To understand which anthropometric diagnostic criteria best discriminate higher from lower risk of death in children and explore programme implications.

A multiple cohort individual data meta-analysis of mortality risk (within 6 months of measurement) by anthropometric case definitions. Sensitivity, specificity, informedness and inclusivity in predicting mortality, face validity and compatibility with current standards and practice were assessed and operational consequences were modelled.

Community-based cohort studies in twelve low-income countries between 1977 and 2013 in settings where treatment of wasting was not widespread.

Children aged 6 to 59 months.

Of the twelve anthropometric case definitions examined, four (weight-for-age Z-score (WAZ) <−2), (mid-upper arm circumference (MUAC) <125 mm), (MUAC < 115 mm or WAZ < −3) and (WAZ < −3) had the highest informedness in predicting mortality. A combined case definition (MUAC < 115 mm or WAZ < −3) was better at predicting deaths associated with weight-for-height Z-score <−3 and concurrent wasting and stunting (WaSt) than the single WAZ < −3 case definition. After the assessment of all criteria, the combined case definition performed best. The simulated workload for programmes admitting based on MUAC < 115 mm or WAZ < −3, when adjusted with a proxy for required intensity and/or duration of treatment, was 1·87 times larger than programmes admitting on MUAC < 115 mm alone.

A combined case definition detects nearly all deaths associated with severe anthropometric deficits suggesting that therapeutic feeding programmes may achieve higher impact (prevent mortality and improve coverage) by using it. There remain operational questions to examine further before wide-scale adoption can be recommended.

To compare the prognostic value of mid-upper arm circumference (MUAC), weight-for-height Z-score (WHZ) and weight-for-age Z-score (WAZ) for predicting death over periods of 1, 3 and 6 months follow-up in children.

Pooled analysis of twelve prospective studies examining survival after anthropometric assessment. Sensitivity and false-positive ratios to predict death within 1, 3 and 6 months were compared for three individual anthropometric indices and their combinations.

Community-based, prospective studies from twelve countries in Africa and Asia.

Children aged 6–59 months living in the study areas.

For all anthropometric indices, the receiver operating characteristic curves were higher for shorter than for longer durations of follow-up. Sensitivity was higher for death with 1-month follow-up compared with 6 months by 49 % (95 % CI (30, 69)) for MUAC < 115 mm (P < 0·001), 48 % (95 % CI (9·4, 87)) for WHZ < -3 (P < 0·01) and 28 % (95 % CI (7·6, 42)) for WAZ < -3 (P < 0·005). This was accompanied by an increase in false positives of only 3 % or less. For all durations of follow-up, WAZ < -3 identified more children who died and were not identified by WHZ < -3 or by MUAC < 115 mm, 120 mm or 125 mm, but the use of WAZ < -3 led to an increased false-positive ratio up to 16·4 % (95 % CI (12·0, 20·9)) compared with 3·5 % (95 % CI (0·4, 6·5)) for MUAC < 115 mm alone.

Frequent anthropometric measurements significantly improve the identification of malnourished children with a high risk of death without markedly increasing false positives. Combining two indices increases sensitivity but also increases false positives among children meeting case definitions.

How can psychiatrists best provide care in complex, sometimes overwhelming disasters? COVID-19 strained every aspect of health care to the breaking point, from finances to pharmaceutical supply lines. We can expect more challenges to prescribing in the future, as shown by recent hurricanes in Puerto Rico, fires in California, and ice storms in Texas. When medications become scarce or inaccessible, then clinicians need to make difficult prescribing decisions. We suggest that a culture of deprescribing, a systematic approach to reducing or simplifying medications, could be applied to a wide variety of crises. Deprescribing is defined as the planned reduction of medications to improve patient health or to reduce side effects (see deprescribing.org). It has been used to reduce polypharmacy in geriatric and other complex populations. It provides evidence-based guidance for phasing out many classes of medications. It is part of the larger program to reduce waste in health care and to make pharmacy more rational. Disasters and resource scarcity, however, require a different approach. In contrast to routine care focused on individual patients, crisis standards of care (CSC) shift the clinical focus to the community. Instead of deprescribing guidelines for individual clinicians, CSC deprescribing would be national policies addressing shortages of important medications. We did a scoping review looking for studies of deprescribing in a crisis.

We extracted 1340 references in Google Scholar 2016 to 2021 using (deprescribing) AND (disaster OR crisis OR climate OR pandemic OR supply lines ). A scan of texts found 160 references matching our criteria, and only 19 of them addressed deprescribing as a strategy to strengthen health systems or providers in an emergency. Most of those were related to scarce supplies during COVID, and a few addressed the carbon impact of medications. We also reviewed related literatures on medication supply chain vulnerabilities, WHO Essential Medicines, and healthcare rationing.

Deprescribing gained attention during the COVID pandemic, responding to both disrupted supply lines and improving patient safety. Writers concerned with climate change support deprescribing to reduce the carbon impact of medications. Deprescribing as crisis policy could help streamline national stockpiles, supply chains, and manufacturing. Education could make deprescribing second nature for clinicians, potentially decreasing stress and increasing flexibility in future emergencies. Barriers to deprescribing generally include cultural inertia, industry lobbyists, education, and malpractice fears. In a crisis, deprescribing guidelines could provide clinicians with confidence and flexibility while conserving scarce resources. Research is needed to evaluate deprescribing guidelines for crises, especially ensuring equity in how they reduce polypharmacy and save money.

No funding

How can psychiatrists best provide care in complex, sometimes overwhelming disasters? COVID-19 strained every aspect of health care to the breaking point, from finances to pharmaceutical supply lines. We can expect more challenges to prescribing in the future, as shown by recent hurricanes in Puerto Rico, fires in California, and ice storms in Texas. When medications become scarce or inaccessible, then clinicians need to make difficult prescribing decisions. We suggest that a culture of deprescribing, a systematic approach to reducing or simplifying medications, could be applied to a wide variety of crises. Deprescribing is defined as the planned reduction of medications to improve patient health or to reduce side effects (see deprescribing.org). It has been used to reduce polypharmacy in geriatric and other complex populations. It provides evidence-based guidance for phasing out many classes of medications. It is part of the larger program to reduce waste in health care and to make pharmacy more rational. Disasters and resource scarcity, however, require a different approach. In contrast to routine care focused on individual patients, crisis standards of care (CSC) shift the clinical focus to the community. Instead of deprescribing guidelines for individual clinicians, CSC deprescribing would be national policies addressing shortages of important medications. We did a scoping review looking for studies of deprescribing in a crisis.

We extracted 1340 references in Google Scholar 2016 to 2021 using (deprescribing) AND (disaster OR crisis OR climate OR pandemic OR supply lines). A scan of texts found 160 references matching our criteria, and only 19 of them addressed deprescribing as a strategy to strengthen health systems or providers in an emergency. Most of those were related to scarce supplies during COVID, and a few addressed the carbon impact of medications. We also reviewed related literatures on medication supply chain vulnerabilities, WHO Essential Medicines, and healthcare rationing.

Deprescribing gained attention during the COVID pandemic, responding to both disrupted supply lines and improving patient safety. Writers concerned with climate change support deprescribing to reduce the carbon impact of medications. Deprescribing as crisis policy could help streamline national stockpiles, supply chains, and manufacturing. Education could make deprescribing second nature for clinicians, potentially decreasing stress and increasing flexibility in future emergencies. Barriers to deprescribing generally include cultural inertia, industry lobbyists, education, and malpractice fears. In a crisis, deprescribing guidelines could provide clinicians with confidence and flexibility while conserving scarce resources. Research is needed to evaluate deprescribing guidelines for crises, especially ensuring equity in how they reduce polypharmacy and save money.

No funding

The COVID-19 crisis has severely stressed our healthcare system and pushed our economy to the brink. This long emergency will probably cause years of severe suffering in every region. Health expenses greatly increased, supply chains were disrupted, and governments coped with much less revenue. Good clinicians plan for ALL contingencies, and we need to consider that the current disaster may get much worse. How can we adapt psychiatry to a long emergency? This goes far beyond previous work on crisis standards of care because the emergency is severe, prolonged, and widespread. If we had to spend much less on psychotropics, which meds stay on the formulary? If we have to close hospitals, which patients get a bed? What adaptations could be used if demand exceeds the supply of providers? Very little is known about how to make severe, permanent cuts to healthcare. Our previous systematic review found no scholarship addressing the ethics of severe and prolonged healthcare rationing. Global catastrophes need a global health policy, but this one has no experts. The present study starts the project by surveying experts with related experience that could be useful in future plans.

We used purposive sampling to find 18 professionals with experience in healthcare rationing from underserved, indigenous communities, homeless programs, and African nations. We also interviewed ethicists, pharmacists, administrators, NGO clinicians, and military. Interviews were transcribed and coded using basic inductive techniques. Because so little is known about this topic, we used grounded theory, an iterative approach to guide further sampling, refine interviews, and make some preliminary conclusions.

Participants all agreed this crisis planning is extremely important and complex. They described diverse concerns regarding ethical decision making, with some having confidence with top-down government policy, and others recommending a grassroots approach. Minority participants had less confidence in government. There was no consensus on any best ethical framework. Most had confidence that clinicians will ultimately do the right thing. Native American leaders had confidence in a holistic, preventive approach. All agreed that social justice should be central in measuring economic impact of long emergencies and choosing ethical options. We collected suggestions for innovative approaches to rationing.

This research program illuminates the difficult ethical questions about adapting psychiatry to a prolonged, widespread, and severe emergency. Our interviews identify areas where severe but ethical cuts can be made in medications, hospitals, clinical staff, and administration. Next steps include evidence-based formularies, utilitarian staff cuts, and ethical standards for closing beds or revamping state hospitals. Underserved and diverse communities with rationing experience must have a voice in the discussion.

Recent investigations now suggest that cerebrovascular reactivity (CVR) is impaired in Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and may underpin part of the disease’s neurovascular component. However, our understanding of the relationship between the magnitude of CVR, the speed of cerebrovascular response, and the progression of AD is still limited. This is especially true in patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI), which is recognized as an intermediate stage between normal aging and dementia. The purpose of this study was to investigate AD and MCI patients by mapping repeatable and accurate measures of cerebrovascular function, namely the magnitude and speed of cerebrovascular response (τ) to a vasoactive stimulus in key predilection sites for vascular dysfunction in AD.

Thirty-three subjects (age range: 52–83 years, 20 males) were prospectively recruited. CVR and τ were assessed using blood oxygen level-dependent MRI during a standardized carbon dioxide stimulus. Temporal and parietal cortical regions of interest (ROIs) were generated from anatomical images using the FreeSurfer image analysis suite.

Of 33 subjects recruited, 3 individuals were excluded, leaving 30 subjects for analysis, consisting of 6 individuals with early AD, 11 individuals with MCI, and 13 older healthy controls (HCs). τ was found to be significantly higher in the AD group compared to the HC group in both the temporal (p = 0.03) and parietal cortex (p = 0.01) following a one-way ANCOVA correcting for age and microangiopathy scoring and a Bonferroni post-hoc correction.

The study findings suggest that AD is associated with a slowing of the cerebrovascular response in the temporal and parietal cortices.