Pediatric News

TOPLINE: 

Spironolactone may benefit women of childbearing age with mild hidradenitis suppurativa (HS), especially if initiated early, according to the results of a single-center retrospective study.

METHODOLOGY:

• This retrospective study included 157 women (median age, 36.5 years) with HS who received spironolactone for at least 3 months between 2000 and 2021 at Michigan Medicine outpatient dermatology clinics. The majority of patients were White (59%) or Black (37%) individuals.
• The median prescribed dose was 100 mg/d, the most common dose was 50-100 mg/d, and the median time spironolactone was initiated was 8.8 years after HS was diagnosed.
• Improvement status was classified on the basis of objective clinician assessments, including documented reductions in the lesion count, pain, and symptoms.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, 31 patients (20%) showed improvements with spironolactone treatment.
• A shorter duration between the diagnosis of HS and the initiation of spironolactone was associated with improvement (P = .047).
• Axillary involvement (P = .003), the use of intralesional steroids (P = .015), previous treatments (P = .023), and previous treatment failures (P = .030) were linked to a lack of improvement with spironolactone.
• Patients with Hurley stage III were 85% less likely to experience improvement with spironolactone (P = .036).

IN PRACTICE:

Spironolactone, which has antiandrogenic properties, “may be beneficial for patients with mild HS, notably those at Hurley stage I if implemented early as a primary or ancillary treatment,” the authors concluded, adding that prospective, multicenter studies are needed to “elucidate further the safety and efficacy of spironolactone for treating HS.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Suma V. Gangidi, BS, Carle Illinois College of Medicine, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, and was published online in the International Journal of Women’s Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

Retrospective design can introduce inherent biases, including the potential for missing or misclassified data. Additionally, the study was conducted at a single center, which may limit the generalizability, and findings were also limited by lack of standardized objective measures for assessing treatment improvement, presence of confounding variables from concomitant treatments, small sample size, and potential multicollinearity.

DISCLOSURES:

This study did not receive any funding. One author declared ties with various pharmaceutical companies. The other authors declared no conflicts of interest. 

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE: 

Spironolactone may benefit women of childbearing age with mild hidradenitis suppurativa (HS), especially if initiated early, according to the results of a single-center retrospective study.

METHODOLOGY:

• This retrospective study included 157 women (median age, 36.5 years) with HS who received spironolactone for at least 3 months between 2000 and 2021 at Michigan Medicine outpatient dermatology clinics. The majority of patients were White (59%) or Black (37%) individuals.
• The median prescribed dose was 100 mg/d, the most common dose was 50-100 mg/d, and the median time spironolactone was initiated was 8.8 years after HS was diagnosed.
• Improvement status was classified on the basis of objective clinician assessments, including documented reductions in the lesion count, pain, and symptoms.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, 31 patients (20%) showed improvements with spironolactone treatment.
• A shorter duration between the diagnosis of HS and the initiation of spironolactone was associated with improvement (P = .047).
• Axillary involvement (P = .003), the use of intralesional steroids (P = .015), previous treatments (P = .023), and previous treatment failures (P = .030) were linked to a lack of improvement with spironolactone.
• Patients with Hurley stage III were 85% less likely to experience improvement with spironolactone (P = .036).

IN PRACTICE:

Spironolactone, which has antiandrogenic properties, “may be beneficial for patients with mild HS, notably those at Hurley stage I if implemented early as a primary or ancillary treatment,” the authors concluded, adding that prospective, multicenter studies are needed to “elucidate further the safety and efficacy of spironolactone for treating HS.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Suma V. Gangidi, BS, Carle Illinois College of Medicine, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, and was published online in the International Journal of Women’s Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

Retrospective design can introduce inherent biases, including the potential for missing or misclassified data. Additionally, the study was conducted at a single center, which may limit the generalizability, and findings were also limited by lack of standardized objective measures for assessing treatment improvement, presence of confounding variables from concomitant treatments, small sample size, and potential multicollinearity.

DISCLOSURES:

This study did not receive any funding. One author declared ties with various pharmaceutical companies. The other authors declared no conflicts of interest. 

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE: 

Spironolactone may benefit women of childbearing age with mild hidradenitis suppurativa (HS), especially if initiated early, according to the results of a single-center retrospective study.

METHODOLOGY:

• This retrospective study included 157 women (median age, 36.5 years) with HS who received spironolactone for at least 3 months between 2000 and 2021 at Michigan Medicine outpatient dermatology clinics. The majority of patients were White (59%) or Black (37%) individuals.
• The median prescribed dose was 100 mg/d, the most common dose was 50-100 mg/d, and the median time spironolactone was initiated was 8.8 years after HS was diagnosed.
• Improvement status was classified on the basis of objective clinician assessments, including documented reductions in the lesion count, pain, and symptoms.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, 31 patients (20%) showed improvements with spironolactone treatment.
• A shorter duration between the diagnosis of HS and the initiation of spironolactone was associated with improvement (P = .047).
• Axillary involvement (P = .003), the use of intralesional steroids (P = .015), previous treatments (P = .023), and previous treatment failures (P = .030) were linked to a lack of improvement with spironolactone.
• Patients with Hurley stage III were 85% less likely to experience improvement with spironolactone (P = .036).

IN PRACTICE:

Spironolactone, which has antiandrogenic properties, “may be beneficial for patients with mild HS, notably those at Hurley stage I if implemented early as a primary or ancillary treatment,” the authors concluded, adding that prospective, multicenter studies are needed to “elucidate further the safety and efficacy of spironolactone for treating HS.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Suma V. Gangidi, BS, Carle Illinois College of Medicine, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, and was published online in the International Journal of Women’s Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

Retrospective design can introduce inherent biases, including the potential for missing or misclassified data. Additionally, the study was conducted at a single center, which may limit the generalizability, and findings were also limited by lack of standardized objective measures for assessing treatment improvement, presence of confounding variables from concomitant treatments, small sample size, and potential multicollinearity.

DISCLOSURES:

This study did not receive any funding. One author declared ties with various pharmaceutical companies. The other authors declared no conflicts of interest. 

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Dupilumab treatment significantly improved both hair regrowth and the severity of atopic dermatitis (AD) in pediatric patients who also had alopecia areata (AA) in a review. 

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a scoping review of seven studies, a result of a MEDLINE and Embase search on March 1, 2024, which included 31 patients aged 4-17 years with both AD and AA (average age, 11.4 years; 64.5% women).
• The review included four case reports, two case series, and one retrospective chart review.
• Patients had an average duration of AA and AD of 3.31 years and 5.33 years, respectively, before starting dupilumab.
• The type of AA was listed in 22 patients; among these patients, alopecia universalis was the most common (50%), followed by alopecia ophiasis (22.7%), patchy alopecia (18.2%), and alopecia totalis (9.09%).

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, 77.4% of patients in the trials achieved hair regrowth with dupilumab treatment with a mean 42.6 reduction in SALT score (measuring scalp hair loss on a scale of 0-100) over an average of 3.21 months (P < .01).
• Severity of AD was reduced by an average of 2.14 units to an average of 0.857 (clear or almost clear AD; P < .01) on the AD Investigator Global Assessment dropping from an average of 3 (severe disease) before treatment.
• There were no characteristics that significantly distinguished patients with AA who responded to treatment from those who did not.
• Four patients reported worsening of preexisting AA after starting dupilumab; two of these continued dupilumab and showed improvement at subsequent follow-ups.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our review highlights the efficacy of dupilumab in pediatric AA with concurrent AD,” wrote the authors, noting that “the exact mechanism for this efficacy remains speculative.” Although there have been reports of new or worsening AA with dupilumab, they added, its “favorable safety profile in pediatrics enhances its appeal for AA treatment, as monotherapy or in combination with other AA medications.” 

SOURCE:

The study was led by Dea Metko, Michael G. DeGroote School of Medicine in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. It was published online on July 4, 2024, in Pediatric Dermatology. 

LIMITATIONS:

Potential publication bias, inconsistent data reporting, the small number of patients, and short follow-up duration were the main limitations of this study.

DISCLOSURES:

The study funding source was not disclosed. One author received honoraria outside this work. Other authors declared no conflicts of interest.
 

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Dupilumab treatment significantly improved both hair regrowth and the severity of atopic dermatitis (AD) in pediatric patients who also had alopecia areata (AA) in a review. 

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a scoping review of seven studies, a result of a MEDLINE and Embase search on March 1, 2024, which included 31 patients aged 4-17 years with both AD and AA (average age, 11.4 years; 64.5% women).
• The review included four case reports, two case series, and one retrospective chart review.
• Patients had an average duration of AA and AD of 3.31 years and 5.33 years, respectively, before starting dupilumab.
• The type of AA was listed in 22 patients; among these patients, alopecia universalis was the most common (50%), followed by alopecia ophiasis (22.7%), patchy alopecia (18.2%), and alopecia totalis (9.09%).

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, 77.4% of patients in the trials achieved hair regrowth with dupilumab treatment with a mean 42.6 reduction in SALT score (measuring scalp hair loss on a scale of 0-100) over an average of 3.21 months (P < .01).
• Severity of AD was reduced by an average of 2.14 units to an average of 0.857 (clear or almost clear AD; P < .01) on the AD Investigator Global Assessment dropping from an average of 3 (severe disease) before treatment.
• There were no characteristics that significantly distinguished patients with AA who responded to treatment from those who did not.
• Four patients reported worsening of preexisting AA after starting dupilumab; two of these continued dupilumab and showed improvement at subsequent follow-ups.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our review highlights the efficacy of dupilumab in pediatric AA with concurrent AD,” wrote the authors, noting that “the exact mechanism for this efficacy remains speculative.” Although there have been reports of new or worsening AA with dupilumab, they added, its “favorable safety profile in pediatrics enhances its appeal for AA treatment, as monotherapy or in combination with other AA medications.” 

SOURCE:

The study was led by Dea Metko, Michael G. DeGroote School of Medicine in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. It was published online on July 4, 2024, in Pediatric Dermatology. 

LIMITATIONS:

Potential publication bias, inconsistent data reporting, the small number of patients, and short follow-up duration were the main limitations of this study.

DISCLOSURES:

The study funding source was not disclosed. One author received honoraria outside this work. Other authors declared no conflicts of interest.
 

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Dupilumab treatment significantly improved both hair regrowth and the severity of atopic dermatitis (AD) in pediatric patients who also had alopecia areata (AA) in a review. 

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a scoping review of seven studies, a result of a MEDLINE and Embase search on March 1, 2024, which included 31 patients aged 4-17 years with both AD and AA (average age, 11.4 years; 64.5% women).
• The review included four case reports, two case series, and one retrospective chart review.
• Patients had an average duration of AA and AD of 3.31 years and 5.33 years, respectively, before starting dupilumab.
• The type of AA was listed in 22 patients; among these patients, alopecia universalis was the most common (50%), followed by alopecia ophiasis (22.7%), patchy alopecia (18.2%), and alopecia totalis (9.09%).

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, 77.4% of patients in the trials achieved hair regrowth with dupilumab treatment with a mean 42.6 reduction in SALT score (measuring scalp hair loss on a scale of 0-100) over an average of 3.21 months (P < .01).
• Severity of AD was reduced by an average of 2.14 units to an average of 0.857 (clear or almost clear AD; P < .01) on the AD Investigator Global Assessment dropping from an average of 3 (severe disease) before treatment.
• There were no characteristics that significantly distinguished patients with AA who responded to treatment from those who did not.
• Four patients reported worsening of preexisting AA after starting dupilumab; two of these continued dupilumab and showed improvement at subsequent follow-ups.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our review highlights the efficacy of dupilumab in pediatric AA with concurrent AD,” wrote the authors, noting that “the exact mechanism for this efficacy remains speculative.” Although there have been reports of new or worsening AA with dupilumab, they added, its “favorable safety profile in pediatrics enhances its appeal for AA treatment, as monotherapy or in combination with other AA medications.” 

SOURCE:

The study was led by Dea Metko, Michael G. DeGroote School of Medicine in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. It was published online on July 4, 2024, in Pediatric Dermatology. 

LIMITATIONS:

Potential publication bias, inconsistent data reporting, the small number of patients, and short follow-up duration were the main limitations of this study.

DISCLOSURES:

The study funding source was not disclosed. One author received honoraria outside this work. Other authors declared no conflicts of interest.
 

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Seborrheic dermatitis affects an estimated 4% of the global population, with significant variations across age groups, settings, and regions, according to a meta-analysis that also found a higher prevalence in adults than in children.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a meta-analysis of 121 studies, which included 1,260,163 people with clinician-diagnosed seborrheic dermatitis.
• The included studies represented nine countries; most were from India (n = 18), Turkey (n = 13), and the United States (n = 8).
• The primary outcome was the pooled prevalence of seborrheic dermatitis.

TAKEAWAY:

• The overall pooled prevalence of seborrheic dermatitis was 4.38%, 4.08% in clinical settings, and 4.71% in the studies conducted in the general population.
• The prevalence of seborrheic dermatitis was higher among adults (5.64%) than in children (3.7%) and neonates (0.23%).
• A significant variation was observed across countries, with South Africa having the highest prevalence at 8.82%, followed by the United States at 5.86% and Turkey at 3.74%, while India had the lowest prevalence at 2.62%.

IN PRACTICE:

The global prevalence in this meta-analysis was “higher than previous large-scale global estimates, with notable geographic and sociodemographic variability, highlighting the potential impact of environmental factors and cultural practices,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Meredith Tyree Polaskey, MS, Chicago Medical School, Rosalind Franklin University of Medicine and Science, North Chicago, Illinois, and was published online on July 3, 2024, in the JAMA Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

Interpretation of the findings is limited by research gaps in Central Asia, much of Sub-Saharan Africa, Eastern Europe, Southeast Asia, Latin America (excluding Brazil), and the Caribbean, along with potential underreporting in regions with restricted healthcare access and significant heterogeneity across studies.

DISCLOSURES:

Funding information was not available. One author reported serving as an advisor, consultant, speaker, and/or investigator for multiple pharmaceutical companies, including AbbVie, Amgen, and Pfizer.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Seborrheic dermatitis affects an estimated 4% of the global population, with significant variations across age groups, settings, and regions, according to a meta-analysis that also found a higher prevalence in adults than in children.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a meta-analysis of 121 studies, which included 1,260,163 people with clinician-diagnosed seborrheic dermatitis.
• The included studies represented nine countries; most were from India (n = 18), Turkey (n = 13), and the United States (n = 8).
• The primary outcome was the pooled prevalence of seborrheic dermatitis.

TAKEAWAY:

• The overall pooled prevalence of seborrheic dermatitis was 4.38%, 4.08% in clinical settings, and 4.71% in the studies conducted in the general population.
• The prevalence of seborrheic dermatitis was higher among adults (5.64%) than in children (3.7%) and neonates (0.23%).
• A significant variation was observed across countries, with South Africa having the highest prevalence at 8.82%, followed by the United States at 5.86% and Turkey at 3.74%, while India had the lowest prevalence at 2.62%.

IN PRACTICE:

The global prevalence in this meta-analysis was “higher than previous large-scale global estimates, with notable geographic and sociodemographic variability, highlighting the potential impact of environmental factors and cultural practices,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Meredith Tyree Polaskey, MS, Chicago Medical School, Rosalind Franklin University of Medicine and Science, North Chicago, Illinois, and was published online on July 3, 2024, in the JAMA Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

Interpretation of the findings is limited by research gaps in Central Asia, much of Sub-Saharan Africa, Eastern Europe, Southeast Asia, Latin America (excluding Brazil), and the Caribbean, along with potential underreporting in regions with restricted healthcare access and significant heterogeneity across studies.

DISCLOSURES:

Funding information was not available. One author reported serving as an advisor, consultant, speaker, and/or investigator for multiple pharmaceutical companies, including AbbVie, Amgen, and Pfizer.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Seborrheic dermatitis affects an estimated 4% of the global population, with significant variations across age groups, settings, and regions, according to a meta-analysis that also found a higher prevalence in adults than in children.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a meta-analysis of 121 studies, which included 1,260,163 people with clinician-diagnosed seborrheic dermatitis.
• The included studies represented nine countries; most were from India (n = 18), Turkey (n = 13), and the United States (n = 8).
• The primary outcome was the pooled prevalence of seborrheic dermatitis.

TAKEAWAY:

• The overall pooled prevalence of seborrheic dermatitis was 4.38%, 4.08% in clinical settings, and 4.71% in the studies conducted in the general population.
• The prevalence of seborrheic dermatitis was higher among adults (5.64%) than in children (3.7%) and neonates (0.23%).
• A significant variation was observed across countries, with South Africa having the highest prevalence at 8.82%, followed by the United States at 5.86% and Turkey at 3.74%, while India had the lowest prevalence at 2.62%.

IN PRACTICE:

The global prevalence in this meta-analysis was “higher than previous large-scale global estimates, with notable geographic and sociodemographic variability, highlighting the potential impact of environmental factors and cultural practices,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Meredith Tyree Polaskey, MS, Chicago Medical School, Rosalind Franklin University of Medicine and Science, North Chicago, Illinois, and was published online on July 3, 2024, in the JAMA Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

Interpretation of the findings is limited by research gaps in Central Asia, much of Sub-Saharan Africa, Eastern Europe, Southeast Asia, Latin America (excluding Brazil), and the Caribbean, along with potential underreporting in regions with restricted healthcare access and significant heterogeneity across studies.

DISCLOSURES:

Funding information was not available. One author reported serving as an advisor, consultant, speaker, and/or investigator for multiple pharmaceutical companies, including AbbVie, Amgen, and Pfizer.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Full-term afebrile infants with pustules and vesicles have a low likelihood of life-threatening infections once herpes simplex virus (HSV) is ruled out, according to the findings from a retrospective study.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers reviewed the electronic medical records of infants aged ≤ 60 days who received a pediatric dermatology consultation at six US academic institutions between September 2013 and August 2019.
• Among 879 consults, 183 afebrile infants were identified as having presented with pustules, vesicles, and/or bullae.
• Infectious disease workups included blood cultures, urine cultures, lumbar punctures, and HSV testing using viral skin culture, direct immunofluorescence assay, and/or polymerase chain reaction.
• Patients were categorized by gestational age as preterm (< 37 weeks), full-term (37-42 weeks), and post-term (≥ 42 weeks).
• Overall, 67.8% of infants had pustules, 31.1% had vesicles, and 10.4% had bullae.

TAKEAWAY:

• None of the cases showed positive cerebrospinal fluid or pathogenic blood cultures. In 122 of the cases (66.6%), a noninfectious cause was diagnosed, and an infectious cause was diagnosed in 71 cases (38.8%; some patients had more than one diagnosis).
• Of the 127 newborns evaluated for HSV infection, nine (7.1%) tested positive, of whom seven (5.5%) had disease affecting the skin, eye, and mouth and were full- term infants, and two (1.6%) had disseminated HSV and were preterm infants.
• Angioinvasive fungal infection was diagnosed in five infants (2.7%), all of whom were preterm infants (< 28 weeks gestational age).
• The risk for life-threatening disease was higher in preterm infants born before 32 weeks of gestational age (P < .01) compared with those born after 32 weeks.

IN PRACTICE:

“Full-term, well-appearing, afebrile infants ≤ 60 days of age presenting with pustules or vesicles may not require full SBI [serious bacterial infection] work-up, although larger studies are needed,” the authors concluded. Testing for HSV, they added, “is recommended in all infants with vesicles, grouped pustules, or pustules accompanied by punched out or grouped erosions,” and preterm infants “should be assessed for disseminated fungal infection and HSV in the setting of fluid-filled skin lesions.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Sonora Yun, BA, Columbia University, New York City, and was published online in Pediatrics.

LIMITATIONS:

The data were limited by the sample size and very low incidence of serious infections. Infants probably had atypical or severe presentations that warranted pediatric dermatology consultation, which may have led to overrepresentation of infectious disease rates. The study inclusion was restricted to those who received a dermatology consult; therefore, the findings may not be generalizable to outpatient primary care.

DISCLOSURES:

This study did not receive any external funding. The authors declared that they had no relevant conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Full-term afebrile infants with pustules and vesicles have a low likelihood of life-threatening infections once herpes simplex virus (HSV) is ruled out, according to the findings from a retrospective study.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers reviewed the electronic medical records of infants aged ≤ 60 days who received a pediatric dermatology consultation at six US academic institutions between September 2013 and August 2019.
• Among 879 consults, 183 afebrile infants were identified as having presented with pustules, vesicles, and/or bullae.
• Infectious disease workups included blood cultures, urine cultures, lumbar punctures, and HSV testing using viral skin culture, direct immunofluorescence assay, and/or polymerase chain reaction.
• Patients were categorized by gestational age as preterm (< 37 weeks), full-term (37-42 weeks), and post-term (≥ 42 weeks).
• Overall, 67.8% of infants had pustules, 31.1% had vesicles, and 10.4% had bullae.

TAKEAWAY:

• None of the cases showed positive cerebrospinal fluid or pathogenic blood cultures. In 122 of the cases (66.6%), a noninfectious cause was diagnosed, and an infectious cause was diagnosed in 71 cases (38.8%; some patients had more than one diagnosis).
• Of the 127 newborns evaluated for HSV infection, nine (7.1%) tested positive, of whom seven (5.5%) had disease affecting the skin, eye, and mouth and were full- term infants, and two (1.6%) had disseminated HSV and were preterm infants.
• Angioinvasive fungal infection was diagnosed in five infants (2.7%), all of whom were preterm infants (< 28 weeks gestational age).
• The risk for life-threatening disease was higher in preterm infants born before 32 weeks of gestational age (P < .01) compared with those born after 32 weeks.

IN PRACTICE:

“Full-term, well-appearing, afebrile infants ≤ 60 days of age presenting with pustules or vesicles may not require full SBI [serious bacterial infection] work-up, although larger studies are needed,” the authors concluded. Testing for HSV, they added, “is recommended in all infants with vesicles, grouped pustules, or pustules accompanied by punched out or grouped erosions,” and preterm infants “should be assessed for disseminated fungal infection and HSV in the setting of fluid-filled skin lesions.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Sonora Yun, BA, Columbia University, New York City, and was published online in Pediatrics.

LIMITATIONS:

The data were limited by the sample size and very low incidence of serious infections. Infants probably had atypical or severe presentations that warranted pediatric dermatology consultation, which may have led to overrepresentation of infectious disease rates. The study inclusion was restricted to those who received a dermatology consult; therefore, the findings may not be generalizable to outpatient primary care.

DISCLOSURES:

This study did not receive any external funding. The authors declared that they had no relevant conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Full-term afebrile infants with pustules and vesicles have a low likelihood of life-threatening infections once herpes simplex virus (HSV) is ruled out, according to the findings from a retrospective study.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers reviewed the electronic medical records of infants aged ≤ 60 days who received a pediatric dermatology consultation at six US academic institutions between September 2013 and August 2019.
• Among 879 consults, 183 afebrile infants were identified as having presented with pustules, vesicles, and/or bullae.
• Infectious disease workups included blood cultures, urine cultures, lumbar punctures, and HSV testing using viral skin culture, direct immunofluorescence assay, and/or polymerase chain reaction.
• Patients were categorized by gestational age as preterm (< 37 weeks), full-term (37-42 weeks), and post-term (≥ 42 weeks).
• Overall, 67.8% of infants had pustules, 31.1% had vesicles, and 10.4% had bullae.

TAKEAWAY:

• None of the cases showed positive cerebrospinal fluid or pathogenic blood cultures. In 122 of the cases (66.6%), a noninfectious cause was diagnosed, and an infectious cause was diagnosed in 71 cases (38.8%; some patients had more than one diagnosis).
• Of the 127 newborns evaluated for HSV infection, nine (7.1%) tested positive, of whom seven (5.5%) had disease affecting the skin, eye, and mouth and were full- term infants, and two (1.6%) had disseminated HSV and were preterm infants.
• Angioinvasive fungal infection was diagnosed in five infants (2.7%), all of whom were preterm infants (< 28 weeks gestational age).
• The risk for life-threatening disease was higher in preterm infants born before 32 weeks of gestational age (P < .01) compared with those born after 32 weeks.

IN PRACTICE:

“Full-term, well-appearing, afebrile infants ≤ 60 days of age presenting with pustules or vesicles may not require full SBI [serious bacterial infection] work-up, although larger studies are needed,” the authors concluded. Testing for HSV, they added, “is recommended in all infants with vesicles, grouped pustules, or pustules accompanied by punched out or grouped erosions,” and preterm infants “should be assessed for disseminated fungal infection and HSV in the setting of fluid-filled skin lesions.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Sonora Yun, BA, Columbia University, New York City, and was published online in Pediatrics.

LIMITATIONS:

The data were limited by the sample size and very low incidence of serious infections. Infants probably had atypical or severe presentations that warranted pediatric dermatology consultation, which may have led to overrepresentation of infectious disease rates. The study inclusion was restricted to those who received a dermatology consult; therefore, the findings may not be generalizable to outpatient primary care.

DISCLOSURES:

This study did not receive any external funding. The authors declared that they had no relevant conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

On July 9, the Food and Drug Administration approved the supplemental new drug application for roflumilast cream 0.15% for the treatment of mild to moderate atopic dermatitis (AD) in adults and in pediatric patients aged 6 years or older.

Roflumilast cream 0.15%, which has been developed by Arcutis Biotherapeutics and is marketed under the brand name Zoryve, is a steroid-free topical phosphodiesterase-4 inhibitor that was previously approved in a higher concentration to treat seborrheic dermatitis and plaque psoriasis.

According to a press release from Arcutis, approval for AD was supported by positive results from three phase 3 studies, a phase 2 dose-ranging study, and two phase 1 pharmacokinetic trials. In two identical phase 3 studies known as INTEGUMENT-1 and INTEGUMENT-2, about 40% of children and adults treated with roflumilast cream 0.15% achieved a Validated Investigator Global Assessment for Atopic Dermatitis score of clear (0) or almost clear (1) at week 4 (INTEGUMENT-1: 41.5% vs 25.2%; P < .0001; INTEGUMENT-2: 39% vs 16.9%; P < .0001), with significant improvement as early as week 1 (P < .0001).

Among children and adults who participated in the INTEGUMENT studies for 28 and 56 weeks, 61.3% and 65.7% achieved a 75% reduction in their Eczema Area and Severity Index scores, respectively. According to the company, there were no adverse reactions in the combined phase 3 pivotal trials that occurred in more than 2.9% of participants in either arm. The most common adverse reactions included headache (2.9%), nausea (1.9%), application-site pain (1.5%), diarrhea (1.5%), and vomiting (1.5%).

The product is expected to be available commercially at the end of July 2024, according to Arcutis. Roflumilast cream 0.3% is indicated for topical treatment of plaque psoriasis, including intertriginous areas, in adult and pediatric patients aged 6 years or older; roflumilast foam 0.3% is indicated for the treatment of seborrheic dermatitis in adult and pediatric patients aged 9 years or older. 

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

On July 9, the Food and Drug Administration approved the supplemental new drug application for roflumilast cream 0.15% for the treatment of mild to moderate atopic dermatitis (AD) in adults and in pediatric patients aged 6 years or older.

Roflumilast cream 0.15%, which has been developed by Arcutis Biotherapeutics and is marketed under the brand name Zoryve, is a steroid-free topical phosphodiesterase-4 inhibitor that was previously approved in a higher concentration to treat seborrheic dermatitis and plaque psoriasis.

According to a press release from Arcutis, approval for AD was supported by positive results from three phase 3 studies, a phase 2 dose-ranging study, and two phase 1 pharmacokinetic trials. In two identical phase 3 studies known as INTEGUMENT-1 and INTEGUMENT-2, about 40% of children and adults treated with roflumilast cream 0.15% achieved a Validated Investigator Global Assessment for Atopic Dermatitis score of clear (0) or almost clear (1) at week 4 (INTEGUMENT-1: 41.5% vs 25.2%; P < .0001; INTEGUMENT-2: 39% vs 16.9%; P < .0001), with significant improvement as early as week 1 (P < .0001).

Among children and adults who participated in the INTEGUMENT studies for 28 and 56 weeks, 61.3% and 65.7% achieved a 75% reduction in their Eczema Area and Severity Index scores, respectively. According to the company, there were no adverse reactions in the combined phase 3 pivotal trials that occurred in more than 2.9% of participants in either arm. The most common adverse reactions included headache (2.9%), nausea (1.9%), application-site pain (1.5%), diarrhea (1.5%), and vomiting (1.5%).

The product is expected to be available commercially at the end of July 2024, according to Arcutis. Roflumilast cream 0.3% is indicated for topical treatment of plaque psoriasis, including intertriginous areas, in adult and pediatric patients aged 6 years or older; roflumilast foam 0.3% is indicated for the treatment of seborrheic dermatitis in adult and pediatric patients aged 9 years or older. 

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

On July 9, the Food and Drug Administration approved the supplemental new drug application for roflumilast cream 0.15% for the treatment of mild to moderate atopic dermatitis (AD) in adults and in pediatric patients aged 6 years or older.

Roflumilast cream 0.15%, which has been developed by Arcutis Biotherapeutics and is marketed under the brand name Zoryve, is a steroid-free topical phosphodiesterase-4 inhibitor that was previously approved in a higher concentration to treat seborrheic dermatitis and plaque psoriasis.

According to a press release from Arcutis, approval for AD was supported by positive results from three phase 3 studies, a phase 2 dose-ranging study, and two phase 1 pharmacokinetic trials. In two identical phase 3 studies known as INTEGUMENT-1 and INTEGUMENT-2, about 40% of children and adults treated with roflumilast cream 0.15% achieved a Validated Investigator Global Assessment for Atopic Dermatitis score of clear (0) or almost clear (1) at week 4 (INTEGUMENT-1: 41.5% vs 25.2%; P < .0001; INTEGUMENT-2: 39% vs 16.9%; P < .0001), with significant improvement as early as week 1 (P < .0001).

Among children and adults who participated in the INTEGUMENT studies for 28 and 56 weeks, 61.3% and 65.7% achieved a 75% reduction in their Eczema Area and Severity Index scores, respectively. According to the company, there were no adverse reactions in the combined phase 3 pivotal trials that occurred in more than 2.9% of participants in either arm. The most common adverse reactions included headache (2.9%), nausea (1.9%), application-site pain (1.5%), diarrhea (1.5%), and vomiting (1.5%).

The product is expected to be available commercially at the end of July 2024, according to Arcutis. Roflumilast cream 0.3% is indicated for topical treatment of plaque psoriasis, including intertriginous areas, in adult and pediatric patients aged 6 years or older; roflumilast foam 0.3% is indicated for the treatment of seborrheic dermatitis in adult and pediatric patients aged 9 years or older. 

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

One in five children (20.2%) who have an older sibling with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) are likely to be diagnosed with the disorder as well, according to a study published in Pediatrics.

When a baby had more than one older sibling with autism, the family recurrence rate rose to 36.9%, the study found.

The researchers, led by Sally Ozonoff, PhD, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences at University of California Davis Health in Sacramento, analyzed data from 1,605 infants who had an older sibling with ASD using data from the global Baby Siblings Research Consortium.

They calculated that the rate of autism recurrence is seven times higher in families who already have one autistic child than in the general population, which points to the importance of close developmental observance in infants born in families with autistic children, particularly male infants in those families. This study replicated a 2011 study, also led by Dr. Ozonoff, which found a similar rate of familial recurrence.
 

Differences by Sex and Race

Dr. Ozonoff’s team found that sex and race played a part in likelihood of recurrence. Younger siblings of females with ASD were much more likely to develop the disorder (34.7%) than siblings of boys (22.5%). And male younger siblings were more likely to have ASD than girls (25.3% vs. 13.1%).

Additionally, ASD recurrence in White families was 17.8% while across other races collectively the recurrence rate was 25%.
 

Links with Maternal Education

Differences by maternal education were also striking. Recurrence was 32.6% when mothers had a high school or less education; 25.5% with some college; 19.7 with a college degree; and 16.9% with a graduate degree. The parental education revealed a significant effect only for mothers (P < .01); paternal education was not significant (P = .09).

Suzanne Rybczynski, MD, chief medical officer at East Tennessee Children’s Hospital in Knoxville, who was not part of the study, praised the study for following babies over time, “doing serial evaluation using two very standard tools in diagnosing autism and developmental delay.”

The babies were evaluated as early as 6 months of age, for up to seven visits. A final assessment was made at 36 months.

Dr. Rybczynski said it was interesting to see that, although ASD prevalence has increased substantially from the 2011 study (0.9%-2.8%), the findings regarding the sibling link have been consistent (18.7% in the 2011 study to 20.2% now).
 

Eliminating Biases

Dr. Rybczynski noted the current study also used diagnoses only from autism experts, which strengthened the findings, noting the potential for overdiagnosis when interviews are with the parents. “This really eliminates those biases.”

The authors explained the factors driving the need to update recurrence rate studies, including the growth in the prevalence of ASD in the last decade to 1 in 36. That may be caused partly by “greater awareness and identification of autistic females and cognitively able, verbal children.”

Also, new diagnostic criteria have been published, with different diagnostic thresholds since the last study. This study, they noted, had a sample size twice as large and more diverse than the 2011 sample.

The size and the diversity are particularly important, Dr. Rybczynski said, as it helps support more recent findings that ASD is not as heavily centered in White males as previously thought.

“We need to make sure we’re monitoring all children, especially from groups where there’s at least one older sibling or multiple siblings with autism or a sister with autism,” she said. The findings of this study are important not just for pediatricians but for families and all who have professional interactions with children.

Dr. Ozonoff reports travel reimbursements and honoraria from Autism Speaks and the Autism Science Foundation and book royalties from Guilford Press. One coauthor has served as a paid consultant to F. Hoffmann–La Roche and Servier and has received royalties from Sage Publications and Guilford Publications. Another is supported by the Stollery Children’s Hospital Foundation Chair in Autism. One coauthor reported a consulting agreement with EarliTec Diagnostics and book royalties from Wiley. A fourth coauthor has received funding from the Simons Foundation and consults for the Beasley Law Firm and Linus Technology. Dr. Rybczynski reported no relevant financial relationships.

One in five children (20.2%) who have an older sibling with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) are likely to be diagnosed with the disorder as well, according to a study published in Pediatrics.

When a baby had more than one older sibling with autism, the family recurrence rate rose to 36.9%, the study found.

The researchers, led by Sally Ozonoff, PhD, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences at University of California Davis Health in Sacramento, analyzed data from 1,605 infants who had an older sibling with ASD using data from the global Baby Siblings Research Consortium.

They calculated that the rate of autism recurrence is seven times higher in families who already have one autistic child than in the general population, which points to the importance of close developmental observance in infants born in families with autistic children, particularly male infants in those families. This study replicated a 2011 study, also led by Dr. Ozonoff, which found a similar rate of familial recurrence.
 

Differences by Sex and Race

Dr. Ozonoff’s team found that sex and race played a part in likelihood of recurrence. Younger siblings of females with ASD were much more likely to develop the disorder (34.7%) than siblings of boys (22.5%). And male younger siblings were more likely to have ASD than girls (25.3% vs. 13.1%).

Additionally, ASD recurrence in White families was 17.8% while across other races collectively the recurrence rate was 25%.
 

Links with Maternal Education

Differences by maternal education were also striking. Recurrence was 32.6% when mothers had a high school or less education; 25.5% with some college; 19.7 with a college degree; and 16.9% with a graduate degree. The parental education revealed a significant effect only for mothers (P < .01); paternal education was not significant (P = .09).

Suzanne Rybczynski, MD, chief medical officer at East Tennessee Children’s Hospital in Knoxville, who was not part of the study, praised the study for following babies over time, “doing serial evaluation using two very standard tools in diagnosing autism and developmental delay.”

The babies were evaluated as early as 6 months of age, for up to seven visits. A final assessment was made at 36 months.

Dr. Rybczynski said it was interesting to see that, although ASD prevalence has increased substantially from the 2011 study (0.9%-2.8%), the findings regarding the sibling link have been consistent (18.7% in the 2011 study to 20.2% now).
 

Eliminating Biases

Dr. Rybczynski noted the current study also used diagnoses only from autism experts, which strengthened the findings, noting the potential for overdiagnosis when interviews are with the parents. “This really eliminates those biases.”

The authors explained the factors driving the need to update recurrence rate studies, including the growth in the prevalence of ASD in the last decade to 1 in 36. That may be caused partly by “greater awareness and identification of autistic females and cognitively able, verbal children.”

Also, new diagnostic criteria have been published, with different diagnostic thresholds since the last study. This study, they noted, had a sample size twice as large and more diverse than the 2011 sample.

The size and the diversity are particularly important, Dr. Rybczynski said, as it helps support more recent findings that ASD is not as heavily centered in White males as previously thought.

“We need to make sure we’re monitoring all children, especially from groups where there’s at least one older sibling or multiple siblings with autism or a sister with autism,” she said. The findings of this study are important not just for pediatricians but for families and all who have professional interactions with children.

Dr. Ozonoff reports travel reimbursements and honoraria from Autism Speaks and the Autism Science Foundation and book royalties from Guilford Press. One coauthor has served as a paid consultant to F. Hoffmann–La Roche and Servier and has received royalties from Sage Publications and Guilford Publications. Another is supported by the Stollery Children’s Hospital Foundation Chair in Autism. One coauthor reported a consulting agreement with EarliTec Diagnostics and book royalties from Wiley. A fourth coauthor has received funding from the Simons Foundation and consults for the Beasley Law Firm and Linus Technology. Dr. Rybczynski reported no relevant financial relationships.

One in five children (20.2%) who have an older sibling with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) are likely to be diagnosed with the disorder as well, according to a study published in Pediatrics.

When a baby had more than one older sibling with autism, the family recurrence rate rose to 36.9%, the study found.

The researchers, led by Sally Ozonoff, PhD, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences at University of California Davis Health in Sacramento, analyzed data from 1,605 infants who had an older sibling with ASD using data from the global Baby Siblings Research Consortium.

They calculated that the rate of autism recurrence is seven times higher in families who already have one autistic child than in the general population, which points to the importance of close developmental observance in infants born in families with autistic children, particularly male infants in those families. This study replicated a 2011 study, also led by Dr. Ozonoff, which found a similar rate of familial recurrence.
 

Differences by Sex and Race

Dr. Ozonoff’s team found that sex and race played a part in likelihood of recurrence. Younger siblings of females with ASD were much more likely to develop the disorder (34.7%) than siblings of boys (22.5%). And male younger siblings were more likely to have ASD than girls (25.3% vs. 13.1%).

Additionally, ASD recurrence in White families was 17.8% while across other races collectively the recurrence rate was 25%.
 

Links with Maternal Education

Differences by maternal education were also striking. Recurrence was 32.6% when mothers had a high school or less education; 25.5% with some college; 19.7 with a college degree; and 16.9% with a graduate degree. The parental education revealed a significant effect only for mothers (P < .01); paternal education was not significant (P = .09).

Suzanne Rybczynski, MD, chief medical officer at East Tennessee Children’s Hospital in Knoxville, who was not part of the study, praised the study for following babies over time, “doing serial evaluation using two very standard tools in diagnosing autism and developmental delay.”

The babies were evaluated as early as 6 months of age, for up to seven visits. A final assessment was made at 36 months.

Dr. Rybczynski said it was interesting to see that, although ASD prevalence has increased substantially from the 2011 study (0.9%-2.8%), the findings regarding the sibling link have been consistent (18.7% in the 2011 study to 20.2% now).
 

Eliminating Biases

Dr. Rybczynski noted the current study also used diagnoses only from autism experts, which strengthened the findings, noting the potential for overdiagnosis when interviews are with the parents. “This really eliminates those biases.”

The authors explained the factors driving the need to update recurrence rate studies, including the growth in the prevalence of ASD in the last decade to 1 in 36. That may be caused partly by “greater awareness and identification of autistic females and cognitively able, verbal children.”

Also, new diagnostic criteria have been published, with different diagnostic thresholds since the last study. This study, they noted, had a sample size twice as large and more diverse than the 2011 sample.

The size and the diversity are particularly important, Dr. Rybczynski said, as it helps support more recent findings that ASD is not as heavily centered in White males as previously thought.

“We need to make sure we’re monitoring all children, especially from groups where there’s at least one older sibling or multiple siblings with autism or a sister with autism,” she said. The findings of this study are important not just for pediatricians but for families and all who have professional interactions with children.

Dr. Ozonoff reports travel reimbursements and honoraria from Autism Speaks and the Autism Science Foundation and book royalties from Guilford Press. One coauthor has served as a paid consultant to F. Hoffmann–La Roche and Servier and has received royalties from Sage Publications and Guilford Publications. Another is supported by the Stollery Children’s Hospital Foundation Chair in Autism. One coauthor reported a consulting agreement with EarliTec Diagnostics and book royalties from Wiley. A fourth coauthor has received funding from the Simons Foundation and consults for the Beasley Law Firm and Linus Technology. Dr. Rybczynski reported no relevant financial relationships.

The start of the school year is a time that is always full of anticipation and even anxiety. Who will my teachers be? Will I be in classes with friends? Have some of my friends changed over the summer? Will the work be too hard? For some children this anxiety will be so intense that they will resist going back to school. School avoidance is very important to identify and address quickly, as it can intensify and threaten development. Each day of school missed due to accommodating to a child’s anxiety makes a return to school more difficult and less likely. Days can easily become weeks and even months of missed school. A child who misses a substantial amount of school is inevitably going to face developmental delays: academic, social, behavioral and emotional. The pediatrician is often brought into these situations early, as when a child complains of vague physical symptoms that are keeping him or her from school or when a previously calm child becomes inconsolable about going to school in the mornings. With a thoughtful assessment of the potential causes of school avoidance, you can help almost all children return to school successfully.

School Refusal

Sustained school avoidance is now called “school refusal,” a term coined in the late 1990s to describe a school attendance problem driven by emotional distress, as opposed to truancy. It affects up to 15% of children (depending on the operational definition) and seems to peak in the earliest years of elementary school and again in early high school. These are not occasional absences, but missing over 80% of classroom time in a 2-week period. It is also marked by the presence of an anxiety disorder and the absence of conduct disorder. Often in such cases the parents are aware of their child’s whereabouts and motivated to return them to school. Youth with school refusal experience social and academic consequences in the short term and, over the long term, have shown problems with social, family, and professional performance, along with higher rates of major depressive disorder than is seen in the general population. Early identification of these children can make addressing the underlying distress and return to school much easier than attempts to treat after weeks or months out of school.

Identifying the Problem

With younger children, school avoidance is most commonly associated with an anxious temperament or an underlying anxiety disorder, such as separation anxiety disorder or social phobia. A family history of anxiety may contribute or impact a parent’s approach to the issue. Children often present with vague somatic concerns that are genuine symptoms of anxiety (upset stomach, headache). A screening instrument such as the Screen for Child Anxiety Related Disorders (SCARED) can be helpful, but so is inquiring about sleep and other anxiety symptoms. Do the symptoms remit on weekends or in after-school hours? Are there other environmental factors that may be stressing younger children: Are they being teased or bullied at school? Are they struggling to find friends in a new classroom? Might they be having trouble with reading or other new tasks? Perhaps they are afraid of walking to school alone. Has there been a recent change or stress at home, such as a move or parental illness? Younger children may feel more anxious about separating from parents in the face of stress. But when parents accommodate a child’s wish to avoid school, the child’s anxiety, briefly relieved, grows more persistent, gets rewarded by parental attention, and reinforces their reluctance to try new things.

Adolescents may be facing more complex challenges that lead to school avoidance. They may have an undiagnosed anxiety or mood disorder, perhaps complicated by substance abuse that is presenting as an inability to perform at school or to manage the challenge of keeping up with higher workloads. They may be facing complex situations with friends, bullying, or rejection. Those adolescents who are prone to procrastination may avoid school to manage their workload and their distress, which can then become tangled up with symptoms of anxiety and dysphoria. Missing school compounds this problem rather than solving it. Adolescents outside of the structure of school, hungry for socializing and new experiences, often turn to social media for entertainment. Days without exercise and nights without adequate sleep can make mood, attention, and anxiety symptoms worse while overdue work grows. Parents often fear that setting limits or “pushing” their stuck and miserable child may make them more depressed or even suicidal.
 

Accommodating the Problem Will Likely Make It Worse

It is worth noting that children with a genuine medical illness can also experience school avoidance. Temperamentally anxious children who stay home for several days with a febrile illness may find it overwhelming to return to school as they have become so comfortable at home. Adolescents may have fallen behind with work and find themselves unable to set a schedule and return to more structure. Youth who are managing a known mood or anxiety disorder often have low motivation or high anxiety and want to wait to feel entirely better before returning to school. Youth with a chronic condition such as severe allergies or a sustained viral infection may be anxious about managing symptoms at school. Their parents may have kept them home to be safe or until they feel better, unwittingly making the school avoidance worse.

Formulating a Management Plan

When you suspect school avoidance is present, the critical first step is to engage the parents alongside their child. Without their understanding of the nature of this behavior, it will continue. Start by acknowledging the real physical and emotional symptoms their child is experiencing; it is important that parents and patients not feel that they are being told this is “just” a psychological problem. Children rarely feign illness or manipulate; they genuinely feel bad enough to stay home. It is important that they understand this is a common problem that will get worse unless it is addressed directly. If you believe they are suffering from a mood or anxiety disorder, talk about treatment options and consider getting started with treatment while finding a therapist to participate in their care. Help everyone listen to the child or teenager to understand any realistic basis for anxiety and attempt to address it (e.g. address bullying, provide a tutor, support a parent dependent on the child, etc.)

You can partner with parents and the school to provide the child with structure and support to make the return to school manageable. Frame the challenge of “demagnetizing” home and “remagnetizing” school. When they are at home, there should be no screen time except to catch up or keep up with homework. The child should not be in bed all day unless he or she has a fever. There needs to be close attention paid to maintaining a regular routine, with bedtime and wake time, meals with family, and regular exercise. This may mean turning off the Wi-Fi while a child is at home and parents are at work and providing them with books.

Work with the school to make getting into school and staying there as easy as possible. If a child has very high distress or has been out of school for a long time, he or she may need to return gradually; perhaps aim for the child to spend an hour at school for the first few days and then gradually work up to half and full days. Younger children may benefit from having a “buddy” who meets them outside and enters school with them. This can help avoid intense emotional scenes with parents that heighten distress and lead to accommodation. The child can identify a preferred teacher (or librarian, coach, or school nurse). When they feel overwhelmed, they can have a “break” with that teacher to avoid leaving school altogether. If they enjoy sports, music, or art, emphasize these classes or practices as part of their return to school.

Remind parents and your patients that it is not a matter of making the distress better first and then returning to school. They can be in treatment for an illness and manage returning to school at the same time. Indeed, the distress around school will only get better by getting back to school. This is hard! Ask about previous challenges they have managed or mastered and remind them that this is no different. Providing parents with knowledge and support will help them to be validating of their children without accommodating their wish to avoid discomfort. This support of your patient and the parents is the first step in helping them manage a difficult period and stay on their healthiest developmental trajectory.

Dr. Swick is physician in chief at Ohana, Center for Child and Adolescent Behavioral Health, Community Hospital of the Monterey (Calif.) Peninsula. Dr. Jellinek is professor emeritus of psychiatry and pediatrics, Harvard Medical School, Boston. Email them at [email protected].

The start of the school year is a time that is always full of anticipation and even anxiety. Who will my teachers be? Will I be in classes with friends? Have some of my friends changed over the summer? Will the work be too hard? For some children this anxiety will be so intense that they will resist going back to school. School avoidance is very important to identify and address quickly, as it can intensify and threaten development. Each day of school missed due to accommodating to a child’s anxiety makes a return to school more difficult and less likely. Days can easily become weeks and even months of missed school. A child who misses a substantial amount of school is inevitably going to face developmental delays: academic, social, behavioral and emotional. The pediatrician is often brought into these situations early, as when a child complains of vague physical symptoms that are keeping him or her from school or when a previously calm child becomes inconsolable about going to school in the mornings. With a thoughtful assessment of the potential causes of school avoidance, you can help almost all children return to school successfully.

School Refusal

Sustained school avoidance is now called “school refusal,” a term coined in the late 1990s to describe a school attendance problem driven by emotional distress, as opposed to truancy. It affects up to 15% of children (depending on the operational definition) and seems to peak in the earliest years of elementary school and again in early high school. These are not occasional absences, but missing over 80% of classroom time in a 2-week period. It is also marked by the presence of an anxiety disorder and the absence of conduct disorder. Often in such cases the parents are aware of their child’s whereabouts and motivated to return them to school. Youth with school refusal experience social and academic consequences in the short term and, over the long term, have shown problems with social, family, and professional performance, along with higher rates of major depressive disorder than is seen in the general population. Early identification of these children can make addressing the underlying distress and return to school much easier than attempts to treat after weeks or months out of school.

Identifying the Problem

With younger children, school avoidance is most commonly associated with an anxious temperament or an underlying anxiety disorder, such as separation anxiety disorder or social phobia. A family history of anxiety may contribute or impact a parent’s approach to the issue. Children often present with vague somatic concerns that are genuine symptoms of anxiety (upset stomach, headache). A screening instrument such as the Screen for Child Anxiety Related Disorders (SCARED) can be helpful, but so is inquiring about sleep and other anxiety symptoms. Do the symptoms remit on weekends or in after-school hours? Are there other environmental factors that may be stressing younger children: Are they being teased or bullied at school? Are they struggling to find friends in a new classroom? Might they be having trouble with reading or other new tasks? Perhaps they are afraid of walking to school alone. Has there been a recent change or stress at home, such as a move or parental illness? Younger children may feel more anxious about separating from parents in the face of stress. But when parents accommodate a child’s wish to avoid school, the child’s anxiety, briefly relieved, grows more persistent, gets rewarded by parental attention, and reinforces their reluctance to try new things.

Adolescents may be facing more complex challenges that lead to school avoidance. They may have an undiagnosed anxiety or mood disorder, perhaps complicated by substance abuse that is presenting as an inability to perform at school or to manage the challenge of keeping up with higher workloads. They may be facing complex situations with friends, bullying, or rejection. Those adolescents who are prone to procrastination may avoid school to manage their workload and their distress, which can then become tangled up with symptoms of anxiety and dysphoria. Missing school compounds this problem rather than solving it. Adolescents outside of the structure of school, hungry for socializing and new experiences, often turn to social media for entertainment. Days without exercise and nights without adequate sleep can make mood, attention, and anxiety symptoms worse while overdue work grows. Parents often fear that setting limits or “pushing” their stuck and miserable child may make them more depressed or even suicidal.
 

Accommodating the Problem Will Likely Make It Worse

It is worth noting that children with a genuine medical illness can also experience school avoidance. Temperamentally anxious children who stay home for several days with a febrile illness may find it overwhelming to return to school as they have become so comfortable at home. Adolescents may have fallen behind with work and find themselves unable to set a schedule and return to more structure. Youth who are managing a known mood or anxiety disorder often have low motivation or high anxiety and want to wait to feel entirely better before returning to school. Youth with a chronic condition such as severe allergies or a sustained viral infection may be anxious about managing symptoms at school. Their parents may have kept them home to be safe or until they feel better, unwittingly making the school avoidance worse.

Formulating a Management Plan

When you suspect school avoidance is present, the critical first step is to engage the parents alongside their child. Without their understanding of the nature of this behavior, it will continue. Start by acknowledging the real physical and emotional symptoms their child is experiencing; it is important that parents and patients not feel that they are being told this is “just” a psychological problem. Children rarely feign illness or manipulate; they genuinely feel bad enough to stay home. It is important that they understand this is a common problem that will get worse unless it is addressed directly. If you believe they are suffering from a mood or anxiety disorder, talk about treatment options and consider getting started with treatment while finding a therapist to participate in their care. Help everyone listen to the child or teenager to understand any realistic basis for anxiety and attempt to address it (e.g. address bullying, provide a tutor, support a parent dependent on the child, etc.)

You can partner with parents and the school to provide the child with structure and support to make the return to school manageable. Frame the challenge of “demagnetizing” home and “remagnetizing” school. When they are at home, there should be no screen time except to catch up or keep up with homework. The child should not be in bed all day unless he or she has a fever. There needs to be close attention paid to maintaining a regular routine, with bedtime and wake time, meals with family, and regular exercise. This may mean turning off the Wi-Fi while a child is at home and parents are at work and providing them with books.

Work with the school to make getting into school and staying there as easy as possible. If a child has very high distress or has been out of school for a long time, he or she may need to return gradually; perhaps aim for the child to spend an hour at school for the first few days and then gradually work up to half and full days. Younger children may benefit from having a “buddy” who meets them outside and enters school with them. This can help avoid intense emotional scenes with parents that heighten distress and lead to accommodation. The child can identify a preferred teacher (or librarian, coach, or school nurse). When they feel overwhelmed, they can have a “break” with that teacher to avoid leaving school altogether. If they enjoy sports, music, or art, emphasize these classes or practices as part of their return to school.

Remind parents and your patients that it is not a matter of making the distress better first and then returning to school. They can be in treatment for an illness and manage returning to school at the same time. Indeed, the distress around school will only get better by getting back to school. This is hard! Ask about previous challenges they have managed or mastered and remind them that this is no different. Providing parents with knowledge and support will help them to be validating of their children without accommodating their wish to avoid discomfort. This support of your patient and the parents is the first step in helping them manage a difficult period and stay on their healthiest developmental trajectory.

Dr. Swick is physician in chief at Ohana, Center for Child and Adolescent Behavioral Health, Community Hospital of the Monterey (Calif.) Peninsula. Dr. Jellinek is professor emeritus of psychiatry and pediatrics, Harvard Medical School, Boston. Email them at [email protected].

The start of the school year is a time that is always full of anticipation and even anxiety. Who will my teachers be? Will I be in classes with friends? Have some of my friends changed over the summer? Will the work be too hard? For some children this anxiety will be so intense that they will resist going back to school. School avoidance is very important to identify and address quickly, as it can intensify and threaten development. Each day of school missed due to accommodating to a child’s anxiety makes a return to school more difficult and less likely. Days can easily become weeks and even months of missed school. A child who misses a substantial amount of school is inevitably going to face developmental delays: academic, social, behavioral and emotional. The pediatrician is often brought into these situations early, as when a child complains of vague physical symptoms that are keeping him or her from school or when a previously calm child becomes inconsolable about going to school in the mornings. With a thoughtful assessment of the potential causes of school avoidance, you can help almost all children return to school successfully.

School Refusal

Sustained school avoidance is now called “school refusal,” a term coined in the late 1990s to describe a school attendance problem driven by emotional distress, as opposed to truancy. It affects up to 15% of children (depending on the operational definition) and seems to peak in the earliest years of elementary school and again in early high school. These are not occasional absences, but missing over 80% of classroom time in a 2-week period. It is also marked by the presence of an anxiety disorder and the absence of conduct disorder. Often in such cases the parents are aware of their child’s whereabouts and motivated to return them to school. Youth with school refusal experience social and academic consequences in the short term and, over the long term, have shown problems with social, family, and professional performance, along with higher rates of major depressive disorder than is seen in the general population. Early identification of these children can make addressing the underlying distress and return to school much easier than attempts to treat after weeks or months out of school.

Identifying the Problem

With younger children, school avoidance is most commonly associated with an anxious temperament or an underlying anxiety disorder, such as separation anxiety disorder or social phobia. A family history of anxiety may contribute or impact a parent’s approach to the issue. Children often present with vague somatic concerns that are genuine symptoms of anxiety (upset stomach, headache). A screening instrument such as the Screen for Child Anxiety Related Disorders (SCARED) can be helpful, but so is inquiring about sleep and other anxiety symptoms. Do the symptoms remit on weekends or in after-school hours? Are there other environmental factors that may be stressing younger children: Are they being teased or bullied at school? Are they struggling to find friends in a new classroom? Might they be having trouble with reading or other new tasks? Perhaps they are afraid of walking to school alone. Has there been a recent change or stress at home, such as a move or parental illness? Younger children may feel more anxious about separating from parents in the face of stress. But when parents accommodate a child’s wish to avoid school, the child’s anxiety, briefly relieved, grows more persistent, gets rewarded by parental attention, and reinforces their reluctance to try new things.

Adolescents may be facing more complex challenges that lead to school avoidance. They may have an undiagnosed anxiety or mood disorder, perhaps complicated by substance abuse that is presenting as an inability to perform at school or to manage the challenge of keeping up with higher workloads. They may be facing complex situations with friends, bullying, or rejection. Those adolescents who are prone to procrastination may avoid school to manage their workload and their distress, which can then become tangled up with symptoms of anxiety and dysphoria. Missing school compounds this problem rather than solving it. Adolescents outside of the structure of school, hungry for socializing and new experiences, often turn to social media for entertainment. Days without exercise and nights without adequate sleep can make mood, attention, and anxiety symptoms worse while overdue work grows. Parents often fear that setting limits or “pushing” their stuck and miserable child may make them more depressed or even suicidal.
 

Accommodating the Problem Will Likely Make It Worse

It is worth noting that children with a genuine medical illness can also experience school avoidance. Temperamentally anxious children who stay home for several days with a febrile illness may find it overwhelming to return to school as they have become so comfortable at home. Adolescents may have fallen behind with work and find themselves unable to set a schedule and return to more structure. Youth who are managing a known mood or anxiety disorder often have low motivation or high anxiety and want to wait to feel entirely better before returning to school. Youth with a chronic condition such as severe allergies or a sustained viral infection may be anxious about managing symptoms at school. Their parents may have kept them home to be safe or until they feel better, unwittingly making the school avoidance worse.

Formulating a Management Plan

When you suspect school avoidance is present, the critical first step is to engage the parents alongside their child. Without their understanding of the nature of this behavior, it will continue. Start by acknowledging the real physical and emotional symptoms their child is experiencing; it is important that parents and patients not feel that they are being told this is “just” a psychological problem. Children rarely feign illness or manipulate; they genuinely feel bad enough to stay home. It is important that they understand this is a common problem that will get worse unless it is addressed directly. If you believe they are suffering from a mood or anxiety disorder, talk about treatment options and consider getting started with treatment while finding a therapist to participate in their care. Help everyone listen to the child or teenager to understand any realistic basis for anxiety and attempt to address it (e.g. address bullying, provide a tutor, support a parent dependent on the child, etc.)

You can partner with parents and the school to provide the child with structure and support to make the return to school manageable. Frame the challenge of “demagnetizing” home and “remagnetizing” school. When they are at home, there should be no screen time except to catch up or keep up with homework. The child should not be in bed all day unless he or she has a fever. There needs to be close attention paid to maintaining a regular routine, with bedtime and wake time, meals with family, and regular exercise. This may mean turning off the Wi-Fi while a child is at home and parents are at work and providing them with books.

Work with the school to make getting into school and staying there as easy as possible. If a child has very high distress or has been out of school for a long time, he or she may need to return gradually; perhaps aim for the child to spend an hour at school for the first few days and then gradually work up to half and full days. Younger children may benefit from having a “buddy” who meets them outside and enters school with them. This can help avoid intense emotional scenes with parents that heighten distress and lead to accommodation. The child can identify a preferred teacher (or librarian, coach, or school nurse). When they feel overwhelmed, they can have a “break” with that teacher to avoid leaving school altogether. If they enjoy sports, music, or art, emphasize these classes or practices as part of their return to school.

Remind parents and your patients that it is not a matter of making the distress better first and then returning to school. They can be in treatment for an illness and manage returning to school at the same time. Indeed, the distress around school will only get better by getting back to school. This is hard! Ask about previous challenges they have managed or mastered and remind them that this is no different. Providing parents with knowledge and support will help them to be validating of their children without accommodating their wish to avoid discomfort. This support of your patient and the parents is the first step in helping them manage a difficult period and stay on their healthiest developmental trajectory.

Dr. Swick is physician in chief at Ohana, Center for Child and Adolescent Behavioral Health, Community Hospital of the Monterey (Calif.) Peninsula. Dr. Jellinek is professor emeritus of psychiatry and pediatrics, Harvard Medical School, Boston. Email them at [email protected].

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

ACIP, the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, met for 3 days in June. New vaccines and new recommendations for respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), flu, COVID, and a new pneumococcal vaccine were revealed.

RSV Protection

We’ll begin with RSV vaccines for adults aged 60 or older. For this group, shared clinical decision-making is out; it no longer applies. New, more specific recommendations from ACIP for RSV vaccines are both age based and risk based. The age-based recommendation applies to those aged 75 or older, who should receive a single RSV vaccine dose. If they have already received a dose under the old recommendation, they don’t need another one, at least for now.

The risk-based recommendation applies to adults from age 60 up to 75, but only for those with risk factors for severe RSV. These risk factors include lung disease, heart disease, immunocompromise, diabetes, obesity with a BMI of 40 or more, neurologic conditions, neuromuscular conditions, chronic kidney disease, liver disorders, hematologic disorders, frailty, and living in a nursing home or other long-term care facility. Those aged 60-75 with these risk factors should receive the RSV vaccine, and those without them should not receive it. The best time to get the RSV vaccine is late summer, but early fall administration with other adult vaccines is allowed and is acceptable.

Vaccine safety concerns were top of mind as ACIP members began their deliberations. Possible safety concerns for RSV vaccines have been detected for Guillain-Barré syndrome, atrial fibrillation, and idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura. Safety surveillance updates are still interim and inconclusive. These signals still need further study and clarification. 

Two RSV vaccines have been on the market: one by Pfizer, called Abrysvo, which does not contain an adjuvant; and another one by GSK, called Arexvy, which does contain an adjuvant. With the recent FDA approval of Moderna’s new mRNA RSV vaccine, mRESVIA, there are now three RSV vaccines licensed for those 60 or older. Arexvy is now FDA approved for adults in their 50s. That just happened in early June, but ACIP doesn’t currently recommend it for this fifty-something age group, even for those at high risk for severe RSV disease. This may change with greater clarification of potential vaccine safety concerns.

There is also news about protecting babies from RSV. RSV is the most common cause of hospitalization for infants in the United States, and most hospitalizations for RSV are in healthy, full-term infants. We now have two ways to protect babies: a dose of RSV vaccine given to mom, or a dose of the long-acting monoclonal antibody nirsevimab given to the baby. ACIP clarified that those who received a dose of maternal RSV vaccine during a previous pregnancy are not recommended to receive additional doses during future pregnancies, but infants born to those who were vaccinated for RSV during a prior pregnancy can receive nirsevimab, which is recommended for infants up to 8 months of age during their first RSV season, and for high-risk infants and toddlers aged 8-19 months during their second RSV season.

Last RSV season, supplies of nirsevimab were limited and doses had to be prioritized. No supply problems are anticipated for the upcoming season. A study published in March showed that nirsevimab was 90% effective at preventing RSV-associated hospitalization for infants in their first RSV season.
 

COVID

Here’s what’s new for COVID vaccines. A new-formula COVID vaccine will be ready for fall. ACIP voted unanimously to recommend a dose of the updated 2024-2025 COVID vaccine for everyone aged 6 months or older. This is a universal recommendation, just like the one we have for flu. But understand that even though COVID has waned, it’s still more deadly than flu. Most Americans now have some immunity against COVID, but this immunity wanes with time, and it also wanes as the virus keeps changing. These updated vaccines provide an incremental boost to our immunity for the new formula for fall. FDA has directed manufacturers to use a monovalent JN.1 lineage formula, with a preference for the KP.2 strain.

Older adults (aged 75 or older) and children under 6 months old are hit hardest by COVID. The littlest ones are too young to be vaccinated, but they can get protection from maternal vaccination. The uptake for last year’s COVID vaccine has been disappointing. Only 22.5% of adults and 14% of children received a dose of the updated shot. Focus-group discussions highlight the importance of a physician recommendation. Adults and children who receive a healthcare provider’s recommendation to get the COVID vaccine are more likely to get vaccinated. 
 

Pneumococcal Vaccines

On June 17, 2024, a new pneumococcal vaccine, PCV21, was FDA approved for those aged 18 or older under an accelerated-approval pathway. ACIP voted to keep it simple and recommends PCV21 as an option for adults aged 19 or older who currently have an indication to receive a dose of PCV. This new PCV21 vaccine is indicated for prevention of both invasive pneumococcal disease (IPD) and pneumococcal pneumonia. Its brand name is Capvaxive and it’s made by Merck. IPD includes bacteremia, pneumonia, pneumococcal bacteremia, and meningitis.

There are two basic types of pneumococcal vaccines: polysaccharide vaccines (PPSV), which do not produce memory B cells; and PCV conjugate vaccines, which do trigger memory B-cell production and therefore induce greater long-term immunity. PCV21 covers 11 unique serotypes not in PCV20. This is important because many cases of adult disease are caused by subtypes not covered by other FDA-approved pneumococcal vaccines. PCV21 has greater coverage of the serotypes that cause invasive disease in adults as compared with PCV20. PCV20 covers up to 58% of those strains, while PCV21 covers up to 84% of strains responsible for invasive disease in adults. But there’s one serotype missing in PCV21, which may limit the groups who receive it. PCV21 does not cover serotype 4, a major cause of IPD in certain populations. Adults experiencing homelessness are 100-300 times more likely to develop IPD due to serotype 4. So are adults in Alaska, especially Alaska Natives. They have an 88-fold increase in serotype 4 invasive disease. Serotype 4 is covered by other pneumococcal vaccines, so for these patients, PCV20 is likely a better high-valent conjugate vaccine option than PCV21.
 

Flu Vaccines

What’s new for flu? Everyone aged 6 months or older needs a seasonal flu vaccination every year. That’s not new, but there are two new things coming this fall: (1) The seasonal flu vaccine is going trivalent. FDA has removed the Yamagata flu B strain because it no longer appears to be circulating. (2) ACIP made a special off-label recommendation to boost flu protection for solid organ transplant recipients ages 18-64 who are on immunosuppressive medications. These high-risk patients now have the off-label option of receiving one of the higher-dose flu vaccines, including high-dose and adjuvanted flu vaccines, which are FDA approved only for those 65 or older.

Sandra Adamson Fryhofer, Adjunct Clinical Associate Professor of Medicine, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Serve(d) as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for American Medical Association; Medical Association of Atlanta; ACIP liaison. Received income in an amount equal to or greater than $250 from American College of Physicians; Medscape; American Medical Association.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

ACIP, the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, met for 3 days in June. New vaccines and new recommendations for respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), flu, COVID, and a new pneumococcal vaccine were revealed.

RSV Protection

We’ll begin with RSV vaccines for adults aged 60 or older. For this group, shared clinical decision-making is out; it no longer applies. New, more specific recommendations from ACIP for RSV vaccines are both age based and risk based. The age-based recommendation applies to those aged 75 or older, who should receive a single RSV vaccine dose. If they have already received a dose under the old recommendation, they don’t need another one, at least for now.

The risk-based recommendation applies to adults from age 60 up to 75, but only for those with risk factors for severe RSV. These risk factors include lung disease, heart disease, immunocompromise, diabetes, obesity with a BMI of 40 or more, neurologic conditions, neuromuscular conditions, chronic kidney disease, liver disorders, hematologic disorders, frailty, and living in a nursing home or other long-term care facility. Those aged 60-75 with these risk factors should receive the RSV vaccine, and those without them should not receive it. The best time to get the RSV vaccine is late summer, but early fall administration with other adult vaccines is allowed and is acceptable.

Vaccine safety concerns were top of mind as ACIP members began their deliberations. Possible safety concerns for RSV vaccines have been detected for Guillain-Barré syndrome, atrial fibrillation, and idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura. Safety surveillance updates are still interim and inconclusive. These signals still need further study and clarification. 

Two RSV vaccines have been on the market: one by Pfizer, called Abrysvo, which does not contain an adjuvant; and another one by GSK, called Arexvy, which does contain an adjuvant. With the recent FDA approval of Moderna’s new mRNA RSV vaccine, mRESVIA, there are now three RSV vaccines licensed for those 60 or older. Arexvy is now FDA approved for adults in their 50s. That just happened in early June, but ACIP doesn’t currently recommend it for this fifty-something age group, even for those at high risk for severe RSV disease. This may change with greater clarification of potential vaccine safety concerns.

There is also news about protecting babies from RSV. RSV is the most common cause of hospitalization for infants in the United States, and most hospitalizations for RSV are in healthy, full-term infants. We now have two ways to protect babies: a dose of RSV vaccine given to mom, or a dose of the long-acting monoclonal antibody nirsevimab given to the baby. ACIP clarified that those who received a dose of maternal RSV vaccine during a previous pregnancy are not recommended to receive additional doses during future pregnancies, but infants born to those who were vaccinated for RSV during a prior pregnancy can receive nirsevimab, which is recommended for infants up to 8 months of age during their first RSV season, and for high-risk infants and toddlers aged 8-19 months during their second RSV season.

Last RSV season, supplies of nirsevimab were limited and doses had to be prioritized. No supply problems are anticipated for the upcoming season. A study published in March showed that nirsevimab was 90% effective at preventing RSV-associated hospitalization for infants in their first RSV season.
 

COVID

Here’s what’s new for COVID vaccines. A new-formula COVID vaccine will be ready for fall. ACIP voted unanimously to recommend a dose of the updated 2024-2025 COVID vaccine for everyone aged 6 months or older. This is a universal recommendation, just like the one we have for flu. But understand that even though COVID has waned, it’s still more deadly than flu. Most Americans now have some immunity against COVID, but this immunity wanes with time, and it also wanes as the virus keeps changing. These updated vaccines provide an incremental boost to our immunity for the new formula for fall. FDA has directed manufacturers to use a monovalent JN.1 lineage formula, with a preference for the KP.2 strain.

Older adults (aged 75 or older) and children under 6 months old are hit hardest by COVID. The littlest ones are too young to be vaccinated, but they can get protection from maternal vaccination. The uptake for last year’s COVID vaccine has been disappointing. Only 22.5% of adults and 14% of children received a dose of the updated shot. Focus-group discussions highlight the importance of a physician recommendation. Adults and children who receive a healthcare provider’s recommendation to get the COVID vaccine are more likely to get vaccinated. 
 

Pneumococcal Vaccines

On June 17, 2024, a new pneumococcal vaccine, PCV21, was FDA approved for those aged 18 or older under an accelerated-approval pathway. ACIP voted to keep it simple and recommends PCV21 as an option for adults aged 19 or older who currently have an indication to receive a dose of PCV. This new PCV21 vaccine is indicated for prevention of both invasive pneumococcal disease (IPD) and pneumococcal pneumonia. Its brand name is Capvaxive and it’s made by Merck. IPD includes bacteremia, pneumonia, pneumococcal bacteremia, and meningitis.

There are two basic types of pneumococcal vaccines: polysaccharide vaccines (PPSV), which do not produce memory B cells; and PCV conjugate vaccines, which do trigger memory B-cell production and therefore induce greater long-term immunity. PCV21 covers 11 unique serotypes not in PCV20. This is important because many cases of adult disease are caused by subtypes not covered by other FDA-approved pneumococcal vaccines. PCV21 has greater coverage of the serotypes that cause invasive disease in adults as compared with PCV20. PCV20 covers up to 58% of those strains, while PCV21 covers up to 84% of strains responsible for invasive disease in adults. But there’s one serotype missing in PCV21, which may limit the groups who receive it. PCV21 does not cover serotype 4, a major cause of IPD in certain populations. Adults experiencing homelessness are 100-300 times more likely to develop IPD due to serotype 4. So are adults in Alaska, especially Alaska Natives. They have an 88-fold increase in serotype 4 invasive disease. Serotype 4 is covered by other pneumococcal vaccines, so for these patients, PCV20 is likely a better high-valent conjugate vaccine option than PCV21.
 

Flu Vaccines

What’s new for flu? Everyone aged 6 months or older needs a seasonal flu vaccination every year. That’s not new, but there are two new things coming this fall: (1) The seasonal flu vaccine is going trivalent. FDA has removed the Yamagata flu B strain because it no longer appears to be circulating. (2) ACIP made a special off-label recommendation to boost flu protection for solid organ transplant recipients ages 18-64 who are on immunosuppressive medications. These high-risk patients now have the off-label option of receiving one of the higher-dose flu vaccines, including high-dose and adjuvanted flu vaccines, which are FDA approved only for those 65 or older.

Sandra Adamson Fryhofer, Adjunct Clinical Associate Professor of Medicine, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Serve(d) as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for American Medical Association; Medical Association of Atlanta; ACIP liaison. Received income in an amount equal to or greater than $250 from American College of Physicians; Medscape; American Medical Association.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

ACIP, the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, met for 3 days in June. New vaccines and new recommendations for respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), flu, COVID, and a new pneumococcal vaccine were revealed.

RSV Protection

We’ll begin with RSV vaccines for adults aged 60 or older. For this group, shared clinical decision-making is out; it no longer applies. New, more specific recommendations from ACIP for RSV vaccines are both age based and risk based. The age-based recommendation applies to those aged 75 or older, who should receive a single RSV vaccine dose. If they have already received a dose under the old recommendation, they don’t need another one, at least for now.

The risk-based recommendation applies to adults from age 60 up to 75, but only for those with risk factors for severe RSV. These risk factors include lung disease, heart disease, immunocompromise, diabetes, obesity with a BMI of 40 or more, neurologic conditions, neuromuscular conditions, chronic kidney disease, liver disorders, hematologic disorders, frailty, and living in a nursing home or other long-term care facility. Those aged 60-75 with these risk factors should receive the RSV vaccine, and those without them should not receive it. The best time to get the RSV vaccine is late summer, but early fall administration with other adult vaccines is allowed and is acceptable.

Vaccine safety concerns were top of mind as ACIP members began their deliberations. Possible safety concerns for RSV vaccines have been detected for Guillain-Barré syndrome, atrial fibrillation, and idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura. Safety surveillance updates are still interim and inconclusive. These signals still need further study and clarification. 

Two RSV vaccines have been on the market: one by Pfizer, called Abrysvo, which does not contain an adjuvant; and another one by GSK, called Arexvy, which does contain an adjuvant. With the recent FDA approval of Moderna’s new mRNA RSV vaccine, mRESVIA, there are now three RSV vaccines licensed for those 60 or older. Arexvy is now FDA approved for adults in their 50s. That just happened in early June, but ACIP doesn’t currently recommend it for this fifty-something age group, even for those at high risk for severe RSV disease. This may change with greater clarification of potential vaccine safety concerns.

There is also news about protecting babies from RSV. RSV is the most common cause of hospitalization for infants in the United States, and most hospitalizations for RSV are in healthy, full-term infants. We now have two ways to protect babies: a dose of RSV vaccine given to mom, or a dose of the long-acting monoclonal antibody nirsevimab given to the baby. ACIP clarified that those who received a dose of maternal RSV vaccine during a previous pregnancy are not recommended to receive additional doses during future pregnancies, but infants born to those who were vaccinated for RSV during a prior pregnancy can receive nirsevimab, which is recommended for infants up to 8 months of age during their first RSV season, and for high-risk infants and toddlers aged 8-19 months during their second RSV season.

Last RSV season, supplies of nirsevimab were limited and doses had to be prioritized. No supply problems are anticipated for the upcoming season. A study published in March showed that nirsevimab was 90% effective at preventing RSV-associated hospitalization for infants in their first RSV season.
 

COVID

Here’s what’s new for COVID vaccines. A new-formula COVID vaccine will be ready for fall. ACIP voted unanimously to recommend a dose of the updated 2024-2025 COVID vaccine for everyone aged 6 months or older. This is a universal recommendation, just like the one we have for flu. But understand that even though COVID has waned, it’s still more deadly than flu. Most Americans now have some immunity against COVID, but this immunity wanes with time, and it also wanes as the virus keeps changing. These updated vaccines provide an incremental boost to our immunity for the new formula for fall. FDA has directed manufacturers to use a monovalent JN.1 lineage formula, with a preference for the KP.2 strain.

Older adults (aged 75 or older) and children under 6 months old are hit hardest by COVID. The littlest ones are too young to be vaccinated, but they can get protection from maternal vaccination. The uptake for last year’s COVID vaccine has been disappointing. Only 22.5% of adults and 14% of children received a dose of the updated shot. Focus-group discussions highlight the importance of a physician recommendation. Adults and children who receive a healthcare provider’s recommendation to get the COVID vaccine are more likely to get vaccinated. 
 

Pneumococcal Vaccines

On June 17, 2024, a new pneumococcal vaccine, PCV21, was FDA approved for those aged 18 or older under an accelerated-approval pathway. ACIP voted to keep it simple and recommends PCV21 as an option for adults aged 19 or older who currently have an indication to receive a dose of PCV. This new PCV21 vaccine is indicated for prevention of both invasive pneumococcal disease (IPD) and pneumococcal pneumonia. Its brand name is Capvaxive and it’s made by Merck. IPD includes bacteremia, pneumonia, pneumococcal bacteremia, and meningitis.

There are two basic types of pneumococcal vaccines: polysaccharide vaccines (PPSV), which do not produce memory B cells; and PCV conjugate vaccines, which do trigger memory B-cell production and therefore induce greater long-term immunity. PCV21 covers 11 unique serotypes not in PCV20. This is important because many cases of adult disease are caused by subtypes not covered by other FDA-approved pneumococcal vaccines. PCV21 has greater coverage of the serotypes that cause invasive disease in adults as compared with PCV20. PCV20 covers up to 58% of those strains, while PCV21 covers up to 84% of strains responsible for invasive disease in adults. But there’s one serotype missing in PCV21, which may limit the groups who receive it. PCV21 does not cover serotype 4, a major cause of IPD in certain populations. Adults experiencing homelessness are 100-300 times more likely to develop IPD due to serotype 4. So are adults in Alaska, especially Alaska Natives. They have an 88-fold increase in serotype 4 invasive disease. Serotype 4 is covered by other pneumococcal vaccines, so for these patients, PCV20 is likely a better high-valent conjugate vaccine option than PCV21.
 

Flu Vaccines

What’s new for flu? Everyone aged 6 months or older needs a seasonal flu vaccination every year. That’s not new, but there are two new things coming this fall: (1) The seasonal flu vaccine is going trivalent. FDA has removed the Yamagata flu B strain because it no longer appears to be circulating. (2) ACIP made a special off-label recommendation to boost flu protection for solid organ transplant recipients ages 18-64 who are on immunosuppressive medications. These high-risk patients now have the off-label option of receiving one of the higher-dose flu vaccines, including high-dose and adjuvanted flu vaccines, which are FDA approved only for those 65 or older.

Sandra Adamson Fryhofer, Adjunct Clinical Associate Professor of Medicine, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Serve(d) as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for American Medical Association; Medical Association of Atlanta; ACIP liaison. Received income in an amount equal to or greater than $250 from American College of Physicians; Medscape; American Medical Association.

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

Recently I was in Wyoming. As I rode down the Snake River, the guide pointed out tree trunks that had been chewed on by beavers. Days later I joined a local friend for a hike to Taggart Lake. Upon reaching the end of the trail as I began to cast my eyes on the magnificent scenery, I could not help but notice several children, including toddlers, playing in the fresh warm water. The next thing out of my friend’s mouth was “You know there is Giardia in there.” Little did she know, she and the guide had just helped me select a topic for ID Consult.

Giardia, aka ”beaver fever,” was discussed in detail in this column as part of the differential of a diarrheal illness by Christopher J. Harrison, MD. However, it is the perfect time of year to revisit other recreational water–associated illnesses.

Infections acquired during recreational water activity can lead to illnesses involving the gastrointestinal tract, central nervous system, respiratory tract, skin, eyes, and ears. Pathogens, chemicals, and toxins are transmitted by ingestion, contact with contaminated water or a sick individual or animal, and inhalation of aerosols. The National Waterborne Disease and Outbreak Surveillance System (WBDOSS) collects data on waterborne disease and outbreaks associated with recreational water, drinking water, and environmental and undetermined exposures to water. All reporting to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is voluntary. However, mandatory pathogen reporting requirements can vary by state. Ideally, once an agency has completed the outbreak investigation, the definitive cause and source will be determined, and interventions to prevent future outbreaks implemented.

Treated Versus Untreated Water

One useful way to help narrow the etiology of a patient’s symptoms is to consider those illnesses associated with treated water venues (e.g., pools, hot tubs, water parks) versus untreated water venues (e.g., rivers, lakes, oceans). Parents may forget to offer that information since they may not perceive a connection between water exposure and the illness, especially if they traveled within the US.

In 2021, the CDC reported results of data submitted between 2015 and 2019 from treated recreational water facilities. Of the 208 outbreaks, most (96%) were associated with public pools, hot tubs, or water playgrounds. These outbreaks resulted in at least 3,646 cases of illness, 286 hospitalizations, and 13 deaths. Overall infectious etiologies were the primary cause of illness. Of the 155 outbreaks with a confirmed etiology, Cryptosporidium was the causative pathogen in 49% of the outbreaks and accounted for 84% (2,492) of cases, while Legionella caused 42% of outbreaks, accounted for 13% (354) of cases, and was responsible for all 13 deaths. Slightly more than half (107 of 208) of the outbreaks started between June-August with Cryptosporidium accounting for 63 of the outbreaks during that period. A little more than one-third were associated with a hotel or resort. The majority of hotel recreational water–associated illnesses was associated with hot tubs. Of the 53 outbreaks without a confirmed etiology, 20 were suspected to have a chemical related etiology (excess chlorine, altered pool chemistry).

In contrast, there were 140 untreated recreational water outbreaks reported between 2000 and 2014 from 35 states and Guam involving 4,958 cases and 2 deaths. The etiology was confirmed for 103 (74%) outbreaks including 5 that had multiple etiologies and 8 due to toxins or chemicals; 7 of 8 toxins were from harmful algal blooms. Enteric pathogens were the etiology in 84% of outbreaks including: Norovirus (n = 1459), Shigella (n = 362) Avian schistosomes (n = 345), Cryptosporidium (n = 314) and Escherichia coli (n = 155).There were 24 cases of Giardia. The two deaths were due to Naegleria fowleri. The top 2 settings for these outbreaks were public parks (36%) and beaches (32%) with most outbreaks (n = 117) being associated with a lake /pond venue. Most outbreaks began between June and August.

The major differences between the two types of recreational water–associated illnesses are their most common settings and etiologies. With that in mind, let us briefly review the most common etiology from each venue.
 

Treated Water Venue: Cryptosporidiosis

Cryptosporidium is an oocyst-forming protozoa that causes a self-limited watery, nonbloody diarrhea which usually resolves within 10-14 days. Most patients have associated abdominal cramps, fever, and vomiting although infected persons can be asymptomatic. Infection in the immunocompromised potentially can lead to profuse and prolonged diarrhea. Oocysts are excreted in the feces of infected hosts and as little as 10 can cause infection. They can survive extreme environmental conditions in water and soil for several months and even survive up to 7 days in a properly chlorinated pool. Transmission occurs between humans via contaminated food and water or from infected animals. Oocysts have been isolated in raw or unpasteurized milk and apple cider. Incidence is highest in children 1 through 4 years of age.

Diagnosis today is usually via molecular methods (nucleic acid amplification tests, aka NAATs), due to their high sensitivity and specificity and is the preferred method. These tests can identify multiple gastrointestinal tract pathogens with a single assay. Diagnosis by microscopy or fecal immunoassay antigens are still available. Treatment is supportive in most cases. If needed, a 3-day course of nitazoxanide can be prescribed. Immunocompromised patients should be managed in consultation with an infectious disease specialist.
 

Untreated Water Venue: Norovirus

Norovirus is a viral illness characterized by the abrupt onset of vomiting and/or watery diarrhea, usually associated with nausea and abdominal cramps. Symptoms persist 24-72 hours, however they may be prolonged in the immunocompromised and persons at the extremes of the age spectrum. Norovirus has replaced rotavirus as the major cause of medically attended gastroenteritis. While a major cause of recreational water–associated illnesses, high attack rates also occur in semi closed communities including cruise ships, childcare centers, and schools. Transmission is fecal-oral, vomitus oral, person to person, by ingestion of contaminated food and water or touching contaminated surfaces with subsequent touching of the mouth. Asymptomatic viral shedding may occur, especially in children. Prolonged shedding (> 6 mos.) has been reported in immunocompromised hosts.

Molecular diagnosis with stool is utilized most often. Treatment is supportive.
 

Take Home Message

When evaluating your patients for an acute gastrointestinal illness, consider water-related activities and their potential for being the source. Encourage patients not to ignore posted advisories on beaches, to not swim if they have diarrhea, not to swallow the water they swim in and to minimize water entering their nose while swimming in warm freshwater. If you start seeing several patients with similar symptoms and/or etiology, consider contacting your local or state health department. It could be the beginning of an outbreak.
 

Dr. Word is a pediatric infectious disease specialist and director of the Houston Travel Medicine Clinic. She has no relevant financial disclosures.

Suggested Readings

Graciaa DS et al. Outbreaks Associated with Untreated Recreational Water — United States, 2000–2014. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2018 Jun 29;67(25):701-706. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm6725a1.

Hlavsa MC et al. Outbreaks Associated with Treated Recreational Water — United States, 2015–2019. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2021;70:733–738. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm7020a1.

Kimberlin DW et al., eds. Red Book Report of the Committee on Infectious Diseases. 33rd ed. American Academy of Pediatrics. 2024. Cryptosporidiosis, p 338-40 and Norovirus, p 622-624.Waterborne Outbreaks Summary Reports. CDC. 2024 April 18.

Recently I was in Wyoming. As I rode down the Snake River, the guide pointed out tree trunks that had been chewed on by beavers. Days later I joined a local friend for a hike to Taggart Lake. Upon reaching the end of the trail as I began to cast my eyes on the magnificent scenery, I could not help but notice several children, including toddlers, playing in the fresh warm water. The next thing out of my friend’s mouth was “You know there is Giardia in there.” Little did she know, she and the guide had just helped me select a topic for ID Consult.

Giardia, aka ”beaver fever,” was discussed in detail in this column as part of the differential of a diarrheal illness by Christopher J. Harrison, MD. However, it is the perfect time of year to revisit other recreational water–associated illnesses.

Infections acquired during recreational water activity can lead to illnesses involving the gastrointestinal tract, central nervous system, respiratory tract, skin, eyes, and ears. Pathogens, chemicals, and toxins are transmitted by ingestion, contact with contaminated water or a sick individual or animal, and inhalation of aerosols. The National Waterborne Disease and Outbreak Surveillance System (WBDOSS) collects data on waterborne disease and outbreaks associated with recreational water, drinking water, and environmental and undetermined exposures to water. All reporting to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is voluntary. However, mandatory pathogen reporting requirements can vary by state. Ideally, once an agency has completed the outbreak investigation, the definitive cause and source will be determined, and interventions to prevent future outbreaks implemented.

Treated Versus Untreated Water

One useful way to help narrow the etiology of a patient’s symptoms is to consider those illnesses associated with treated water venues (e.g., pools, hot tubs, water parks) versus untreated water venues (e.g., rivers, lakes, oceans). Parents may forget to offer that information since they may not perceive a connection between water exposure and the illness, especially if they traveled within the US.

In 2021, the CDC reported results of data submitted between 2015 and 2019 from treated recreational water facilities. Of the 208 outbreaks, most (96%) were associated with public pools, hot tubs, or water playgrounds. These outbreaks resulted in at least 3,646 cases of illness, 286 hospitalizations, and 13 deaths. Overall infectious etiologies were the primary cause of illness. Of the 155 outbreaks with a confirmed etiology, Cryptosporidium was the causative pathogen in 49% of the outbreaks and accounted for 84% (2,492) of cases, while Legionella caused 42% of outbreaks, accounted for 13% (354) of cases, and was responsible for all 13 deaths. Slightly more than half (107 of 208) of the outbreaks started between June-August with Cryptosporidium accounting for 63 of the outbreaks during that period. A little more than one-third were associated with a hotel or resort. The majority of hotel recreational water–associated illnesses was associated with hot tubs. Of the 53 outbreaks without a confirmed etiology, 20 were suspected to have a chemical related etiology (excess chlorine, altered pool chemistry).

In contrast, there were 140 untreated recreational water outbreaks reported between 2000 and 2014 from 35 states and Guam involving 4,958 cases and 2 deaths. The etiology was confirmed for 103 (74%) outbreaks including 5 that had multiple etiologies and 8 due to toxins or chemicals; 7 of 8 toxins were from harmful algal blooms. Enteric pathogens were the etiology in 84% of outbreaks including: Norovirus (n = 1459), Shigella (n = 362) Avian schistosomes (n = 345), Cryptosporidium (n = 314) and Escherichia coli (n = 155).There were 24 cases of Giardia. The two deaths were due to Naegleria fowleri. The top 2 settings for these outbreaks were public parks (36%) and beaches (32%) with most outbreaks (n = 117) being associated with a lake /pond venue. Most outbreaks began between June and August.

The major differences between the two types of recreational water–associated illnesses are their most common settings and etiologies. With that in mind, let us briefly review the most common etiology from each venue.
 

Treated Water Venue: Cryptosporidiosis

Cryptosporidium is an oocyst-forming protozoa that causes a self-limited watery, nonbloody diarrhea which usually resolves within 10-14 days. Most patients have associated abdominal cramps, fever, and vomiting although infected persons can be asymptomatic. Infection in the immunocompromised potentially can lead to profuse and prolonged diarrhea. Oocysts are excreted in the feces of infected hosts and as little as 10 can cause infection. They can survive extreme environmental conditions in water and soil for several months and even survive up to 7 days in a properly chlorinated pool. Transmission occurs between humans via contaminated food and water or from infected animals. Oocysts have been isolated in raw or unpasteurized milk and apple cider. Incidence is highest in children 1 through 4 years of age.

Diagnosis today is usually via molecular methods (nucleic acid amplification tests, aka NAATs), due to their high sensitivity and specificity and is the preferred method. These tests can identify multiple gastrointestinal tract pathogens with a single assay. Diagnosis by microscopy or fecal immunoassay antigens are still available. Treatment is supportive in most cases. If needed, a 3-day course of nitazoxanide can be prescribed. Immunocompromised patients should be managed in consultation with an infectious disease specialist.
 

Untreated Water Venue: Norovirus

Norovirus is a viral illness characterized by the abrupt onset of vomiting and/or watery diarrhea, usually associated with nausea and abdominal cramps. Symptoms persist 24-72 hours, however they may be prolonged in the immunocompromised and persons at the extremes of the age spectrum. Norovirus has replaced rotavirus as the major cause of medically attended gastroenteritis. While a major cause of recreational water–associated illnesses, high attack rates also occur in semi closed communities including cruise ships, childcare centers, and schools. Transmission is fecal-oral, vomitus oral, person to person, by ingestion of contaminated food and water or touching contaminated surfaces with subsequent touching of the mouth. Asymptomatic viral shedding may occur, especially in children. Prolonged shedding (> 6 mos.) has been reported in immunocompromised hosts.

Molecular diagnosis with stool is utilized most often. Treatment is supportive.
 

Take Home Message

When evaluating your patients for an acute gastrointestinal illness, consider water-related activities and their potential for being the source. Encourage patients not to ignore posted advisories on beaches, to not swim if they have diarrhea, not to swallow the water they swim in and to minimize water entering their nose while swimming in warm freshwater. If you start seeing several patients with similar symptoms and/or etiology, consider contacting your local or state health department. It could be the beginning of an outbreak.
 

Dr. Word is a pediatric infectious disease specialist and director of the Houston Travel Medicine Clinic. She has no relevant financial disclosures.

Suggested Readings

Graciaa DS et al. Outbreaks Associated with Untreated Recreational Water — United States, 2000–2014. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2018 Jun 29;67(25):701-706. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm6725a1.

Hlavsa MC et al. Outbreaks Associated with Treated Recreational Water — United States, 2015–2019. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2021;70:733–738. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm7020a1.

Kimberlin DW et al., eds. Red Book Report of the Committee on Infectious Diseases. 33rd ed. American Academy of Pediatrics. 2024. Cryptosporidiosis, p 338-40 and Norovirus, p 622-624.Waterborne Outbreaks Summary Reports. CDC. 2024 April 18.

Recently I was in Wyoming. As I rode down the Snake River, the guide pointed out tree trunks that had been chewed on by beavers. Days later I joined a local friend for a hike to Taggart Lake. Upon reaching the end of the trail as I began to cast my eyes on the magnificent scenery, I could not help but notice several children, including toddlers, playing in the fresh warm water. The next thing out of my friend’s mouth was “You know there is Giardia in there.” Little did she know, she and the guide had just helped me select a topic for ID Consult.

Giardia, aka ”beaver fever,” was discussed in detail in this column as part of the differential of a diarrheal illness by Christopher J. Harrison, MD. However, it is the perfect time of year to revisit other recreational water–associated illnesses.

Infections acquired during recreational water activity can lead to illnesses involving the gastrointestinal tract, central nervous system, respiratory tract, skin, eyes, and ears. Pathogens, chemicals, and toxins are transmitted by ingestion, contact with contaminated water or a sick individual or animal, and inhalation of aerosols. The National Waterborne Disease and Outbreak Surveillance System (WBDOSS) collects data on waterborne disease and outbreaks associated with recreational water, drinking water, and environmental and undetermined exposures to water. All reporting to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is voluntary. However, mandatory pathogen reporting requirements can vary by state. Ideally, once an agency has completed the outbreak investigation, the definitive cause and source will be determined, and interventions to prevent future outbreaks implemented.

Treated Versus Untreated Water

One useful way to help narrow the etiology of a patient’s symptoms is to consider those illnesses associated with treated water venues (e.g., pools, hot tubs, water parks) versus untreated water venues (e.g., rivers, lakes, oceans). Parents may forget to offer that information since they may not perceive a connection between water exposure and the illness, especially if they traveled within the US.

In 2021, the CDC reported results of data submitted between 2015 and 2019 from treated recreational water facilities. Of the 208 outbreaks, most (96%) were associated with public pools, hot tubs, or water playgrounds. These outbreaks resulted in at least 3,646 cases of illness, 286 hospitalizations, and 13 deaths. Overall infectious etiologies were the primary cause of illness. Of the 155 outbreaks with a confirmed etiology, Cryptosporidium was the causative pathogen in 49% of the outbreaks and accounted for 84% (2,492) of cases, while Legionella caused 42% of outbreaks, accounted for 13% (354) of cases, and was responsible for all 13 deaths. Slightly more than half (107 of 208) of the outbreaks started between June-August with Cryptosporidium accounting for 63 of the outbreaks during that period. A little more than one-third were associated with a hotel or resort. The majority of hotel recreational water–associated illnesses was associated with hot tubs. Of the 53 outbreaks without a confirmed etiology, 20 were suspected to have a chemical related etiology (excess chlorine, altered pool chemistry).

In contrast, there were 140 untreated recreational water outbreaks reported between 2000 and 2014 from 35 states and Guam involving 4,958 cases and 2 deaths. The etiology was confirmed for 103 (74%) outbreaks including 5 that had multiple etiologies and 8 due to toxins or chemicals; 7 of 8 toxins were from harmful algal blooms. Enteric pathogens were the etiology in 84% of outbreaks including: Norovirus (n = 1459), Shigella (n = 362) Avian schistosomes (n = 345), Cryptosporidium (n = 314) and Escherichia coli (n = 155).There were 24 cases of Giardia. The two deaths were due to Naegleria fowleri. The top 2 settings for these outbreaks were public parks (36%) and beaches (32%) with most outbreaks (n = 117) being associated with a lake /pond venue. Most outbreaks began between June and August.

The major differences between the two types of recreational water–associated illnesses are their most common settings and etiologies. With that in mind, let us briefly review the most common etiology from each venue.
 

Treated Water Venue: Cryptosporidiosis

Cryptosporidium is an oocyst-forming protozoa that causes a self-limited watery, nonbloody diarrhea which usually resolves within 10-14 days. Most patients have associated abdominal cramps, fever, and vomiting although infected persons can be asymptomatic. Infection in the immunocompromised potentially can lead to profuse and prolonged diarrhea. Oocysts are excreted in the feces of infected hosts and as little as 10 can cause infection. They can survive extreme environmental conditions in water and soil for several months and even survive up to 7 days in a properly chlorinated pool. Transmission occurs between humans via contaminated food and water or from infected animals. Oocysts have been isolated in raw or unpasteurized milk and apple cider. Incidence is highest in children 1 through 4 years of age.

Diagnosis today is usually via molecular methods (nucleic acid amplification tests, aka NAATs), due to their high sensitivity and specificity and is the preferred method. These tests can identify multiple gastrointestinal tract pathogens with a single assay. Diagnosis by microscopy or fecal immunoassay antigens are still available. Treatment is supportive in most cases. If needed, a 3-day course of nitazoxanide can be prescribed. Immunocompromised patients should be managed in consultation with an infectious disease specialist.
 

Untreated Water Venue: Norovirus

Norovirus is a viral illness characterized by the abrupt onset of vomiting and/or watery diarrhea, usually associated with nausea and abdominal cramps. Symptoms persist 24-72 hours, however they may be prolonged in the immunocompromised and persons at the extremes of the age spectrum. Norovirus has replaced rotavirus as the major cause of medically attended gastroenteritis. While a major cause of recreational water–associated illnesses, high attack rates also occur in semi closed communities including cruise ships, childcare centers, and schools. Transmission is fecal-oral, vomitus oral, person to person, by ingestion of contaminated food and water or touching contaminated surfaces with subsequent touching of the mouth. Asymptomatic viral shedding may occur, especially in children. Prolonged shedding (> 6 mos.) has been reported in immunocompromised hosts.

Molecular diagnosis with stool is utilized most often. Treatment is supportive.
 

Take Home Message

When evaluating your patients for an acute gastrointestinal illness, consider water-related activities and their potential for being the source. Encourage patients not to ignore posted advisories on beaches, to not swim if they have diarrhea, not to swallow the water they swim in and to minimize water entering their nose while swimming in warm freshwater. If you start seeing several patients with similar symptoms and/or etiology, consider contacting your local or state health department. It could be the beginning of an outbreak.
 

Dr. Word is a pediatric infectious disease specialist and director of the Houston Travel Medicine Clinic. She has no relevant financial disclosures.

Suggested Readings

Graciaa DS et al. Outbreaks Associated with Untreated Recreational Water — United States, 2000–2014. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2018 Jun 29;67(25):701-706. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm6725a1.

Hlavsa MC et al. Outbreaks Associated with Treated Recreational Water — United States, 2015–2019. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2021;70:733–738. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm7020a1.

Kimberlin DW et al., eds. Red Book Report of the Committee on Infectious Diseases. 33rd ed. American Academy of Pediatrics. 2024. Cryptosporidiosis, p 338-40 and Norovirus, p 622-624.Waterborne Outbreaks Summary Reports. CDC. 2024 April 18.

Over the last couple of decades, I have become increasingly more uncomfortable watching American-style football on television. Lax refereeing coupled with over-juiced players who can generate g-forces previously attainable only on a NASA rocket sled has resulted in a spate of injuries I find unacceptable. The revolving door of transfers from college to college has made the term scholar-athlete a relic that can be applied to only a handful of players at the smallest uncompetitive schools.

Many of you who are regular readers of Letters from Maine have probably tired of my boasting that when I played football in high school we wore leather helmets. I enjoyed playing football and continued playing in college for a couple of years until it became obvious that “bench” was going to be my usual position. But, I would not want my grandson to play college football. Certainly, not at the elite college level. Were he to do so, he would be putting himself at risk for significant injury by participating in what I no longer view as an appealing activity. Let me add that I am not including chronic traumatic encephalopathy among my concerns, because I think its association with football injuries is far from settled. My concern is more about spinal cord injuries, which, although infrequent, are almost always devastating.

I should also make it perfectly clear that my lack of enthusiasm for college and professional football does not place me among the increasingly vocal throng calling for the elimination of youth football. For the 5- to 12-year-olds, putting on pads and a helmet and scrambling around on a grassy field bumping shoulders and heads with their peers is a wonderful way to burn off energy and satisfies a need for roughhousing that comes naturally to most young boys (and many girls). The chance of anyone of those kids playing youth football reaching the elite college or professional level is extremely unlikely. Other activities and the realization that football is not in their future weeds the field during adolescence.

Although there have been some studies suggesting that starting football at an early age is associated with increased injury risk, a recent and well-controlled study published in the journal Sports Medicine has found no such association in professional football players. This finding makes some sense when you consider that most of the children in this age group are not mustering g-forces anywhere close to those a college or professional athlete can generate.

Another recent study published in the Journal of Pediatrics offers more evidence to consider before one passes judgment on youth football. When reviewing the records of nearly 1500 patients in a specialty-care concussion setting at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, investigators found that recreation-related concussions and non–sport- or recreation-related concussions were more prevalent than sports-related concussions. The authors propose that “less supervision at the time of injury and less access to established concussion healthcare following injury” may explain their observations.

Of course as a card-carrying AARP old fogey, I long for the good old days when youth sports were organized by the kids in backyards and playgrounds. There we learned to pick teams and deal with the disappointment of not being a first-round pick and the embarrassment of being a last rounder. We settled out-of-bounds calls and arguments about ball possession without adults’ assistance — or video replays for that matter. But those days are gone and likely never to return, with parental anxiety running at record highs. We must accept youth sports organized for kids by adults is the way it’s going to be for the foreseeable future.

The football that we see on TV, with all its hoopla, ugliness, and mind-numbing advertisements, shouldn’t discourage us from allowing kids who want to knock heads and bump shoulders to enjoy the sport at a young age. As long as the program is organized with the emphasis on fun nor structured as a fast track to elite play it will be healthier for the kids than sitting on the couch at home watching the carnage on TV.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].

Over the last couple of decades, I have become increasingly more uncomfortable watching American-style football on television. Lax refereeing coupled with over-juiced players who can generate g-forces previously attainable only on a NASA rocket sled has resulted in a spate of injuries I find unacceptable. The revolving door of transfers from college to college has made the term scholar-athlete a relic that can be applied to only a handful of players at the smallest uncompetitive schools.

Many of you who are regular readers of Letters from Maine have probably tired of my boasting that when I played football in high school we wore leather helmets. I enjoyed playing football and continued playing in college for a couple of years until it became obvious that “bench” was going to be my usual position. But, I would not want my grandson to play college football. Certainly, not at the elite college level. Were he to do so, he would be putting himself at risk for significant injury by participating in what I no longer view as an appealing activity. Let me add that I am not including chronic traumatic encephalopathy among my concerns, because I think its association with football injuries is far from settled. My concern is more about spinal cord injuries, which, although infrequent, are almost always devastating.

I should also make it perfectly clear that my lack of enthusiasm for college and professional football does not place me among the increasingly vocal throng calling for the elimination of youth football. For the 5- to 12-year-olds, putting on pads and a helmet and scrambling around on a grassy field bumping shoulders and heads with their peers is a wonderful way to burn off energy and satisfies a need for roughhousing that comes naturally to most young boys (and many girls). The chance of anyone of those kids playing youth football reaching the elite college or professional level is extremely unlikely. Other activities and the realization that football is not in their future weeds the field during adolescence.

Although there have been some studies suggesting that starting football at an early age is associated with increased injury risk, a recent and well-controlled study published in the journal Sports Medicine has found no such association in professional football players. This finding makes some sense when you consider that most of the children in this age group are not mustering g-forces anywhere close to those a college or professional athlete can generate.

Another recent study published in the Journal of Pediatrics offers more evidence to consider before one passes judgment on youth football. When reviewing the records of nearly 1500 patients in a specialty-care concussion setting at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, investigators found that recreation-related concussions and non–sport- or recreation-related concussions were more prevalent than sports-related concussions. The authors propose that “less supervision at the time of injury and less access to established concussion healthcare following injury” may explain their observations.

Of course as a card-carrying AARP old fogey, I long for the good old days when youth sports were organized by the kids in backyards and playgrounds. There we learned to pick teams and deal with the disappointment of not being a first-round pick and the embarrassment of being a last rounder. We settled out-of-bounds calls and arguments about ball possession without adults’ assistance — or video replays for that matter. But those days are gone and likely never to return, with parental anxiety running at record highs. We must accept youth sports organized for kids by adults is the way it’s going to be for the foreseeable future.

The football that we see on TV, with all its hoopla, ugliness, and mind-numbing advertisements, shouldn’t discourage us from allowing kids who want to knock heads and bump shoulders to enjoy the sport at a young age. As long as the program is organized with the emphasis on fun nor structured as a fast track to elite play it will be healthier for the kids than sitting on the couch at home watching the carnage on TV.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].

Over the last couple of decades, I have become increasingly more uncomfortable watching American-style football on television. Lax refereeing coupled with over-juiced players who can generate g-forces previously attainable only on a NASA rocket sled has resulted in a spate of injuries I find unacceptable. The revolving door of transfers from college to college has made the term scholar-athlete a relic that can be applied to only a handful of players at the smallest uncompetitive schools.

Many of you who are regular readers of Letters from Maine have probably tired of my boasting that when I played football in high school we wore leather helmets. I enjoyed playing football and continued playing in college for a couple of years until it became obvious that “bench” was going to be my usual position. But, I would not want my grandson to play college football. Certainly, not at the elite college level. Were he to do so, he would be putting himself at risk for significant injury by participating in what I no longer view as an appealing activity. Let me add that I am not including chronic traumatic encephalopathy among my concerns, because I think its association with football injuries is far from settled. My concern is more about spinal cord injuries, which, although infrequent, are almost always devastating.

I should also make it perfectly clear that my lack of enthusiasm for college and professional football does not place me among the increasingly vocal throng calling for the elimination of youth football. For the 5- to 12-year-olds, putting on pads and a helmet and scrambling around on a grassy field bumping shoulders and heads with their peers is a wonderful way to burn off energy and satisfies a need for roughhousing that comes naturally to most young boys (and many girls). The chance of anyone of those kids playing youth football reaching the elite college or professional level is extremely unlikely. Other activities and the realization that football is not in their future weeds the field during adolescence.

Although there have been some studies suggesting that starting football at an early age is associated with increased injury risk, a recent and well-controlled study published in the journal Sports Medicine has found no such association in professional football players. This finding makes some sense when you consider that most of the children in this age group are not mustering g-forces anywhere close to those a college or professional athlete can generate.

Another recent study published in the Journal of Pediatrics offers more evidence to consider before one passes judgment on youth football. When reviewing the records of nearly 1500 patients in a specialty-care concussion setting at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, investigators found that recreation-related concussions and non–sport- or recreation-related concussions were more prevalent than sports-related concussions. The authors propose that “less supervision at the time of injury and less access to established concussion healthcare following injury” may explain their observations.

Of course as a card-carrying AARP old fogey, I long for the good old days when youth sports were organized by the kids in backyards and playgrounds. There we learned to pick teams and deal with the disappointment of not being a first-round pick and the embarrassment of being a last rounder. We settled out-of-bounds calls and arguments about ball possession without adults’ assistance — or video replays for that matter. But those days are gone and likely never to return, with parental anxiety running at record highs. We must accept youth sports organized for kids by adults is the way it’s going to be for the foreseeable future.

The football that we see on TV, with all its hoopla, ugliness, and mind-numbing advertisements, shouldn’t discourage us from allowing kids who want to knock heads and bump shoulders to enjoy the sport at a young age. As long as the program is organized with the emphasis on fun nor structured as a fast track to elite play it will be healthier for the kids than sitting on the couch at home watching the carnage on TV.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].