Pediatrics

Headlines from earlier in the fall were grim: Thanks to the COVID-19 pandemic, life expectancy in the United States has fallen for 2 years running. Last year, according to health officials, the average American newborn could hope to reach 76.1 years, down from 79 years in 2019.

So far, so bad. But the headlines don’t tell the full story, which is much less dire. In fact, 2022 is the best year in human history for a child to arrive on Earth.

For a child born this year, in a developed country, into a family with access to good health care, the odds of living into the 22nd century are almost 50%. One in three will live to be 100. Those estimates reflect only incremental progress in medicine and public health, with COVID-19 baked in. They don’t account for biotechnologies beckoning to take control of the cell cycle and aging itself – which could make the outlook much brighter.

For some perspective, consider that a century ago, life expectancy for an American neonate was about 60 years. That 1922 figure was itself nothing short of miraculous, representing a 25% jump since 1901 – a leap that far outstrips the first 2 decades of the current century, during which life expectancy rose by just 2.5 years.

A gain of 2.5 years over 2 decades might not sound impressive, even without COVID-19 causing life expectancy in this country and abroad to sag. But during the pandemic, exciting new technologies that could drive gains in lifespan and healthspan, even bigger than those seen in the early 20th century, have moved closer to clinical reality. Think Star Trek-ish technologies like human hibernation, universal blood, mRNA therapy able to reprogram immune cells to hunt malignancies and fibrotic tissue, even head transplantation.

How long that last one will take to reach a clinic near you is hard to predict, but advances in the needed technology to anastomose cephalic and somatic portions of the spinal cord are mind-boggling. All this means that, from a medical standpoint, the future for babies born in the early 2020s looks dazzlingly bright.

Those sunny rays of optimism likely have failed to pierce the gloom of public discourse. Between “breakthrough infections,” “long COVID,” “Paxlovid rebound,” vaccine-induced myopericarditis, the current respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) outbreak, school shootings, climate change, and the youth mental health crisis, news headlines are undoubtedly frightful.
 

RSV: What’s old is new again

For the youngest children, the RSV outbreak is currently the scariest story. With social interactions returning toward a pre-COVID state, RSV has rebounded with a vengeance. In many places, pediatric wards are close to, at, or even beyond capacity. With no antiviral treatment for RSV, no licensed vaccine quite yet, and passive immunization (intravenous palivizumab) reserved for children at greatest risk (those under age 6 months and born preterm 35 weeks or earlier), the situation does have the feel of the first year of COVID-19, when treatments were similarly limited.

But let’s keep some perspective. RSV has always been a devastating infection. Prior to COVID-19, in the United States alone RSV killed 100-300 children below age 5 and 6,000-10,000 adults above age 65. The toll has always been worse on the international level. In 2019, 3.6 million people around the world were hospitalized for RSV infections, mostly the very old and the very young. Among causes of death below the age of 5, RSV ranks second only to malaria.

Postvaccine myopericarditis, a favorite concern of the vaccine hesitant, is a real phenomenon in young males. But generally, the condition has a subclinical to mild manifestation and fully resolves within 2 weeks.
 

Vaccines on the horizon

Monkeypox also was putting a damper on health news in recent months. Yet outreach efforts and selective vaccination and other precautions based on risk stratification appear to have calmed the outbreak. That’s good news, as is the fact that the struggle against malaria may be about to change. After decades of trying, we now have a malaria vaccine with what appears to be 80% efficacy against the infection. The same goes for RSV; finally, not one but two RSV vaccines are showing promise in late-stage clinical trials.

To be sure, for many young people, the times don’t seem so wonderful. The rate of teen suicide is alarming – yet it remains well below that seen in the 1990s. Are social media to blame, or is it something more complex?

If COVID-19 has taught us anything, it’s that development of vaccines and treatments need not take a decade or more. Operation Warp Speed may have seemed like a marketing gimmick and political grandstanding, but you can’t argue with the results.

Keep that perspective in mind to appreciate the moment – which I believe is coming soon – when the same type of intramuscular injection that we now use to trigger immunity against SARS-CoV-2 hits clinics, only this time as a way to cure cancer. Or when you read the stories of young victims of firearm violence who would have died but are rapidly cooled and kept hibernating for hours, so that their wounds can be repaired. And although you may not see that head transplant, one of these new babies might see it, or even might perform the procedure.
 

Dr. Warmflash is a freelance health and science writer living in Portland, Ore. His recent book, Moon: An Illustrated History: From Ancient Myths to the Colonies of Tomorrow, tells the story of the moon’s role in a plethora of historical events, from the origin of life to early calendar systems, the emergence of science and technology, and the dawn of the Space Age. He reported having no relevant financial disclosures. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Headlines from earlier in the fall were grim: Thanks to the COVID-19 pandemic, life expectancy in the United States has fallen for 2 years running. Last year, according to health officials, the average American newborn could hope to reach 76.1 years, down from 79 years in 2019.

So far, so bad. But the headlines don’t tell the full story, which is much less dire. In fact, 2022 is the best year in human history for a child to arrive on Earth.

For a child born this year, in a developed country, into a family with access to good health care, the odds of living into the 22nd century are almost 50%. One in three will live to be 100. Those estimates reflect only incremental progress in medicine and public health, with COVID-19 baked in. They don’t account for biotechnologies beckoning to take control of the cell cycle and aging itself – which could make the outlook much brighter.

For some perspective, consider that a century ago, life expectancy for an American neonate was about 60 years. That 1922 figure was itself nothing short of miraculous, representing a 25% jump since 1901 – a leap that far outstrips the first 2 decades of the current century, during which life expectancy rose by just 2.5 years.

A gain of 2.5 years over 2 decades might not sound impressive, even without COVID-19 causing life expectancy in this country and abroad to sag. But during the pandemic, exciting new technologies that could drive gains in lifespan and healthspan, even bigger than those seen in the early 20th century, have moved closer to clinical reality. Think Star Trek-ish technologies like human hibernation, universal blood, mRNA therapy able to reprogram immune cells to hunt malignancies and fibrotic tissue, even head transplantation.

How long that last one will take to reach a clinic near you is hard to predict, but advances in the needed technology to anastomose cephalic and somatic portions of the spinal cord are mind-boggling. All this means that, from a medical standpoint, the future for babies born in the early 2020s looks dazzlingly bright.

Those sunny rays of optimism likely have failed to pierce the gloom of public discourse. Between “breakthrough infections,” “long COVID,” “Paxlovid rebound,” vaccine-induced myopericarditis, the current respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) outbreak, school shootings, climate change, and the youth mental health crisis, news headlines are undoubtedly frightful.
 

RSV: What’s old is new again

For the youngest children, the RSV outbreak is currently the scariest story. With social interactions returning toward a pre-COVID state, RSV has rebounded with a vengeance. In many places, pediatric wards are close to, at, or even beyond capacity. With no antiviral treatment for RSV, no licensed vaccine quite yet, and passive immunization (intravenous palivizumab) reserved for children at greatest risk (those under age 6 months and born preterm 35 weeks or earlier), the situation does have the feel of the first year of COVID-19, when treatments were similarly limited.

But let’s keep some perspective. RSV has always been a devastating infection. Prior to COVID-19, in the United States alone RSV killed 100-300 children below age 5 and 6,000-10,000 adults above age 65. The toll has always been worse on the international level. In 2019, 3.6 million people around the world were hospitalized for RSV infections, mostly the very old and the very young. Among causes of death below the age of 5, RSV ranks second only to malaria.

Postvaccine myopericarditis, a favorite concern of the vaccine hesitant, is a real phenomenon in young males. But generally, the condition has a subclinical to mild manifestation and fully resolves within 2 weeks.
 

Vaccines on the horizon

Monkeypox also was putting a damper on health news in recent months. Yet outreach efforts and selective vaccination and other precautions based on risk stratification appear to have calmed the outbreak. That’s good news, as is the fact that the struggle against malaria may be about to change. After decades of trying, we now have a malaria vaccine with what appears to be 80% efficacy against the infection. The same goes for RSV; finally, not one but two RSV vaccines are showing promise in late-stage clinical trials.

To be sure, for many young people, the times don’t seem so wonderful. The rate of teen suicide is alarming – yet it remains well below that seen in the 1990s. Are social media to blame, or is it something more complex?

If COVID-19 has taught us anything, it’s that development of vaccines and treatments need not take a decade or more. Operation Warp Speed may have seemed like a marketing gimmick and political grandstanding, but you can’t argue with the results.

Keep that perspective in mind to appreciate the moment – which I believe is coming soon – when the same type of intramuscular injection that we now use to trigger immunity against SARS-CoV-2 hits clinics, only this time as a way to cure cancer. Or when you read the stories of young victims of firearm violence who would have died but are rapidly cooled and kept hibernating for hours, so that their wounds can be repaired. And although you may not see that head transplant, one of these new babies might see it, or even might perform the procedure.
 

Dr. Warmflash is a freelance health and science writer living in Portland, Ore. His recent book, Moon: An Illustrated History: From Ancient Myths to the Colonies of Tomorrow, tells the story of the moon’s role in a plethora of historical events, from the origin of life to early calendar systems, the emergence of science and technology, and the dawn of the Space Age. He reported having no relevant financial disclosures. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Headlines from earlier in the fall were grim: Thanks to the COVID-19 pandemic, life expectancy in the United States has fallen for 2 years running. Last year, according to health officials, the average American newborn could hope to reach 76.1 years, down from 79 years in 2019.

So far, so bad. But the headlines don’t tell the full story, which is much less dire. In fact, 2022 is the best year in human history for a child to arrive on Earth.

For a child born this year, in a developed country, into a family with access to good health care, the odds of living into the 22nd century are almost 50%. One in three will live to be 100. Those estimates reflect only incremental progress in medicine and public health, with COVID-19 baked in. They don’t account for biotechnologies beckoning to take control of the cell cycle and aging itself – which could make the outlook much brighter.

For some perspective, consider that a century ago, life expectancy for an American neonate was about 60 years. That 1922 figure was itself nothing short of miraculous, representing a 25% jump since 1901 – a leap that far outstrips the first 2 decades of the current century, during which life expectancy rose by just 2.5 years.

A gain of 2.5 years over 2 decades might not sound impressive, even without COVID-19 causing life expectancy in this country and abroad to sag. But during the pandemic, exciting new technologies that could drive gains in lifespan and healthspan, even bigger than those seen in the early 20th century, have moved closer to clinical reality. Think Star Trek-ish technologies like human hibernation, universal blood, mRNA therapy able to reprogram immune cells to hunt malignancies and fibrotic tissue, even head transplantation.

How long that last one will take to reach a clinic near you is hard to predict, but advances in the needed technology to anastomose cephalic and somatic portions of the spinal cord are mind-boggling. All this means that, from a medical standpoint, the future for babies born in the early 2020s looks dazzlingly bright.

Those sunny rays of optimism likely have failed to pierce the gloom of public discourse. Between “breakthrough infections,” “long COVID,” “Paxlovid rebound,” vaccine-induced myopericarditis, the current respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) outbreak, school shootings, climate change, and the youth mental health crisis, news headlines are undoubtedly frightful.
 

RSV: What’s old is new again

For the youngest children, the RSV outbreak is currently the scariest story. With social interactions returning toward a pre-COVID state, RSV has rebounded with a vengeance. In many places, pediatric wards are close to, at, or even beyond capacity. With no antiviral treatment for RSV, no licensed vaccine quite yet, and passive immunization (intravenous palivizumab) reserved for children at greatest risk (those under age 6 months and born preterm 35 weeks or earlier), the situation does have the feel of the first year of COVID-19, when treatments were similarly limited.

But let’s keep some perspective. RSV has always been a devastating infection. Prior to COVID-19, in the United States alone RSV killed 100-300 children below age 5 and 6,000-10,000 adults above age 65. The toll has always been worse on the international level. In 2019, 3.6 million people around the world were hospitalized for RSV infections, mostly the very old and the very young. Among causes of death below the age of 5, RSV ranks second only to malaria.

Postvaccine myopericarditis, a favorite concern of the vaccine hesitant, is a real phenomenon in young males. But generally, the condition has a subclinical to mild manifestation and fully resolves within 2 weeks.
 

Vaccines on the horizon

Monkeypox also was putting a damper on health news in recent months. Yet outreach efforts and selective vaccination and other precautions based on risk stratification appear to have calmed the outbreak. That’s good news, as is the fact that the struggle against malaria may be about to change. After decades of trying, we now have a malaria vaccine with what appears to be 80% efficacy against the infection. The same goes for RSV; finally, not one but two RSV vaccines are showing promise in late-stage clinical trials.

To be sure, for many young people, the times don’t seem so wonderful. The rate of teen suicide is alarming – yet it remains well below that seen in the 1990s. Are social media to blame, or is it something more complex?

If COVID-19 has taught us anything, it’s that development of vaccines and treatments need not take a decade or more. Operation Warp Speed may have seemed like a marketing gimmick and political grandstanding, but you can’t argue with the results.

Keep that perspective in mind to appreciate the moment – which I believe is coming soon – when the same type of intramuscular injection that we now use to trigger immunity against SARS-CoV-2 hits clinics, only this time as a way to cure cancer. Or when you read the stories of young victims of firearm violence who would have died but are rapidly cooled and kept hibernating for hours, so that their wounds can be repaired. And although you may not see that head transplant, one of these new babies might see it, or even might perform the procedure.
 

Dr. Warmflash is a freelance health and science writer living in Portland, Ore. His recent book, Moon: An Illustrated History: From Ancient Myths to the Colonies of Tomorrow, tells the story of the moon’s role in a plethora of historical events, from the origin of life to early calendar systems, the emergence of science and technology, and the dawn of the Space Age. He reported having no relevant financial disclosures. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Recently the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force issued a formal recommendation that adolescents and children as young as 8 should be screened for anxiety.¹ The advice was based on a review of the research that concluded that anxiety disorders were common in youth (prevalence around 8%), screening was not overly burdensome or dangerous, and treatments were available and effective.

While pediatricians fully appreciate how common clinically significant anxiety is and its impact on the lives of youth, the reception for the recommendations have been mixed. Some are concerned that it could lead to the overprescribing of medications. Arguably, the biggest pushback, however, relates to the question of what to do when a child screens positive in a time when finding an available child and adolescent psychiatrist or other type of pediatric mental health professional can feel next to impossible. The hope of this article is to fill in some of those gaps.

Screening for anxiety disorders

The recommendations suggest using a rating scale as part of the screen but doesn’t dictate which one. A common instrument that has been employed is the Screen for Child Anxiety and Related Disorders, which is a freely available 41-item instrument that has versions for youth self-report and parent-report. A shorter 7-item rating scale, the General Anxiety Disorder–7, and the even shorter GAD-2 (the first two questions of the GAD-7), are also popular but focus, as the name applies, on general anxiety disorder and not related conditions such as social or separation anxiety that can have some different symptoms. These instruments can be given to patients and families in the waiting room or administered with the help of a nurse, physician, or embedded mental health professional. The recommendations do not include specific guidance on how often the screening should be done but repeated screenings are likely important at some interval.

Confirming the diagnosis

Of course, a screening isn’t a formal diagnosis. The American Academy of Pediatrics has expressed the view that the initial diagnosis and treatment for anxiety disorders is well within a pediatrician’s scope of practice, which means further steps are likely required beyond a referral. Fortunately, going from a positive screen to an initial diagnosis does not have to overly laborious and can focus on reviewing the DSM-5 criteria for key anxiety disorders while also ensuring that there isn’t a nonpsychiatric cause driving the symptoms, such as the often cited but rarely seen pheochromocytoma. More common rule-outs include medication-induced anxiety or substance use, excessive caffeine intake, and cardiac arrhythmias. Assessing for current and past trauma or specific causes of the anxiety such as bullying are also important.

It is important to note that it is the rule rather than the exception that youth with clinical levels of anxiety will frequently endorse a number of criteria that span multiple diagnoses including generalized anxiety disorder, social anxiety disorder, and separation anxiety disorder.² Spending a lot of effort to narrow things down to a single anxiety diagnosis often is unnecessary, as both pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic treatments don’t change all that much between individual diagnoses.
 

Explaining the diagnosis

In general, I’m a strong proponent of trying to explain any behavioral diagnoses that you make to kids in a way that is accurate but nonstigmatizing. When it comes to anxiety, one parallel I often draw is to our immune system, which most youth understand at least in basic terms. Both our immune system and our anxiety networks are natural and important; as a species, we wouldn’t have lasted long without them. Both are built to assess and respond to threats. Problems can arise, however, if the response is too strong relative to the threat or the response is activated when it doesn’t need to be. Treatment is directed not at ridding ourselves of anxiety but at helping regulate it so it works for us and not against us. Spending a few minutes going through a discussion like this can be very helpful, and perhaps more so than some dry summary of DSM-5 criteria.

Starting treatment

It is important to note that best practice recommendations when it comes to the treatment of anxiety disorder in youth do not suggest medications as the only type of treatment and often urge clinicians to try nonpharmacological interventions first.³ A specific type of psychotherapy called cognitive-behavioral therapy has the strongest scientific support as an effective treatment for anxiety but other modalities, including parenting guidance, can be helpful as well. Consequently, a referral to a good psychotherapist is paramount. For many kids, the key to overcoming anxiety is exposure: which means confronting anxiety slowly, with support, and with specific skills.

If there is a traumatic source of the anxiety, addressing that as much as possible is obviously critical and could involve working with the family or school. For some kids, this may involve frightening things they are seeing online or through other media. Finally, some health promotion activities such as exercise or mindfulness can also be quite useful.

Despite the fact that SSRIs are referred to as antidepressants, there is increasing appreciation that these medications are useful for anxiety, perhaps even more so than for mood. While only one medication, duloxetine, has Food and Drug Administration approval to treat anxiety in children as young as 7, there is good evidence to support the use of many of the most common SSRIs in treating clinical anxiety. Buspirone, beta-blockers, and antihistamine medications like hydroxyzine also can have their place in treatment, while benzodiazepines and antipsychotic medications are generally best avoided for anxious youth, especially in the primary care setting. A short but helpful medication guide with regard to pediatric anxiety has been published by the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry.⁴

Conclusions

Clinical levels of anxiety in children and adolescents are both common and quite treatable, which has prompted new recommendations that primary care clinicians screen for them starting at age 8. While this recommendation may at first seem like yet one more task to fit in, following the guidance can be accomplished with the help of short screening tools and a managed multimodal approach to treatment.

Dr. Rettew is a child and adolescent psychiatrist with Lane County Behavioral Health in Eugene, Ore., and Oregon Health & Science University, Portland. You can follow him on Twitter and Facebook @PediPsych.

References

1. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. JAMA. 2022;328(14):1438-44.

2. Strawn JR. Curr Psychiatry. 2012;11(9):16-21.

3. Walter HJ et al. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2020;59(10):1107-24.

4. Anxiety Disorders: Parents’ Medication Guide Workgroup. “Anxiety disorders: Parents’ medication guide.” Washington D.C.: American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 2020.

Recently the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force issued a formal recommendation that adolescents and children as young as 8 should be screened for anxiety.¹ The advice was based on a review of the research that concluded that anxiety disorders were common in youth (prevalence around 8%), screening was not overly burdensome or dangerous, and treatments were available and effective.

While pediatricians fully appreciate how common clinically significant anxiety is and its impact on the lives of youth, the reception for the recommendations have been mixed. Some are concerned that it could lead to the overprescribing of medications. Arguably, the biggest pushback, however, relates to the question of what to do when a child screens positive in a time when finding an available child and adolescent psychiatrist or other type of pediatric mental health professional can feel next to impossible. The hope of this article is to fill in some of those gaps.

Screening for anxiety disorders

The recommendations suggest using a rating scale as part of the screen but doesn’t dictate which one. A common instrument that has been employed is the Screen for Child Anxiety and Related Disorders, which is a freely available 41-item instrument that has versions for youth self-report and parent-report. A shorter 7-item rating scale, the General Anxiety Disorder–7, and the even shorter GAD-2 (the first two questions of the GAD-7), are also popular but focus, as the name applies, on general anxiety disorder and not related conditions such as social or separation anxiety that can have some different symptoms. These instruments can be given to patients and families in the waiting room or administered with the help of a nurse, physician, or embedded mental health professional. The recommendations do not include specific guidance on how often the screening should be done but repeated screenings are likely important at some interval.

Confirming the diagnosis

Of course, a screening isn’t a formal diagnosis. The American Academy of Pediatrics has expressed the view that the initial diagnosis and treatment for anxiety disorders is well within a pediatrician’s scope of practice, which means further steps are likely required beyond a referral. Fortunately, going from a positive screen to an initial diagnosis does not have to overly laborious and can focus on reviewing the DSM-5 criteria for key anxiety disorders while also ensuring that there isn’t a nonpsychiatric cause driving the symptoms, such as the often cited but rarely seen pheochromocytoma. More common rule-outs include medication-induced anxiety or substance use, excessive caffeine intake, and cardiac arrhythmias. Assessing for current and past trauma or specific causes of the anxiety such as bullying are also important.

It is important to note that it is the rule rather than the exception that youth with clinical levels of anxiety will frequently endorse a number of criteria that span multiple diagnoses including generalized anxiety disorder, social anxiety disorder, and separation anxiety disorder.² Spending a lot of effort to narrow things down to a single anxiety diagnosis often is unnecessary, as both pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic treatments don’t change all that much between individual diagnoses.
 

Explaining the diagnosis

In general, I’m a strong proponent of trying to explain any behavioral diagnoses that you make to kids in a way that is accurate but nonstigmatizing. When it comes to anxiety, one parallel I often draw is to our immune system, which most youth understand at least in basic terms. Both our immune system and our anxiety networks are natural and important; as a species, we wouldn’t have lasted long without them. Both are built to assess and respond to threats. Problems can arise, however, if the response is too strong relative to the threat or the response is activated when it doesn’t need to be. Treatment is directed not at ridding ourselves of anxiety but at helping regulate it so it works for us and not against us. Spending a few minutes going through a discussion like this can be very helpful, and perhaps more so than some dry summary of DSM-5 criteria.

Starting treatment

It is important to note that best practice recommendations when it comes to the treatment of anxiety disorder in youth do not suggest medications as the only type of treatment and often urge clinicians to try nonpharmacological interventions first.³ A specific type of psychotherapy called cognitive-behavioral therapy has the strongest scientific support as an effective treatment for anxiety but other modalities, including parenting guidance, can be helpful as well. Consequently, a referral to a good psychotherapist is paramount. For many kids, the key to overcoming anxiety is exposure: which means confronting anxiety slowly, with support, and with specific skills.

If there is a traumatic source of the anxiety, addressing that as much as possible is obviously critical and could involve working with the family or school. For some kids, this may involve frightening things they are seeing online or through other media. Finally, some health promotion activities such as exercise or mindfulness can also be quite useful.

Despite the fact that SSRIs are referred to as antidepressants, there is increasing appreciation that these medications are useful for anxiety, perhaps even more so than for mood. While only one medication, duloxetine, has Food and Drug Administration approval to treat anxiety in children as young as 7, there is good evidence to support the use of many of the most common SSRIs in treating clinical anxiety. Buspirone, beta-blockers, and antihistamine medications like hydroxyzine also can have their place in treatment, while benzodiazepines and antipsychotic medications are generally best avoided for anxious youth, especially in the primary care setting. A short but helpful medication guide with regard to pediatric anxiety has been published by the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry.⁴

Conclusions

Clinical levels of anxiety in children and adolescents are both common and quite treatable, which has prompted new recommendations that primary care clinicians screen for them starting at age 8. While this recommendation may at first seem like yet one more task to fit in, following the guidance can be accomplished with the help of short screening tools and a managed multimodal approach to treatment.

Dr. Rettew is a child and adolescent psychiatrist with Lane County Behavioral Health in Eugene, Ore., and Oregon Health & Science University, Portland. You can follow him on Twitter and Facebook @PediPsych.

References

1. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. JAMA. 2022;328(14):1438-44.

2. Strawn JR. Curr Psychiatry. 2012;11(9):16-21.

3. Walter HJ et al. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2020;59(10):1107-24.

4. Anxiety Disorders: Parents’ Medication Guide Workgroup. “Anxiety disorders: Parents’ medication guide.” Washington D.C.: American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 2020.

Recently the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force issued a formal recommendation that adolescents and children as young as 8 should be screened for anxiety.¹ The advice was based on a review of the research that concluded that anxiety disorders were common in youth (prevalence around 8%), screening was not overly burdensome or dangerous, and treatments were available and effective.

While pediatricians fully appreciate how common clinically significant anxiety is and its impact on the lives of youth, the reception for the recommendations have been mixed. Some are concerned that it could lead to the overprescribing of medications. Arguably, the biggest pushback, however, relates to the question of what to do when a child screens positive in a time when finding an available child and adolescent psychiatrist or other type of pediatric mental health professional can feel next to impossible. The hope of this article is to fill in some of those gaps.

Screening for anxiety disorders

The recommendations suggest using a rating scale as part of the screen but doesn’t dictate which one. A common instrument that has been employed is the Screen for Child Anxiety and Related Disorders, which is a freely available 41-item instrument that has versions for youth self-report and parent-report. A shorter 7-item rating scale, the General Anxiety Disorder–7, and the even shorter GAD-2 (the first two questions of the GAD-7), are also popular but focus, as the name applies, on general anxiety disorder and not related conditions such as social or separation anxiety that can have some different symptoms. These instruments can be given to patients and families in the waiting room or administered with the help of a nurse, physician, or embedded mental health professional. The recommendations do not include specific guidance on how often the screening should be done but repeated screenings are likely important at some interval.

Confirming the diagnosis

Of course, a screening isn’t a formal diagnosis. The American Academy of Pediatrics has expressed the view that the initial diagnosis and treatment for anxiety disorders is well within a pediatrician’s scope of practice, which means further steps are likely required beyond a referral. Fortunately, going from a positive screen to an initial diagnosis does not have to overly laborious and can focus on reviewing the DSM-5 criteria for key anxiety disorders while also ensuring that there isn’t a nonpsychiatric cause driving the symptoms, such as the often cited but rarely seen pheochromocytoma. More common rule-outs include medication-induced anxiety or substance use, excessive caffeine intake, and cardiac arrhythmias. Assessing for current and past trauma or specific causes of the anxiety such as bullying are also important.

It is important to note that it is the rule rather than the exception that youth with clinical levels of anxiety will frequently endorse a number of criteria that span multiple diagnoses including generalized anxiety disorder, social anxiety disorder, and separation anxiety disorder.² Spending a lot of effort to narrow things down to a single anxiety diagnosis often is unnecessary, as both pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic treatments don’t change all that much between individual diagnoses.
 

Explaining the diagnosis

In general, I’m a strong proponent of trying to explain any behavioral diagnoses that you make to kids in a way that is accurate but nonstigmatizing. When it comes to anxiety, one parallel I often draw is to our immune system, which most youth understand at least in basic terms. Both our immune system and our anxiety networks are natural and important; as a species, we wouldn’t have lasted long without them. Both are built to assess and respond to threats. Problems can arise, however, if the response is too strong relative to the threat or the response is activated when it doesn’t need to be. Treatment is directed not at ridding ourselves of anxiety but at helping regulate it so it works for us and not against us. Spending a few minutes going through a discussion like this can be very helpful, and perhaps more so than some dry summary of DSM-5 criteria.

Starting treatment

It is important to note that best practice recommendations when it comes to the treatment of anxiety disorder in youth do not suggest medications as the only type of treatment and often urge clinicians to try nonpharmacological interventions first.³ A specific type of psychotherapy called cognitive-behavioral therapy has the strongest scientific support as an effective treatment for anxiety but other modalities, including parenting guidance, can be helpful as well. Consequently, a referral to a good psychotherapist is paramount. For many kids, the key to overcoming anxiety is exposure: which means confronting anxiety slowly, with support, and with specific skills.

If there is a traumatic source of the anxiety, addressing that as much as possible is obviously critical and could involve working with the family or school. For some kids, this may involve frightening things they are seeing online or through other media. Finally, some health promotion activities such as exercise or mindfulness can also be quite useful.

Despite the fact that SSRIs are referred to as antidepressants, there is increasing appreciation that these medications are useful for anxiety, perhaps even more so than for mood. While only one medication, duloxetine, has Food and Drug Administration approval to treat anxiety in children as young as 7, there is good evidence to support the use of many of the most common SSRIs in treating clinical anxiety. Buspirone, beta-blockers, and antihistamine medications like hydroxyzine also can have their place in treatment, while benzodiazepines and antipsychotic medications are generally best avoided for anxious youth, especially in the primary care setting. A short but helpful medication guide with regard to pediatric anxiety has been published by the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry.⁴

Conclusions

Clinical levels of anxiety in children and adolescents are both common and quite treatable, which has prompted new recommendations that primary care clinicians screen for them starting at age 8. While this recommendation may at first seem like yet one more task to fit in, following the guidance can be accomplished with the help of short screening tools and a managed multimodal approach to treatment.

Dr. Rettew is a child and adolescent psychiatrist with Lane County Behavioral Health in Eugene, Ore., and Oregon Health & Science University, Portland. You can follow him on Twitter and Facebook @PediPsych.

References

1. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. JAMA. 2022;328(14):1438-44.

2. Strawn JR. Curr Psychiatry. 2012;11(9):16-21.

3. Walter HJ et al. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2020;59(10):1107-24.

4. Anxiety Disorders: Parents’ Medication Guide Workgroup. “Anxiety disorders: Parents’ medication guide.” Washington D.C.: American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 2020.

Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) vaccines are given to more than 100 million children every year, but there is considerable debate regarding the effectiveness of BCG vaccination in preventing tuberculosis and death, particularly among older children and adults.

The most extensive study ever conducted on the efficacy of the BCG vaccine for protection against tuberculosis, stratified by age and history of previous tuberculosis, was published in September 2022 in The Lancet Global Health. The study, which comprises a systematic review and meta-analysis, analyzed individual-level data from 26 case-contact cohort studies published over the past 20 years. The studies included data from 70,000 participants. The primary outcome was a composite of prevalent (diagnosed at or within 90 days of baseline) and incident (diagnosed more than 90 days after baseline) tuberculosis in contacts exposed to tuberculosis. Secondary outcomes were pulmonary tuberculosis, extrapulmonary tuberculosis, and mortality.

Participants were characterized as having been exposed to tuberculosis if they were reported to have been a close contact (either living in the same household or having substantial interaction outside the household) of a person with microbiologically or radiologically diagnosed pulmonary tuberculosis. Previous tuberculosis was defined as a positive interferon-gamma (IFN-gamma) release assay or tuberculin skin test, also known as PPD or Mantoux test.

Most studies included in the analysis were conducted in the past 10 years in countries with a high tuberculosis burden. Those countries included India, South Africa, China, Vietnam, Indonesia, Uganda, the Gambia, and Brazil.
 

Primary outcomes

The study’s main findings included the following:

• The overall effectiveness of BCG vaccination against all forms of tuberculosis was 18% (adjusted odds ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.74-0.91).
• Stratified by age, BCG vaccination only significantly protected against all tuberculosis in children younger than 5 years (aOR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.49-0.81).
• There was no protective effect among those whose previous tests for tuberculosis were negative unless they were younger than 5 years (aOR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.32-0.90).
• Among contacts who had a positive tuberculin skin test or IFN-gamma release assay, BCG vaccination significantly protected against tuberculosis among all participants (aOR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.69-0.96), participants younger than 5 years (aOR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.47-0.97), and participants aged 5-9 years (aOR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.38-0.99).
• BCG vaccination was protective against pulmonary tuberculosis (19% effectiveness), but this effect was only seen in children younger than 3 years (42% effectiveness) when stratified by age.
• Protection against all tuberculosis and pulmonary tuberculosis was greater among female participants than male participants.

“This is a definitive BCG protection study because it involves a significant number of individuals evaluated using this meta-analysis. Protection is clearly lost with age. From as early as age 5, no protective effect can be observed. Protection, including against pulmonary tuberculosis, can be observed up to 3 years of age,” stated study author Julio Croda, MD, PhD, chair of the Brazilian Society of Tropical Medicine.

Dr. Croda emphasized that the findings from their study indicate that BCG vaccine protects against pulmonary tuberculosis and that those results differ from results of some previous studies.

“Every physician believes the BCG vaccine protects against serious forms of tuberculosis up to age 5. That fact is not surprising at all,” Dr. Croda remarked. “However, the fact that it protects against pulmonary tuberculosis, especially in children younger than 3, was surprising. In medical practice, we did not believe in this protection.”

Currently, 1.2% of new tuberculosis cases in Brazil occur among those younger than 5. Nevertheless, these cases represent 40.1% of new diagnoses recorded among those younger than 15, highlighting the importance of protection for this age group. An increase in extrapulmonary tuberculosis cases was recently observed in patients younger than 5.

Isabella Ballalai, MD, PhD, is deputy chair of the Brazilian Society of Immunizations. Although she did not participate in this study, she commented on its findings. “All publications are welcome; they help us think,” she explained. She emphasized that the BCG vaccine is not optimal. “There are studies indicating 80% efficacy and others indicating 0%. So, what we can look at is decades of effectiveness in practice.”

Dr. Ballalai explained that the BCG vaccine could keep severe forms of tuberculosis, meningitis, and miliary tuberculosis at bay. She shared her experience of caring for several patients with tuberculous meningitis shortly after she had graduated. “Today, thanks to the BCG vaccine, we don’t see it anymore.” However, she pointed out that the vaccine›s efficacy and effectiveness against pulmonary tuberculosis are low and that pulmonary tuberculosis remains the most significant problem among adults.

Dr. Ballalai also emphasized a few shortcomings of the study. “One is the definition of ‘vaccinated’ and ‘unvaccinated,’ which was based on the presence or absence of a mark on the arm. Today, we know that the absence of a mark does not indicate that the child has not been vaccinated, nor that the vaccine has not been effective. Therefore, several vaccinated participants may have been included amongst the unvaccinated participants.”

The authors emphasized that the definition of “vaccinated” and “unvaccinated” was based on a scar and on vaccination records, and they recognized that participants who did not have a scar on their arm could have been misclassified. Regardless, it is still considered a sensitive indicator. “Few vaccinated children from various settings do not show a scar years after vaccine administration,” they stated in their article.
 

Adults unprotected

Dr. Ballalai also shared her concerns regarding the lack of protection for older individuals. “We know those older than 60 are at greater risk for complications of tuberculosis. Individuals in this age group naturally have a lower immunity, and they usually have comorbidities. From this study, I can only conclude what was already expected: that adults who received a BCG vaccine as infants are not clear of pulmonary tuberculosis.”

Dr. Croda agreed that it was already evident that the BCG vaccine administered at birth did not provide protection for adults. “In the past, even with 80%-90% vaccine coverage, there were numerous tuberculosis cases in adults in Brazil.”
 

Are boosters needed?

The authors concluded that immunoprotection needs to be boosted in older populations, as vaccination at birth is ineffective for adolescents and adults. They have also discussed whether children older than 10 years and adults could benefit from a booster shot.

Dr. Croda emphasized that there is no indication for this, because there are no data regarding protection with a booster dose during adulthood. However, he cited a study conducted in South Africa in which the BCG vaccine was compared with another vaccine, and another study, which is being conducted in India, is assessing whether a BCG booster offers protection against pulmonary tuberculosis. “There are few studies. Perhaps the revaccination of more vulnerable groups could be of interest, but additional studies are needed first.”

Dr. Croda intends to assess revaccination in those deprived of liberty, in which the incidence of tuberculosis is very high. From 2015 to 2021, many new cases were recorded in this population in Brazil. The number rose from 5,860 to 6,773 during that period.

“However, BCG revaccination carries a significant risk of patients presenting with serious adverse events,” Dr. Ballalai pointed out. He noted that several years ago, to extend protection, Brazil adopted a booster program for persons aged 10 years or older, but the program was discontinued owing to the numerous adverse events reported and the absence of evidence of benefit from increased protection against tuberculosis.

“The adult groups at greater risk for severe tuberculosis manifestations normally presented with an underlying disease, particularly in immunocompromised patient groups. The [administration of the] BCG [vaccine] is contraindicated for those who are immunocompromised. And, for the older population, we do not have data on [vaccine] safety,” she emphasized.
 

Nonspecific immune protection

One of the study’s secondary outcomes regarded mortality. Four studies in the meta-analysis followed up tuberculosis contacts for death. In these studies, which evaluated 20,000 participants, BCG vaccination was shown to be significantly protective against death for participants younger than 15 years.

However, the authors urged caution in interpreting these data. They emphasized that they were unable to identify specific mechanisms by which BCG vaccination might have reduced mortality, and there are possible study biases that could have led to an overestimation of mortality benefit. Moreover, given the observational nature of the included studies, vaccinated children might have had higher socioeconomic status and greater access to health care, and they may have been more likely to have received other vaccinations, compared with children who did not receive BCG vaccines.

Nevertheless, previous experimental and observational studies have found that BCG vaccination might provide nonspecific or off-target immune protection against an array of other pathogens.

“In small studies conducted in Africa, those younger than 5 were protected not only against tuberculosis but also against other respiratory diseases,” Dr. Croda affirmed. “However, these are small studies, and for now, there is no recommendation for using BCG vaccination to prevent other respiratory infections.”

A long-awaited, critical study on the impact of the BCG vaccine on COVID-19, in which Brazilian researchers participated, will be published in the New England Journal of Medicine.
 

New vaccines needed

The BCG vaccine is one of the oldest vaccines, but there are still several crucial unanswered questions about its use.

Previously published studies that examined the protective effect of BCG vaccination only considered low-burden settings and the historical literature before 1950. These studies need updating, but doing so has not been a simple task. To answer their questions, individual-level participant data for a prespecified list of variables, including the characteristics of the exposed participant (contact), the index case, and the environment, were requested from authors of all eligible studies.

Much of the data used in the published research were found through discussions with authors and experts in the field, as well as through data deposited in data storage repositories, conference abstracts, dissertations, and even direct requests to the authors. “The Pan-American Health Organization helped with this data collection and contacting some authors,” said Dr. Croda.

With the new data, the authors confirmed that infant BCG vaccination, although important to young children who are at high risk for tuberculosis, does not prevent adult-type cavitary tuberculosis and is therefore insufficient to impede the tuberculosis epidemic. “Novel vaccines are urgently needed,” they concluded.

“We need to develop novel, more effective vaccines, which, when administered during infancy, would ensure lifelong protection,” Dr. Croda added.

Dr. Croda and Dr. Ballalai reported no relevant financial relationships.

This article was translated from the Medscape Portuguese edition. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) vaccines are given to more than 100 million children every year, but there is considerable debate regarding the effectiveness of BCG vaccination in preventing tuberculosis and death, particularly among older children and adults.

The most extensive study ever conducted on the efficacy of the BCG vaccine for protection against tuberculosis, stratified by age and history of previous tuberculosis, was published in September 2022 in The Lancet Global Health. The study, which comprises a systematic review and meta-analysis, analyzed individual-level data from 26 case-contact cohort studies published over the past 20 years. The studies included data from 70,000 participants. The primary outcome was a composite of prevalent (diagnosed at or within 90 days of baseline) and incident (diagnosed more than 90 days after baseline) tuberculosis in contacts exposed to tuberculosis. Secondary outcomes were pulmonary tuberculosis, extrapulmonary tuberculosis, and mortality.

Participants were characterized as having been exposed to tuberculosis if they were reported to have been a close contact (either living in the same household or having substantial interaction outside the household) of a person with microbiologically or radiologically diagnosed pulmonary tuberculosis. Previous tuberculosis was defined as a positive interferon-gamma (IFN-gamma) release assay or tuberculin skin test, also known as PPD or Mantoux test.

Most studies included in the analysis were conducted in the past 10 years in countries with a high tuberculosis burden. Those countries included India, South Africa, China, Vietnam, Indonesia, Uganda, the Gambia, and Brazil.
 

Primary outcomes

The study’s main findings included the following:

• The overall effectiveness of BCG vaccination against all forms of tuberculosis was 18% (adjusted odds ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.74-0.91).
• Stratified by age, BCG vaccination only significantly protected against all tuberculosis in children younger than 5 years (aOR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.49-0.81).
• There was no protective effect among those whose previous tests for tuberculosis were negative unless they were younger than 5 years (aOR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.32-0.90).
• Among contacts who had a positive tuberculin skin test or IFN-gamma release assay, BCG vaccination significantly protected against tuberculosis among all participants (aOR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.69-0.96), participants younger than 5 years (aOR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.47-0.97), and participants aged 5-9 years (aOR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.38-0.99).
• BCG vaccination was protective against pulmonary tuberculosis (19% effectiveness), but this effect was only seen in children younger than 3 years (42% effectiveness) when stratified by age.
• Protection against all tuberculosis and pulmonary tuberculosis was greater among female participants than male participants.

“This is a definitive BCG protection study because it involves a significant number of individuals evaluated using this meta-analysis. Protection is clearly lost with age. From as early as age 5, no protective effect can be observed. Protection, including against pulmonary tuberculosis, can be observed up to 3 years of age,” stated study author Julio Croda, MD, PhD, chair of the Brazilian Society of Tropical Medicine.

Dr. Croda emphasized that the findings from their study indicate that BCG vaccine protects against pulmonary tuberculosis and that those results differ from results of some previous studies.

“Every physician believes the BCG vaccine protects against serious forms of tuberculosis up to age 5. That fact is not surprising at all,” Dr. Croda remarked. “However, the fact that it protects against pulmonary tuberculosis, especially in children younger than 3, was surprising. In medical practice, we did not believe in this protection.”

Currently, 1.2% of new tuberculosis cases in Brazil occur among those younger than 5. Nevertheless, these cases represent 40.1% of new diagnoses recorded among those younger than 15, highlighting the importance of protection for this age group. An increase in extrapulmonary tuberculosis cases was recently observed in patients younger than 5.

Isabella Ballalai, MD, PhD, is deputy chair of the Brazilian Society of Immunizations. Although she did not participate in this study, she commented on its findings. “All publications are welcome; they help us think,” she explained. She emphasized that the BCG vaccine is not optimal. “There are studies indicating 80% efficacy and others indicating 0%. So, what we can look at is decades of effectiveness in practice.”

Dr. Ballalai explained that the BCG vaccine could keep severe forms of tuberculosis, meningitis, and miliary tuberculosis at bay. She shared her experience of caring for several patients with tuberculous meningitis shortly after she had graduated. “Today, thanks to the BCG vaccine, we don’t see it anymore.” However, she pointed out that the vaccine›s efficacy and effectiveness against pulmonary tuberculosis are low and that pulmonary tuberculosis remains the most significant problem among adults.

Dr. Ballalai also emphasized a few shortcomings of the study. “One is the definition of ‘vaccinated’ and ‘unvaccinated,’ which was based on the presence or absence of a mark on the arm. Today, we know that the absence of a mark does not indicate that the child has not been vaccinated, nor that the vaccine has not been effective. Therefore, several vaccinated participants may have been included amongst the unvaccinated participants.”

The authors emphasized that the definition of “vaccinated” and “unvaccinated” was based on a scar and on vaccination records, and they recognized that participants who did not have a scar on their arm could have been misclassified. Regardless, it is still considered a sensitive indicator. “Few vaccinated children from various settings do not show a scar years after vaccine administration,” they stated in their article.
 

Adults unprotected

Dr. Ballalai also shared her concerns regarding the lack of protection for older individuals. “We know those older than 60 are at greater risk for complications of tuberculosis. Individuals in this age group naturally have a lower immunity, and they usually have comorbidities. From this study, I can only conclude what was already expected: that adults who received a BCG vaccine as infants are not clear of pulmonary tuberculosis.”

Dr. Croda agreed that it was already evident that the BCG vaccine administered at birth did not provide protection for adults. “In the past, even with 80%-90% vaccine coverage, there were numerous tuberculosis cases in adults in Brazil.”
 

Are boosters needed?

The authors concluded that immunoprotection needs to be boosted in older populations, as vaccination at birth is ineffective for adolescents and adults. They have also discussed whether children older than 10 years and adults could benefit from a booster shot.

Dr. Croda emphasized that there is no indication for this, because there are no data regarding protection with a booster dose during adulthood. However, he cited a study conducted in South Africa in which the BCG vaccine was compared with another vaccine, and another study, which is being conducted in India, is assessing whether a BCG booster offers protection against pulmonary tuberculosis. “There are few studies. Perhaps the revaccination of more vulnerable groups could be of interest, but additional studies are needed first.”

Dr. Croda intends to assess revaccination in those deprived of liberty, in which the incidence of tuberculosis is very high. From 2015 to 2021, many new cases were recorded in this population in Brazil. The number rose from 5,860 to 6,773 during that period.

“However, BCG revaccination carries a significant risk of patients presenting with serious adverse events,” Dr. Ballalai pointed out. He noted that several years ago, to extend protection, Brazil adopted a booster program for persons aged 10 years or older, but the program was discontinued owing to the numerous adverse events reported and the absence of evidence of benefit from increased protection against tuberculosis.

“The adult groups at greater risk for severe tuberculosis manifestations normally presented with an underlying disease, particularly in immunocompromised patient groups. The [administration of the] BCG [vaccine] is contraindicated for those who are immunocompromised. And, for the older population, we do not have data on [vaccine] safety,” she emphasized.
 

Nonspecific immune protection

One of the study’s secondary outcomes regarded mortality. Four studies in the meta-analysis followed up tuberculosis contacts for death. In these studies, which evaluated 20,000 participants, BCG vaccination was shown to be significantly protective against death for participants younger than 15 years.

However, the authors urged caution in interpreting these data. They emphasized that they were unable to identify specific mechanisms by which BCG vaccination might have reduced mortality, and there are possible study biases that could have led to an overestimation of mortality benefit. Moreover, given the observational nature of the included studies, vaccinated children might have had higher socioeconomic status and greater access to health care, and they may have been more likely to have received other vaccinations, compared with children who did not receive BCG vaccines.

Nevertheless, previous experimental and observational studies have found that BCG vaccination might provide nonspecific or off-target immune protection against an array of other pathogens.

“In small studies conducted in Africa, those younger than 5 were protected not only against tuberculosis but also against other respiratory diseases,” Dr. Croda affirmed. “However, these are small studies, and for now, there is no recommendation for using BCG vaccination to prevent other respiratory infections.”

A long-awaited, critical study on the impact of the BCG vaccine on COVID-19, in which Brazilian researchers participated, will be published in the New England Journal of Medicine.
 

New vaccines needed

The BCG vaccine is one of the oldest vaccines, but there are still several crucial unanswered questions about its use.

Previously published studies that examined the protective effect of BCG vaccination only considered low-burden settings and the historical literature before 1950. These studies need updating, but doing so has not been a simple task. To answer their questions, individual-level participant data for a prespecified list of variables, including the characteristics of the exposed participant (contact), the index case, and the environment, were requested from authors of all eligible studies.

Much of the data used in the published research were found through discussions with authors and experts in the field, as well as through data deposited in data storage repositories, conference abstracts, dissertations, and even direct requests to the authors. “The Pan-American Health Organization helped with this data collection and contacting some authors,” said Dr. Croda.

With the new data, the authors confirmed that infant BCG vaccination, although important to young children who are at high risk for tuberculosis, does not prevent adult-type cavitary tuberculosis and is therefore insufficient to impede the tuberculosis epidemic. “Novel vaccines are urgently needed,” they concluded.

“We need to develop novel, more effective vaccines, which, when administered during infancy, would ensure lifelong protection,” Dr. Croda added.

Dr. Croda and Dr. Ballalai reported no relevant financial relationships.

This article was translated from the Medscape Portuguese edition. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) vaccines are given to more than 100 million children every year, but there is considerable debate regarding the effectiveness of BCG vaccination in preventing tuberculosis and death, particularly among older children and adults.

The most extensive study ever conducted on the efficacy of the BCG vaccine for protection against tuberculosis, stratified by age and history of previous tuberculosis, was published in September 2022 in The Lancet Global Health. The study, which comprises a systematic review and meta-analysis, analyzed individual-level data from 26 case-contact cohort studies published over the past 20 years. The studies included data from 70,000 participants. The primary outcome was a composite of prevalent (diagnosed at or within 90 days of baseline) and incident (diagnosed more than 90 days after baseline) tuberculosis in contacts exposed to tuberculosis. Secondary outcomes were pulmonary tuberculosis, extrapulmonary tuberculosis, and mortality.

Participants were characterized as having been exposed to tuberculosis if they were reported to have been a close contact (either living in the same household or having substantial interaction outside the household) of a person with microbiologically or radiologically diagnosed pulmonary tuberculosis. Previous tuberculosis was defined as a positive interferon-gamma (IFN-gamma) release assay or tuberculin skin test, also known as PPD or Mantoux test.

Most studies included in the analysis were conducted in the past 10 years in countries with a high tuberculosis burden. Those countries included India, South Africa, China, Vietnam, Indonesia, Uganda, the Gambia, and Brazil.
 

Primary outcomes

The study’s main findings included the following:

• The overall effectiveness of BCG vaccination against all forms of tuberculosis was 18% (adjusted odds ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.74-0.91).
• Stratified by age, BCG vaccination only significantly protected against all tuberculosis in children younger than 5 years (aOR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.49-0.81).
• There was no protective effect among those whose previous tests for tuberculosis were negative unless they were younger than 5 years (aOR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.32-0.90).
• Among contacts who had a positive tuberculin skin test or IFN-gamma release assay, BCG vaccination significantly protected against tuberculosis among all participants (aOR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.69-0.96), participants younger than 5 years (aOR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.47-0.97), and participants aged 5-9 years (aOR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.38-0.99).
• BCG vaccination was protective against pulmonary tuberculosis (19% effectiveness), but this effect was only seen in children younger than 3 years (42% effectiveness) when stratified by age.
• Protection against all tuberculosis and pulmonary tuberculosis was greater among female participants than male participants.

“This is a definitive BCG protection study because it involves a significant number of individuals evaluated using this meta-analysis. Protection is clearly lost with age. From as early as age 5, no protective effect can be observed. Protection, including against pulmonary tuberculosis, can be observed up to 3 years of age,” stated study author Julio Croda, MD, PhD, chair of the Brazilian Society of Tropical Medicine.

Dr. Croda emphasized that the findings from their study indicate that BCG vaccine protects against pulmonary tuberculosis and that those results differ from results of some previous studies.

“Every physician believes the BCG vaccine protects against serious forms of tuberculosis up to age 5. That fact is not surprising at all,” Dr. Croda remarked. “However, the fact that it protects against pulmonary tuberculosis, especially in children younger than 3, was surprising. In medical practice, we did not believe in this protection.”

Currently, 1.2% of new tuberculosis cases in Brazil occur among those younger than 5. Nevertheless, these cases represent 40.1% of new diagnoses recorded among those younger than 15, highlighting the importance of protection for this age group. An increase in extrapulmonary tuberculosis cases was recently observed in patients younger than 5.

Isabella Ballalai, MD, PhD, is deputy chair of the Brazilian Society of Immunizations. Although she did not participate in this study, she commented on its findings. “All publications are welcome; they help us think,” she explained. She emphasized that the BCG vaccine is not optimal. “There are studies indicating 80% efficacy and others indicating 0%. So, what we can look at is decades of effectiveness in practice.”

Dr. Ballalai explained that the BCG vaccine could keep severe forms of tuberculosis, meningitis, and miliary tuberculosis at bay. She shared her experience of caring for several patients with tuberculous meningitis shortly after she had graduated. “Today, thanks to the BCG vaccine, we don’t see it anymore.” However, she pointed out that the vaccine›s efficacy and effectiveness against pulmonary tuberculosis are low and that pulmonary tuberculosis remains the most significant problem among adults.

Dr. Ballalai also emphasized a few shortcomings of the study. “One is the definition of ‘vaccinated’ and ‘unvaccinated,’ which was based on the presence or absence of a mark on the arm. Today, we know that the absence of a mark does not indicate that the child has not been vaccinated, nor that the vaccine has not been effective. Therefore, several vaccinated participants may have been included amongst the unvaccinated participants.”

The authors emphasized that the definition of “vaccinated” and “unvaccinated” was based on a scar and on vaccination records, and they recognized that participants who did not have a scar on their arm could have been misclassified. Regardless, it is still considered a sensitive indicator. “Few vaccinated children from various settings do not show a scar years after vaccine administration,” they stated in their article.
 

Adults unprotected

Dr. Ballalai also shared her concerns regarding the lack of protection for older individuals. “We know those older than 60 are at greater risk for complications of tuberculosis. Individuals in this age group naturally have a lower immunity, and they usually have comorbidities. From this study, I can only conclude what was already expected: that adults who received a BCG vaccine as infants are not clear of pulmonary tuberculosis.”

Dr. Croda agreed that it was already evident that the BCG vaccine administered at birth did not provide protection for adults. “In the past, even with 80%-90% vaccine coverage, there were numerous tuberculosis cases in adults in Brazil.”
 

Are boosters needed?

The authors concluded that immunoprotection needs to be boosted in older populations, as vaccination at birth is ineffective for adolescents and adults. They have also discussed whether children older than 10 years and adults could benefit from a booster shot.

Dr. Croda emphasized that there is no indication for this, because there are no data regarding protection with a booster dose during adulthood. However, he cited a study conducted in South Africa in which the BCG vaccine was compared with another vaccine, and another study, which is being conducted in India, is assessing whether a BCG booster offers protection against pulmonary tuberculosis. “There are few studies. Perhaps the revaccination of more vulnerable groups could be of interest, but additional studies are needed first.”

Dr. Croda intends to assess revaccination in those deprived of liberty, in which the incidence of tuberculosis is very high. From 2015 to 2021, many new cases were recorded in this population in Brazil. The number rose from 5,860 to 6,773 during that period.

“However, BCG revaccination carries a significant risk of patients presenting with serious adverse events,” Dr. Ballalai pointed out. He noted that several years ago, to extend protection, Brazil adopted a booster program for persons aged 10 years or older, but the program was discontinued owing to the numerous adverse events reported and the absence of evidence of benefit from increased protection against tuberculosis.

“The adult groups at greater risk for severe tuberculosis manifestations normally presented with an underlying disease, particularly in immunocompromised patient groups. The [administration of the] BCG [vaccine] is contraindicated for those who are immunocompromised. And, for the older population, we do not have data on [vaccine] safety,” she emphasized.
 

Nonspecific immune protection

One of the study’s secondary outcomes regarded mortality. Four studies in the meta-analysis followed up tuberculosis contacts for death. In these studies, which evaluated 20,000 participants, BCG vaccination was shown to be significantly protective against death for participants younger than 15 years.

However, the authors urged caution in interpreting these data. They emphasized that they were unable to identify specific mechanisms by which BCG vaccination might have reduced mortality, and there are possible study biases that could have led to an overestimation of mortality benefit. Moreover, given the observational nature of the included studies, vaccinated children might have had higher socioeconomic status and greater access to health care, and they may have been more likely to have received other vaccinations, compared with children who did not receive BCG vaccines.

Nevertheless, previous experimental and observational studies have found that BCG vaccination might provide nonspecific or off-target immune protection against an array of other pathogens.

“In small studies conducted in Africa, those younger than 5 were protected not only against tuberculosis but also against other respiratory diseases,” Dr. Croda affirmed. “However, these are small studies, and for now, there is no recommendation for using BCG vaccination to prevent other respiratory infections.”

A long-awaited, critical study on the impact of the BCG vaccine on COVID-19, in which Brazilian researchers participated, will be published in the New England Journal of Medicine.
 

New vaccines needed

The BCG vaccine is one of the oldest vaccines, but there are still several crucial unanswered questions about its use.

Previously published studies that examined the protective effect of BCG vaccination only considered low-burden settings and the historical literature before 1950. These studies need updating, but doing so has not been a simple task. To answer their questions, individual-level participant data for a prespecified list of variables, including the characteristics of the exposed participant (contact), the index case, and the environment, were requested from authors of all eligible studies.

Much of the data used in the published research were found through discussions with authors and experts in the field, as well as through data deposited in data storage repositories, conference abstracts, dissertations, and even direct requests to the authors. “The Pan-American Health Organization helped with this data collection and contacting some authors,” said Dr. Croda.

With the new data, the authors confirmed that infant BCG vaccination, although important to young children who are at high risk for tuberculosis, does not prevent adult-type cavitary tuberculosis and is therefore insufficient to impede the tuberculosis epidemic. “Novel vaccines are urgently needed,” they concluded.

“We need to develop novel, more effective vaccines, which, when administered during infancy, would ensure lifelong protection,” Dr. Croda added.

Dr. Croda and Dr. Ballalai reported no relevant financial relationships.

This article was translated from the Medscape Portuguese edition. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The American Academy of Pediatrics is cautioning physicians and parents to be on the lookout for unnecessary diagnostic testing associated with several common pediatric conditions.

Children seen for these conditions in emergency settings and even in primary care offices could experience avoidable pain, exposure to harmful radiation, and other harms, according to the group.

“The emergency department has the ability to rapidly perform myriad diagnostic tests and receive results quickly,” said Paul Mullan, MD, MPH, chair of the AAP’s Section of Emergency Medicine’s Choosing Wisely task force. “However, this comes with the danger of diagnostic overtesting.”

The five recommendations are as follows:

• Radiographs should not be obtained for children with bronchiolitis, croup, asthma, or first-time wheezing.
• Laboratory tests for screening should not be undertaken in the medical clearance process of children who require inpatient psychiatric admission unless clinically indicated.
• Laboratory testing or a CT scan of the head should not be ordered for a child with an unprovoked, generalized seizure or a simple febrile seizure whose mental status has returned to baseline.
• Abdominal radiographs should not be obtained for suspected constipation.
• Comprehensive viral panel testing should not be undertaken for children who are suspected of having respiratory viral illnesses.

The AAP task force partnered with Choosing Wisely Canada to create the recommendations. The list is the first of its kind to be published jointly by two countries, according to the release.

“We hope this Choosing Wisely list will encourage clinicians to rely on their clinical skills and avoid unnecessary tests,” said Dr. Mullan, who is also a physician at Children’s Hospital of the King’s Daughters and professor of pediatrics at Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk.

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

The American Academy of Pediatrics is cautioning physicians and parents to be on the lookout for unnecessary diagnostic testing associated with several common pediatric conditions.

Children seen for these conditions in emergency settings and even in primary care offices could experience avoidable pain, exposure to harmful radiation, and other harms, according to the group.

“The emergency department has the ability to rapidly perform myriad diagnostic tests and receive results quickly,” said Paul Mullan, MD, MPH, chair of the AAP’s Section of Emergency Medicine’s Choosing Wisely task force. “However, this comes with the danger of diagnostic overtesting.”

The five recommendations are as follows:

• Radiographs should not be obtained for children with bronchiolitis, croup, asthma, or first-time wheezing.
• Laboratory tests for screening should not be undertaken in the medical clearance process of children who require inpatient psychiatric admission unless clinically indicated.
• Laboratory testing or a CT scan of the head should not be ordered for a child with an unprovoked, generalized seizure or a simple febrile seizure whose mental status has returned to baseline.
• Abdominal radiographs should not be obtained for suspected constipation.
• Comprehensive viral panel testing should not be undertaken for children who are suspected of having respiratory viral illnesses.

The AAP task force partnered with Choosing Wisely Canada to create the recommendations. The list is the first of its kind to be published jointly by two countries, according to the release.

“We hope this Choosing Wisely list will encourage clinicians to rely on their clinical skills and avoid unnecessary tests,” said Dr. Mullan, who is also a physician at Children’s Hospital of the King’s Daughters and professor of pediatrics at Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk.

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

The American Academy of Pediatrics is cautioning physicians and parents to be on the lookout for unnecessary diagnostic testing associated with several common pediatric conditions.

Children seen for these conditions in emergency settings and even in primary care offices could experience avoidable pain, exposure to harmful radiation, and other harms, according to the group.

“The emergency department has the ability to rapidly perform myriad diagnostic tests and receive results quickly,” said Paul Mullan, MD, MPH, chair of the AAP’s Section of Emergency Medicine’s Choosing Wisely task force. “However, this comes with the danger of diagnostic overtesting.”

The five recommendations are as follows:

• Radiographs should not be obtained for children with bronchiolitis, croup, asthma, or first-time wheezing.
• Laboratory tests for screening should not be undertaken in the medical clearance process of children who require inpatient psychiatric admission unless clinically indicated.
• Laboratory testing or a CT scan of the head should not be ordered for a child with an unprovoked, generalized seizure or a simple febrile seizure whose mental status has returned to baseline.
• Abdominal radiographs should not be obtained for suspected constipation.
• Comprehensive viral panel testing should not be undertaken for children who are suspected of having respiratory viral illnesses.

The AAP task force partnered with Choosing Wisely Canada to create the recommendations. The list is the first of its kind to be published jointly by two countries, according to the release.

“We hope this Choosing Wisely list will encourage clinicians to rely on their clinical skills and avoid unnecessary tests,” said Dr. Mullan, who is also a physician at Children’s Hospital of the King’s Daughters and professor of pediatrics at Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk.

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

The offspring of mothers who sustain unintentional injuries during pregnancy appear to have a modest 33% increased risk of developing cerebral palsy (CP) – higher when injuries are more severe, multiple, or lead to delivery soon afterward, a Canadian birth cohort study found.

Such children may benefit from long-term monitoring for neurodevelpmental issues, wrote a group led by Asma Ahmed, MD, PhD, MPH, a pediatric epidemiologist at the Hospital for Sick Children Research Institute in Toronto in JAMA Pediatrics.

“We need to provide better support for babies whose mothers have been injured in pregnancy, especially after severe injuries,” Dr. Ahmed said in a press release. “As well, these findings suggest the need for early monitoring of babies’ development, regular check-ups, and longer-term neurodevelopmental assessments.” Future studies should directly measure injury severity and its possible link to CP.

Current guidelines, however, focus on monitoring fetal condition immediately after injury with little attention to its long-term effects.

In their findings from the population-based linkage study of 2,110,177 children born in Ontario’s public health system during 2002-2017 and followed to 2018 with a median follow-up of 8 years:

• A total of 81,281 fetuses were exposed in utero to unintentional maternal injury.
• Overall, 0.3% children were diagnosed with CP, and the mean CP incidence rates were 4.36 per 10,000 child-years for the exposed versus 2.93 for the unexposed.
• In those exposed, the hazard ratio was 1.33 (95% confidence interval, 1.18-1.50) after adjusting for maternal sociodemographic and clinical characteristics.
• Injuries resulting in hospitalization or delivery within 1 week were linked to higher adjusted hazard ratios of 2.18 (95% CI, 1.29-3.68) and 3.40 (95% CI, 1.93-6.00), respectively.
• Injuries most frequently resulted from transportation mishaps, falls, and being struck by a person or object. They were most commonly associated with age younger than 20 years, substance use disorder, residence in rural and under-resourced areas, and lower socioeconomic status.

The authors noted that complications after maternal injuries – which affect 6%-8% of pregnant women – include uterine rupture, preterm delivery, and placental abruption and are linked to fetal complications such as asphyxia. The association with an offspring’s neurodevelopment has been rarely investigated. One U.K. population study, however, suggested a link between vehicular crashes and higher CP risk in preterm infants.

A related editorial on the study noted that while CP affects about two to four children per 1,000 live births each year in high-income countries, the etiological causes of most cases remain unknown. “This large population-based cohort study ... should inspire more research into preventing and mitigating factors for maternal injuries and offspring CP development,” wrote Zeyan Liew, PhD, MPH, and Haoran Zhuo, MPH, of Yale University School of Public Health in New Haven, Conn.

This study was supported by Santé-Québec and ICES, a research institute funded by the Ontario Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Long-Term Care.

Dr. Ahmed and coauthor Seungmi Yang, PhD, reported research funding from Santé-Québec during the conduct of the study.

The offspring of mothers who sustain unintentional injuries during pregnancy appear to have a modest 33% increased risk of developing cerebral palsy (CP) – higher when injuries are more severe, multiple, or lead to delivery soon afterward, a Canadian birth cohort study found.

Such children may benefit from long-term monitoring for neurodevelpmental issues, wrote a group led by Asma Ahmed, MD, PhD, MPH, a pediatric epidemiologist at the Hospital for Sick Children Research Institute in Toronto in JAMA Pediatrics.

“We need to provide better support for babies whose mothers have been injured in pregnancy, especially after severe injuries,” Dr. Ahmed said in a press release. “As well, these findings suggest the need for early monitoring of babies’ development, regular check-ups, and longer-term neurodevelopmental assessments.” Future studies should directly measure injury severity and its possible link to CP.

Current guidelines, however, focus on monitoring fetal condition immediately after injury with little attention to its long-term effects.

In their findings from the population-based linkage study of 2,110,177 children born in Ontario’s public health system during 2002-2017 and followed to 2018 with a median follow-up of 8 years:

• A total of 81,281 fetuses were exposed in utero to unintentional maternal injury.
• Overall, 0.3% children were diagnosed with CP, and the mean CP incidence rates were 4.36 per 10,000 child-years for the exposed versus 2.93 for the unexposed.
• In those exposed, the hazard ratio was 1.33 (95% confidence interval, 1.18-1.50) after adjusting for maternal sociodemographic and clinical characteristics.
• Injuries resulting in hospitalization or delivery within 1 week were linked to higher adjusted hazard ratios of 2.18 (95% CI, 1.29-3.68) and 3.40 (95% CI, 1.93-6.00), respectively.
• Injuries most frequently resulted from transportation mishaps, falls, and being struck by a person or object. They were most commonly associated with age younger than 20 years, substance use disorder, residence in rural and under-resourced areas, and lower socioeconomic status.

The authors noted that complications after maternal injuries – which affect 6%-8% of pregnant women – include uterine rupture, preterm delivery, and placental abruption and are linked to fetal complications such as asphyxia. The association with an offspring’s neurodevelopment has been rarely investigated. One U.K. population study, however, suggested a link between vehicular crashes and higher CP risk in preterm infants.

A related editorial on the study noted that while CP affects about two to four children per 1,000 live births each year in high-income countries, the etiological causes of most cases remain unknown. “This large population-based cohort study ... should inspire more research into preventing and mitigating factors for maternal injuries and offspring CP development,” wrote Zeyan Liew, PhD, MPH, and Haoran Zhuo, MPH, of Yale University School of Public Health in New Haven, Conn.

This study was supported by Santé-Québec and ICES, a research institute funded by the Ontario Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Long-Term Care.

Dr. Ahmed and coauthor Seungmi Yang, PhD, reported research funding from Santé-Québec during the conduct of the study.

The offspring of mothers who sustain unintentional injuries during pregnancy appear to have a modest 33% increased risk of developing cerebral palsy (CP) – higher when injuries are more severe, multiple, or lead to delivery soon afterward, a Canadian birth cohort study found.

Such children may benefit from long-term monitoring for neurodevelpmental issues, wrote a group led by Asma Ahmed, MD, PhD, MPH, a pediatric epidemiologist at the Hospital for Sick Children Research Institute in Toronto in JAMA Pediatrics.

“We need to provide better support for babies whose mothers have been injured in pregnancy, especially after severe injuries,” Dr. Ahmed said in a press release. “As well, these findings suggest the need for early monitoring of babies’ development, regular check-ups, and longer-term neurodevelopmental assessments.” Future studies should directly measure injury severity and its possible link to CP.

Current guidelines, however, focus on monitoring fetal condition immediately after injury with little attention to its long-term effects.

In their findings from the population-based linkage study of 2,110,177 children born in Ontario’s public health system during 2002-2017 and followed to 2018 with a median follow-up of 8 years:

• A total of 81,281 fetuses were exposed in utero to unintentional maternal injury.
• Overall, 0.3% children were diagnosed with CP, and the mean CP incidence rates were 4.36 per 10,000 child-years for the exposed versus 2.93 for the unexposed.
• In those exposed, the hazard ratio was 1.33 (95% confidence interval, 1.18-1.50) after adjusting for maternal sociodemographic and clinical characteristics.
• Injuries resulting in hospitalization or delivery within 1 week were linked to higher adjusted hazard ratios of 2.18 (95% CI, 1.29-3.68) and 3.40 (95% CI, 1.93-6.00), respectively.
• Injuries most frequently resulted from transportation mishaps, falls, and being struck by a person or object. They were most commonly associated with age younger than 20 years, substance use disorder, residence in rural and under-resourced areas, and lower socioeconomic status.

The authors noted that complications after maternal injuries – which affect 6%-8% of pregnant women – include uterine rupture, preterm delivery, and placental abruption and are linked to fetal complications such as asphyxia. The association with an offspring’s neurodevelopment has been rarely investigated. One U.K. population study, however, suggested a link between vehicular crashes and higher CP risk in preterm infants.

A related editorial on the study noted that while CP affects about two to four children per 1,000 live births each year in high-income countries, the etiological causes of most cases remain unknown. “This large population-based cohort study ... should inspire more research into preventing and mitigating factors for maternal injuries and offspring CP development,” wrote Zeyan Liew, PhD, MPH, and Haoran Zhuo, MPH, of Yale University School of Public Health in New Haven, Conn.

This study was supported by Santé-Québec and ICES, a research institute funded by the Ontario Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Long-Term Care.

Dr. Ahmed and coauthor Seungmi Yang, PhD, reported research funding from Santé-Québec during the conduct of the study.

Doctors suspect the worst respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) season in years just ended, and the story of a child who had a serious respiratory infection provides a glimpse of what health care providers saw in the fall of 2022.

RSV cases peaked in mid-November, according to the latest Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data, with RSV-associated hospitalizations in the United States among patients 0-4 years having maxed out five times higher than they were at the same time in 2021. These surges strained providers and left parents scrambling for care. Fortunately, pediatric hospitalizations appear to be subsiding.

In interviews, the parents of the child who had a severe case of RSV reflected on their son’s bout with the illness, and doctors described challenges to dealing with the surge in RSV cases this season. The physicians also offered advice on how recognize and respond to future cases of the virus.
 

Sebastian Witt’s story

“I didn’t even know what RSV was,” said Malte Witt, whose son, Sebastian, 2, was recently hospitalized for RSV in Denver.

Mr. Witt and his wife, Emily Witt, both 32, thought they were dealing with a typical cold until Sebastian’s condition dramatically deteriorated about 36 hours after symptom onset.

“He basically just slumped over and collapsed, coughing uncontrollably,” Mr. Witt said in an interview. “He couldn’t catch his breath.”

The Witts rushed Sebastian to the ED at Children’s Hospital Colorado, expecting to see a doctor immediately. Instead, they spent the night in an overcrowded waiting room alongside many other families in the same situation.

“There was no room for anyone to sit anywhere,” Mr. Witt said. “There were people sitting on the floor. I counted maybe six children hooked up to oxygen when we walked in.”

After waiting approximately 45 minutes, a nurse checked Sebastian’s oxygen saturation. The readings were 79%-83%. This range is significantly below thresholds for supplemental oxygen described by most pediatric guidelines, which range from 90 to 94%.

The nurse connected Sebastian to bottled oxygen in the waiting room, and a recheck 4 hours later showed that his oxygen saturation had improved.

But the improvement didn’t last.

“At roughly hour 10 in the waiting room – it was 4 in the morning – you could tell that Seb was exhausted, really not acting like himself,” Mr. Witt said. “We thought maybe it’s just late at night, he hasn’t really slept. But then Emily noticed that his oxygen tank had run out.”

Mr. Witt told a nurse, and after another check revealed low oxygen saturation, Sebastian was finally admitted.
 

Early RSV surge strains pediatric providers

With RSV-associated hospitalizations peaking at 48 per 100,000 children, Colorado has been among the states hardest hit by the virus. New Mexico – where hospitalizations peaked at 56.4 per 100,000 children – comes in second. Even in states like California, where hospitalization rates have been almost 10-fold lower than New Mexico, pediatric providers have been stretched to their limits.

“Many hospitals are really being overwhelmed with admissions for RSV, both routine RSV – relatively mild hospitalizations with bronchiolitis – as well as kids in the ICU with more severe cases,” said Dean Blumberg, MD, chief of the division of pediatric infectious diseases at UC Davis Health, Sacramento, said in an interview.

Dr. Blumberg believes the severity of the 2022-2023 RSV season is likely COVID related.

“All community-associated respiratory viral infections are out of whack because of the pandemic, and all the masking and social distancing that was occurring,” he said.

This may also explain why older kids are coming down with more severe cases of RSV.

“Some children are getting RSV for the first time as older children,” Dr. Blumberg said, noting that, historically, most children were infected in the first 2 years of life. “There are reports of children 3 or 4 years of age being admitted with their first episode of RSV because of the [COVID] pandemic.”

This year’s RSV season is also notable for arriving early, potentially catching the community off guard, according to Jennifer D. Kusma, MD, a primary care pediatrician at Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago.

“People who should have been protected often weren’t protected yet,” Dr. Kusma said in an interview.
 

Treatments new, old, and unproven

On Nov. 17, in the midst of the RSV surge, the American Academy of Pediatrics issued updated guidance for palivizumab, an RSV-targeting monoclonal antibody labeled for children at risk of severe RSV, including those with pre-existing lung or heart conditions, and infants with a history of premature birth (less than or equal to 35 weeks’ gestational age).

“If RSV disease activity persists at high levels in a given region through the fall and winter, the AAP supports providing more than five consecutive doses of palivizumab to eligible children,” the update stated.

Insurance companies appear to be responding in kind, covering additional doses for children in need.

“[Payers] have agreed that, if [palivizumab] needs to be given for an additional month or 2 or 3, then they’re making a commitment that they’ll reimburse hospitals for providing that,” Dr. Blumberg said.

For ineligible patients, such as Sebastian, who was born prematurely at 36 weeks – 1 week shy of the label requirement – treatment relies upon supportive care with oxygen and IV fluids.

At home, parents are left with simpler options.

Dr. Blumberg and Dr. Kusma recommended keeping children hydrated, maintaining humidified air, and using saline nose drops with bulb suction to clear mucus.

In the Witts’ experience, that last step may be easier said than done.

“Every time a nurse would walk into the room, Sebastian would yell: ‘Go away, doctor! I don’t want snot sucker!’” Mr. Witt said.

“If you over snot-suck, that’s really uncomfortable for the kid, and really hard for you,” Ms. Witt said. “And it doesn’t make much of a difference. It’s just very hard to find a middle ground, where you’re helping and keeping them comfortable.”

Some parents are turning to novel strategies, such as nebulized hypertonic saline, currently marketed on Amazon for children with RSV.

Although the AAP offers a weak recommendation for nebulized hypertonic saline in children hospitalized more than 72 hours, they advise against it in the emergency setting, citing inconsistent findings in clinical trials.

To any parents tempted by thousands of positive Amazon reviews, Dr. Blumberg said, “I wouldn’t waste my money on that.”

Dr. Kusma agreed.

“[Nebulized hypertonic saline] can be irritating,” she said. “It’s saltwater, essentially. If a parent is in the position where they’re worried about their child’s breathing to the point that they think they need to use it, I would err on the side of calling your pediatrician and being seen.”
 

Going in, coming home

Dr. Kusma said parents should seek medical attention if a child is breathing faster and working harder to get air. Increased work of breathing is characterized by pulling of the skin at the notch where the throat meets the chest bone (tracheal tugging), and flattening of the belly that makes the ribcage more prominent.

Mr. Witt saw these signs in Sebastian. He knew they were significant, because a friend who is a nurse had previously shown him some examples of children who exhibited these symptoms online.

“That’s how I knew that things were actually really dangerous,” Mr. Witt said. “Had she not shown me those videos a month and a half before this happened, I don’t know that we would have hit the alarm bell as quickly as we did.”

After spending their second night and the following day in a cramped preoperative room converted to manage overflow from the emergency department, Sebastian’s condition improved, and he was discharged. The Witts are relieved to be home, but frustrations from their ordeal remain, especially considering the estimated $5,000 in out-of-pocket costs they expect to pay.

“How is this our health care system?” Ms. Witt asked. “This is unbelievable.”
 

An optimistic outlook

RSV seasons typically demonstrate a clear peak, followed by a decline through the rest of the season, suggesting better times lie ahead; however, this season has been anything but typical.

“I’m hopeful that it will just go away and stay away,” Dr. Kusma said, citing this trend. “But I can’t know for sure.”

To anxious parents, Dr. Blumberg offered an optimistic view of RSV seasons to come.

“There’s hope,” he said. “There are vaccines that are being developed that are very close to FDA approval. So, it’s possible that this time next year, we might have widespread RSV vaccination available for children so that we don’t have to go through this nightmare again.”

Dr. Blumberg and Dr. Kusma disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

Doctors suspect the worst respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) season in years just ended, and the story of a child who had a serious respiratory infection provides a glimpse of what health care providers saw in the fall of 2022.

RSV cases peaked in mid-November, according to the latest Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data, with RSV-associated hospitalizations in the United States among patients 0-4 years having maxed out five times higher than they were at the same time in 2021. These surges strained providers and left parents scrambling for care. Fortunately, pediatric hospitalizations appear to be subsiding.

In interviews, the parents of the child who had a severe case of RSV reflected on their son’s bout with the illness, and doctors described challenges to dealing with the surge in RSV cases this season. The physicians also offered advice on how recognize and respond to future cases of the virus.
 

Sebastian Witt’s story

“I didn’t even know what RSV was,” said Malte Witt, whose son, Sebastian, 2, was recently hospitalized for RSV in Denver.

Mr. Witt and his wife, Emily Witt, both 32, thought they were dealing with a typical cold until Sebastian’s condition dramatically deteriorated about 36 hours after symptom onset.

“He basically just slumped over and collapsed, coughing uncontrollably,” Mr. Witt said in an interview. “He couldn’t catch his breath.”

The Witts rushed Sebastian to the ED at Children’s Hospital Colorado, expecting to see a doctor immediately. Instead, they spent the night in an overcrowded waiting room alongside many other families in the same situation.

“There was no room for anyone to sit anywhere,” Mr. Witt said. “There were people sitting on the floor. I counted maybe six children hooked up to oxygen when we walked in.”

After waiting approximately 45 minutes, a nurse checked Sebastian’s oxygen saturation. The readings were 79%-83%. This range is significantly below thresholds for supplemental oxygen described by most pediatric guidelines, which range from 90 to 94%.

The nurse connected Sebastian to bottled oxygen in the waiting room, and a recheck 4 hours later showed that his oxygen saturation had improved.

But the improvement didn’t last.

“At roughly hour 10 in the waiting room – it was 4 in the morning – you could tell that Seb was exhausted, really not acting like himself,” Mr. Witt said. “We thought maybe it’s just late at night, he hasn’t really slept. But then Emily noticed that his oxygen tank had run out.”

Mr. Witt told a nurse, and after another check revealed low oxygen saturation, Sebastian was finally admitted.
 

Early RSV surge strains pediatric providers

With RSV-associated hospitalizations peaking at 48 per 100,000 children, Colorado has been among the states hardest hit by the virus. New Mexico – where hospitalizations peaked at 56.4 per 100,000 children – comes in second. Even in states like California, where hospitalization rates have been almost 10-fold lower than New Mexico, pediatric providers have been stretched to their limits.

“Many hospitals are really being overwhelmed with admissions for RSV, both routine RSV – relatively mild hospitalizations with bronchiolitis – as well as kids in the ICU with more severe cases,” said Dean Blumberg, MD, chief of the division of pediatric infectious diseases at UC Davis Health, Sacramento, said in an interview.

Dr. Blumberg believes the severity of the 2022-2023 RSV season is likely COVID related.

“All community-associated respiratory viral infections are out of whack because of the pandemic, and all the masking and social distancing that was occurring,” he said.

This may also explain why older kids are coming down with more severe cases of RSV.

“Some children are getting RSV for the first time as older children,” Dr. Blumberg said, noting that, historically, most children were infected in the first 2 years of life. “There are reports of children 3 or 4 years of age being admitted with their first episode of RSV because of the [COVID] pandemic.”

This year’s RSV season is also notable for arriving early, potentially catching the community off guard, according to Jennifer D. Kusma, MD, a primary care pediatrician at Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago.

“People who should have been protected often weren’t protected yet,” Dr. Kusma said in an interview.
 

Treatments new, old, and unproven

On Nov. 17, in the midst of the RSV surge, the American Academy of Pediatrics issued updated guidance for palivizumab, an RSV-targeting monoclonal antibody labeled for children at risk of severe RSV, including those with pre-existing lung or heart conditions, and infants with a history of premature birth (less than or equal to 35 weeks’ gestational age).

“If RSV disease activity persists at high levels in a given region through the fall and winter, the AAP supports providing more than five consecutive doses of palivizumab to eligible children,” the update stated.

Insurance companies appear to be responding in kind, covering additional doses for children in need.

“[Payers] have agreed that, if [palivizumab] needs to be given for an additional month or 2 or 3, then they’re making a commitment that they’ll reimburse hospitals for providing that,” Dr. Blumberg said.

For ineligible patients, such as Sebastian, who was born prematurely at 36 weeks – 1 week shy of the label requirement – treatment relies upon supportive care with oxygen and IV fluids.

At home, parents are left with simpler options.

Dr. Blumberg and Dr. Kusma recommended keeping children hydrated, maintaining humidified air, and using saline nose drops with bulb suction to clear mucus.

In the Witts’ experience, that last step may be easier said than done.

“Every time a nurse would walk into the room, Sebastian would yell: ‘Go away, doctor! I don’t want snot sucker!’” Mr. Witt said.

“If you over snot-suck, that’s really uncomfortable for the kid, and really hard for you,” Ms. Witt said. “And it doesn’t make much of a difference. It’s just very hard to find a middle ground, where you’re helping and keeping them comfortable.”

Some parents are turning to novel strategies, such as nebulized hypertonic saline, currently marketed on Amazon for children with RSV.

Although the AAP offers a weak recommendation for nebulized hypertonic saline in children hospitalized more than 72 hours, they advise against it in the emergency setting, citing inconsistent findings in clinical trials.

To any parents tempted by thousands of positive Amazon reviews, Dr. Blumberg said, “I wouldn’t waste my money on that.”

Dr. Kusma agreed.

“[Nebulized hypertonic saline] can be irritating,” she said. “It’s saltwater, essentially. If a parent is in the position where they’re worried about their child’s breathing to the point that they think they need to use it, I would err on the side of calling your pediatrician and being seen.”
 

Going in, coming home

Dr. Kusma said parents should seek medical attention if a child is breathing faster and working harder to get air. Increased work of breathing is characterized by pulling of the skin at the notch where the throat meets the chest bone (tracheal tugging), and flattening of the belly that makes the ribcage more prominent.

Mr. Witt saw these signs in Sebastian. He knew they were significant, because a friend who is a nurse had previously shown him some examples of children who exhibited these symptoms online.

“That’s how I knew that things were actually really dangerous,” Mr. Witt said. “Had she not shown me those videos a month and a half before this happened, I don’t know that we would have hit the alarm bell as quickly as we did.”

After spending their second night and the following day in a cramped preoperative room converted to manage overflow from the emergency department, Sebastian’s condition improved, and he was discharged. The Witts are relieved to be home, but frustrations from their ordeal remain, especially considering the estimated $5,000 in out-of-pocket costs they expect to pay.

“How is this our health care system?” Ms. Witt asked. “This is unbelievable.”
 

An optimistic outlook

RSV seasons typically demonstrate a clear peak, followed by a decline through the rest of the season, suggesting better times lie ahead; however, this season has been anything but typical.

“I’m hopeful that it will just go away and stay away,” Dr. Kusma said, citing this trend. “But I can’t know for sure.”

To anxious parents, Dr. Blumberg offered an optimistic view of RSV seasons to come.

“There’s hope,” he said. “There are vaccines that are being developed that are very close to FDA approval. So, it’s possible that this time next year, we might have widespread RSV vaccination available for children so that we don’t have to go through this nightmare again.”

Dr. Blumberg and Dr. Kusma disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

Doctors suspect the worst respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) season in years just ended, and the story of a child who had a serious respiratory infection provides a glimpse of what health care providers saw in the fall of 2022.

RSV cases peaked in mid-November, according to the latest Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data, with RSV-associated hospitalizations in the United States among patients 0-4 years having maxed out five times higher than they were at the same time in 2021. These surges strained providers and left parents scrambling for care. Fortunately, pediatric hospitalizations appear to be subsiding.

In interviews, the parents of the child who had a severe case of RSV reflected on their son’s bout with the illness, and doctors described challenges to dealing with the surge in RSV cases this season. The physicians also offered advice on how recognize and respond to future cases of the virus.
 

Sebastian Witt’s story

“I didn’t even know what RSV was,” said Malte Witt, whose son, Sebastian, 2, was recently hospitalized for RSV in Denver.

Mr. Witt and his wife, Emily Witt, both 32, thought they were dealing with a typical cold until Sebastian’s condition dramatically deteriorated about 36 hours after symptom onset.

“He basically just slumped over and collapsed, coughing uncontrollably,” Mr. Witt said in an interview. “He couldn’t catch his breath.”

The Witts rushed Sebastian to the ED at Children’s Hospital Colorado, expecting to see a doctor immediately. Instead, they spent the night in an overcrowded waiting room alongside many other families in the same situation.

“There was no room for anyone to sit anywhere,” Mr. Witt said. “There were people sitting on the floor. I counted maybe six children hooked up to oxygen when we walked in.”

After waiting approximately 45 minutes, a nurse checked Sebastian’s oxygen saturation. The readings were 79%-83%. This range is significantly below thresholds for supplemental oxygen described by most pediatric guidelines, which range from 90 to 94%.

The nurse connected Sebastian to bottled oxygen in the waiting room, and a recheck 4 hours later showed that his oxygen saturation had improved.

But the improvement didn’t last.

“At roughly hour 10 in the waiting room – it was 4 in the morning – you could tell that Seb was exhausted, really not acting like himself,” Mr. Witt said. “We thought maybe it’s just late at night, he hasn’t really slept. But then Emily noticed that his oxygen tank had run out.”

Mr. Witt told a nurse, and after another check revealed low oxygen saturation, Sebastian was finally admitted.
 

Early RSV surge strains pediatric providers

With RSV-associated hospitalizations peaking at 48 per 100,000 children, Colorado has been among the states hardest hit by the virus. New Mexico – where hospitalizations peaked at 56.4 per 100,000 children – comes in second. Even in states like California, where hospitalization rates have been almost 10-fold lower than New Mexico, pediatric providers have been stretched to their limits.

“Many hospitals are really being overwhelmed with admissions for RSV, both routine RSV – relatively mild hospitalizations with bronchiolitis – as well as kids in the ICU with more severe cases,” said Dean Blumberg, MD, chief of the division of pediatric infectious diseases at UC Davis Health, Sacramento, said in an interview.

Dr. Blumberg believes the severity of the 2022-2023 RSV season is likely COVID related.

“All community-associated respiratory viral infections are out of whack because of the pandemic, and all the masking and social distancing that was occurring,” he said.

This may also explain why older kids are coming down with more severe cases of RSV.

“Some children are getting RSV for the first time as older children,” Dr. Blumberg said, noting that, historically, most children were infected in the first 2 years of life. “There are reports of children 3 or 4 years of age being admitted with their first episode of RSV because of the [COVID] pandemic.”

This year’s RSV season is also notable for arriving early, potentially catching the community off guard, according to Jennifer D. Kusma, MD, a primary care pediatrician at Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago.

“People who should have been protected often weren’t protected yet,” Dr. Kusma said in an interview.
 

Treatments new, old, and unproven

On Nov. 17, in the midst of the RSV surge, the American Academy of Pediatrics issued updated guidance for palivizumab, an RSV-targeting monoclonal antibody labeled for children at risk of severe RSV, including those with pre-existing lung or heart conditions, and infants with a history of premature birth (less than or equal to 35 weeks’ gestational age).

“If RSV disease activity persists at high levels in a given region through the fall and winter, the AAP supports providing more than five consecutive doses of palivizumab to eligible children,” the update stated.

Insurance companies appear to be responding in kind, covering additional doses for children in need.

“[Payers] have agreed that, if [palivizumab] needs to be given for an additional month or 2 or 3, then they’re making a commitment that they’ll reimburse hospitals for providing that,” Dr. Blumberg said.

For ineligible patients, such as Sebastian, who was born prematurely at 36 weeks – 1 week shy of the label requirement – treatment relies upon supportive care with oxygen and IV fluids.

At home, parents are left with simpler options.

Dr. Blumberg and Dr. Kusma recommended keeping children hydrated, maintaining humidified air, and using saline nose drops with bulb suction to clear mucus.

In the Witts’ experience, that last step may be easier said than done.

“Every time a nurse would walk into the room, Sebastian would yell: ‘Go away, doctor! I don’t want snot sucker!’” Mr. Witt said.

“If you over snot-suck, that’s really uncomfortable for the kid, and really hard for you,” Ms. Witt said. “And it doesn’t make much of a difference. It’s just very hard to find a middle ground, where you’re helping and keeping them comfortable.”

Some parents are turning to novel strategies, such as nebulized hypertonic saline, currently marketed on Amazon for children with RSV.

Although the AAP offers a weak recommendation for nebulized hypertonic saline in children hospitalized more than 72 hours, they advise against it in the emergency setting, citing inconsistent findings in clinical trials.

To any parents tempted by thousands of positive Amazon reviews, Dr. Blumberg said, “I wouldn’t waste my money on that.”

Dr. Kusma agreed.

“[Nebulized hypertonic saline] can be irritating,” she said. “It’s saltwater, essentially. If a parent is in the position where they’re worried about their child’s breathing to the point that they think they need to use it, I would err on the side of calling your pediatrician and being seen.”
 

Going in, coming home

Dr. Kusma said parents should seek medical attention if a child is breathing faster and working harder to get air. Increased work of breathing is characterized by pulling of the skin at the notch where the throat meets the chest bone (tracheal tugging), and flattening of the belly that makes the ribcage more prominent.

Mr. Witt saw these signs in Sebastian. He knew they were significant, because a friend who is a nurse had previously shown him some examples of children who exhibited these symptoms online.

“That’s how I knew that things were actually really dangerous,” Mr. Witt said. “Had she not shown me those videos a month and a half before this happened, I don’t know that we would have hit the alarm bell as quickly as we did.”

After spending their second night and the following day in a cramped preoperative room converted to manage overflow from the emergency department, Sebastian’s condition improved, and he was discharged. The Witts are relieved to be home, but frustrations from their ordeal remain, especially considering the estimated $5,000 in out-of-pocket costs they expect to pay.

“How is this our health care system?” Ms. Witt asked. “This is unbelievable.”
 

An optimistic outlook

RSV seasons typically demonstrate a clear peak, followed by a decline through the rest of the season, suggesting better times lie ahead; however, this season has been anything but typical.

“I’m hopeful that it will just go away and stay away,” Dr. Kusma said, citing this trend. “But I can’t know for sure.”

To anxious parents, Dr. Blumberg offered an optimistic view of RSV seasons to come.

“There’s hope,” he said. “There are vaccines that are being developed that are very close to FDA approval. So, it’s possible that this time next year, we might have widespread RSV vaccination available for children so that we don’t have to go through this nightmare again.”

Dr. Blumberg and Dr. Kusma disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

The debate about a possible link between food allergy (FA) and pediatric gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) continues, and more, better-designed research is needed, a position paper by the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology reports.

The report offers consensus-based recommendations and a graphical decision pathway to guide providers through assessing and treating food allergy–related GERD. And the authors call for further, better-designed related research.

Food allergy and GERD are common in babies under 1 year of age and can lead to bothersome GERD, the authors write.

“An extensive literature search has found that whilst food proteins, in particular cow milk protein, can be a contributing factor to FA-associated” GERD, distinguishing between FA and non–FA-associated GERD is difficult, lead author Rosan Meyer, RD, PhD, senior lecturer at Imperial College London, and colleagues from the Academy task force on non-IgE mediated allergy, write in Pediatric Allergy and Immunology.
 

Consensus despite limited data

Dr. Meyer and colleagues developed clinical questions that addressed various aspects of the relationship between food allergy and GERD – pathophysiology, symptoms, diagnosis, dietary and medical management, prevalence, and impact on quality of life.

To address these issues, they systematically searched the literature for randomized controlled, observational, case-control, and retrospective studies of infants and children diagnosed with non-IgE gastrointestinal food allergies and GERD, published in English until February 2021.

Because of limited data in many of these areas, they used a modified Delphi method to reach consensus and provide practical advice on food allergy–associated GERD management.

The task force concludes:

• Food proteins, especially cow’s milk protein, can contribute to food allergy–associated GERD. The confirmation of food allergy is based on the elimination diet, always followed by reintroducing the offending allergen, and the diagnosis and treatment pathway should consider effects on quality of life.
• Breastfeeding should be supported in food allergy–associated GERD, and dietary advice should consider the potential nutritional impact on the breastfeeding mother. When breast milk is not available or is insufficient, formula and dietary advice to counteract the child’s nutrient deficiencies should be considered.
• Although some clarity exists about when GERD medications may be considered, they are often used inappropriately and may harm patients, especially infants.

Rigorous research needed

“Clinicians can use this algorithm to help them identify patients who may be affected by food allergy–related GERD,” Jonathan Tam, MD, medical director of the Gores Family Allergy Center at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles, told this news organization by email.

“Clinicians who suspect their patients may have food allergy–related GERD now have clearer guidance on how to systemically evaluate their patients,” added Dr. Tam, who was not involved in developing the report.

“Many allergists fear that patients may be labeled with a food allergy unnecessarily. Because no biomarkers or tests for food allergy–related GERD are available, elimination diets are a crucial part of the evaluation,” he said.

Dr. Tam added that the authors point out two key parts of a trial elimination: First, the trial should last at least 2 weeks, but full resolution may not occur until 6 weeks. Second, targeted elimination must be followed by reintroduction to confirm that the food was causing the symptoms, not that time itself may have been responsible for the clinical change.

“The authors’ note on allergy testing is important,” he said. “Allergy testing is not necessary when a clinician is concerned about food allergy–related GERD unless there are other associated atopic comorbidities, like eczema or IgE-mediated immediate food allergies.”

Jonathan M. Spergel, MD, PhD, chief of the allergy section at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, said in an email that families often ask whether food allergy is causing their child’s reflux.

“Both conditions are common and, in most cases, may not be related. As the report highlights, the risk of food allergy is increased if the patient has other atopic disease (atopic dermatitis), and standard allergy testing (skin testing, specific IgE) and IgG4 testing are not recommended,” he explained. “Food allergy in a patient with reflux can be considered if standard therapy is failing.”
 

Expert opinion on diagnosis and management

Dr. Spergel, also not involved in the report, joined the authors in advocating further, stronger studies. “While the expert opinion is a major strength,” he said, “with most available studies being neither randomized nor placebo-controlled, the true prevalence of food allergy reflux is unknown.”

Jay M. Portnoy, MD, specialist in pediatric allergy and immunology and medical director of telemedicine at Children’s Mercy Kansas City, said: “While most physicians believe that food allergy contributes to GERD, the evidence for the relationship is minimal. Reflux often occurs regardless of what food is eaten,” said Dr. Portnoy, who was not associated with the research.

Before removing a food from the diet, it’s important to determine whether that food is causing the problem, he urged.

“Blaming a food is easy. Food allergy is often suspected to cause symptoms it does not cause,” he said. “This unfounded blame can lead to unnecessary avoidance, reduce a family’s quality of life, and cause malnutrition.

“How a child is evaluated and treated depends as much on which physician they see as on whether the food is the culprit,” Dr. Portnoy said. “This report is an attempt to clarify the issues and to standardize an approach to the condition, so each provider evaluates and manages the condition in a consistent and evidence-based manner.

“It is important to see how well this report is incorporated into practice and whether following its guidance actually improves patient care,” Dr. Portnoy noted.

Funding information was not provided. Dr. Meyer and two coauthors report financial relationships with the nutritional health care industry. The full list can be found with the original article. The remaining authors and Dr. Tam, Dr. Spergel, and Dr. Portnoy report no relevant financial relationships.

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

The debate about a possible link between food allergy (FA) and pediatric gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) continues, and more, better-designed research is needed, a position paper by the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology reports.

The report offers consensus-based recommendations and a graphical decision pathway to guide providers through assessing and treating food allergy–related GERD. And the authors call for further, better-designed related research.

Food allergy and GERD are common in babies under 1 year of age and can lead to bothersome GERD, the authors write.

“An extensive literature search has found that whilst food proteins, in particular cow milk protein, can be a contributing factor to FA-associated” GERD, distinguishing between FA and non–FA-associated GERD is difficult, lead author Rosan Meyer, RD, PhD, senior lecturer at Imperial College London, and colleagues from the Academy task force on non-IgE mediated allergy, write in Pediatric Allergy and Immunology.
 

Consensus despite limited data

Dr. Meyer and colleagues developed clinical questions that addressed various aspects of the relationship between food allergy and GERD – pathophysiology, symptoms, diagnosis, dietary and medical management, prevalence, and impact on quality of life.

To address these issues, they systematically searched the literature for randomized controlled, observational, case-control, and retrospective studies of infants and children diagnosed with non-IgE gastrointestinal food allergies and GERD, published in English until February 2021.

Because of limited data in many of these areas, they used a modified Delphi method to reach consensus and provide practical advice on food allergy–associated GERD management.

The task force concludes:

• Food proteins, especially cow’s milk protein, can contribute to food allergy–associated GERD. The confirmation of food allergy is based on the elimination diet, always followed by reintroducing the offending allergen, and the diagnosis and treatment pathway should consider effects on quality of life.
• Breastfeeding should be supported in food allergy–associated GERD, and dietary advice should consider the potential nutritional impact on the breastfeeding mother. When breast milk is not available or is insufficient, formula and dietary advice to counteract the child’s nutrient deficiencies should be considered.
• Although some clarity exists about when GERD medications may be considered, they are often used inappropriately and may harm patients, especially infants.

Rigorous research needed

“Clinicians can use this algorithm to help them identify patients who may be affected by food allergy–related GERD,” Jonathan Tam, MD, medical director of the Gores Family Allergy Center at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles, told this news organization by email.

“Clinicians who suspect their patients may have food allergy–related GERD now have clearer guidance on how to systemically evaluate their patients,” added Dr. Tam, who was not involved in developing the report.

“Many allergists fear that patients may be labeled with a food allergy unnecessarily. Because no biomarkers or tests for food allergy–related GERD are available, elimination diets are a crucial part of the evaluation,” he said.

Dr. Tam added that the authors point out two key parts of a trial elimination: First, the trial should last at least 2 weeks, but full resolution may not occur until 6 weeks. Second, targeted elimination must be followed by reintroduction to confirm that the food was causing the symptoms, not that time itself may have been responsible for the clinical change.

“The authors’ note on allergy testing is important,” he said. “Allergy testing is not necessary when a clinician is concerned about food allergy–related GERD unless there are other associated atopic comorbidities, like eczema or IgE-mediated immediate food allergies.”

Jonathan M. Spergel, MD, PhD, chief of the allergy section at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, said in an email that families often ask whether food allergy is causing their child’s reflux.

“Both conditions are common and, in most cases, may not be related. As the report highlights, the risk of food allergy is increased if the patient has other atopic disease (atopic dermatitis), and standard allergy testing (skin testing, specific IgE) and IgG4 testing are not recommended,” he explained. “Food allergy in a patient with reflux can be considered if standard therapy is failing.”
 

Expert opinion on diagnosis and management

Dr. Spergel, also not involved in the report, joined the authors in advocating further, stronger studies. “While the expert opinion is a major strength,” he said, “with most available studies being neither randomized nor placebo-controlled, the true prevalence of food allergy reflux is unknown.”

Jay M. Portnoy, MD, specialist in pediatric allergy and immunology and medical director of telemedicine at Children’s Mercy Kansas City, said: “While most physicians believe that food allergy contributes to GERD, the evidence for the relationship is minimal. Reflux often occurs regardless of what food is eaten,” said Dr. Portnoy, who was not associated with the research.

Before removing a food from the diet, it’s important to determine whether that food is causing the problem, he urged.

“Blaming a food is easy. Food allergy is often suspected to cause symptoms it does not cause,” he said. “This unfounded blame can lead to unnecessary avoidance, reduce a family’s quality of life, and cause malnutrition.

“How a child is evaluated and treated depends as much on which physician they see as on whether the food is the culprit,” Dr. Portnoy said. “This report is an attempt to clarify the issues and to standardize an approach to the condition, so each provider evaluates and manages the condition in a consistent and evidence-based manner.

“It is important to see how well this report is incorporated into practice and whether following its guidance actually improves patient care,” Dr. Portnoy noted.

Funding information was not provided. Dr. Meyer and two coauthors report financial relationships with the nutritional health care industry. The full list can be found with the original article. The remaining authors and Dr. Tam, Dr. Spergel, and Dr. Portnoy report no relevant financial relationships.

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

The debate about a possible link between food allergy (FA) and pediatric gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) continues, and more, better-designed research is needed, a position paper by the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology reports.

The report offers consensus-based recommendations and a graphical decision pathway to guide providers through assessing and treating food allergy–related GERD. And the authors call for further, better-designed related research.

Food allergy and GERD are common in babies under 1 year of age and can lead to bothersome GERD, the authors write.

“An extensive literature search has found that whilst food proteins, in particular cow milk protein, can be a contributing factor to FA-associated” GERD, distinguishing between FA and non–FA-associated GERD is difficult, lead author Rosan Meyer, RD, PhD, senior lecturer at Imperial College London, and colleagues from the Academy task force on non-IgE mediated allergy, write in Pediatric Allergy and Immunology.
 

Consensus despite limited data

Dr. Meyer and colleagues developed clinical questions that addressed various aspects of the relationship between food allergy and GERD – pathophysiology, symptoms, diagnosis, dietary and medical management, prevalence, and impact on quality of life.

To address these issues, they systematically searched the literature for randomized controlled, observational, case-control, and retrospective studies of infants and children diagnosed with non-IgE gastrointestinal food allergies and GERD, published in English until February 2021.

Because of limited data in many of these areas, they used a modified Delphi method to reach consensus and provide practical advice on food allergy–associated GERD management.

The task force concludes:

• Food proteins, especially cow’s milk protein, can contribute to food allergy–associated GERD. The confirmation of food allergy is based on the elimination diet, always followed by reintroducing the offending allergen, and the diagnosis and treatment pathway should consider effects on quality of life.
• Breastfeeding should be supported in food allergy–associated GERD, and dietary advice should consider the potential nutritional impact on the breastfeeding mother. When breast milk is not available or is insufficient, formula and dietary advice to counteract the child’s nutrient deficiencies should be considered.
• Although some clarity exists about when GERD medications may be considered, they are often used inappropriately and may harm patients, especially infants.

Rigorous research needed

“Clinicians can use this algorithm to help them identify patients who may be affected by food allergy–related GERD,” Jonathan Tam, MD, medical director of the Gores Family Allergy Center at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles, told this news organization by email.

“Clinicians who suspect their patients may have food allergy–related GERD now have clearer guidance on how to systemically evaluate their patients,” added Dr. Tam, who was not involved in developing the report.

“Many allergists fear that patients may be labeled with a food allergy unnecessarily. Because no biomarkers or tests for food allergy–related GERD are available, elimination diets are a crucial part of the evaluation,” he said.

Dr. Tam added that the authors point out two key parts of a trial elimination: First, the trial should last at least 2 weeks, but full resolution may not occur until 6 weeks. Second, targeted elimination must be followed by reintroduction to confirm that the food was causing the symptoms, not that time itself may have been responsible for the clinical change.

“The authors’ note on allergy testing is important,” he said. “Allergy testing is not necessary when a clinician is concerned about food allergy–related GERD unless there are other associated atopic comorbidities, like eczema or IgE-mediated immediate food allergies.”

Jonathan M. Spergel, MD, PhD, chief of the allergy section at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, said in an email that families often ask whether food allergy is causing their child’s reflux.

“Both conditions are common and, in most cases, may not be related. As the report highlights, the risk of food allergy is increased if the patient has other atopic disease (atopic dermatitis), and standard allergy testing (skin testing, specific IgE) and IgG4 testing are not recommended,” he explained. “Food allergy in a patient with reflux can be considered if standard therapy is failing.”
 

Expert opinion on diagnosis and management

Dr. Spergel, also not involved in the report, joined the authors in advocating further, stronger studies. “While the expert opinion is a major strength,” he said, “with most available studies being neither randomized nor placebo-controlled, the true prevalence of food allergy reflux is unknown.”

Jay M. Portnoy, MD, specialist in pediatric allergy and immunology and medical director of telemedicine at Children’s Mercy Kansas City, said: “While most physicians believe that food allergy contributes to GERD, the evidence for the relationship is minimal. Reflux often occurs regardless of what food is eaten,” said Dr. Portnoy, who was not associated with the research.

Before removing a food from the diet, it’s important to determine whether that food is causing the problem, he urged.

“Blaming a food is easy. Food allergy is often suspected to cause symptoms it does not cause,” he said. “This unfounded blame can lead to unnecessary avoidance, reduce a family’s quality of life, and cause malnutrition.

“How a child is evaluated and treated depends as much on which physician they see as on whether the food is the culprit,” Dr. Portnoy said. “This report is an attempt to clarify the issues and to standardize an approach to the condition, so each provider evaluates and manages the condition in a consistent and evidence-based manner.

“It is important to see how well this report is incorporated into practice and whether following its guidance actually improves patient care,” Dr. Portnoy noted.

Funding information was not provided. Dr. Meyer and two coauthors report financial relationships with the nutritional health care industry. The full list can be found with the original article. The remaining authors and Dr. Tam, Dr. Spergel, and Dr. Portnoy report no relevant financial relationships.

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

There has been no ebb in the flurry of respiratory illnesses infecting America’s youngest children. More pediatric wards across the country are announcing crises as beds reach capacity, the pediatric death toll jumped significantly in the past week, and sometimes children are being infected with more than one virus at a time.

In Oregon, for example, the governor announced an official state of emergency to help hospitals deal with the surge of respiratory viruses. Doernbecher Children’s Hospital in Portland, which houses half of all pediatric ICU beds statewide, moved to “crisis mode” and said every pediatric ICU bed was full, Oregon Public Broadcasting reported.

Last month, pediatricians nationwide called for a similar emergency declaration from the federal government to help them respond to the wave of illnesses, which include influenza and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV).

“What’s concerning to us are not only the number of infections, but the severity of these infections, leading to a high number of emergency room visits and hospitalizations,” pediatric infectious disease expert Oscar G. Gómez-Duarte, MD, PhD, said in a news release.

Five more pediatric deaths due to the flu were logged by the CDC in the past week, bringing the total for pediatric flu deaths this season to 12. Nearly 21 per 100,000 children ages 4 and under are being hospitalized for the flu, which is double the rate for children ages 5-17. Last year at this time, fewer than 1 child under age 4 per 100,000 were being hospitalized for the flu.

RSV rates are also stunningly high.

“If we look at CDC data, the RSV hospitalization rate is 10 times higher than usual for this point in the season,” American Medical Association Vice President Andrea Garcia, JD, said in this week’s AMA podcast. “And 171 out of every 100,000 infants younger than 6 months were hospitalized with RSV for the week ending Nov. 12. That is more than double the RSV hospitalization rate for newborns last year and seven times the rate in 2018, which is the last complete season we saw before the pandemic.”

Dr. Gómez-Duarte said hospitals are admitting children with respiratory illnesses who had otherwise been healthy, and sometimes they are even seeing patients with more than one illness.

“Yes, some children are getting what we call coinfections, where they become infected with more than one virus at a time. In some instances, a child becomes initially infected with flu, begins to recover, and subsequently comes down with rhinovirus (a common cold virus), RSV, or any other respiratory virus,” he said. “These coinfections tend to be more severe than when the child just has one infection.”

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

There has been no ebb in the flurry of respiratory illnesses infecting America’s youngest children. More pediatric wards across the country are announcing crises as beds reach capacity, the pediatric death toll jumped significantly in the past week, and sometimes children are being infected with more than one virus at a time.

In Oregon, for example, the governor announced an official state of emergency to help hospitals deal with the surge of respiratory viruses. Doernbecher Children’s Hospital in Portland, which houses half of all pediatric ICU beds statewide, moved to “crisis mode” and said every pediatric ICU bed was full, Oregon Public Broadcasting reported.

Last month, pediatricians nationwide called for a similar emergency declaration from the federal government to help them respond to the wave of illnesses, which include influenza and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV).

“What’s concerning to us are not only the number of infections, but the severity of these infections, leading to a high number of emergency room visits and hospitalizations,” pediatric infectious disease expert Oscar G. Gómez-Duarte, MD, PhD, said in a news release.

Five more pediatric deaths due to the flu were logged by the CDC in the past week, bringing the total for pediatric flu deaths this season to 12. Nearly 21 per 100,000 children ages 4 and under are being hospitalized for the flu, which is double the rate for children ages 5-17. Last year at this time, fewer than 1 child under age 4 per 100,000 were being hospitalized for the flu.

RSV rates are also stunningly high.

“If we look at CDC data, the RSV hospitalization rate is 10 times higher than usual for this point in the season,” American Medical Association Vice President Andrea Garcia, JD, said in this week’s AMA podcast. “And 171 out of every 100,000 infants younger than 6 months were hospitalized with RSV for the week ending Nov. 12. That is more than double the RSV hospitalization rate for newborns last year and seven times the rate in 2018, which is the last complete season we saw before the pandemic.”

Dr. Gómez-Duarte said hospitals are admitting children with respiratory illnesses who had otherwise been healthy, and sometimes they are even seeing patients with more than one illness.

“Yes, some children are getting what we call coinfections, where they become infected with more than one virus at a time. In some instances, a child becomes initially infected with flu, begins to recover, and subsequently comes down with rhinovirus (a common cold virus), RSV, or any other respiratory virus,” he said. “These coinfections tend to be more severe than when the child just has one infection.”

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

There has been no ebb in the flurry of respiratory illnesses infecting America’s youngest children. More pediatric wards across the country are announcing crises as beds reach capacity, the pediatric death toll jumped significantly in the past week, and sometimes children are being infected with more than one virus at a time.

In Oregon, for example, the governor announced an official state of emergency to help hospitals deal with the surge of respiratory viruses. Doernbecher Children’s Hospital in Portland, which houses half of all pediatric ICU beds statewide, moved to “crisis mode” and said every pediatric ICU bed was full, Oregon Public Broadcasting reported.

Last month, pediatricians nationwide called for a similar emergency declaration from the federal government to help them respond to the wave of illnesses, which include influenza and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV).

“What’s concerning to us are not only the number of infections, but the severity of these infections, leading to a high number of emergency room visits and hospitalizations,” pediatric infectious disease expert Oscar G. Gómez-Duarte, MD, PhD, said in a news release.

Five more pediatric deaths due to the flu were logged by the CDC in the past week, bringing the total for pediatric flu deaths this season to 12. Nearly 21 per 100,000 children ages 4 and under are being hospitalized for the flu, which is double the rate for children ages 5-17. Last year at this time, fewer than 1 child under age 4 per 100,000 were being hospitalized for the flu.

RSV rates are also stunningly high.

“If we look at CDC data, the RSV hospitalization rate is 10 times higher than usual for this point in the season,” American Medical Association Vice President Andrea Garcia, JD, said in this week’s AMA podcast. “And 171 out of every 100,000 infants younger than 6 months were hospitalized with RSV for the week ending Nov. 12. That is more than double the RSV hospitalization rate for newborns last year and seven times the rate in 2018, which is the last complete season we saw before the pandemic.”

Dr. Gómez-Duarte said hospitals are admitting children with respiratory illnesses who had otherwise been healthy, and sometimes they are even seeing patients with more than one illness.

“Yes, some children are getting what we call coinfections, where they become infected with more than one virus at a time. In some instances, a child becomes initially infected with flu, begins to recover, and subsequently comes down with rhinovirus (a common cold virus), RSV, or any other respiratory virus,” he said. “These coinfections tend to be more severe than when the child just has one infection.”

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

COVID-19 vaccines retained the ability to prevent deaths from COVID-19 in children and adolescents regardless of the dominant circulating variant, in a new study.

The vaccine’s effectiveness against infection in the short term has been established, as has the waning effectiveness of the vaccine over time, wrote Juan Manuel Castelli, MD, of the Ministry of Health of Argentina, Buenos Aires, and colleagues, in the British Medical Journal.

However, data on the impact of vaccine effectiveness on mortality in children and adolescents are limited, especially during periods of omicron variant dominance, the researchers said.

In their new study, the researchers reviewed data from 844,460 children and adolescents aged 3-17 years from the National Surveillance System and the Nominalized Federal Vaccination Registry of Argentina, during a time that included a period of omicron dominance.

Argentina began vaccinating adolescents aged 12-17 years against COVID-19 in August 2021 and added children aged 3-11 years in October 2021. Those aged 12-17 years who were considered fully vaccinated received two doses of either Pfizer-BioNTech and/or Moderna vaccines, and fully-vaccinated 3- to 11-year-olds received two doses of Sinopharm vaccine.

The average time from the second vaccine dose to a COVID-19 test was 66 days for those aged 12-17 years and 54 days for 3- to 11-year-olds. The researchers matched COVID-19 cases with uninfected controls, and a total of 139,321 cases were included in the analysis.

Overall, the estimated vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19 was 64.2% during a period of delta dominance (61.2% in children aged 3-11 years and 66.8% in adolescents aged 12-17 years).

During a period of omicron dominance, estimated vaccine effectiveness was 19.9% across all ages (15.9% and 26.0% for younger and older age groups, respectively).

Effectiveness of the vaccine decreased over time, regardless of the dominant variant, but the decline was greater during the omicron dominant period, the researchers noted. During the omicron period, effectiveness in children aged 3-11 years decreased from 37.6% at 15-30 days postvaccination to 2.0% at 60 days or longer after vaccination. In adolescents aged 12-17 years, vaccine effectiveness during the omicron period decreased from 55.8% at 15-30 days postvaccination to 12.4% at 60 days or longer after vaccination.

Despite the waning protection against infection, the vaccine’s effectiveness against death from COVID-19 was 66.9% in children aged 3-11 years and 97.6% in adolescents aged 12-17 during the period of omicron dominance, the researchers noted.

The results are consistent with similar studies showing a decreased vaccine effectiveness against infection but a persistent effectiveness against deaths over time, the researchers wrote in the discussion section of their paper.

“Our results suggest that the primary vaccination schedule is effective in preventing mortality in children and adolescents with COVID-19 regardless of the circulating SARS-CoV-2 variant,” the researchers said.
 

Study limitations and strengths

The study was limited by several factors including the incomplete data on symptoms and hospital admissions, the possible impact of unmeasured confounding variables, and the observational design that prevents conclusions of causality, the researchers noted. However, the results were strengthened by the large sample size and access to detailed vaccination records, they said.

Both heterologous and homologous mRNA vaccine schedules showed similar effectiveness in preventing short-term infection and mortality from COVID-19 during periods of differing dominant variants, they noted.

The study findings support the vaccination of children against COVID-19 as an important public health measure to prevent mortality in children and adolescents, they concluded.
 

Data support value of vaccination, outside experts say

“COVID vaccines may not be as effective over time as the gene variants in the SARS-CoV-2 virus change,” Adrienne G. Randolph, MD, a pediatrician at Harvard Medical School and Boston Children’s Hospital, said in an interview. “Therefore, it is essential to assess vaccine effectiveness over time to look at effectiveness against variants and duration of effectiveness.” Dr. Randolph, who was not involved in the study, said she was not surprised by the findings, which she described as consistent with data from the United States. “COVID vaccines are very effective against preventing life-threatening disease, but the effectiveness against less severe illness for COVID vaccines is not as effective against Omicron,” she noted. 

The take-home message for clinicians is that it’s important to get children vaccinated against COVID to prevent severe and life-threatening illness, said Dr. Randolph. “Although these cases are uncommon in children, it is not possible to predict which children will be the most severely affected by COVID,” she emphasized.

However, “we need more data on the new COVID booster vaccines in children that are designed to be more effective against Omicron’s newer variants,” Dr. Randolph said in an interview. “We also need more data on COVID vaccine effectiveness in the youngest children, under 5 years of age, and data on vaccinating mothers to prevent COVID in infants,” she said.

Tim Joos, MD, a Seattle-based clinician who practices a combination of internal medicine and pediatrics, agreed that future research should continue to assess how the new COVID boosters are faring against new variants, noting that the current study did not include data from children who received the new bivalent vaccine.

“The methodology of this study uses a test negative case control design which is common for estimating vaccine effectiveness post-release of a vaccine, but is subject to biases,” Dr. Joos explained. “These are not the clean effectiveness numbers of the prospective randomized control trials that we are used to hearing about when a vaccine is first being approved.”

“Nevertheless, the study reinforces the initial manufacturers’ studies that the vaccines are effective at preventing infection in the pediatric population,” Dr. Joos said in an interview. The current study also reinforces the effectiveness of vaccines in preventing “the rare but devastating mortality from COVID-19 in the pediatric population.”

Commenting on other research showing an increasing ratio of COVID deaths among vaccinated individuals compared to total COVID deaths, he noted that this finding is “likely reflecting a denominator effect of rapidly declining COVID deaths overall,” partly from the vaccines and partly from immunity after previous natural infection.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers, Dr. Randolph, and Dr. Joos had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Joos serves on the Editorial Advisory Board of Pediatric News.

COVID-19 vaccines retained the ability to prevent deaths from COVID-19 in children and adolescents regardless of the dominant circulating variant, in a new study.

The vaccine’s effectiveness against infection in the short term has been established, as has the waning effectiveness of the vaccine over time, wrote Juan Manuel Castelli, MD, of the Ministry of Health of Argentina, Buenos Aires, and colleagues, in the British Medical Journal.

However, data on the impact of vaccine effectiveness on mortality in children and adolescents are limited, especially during periods of omicron variant dominance, the researchers said.

In their new study, the researchers reviewed data from 844,460 children and adolescents aged 3-17 years from the National Surveillance System and the Nominalized Federal Vaccination Registry of Argentina, during a time that included a period of omicron dominance.

Argentina began vaccinating adolescents aged 12-17 years against COVID-19 in August 2021 and added children aged 3-11 years in October 2021. Those aged 12-17 years who were considered fully vaccinated received two doses of either Pfizer-BioNTech and/or Moderna vaccines, and fully-vaccinated 3- to 11-year-olds received two doses of Sinopharm vaccine.

The average time from the second vaccine dose to a COVID-19 test was 66 days for those aged 12-17 years and 54 days for 3- to 11-year-olds. The researchers matched COVID-19 cases with uninfected controls, and a total of 139,321 cases were included in the analysis.

Overall, the estimated vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19 was 64.2% during a period of delta dominance (61.2% in children aged 3-11 years and 66.8% in adolescents aged 12-17 years).

During a period of omicron dominance, estimated vaccine effectiveness was 19.9% across all ages (15.9% and 26.0% for younger and older age groups, respectively).

Effectiveness of the vaccine decreased over time, regardless of the dominant variant, but the decline was greater during the omicron dominant period, the researchers noted. During the omicron period, effectiveness in children aged 3-11 years decreased from 37.6% at 15-30 days postvaccination to 2.0% at 60 days or longer after vaccination. In adolescents aged 12-17 years, vaccine effectiveness during the omicron period decreased from 55.8% at 15-30 days postvaccination to 12.4% at 60 days or longer after vaccination.

Despite the waning protection against infection, the vaccine’s effectiveness against death from COVID-19 was 66.9% in children aged 3-11 years and 97.6% in adolescents aged 12-17 during the period of omicron dominance, the researchers noted.

The results are consistent with similar studies showing a decreased vaccine effectiveness against infection but a persistent effectiveness against deaths over time, the researchers wrote in the discussion section of their paper.

“Our results suggest that the primary vaccination schedule is effective in preventing mortality in children and adolescents with COVID-19 regardless of the circulating SARS-CoV-2 variant,” the researchers said.
 

Study limitations and strengths

The study was limited by several factors including the incomplete data on symptoms and hospital admissions, the possible impact of unmeasured confounding variables, and the observational design that prevents conclusions of causality, the researchers noted. However, the results were strengthened by the large sample size and access to detailed vaccination records, they said.

Both heterologous and homologous mRNA vaccine schedules showed similar effectiveness in preventing short-term infection and mortality from COVID-19 during periods of differing dominant variants, they noted.

The study findings support the vaccination of children against COVID-19 as an important public health measure to prevent mortality in children and adolescents, they concluded.
 

Data support value of vaccination, outside experts say

“COVID vaccines may not be as effective over time as the gene variants in the SARS-CoV-2 virus change,” Adrienne G. Randolph, MD, a pediatrician at Harvard Medical School and Boston Children’s Hospital, said in an interview. “Therefore, it is essential to assess vaccine effectiveness over time to look at effectiveness against variants and duration of effectiveness.” Dr. Randolph, who was not involved in the study, said she was not surprised by the findings, which she described as consistent with data from the United States. “COVID vaccines are very effective against preventing life-threatening disease, but the effectiveness against less severe illness for COVID vaccines is not as effective against Omicron,” she noted. 

The take-home message for clinicians is that it’s important to get children vaccinated against COVID to prevent severe and life-threatening illness, said Dr. Randolph. “Although these cases are uncommon in children, it is not possible to predict which children will be the most severely affected by COVID,” she emphasized.

However, “we need more data on the new COVID booster vaccines in children that are designed to be more effective against Omicron’s newer variants,” Dr. Randolph said in an interview. “We also need more data on COVID vaccine effectiveness in the youngest children, under 5 years of age, and data on vaccinating mothers to prevent COVID in infants,” she said.

Tim Joos, MD, a Seattle-based clinician who practices a combination of internal medicine and pediatrics, agreed that future research should continue to assess how the new COVID boosters are faring against new variants, noting that the current study did not include data from children who received the new bivalent vaccine.

“The methodology of this study uses a test negative case control design which is common for estimating vaccine effectiveness post-release of a vaccine, but is subject to biases,” Dr. Joos explained. “These are not the clean effectiveness numbers of the prospective randomized control trials that we are used to hearing about when a vaccine is first being approved.”

“Nevertheless, the study reinforces the initial manufacturers’ studies that the vaccines are effective at preventing infection in the pediatric population,” Dr. Joos said in an interview. The current study also reinforces the effectiveness of vaccines in preventing “the rare but devastating mortality from COVID-19 in the pediatric population.”

Commenting on other research showing an increasing ratio of COVID deaths among vaccinated individuals compared to total COVID deaths, he noted that this finding is “likely reflecting a denominator effect of rapidly declining COVID deaths overall,” partly from the vaccines and partly from immunity after previous natural infection.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers, Dr. Randolph, and Dr. Joos had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Joos serves on the Editorial Advisory Board of Pediatric News.

COVID-19 vaccines retained the ability to prevent deaths from COVID-19 in children and adolescents regardless of the dominant circulating variant, in a new study.

The vaccine’s effectiveness against infection in the short term has been established, as has the waning effectiveness of the vaccine over time, wrote Juan Manuel Castelli, MD, of the Ministry of Health of Argentina, Buenos Aires, and colleagues, in the British Medical Journal.

However, data on the impact of vaccine effectiveness on mortality in children and adolescents are limited, especially during periods of omicron variant dominance, the researchers said.

In their new study, the researchers reviewed data from 844,460 children and adolescents aged 3-17 years from the National Surveillance System and the Nominalized Federal Vaccination Registry of Argentina, during a time that included a period of omicron dominance.

Argentina began vaccinating adolescents aged 12-17 years against COVID-19 in August 2021 and added children aged 3-11 years in October 2021. Those aged 12-17 years who were considered fully vaccinated received two doses of either Pfizer-BioNTech and/or Moderna vaccines, and fully-vaccinated 3- to 11-year-olds received two doses of Sinopharm vaccine.

The average time from the second vaccine dose to a COVID-19 test was 66 days for those aged 12-17 years and 54 days for 3- to 11-year-olds. The researchers matched COVID-19 cases with uninfected controls, and a total of 139,321 cases were included in the analysis.

Overall, the estimated vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19 was 64.2% during a period of delta dominance (61.2% in children aged 3-11 years and 66.8% in adolescents aged 12-17 years).

During a period of omicron dominance, estimated vaccine effectiveness was 19.9% across all ages (15.9% and 26.0% for younger and older age groups, respectively).

Effectiveness of the vaccine decreased over time, regardless of the dominant variant, but the decline was greater during the omicron dominant period, the researchers noted. During the omicron period, effectiveness in children aged 3-11 years decreased from 37.6% at 15-30 days postvaccination to 2.0% at 60 days or longer after vaccination. In adolescents aged 12-17 years, vaccine effectiveness during the omicron period decreased from 55.8% at 15-30 days postvaccination to 12.4% at 60 days or longer after vaccination.

Despite the waning protection against infection, the vaccine’s effectiveness against death from COVID-19 was 66.9% in children aged 3-11 years and 97.6% in adolescents aged 12-17 during the period of omicron dominance, the researchers noted.

The results are consistent with similar studies showing a decreased vaccine effectiveness against infection but a persistent effectiveness against deaths over time, the researchers wrote in the discussion section of their paper.

“Our results suggest that the primary vaccination schedule is effective in preventing mortality in children and adolescents with COVID-19 regardless of the circulating SARS-CoV-2 variant,” the researchers said.
 

Study limitations and strengths

The study was limited by several factors including the incomplete data on symptoms and hospital admissions, the possible impact of unmeasured confounding variables, and the observational design that prevents conclusions of causality, the researchers noted. However, the results were strengthened by the large sample size and access to detailed vaccination records, they said.

Both heterologous and homologous mRNA vaccine schedules showed similar effectiveness in preventing short-term infection and mortality from COVID-19 during periods of differing dominant variants, they noted.

The study findings support the vaccination of children against COVID-19 as an important public health measure to prevent mortality in children and adolescents, they concluded.
 

Data support value of vaccination, outside experts say

“COVID vaccines may not be as effective over time as the gene variants in the SARS-CoV-2 virus change,” Adrienne G. Randolph, MD, a pediatrician at Harvard Medical School and Boston Children’s Hospital, said in an interview. “Therefore, it is essential to assess vaccine effectiveness over time to look at effectiveness against variants and duration of effectiveness.” Dr. Randolph, who was not involved in the study, said she was not surprised by the findings, which she described as consistent with data from the United States. “COVID vaccines are very effective against preventing life-threatening disease, but the effectiveness against less severe illness for COVID vaccines is not as effective against Omicron,” she noted. 

The take-home message for clinicians is that it’s important to get children vaccinated against COVID to prevent severe and life-threatening illness, said Dr. Randolph. “Although these cases are uncommon in children, it is not possible to predict which children will be the most severely affected by COVID,” she emphasized.

However, “we need more data on the new COVID booster vaccines in children that are designed to be more effective against Omicron’s newer variants,” Dr. Randolph said in an interview. “We also need more data on COVID vaccine effectiveness in the youngest children, under 5 years of age, and data on vaccinating mothers to prevent COVID in infants,” she said.

Tim Joos, MD, a Seattle-based clinician who practices a combination of internal medicine and pediatrics, agreed that future research should continue to assess how the new COVID boosters are faring against new variants, noting that the current study did not include data from children who received the new bivalent vaccine.

“The methodology of this study uses a test negative case control design which is common for estimating vaccine effectiveness post-release of a vaccine, but is subject to biases,” Dr. Joos explained. “These are not the clean effectiveness numbers of the prospective randomized control trials that we are used to hearing about when a vaccine is first being approved.”

“Nevertheless, the study reinforces the initial manufacturers’ studies that the vaccines are effective at preventing infection in the pediatric population,” Dr. Joos said in an interview. The current study also reinforces the effectiveness of vaccines in preventing “the rare but devastating mortality from COVID-19 in the pediatric population.”

Commenting on other research showing an increasing ratio of COVID deaths among vaccinated individuals compared to total COVID deaths, he noted that this finding is “likely reflecting a denominator effect of rapidly declining COVID deaths overall,” partly from the vaccines and partly from immunity after previous natural infection.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers, Dr. Randolph, and Dr. Joos had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Joos serves on the Editorial Advisory Board of Pediatric News.

The recent approval of teplizumab-mzwv (Tzield, Provention Bio) for the delay of type 1 diabetes by the Food and Drug Administration is expected to advance efforts to increase screening to cost effectively identify those at risk for the condition who would be eligible to receive the new treatment.

The anti-CD3 monoclonal antibody was approved Nov. 17 as the first disease-modifying therapy for impeding progression of type 1 diabetes. In a clinical trial, teplizumab delayed the onset of clinical (stage 3) type 1 diabetes by approximately 2 years, and longer in some cases.

It is administered by intravenous infusion once daily for 14 consecutive days and is expected to cost in the region of $200,000 for the course of treatment.

The specific indication is “to delay the onset of stage 3 type 1 diabetes in adults and pediatric patients 8 years and older who currently have stage 2 type 1 diabetes.” In stage 2 type 1 diabetes, the individual has two or more islet autoantibodies and abnormal glycemia but is as yet asymptomatic. It is associated with a nearly 100% lifetime risk of progression to clinical (stage 3) type 1 diabetes and a 75% risk of developing the condition within 5 years.

Currently, most people who are screened for type 1 diabetes autoantibodies are first-degree relatives of those with the condition through TrialNet, other local programs, or more recently, a $55 test offered by the research and advocacy organization JDRF.

But because 85%-90% of people who develop type 1 diabetes don’t have first-degree relatives with the condition, broader population screening will be necessary to identify eligible candidates for teplizumab.

During an investor call on Nov. 18, Provention Bio chief commercial officer Jason Hoitt said that among the company’s “strategic initiatives” were “advancing awareness and screening for autoantibodies in at-risk individuals, and ultimately, routine screening during pediatric well visits for the general population,” as well as “[health care provider] belief in teplizumab and desire to prescribe it for their patients.” 

Without broad population-based screening, first-degree relatives of people with type 1 diabetes are likely to be the first to be screened and those with stage 2 identified for receipt of teplizumab. Today, that population is estimated at about 30,000 in the United States, Mr. Hoitt said, adding, “with this approval we hope that more stage 2 patients can be readily identified so the course of the disease can be changed.”

During the call, Mr. Hoitt also announced that the wholesale acquisition cost of Tzield would be $13,850 per vial, which translates to $193,900 per 14-vial continuous regimen, anticipated to be a sufficient dose for most patients. The company also launched a program called COMPASS to help patients navigate insurance reimbursement, as well as provide some with financial assistance.

Cost aside, JDRF CEO Aaron Kowalski, PhD, said in an interview that clinicians shouldn’t doubt the value of delaying type 1 diabetes onset, even if not completely preventing it. “This is the first drug ever to treat the underlying disease. There is this undercurrent that insulin is enough. Why would you undertake an additional risk of an immunotherapy? Type 1 is hard to live with. I think sometimes the clinical community doesn’t appreciate that insulin is not enough. It’s very difficult, and opening this door is important. ... We believe very strongly that the delay of onset of type 1 diabetes is clinically meaningful. We hear that from every family we’ve talked to. Clinicians should appreciate this and not discount it.”
 

How would screening happen? 

While the path to universal screening for type 1 diabetes risk isn’t yet clear, quite a bit of thought and research has gone into it even before teplizumab and other immune-modulating agents showed promise in forestalling the condition.

Data from a universal screening program of schoolchildren implemented in Bavaria, Germany, and a screening program in Denver, suggest that even without such an intervention, identifying people at high risk for developing type 1 diabetes could be cost effective by allowing for education of the individual and family members about the signs of type 1 diabetes, thereby reducing the likelihood that the person would progress to developing diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) prior to diagnosis.

Another study that used data from the United States and Western Europe, found that screening children for type 1 diabetes–associated islet autoantibodies at ages 2 and 6 years would identify most of those who go on to develop the disease by midadolescence.

However, using a genetic risk score at birth to identify those who would go on to autoantibody testing is potentially a more cost-effective approach, William A. Hagopian, MD, PhD, director of diabetes programs, Pacific Northwest Research Institute, Seattle, said in an interview.

The score – based on human leukocyte antigen haplotypes and their interactions as well as non-HLA genes – can stratify nearly 80% of childhood type 1 diabetes within the top 10% of all newborns. Thus, only the top 10% would then go on to receive the more expensive autoantibody testing.

“I’ve been working with U.K. colleagues for the past 3-4 years to develop a strategy using genetic risk scores followed by autoantibody screening. I feel strongly that that’s the cost-effective way to go. It’s relatively inexpensive, scalable, and can be applied commercially in newborn screening labs. To be successful an approach must be cost effective. Payors are willing to pay for newborn screening, but not so much on testing 100% of kids for antibodies,” Dr. Hagopian said.

He is now working with Washington State newborn screening labs to demonstrate feasibility of the approach using dried blood samples from actual neonatal screening after obtaining informed consent from the mothers in postpartum wards in several hospitals. Those found to be at high risk using the genetic risk score are contacted for follow-up with autoantibody screening. The program will continue for another year and a half. “I think it actually has a chance of being accepted into their regular program,” he said.

And then, he hopes, other states will follow, and eventually, the strategy will be added to the Recommended Uniform Screening Panel for universal newborn screening programs, as recommended by the Department of Health & Human Services.

“New newborn screenings for additional diseases are implemented regularly,” Dr. Hagopian said. “Most are far less common than type 1 diabetes. So even if our approach is less than 100% sensitive, this condition is a lot more common than the many inborn errors of metabolism, so we’re still going to be identifying a lot of cases. ... This is my hope for how universal type 1 diabetes screening will unfold. I see a way this may work quite well.”

A two-pronged approach to screening could work best

Meanwhile, JDRF, which supported the teplizumab research as well as others working in the space, is focusing on both genetic and autoantibody screening, Dr. Kowalski said.

“JDRF is working on both pathways – testing kids at birth for genetic predisposition and also antibody screening. We have huge programs focused on general population antibody screening.”

Dr. Kowalski said that, while the two-pronged approach certainly is worth exploring – and JDRF is doing that – he also thinks that universal autoantibody screening could be cost effective if done efficiently, such as with less expensive assays than the one used in TrialNet.

“We have programs where you do the genetic screening and keep an eye on people. We also have programs, like the one we’re funding in Germany, that are doing broad autoantibody screening of all kids. We’re hopeful that will be very cost effective if we move to cheaper assays.”

He noted that the proportion of children with new-onset type 1 diabetes who present in DKA rose from 40% pre–COVID-19 to 50% during the early days of the pandemic. On the other hand, “With screening you can get that to near zero, like they did in Bavaria. Here [in the United States], one ICU visit for DKA [costs] $100,000.”

While JDRF and others have been working on this for years, the new availability of teplizumab will be “multifold in helping things along. ... I think you’re going to see a lot of work on the cost-effectiveness of teplizumab. I think the case will be pretty straightforward that there’s huge upside to delaying the disease from a near-term and a long-term cost perspective. This is the first time we’ve had a drug out there with a price attached to it.”

But it may not happen quickly, Kowalski cautioned. “I feel there’s a ... series of events that has to happen to drive towards universal screening. Here in the U.S. it’s complicated because we have a very discrepant health care system with all these different payers, public and private.”

During the investor call, Mr. Hoitt said that Provention Bio is also exploring use of Tzield in younger patients and newly diagnosed patients, and the potential benefit of redosing or combining with other treatments.

Mr. Hoitt is an employee of Provention Bio. Dr. Kowalski is an employee of JDRF. Dr. Hagopian has reported receiving study funding from Janssen.

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

The recent approval of teplizumab-mzwv (Tzield, Provention Bio) for the delay of type 1 diabetes by the Food and Drug Administration is expected to advance efforts to increase screening to cost effectively identify those at risk for the condition who would be eligible to receive the new treatment.

The anti-CD3 monoclonal antibody was approved Nov. 17 as the first disease-modifying therapy for impeding progression of type 1 diabetes. In a clinical trial, teplizumab delayed the onset of clinical (stage 3) type 1 diabetes by approximately 2 years, and longer in some cases.

It is administered by intravenous infusion once daily for 14 consecutive days and is expected to cost in the region of $200,000 for the course of treatment.

The specific indication is “to delay the onset of stage 3 type 1 diabetes in adults and pediatric patients 8 years and older who currently have stage 2 type 1 diabetes.” In stage 2 type 1 diabetes, the individual has two or more islet autoantibodies and abnormal glycemia but is as yet asymptomatic. It is associated with a nearly 100% lifetime risk of progression to clinical (stage 3) type 1 diabetes and a 75% risk of developing the condition within 5 years.

Currently, most people who are screened for type 1 diabetes autoantibodies are first-degree relatives of those with the condition through TrialNet, other local programs, or more recently, a $55 test offered by the research and advocacy organization JDRF.

But because 85%-90% of people who develop type 1 diabetes don’t have first-degree relatives with the condition, broader population screening will be necessary to identify eligible candidates for teplizumab.

During an investor call on Nov. 18, Provention Bio chief commercial officer Jason Hoitt said that among the company’s “strategic initiatives” were “advancing awareness and screening for autoantibodies in at-risk individuals, and ultimately, routine screening during pediatric well visits for the general population,” as well as “[health care provider] belief in teplizumab and desire to prescribe it for their patients.” 

Without broad population-based screening, first-degree relatives of people with type 1 diabetes are likely to be the first to be screened and those with stage 2 identified for receipt of teplizumab. Today, that population is estimated at about 30,000 in the United States, Mr. Hoitt said, adding, “with this approval we hope that more stage 2 patients can be readily identified so the course of the disease can be changed.”

During the call, Mr. Hoitt also announced that the wholesale acquisition cost of Tzield would be $13,850 per vial, which translates to $193,900 per 14-vial continuous regimen, anticipated to be a sufficient dose for most patients. The company also launched a program called COMPASS to help patients navigate insurance reimbursement, as well as provide some with financial assistance.

Cost aside, JDRF CEO Aaron Kowalski, PhD, said in an interview that clinicians shouldn’t doubt the value of delaying type 1 diabetes onset, even if not completely preventing it. “This is the first drug ever to treat the underlying disease. There is this undercurrent that insulin is enough. Why would you undertake an additional risk of an immunotherapy? Type 1 is hard to live with. I think sometimes the clinical community doesn’t appreciate that insulin is not enough. It’s very difficult, and opening this door is important. ... We believe very strongly that the delay of onset of type 1 diabetes is clinically meaningful. We hear that from every family we’ve talked to. Clinicians should appreciate this and not discount it.”
 

How would screening happen? 

While the path to universal screening for type 1 diabetes risk isn’t yet clear, quite a bit of thought and research has gone into it even before teplizumab and other immune-modulating agents showed promise in forestalling the condition.

Data from a universal screening program of schoolchildren implemented in Bavaria, Germany, and a screening program in Denver, suggest that even without such an intervention, identifying people at high risk for developing type 1 diabetes could be cost effective by allowing for education of the individual and family members about the signs of type 1 diabetes, thereby reducing the likelihood that the person would progress to developing diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) prior to diagnosis.

Another study that used data from the United States and Western Europe, found that screening children for type 1 diabetes–associated islet autoantibodies at ages 2 and 6 years would identify most of those who go on to develop the disease by midadolescence.

However, using a genetic risk score at birth to identify those who would go on to autoantibody testing is potentially a more cost-effective approach, William A. Hagopian, MD, PhD, director of diabetes programs, Pacific Northwest Research Institute, Seattle, said in an interview.

The score – based on human leukocyte antigen haplotypes and their interactions as well as non-HLA genes – can stratify nearly 80% of childhood type 1 diabetes within the top 10% of all newborns. Thus, only the top 10% would then go on to receive the more expensive autoantibody testing.

“I’ve been working with U.K. colleagues for the past 3-4 years to develop a strategy using genetic risk scores followed by autoantibody screening. I feel strongly that that’s the cost-effective way to go. It’s relatively inexpensive, scalable, and can be applied commercially in newborn screening labs. To be successful an approach must be cost effective. Payors are willing to pay for newborn screening, but not so much on testing 100% of kids for antibodies,” Dr. Hagopian said.

He is now working with Washington State newborn screening labs to demonstrate feasibility of the approach using dried blood samples from actual neonatal screening after obtaining informed consent from the mothers in postpartum wards in several hospitals. Those found to be at high risk using the genetic risk score are contacted for follow-up with autoantibody screening. The program will continue for another year and a half. “I think it actually has a chance of being accepted into their regular program,” he said.

And then, he hopes, other states will follow, and eventually, the strategy will be added to the Recommended Uniform Screening Panel for universal newborn screening programs, as recommended by the Department of Health & Human Services.

“New newborn screenings for additional diseases are implemented regularly,” Dr. Hagopian said. “Most are far less common than type 1 diabetes. So even if our approach is less than 100% sensitive, this condition is a lot more common than the many inborn errors of metabolism, so we’re still going to be identifying a lot of cases. ... This is my hope for how universal type 1 diabetes screening will unfold. I see a way this may work quite well.”

A two-pronged approach to screening could work best

Meanwhile, JDRF, which supported the teplizumab research as well as others working in the space, is focusing on both genetic and autoantibody screening, Dr. Kowalski said.

“JDRF is working on both pathways – testing kids at birth for genetic predisposition and also antibody screening. We have huge programs focused on general population antibody screening.”

Dr. Kowalski said that, while the two-pronged approach certainly is worth exploring – and JDRF is doing that – he also thinks that universal autoantibody screening could be cost effective if done efficiently, such as with less expensive assays than the one used in TrialNet.

“We have programs where you do the genetic screening and keep an eye on people. We also have programs, like the one we’re funding in Germany, that are doing broad autoantibody screening of all kids. We’re hopeful that will be very cost effective if we move to cheaper assays.”

He noted that the proportion of children with new-onset type 1 diabetes who present in DKA rose from 40% pre–COVID-19 to 50% during the early days of the pandemic. On the other hand, “With screening you can get that to near zero, like they did in Bavaria. Here [in the United States], one ICU visit for DKA [costs] $100,000.”

While JDRF and others have been working on this for years, the new availability of teplizumab will be “multifold in helping things along. ... I think you’re going to see a lot of work on the cost-effectiveness of teplizumab. I think the case will be pretty straightforward that there’s huge upside to delaying the disease from a near-term and a long-term cost perspective. This is the first time we’ve had a drug out there with a price attached to it.”

But it may not happen quickly, Kowalski cautioned. “I feel there’s a ... series of events that has to happen to drive towards universal screening. Here in the U.S. it’s complicated because we have a very discrepant health care system with all these different payers, public and private.”

During the investor call, Mr. Hoitt said that Provention Bio is also exploring use of Tzield in younger patients and newly diagnosed patients, and the potential benefit of redosing or combining with other treatments.

Mr. Hoitt is an employee of Provention Bio. Dr. Kowalski is an employee of JDRF. Dr. Hagopian has reported receiving study funding from Janssen.

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

The recent approval of teplizumab-mzwv (Tzield, Provention Bio) for the delay of type 1 diabetes by the Food and Drug Administration is expected to advance efforts to increase screening to cost effectively identify those at risk for the condition who would be eligible to receive the new treatment.

The anti-CD3 monoclonal antibody was approved Nov. 17 as the first disease-modifying therapy for impeding progression of type 1 diabetes. In a clinical trial, teplizumab delayed the onset of clinical (stage 3) type 1 diabetes by approximately 2 years, and longer in some cases.

It is administered by intravenous infusion once daily for 14 consecutive days and is expected to cost in the region of $200,000 for the course of treatment.

The specific indication is “to delay the onset of stage 3 type 1 diabetes in adults and pediatric patients 8 years and older who currently have stage 2 type 1 diabetes.” In stage 2 type 1 diabetes, the individual has two or more islet autoantibodies and abnormal glycemia but is as yet asymptomatic. It is associated with a nearly 100% lifetime risk of progression to clinical (stage 3) type 1 diabetes and a 75% risk of developing the condition within 5 years.

Currently, most people who are screened for type 1 diabetes autoantibodies are first-degree relatives of those with the condition through TrialNet, other local programs, or more recently, a $55 test offered by the research and advocacy organization JDRF.

But because 85%-90% of people who develop type 1 diabetes don’t have first-degree relatives with the condition, broader population screening will be necessary to identify eligible candidates for teplizumab.

During an investor call on Nov. 18, Provention Bio chief commercial officer Jason Hoitt said that among the company’s “strategic initiatives” were “advancing awareness and screening for autoantibodies in at-risk individuals, and ultimately, routine screening during pediatric well visits for the general population,” as well as “[health care provider] belief in teplizumab and desire to prescribe it for their patients.” 

Without broad population-based screening, first-degree relatives of people with type 1 diabetes are likely to be the first to be screened and those with stage 2 identified for receipt of teplizumab. Today, that population is estimated at about 30,000 in the United States, Mr. Hoitt said, adding, “with this approval we hope that more stage 2 patients can be readily identified so the course of the disease can be changed.”

During the call, Mr. Hoitt also announced that the wholesale acquisition cost of Tzield would be $13,850 per vial, which translates to $193,900 per 14-vial continuous regimen, anticipated to be a sufficient dose for most patients. The company also launched a program called COMPASS to help patients navigate insurance reimbursement, as well as provide some with financial assistance.

Cost aside, JDRF CEO Aaron Kowalski, PhD, said in an interview that clinicians shouldn’t doubt the value of delaying type 1 diabetes onset, even if not completely preventing it. “This is the first drug ever to treat the underlying disease. There is this undercurrent that insulin is enough. Why would you undertake an additional risk of an immunotherapy? Type 1 is hard to live with. I think sometimes the clinical community doesn’t appreciate that insulin is not enough. It’s very difficult, and opening this door is important. ... We believe very strongly that the delay of onset of type 1 diabetes is clinically meaningful. We hear that from every family we’ve talked to. Clinicians should appreciate this and not discount it.”
 

How would screening happen? 

While the path to universal screening for type 1 diabetes risk isn’t yet clear, quite a bit of thought and research has gone into it even before teplizumab and other immune-modulating agents showed promise in forestalling the condition.

Data from a universal screening program of schoolchildren implemented in Bavaria, Germany, and a screening program in Denver, suggest that even without such an intervention, identifying people at high risk for developing type 1 diabetes could be cost effective by allowing for education of the individual and family members about the signs of type 1 diabetes, thereby reducing the likelihood that the person would progress to developing diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) prior to diagnosis.

Another study that used data from the United States and Western Europe, found that screening children for type 1 diabetes–associated islet autoantibodies at ages 2 and 6 years would identify most of those who go on to develop the disease by midadolescence.

However, using a genetic risk score at birth to identify those who would go on to autoantibody testing is potentially a more cost-effective approach, William A. Hagopian, MD, PhD, director of diabetes programs, Pacific Northwest Research Institute, Seattle, said in an interview.

The score – based on human leukocyte antigen haplotypes and their interactions as well as non-HLA genes – can stratify nearly 80% of childhood type 1 diabetes within the top 10% of all newborns. Thus, only the top 10% would then go on to receive the more expensive autoantibody testing.

“I’ve been working with U.K. colleagues for the past 3-4 years to develop a strategy using genetic risk scores followed by autoantibody screening. I feel strongly that that’s the cost-effective way to go. It’s relatively inexpensive, scalable, and can be applied commercially in newborn screening labs. To be successful an approach must be cost effective. Payors are willing to pay for newborn screening, but not so much on testing 100% of kids for antibodies,” Dr. Hagopian said.

He is now working with Washington State newborn screening labs to demonstrate feasibility of the approach using dried blood samples from actual neonatal screening after obtaining informed consent from the mothers in postpartum wards in several hospitals. Those found to be at high risk using the genetic risk score are contacted for follow-up with autoantibody screening. The program will continue for another year and a half. “I think it actually has a chance of being accepted into their regular program,” he said.

And then, he hopes, other states will follow, and eventually, the strategy will be added to the Recommended Uniform Screening Panel for universal newborn screening programs, as recommended by the Department of Health & Human Services.

“New newborn screenings for additional diseases are implemented regularly,” Dr. Hagopian said. “Most are far less common than type 1 diabetes. So even if our approach is less than 100% sensitive, this condition is a lot more common than the many inborn errors of metabolism, so we’re still going to be identifying a lot of cases. ... This is my hope for how universal type 1 diabetes screening will unfold. I see a way this may work quite well.”

A two-pronged approach to screening could work best

Meanwhile, JDRF, which supported the teplizumab research as well as others working in the space, is focusing on both genetic and autoantibody screening, Dr. Kowalski said.

“JDRF is working on both pathways – testing kids at birth for genetic predisposition and also antibody screening. We have huge programs focused on general population antibody screening.”

Dr. Kowalski said that, while the two-pronged approach certainly is worth exploring – and JDRF is doing that – he also thinks that universal autoantibody screening could be cost effective if done efficiently, such as with less expensive assays than the one used in TrialNet.

“We have programs where you do the genetic screening and keep an eye on people. We also have programs, like the one we’re funding in Germany, that are doing broad autoantibody screening of all kids. We’re hopeful that will be very cost effective if we move to cheaper assays.”

He noted that the proportion of children with new-onset type 1 diabetes who present in DKA rose from 40% pre–COVID-19 to 50% during the early days of the pandemic. On the other hand, “With screening you can get that to near zero, like they did in Bavaria. Here [in the United States], one ICU visit for DKA [costs] $100,000.”

While JDRF and others have been working on this for years, the new availability of teplizumab will be “multifold in helping things along. ... I think you’re going to see a lot of work on the cost-effectiveness of teplizumab. I think the case will be pretty straightforward that there’s huge upside to delaying the disease from a near-term and a long-term cost perspective. This is the first time we’ve had a drug out there with a price attached to it.”

But it may not happen quickly, Kowalski cautioned. “I feel there’s a ... series of events that has to happen to drive towards universal screening. Here in the U.S. it’s complicated because we have a very discrepant health care system with all these different payers, public and private.”

During the investor call, Mr. Hoitt said that Provention Bio is also exploring use of Tzield in younger patients and newly diagnosed patients, and the potential benefit of redosing or combining with other treatments.

Mr. Hoitt is an employee of Provention Bio. Dr. Kowalski is an employee of JDRF. Dr. Hagopian has reported receiving study funding from Janssen.

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