MDedge Pediatrics

The first pentavalent vaccine approved against all five major serogroups of meningococcal disease has clinicians evaluating the optimal timing for vaccination, according to a new analysis.

Vaccines have helped greatly reduce the rate of invasive meningococcal disease among adolescents over the past 20 years, and the new formulation that covers all main types of the bacteria could help improve vaccination coverage and drive infection rates even lower, reported the research led by senior author Gregory Zimet from the department of pediatrics at the Indiana University School of Medicine in Indianapolis, Indiana.

The five main serogroups — labeled A, B, C, W, and Y — cause most of the disease set off by the bacteria Neisseria meningitidis. It is a rare but serious illness that mostly affects adolescents and young adults.

Meningitis often presents with nonspecific symptoms and can progress to serious illness and even death within hours.

“Clinical features of invasive meningococcal disease, coupled with its unpredictable epidemiology, suggest that vaccination is the best strategy for preventing associated adverse outcomes,” the researchers reported.

Before the introduction of vaccines in 2005, the incidence of disease in the United States ranged from 0.5 to 1.1 cases per 100,000 people, with ≥ 10% of cases being fatal.
 

The Quadrivalent Vaccine

In 2005, the first quadrivalent meningococcal vaccine, covering serogroups A, C, W, and Y, was approved in the United States and recommended for routine use in 11- and 12-year-olds, followed by a 2010 booster recommendation at age 16 years.

Between 2006 and 2017, the estimated incidence among 11- to 15-year-olds dropped by > 26% each year.

For those aged 16-22 years, the incidence dropped even further by > 35% per year between 2011 and 2017 after the booster was introduced.

Rates also fell in other groups that had not been vaccinated, such as in infants and adults, suggesting possible herd protection after the vaccines.
 

With Serogroup B

By 2015, a vaccine covering serogroup B was also approved. However, it was not added to the routine vaccination schedule and was subject to shared clinical decision-making between clinicians and patients.

The B vaccine has been less successful, reported the researchers, who said this is likely because uptake was much lower due to it not being part of the routine schedule.

Today, serogroup B makes up a greater proportion of meningitis cases. Before the vaccines were introduced, it accounted for about one third of cases, and now it is the cause of about half of all cases.
 

Two Doses With a Boost?

In October, the US Food and Drug Administration approved the first pentavalent vaccine against all five major serogroups, which the authors of the analysis said, “may help optimize the existing US adolescent meningococcal vaccination platform”.

A modeling study suggested that the current vaccination schedule of two doses each of the vaccines would prevent 165 cases of meningitis over 10 years. However, a two-dose pentavalent vaccine at age 11 years plus a booster at age 16 years would not only simplify the process and reduce the number of injections required but would also increase the number of cases prevented to 256.

“Use of pentavalent vaccines yields the potential to build on the success of the incumbent program, raising B vaccination coverage by simplifying existing recommendations and decreasing the number of injections required,” the researchers reported, thus “…reducing the clinical and economic burden of meningococcal disease.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The first pentavalent vaccine approved against all five major serogroups of meningococcal disease has clinicians evaluating the optimal timing for vaccination, according to a new analysis.

Vaccines have helped greatly reduce the rate of invasive meningococcal disease among adolescents over the past 20 years, and the new formulation that covers all main types of the bacteria could help improve vaccination coverage and drive infection rates even lower, reported the research led by senior author Gregory Zimet from the department of pediatrics at the Indiana University School of Medicine in Indianapolis, Indiana.

The five main serogroups — labeled A, B, C, W, and Y — cause most of the disease set off by the bacteria Neisseria meningitidis. It is a rare but serious illness that mostly affects adolescents and young adults.

Meningitis often presents with nonspecific symptoms and can progress to serious illness and even death within hours.

“Clinical features of invasive meningococcal disease, coupled with its unpredictable epidemiology, suggest that vaccination is the best strategy for preventing associated adverse outcomes,” the researchers reported.

Before the introduction of vaccines in 2005, the incidence of disease in the United States ranged from 0.5 to 1.1 cases per 100,000 people, with ≥ 10% of cases being fatal.
 

The Quadrivalent Vaccine

In 2005, the first quadrivalent meningococcal vaccine, covering serogroups A, C, W, and Y, was approved in the United States and recommended for routine use in 11- and 12-year-olds, followed by a 2010 booster recommendation at age 16 years.

Between 2006 and 2017, the estimated incidence among 11- to 15-year-olds dropped by > 26% each year.

For those aged 16-22 years, the incidence dropped even further by > 35% per year between 2011 and 2017 after the booster was introduced.

Rates also fell in other groups that had not been vaccinated, such as in infants and adults, suggesting possible herd protection after the vaccines.
 

With Serogroup B

By 2015, a vaccine covering serogroup B was also approved. However, it was not added to the routine vaccination schedule and was subject to shared clinical decision-making between clinicians and patients.

The B vaccine has been less successful, reported the researchers, who said this is likely because uptake was much lower due to it not being part of the routine schedule.

Today, serogroup B makes up a greater proportion of meningitis cases. Before the vaccines were introduced, it accounted for about one third of cases, and now it is the cause of about half of all cases.
 

Two Doses With a Boost?

In October, the US Food and Drug Administration approved the first pentavalent vaccine against all five major serogroups, which the authors of the analysis said, “may help optimize the existing US adolescent meningococcal vaccination platform”.

A modeling study suggested that the current vaccination schedule of two doses each of the vaccines would prevent 165 cases of meningitis over 10 years. However, a two-dose pentavalent vaccine at age 11 years plus a booster at age 16 years would not only simplify the process and reduce the number of injections required but would also increase the number of cases prevented to 256.

“Use of pentavalent vaccines yields the potential to build on the success of the incumbent program, raising B vaccination coverage by simplifying existing recommendations and decreasing the number of injections required,” the researchers reported, thus “…reducing the clinical and economic burden of meningococcal disease.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The first pentavalent vaccine approved against all five major serogroups of meningococcal disease has clinicians evaluating the optimal timing for vaccination, according to a new analysis.

Vaccines have helped greatly reduce the rate of invasive meningococcal disease among adolescents over the past 20 years, and the new formulation that covers all main types of the bacteria could help improve vaccination coverage and drive infection rates even lower, reported the research led by senior author Gregory Zimet from the department of pediatrics at the Indiana University School of Medicine in Indianapolis, Indiana.

The five main serogroups — labeled A, B, C, W, and Y — cause most of the disease set off by the bacteria Neisseria meningitidis. It is a rare but serious illness that mostly affects adolescents and young adults.

Meningitis often presents with nonspecific symptoms and can progress to serious illness and even death within hours.

“Clinical features of invasive meningococcal disease, coupled with its unpredictable epidemiology, suggest that vaccination is the best strategy for preventing associated adverse outcomes,” the researchers reported.

Before the introduction of vaccines in 2005, the incidence of disease in the United States ranged from 0.5 to 1.1 cases per 100,000 people, with ≥ 10% of cases being fatal.
 

The Quadrivalent Vaccine

In 2005, the first quadrivalent meningococcal vaccine, covering serogroups A, C, W, and Y, was approved in the United States and recommended for routine use in 11- and 12-year-olds, followed by a 2010 booster recommendation at age 16 years.

Between 2006 and 2017, the estimated incidence among 11- to 15-year-olds dropped by > 26% each year.

For those aged 16-22 years, the incidence dropped even further by > 35% per year between 2011 and 2017 after the booster was introduced.

Rates also fell in other groups that had not been vaccinated, such as in infants and adults, suggesting possible herd protection after the vaccines.
 

With Serogroup B

By 2015, a vaccine covering serogroup B was also approved. However, it was not added to the routine vaccination schedule and was subject to shared clinical decision-making between clinicians and patients.

The B vaccine has been less successful, reported the researchers, who said this is likely because uptake was much lower due to it not being part of the routine schedule.

Today, serogroup B makes up a greater proportion of meningitis cases. Before the vaccines were introduced, it accounted for about one third of cases, and now it is the cause of about half of all cases.
 

Two Doses With a Boost?

In October, the US Food and Drug Administration approved the first pentavalent vaccine against all five major serogroups, which the authors of the analysis said, “may help optimize the existing US adolescent meningococcal vaccination platform”.

A modeling study suggested that the current vaccination schedule of two doses each of the vaccines would prevent 165 cases of meningitis over 10 years. However, a two-dose pentavalent vaccine at age 11 years plus a booster at age 16 years would not only simplify the process and reduce the number of injections required but would also increase the number of cases prevented to 256.

“Use of pentavalent vaccines yields the potential to build on the success of the incumbent program, raising B vaccination coverage by simplifying existing recommendations and decreasing the number of injections required,” the researchers reported, thus “…reducing the clinical and economic burden of meningococcal disease.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Bullying, heavy social media use, experimentation with drugs and alcohol: These are the well-described hazards of adolescence. We have growing knowledge of the risks associated with these experiences and which youth are more vulnerable to these risks. Developmentally, adolescence is a time of critical brain development marked by heightened sensitivity to social approval and limited impulse control. Adolescents also have growing autonomy from parents alongside a stronger need for time with friends (the new peer home away from the parental home). These factors alone make adolescence a period of heightened sensitivity to these experiences, but some youth have greater vulnerability to develop psychopathology such as anxiety, depression, eating disorders, or addiction after exposure to these common experiences. Pediatricians can assess these broader vulnerabilities during well child visits of pre- and early teens and offer patients and their parents strategies for minimizing risk and cultivating resilience.

Bullying

Bullying, both verbal and physical, has long been an unwelcome part of youth. Cellphones and social media have brought bullying into the 21st century. Cyberbullying has meant that targeted youth are no longer safe after school and it carries higher risk of self-harm and suicidality than the analog version. No child benefits from bullying, but some children are more vulnerable to develop an anxiety or mood disorder, self-injury, or suicidality, whereas others experience stress and distress, but are able to adaptively seek support from friends and adults and stay on track developmentally, even to flourish. There is evidence that girls and LGBTQ youth are more commonly bullied and at higher risk for depression, self-harm, and suicidality as a consequence of cyberbullying. Youth already suffering from a psychiatric illness or substance abuse who are bullied are at higher risk for self-harm and suicidality than that of their bullied peers. Youth whose parents score high on measures of distress and family dysfunction also face higher risk of self-harm and suicidality after bullying.¹

Social Media

Unlike bullying, social media has been a force only in 21st century life, with Facebook starting in 2004 and cellphones in common use by adolescents in the past 2 decades. While there are potential benefits of social media use, such as stronger connections to supportive peers for isolated LGBTQ youth or youth who live in rural areas, there are also risks. Of course, social media carries the risk of cyberbullying. It also carries the risk for very heavy patterns of use that can interfere with physical activity, adequate sleep, academic performance, and healthy in-person social activities. There is robust emerging evidence that heavy users have higher rates of mood disorders and anxiety symptoms, although it is unclear whether social media exacerbates, or more social media use is the result of depression and/or anxiety. Adolescents’ desire for social acceptance makes them especially sensitive to the social rewards of “likes” and they are thus vulnerable to becoming heavy users. Adolescent girls who are heavy users are vulnerable to developing a disordered body image and eating disorders. Those youth with especially low levels of impulse control, such as those with ADHD, have greater risk of developing problematic use.^2-4

Substance Use and Abuse

Exploration of alcohol and drug use has been a common experience, and hazard, of adolescence for many generations. As a result, we have richer knowledge of those factors that are associated with risk of and protection against that use progressing to a use disorder. Earlier age at first experimentation appears to be independently correlated with increased risk of developing a substance use disorder. Every pediatrician should be aware of a family history of substance use disorders, especially alcohol, as they are strongly associated with higher risk. Youth with temperaments that are sensation seeking, externalizing and impulsive are at higher risk. Youth with anxiety and mood disorders and untreated attention deficit disorders are at higher risk. Youth whose parents have high levels of conflict or “permissive” parenting styles are at higher risk as are those who as children experienced abuse or neglect.^5-7

Minimizing Risk and Cultivating Resilience

Protective factors balance these risks: adequate sleep; positive relationships with friends and parents; and confidence in their academic, athletic, or social abilities all are correlated with good outcomes after bullying, drug and alcohol use, and social media use. These teenagers are meaningfully connected to caring adults and peers, have a future orientation, and typically have higher self-esteem. Youth whose parents balance attunement with rules and expectations (“authoritative” parenting) appear to be at lower risk of poor mental health outcomes associated with heavy social media use as well as other risk behaviors. These parents have clear rules and expectations, including about drugs and alcohol, and enforce rules reasonably calmly and consistently. Youth whose families eat dinner together at least three times weekly, who attend schools that offer a wide range of after-school activities, and who learn to use problem-focused coping skills rather than emotion-focused coping skills are protected against poor mental health outcomes in the face of these challenges.

While bullying is a stressor, social media and substances may seem like ways of managing stress and connecting with peers. There are youth with clear vulnerabilities to the risks associated with each of them. Shared factors include vulnerable temperaments, high conflict or permissive parenting, family history of substance use disorders or preexisting psychiatric illness. Pediatricians are in a unique position to raise teenagers’ awareness of their specific vulnerabilities. Talk about the heightened risk of experimentation with alcohol or drugs in your patients who are in treatment for an anxiety or mood disorder. Help them cultivate critical thinking — an adolescent specialty — around marketing and peer pressure. Remind them that social media companies make money from keeping them online longer. Then help them identify what strategies are in their control, such as limiting their time online. What else could they be doing with their time that they actually enjoy? Remind them about the value of protecting time for adequate sleep, regular exercise, and sitting down for dinner with their family. Ask about their nourishing relationships with peers and adults and talk about the value of protecting time for them. Ask your patients and their parents about how they face stress, emphasizing their ability to locate what is within their control. While awareness of feelings is important, learning to manage intense emotions is more connected to healthy habits of sleep and exercise and strategies to get support or pivot to engaging activities. Discussing this openly models for parents how to bear difficulty alongside their children without becoming distressed or punitive themselves. Talk with worried parents about the value of regular meals together, shared physical activities, and supporting time for their children’s emerging interests and hobbies. Equipping your patients and their parents with knowledge about their particular vulnerabilities, reminders about what is known about these risks, and all that is in their power to build resilience, may be as meaningful a public health intervention as asking them about biking with helmets and using seat belts.

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].

References

1. Zych I et al. Protective Factors Against Bullying and Cyberbullying: A Systematic Review of Meta-Analyses. Aggress Violent Behav. 2019;45:4-19. doi: 10.1016/j.avb.2018.06.008.

2. Office of the Surgeon General. Social Media and Youth Mental Health: The U.S. Surgeon General’s Advisory. 2023. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK594761/.

3. Uhls Y et al. Benefits and Costs of Social Media in Adolescence. Pediatrics. 2017 Nov;140(Suppl 2):S67-S70. doi: 10.1542/peds.2016-1758E.

4. Health Advisory on Social Media Use in Adolescence. American Psychological Association (2023).

5. Sloboda Z et al. Revisiting the Concepts of Risk and Protective Factors for Understanding the Etiology and Development of Substance Use and Substance Use Disorders: Implications for Prevention, Substance Use and Misuse, Subst Use Misuse. 2012 Jun-Jul;47(8-9):944-62. doi: 10.3109/10826084.2012.663280.

6. O’Connell M et al. Preventing Mental, Emotional, and Behavioral Disorders Among Young People: Progress and Possibilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press and US Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Administration. 2009 (https://nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/12480/preventing-mental-emotional-and-behavioral-disorders-among-young-people-progress).

7. Staiger P et al. Can Emotion-Focused Coping Help Explain the Link Between Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Severity and Triggers for Substance Use in Young Adults? J Subst Abuse Treat. 2009 Mar;36(2):220-6. doi: 10.1016/j.jsat.2008.05.008.

Bullying, heavy social media use, experimentation with drugs and alcohol: These are the well-described hazards of adolescence. We have growing knowledge of the risks associated with these experiences and which youth are more vulnerable to these risks. Developmentally, adolescence is a time of critical brain development marked by heightened sensitivity to social approval and limited impulse control. Adolescents also have growing autonomy from parents alongside a stronger need for time with friends (the new peer home away from the parental home). These factors alone make adolescence a period of heightened sensitivity to these experiences, but some youth have greater vulnerability to develop psychopathology such as anxiety, depression, eating disorders, or addiction after exposure to these common experiences. Pediatricians can assess these broader vulnerabilities during well child visits of pre- and early teens and offer patients and their parents strategies for minimizing risk and cultivating resilience.

Bullying

Bullying, both verbal and physical, has long been an unwelcome part of youth. Cellphones and social media have brought bullying into the 21st century. Cyberbullying has meant that targeted youth are no longer safe after school and it carries higher risk of self-harm and suicidality than the analog version. No child benefits from bullying, but some children are more vulnerable to develop an anxiety or mood disorder, self-injury, or suicidality, whereas others experience stress and distress, but are able to adaptively seek support from friends and adults and stay on track developmentally, even to flourish. There is evidence that girls and LGBTQ youth are more commonly bullied and at higher risk for depression, self-harm, and suicidality as a consequence of cyberbullying. Youth already suffering from a psychiatric illness or substance abuse who are bullied are at higher risk for self-harm and suicidality than that of their bullied peers. Youth whose parents score high on measures of distress and family dysfunction also face higher risk of self-harm and suicidality after bullying.¹

Social Media

Unlike bullying, social media has been a force only in 21st century life, with Facebook starting in 2004 and cellphones in common use by adolescents in the past 2 decades. While there are potential benefits of social media use, such as stronger connections to supportive peers for isolated LGBTQ youth or youth who live in rural areas, there are also risks. Of course, social media carries the risk of cyberbullying. It also carries the risk for very heavy patterns of use that can interfere with physical activity, adequate sleep, academic performance, and healthy in-person social activities. There is robust emerging evidence that heavy users have higher rates of mood disorders and anxiety symptoms, although it is unclear whether social media exacerbates, or more social media use is the result of depression and/or anxiety. Adolescents’ desire for social acceptance makes them especially sensitive to the social rewards of “likes” and they are thus vulnerable to becoming heavy users. Adolescent girls who are heavy users are vulnerable to developing a disordered body image and eating disorders. Those youth with especially low levels of impulse control, such as those with ADHD, have greater risk of developing problematic use.^2-4

Substance Use and Abuse

Exploration of alcohol and drug use has been a common experience, and hazard, of adolescence for many generations. As a result, we have richer knowledge of those factors that are associated with risk of and protection against that use progressing to a use disorder. Earlier age at first experimentation appears to be independently correlated with increased risk of developing a substance use disorder. Every pediatrician should be aware of a family history of substance use disorders, especially alcohol, as they are strongly associated with higher risk. Youth with temperaments that are sensation seeking, externalizing and impulsive are at higher risk. Youth with anxiety and mood disorders and untreated attention deficit disorders are at higher risk. Youth whose parents have high levels of conflict or “permissive” parenting styles are at higher risk as are those who as children experienced abuse or neglect.^5-7

Minimizing Risk and Cultivating Resilience

Protective factors balance these risks: adequate sleep; positive relationships with friends and parents; and confidence in their academic, athletic, or social abilities all are correlated with good outcomes after bullying, drug and alcohol use, and social media use. These teenagers are meaningfully connected to caring adults and peers, have a future orientation, and typically have higher self-esteem. Youth whose parents balance attunement with rules and expectations (“authoritative” parenting) appear to be at lower risk of poor mental health outcomes associated with heavy social media use as well as other risk behaviors. These parents have clear rules and expectations, including about drugs and alcohol, and enforce rules reasonably calmly and consistently. Youth whose families eat dinner together at least three times weekly, who attend schools that offer a wide range of after-school activities, and who learn to use problem-focused coping skills rather than emotion-focused coping skills are protected against poor mental health outcomes in the face of these challenges.

While bullying is a stressor, social media and substances may seem like ways of managing stress and connecting with peers. There are youth with clear vulnerabilities to the risks associated with each of them. Shared factors include vulnerable temperaments, high conflict or permissive parenting, family history of substance use disorders or preexisting psychiatric illness. Pediatricians are in a unique position to raise teenagers’ awareness of their specific vulnerabilities. Talk about the heightened risk of experimentation with alcohol or drugs in your patients who are in treatment for an anxiety or mood disorder. Help them cultivate critical thinking — an adolescent specialty — around marketing and peer pressure. Remind them that social media companies make money from keeping them online longer. Then help them identify what strategies are in their control, such as limiting their time online. What else could they be doing with their time that they actually enjoy? Remind them about the value of protecting time for adequate sleep, regular exercise, and sitting down for dinner with their family. Ask about their nourishing relationships with peers and adults and talk about the value of protecting time for them. Ask your patients and their parents about how they face stress, emphasizing their ability to locate what is within their control. While awareness of feelings is important, learning to manage intense emotions is more connected to healthy habits of sleep and exercise and strategies to get support or pivot to engaging activities. Discussing this openly models for parents how to bear difficulty alongside their children without becoming distressed or punitive themselves. Talk with worried parents about the value of regular meals together, shared physical activities, and supporting time for their children’s emerging interests and hobbies. Equipping your patients and their parents with knowledge about their particular vulnerabilities, reminders about what is known about these risks, and all that is in their power to build resilience, may be as meaningful a public health intervention as asking them about biking with helmets and using seat belts.

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].

References

1. Zych I et al. Protective Factors Against Bullying and Cyberbullying: A Systematic Review of Meta-Analyses. Aggress Violent Behav. 2019;45:4-19. doi: 10.1016/j.avb.2018.06.008.

2. Office of the Surgeon General. Social Media and Youth Mental Health: The U.S. Surgeon General’s Advisory. 2023. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK594761/.

3. Uhls Y et al. Benefits and Costs of Social Media in Adolescence. Pediatrics. 2017 Nov;140(Suppl 2):S67-S70. doi: 10.1542/peds.2016-1758E.

4. Health Advisory on Social Media Use in Adolescence. American Psychological Association (2023).

5. Sloboda Z et al. Revisiting the Concepts of Risk and Protective Factors for Understanding the Etiology and Development of Substance Use and Substance Use Disorders: Implications for Prevention, Substance Use and Misuse, Subst Use Misuse. 2012 Jun-Jul;47(8-9):944-62. doi: 10.3109/10826084.2012.663280.

6. O’Connell M et al. Preventing Mental, Emotional, and Behavioral Disorders Among Young People: Progress and Possibilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press and US Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Administration. 2009 (https://nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/12480/preventing-mental-emotional-and-behavioral-disorders-among-young-people-progress).

7. Staiger P et al. Can Emotion-Focused Coping Help Explain the Link Between Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Severity and Triggers for Substance Use in Young Adults? J Subst Abuse Treat. 2009 Mar;36(2):220-6. doi: 10.1016/j.jsat.2008.05.008.

Bullying, heavy social media use, experimentation with drugs and alcohol: These are the well-described hazards of adolescence. We have growing knowledge of the risks associated with these experiences and which youth are more vulnerable to these risks. Developmentally, adolescence is a time of critical brain development marked by heightened sensitivity to social approval and limited impulse control. Adolescents also have growing autonomy from parents alongside a stronger need for time with friends (the new peer home away from the parental home). These factors alone make adolescence a period of heightened sensitivity to these experiences, but some youth have greater vulnerability to develop psychopathology such as anxiety, depression, eating disorders, or addiction after exposure to these common experiences. Pediatricians can assess these broader vulnerabilities during well child visits of pre- and early teens and offer patients and their parents strategies for minimizing risk and cultivating resilience.

Bullying

Bullying, both verbal and physical, has long been an unwelcome part of youth. Cellphones and social media have brought bullying into the 21st century. Cyberbullying has meant that targeted youth are no longer safe after school and it carries higher risk of self-harm and suicidality than the analog version. No child benefits from bullying, but some children are more vulnerable to develop an anxiety or mood disorder, self-injury, or suicidality, whereas others experience stress and distress, but are able to adaptively seek support from friends and adults and stay on track developmentally, even to flourish. There is evidence that girls and LGBTQ youth are more commonly bullied and at higher risk for depression, self-harm, and suicidality as a consequence of cyberbullying. Youth already suffering from a psychiatric illness or substance abuse who are bullied are at higher risk for self-harm and suicidality than that of their bullied peers. Youth whose parents score high on measures of distress and family dysfunction also face higher risk of self-harm and suicidality after bullying.¹

Social Media

Unlike bullying, social media has been a force only in 21st century life, with Facebook starting in 2004 and cellphones in common use by adolescents in the past 2 decades. While there are potential benefits of social media use, such as stronger connections to supportive peers for isolated LGBTQ youth or youth who live in rural areas, there are also risks. Of course, social media carries the risk of cyberbullying. It also carries the risk for very heavy patterns of use that can interfere with physical activity, adequate sleep, academic performance, and healthy in-person social activities. There is robust emerging evidence that heavy users have higher rates of mood disorders and anxiety symptoms, although it is unclear whether social media exacerbates, or more social media use is the result of depression and/or anxiety. Adolescents’ desire for social acceptance makes them especially sensitive to the social rewards of “likes” and they are thus vulnerable to becoming heavy users. Adolescent girls who are heavy users are vulnerable to developing a disordered body image and eating disorders. Those youth with especially low levels of impulse control, such as those with ADHD, have greater risk of developing problematic use.^2-4

Substance Use and Abuse

Exploration of alcohol and drug use has been a common experience, and hazard, of adolescence for many generations. As a result, we have richer knowledge of those factors that are associated with risk of and protection against that use progressing to a use disorder. Earlier age at first experimentation appears to be independently correlated with increased risk of developing a substance use disorder. Every pediatrician should be aware of a family history of substance use disorders, especially alcohol, as they are strongly associated with higher risk. Youth with temperaments that are sensation seeking, externalizing and impulsive are at higher risk. Youth with anxiety and mood disorders and untreated attention deficit disorders are at higher risk. Youth whose parents have high levels of conflict or “permissive” parenting styles are at higher risk as are those who as children experienced abuse or neglect.^5-7

Minimizing Risk and Cultivating Resilience

Protective factors balance these risks: adequate sleep; positive relationships with friends and parents; and confidence in their academic, athletic, or social abilities all are correlated with good outcomes after bullying, drug and alcohol use, and social media use. These teenagers are meaningfully connected to caring adults and peers, have a future orientation, and typically have higher self-esteem. Youth whose parents balance attunement with rules and expectations (“authoritative” parenting) appear to be at lower risk of poor mental health outcomes associated with heavy social media use as well as other risk behaviors. These parents have clear rules and expectations, including about drugs and alcohol, and enforce rules reasonably calmly and consistently. Youth whose families eat dinner together at least three times weekly, who attend schools that offer a wide range of after-school activities, and who learn to use problem-focused coping skills rather than emotion-focused coping skills are protected against poor mental health outcomes in the face of these challenges.

While bullying is a stressor, social media and substances may seem like ways of managing stress and connecting with peers. There are youth with clear vulnerabilities to the risks associated with each of them. Shared factors include vulnerable temperaments, high conflict or permissive parenting, family history of substance use disorders or preexisting psychiatric illness. Pediatricians are in a unique position to raise teenagers’ awareness of their specific vulnerabilities. Talk about the heightened risk of experimentation with alcohol or drugs in your patients who are in treatment for an anxiety or mood disorder. Help them cultivate critical thinking — an adolescent specialty — around marketing and peer pressure. Remind them that social media companies make money from keeping them online longer. Then help them identify what strategies are in their control, such as limiting their time online. What else could they be doing with their time that they actually enjoy? Remind them about the value of protecting time for adequate sleep, regular exercise, and sitting down for dinner with their family. Ask about their nourishing relationships with peers and adults and talk about the value of protecting time for them. Ask your patients and their parents about how they face stress, emphasizing their ability to locate what is within their control. While awareness of feelings is important, learning to manage intense emotions is more connected to healthy habits of sleep and exercise and strategies to get support or pivot to engaging activities. Discussing this openly models for parents how to bear difficulty alongside their children without becoming distressed or punitive themselves. Talk with worried parents about the value of regular meals together, shared physical activities, and supporting time for their children’s emerging interests and hobbies. Equipping your patients and their parents with knowledge about their particular vulnerabilities, reminders about what is known about these risks, and all that is in their power to build resilience, may be as meaningful a public health intervention as asking them about biking with helmets and using seat belts.

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].

References

1. Zych I et al. Protective Factors Against Bullying and Cyberbullying: A Systematic Review of Meta-Analyses. Aggress Violent Behav. 2019;45:4-19. doi: 10.1016/j.avb.2018.06.008.

2. Office of the Surgeon General. Social Media and Youth Mental Health: The U.S. Surgeon General’s Advisory. 2023. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK594761/.

3. Uhls Y et al. Benefits and Costs of Social Media in Adolescence. Pediatrics. 2017 Nov;140(Suppl 2):S67-S70. doi: 10.1542/peds.2016-1758E.

4. Health Advisory on Social Media Use in Adolescence. American Psychological Association (2023).

5. Sloboda Z et al. Revisiting the Concepts of Risk and Protective Factors for Understanding the Etiology and Development of Substance Use and Substance Use Disorders: Implications for Prevention, Substance Use and Misuse, Subst Use Misuse. 2012 Jun-Jul;47(8-9):944-62. doi: 10.3109/10826084.2012.663280.

6. O’Connell M et al. Preventing Mental, Emotional, and Behavioral Disorders Among Young People: Progress and Possibilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press and US Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Administration. 2009 (https://nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/12480/preventing-mental-emotional-and-behavioral-disorders-among-young-people-progress).

7. Staiger P et al. Can Emotion-Focused Coping Help Explain the Link Between Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Severity and Triggers for Substance Use in Young Adults? J Subst Abuse Treat. 2009 Mar;36(2):220-6. doi: 10.1016/j.jsat.2008.05.008.

A phase 3 trial of a maternal vaccine candidate for respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) has been stopped early because the risk for preterm births is higher in the candidate vaccine group than in the placebo group.

By the time enrollment was stopped on February 25, 2022 because of the safety signal of preterm birth, 5328 pregnant women had been vaccinated, about half of the intended 10,000 enrollees. Of these, 3557 received the candidate vaccine RSV prefusion F protein–based maternal vaccine, and another 1771 received a placebo.

Data from the trial, sponsored by GSK, were immediately made available when recruitment and vaccination were stopped, and investigation of the preterm birth risk followed. Results of that analysis, led by Ilse Dieussaert, IR, vice president for vaccine development at GSK in Wavre, Belgium, are published online on March 13 in The New England Journal of Medicine. 

“We have discontinued our work on this RSV maternal candidate vaccine, and we are closing out all ongoing trials with the exception of the MAT-015 follow-on study to monitor subsequent pregnancies,” a GSK spokesperson said in an interview.

The trial was conducted in pregnant women aged 18-49 years to assess the efficacy and safety of the vaccine. The women were randomly assigned 2:1 to receive the candidate vaccine or placebo between 24 and 34 weeks’ gestation.
 

Preterm Births

The primary outcomes were any or severe medically assessed RSV-associated lower respiratory tract infection in infants from birth to 6 months and safety in infants from birth to 12 months.

According to the data, preterm birth occurred in 6.8% of the infants in the vaccine group and in 4.9% of those in the placebo group (relative risk [RR], 1.37; 95% CI, 1.08-1.74; P = .01). Neonatal death occurred in 0.4% in the vaccine group and 0.2% in the placebo group (RR, 2.16; 95% CI, 0.62-7.56; P = .23).

To date, only one RSV vaccine (Abrysvo, Pfizer) has been approved for use during pregnancy to protect infants from RSV-associated lower respiratory tract infection.

“It was a very big deal that this trial was stopped, and the new candidate won’t get approval.” said Aaron E. Glatt, MD, chair of the Department of Medicine and chief of Infectious Diseases and Hospital Epidemiologist at Mount Sinai South Nassau in Oceanside, New York.
 

Only One RSV Vaccine Approved in Pregnancy

Dr. Glatt pointed out the GSK vaccine is like the maternal vaccine that did get approved. “The data clearly show that there was a slight but increased risk in preterm labor,” Dr. Glatt said, “and while not as clearly shown, there was an increase in neonatal death in the group of very small numbers, but any neonatal death is of concern.”

The implications were disturbing, he added, “You’re giving this vaccine to prevent neonatal death.” Though the Pfizer vaccine that was granted approval had a very slight increase in premature birth, the risk wasn’t statistically significant, he pointed out, “and it showed similar benefits in preventing neonatal illness, which can be fatal.”

Dr. Glatt said that there is still a lingering concern with the approved vaccine, and he explained that most clinicians will give it closer to the end of the recommended time window of 34 weeks. “This way, even if there is a slight increase in premature term labor, you’re probably not going to have a serious outcome because the baby will be far enough along.”

A difference in the incidence of preterm birth between the experimental vaccine and placebo groups was predominantly found in low- and middle-income countries, according to Dieussaert’s team, “where approximately 50% of the trial population was enrolled and where the medical need for maternal RSV vaccines is the greatest.”

The RR was 1.56 (95% CI, 1.17-2.10) for low- and middle-income countries and 1.04 (95% CI, 0.68-1.58) for high-income countries. 

“If a smaller percentage of participants from low- and middle-income countries had been enrolled in our trial, the RR for preterm birth in the vaccine group as compared with the placebo group might have been reduced in the overall trial population,” they reported.

The authors explained that the data do not reveal the cause of the higher risk for preterm birth in the vaccine group.

“We do not know what caused the signal,” the company’s spokesperson added. “GSK completed all the necessary steps of product development including preclinical toxicology studies and clinical studies in nonpregnant women prior to starting the studies in pregnant women. There were no safety signals identified in any of the earlier parts of the clinical testing. There have been no safety signals identified in the other phase 3 trials for this vaccine candidate.”

Researchers did not find a correlation between preterm births in the treatment vs control groups with gestational age at the time of vaccination or with particular vaccine clinical trial material lots, race, ethnicity, maternal smoking, alcohol consumption, body mass index, or time between study vaccination and delivery, the GSK spokesperson said.

The spokesperson noted that the halted vaccine is different from GSK’s currently approved adjuvanted RSV vaccine (Arexvy) for adults aged 60 years or older.

What’s Next for Other Vaccines

Maternal vaccines have been effective in preventing other diseases in infants, such as tetanus, influenza, and pertussis, but RSV is a very hard virus to make a vaccine for, Dr. Glatt shared.

The need is great to have more than one option for a maternal RSV vaccine, he added, to address any potential supply concerns.

“People have to realize how serious RSV can be in infants,” he said. “It can be a fatal disease. This can be a serious illness even in healthy children.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A phase 3 trial of a maternal vaccine candidate for respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) has been stopped early because the risk for preterm births is higher in the candidate vaccine group than in the placebo group.

By the time enrollment was stopped on February 25, 2022 because of the safety signal of preterm birth, 5328 pregnant women had been vaccinated, about half of the intended 10,000 enrollees. Of these, 3557 received the candidate vaccine RSV prefusion F protein–based maternal vaccine, and another 1771 received a placebo.

Data from the trial, sponsored by GSK, were immediately made available when recruitment and vaccination were stopped, and investigation of the preterm birth risk followed. Results of that analysis, led by Ilse Dieussaert, IR, vice president for vaccine development at GSK in Wavre, Belgium, are published online on March 13 in The New England Journal of Medicine. 

“We have discontinued our work on this RSV maternal candidate vaccine, and we are closing out all ongoing trials with the exception of the MAT-015 follow-on study to monitor subsequent pregnancies,” a GSK spokesperson said in an interview.

The trial was conducted in pregnant women aged 18-49 years to assess the efficacy and safety of the vaccine. The women were randomly assigned 2:1 to receive the candidate vaccine or placebo between 24 and 34 weeks’ gestation.
 

Preterm Births

The primary outcomes were any or severe medically assessed RSV-associated lower respiratory tract infection in infants from birth to 6 months and safety in infants from birth to 12 months.

According to the data, preterm birth occurred in 6.8% of the infants in the vaccine group and in 4.9% of those in the placebo group (relative risk [RR], 1.37; 95% CI, 1.08-1.74; P = .01). Neonatal death occurred in 0.4% in the vaccine group and 0.2% in the placebo group (RR, 2.16; 95% CI, 0.62-7.56; P = .23).

To date, only one RSV vaccine (Abrysvo, Pfizer) has been approved for use during pregnancy to protect infants from RSV-associated lower respiratory tract infection.

“It was a very big deal that this trial was stopped, and the new candidate won’t get approval.” said Aaron E. Glatt, MD, chair of the Department of Medicine and chief of Infectious Diseases and Hospital Epidemiologist at Mount Sinai South Nassau in Oceanside, New York.
 

Only One RSV Vaccine Approved in Pregnancy

Dr. Glatt pointed out the GSK vaccine is like the maternal vaccine that did get approved. “The data clearly show that there was a slight but increased risk in preterm labor,” Dr. Glatt said, “and while not as clearly shown, there was an increase in neonatal death in the group of very small numbers, but any neonatal death is of concern.”

The implications were disturbing, he added, “You’re giving this vaccine to prevent neonatal death.” Though the Pfizer vaccine that was granted approval had a very slight increase in premature birth, the risk wasn’t statistically significant, he pointed out, “and it showed similar benefits in preventing neonatal illness, which can be fatal.”

Dr. Glatt said that there is still a lingering concern with the approved vaccine, and he explained that most clinicians will give it closer to the end of the recommended time window of 34 weeks. “This way, even if there is a slight increase in premature term labor, you’re probably not going to have a serious outcome because the baby will be far enough along.”

A difference in the incidence of preterm birth between the experimental vaccine and placebo groups was predominantly found in low- and middle-income countries, according to Dieussaert’s team, “where approximately 50% of the trial population was enrolled and where the medical need for maternal RSV vaccines is the greatest.”

The RR was 1.56 (95% CI, 1.17-2.10) for low- and middle-income countries and 1.04 (95% CI, 0.68-1.58) for high-income countries. 

“If a smaller percentage of participants from low- and middle-income countries had been enrolled in our trial, the RR for preterm birth in the vaccine group as compared with the placebo group might have been reduced in the overall trial population,” they reported.

The authors explained that the data do not reveal the cause of the higher risk for preterm birth in the vaccine group.

“We do not know what caused the signal,” the company’s spokesperson added. “GSK completed all the necessary steps of product development including preclinical toxicology studies and clinical studies in nonpregnant women prior to starting the studies in pregnant women. There were no safety signals identified in any of the earlier parts of the clinical testing. There have been no safety signals identified in the other phase 3 trials for this vaccine candidate.”

Researchers did not find a correlation between preterm births in the treatment vs control groups with gestational age at the time of vaccination or with particular vaccine clinical trial material lots, race, ethnicity, maternal smoking, alcohol consumption, body mass index, or time between study vaccination and delivery, the GSK spokesperson said.

The spokesperson noted that the halted vaccine is different from GSK’s currently approved adjuvanted RSV vaccine (Arexvy) for adults aged 60 years or older.

What’s Next for Other Vaccines

Maternal vaccines have been effective in preventing other diseases in infants, such as tetanus, influenza, and pertussis, but RSV is a very hard virus to make a vaccine for, Dr. Glatt shared.

The need is great to have more than one option for a maternal RSV vaccine, he added, to address any potential supply concerns.

“People have to realize how serious RSV can be in infants,” he said. “It can be a fatal disease. This can be a serious illness even in healthy children.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A phase 3 trial of a maternal vaccine candidate for respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) has been stopped early because the risk for preterm births is higher in the candidate vaccine group than in the placebo group.

By the time enrollment was stopped on February 25, 2022 because of the safety signal of preterm birth, 5328 pregnant women had been vaccinated, about half of the intended 10,000 enrollees. Of these, 3557 received the candidate vaccine RSV prefusion F protein–based maternal vaccine, and another 1771 received a placebo.

Data from the trial, sponsored by GSK, were immediately made available when recruitment and vaccination were stopped, and investigation of the preterm birth risk followed. Results of that analysis, led by Ilse Dieussaert, IR, vice president for vaccine development at GSK in Wavre, Belgium, are published online on March 13 in The New England Journal of Medicine. 

“We have discontinued our work on this RSV maternal candidate vaccine, and we are closing out all ongoing trials with the exception of the MAT-015 follow-on study to monitor subsequent pregnancies,” a GSK spokesperson said in an interview.

The trial was conducted in pregnant women aged 18-49 years to assess the efficacy and safety of the vaccine. The women were randomly assigned 2:1 to receive the candidate vaccine or placebo between 24 and 34 weeks’ gestation.
 

Preterm Births

The primary outcomes were any or severe medically assessed RSV-associated lower respiratory tract infection in infants from birth to 6 months and safety in infants from birth to 12 months.

According to the data, preterm birth occurred in 6.8% of the infants in the vaccine group and in 4.9% of those in the placebo group (relative risk [RR], 1.37; 95% CI, 1.08-1.74; P = .01). Neonatal death occurred in 0.4% in the vaccine group and 0.2% in the placebo group (RR, 2.16; 95% CI, 0.62-7.56; P = .23).

To date, only one RSV vaccine (Abrysvo, Pfizer) has been approved for use during pregnancy to protect infants from RSV-associated lower respiratory tract infection.

“It was a very big deal that this trial was stopped, and the new candidate won’t get approval.” said Aaron E. Glatt, MD, chair of the Department of Medicine and chief of Infectious Diseases and Hospital Epidemiologist at Mount Sinai South Nassau in Oceanside, New York.
 

Only One RSV Vaccine Approved in Pregnancy

Dr. Glatt pointed out the GSK vaccine is like the maternal vaccine that did get approved. “The data clearly show that there was a slight but increased risk in preterm labor,” Dr. Glatt said, “and while not as clearly shown, there was an increase in neonatal death in the group of very small numbers, but any neonatal death is of concern.”

The implications were disturbing, he added, “You’re giving this vaccine to prevent neonatal death.” Though the Pfizer vaccine that was granted approval had a very slight increase in premature birth, the risk wasn’t statistically significant, he pointed out, “and it showed similar benefits in preventing neonatal illness, which can be fatal.”

Dr. Glatt said that there is still a lingering concern with the approved vaccine, and he explained that most clinicians will give it closer to the end of the recommended time window of 34 weeks. “This way, even if there is a slight increase in premature term labor, you’re probably not going to have a serious outcome because the baby will be far enough along.”

A difference in the incidence of preterm birth between the experimental vaccine and placebo groups was predominantly found in low- and middle-income countries, according to Dieussaert’s team, “where approximately 50% of the trial population was enrolled and where the medical need for maternal RSV vaccines is the greatest.”

The RR was 1.56 (95% CI, 1.17-2.10) for low- and middle-income countries and 1.04 (95% CI, 0.68-1.58) for high-income countries. 

“If a smaller percentage of participants from low- and middle-income countries had been enrolled in our trial, the RR for preterm birth in the vaccine group as compared with the placebo group might have been reduced in the overall trial population,” they reported.

The authors explained that the data do not reveal the cause of the higher risk for preterm birth in the vaccine group.

“We do not know what caused the signal,” the company’s spokesperson added. “GSK completed all the necessary steps of product development including preclinical toxicology studies and clinical studies in nonpregnant women prior to starting the studies in pregnant women. There were no safety signals identified in any of the earlier parts of the clinical testing. There have been no safety signals identified in the other phase 3 trials for this vaccine candidate.”

Researchers did not find a correlation between preterm births in the treatment vs control groups with gestational age at the time of vaccination or with particular vaccine clinical trial material lots, race, ethnicity, maternal smoking, alcohol consumption, body mass index, or time between study vaccination and delivery, the GSK spokesperson said.

The spokesperson noted that the halted vaccine is different from GSK’s currently approved adjuvanted RSV vaccine (Arexvy) for adults aged 60 years or older.

What’s Next for Other Vaccines

Maternal vaccines have been effective in preventing other diseases in infants, such as tetanus, influenza, and pertussis, but RSV is a very hard virus to make a vaccine for, Dr. Glatt shared.

The need is great to have more than one option for a maternal RSV vaccine, he added, to address any potential supply concerns.

“People have to realize how serious RSV can be in infants,” he said. “It can be a fatal disease. This can be a serious illness even in healthy children.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Skipping meals, mood and anxiety disorders, as well as vaping and substance use, all raise the risk for frequent recurrent headaches in children and adolescents, new data from a population-based study showed.

Children and teens with anxiety or mood disorders had twice the risk for frequent headaches, defined as occurring once or more per week, and those who regularly ate breakfast and dinners with their family had an 8% lower risk for frequent headaches than those who did not eat regular meals.

“It is not uncommon for children and teens to have headaches, and while medications are used to stop and sometimes prevent headaches, lifestyle changes also may offer an effective route to relief by preventing headaches from happening and improving quality of life,” study investigator Serena L. Orr, MD, MSc, University of Calgary in Alberta, Canada, said in a press release.

The findings were published online in Neurology.
 

Negative Consequences

Previous research shows frequent recurrent headaches occur in up to 30% of children and adolescents and can lead to lower academic achievement and lower quality of life.

Treatment recommendations often focus on adjusting lifestyle behaviors, such as sleep and meal timing or smoking.

To further investigate these links, researchers used data from the 2019 Canadian Health Survey on Children and Youth and included about 5 million children and teens aged 5-17 years. In most cases, a parent or guardian answered the survey questions.

In addition to assessing participants for headache frequency in the past week, the survey included questions about how often they had breakfast, were physically active, or spent playing video games or with a mobile device, for instance. Parents/guardians were also asked whether the youth had ever been diagnosed with a mood or anxiety disorder.

For participants aged between 12 and 17 years, there were also questions about smoking, alcohol consumption, and substance use.

The mean age of participants was 11 years, and 48% were female. About 6% of the participants had frequent recurrent headaches.

Investigators found that meal regularity was inversely associated with frequent headaches (P < .001). In an adjusted model, youth who often ate breakfast and dinner with their families had an 8% lower risk for frequent headaches than those who didn’t dine with their families regularly.

“It is possible regular family meals may lead to greater connectedness and communication within the family and better mental health outcomes, which in turn may impact headache frequency,” Dr. Orr noted.

Youth who spent more than 21 hours per week in front of computer screens or with video games had higher odds for frequent headaches (P < .001), but this association did not survive statistical adjustment for demographics or lifestyle factors.

Both mood and anxiety disorders were associated with twice the risk for frequent headaches, and this risk survived adjustment for age, sex, household income, and other lifestyle factors.

In adolescents aged 12-17 years, there was an association between drinking alcohol and frequent headache, with higher alcohol consumption increasing the likelihood of frequent headache. For instance, those who drank once or more per week had three times the risk for frequent headache (P < .001), and those who indulged in binge drinking at least five times per month had five times the risk for frequent headache (P < .001).

Smoking cannabis was also associated with frequent headache in a dose-dependent manner. Daily users had a threefold increased risk for frequent headache vs those who didn’t use cannabis (P < .001).

Similarly, those who smoked or used e-cigarettes daily also had a threefold increased risk for frequent headaches versus nonusers.

One of the study’s limitations was that it didn’t include participants living in foster homes, institutions or on First Nation reserves. Investigators also were not able to determine headache type and did not assess hydration, which can be an important lifestyle factor in headache etiology.
 

Prioritize Questions About Lifestyle?

In an accompanying editorial, Irene Patniyot, MD, of Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, Texas, noted that lifestyle advice is an important part of managing headache disorders in children and youth and questioned whether neurologists should prioritize discussions about lifestyle habits in this patient population. However, she noted, given the heavy demands on neurologists’ time, this may be “idealistic.”

One potential solution may lie in automating electronic questionnaires for inclusion in patients’ medical records. “Data extraction from electronic questionnaires has already led to new data on symptoms associated with headache in youth and can potentially lead to earlier identification and treatment of mental health disorders and lifestyle habits that negatively affect headache burden and overall well-being,” Dr. Patniyot wrote.

The study was funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Canada Foundation for Innovation, and Statistics Canada. Dr. Orr reported receiving royalties from Cambridge University Press; serving on the editorial boards of Headache, Neurology, and the American Migraine Foundation; and receiving research funding from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and the Alberta Children’s Hospital Research Institute. Other disclosures were noted in the original article.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Skipping meals, mood and anxiety disorders, as well as vaping and substance use, all raise the risk for frequent recurrent headaches in children and adolescents, new data from a population-based study showed.

Children and teens with anxiety or mood disorders had twice the risk for frequent headaches, defined as occurring once or more per week, and those who regularly ate breakfast and dinners with their family had an 8% lower risk for frequent headaches than those who did not eat regular meals.

“It is not uncommon for children and teens to have headaches, and while medications are used to stop and sometimes prevent headaches, lifestyle changes also may offer an effective route to relief by preventing headaches from happening and improving quality of life,” study investigator Serena L. Orr, MD, MSc, University of Calgary in Alberta, Canada, said in a press release.

The findings were published online in Neurology.
 

Negative Consequences

Previous research shows frequent recurrent headaches occur in up to 30% of children and adolescents and can lead to lower academic achievement and lower quality of life.

Treatment recommendations often focus on adjusting lifestyle behaviors, such as sleep and meal timing or smoking.

To further investigate these links, researchers used data from the 2019 Canadian Health Survey on Children and Youth and included about 5 million children and teens aged 5-17 years. In most cases, a parent or guardian answered the survey questions.

In addition to assessing participants for headache frequency in the past week, the survey included questions about how often they had breakfast, were physically active, or spent playing video games or with a mobile device, for instance. Parents/guardians were also asked whether the youth had ever been diagnosed with a mood or anxiety disorder.

For participants aged between 12 and 17 years, there were also questions about smoking, alcohol consumption, and substance use.

The mean age of participants was 11 years, and 48% were female. About 6% of the participants had frequent recurrent headaches.

Investigators found that meal regularity was inversely associated with frequent headaches (P < .001). In an adjusted model, youth who often ate breakfast and dinner with their families had an 8% lower risk for frequent headaches than those who didn’t dine with their families regularly.

“It is possible regular family meals may lead to greater connectedness and communication within the family and better mental health outcomes, which in turn may impact headache frequency,” Dr. Orr noted.

Youth who spent more than 21 hours per week in front of computer screens or with video games had higher odds for frequent headaches (P < .001), but this association did not survive statistical adjustment for demographics or lifestyle factors.

Both mood and anxiety disorders were associated with twice the risk for frequent headaches, and this risk survived adjustment for age, sex, household income, and other lifestyle factors.

In adolescents aged 12-17 years, there was an association between drinking alcohol and frequent headache, with higher alcohol consumption increasing the likelihood of frequent headache. For instance, those who drank once or more per week had three times the risk for frequent headache (P < .001), and those who indulged in binge drinking at least five times per month had five times the risk for frequent headache (P < .001).

Smoking cannabis was also associated with frequent headache in a dose-dependent manner. Daily users had a threefold increased risk for frequent headache vs those who didn’t use cannabis (P < .001).

Similarly, those who smoked or used e-cigarettes daily also had a threefold increased risk for frequent headaches versus nonusers.

One of the study’s limitations was that it didn’t include participants living in foster homes, institutions or on First Nation reserves. Investigators also were not able to determine headache type and did not assess hydration, which can be an important lifestyle factor in headache etiology.
 

Prioritize Questions About Lifestyle?

In an accompanying editorial, Irene Patniyot, MD, of Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, Texas, noted that lifestyle advice is an important part of managing headache disorders in children and youth and questioned whether neurologists should prioritize discussions about lifestyle habits in this patient population. However, she noted, given the heavy demands on neurologists’ time, this may be “idealistic.”

One potential solution may lie in automating electronic questionnaires for inclusion in patients’ medical records. “Data extraction from electronic questionnaires has already led to new data on symptoms associated with headache in youth and can potentially lead to earlier identification and treatment of mental health disorders and lifestyle habits that negatively affect headache burden and overall well-being,” Dr. Patniyot wrote.

The study was funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Canada Foundation for Innovation, and Statistics Canada. Dr. Orr reported receiving royalties from Cambridge University Press; serving on the editorial boards of Headache, Neurology, and the American Migraine Foundation; and receiving research funding from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and the Alberta Children’s Hospital Research Institute. Other disclosures were noted in the original article.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Skipping meals, mood and anxiety disorders, as well as vaping and substance use, all raise the risk for frequent recurrent headaches in children and adolescents, new data from a population-based study showed.

Children and teens with anxiety or mood disorders had twice the risk for frequent headaches, defined as occurring once or more per week, and those who regularly ate breakfast and dinners with their family had an 8% lower risk for frequent headaches than those who did not eat regular meals.

“It is not uncommon for children and teens to have headaches, and while medications are used to stop and sometimes prevent headaches, lifestyle changes also may offer an effective route to relief by preventing headaches from happening and improving quality of life,” study investigator Serena L. Orr, MD, MSc, University of Calgary in Alberta, Canada, said in a press release.

The findings were published online in Neurology.
 

Negative Consequences

Previous research shows frequent recurrent headaches occur in up to 30% of children and adolescents and can lead to lower academic achievement and lower quality of life.

Treatment recommendations often focus on adjusting lifestyle behaviors, such as sleep and meal timing or smoking.

To further investigate these links, researchers used data from the 2019 Canadian Health Survey on Children and Youth and included about 5 million children and teens aged 5-17 years. In most cases, a parent or guardian answered the survey questions.

In addition to assessing participants for headache frequency in the past week, the survey included questions about how often they had breakfast, were physically active, or spent playing video games or with a mobile device, for instance. Parents/guardians were also asked whether the youth had ever been diagnosed with a mood or anxiety disorder.

For participants aged between 12 and 17 years, there were also questions about smoking, alcohol consumption, and substance use.

The mean age of participants was 11 years, and 48% were female. About 6% of the participants had frequent recurrent headaches.

Investigators found that meal regularity was inversely associated with frequent headaches (P < .001). In an adjusted model, youth who often ate breakfast and dinner with their families had an 8% lower risk for frequent headaches than those who didn’t dine with their families regularly.

“It is possible regular family meals may lead to greater connectedness and communication within the family and better mental health outcomes, which in turn may impact headache frequency,” Dr. Orr noted.

Youth who spent more than 21 hours per week in front of computer screens or with video games had higher odds for frequent headaches (P < .001), but this association did not survive statistical adjustment for demographics or lifestyle factors.

Both mood and anxiety disorders were associated with twice the risk for frequent headaches, and this risk survived adjustment for age, sex, household income, and other lifestyle factors.

In adolescents aged 12-17 years, there was an association between drinking alcohol and frequent headache, with higher alcohol consumption increasing the likelihood of frequent headache. For instance, those who drank once or more per week had three times the risk for frequent headache (P < .001), and those who indulged in binge drinking at least five times per month had five times the risk for frequent headache (P < .001).

Smoking cannabis was also associated with frequent headache in a dose-dependent manner. Daily users had a threefold increased risk for frequent headache vs those who didn’t use cannabis (P < .001).

Similarly, those who smoked or used e-cigarettes daily also had a threefold increased risk for frequent headaches versus nonusers.

One of the study’s limitations was that it didn’t include participants living in foster homes, institutions or on First Nation reserves. Investigators also were not able to determine headache type and did not assess hydration, which can be an important lifestyle factor in headache etiology.
 

Prioritize Questions About Lifestyle?

In an accompanying editorial, Irene Patniyot, MD, of Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, Texas, noted that lifestyle advice is an important part of managing headache disorders in children and youth and questioned whether neurologists should prioritize discussions about lifestyle habits in this patient population. However, she noted, given the heavy demands on neurologists’ time, this may be “idealistic.”

One potential solution may lie in automating electronic questionnaires for inclusion in patients’ medical records. “Data extraction from electronic questionnaires has already led to new data on symptoms associated with headache in youth and can potentially lead to earlier identification and treatment of mental health disorders and lifestyle habits that negatively affect headache burden and overall well-being,” Dr. Patniyot wrote.

The study was funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Canada Foundation for Innovation, and Statistics Canada. Dr. Orr reported receiving royalties from Cambridge University Press; serving on the editorial boards of Headache, Neurology, and the American Migraine Foundation; and receiving research funding from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and the Alberta Children’s Hospital Research Institute. Other disclosures were noted in the original article.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A study found that 94% of best-selling baby cleansers contain allergens, despite their hypoallergenic claims.

METHODOLOGY:

• Many baby cleansers are marketed as “hypoallergenic,” but these claims are not validated. 
• This study assessed the potential allergens and marketing claims in best-selling baby cleansers. 
• The researchers collected ingredients and marketing claims of the top 50 best-selling baby body wash products sold on Amazon on April 4, 2023. 
• Ingredient lists were checked for potential allergens using the 2020 American Contact Dermatitis Society (ACDS) core allergen series, which lists 90 common allergens for adults and children.

TAKEAWAY:

• In the 50 cleansers tested, 10 allergens were identified. Overall, 94% of the cleansers contained at least one allergen, averaging 2.9 allergens per product; cocamidopropyl betaine  (72%), fragrance (64%), and sodium benzoate (54%) were the most common allergens. 
• All cleansers had at least five marketing claims, with an average of 10.9 claims per product; the most common claims were “paraben-free” (88%), “phthalate-free” (84%), “tear-free” (74%), and “hypoallergenic” or “allergy-tested” (74%). 
• There was no significant difference in the number of allergens in the cleansers marketed as “hypoallergenic” or “allergy tested” compared with cleansers that did not have these claims (P = .843).
• Fewer allergens were found in cleansers endorsed by the National Eczema Association (P = .004) or labeled “synthetic fragrance-free” (P = .003).
• There was a positive correlation between a greater number of allergens and an increased number of marketing claims (r = 0.547, P < .001) and a negative correlation between cost and number of allergens (r = −0.450, P = .001).

IN PRACTICE:

Because marketing claims like “hypoallergenic” may be misleading, “clinicians should counsel parents to carefully examine cleanser ingredients or consider selecting cleansers” endorsed by the National Eczema Association or another international eczema organization, especially for infants and children with a history of atopic dermatitis, the authors wrote. 

SOURCE:

The study, led by Sasan D. Noveir, BA, from the University of California, Los Angeles, and coauthors from the division of dermatology at UCLA, was published online in Pediatric Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study only evaluated top-selling products from a single online source at a specific time, which may limit generalizability. Potential allergens not included in the ACDS core series may be present.

DISCLOSURES:

The study did not disclose any funding source. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A study found that 94% of best-selling baby cleansers contain allergens, despite their hypoallergenic claims.

METHODOLOGY:

• Many baby cleansers are marketed as “hypoallergenic,” but these claims are not validated. 
• This study assessed the potential allergens and marketing claims in best-selling baby cleansers. 
• The researchers collected ingredients and marketing claims of the top 50 best-selling baby body wash products sold on Amazon on April 4, 2023. 
• Ingredient lists were checked for potential allergens using the 2020 American Contact Dermatitis Society (ACDS) core allergen series, which lists 90 common allergens for adults and children.

TAKEAWAY:

• In the 50 cleansers tested, 10 allergens were identified. Overall, 94% of the cleansers contained at least one allergen, averaging 2.9 allergens per product; cocamidopropyl betaine  (72%), fragrance (64%), and sodium benzoate (54%) were the most common allergens. 
• All cleansers had at least five marketing claims, with an average of 10.9 claims per product; the most common claims were “paraben-free” (88%), “phthalate-free” (84%), “tear-free” (74%), and “hypoallergenic” or “allergy-tested” (74%). 
• There was no significant difference in the number of allergens in the cleansers marketed as “hypoallergenic” or “allergy tested” compared with cleansers that did not have these claims (P = .843).
• Fewer allergens were found in cleansers endorsed by the National Eczema Association (P = .004) or labeled “synthetic fragrance-free” (P = .003).
• There was a positive correlation between a greater number of allergens and an increased number of marketing claims (r = 0.547, P < .001) and a negative correlation between cost and number of allergens (r = −0.450, P = .001).

IN PRACTICE:

Because marketing claims like “hypoallergenic” may be misleading, “clinicians should counsel parents to carefully examine cleanser ingredients or consider selecting cleansers” endorsed by the National Eczema Association or another international eczema organization, especially for infants and children with a history of atopic dermatitis, the authors wrote. 

SOURCE:

The study, led by Sasan D. Noveir, BA, from the University of California, Los Angeles, and coauthors from the division of dermatology at UCLA, was published online in Pediatric Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study only evaluated top-selling products from a single online source at a specific time, which may limit generalizability. Potential allergens not included in the ACDS core series may be present.

DISCLOSURES:

The study did not disclose any funding source. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A study found that 94% of best-selling baby cleansers contain allergens, despite their hypoallergenic claims.

METHODOLOGY:

• Many baby cleansers are marketed as “hypoallergenic,” but these claims are not validated. 
• This study assessed the potential allergens and marketing claims in best-selling baby cleansers. 
• The researchers collected ingredients and marketing claims of the top 50 best-selling baby body wash products sold on Amazon on April 4, 2023. 
• Ingredient lists were checked for potential allergens using the 2020 American Contact Dermatitis Society (ACDS) core allergen series, which lists 90 common allergens for adults and children.

TAKEAWAY:

• In the 50 cleansers tested, 10 allergens were identified. Overall, 94% of the cleansers contained at least one allergen, averaging 2.9 allergens per product; cocamidopropyl betaine  (72%), fragrance (64%), and sodium benzoate (54%) were the most common allergens. 
• All cleansers had at least five marketing claims, with an average of 10.9 claims per product; the most common claims were “paraben-free” (88%), “phthalate-free” (84%), “tear-free” (74%), and “hypoallergenic” or “allergy-tested” (74%). 
• There was no significant difference in the number of allergens in the cleansers marketed as “hypoallergenic” or “allergy tested” compared with cleansers that did not have these claims (P = .843).
• Fewer allergens were found in cleansers endorsed by the National Eczema Association (P = .004) or labeled “synthetic fragrance-free” (P = .003).
• There was a positive correlation between a greater number of allergens and an increased number of marketing claims (r = 0.547, P < .001) and a negative correlation between cost and number of allergens (r = −0.450, P = .001).

IN PRACTICE:

Because marketing claims like “hypoallergenic” may be misleading, “clinicians should counsel parents to carefully examine cleanser ingredients or consider selecting cleansers” endorsed by the National Eczema Association or another international eczema organization, especially for infants and children with a history of atopic dermatitis, the authors wrote. 

SOURCE:

The study, led by Sasan D. Noveir, BA, from the University of California, Los Angeles, and coauthors from the division of dermatology at UCLA, was published online in Pediatric Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study only evaluated top-selling products from a single online source at a specific time, which may limit generalizability. Potential allergens not included in the ACDS core series may be present.

DISCLOSURES:

The study did not disclose any funding source. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

President Joe Biden on March 9 signed into law a measure that softened — but did not completely eliminate — a 2024 cut in a key rate used to determine how physicians are paid for treating Medicare patients.

While physician groups hailed the move as partial relief, they say they’ll continue to press for broader changes in the Medicare physician fee schedule.

The Medicare provision was tucked into a larger spending package approved by the US House and Senate.

The American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP), the American Medical Association (AMA), and other groups have lobbied Congress for months to undo a 3.4% cut in the base rate, or conversion factor, in the physician fee schedule for 2024.

The conversion factor is used in calculations to determine reimbursement for myriad other services. Federal Medicare officials said the cut would mean a 1.25% decrease in overall payments in 2024, compared with 2023.

“With the passage of this legislation, Congress has offset 2.93% of that payment cut,” said Steven P. Furr, MD, AAFP’s president in a statement. “We appreciate this temporary measure but continue to urge Congress to advance comprehensive, long-term Medicare payment reform.”

In a statement, Representative Larry Bucshon, MD (R-IN), said the payment cut could not be completely eliminated because of budget constraints.

The Medicare physician fee schedule covers much of the care clinicians provide to people older than 65 and those with disabilities. It covers about 8000 different types of services, ranging from office visits to surgical procedures, imaging, and tests, according to the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC).

Along with physicians, the fee schedule sets payments for nurse practitioners, physician assistants, podiatrists, physical therapists, psychologists, and other clinicians.

In 2021, the Medicare program and its beneficiaries paid $92.8 billion for services provided by almost 1.3 million clinicians, MedPAC said.
 

Larger Changes Ahead?

Rep. Bucshon is among the physicians serving in the House who are pressing for a permanent revamp of the Medicare physician fee schedule. He cosponsored a bill (HR 2474) that would peg future annual increases in the physician fee schedule to the Medicare Economic Index, which would reflect inflation’s effect.

In April, more than 120 state and national medical groups signed onto an AMA-led letter urging Congress to pass this bill.

The measure is a key priority for the AMA. The organization reached out repeatedly last year to federal officials about it through its own in-house lobbyists, this news organization found through a review of congressional lobbying forms submitted by AMA.

These required disclosure forms reveal how much AMA and other organizations spend each quarter to appeal to members of Congress and federal agencies on specific issues. The disclosure forms do not include a detailed accounting of spending on each issue.

But they do show which issues are priorities for an organization. AMA’s in-house lobbyists reported raising dozens of issues in 2024 within contacts in Congress and federal agencies. These issues included abortion access, maternal health, physician burnout, and potential for bias in clinical use of algorithms, as well as Medicare payment for physicians.

AMA reported spending estimated cost of $20.6 million. (AMA spent $6.7 million in the first quarter, $4.75 million in the second quarter, $3.42 million in the third quarter, and $5.74 million in the fourth quarter.)

In a March 6 statement, Jesse M. Ehrenfeld, MD, MPH, AMA president, urged Congress to turn to more serious consideration of Medicare physician pay beyond short-term tweaks attached to other larger bills.

“As physicians, we are trained to run toward emergencies. We urge Congress to do the same,” Dr. Ehrenfeld said. “We encourage Congress to act if this policy decision is an emergency because — in fact — it is. It is well past time to put an end to stopgap measures that fail to address the underlying causes of the continuing decline in Medicare physician payments.”

There’s bipartisan interest in a revamp of the physician fee schedule amid widespread criticism of the last such overhaul, the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015.

For example, Senate Budget Chairman Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) has proposed the creation of a technical advisory committee to improve how Medicare sets the physician fee schedule. The existing fee schedule provides too little money for primary care services and primary care provider pay, contributing to shortages, Sen. Whitehouse said.

Sen. Whitehouse on March 6 held a hearing on ways to beef up US primary care. Among the experts who appeared was Amol Navathe, MD, PhD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Dr. Navathe said the current Medicare physician fee schedule tilts in favor of procedural services, leading to “underinvestment in cognitive, diagnostic, and supportive services such as primary care.”

In addition, much of what primary care clinicians do, “such as addressing social challenges, is not included in the codes of the fee schedule itself,” said Dr. Navathe, who also serves as the vice chairman of MedPAC.

It’s unclear when Congress will attempt a serious revision to the Medicare physician fee schedule. Lawmakers are unlikely to take on such a major challenge in this election year.

There would be significant opposition and challenges for lawmakers in trying to clear a bill that added an inflation adjustment for what’s already seen as an imperfect physician fee schedule, said Mark E. Miller, PhD, executive vice president of healthcare at the philanthropy Arnold Ventures, which studies how payment decisions affect medical care.

“That bill could cost a lot of money and raise a lot of questions,” Dr. Miller said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

President Joe Biden on March 9 signed into law a measure that softened — but did not completely eliminate — a 2024 cut in a key rate used to determine how physicians are paid for treating Medicare patients.

While physician groups hailed the move as partial relief, they say they’ll continue to press for broader changes in the Medicare physician fee schedule.

The Medicare provision was tucked into a larger spending package approved by the US House and Senate.

The American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP), the American Medical Association (AMA), and other groups have lobbied Congress for months to undo a 3.4% cut in the base rate, or conversion factor, in the physician fee schedule for 2024.

The conversion factor is used in calculations to determine reimbursement for myriad other services. Federal Medicare officials said the cut would mean a 1.25% decrease in overall payments in 2024, compared with 2023.

“With the passage of this legislation, Congress has offset 2.93% of that payment cut,” said Steven P. Furr, MD, AAFP’s president in a statement. “We appreciate this temporary measure but continue to urge Congress to advance comprehensive, long-term Medicare payment reform.”

In a statement, Representative Larry Bucshon, MD (R-IN), said the payment cut could not be completely eliminated because of budget constraints.

The Medicare physician fee schedule covers much of the care clinicians provide to people older than 65 and those with disabilities. It covers about 8000 different types of services, ranging from office visits to surgical procedures, imaging, and tests, according to the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC).

Along with physicians, the fee schedule sets payments for nurse practitioners, physician assistants, podiatrists, physical therapists, psychologists, and other clinicians.

In 2021, the Medicare program and its beneficiaries paid $92.8 billion for services provided by almost 1.3 million clinicians, MedPAC said.
 

Larger Changes Ahead?

Rep. Bucshon is among the physicians serving in the House who are pressing for a permanent revamp of the Medicare physician fee schedule. He cosponsored a bill (HR 2474) that would peg future annual increases in the physician fee schedule to the Medicare Economic Index, which would reflect inflation’s effect.

In April, more than 120 state and national medical groups signed onto an AMA-led letter urging Congress to pass this bill.

The measure is a key priority for the AMA. The organization reached out repeatedly last year to federal officials about it through its own in-house lobbyists, this news organization found through a review of congressional lobbying forms submitted by AMA.

These required disclosure forms reveal how much AMA and other organizations spend each quarter to appeal to members of Congress and federal agencies on specific issues. The disclosure forms do not include a detailed accounting of spending on each issue.

But they do show which issues are priorities for an organization. AMA’s in-house lobbyists reported raising dozens of issues in 2024 within contacts in Congress and federal agencies. These issues included abortion access, maternal health, physician burnout, and potential for bias in clinical use of algorithms, as well as Medicare payment for physicians.

AMA reported spending estimated cost of $20.6 million. (AMA spent $6.7 million in the first quarter, $4.75 million in the second quarter, $3.42 million in the third quarter, and $5.74 million in the fourth quarter.)

In a March 6 statement, Jesse M. Ehrenfeld, MD, MPH, AMA president, urged Congress to turn to more serious consideration of Medicare physician pay beyond short-term tweaks attached to other larger bills.

“As physicians, we are trained to run toward emergencies. We urge Congress to do the same,” Dr. Ehrenfeld said. “We encourage Congress to act if this policy decision is an emergency because — in fact — it is. It is well past time to put an end to stopgap measures that fail to address the underlying causes of the continuing decline in Medicare physician payments.”

There’s bipartisan interest in a revamp of the physician fee schedule amid widespread criticism of the last such overhaul, the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015.

For example, Senate Budget Chairman Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) has proposed the creation of a technical advisory committee to improve how Medicare sets the physician fee schedule. The existing fee schedule provides too little money for primary care services and primary care provider pay, contributing to shortages, Sen. Whitehouse said.

Sen. Whitehouse on March 6 held a hearing on ways to beef up US primary care. Among the experts who appeared was Amol Navathe, MD, PhD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Dr. Navathe said the current Medicare physician fee schedule tilts in favor of procedural services, leading to “underinvestment in cognitive, diagnostic, and supportive services such as primary care.”

In addition, much of what primary care clinicians do, “such as addressing social challenges, is not included in the codes of the fee schedule itself,” said Dr. Navathe, who also serves as the vice chairman of MedPAC.

It’s unclear when Congress will attempt a serious revision to the Medicare physician fee schedule. Lawmakers are unlikely to take on such a major challenge in this election year.

There would be significant opposition and challenges for lawmakers in trying to clear a bill that added an inflation adjustment for what’s already seen as an imperfect physician fee schedule, said Mark E. Miller, PhD, executive vice president of healthcare at the philanthropy Arnold Ventures, which studies how payment decisions affect medical care.

“That bill could cost a lot of money and raise a lot of questions,” Dr. Miller said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

President Joe Biden on March 9 signed into law a measure that softened — but did not completely eliminate — a 2024 cut in a key rate used to determine how physicians are paid for treating Medicare patients.

While physician groups hailed the move as partial relief, they say they’ll continue to press for broader changes in the Medicare physician fee schedule.

The Medicare provision was tucked into a larger spending package approved by the US House and Senate.

The American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP), the American Medical Association (AMA), and other groups have lobbied Congress for months to undo a 3.4% cut in the base rate, or conversion factor, in the physician fee schedule for 2024.

The conversion factor is used in calculations to determine reimbursement for myriad other services. Federal Medicare officials said the cut would mean a 1.25% decrease in overall payments in 2024, compared with 2023.

“With the passage of this legislation, Congress has offset 2.93% of that payment cut,” said Steven P. Furr, MD, AAFP’s president in a statement. “We appreciate this temporary measure but continue to urge Congress to advance comprehensive, long-term Medicare payment reform.”

In a statement, Representative Larry Bucshon, MD (R-IN), said the payment cut could not be completely eliminated because of budget constraints.

The Medicare physician fee schedule covers much of the care clinicians provide to people older than 65 and those with disabilities. It covers about 8000 different types of services, ranging from office visits to surgical procedures, imaging, and tests, according to the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC).

Along with physicians, the fee schedule sets payments for nurse practitioners, physician assistants, podiatrists, physical therapists, psychologists, and other clinicians.

In 2021, the Medicare program and its beneficiaries paid $92.8 billion for services provided by almost 1.3 million clinicians, MedPAC said.
 

Larger Changes Ahead?

Rep. Bucshon is among the physicians serving in the House who are pressing for a permanent revamp of the Medicare physician fee schedule. He cosponsored a bill (HR 2474) that would peg future annual increases in the physician fee schedule to the Medicare Economic Index, which would reflect inflation’s effect.

In April, more than 120 state and national medical groups signed onto an AMA-led letter urging Congress to pass this bill.

The measure is a key priority for the AMA. The organization reached out repeatedly last year to federal officials about it through its own in-house lobbyists, this news organization found through a review of congressional lobbying forms submitted by AMA.

These required disclosure forms reveal how much AMA and other organizations spend each quarter to appeal to members of Congress and federal agencies on specific issues. The disclosure forms do not include a detailed accounting of spending on each issue.

But they do show which issues are priorities for an organization. AMA’s in-house lobbyists reported raising dozens of issues in 2024 within contacts in Congress and federal agencies. These issues included abortion access, maternal health, physician burnout, and potential for bias in clinical use of algorithms, as well as Medicare payment for physicians.

AMA reported spending estimated cost of $20.6 million. (AMA spent $6.7 million in the first quarter, $4.75 million in the second quarter, $3.42 million in the third quarter, and $5.74 million in the fourth quarter.)

In a March 6 statement, Jesse M. Ehrenfeld, MD, MPH, AMA president, urged Congress to turn to more serious consideration of Medicare physician pay beyond short-term tweaks attached to other larger bills.

“As physicians, we are trained to run toward emergencies. We urge Congress to do the same,” Dr. Ehrenfeld said. “We encourage Congress to act if this policy decision is an emergency because — in fact — it is. It is well past time to put an end to stopgap measures that fail to address the underlying causes of the continuing decline in Medicare physician payments.”

There’s bipartisan interest in a revamp of the physician fee schedule amid widespread criticism of the last such overhaul, the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015.

For example, Senate Budget Chairman Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) has proposed the creation of a technical advisory committee to improve how Medicare sets the physician fee schedule. The existing fee schedule provides too little money for primary care services and primary care provider pay, contributing to shortages, Sen. Whitehouse said.

Sen. Whitehouse on March 6 held a hearing on ways to beef up US primary care. Among the experts who appeared was Amol Navathe, MD, PhD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Dr. Navathe said the current Medicare physician fee schedule tilts in favor of procedural services, leading to “underinvestment in cognitive, diagnostic, and supportive services such as primary care.”

In addition, much of what primary care clinicians do, “such as addressing social challenges, is not included in the codes of the fee schedule itself,” said Dr. Navathe, who also serves as the vice chairman of MedPAC.

It’s unclear when Congress will attempt a serious revision to the Medicare physician fee schedule. Lawmakers are unlikely to take on such a major challenge in this election year.

There would be significant opposition and challenges for lawmakers in trying to clear a bill that added an inflation adjustment for what’s already seen as an imperfect physician fee schedule, said Mark E. Miller, PhD, executive vice president of healthcare at the philanthropy Arnold Ventures, which studies how payment decisions affect medical care.

“That bill could cost a lot of money and raise a lot of questions,” Dr. Miller said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Researchers have developed a tool that uses artificial intelligence (AI) to identify acute otitis media in children based on otoscopic videos. It may improve diagnosis of ear infections in primary care settings, the developers said.

METHODOLOGY:

• The developers relied on otoscopic videos of the tympanic membrane captured on smartphones connected to scopes.
• Their analysis focused on 1151 videos from 635 children, most younger than 3 years old, who were seen for sick or well visits at outpatient clinics in Pennsylvania from 2018 to 2023.
• The tool was trained to differentiate between patients who did and did not have acute otitis media.

TAKEAWAY:

• Out of an original pool of 1561 videos, 410 were excluded due to obstruction by cerumen. In the remaining videos, experts identified acute otitis media in 305 videos (26.5%) and no acute otitis media in 846 videos (73.5%).
• The tool achieved a sensitivity of 93.8% and specificity of 93.5%, with bulging of the tympanic membrane being the most indicative feature of acute otitis media, present in 100% of diagnosed cases, according to the researchers.
• Feedback from 60 parents was largely positive, with 80% wanting the tool to be used during future visits.

IN PRACTICE:

Based on the diagnostic accuracy of clinicians in other studies, “The algorithm exhibited higher accuracy than pediatricians, primary care physicians, and advance practice clinicians and, accordingly, could reasonably be used in these settings to aid with decisions regarding treatment,” the authors of the study wrote. “More accurate diagnosis of [acute otitis media] may help reduce unnecessary prescriptions of antimicrobials in young children,” they added.

Studies directly comparing the performance of the tool vs clinicians are still needed, however, according to an editorial accompanying the journal article.

“While the data from this study show the model’s accuracy (94%) is superior to historical accuracy of clinicians in diagnosing acute otitis media (84% or less), these data come from different studies not using the same definition for accuracy,” wrote Hojjat Salmasian, MD, MPH, PhD, and Lisa Biggs, MD, with Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. “If we assume the model is confirmed to be highly accurate and free from bias, this model could truly transform care for patients with suspected acute otitis media.”

SOURCE:

Alejandro Hoberman, MD, with the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, was the corresponding author of the study. It was published online in JAMA Pediatrics .

LIMITATIONS:

The study used convenience sampling and did not include external validation of the tool. The researchers lacked information about participant demographics and the reason for their clinic visit.

DISCLOSURES:

Three authors of the study are listed as inventors on a patent for a tool to diagnose acute otitis media. Two authors with Dcipher Analytics disclosed fees from the University of Pittsburgh for their work on an application programming interface during the study. The research was supported by the Department of Pediatrics at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

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 appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Researchers have developed a tool that uses artificial intelligence (AI) to identify acute otitis media in children based on otoscopic videos. It may improve diagnosis of ear infections in primary care settings, the developers said.

METHODOLOGY:

• The developers relied on otoscopic videos of the tympanic membrane captured on smartphones connected to scopes.
• Their analysis focused on 1151 videos from 635 children, most younger than 3 years old, who were seen for sick or well visits at outpatient clinics in Pennsylvania from 2018 to 2023.
• The tool was trained to differentiate between patients who did and did not have acute otitis media.

TAKEAWAY:

• Out of an original pool of 1561 videos, 410 were excluded due to obstruction by cerumen. In the remaining videos, experts identified acute otitis media in 305 videos (26.5%) and no acute otitis media in 846 videos (73.5%).
• The tool achieved a sensitivity of 93.8% and specificity of 93.5%, with bulging of the tympanic membrane being the most indicative feature of acute otitis media, present in 100% of diagnosed cases, according to the researchers.
• Feedback from 60 parents was largely positive, with 80% wanting the tool to be used during future visits.

IN PRACTICE:

Based on the diagnostic accuracy of clinicians in other studies, “The algorithm exhibited higher accuracy than pediatricians, primary care physicians, and advance practice clinicians and, accordingly, could reasonably be used in these settings to aid with decisions regarding treatment,” the authors of the study wrote. “More accurate diagnosis of [acute otitis media] may help reduce unnecessary prescriptions of antimicrobials in young children,” they added.

Studies directly comparing the performance of the tool vs clinicians are still needed, however, according to an editorial accompanying the journal article.

“While the data from this study show the model’s accuracy (94%) is superior to historical accuracy of clinicians in diagnosing acute otitis media (84% or less), these data come from different studies not using the same definition for accuracy,” wrote Hojjat Salmasian, MD, MPH, PhD, and Lisa Biggs, MD, with Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. “If we assume the model is confirmed to be highly accurate and free from bias, this model could truly transform care for patients with suspected acute otitis media.”

SOURCE:

Alejandro Hoberman, MD, with the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, was the corresponding author of the study. It was published online in JAMA Pediatrics .

LIMITATIONS:

The study used convenience sampling and did not include external validation of the tool. The researchers lacked information about participant demographics and the reason for their clinic visit.

DISCLOSURES:

Three authors of the study are listed as inventors on a patent for a tool to diagnose acute otitis media. Two authors with Dcipher Analytics disclosed fees from the University of Pittsburgh for their work on an application programming interface during the study. The research was supported by the Department of Pediatrics at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

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 appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Researchers have developed a tool that uses artificial intelligence (AI) to identify acute otitis media in children based on otoscopic videos. It may improve diagnosis of ear infections in primary care settings, the developers said.

METHODOLOGY:

• The developers relied on otoscopic videos of the tympanic membrane captured on smartphones connected to scopes.
• Their analysis focused on 1151 videos from 635 children, most younger than 3 years old, who were seen for sick or well visits at outpatient clinics in Pennsylvania from 2018 to 2023.
• The tool was trained to differentiate between patients who did and did not have acute otitis media.

TAKEAWAY:

• Out of an original pool of 1561 videos, 410 were excluded due to obstruction by cerumen. In the remaining videos, experts identified acute otitis media in 305 videos (26.5%) and no acute otitis media in 846 videos (73.5%).
• The tool achieved a sensitivity of 93.8% and specificity of 93.5%, with bulging of the tympanic membrane being the most indicative feature of acute otitis media, present in 100% of diagnosed cases, according to the researchers.
• Feedback from 60 parents was largely positive, with 80% wanting the tool to be used during future visits.

IN PRACTICE:

Based on the diagnostic accuracy of clinicians in other studies, “The algorithm exhibited higher accuracy than pediatricians, primary care physicians, and advance practice clinicians and, accordingly, could reasonably be used in these settings to aid with decisions regarding treatment,” the authors of the study wrote. “More accurate diagnosis of [acute otitis media] may help reduce unnecessary prescriptions of antimicrobials in young children,” they added.

Studies directly comparing the performance of the tool vs clinicians are still needed, however, according to an editorial accompanying the journal article.

“While the data from this study show the model’s accuracy (94%) is superior to historical accuracy of clinicians in diagnosing acute otitis media (84% or less), these data come from different studies not using the same definition for accuracy,” wrote Hojjat Salmasian, MD, MPH, PhD, and Lisa Biggs, MD, with Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. “If we assume the model is confirmed to be highly accurate and free from bias, this model could truly transform care for patients with suspected acute otitis media.”

SOURCE:

Alejandro Hoberman, MD, with the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, was the corresponding author of the study. It was published online in JAMA Pediatrics .

LIMITATIONS:

The study used convenience sampling and did not include external validation of the tool. The researchers lacked information about participant demographics and the reason for their clinic visit.

DISCLOSURES:

Three authors of the study are listed as inventors on a patent for a tool to diagnose acute otitis media. Two authors with Dcipher Analytics disclosed fees from the University of Pittsburgh for their work on an application programming interface during the study. The research was supported by the Department of Pediatrics at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

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 appeared on Medscape.com.

A wise medical precept is attributed to Theodore Woodward, MD (1914-2005): “When you hear hoofbeats, think of horses, not zebras.” Primary care pediatricians, however, often find themselves confronting so-called rare or uncommon diseases (“zebras”) in their offices. The pressing challenge is to know when to suspect them. How can one reconcile the need to dispel uncertainty with the use of diagnostic tests that can be costly and invasive? When can the desire to reassure parents mean delaying the detection of a potentially treatable condition?

“It may seem like wordplay, but it’s not uncommon to have a rare disease,” noted Alejandro Fainboim, MD, a specialist in rare diseases and head of the Multivalent Day Hospital at the Ricardo Gutiérrez Children’s Hospital in Buenos Aires, Argentina. “And pediatricians are the first line of defense in detecting these types of pathologies. To make the diagnosis, we have to consider them. And to consider them, we must be knowledgeable. That’s why sometimes, ignorance slows down the diagnosis,” Dr. Fainboim made his remarks during an online seminar organized for the press on the eve of Rare Disease Day, which is commemorated on February 29th.

There are more than 8000 rare diseases, which generally are defined as those affecting fewer than five people per 10,000. But collectively, one in every 13 people has one of these diseases, and one in every two diagnosed patients is a child. Dr. Fainboim emphasized that most of these rare diseases are severe or very severe, hereditary, degenerative, and potentially fatal. And although they are pediatric pathologies, some manifest later in adulthood.

“The major problem we pediatricians face is that we’re handed a model from adults to solve pediatric diseases. So, signs and symptoms are described that we won’t find early on, but we have to anticipate and learn to decode some that are hidden,” he remarked.

Diagnostic delays and repeated consultations with various doctors before identification are common. Dr. Fainboim added that in industrialized countries, the diagnosis of these diseases takes between 5 and 10 years, and in low-income countries, up to 30 years or more. However, “this has improved significantly in recent years,” he said.
 

Unnoticed Signs

Specialists who treat patients with rare diseases often feel that there were obvious signs that went unnoticed and should have aroused the suspicion of the primary care physician. An example is paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria, which affects 13-14 people per million inhabitants and can appear at any age, although the incidence is higher in the third decade of life.

“In my 50 years as a doctor, I’ve seen seven or eight patients with paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria,” said Elsa Nucifora, MD, a hematologist at the Italian Hospital of Buenos Aires, Argentina. But “the diagnosis is so easy” that doctors could make it if they “were to think instead of acting automatically because they’re in a hurry,” she added. The diagnosis should be considered “every time anemia occurs in a young person, with certain characteristics, instead of giving them iron like everyone else and ‘we’ll see later’…the diagnosis is in two or three steps, so it’s not complicated.”

Similar situations occur with more than 1000 neuromuscular diseases involving mutations in more than 600 genes, including spinal muscular atrophy and muscular dystrophies.

“What are the most common manifestations? The hypotonic infant, the child who walks late, who falls frequently, who can’t climb stairs, who later may have difficulty breathing, who loses strength: These are presentations often unrecognized by doctors not in the specialty,” said Alberto Dubrovsky, MD, director of the Department of Neurology and the Neuromuscular Diseases Unit at the Favaloro University Neuroscience Institute in Buenos Aires, Argentina, during the seminar. “And considering that these diseases are diagnosed based on genetic mutations that need to be known to search for and request them, we are faced with a truly complex scenario that requires subspecialization.”

In a study recently published in the Argentine Archives of Pediatrics, Dr. Dubrovsky and colleagues interviewed 112 families of Argentine patients with molecular diagnoses of spinal muscular atrophy types I, II, and III and found that in 75%-85% of cases, the first signs of the disease (such as hypotonia, developmental delay, inability to achieve bipedal standing, or frequent falls) were recognized by parents. For type I, the most severe and early onset, in only 17.5% of cases did a neonatologist or pediatrician first notice something. Of the 72 patients with types II and III, where routine checks are less frequent than in the first months of life, only one doctor detected the first signs of the disease before parents or other relatives.

In the same study, the median time elapsed between the first sign and confirmed molecular diagnosis was 2, 10, and 31.5 months for types I, II, and III, respectively. The delay “is primarily due to the lack of clinical suspicion on the part of the intervening physician, who often dismisses or misinterprets the signs reported by parents, as reflected in the alternative diagnoses invoked,” the authors wrote.

“I don’t even ask for suspicion of a specific rare disease because that requires specialization. What I ask for is a kind of recognition or realization that something is happening and then request a consultation with the specialist to ensure proper care,” said Dr. Dubrovsky.

In another study conducted among 70 Argentine patients under age 13 years who were diagnosed with Duchenne muscular dystrophy (one of the most severe forms of muscular dystrophy), 82% of the pediatricians who were initially consulted for any problem in motor agility that parents, other relatives, or teachers had detected dismissed the observation. “They’re told to wait, that it will mature a little more,” said Dr. Dubrovsky. This explains why the time to diagnosis in Argentina from the first signs is around 2 years. The delays are unfortunate because “today we have treatments capable of interfering with the disease’s progression slope, reducing its progression, or eventually stopping it,” he said.

“Do you mind that primary care pediatricians don’t notice or dismiss signs and symptoms strongly suggestive of one of these rare diseases? Does it frustrate you?” this news organization asked asked Dr. Dubrovsky. “Sometimes it does make me angry, but many times it’s understood that there can’t be highly trained specialists everywhere to realize and request diagnostic tests. One must consider the circumstances in each case, and that’s why we work in education,” he replied.
 

Rules and Experience

In an interview, Dr. Fainboim highlighted key factors that should prompt a pediatrician’s suspicion. One is common symptoms expressed in a more intense or complicated way or when many symptoms coexist in the same patient, even if each one separately is benign or not so severe.

Dr. Fainboim also recommended establishing a therapeutic alliance with parents. “We shouldn’t undermine what parents say, especially those who have other children and already know what normal child development is like. This is a very important milestone.

“We have to strengthen the suspicion clue, and for that, we rely on standards and our experience, which we keep refining. As Wilde said, experience is the sum of our mistakes. But there’s no universal answer. Not all families are the same. Not all diseases manifest in the same way. And unless there’s an imminent risk to life or function, one can wait and take the time to evaluate it. For example, if I have a child with slowed developmental milestones, what I have to do is teach how to stimulate them or send them for stimulation with another professional. And I observe the response to this initial basic treatment. If I see no response, the alarms start to grow louder,” said Dr. Fainboim.

Pablo Barvosa, MD, the principal physician in the outpatient area of the Juan P. Garrahan Pediatric Hospital in Buenos Aires, Argentina, and a member of the Working Group on Genetics and Rare Diseases of the Argentine Society of Pediatrics, told this news organization about other factors that should be considered for detecting these pathologies. Dr. Barvosa did not participate in the online seminar.

“Patients with rare diseases have common symptoms. What needs to be done is to prioritize those symptoms that behave abnormally, that have an unusual evolution compared with normal situations. For example, children who go into a coma after a fasting episode or after eating a certain food,” he said.

Dr. Barvosa also suggested considering when patients belong to certain communities where there is a lot of endogamy, due to the higher incidence of hereditary diseases. “Attention should be heightened when parents are cousins or relatives,” he pointed out.

“My view is that doctors should think more and better, be rational, sequential. If a disease is treated and resolved, but we find out that the child had 26 previous hospitalizations in the last 2 years, something is wrong. We have to look at the patient’s and family’s life histories. If a mother had 15 miscarriages, that’s a warning sign. We have to find a common thread. Be a sharp-witted pediatrician,” said Dr. Barvosa.

The suspicion and diagnosis of a rare disease can be devastating for families and painful for the professional, but even if there is no specific treatment, “something can always be done for patients,” he added.

And in certain circumstances, identifying a rare disease can reverse the ominous “stamp” of a wrong diagnosis. Dr. Barvosa commented on the case of a 7-year-old boy he attended at the hospital in 2014. The boy presented as quadriplegic, with no mobility in his limbs, and the parents were convinced he had that condition because he had fallen from the roof of the house. Although imaging techniques did not show a spinal injury, it was assumed to be a case of spinal cord injury without radiographic abnormality. But something caught Dr. Barvosa’s attention: The boy had well-developed abdominal muscles, as if he were an athlete. So, he requested an electromyogram, and the muscle was found to be in permanent contraction.

“The patient didn’t have a spinal cord injury: He had Isaacs’ syndrome,” said Dr. Barvosa. The syndrome also is known as acquired neuromyotonia, a rare condition of hyperexcitability of peripheral nerves that activate muscle fibers. “That is treated with anticonvulsants, such as phenytoin. Within a week, he was walking again, and shortly after, he was playing soccer. When I presented the case at a conference, I cried with emotion. That’s why the pediatrician must be insistent, be like the gadfly that stings in the ear” when there are clinical elements that don’t quite fit into a clear diagnosis, he added.

In recent publications, Dr. Dubrovsky has reported receiving fees for consultations or research from PTC, Sarepta, Biogen, Sanofi Genzyme, Takeda Avexis, Novartis, Raffo, and Roche. Dr. Nucifora has received fees from Jansen LATAM. Dr. Fainboim reported receiving fees from Sanofi. Dr. Barvosa has declared no relevant financial conflicts of interest. The webinar was organized by Urban Comunicaciones.
 

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

A wise medical precept is attributed to Theodore Woodward, MD (1914-2005): “When you hear hoofbeats, think of horses, not zebras.” Primary care pediatricians, however, often find themselves confronting so-called rare or uncommon diseases (“zebras”) in their offices. The pressing challenge is to know when to suspect them. How can one reconcile the need to dispel uncertainty with the use of diagnostic tests that can be costly and invasive? When can the desire to reassure parents mean delaying the detection of a potentially treatable condition?

“It may seem like wordplay, but it’s not uncommon to have a rare disease,” noted Alejandro Fainboim, MD, a specialist in rare diseases and head of the Multivalent Day Hospital at the Ricardo Gutiérrez Children’s Hospital in Buenos Aires, Argentina. “And pediatricians are the first line of defense in detecting these types of pathologies. To make the diagnosis, we have to consider them. And to consider them, we must be knowledgeable. That’s why sometimes, ignorance slows down the diagnosis,” Dr. Fainboim made his remarks during an online seminar organized for the press on the eve of Rare Disease Day, which is commemorated on February 29th.

There are more than 8000 rare diseases, which generally are defined as those affecting fewer than five people per 10,000. But collectively, one in every 13 people has one of these diseases, and one in every two diagnosed patients is a child. Dr. Fainboim emphasized that most of these rare diseases are severe or very severe, hereditary, degenerative, and potentially fatal. And although they are pediatric pathologies, some manifest later in adulthood.

“The major problem we pediatricians face is that we’re handed a model from adults to solve pediatric diseases. So, signs and symptoms are described that we won’t find early on, but we have to anticipate and learn to decode some that are hidden,” he remarked.

Diagnostic delays and repeated consultations with various doctors before identification are common. Dr. Fainboim added that in industrialized countries, the diagnosis of these diseases takes between 5 and 10 years, and in low-income countries, up to 30 years or more. However, “this has improved significantly in recent years,” he said.
 

Unnoticed Signs

Specialists who treat patients with rare diseases often feel that there were obvious signs that went unnoticed and should have aroused the suspicion of the primary care physician. An example is paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria, which affects 13-14 people per million inhabitants and can appear at any age, although the incidence is higher in the third decade of life.

“In my 50 years as a doctor, I’ve seen seven or eight patients with paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria,” said Elsa Nucifora, MD, a hematologist at the Italian Hospital of Buenos Aires, Argentina. But “the diagnosis is so easy” that doctors could make it if they “were to think instead of acting automatically because they’re in a hurry,” she added. The diagnosis should be considered “every time anemia occurs in a young person, with certain characteristics, instead of giving them iron like everyone else and ‘we’ll see later’…the diagnosis is in two or three steps, so it’s not complicated.”

Similar situations occur with more than 1000 neuromuscular diseases involving mutations in more than 600 genes, including spinal muscular atrophy and muscular dystrophies.

“What are the most common manifestations? The hypotonic infant, the child who walks late, who falls frequently, who can’t climb stairs, who later may have difficulty breathing, who loses strength: These are presentations often unrecognized by doctors not in the specialty,” said Alberto Dubrovsky, MD, director of the Department of Neurology and the Neuromuscular Diseases Unit at the Favaloro University Neuroscience Institute in Buenos Aires, Argentina, during the seminar. “And considering that these diseases are diagnosed based on genetic mutations that need to be known to search for and request them, we are faced with a truly complex scenario that requires subspecialization.”

In a study recently published in the Argentine Archives of Pediatrics, Dr. Dubrovsky and colleagues interviewed 112 families of Argentine patients with molecular diagnoses of spinal muscular atrophy types I, II, and III and found that in 75%-85% of cases, the first signs of the disease (such as hypotonia, developmental delay, inability to achieve bipedal standing, or frequent falls) were recognized by parents. For type I, the most severe and early onset, in only 17.5% of cases did a neonatologist or pediatrician first notice something. Of the 72 patients with types II and III, where routine checks are less frequent than in the first months of life, only one doctor detected the first signs of the disease before parents or other relatives.

In the same study, the median time elapsed between the first sign and confirmed molecular diagnosis was 2, 10, and 31.5 months for types I, II, and III, respectively. The delay “is primarily due to the lack of clinical suspicion on the part of the intervening physician, who often dismisses or misinterprets the signs reported by parents, as reflected in the alternative diagnoses invoked,” the authors wrote.

“I don’t even ask for suspicion of a specific rare disease because that requires specialization. What I ask for is a kind of recognition or realization that something is happening and then request a consultation with the specialist to ensure proper care,” said Dr. Dubrovsky.

In another study conducted among 70 Argentine patients under age 13 years who were diagnosed with Duchenne muscular dystrophy (one of the most severe forms of muscular dystrophy), 82% of the pediatricians who were initially consulted for any problem in motor agility that parents, other relatives, or teachers had detected dismissed the observation. “They’re told to wait, that it will mature a little more,” said Dr. Dubrovsky. This explains why the time to diagnosis in Argentina from the first signs is around 2 years. The delays are unfortunate because “today we have treatments capable of interfering with the disease’s progression slope, reducing its progression, or eventually stopping it,” he said.

“Do you mind that primary care pediatricians don’t notice or dismiss signs and symptoms strongly suggestive of one of these rare diseases? Does it frustrate you?” this news organization asked asked Dr. Dubrovsky. “Sometimes it does make me angry, but many times it’s understood that there can’t be highly trained specialists everywhere to realize and request diagnostic tests. One must consider the circumstances in each case, and that’s why we work in education,” he replied.
 

Rules and Experience

In an interview, Dr. Fainboim highlighted key factors that should prompt a pediatrician’s suspicion. One is common symptoms expressed in a more intense or complicated way or when many symptoms coexist in the same patient, even if each one separately is benign or not so severe.

Dr. Fainboim also recommended establishing a therapeutic alliance with parents. “We shouldn’t undermine what parents say, especially those who have other children and already know what normal child development is like. This is a very important milestone.

“We have to strengthen the suspicion clue, and for that, we rely on standards and our experience, which we keep refining. As Wilde said, experience is the sum of our mistakes. But there’s no universal answer. Not all families are the same. Not all diseases manifest in the same way. And unless there’s an imminent risk to life or function, one can wait and take the time to evaluate it. For example, if I have a child with slowed developmental milestones, what I have to do is teach how to stimulate them or send them for stimulation with another professional. And I observe the response to this initial basic treatment. If I see no response, the alarms start to grow louder,” said Dr. Fainboim.

Pablo Barvosa, MD, the principal physician in the outpatient area of the Juan P. Garrahan Pediatric Hospital in Buenos Aires, Argentina, and a member of the Working Group on Genetics and Rare Diseases of the Argentine Society of Pediatrics, told this news organization about other factors that should be considered for detecting these pathologies. Dr. Barvosa did not participate in the online seminar.

“Patients with rare diseases have common symptoms. What needs to be done is to prioritize those symptoms that behave abnormally, that have an unusual evolution compared with normal situations. For example, children who go into a coma after a fasting episode or after eating a certain food,” he said.

Dr. Barvosa also suggested considering when patients belong to certain communities where there is a lot of endogamy, due to the higher incidence of hereditary diseases. “Attention should be heightened when parents are cousins or relatives,” he pointed out.

“My view is that doctors should think more and better, be rational, sequential. If a disease is treated and resolved, but we find out that the child had 26 previous hospitalizations in the last 2 years, something is wrong. We have to look at the patient’s and family’s life histories. If a mother had 15 miscarriages, that’s a warning sign. We have to find a common thread. Be a sharp-witted pediatrician,” said Dr. Barvosa.

The suspicion and diagnosis of a rare disease can be devastating for families and painful for the professional, but even if there is no specific treatment, “something can always be done for patients,” he added.

And in certain circumstances, identifying a rare disease can reverse the ominous “stamp” of a wrong diagnosis. Dr. Barvosa commented on the case of a 7-year-old boy he attended at the hospital in 2014. The boy presented as quadriplegic, with no mobility in his limbs, and the parents were convinced he had that condition because he had fallen from the roof of the house. Although imaging techniques did not show a spinal injury, it was assumed to be a case of spinal cord injury without radiographic abnormality. But something caught Dr. Barvosa’s attention: The boy had well-developed abdominal muscles, as if he were an athlete. So, he requested an electromyogram, and the muscle was found to be in permanent contraction.

“The patient didn’t have a spinal cord injury: He had Isaacs’ syndrome,” said Dr. Barvosa. The syndrome also is known as acquired neuromyotonia, a rare condition of hyperexcitability of peripheral nerves that activate muscle fibers. “That is treated with anticonvulsants, such as phenytoin. Within a week, he was walking again, and shortly after, he was playing soccer. When I presented the case at a conference, I cried with emotion. That’s why the pediatrician must be insistent, be like the gadfly that stings in the ear” when there are clinical elements that don’t quite fit into a clear diagnosis, he added.

In recent publications, Dr. Dubrovsky has reported receiving fees for consultations or research from PTC, Sarepta, Biogen, Sanofi Genzyme, Takeda Avexis, Novartis, Raffo, and Roche. Dr. Nucifora has received fees from Jansen LATAM. Dr. Fainboim reported receiving fees from Sanofi. Dr. Barvosa has declared no relevant financial conflicts of interest. The webinar was organized by Urban Comunicaciones.
 

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

A wise medical precept is attributed to Theodore Woodward, MD (1914-2005): “When you hear hoofbeats, think of horses, not zebras.” Primary care pediatricians, however, often find themselves confronting so-called rare or uncommon diseases (“zebras”) in their offices. The pressing challenge is to know when to suspect them. How can one reconcile the need to dispel uncertainty with the use of diagnostic tests that can be costly and invasive? When can the desire to reassure parents mean delaying the detection of a potentially treatable condition?

“It may seem like wordplay, but it’s not uncommon to have a rare disease,” noted Alejandro Fainboim, MD, a specialist in rare diseases and head of the Multivalent Day Hospital at the Ricardo Gutiérrez Children’s Hospital in Buenos Aires, Argentina. “And pediatricians are the first line of defense in detecting these types of pathologies. To make the diagnosis, we have to consider them. And to consider them, we must be knowledgeable. That’s why sometimes, ignorance slows down the diagnosis,” Dr. Fainboim made his remarks during an online seminar organized for the press on the eve of Rare Disease Day, which is commemorated on February 29th.

There are more than 8000 rare diseases, which generally are defined as those affecting fewer than five people per 10,000. But collectively, one in every 13 people has one of these diseases, and one in every two diagnosed patients is a child. Dr. Fainboim emphasized that most of these rare diseases are severe or very severe, hereditary, degenerative, and potentially fatal. And although they are pediatric pathologies, some manifest later in adulthood.

“The major problem we pediatricians face is that we’re handed a model from adults to solve pediatric diseases. So, signs and symptoms are described that we won’t find early on, but we have to anticipate and learn to decode some that are hidden,” he remarked.

Diagnostic delays and repeated consultations with various doctors before identification are common. Dr. Fainboim added that in industrialized countries, the diagnosis of these diseases takes between 5 and 10 years, and in low-income countries, up to 30 years or more. However, “this has improved significantly in recent years,” he said.
 

Unnoticed Signs

Specialists who treat patients with rare diseases often feel that there were obvious signs that went unnoticed and should have aroused the suspicion of the primary care physician. An example is paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria, which affects 13-14 people per million inhabitants and can appear at any age, although the incidence is higher in the third decade of life.

“In my 50 years as a doctor, I’ve seen seven or eight patients with paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria,” said Elsa Nucifora, MD, a hematologist at the Italian Hospital of Buenos Aires, Argentina. But “the diagnosis is so easy” that doctors could make it if they “were to think instead of acting automatically because they’re in a hurry,” she added. The diagnosis should be considered “every time anemia occurs in a young person, with certain characteristics, instead of giving them iron like everyone else and ‘we’ll see later’…the diagnosis is in two or three steps, so it’s not complicated.”

Similar situations occur with more than 1000 neuromuscular diseases involving mutations in more than 600 genes, including spinal muscular atrophy and muscular dystrophies.

“What are the most common manifestations? The hypotonic infant, the child who walks late, who falls frequently, who can’t climb stairs, who later may have difficulty breathing, who loses strength: These are presentations often unrecognized by doctors not in the specialty,” said Alberto Dubrovsky, MD, director of the Department of Neurology and the Neuromuscular Diseases Unit at the Favaloro University Neuroscience Institute in Buenos Aires, Argentina, during the seminar. “And considering that these diseases are diagnosed based on genetic mutations that need to be known to search for and request them, we are faced with a truly complex scenario that requires subspecialization.”

In a study recently published in the Argentine Archives of Pediatrics, Dr. Dubrovsky and colleagues interviewed 112 families of Argentine patients with molecular diagnoses of spinal muscular atrophy types I, II, and III and found that in 75%-85% of cases, the first signs of the disease (such as hypotonia, developmental delay, inability to achieve bipedal standing, or frequent falls) were recognized by parents. For type I, the most severe and early onset, in only 17.5% of cases did a neonatologist or pediatrician first notice something. Of the 72 patients with types II and III, where routine checks are less frequent than in the first months of life, only one doctor detected the first signs of the disease before parents or other relatives.

In the same study, the median time elapsed between the first sign and confirmed molecular diagnosis was 2, 10, and 31.5 months for types I, II, and III, respectively. The delay “is primarily due to the lack of clinical suspicion on the part of the intervening physician, who often dismisses or misinterprets the signs reported by parents, as reflected in the alternative diagnoses invoked,” the authors wrote.

“I don’t even ask for suspicion of a specific rare disease because that requires specialization. What I ask for is a kind of recognition or realization that something is happening and then request a consultation with the specialist to ensure proper care,” said Dr. Dubrovsky.

In another study conducted among 70 Argentine patients under age 13 years who were diagnosed with Duchenne muscular dystrophy (one of the most severe forms of muscular dystrophy), 82% of the pediatricians who were initially consulted for any problem in motor agility that parents, other relatives, or teachers had detected dismissed the observation. “They’re told to wait, that it will mature a little more,” said Dr. Dubrovsky. This explains why the time to diagnosis in Argentina from the first signs is around 2 years. The delays are unfortunate because “today we have treatments capable of interfering with the disease’s progression slope, reducing its progression, or eventually stopping it,” he said.

“Do you mind that primary care pediatricians don’t notice or dismiss signs and symptoms strongly suggestive of one of these rare diseases? Does it frustrate you?” this news organization asked asked Dr. Dubrovsky. “Sometimes it does make me angry, but many times it’s understood that there can’t be highly trained specialists everywhere to realize and request diagnostic tests. One must consider the circumstances in each case, and that’s why we work in education,” he replied.
 

Rules and Experience

In an interview, Dr. Fainboim highlighted key factors that should prompt a pediatrician’s suspicion. One is common symptoms expressed in a more intense or complicated way or when many symptoms coexist in the same patient, even if each one separately is benign or not so severe.

Dr. Fainboim also recommended establishing a therapeutic alliance with parents. “We shouldn’t undermine what parents say, especially those who have other children and already know what normal child development is like. This is a very important milestone.

“We have to strengthen the suspicion clue, and for that, we rely on standards and our experience, which we keep refining. As Wilde said, experience is the sum of our mistakes. But there’s no universal answer. Not all families are the same. Not all diseases manifest in the same way. And unless there’s an imminent risk to life or function, one can wait and take the time to evaluate it. For example, if I have a child with slowed developmental milestones, what I have to do is teach how to stimulate them or send them for stimulation with another professional. And I observe the response to this initial basic treatment. If I see no response, the alarms start to grow louder,” said Dr. Fainboim.

Pablo Barvosa, MD, the principal physician in the outpatient area of the Juan P. Garrahan Pediatric Hospital in Buenos Aires, Argentina, and a member of the Working Group on Genetics and Rare Diseases of the Argentine Society of Pediatrics, told this news organization about other factors that should be considered for detecting these pathologies. Dr. Barvosa did not participate in the online seminar.

“Patients with rare diseases have common symptoms. What needs to be done is to prioritize those symptoms that behave abnormally, that have an unusual evolution compared with normal situations. For example, children who go into a coma after a fasting episode or after eating a certain food,” he said.

Dr. Barvosa also suggested considering when patients belong to certain communities where there is a lot of endogamy, due to the higher incidence of hereditary diseases. “Attention should be heightened when parents are cousins or relatives,” he pointed out.

“My view is that doctors should think more and better, be rational, sequential. If a disease is treated and resolved, but we find out that the child had 26 previous hospitalizations in the last 2 years, something is wrong. We have to look at the patient’s and family’s life histories. If a mother had 15 miscarriages, that’s a warning sign. We have to find a common thread. Be a sharp-witted pediatrician,” said Dr. Barvosa.

The suspicion and diagnosis of a rare disease can be devastating for families and painful for the professional, but even if there is no specific treatment, “something can always be done for patients,” he added.

And in certain circumstances, identifying a rare disease can reverse the ominous “stamp” of a wrong diagnosis. Dr. Barvosa commented on the case of a 7-year-old boy he attended at the hospital in 2014. The boy presented as quadriplegic, with no mobility in his limbs, and the parents were convinced he had that condition because he had fallen from the roof of the house. Although imaging techniques did not show a spinal injury, it was assumed to be a case of spinal cord injury without radiographic abnormality. But something caught Dr. Barvosa’s attention: The boy had well-developed abdominal muscles, as if he were an athlete. So, he requested an electromyogram, and the muscle was found to be in permanent contraction.

“The patient didn’t have a spinal cord injury: He had Isaacs’ syndrome,” said Dr. Barvosa. The syndrome also is known as acquired neuromyotonia, a rare condition of hyperexcitability of peripheral nerves that activate muscle fibers. “That is treated with anticonvulsants, such as phenytoin. Within a week, he was walking again, and shortly after, he was playing soccer. When I presented the case at a conference, I cried with emotion. That’s why the pediatrician must be insistent, be like the gadfly that stings in the ear” when there are clinical elements that don’t quite fit into a clear diagnosis, he added.

In recent publications, Dr. Dubrovsky has reported receiving fees for consultations or research from PTC, Sarepta, Biogen, Sanofi Genzyme, Takeda Avexis, Novartis, Raffo, and Roche. Dr. Nucifora has received fees from Jansen LATAM. Dr. Fainboim reported receiving fees from Sanofi. Dr. Barvosa has declared no relevant financial conflicts of interest. The webinar was organized by Urban Comunicaciones.
 

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

TOPLINE:

Topical calcineurin inhibitors (TCIs), topical corticosteroids (TCSs), and topical Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors are supported as mainstay treatments in new expert recommendations on the use of topical therapeutics in children, adolescents, and young adults with vitiligo.

METHODOLOGY:

• While half of all vitiligo cases manifest within the initial two decades of life, no guidelines specifically address the management of vitiligo in children, adolescents, and young adults with vitiligo.
• A protocol was established to formulate consensus recommendations addressing questions related to pediatric vitiligo.
• Overall, 50 articles on topical corticosteroids and/or topical calcineurin inhibitors, five on topical Janus kinase inhibitors, and two each on pseudocatalase and microdermabrasion were included.
• The participants recorded their agreement levels with the formulated statements, using a 5-point Likert scale.

TAKEAWAY:

• TCIs, TCSs, JAK inhibitors, and phototherapy, specifically narrowband ultraviolet (UV)-B light therapy, are mainstay treatments; the combination of UV-B light and topical therapy may enhance initial repigmentation.
• Long-term monitoring for skin cancers is advised, and short outdoor UV exposure is suggested for pediatric patients.
• TCIs, such as tacrolimus and pimecrolimus, are recommended as first-line therapy, particularly on the face, applied twice daily for ≥ 3 months; continued use for 6-12 additional months is recommended if repigmentation is observed.
• The choice of TCS class depends on the site and planned usage duration. Short-term use or overlap with TCIs is recommended because of the risk for atrophy with long-term TCS use. Class 5-6 agents are another option.
• For areas with thin skin, TCSs can be considered second-line treatments.
• Topical JAK inhibitors, specifically topical 1.5% ruxolitinib cream, are recommended for patients aged ≥ 12 years, as first- or second-line therapy. Limitation to 10% body surface area is recommended to minimize systemic absorption. Limited evidence exists for children aged < 12 years.

IN PRACTICE:

“Effective therapy requires a focus on long-term therapeutic interventions to maximize the local gain and retention of pigmentation with a trial period of twice-weekly application. Counseling should include discussion of the chronicity of vitiligo and the need for long-term care,” the authors wrote.

LIMITATIONS:

Some of the recommendations were opinion-based because of the scarcity of evidence-based literature.

SOURCE:

The consensus statement was published on March 13 in JAMA Dermatology.

DISCLOSURES:

This work was supported by grants from Vitiligo Research Foundation and Incyte Pharmaceuticals. The majority of authors disclosed financial relationships outside this work; several reported no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Topical calcineurin inhibitors (TCIs), topical corticosteroids (TCSs), and topical Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors are supported as mainstay treatments in new expert recommendations on the use of topical therapeutics in children, adolescents, and young adults with vitiligo.

METHODOLOGY:

• While half of all vitiligo cases manifest within the initial two decades of life, no guidelines specifically address the management of vitiligo in children, adolescents, and young adults with vitiligo.
• A protocol was established to formulate consensus recommendations addressing questions related to pediatric vitiligo.
• Overall, 50 articles on topical corticosteroids and/or topical calcineurin inhibitors, five on topical Janus kinase inhibitors, and two each on pseudocatalase and microdermabrasion were included.
• The participants recorded their agreement levels with the formulated statements, using a 5-point Likert scale.

TAKEAWAY:

• TCIs, TCSs, JAK inhibitors, and phototherapy, specifically narrowband ultraviolet (UV)-B light therapy, are mainstay treatments; the combination of UV-B light and topical therapy may enhance initial repigmentation.
• Long-term monitoring for skin cancers is advised, and short outdoor UV exposure is suggested for pediatric patients.
• TCIs, such as tacrolimus and pimecrolimus, are recommended as first-line therapy, particularly on the face, applied twice daily for ≥ 3 months; continued use for 6-12 additional months is recommended if repigmentation is observed.
• The choice of TCS class depends on the site and planned usage duration. Short-term use or overlap with TCIs is recommended because of the risk for atrophy with long-term TCS use. Class 5-6 agents are another option.
• For areas with thin skin, TCSs can be considered second-line treatments.
• Topical JAK inhibitors, specifically topical 1.5% ruxolitinib cream, are recommended for patients aged ≥ 12 years, as first- or second-line therapy. Limitation to 10% body surface area is recommended to minimize systemic absorption. Limited evidence exists for children aged < 12 years.

IN PRACTICE:

“Effective therapy requires a focus on long-term therapeutic interventions to maximize the local gain and retention of pigmentation with a trial period of twice-weekly application. Counseling should include discussion of the chronicity of vitiligo and the need for long-term care,” the authors wrote.

LIMITATIONS:

Some of the recommendations were opinion-based because of the scarcity of evidence-based literature.

SOURCE:

The consensus statement was published on March 13 in JAMA Dermatology.

DISCLOSURES:

This work was supported by grants from Vitiligo Research Foundation and Incyte Pharmaceuticals. The majority of authors disclosed financial relationships outside this work; several reported no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Topical calcineurin inhibitors (TCIs), topical corticosteroids (TCSs), and topical Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors are supported as mainstay treatments in new expert recommendations on the use of topical therapeutics in children, adolescents, and young adults with vitiligo.

METHODOLOGY:

• While half of all vitiligo cases manifest within the initial two decades of life, no guidelines specifically address the management of vitiligo in children, adolescents, and young adults with vitiligo.
• A protocol was established to formulate consensus recommendations addressing questions related to pediatric vitiligo.
• Overall, 50 articles on topical corticosteroids and/or topical calcineurin inhibitors, five on topical Janus kinase inhibitors, and two each on pseudocatalase and microdermabrasion were included.
• The participants recorded their agreement levels with the formulated statements, using a 5-point Likert scale.

TAKEAWAY:

• TCIs, TCSs, JAK inhibitors, and phototherapy, specifically narrowband ultraviolet (UV)-B light therapy, are mainstay treatments; the combination of UV-B light and topical therapy may enhance initial repigmentation.
• Long-term monitoring for skin cancers is advised, and short outdoor UV exposure is suggested for pediatric patients.
• TCIs, such as tacrolimus and pimecrolimus, are recommended as first-line therapy, particularly on the face, applied twice daily for ≥ 3 months; continued use for 6-12 additional months is recommended if repigmentation is observed.
• The choice of TCS class depends on the site and planned usage duration. Short-term use or overlap with TCIs is recommended because of the risk for atrophy with long-term TCS use. Class 5-6 agents are another option.
• For areas with thin skin, TCSs can be considered second-line treatments.
• Topical JAK inhibitors, specifically topical 1.5% ruxolitinib cream, are recommended for patients aged ≥ 12 years, as first- or second-line therapy. Limitation to 10% body surface area is recommended to minimize systemic absorption. Limited evidence exists for children aged < 12 years.

IN PRACTICE:

“Effective therapy requires a focus on long-term therapeutic interventions to maximize the local gain and retention of pigmentation with a trial period of twice-weekly application. Counseling should include discussion of the chronicity of vitiligo and the need for long-term care,” the authors wrote.

LIMITATIONS:

Some of the recommendations were opinion-based because of the scarcity of evidence-based literature.

SOURCE:

The consensus statement was published on March 13 in JAMA Dermatology.

DISCLOSURES:

This work was supported by grants from Vitiligo Research Foundation and Incyte Pharmaceuticals. The majority of authors disclosed financial relationships outside this work; several reported no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) is as safe and effective for high-risk older children and adolescents as oral immunotherapy (OIT) is for infants and preschoolers, according to new research.

Preliminary data from a study of more than 180 pediatric patients with multiple food allergies showed that while most patients had mild symptoms, none experienced a severe grade 4 reaction during the buildup and maintenance phase of SLIT.

In addition, 70% of those tested at the end of the treatment protocol were able to tolerate 300 mg of their allergen, a success rate nearly as high as that for OIT.

The study was published in The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology: In Practice.

SLIT has been used successfully in the treatment of environmental allergens such as grass and tree pollen and dust mites. In this study, researchers decided to test SLIT’s effectiveness and safety in the treatment of food allergies in older children.

“We knew that OIT is very effective and safe in infants and toddlers, but there was literature illustrating that for older, school-age kids and adolescents, OIT is not safe enough, as those older age groups tend to have higher risk of severe reaction during treatment,” senior author Edmond Chan, MD, clinical professor of allergy at the University of British Columbia and pediatric allergist at BC Children’s Hospital, both in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, told this news organization. “With that knowledge, we decided to explore SLIT as another first-phase therapy for the older kids.”

The investigators recruited 188 high-risk older children aged 4-18 years for multifood SLIT. Most (61.7%) participants had multiple food allergies. Approximately 68% were male, and the population’s median age was 11.3 years.

Nearly half (48.4%) of participants had atopic dermatitis, 45.2% had asthma, 58.0% had allergic rhinitis, and 2.66% had preexisting eosinophilic esophagitis.

Most (75.0%) of the children were classified as higher risk, and 23 had a history of a grade 3 or 4 reaction before beginning SLIT.

Of the 188 children who were initially enrolled in the study, 173 (92.0%) finished their SLIT buildup phase.

Because the study started when COVID-19 pandemic restrictions were in place, the SLIT protocol mandated that patients be seen virtually. The patients’ caregivers learned how to mix and administer the required doses at home using recipes specially developed by the research team that used products bought at the grocery store.

A wide variety of food allergens were treated, including peanut, other legumes, tree nuts, sesame, other seeds, egg, cow’s milk, fish, wheat, shrimp, and other allergens.

The children built up to 2-mg protein SLIT maintenance over the course of three to five visits under nurse supervision.

After 1-2 years of daily SLIT maintenance, patients were offered a low-dose oral food challenge (OFC; cumulative dose: 300 mg of protein) with the goal of bypassing OIT buildup.

Nearly all patients (93.1%) had symptoms during SLIT buildup, but most were mild grade 1 (52.1%) or 2 (40.4%) reactions. Only one patient had a grade 3 reaction. None of the patients experienced a severe grade 4 reaction.

The most common grade 1 reaction was oral itch, an expected symptom of SLIT, which occurred in 82.7% of the patients.

Four patients (2.10%) received epinephrine during buildup and went to the emergency department. All these patients returned to continue SLIT without further need for epinephrine.

To test the effectiveness of SLIT, the researchers performed 50 low-dose OFCs in 20 patients. Of these food challenges, 35 (70%) were successful, and patients were asked to start daily 300-mg OIT maintenance, thus bypassing OIT buildup.

An additional nine OFCs that were unsuccessful were counseled to self-escalate from 80 mg or higher to 300 mg at home with medical guidance as needed.

“Our preliminary data of 20 patients and 50 low-dose oral food challenges suggest that an initial phase of 1-2 years of 2-mg daily SLIT therapy may be a safe and effective way to bypass the OIT buildup phase without the need for dozens of in-person visits with an allergist,” said Dr. Chan.

“So now we have the best of both worlds. We harness the safety of SLIT for the first 1-2 years, with the effectiveness of OIT for the remainder of the treatment period,” he said.
 

Adds to Evidence

Commenting on the study for this news organization, Julia Upton, MD, associate professor of pediatrics at the University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, said, “This study adds to the evidence that consistent, low exposure to food drives meaningful desensitization far above the daily dose.” Upton did not participate in the research.

“Prior prospective studies in SLIT demonstrated that small single-digit-milligram doses and time greatly increased the threshold of reaction. This real-world report suggests that a way to utilize that threshold increase is by switching to a commonly used maintenance dose of OIT,” said Dr. Upton.

“Although few patients have been assessed for the 300-mg challenge, this study is notable for the age group of 4-18 years, and that many of the patients had reacted to low doses in the past. It also shows that many families are capable of diluting and mixing their own immunotherapy solutions with store-bought foods under the guidance of an experienced allergy clinic,” she added.

“Overall, evidence is building that by various routes, initial small amounts with minimal updoses, plus the tincture of time, may be preferred to multiple frequent updosing from multiple perspectives, including safety, feasibility, cost, and medical resources. It will also be important to understand the preferences and goals of the patient and family as various regimens become more available,” Dr. Upton concluded.

The study was funded by BC Children’s Hospital Foundation. Dr. Chan reported receiving research support from DVB Technologies; has been a member of advisory boards for Pfizer, Miravo, Medexus, Leo Pharma, Kaleo, DBV, AllerGenis, Sanofi, Genzyme, Bausch Health, Avir Pharma, AstraZeneca, ALK, and Alladapt; and was a colead of the CSACI OIT guidelines. Dr. Upton reported research support/grants from Novartis, Regeneron, Sanofi, ALK Abello, DBV Technologies, CIHR, and SickKids Food Allergy and Anaphylaxis Program and fees from Pfizer, ALK Abello, Bausch Health, Astra Zeneca, and Pharming. She serves as an associate editor for Allergy, Asthma & Clinical Immunology and is on the Board of Directors of Canadian Society of Allergy and Clinical Immunology and the Healthcare Advisory Board of Food Allergy Canada.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) is as safe and effective for high-risk older children and adolescents as oral immunotherapy (OIT) is for infants and preschoolers, according to new research.

Preliminary data from a study of more than 180 pediatric patients with multiple food allergies showed that while most patients had mild symptoms, none experienced a severe grade 4 reaction during the buildup and maintenance phase of SLIT.

In addition, 70% of those tested at the end of the treatment protocol were able to tolerate 300 mg of their allergen, a success rate nearly as high as that for OIT.

The study was published in The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology: In Practice.

SLIT has been used successfully in the treatment of environmental allergens such as grass and tree pollen and dust mites. In this study, researchers decided to test SLIT’s effectiveness and safety in the treatment of food allergies in older children.

“We knew that OIT is very effective and safe in infants and toddlers, but there was literature illustrating that for older, school-age kids and adolescents, OIT is not safe enough, as those older age groups tend to have higher risk of severe reaction during treatment,” senior author Edmond Chan, MD, clinical professor of allergy at the University of British Columbia and pediatric allergist at BC Children’s Hospital, both in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, told this news organization. “With that knowledge, we decided to explore SLIT as another first-phase therapy for the older kids.”

The investigators recruited 188 high-risk older children aged 4-18 years for multifood SLIT. Most (61.7%) participants had multiple food allergies. Approximately 68% were male, and the population’s median age was 11.3 years.

Nearly half (48.4%) of participants had atopic dermatitis, 45.2% had asthma, 58.0% had allergic rhinitis, and 2.66% had preexisting eosinophilic esophagitis.

Most (75.0%) of the children were classified as higher risk, and 23 had a history of a grade 3 or 4 reaction before beginning SLIT.

Of the 188 children who were initially enrolled in the study, 173 (92.0%) finished their SLIT buildup phase.

Because the study started when COVID-19 pandemic restrictions were in place, the SLIT protocol mandated that patients be seen virtually. The patients’ caregivers learned how to mix and administer the required doses at home using recipes specially developed by the research team that used products bought at the grocery store.

A wide variety of food allergens were treated, including peanut, other legumes, tree nuts, sesame, other seeds, egg, cow’s milk, fish, wheat, shrimp, and other allergens.

The children built up to 2-mg protein SLIT maintenance over the course of three to five visits under nurse supervision.

After 1-2 years of daily SLIT maintenance, patients were offered a low-dose oral food challenge (OFC; cumulative dose: 300 mg of protein) with the goal of bypassing OIT buildup.

Nearly all patients (93.1%) had symptoms during SLIT buildup, but most were mild grade 1 (52.1%) or 2 (40.4%) reactions. Only one patient had a grade 3 reaction. None of the patients experienced a severe grade 4 reaction.

The most common grade 1 reaction was oral itch, an expected symptom of SLIT, which occurred in 82.7% of the patients.

Four patients (2.10%) received epinephrine during buildup and went to the emergency department. All these patients returned to continue SLIT without further need for epinephrine.

To test the effectiveness of SLIT, the researchers performed 50 low-dose OFCs in 20 patients. Of these food challenges, 35 (70%) were successful, and patients were asked to start daily 300-mg OIT maintenance, thus bypassing OIT buildup.

An additional nine OFCs that were unsuccessful were counseled to self-escalate from 80 mg or higher to 300 mg at home with medical guidance as needed.

“Our preliminary data of 20 patients and 50 low-dose oral food challenges suggest that an initial phase of 1-2 years of 2-mg daily SLIT therapy may be a safe and effective way to bypass the OIT buildup phase without the need for dozens of in-person visits with an allergist,” said Dr. Chan.

“So now we have the best of both worlds. We harness the safety of SLIT for the first 1-2 years, with the effectiveness of OIT for the remainder of the treatment period,” he said.
 

Adds to Evidence

Commenting on the study for this news organization, Julia Upton, MD, associate professor of pediatrics at the University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, said, “This study adds to the evidence that consistent, low exposure to food drives meaningful desensitization far above the daily dose.” Upton did not participate in the research.

“Prior prospective studies in SLIT demonstrated that small single-digit-milligram doses and time greatly increased the threshold of reaction. This real-world report suggests that a way to utilize that threshold increase is by switching to a commonly used maintenance dose of OIT,” said Dr. Upton.

“Although few patients have been assessed for the 300-mg challenge, this study is notable for the age group of 4-18 years, and that many of the patients had reacted to low doses in the past. It also shows that many families are capable of diluting and mixing their own immunotherapy solutions with store-bought foods under the guidance of an experienced allergy clinic,” she added.

“Overall, evidence is building that by various routes, initial small amounts with minimal updoses, plus the tincture of time, may be preferred to multiple frequent updosing from multiple perspectives, including safety, feasibility, cost, and medical resources. It will also be important to understand the preferences and goals of the patient and family as various regimens become more available,” Dr. Upton concluded.

The study was funded by BC Children’s Hospital Foundation. Dr. Chan reported receiving research support from DVB Technologies; has been a member of advisory boards for Pfizer, Miravo, Medexus, Leo Pharma, Kaleo, DBV, AllerGenis, Sanofi, Genzyme, Bausch Health, Avir Pharma, AstraZeneca, ALK, and Alladapt; and was a colead of the CSACI OIT guidelines. Dr. Upton reported research support/grants from Novartis, Regeneron, Sanofi, ALK Abello, DBV Technologies, CIHR, and SickKids Food Allergy and Anaphylaxis Program and fees from Pfizer, ALK Abello, Bausch Health, Astra Zeneca, and Pharming. She serves as an associate editor for Allergy, Asthma & Clinical Immunology and is on the Board of Directors of Canadian Society of Allergy and Clinical Immunology and the Healthcare Advisory Board of Food Allergy Canada.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) is as safe and effective for high-risk older children and adolescents as oral immunotherapy (OIT) is for infants and preschoolers, according to new research.

Preliminary data from a study of more than 180 pediatric patients with multiple food allergies showed that while most patients had mild symptoms, none experienced a severe grade 4 reaction during the buildup and maintenance phase of SLIT.

In addition, 70% of those tested at the end of the treatment protocol were able to tolerate 300 mg of their allergen, a success rate nearly as high as that for OIT.

The study was published in The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology: In Practice.

SLIT has been used successfully in the treatment of environmental allergens such as grass and tree pollen and dust mites. In this study, researchers decided to test SLIT’s effectiveness and safety in the treatment of food allergies in older children.

“We knew that OIT is very effective and safe in infants and toddlers, but there was literature illustrating that for older, school-age kids and adolescents, OIT is not safe enough, as those older age groups tend to have higher risk of severe reaction during treatment,” senior author Edmond Chan, MD, clinical professor of allergy at the University of British Columbia and pediatric allergist at BC Children’s Hospital, both in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, told this news organization. “With that knowledge, we decided to explore SLIT as another first-phase therapy for the older kids.”

The investigators recruited 188 high-risk older children aged 4-18 years for multifood SLIT. Most (61.7%) participants had multiple food allergies. Approximately 68% were male, and the population’s median age was 11.3 years.

Nearly half (48.4%) of participants had atopic dermatitis, 45.2% had asthma, 58.0% had allergic rhinitis, and 2.66% had preexisting eosinophilic esophagitis.

Most (75.0%) of the children were classified as higher risk, and 23 had a history of a grade 3 or 4 reaction before beginning SLIT.

Of the 188 children who were initially enrolled in the study, 173 (92.0%) finished their SLIT buildup phase.

Because the study started when COVID-19 pandemic restrictions were in place, the SLIT protocol mandated that patients be seen virtually. The patients’ caregivers learned how to mix and administer the required doses at home using recipes specially developed by the research team that used products bought at the grocery store.

A wide variety of food allergens were treated, including peanut, other legumes, tree nuts, sesame, other seeds, egg, cow’s milk, fish, wheat, shrimp, and other allergens.

The children built up to 2-mg protein SLIT maintenance over the course of three to five visits under nurse supervision.

After 1-2 years of daily SLIT maintenance, patients were offered a low-dose oral food challenge (OFC; cumulative dose: 300 mg of protein) with the goal of bypassing OIT buildup.

Nearly all patients (93.1%) had symptoms during SLIT buildup, but most were mild grade 1 (52.1%) or 2 (40.4%) reactions. Only one patient had a grade 3 reaction. None of the patients experienced a severe grade 4 reaction.

The most common grade 1 reaction was oral itch, an expected symptom of SLIT, which occurred in 82.7% of the patients.

Four patients (2.10%) received epinephrine during buildup and went to the emergency department. All these patients returned to continue SLIT without further need for epinephrine.

To test the effectiveness of SLIT, the researchers performed 50 low-dose OFCs in 20 patients. Of these food challenges, 35 (70%) were successful, and patients were asked to start daily 300-mg OIT maintenance, thus bypassing OIT buildup.

An additional nine OFCs that were unsuccessful were counseled to self-escalate from 80 mg or higher to 300 mg at home with medical guidance as needed.

“Our preliminary data of 20 patients and 50 low-dose oral food challenges suggest that an initial phase of 1-2 years of 2-mg daily SLIT therapy may be a safe and effective way to bypass the OIT buildup phase without the need for dozens of in-person visits with an allergist,” said Dr. Chan.

“So now we have the best of both worlds. We harness the safety of SLIT for the first 1-2 years, with the effectiveness of OIT for the remainder of the treatment period,” he said.
 

Adds to Evidence

Commenting on the study for this news organization, Julia Upton, MD, associate professor of pediatrics at the University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, said, “This study adds to the evidence that consistent, low exposure to food drives meaningful desensitization far above the daily dose.” Upton did not participate in the research.

“Prior prospective studies in SLIT demonstrated that small single-digit-milligram doses and time greatly increased the threshold of reaction. This real-world report suggests that a way to utilize that threshold increase is by switching to a commonly used maintenance dose of OIT,” said Dr. Upton.

“Although few patients have been assessed for the 300-mg challenge, this study is notable for the age group of 4-18 years, and that many of the patients had reacted to low doses in the past. It also shows that many families are capable of diluting and mixing their own immunotherapy solutions with store-bought foods under the guidance of an experienced allergy clinic,” she added.

“Overall, evidence is building that by various routes, initial small amounts with minimal updoses, plus the tincture of time, may be preferred to multiple frequent updosing from multiple perspectives, including safety, feasibility, cost, and medical resources. It will also be important to understand the preferences and goals of the patient and family as various regimens become more available,” Dr. Upton concluded.

The study was funded by BC Children’s Hospital Foundation. Dr. Chan reported receiving research support from DVB Technologies; has been a member of advisory boards for Pfizer, Miravo, Medexus, Leo Pharma, Kaleo, DBV, AllerGenis, Sanofi, Genzyme, Bausch Health, Avir Pharma, AstraZeneca, ALK, and Alladapt; and was a colead of the CSACI OIT guidelines. Dr. Upton reported research support/grants from Novartis, Regeneron, Sanofi, ALK Abello, DBV Technologies, CIHR, and SickKids Food Allergy and Anaphylaxis Program and fees from Pfizer, ALK Abello, Bausch Health, Astra Zeneca, and Pharming. She serves as an associate editor for Allergy, Asthma & Clinical Immunology and is on the Board of Directors of Canadian Society of Allergy and Clinical Immunology and the Healthcare Advisory Board of Food Allergy Canada.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .