with very high dose prednisolone before high dose adrenocorticotropic hormone. Epilepsia. 2014;55(1):103-107.
Kivity S, Lerman P, Ariel R, et al. Long-term cognitive outcomes of a cohort of children with cryptogenic infantile spasms treated with high-dose adrenocorticotropic hormone. Epilepsia. 2004;45(3):255-262.
Mackay MT, Weiss SK, Adams-Webber T, et al. Practice parameter: medical treatment of infantile spasms: report of the American Academy of Neurology and the Child Neurology Society. Neurology. 2004;62(10):1668-1681.
Wanigasinghe J, Arambepola C, Sri Ranganathan S, et al. Randomized, single-blind, parallel clinical trial on efficacy of oral prednisolone versus intramuscular corticotropin on immediate and continued spasm control in West syndrome. Pediatr Neurol. 2015;53(3):193-199.
Willmore LJ, Abelson MB, Ben-Menachem E, et al. Vigabatrin: 2008 update. Epilepsia. 2009;50(2):163-173.
Aneuploidy screening: Newer noninvasive test gains traction
Discuss cell-free DNA testing when offering fetal aneuploidy screening to pregnant women.1,2
Strength of recommendation
A: Based on multiple large, multi-center cohort studies.
Bianchi DW, Parker RL, Wentworth J, et al; CARE Study Group. DNA sequencing versus standard prenatal aneuploidy screening. N Engl J Med. 2014;370:799-808.1
Norton ME, Jacobsson B, Swamy GK, et al. Cell-free DNA analysis for noninvasive examination of trisomy. N Engl J Med. 2015;372:1589-1597.2
Illustrative case
A 28-year-old gravida 2, para 1001 at 10 weeks gestation presents to your clinic for a routine first-trimester prenatal visit. Her first child has no known chromosomal abnormalities and she has no family history of aneuploidy. She asks you which tests are available to screen her fetus for chromosomal abnormalities.
Pregnant women have traditionally been offered some combination of serum biomarkers and nuchal translucency to assess the risk of fetal aneuploidy. Cell-free DNA testing (cfDNA) is a form of noninvasive prenatal testing that uses maternal serum samples to conduct massively parallel sequencing of cell-free fetal DNA fragments. It has been offered to pregnant women as a screening test to detect fetal chromosomal abnormalities since 2011 after multiple clinical studies found high sensitivities, specificities, and negative predictive values (NPVs) for detecting aneuploidy.3-6 However until 2015, practice guidelines from the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) recommended that standard aneuploidy screening or diagnostic testing be offered to all pregnant women and cfDNA be reserved for women with pregnancies at high risk for aneuploidy (strength of recommendation: B).7
CARE (Comparison of Aneuploidy Risk Evaluation) and NEXT (Noninvasive Examination of Trisomy) are 2 large studies that compared cfDNA and standard aneuploidy screening methods in pregnant women at low risk for fetal aneuploidy. Based on new data from these and other studies, ACOG and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine (SMFM) released a new consensus statement in June 2015 that addressed the use of cfDNA in the general obstetric population. The 2 groups still recommend conventional first- and second-trimester screening by serum chemical biomarkers and nuchal translucency as the first-line approach for low-risk women who want to pursue aneuploidy screening; however, they also recommend that the risks and benefits of cfDNA should be discussed with all patients.8
STUDY SUMMARIES
CARE was a prospective, blinded, multicenter (21 US sites across 14 states) study that compared the aneuploidy detection rates of cfDNA to those of standard screening. Standard aneuploidy screening included assays of first- or second-trimester serum biomarkers with or without fetal nuchal translucency measurement.
This study enrolled 2042 pregnant patients ages 18 to 49 (mean: 29.6 years) with singleton pregnancies. The population was racially and ethnically diverse (65% white, 22% black, 11% Hispanic, 7% Asian). This study included women with diabetes mellitus, thyroid disorders, and other comorbidities. cfDNA testing was done on 1909 maternal blood samples for trisomy 21 and 1905 for trisomy 18.
cfDNA and standard aneuploidy screening results were compared to pregnancy outcomes. The presence of aneuploidy was determined by physician-documented newborn physical exam (97%) or karyotype analysis (3%). In both live and non-live births, the incidence of trisomy 21 was 5 of 1909 cases (0.3%) and the incidence of trisomy 18 was 2 of 1905 cases (0.1%).
The NPV of cfDNA in this study was 100% (95% confidence interval, 99.8%-100%) for both trisomy 21 and trisomy 18. The positive predictive value (PPV) was higher with cfDNA compared to standard screening (45.5% vs 4.2% for trisomy 21 and 40% vs 8.3% for trisomy 18). This means that approximately 1 in 25 women with a positive standard aneuploidy screen actually has aneuploidy. In contrast, nearly one in 2 women with a positive cfDNA result has aneuploidy.
Similarly, false positive rates with cfDNA were significantly lower than those with standard screening. For trisomy 21, the cfDNA false positive rate was 0.3% compared to 3.6% for standard screening (P<.001); for trisomy 18, the cfDNA false positive rate was 0.2% compared to 0.6% for standard screening (P=.03).
NEXT was a prospective, blinded cohort study that compared cfDNA testing with standard first-trimester screening (with measurements of nuchal translucency and serum biochemical analysis) in a routine prenatal population at 35 centers in 6 countries.
This study enrolled 18,955 women ages 18 to 48 (mean: 31 years) who underwent traditional first-trimester screening and cfDNA testing. Eligible patients included pregnant women with a singleton pregnancy with a gestational age between 10 and 14.3 weeks. Prenatal screening results were compared to newborn outcomes using a documented newborn physical examination and, if performed, results of genetic testing. For women who had a miscarriage or stillbirth or chose to terminate the pregnancy, outcomes were determined by diagnostic genetic testing.
The primary outcome was the area under the receiver-operating-characteristic (ROC) curve for trisomy 21. Area under the ROC curve is a measure of a diagnostic test’s accuracy that plots sensitivity against 1-specificity; <.700 is considered a poor test, whereas 1.00 is a perfect test. A secondary analysis evaluated cfDNA testing in low-risk women (ages <35 years).
The area under the ROC curve was 0.999 for cfDNA compared with 0.958 for standard screening (P=.001). For diagnosis of trisomy 21, cfDNA had a higher PPV than standard testing (80.9% vs 3.4%; P<.001) and a lower false positive rate (0.06% vs 5.4%; P<.001). These findings were consistent in the secondary analysis of low-risk women.
Both the CARE and NEXT trials also evaluated cfDNA testing vs standard screening for diagnosis of trisomy 13 and 18 and found higher PPVs and lower false positive rates for cfDNA compared with traditional screening.
WHAT'S NEW
Previously, cfDNA was recommended only for women with high-risk pregnancies. The new data demonstrate that cfDNA has substantially better PPVs and lower false positive rates than standard fetal aneuploidy screening for the general obstetrical population.
So while conventional screening tests remain the most appropriate methods for aneuploidy detection in the general obstetrical population, according to ACOG and SMFM, the 2 groups now recommend that all screening options—including cfDNA—be discussed with every woman. Any woman may choose cfDNA but should be counseled about the risks and benefits.8
CAVEATS
Both the CARE and NEXT studies had limitations. They compared cfDNA testing with first- or second-trimester screening and did not evaluate integrated screening methods (sequential first- and second-trimester biomarkers plus first-trimester nuchal translucency), which have a slightly higher sensitivity and specificity than first-trimester screening alone.
Multiple companies offer cfDNA, and the test is not subject to Food and Drug Administration approval. The CARE and NEXT studies used tests from companies that provided funding for these studies and employ several of the study authors.
Although cfDNA has increased specificity compared to standard screening, there have been case reports of false negative results. Further testing has shown that such false negative results could be caused by mosaicism in either the fetus and/or placenta, vanishing twins, or maternal malignancies.8-10
In the CARE and NEXT trials, cfDNA produced no results in 0.9% and 3% of women, respectively. Patients for whom cfDNA testing yields no results have higher rates of aneuploidy, and therefore require further diagnostic testing.
Because the prevalence of aneuploidy is lower in the general obstetric population than it is among women whose pregnancies are at high risk for aneuploidy, the PPV of cfDNA testing is also lower in the general obstetric population. This means that there are more false positive results for women at lower risk for aneuploidy. Therefore, it is imperative that women with positive cfDNA tests receive follow-up diagnostic testing such as chorionic villus sampling or amniocentesis before making a decision about termination.
All commercially available cfDNA tests have high sensitivity and specificity for trisomy 21, 18, and 13. Some offer testing for sex chromosome abnormalities and microdeletions. However, current cfDNA testing methods are unable to detect up to 17% of other clinically significant chromosomal abnormalities,11 and cfDNA cannot detect neural tube or ventral wall defects. Therefore, ACOG and SMFM recommend that women who choose cfDNA as their aneuploidy screening method should also be offered maternal serum alpha-fetoprotein or ultrasound evaluation.
CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION
cfDNA testing is validated only for singleton pregnancies. Physicians should obtain a baseline fetal ultrasound to confirm the number of fetuses, gestational age, and viability before ordering cfDNA to ensure it is the most appropriate screening test. This may add to the overall number of early pregnancy ultrasounds conducted.
Counseling patients about aneuploidy screening options is time-consuming, and requires discussion of the limitations of each screening method and caution that a negative cfDNA result does not guarantee an unaffected fetus, nor does a positive result guarantee an affected fetus. However, aneuploidy screening is well within the scope of care for family physicians who provide prenatal care, and referral to genetic specialists is not necessary or recommended.
Some patients may request cfDNA in order to facilitate earlier identification of fetal sex. In such cases, physicians should advise patients that cfDNA testing also assesses trisomy risk. Patients who do not wish to assess their risk for aneuploidy should not receive cfDNA testing.
Finally, while cfDNA is routinely recommended for women with pregnancies considered at high risk for aneuploidy, many insurance companies do not cover the cost of cfDNA for women with low-risk pregnancies, and the test may cost up to $1,700.12 The overall cost-effectiveness of cfDNA for aneuploidy screening in low-risk women is unknown.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The PURLs Surveillance System was supported in part by Grant Number UL1RR024999 from the National Center For Research Resources, a Clinical Translational Science Award to the University of Chicago. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Center For Research Resources or the National Institutes of Health.
1. Bianchi DW, Parker RL, Wentworth J, et al; CARE Study Group. DNA sequencing versus standard prenatal aneuploidy screening. N Engl J Med. 2014;370:799-808.
2. Norton ME, Jacobsson B, Swamy GK, et al. Cell-free DNA analysis for noninvasive examination of trisomy. N Engl J Med. 2015;372:1589-1597.
3. Chiu RW, Akolekar R, Zheng YW, et al. Non-invasive prenatal assessment of trisomy 21 by multiplexed maternal plasma DNA sequencing: large scale validity study. BMJ. 2011;342:c7401.
4. Ehrich M, Deciu C, Zwiefelhofer T, et al. Noninvasive detection of fetal trisomy 21 by sequencing of DNA in maternal blood: a study in a clinical setting. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2011;204:205.e1-11.
5. Bianchi DW, Platt LD, Goldberg JD, et al; MatERNal BLood IS Source to Accurately diagnose fetal aneuploidy (MELISSA) Study Group. Genome-wide fetal aneuploidy detection by maternal plasma DNA sequencing. Obstet Gynecol. 2012;119:890-901.
6. Norton ME, Brar H, Weiss J, et al. Non-invasive chromosomal evaluation (NICE) study: results of a multicenter prospective cohort study for detection of fetal trisomy 21 and trisomy 18. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2012;207:137.e1-8.
7. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Committee on Genetics. Committee Opinion No. 545: Noninvasive prenatal testing for fetal aneuploidy. Obstet Gynecol. 2012;120:1532-1534.
8. Committee Opinion No. 640: Cell-Free DNA Screening For Fetal Aneuploidy. Obstet Gynecol. 2015;126:e31-37.
9. Wang Y, Zhu J, Chen Y, et al. Two cases of placental T21 mosaicism: challenging the detection limits of non-invasive prenatal testing. Prenat Diagn. 2013;33:1207-1210.
10. Choi H, Lau TK, Jiang FM, et al. Fetal aneuploidy screening by maternal plasma DNA sequencing: ‘false positive’ due to confined placental mosaicism. Prenat Diagn. 2013;33:198-200.
11. Norton ME, Jelliffe-Pawlowski LL, Currier RJ. Chromosome abnormalities detected by current prenatal screening and noninvasive prenatal testing. Obstet Gynecol. 2014;124:979-986.
12. Agarwal A, Sayres LC, Cho MK, et al. Commercial landscape of noninvasive prenatal testing in the United States. Prenat Diagn. 2013;33:521-531.
Discuss cell-free DNA testing when offering fetal aneuploidy screening to pregnant women.1,2
Strength of recommendation
A: Based on multiple large, multi-center cohort studies.
Bianchi DW, Parker RL, Wentworth J, et al; CARE Study Group. DNA sequencing versus standard prenatal aneuploidy screening. N Engl J Med. 2014;370:799-808.1
Norton ME, Jacobsson B, Swamy GK, et al. Cell-free DNA analysis for noninvasive examination of trisomy. N Engl J Med. 2015;372:1589-1597.2
Illustrative case
A 28-year-old gravida 2, para 1001 at 10 weeks gestation presents to your clinic for a routine first-trimester prenatal visit. Her first child has no known chromosomal abnormalities and she has no family history of aneuploidy. She asks you which tests are available to screen her fetus for chromosomal abnormalities.
Pregnant women have traditionally been offered some combination of serum biomarkers and nuchal translucency to assess the risk of fetal aneuploidy. Cell-free DNA testing (cfDNA) is a form of noninvasive prenatal testing that uses maternal serum samples to conduct massively parallel sequencing of cell-free fetal DNA fragments. It has been offered to pregnant women as a screening test to detect fetal chromosomal abnormalities since 2011 after multiple clinical studies found high sensitivities, specificities, and negative predictive values (NPVs) for detecting aneuploidy.3-6 However until 2015, practice guidelines from the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) recommended that standard aneuploidy screening or diagnostic testing be offered to all pregnant women and cfDNA be reserved for women with pregnancies at high risk for aneuploidy (strength of recommendation: B).7
CARE (Comparison of Aneuploidy Risk Evaluation) and NEXT (Noninvasive Examination of Trisomy) are 2 large studies that compared cfDNA and standard aneuploidy screening methods in pregnant women at low risk for fetal aneuploidy. Based on new data from these and other studies, ACOG and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine (SMFM) released a new consensus statement in June 2015 that addressed the use of cfDNA in the general obstetric population. The 2 groups still recommend conventional first- and second-trimester screening by serum chemical biomarkers and nuchal translucency as the first-line approach for low-risk women who want to pursue aneuploidy screening; however, they also recommend that the risks and benefits of cfDNA should be discussed with all patients.8
STUDY SUMMARIES
CARE was a prospective, blinded, multicenter (21 US sites across 14 states) study that compared the aneuploidy detection rates of cfDNA to those of standard screening. Standard aneuploidy screening included assays of first- or second-trimester serum biomarkers with or without fetal nuchal translucency measurement.
This study enrolled 2042 pregnant patients ages 18 to 49 (mean: 29.6 years) with singleton pregnancies. The population was racially and ethnically diverse (65% white, 22% black, 11% Hispanic, 7% Asian). This study included women with diabetes mellitus, thyroid disorders, and other comorbidities. cfDNA testing was done on 1909 maternal blood samples for trisomy 21 and 1905 for trisomy 18.
cfDNA and standard aneuploidy screening results were compared to pregnancy outcomes. The presence of aneuploidy was determined by physician-documented newborn physical exam (97%) or karyotype analysis (3%). In both live and non-live births, the incidence of trisomy 21 was 5 of 1909 cases (0.3%) and the incidence of trisomy 18 was 2 of 1905 cases (0.1%).
The NPV of cfDNA in this study was 100% (95% confidence interval, 99.8%-100%) for both trisomy 21 and trisomy 18. The positive predictive value (PPV) was higher with cfDNA compared to standard screening (45.5% vs 4.2% for trisomy 21 and 40% vs 8.3% for trisomy 18). This means that approximately 1 in 25 women with a positive standard aneuploidy screen actually has aneuploidy. In contrast, nearly one in 2 women with a positive cfDNA result has aneuploidy.
Similarly, false positive rates with cfDNA were significantly lower than those with standard screening. For trisomy 21, the cfDNA false positive rate was 0.3% compared to 3.6% for standard screening (P<.001); for trisomy 18, the cfDNA false positive rate was 0.2% compared to 0.6% for standard screening (P=.03).
NEXT was a prospective, blinded cohort study that compared cfDNA testing with standard first-trimester screening (with measurements of nuchal translucency and serum biochemical analysis) in a routine prenatal population at 35 centers in 6 countries.
This study enrolled 18,955 women ages 18 to 48 (mean: 31 years) who underwent traditional first-trimester screening and cfDNA testing. Eligible patients included pregnant women with a singleton pregnancy with a gestational age between 10 and 14.3 weeks. Prenatal screening results were compared to newborn outcomes using a documented newborn physical examination and, if performed, results of genetic testing. For women who had a miscarriage or stillbirth or chose to terminate the pregnancy, outcomes were determined by diagnostic genetic testing.
The primary outcome was the area under the receiver-operating-characteristic (ROC) curve for trisomy 21. Area under the ROC curve is a measure of a diagnostic test’s accuracy that plots sensitivity against 1-specificity; <.700 is considered a poor test, whereas 1.00 is a perfect test. A secondary analysis evaluated cfDNA testing in low-risk women (ages <35 years).
The area under the ROC curve was 0.999 for cfDNA compared with 0.958 for standard screening (P=.001). For diagnosis of trisomy 21, cfDNA had a higher PPV than standard testing (80.9% vs 3.4%; P<.001) and a lower false positive rate (0.06% vs 5.4%; P<.001). These findings were consistent in the secondary analysis of low-risk women.
Both the CARE and NEXT trials also evaluated cfDNA testing vs standard screening for diagnosis of trisomy 13 and 18 and found higher PPVs and lower false positive rates for cfDNA compared with traditional screening.
WHAT'S NEW
Previously, cfDNA was recommended only for women with high-risk pregnancies. The new data demonstrate that cfDNA has substantially better PPVs and lower false positive rates than standard fetal aneuploidy screening for the general obstetrical population.
So while conventional screening tests remain the most appropriate methods for aneuploidy detection in the general obstetrical population, according to ACOG and SMFM, the 2 groups now recommend that all screening options—including cfDNA—be discussed with every woman. Any woman may choose cfDNA but should be counseled about the risks and benefits.8
CAVEATS
Both the CARE and NEXT studies had limitations. They compared cfDNA testing with first- or second-trimester screening and did not evaluate integrated screening methods (sequential first- and second-trimester biomarkers plus first-trimester nuchal translucency), which have a slightly higher sensitivity and specificity than first-trimester screening alone.
Multiple companies offer cfDNA, and the test is not subject to Food and Drug Administration approval. The CARE and NEXT studies used tests from companies that provided funding for these studies and employ several of the study authors.
Although cfDNA has increased specificity compared to standard screening, there have been case reports of false negative results. Further testing has shown that such false negative results could be caused by mosaicism in either the fetus and/or placenta, vanishing twins, or maternal malignancies.8-10
In the CARE and NEXT trials, cfDNA produced no results in 0.9% and 3% of women, respectively. Patients for whom cfDNA testing yields no results have higher rates of aneuploidy, and therefore require further diagnostic testing.
Because the prevalence of aneuploidy is lower in the general obstetric population than it is among women whose pregnancies are at high risk for aneuploidy, the PPV of cfDNA testing is also lower in the general obstetric population. This means that there are more false positive results for women at lower risk for aneuploidy. Therefore, it is imperative that women with positive cfDNA tests receive follow-up diagnostic testing such as chorionic villus sampling or amniocentesis before making a decision about termination.
All commercially available cfDNA tests have high sensitivity and specificity for trisomy 21, 18, and 13. Some offer testing for sex chromosome abnormalities and microdeletions. However, current cfDNA testing methods are unable to detect up to 17% of other clinically significant chromosomal abnormalities,11 and cfDNA cannot detect neural tube or ventral wall defects. Therefore, ACOG and SMFM recommend that women who choose cfDNA as their aneuploidy screening method should also be offered maternal serum alpha-fetoprotein or ultrasound evaluation.
CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION
cfDNA testing is validated only for singleton pregnancies. Physicians should obtain a baseline fetal ultrasound to confirm the number of fetuses, gestational age, and viability before ordering cfDNA to ensure it is the most appropriate screening test. This may add to the overall number of early pregnancy ultrasounds conducted.
Counseling patients about aneuploidy screening options is time-consuming, and requires discussion of the limitations of each screening method and caution that a negative cfDNA result does not guarantee an unaffected fetus, nor does a positive result guarantee an affected fetus. However, aneuploidy screening is well within the scope of care for family physicians who provide prenatal care, and referral to genetic specialists is not necessary or recommended.
Some patients may request cfDNA in order to facilitate earlier identification of fetal sex. In such cases, physicians should advise patients that cfDNA testing also assesses trisomy risk. Patients who do not wish to assess their risk for aneuploidy should not receive cfDNA testing.
Finally, while cfDNA is routinely recommended for women with pregnancies considered at high risk for aneuploidy, many insurance companies do not cover the cost of cfDNA for women with low-risk pregnancies, and the test may cost up to $1,700.12 The overall cost-effectiveness of cfDNA for aneuploidy screening in low-risk women is unknown.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The PURLs Surveillance System was supported in part by Grant Number UL1RR024999 from the National Center For Research Resources, a Clinical Translational Science Award to the University of Chicago. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Center For Research Resources or the National Institutes of Health.
Discuss cell-free DNA testing when offering fetal aneuploidy screening to pregnant women.1,2
Strength of recommendation
A: Based on multiple large, multi-center cohort studies.
Bianchi DW, Parker RL, Wentworth J, et al; CARE Study Group. DNA sequencing versus standard prenatal aneuploidy screening. N Engl J Med. 2014;370:799-808.1
Norton ME, Jacobsson B, Swamy GK, et al. Cell-free DNA analysis for noninvasive examination of trisomy. N Engl J Med. 2015;372:1589-1597.2
Illustrative case
A 28-year-old gravida 2, para 1001 at 10 weeks gestation presents to your clinic for a routine first-trimester prenatal visit. Her first child has no known chromosomal abnormalities and she has no family history of aneuploidy. She asks you which tests are available to screen her fetus for chromosomal abnormalities.
Pregnant women have traditionally been offered some combination of serum biomarkers and nuchal translucency to assess the risk of fetal aneuploidy. Cell-free DNA testing (cfDNA) is a form of noninvasive prenatal testing that uses maternal serum samples to conduct massively parallel sequencing of cell-free fetal DNA fragments. It has been offered to pregnant women as a screening test to detect fetal chromosomal abnormalities since 2011 after multiple clinical studies found high sensitivities, specificities, and negative predictive values (NPVs) for detecting aneuploidy.3-6 However until 2015, practice guidelines from the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) recommended that standard aneuploidy screening or diagnostic testing be offered to all pregnant women and cfDNA be reserved for women with pregnancies at high risk for aneuploidy (strength of recommendation: B).7
CARE (Comparison of Aneuploidy Risk Evaluation) and NEXT (Noninvasive Examination of Trisomy) are 2 large studies that compared cfDNA and standard aneuploidy screening methods in pregnant women at low risk for fetal aneuploidy. Based on new data from these and other studies, ACOG and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine (SMFM) released a new consensus statement in June 2015 that addressed the use of cfDNA in the general obstetric population. The 2 groups still recommend conventional first- and second-trimester screening by serum chemical biomarkers and nuchal translucency as the first-line approach for low-risk women who want to pursue aneuploidy screening; however, they also recommend that the risks and benefits of cfDNA should be discussed with all patients.8
STUDY SUMMARIES
CARE was a prospective, blinded, multicenter (21 US sites across 14 states) study that compared the aneuploidy detection rates of cfDNA to those of standard screening. Standard aneuploidy screening included assays of first- or second-trimester serum biomarkers with or without fetal nuchal translucency measurement.
This study enrolled 2042 pregnant patients ages 18 to 49 (mean: 29.6 years) with singleton pregnancies. The population was racially and ethnically diverse (65% white, 22% black, 11% Hispanic, 7% Asian). This study included women with diabetes mellitus, thyroid disorders, and other comorbidities. cfDNA testing was done on 1909 maternal blood samples for trisomy 21 and 1905 for trisomy 18.
cfDNA and standard aneuploidy screening results were compared to pregnancy outcomes. The presence of aneuploidy was determined by physician-documented newborn physical exam (97%) or karyotype analysis (3%). In both live and non-live births, the incidence of trisomy 21 was 5 of 1909 cases (0.3%) and the incidence of trisomy 18 was 2 of 1905 cases (0.1%).
The NPV of cfDNA in this study was 100% (95% confidence interval, 99.8%-100%) for both trisomy 21 and trisomy 18. The positive predictive value (PPV) was higher with cfDNA compared to standard screening (45.5% vs 4.2% for trisomy 21 and 40% vs 8.3% for trisomy 18). This means that approximately 1 in 25 women with a positive standard aneuploidy screen actually has aneuploidy. In contrast, nearly one in 2 women with a positive cfDNA result has aneuploidy.
Similarly, false positive rates with cfDNA were significantly lower than those with standard screening. For trisomy 21, the cfDNA false positive rate was 0.3% compared to 3.6% for standard screening (P<.001); for trisomy 18, the cfDNA false positive rate was 0.2% compared to 0.6% for standard screening (P=.03).
NEXT was a prospective, blinded cohort study that compared cfDNA testing with standard first-trimester screening (with measurements of nuchal translucency and serum biochemical analysis) in a routine prenatal population at 35 centers in 6 countries.
This study enrolled 18,955 women ages 18 to 48 (mean: 31 years) who underwent traditional first-trimester screening and cfDNA testing. Eligible patients included pregnant women with a singleton pregnancy with a gestational age between 10 and 14.3 weeks. Prenatal screening results were compared to newborn outcomes using a documented newborn physical examination and, if performed, results of genetic testing. For women who had a miscarriage or stillbirth or chose to terminate the pregnancy, outcomes were determined by diagnostic genetic testing.
The primary outcome was the area under the receiver-operating-characteristic (ROC) curve for trisomy 21. Area under the ROC curve is a measure of a diagnostic test’s accuracy that plots sensitivity against 1-specificity; <.700 is considered a poor test, whereas 1.00 is a perfect test. A secondary analysis evaluated cfDNA testing in low-risk women (ages <35 years).
The area under the ROC curve was 0.999 for cfDNA compared with 0.958 for standard screening (P=.001). For diagnosis of trisomy 21, cfDNA had a higher PPV than standard testing (80.9% vs 3.4%; P<.001) and a lower false positive rate (0.06% vs 5.4%; P<.001). These findings were consistent in the secondary analysis of low-risk women.
Both the CARE and NEXT trials also evaluated cfDNA testing vs standard screening for diagnosis of trisomy 13 and 18 and found higher PPVs and lower false positive rates for cfDNA compared with traditional screening.
WHAT'S NEW
Previously, cfDNA was recommended only for women with high-risk pregnancies. The new data demonstrate that cfDNA has substantially better PPVs and lower false positive rates than standard fetal aneuploidy screening for the general obstetrical population.
So while conventional screening tests remain the most appropriate methods for aneuploidy detection in the general obstetrical population, according to ACOG and SMFM, the 2 groups now recommend that all screening options—including cfDNA—be discussed with every woman. Any woman may choose cfDNA but should be counseled about the risks and benefits.8
CAVEATS
Both the CARE and NEXT studies had limitations. They compared cfDNA testing with first- or second-trimester screening and did not evaluate integrated screening methods (sequential first- and second-trimester biomarkers plus first-trimester nuchal translucency), which have a slightly higher sensitivity and specificity than first-trimester screening alone.
Multiple companies offer cfDNA, and the test is not subject to Food and Drug Administration approval. The CARE and NEXT studies used tests from companies that provided funding for these studies and employ several of the study authors.
Although cfDNA has increased specificity compared to standard screening, there have been case reports of false negative results. Further testing has shown that such false negative results could be caused by mosaicism in either the fetus and/or placenta, vanishing twins, or maternal malignancies.8-10
In the CARE and NEXT trials, cfDNA produced no results in 0.9% and 3% of women, respectively. Patients for whom cfDNA testing yields no results have higher rates of aneuploidy, and therefore require further diagnostic testing.
Because the prevalence of aneuploidy is lower in the general obstetric population than it is among women whose pregnancies are at high risk for aneuploidy, the PPV of cfDNA testing is also lower in the general obstetric population. This means that there are more false positive results for women at lower risk for aneuploidy. Therefore, it is imperative that women with positive cfDNA tests receive follow-up diagnostic testing such as chorionic villus sampling or amniocentesis before making a decision about termination.
All commercially available cfDNA tests have high sensitivity and specificity for trisomy 21, 18, and 13. Some offer testing for sex chromosome abnormalities and microdeletions. However, current cfDNA testing methods are unable to detect up to 17% of other clinically significant chromosomal abnormalities,11 and cfDNA cannot detect neural tube or ventral wall defects. Therefore, ACOG and SMFM recommend that women who choose cfDNA as their aneuploidy screening method should also be offered maternal serum alpha-fetoprotein or ultrasound evaluation.
CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION
cfDNA testing is validated only for singleton pregnancies. Physicians should obtain a baseline fetal ultrasound to confirm the number of fetuses, gestational age, and viability before ordering cfDNA to ensure it is the most appropriate screening test. This may add to the overall number of early pregnancy ultrasounds conducted.
Counseling patients about aneuploidy screening options is time-consuming, and requires discussion of the limitations of each screening method and caution that a negative cfDNA result does not guarantee an unaffected fetus, nor does a positive result guarantee an affected fetus. However, aneuploidy screening is well within the scope of care for family physicians who provide prenatal care, and referral to genetic specialists is not necessary or recommended.
Some patients may request cfDNA in order to facilitate earlier identification of fetal sex. In such cases, physicians should advise patients that cfDNA testing also assesses trisomy risk. Patients who do not wish to assess their risk for aneuploidy should not receive cfDNA testing.
Finally, while cfDNA is routinely recommended for women with pregnancies considered at high risk for aneuploidy, many insurance companies do not cover the cost of cfDNA for women with low-risk pregnancies, and the test may cost up to $1,700.12 The overall cost-effectiveness of cfDNA for aneuploidy screening in low-risk women is unknown.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The PURLs Surveillance System was supported in part by Grant Number UL1RR024999 from the National Center For Research Resources, a Clinical Translational Science Award to the University of Chicago. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Center For Research Resources or the National Institutes of Health.
1. Bianchi DW, Parker RL, Wentworth J, et al; CARE Study Group. DNA sequencing versus standard prenatal aneuploidy screening. N Engl J Med. 2014;370:799-808.
2. Norton ME, Jacobsson B, Swamy GK, et al. Cell-free DNA analysis for noninvasive examination of trisomy. N Engl J Med. 2015;372:1589-1597.
3. Chiu RW, Akolekar R, Zheng YW, et al. Non-invasive prenatal assessment of trisomy 21 by multiplexed maternal plasma DNA sequencing: large scale validity study. BMJ. 2011;342:c7401.
4. Ehrich M, Deciu C, Zwiefelhofer T, et al. Noninvasive detection of fetal trisomy 21 by sequencing of DNA in maternal blood: a study in a clinical setting. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2011;204:205.e1-11.
5. Bianchi DW, Platt LD, Goldberg JD, et al; MatERNal BLood IS Source to Accurately diagnose fetal aneuploidy (MELISSA) Study Group. Genome-wide fetal aneuploidy detection by maternal plasma DNA sequencing. Obstet Gynecol. 2012;119:890-901.
6. Norton ME, Brar H, Weiss J, et al. Non-invasive chromosomal evaluation (NICE) study: results of a multicenter prospective cohort study for detection of fetal trisomy 21 and trisomy 18. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2012;207:137.e1-8.
7. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Committee on Genetics. Committee Opinion No. 545: Noninvasive prenatal testing for fetal aneuploidy. Obstet Gynecol. 2012;120:1532-1534.
8. Committee Opinion No. 640: Cell-Free DNA Screening For Fetal Aneuploidy. Obstet Gynecol. 2015;126:e31-37.
9. Wang Y, Zhu J, Chen Y, et al. Two cases of placental T21 mosaicism: challenging the detection limits of non-invasive prenatal testing. Prenat Diagn. 2013;33:1207-1210.
10. Choi H, Lau TK, Jiang FM, et al. Fetal aneuploidy screening by maternal plasma DNA sequencing: ‘false positive’ due to confined placental mosaicism. Prenat Diagn. 2013;33:198-200.
11. Norton ME, Jelliffe-Pawlowski LL, Currier RJ. Chromosome abnormalities detected by current prenatal screening and noninvasive prenatal testing. Obstet Gynecol. 2014;124:979-986.
12. Agarwal A, Sayres LC, Cho MK, et al. Commercial landscape of noninvasive prenatal testing in the United States. Prenat Diagn. 2013;33:521-531.
1. Bianchi DW, Parker RL, Wentworth J, et al; CARE Study Group. DNA sequencing versus standard prenatal aneuploidy screening. N Engl J Med. 2014;370:799-808.
2. Norton ME, Jacobsson B, Swamy GK, et al. Cell-free DNA analysis for noninvasive examination of trisomy. N Engl J Med. 2015;372:1589-1597.
3. Chiu RW, Akolekar R, Zheng YW, et al. Non-invasive prenatal assessment of trisomy 21 by multiplexed maternal plasma DNA sequencing: large scale validity study. BMJ. 2011;342:c7401.
4. Ehrich M, Deciu C, Zwiefelhofer T, et al. Noninvasive detection of fetal trisomy 21 by sequencing of DNA in maternal blood: a study in a clinical setting. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2011;204:205.e1-11.
5. Bianchi DW, Platt LD, Goldberg JD, et al; MatERNal BLood IS Source to Accurately diagnose fetal aneuploidy (MELISSA) Study Group. Genome-wide fetal aneuploidy detection by maternal plasma DNA sequencing. Obstet Gynecol. 2012;119:890-901.
6. Norton ME, Brar H, Weiss J, et al. Non-invasive chromosomal evaluation (NICE) study: results of a multicenter prospective cohort study for detection of fetal trisomy 21 and trisomy 18. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2012;207:137.e1-8.
7. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Committee on Genetics. Committee Opinion No. 545: Noninvasive prenatal testing for fetal aneuploidy. Obstet Gynecol. 2012;120:1532-1534.
8. Committee Opinion No. 640: Cell-Free DNA Screening For Fetal Aneuploidy. Obstet Gynecol. 2015;126:e31-37.
9. Wang Y, Zhu J, Chen Y, et al. Two cases of placental T21 mosaicism: challenging the detection limits of non-invasive prenatal testing. Prenat Diagn. 2013;33:1207-1210.
10. Choi H, Lau TK, Jiang FM, et al. Fetal aneuploidy screening by maternal plasma DNA sequencing: ‘false positive’ due to confined placental mosaicism. Prenat Diagn. 2013;33:198-200.
11. Norton ME, Jelliffe-Pawlowski LL, Currier RJ. Chromosome abnormalities detected by current prenatal screening and noninvasive prenatal testing. Obstet Gynecol. 2014;124:979-986.
12. Agarwal A, Sayres LC, Cho MK, et al. Commercial landscape of noninvasive prenatal testing in the United States. Prenat Diagn. 2013;33:521-531.
Copyright © 2016. The Family Physicians Inquiries Network. All rights reserved.
Updates in Pediatrics
TALKING OUT CHILDHOOD OBESITY
Resnicow K, McMaster F, Bocian A, et al. Motivational interviewing and dietary counseling for obesity in primary care: an RCT. Pediatrics. 2015;135(4):649-657.
Counseling parents of overweight children using motivational interviewing from both health care providers and registered dietitians can significantly improve BMI, according to a study of 42 practices in the Pediatric Research in Office Settings Network of the American Academy of Pediatrics.
Researchers randomly assigned parents of overweight children, ages 2 through 8, to one of three groups: (1) usual care, (2) four provider-delivered motivational interviewing sessions over two years, or (3) four provider-delivered motivational interviewing sessions plus six sessions with a registered dietitian over two years. At study end, BMI percentile and change in BMI for the different groups were as follows:
COMMENTARY
The results of this study are exciting. Motivational interviewing is a technique in which the practitioner asks questions of a patient and allows the patient to discover his/her own conclusions about the topic. By so doing, the patient is more engaged in the discussion and is less resistant to input. This technique, with excellent evidence of effectiveness in the area of drug and alcohol abuse, has been shown to facilitate effective behavioral change in many areas and is recommended by the American Heart Association for behavioral change in adults.1,2 This is an exciting paper demonstrating evidence-based efficacy in addressing childhood obesity—a critical health issue—and is worth trying in the office.
1. Rubak S, Sandbaek A, Lauritzen T, Christensen B. Motivational interviewing: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Gen Pract. 2005;55(513):305-312.
2. Spring B, Ockene JK, Gidding SS, et al; American Heart Association Behavior Change Committee of the Council on Epidemiology and Prevention, Council on Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Health, Council for High Blood Pressure Research, and Council on Cardiovascular and Stroke Nursing. Better population health through behavior change in adults: a call to action. Circulation. 2013;128(19):2169-2176. doi: 10.1161/01.cir.0000435173.25936.e1.
Continue for long-acting reversible contraception among teens >>
LONG-ACTING REVERSIBLE CONTRACEPTION AMONG TEENS
Romero L, Pazol K, Warner L, et al. Vital signs: trends in use of long-acting reversible contraception among teens aged 15-19 years seeking contraceptive services – United States, 2005-2013. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2015;64(13):363-369.
Efforts to improve teen access to long-acting reversible contraception (LARC) have increased use of these methods, according to a CDC review of services provided at Title X National Family Planning Program centers. The report found
• LARC rates among teen patients increased from 0.4% in 2005 to 7.2% in 2013.
• In 2013, 2.8% of those seeking contraception used IUDs and 4.3% used implants.
• Among Title X patients, 7.6% of 18- and 19-year-olds used LARC, compared with 6.5% of 15- to 17-year-olds.
• Rates of LARC were lowest in Mississippi (0.7%) and highest in Colorado (25.8%).
COMMENTARY
LARCs, which include IUD and implantable hormonal contraceptive devices, require no effort for adherence on the part of the user; once in place, they are effective without further action. Current CDC guidelines on contraceptive use clearly recommend LARC for teenagers based on the efficacy and safety.1 LARCs are favored for teenagers because poor compliance has yielded suboptimal effectiveness of oral contraceptives and condoms in teenagers, who often forget to take their birth control pills or don’t use condoms when they should. Many clinicians have been slow to recommend LARCs in teenagers based on safety concerns related to adverse experience with IUDs 20 to 30 years ago. According to CDC guidelines, IUDs and implantable contraceptive devices now have robust safety data, and this article shows that they are being increasingly made available to teenagers who need them.
1. Division of Reproductive Health, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, CDC. US Selected Practice Recommendations for Contraceptive Use, 2013: adapted from the World Health Organization selected practice recommendations for contraceptive use, 2nd edition. MMWR Recomm Rep. 2013;62(RR-05):1-60.
Continue to testing for celiac in pediatric rheumatology patients >>
TESTING FOR CELIAC IN PEDIATRIC RHEUMATOLOGY PATIENTS
Sherman Y, Karanicolas R, DiMarco B, et al. Unrecognized celiac disease in children presenting for rheumatology evaluation. Pediatrics. 2015; [Epub ahead of print].
Children presenting for rheumatology evaluation should be screened for celiac disease, according to a review of 2,125 pediatric patients who were screened for celiac as part of the standard initial serologic evaluation.
Researchers identified 36 new cases of celiac disease (2.0% prevalence rate). The most common presenting complaints among these patients were myalgia, arthralgia, and rash. Less frequent complaints included gastrointestinal complaints of abdominal pain, nausea, and diarrhea.
After initiating a gluten-free diet, all of the patients with celiac disease reported improvement or complete resolution of musculoskeletal symptoms.
COMMENTARY
Celiac disease has a prevalence of 0.5% to 1% in the US and can present with a range of symptoms that include diarrhea, abdominal discomfort, and weight loss. In addition to these typical symptoms, celiac disease can cause a wide range of systemic symptoms, including osteopenia, abnormal liver function tests, anemia, neurologic symptoms, and general malaise and fatigue.1 This study suggests that celiac testing be considered in children presenting with rheumatologic symptoms, including myalgia, arthralgia, and rash.
1. Presutti RJ, Cangemi JR, Cassidy HD, et al. Celiac disease. Am Fam Physician. 2007;76(12):1795-1802, 1809-1810.
Continue for educating parents about antibiotic use >>
EDUCATING PARENTS ABOUT ANTIBIOTIC USE
Vaz LE, Kleinman KP, Lakoma MD, et al. Prevalence of parental misconceptions about antibiotic use. Pediatrics. 2015;136:221-231.
Misperceptions about antibiotic use persist and continue to be more prevalent among parents of Medicaid-insured children, according to a study of 1,500 Massachusetts parents.
Investigators examined antibiotic-related knowledge and attitudes among both Medicaid-insured and private-insured parents and found
• Fewer Medicaid parents answered questions correctly, except for one regarding bronchitis.
• Medicaid patients were more likely to request unnecessary antibiotics.
• More parents in 2013 understood that green nasal discharge did not require antibiotics than in 2000.
• Medicaid-insured parents were younger, less likely to be white, and had less education than those commercially insured.
COMMENTARY
Decreasing the unnecessary use of antibiotics for viral infections is an important component of decreasing the development of antibiotic-resistant organisms. An important driver of clinician use of antibiotics is patients’ expectations for antibiotics. This study shows that much work remains to be done in changing patient expectations, which is not surprising to any practicing clinician. This study also suggests that the expectation for antibiotics is greater among those individuals with Medicaid insurance, which suggests that an opportunity exists for Medicaid insurance plans to do targeted patient education on this issue—which should improve patient outcomes, decrease cost from use of unneeded antibiotics, and decrease the development of antibiotic-resistant organisms.
Continue for newborn pulmonary hypertension and maternal antidepressant use >>
NEWBORN PULMONARY HYPERTENSION AND MATERNAL ANTIDEPRESSANT USE
Huybrechts KF, Bateman BT, Palmsten K, et al. Antidepressant use late in pregnancy and risk of persistent pulmonary hypertension of the newborn. JAMA. 2015;313(21):2142-2151.
Taking antidepressants during late pregnancy may increase the risk for persistent pulmonary hypertension of the newborn (PPHN), according to a nested cohort study of more than 3.7 million pregnant women in the 2000-2010 Medicaid Analytic eXtract.
Investigators compared offspring of mothers who used selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) or non-SSRI monotherapy in the last 90 days of pregnancy to those who did not and found 3.4% of women filled at least one prescription for antidepressants late in pregnancy, primarily SSRIs.
Rates and odds ratios (ORs) of PPHN stratified by use and type of antidepressant were as follows:
The study authors note the absolute risk is small, and the increased risk is more modest than previous studies found.
COMMENTARY
Depression affects more than 12% of pregnancies and has important consequences, including increased risk for suicide, preterm birth, poor fetal growth, and impaired fetal and infant development.1 PPHN is a serious condition that can require intubation and can be fatal in 10% to 20% of cases. This study adds to the conflicting data suggesting that SSRI use in pregnancy can lead to an increase in this rare condition. The decision to use an antidepressant during pregnancy is a difficult one, because depression has serious consequences but so, potentially, does treatment. The treatment of depression during pregnancy requires thoughtful, informed discussion between patient and provider.
1. Stewart DE. Clinical practice. Depression during pregnancy. N Engl J Med. 2011;365(17):1605-1611. doi:10.1056/NEJMcp1102730.
Continue for new infant vaccine treats 6 diseases >>
NEW INFANT VACCINE TREATS 6 DISEASES
Marshall GS, Adams GL, Leonardi ML, et al. Immunogenicity, safety, and tolerability of a hexavalent vaccine in infants. Pediatrics. 2015:136(2):323-332.
The safety and immunogenicity of DTaP5-IPV-Hib-HepB fully liquid investigational hexavalent vaccine are comparable with the analogous licensed component vaccines and provide a new combination vaccine option aligned with the recommended US infant immunization schedule, according to a phase III study of 1,465 participants. Overall, 981 healthy infants were vaccinated in group 1 with the hexavalent vaccine and 484 in group 2 with the analogous licensed component vaccines.
The study found
• Immune responses in group 1 to all antigens contained in the vaccine one month after dose 3 were essentially noninferior to those in group 2.
• Adverse event rates after any dose were similar in both groups.
COMMENTARY
Vaccine administration has led to many diseases, including Haemophilus influenzae type b, polio, and measles, becoming quite rare. As we have recently seen with the resurgence of measles, continued vigilance and high immunization rates are important in ensuring that these diseases remain rare. The development of a hexavalent vaccine is another step in making immunization easier for clinicians to administer and for patients to accept.
Continue for treating infants with bronchiolitis >>
TREATING INFANTS WITH BRONCHIOLITIS
Silver AH, Esteban-Cruciani N, Azzarone G, et al. 3% hypertonic saline versus normal saline in inpatient bronchiolitis: a randomized controlled trial. Pediatrics. 2015;136:1036-1043.
Infants hospitalized with bronchiolitis saw no difference in length of stay or seven-day readmission rates when treated with nebulized 3% hypertonic saline (HS) compared with nebulized normal saline (NS), according to a randomized, controlled study of 227 infants who were younger than 12 months when admitted. Patients received either 4 mL nebulized 3% HS (113 infants) or 4 mL 0.9% NS (114 infants) every four hours from enrollment until hospital discharge. Researchers found
• Median length of stay of HS and NS groups was 2.1 days vs 2.1 days, respectively.
• Seven-day readmission rates for HS and NS groups were 4.3% vs 3.1%, respectively.
• Clinical worsening events were similar between groups.
COMMENTARY
Bronchiolitis, the most common lower respiratory tract infection in infants, is usually due to a viral infection, most often respiratory syncytial virus, and can cause disease that ranges in severity from mild to life-threatening. Infants with bronchiolitis typically present with rhinitis, tachypnea, wheezing, and cough, and occasionally crackles and use of accessory muscles. While many medications are used, supportive care and monitoring are the mainstays of therapy. Maintaining pulse above 90% is important, using supplemental oxygen when needed to achieve this. Alpha-adrenergic and beta-adrenergic bronchodilators are often used; though the evidence suggests that they are not usually helpful, they can be tried and continued if they appear to help. Systemic steroids are often used, but they too lack evidence of efficacy.1 This study shows that hypertonic saline can now join the list of interventions used with evidence of a lack of efficacy.
1. Diagnosis and management of bronchiolitis. Subcommittee on diagnosis and management of bronchiolitis. Pediatrics. 2006;118(4):1774-1793. doi:10.1542/peds.2006-2223.
Continue for azithromycin and preschool children >>
AZITHROMYCIN AND PRESCHOOL CHILDREN: CAN ANTIBIOTICS LESSEN ONSET OF SEVERE LRTIs?
Bacharier LB, Guilbert TW, Mauger DT, et al. Early administration of azithromycin and prevention of severe lower respiratory tract illnesses in preschool children with a history of such illnesses: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2015;314(19):2034-2044.
The use of azithromycin early during an apparent respiratory tract illness (RTI) reduced the likelihood of severe lower RTI (LRTI) among young children with a history of recurrent severe LRTI, compared with placebo, according to a study of 607 children ages 12 to 71 months. Participants were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive either azithromycin (12 mg/kg/d for 5 d) or matching placebo at the start of an RTI. Researchers found
• A total of 937 treated RTIs were experienced by 443 children, including 92 severe LRTIs (azithromycin group, 35; placebo group, 57).
• Azithromycin significantly reduced the risk for progression to severe LRTI relative to placebo (HR, 0.64).
• Induction of azithromycin-resistant organisms and adverse events were infrequent.
COMMENTARY
Recurrent episodes of severe wheezing with RTI are an important and common occurrence, affecting up to 15% to 20% of children prior to age 6.1 LRTI was defined in this study as RTI that required the use of additional rescue medication. The current approach to RTI is to try to minimize the use of antibiotics unless an infection is clearly bacterial in origin, and to treat severe LRTI when it occurs. The results of this trial suggest that in children at high risk for severe LRTI, identified by their episodes of recurrent wheezing, early treatment of RTI with azithromycin may decrease the development of severe LRTI by more than 35%—an important result. It is important to recognize that this study does not suggest treating all RTIs with antibiotics, but rather that the use of a macrolide antibiotic may be considered, perhaps, in the select group of children similar to those studied, with a history of recurrent wheezing with previous RTIs.
1. Ly NP, Gold DR, Weiss ST, Celedón JC. Recurrent wheeze in early childhood and asthma among children at risk for atopy. Pediatrics. 2006;117(6):e1132-e1138.
TALKING OUT CHILDHOOD OBESITY
Resnicow K, McMaster F, Bocian A, et al. Motivational interviewing and dietary counseling for obesity in primary care: an RCT. Pediatrics. 2015;135(4):649-657.
Counseling parents of overweight children using motivational interviewing from both health care providers and registered dietitians can significantly improve BMI, according to a study of 42 practices in the Pediatric Research in Office Settings Network of the American Academy of Pediatrics.
Researchers randomly assigned parents of overweight children, ages 2 through 8, to one of three groups: (1) usual care, (2) four provider-delivered motivational interviewing sessions over two years, or (3) four provider-delivered motivational interviewing sessions plus six sessions with a registered dietitian over two years. At study end, BMI percentile and change in BMI for the different groups were as follows:
COMMENTARY
The results of this study are exciting. Motivational interviewing is a technique in which the practitioner asks questions of a patient and allows the patient to discover his/her own conclusions about the topic. By so doing, the patient is more engaged in the discussion and is less resistant to input. This technique, with excellent evidence of effectiveness in the area of drug and alcohol abuse, has been shown to facilitate effective behavioral change in many areas and is recommended by the American Heart Association for behavioral change in adults.1,2 This is an exciting paper demonstrating evidence-based efficacy in addressing childhood obesity—a critical health issue—and is worth trying in the office.
1. Rubak S, Sandbaek A, Lauritzen T, Christensen B. Motivational interviewing: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Gen Pract. 2005;55(513):305-312.
2. Spring B, Ockene JK, Gidding SS, et al; American Heart Association Behavior Change Committee of the Council on Epidemiology and Prevention, Council on Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Health, Council for High Blood Pressure Research, and Council on Cardiovascular and Stroke Nursing. Better population health through behavior change in adults: a call to action. Circulation. 2013;128(19):2169-2176. doi: 10.1161/01.cir.0000435173.25936.e1.
Continue for long-acting reversible contraception among teens >>
LONG-ACTING REVERSIBLE CONTRACEPTION AMONG TEENS
Romero L, Pazol K, Warner L, et al. Vital signs: trends in use of long-acting reversible contraception among teens aged 15-19 years seeking contraceptive services – United States, 2005-2013. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2015;64(13):363-369.
Efforts to improve teen access to long-acting reversible contraception (LARC) have increased use of these methods, according to a CDC review of services provided at Title X National Family Planning Program centers. The report found
• LARC rates among teen patients increased from 0.4% in 2005 to 7.2% in 2013.
• In 2013, 2.8% of those seeking contraception used IUDs and 4.3% used implants.
• Among Title X patients, 7.6% of 18- and 19-year-olds used LARC, compared with 6.5% of 15- to 17-year-olds.
• Rates of LARC were lowest in Mississippi (0.7%) and highest in Colorado (25.8%).
COMMENTARY
LARCs, which include IUD and implantable hormonal contraceptive devices, require no effort for adherence on the part of the user; once in place, they are effective without further action. Current CDC guidelines on contraceptive use clearly recommend LARC for teenagers based on the efficacy and safety.1 LARCs are favored for teenagers because poor compliance has yielded suboptimal effectiveness of oral contraceptives and condoms in teenagers, who often forget to take their birth control pills or don’t use condoms when they should. Many clinicians have been slow to recommend LARCs in teenagers based on safety concerns related to adverse experience with IUDs 20 to 30 years ago. According to CDC guidelines, IUDs and implantable contraceptive devices now have robust safety data, and this article shows that they are being increasingly made available to teenagers who need them.
1. Division of Reproductive Health, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, CDC. US Selected Practice Recommendations for Contraceptive Use, 2013: adapted from the World Health Organization selected practice recommendations for contraceptive use, 2nd edition. MMWR Recomm Rep. 2013;62(RR-05):1-60.
Continue to testing for celiac in pediatric rheumatology patients >>
TESTING FOR CELIAC IN PEDIATRIC RHEUMATOLOGY PATIENTS
Sherman Y, Karanicolas R, DiMarco B, et al. Unrecognized celiac disease in children presenting for rheumatology evaluation. Pediatrics. 2015; [Epub ahead of print].
Children presenting for rheumatology evaluation should be screened for celiac disease, according to a review of 2,125 pediatric patients who were screened for celiac as part of the standard initial serologic evaluation.
Researchers identified 36 new cases of celiac disease (2.0% prevalence rate). The most common presenting complaints among these patients were myalgia, arthralgia, and rash. Less frequent complaints included gastrointestinal complaints of abdominal pain, nausea, and diarrhea.
After initiating a gluten-free diet, all of the patients with celiac disease reported improvement or complete resolution of musculoskeletal symptoms.
COMMENTARY
Celiac disease has a prevalence of 0.5% to 1% in the US and can present with a range of symptoms that include diarrhea, abdominal discomfort, and weight loss. In addition to these typical symptoms, celiac disease can cause a wide range of systemic symptoms, including osteopenia, abnormal liver function tests, anemia, neurologic symptoms, and general malaise and fatigue.1 This study suggests that celiac testing be considered in children presenting with rheumatologic symptoms, including myalgia, arthralgia, and rash.
1. Presutti RJ, Cangemi JR, Cassidy HD, et al. Celiac disease. Am Fam Physician. 2007;76(12):1795-1802, 1809-1810.
Continue for educating parents about antibiotic use >>
EDUCATING PARENTS ABOUT ANTIBIOTIC USE
Vaz LE, Kleinman KP, Lakoma MD, et al. Prevalence of parental misconceptions about antibiotic use. Pediatrics. 2015;136:221-231.
Misperceptions about antibiotic use persist and continue to be more prevalent among parents of Medicaid-insured children, according to a study of 1,500 Massachusetts parents.
Investigators examined antibiotic-related knowledge and attitudes among both Medicaid-insured and private-insured parents and found
• Fewer Medicaid parents answered questions correctly, except for one regarding bronchitis.
• Medicaid patients were more likely to request unnecessary antibiotics.
• More parents in 2013 understood that green nasal discharge did not require antibiotics than in 2000.
• Medicaid-insured parents were younger, less likely to be white, and had less education than those commercially insured.
COMMENTARY
Decreasing the unnecessary use of antibiotics for viral infections is an important component of decreasing the development of antibiotic-resistant organisms. An important driver of clinician use of antibiotics is patients’ expectations for antibiotics. This study shows that much work remains to be done in changing patient expectations, which is not surprising to any practicing clinician. This study also suggests that the expectation for antibiotics is greater among those individuals with Medicaid insurance, which suggests that an opportunity exists for Medicaid insurance plans to do targeted patient education on this issue—which should improve patient outcomes, decrease cost from use of unneeded antibiotics, and decrease the development of antibiotic-resistant organisms.
Continue for newborn pulmonary hypertension and maternal antidepressant use >>
NEWBORN PULMONARY HYPERTENSION AND MATERNAL ANTIDEPRESSANT USE
Huybrechts KF, Bateman BT, Palmsten K, et al. Antidepressant use late in pregnancy and risk of persistent pulmonary hypertension of the newborn. JAMA. 2015;313(21):2142-2151.
Taking antidepressants during late pregnancy may increase the risk for persistent pulmonary hypertension of the newborn (PPHN), according to a nested cohort study of more than 3.7 million pregnant women in the 2000-2010 Medicaid Analytic eXtract.
Investigators compared offspring of mothers who used selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) or non-SSRI monotherapy in the last 90 days of pregnancy to those who did not and found 3.4% of women filled at least one prescription for antidepressants late in pregnancy, primarily SSRIs.
Rates and odds ratios (ORs) of PPHN stratified by use and type of antidepressant were as follows:
The study authors note the absolute risk is small, and the increased risk is more modest than previous studies found.
COMMENTARY
Depression affects more than 12% of pregnancies and has important consequences, including increased risk for suicide, preterm birth, poor fetal growth, and impaired fetal and infant development.1 PPHN is a serious condition that can require intubation and can be fatal in 10% to 20% of cases. This study adds to the conflicting data suggesting that SSRI use in pregnancy can lead to an increase in this rare condition. The decision to use an antidepressant during pregnancy is a difficult one, because depression has serious consequences but so, potentially, does treatment. The treatment of depression during pregnancy requires thoughtful, informed discussion between patient and provider.
1. Stewart DE. Clinical practice. Depression during pregnancy. N Engl J Med. 2011;365(17):1605-1611. doi:10.1056/NEJMcp1102730.
Continue for new infant vaccine treats 6 diseases >>
NEW INFANT VACCINE TREATS 6 DISEASES
Marshall GS, Adams GL, Leonardi ML, et al. Immunogenicity, safety, and tolerability of a hexavalent vaccine in infants. Pediatrics. 2015:136(2):323-332.
The safety and immunogenicity of DTaP5-IPV-Hib-HepB fully liquid investigational hexavalent vaccine are comparable with the analogous licensed component vaccines and provide a new combination vaccine option aligned with the recommended US infant immunization schedule, according to a phase III study of 1,465 participants. Overall, 981 healthy infants were vaccinated in group 1 with the hexavalent vaccine and 484 in group 2 with the analogous licensed component vaccines.
The study found
• Immune responses in group 1 to all antigens contained in the vaccine one month after dose 3 were essentially noninferior to those in group 2.
• Adverse event rates after any dose were similar in both groups.
COMMENTARY
Vaccine administration has led to many diseases, including Haemophilus influenzae type b, polio, and measles, becoming quite rare. As we have recently seen with the resurgence of measles, continued vigilance and high immunization rates are important in ensuring that these diseases remain rare. The development of a hexavalent vaccine is another step in making immunization easier for clinicians to administer and for patients to accept.
Continue for treating infants with bronchiolitis >>
TREATING INFANTS WITH BRONCHIOLITIS
Silver AH, Esteban-Cruciani N, Azzarone G, et al. 3% hypertonic saline versus normal saline in inpatient bronchiolitis: a randomized controlled trial. Pediatrics. 2015;136:1036-1043.
Infants hospitalized with bronchiolitis saw no difference in length of stay or seven-day readmission rates when treated with nebulized 3% hypertonic saline (HS) compared with nebulized normal saline (NS), according to a randomized, controlled study of 227 infants who were younger than 12 months when admitted. Patients received either 4 mL nebulized 3% HS (113 infants) or 4 mL 0.9% NS (114 infants) every four hours from enrollment until hospital discharge. Researchers found
• Median length of stay of HS and NS groups was 2.1 days vs 2.1 days, respectively.
• Seven-day readmission rates for HS and NS groups were 4.3% vs 3.1%, respectively.
• Clinical worsening events were similar between groups.
COMMENTARY
Bronchiolitis, the most common lower respiratory tract infection in infants, is usually due to a viral infection, most often respiratory syncytial virus, and can cause disease that ranges in severity from mild to life-threatening. Infants with bronchiolitis typically present with rhinitis, tachypnea, wheezing, and cough, and occasionally crackles and use of accessory muscles. While many medications are used, supportive care and monitoring are the mainstays of therapy. Maintaining pulse above 90% is important, using supplemental oxygen when needed to achieve this. Alpha-adrenergic and beta-adrenergic bronchodilators are often used; though the evidence suggests that they are not usually helpful, they can be tried and continued if they appear to help. Systemic steroids are often used, but they too lack evidence of efficacy.1 This study shows that hypertonic saline can now join the list of interventions used with evidence of a lack of efficacy.
1. Diagnosis and management of bronchiolitis. Subcommittee on diagnosis and management of bronchiolitis. Pediatrics. 2006;118(4):1774-1793. doi:10.1542/peds.2006-2223.
Continue for azithromycin and preschool children >>
AZITHROMYCIN AND PRESCHOOL CHILDREN: CAN ANTIBIOTICS LESSEN ONSET OF SEVERE LRTIs?
Bacharier LB, Guilbert TW, Mauger DT, et al. Early administration of azithromycin and prevention of severe lower respiratory tract illnesses in preschool children with a history of such illnesses: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2015;314(19):2034-2044.
The use of azithromycin early during an apparent respiratory tract illness (RTI) reduced the likelihood of severe lower RTI (LRTI) among young children with a history of recurrent severe LRTI, compared with placebo, according to a study of 607 children ages 12 to 71 months. Participants were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive either azithromycin (12 mg/kg/d for 5 d) or matching placebo at the start of an RTI. Researchers found
• A total of 937 treated RTIs were experienced by 443 children, including 92 severe LRTIs (azithromycin group, 35; placebo group, 57).
• Azithromycin significantly reduced the risk for progression to severe LRTI relative to placebo (HR, 0.64).
• Induction of azithromycin-resistant organisms and adverse events were infrequent.
COMMENTARY
Recurrent episodes of severe wheezing with RTI are an important and common occurrence, affecting up to 15% to 20% of children prior to age 6.1 LRTI was defined in this study as RTI that required the use of additional rescue medication. The current approach to RTI is to try to minimize the use of antibiotics unless an infection is clearly bacterial in origin, and to treat severe LRTI when it occurs. The results of this trial suggest that in children at high risk for severe LRTI, identified by their episodes of recurrent wheezing, early treatment of RTI with azithromycin may decrease the development of severe LRTI by more than 35%—an important result. It is important to recognize that this study does not suggest treating all RTIs with antibiotics, but rather that the use of a macrolide antibiotic may be considered, perhaps, in the select group of children similar to those studied, with a history of recurrent wheezing with previous RTIs.
1. Ly NP, Gold DR, Weiss ST, Celedón JC. Recurrent wheeze in early childhood and asthma among children at risk for atopy. Pediatrics. 2006;117(6):e1132-e1138.
TALKING OUT CHILDHOOD OBESITY
Resnicow K, McMaster F, Bocian A, et al. Motivational interviewing and dietary counseling for obesity in primary care: an RCT. Pediatrics. 2015;135(4):649-657.
Counseling parents of overweight children using motivational interviewing from both health care providers and registered dietitians can significantly improve BMI, according to a study of 42 practices in the Pediatric Research in Office Settings Network of the American Academy of Pediatrics.
Researchers randomly assigned parents of overweight children, ages 2 through 8, to one of three groups: (1) usual care, (2) four provider-delivered motivational interviewing sessions over two years, or (3) four provider-delivered motivational interviewing sessions plus six sessions with a registered dietitian over two years. At study end, BMI percentile and change in BMI for the different groups were as follows:
COMMENTARY
The results of this study are exciting. Motivational interviewing is a technique in which the practitioner asks questions of a patient and allows the patient to discover his/her own conclusions about the topic. By so doing, the patient is more engaged in the discussion and is less resistant to input. This technique, with excellent evidence of effectiveness in the area of drug and alcohol abuse, has been shown to facilitate effective behavioral change in many areas and is recommended by the American Heart Association for behavioral change in adults.1,2 This is an exciting paper demonstrating evidence-based efficacy in addressing childhood obesity—a critical health issue—and is worth trying in the office.
1. Rubak S, Sandbaek A, Lauritzen T, Christensen B. Motivational interviewing: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Gen Pract. 2005;55(513):305-312.
2. Spring B, Ockene JK, Gidding SS, et al; American Heart Association Behavior Change Committee of the Council on Epidemiology and Prevention, Council on Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Health, Council for High Blood Pressure Research, and Council on Cardiovascular and Stroke Nursing. Better population health through behavior change in adults: a call to action. Circulation. 2013;128(19):2169-2176. doi: 10.1161/01.cir.0000435173.25936.e1.
Continue for long-acting reversible contraception among teens >>
LONG-ACTING REVERSIBLE CONTRACEPTION AMONG TEENS
Romero L, Pazol K, Warner L, et al. Vital signs: trends in use of long-acting reversible contraception among teens aged 15-19 years seeking contraceptive services – United States, 2005-2013. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2015;64(13):363-369.
Efforts to improve teen access to long-acting reversible contraception (LARC) have increased use of these methods, according to a CDC review of services provided at Title X National Family Planning Program centers. The report found
• LARC rates among teen patients increased from 0.4% in 2005 to 7.2% in 2013.
• In 2013, 2.8% of those seeking contraception used IUDs and 4.3% used implants.
• Among Title X patients, 7.6% of 18- and 19-year-olds used LARC, compared with 6.5% of 15- to 17-year-olds.
• Rates of LARC were lowest in Mississippi (0.7%) and highest in Colorado (25.8%).
COMMENTARY
LARCs, which include IUD and implantable hormonal contraceptive devices, require no effort for adherence on the part of the user; once in place, they are effective without further action. Current CDC guidelines on contraceptive use clearly recommend LARC for teenagers based on the efficacy and safety.1 LARCs are favored for teenagers because poor compliance has yielded suboptimal effectiveness of oral contraceptives and condoms in teenagers, who often forget to take their birth control pills or don’t use condoms when they should. Many clinicians have been slow to recommend LARCs in teenagers based on safety concerns related to adverse experience with IUDs 20 to 30 years ago. According to CDC guidelines, IUDs and implantable contraceptive devices now have robust safety data, and this article shows that they are being increasingly made available to teenagers who need them.
1. Division of Reproductive Health, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, CDC. US Selected Practice Recommendations for Contraceptive Use, 2013: adapted from the World Health Organization selected practice recommendations for contraceptive use, 2nd edition. MMWR Recomm Rep. 2013;62(RR-05):1-60.
Continue to testing for celiac in pediatric rheumatology patients >>
TESTING FOR CELIAC IN PEDIATRIC RHEUMATOLOGY PATIENTS
Sherman Y, Karanicolas R, DiMarco B, et al. Unrecognized celiac disease in children presenting for rheumatology evaluation. Pediatrics. 2015; [Epub ahead of print].
Children presenting for rheumatology evaluation should be screened for celiac disease, according to a review of 2,125 pediatric patients who were screened for celiac as part of the standard initial serologic evaluation.
Researchers identified 36 new cases of celiac disease (2.0% prevalence rate). The most common presenting complaints among these patients were myalgia, arthralgia, and rash. Less frequent complaints included gastrointestinal complaints of abdominal pain, nausea, and diarrhea.
After initiating a gluten-free diet, all of the patients with celiac disease reported improvement or complete resolution of musculoskeletal symptoms.
COMMENTARY
Celiac disease has a prevalence of 0.5% to 1% in the US and can present with a range of symptoms that include diarrhea, abdominal discomfort, and weight loss. In addition to these typical symptoms, celiac disease can cause a wide range of systemic symptoms, including osteopenia, abnormal liver function tests, anemia, neurologic symptoms, and general malaise and fatigue.1 This study suggests that celiac testing be considered in children presenting with rheumatologic symptoms, including myalgia, arthralgia, and rash.
1. Presutti RJ, Cangemi JR, Cassidy HD, et al. Celiac disease. Am Fam Physician. 2007;76(12):1795-1802, 1809-1810.
Continue for educating parents about antibiotic use >>
EDUCATING PARENTS ABOUT ANTIBIOTIC USE
Vaz LE, Kleinman KP, Lakoma MD, et al. Prevalence of parental misconceptions about antibiotic use. Pediatrics. 2015;136:221-231.
Misperceptions about antibiotic use persist and continue to be more prevalent among parents of Medicaid-insured children, according to a study of 1,500 Massachusetts parents.
Investigators examined antibiotic-related knowledge and attitudes among both Medicaid-insured and private-insured parents and found
• Fewer Medicaid parents answered questions correctly, except for one regarding bronchitis.
• Medicaid patients were more likely to request unnecessary antibiotics.
• More parents in 2013 understood that green nasal discharge did not require antibiotics than in 2000.
• Medicaid-insured parents were younger, less likely to be white, and had less education than those commercially insured.
COMMENTARY
Decreasing the unnecessary use of antibiotics for viral infections is an important component of decreasing the development of antibiotic-resistant organisms. An important driver of clinician use of antibiotics is patients’ expectations for antibiotics. This study shows that much work remains to be done in changing patient expectations, which is not surprising to any practicing clinician. This study also suggests that the expectation for antibiotics is greater among those individuals with Medicaid insurance, which suggests that an opportunity exists for Medicaid insurance plans to do targeted patient education on this issue—which should improve patient outcomes, decrease cost from use of unneeded antibiotics, and decrease the development of antibiotic-resistant organisms.
Continue for newborn pulmonary hypertension and maternal antidepressant use >>
NEWBORN PULMONARY HYPERTENSION AND MATERNAL ANTIDEPRESSANT USE
Huybrechts KF, Bateman BT, Palmsten K, et al. Antidepressant use late in pregnancy and risk of persistent pulmonary hypertension of the newborn. JAMA. 2015;313(21):2142-2151.
Taking antidepressants during late pregnancy may increase the risk for persistent pulmonary hypertension of the newborn (PPHN), according to a nested cohort study of more than 3.7 million pregnant women in the 2000-2010 Medicaid Analytic eXtract.
Investigators compared offspring of mothers who used selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) or non-SSRI monotherapy in the last 90 days of pregnancy to those who did not and found 3.4% of women filled at least one prescription for antidepressants late in pregnancy, primarily SSRIs.
Rates and odds ratios (ORs) of PPHN stratified by use and type of antidepressant were as follows:
The study authors note the absolute risk is small, and the increased risk is more modest than previous studies found.
COMMENTARY
Depression affects more than 12% of pregnancies and has important consequences, including increased risk for suicide, preterm birth, poor fetal growth, and impaired fetal and infant development.1 PPHN is a serious condition that can require intubation and can be fatal in 10% to 20% of cases. This study adds to the conflicting data suggesting that SSRI use in pregnancy can lead to an increase in this rare condition. The decision to use an antidepressant during pregnancy is a difficult one, because depression has serious consequences but so, potentially, does treatment. The treatment of depression during pregnancy requires thoughtful, informed discussion between patient and provider.
1. Stewart DE. Clinical practice. Depression during pregnancy. N Engl J Med. 2011;365(17):1605-1611. doi:10.1056/NEJMcp1102730.
Continue for new infant vaccine treats 6 diseases >>
NEW INFANT VACCINE TREATS 6 DISEASES
Marshall GS, Adams GL, Leonardi ML, et al. Immunogenicity, safety, and tolerability of a hexavalent vaccine in infants. Pediatrics. 2015:136(2):323-332.
The safety and immunogenicity of DTaP5-IPV-Hib-HepB fully liquid investigational hexavalent vaccine are comparable with the analogous licensed component vaccines and provide a new combination vaccine option aligned with the recommended US infant immunization schedule, according to a phase III study of 1,465 participants. Overall, 981 healthy infants were vaccinated in group 1 with the hexavalent vaccine and 484 in group 2 with the analogous licensed component vaccines.
The study found
• Immune responses in group 1 to all antigens contained in the vaccine one month after dose 3 were essentially noninferior to those in group 2.
• Adverse event rates after any dose were similar in both groups.
COMMENTARY
Vaccine administration has led to many diseases, including Haemophilus influenzae type b, polio, and measles, becoming quite rare. As we have recently seen with the resurgence of measles, continued vigilance and high immunization rates are important in ensuring that these diseases remain rare. The development of a hexavalent vaccine is another step in making immunization easier for clinicians to administer and for patients to accept.
Continue for treating infants with bronchiolitis >>
TREATING INFANTS WITH BRONCHIOLITIS
Silver AH, Esteban-Cruciani N, Azzarone G, et al. 3% hypertonic saline versus normal saline in inpatient bronchiolitis: a randomized controlled trial. Pediatrics. 2015;136:1036-1043.
Infants hospitalized with bronchiolitis saw no difference in length of stay or seven-day readmission rates when treated with nebulized 3% hypertonic saline (HS) compared with nebulized normal saline (NS), according to a randomized, controlled study of 227 infants who were younger than 12 months when admitted. Patients received either 4 mL nebulized 3% HS (113 infants) or 4 mL 0.9% NS (114 infants) every four hours from enrollment until hospital discharge. Researchers found
• Median length of stay of HS and NS groups was 2.1 days vs 2.1 days, respectively.
• Seven-day readmission rates for HS and NS groups were 4.3% vs 3.1%, respectively.
• Clinical worsening events were similar between groups.
COMMENTARY
Bronchiolitis, the most common lower respiratory tract infection in infants, is usually due to a viral infection, most often respiratory syncytial virus, and can cause disease that ranges in severity from mild to life-threatening. Infants with bronchiolitis typically present with rhinitis, tachypnea, wheezing, and cough, and occasionally crackles and use of accessory muscles. While many medications are used, supportive care and monitoring are the mainstays of therapy. Maintaining pulse above 90% is important, using supplemental oxygen when needed to achieve this. Alpha-adrenergic and beta-adrenergic bronchodilators are often used; though the evidence suggests that they are not usually helpful, they can be tried and continued if they appear to help. Systemic steroids are often used, but they too lack evidence of efficacy.1 This study shows that hypertonic saline can now join the list of interventions used with evidence of a lack of efficacy.
1. Diagnosis and management of bronchiolitis. Subcommittee on diagnosis and management of bronchiolitis. Pediatrics. 2006;118(4):1774-1793. doi:10.1542/peds.2006-2223.
Continue for azithromycin and preschool children >>
AZITHROMYCIN AND PRESCHOOL CHILDREN: CAN ANTIBIOTICS LESSEN ONSET OF SEVERE LRTIs?
Bacharier LB, Guilbert TW, Mauger DT, et al. Early administration of azithromycin and prevention of severe lower respiratory tract illnesses in preschool children with a history of such illnesses: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2015;314(19):2034-2044.
The use of azithromycin early during an apparent respiratory tract illness (RTI) reduced the likelihood of severe lower RTI (LRTI) among young children with a history of recurrent severe LRTI, compared with placebo, according to a study of 607 children ages 12 to 71 months. Participants were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive either azithromycin (12 mg/kg/d for 5 d) or matching placebo at the start of an RTI. Researchers found
• A total of 937 treated RTIs were experienced by 443 children, including 92 severe LRTIs (azithromycin group, 35; placebo group, 57).
• Azithromycin significantly reduced the risk for progression to severe LRTI relative to placebo (HR, 0.64).
• Induction of azithromycin-resistant organisms and adverse events were infrequent.
COMMENTARY
Recurrent episodes of severe wheezing with RTI are an important and common occurrence, affecting up to 15% to 20% of children prior to age 6.1 LRTI was defined in this study as RTI that required the use of additional rescue medication. The current approach to RTI is to try to minimize the use of antibiotics unless an infection is clearly bacterial in origin, and to treat severe LRTI when it occurs. The results of this trial suggest that in children at high risk for severe LRTI, identified by their episodes of recurrent wheezing, early treatment of RTI with azithromycin may decrease the development of severe LRTI by more than 35%—an important result. It is important to recognize that this study does not suggest treating all RTIs with antibiotics, but rather that the use of a macrolide antibiotic may be considered, perhaps, in the select group of children similar to those studied, with a history of recurrent wheezing with previous RTIs.
1. Ly NP, Gold DR, Weiss ST, Celedón JC. Recurrent wheeze in early childhood and asthma among children at risk for atopy. Pediatrics. 2006;117(6):e1132-e1138.
New pediatric recommendations: What’s changed
Guidance for parents of LGBT youth
Two years ago, a mother of one of my patients asked me for advice. She knew that her daughter identified as lesbian, and she was fully supportive. One day, her daughter wanted to go to a sleepover at a female friend’s house. Her first reaction was to say yes, but then she had second thoughts: If her daughter were straight, and this friend were male, she would not allow her to go because of the potential for sexual activity. When she told her daughter she could not attend the sleepover, her daughter accused her of not letting her go because of her sexual orientation. And now, the dilemma: In her effort to be fair and consistent with her values, the mother is being accused of discrimination. What should she do?
Parents play an irreplaceable role in the life of any teen, especially in the lives of teens that identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender (LGBT). But many LGBT youth face serious challenges with their parents. They face the potential of parental rejection of their sexual or gender identity. At the very worst, teens may face homelessness if they come out to homophobic parents.1 Youth whose parents are accepting, nevertheless, are less likely to have mental health problems or engage in substance use.2
As a clinical provider for children and adolescents, caregivers will ask you for advice on how to address parenting challenges. Because LGBT youth are at risk for many adverse health outcomes, and parental support is paramount in preventing them, this is an opportunity for you to help this vulnerable population.
If parents ask you how to be supportive of their LGBT children, here are some recommendations, which are based on an intervention by colleagues at the University of Utah:3
1. Let their affection show. Receiving news that a child is LGBT can be emotionally intense for parents.4 Because of this emotional intensity, parents may react negatively and neglect to show their love for their child, which is what the child is seeking. Parents showing affection is the first step in supporting their LGBT child. Remind parents to tell their child that they love them no matter what.
2. Avoid rejecting behaviors. This is sometimes hard, because some forms of rejection can be quite subtle. Avoid saying anything that may indicate a negative view of LGBT people, even if it is not intended. For example, saying that something is “gay” may seem innocent enough, but it sends the message that being gay is something to be ashamed of.
3. Express their pain away from their child. Evidence shows that minimizing a child’s exposure to parental conflict and stress is associated with better coping with these devastating events.5 Parents should avoid telling their children that news of their sexual orientation or gender identity upsets them, as this is another form of rejecting behavior.
4. Do good before they feel good. Previous studies suggest that changes in behavior can occur even though a person may feel otherwise.6 Negative feelings about a child’s sexual orientation or gender identity can last months or years.7 It’s okay to have these feelings, but showing support such as telling their child how they still love them can ultimately lead to acceptance.
Although it is important for parents to accept their child, it is only half the battle. If you remember Baumrind’s theory on parenting, there are two sides of parenting. The first side involves parents showing their affection, love, and support for their children, which I described earlier. The other side involves managing a child’s behaviors, whether parents create an environment that makes it difficult to engage in behaviors they disapprove of or teach their children how to make the right decision.8 Many LGBT youth engage in risky behaviors because it’s a way of coping in a homophobic environment. The parents’ job is to teach their children healthier coping strategies.
Research on this aspect of parenting in LGBT youth is still at its infancy, and some of it is not reassuring. One important behavior, parental monitoring, which is “a set of correlated parenting behaviors involving attention to and tracking of the child’s whereabouts, activities, and adaptations,”9 can prevent conduct disorders, substance use, and mental health problems in the typical teenager.10 Unfortunately, we don’t find the same results for sexual minorities. One study suggests that parental monitoring may not prevent high-risk sexual behavior for young gay males, even if the parent is aware of the young man’s sexual orientation.11
This doesn’t mean that parental monitoring isn’t helpful. This just means that parenting LGBT youth is different than parenting heterosexual youth. It’s not enough for parents to just accept their child’s sexual orientation. They also must help them make the right decisions taking into consideration the effect of stigma and discrimination on sexual minorities. There are a couple of things you can suggest to your parents to help them raise their LGBT children:
1. Be proactive. Join organizations that support parents of LGBT youth such as Parents, Families, and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG). Also, parents must be aware of their children’s behavior. If they are acting depressed, seek help. Having depression or anxiety increases the chances of engaging in risky behaviors, so the earlier parents address this, the better.
2. Make their child know what their views are on high risk-behaviors, such as substance use or having unprotected sex. They need to communicate their expectations clearly. If parents believe that drinking alcohol before the legal age is wrong, they should clearly let their children know that.
3. Make it easier for their child to tell parents what’s going on in their lives. Parents have to gain their children’s trust, be accessible (don’t answer texts while talking to them!), and be an active listener. LGBT youth may not ask parents for advice because they feel that because their parents are straight or cisgender, their life experiences do not apply. Being a member of an organization like PLFAG can be helpful, because parents can ask other parents who have experience raising LGBT youth for advice that works.
4. If parents’ children do something wrong, they should talk to them about how their actions were risky. Children will listen to parents if they view their parenting as legitimate and fair, which can only happen if there is a strong parent-child relationship. Being supportive of a child’s sexual orientation or gender identity is key here. And for the next time, it’s always good to role-play a scenario (for example, what to do if someone tries to make them drink at a party).
Parents of LGBT youth face many challenges. You can help these parents by encouraging them to accept and support their child’s sexual orientation or gender identity and provide parenting strategies relevant for LGBT youth. Most important of all, encourage them to seek support through organizations like PFLAG. With this support, parents can encourage healthy development in LGBT youth.
Resources for parents of LGBT youth
• The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has information on the health of LGBT Youth and advice on parental monitoring in general.
• The Family Acceptance Project is a project researching ways to improve parent-child relationships in LGBT Youth.
• PFLAG is an organization that provides support for families of LGBT youth.
• Lead with Love is a film about how various types of families react to their children coming out to them.
References
1. J Sex Res. 2004 Nov;41(4):329-42.
2. Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 2010 Sep;44(9):774-83.
3. Huebner D. “Leading with Love: Interventions to Support Families of Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Adolescents,” The Register Report, Vol. 39. National Register of Health Service Psychologists, Spring 2013.
4. J GLBT Fam Stud. 2014 Jan;10(1-2):36-57.
5. Prof Psychol Res Pr. 2008 Apr;39(2):113-21.
6. “Behaviorism: Classic Studies” (Casper, Wyo: Endeavor Books/Mountain States Litho, 2009).
7. Journal of LGBT Issues in Counseling. 2008;2(2):126-58.
8. Genet Psychol Monogr. 1967;75(1):43-88.
9. Clin Child Fam Psychol Rev. 1998 Mar;1(1):61-75.
10. “Parental Monitoring of Adolescents: Current Perspectives for Researchers and Practitioners” (New York: Columbia University Press, 2010).
11. AIDS Behav. 2014 Aug;18(8):1604-14.
Dr. Montano is an adolescent medicine fellow at Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh of UPMC and a postdoctoral fellow in the department of pediatrics at the University of Pittsburgh. Email him at pdnews@frontlinemedcom.com.
Two years ago, a mother of one of my patients asked me for advice. She knew that her daughter identified as lesbian, and she was fully supportive. One day, her daughter wanted to go to a sleepover at a female friend’s house. Her first reaction was to say yes, but then she had second thoughts: If her daughter were straight, and this friend were male, she would not allow her to go because of the potential for sexual activity. When she told her daughter she could not attend the sleepover, her daughter accused her of not letting her go because of her sexual orientation. And now, the dilemma: In her effort to be fair and consistent with her values, the mother is being accused of discrimination. What should she do?
Parents play an irreplaceable role in the life of any teen, especially in the lives of teens that identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender (LGBT). But many LGBT youth face serious challenges with their parents. They face the potential of parental rejection of their sexual or gender identity. At the very worst, teens may face homelessness if they come out to homophobic parents.1 Youth whose parents are accepting, nevertheless, are less likely to have mental health problems or engage in substance use.2
As a clinical provider for children and adolescents, caregivers will ask you for advice on how to address parenting challenges. Because LGBT youth are at risk for many adverse health outcomes, and parental support is paramount in preventing them, this is an opportunity for you to help this vulnerable population.
If parents ask you how to be supportive of their LGBT children, here are some recommendations, which are based on an intervention by colleagues at the University of Utah:3
1. Let their affection show. Receiving news that a child is LGBT can be emotionally intense for parents.4 Because of this emotional intensity, parents may react negatively and neglect to show their love for their child, which is what the child is seeking. Parents showing affection is the first step in supporting their LGBT child. Remind parents to tell their child that they love them no matter what.
2. Avoid rejecting behaviors. This is sometimes hard, because some forms of rejection can be quite subtle. Avoid saying anything that may indicate a negative view of LGBT people, even if it is not intended. For example, saying that something is “gay” may seem innocent enough, but it sends the message that being gay is something to be ashamed of.
3. Express their pain away from their child. Evidence shows that minimizing a child’s exposure to parental conflict and stress is associated with better coping with these devastating events.5 Parents should avoid telling their children that news of their sexual orientation or gender identity upsets them, as this is another form of rejecting behavior.
4. Do good before they feel good. Previous studies suggest that changes in behavior can occur even though a person may feel otherwise.6 Negative feelings about a child’s sexual orientation or gender identity can last months or years.7 It’s okay to have these feelings, but showing support such as telling their child how they still love them can ultimately lead to acceptance.
Although it is important for parents to accept their child, it is only half the battle. If you remember Baumrind’s theory on parenting, there are two sides of parenting. The first side involves parents showing their affection, love, and support for their children, which I described earlier. The other side involves managing a child’s behaviors, whether parents create an environment that makes it difficult to engage in behaviors they disapprove of or teach their children how to make the right decision.8 Many LGBT youth engage in risky behaviors because it’s a way of coping in a homophobic environment. The parents’ job is to teach their children healthier coping strategies.
Research on this aspect of parenting in LGBT youth is still at its infancy, and some of it is not reassuring. One important behavior, parental monitoring, which is “a set of correlated parenting behaviors involving attention to and tracking of the child’s whereabouts, activities, and adaptations,”9 can prevent conduct disorders, substance use, and mental health problems in the typical teenager.10 Unfortunately, we don’t find the same results for sexual minorities. One study suggests that parental monitoring may not prevent high-risk sexual behavior for young gay males, even if the parent is aware of the young man’s sexual orientation.11
This doesn’t mean that parental monitoring isn’t helpful. This just means that parenting LGBT youth is different than parenting heterosexual youth. It’s not enough for parents to just accept their child’s sexual orientation. They also must help them make the right decisions taking into consideration the effect of stigma and discrimination on sexual minorities. There are a couple of things you can suggest to your parents to help them raise their LGBT children:
1. Be proactive. Join organizations that support parents of LGBT youth such as Parents, Families, and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG). Also, parents must be aware of their children’s behavior. If they are acting depressed, seek help. Having depression or anxiety increases the chances of engaging in risky behaviors, so the earlier parents address this, the better.
2. Make their child know what their views are on high risk-behaviors, such as substance use or having unprotected sex. They need to communicate their expectations clearly. If parents believe that drinking alcohol before the legal age is wrong, they should clearly let their children know that.
3. Make it easier for their child to tell parents what’s going on in their lives. Parents have to gain their children’s trust, be accessible (don’t answer texts while talking to them!), and be an active listener. LGBT youth may not ask parents for advice because they feel that because their parents are straight or cisgender, their life experiences do not apply. Being a member of an organization like PLFAG can be helpful, because parents can ask other parents who have experience raising LGBT youth for advice that works.
4. If parents’ children do something wrong, they should talk to them about how their actions were risky. Children will listen to parents if they view their parenting as legitimate and fair, which can only happen if there is a strong parent-child relationship. Being supportive of a child’s sexual orientation or gender identity is key here. And for the next time, it’s always good to role-play a scenario (for example, what to do if someone tries to make them drink at a party).
Parents of LGBT youth face many challenges. You can help these parents by encouraging them to accept and support their child’s sexual orientation or gender identity and provide parenting strategies relevant for LGBT youth. Most important of all, encourage them to seek support through organizations like PFLAG. With this support, parents can encourage healthy development in LGBT youth.
Resources for parents of LGBT youth
• The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has information on the health of LGBT Youth and advice on parental monitoring in general.
• The Family Acceptance Project is a project researching ways to improve parent-child relationships in LGBT Youth.
• PFLAG is an organization that provides support for families of LGBT youth.
• Lead with Love is a film about how various types of families react to their children coming out to them.
References
1. J Sex Res. 2004 Nov;41(4):329-42.
2. Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 2010 Sep;44(9):774-83.
3. Huebner D. “Leading with Love: Interventions to Support Families of Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Adolescents,” The Register Report, Vol. 39. National Register of Health Service Psychologists, Spring 2013.
4. J GLBT Fam Stud. 2014 Jan;10(1-2):36-57.
5. Prof Psychol Res Pr. 2008 Apr;39(2):113-21.
6. “Behaviorism: Classic Studies” (Casper, Wyo: Endeavor Books/Mountain States Litho, 2009).
7. Journal of LGBT Issues in Counseling. 2008;2(2):126-58.
8. Genet Psychol Monogr. 1967;75(1):43-88.
9. Clin Child Fam Psychol Rev. 1998 Mar;1(1):61-75.
10. “Parental Monitoring of Adolescents: Current Perspectives for Researchers and Practitioners” (New York: Columbia University Press, 2010).
11. AIDS Behav. 2014 Aug;18(8):1604-14.
Dr. Montano is an adolescent medicine fellow at Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh of UPMC and a postdoctoral fellow in the department of pediatrics at the University of Pittsburgh. Email him at pdnews@frontlinemedcom.com.
Two years ago, a mother of one of my patients asked me for advice. She knew that her daughter identified as lesbian, and she was fully supportive. One day, her daughter wanted to go to a sleepover at a female friend’s house. Her first reaction was to say yes, but then she had second thoughts: If her daughter were straight, and this friend were male, she would not allow her to go because of the potential for sexual activity. When she told her daughter she could not attend the sleepover, her daughter accused her of not letting her go because of her sexual orientation. And now, the dilemma: In her effort to be fair and consistent with her values, the mother is being accused of discrimination. What should she do?
Parents play an irreplaceable role in the life of any teen, especially in the lives of teens that identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender (LGBT). But many LGBT youth face serious challenges with their parents. They face the potential of parental rejection of their sexual or gender identity. At the very worst, teens may face homelessness if they come out to homophobic parents.1 Youth whose parents are accepting, nevertheless, are less likely to have mental health problems or engage in substance use.2
As a clinical provider for children and adolescents, caregivers will ask you for advice on how to address parenting challenges. Because LGBT youth are at risk for many adverse health outcomes, and parental support is paramount in preventing them, this is an opportunity for you to help this vulnerable population.
If parents ask you how to be supportive of their LGBT children, here are some recommendations, which are based on an intervention by colleagues at the University of Utah:3
1. Let their affection show. Receiving news that a child is LGBT can be emotionally intense for parents.4 Because of this emotional intensity, parents may react negatively and neglect to show their love for their child, which is what the child is seeking. Parents showing affection is the first step in supporting their LGBT child. Remind parents to tell their child that they love them no matter what.
2. Avoid rejecting behaviors. This is sometimes hard, because some forms of rejection can be quite subtle. Avoid saying anything that may indicate a negative view of LGBT people, even if it is not intended. For example, saying that something is “gay” may seem innocent enough, but it sends the message that being gay is something to be ashamed of.
3. Express their pain away from their child. Evidence shows that minimizing a child’s exposure to parental conflict and stress is associated with better coping with these devastating events.5 Parents should avoid telling their children that news of their sexual orientation or gender identity upsets them, as this is another form of rejecting behavior.
4. Do good before they feel good. Previous studies suggest that changes in behavior can occur even though a person may feel otherwise.6 Negative feelings about a child’s sexual orientation or gender identity can last months or years.7 It’s okay to have these feelings, but showing support such as telling their child how they still love them can ultimately lead to acceptance.
Although it is important for parents to accept their child, it is only half the battle. If you remember Baumrind’s theory on parenting, there are two sides of parenting. The first side involves parents showing their affection, love, and support for their children, which I described earlier. The other side involves managing a child’s behaviors, whether parents create an environment that makes it difficult to engage in behaviors they disapprove of or teach their children how to make the right decision.8 Many LGBT youth engage in risky behaviors because it’s a way of coping in a homophobic environment. The parents’ job is to teach their children healthier coping strategies.
Research on this aspect of parenting in LGBT youth is still at its infancy, and some of it is not reassuring. One important behavior, parental monitoring, which is “a set of correlated parenting behaviors involving attention to and tracking of the child’s whereabouts, activities, and adaptations,”9 can prevent conduct disorders, substance use, and mental health problems in the typical teenager.10 Unfortunately, we don’t find the same results for sexual minorities. One study suggests that parental monitoring may not prevent high-risk sexual behavior for young gay males, even if the parent is aware of the young man’s sexual orientation.11
This doesn’t mean that parental monitoring isn’t helpful. This just means that parenting LGBT youth is different than parenting heterosexual youth. It’s not enough for parents to just accept their child’s sexual orientation. They also must help them make the right decisions taking into consideration the effect of stigma and discrimination on sexual minorities. There are a couple of things you can suggest to your parents to help them raise their LGBT children:
1. Be proactive. Join organizations that support parents of LGBT youth such as Parents, Families, and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG). Also, parents must be aware of their children’s behavior. If they are acting depressed, seek help. Having depression or anxiety increases the chances of engaging in risky behaviors, so the earlier parents address this, the better.
2. Make their child know what their views are on high risk-behaviors, such as substance use or having unprotected sex. They need to communicate their expectations clearly. If parents believe that drinking alcohol before the legal age is wrong, they should clearly let their children know that.
3. Make it easier for their child to tell parents what’s going on in their lives. Parents have to gain their children’s trust, be accessible (don’t answer texts while talking to them!), and be an active listener. LGBT youth may not ask parents for advice because they feel that because their parents are straight or cisgender, their life experiences do not apply. Being a member of an organization like PLFAG can be helpful, because parents can ask other parents who have experience raising LGBT youth for advice that works.
4. If parents’ children do something wrong, they should talk to them about how their actions were risky. Children will listen to parents if they view their parenting as legitimate and fair, which can only happen if there is a strong parent-child relationship. Being supportive of a child’s sexual orientation or gender identity is key here. And for the next time, it’s always good to role-play a scenario (for example, what to do if someone tries to make them drink at a party).
Parents of LGBT youth face many challenges. You can help these parents by encouraging them to accept and support their child’s sexual orientation or gender identity and provide parenting strategies relevant for LGBT youth. Most important of all, encourage them to seek support through organizations like PFLAG. With this support, parents can encourage healthy development in LGBT youth.
Resources for parents of LGBT youth
• The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has information on the health of LGBT Youth and advice on parental monitoring in general.
• The Family Acceptance Project is a project researching ways to improve parent-child relationships in LGBT Youth.
• PFLAG is an organization that provides support for families of LGBT youth.
• Lead with Love is a film about how various types of families react to their children coming out to them.
References
1. J Sex Res. 2004 Nov;41(4):329-42.
2. Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 2010 Sep;44(9):774-83.
3. Huebner D. “Leading with Love: Interventions to Support Families of Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Adolescents,” The Register Report, Vol. 39. National Register of Health Service Psychologists, Spring 2013.
4. J GLBT Fam Stud. 2014 Jan;10(1-2):36-57.
5. Prof Psychol Res Pr. 2008 Apr;39(2):113-21.
6. “Behaviorism: Classic Studies” (Casper, Wyo: Endeavor Books/Mountain States Litho, 2009).
7. Journal of LGBT Issues in Counseling. 2008;2(2):126-58.
8. Genet Psychol Monogr. 1967;75(1):43-88.
9. Clin Child Fam Psychol Rev. 1998 Mar;1(1):61-75.
10. “Parental Monitoring of Adolescents: Current Perspectives for Researchers and Practitioners” (New York: Columbia University Press, 2010).
11. AIDS Behav. 2014 Aug;18(8):1604-14.
Dr. Montano is an adolescent medicine fellow at Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh of UPMC and a postdoctoral fellow in the department of pediatrics at the University of Pittsburgh. Email him at pdnews@frontlinemedcom.com.
The HPV vaccine
As physicians, we play a unique role in medicine. Drawing on research data, we provide a gateway of information to patients and families. Governing agencies use that data to make recommendations so that we can promote treatment with confidence. But we also have a responsibility if there is an ill outcome, so being well versed on vaccines and treatments is imperative.
Since the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines (Gardasil, Cervarix) were approved for the prevention of HPV, there has been controversy. Despite the ongoing reports of the vaccine’s success in lowering cervical cancer rates, many parents still feel that it puts their children at risk.
A 2012 study – a systematic review of parents’ knowledge of HPV – showed a decline from 2001 to 2011, with a rise in parents’ safety concerns, and fewer parents opting to have their children vaccinated (Obstet Gynecol Int. 2012. doi: 10.1155/2012/921236).
Several studies have shown the overwhelming decline in cervical cancer that is directly related to the implementation of the HPV vaccines. But there has been growing concern, as postural orthostatic hypotension (POTS), complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS), and sudden death have been cited as side effects of theses vaccines. POTS and CRPS have been in the headlines recently, since a report came out linking the vaccine to these syndromes. Although a review by the European Medicines Agency found that the evidence does not support the notion of the HPV vaccine causing POTS or CRPS, many groups still promote a ban of the vaccine.
In 2013, Japan withdrew its recommendation for administration of the HPV vaccine after reports that many girls had been seriously harmed by it, and now calls for follow-up for patients who believe they are having side effects. Researchers argue that the basis for this action is poorly founded, and that many young women are being deprived of a vaccine that would be protective. But just as many say that more investigation needs to be done before the recommendation can be reinstated, given the number of reports about women being seriously injured from the vaccine. The Japan Society of Obstetrics and Gynecology is pleading with the Japanese Health Ministry to commence recommending the HPV cancer-preventing vaccineonce again.
An Internet search of this topic shows there are several articles questioning the safety of the vaccine, and throughout the world, concerns are forcing more research to be done to ensure its safety. Although the research overwhelmingly shows that the risk-to-benefit ratio is in favor of the HPV vaccine, several sites are reporting injury.
In a study of 997,585 girls aged 10-17 years in Denmark and Sweden, among whom 296,826 received a total of 696,420 quadrivalent HPV vaccine doses, 1,043 (less than 1%) were found to have adverse reactions, compared with 11,944 (2%) of unvaccinated girls (BMJ 2013;347:f5906). Although some relationship between HPV vaccine and autoimmune disorders such as Behçet’s syndrome, Raynaud’s disease, and type 1 diabetes was apparent, no consistent evidence for a causal association was found.
“Analysis of data reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System revealed disproportionate reporting of venous thromboembolism,” noted Dr. Lisen Arnheim-Dahlström of the Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, lead author of the BMJ study, and associates. “A study by the Vaccine Safety Datalink, which involved eight outcomes, identified a nonsignificantly increased relative risk (1.98) of venous thromboembolism; medical record review could confirm five of the eight cases identified from databases using international classification of diseases codes, and all five had known risk factors for venous thromboembolism. In our analysis, based on 21 vaccine exposed cases, there was no significant association with venous thromboembolism within 90 days after exposure to [quadrivalent] HPV vaccine.”
These rising concerns are resulting in more parents declining the HPV vaccine, and more questions for the primary care physician to answer. Not only are parents alarmed, but so are the physicians who make the recommendations. Being aware of the most current research and reports for and against the vaccine’s use, and being able to discuss with the family the validity of this information, will help to dispel much of the anxiety.
Dr. Pearce is a pediatrician in Frankfort, Ill. To contact her, send email to pdnews@frontlinemedcom.com.
As physicians, we play a unique role in medicine. Drawing on research data, we provide a gateway of information to patients and families. Governing agencies use that data to make recommendations so that we can promote treatment with confidence. But we also have a responsibility if there is an ill outcome, so being well versed on vaccines and treatments is imperative.
Since the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines (Gardasil, Cervarix) were approved for the prevention of HPV, there has been controversy. Despite the ongoing reports of the vaccine’s success in lowering cervical cancer rates, many parents still feel that it puts their children at risk.
A 2012 study – a systematic review of parents’ knowledge of HPV – showed a decline from 2001 to 2011, with a rise in parents’ safety concerns, and fewer parents opting to have their children vaccinated (Obstet Gynecol Int. 2012. doi: 10.1155/2012/921236).
Several studies have shown the overwhelming decline in cervical cancer that is directly related to the implementation of the HPV vaccines. But there has been growing concern, as postural orthostatic hypotension (POTS), complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS), and sudden death have been cited as side effects of theses vaccines. POTS and CRPS have been in the headlines recently, since a report came out linking the vaccine to these syndromes. Although a review by the European Medicines Agency found that the evidence does not support the notion of the HPV vaccine causing POTS or CRPS, many groups still promote a ban of the vaccine.
In 2013, Japan withdrew its recommendation for administration of the HPV vaccine after reports that many girls had been seriously harmed by it, and now calls for follow-up for patients who believe they are having side effects. Researchers argue that the basis for this action is poorly founded, and that many young women are being deprived of a vaccine that would be protective. But just as many say that more investigation needs to be done before the recommendation can be reinstated, given the number of reports about women being seriously injured from the vaccine. The Japan Society of Obstetrics and Gynecology is pleading with the Japanese Health Ministry to commence recommending the HPV cancer-preventing vaccineonce again.
An Internet search of this topic shows there are several articles questioning the safety of the vaccine, and throughout the world, concerns are forcing more research to be done to ensure its safety. Although the research overwhelmingly shows that the risk-to-benefit ratio is in favor of the HPV vaccine, several sites are reporting injury.
In a study of 997,585 girls aged 10-17 years in Denmark and Sweden, among whom 296,826 received a total of 696,420 quadrivalent HPV vaccine doses, 1,043 (less than 1%) were found to have adverse reactions, compared with 11,944 (2%) of unvaccinated girls (BMJ 2013;347:f5906). Although some relationship between HPV vaccine and autoimmune disorders such as Behçet’s syndrome, Raynaud’s disease, and type 1 diabetes was apparent, no consistent evidence for a causal association was found.
“Analysis of data reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System revealed disproportionate reporting of venous thromboembolism,” noted Dr. Lisen Arnheim-Dahlström of the Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, lead author of the BMJ study, and associates. “A study by the Vaccine Safety Datalink, which involved eight outcomes, identified a nonsignificantly increased relative risk (1.98) of venous thromboembolism; medical record review could confirm five of the eight cases identified from databases using international classification of diseases codes, and all five had known risk factors for venous thromboembolism. In our analysis, based on 21 vaccine exposed cases, there was no significant association with venous thromboembolism within 90 days after exposure to [quadrivalent] HPV vaccine.”
These rising concerns are resulting in more parents declining the HPV vaccine, and more questions for the primary care physician to answer. Not only are parents alarmed, but so are the physicians who make the recommendations. Being aware of the most current research and reports for and against the vaccine’s use, and being able to discuss with the family the validity of this information, will help to dispel much of the anxiety.
Dr. Pearce is a pediatrician in Frankfort, Ill. To contact her, send email to pdnews@frontlinemedcom.com.
As physicians, we play a unique role in medicine. Drawing on research data, we provide a gateway of information to patients and families. Governing agencies use that data to make recommendations so that we can promote treatment with confidence. But we also have a responsibility if there is an ill outcome, so being well versed on vaccines and treatments is imperative.
Since the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines (Gardasil, Cervarix) were approved for the prevention of HPV, there has been controversy. Despite the ongoing reports of the vaccine’s success in lowering cervical cancer rates, many parents still feel that it puts their children at risk.
A 2012 study – a systematic review of parents’ knowledge of HPV – showed a decline from 2001 to 2011, with a rise in parents’ safety concerns, and fewer parents opting to have their children vaccinated (Obstet Gynecol Int. 2012. doi: 10.1155/2012/921236).
Several studies have shown the overwhelming decline in cervical cancer that is directly related to the implementation of the HPV vaccines. But there has been growing concern, as postural orthostatic hypotension (POTS), complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS), and sudden death have been cited as side effects of theses vaccines. POTS and CRPS have been in the headlines recently, since a report came out linking the vaccine to these syndromes. Although a review by the European Medicines Agency found that the evidence does not support the notion of the HPV vaccine causing POTS or CRPS, many groups still promote a ban of the vaccine.
In 2013, Japan withdrew its recommendation for administration of the HPV vaccine after reports that many girls had been seriously harmed by it, and now calls for follow-up for patients who believe they are having side effects. Researchers argue that the basis for this action is poorly founded, and that many young women are being deprived of a vaccine that would be protective. But just as many say that more investigation needs to be done before the recommendation can be reinstated, given the number of reports about women being seriously injured from the vaccine. The Japan Society of Obstetrics and Gynecology is pleading with the Japanese Health Ministry to commence recommending the HPV cancer-preventing vaccineonce again.
An Internet search of this topic shows there are several articles questioning the safety of the vaccine, and throughout the world, concerns are forcing more research to be done to ensure its safety. Although the research overwhelmingly shows that the risk-to-benefit ratio is in favor of the HPV vaccine, several sites are reporting injury.
In a study of 997,585 girls aged 10-17 years in Denmark and Sweden, among whom 296,826 received a total of 696,420 quadrivalent HPV vaccine doses, 1,043 (less than 1%) were found to have adverse reactions, compared with 11,944 (2%) of unvaccinated girls (BMJ 2013;347:f5906). Although some relationship between HPV vaccine and autoimmune disorders such as Behçet’s syndrome, Raynaud’s disease, and type 1 diabetes was apparent, no consistent evidence for a causal association was found.
“Analysis of data reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System revealed disproportionate reporting of venous thromboembolism,” noted Dr. Lisen Arnheim-Dahlström of the Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, lead author of the BMJ study, and associates. “A study by the Vaccine Safety Datalink, which involved eight outcomes, identified a nonsignificantly increased relative risk (1.98) of venous thromboembolism; medical record review could confirm five of the eight cases identified from databases using international classification of diseases codes, and all five had known risk factors for venous thromboembolism. In our analysis, based on 21 vaccine exposed cases, there was no significant association with venous thromboembolism within 90 days after exposure to [quadrivalent] HPV vaccine.”
These rising concerns are resulting in more parents declining the HPV vaccine, and more questions for the primary care physician to answer. Not only are parents alarmed, but so are the physicians who make the recommendations. Being aware of the most current research and reports for and against the vaccine’s use, and being able to discuss with the family the validity of this information, will help to dispel much of the anxiety.
Dr. Pearce is a pediatrician in Frankfort, Ill. To contact her, send email to pdnews@frontlinemedcom.com.
Stewardship at 3 a.m.
The 3-month-old infant presents to the emergency department with a fever of 101° F. The emergency physician decides the infant looks ill enough to warrant some investigation. A urinalysis indicates a urinary tract infection. I am consulted to complete the admission to the hospital. The question arises, “Is a lumbar puncture indicated to rule out meningitis?”
I’ve been down this pathway many times. For years I have relied on a meta-analysis which corrected the bias of an old article from 1972.1 Multiple studies in the 2000-2010 time frame have shown that the risk of concurrent meningitis in a young infant with a UTI is vanishingly small. It is much less than 2%, with many studies finding 0%. So on a typical day, my answer is no tap if there is no clinical suggestion of meningitis.
Hospital medicine has recently focused on reducing overdiagnosis and overtreatment. When you only occasionally admit patients to the hospital, untoward events appear random and uncommon. When you work there day in and day out, you appreciate that all medical interventions have risks and costs.
A recent editorial raised the question of stewardship in medicine.2 It asked why physicians would choose a very expensive drug when there is little evidence of its superiority over a much cheaper predecessor. Physicians, whose actions influence a $3 trillion industry, have not embraced stewardship as a major component of their professional responsibilities. The physician does have a fiduciary duty toward the patient. The physician recommends the best care possible to achieve the patient’s goals of care. Dentistry is distinctly different in this regard. Dentists often have several ways of repairing decayed teeth. Various types of fillings are available. Gold fillings are more expensive. Newer implants are several times more expensive than crowns. Dentists routinely adjust their treatment plan based on what the patient can afford.
While most other industries have market competition and profitability as incentives to avoid extravagance, U.S. health care seems unbridled by fiscal responsibility. The news that a small pharmaceutical company had raised the price of an old generic antibiotic by 5000%3 exposed the irrationality and capriciousness4 of the pricing of medications in the United States. Many politicians decried the behavior but to little effect. Most consumer products, especially computers, become more powerful and cheaper with each decade. Health care does not follow this pattern
There are many factors that influence physician behavior. Concerns about malpractice may bias physicians toward expensive overtreatment. Modern medical research is usually published expounding on the benefits of a new technology over a previous therapy without any acknowledgment that the newer and more expensive treatment may have a downside. This biases people to use the latest and greatest treatment even though it may have only demonstrated noninferiority in its trials.
I try to use evidence-based medicine when it is available. In the clinical case described earlier, I indicate to the emergency doctor that unless there is a clinical impression of coexisting meningitis, the lumbar puncture is not indicated. I cite the meta-analysis as I have many times before. But this night is different. I am simultaneously admitting a teenager whose gastrostomy tube had become dislodged and couldn’t be replaced. This neurologically devastated child had had meningitis as an infant. He is a stark reminder of the consequences of a missed diagnosis.
The parents of that child have provided him wonderful care. His skin is in excellent condition. His moderate contractures are testimony to dedicated stretching regimens at home. It is evident that the parents love the child as he is. But I am sure they would give anything to have avoided this scenario and to reverse the consequences of that meningitis. And so, the best evidence we have, that the risk of meningitis in an infant is low, is not as reassuring to me on this night. At 3 a.m., the juxtaposition of the two patients is unsettling. Is the risk low enough? Would that new test5, serum procalcitonin, help me to make a better decision? How certain must I be that an intervention is unnecessary?
Health care policy, economics, and practice guidelines can be debated with detached objectivity around a conference table in the middle of the day. The trepidation in an emergency room at 3 a.m. is different. This is my patient. I am his doctor. That is the heart of medical ethics.
Dr. Powell is a pediatric hospitalist and clinical ethics consultant living in St. Louis. Dr. Powell said he had no relevant financial disclosures or conflicts of interest. E-mail him at pdnews@frontlinemedcom.com.
References
1. “How common is co-existing meningitis in infants with urinary tract infection?” on Bestbets.org.
2. “Why do doctors choose a $2,000 cure when a $50 one is just as good?” by Andrew Lam, Washington Post, Dec. 10, 2015.
3. “Drug Goes From $13.50 a Tablet to $750, Overnight” by Andrew Pollack, New York Times, Sept. 20, 2015.
4. “How an $84,000 drug got its price: ‘Let’s hold our position … whatever the headlines’ ” by Carolyn Y. Johnson and Brady Dennis, Washington Post, Dec. 1, 2015.
5. JAMA Pediatr. Published online, 2015 Nov 23. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2015.3267.
The 3-month-old infant presents to the emergency department with a fever of 101° F. The emergency physician decides the infant looks ill enough to warrant some investigation. A urinalysis indicates a urinary tract infection. I am consulted to complete the admission to the hospital. The question arises, “Is a lumbar puncture indicated to rule out meningitis?”
I’ve been down this pathway many times. For years I have relied on a meta-analysis which corrected the bias of an old article from 1972.1 Multiple studies in the 2000-2010 time frame have shown that the risk of concurrent meningitis in a young infant with a UTI is vanishingly small. It is much less than 2%, with many studies finding 0%. So on a typical day, my answer is no tap if there is no clinical suggestion of meningitis.
Hospital medicine has recently focused on reducing overdiagnosis and overtreatment. When you only occasionally admit patients to the hospital, untoward events appear random and uncommon. When you work there day in and day out, you appreciate that all medical interventions have risks and costs.
A recent editorial raised the question of stewardship in medicine.2 It asked why physicians would choose a very expensive drug when there is little evidence of its superiority over a much cheaper predecessor. Physicians, whose actions influence a $3 trillion industry, have not embraced stewardship as a major component of their professional responsibilities. The physician does have a fiduciary duty toward the patient. The physician recommends the best care possible to achieve the patient’s goals of care. Dentistry is distinctly different in this regard. Dentists often have several ways of repairing decayed teeth. Various types of fillings are available. Gold fillings are more expensive. Newer implants are several times more expensive than crowns. Dentists routinely adjust their treatment plan based on what the patient can afford.
While most other industries have market competition and profitability as incentives to avoid extravagance, U.S. health care seems unbridled by fiscal responsibility. The news that a small pharmaceutical company had raised the price of an old generic antibiotic by 5000%3 exposed the irrationality and capriciousness4 of the pricing of medications in the United States. Many politicians decried the behavior but to little effect. Most consumer products, especially computers, become more powerful and cheaper with each decade. Health care does not follow this pattern
There are many factors that influence physician behavior. Concerns about malpractice may bias physicians toward expensive overtreatment. Modern medical research is usually published expounding on the benefits of a new technology over a previous therapy without any acknowledgment that the newer and more expensive treatment may have a downside. This biases people to use the latest and greatest treatment even though it may have only demonstrated noninferiority in its trials.
I try to use evidence-based medicine when it is available. In the clinical case described earlier, I indicate to the emergency doctor that unless there is a clinical impression of coexisting meningitis, the lumbar puncture is not indicated. I cite the meta-analysis as I have many times before. But this night is different. I am simultaneously admitting a teenager whose gastrostomy tube had become dislodged and couldn’t be replaced. This neurologically devastated child had had meningitis as an infant. He is a stark reminder of the consequences of a missed diagnosis.
The parents of that child have provided him wonderful care. His skin is in excellent condition. His moderate contractures are testimony to dedicated stretching regimens at home. It is evident that the parents love the child as he is. But I am sure they would give anything to have avoided this scenario and to reverse the consequences of that meningitis. And so, the best evidence we have, that the risk of meningitis in an infant is low, is not as reassuring to me on this night. At 3 a.m., the juxtaposition of the two patients is unsettling. Is the risk low enough? Would that new test5, serum procalcitonin, help me to make a better decision? How certain must I be that an intervention is unnecessary?
Health care policy, economics, and practice guidelines can be debated with detached objectivity around a conference table in the middle of the day. The trepidation in an emergency room at 3 a.m. is different. This is my patient. I am his doctor. That is the heart of medical ethics.
Dr. Powell is a pediatric hospitalist and clinical ethics consultant living in St. Louis. Dr. Powell said he had no relevant financial disclosures or conflicts of interest. E-mail him at pdnews@frontlinemedcom.com.
References
1. “How common is co-existing meningitis in infants with urinary tract infection?” on Bestbets.org.
2. “Why do doctors choose a $2,000 cure when a $50 one is just as good?” by Andrew Lam, Washington Post, Dec. 10, 2015.
3. “Drug Goes From $13.50 a Tablet to $750, Overnight” by Andrew Pollack, New York Times, Sept. 20, 2015.
4. “How an $84,000 drug got its price: ‘Let’s hold our position … whatever the headlines’ ” by Carolyn Y. Johnson and Brady Dennis, Washington Post, Dec. 1, 2015.
5. JAMA Pediatr. Published online, 2015 Nov 23. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2015.3267.
The 3-month-old infant presents to the emergency department with a fever of 101° F. The emergency physician decides the infant looks ill enough to warrant some investigation. A urinalysis indicates a urinary tract infection. I am consulted to complete the admission to the hospital. The question arises, “Is a lumbar puncture indicated to rule out meningitis?”
I’ve been down this pathway many times. For years I have relied on a meta-analysis which corrected the bias of an old article from 1972.1 Multiple studies in the 2000-2010 time frame have shown that the risk of concurrent meningitis in a young infant with a UTI is vanishingly small. It is much less than 2%, with many studies finding 0%. So on a typical day, my answer is no tap if there is no clinical suggestion of meningitis.
Hospital medicine has recently focused on reducing overdiagnosis and overtreatment. When you only occasionally admit patients to the hospital, untoward events appear random and uncommon. When you work there day in and day out, you appreciate that all medical interventions have risks and costs.
A recent editorial raised the question of stewardship in medicine.2 It asked why physicians would choose a very expensive drug when there is little evidence of its superiority over a much cheaper predecessor. Physicians, whose actions influence a $3 trillion industry, have not embraced stewardship as a major component of their professional responsibilities. The physician does have a fiduciary duty toward the patient. The physician recommends the best care possible to achieve the patient’s goals of care. Dentistry is distinctly different in this regard. Dentists often have several ways of repairing decayed teeth. Various types of fillings are available. Gold fillings are more expensive. Newer implants are several times more expensive than crowns. Dentists routinely adjust their treatment plan based on what the patient can afford.
While most other industries have market competition and profitability as incentives to avoid extravagance, U.S. health care seems unbridled by fiscal responsibility. The news that a small pharmaceutical company had raised the price of an old generic antibiotic by 5000%3 exposed the irrationality and capriciousness4 of the pricing of medications in the United States. Many politicians decried the behavior but to little effect. Most consumer products, especially computers, become more powerful and cheaper with each decade. Health care does not follow this pattern
There are many factors that influence physician behavior. Concerns about malpractice may bias physicians toward expensive overtreatment. Modern medical research is usually published expounding on the benefits of a new technology over a previous therapy without any acknowledgment that the newer and more expensive treatment may have a downside. This biases people to use the latest and greatest treatment even though it may have only demonstrated noninferiority in its trials.
I try to use evidence-based medicine when it is available. In the clinical case described earlier, I indicate to the emergency doctor that unless there is a clinical impression of coexisting meningitis, the lumbar puncture is not indicated. I cite the meta-analysis as I have many times before. But this night is different. I am simultaneously admitting a teenager whose gastrostomy tube had become dislodged and couldn’t be replaced. This neurologically devastated child had had meningitis as an infant. He is a stark reminder of the consequences of a missed diagnosis.
The parents of that child have provided him wonderful care. His skin is in excellent condition. His moderate contractures are testimony to dedicated stretching regimens at home. It is evident that the parents love the child as he is. But I am sure they would give anything to have avoided this scenario and to reverse the consequences of that meningitis. And so, the best evidence we have, that the risk of meningitis in an infant is low, is not as reassuring to me on this night. At 3 a.m., the juxtaposition of the two patients is unsettling. Is the risk low enough? Would that new test5, serum procalcitonin, help me to make a better decision? How certain must I be that an intervention is unnecessary?
Health care policy, economics, and practice guidelines can be debated with detached objectivity around a conference table in the middle of the day. The trepidation in an emergency room at 3 a.m. is different. This is my patient. I am his doctor. That is the heart of medical ethics.
Dr. Powell is a pediatric hospitalist and clinical ethics consultant living in St. Louis. Dr. Powell said he had no relevant financial disclosures or conflicts of interest. E-mail him at pdnews@frontlinemedcom.com.
References
1. “How common is co-existing meningitis in infants with urinary tract infection?” on Bestbets.org.
2. “Why do doctors choose a $2,000 cure when a $50 one is just as good?” by Andrew Lam, Washington Post, Dec. 10, 2015.
3. “Drug Goes From $13.50 a Tablet to $750, Overnight” by Andrew Pollack, New York Times, Sept. 20, 2015.
4. “How an $84,000 drug got its price: ‘Let’s hold our position … whatever the headlines’ ” by Carolyn Y. Johnson and Brady Dennis, Washington Post, Dec. 1, 2015.
5. JAMA Pediatr. Published online, 2015 Nov 23. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2015.3267.
Debunking marijuana myths for teens
The annual checkup has long provided an opportunity for early adolescents to learn about the risks of alcohol and drug use from a trusted source who may be less biased than parents, teachers, or police. Parents also turn to their child’s pediatrician for guidance on how to broach this important topic with their children, or they may come with concerns about their children’s use of drugs or alcohol.
Marijuana has become an increasingly complex topic, as its legal status has rapidly changed: It’s legal to purchase marijuana in four states (Alaska, Colorado, Oregon, and Washington, as well as the District of Columbia); it is decriminalized in 20 states and the District of Columbia for certain marijuana possession offenses; and it is legal to use medical marijuana in 23 states. As its legal status changes, attitudes about its use also have shifted, and its availability, form, and potency all have changed dramatically in just the past decade. Further, we ourselves may have mixed feelings about marijuana use based on our own experience as adolescents and sampling bias. We may have seen its low-level use and minimal effects in young or mature adults, or we may have seen substantial use of marijuana have a major deleterious impact on a friend or become a gateway drug for addiction to dangerous substances.
Before addressing marijuana use with adolescent patients and dealing with their potential skepticism concerning any harm, it is worth spending a little time looking in the mirror to consider your perspective on marijuana use and your response to disbelief.
According to the National Institute on Drug Abuse’s Monitoring the Future (MTF) survey, almost 12% of 8th graders, 27% of 10th graders, and 35% of 12th graders in the United States reported having used marijuana in the past year. Among the 12th graders in that 2014 survey, almost 20% were current users of marijuana and 6% were daily users. Many surveys, including the MTF, have demonstrated that attitudes of teenagers have shifted about marijuana’s dangerousness, with a steep and steady decline in the number of teenagers believing that regular marijuana use poses a risk to their health and well-being. In 2014, less than 40% of 12th graders in the MTF survey agreed that regular use of marijuana would pose a risk to their well-being, compared with a peak of almost 80% of 12th graders in the early 1990’s.
Pediatricians have an opportunity to change their patient’s thinking about marijuana. At the checkup when you routinely ask about alcohol and drug use, ask about marijuana use in particular. You might start by asking if they have heard their friends talking about marijuana? What have they heard? Are other kids using it? Have they ever seen anyone use it? Have their friends invited them to try? You should find out if they think it is safe or dangerous, and how it compares with cigarettes, alcohol, and other drugs on this score. Then you may be able to debunk some myths you hear from them.
Myth No. 1: Marijuana is medicine
Although 23 states allow the legal sale of marijuana for “medicinal purposes,” it is important to note that there are currently no Food and Drug Administration–approved indications for medical marijuana. There is modest evidence that the active compounds in marijuana (delta-9-tetra-hydrocannabinol [THC] and other cannabinoids) can be effective in the management of the muscle spasticity associated with multiple sclerosis, the treatment of nausea associated with chemotherapy, and increasing the appetite of patients with wasting due to AIDS, and there are FDA-approved synthetic cannabinoids that can be prescribed for these symptoms. It is also important to note that there is no evidence that THC or other cannabinoids are useful in the treatment of mood or anxiety symptoms, even though these are often used as reasons for seeking medicinal marijuana. Indeed, marijuana may cause or worsen several psychiatric problems.
Myth No. 2: Marijuana is safe
Although there is consensus that moderate marijuana use in adulthood poses only limited health risks (including the known risks of smoking), there is robust evidence that marijuana use during youth (through the early 20s) causes several serious and permanent effects on the developing brain. One 2012 study showed that for youth who are dependent on marijuana before they are 18 years, there is an 8-point drop in IQ in adulthood (Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2012 Oct 2;109[40]:E2657-64). This IQ drop persists even if they quit smoking, and does not occur for those who first become dependent on marijuana in adulthood. A 2015 study demonstrated that even for adolescents who are light smokers (one to two times weekly) with no evidence of marijuana dependence, there are significant abnormalities in the size and shape of their amygdala and nucleus accumbens, with associated changes in their motivation, decision making, attention, functional memory, and processing of emotions(J Neurosci. 2014 Apr 16;34[16]:5529-38). These abnormalities increase with increased frequency of use, and are not seen in those who begin smoking in adulthood (mid-20s and later).
Beyond these findings of cognitive deficits, evidence is growing that adolescent marijuana use is associated with several psychiatric illnesses, including depression and anxiety. There is especially strong evidence for a causal link between marijuana use and psychotic illnesses in (genetically) vulnerable young people. Any marijuana user can experience a brief psychotic reaction if the amount ingested or smoked is great enough, but for those young people who carry a specific variant of the gene for catechol-o-methyltransferase (COMT, an enzyme that degrades neurotransmitters), smoking marijuana in adolescence nearly triples their risk of developing schizophrenia in adulthood. For youth with a variant of the AKT gene (another enzyme affecting dopamine signaling in the brain), daily use of marijuana raises their risk of developing schizophrenia sevenfold. Clearly, marijuana can be the critical environmental trigger for schizophrenia in genetically vulnerable youth. Until we have a comprehensive knowledge of the relevant genes, and routinely check every patient’s complete genetic profile, it is reasonable to assume that any young person using marijuana is significantly increasing the risk of developing schizophrenia, a chronic and disabling condition.
Myth No. 3: Marijuana has no effect on driving
Marijuana intoxication significantly affects motor coordination, reaction time, and judgment, and multiple studies have demonstrated a direct relationship between blood THC concentration and impaired driving ability. A recent meta-analysis demonstrated that the risk of being in a car accident doubled after marijuana use (Drug Alcohol Depend. 2004 Feb 7;73[2]:109-19). These studies usually involved adults, and it is reasonable to assume that the risks may be more pronounced in adolescents, particularly ones who are new to driving or have other problems that could affect their attention or reaction time (such as attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder). Beyond letting patients know about the increased risks of accidents, it may be worth reminding them that driving while intoxicated – even with legal use marijuana – is a criminal offense.
Myth No. 4: Marijuana has no effect on schoolwork
Aside from the risks of causing long-term cognitive changes and psychiatric problems that can affect school performance, the direct effects of marijuana intoxication can linger and affect school performance well after its use. The “high” from marijuana typically lasts from 1 to 3 hours, but the drug’s effects on higher-level cognitive processes (mediated by the neocortex and hippocampus) can last for days. So a teenager who smokes on Saturday night may have lingering impairment of motivation, the ability to shift attention, the ability to learn complex tasks, and working memory. These are all critical cognitive abilities for learning, and can make studying on Sunday and performing well on a test on Monday much more difficult.
Myth No. 5: Marijuana is not addictive
Marijuana is addictive, with studies suggesting that nearly 9% of marijuana users will become addicted. Again, the risks are far greater for young people. Among people who begin using marijuana during adolescence, the rate of addiction climbs to 17%, and can be as high as 50% in daily users. Remember that addiction describes a pattern of continued use despite that use causing significant legal, social, or school and work problems. Users also may develop physical dependence, with a withdrawal syndrome that includes irritability, restlessness, insomnia, and appetite changes; these can last as long as 2 weeks.
Currently available forms of marijuana are much more potent than those that were studied and used in prior decades. On average, the potency of smoked marijuana has tripled, and there are concentrates (in oil form, for example) and hybrids with much higher potency still. More potent marijuana increases the high from even a small dose, and increases the likelihood of addiction and of other immediate and lingering complications of its use. So, parents who think they know what marijuana does to adolescents based on their own youthful experiences are significantly underestimating the risks.
When asking your patients explicitly about marijuana use, be curious and nonjudgmental, but also be frank and forthright about what is known about the risks associated with its use. Although the current legal and political changes around marijuana use may have given them the impression that marijuana use is safe, you want them to have the facts they need to make informed decisions. Even if you only discuss one of these myths with your patients, you will have equipped them with powerful information that they may use and share with their friends.
Dr. Swick is an attending psychiatrist in the division of child psychiatry at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and director of the Parenting at a Challenging Time (PACT) Program at the Vernon Cancer Center at Newton (Mass.) Wellesley Hospital. Dr. Jellinek is professor of psychiatry and of pediatrics at Harvard Medical School, Boston. Email them at pdnews@frontlinemedcom.com.
The annual checkup has long provided an opportunity for early adolescents to learn about the risks of alcohol and drug use from a trusted source who may be less biased than parents, teachers, or police. Parents also turn to their child’s pediatrician for guidance on how to broach this important topic with their children, or they may come with concerns about their children’s use of drugs or alcohol.
Marijuana has become an increasingly complex topic, as its legal status has rapidly changed: It’s legal to purchase marijuana in four states (Alaska, Colorado, Oregon, and Washington, as well as the District of Columbia); it is decriminalized in 20 states and the District of Columbia for certain marijuana possession offenses; and it is legal to use medical marijuana in 23 states. As its legal status changes, attitudes about its use also have shifted, and its availability, form, and potency all have changed dramatically in just the past decade. Further, we ourselves may have mixed feelings about marijuana use based on our own experience as adolescents and sampling bias. We may have seen its low-level use and minimal effects in young or mature adults, or we may have seen substantial use of marijuana have a major deleterious impact on a friend or become a gateway drug for addiction to dangerous substances.
Before addressing marijuana use with adolescent patients and dealing with their potential skepticism concerning any harm, it is worth spending a little time looking in the mirror to consider your perspective on marijuana use and your response to disbelief.
According to the National Institute on Drug Abuse’s Monitoring the Future (MTF) survey, almost 12% of 8th graders, 27% of 10th graders, and 35% of 12th graders in the United States reported having used marijuana in the past year. Among the 12th graders in that 2014 survey, almost 20% were current users of marijuana and 6% were daily users. Many surveys, including the MTF, have demonstrated that attitudes of teenagers have shifted about marijuana’s dangerousness, with a steep and steady decline in the number of teenagers believing that regular marijuana use poses a risk to their health and well-being. In 2014, less than 40% of 12th graders in the MTF survey agreed that regular use of marijuana would pose a risk to their well-being, compared with a peak of almost 80% of 12th graders in the early 1990’s.
Pediatricians have an opportunity to change their patient’s thinking about marijuana. At the checkup when you routinely ask about alcohol and drug use, ask about marijuana use in particular. You might start by asking if they have heard their friends talking about marijuana? What have they heard? Are other kids using it? Have they ever seen anyone use it? Have their friends invited them to try? You should find out if they think it is safe or dangerous, and how it compares with cigarettes, alcohol, and other drugs on this score. Then you may be able to debunk some myths you hear from them.
Myth No. 1: Marijuana is medicine
Although 23 states allow the legal sale of marijuana for “medicinal purposes,” it is important to note that there are currently no Food and Drug Administration–approved indications for medical marijuana. There is modest evidence that the active compounds in marijuana (delta-9-tetra-hydrocannabinol [THC] and other cannabinoids) can be effective in the management of the muscle spasticity associated with multiple sclerosis, the treatment of nausea associated with chemotherapy, and increasing the appetite of patients with wasting due to AIDS, and there are FDA-approved synthetic cannabinoids that can be prescribed for these symptoms. It is also important to note that there is no evidence that THC or other cannabinoids are useful in the treatment of mood or anxiety symptoms, even though these are often used as reasons for seeking medicinal marijuana. Indeed, marijuana may cause or worsen several psychiatric problems.
Myth No. 2: Marijuana is safe
Although there is consensus that moderate marijuana use in adulthood poses only limited health risks (including the known risks of smoking), there is robust evidence that marijuana use during youth (through the early 20s) causes several serious and permanent effects on the developing brain. One 2012 study showed that for youth who are dependent on marijuana before they are 18 years, there is an 8-point drop in IQ in adulthood (Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2012 Oct 2;109[40]:E2657-64). This IQ drop persists even if they quit smoking, and does not occur for those who first become dependent on marijuana in adulthood. A 2015 study demonstrated that even for adolescents who are light smokers (one to two times weekly) with no evidence of marijuana dependence, there are significant abnormalities in the size and shape of their amygdala and nucleus accumbens, with associated changes in their motivation, decision making, attention, functional memory, and processing of emotions(J Neurosci. 2014 Apr 16;34[16]:5529-38). These abnormalities increase with increased frequency of use, and are not seen in those who begin smoking in adulthood (mid-20s and later).
Beyond these findings of cognitive deficits, evidence is growing that adolescent marijuana use is associated with several psychiatric illnesses, including depression and anxiety. There is especially strong evidence for a causal link between marijuana use and psychotic illnesses in (genetically) vulnerable young people. Any marijuana user can experience a brief psychotic reaction if the amount ingested or smoked is great enough, but for those young people who carry a specific variant of the gene for catechol-o-methyltransferase (COMT, an enzyme that degrades neurotransmitters), smoking marijuana in adolescence nearly triples their risk of developing schizophrenia in adulthood. For youth with a variant of the AKT gene (another enzyme affecting dopamine signaling in the brain), daily use of marijuana raises their risk of developing schizophrenia sevenfold. Clearly, marijuana can be the critical environmental trigger for schizophrenia in genetically vulnerable youth. Until we have a comprehensive knowledge of the relevant genes, and routinely check every patient’s complete genetic profile, it is reasonable to assume that any young person using marijuana is significantly increasing the risk of developing schizophrenia, a chronic and disabling condition.
Myth No. 3: Marijuana has no effect on driving
Marijuana intoxication significantly affects motor coordination, reaction time, and judgment, and multiple studies have demonstrated a direct relationship between blood THC concentration and impaired driving ability. A recent meta-analysis demonstrated that the risk of being in a car accident doubled after marijuana use (Drug Alcohol Depend. 2004 Feb 7;73[2]:109-19). These studies usually involved adults, and it is reasonable to assume that the risks may be more pronounced in adolescents, particularly ones who are new to driving or have other problems that could affect their attention or reaction time (such as attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder). Beyond letting patients know about the increased risks of accidents, it may be worth reminding them that driving while intoxicated – even with legal use marijuana – is a criminal offense.
Myth No. 4: Marijuana has no effect on schoolwork
Aside from the risks of causing long-term cognitive changes and psychiatric problems that can affect school performance, the direct effects of marijuana intoxication can linger and affect school performance well after its use. The “high” from marijuana typically lasts from 1 to 3 hours, but the drug’s effects on higher-level cognitive processes (mediated by the neocortex and hippocampus) can last for days. So a teenager who smokes on Saturday night may have lingering impairment of motivation, the ability to shift attention, the ability to learn complex tasks, and working memory. These are all critical cognitive abilities for learning, and can make studying on Sunday and performing well on a test on Monday much more difficult.
Myth No. 5: Marijuana is not addictive
Marijuana is addictive, with studies suggesting that nearly 9% of marijuana users will become addicted. Again, the risks are far greater for young people. Among people who begin using marijuana during adolescence, the rate of addiction climbs to 17%, and can be as high as 50% in daily users. Remember that addiction describes a pattern of continued use despite that use causing significant legal, social, or school and work problems. Users also may develop physical dependence, with a withdrawal syndrome that includes irritability, restlessness, insomnia, and appetite changes; these can last as long as 2 weeks.
Currently available forms of marijuana are much more potent than those that were studied and used in prior decades. On average, the potency of smoked marijuana has tripled, and there are concentrates (in oil form, for example) and hybrids with much higher potency still. More potent marijuana increases the high from even a small dose, and increases the likelihood of addiction and of other immediate and lingering complications of its use. So, parents who think they know what marijuana does to adolescents based on their own youthful experiences are significantly underestimating the risks.
When asking your patients explicitly about marijuana use, be curious and nonjudgmental, but also be frank and forthright about what is known about the risks associated with its use. Although the current legal and political changes around marijuana use may have given them the impression that marijuana use is safe, you want them to have the facts they need to make informed decisions. Even if you only discuss one of these myths with your patients, you will have equipped them with powerful information that they may use and share with their friends.
Dr. Swick is an attending psychiatrist in the division of child psychiatry at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and director of the Parenting at a Challenging Time (PACT) Program at the Vernon Cancer Center at Newton (Mass.) Wellesley Hospital. Dr. Jellinek is professor of psychiatry and of pediatrics at Harvard Medical School, Boston. Email them at pdnews@frontlinemedcom.com.
The annual checkup has long provided an opportunity for early adolescents to learn about the risks of alcohol and drug use from a trusted source who may be less biased than parents, teachers, or police. Parents also turn to their child’s pediatrician for guidance on how to broach this important topic with their children, or they may come with concerns about their children’s use of drugs or alcohol.
Marijuana has become an increasingly complex topic, as its legal status has rapidly changed: It’s legal to purchase marijuana in four states (Alaska, Colorado, Oregon, and Washington, as well as the District of Columbia); it is decriminalized in 20 states and the District of Columbia for certain marijuana possession offenses; and it is legal to use medical marijuana in 23 states. As its legal status changes, attitudes about its use also have shifted, and its availability, form, and potency all have changed dramatically in just the past decade. Further, we ourselves may have mixed feelings about marijuana use based on our own experience as adolescents and sampling bias. We may have seen its low-level use and minimal effects in young or mature adults, or we may have seen substantial use of marijuana have a major deleterious impact on a friend or become a gateway drug for addiction to dangerous substances.
Before addressing marijuana use with adolescent patients and dealing with their potential skepticism concerning any harm, it is worth spending a little time looking in the mirror to consider your perspective on marijuana use and your response to disbelief.
According to the National Institute on Drug Abuse’s Monitoring the Future (MTF) survey, almost 12% of 8th graders, 27% of 10th graders, and 35% of 12th graders in the United States reported having used marijuana in the past year. Among the 12th graders in that 2014 survey, almost 20% were current users of marijuana and 6% were daily users. Many surveys, including the MTF, have demonstrated that attitudes of teenagers have shifted about marijuana’s dangerousness, with a steep and steady decline in the number of teenagers believing that regular marijuana use poses a risk to their health and well-being. In 2014, less than 40% of 12th graders in the MTF survey agreed that regular use of marijuana would pose a risk to their well-being, compared with a peak of almost 80% of 12th graders in the early 1990’s.
Pediatricians have an opportunity to change their patient’s thinking about marijuana. At the checkup when you routinely ask about alcohol and drug use, ask about marijuana use in particular. You might start by asking if they have heard their friends talking about marijuana? What have they heard? Are other kids using it? Have they ever seen anyone use it? Have their friends invited them to try? You should find out if they think it is safe or dangerous, and how it compares with cigarettes, alcohol, and other drugs on this score. Then you may be able to debunk some myths you hear from them.
Myth No. 1: Marijuana is medicine
Although 23 states allow the legal sale of marijuana for “medicinal purposes,” it is important to note that there are currently no Food and Drug Administration–approved indications for medical marijuana. There is modest evidence that the active compounds in marijuana (delta-9-tetra-hydrocannabinol [THC] and other cannabinoids) can be effective in the management of the muscle spasticity associated with multiple sclerosis, the treatment of nausea associated with chemotherapy, and increasing the appetite of patients with wasting due to AIDS, and there are FDA-approved synthetic cannabinoids that can be prescribed for these symptoms. It is also important to note that there is no evidence that THC or other cannabinoids are useful in the treatment of mood or anxiety symptoms, even though these are often used as reasons for seeking medicinal marijuana. Indeed, marijuana may cause or worsen several psychiatric problems.
Myth No. 2: Marijuana is safe
Although there is consensus that moderate marijuana use in adulthood poses only limited health risks (including the known risks of smoking), there is robust evidence that marijuana use during youth (through the early 20s) causes several serious and permanent effects on the developing brain. One 2012 study showed that for youth who are dependent on marijuana before they are 18 years, there is an 8-point drop in IQ in adulthood (Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2012 Oct 2;109[40]:E2657-64). This IQ drop persists even if they quit smoking, and does not occur for those who first become dependent on marijuana in adulthood. A 2015 study demonstrated that even for adolescents who are light smokers (one to two times weekly) with no evidence of marijuana dependence, there are significant abnormalities in the size and shape of their amygdala and nucleus accumbens, with associated changes in their motivation, decision making, attention, functional memory, and processing of emotions(J Neurosci. 2014 Apr 16;34[16]:5529-38). These abnormalities increase with increased frequency of use, and are not seen in those who begin smoking in adulthood (mid-20s and later).
Beyond these findings of cognitive deficits, evidence is growing that adolescent marijuana use is associated with several psychiatric illnesses, including depression and anxiety. There is especially strong evidence for a causal link between marijuana use and psychotic illnesses in (genetically) vulnerable young people. Any marijuana user can experience a brief psychotic reaction if the amount ingested or smoked is great enough, but for those young people who carry a specific variant of the gene for catechol-o-methyltransferase (COMT, an enzyme that degrades neurotransmitters), smoking marijuana in adolescence nearly triples their risk of developing schizophrenia in adulthood. For youth with a variant of the AKT gene (another enzyme affecting dopamine signaling in the brain), daily use of marijuana raises their risk of developing schizophrenia sevenfold. Clearly, marijuana can be the critical environmental trigger for schizophrenia in genetically vulnerable youth. Until we have a comprehensive knowledge of the relevant genes, and routinely check every patient’s complete genetic profile, it is reasonable to assume that any young person using marijuana is significantly increasing the risk of developing schizophrenia, a chronic and disabling condition.
Myth No. 3: Marijuana has no effect on driving
Marijuana intoxication significantly affects motor coordination, reaction time, and judgment, and multiple studies have demonstrated a direct relationship between blood THC concentration and impaired driving ability. A recent meta-analysis demonstrated that the risk of being in a car accident doubled after marijuana use (Drug Alcohol Depend. 2004 Feb 7;73[2]:109-19). These studies usually involved adults, and it is reasonable to assume that the risks may be more pronounced in adolescents, particularly ones who are new to driving or have other problems that could affect their attention or reaction time (such as attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder). Beyond letting patients know about the increased risks of accidents, it may be worth reminding them that driving while intoxicated – even with legal use marijuana – is a criminal offense.
Myth No. 4: Marijuana has no effect on schoolwork
Aside from the risks of causing long-term cognitive changes and psychiatric problems that can affect school performance, the direct effects of marijuana intoxication can linger and affect school performance well after its use. The “high” from marijuana typically lasts from 1 to 3 hours, but the drug’s effects on higher-level cognitive processes (mediated by the neocortex and hippocampus) can last for days. So a teenager who smokes on Saturday night may have lingering impairment of motivation, the ability to shift attention, the ability to learn complex tasks, and working memory. These are all critical cognitive abilities for learning, and can make studying on Sunday and performing well on a test on Monday much more difficult.
Myth No. 5: Marijuana is not addictive
Marijuana is addictive, with studies suggesting that nearly 9% of marijuana users will become addicted. Again, the risks are far greater for young people. Among people who begin using marijuana during adolescence, the rate of addiction climbs to 17%, and can be as high as 50% in daily users. Remember that addiction describes a pattern of continued use despite that use causing significant legal, social, or school and work problems. Users also may develop physical dependence, with a withdrawal syndrome that includes irritability, restlessness, insomnia, and appetite changes; these can last as long as 2 weeks.
Currently available forms of marijuana are much more potent than those that were studied and used in prior decades. On average, the potency of smoked marijuana has tripled, and there are concentrates (in oil form, for example) and hybrids with much higher potency still. More potent marijuana increases the high from even a small dose, and increases the likelihood of addiction and of other immediate and lingering complications of its use. So, parents who think they know what marijuana does to adolescents based on their own youthful experiences are significantly underestimating the risks.
When asking your patients explicitly about marijuana use, be curious and nonjudgmental, but also be frank and forthright about what is known about the risks associated with its use. Although the current legal and political changes around marijuana use may have given them the impression that marijuana use is safe, you want them to have the facts they need to make informed decisions. Even if you only discuss one of these myths with your patients, you will have equipped them with powerful information that they may use and share with their friends.
Dr. Swick is an attending psychiatrist in the division of child psychiatry at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and director of the Parenting at a Challenging Time (PACT) Program at the Vernon Cancer Center at Newton (Mass.) Wellesley Hospital. Dr. Jellinek is professor of psychiatry and of pediatrics at Harvard Medical School, Boston. Email them at pdnews@frontlinemedcom.com.
Giant Bone Island of the Tibia in a Child
A bone island is a focus of normal cortical bone located within the medullary cavity. The vast majority of bone islands are small, measuring from 1 mm to 2 cm in size. They are found more frequently in adults than in children. The lesion can be virtually diagnosed on the basis of its characteristic clinical and imaging features. Differential diagnosis may be difficult when the lesion manifests itself uncharacteristically by being symptomatic, very large, and hot on bone scan.1-4
The term giant bone island has been used to describe a large lesion1 that measures more than 2 cm in any dimension.5 Giant bone islands have been described only in adults,1,5-15 and the longest bone island length reported is 10.5 cm.10 They are usually symptomatic and associated with increased radionuclide uptake on bone scintigraphy.14
The history and the clinical and imaging presentation of an even longer, symptomatic, and scintigraphically hot lesion in the tibial diaphysis of a 10-year-old boy is reported. The lesion further exhibited several atypical imaging features necessitating an open biopsy, which confirmed the diagnosis of a giant bone island. The pertinent differential diagnosis and the clinical and radiographic findings after 15-year follow-up are also presented and discussed. The patient provided written informed consent for print and electronic publication of this case report.
Case Report
A 10-year-old boy was admitted for surgical repair of an inguinal hernia. Physical examination revealed a painless but tender anterior bowing of the right tibial diaphysis. The patient was a healthy-appearing white male with normal vital signs, gait, and posture. His parents noticed a slight protuberance of the tibia at age 2.5 years. No medical advice was asked for the bone swelling after that time. After recovery from the inguinal hernia repair 3 weeks later, the bone lesion was thoroughly examined. Radiographs showed an oblong, homogenous region of dense sclerosis in the diaphysis of the right tibia. The lesion had relatively well-defined margins and was located in the medullary cavity. Speculations were not obvious in the periphery of the lesion, which exhibited a sharp circumscription (Figures 1A, 1B). A well-defined lytic area was evident at the distal part of the lesion (Figure 1B). There was no periosteal reaction. Blood and serum chemistries were within normal limits, including serum calcium, phosphorus, and alkaline phosphatase. A conventional 3-phase bone scintigraphy (300 MBq) with technetium-99m HDP (hydroxydiphosphonate) indicated increased uptake in the area of the lesion but no other skeletal abnormality (Figure 2). Computed tomography (CT) showed that the lesion was purely intramedullary and densely blastic. The lesion originated from the medial cortex, which was thickened (Figure 3A). The lesion extended to the anterolateral cortex, which was thinned and included a lytic area. In the distal part of the lesion, the anterolateral cortex was thickened, included lytic areas, and exhibited an anterior portion of cortical destruction (Figure 3B). The fatty marrow adjacent to the region of sclerosis appeared normal. There was no evidence of extraosseous soft-tissue changes. On both T1- and T2-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), the lesion exhibited low-signal intensity. The lesion measured 10.8×2.2×1 cm. It originated from the medial cortical bone of the tibia, blended into the medullary cavity, and extended anteriorly towards and through the anterior cortex. The area of cortical destruction was clearly evident on the axial MRI. The periosteum was displaced and eroded anteriorly by focal radiating bony streaks. No enhancement was seen after the intravenous administration of gadolinium-diethylenetriamine pentaacetic acid (Gd-DTPA) as a contrast medium. There were no extraosseous soft-tissue changes. In the distal part of the lesion, sagittal and axial MRI showed a 1.2×0.8×0.7-cm well-defined ovoid focus, with characteristics of cystic degeneration that exhibited intermediate-signal intensity on T1-weighted MRI (Figure 4) and high-signal intensity on T2-weighted MRI.
An open biopsy was performed. Macroscopically, a wedge of compact bone measuring 3×1.7×0.6 cm was taken. Microscopic examination showed a thinned periphery of lamellar (mature) bone with haversian canals and, beneath it, woven (immature) bone with long-surface processes projecting within adjacent cancellous bone (Figure 5A). The woven bone contained loose vascular fibrous tissue. No osteoclasts were noted, and the very few osteoblasts lining the bone trabeculae were small, single-layered, and flat (Figure 5B). There was no evidence of neoplastic cells. There was no abnormality of the periosteum and the surrounding soft tissues.
The histology was pathognomonic of a giant bone island. No additional surgical intervention was recommended.
The postoperative course was uncomplicated, and the patient was discharged 2 weeks later. An above-the-knee plaster was recommended for 3 months and a below-the-knee splint for an additional 2-month period. Full weight-bearing was allowed only after the postsurgical sixth month to prevent an impending fracture. The tibial bowing was tender to pressure or palpation, and the patient reported mild spontaneous pain during follow-up. Radiographs 1 year after surgery indicated that the bone area removed for biopsy was replaced by compact bone. MRI performed 4 years after surgery showed that the volume of the lesion in relation to the host bone was not changed.
At the last follow-up 15 years after surgery, the anterior tibial bowing was not changed (Figure 6A), but the patient additionally complained of skin irritation after intense training wearing boots during military service. The radiographic appearance of the lesion was also not changed, while the periphery of the lesion exhibited scarce radiating bony streaks with rounded contours (Figures 6B, 6C). The clinical symptoms and signs from wearing military boots completely subsided after a couple of weeks’ rest from daily army activities, but the mild spontaneous pain and the local tenderness over the tibial bowing persisted.
Discussion
Giant bone islands are more likely to be associated with clinical symptoms than the usual small-sized bone island. Some degree of pain was detected in 8 of 10 patients with a giant bone island presented in the literature, but it was induced by trauma in 3 of them.14
Radiographic appearance is among the distinguishing diagnostic features of a giant bone island. It appears as an ovoid, round, or oblong, homogenously dense, single or multiple focus of sclerosis within the medullary cavity; it is oriented along the long axis of the host bone, and it exhibits peripheral pseudopodia or radiating spicules producing the typical “thorny” or “paintbrush” appearance.8,16,17 It does not exhibit cortical penetration and it is not associated with periosteal reaction.10
The CT findings include a sclerotic and hyperdense focus with spiculated margins extending into the adjacent cancellous bone. The lack of bone destruction and soft-tissue mass are also diagnostic.3,7 MRI findings will reflect the low-signal intensity characteristics of cortical bone on all pulse sequences.18
Enostoses usually exhibit no activity on skeletal scintigraphy, while giant lesions generally show increased radiotracer uptake.5,9-11,14,19-27 The latter may result from the increased amount of bone turnover, which is seen more often with larger lesions because of active bone deposition and remodeling.20,21,23,28 Histopathology of a giant bone island appears identical to the well-described pathologic appearance of smaller bone islands. The lesion is composed of compact lamellar bone and haversian systems, which blend with the adjacent spongiosa. The surrounding cancellous bone forms thorn-like trabeculae radiating from the lesion and merging with the cancellous bone.1,4,5,8,28
The presumptive diagnosis of a bone island is based on the clinical findings, imaging features, and follow-up examinations. An asymptomatic, isolated, sclerotic bone lesion showing the typical features of a bone island on plain radiography, CT, and MRI, whatever its size, that is nonactive on bone scan may be easily diagnosed. However, a symptomatic patient with a hot lesion on scintigraphy should be carefully observed. In addition, larger lesions may raise the suspicion of a neoplasm, such as a sclerotic variant of osteosarcoma. In such cases, an open biopsy may be undertaken. No specific treatment is required after the diagnosis has been confirmed. There is no literature to suggest that, after adequate biopsy confirmation, excision or resection is necessary. Follow-up radiographic examination of the lesion should be suggested to monitor for any potential growth.2,10,23
The first giant bone island appearing in a child is presented in this report. The lack of a causative factor leading to the anterior tibial bowing indicated that the bone deformity was caused primarily by the lesion. The present case is unusual for the appearance of several atypical features, some of which have not been previously described. Peripheral radiating spiculated margin was absent on the patient’s initial radiographs and CT imaging. MRI indicated only the presence of radiating bony streaks that displaced and eroded the periosteum on the anterior border of the lesion. The CT findings that the lesion likely originated or was in close proximity with the medial cortex of the tibia were also atypical. It has been previously reported that spinal lesions located immediately below the cortex tend to fuse with the endosteal surface, while similar features may also be seen in the appendicular enostoses.4,29 Other CT findings, such as the thinning of the overlying anterolateral cortical bone, as well as the cortical thickening at the periphery of the lesion associated with areas of soft-tissue attenuation and anterior cortical destruction, have not been described even in the atypical features of a giant bone island. The lytic area resembling a nidus that was evident at the distal part of the lesion was more likely consistent with an area of resorption, which, although rare, has been described on giant lesions.2,9,29 The substantial amount of woven bone transforming to lamellar bone that was evident in the present patient’s microscopic features is also an atypical finding, although it may be expected to some degree in scintigraphically hot, large lesions.28 The clinical and imaging progress of the lesion supported the diagnosis of a giant bone island. The degree of the anterior tibial bowing and the volume of the lesion in relation to the host bone were not changed throughout the follow-up period, indicating that the growth of the lesion followed the growth of the normal bone.
The differential diagnosis of a giant bone island includes a variety of benign tumors and tumor-like lesions, as well as malignant bone lesions.2,4,23,28,30,31 In the patient presented in this report, the diagnosis of an atypical sclerotic presentation of a nonossifying fibroma or healing stage of this lesion could be consistent with some of the CT findings, including the eccentric origin from the cortex associated with medial cortical thickening, the anterolateral cortical thinning, and the soft-tissue attenuation of cortical areas. In addition, unifocal osteofibrous dysplasia may also present with a long intracortical diaphyseal lucency within an area of marked cortical sclerosis and cause a bowing deformity. Both diagnoses were excluded, since no fibrous stroma was evident on the histologic examination of the lesion. A large or giant long-bone osteoma would be associated with the outer cortical margin of bone but would not involve the intramedullary space. The scintigraphically increased uptake of radioisotope, as well as the CT and MRI findings, were not consistent with the diagnosis of osteoid osteoma, osteoblastoma, or osteomyelitis. Although most imaging findings were consistent with a benign lesion, and contrast-enhanced MRI showed no increased vascularity, anterior cortical disruption necessitated a bone biopsy to rule out any potential malignancy.
The histopathology in association with the clinical and imaging findings indicated the diagnosis of a giant bone island. The increased proportion of maturing woven bone over lamellar bone indicated an active remodeling lesion that could be related to the patient’s age, since the clinical and radiographic features of the lesion were not changed after 15-year follow-up.
Conclusion
This is the first giant bone island diagnosed in a patient before puberty. Its greatest length was 10.8 cm, which is the longest reported in the literature. The imaging appearance included several atypical features that are very rare or have not been reported. Microscopic features indicated less mature lamellar bone and a prominent proportion of maturing woven bone. The clinical and the radiographic appearance of the lesion were not changed after 15-year follow-up.
1. Smith J. Giant bone islands. Radiology. 1973;7(1):35-36.
2. Mirra JM. Bone Tumors: Clinical, Radiologic and Pathologic Correlations. Philadelphia, PA: Lea & Febiger; 1989.
3. Greenspan A. Bone island (enostosis): current concept - a review. Skeletal Radiol. 1995;24(2):111-115.
4. Kransdorf MJ, Peterson JJ, Bancroft LW. MR imaging of the knee: incidental osseous lesions. Radiol Clin North Am. 2007;45(6):943-954.
5. Gold RH, Mirra JM, Remotti F, Pignatti G. Case report 527: Giant bone island of tibia. Skeletal Radiol. 1989;18(2):129-132.
6. Onitsuka H. Roentgenologic aspects of bone islands. Radiology. 1977;123(3):607-612.
7. Ehara S, Kattapuram SV, Rosenberg AE. Giant bone island. Computed tomography findings. Clin Imaging. 1989;13(3):231-233.
8. Greenspan A, Steiner G, Knutzon R. Bone island (enostosis): clinical significance and radiologic and pathologic correlations. Skeletal Radiol. 1991;20(2):85-90.
9. Avery GR, Wilsdon JB, Malcolm AJ. Giant bone island with some central resorption. Skeletal Radiol. 1995;24(1):59-60.
10. Brien EW, Mirra JM, Latanza L, Fedenko A, Luck J Jr. Giant bone island of femur. Case report, literature review, and its distinction from low grade osteosarcoma. Skeletal Radiol. 1995;24(7):546-550.
11. Greenspan A, Klein MJ. Giant bone island. Skeletal Radiol. 1996;25(1):67-69.
12. Trombetti A, Noël E. Giant bone islands: a case with 31 years of follow-up. Joint Bone Spine. 2002;69(1):81-84.
13. Dhaon BK, Gautam VK, Jain P, Jaiswal A, Nigam V. Giant bone island of femur complicating replacement arthroplasty: a report of two cases. J Surg Orthop Adv. 2004;13(4):220-223.
14. Park HS, Kim JR, Lee SY, Jang KY. Symptomatic giant (10-cm) bone island of the tibia. Skeletal Radiol. 2005;34(6):347-350.
15. Ikeuchi M, Komatsu M, Tani T. Giant bone island of femur with femoral head necrosis: a case report. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2010;130(4):447-450.
16. Kim SK, Barry WF Jr. Bone island. Am J Roentgenol Radium Ther Nucl Med. 1964;92:1301-1306.
17. Kim SK, Barry WF Jr. Bone islands. Radiology. 1968;90(1):77-78.
18. Cerase A, Priolo F. Skeletal benign bone-forming lesions. Eur J Radiol. 1998;27:S91–S97.
19. Go RT, El-Khoury GY, Wehbe MA. Radionuclide bone image in growing and stable bone island. Skeletal Radiol. 1980;5(1):15-18.
20. Hall FM, Goldberg RP, Davies JA, Fainsinger MH. Scintigraphic assessment of bone islands. Radiology. 1980;135(3):737-742.
21. Greenspan A, Stadalnik RC. Bone island: scintigraphic findings and their clinical application. Can Assoc Radiol J. 1995;46(5):368-379.
22. Sickles EA, Genant HK, Hoffer PB. Increased localization of 99mTc-pyrophosphate in a bone island: case report. J Nucl Med. 1976;17(2):113-115.
23. Dorfman HD, Czerniak B. Bone Tumors. St Louis: Mosby; 1998.
24. Ngan H. Growing bone islands. Clin Radiol. 1972;23(2):199-201.
25. Davies JA, Hall FM, Goldberg RP, Kasdon EJ. Positive bone scan in a bone island. Case report. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1979;61(6):943-945.
26. Simon K, Mulligan ME. Growing bone islands revisited. A case report. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1985;67(5):809-811.
27. Blank N, Lieber A. The significance of growing bone islands. Radiology. 1965;85(3):508-511.
28. Greenspan A, Gernot J, Wolfgang R. Differential Diagnosis of Orthopaedic Oncology. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2007.
29. Kransdorf MJ, Murphey MD. Osseous tumors. In: Davies AM, Sundaram M, James SLJ, eds. Imaging of Bone Tumors and Tumor-Like Lesions. Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag; 2009.
30. Mödder B, Guhl B, Schaefer HE. Growing bone islands as differential diagnosis of osteoplastic metastases. Rontgenblatter. 1980;33(6):286-288.
31. Flechner RE, Mills SE. Atlas of Tumor Pathology: Tumors of the Bones and Joints. Washington, DC: Armed Forces Institute of Pathology; 1993.
A bone island is a focus of normal cortical bone located within the medullary cavity. The vast majority of bone islands are small, measuring from 1 mm to 2 cm in size. They are found more frequently in adults than in children. The lesion can be virtually diagnosed on the basis of its characteristic clinical and imaging features. Differential diagnosis may be difficult when the lesion manifests itself uncharacteristically by being symptomatic, very large, and hot on bone scan.1-4
The term giant bone island has been used to describe a large lesion1 that measures more than 2 cm in any dimension.5 Giant bone islands have been described only in adults,1,5-15 and the longest bone island length reported is 10.5 cm.10 They are usually symptomatic and associated with increased radionuclide uptake on bone scintigraphy.14
The history and the clinical and imaging presentation of an even longer, symptomatic, and scintigraphically hot lesion in the tibial diaphysis of a 10-year-old boy is reported. The lesion further exhibited several atypical imaging features necessitating an open biopsy, which confirmed the diagnosis of a giant bone island. The pertinent differential diagnosis and the clinical and radiographic findings after 15-year follow-up are also presented and discussed. The patient provided written informed consent for print and electronic publication of this case report.
Case Report
A 10-year-old boy was admitted for surgical repair of an inguinal hernia. Physical examination revealed a painless but tender anterior bowing of the right tibial diaphysis. The patient was a healthy-appearing white male with normal vital signs, gait, and posture. His parents noticed a slight protuberance of the tibia at age 2.5 years. No medical advice was asked for the bone swelling after that time. After recovery from the inguinal hernia repair 3 weeks later, the bone lesion was thoroughly examined. Radiographs showed an oblong, homogenous region of dense sclerosis in the diaphysis of the right tibia. The lesion had relatively well-defined margins and was located in the medullary cavity. Speculations were not obvious in the periphery of the lesion, which exhibited a sharp circumscription (Figures 1A, 1B). A well-defined lytic area was evident at the distal part of the lesion (Figure 1B). There was no periosteal reaction. Blood and serum chemistries were within normal limits, including serum calcium, phosphorus, and alkaline phosphatase. A conventional 3-phase bone scintigraphy (300 MBq) with technetium-99m HDP (hydroxydiphosphonate) indicated increased uptake in the area of the lesion but no other skeletal abnormality (Figure 2). Computed tomography (CT) showed that the lesion was purely intramedullary and densely blastic. The lesion originated from the medial cortex, which was thickened (Figure 3A). The lesion extended to the anterolateral cortex, which was thinned and included a lytic area. In the distal part of the lesion, the anterolateral cortex was thickened, included lytic areas, and exhibited an anterior portion of cortical destruction (Figure 3B). The fatty marrow adjacent to the region of sclerosis appeared normal. There was no evidence of extraosseous soft-tissue changes. On both T1- and T2-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), the lesion exhibited low-signal intensity. The lesion measured 10.8×2.2×1 cm. It originated from the medial cortical bone of the tibia, blended into the medullary cavity, and extended anteriorly towards and through the anterior cortex. The area of cortical destruction was clearly evident on the axial MRI. The periosteum was displaced and eroded anteriorly by focal radiating bony streaks. No enhancement was seen after the intravenous administration of gadolinium-diethylenetriamine pentaacetic acid (Gd-DTPA) as a contrast medium. There were no extraosseous soft-tissue changes. In the distal part of the lesion, sagittal and axial MRI showed a 1.2×0.8×0.7-cm well-defined ovoid focus, with characteristics of cystic degeneration that exhibited intermediate-signal intensity on T1-weighted MRI (Figure 4) and high-signal intensity on T2-weighted MRI.
An open biopsy was performed. Macroscopically, a wedge of compact bone measuring 3×1.7×0.6 cm was taken. Microscopic examination showed a thinned periphery of lamellar (mature) bone with haversian canals and, beneath it, woven (immature) bone with long-surface processes projecting within adjacent cancellous bone (Figure 5A). The woven bone contained loose vascular fibrous tissue. No osteoclasts were noted, and the very few osteoblasts lining the bone trabeculae were small, single-layered, and flat (Figure 5B). There was no evidence of neoplastic cells. There was no abnormality of the periosteum and the surrounding soft tissues.
The histology was pathognomonic of a giant bone island. No additional surgical intervention was recommended.
The postoperative course was uncomplicated, and the patient was discharged 2 weeks later. An above-the-knee plaster was recommended for 3 months and a below-the-knee splint for an additional 2-month period. Full weight-bearing was allowed only after the postsurgical sixth month to prevent an impending fracture. The tibial bowing was tender to pressure or palpation, and the patient reported mild spontaneous pain during follow-up. Radiographs 1 year after surgery indicated that the bone area removed for biopsy was replaced by compact bone. MRI performed 4 years after surgery showed that the volume of the lesion in relation to the host bone was not changed.
At the last follow-up 15 years after surgery, the anterior tibial bowing was not changed (Figure 6A), but the patient additionally complained of skin irritation after intense training wearing boots during military service. The radiographic appearance of the lesion was also not changed, while the periphery of the lesion exhibited scarce radiating bony streaks with rounded contours (Figures 6B, 6C). The clinical symptoms and signs from wearing military boots completely subsided after a couple of weeks’ rest from daily army activities, but the mild spontaneous pain and the local tenderness over the tibial bowing persisted.
Discussion
Giant bone islands are more likely to be associated with clinical symptoms than the usual small-sized bone island. Some degree of pain was detected in 8 of 10 patients with a giant bone island presented in the literature, but it was induced by trauma in 3 of them.14
Radiographic appearance is among the distinguishing diagnostic features of a giant bone island. It appears as an ovoid, round, or oblong, homogenously dense, single or multiple focus of sclerosis within the medullary cavity; it is oriented along the long axis of the host bone, and it exhibits peripheral pseudopodia or radiating spicules producing the typical “thorny” or “paintbrush” appearance.8,16,17 It does not exhibit cortical penetration and it is not associated with periosteal reaction.10
The CT findings include a sclerotic and hyperdense focus with spiculated margins extending into the adjacent cancellous bone. The lack of bone destruction and soft-tissue mass are also diagnostic.3,7 MRI findings will reflect the low-signal intensity characteristics of cortical bone on all pulse sequences.18
Enostoses usually exhibit no activity on skeletal scintigraphy, while giant lesions generally show increased radiotracer uptake.5,9-11,14,19-27 The latter may result from the increased amount of bone turnover, which is seen more often with larger lesions because of active bone deposition and remodeling.20,21,23,28 Histopathology of a giant bone island appears identical to the well-described pathologic appearance of smaller bone islands. The lesion is composed of compact lamellar bone and haversian systems, which blend with the adjacent spongiosa. The surrounding cancellous bone forms thorn-like trabeculae radiating from the lesion and merging with the cancellous bone.1,4,5,8,28
The presumptive diagnosis of a bone island is based on the clinical findings, imaging features, and follow-up examinations. An asymptomatic, isolated, sclerotic bone lesion showing the typical features of a bone island on plain radiography, CT, and MRI, whatever its size, that is nonactive on bone scan may be easily diagnosed. However, a symptomatic patient with a hot lesion on scintigraphy should be carefully observed. In addition, larger lesions may raise the suspicion of a neoplasm, such as a sclerotic variant of osteosarcoma. In such cases, an open biopsy may be undertaken. No specific treatment is required after the diagnosis has been confirmed. There is no literature to suggest that, after adequate biopsy confirmation, excision or resection is necessary. Follow-up radiographic examination of the lesion should be suggested to monitor for any potential growth.2,10,23
The first giant bone island appearing in a child is presented in this report. The lack of a causative factor leading to the anterior tibial bowing indicated that the bone deformity was caused primarily by the lesion. The present case is unusual for the appearance of several atypical features, some of which have not been previously described. Peripheral radiating spiculated margin was absent on the patient’s initial radiographs and CT imaging. MRI indicated only the presence of radiating bony streaks that displaced and eroded the periosteum on the anterior border of the lesion. The CT findings that the lesion likely originated or was in close proximity with the medial cortex of the tibia were also atypical. It has been previously reported that spinal lesions located immediately below the cortex tend to fuse with the endosteal surface, while similar features may also be seen in the appendicular enostoses.4,29 Other CT findings, such as the thinning of the overlying anterolateral cortical bone, as well as the cortical thickening at the periphery of the lesion associated with areas of soft-tissue attenuation and anterior cortical destruction, have not been described even in the atypical features of a giant bone island. The lytic area resembling a nidus that was evident at the distal part of the lesion was more likely consistent with an area of resorption, which, although rare, has been described on giant lesions.2,9,29 The substantial amount of woven bone transforming to lamellar bone that was evident in the present patient’s microscopic features is also an atypical finding, although it may be expected to some degree in scintigraphically hot, large lesions.28 The clinical and imaging progress of the lesion supported the diagnosis of a giant bone island. The degree of the anterior tibial bowing and the volume of the lesion in relation to the host bone were not changed throughout the follow-up period, indicating that the growth of the lesion followed the growth of the normal bone.
The differential diagnosis of a giant bone island includes a variety of benign tumors and tumor-like lesions, as well as malignant bone lesions.2,4,23,28,30,31 In the patient presented in this report, the diagnosis of an atypical sclerotic presentation of a nonossifying fibroma or healing stage of this lesion could be consistent with some of the CT findings, including the eccentric origin from the cortex associated with medial cortical thickening, the anterolateral cortical thinning, and the soft-tissue attenuation of cortical areas. In addition, unifocal osteofibrous dysplasia may also present with a long intracortical diaphyseal lucency within an area of marked cortical sclerosis and cause a bowing deformity. Both diagnoses were excluded, since no fibrous stroma was evident on the histologic examination of the lesion. A large or giant long-bone osteoma would be associated with the outer cortical margin of bone but would not involve the intramedullary space. The scintigraphically increased uptake of radioisotope, as well as the CT and MRI findings, were not consistent with the diagnosis of osteoid osteoma, osteoblastoma, or osteomyelitis. Although most imaging findings were consistent with a benign lesion, and contrast-enhanced MRI showed no increased vascularity, anterior cortical disruption necessitated a bone biopsy to rule out any potential malignancy.
The histopathology in association with the clinical and imaging findings indicated the diagnosis of a giant bone island. The increased proportion of maturing woven bone over lamellar bone indicated an active remodeling lesion that could be related to the patient’s age, since the clinical and radiographic features of the lesion were not changed after 15-year follow-up.
Conclusion
This is the first giant bone island diagnosed in a patient before puberty. Its greatest length was 10.8 cm, which is the longest reported in the literature. The imaging appearance included several atypical features that are very rare or have not been reported. Microscopic features indicated less mature lamellar bone and a prominent proportion of maturing woven bone. The clinical and the radiographic appearance of the lesion were not changed after 15-year follow-up.
A bone island is a focus of normal cortical bone located within the medullary cavity. The vast majority of bone islands are small, measuring from 1 mm to 2 cm in size. They are found more frequently in adults than in children. The lesion can be virtually diagnosed on the basis of its characteristic clinical and imaging features. Differential diagnosis may be difficult when the lesion manifests itself uncharacteristically by being symptomatic, very large, and hot on bone scan.1-4
The term giant bone island has been used to describe a large lesion1 that measures more than 2 cm in any dimension.5 Giant bone islands have been described only in adults,1,5-15 and the longest bone island length reported is 10.5 cm.10 They are usually symptomatic and associated with increased radionuclide uptake on bone scintigraphy.14
The history and the clinical and imaging presentation of an even longer, symptomatic, and scintigraphically hot lesion in the tibial diaphysis of a 10-year-old boy is reported. The lesion further exhibited several atypical imaging features necessitating an open biopsy, which confirmed the diagnosis of a giant bone island. The pertinent differential diagnosis and the clinical and radiographic findings after 15-year follow-up are also presented and discussed. The patient provided written informed consent for print and electronic publication of this case report.
Case Report
A 10-year-old boy was admitted for surgical repair of an inguinal hernia. Physical examination revealed a painless but tender anterior bowing of the right tibial diaphysis. The patient was a healthy-appearing white male with normal vital signs, gait, and posture. His parents noticed a slight protuberance of the tibia at age 2.5 years. No medical advice was asked for the bone swelling after that time. After recovery from the inguinal hernia repair 3 weeks later, the bone lesion was thoroughly examined. Radiographs showed an oblong, homogenous region of dense sclerosis in the diaphysis of the right tibia. The lesion had relatively well-defined margins and was located in the medullary cavity. Speculations were not obvious in the periphery of the lesion, which exhibited a sharp circumscription (Figures 1A, 1B). A well-defined lytic area was evident at the distal part of the lesion (Figure 1B). There was no periosteal reaction. Blood and serum chemistries were within normal limits, including serum calcium, phosphorus, and alkaline phosphatase. A conventional 3-phase bone scintigraphy (300 MBq) with technetium-99m HDP (hydroxydiphosphonate) indicated increased uptake in the area of the lesion but no other skeletal abnormality (Figure 2). Computed tomography (CT) showed that the lesion was purely intramedullary and densely blastic. The lesion originated from the medial cortex, which was thickened (Figure 3A). The lesion extended to the anterolateral cortex, which was thinned and included a lytic area. In the distal part of the lesion, the anterolateral cortex was thickened, included lytic areas, and exhibited an anterior portion of cortical destruction (Figure 3B). The fatty marrow adjacent to the region of sclerosis appeared normal. There was no evidence of extraosseous soft-tissue changes. On both T1- and T2-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), the lesion exhibited low-signal intensity. The lesion measured 10.8×2.2×1 cm. It originated from the medial cortical bone of the tibia, blended into the medullary cavity, and extended anteriorly towards and through the anterior cortex. The area of cortical destruction was clearly evident on the axial MRI. The periosteum was displaced and eroded anteriorly by focal radiating bony streaks. No enhancement was seen after the intravenous administration of gadolinium-diethylenetriamine pentaacetic acid (Gd-DTPA) as a contrast medium. There were no extraosseous soft-tissue changes. In the distal part of the lesion, sagittal and axial MRI showed a 1.2×0.8×0.7-cm well-defined ovoid focus, with characteristics of cystic degeneration that exhibited intermediate-signal intensity on T1-weighted MRI (Figure 4) and high-signal intensity on T2-weighted MRI.
An open biopsy was performed. Macroscopically, a wedge of compact bone measuring 3×1.7×0.6 cm was taken. Microscopic examination showed a thinned periphery of lamellar (mature) bone with haversian canals and, beneath it, woven (immature) bone with long-surface processes projecting within adjacent cancellous bone (Figure 5A). The woven bone contained loose vascular fibrous tissue. No osteoclasts were noted, and the very few osteoblasts lining the bone trabeculae were small, single-layered, and flat (Figure 5B). There was no evidence of neoplastic cells. There was no abnormality of the periosteum and the surrounding soft tissues.
The histology was pathognomonic of a giant bone island. No additional surgical intervention was recommended.
The postoperative course was uncomplicated, and the patient was discharged 2 weeks later. An above-the-knee plaster was recommended for 3 months and a below-the-knee splint for an additional 2-month period. Full weight-bearing was allowed only after the postsurgical sixth month to prevent an impending fracture. The tibial bowing was tender to pressure or palpation, and the patient reported mild spontaneous pain during follow-up. Radiographs 1 year after surgery indicated that the bone area removed for biopsy was replaced by compact bone. MRI performed 4 years after surgery showed that the volume of the lesion in relation to the host bone was not changed.
At the last follow-up 15 years after surgery, the anterior tibial bowing was not changed (Figure 6A), but the patient additionally complained of skin irritation after intense training wearing boots during military service. The radiographic appearance of the lesion was also not changed, while the periphery of the lesion exhibited scarce radiating bony streaks with rounded contours (Figures 6B, 6C). The clinical symptoms and signs from wearing military boots completely subsided after a couple of weeks’ rest from daily army activities, but the mild spontaneous pain and the local tenderness over the tibial bowing persisted.
Discussion
Giant bone islands are more likely to be associated with clinical symptoms than the usual small-sized bone island. Some degree of pain was detected in 8 of 10 patients with a giant bone island presented in the literature, but it was induced by trauma in 3 of them.14
Radiographic appearance is among the distinguishing diagnostic features of a giant bone island. It appears as an ovoid, round, or oblong, homogenously dense, single or multiple focus of sclerosis within the medullary cavity; it is oriented along the long axis of the host bone, and it exhibits peripheral pseudopodia or radiating spicules producing the typical “thorny” or “paintbrush” appearance.8,16,17 It does not exhibit cortical penetration and it is not associated with periosteal reaction.10
The CT findings include a sclerotic and hyperdense focus with spiculated margins extending into the adjacent cancellous bone. The lack of bone destruction and soft-tissue mass are also diagnostic.3,7 MRI findings will reflect the low-signal intensity characteristics of cortical bone on all pulse sequences.18
Enostoses usually exhibit no activity on skeletal scintigraphy, while giant lesions generally show increased radiotracer uptake.5,9-11,14,19-27 The latter may result from the increased amount of bone turnover, which is seen more often with larger lesions because of active bone deposition and remodeling.20,21,23,28 Histopathology of a giant bone island appears identical to the well-described pathologic appearance of smaller bone islands. The lesion is composed of compact lamellar bone and haversian systems, which blend with the adjacent spongiosa. The surrounding cancellous bone forms thorn-like trabeculae radiating from the lesion and merging with the cancellous bone.1,4,5,8,28
The presumptive diagnosis of a bone island is based on the clinical findings, imaging features, and follow-up examinations. An asymptomatic, isolated, sclerotic bone lesion showing the typical features of a bone island on plain radiography, CT, and MRI, whatever its size, that is nonactive on bone scan may be easily diagnosed. However, a symptomatic patient with a hot lesion on scintigraphy should be carefully observed. In addition, larger lesions may raise the suspicion of a neoplasm, such as a sclerotic variant of osteosarcoma. In such cases, an open biopsy may be undertaken. No specific treatment is required after the diagnosis has been confirmed. There is no literature to suggest that, after adequate biopsy confirmation, excision or resection is necessary. Follow-up radiographic examination of the lesion should be suggested to monitor for any potential growth.2,10,23
The first giant bone island appearing in a child is presented in this report. The lack of a causative factor leading to the anterior tibial bowing indicated that the bone deformity was caused primarily by the lesion. The present case is unusual for the appearance of several atypical features, some of which have not been previously described. Peripheral radiating spiculated margin was absent on the patient’s initial radiographs and CT imaging. MRI indicated only the presence of radiating bony streaks that displaced and eroded the periosteum on the anterior border of the lesion. The CT findings that the lesion likely originated or was in close proximity with the medial cortex of the tibia were also atypical. It has been previously reported that spinal lesions located immediately below the cortex tend to fuse with the endosteal surface, while similar features may also be seen in the appendicular enostoses.4,29 Other CT findings, such as the thinning of the overlying anterolateral cortical bone, as well as the cortical thickening at the periphery of the lesion associated with areas of soft-tissue attenuation and anterior cortical destruction, have not been described even in the atypical features of a giant bone island. The lytic area resembling a nidus that was evident at the distal part of the lesion was more likely consistent with an area of resorption, which, although rare, has been described on giant lesions.2,9,29 The substantial amount of woven bone transforming to lamellar bone that was evident in the present patient’s microscopic features is also an atypical finding, although it may be expected to some degree in scintigraphically hot, large lesions.28 The clinical and imaging progress of the lesion supported the diagnosis of a giant bone island. The degree of the anterior tibial bowing and the volume of the lesion in relation to the host bone were not changed throughout the follow-up period, indicating that the growth of the lesion followed the growth of the normal bone.
The differential diagnosis of a giant bone island includes a variety of benign tumors and tumor-like lesions, as well as malignant bone lesions.2,4,23,28,30,31 In the patient presented in this report, the diagnosis of an atypical sclerotic presentation of a nonossifying fibroma or healing stage of this lesion could be consistent with some of the CT findings, including the eccentric origin from the cortex associated with medial cortical thickening, the anterolateral cortical thinning, and the soft-tissue attenuation of cortical areas. In addition, unifocal osteofibrous dysplasia may also present with a long intracortical diaphyseal lucency within an area of marked cortical sclerosis and cause a bowing deformity. Both diagnoses were excluded, since no fibrous stroma was evident on the histologic examination of the lesion. A large or giant long-bone osteoma would be associated with the outer cortical margin of bone but would not involve the intramedullary space. The scintigraphically increased uptake of radioisotope, as well as the CT and MRI findings, were not consistent with the diagnosis of osteoid osteoma, osteoblastoma, or osteomyelitis. Although most imaging findings were consistent with a benign lesion, and contrast-enhanced MRI showed no increased vascularity, anterior cortical disruption necessitated a bone biopsy to rule out any potential malignancy.
The histopathology in association with the clinical and imaging findings indicated the diagnosis of a giant bone island. The increased proportion of maturing woven bone over lamellar bone indicated an active remodeling lesion that could be related to the patient’s age, since the clinical and radiographic features of the lesion were not changed after 15-year follow-up.
Conclusion
This is the first giant bone island diagnosed in a patient before puberty. Its greatest length was 10.8 cm, which is the longest reported in the literature. The imaging appearance included several atypical features that are very rare or have not been reported. Microscopic features indicated less mature lamellar bone and a prominent proportion of maturing woven bone. The clinical and the radiographic appearance of the lesion were not changed after 15-year follow-up.
1. Smith J. Giant bone islands. Radiology. 1973;7(1):35-36.
2. Mirra JM. Bone Tumors: Clinical, Radiologic and Pathologic Correlations. Philadelphia, PA: Lea & Febiger; 1989.
3. Greenspan A. Bone island (enostosis): current concept - a review. Skeletal Radiol. 1995;24(2):111-115.
4. Kransdorf MJ, Peterson JJ, Bancroft LW. MR imaging of the knee: incidental osseous lesions. Radiol Clin North Am. 2007;45(6):943-954.
5. Gold RH, Mirra JM, Remotti F, Pignatti G. Case report 527: Giant bone island of tibia. Skeletal Radiol. 1989;18(2):129-132.
6. Onitsuka H. Roentgenologic aspects of bone islands. Radiology. 1977;123(3):607-612.
7. Ehara S, Kattapuram SV, Rosenberg AE. Giant bone island. Computed tomography findings. Clin Imaging. 1989;13(3):231-233.
8. Greenspan A, Steiner G, Knutzon R. Bone island (enostosis): clinical significance and radiologic and pathologic correlations. Skeletal Radiol. 1991;20(2):85-90.
9. Avery GR, Wilsdon JB, Malcolm AJ. Giant bone island with some central resorption. Skeletal Radiol. 1995;24(1):59-60.
10. Brien EW, Mirra JM, Latanza L, Fedenko A, Luck J Jr. Giant bone island of femur. Case report, literature review, and its distinction from low grade osteosarcoma. Skeletal Radiol. 1995;24(7):546-550.
11. Greenspan A, Klein MJ. Giant bone island. Skeletal Radiol. 1996;25(1):67-69.
12. Trombetti A, Noël E. Giant bone islands: a case with 31 years of follow-up. Joint Bone Spine. 2002;69(1):81-84.
13. Dhaon BK, Gautam VK, Jain P, Jaiswal A, Nigam V. Giant bone island of femur complicating replacement arthroplasty: a report of two cases. J Surg Orthop Adv. 2004;13(4):220-223.
14. Park HS, Kim JR, Lee SY, Jang KY. Symptomatic giant (10-cm) bone island of the tibia. Skeletal Radiol. 2005;34(6):347-350.
15. Ikeuchi M, Komatsu M, Tani T. Giant bone island of femur with femoral head necrosis: a case report. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2010;130(4):447-450.
16. Kim SK, Barry WF Jr. Bone island. Am J Roentgenol Radium Ther Nucl Med. 1964;92:1301-1306.
17. Kim SK, Barry WF Jr. Bone islands. Radiology. 1968;90(1):77-78.
18. Cerase A, Priolo F. Skeletal benign bone-forming lesions. Eur J Radiol. 1998;27:S91–S97.
19. Go RT, El-Khoury GY, Wehbe MA. Radionuclide bone image in growing and stable bone island. Skeletal Radiol. 1980;5(1):15-18.
20. Hall FM, Goldberg RP, Davies JA, Fainsinger MH. Scintigraphic assessment of bone islands. Radiology. 1980;135(3):737-742.
21. Greenspan A, Stadalnik RC. Bone island: scintigraphic findings and their clinical application. Can Assoc Radiol J. 1995;46(5):368-379.
22. Sickles EA, Genant HK, Hoffer PB. Increased localization of 99mTc-pyrophosphate in a bone island: case report. J Nucl Med. 1976;17(2):113-115.
23. Dorfman HD, Czerniak B. Bone Tumors. St Louis: Mosby; 1998.
24. Ngan H. Growing bone islands. Clin Radiol. 1972;23(2):199-201.
25. Davies JA, Hall FM, Goldberg RP, Kasdon EJ. Positive bone scan in a bone island. Case report. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1979;61(6):943-945.
26. Simon K, Mulligan ME. Growing bone islands revisited. A case report. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1985;67(5):809-811.
27. Blank N, Lieber A. The significance of growing bone islands. Radiology. 1965;85(3):508-511.
28. Greenspan A, Gernot J, Wolfgang R. Differential Diagnosis of Orthopaedic Oncology. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2007.
29. Kransdorf MJ, Murphey MD. Osseous tumors. In: Davies AM, Sundaram M, James SLJ, eds. Imaging of Bone Tumors and Tumor-Like Lesions. Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag; 2009.
30. Mödder B, Guhl B, Schaefer HE. Growing bone islands as differential diagnosis of osteoplastic metastases. Rontgenblatter. 1980;33(6):286-288.
31. Flechner RE, Mills SE. Atlas of Tumor Pathology: Tumors of the Bones and Joints. Washington, DC: Armed Forces Institute of Pathology; 1993.
1. Smith J. Giant bone islands. Radiology. 1973;7(1):35-36.
2. Mirra JM. Bone Tumors: Clinical, Radiologic and Pathologic Correlations. Philadelphia, PA: Lea & Febiger; 1989.
3. Greenspan A. Bone island (enostosis): current concept - a review. Skeletal Radiol. 1995;24(2):111-115.
4. Kransdorf MJ, Peterson JJ, Bancroft LW. MR imaging of the knee: incidental osseous lesions. Radiol Clin North Am. 2007;45(6):943-954.
5. Gold RH, Mirra JM, Remotti F, Pignatti G. Case report 527: Giant bone island of tibia. Skeletal Radiol. 1989;18(2):129-132.
6. Onitsuka H. Roentgenologic aspects of bone islands. Radiology. 1977;123(3):607-612.
7. Ehara S, Kattapuram SV, Rosenberg AE. Giant bone island. Computed tomography findings. Clin Imaging. 1989;13(3):231-233.
8. Greenspan A, Steiner G, Knutzon R. Bone island (enostosis): clinical significance and radiologic and pathologic correlations. Skeletal Radiol. 1991;20(2):85-90.
9. Avery GR, Wilsdon JB, Malcolm AJ. Giant bone island with some central resorption. Skeletal Radiol. 1995;24(1):59-60.
10. Brien EW, Mirra JM, Latanza L, Fedenko A, Luck J Jr. Giant bone island of femur. Case report, literature review, and its distinction from low grade osteosarcoma. Skeletal Radiol. 1995;24(7):546-550.
11. Greenspan A, Klein MJ. Giant bone island. Skeletal Radiol. 1996;25(1):67-69.
12. Trombetti A, Noël E. Giant bone islands: a case with 31 years of follow-up. Joint Bone Spine. 2002;69(1):81-84.
13. Dhaon BK, Gautam VK, Jain P, Jaiswal A, Nigam V. Giant bone island of femur complicating replacement arthroplasty: a report of two cases. J Surg Orthop Adv. 2004;13(4):220-223.
14. Park HS, Kim JR, Lee SY, Jang KY. Symptomatic giant (10-cm) bone island of the tibia. Skeletal Radiol. 2005;34(6):347-350.
15. Ikeuchi M, Komatsu M, Tani T. Giant bone island of femur with femoral head necrosis: a case report. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2010;130(4):447-450.
16. Kim SK, Barry WF Jr. Bone island. Am J Roentgenol Radium Ther Nucl Med. 1964;92:1301-1306.
17. Kim SK, Barry WF Jr. Bone islands. Radiology. 1968;90(1):77-78.
18. Cerase A, Priolo F. Skeletal benign bone-forming lesions. Eur J Radiol. 1998;27:S91–S97.
19. Go RT, El-Khoury GY, Wehbe MA. Radionuclide bone image in growing and stable bone island. Skeletal Radiol. 1980;5(1):15-18.
20. Hall FM, Goldberg RP, Davies JA, Fainsinger MH. Scintigraphic assessment of bone islands. Radiology. 1980;135(3):737-742.
21. Greenspan A, Stadalnik RC. Bone island: scintigraphic findings and their clinical application. Can Assoc Radiol J. 1995;46(5):368-379.
22. Sickles EA, Genant HK, Hoffer PB. Increased localization of 99mTc-pyrophosphate in a bone island: case report. J Nucl Med. 1976;17(2):113-115.
23. Dorfman HD, Czerniak B. Bone Tumors. St Louis: Mosby; 1998.
24. Ngan H. Growing bone islands. Clin Radiol. 1972;23(2):199-201.
25. Davies JA, Hall FM, Goldberg RP, Kasdon EJ. Positive bone scan in a bone island. Case report. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1979;61(6):943-945.
26. Simon K, Mulligan ME. Growing bone islands revisited. A case report. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1985;67(5):809-811.
27. Blank N, Lieber A. The significance of growing bone islands. Radiology. 1965;85(3):508-511.
28. Greenspan A, Gernot J, Wolfgang R. Differential Diagnosis of Orthopaedic Oncology. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2007.
29. Kransdorf MJ, Murphey MD. Osseous tumors. In: Davies AM, Sundaram M, James SLJ, eds. Imaging of Bone Tumors and Tumor-Like Lesions. Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag; 2009.
30. Mödder B, Guhl B, Schaefer HE. Growing bone islands as differential diagnosis of osteoplastic metastases. Rontgenblatter. 1980;33(6):286-288.
31. Flechner RE, Mills SE. Atlas of Tumor Pathology: Tumors of the Bones and Joints. Washington, DC: Armed Forces Institute of Pathology; 1993.