Pediatrics

In mid-July my son strained his neck working out at the gym.

It was an obvious generic muscle pull. I told him to take some ibuprofen and use a heating pad. My wife, a nurse, told him the same thing.

Regrettably, while my medical training (hopefully) counts for something with my patients, it doesn’t mean much to my kids. The unqualified opinions of their friends and Google are far more worthwhile, convincing him he had any number of serious injuries.

As a result, while we were at work he went to the emergency department to get checked out. He was evaluated by one of my colleagues who did x-rays and a cervical spine CT. (I figure the last one was because my son kept reminding them I was a doctor). After all the results were in, the ED physician told him he had a muscle strain, and to take ibuprofen and use a heating pad.

Big surprise, huh? I’m sure he was shocked to find out that his old man knew what he was doing. Of course, I didn’t order any tests so the ED doc tops me for that in my son’s mind.

But kids not believing their parents is nothing new, and I can’t claim innocence either from what I remember of being a teenager.

Fast-forward to today. From what I can see, the total bills for his little adventure in modern medicine were around $4,000-$5,000. Granted, I’m well aware that what gets charged has no relationship to what’s actually going to be collected but I’m not going to write about modern medical charges or collections or even defensive medicine. I understand all those, and certainly don’t fault my ED colleague for how he handled it.

Reassurance isn’t cheap, though. When it’s all over, our out-of-pocket share will be roughly $1,000, which we certainly hadn’t planned for in the usually money-tight months of December and January.

That’s a lot of money for ibuprofen and a heating pad (we had both at home, and they’re around $20 total at Target, anyway).

There’s certainly no shortage of research on unnecessary ED visits for minor things, but to me this is a classic example of it. Beyond just the financial cost (which, admittedly, I’m pretty irritated with him about) he tied up a bed and ED staff that someone in more dire circumstances may have needed.

His injury could have been handled at an urgent care, or, even better, just by staying home, listening to us, and using ibuprofen and a heating pad.

We need to emphasize to kids – and the general population – that the emergency department is for emergencies, and clarify what constitutes an emergency in the first place. There’s no shortage of urgent cares and other walk-in clinics that are there specifically to handle such things during daylight hours, if they need to be seen at all.

Of course, I can’t change the results of Google searches, or the age-old teenage belief that parents are morons.

But he is going to learn about what constitutes an emergency, and what else that $1,000 could have been used for.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

In mid-July my son strained his neck working out at the gym.

It was an obvious generic muscle pull. I told him to take some ibuprofen and use a heating pad. My wife, a nurse, told him the same thing.

Regrettably, while my medical training (hopefully) counts for something with my patients, it doesn’t mean much to my kids. The unqualified opinions of their friends and Google are far more worthwhile, convincing him he had any number of serious injuries.

As a result, while we were at work he went to the emergency department to get checked out. He was evaluated by one of my colleagues who did x-rays and a cervical spine CT. (I figure the last one was because my son kept reminding them I was a doctor). After all the results were in, the ED physician told him he had a muscle strain, and to take ibuprofen and use a heating pad.

Big surprise, huh? I’m sure he was shocked to find out that his old man knew what he was doing. Of course, I didn’t order any tests so the ED doc tops me for that in my son’s mind.

But kids not believing their parents is nothing new, and I can’t claim innocence either from what I remember of being a teenager.

Fast-forward to today. From what I can see, the total bills for his little adventure in modern medicine were around $4,000-$5,000. Granted, I’m well aware that what gets charged has no relationship to what’s actually going to be collected but I’m not going to write about modern medical charges or collections or even defensive medicine. I understand all those, and certainly don’t fault my ED colleague for how he handled it.

Reassurance isn’t cheap, though. When it’s all over, our out-of-pocket share will be roughly $1,000, which we certainly hadn’t planned for in the usually money-tight months of December and January.

That’s a lot of money for ibuprofen and a heating pad (we had both at home, and they’re around $20 total at Target, anyway).

There’s certainly no shortage of research on unnecessary ED visits for minor things, but to me this is a classic example of it. Beyond just the financial cost (which, admittedly, I’m pretty irritated with him about) he tied up a bed and ED staff that someone in more dire circumstances may have needed.

His injury could have been handled at an urgent care, or, even better, just by staying home, listening to us, and using ibuprofen and a heating pad.

We need to emphasize to kids – and the general population – that the emergency department is for emergencies, and clarify what constitutes an emergency in the first place. There’s no shortage of urgent cares and other walk-in clinics that are there specifically to handle such things during daylight hours, if they need to be seen at all.

Of course, I can’t change the results of Google searches, or the age-old teenage belief that parents are morons.

But he is going to learn about what constitutes an emergency, and what else that $1,000 could have been used for.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

In mid-July my son strained his neck working out at the gym.

It was an obvious generic muscle pull. I told him to take some ibuprofen and use a heating pad. My wife, a nurse, told him the same thing.

Regrettably, while my medical training (hopefully) counts for something with my patients, it doesn’t mean much to my kids. The unqualified opinions of their friends and Google are far more worthwhile, convincing him he had any number of serious injuries.

As a result, while we were at work he went to the emergency department to get checked out. He was evaluated by one of my colleagues who did x-rays and a cervical spine CT. (I figure the last one was because my son kept reminding them I was a doctor). After all the results were in, the ED physician told him he had a muscle strain, and to take ibuprofen and use a heating pad.

Big surprise, huh? I’m sure he was shocked to find out that his old man knew what he was doing. Of course, I didn’t order any tests so the ED doc tops me for that in my son’s mind.

But kids not believing their parents is nothing new, and I can’t claim innocence either from what I remember of being a teenager.

Fast-forward to today. From what I can see, the total bills for his little adventure in modern medicine were around $4,000-$5,000. Granted, I’m well aware that what gets charged has no relationship to what’s actually going to be collected but I’m not going to write about modern medical charges or collections or even defensive medicine. I understand all those, and certainly don’t fault my ED colleague for how he handled it.

Reassurance isn’t cheap, though. When it’s all over, our out-of-pocket share will be roughly $1,000, which we certainly hadn’t planned for in the usually money-tight months of December and January.

That’s a lot of money for ibuprofen and a heating pad (we had both at home, and they’re around $20 total at Target, anyway).

There’s certainly no shortage of research on unnecessary ED visits for minor things, but to me this is a classic example of it. Beyond just the financial cost (which, admittedly, I’m pretty irritated with him about) he tied up a bed and ED staff that someone in more dire circumstances may have needed.

His injury could have been handled at an urgent care, or, even better, just by staying home, listening to us, and using ibuprofen and a heating pad.

We need to emphasize to kids – and the general population – that the emergency department is for emergencies, and clarify what constitutes an emergency in the first place. There’s no shortage of urgent cares and other walk-in clinics that are there specifically to handle such things during daylight hours, if they need to be seen at all.

Of course, I can’t change the results of Google searches, or the age-old teenage belief that parents are morons.

But he is going to learn about what constitutes an emergency, and what else that $1,000 could have been used for.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

ANSWER

The correct answer is bullous impetigo (choice “a”).

Had the source of the problem been MRSA (choice “b”), there would have been marked tenderness and swelling. Psoriasis vulgaris (choice “c”) was a possibility; however, it almost never manifests with blisters, it rarely comes on as quickly as this patient’s problem did, and it produces scale that is far thicker and more tenacious than that seen in bullous impetigo. Nummular eczema (choice “d”) does not manifest with blisters and would likely have caused itching.

DISCUSSION

Impetigo is one of many common skin diseases—other examples include granuloma annulare and lichen planus—that have bullous variants, which can make diagnosis challenging. Impetigo is easy to diagnose in its more common papulosquamous form. But it also can manifest with flaccid blisters that last only a short time, leaving the round, scaly lesions seen in this case.

Staphylococcus aureus, the organism responsible for bullous impetigo, elaborates serine proteases, which bind to and cleave desmoglein-1. This effectively destroys the connections between skin layers, creating a space that is quickly filled with serum. The level of this separation is typically subcorneal, which allows the formation of a very thin, friable roof for the bulla.

This modern version of impetigo is not considered dangerous, despite its association with staph aureus. In pre-antibiotic times, the predominant organism was streptococcal, some types of which could be nephritogenic—that is, capable of causing Bright disease or, as it is now known, acute post-streptococcal glomerulonephritis. Fortunately, this potentially fatal condition is only rarely seen in modern times.

Two items of note about this case: Bullous impetigo, contrary to what was seen in this patient, typically favors intertriginous areas. And a key factor is the history of atopy, which renders the patient more susceptible to skin infections of all kinds.

Treatment

The patient responded well to topical mupirocin ointment, applied three times a day. In rare instances, impetigo can require an oral antibiotic, such as cephalexin.

ANSWER

The correct answer is bullous impetigo (choice “a”).

Had the source of the problem been MRSA (choice “b”), there would have been marked tenderness and swelling. Psoriasis vulgaris (choice “c”) was a possibility; however, it almost never manifests with blisters, it rarely comes on as quickly as this patient’s problem did, and it produces scale that is far thicker and more tenacious than that seen in bullous impetigo. Nummular eczema (choice “d”) does not manifest with blisters and would likely have caused itching.

DISCUSSION

Impetigo is one of many common skin diseases—other examples include granuloma annulare and lichen planus—that have bullous variants, which can make diagnosis challenging. Impetigo is easy to diagnose in its more common papulosquamous form. But it also can manifest with flaccid blisters that last only a short time, leaving the round, scaly lesions seen in this case.

Staphylococcus aureus, the organism responsible for bullous impetigo, elaborates serine proteases, which bind to and cleave desmoglein-1. This effectively destroys the connections between skin layers, creating a space that is quickly filled with serum. The level of this separation is typically subcorneal, which allows the formation of a very thin, friable roof for the bulla.

This modern version of impetigo is not considered dangerous, despite its association with staph aureus. In pre-antibiotic times, the predominant organism was streptococcal, some types of which could be nephritogenic—that is, capable of causing Bright disease or, as it is now known, acute post-streptococcal glomerulonephritis. Fortunately, this potentially fatal condition is only rarely seen in modern times.

Two items of note about this case: Bullous impetigo, contrary to what was seen in this patient, typically favors intertriginous areas. And a key factor is the history of atopy, which renders the patient more susceptible to skin infections of all kinds.

Treatment

The patient responded well to topical mupirocin ointment, applied three times a day. In rare instances, impetigo can require an oral antibiotic, such as cephalexin.

ANSWER

The correct answer is bullous impetigo (choice “a”).

Had the source of the problem been MRSA (choice “b”), there would have been marked tenderness and swelling. Psoriasis vulgaris (choice “c”) was a possibility; however, it almost never manifests with blisters, it rarely comes on as quickly as this patient’s problem did, and it produces scale that is far thicker and more tenacious than that seen in bullous impetigo. Nummular eczema (choice “d”) does not manifest with blisters and would likely have caused itching.

DISCUSSION

Impetigo is one of many common skin diseases—other examples include granuloma annulare and lichen planus—that have bullous variants, which can make diagnosis challenging. Impetigo is easy to diagnose in its more common papulosquamous form. But it also can manifest with flaccid blisters that last only a short time, leaving the round, scaly lesions seen in this case.

Staphylococcus aureus, the organism responsible for bullous impetigo, elaborates serine proteases, which bind to and cleave desmoglein-1. This effectively destroys the connections between skin layers, creating a space that is quickly filled with serum. The level of this separation is typically subcorneal, which allows the formation of a very thin, friable roof for the bulla.

This modern version of impetigo is not considered dangerous, despite its association with staph aureus. In pre-antibiotic times, the predominant organism was streptococcal, some types of which could be nephritogenic—that is, capable of causing Bright disease or, as it is now known, acute post-streptococcal glomerulonephritis. Fortunately, this potentially fatal condition is only rarely seen in modern times.

Two items of note about this case: Bullous impetigo, contrary to what was seen in this patient, typically favors intertriginous areas. And a key factor is the history of atopy, which renders the patient more susceptible to skin infections of all kinds.

Treatment

The patient responded well to topical mupirocin ointment, applied three times a day. In rare instances, impetigo can require an oral antibiotic, such as cephalexin.

Children with severe cow’s milk allergy may be able to safely tolerate small amounts of baked milk after 12 months of oral immunotherapy, new research suggests.

The small, ongoing clinical trial has enabled some participants – all of whom reacted to less than a tablespoon of baked milk at baseline – to begin incorporating baked milk products into everyday diets and to eat in restaurants with less fear of allergic reactions, reported study author Jennifer Dantzer, MD, MHS, assistant professor of pediatrics in the division of pediatric allergy, immunology, and rheumatology at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore.

Cow’s milk is the most common food allergy in young children, and “for many, it’s a constant stressor that’s always there,” Dr. Dantzer said in an interview. “For a lot of families, this impacts where they eat out, if they eat out, and sometimes where they vacation, or a lot of the social activities they do.

“This was a unique group of kids with a very severe milk phenotype who were reactive to teeny doses and may not have qualified or done well with other types of oral immunotherapy,” she added. “Using a modified allergen – baked milk – seems to work. But for now, we think this is something that still needs further research before it’s ready for a clinical setting.”

The study, for which 24-month unblinded results are being tallied, was recently published in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology .

About 2%-3% of preschool-age children are affected by cow’s milk allergy. Children often outgrow it, but for about 20% of children, it persists into adolescence and adulthood. The only current management approaches are avoidance and emergency medications to treat reactions.

But for those with severe milk allergy who react to even trace amounts of milk in any form, the now-routine clinical practice of introducing baked milk isn’t an option, Dr. Dantzer said. The new trial stood out from prior research by using lower starting doses and a more gradual dose escalation of extensively heated milk to determine if oral immunotherapy could be safer but still effective.

Dr. Dantzer and her team randomly assigned 30 participants (aged 3-18 years) into two blinded groups. For 12 months, one group received baked milk oral immunotherapy (BMOIT), and the other a placebo consisting of tapioca flour. At baseline, for all participants, the milk skin prick test wheal diameter was ≥ 3 mm, and the cow’s milk immunoglobulin E (IgE) level was > 5 kU/L. All the children experienced positive dose-limiting reactions to < 1 tablespoon of baked milk protein but could tolerate at least 3 mg on initial dose escalation.

Measured doses of baked milk and placebo powders were supplied to participants for all doses consumed at home. Participants were given instructions on how to prepare it in cupcake or muffin batter. Over 12 months, doses were gradually increased to a maximum cumulative dose of 4,044 mg baked milk protein, or approximately a half tablespoon.

Researchers collected blood samples for immune studies, and participants or their parents completed quality-of-life questionnaires that asked about food anxiety, social and dietary limitations, emotional impact, risk for accidental ingestion, and allergen avoidance.

Fourteen of 15 participants (93%) in the BMOIT group reached the goal-maintenance dose of 2,000 mg of baked milk protein (about a quarter tablespoon). Of those who completed the 12-month challenge, 11 of 14 (79%) in the BMOIT group tolerated 4,000 mg of baked milk protein, compared to none in the placebo group.

“We anticipated that by starting with really small amounts, we would be able to build up the amount of baked milk these kids could tolerate,” Dr. Dantzer said. “We were very pleased by how many could reach the maximal dose at the end of the first year. Once we get the results of the second year, that will provide a lot of additional detail about how this translates into unheated milk amounts they can tolerate and introduce into their diet at home.”

No significant changes were found in IgE levels over time in either study group. Most in the BMOIT group reported improvement in at least one quality-of-life domain, while more in the placebo group reported improvements in only the emotional impact domain.

Adverse events such as gastrointestinal side effects occurred in both groups of participants, but the vast majority of events were mild, Dr. Dantzer said. Fewer than 1% of dosing-related reactions were severe. Four participants required epinephrine.

“This highlights how this needs to be done by someone comfortable and trained, and not by a family at home on their own,” Dr. Dantzer said. “But potentially in the future, this concept of using a modified allergen could be applied to more kids with milk allergy.”

A Montreal-based pediatric allergy specialist who was not involved in the study said the results weren’t surprising. “We’ve known for a good while that the allergenic proteins found in certain foods, or caused by milk in this context, are influenced by the way in which food is processed,” said Christine McCusker, MD, associate professor of pediatrics and director of the division of pediatric allergy, immunology, and dermatology at Montreal Children’s Hospital at McGill University Health Center.

But “having this relatively definitive data that supports what you’re suggesting to patients is obviously the way to optimize your management,” Dr. McCusker said in an interview. “These types of studies are important steps, especially in this age of increased food allergies where many of these things can be dealt with in very young children before their immune systems are fixed.”

Dr. Dantzer and Dr. McCusker agreed that the small size of the study was a limitation, though “waiting for more participants means you don’t always get information out there in a timely manner,” Dr. McCusker said.

She said additional research should focus on preidentifying which children may be prone to severe, lasting food allergies. “If you have a milk allergy that will stay with you the rest of your life and we could maybe modify that outcome with early, targeted intervention, that would be the nirvana of the field,” Dr. McCusker said.

Dr. Dantzer said her research “showed us that oral immunotherapy is an option, but not a perfect option.

“We still need to keep working on other alternatives that can be even safer and potentially work better,” she added.

The study was supported by the Myra Reinhard Family Foundation. Dr. Dantzer and Dr. McCusker report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Children with severe cow’s milk allergy may be able to safely tolerate small amounts of baked milk after 12 months of oral immunotherapy, new research suggests.

The small, ongoing clinical trial has enabled some participants – all of whom reacted to less than a tablespoon of baked milk at baseline – to begin incorporating baked milk products into everyday diets and to eat in restaurants with less fear of allergic reactions, reported study author Jennifer Dantzer, MD, MHS, assistant professor of pediatrics in the division of pediatric allergy, immunology, and rheumatology at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore.

Cow’s milk is the most common food allergy in young children, and “for many, it’s a constant stressor that’s always there,” Dr. Dantzer said in an interview. “For a lot of families, this impacts where they eat out, if they eat out, and sometimes where they vacation, or a lot of the social activities they do.

“This was a unique group of kids with a very severe milk phenotype who were reactive to teeny doses and may not have qualified or done well with other types of oral immunotherapy,” she added. “Using a modified allergen – baked milk – seems to work. But for now, we think this is something that still needs further research before it’s ready for a clinical setting.”

The study, for which 24-month unblinded results are being tallied, was recently published in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology .

About 2%-3% of preschool-age children are affected by cow’s milk allergy. Children often outgrow it, but for about 20% of children, it persists into adolescence and adulthood. The only current management approaches are avoidance and emergency medications to treat reactions.

But for those with severe milk allergy who react to even trace amounts of milk in any form, the now-routine clinical practice of introducing baked milk isn’t an option, Dr. Dantzer said. The new trial stood out from prior research by using lower starting doses and a more gradual dose escalation of extensively heated milk to determine if oral immunotherapy could be safer but still effective.

Dr. Dantzer and her team randomly assigned 30 participants (aged 3-18 years) into two blinded groups. For 12 months, one group received baked milk oral immunotherapy (BMOIT), and the other a placebo consisting of tapioca flour. At baseline, for all participants, the milk skin prick test wheal diameter was ≥ 3 mm, and the cow’s milk immunoglobulin E (IgE) level was > 5 kU/L. All the children experienced positive dose-limiting reactions to < 1 tablespoon of baked milk protein but could tolerate at least 3 mg on initial dose escalation.

Measured doses of baked milk and placebo powders were supplied to participants for all doses consumed at home. Participants were given instructions on how to prepare it in cupcake or muffin batter. Over 12 months, doses were gradually increased to a maximum cumulative dose of 4,044 mg baked milk protein, or approximately a half tablespoon.

Researchers collected blood samples for immune studies, and participants or their parents completed quality-of-life questionnaires that asked about food anxiety, social and dietary limitations, emotional impact, risk for accidental ingestion, and allergen avoidance.

Fourteen of 15 participants (93%) in the BMOIT group reached the goal-maintenance dose of 2,000 mg of baked milk protein (about a quarter tablespoon). Of those who completed the 12-month challenge, 11 of 14 (79%) in the BMOIT group tolerated 4,000 mg of baked milk protein, compared to none in the placebo group.

“We anticipated that by starting with really small amounts, we would be able to build up the amount of baked milk these kids could tolerate,” Dr. Dantzer said. “We were very pleased by how many could reach the maximal dose at the end of the first year. Once we get the results of the second year, that will provide a lot of additional detail about how this translates into unheated milk amounts they can tolerate and introduce into their diet at home.”

No significant changes were found in IgE levels over time in either study group. Most in the BMOIT group reported improvement in at least one quality-of-life domain, while more in the placebo group reported improvements in only the emotional impact domain.

Adverse events such as gastrointestinal side effects occurred in both groups of participants, but the vast majority of events were mild, Dr. Dantzer said. Fewer than 1% of dosing-related reactions were severe. Four participants required epinephrine.

“This highlights how this needs to be done by someone comfortable and trained, and not by a family at home on their own,” Dr. Dantzer said. “But potentially in the future, this concept of using a modified allergen could be applied to more kids with milk allergy.”

A Montreal-based pediatric allergy specialist who was not involved in the study said the results weren’t surprising. “We’ve known for a good while that the allergenic proteins found in certain foods, or caused by milk in this context, are influenced by the way in which food is processed,” said Christine McCusker, MD, associate professor of pediatrics and director of the division of pediatric allergy, immunology, and dermatology at Montreal Children’s Hospital at McGill University Health Center.

But “having this relatively definitive data that supports what you’re suggesting to patients is obviously the way to optimize your management,” Dr. McCusker said in an interview. “These types of studies are important steps, especially in this age of increased food allergies where many of these things can be dealt with in very young children before their immune systems are fixed.”

Dr. Dantzer and Dr. McCusker agreed that the small size of the study was a limitation, though “waiting for more participants means you don’t always get information out there in a timely manner,” Dr. McCusker said.

She said additional research should focus on preidentifying which children may be prone to severe, lasting food allergies. “If you have a milk allergy that will stay with you the rest of your life and we could maybe modify that outcome with early, targeted intervention, that would be the nirvana of the field,” Dr. McCusker said.

Dr. Dantzer said her research “showed us that oral immunotherapy is an option, but not a perfect option.

“We still need to keep working on other alternatives that can be even safer and potentially work better,” she added.

The study was supported by the Myra Reinhard Family Foundation. Dr. Dantzer and Dr. McCusker report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Children with severe cow’s milk allergy may be able to safely tolerate small amounts of baked milk after 12 months of oral immunotherapy, new research suggests.

The small, ongoing clinical trial has enabled some participants – all of whom reacted to less than a tablespoon of baked milk at baseline – to begin incorporating baked milk products into everyday diets and to eat in restaurants with less fear of allergic reactions, reported study author Jennifer Dantzer, MD, MHS, assistant professor of pediatrics in the division of pediatric allergy, immunology, and rheumatology at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore.

Cow’s milk is the most common food allergy in young children, and “for many, it’s a constant stressor that’s always there,” Dr. Dantzer said in an interview. “For a lot of families, this impacts where they eat out, if they eat out, and sometimes where they vacation, or a lot of the social activities they do.

“This was a unique group of kids with a very severe milk phenotype who were reactive to teeny doses and may not have qualified or done well with other types of oral immunotherapy,” she added. “Using a modified allergen – baked milk – seems to work. But for now, we think this is something that still needs further research before it’s ready for a clinical setting.”

The study, for which 24-month unblinded results are being tallied, was recently published in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology .

About 2%-3% of preschool-age children are affected by cow’s milk allergy. Children often outgrow it, but for about 20% of children, it persists into adolescence and adulthood. The only current management approaches are avoidance and emergency medications to treat reactions.

But for those with severe milk allergy who react to even trace amounts of milk in any form, the now-routine clinical practice of introducing baked milk isn’t an option, Dr. Dantzer said. The new trial stood out from prior research by using lower starting doses and a more gradual dose escalation of extensively heated milk to determine if oral immunotherapy could be safer but still effective.

Dr. Dantzer and her team randomly assigned 30 participants (aged 3-18 years) into two blinded groups. For 12 months, one group received baked milk oral immunotherapy (BMOIT), and the other a placebo consisting of tapioca flour. At baseline, for all participants, the milk skin prick test wheal diameter was ≥ 3 mm, and the cow’s milk immunoglobulin E (IgE) level was > 5 kU/L. All the children experienced positive dose-limiting reactions to < 1 tablespoon of baked milk protein but could tolerate at least 3 mg on initial dose escalation.

Measured doses of baked milk and placebo powders were supplied to participants for all doses consumed at home. Participants were given instructions on how to prepare it in cupcake or muffin batter. Over 12 months, doses were gradually increased to a maximum cumulative dose of 4,044 mg baked milk protein, or approximately a half tablespoon.

Researchers collected blood samples for immune studies, and participants or their parents completed quality-of-life questionnaires that asked about food anxiety, social and dietary limitations, emotional impact, risk for accidental ingestion, and allergen avoidance.

Fourteen of 15 participants (93%) in the BMOIT group reached the goal-maintenance dose of 2,000 mg of baked milk protein (about a quarter tablespoon). Of those who completed the 12-month challenge, 11 of 14 (79%) in the BMOIT group tolerated 4,000 mg of baked milk protein, compared to none in the placebo group.

“We anticipated that by starting with really small amounts, we would be able to build up the amount of baked milk these kids could tolerate,” Dr. Dantzer said. “We were very pleased by how many could reach the maximal dose at the end of the first year. Once we get the results of the second year, that will provide a lot of additional detail about how this translates into unheated milk amounts they can tolerate and introduce into their diet at home.”

No significant changes were found in IgE levels over time in either study group. Most in the BMOIT group reported improvement in at least one quality-of-life domain, while more in the placebo group reported improvements in only the emotional impact domain.

Adverse events such as gastrointestinal side effects occurred in both groups of participants, but the vast majority of events were mild, Dr. Dantzer said. Fewer than 1% of dosing-related reactions were severe. Four participants required epinephrine.

“This highlights how this needs to be done by someone comfortable and trained, and not by a family at home on their own,” Dr. Dantzer said. “But potentially in the future, this concept of using a modified allergen could be applied to more kids with milk allergy.”

A Montreal-based pediatric allergy specialist who was not involved in the study said the results weren’t surprising. “We’ve known for a good while that the allergenic proteins found in certain foods, or caused by milk in this context, are influenced by the way in which food is processed,” said Christine McCusker, MD, associate professor of pediatrics and director of the division of pediatric allergy, immunology, and dermatology at Montreal Children’s Hospital at McGill University Health Center.

But “having this relatively definitive data that supports what you’re suggesting to patients is obviously the way to optimize your management,” Dr. McCusker said in an interview. “These types of studies are important steps, especially in this age of increased food allergies where many of these things can be dealt with in very young children before their immune systems are fixed.”

Dr. Dantzer and Dr. McCusker agreed that the small size of the study was a limitation, though “waiting for more participants means you don’t always get information out there in a timely manner,” Dr. McCusker said.

She said additional research should focus on preidentifying which children may be prone to severe, lasting food allergies. “If you have a milk allergy that will stay with you the rest of your life and we could maybe modify that outcome with early, targeted intervention, that would be the nirvana of the field,” Dr. McCusker said.

Dr. Dantzer said her research “showed us that oral immunotherapy is an option, but not a perfect option.

“We still need to keep working on other alternatives that can be even safer and potentially work better,” she added.

The study was supported by the Myra Reinhard Family Foundation. Dr. Dantzer and Dr. McCusker report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Childhood autism rates are at the highest level since the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention began tracking the disorder in 2000, new data released Dec. 2 show.

The increase likely reflects improvements in diagnosis and identification of autism spectrum disorder (ASD), not an increase in incidence, study authors with the CDC’s Autism and Developmental Disabilities Monitoring (ADDM) Network told this news organization.

Using a new surveillance methodology, researchers found that 2.3% of 8-year-olds in communities in 11 states across the United States had an autism diagnosis in 2018, up from 1.9% in 2016.

A separate report on early identification in 4-year-olds shows that children born in 2014 were 50% more likely to receive an autism diagnosis or ASD special education classification by 48 months of age than those born in 2010, signaling improved early diagnosis.

Taken together, the data suggest efforts to raise awareness about autism are working, though researchers were quick to say much work remains.

“It was not surprising to me and in fact it was reassuring that the number of children diagnosed with autism is higher and is actually approaching prevalence of autism that has been noted in some national surveys of parents,” Stuart Shapira, MD, PhD, associate director for science in CDC’s National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disability, told this news organization.

“It means we’re doing a better job of identifying children, which helps to get them into services earlier so they can achieve their best developmental outcome.”

The studies, published online in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, are the first to use a new ASD surveillance protocol that relies on ASD diagnosis or special education classification and billing codes and eliminates comprehensive records analysis by trained clinician reviewers.

Racial disparities

The updated methodology was less labor intensive and reduced the time it took to produce the report, but it is not without its critics, who claim the new protocol will undercount the number of children with ASD.

Created in 2000 and funded by the CDC, the ADDM Network is the only surveillance program in the United States that tracks the number and characteristics of children with ASD in multiple communities in the U.S.

When ADDM released its first report in 2007 from six states and based on data from the year 2000, ASD prevalence was 6.7 per 1,000 children, or 1 in 150 children.

In the latest report, which includes data from 2018, the autism prevalence rate across 11 states was 23.0 per 1,000 children, or 1 in 44 children.

That rate is closer to reported autism prevalence from the National Survey of Children’s Health and the National Health Interview Survey, both of which rely on parent-reported ASD diagnoses.

For the report, researchers analyzed medical and special education records of 220,281 children who were born in 2010 in Arizona, Arkansas, California, Georgia, Maryland, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, Tennessee, Utah, and Wisconsin.

Children were counted as having autism if their records included an ASD diagnosis, a special education classification of ASD, or an ASD International Classification of Diseases (ICD) code. A total of 5,058 children met those criteria.

Rates of ASD ranged from a low of 1.7% in Missouri to 3.9% in California and were 4.2 times higher in boys than in girls. Just under half of the children with ASD were evaluated by age 36 months.

Although the overall ASD prevalence was similar among White, Black, Hispanic, and Asian/Pacific Islander children, the report highlighted a number of other racial disparities overall and in individual states.

For example, among those with ASD and data on cognitive ability, 35.2% had an intelligence quotient score of 70 or lower. Black children with ASD were far more likely to have an IQ of 70 or less (49.8%) than Hispanic (33.1%) or White (29.7%) children.

“The persistent disparities in co-occurring intellectual disabilities in children with autism is something that we continue to see and suggests that we need to better understand exactly what’s happening,” Matthew Maenner, PhD, an epidemiologist and autism surveillance team lead with the CDC’s National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, told this news organization.

Another long-standing trend observed again in the new report on prevalence among 8-year-olds is low ASD prevalence among Hispanic children. While the overall estimate showed similar autism rates, a closer review of state-level data reveals a different picture.

“In almost half of the sites, Hispanic children were less likely to be identified as having ASD,” he said. “This gets lost if you look only at the overall estimate.”

New methodology

When ADDM released its first report in 2007, autism diagnosis was widely inadequate in the United States. Relying on only confirmed ASD diagnoses would significantly underestimate the number of children with the disorder, so the CDC added “active case finding” to the protocol.

Trained clinician reviewers analyzed individual notes from medical and educational records for every 8-year-old in ADDM Network sites, looking for evidence of characteristics and behaviors associated with autism. The process was labor- and time-intensive and took up to 4 years to complete.

In 2018, the CDC began investigating ways to speed the process and came up with the strategy used in the latest report. The new protocol was faster, easier, and less expensive. Although he says cost was never the deciding factor, Dr. Maenner acknowledges that had they stuck with the original protocol, they would have been forced to reduce the number of ADDM Network sites.

Dr. Maenner argues that a comparison of the two protocols shows the new method doesn’t compromise accuracy and may actually capture children who lacked the medical or educational records the previous protocol required for a count. But not everyone agrees.

“I thought the point was to be as accurate and complete as possible in doing the surveillance,” Walter Zahorodny, PhD, associate professor of pediatrics at Rutgers University, New Brunswick, N.J., and principal investigator of the New Jersey ADDM Network site, told this news organization. “In states where there’s a high detail of information in records, like New Jersey, it’s going to underestimate the count.”

Dr. Zahorodny says the latest data prove his point. In 2016, under the old methodology, ASD prevalence was 3.1% in the state. In 2018, under the new protocol, prevalence was 2.84%, a decrease of about 20% that Dr. Zahorodny pins squarely on the elimination of ADDM clinical reviewers.

But New Jersey is the only state that participated in both the 2016 and 2018 surveillance periods to report a decrease in ASD prevalence. The other eight states all found autism rates in their states went up.

Sydney Pettygrove, PhD, associate professor of public health and pediatrics at the University of Arizona, Tucson, and a principal investigator for the ADDM site in Arizona, told this news organization that when she first learned the CDC was rolling out a new methodology, she and other investigators were concerned.

“People were really upset. I was really upset,” she said. “I had formed an opinion based on the earlier data that this would not be a good idea.”

In 2000, when ASD surveillance began in Arizona, nearly 30% of children identified by ADDM clinical reviewers as having autism had no mention of the disorder in their records. Today, that percentage is closer to 5%.

“In 2000 it would have been catastrophic to try to estimate the prevalence of autism with the new protocol,” said Dr. Pettygrove. As it turns out, under the new protocol, prevalence rates in Arizona increased from 16.0 per 1,000 children in 2016 to 24.9 in 2018.

Built-in bias eliminated?

In addition to speeding up the process, the new methodology might have other benefits as well. Under the old ADDM surveillance protocol, children who lacked certain medical or educational records did not meet the ASD case definition and weren’t counted.

A 2019 study showed that this disproportionately affected Black and Hispanic children, who had significantly less access to health care professionals than White children.

As a result, “the old methodology had a bias built into it,” Maureen Durkin, PhD, DrPH, coauthor of that study and chair of population health sciences at the University of Wisconsin–Madison and principal investigator for the ADDM site in Wisconsin, told this news organization.

“Clinician reviewers ended up putting these children in the ‘suspected ASD’ category because they couldn’t call it a case under the case definition,” Dr. Durkin said. “There was a fairly large percentage of suspected cases and a disproportionate number of those kids were children of color.”

Although she can’t say for sure, Dr. Durkin said it’s possible the new protocol could eliminate some of that bias.

CDC researchers also attribute the new method to an expanded study of early diagnosis among 4-year-olds. In previous years, only a handful of the ADDM Network sites participating in the 8-year-old surveillance project also studied early diagnosis in 4-year-olds.

This year, all 11 sites took part in the early diagnosis analysis, tripling the number of children included in the analysis. That made it possible to include, for the first time, Asian/Pacific Islander children in this analysis.

In the past, ASD prevalence has trended higher in White children, compared with other racial groups. The new data found that ASD prevalence among 4-year-olds was significantly lower in White children (12.9 per 1,000 children) than in Black, Hispanic, or Asian/Pacific Islander children (16.6, 21.1, and 22.7 per 1,000, respectively). Prevalence in American Indian/Alaska Native children was the lowest among all racial groups (11.5 per 1,000).

It’s the first time researchers have seen this pattern in any ADDM report, Kelly Shaw, PhD, lead author of that study and an epidemiologist with the National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disability at the CDC, told this news organization.

These data don’t provide clues about the potential cause of that disparity, Dr. Shaw said. It’s likely an indication of better identification of ASD in those communities, she said, and not a sign of increased incidence of autism among Black, Hispanic, or Asian/Pacific Islander children.

“We don’t have any evidence to suggest or expect that autism would be increasing differentially among groups,” Dr. Shaw said.

The data suggest “we are making some progress but there certainly is still room for improvement,” Dr. Shaw said.

Study authors report no conflicts of interest.

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

Childhood autism rates are at the highest level since the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention began tracking the disorder in 2000, new data released Dec. 2 show.

The increase likely reflects improvements in diagnosis and identification of autism spectrum disorder (ASD), not an increase in incidence, study authors with the CDC’s Autism and Developmental Disabilities Monitoring (ADDM) Network told this news organization.

Using a new surveillance methodology, researchers found that 2.3% of 8-year-olds in communities in 11 states across the United States had an autism diagnosis in 2018, up from 1.9% in 2016.

A separate report on early identification in 4-year-olds shows that children born in 2014 were 50% more likely to receive an autism diagnosis or ASD special education classification by 48 months of age than those born in 2010, signaling improved early diagnosis.

Taken together, the data suggest efforts to raise awareness about autism are working, though researchers were quick to say much work remains.

“It was not surprising to me and in fact it was reassuring that the number of children diagnosed with autism is higher and is actually approaching prevalence of autism that has been noted in some national surveys of parents,” Stuart Shapira, MD, PhD, associate director for science in CDC’s National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disability, told this news organization.

“It means we’re doing a better job of identifying children, which helps to get them into services earlier so they can achieve their best developmental outcome.”

The studies, published online in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, are the first to use a new ASD surveillance protocol that relies on ASD diagnosis or special education classification and billing codes and eliminates comprehensive records analysis by trained clinician reviewers.

Racial disparities

The updated methodology was less labor intensive and reduced the time it took to produce the report, but it is not without its critics, who claim the new protocol will undercount the number of children with ASD.

Created in 2000 and funded by the CDC, the ADDM Network is the only surveillance program in the United States that tracks the number and characteristics of children with ASD in multiple communities in the U.S.

When ADDM released its first report in 2007 from six states and based on data from the year 2000, ASD prevalence was 6.7 per 1,000 children, or 1 in 150 children.

In the latest report, which includes data from 2018, the autism prevalence rate across 11 states was 23.0 per 1,000 children, or 1 in 44 children.

That rate is closer to reported autism prevalence from the National Survey of Children’s Health and the National Health Interview Survey, both of which rely on parent-reported ASD diagnoses.

For the report, researchers analyzed medical and special education records of 220,281 children who were born in 2010 in Arizona, Arkansas, California, Georgia, Maryland, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, Tennessee, Utah, and Wisconsin.

Children were counted as having autism if their records included an ASD diagnosis, a special education classification of ASD, or an ASD International Classification of Diseases (ICD) code. A total of 5,058 children met those criteria.

Rates of ASD ranged from a low of 1.7% in Missouri to 3.9% in California and were 4.2 times higher in boys than in girls. Just under half of the children with ASD were evaluated by age 36 months.

Although the overall ASD prevalence was similar among White, Black, Hispanic, and Asian/Pacific Islander children, the report highlighted a number of other racial disparities overall and in individual states.

For example, among those with ASD and data on cognitive ability, 35.2% had an intelligence quotient score of 70 or lower. Black children with ASD were far more likely to have an IQ of 70 or less (49.8%) than Hispanic (33.1%) or White (29.7%) children.

“The persistent disparities in co-occurring intellectual disabilities in children with autism is something that we continue to see and suggests that we need to better understand exactly what’s happening,” Matthew Maenner, PhD, an epidemiologist and autism surveillance team lead with the CDC’s National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, told this news organization.

Another long-standing trend observed again in the new report on prevalence among 8-year-olds is low ASD prevalence among Hispanic children. While the overall estimate showed similar autism rates, a closer review of state-level data reveals a different picture.

“In almost half of the sites, Hispanic children were less likely to be identified as having ASD,” he said. “This gets lost if you look only at the overall estimate.”

New methodology

When ADDM released its first report in 2007, autism diagnosis was widely inadequate in the United States. Relying on only confirmed ASD diagnoses would significantly underestimate the number of children with the disorder, so the CDC added “active case finding” to the protocol.

Trained clinician reviewers analyzed individual notes from medical and educational records for every 8-year-old in ADDM Network sites, looking for evidence of characteristics and behaviors associated with autism. The process was labor- and time-intensive and took up to 4 years to complete.

In 2018, the CDC began investigating ways to speed the process and came up with the strategy used in the latest report. The new protocol was faster, easier, and less expensive. Although he says cost was never the deciding factor, Dr. Maenner acknowledges that had they stuck with the original protocol, they would have been forced to reduce the number of ADDM Network sites.

Dr. Maenner argues that a comparison of the two protocols shows the new method doesn’t compromise accuracy and may actually capture children who lacked the medical or educational records the previous protocol required for a count. But not everyone agrees.

“I thought the point was to be as accurate and complete as possible in doing the surveillance,” Walter Zahorodny, PhD, associate professor of pediatrics at Rutgers University, New Brunswick, N.J., and principal investigator of the New Jersey ADDM Network site, told this news organization. “In states where there’s a high detail of information in records, like New Jersey, it’s going to underestimate the count.”

Dr. Zahorodny says the latest data prove his point. In 2016, under the old methodology, ASD prevalence was 3.1% in the state. In 2018, under the new protocol, prevalence was 2.84%, a decrease of about 20% that Dr. Zahorodny pins squarely on the elimination of ADDM clinical reviewers.

But New Jersey is the only state that participated in both the 2016 and 2018 surveillance periods to report a decrease in ASD prevalence. The other eight states all found autism rates in their states went up.

Sydney Pettygrove, PhD, associate professor of public health and pediatrics at the University of Arizona, Tucson, and a principal investigator for the ADDM site in Arizona, told this news organization that when she first learned the CDC was rolling out a new methodology, she and other investigators were concerned.

“People were really upset. I was really upset,” she said. “I had formed an opinion based on the earlier data that this would not be a good idea.”

In 2000, when ASD surveillance began in Arizona, nearly 30% of children identified by ADDM clinical reviewers as having autism had no mention of the disorder in their records. Today, that percentage is closer to 5%.

“In 2000 it would have been catastrophic to try to estimate the prevalence of autism with the new protocol,” said Dr. Pettygrove. As it turns out, under the new protocol, prevalence rates in Arizona increased from 16.0 per 1,000 children in 2016 to 24.9 in 2018.

Built-in bias eliminated?

In addition to speeding up the process, the new methodology might have other benefits as well. Under the old ADDM surveillance protocol, children who lacked certain medical or educational records did not meet the ASD case definition and weren’t counted.

A 2019 study showed that this disproportionately affected Black and Hispanic children, who had significantly less access to health care professionals than White children.

As a result, “the old methodology had a bias built into it,” Maureen Durkin, PhD, DrPH, coauthor of that study and chair of population health sciences at the University of Wisconsin–Madison and principal investigator for the ADDM site in Wisconsin, told this news organization.

“Clinician reviewers ended up putting these children in the ‘suspected ASD’ category because they couldn’t call it a case under the case definition,” Dr. Durkin said. “There was a fairly large percentage of suspected cases and a disproportionate number of those kids were children of color.”

Although she can’t say for sure, Dr. Durkin said it’s possible the new protocol could eliminate some of that bias.

CDC researchers also attribute the new method to an expanded study of early diagnosis among 4-year-olds. In previous years, only a handful of the ADDM Network sites participating in the 8-year-old surveillance project also studied early diagnosis in 4-year-olds.

This year, all 11 sites took part in the early diagnosis analysis, tripling the number of children included in the analysis. That made it possible to include, for the first time, Asian/Pacific Islander children in this analysis.

In the past, ASD prevalence has trended higher in White children, compared with other racial groups. The new data found that ASD prevalence among 4-year-olds was significantly lower in White children (12.9 per 1,000 children) than in Black, Hispanic, or Asian/Pacific Islander children (16.6, 21.1, and 22.7 per 1,000, respectively). Prevalence in American Indian/Alaska Native children was the lowest among all racial groups (11.5 per 1,000).

It’s the first time researchers have seen this pattern in any ADDM report, Kelly Shaw, PhD, lead author of that study and an epidemiologist with the National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disability at the CDC, told this news organization.

These data don’t provide clues about the potential cause of that disparity, Dr. Shaw said. It’s likely an indication of better identification of ASD in those communities, she said, and not a sign of increased incidence of autism among Black, Hispanic, or Asian/Pacific Islander children.

“We don’t have any evidence to suggest or expect that autism would be increasing differentially among groups,” Dr. Shaw said.

The data suggest “we are making some progress but there certainly is still room for improvement,” Dr. Shaw said.

Study authors report no conflicts of interest.

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

Childhood autism rates are at the highest level since the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention began tracking the disorder in 2000, new data released Dec. 2 show.

The increase likely reflects improvements in diagnosis and identification of autism spectrum disorder (ASD), not an increase in incidence, study authors with the CDC’s Autism and Developmental Disabilities Monitoring (ADDM) Network told this news organization.

Using a new surveillance methodology, researchers found that 2.3% of 8-year-olds in communities in 11 states across the United States had an autism diagnosis in 2018, up from 1.9% in 2016.

A separate report on early identification in 4-year-olds shows that children born in 2014 were 50% more likely to receive an autism diagnosis or ASD special education classification by 48 months of age than those born in 2010, signaling improved early diagnosis.

Taken together, the data suggest efforts to raise awareness about autism are working, though researchers were quick to say much work remains.

“It was not surprising to me and in fact it was reassuring that the number of children diagnosed with autism is higher and is actually approaching prevalence of autism that has been noted in some national surveys of parents,” Stuart Shapira, MD, PhD, associate director for science in CDC’s National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disability, told this news organization.

“It means we’re doing a better job of identifying children, which helps to get them into services earlier so they can achieve their best developmental outcome.”

The studies, published online in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, are the first to use a new ASD surveillance protocol that relies on ASD diagnosis or special education classification and billing codes and eliminates comprehensive records analysis by trained clinician reviewers.

Racial disparities

The updated methodology was less labor intensive and reduced the time it took to produce the report, but it is not without its critics, who claim the new protocol will undercount the number of children with ASD.

Created in 2000 and funded by the CDC, the ADDM Network is the only surveillance program in the United States that tracks the number and characteristics of children with ASD in multiple communities in the U.S.

When ADDM released its first report in 2007 from six states and based on data from the year 2000, ASD prevalence was 6.7 per 1,000 children, or 1 in 150 children.

In the latest report, which includes data from 2018, the autism prevalence rate across 11 states was 23.0 per 1,000 children, or 1 in 44 children.

That rate is closer to reported autism prevalence from the National Survey of Children’s Health and the National Health Interview Survey, both of which rely on parent-reported ASD diagnoses.

For the report, researchers analyzed medical and special education records of 220,281 children who were born in 2010 in Arizona, Arkansas, California, Georgia, Maryland, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, Tennessee, Utah, and Wisconsin.

Children were counted as having autism if their records included an ASD diagnosis, a special education classification of ASD, or an ASD International Classification of Diseases (ICD) code. A total of 5,058 children met those criteria.

Rates of ASD ranged from a low of 1.7% in Missouri to 3.9% in California and were 4.2 times higher in boys than in girls. Just under half of the children with ASD were evaluated by age 36 months.

Although the overall ASD prevalence was similar among White, Black, Hispanic, and Asian/Pacific Islander children, the report highlighted a number of other racial disparities overall and in individual states.

For example, among those with ASD and data on cognitive ability, 35.2% had an intelligence quotient score of 70 or lower. Black children with ASD were far more likely to have an IQ of 70 or less (49.8%) than Hispanic (33.1%) or White (29.7%) children.

“The persistent disparities in co-occurring intellectual disabilities in children with autism is something that we continue to see and suggests that we need to better understand exactly what’s happening,” Matthew Maenner, PhD, an epidemiologist and autism surveillance team lead with the CDC’s National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, told this news organization.

Another long-standing trend observed again in the new report on prevalence among 8-year-olds is low ASD prevalence among Hispanic children. While the overall estimate showed similar autism rates, a closer review of state-level data reveals a different picture.

“In almost half of the sites, Hispanic children were less likely to be identified as having ASD,” he said. “This gets lost if you look only at the overall estimate.”

New methodology

When ADDM released its first report in 2007, autism diagnosis was widely inadequate in the United States. Relying on only confirmed ASD diagnoses would significantly underestimate the number of children with the disorder, so the CDC added “active case finding” to the protocol.

Trained clinician reviewers analyzed individual notes from medical and educational records for every 8-year-old in ADDM Network sites, looking for evidence of characteristics and behaviors associated with autism. The process was labor- and time-intensive and took up to 4 years to complete.

In 2018, the CDC began investigating ways to speed the process and came up with the strategy used in the latest report. The new protocol was faster, easier, and less expensive. Although he says cost was never the deciding factor, Dr. Maenner acknowledges that had they stuck with the original protocol, they would have been forced to reduce the number of ADDM Network sites.

Dr. Maenner argues that a comparison of the two protocols shows the new method doesn’t compromise accuracy and may actually capture children who lacked the medical or educational records the previous protocol required for a count. But not everyone agrees.

“I thought the point was to be as accurate and complete as possible in doing the surveillance,” Walter Zahorodny, PhD, associate professor of pediatrics at Rutgers University, New Brunswick, N.J., and principal investigator of the New Jersey ADDM Network site, told this news organization. “In states where there’s a high detail of information in records, like New Jersey, it’s going to underestimate the count.”

Dr. Zahorodny says the latest data prove his point. In 2016, under the old methodology, ASD prevalence was 3.1% in the state. In 2018, under the new protocol, prevalence was 2.84%, a decrease of about 20% that Dr. Zahorodny pins squarely on the elimination of ADDM clinical reviewers.

But New Jersey is the only state that participated in both the 2016 and 2018 surveillance periods to report a decrease in ASD prevalence. The other eight states all found autism rates in their states went up.

Sydney Pettygrove, PhD, associate professor of public health and pediatrics at the University of Arizona, Tucson, and a principal investigator for the ADDM site in Arizona, told this news organization that when she first learned the CDC was rolling out a new methodology, she and other investigators were concerned.

“People were really upset. I was really upset,” she said. “I had formed an opinion based on the earlier data that this would not be a good idea.”

In 2000, when ASD surveillance began in Arizona, nearly 30% of children identified by ADDM clinical reviewers as having autism had no mention of the disorder in their records. Today, that percentage is closer to 5%.

“In 2000 it would have been catastrophic to try to estimate the prevalence of autism with the new protocol,” said Dr. Pettygrove. As it turns out, under the new protocol, prevalence rates in Arizona increased from 16.0 per 1,000 children in 2016 to 24.9 in 2018.

Built-in bias eliminated?

In addition to speeding up the process, the new methodology might have other benefits as well. Under the old ADDM surveillance protocol, children who lacked certain medical or educational records did not meet the ASD case definition and weren’t counted.

A 2019 study showed that this disproportionately affected Black and Hispanic children, who had significantly less access to health care professionals than White children.

As a result, “the old methodology had a bias built into it,” Maureen Durkin, PhD, DrPH, coauthor of that study and chair of population health sciences at the University of Wisconsin–Madison and principal investigator for the ADDM site in Wisconsin, told this news organization.

“Clinician reviewers ended up putting these children in the ‘suspected ASD’ category because they couldn’t call it a case under the case definition,” Dr. Durkin said. “There was a fairly large percentage of suspected cases and a disproportionate number of those kids were children of color.”

Although she can’t say for sure, Dr. Durkin said it’s possible the new protocol could eliminate some of that bias.

CDC researchers also attribute the new method to an expanded study of early diagnosis among 4-year-olds. In previous years, only a handful of the ADDM Network sites participating in the 8-year-old surveillance project also studied early diagnosis in 4-year-olds.

This year, all 11 sites took part in the early diagnosis analysis, tripling the number of children included in the analysis. That made it possible to include, for the first time, Asian/Pacific Islander children in this analysis.

In the past, ASD prevalence has trended higher in White children, compared with other racial groups. The new data found that ASD prevalence among 4-year-olds was significantly lower in White children (12.9 per 1,000 children) than in Black, Hispanic, or Asian/Pacific Islander children (16.6, 21.1, and 22.7 per 1,000, respectively). Prevalence in American Indian/Alaska Native children was the lowest among all racial groups (11.5 per 1,000).

It’s the first time researchers have seen this pattern in any ADDM report, Kelly Shaw, PhD, lead author of that study and an epidemiologist with the National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disability at the CDC, told this news organization.

These data don’t provide clues about the potential cause of that disparity, Dr. Shaw said. It’s likely an indication of better identification of ASD in those communities, she said, and not a sign of increased incidence of autism among Black, Hispanic, or Asian/Pacific Islander children.

“We don’t have any evidence to suggest or expect that autism would be increasing differentially among groups,” Dr. Shaw said.

The data suggest “we are making some progress but there certainly is still room for improvement,” Dr. Shaw said.

Study authors report no conflicts of interest.

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

American teenagers receive less formal sex education today than they did 25 years ago, with “troubling” racial inequities that leave youth of color and queer youth at greater risk than other teens for sexually transmitted diseases and unintended pregnancy, according to a new study.

“Many adolescents do not receive any instruction on essential topics or do not receive this instruction until after the first sex,” wrote Laura D. Lindberg, PhD, and Leslie M. Kantor, PhD, MPH, from the Guttmacher Institute, New York, and the department of urban-global public health at Rutgers University, Piscataway, N.J., respectively. “These gaps in sex education in the U.S. are uneven, and gender, racial, and other disparities are widespread,” they added, calling for “robust efforts ... to ensure equity and reduce health disparities.”

The study used cross-sectional data from the 2011-2015 and 2015-2019 National Surveys of Family Growth (NSFG) to examine content, timing, and location of formal sex education among 15- to 19-year-olds in the United States. The data came from samples of 2,047 females and 2,087 males in 2011-2015, and 1,894 females and 1,918 males in 2015-2019. The majority of respondents were aged 15-17 years and non-Hispanic White, with another quarter being Hispanic, and 14% Black.

The survey asked respondents whether, before they turned 18, they had ever received formal instruction at school, church, a community center, “or some other place” about how to say no to sex, methods of birth control, STDs, how to prevent HIV/AIDS, abstaining until marriage to have sex, where to get birth control, and how to use a condom.

Follow-up questions asked about what grade instruction was first received and whether it had occurred before first penile-vaginal intercourse. The 2015-2019 survey also asked about the location of instruction, but only concerning methods of birth control and abstinence until marriage.

The results showed that HIV and STD prevention was the most commonly reported area of instruction, received by more than 90% of both males and females. However, beyond this there were imbalances, with only about half (49%-55%) of respondents receiving instruction meeting the Surgeon General’s Healthy People 2030 composite sex education goal. Lack of instruction on birth control drove this result for 80% of respondents. Specifically, there was a strong slant emphasizing abstinence over birth control instruction. Over both survey periods and both genders, more respondents reported instruction on how to say no to sex (79%-84%) and abstaining until marriage (58%-73%), compared with where to obtain birth control (40%-53%) or how to use a condom (54%-60%). “Overall, about 20% of adolescents received instruction from multiple sources about waiting until marriage, but only 5%-8% received birth control information from multiple settings,” they reported.

There were racial/ethnic and sexual orientation differences in the scope and balance of instruction reported by teens. Less than half of Black (45%) and Hispanic (47%) males received instruction on the combined Healthy People topics, compared with 57% of White males. Black females were less likely (30%) than White females (45%) to receive information on where to get birth control before the first sex. Nonstraight males were less likely than straight males to receive instruction about STIs or HIV/AIDS (83% vs. 93%).

In addition, religious attendance emerged as a key factor in the receipt of sex education, “with more frequent religious attendance associated with a greater likelihood of instruction about delaying sex and less likelihood of instruction about contraception,” the authors noted.

Comparing their findings to previous NSFG surveys, the researchers commented that “the share of adolescents receiving instruction about birth control was higher in 1995 than in 2015-2019 for both the genders; in 1995, 87% of females and 81% of males reported sex education about birth control methods, compared with 64% and 63% in 2015-2019, respectively.” The findings “should spur policy makers at the national, state, and local levels to ensure the broader provision of sex education and that school districts serving young people of color are the focus of additional efforts and funding.”

Asked for comment, John Santelli, MD, MPH, professor of population and family health and pediatrics at Columbia University, New York, who was not involved with the study, said the findings fit into a series of studies by Lindberg going back to 1988 showing that receipt of formal sex education before age 18 has declined over time.

“We, the adults, in America can do better by our young people,” he said in an interview. “Adolescents need sex education that is science based, medically accurate, and developmentally appropriate. Many adolescents are not receiving education that the CDC and health professionals recommend including information about where to get birth control, condom skills, and even, how to say no to sex. The neglect of young Black and Hispanic men is very concerning. However, we are not doing a great job in educating most of our adolescents. Health care providers can be influential in speaking with parents about their children’s education about sex. We need to activate parents, health care providers, and members of the faith community to investigate what is happening about sex education in their own communities.”

Dr. Santelli noted that there are multiple ways to strengthen the provision of sex education in the United States. In a recent commentary, he and his coauthors highlighted the National Sex Education Standards (NSES), which, “developed in partnership between sex education organizations and health professionals, provide clear, consistent, and straightforward guidance on the essential content for students in grades K-12.” The NSES were also used in the development of the CDC’s recently released Health Education Curriculum Analysis Tool.

The commentary takes a strong stand against the recently released revised Medical Institute for Sexual Heath K-12 Standards for Optimal Sexual Development, which, compared with the NSES, are “seriously flawed from both scientific and human rights’ perspectives,” they wrote. “States and local communities aiming to improve adolescent sexual and reproductive health and looking for national standards on sex education should adopt the NSES.”

Dr. Lindberg and Dr. Kantor disclosed no conflicts of interest. Dr. Santelli teaches public health students about adolescent health and chairs the board of directors of the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States. He disclosed no financial conflicts.

American teenagers receive less formal sex education today than they did 25 years ago, with “troubling” racial inequities that leave youth of color and queer youth at greater risk than other teens for sexually transmitted diseases and unintended pregnancy, according to a new study.

“Many adolescents do not receive any instruction on essential topics or do not receive this instruction until after the first sex,” wrote Laura D. Lindberg, PhD, and Leslie M. Kantor, PhD, MPH, from the Guttmacher Institute, New York, and the department of urban-global public health at Rutgers University, Piscataway, N.J., respectively. “These gaps in sex education in the U.S. are uneven, and gender, racial, and other disparities are widespread,” they added, calling for “robust efforts ... to ensure equity and reduce health disparities.”

The study used cross-sectional data from the 2011-2015 and 2015-2019 National Surveys of Family Growth (NSFG) to examine content, timing, and location of formal sex education among 15- to 19-year-olds in the United States. The data came from samples of 2,047 females and 2,087 males in 2011-2015, and 1,894 females and 1,918 males in 2015-2019. The majority of respondents were aged 15-17 years and non-Hispanic White, with another quarter being Hispanic, and 14% Black.

The survey asked respondents whether, before they turned 18, they had ever received formal instruction at school, church, a community center, “or some other place” about how to say no to sex, methods of birth control, STDs, how to prevent HIV/AIDS, abstaining until marriage to have sex, where to get birth control, and how to use a condom.

Follow-up questions asked about what grade instruction was first received and whether it had occurred before first penile-vaginal intercourse. The 2015-2019 survey also asked about the location of instruction, but only concerning methods of birth control and abstinence until marriage.

The results showed that HIV and STD prevention was the most commonly reported area of instruction, received by more than 90% of both males and females. However, beyond this there were imbalances, with only about half (49%-55%) of respondents receiving instruction meeting the Surgeon General’s Healthy People 2030 composite sex education goal. Lack of instruction on birth control drove this result for 80% of respondents. Specifically, there was a strong slant emphasizing abstinence over birth control instruction. Over both survey periods and both genders, more respondents reported instruction on how to say no to sex (79%-84%) and abstaining until marriage (58%-73%), compared with where to obtain birth control (40%-53%) or how to use a condom (54%-60%). “Overall, about 20% of adolescents received instruction from multiple sources about waiting until marriage, but only 5%-8% received birth control information from multiple settings,” they reported.

There were racial/ethnic and sexual orientation differences in the scope and balance of instruction reported by teens. Less than half of Black (45%) and Hispanic (47%) males received instruction on the combined Healthy People topics, compared with 57% of White males. Black females were less likely (30%) than White females (45%) to receive information on where to get birth control before the first sex. Nonstraight males were less likely than straight males to receive instruction about STIs or HIV/AIDS (83% vs. 93%).

In addition, religious attendance emerged as a key factor in the receipt of sex education, “with more frequent religious attendance associated with a greater likelihood of instruction about delaying sex and less likelihood of instruction about contraception,” the authors noted.

Comparing their findings to previous NSFG surveys, the researchers commented that “the share of adolescents receiving instruction about birth control was higher in 1995 than in 2015-2019 for both the genders; in 1995, 87% of females and 81% of males reported sex education about birth control methods, compared with 64% and 63% in 2015-2019, respectively.” The findings “should spur policy makers at the national, state, and local levels to ensure the broader provision of sex education and that school districts serving young people of color are the focus of additional efforts and funding.”

Asked for comment, John Santelli, MD, MPH, professor of population and family health and pediatrics at Columbia University, New York, who was not involved with the study, said the findings fit into a series of studies by Lindberg going back to 1988 showing that receipt of formal sex education before age 18 has declined over time.

“We, the adults, in America can do better by our young people,” he said in an interview. “Adolescents need sex education that is science based, medically accurate, and developmentally appropriate. Many adolescents are not receiving education that the CDC and health professionals recommend including information about where to get birth control, condom skills, and even, how to say no to sex. The neglect of young Black and Hispanic men is very concerning. However, we are not doing a great job in educating most of our adolescents. Health care providers can be influential in speaking with parents about their children’s education about sex. We need to activate parents, health care providers, and members of the faith community to investigate what is happening about sex education in their own communities.”

Dr. Santelli noted that there are multiple ways to strengthen the provision of sex education in the United States. In a recent commentary, he and his coauthors highlighted the National Sex Education Standards (NSES), which, “developed in partnership between sex education organizations and health professionals, provide clear, consistent, and straightforward guidance on the essential content for students in grades K-12.” The NSES were also used in the development of the CDC’s recently released Health Education Curriculum Analysis Tool.

The commentary takes a strong stand against the recently released revised Medical Institute for Sexual Heath K-12 Standards for Optimal Sexual Development, which, compared with the NSES, are “seriously flawed from both scientific and human rights’ perspectives,” they wrote. “States and local communities aiming to improve adolescent sexual and reproductive health and looking for national standards on sex education should adopt the NSES.”

Dr. Lindberg and Dr. Kantor disclosed no conflicts of interest. Dr. Santelli teaches public health students about adolescent health and chairs the board of directors of the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States. He disclosed no financial conflicts.

American teenagers receive less formal sex education today than they did 25 years ago, with “troubling” racial inequities that leave youth of color and queer youth at greater risk than other teens for sexually transmitted diseases and unintended pregnancy, according to a new study.

“Many adolescents do not receive any instruction on essential topics or do not receive this instruction until after the first sex,” wrote Laura D. Lindberg, PhD, and Leslie M. Kantor, PhD, MPH, from the Guttmacher Institute, New York, and the department of urban-global public health at Rutgers University, Piscataway, N.J., respectively. “These gaps in sex education in the U.S. are uneven, and gender, racial, and other disparities are widespread,” they added, calling for “robust efforts ... to ensure equity and reduce health disparities.”

The study used cross-sectional data from the 2011-2015 and 2015-2019 National Surveys of Family Growth (NSFG) to examine content, timing, and location of formal sex education among 15- to 19-year-olds in the United States. The data came from samples of 2,047 females and 2,087 males in 2011-2015, and 1,894 females and 1,918 males in 2015-2019. The majority of respondents were aged 15-17 years and non-Hispanic White, with another quarter being Hispanic, and 14% Black.

The survey asked respondents whether, before they turned 18, they had ever received formal instruction at school, church, a community center, “or some other place” about how to say no to sex, methods of birth control, STDs, how to prevent HIV/AIDS, abstaining until marriage to have sex, where to get birth control, and how to use a condom.

Follow-up questions asked about what grade instruction was first received and whether it had occurred before first penile-vaginal intercourse. The 2015-2019 survey also asked about the location of instruction, but only concerning methods of birth control and abstinence until marriage.

The results showed that HIV and STD prevention was the most commonly reported area of instruction, received by more than 90% of both males and females. However, beyond this there were imbalances, with only about half (49%-55%) of respondents receiving instruction meeting the Surgeon General’s Healthy People 2030 composite sex education goal. Lack of instruction on birth control drove this result for 80% of respondents. Specifically, there was a strong slant emphasizing abstinence over birth control instruction. Over both survey periods and both genders, more respondents reported instruction on how to say no to sex (79%-84%) and abstaining until marriage (58%-73%), compared with where to obtain birth control (40%-53%) or how to use a condom (54%-60%). “Overall, about 20% of adolescents received instruction from multiple sources about waiting until marriage, but only 5%-8% received birth control information from multiple settings,” they reported.

There were racial/ethnic and sexual orientation differences in the scope and balance of instruction reported by teens. Less than half of Black (45%) and Hispanic (47%) males received instruction on the combined Healthy People topics, compared with 57% of White males. Black females were less likely (30%) than White females (45%) to receive information on where to get birth control before the first sex. Nonstraight males were less likely than straight males to receive instruction about STIs or HIV/AIDS (83% vs. 93%).

In addition, religious attendance emerged as a key factor in the receipt of sex education, “with more frequent religious attendance associated with a greater likelihood of instruction about delaying sex and less likelihood of instruction about contraception,” the authors noted.

Comparing their findings to previous NSFG surveys, the researchers commented that “the share of adolescents receiving instruction about birth control was higher in 1995 than in 2015-2019 for both the genders; in 1995, 87% of females and 81% of males reported sex education about birth control methods, compared with 64% and 63% in 2015-2019, respectively.” The findings “should spur policy makers at the national, state, and local levels to ensure the broader provision of sex education and that school districts serving young people of color are the focus of additional efforts and funding.”

Asked for comment, John Santelli, MD, MPH, professor of population and family health and pediatrics at Columbia University, New York, who was not involved with the study, said the findings fit into a series of studies by Lindberg going back to 1988 showing that receipt of formal sex education before age 18 has declined over time.

“We, the adults, in America can do better by our young people,” he said in an interview. “Adolescents need sex education that is science based, medically accurate, and developmentally appropriate. Many adolescents are not receiving education that the CDC and health professionals recommend including information about where to get birth control, condom skills, and even, how to say no to sex. The neglect of young Black and Hispanic men is very concerning. However, we are not doing a great job in educating most of our adolescents. Health care providers can be influential in speaking with parents about their children’s education about sex. We need to activate parents, health care providers, and members of the faith community to investigate what is happening about sex education in their own communities.”

Dr. Santelli noted that there are multiple ways to strengthen the provision of sex education in the United States. In a recent commentary, he and his coauthors highlighted the National Sex Education Standards (NSES), which, “developed in partnership between sex education organizations and health professionals, provide clear, consistent, and straightforward guidance on the essential content for students in grades K-12.” The NSES were also used in the development of the CDC’s recently released Health Education Curriculum Analysis Tool.

The commentary takes a strong stand against the recently released revised Medical Institute for Sexual Heath K-12 Standards for Optimal Sexual Development, which, compared with the NSES, are “seriously flawed from both scientific and human rights’ perspectives,” they wrote. “States and local communities aiming to improve adolescent sexual and reproductive health and looking for national standards on sex education should adopt the NSES.”

Dr. Lindberg and Dr. Kantor disclosed no conflicts of interest. Dr. Santelli teaches public health students about adolescent health and chairs the board of directors of the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States. He disclosed no financial conflicts.

The risk of bullying and teasing is higher in children and young people with poorer asthma control, an international study reported. Published online in the Archives of Disease in Childhood, the Room to Breathe survey of 943 children in six countries found 9.9% had experienced asthma-related bullying or teasing (n = 93).

Children with well-controlled disease, however, were less likely to report being victimized by asthma-related bullying/teasing: odds ratio, 0.51; 95% confidence interval, 0.23-0.84; P = .006).

“It’s important for pediatricians to recognize that children and young people with asthma commonly report bullying or teasing as a result of their condition,” Will Carroll, MD, of the Paediatric Respiratory Service at Staffordshire Children’s Hospital at Royal Stoke, Stoke-on-Trent, England, told this news organization. “Pediatricians should talk to children themselves with asthma about this and not just their parents, and efforts should be made to improve asthma control whenever possible.”

Though common and potentially long-lasting in its effects, bullying is rarely addressed by health care professionals, the U.K. authors said.

But things may differ in the United States. According to Mark Welles, MD, a pediatrician at Cohen Children’s Medical Center at Northwell Health in Queen’s, N.Y., and regional cochair of the American Academy of Pediatrics antibullying committee, young doctors here are trained to ask about bullying when seeing a child, no matter what the reason for the visit. “It’s important to build a rapport with the child, and you need to ask about the disease they may have but also generally ask, ‘How are things at school? Is everyone nice to you?’ It is becoming more common practice to ask this,” said Dr. Welles, who was not involved with the U.K. research.

The U.K. study drew on unpublished data from the Room to Breathe survey conducted by Dr. Carroll’s group during 2008-2009 in Canada, the United Kingdom, Greece, Hungary, South Africa, and the Netherlands. Only 358 of 930 (38.5%) children were found to be well controlled according to current Global Initiative for Asthma symptom-control criteria.

The analysis also found a highly significant association (P < .0001) between Childhood Asthma Control Test (C-ACT) score and reported bullying/teasing, with bullied children having lower scores. C-ACT–defined controlled asthma scores of 20 or higher were significantly associated with a lower risk of bullying (OR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.28-0.76; P = .001).

In other study findings, harassment was more common in children whose asthma was serious enough to entail activity restriction (OR, 1.74; 95% CI, 1.11-2.75; P = .010) and who described their asthma as “bad” (OR, 3.02; 95% CI, 1.86-4.85; P < .001), as well as those whose parents reported ongoing asthma-related health worries (OR, 1.64; 95% CI, 1.04-2.58; P = .024).

“When a child is clearly different from others, such as having bad asthma or being limited in activities due to asthma, they stand out more and are more frequently bullied,” said Tracy Evian Waasdorp, PhD, MSEd, director of research for school-based bullying and social-emotional learning at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, and also not a participant in the U.K. study.

In contrast to the 10% bullying rate in Dr. Carroll’s study, Dr. Waasdorp referred to a CHOP analysis of more than 64,000 youth from a Northeastern state in which those with asthma were 40% more likely to be victims of in-person bullying and 70% were more likely to be cyberbullied than youth without asthma. “Having a medical condition can therefore put you at risk of being bullied regardless of what country you live in,” she said.

CHOP policy encourages practitioners to routinely ask about bullying and to provide handouts and resources for parents, she added.

Interestingly, the U.K. investigators found that open public use of spacers was not associated with asthma-related bullying, nor was parental worry at diagnosis or parental concern about steroid use.

But according to Dr. Welles, “Kids may be using the inhaler in front of other kids, and they may be embarrassed and not want to be seen as different. So they may not use the inhaler when needed for gym class or sports, forcing them to sit out and then potentially be bullied again. It’s a vicious cycle.”

Previous research has identified the bullying and teasing of children with food allergies.

Behaviors have included allergy-specific harassment such as smearing peanut butter on a youngster’s forehead or putting peanut butter cookie crumbs in a child’s lunch box.

“In our survey we asked the question ‘Have you been teased or bullied because of your asthma?’ but we didn’t ask what form this took,” Dr. Carroll said. “But we were surprised at just how many children said yes. It’s time for more research, I think.”

“There are never enough studies around this,” added Dr. Welles. “Bullying, whether because of asthma or otherwise, has the potential for long-term effects well into adulthood.”

In the meantime, asthma consultations should incorporate specific questions about bullying. They should also be child focused in order to gain a representative appreciation of asthma control and its effect on the child’s life.

“As pediatricians, we need to be continuously supporting parents and find the help they need to address any mental health issues,” Dr. Welles said. “Every pediatrician and parent needs to be aware and recognize when something is different in their child’s life. Please don’t ignore it.”

Dr. Waasdorp stressed that school and other communities should be aware that children with asthma may be at increased risk for aggression and harmful interactions related to their asthma. “Programming to reduce bullying should focus broadly on shifting the climate so that bullying is not perceived to be normative and on improving ‘upstander,’ or positive bystander, responses.” she said.

The original survey was funded by Nycomed (Zurich). No additional funding was requested for the current analysis. Dr. Carroll reported personal fees from GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, and Trudell Medical International outside the submitted work. Dr. Welles and Dr. Waasdorp disclosed no competing interests relevant to their comments.

The risk of bullying and teasing is higher in children and young people with poorer asthma control, an international study reported. Published online in the Archives of Disease in Childhood, the Room to Breathe survey of 943 children in six countries found 9.9% had experienced asthma-related bullying or teasing (n = 93).

Children with well-controlled disease, however, were less likely to report being victimized by asthma-related bullying/teasing: odds ratio, 0.51; 95% confidence interval, 0.23-0.84; P = .006).

“It’s important for pediatricians to recognize that children and young people with asthma commonly report bullying or teasing as a result of their condition,” Will Carroll, MD, of the Paediatric Respiratory Service at Staffordshire Children’s Hospital at Royal Stoke, Stoke-on-Trent, England, told this news organization. “Pediatricians should talk to children themselves with asthma about this and not just their parents, and efforts should be made to improve asthma control whenever possible.”

Though common and potentially long-lasting in its effects, bullying is rarely addressed by health care professionals, the U.K. authors said.

But things may differ in the United States. According to Mark Welles, MD, a pediatrician at Cohen Children’s Medical Center at Northwell Health in Queen’s, N.Y., and regional cochair of the American Academy of Pediatrics antibullying committee, young doctors here are trained to ask about bullying when seeing a child, no matter what the reason for the visit. “It’s important to build a rapport with the child, and you need to ask about the disease they may have but also generally ask, ‘How are things at school? Is everyone nice to you?’ It is becoming more common practice to ask this,” said Dr. Welles, who was not involved with the U.K. research.

The U.K. study drew on unpublished data from the Room to Breathe survey conducted by Dr. Carroll’s group during 2008-2009 in Canada, the United Kingdom, Greece, Hungary, South Africa, and the Netherlands. Only 358 of 930 (38.5%) children were found to be well controlled according to current Global Initiative for Asthma symptom-control criteria.

The analysis also found a highly significant association (P < .0001) between Childhood Asthma Control Test (C-ACT) score and reported bullying/teasing, with bullied children having lower scores. C-ACT–defined controlled asthma scores of 20 or higher were significantly associated with a lower risk of bullying (OR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.28-0.76; P = .001).

In other study findings, harassment was more common in children whose asthma was serious enough to entail activity restriction (OR, 1.74; 95% CI, 1.11-2.75; P = .010) and who described their asthma as “bad” (OR, 3.02; 95% CI, 1.86-4.85; P < .001), as well as those whose parents reported ongoing asthma-related health worries (OR, 1.64; 95% CI, 1.04-2.58; P = .024).

“When a child is clearly different from others, such as having bad asthma or being limited in activities due to asthma, they stand out more and are more frequently bullied,” said Tracy Evian Waasdorp, PhD, MSEd, director of research for school-based bullying and social-emotional learning at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, and also not a participant in the U.K. study.

In contrast to the 10% bullying rate in Dr. Carroll’s study, Dr. Waasdorp referred to a CHOP analysis of more than 64,000 youth from a Northeastern state in which those with asthma were 40% more likely to be victims of in-person bullying and 70% were more likely to be cyberbullied than youth without asthma. “Having a medical condition can therefore put you at risk of being bullied regardless of what country you live in,” she said.

CHOP policy encourages practitioners to routinely ask about bullying and to provide handouts and resources for parents, she added.

Interestingly, the U.K. investigators found that open public use of spacers was not associated with asthma-related bullying, nor was parental worry at diagnosis or parental concern about steroid use.

But according to Dr. Welles, “Kids may be using the inhaler in front of other kids, and they may be embarrassed and not want to be seen as different. So they may not use the inhaler when needed for gym class or sports, forcing them to sit out and then potentially be bullied again. It’s a vicious cycle.”

Previous research has identified the bullying and teasing of children with food allergies.

Behaviors have included allergy-specific harassment such as smearing peanut butter on a youngster’s forehead or putting peanut butter cookie crumbs in a child’s lunch box.

“In our survey we asked the question ‘Have you been teased or bullied because of your asthma?’ but we didn’t ask what form this took,” Dr. Carroll said. “But we were surprised at just how many children said yes. It’s time for more research, I think.”

“There are never enough studies around this,” added Dr. Welles. “Bullying, whether because of asthma or otherwise, has the potential for long-term effects well into adulthood.”

In the meantime, asthma consultations should incorporate specific questions about bullying. They should also be child focused in order to gain a representative appreciation of asthma control and its effect on the child’s life.

“As pediatricians, we need to be continuously supporting parents and find the help they need to address any mental health issues,” Dr. Welles said. “Every pediatrician and parent needs to be aware and recognize when something is different in their child’s life. Please don’t ignore it.”

Dr. Waasdorp stressed that school and other communities should be aware that children with asthma may be at increased risk for aggression and harmful interactions related to their asthma. “Programming to reduce bullying should focus broadly on shifting the climate so that bullying is not perceived to be normative and on improving ‘upstander,’ or positive bystander, responses.” she said.

The original survey was funded by Nycomed (Zurich). No additional funding was requested for the current analysis. Dr. Carroll reported personal fees from GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, and Trudell Medical International outside the submitted work. Dr. Welles and Dr. Waasdorp disclosed no competing interests relevant to their comments.

The risk of bullying and teasing is higher in children and young people with poorer asthma control, an international study reported. Published online in the Archives of Disease in Childhood, the Room to Breathe survey of 943 children in six countries found 9.9% had experienced asthma-related bullying or teasing (n = 93).

Children with well-controlled disease, however, were less likely to report being victimized by asthma-related bullying/teasing: odds ratio, 0.51; 95% confidence interval, 0.23-0.84; P = .006).

“It’s important for pediatricians to recognize that children and young people with asthma commonly report bullying or teasing as a result of their condition,” Will Carroll, MD, of the Paediatric Respiratory Service at Staffordshire Children’s Hospital at Royal Stoke, Stoke-on-Trent, England, told this news organization. “Pediatricians should talk to children themselves with asthma about this and not just their parents, and efforts should be made to improve asthma control whenever possible.”

Though common and potentially long-lasting in its effects, bullying is rarely addressed by health care professionals, the U.K. authors said.

But things may differ in the United States. According to Mark Welles, MD, a pediatrician at Cohen Children’s Medical Center at Northwell Health in Queen’s, N.Y., and regional cochair of the American Academy of Pediatrics antibullying committee, young doctors here are trained to ask about bullying when seeing a child, no matter what the reason for the visit. “It’s important to build a rapport with the child, and you need to ask about the disease they may have but also generally ask, ‘How are things at school? Is everyone nice to you?’ It is becoming more common practice to ask this,” said Dr. Welles, who was not involved with the U.K. research.

The U.K. study drew on unpublished data from the Room to Breathe survey conducted by Dr. Carroll’s group during 2008-2009 in Canada, the United Kingdom, Greece, Hungary, South Africa, and the Netherlands. Only 358 of 930 (38.5%) children were found to be well controlled according to current Global Initiative for Asthma symptom-control criteria.

The analysis also found a highly significant association (P < .0001) between Childhood Asthma Control Test (C-ACT) score and reported bullying/teasing, with bullied children having lower scores. C-ACT–defined controlled asthma scores of 20 or higher were significantly associated with a lower risk of bullying (OR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.28-0.76; P = .001).

In other study findings, harassment was more common in children whose asthma was serious enough to entail activity restriction (OR, 1.74; 95% CI, 1.11-2.75; P = .010) and who described their asthma as “bad” (OR, 3.02; 95% CI, 1.86-4.85; P < .001), as well as those whose parents reported ongoing asthma-related health worries (OR, 1.64; 95% CI, 1.04-2.58; P = .024).

“When a child is clearly different from others, such as having bad asthma or being limited in activities due to asthma, they stand out more and are more frequently bullied,” said Tracy Evian Waasdorp, PhD, MSEd, director of research for school-based bullying and social-emotional learning at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, and also not a participant in the U.K. study.

In contrast to the 10% bullying rate in Dr. Carroll’s study, Dr. Waasdorp referred to a CHOP analysis of more than 64,000 youth from a Northeastern state in which those with asthma were 40% more likely to be victims of in-person bullying and 70% were more likely to be cyberbullied than youth without asthma. “Having a medical condition can therefore put you at risk of being bullied regardless of what country you live in,” she said.

CHOP policy encourages practitioners to routinely ask about bullying and to provide handouts and resources for parents, she added.

Interestingly, the U.K. investigators found that open public use of spacers was not associated with asthma-related bullying, nor was parental worry at diagnosis or parental concern about steroid use.

But according to Dr. Welles, “Kids may be using the inhaler in front of other kids, and they may be embarrassed and not want to be seen as different. So they may not use the inhaler when needed for gym class or sports, forcing them to sit out and then potentially be bullied again. It’s a vicious cycle.”

Previous research has identified the bullying and teasing of children with food allergies.

Behaviors have included allergy-specific harassment such as smearing peanut butter on a youngster’s forehead or putting peanut butter cookie crumbs in a child’s lunch box.

“In our survey we asked the question ‘Have you been teased or bullied because of your asthma?’ but we didn’t ask what form this took,” Dr. Carroll said. “But we were surprised at just how many children said yes. It’s time for more research, I think.”

“There are never enough studies around this,” added Dr. Welles. “Bullying, whether because of asthma or otherwise, has the potential for long-term effects well into adulthood.”

In the meantime, asthma consultations should incorporate specific questions about bullying. They should also be child focused in order to gain a representative appreciation of asthma control and its effect on the child’s life.

“As pediatricians, we need to be continuously supporting parents and find the help they need to address any mental health issues,” Dr. Welles said. “Every pediatrician and parent needs to be aware and recognize when something is different in their child’s life. Please don’t ignore it.”

Dr. Waasdorp stressed that school and other communities should be aware that children with asthma may be at increased risk for aggression and harmful interactions related to their asthma. “Programming to reduce bullying should focus broadly on shifting the climate so that bullying is not perceived to be normative and on improving ‘upstander,’ or positive bystander, responses.” she said.

The original survey was funded by Nycomed (Zurich). No additional funding was requested for the current analysis. Dr. Carroll reported personal fees from GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, and Trudell Medical International outside the submitted work. Dr. Welles and Dr. Waasdorp disclosed no competing interests relevant to their comments.

To the Editor:

Drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS) syndrome, or drug-induced hypersensitivity syndrome, is a serious and potentially fatal multiorgan drug hypersensitivity reaction. Drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms syndrome shares many clinical features with viral exanthems and may be difficult to diagnose in the setting of atopic dermatitis (AD) in which children may have baseline eosinophilia from an atopic diathesis. The cutaneous exanthema also may be variable in presentation, further complicating diagnosis.^1,2

A 3-year-old boy with AD since infancy and a history of anaphylaxis to peanuts presented to the emergency department with reported fever, rash, sore throat, and decreased oral intake. Ten days prior, the patient was treated for cellulitis of the left foot with a 7-day course of cefdinir with complete resolution of symptoms. Four days prior to admission, the patient started developing “bumps” on the face and fevers. He was seen at an outside facility, where a rapid test for Streptococcus was negative, and the patient was treated with ibuprofen and fluids for a presumed viral exanthem. The rash subsequently spread to involve the trunk and extremities. On the day of admission, the patient had a positive rapid test for Streptococcus and was referred to the emergency department with concern for superinfected eczema and eczema herpeticum. The patient recently traveled to Puerto Rico, where he had contact with an aunt with active herpes zoster but no other sick contacts. The patient’s immunizations were reported to be up-to-date.

Physical examination revealed the patient was afebrile but irritable and had erythematous crusted papules and patches on the face, arms, and legs, as well as erythematous dry patches on the chest, abdomen, and back (Figure). There were no conjunctival erythematous or oral erosions. The patient was admitted to the hospital for presumed superinfected AD and possible eczema herpeticum. He was started on intravenous clindamycin and acyclovir.

The following day, the patient had new facial edema and fever (temperature, 102.8 °F [39.36 °C]) in addition to palpable mobile cervical, axillary, and inguinal lymphadenopathy. He also was noted to have notably worsening eosinophilia from 1288 (14%) to 2570 (29.2%) cells/µL (reference range, 0%–5%) and new-onset transaminitis. Herpes and varicella-zoster direct fluorescent antibody tests, culture, and serum polymerase chain reaction were all negative, and acyclovir was discontinued. Repeat laboratory tests 12 hours later showed a continued uptrend in transaminitis. Serologies for acute and chronic cytomegalovirus; Epstein-Barr virus; and hepatitis A, B, and C were all nonreactive. The patient was started on intravenous methylprednisolone 1 mg/kg daily for suspected DRESS syndrome likely due to cefdinir.

The patient’s eosinophilia completely resolved (from approximately 2600 to 100 cells/µL) after 1 dose of steroids, and his transaminitis trended down over the next few days. He remained afebrile for the remainder of his admission, and his facial swelling and rash continued to improve. Bacterial culture from the skin grew oxacillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus and group A Streptococcus pyogenes. A blood culture was negative. The patient was discharged home to complete a 10-day course of clindamycin and was given topical steroids for the eczema. He continued on oral prednisolone 1 mg/kg daily for 10 days, after which the dose was tapered down for a total 1-month course of systemic corticosteroids. At 1-month follow-up after completing the course of steroids, he was doing well with normal hepatic enzyme levels and no recurrence of fever, facial edema, or rash. He continues to be followed for management of the AD.

Drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms syndrome is a serious systemic adverse drug reaction, with high morbidity and even mortality, estimated at 10% in the adult population, though more specific pediatric mortality data are not available.^1,2 The exact pathogenesis of DRESS syndrome has not been elucidated. Certain human leukocyte antigen class I alleles are predisposed to the development of DRESS syndrome, but there has not been a human leukocyte antigen subtype identified with beta-lactam–associated DRESS syndrome. Some studies have demonstrated a reactivation of human herpesvirus 6, human herpesvirus 7, and Epstein-Barr virus.³ One study involving 40 patients with DRESS syndrome identified viremia in 76% (29/38) of patients and identified CD8⁺ T-cell populations directed toward viral epitopes.³ Finally, DRESS syndrome may be related to the slow detoxification and elimination of intermediary products of offending medications that serve as an immunogenic stimulus for the inflammatory cascade.²

In adults, DRESS syndrome was first identified in association with phenytoin, but more recently other drugs have been identified, including other aromatic anticonvulsants (ie, lamotrigine, phenobarbital, carbamazepine), allopurinol, sulfonamides, antiretrovirals (particularly abacavir), and minocycline.² In a 3-year pediatric prospective study, 11 cases of DRESS syndrome were identified: 4 cases due to lamotrigine, and 3 caused by penicillins.⁴ The trigger in our patient’s case was the beta-lactam, third-generation cephalosporin cefdinir, and his symptoms developed within 6 days of starting the medication. Many articles report that beta-lactams are a rare cause of DRESS syndrome, with only a handful of cases reported.^1,5,6

The diagnosis of DRESS syndrome often can be delayed, as children present acutely febrile and toxic appearing. Unlike many adverse drug reactions, DRESS syndrome does not show rapid resolution with withdrawal of the causative agent, further complicating the diagnosis. The typical onset of DRESS syndrome generally ranges from 2 to 6 weeks after the initiation of the offending drug; however, faster onset of symptoms, similar to our case, has been noted in antibiotic-triggered cases. In the prospective pediatric series by Sasidharanpillai et al,⁴ the average time to onset among 3 antibiotic-triggered DRESS cases was 5.8 days vs 23.9 days among the 4 cases of lamotrigine-associated DRESS syndrome.

Our patient demonstrated the classic features of DRESS syndrome, including fever, rash, lymphadenopathy, facial edema, peripheral eosinophilia, atypical lymphocytosis, and hepatitis. Based on the proposed RegiSCAR scoring system, our patient was classified as a “definite” case of DRESS syndrome.^1,7 Other hematologic findings in DRESS syndrome may include thrombocytopenia and anemia. The liver is the most commonly affected internal organ in DRESS syndrome, with pneumonitis, carditis, and nephritis reported less frequently.¹ The pattern of liver injury in our patient was mixed (hepatocellular and cholestatic), the second most common pattern in patients with DRESS syndrome (the cholestatic pattern is most common).⁸

The exanthem of DRESS syndrome can vary in morphology, with up to 7% of patients reported to have eczemalike lesions in the multinational prospective RegiSCAR study.¹ Other entities in the differential diagnosis for our patient included Kawasaki disease, where conjunctivitis and strawberry tongue are classically present, as well as erythrodermic AD, where internal organ involvement is not common.² Our patient’s exanthem initially was considered to be a flare of AD with superimposed bacterial infection and possible eczema herpeticum. Although bacterial cultures did grow Staphylococcus and Streptococcus, viral studies were all negative, and this alone would not have explained the facial edema, rapidly rising eosinophil count, and transaminitis. The dramatic drop in his eosinophil count and decrease in hepatic enzymes after 1 dose of intravenous methylprednisolone also supported the diagnosis of DRESS syndrome.

Treatment recommendations remain largely anecdotal. Early systemic steroids generally are accepted as the first line of therapy, with a slow taper. Although the average required duration of systemic steroids in 1 series of adults was reported at 50.1 days,⁹ the duration was shorter (21–35 days) in a series of pediatric patients.⁴ Our patient’s clinical symptoms and laboratory values normalized after completing a 1-month steroid taper. Other therapies have been tried for recalcitrant cases, including intravenous immunoglobulin, plasmapheresis, rituximab, and valganciclovir.²

Early clinical recognition of the signs and symptoms of DRESS syndrome in the setting of a new medication can decrease morbidity and mortality. Although DRESS syndrome in pediatric patients presents with many similar clinical features as in adults, it may be a greater diagnostic challenge. As in adult cases, timely administration of systemic corticosteroids and tapering based on clinical signs and symptoms can lead to resolution of the hypersensitivity syndrome.

To the Editor:

Drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS) syndrome, or drug-induced hypersensitivity syndrome, is a serious and potentially fatal multiorgan drug hypersensitivity reaction. Drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms syndrome shares many clinical features with viral exanthems and may be difficult to diagnose in the setting of atopic dermatitis (AD) in which children may have baseline eosinophilia from an atopic diathesis. The cutaneous exanthema also may be variable in presentation, further complicating diagnosis.^1,2

A 3-year-old boy with AD since infancy and a history of anaphylaxis to peanuts presented to the emergency department with reported fever, rash, sore throat, and decreased oral intake. Ten days prior, the patient was treated for cellulitis of the left foot with a 7-day course of cefdinir with complete resolution of symptoms. Four days prior to admission, the patient started developing “bumps” on the face and fevers. He was seen at an outside facility, where a rapid test for Streptococcus was negative, and the patient was treated with ibuprofen and fluids for a presumed viral exanthem. The rash subsequently spread to involve the trunk and extremities. On the day of admission, the patient had a positive rapid test for Streptococcus and was referred to the emergency department with concern for superinfected eczema and eczema herpeticum. The patient recently traveled to Puerto Rico, where he had contact with an aunt with active herpes zoster but no other sick contacts. The patient’s immunizations were reported to be up-to-date.

Physical examination revealed the patient was afebrile but irritable and had erythematous crusted papules and patches on the face, arms, and legs, as well as erythematous dry patches on the chest, abdomen, and back (Figure). There were no conjunctival erythematous or oral erosions. The patient was admitted to the hospital for presumed superinfected AD and possible eczema herpeticum. He was started on intravenous clindamycin and acyclovir.

The following day, the patient had new facial edema and fever (temperature, 102.8 °F [39.36 °C]) in addition to palpable mobile cervical, axillary, and inguinal lymphadenopathy. He also was noted to have notably worsening eosinophilia from 1288 (14%) to 2570 (29.2%) cells/µL (reference range, 0%–5%) and new-onset transaminitis. Herpes and varicella-zoster direct fluorescent antibody tests, culture, and serum polymerase chain reaction were all negative, and acyclovir was discontinued. Repeat laboratory tests 12 hours later showed a continued uptrend in transaminitis. Serologies for acute and chronic cytomegalovirus; Epstein-Barr virus; and hepatitis A, B, and C were all nonreactive. The patient was started on intravenous methylprednisolone 1 mg/kg daily for suspected DRESS syndrome likely due to cefdinir.

The patient’s eosinophilia completely resolved (from approximately 2600 to 100 cells/µL) after 1 dose of steroids, and his transaminitis trended down over the next few days. He remained afebrile for the remainder of his admission, and his facial swelling and rash continued to improve. Bacterial culture from the skin grew oxacillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus and group A Streptococcus pyogenes. A blood culture was negative. The patient was discharged home to complete a 10-day course of clindamycin and was given topical steroids for the eczema. He continued on oral prednisolone 1 mg/kg daily for 10 days, after which the dose was tapered down for a total 1-month course of systemic corticosteroids. At 1-month follow-up after completing the course of steroids, he was doing well with normal hepatic enzyme levels and no recurrence of fever, facial edema, or rash. He continues to be followed for management of the AD.

Drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms syndrome is a serious systemic adverse drug reaction, with high morbidity and even mortality, estimated at 10% in the adult population, though more specific pediatric mortality data are not available.^1,2 The exact pathogenesis of DRESS syndrome has not been elucidated. Certain human leukocyte antigen class I alleles are predisposed to the development of DRESS syndrome, but there has not been a human leukocyte antigen subtype identified with beta-lactam–associated DRESS syndrome. Some studies have demonstrated a reactivation of human herpesvirus 6, human herpesvirus 7, and Epstein-Barr virus.³ One study involving 40 patients with DRESS syndrome identified viremia in 76% (29/38) of patients and identified CD8⁺ T-cell populations directed toward viral epitopes.³ Finally, DRESS syndrome may be related to the slow detoxification and elimination of intermediary products of offending medications that serve as an immunogenic stimulus for the inflammatory cascade.²

In adults, DRESS syndrome was first identified in association with phenytoin, but more recently other drugs have been identified, including other aromatic anticonvulsants (ie, lamotrigine, phenobarbital, carbamazepine), allopurinol, sulfonamides, antiretrovirals (particularly abacavir), and minocycline.² In a 3-year pediatric prospective study, 11 cases of DRESS syndrome were identified: 4 cases due to lamotrigine, and 3 caused by penicillins.⁴ The trigger in our patient’s case was the beta-lactam, third-generation cephalosporin cefdinir, and his symptoms developed within 6 days of starting the medication. Many articles report that beta-lactams are a rare cause of DRESS syndrome, with only a handful of cases reported.^1,5,6

The diagnosis of DRESS syndrome often can be delayed, as children present acutely febrile and toxic appearing. Unlike many adverse drug reactions, DRESS syndrome does not show rapid resolution with withdrawal of the causative agent, further complicating the diagnosis. The typical onset of DRESS syndrome generally ranges from 2 to 6 weeks after the initiation of the offending drug; however, faster onset of symptoms, similar to our case, has been noted in antibiotic-triggered cases. In the prospective pediatric series by Sasidharanpillai et al,⁴ the average time to onset among 3 antibiotic-triggered DRESS cases was 5.8 days vs 23.9 days among the 4 cases of lamotrigine-associated DRESS syndrome.

Our patient demonstrated the classic features of DRESS syndrome, including fever, rash, lymphadenopathy, facial edema, peripheral eosinophilia, atypical lymphocytosis, and hepatitis. Based on the proposed RegiSCAR scoring system, our patient was classified as a “definite” case of DRESS syndrome.^1,7 Other hematologic findings in DRESS syndrome may include thrombocytopenia and anemia. The liver is the most commonly affected internal organ in DRESS syndrome, with pneumonitis, carditis, and nephritis reported less frequently.¹ The pattern of liver injury in our patient was mixed (hepatocellular and cholestatic), the second most common pattern in patients with DRESS syndrome (the cholestatic pattern is most common).⁸

The exanthem of DRESS syndrome can vary in morphology, with up to 7% of patients reported to have eczemalike lesions in the multinational prospective RegiSCAR study.¹ Other entities in the differential diagnosis for our patient included Kawasaki disease, where conjunctivitis and strawberry tongue are classically present, as well as erythrodermic AD, where internal organ involvement is not common.² Our patient’s exanthem initially was considered to be a flare of AD with superimposed bacterial infection and possible eczema herpeticum. Although bacterial cultures did grow Staphylococcus and Streptococcus, viral studies were all negative, and this alone would not have explained the facial edema, rapidly rising eosinophil count, and transaminitis. The dramatic drop in his eosinophil count and decrease in hepatic enzymes after 1 dose of intravenous methylprednisolone also supported the diagnosis of DRESS syndrome.

Treatment recommendations remain largely anecdotal. Early systemic steroids generally are accepted as the first line of therapy, with a slow taper. Although the average required duration of systemic steroids in 1 series of adults was reported at 50.1 days,⁹ the duration was shorter (21–35 days) in a series of pediatric patients.⁴ Our patient’s clinical symptoms and laboratory values normalized after completing a 1-month steroid taper. Other therapies have been tried for recalcitrant cases, including intravenous immunoglobulin, plasmapheresis, rituximab, and valganciclovir.²

Early clinical recognition of the signs and symptoms of DRESS syndrome in the setting of a new medication can decrease morbidity and mortality. Although DRESS syndrome in pediatric patients presents with many similar clinical features as in adults, it may be a greater diagnostic challenge. As in adult cases, timely administration of systemic corticosteroids and tapering based on clinical signs and symptoms can lead to resolution of the hypersensitivity syndrome.

To the Editor:

Drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS) syndrome, or drug-induced hypersensitivity syndrome, is a serious and potentially fatal multiorgan drug hypersensitivity reaction. Drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms syndrome shares many clinical features with viral exanthems and may be difficult to diagnose in the setting of atopic dermatitis (AD) in which children may have baseline eosinophilia from an atopic diathesis. The cutaneous exanthema also may be variable in presentation, further complicating diagnosis.^1,2

A 3-year-old boy with AD since infancy and a history of anaphylaxis to peanuts presented to the emergency department with reported fever, rash, sore throat, and decreased oral intake. Ten days prior, the patient was treated for cellulitis of the left foot with a 7-day course of cefdinir with complete resolution of symptoms. Four days prior to admission, the patient started developing “bumps” on the face and fevers. He was seen at an outside facility, where a rapid test for Streptococcus was negative, and the patient was treated with ibuprofen and fluids for a presumed viral exanthem. The rash subsequently spread to involve the trunk and extremities. On the day of admission, the patient had a positive rapid test for Streptococcus and was referred to the emergency department with concern for superinfected eczema and eczema herpeticum. The patient recently traveled to Puerto Rico, where he had contact with an aunt with active herpes zoster but no other sick contacts. The patient’s immunizations were reported to be up-to-date.

Physical examination revealed the patient was afebrile but irritable and had erythematous crusted papules and patches on the face, arms, and legs, as well as erythematous dry patches on the chest, abdomen, and back (Figure). There were no conjunctival erythematous or oral erosions. The patient was admitted to the hospital for presumed superinfected AD and possible eczema herpeticum. He was started on intravenous clindamycin and acyclovir.

The following day, the patient had new facial edema and fever (temperature, 102.8 °F [39.36 °C]) in addition to palpable mobile cervical, axillary, and inguinal lymphadenopathy. He also was noted to have notably worsening eosinophilia from 1288 (14%) to 2570 (29.2%) cells/µL (reference range, 0%–5%) and new-onset transaminitis. Herpes and varicella-zoster direct fluorescent antibody tests, culture, and serum polymerase chain reaction were all negative, and acyclovir was discontinued. Repeat laboratory tests 12 hours later showed a continued uptrend in transaminitis. Serologies for acute and chronic cytomegalovirus; Epstein-Barr virus; and hepatitis A, B, and C were all nonreactive. The patient was started on intravenous methylprednisolone 1 mg/kg daily for suspected DRESS syndrome likely due to cefdinir.

The patient’s eosinophilia completely resolved (from approximately 2600 to 100 cells/µL) after 1 dose of steroids, and his transaminitis trended down over the next few days. He remained afebrile for the remainder of his admission, and his facial swelling and rash continued to improve. Bacterial culture from the skin grew oxacillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus and group A Streptococcus pyogenes. A blood culture was negative. The patient was discharged home to complete a 10-day course of clindamycin and was given topical steroids for the eczema. He continued on oral prednisolone 1 mg/kg daily for 10 days, after which the dose was tapered down for a total 1-month course of systemic corticosteroids. At 1-month follow-up after completing the course of steroids, he was doing well with normal hepatic enzyme levels and no recurrence of fever, facial edema, or rash. He continues to be followed for management of the AD.

Drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms syndrome is a serious systemic adverse drug reaction, with high morbidity and even mortality, estimated at 10% in the adult population, though more specific pediatric mortality data are not available.^1,2 The exact pathogenesis of DRESS syndrome has not been elucidated. Certain human leukocyte antigen class I alleles are predisposed to the development of DRESS syndrome, but there has not been a human leukocyte antigen subtype identified with beta-lactam–associated DRESS syndrome. Some studies have demonstrated a reactivation of human herpesvirus 6, human herpesvirus 7, and Epstein-Barr virus.³ One study involving 40 patients with DRESS syndrome identified viremia in 76% (29/38) of patients and identified CD8⁺ T-cell populations directed toward viral epitopes.³ Finally, DRESS syndrome may be related to the slow detoxification and elimination of intermediary products of offending medications that serve as an immunogenic stimulus for the inflammatory cascade.²

In adults, DRESS syndrome was first identified in association with phenytoin, but more recently other drugs have been identified, including other aromatic anticonvulsants (ie, lamotrigine, phenobarbital, carbamazepine), allopurinol, sulfonamides, antiretrovirals (particularly abacavir), and minocycline.² In a 3-year pediatric prospective study, 11 cases of DRESS syndrome were identified: 4 cases due to lamotrigine, and 3 caused by penicillins.⁴ The trigger in our patient’s case was the beta-lactam, third-generation cephalosporin cefdinir, and his symptoms developed within 6 days of starting the medication. Many articles report that beta-lactams are a rare cause of DRESS syndrome, with only a handful of cases reported.^1,5,6

The diagnosis of DRESS syndrome often can be delayed, as children present acutely febrile and toxic appearing. Unlike many adverse drug reactions, DRESS syndrome does not show rapid resolution with withdrawal of the causative agent, further complicating the diagnosis. The typical onset of DRESS syndrome generally ranges from 2 to 6 weeks after the initiation of the offending drug; however, faster onset of symptoms, similar to our case, has been noted in antibiotic-triggered cases. In the prospective pediatric series by Sasidharanpillai et al,⁴ the average time to onset among 3 antibiotic-triggered DRESS cases was 5.8 days vs 23.9 days among the 4 cases of lamotrigine-associated DRESS syndrome.

Our patient demonstrated the classic features of DRESS syndrome, including fever, rash, lymphadenopathy, facial edema, peripheral eosinophilia, atypical lymphocytosis, and hepatitis. Based on the proposed RegiSCAR scoring system, our patient was classified as a “definite” case of DRESS syndrome.^1,7 Other hematologic findings in DRESS syndrome may include thrombocytopenia and anemia. The liver is the most commonly affected internal organ in DRESS syndrome, with pneumonitis, carditis, and nephritis reported less frequently.¹ The pattern of liver injury in our patient was mixed (hepatocellular and cholestatic), the second most common pattern in patients with DRESS syndrome (the cholestatic pattern is most common).⁸

The exanthem of DRESS syndrome can vary in morphology, with up to 7% of patients reported to have eczemalike lesions in the multinational prospective RegiSCAR study.¹ Other entities in the differential diagnosis for our patient included Kawasaki disease, where conjunctivitis and strawberry tongue are classically present, as well as erythrodermic AD, where internal organ involvement is not common.² Our patient’s exanthem initially was considered to be a flare of AD with superimposed bacterial infection and possible eczema herpeticum. Although bacterial cultures did grow Staphylococcus and Streptococcus, viral studies were all negative, and this alone would not have explained the facial edema, rapidly rising eosinophil count, and transaminitis. The dramatic drop in his eosinophil count and decrease in hepatic enzymes after 1 dose of intravenous methylprednisolone also supported the diagnosis of DRESS syndrome.

Treatment recommendations remain largely anecdotal. Early systemic steroids generally are accepted as the first line of therapy, with a slow taper. Although the average required duration of systemic steroids in 1 series of adults was reported at 50.1 days,⁹ the duration was shorter (21–35 days) in a series of pediatric patients.⁴ Our patient’s clinical symptoms and laboratory values normalized after completing a 1-month steroid taper. Other therapies have been tried for recalcitrant cases, including intravenous immunoglobulin, plasmapheresis, rituximab, and valganciclovir.²

Early clinical recognition of the signs and symptoms of DRESS syndrome in the setting of a new medication can decrease morbidity and mortality. Although DRESS syndrome in pediatric patients presents with many similar clinical features as in adults, it may be a greater diagnostic challenge. As in adult cases, timely administration of systemic corticosteroids and tapering based on clinical signs and symptoms can lead to resolution of the hypersensitivity syndrome.

Even before their baby is born, parents face some tough questions: Home birth or hospital? Cloth or disposable diapers? Breast, bottle, or both? But advances in genetic sequencing technology mean that parents will soon face yet another choice: whether to sequence their newborn’s DNA for an overview of the baby’s entire genome.

Genetic testing has been used for decades to diagnose conditions even before birth. But DNA sequencing technologies, once expensive and tough to access, are now rapid and cheap enough that doctors could order genomic screening for any infant, regardless of health status.

The possibility has raised many questions about the ethical, legal, and social repercussions of doing so. One of the biggest sticking points of sequencing newborns is the potential psychosocial fallout for families of such wide-scale use of genetic screening.

“There’s a narrative of catastrophic distress,” says Robert Green, MD, a geneticist at Harvard Medical School and lead investigator on the BabySeq study, which is evaluating the medical, social, and economic consequences of newborn genetic screening. The concern is that parents learning that their child carries a gene variant related to cancer or heart disease will become “incredibly anxious and distressed,” he says. “And it’s not an unreasonable speculation.”

But Dr. Green’s team found no evidence of such anxiety in the results from a randomized trial it conducted, published in JAMA Pediatrics. In the meantime, Genomics England announced it would begin a pilot study involving whole-genome sequencing of up to 200,000 babies. The first goal is to identify severe disease that starts in childhood, but the information would also be stored and used to detect drug sensitivities and conditions that come up later in life.

The large U.K. project is a bold move, according to David Amor, PhD, a pediatric geneticist at Murdoch Children’s Research Institute in Australia, who says its time has come. Geneticists have been accused of thinking their field involves unique pitfalls, compared with the rest of medicine, he points out, and that doctors need to protect patients and families from the potential harm genetic testing poses.

“But it is becoming apparent that that’s not really the case,” he says, and “maybe there’s not a whole lot special about genetics – it’s just medicine.”

When a first-draft copy of the human genome was published in 2001, scientists and doctors hailed the start of a new era of precision medicine. Knowing our genome sequence was expected to lead to a better grasp on our individual disease risks. Yet even as technologies advanced, clinical genetics remained focused on diagnosis rather than screening, according to Lilian Downie, a clinical genetics PhD candidate at the University of Melbourne. She calls the difference subtle but important.

Diagnostic genetic testing confirms whether a person has a specific condition, whereas genetic screening tests evaluate someone’s risk of getting an illness. Both approaches use sequencing, but they answer different questions, explains Ms. Downie.
 

Diagnosing disease versus predicting future illness

Genetic testing is on the upswing for both purposes, whether clinically for diagnosis or through direct-to-consumer screening-oriented services like 23andMe. Scientists began to note that many people carried disease-related genetic variants without having signs of disease. In some cases, a variant that is mathematically linked to a disease simply doesn’t cause it. In other cases, though, even if the gene variant contributes to a disease, not everyone who carries the genetic change will get the condition.

This potential disconnect between having a variant and developing the condition is a big problem, says Katie Stoll, a genetic counselor and executive director of the Genetic Support Foundation in Olympia, WA.

“It’s more complicated than just looking at one gene variant and one outcome,” she says. Without a sure link between the two, this information could unnecessarily entail “some pretty big emotional and financial costs.”

Ms. Stoll and others in the genetics field who share similar concerns are one reason the BabySeq project was first funded back in 2015. Although the overall aim of the initiative is to answer questions about the value of genomic sequencing in newborn screening, the media and scientific attention has focused on the psychosocial impact of healthy newborn sequencing, says Dr. Green. In the study published in JAMA Pediatrics, his group focused on these issues, too.

For that randomized trial, they enrolled 325 families, 257 with healthy babies and 68 whose babies had spent time in neonatal intensive care. Enrolled infants were randomly given standard care alone or standard care with genomic sequencing added on. The genomic sequencing report contained information about the presence of genetic variants associated with disease that start in childhood. Parents also could choose whether to learn about genetic risks for conditions that start in adulthood, such as cancer.

Boston-based Tina Moniz was one of those parents. When her first daughter was born in Jan. 2016, someone from the BabySeq study asked her and her husband if they would like to take part. The decision was simple for the couple.

“I didn’t hesitate,” she says. “To me, knowledge is power.”

Using screening tools for parental and marital distress and parent-child bonding, the research evaluated BabySeq families at 3 and 10 months after parents received the sequencing results. The investigators found no significant differences in any of these measures between screened and unscreened families. Ms. Moniz learned that her daughter’s only concerning result was being a carrier for cystic fibrosis. Rather than finding this information anxiety-provoking, Ms. Moniz considered it to be reassuring.

“My mom brain worries about so many things, but at least I know I don’t have to add genetic disease to the list,” she says.

But Ms. Stoll, who wasn’t involved in the BabySeq study, isn’t as convinced. She says that less than 10% of the families approached about the trial ultimately agreed to take part, suggesting potential bias in the selection process. Most participants were white, well-educated, and well-off, making it hard to generalize the study’s results.

What’s more, the standard care involved meeting with a genetic counselor and giving a detailed family history, neither of which is routinely offered to new parents, Ms. Stoll says. These study features leave her unconvinced that healthy newborn genetic screening is beneficial.

“We can’t assume these psychosocial consequences will be true for everyone,” she says.
 

Follow-up and treatment needed

Traditional newborn screening relies on blood biochemical tests to detect and diagnose metabolic diseases. This approach still outperforms DNA sequencing in trials, says Cynthia Powell, MD, a pediatric geneticist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, who wasn’t involved with the BabySeq study. Despite the enthusiasm for genomics, this kind of screening won’t replace newborn biochemical screening anytime soon, she says.

“There are some states that have only one geneticist available, so should we really be doing this if we can’t provide the necessary follow-up and treatment for these babies?” she asks.

Still, Dr. Powell says, the BabySeq study helps advance understanding of what the infrastructure needs are for widespread use of DNA sequencing in newborns. She says those needs include appropriate consent processes, access to genetic counselors to discuss testing, and referrals for further testing and treatment in those babies with concerning results.

The BabySeq program will also guide new initiatives, like the pilot program that Genomics England launched in Sept. 2021. As part of that project, the U.K. group intends to look into how practical whole-genome sequencing for newborn screening would be and look at the risks, benefits, and limits of its widespread use.

“For the first time, we’re putting real data into these questions that people have basically just speculated and hypothesized and created narratives about,” Dr. Green says.

But for now, the findings on the psychosocial effects of general newborn genomic screening show that “we should consider genetics to be just one more arrow in our medical quiver.”

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

Even before their baby is born, parents face some tough questions: Home birth or hospital? Cloth or disposable diapers? Breast, bottle, or both? But advances in genetic sequencing technology mean that parents will soon face yet another choice: whether to sequence their newborn’s DNA for an overview of the baby’s entire genome.

Genetic testing has been used for decades to diagnose conditions even before birth. But DNA sequencing technologies, once expensive and tough to access, are now rapid and cheap enough that doctors could order genomic screening for any infant, regardless of health status.

The possibility has raised many questions about the ethical, legal, and social repercussions of doing so. One of the biggest sticking points of sequencing newborns is the potential psychosocial fallout for families of such wide-scale use of genetic screening.

“There’s a narrative of catastrophic distress,” says Robert Green, MD, a geneticist at Harvard Medical School and lead investigator on the BabySeq study, which is evaluating the medical, social, and economic consequences of newborn genetic screening. The concern is that parents learning that their child carries a gene variant related to cancer or heart disease will become “incredibly anxious and distressed,” he says. “And it’s not an unreasonable speculation.”

But Dr. Green’s team found no evidence of such anxiety in the results from a randomized trial it conducted, published in JAMA Pediatrics. In the meantime, Genomics England announced it would begin a pilot study involving whole-genome sequencing of up to 200,000 babies. The first goal is to identify severe disease that starts in childhood, but the information would also be stored and used to detect drug sensitivities and conditions that come up later in life.

The large U.K. project is a bold move, according to David Amor, PhD, a pediatric geneticist at Murdoch Children’s Research Institute in Australia, who says its time has come. Geneticists have been accused of thinking their field involves unique pitfalls, compared with the rest of medicine, he points out, and that doctors need to protect patients and families from the potential harm genetic testing poses.

“But it is becoming apparent that that’s not really the case,” he says, and “maybe there’s not a whole lot special about genetics – it’s just medicine.”

When a first-draft copy of the human genome was published in 2001, scientists and doctors hailed the start of a new era of precision medicine. Knowing our genome sequence was expected to lead to a better grasp on our individual disease risks. Yet even as technologies advanced, clinical genetics remained focused on diagnosis rather than screening, according to Lilian Downie, a clinical genetics PhD candidate at the University of Melbourne. She calls the difference subtle but important.

Diagnostic genetic testing confirms whether a person has a specific condition, whereas genetic screening tests evaluate someone’s risk of getting an illness. Both approaches use sequencing, but they answer different questions, explains Ms. Downie.
 

Diagnosing disease versus predicting future illness

Genetic testing is on the upswing for both purposes, whether clinically for diagnosis or through direct-to-consumer screening-oriented services like 23andMe. Scientists began to note that many people carried disease-related genetic variants without having signs of disease. In some cases, a variant that is mathematically linked to a disease simply doesn’t cause it. In other cases, though, even if the gene variant contributes to a disease, not everyone who carries the genetic change will get the condition.

This potential disconnect between having a variant and developing the condition is a big problem, says Katie Stoll, a genetic counselor and executive director of the Genetic Support Foundation in Olympia, WA.

“It’s more complicated than just looking at one gene variant and one outcome,” she says. Without a sure link between the two, this information could unnecessarily entail “some pretty big emotional and financial costs.”

Ms. Stoll and others in the genetics field who share similar concerns are one reason the BabySeq project was first funded back in 2015. Although the overall aim of the initiative is to answer questions about the value of genomic sequencing in newborn screening, the media and scientific attention has focused on the psychosocial impact of healthy newborn sequencing, says Dr. Green. In the study published in JAMA Pediatrics, his group focused on these issues, too.

For that randomized trial, they enrolled 325 families, 257 with healthy babies and 68 whose babies had spent time in neonatal intensive care. Enrolled infants were randomly given standard care alone or standard care with genomic sequencing added on. The genomic sequencing report contained information about the presence of genetic variants associated with disease that start in childhood. Parents also could choose whether to learn about genetic risks for conditions that start in adulthood, such as cancer.

Boston-based Tina Moniz was one of those parents. When her first daughter was born in Jan. 2016, someone from the BabySeq study asked her and her husband if they would like to take part. The decision was simple for the couple.

“I didn’t hesitate,” she says. “To me, knowledge is power.”

Using screening tools for parental and marital distress and parent-child bonding, the research evaluated BabySeq families at 3 and 10 months after parents received the sequencing results. The investigators found no significant differences in any of these measures between screened and unscreened families. Ms. Moniz learned that her daughter’s only concerning result was being a carrier for cystic fibrosis. Rather than finding this information anxiety-provoking, Ms. Moniz considered it to be reassuring.

“My mom brain worries about so many things, but at least I know I don’t have to add genetic disease to the list,” she says.

But Ms. Stoll, who wasn’t involved in the BabySeq study, isn’t as convinced. She says that less than 10% of the families approached about the trial ultimately agreed to take part, suggesting potential bias in the selection process. Most participants were white, well-educated, and well-off, making it hard to generalize the study’s results.

What’s more, the standard care involved meeting with a genetic counselor and giving a detailed family history, neither of which is routinely offered to new parents, Ms. Stoll says. These study features leave her unconvinced that healthy newborn genetic screening is beneficial.

“We can’t assume these psychosocial consequences will be true for everyone,” she says.
 

Follow-up and treatment needed

Traditional newborn screening relies on blood biochemical tests to detect and diagnose metabolic diseases. This approach still outperforms DNA sequencing in trials, says Cynthia Powell, MD, a pediatric geneticist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, who wasn’t involved with the BabySeq study. Despite the enthusiasm for genomics, this kind of screening won’t replace newborn biochemical screening anytime soon, she says.

“There are some states that have only one geneticist available, so should we really be doing this if we can’t provide the necessary follow-up and treatment for these babies?” she asks.

Still, Dr. Powell says, the BabySeq study helps advance understanding of what the infrastructure needs are for widespread use of DNA sequencing in newborns. She says those needs include appropriate consent processes, access to genetic counselors to discuss testing, and referrals for further testing and treatment in those babies with concerning results.

The BabySeq program will also guide new initiatives, like the pilot program that Genomics England launched in Sept. 2021. As part of that project, the U.K. group intends to look into how practical whole-genome sequencing for newborn screening would be and look at the risks, benefits, and limits of its widespread use.

“For the first time, we’re putting real data into these questions that people have basically just speculated and hypothesized and created narratives about,” Dr. Green says.

But for now, the findings on the psychosocial effects of general newborn genomic screening show that “we should consider genetics to be just one more arrow in our medical quiver.”

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

Even before their baby is born, parents face some tough questions: Home birth or hospital? Cloth or disposable diapers? Breast, bottle, or both? But advances in genetic sequencing technology mean that parents will soon face yet another choice: whether to sequence their newborn’s DNA for an overview of the baby’s entire genome.

Genetic testing has been used for decades to diagnose conditions even before birth. But DNA sequencing technologies, once expensive and tough to access, are now rapid and cheap enough that doctors could order genomic screening for any infant, regardless of health status.

The possibility has raised many questions about the ethical, legal, and social repercussions of doing so. One of the biggest sticking points of sequencing newborns is the potential psychosocial fallout for families of such wide-scale use of genetic screening.

“There’s a narrative of catastrophic distress,” says Robert Green, MD, a geneticist at Harvard Medical School and lead investigator on the BabySeq study, which is evaluating the medical, social, and economic consequences of newborn genetic screening. The concern is that parents learning that their child carries a gene variant related to cancer or heart disease will become “incredibly anxious and distressed,” he says. “And it’s not an unreasonable speculation.”

But Dr. Green’s team found no evidence of such anxiety in the results from a randomized trial it conducted, published in JAMA Pediatrics. In the meantime, Genomics England announced it would begin a pilot study involving whole-genome sequencing of up to 200,000 babies. The first goal is to identify severe disease that starts in childhood, but the information would also be stored and used to detect drug sensitivities and conditions that come up later in life.

The large U.K. project is a bold move, according to David Amor, PhD, a pediatric geneticist at Murdoch Children’s Research Institute in Australia, who says its time has come. Geneticists have been accused of thinking their field involves unique pitfalls, compared with the rest of medicine, he points out, and that doctors need to protect patients and families from the potential harm genetic testing poses.

“But it is becoming apparent that that’s not really the case,” he says, and “maybe there’s not a whole lot special about genetics – it’s just medicine.”

When a first-draft copy of the human genome was published in 2001, scientists and doctors hailed the start of a new era of precision medicine. Knowing our genome sequence was expected to lead to a better grasp on our individual disease risks. Yet even as technologies advanced, clinical genetics remained focused on diagnosis rather than screening, according to Lilian Downie, a clinical genetics PhD candidate at the University of Melbourne. She calls the difference subtle but important.

Diagnostic genetic testing confirms whether a person has a specific condition, whereas genetic screening tests evaluate someone’s risk of getting an illness. Both approaches use sequencing, but they answer different questions, explains Ms. Downie.
 

Diagnosing disease versus predicting future illness

Genetic testing is on the upswing for both purposes, whether clinically for diagnosis or through direct-to-consumer screening-oriented services like 23andMe. Scientists began to note that many people carried disease-related genetic variants without having signs of disease. In some cases, a variant that is mathematically linked to a disease simply doesn’t cause it. In other cases, though, even if the gene variant contributes to a disease, not everyone who carries the genetic change will get the condition.

This potential disconnect between having a variant and developing the condition is a big problem, says Katie Stoll, a genetic counselor and executive director of the Genetic Support Foundation in Olympia, WA.

“It’s more complicated than just looking at one gene variant and one outcome,” she says. Without a sure link between the two, this information could unnecessarily entail “some pretty big emotional and financial costs.”

Ms. Stoll and others in the genetics field who share similar concerns are one reason the BabySeq project was first funded back in 2015. Although the overall aim of the initiative is to answer questions about the value of genomic sequencing in newborn screening, the media and scientific attention has focused on the psychosocial impact of healthy newborn sequencing, says Dr. Green. In the study published in JAMA Pediatrics, his group focused on these issues, too.

For that randomized trial, they enrolled 325 families, 257 with healthy babies and 68 whose babies had spent time in neonatal intensive care. Enrolled infants were randomly given standard care alone or standard care with genomic sequencing added on. The genomic sequencing report contained information about the presence of genetic variants associated with disease that start in childhood. Parents also could choose whether to learn about genetic risks for conditions that start in adulthood, such as cancer.

Boston-based Tina Moniz was one of those parents. When her first daughter was born in Jan. 2016, someone from the BabySeq study asked her and her husband if they would like to take part. The decision was simple for the couple.

“I didn’t hesitate,” she says. “To me, knowledge is power.”

Using screening tools for parental and marital distress and parent-child bonding, the research evaluated BabySeq families at 3 and 10 months after parents received the sequencing results. The investigators found no significant differences in any of these measures between screened and unscreened families. Ms. Moniz learned that her daughter’s only concerning result was being a carrier for cystic fibrosis. Rather than finding this information anxiety-provoking, Ms. Moniz considered it to be reassuring.

“My mom brain worries about so many things, but at least I know I don’t have to add genetic disease to the list,” she says.

But Ms. Stoll, who wasn’t involved in the BabySeq study, isn’t as convinced. She says that less than 10% of the families approached about the trial ultimately agreed to take part, suggesting potential bias in the selection process. Most participants were white, well-educated, and well-off, making it hard to generalize the study’s results.

What’s more, the standard care involved meeting with a genetic counselor and giving a detailed family history, neither of which is routinely offered to new parents, Ms. Stoll says. These study features leave her unconvinced that healthy newborn genetic screening is beneficial.

“We can’t assume these psychosocial consequences will be true for everyone,” she says.
 

Follow-up and treatment needed

Traditional newborn screening relies on blood biochemical tests to detect and diagnose metabolic diseases. This approach still outperforms DNA sequencing in trials, says Cynthia Powell, MD, a pediatric geneticist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, who wasn’t involved with the BabySeq study. Despite the enthusiasm for genomics, this kind of screening won’t replace newborn biochemical screening anytime soon, she says.

“There are some states that have only one geneticist available, so should we really be doing this if we can’t provide the necessary follow-up and treatment for these babies?” she asks.

Still, Dr. Powell says, the BabySeq study helps advance understanding of what the infrastructure needs are for widespread use of DNA sequencing in newborns. She says those needs include appropriate consent processes, access to genetic counselors to discuss testing, and referrals for further testing and treatment in those babies with concerning results.

The BabySeq program will also guide new initiatives, like the pilot program that Genomics England launched in Sept. 2021. As part of that project, the U.K. group intends to look into how practical whole-genome sequencing for newborn screening would be and look at the risks, benefits, and limits of its widespread use.

“For the first time, we’re putting real data into these questions that people have basically just speculated and hypothesized and created narratives about,” Dr. Green says.

But for now, the findings on the psychosocial effects of general newborn genomic screening show that “we should consider genetics to be just one more arrow in our medical quiver.”

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

Will my child outgrow the eczema?

That is perhaps the No. 1 atopic dermatitis–related question that Lawrence F. Eichenfield, MD, fields from parents in his role as chief of pediatric and adolescent dermatology at Rady’s Children’s Hospital, San Diego.

The answer “is pretty tricky,” he said during MedscapeLive’s annual Las Vegas Dermatology Seminar. “We used to say, ‘yeah, your kid will probably outgrow the disease,’ but we now have good data that show there are variable courses.”

Using data from the birth study cohort known as the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children, researchers in the United Kingdom investigated the existence of different longitudinal phenotypes of AD among 9,894 children. They found that 58% of the children in the cohort were unaffected or had transient AD, while 12.9% had early-onset/early-resolving AD. The remaining AD phenotypes consisted of 7%-8% patients each (early-onset persistent, early-onset late-resolving, mid-onset resolving, and late-onset resolving).

“There have been several studies that looked at the natural course of AD,” said Dr. Eichenfield, distinguished professor of dermatology and pediatrics at the University of California, San Diego. “A cohort study from Thailand showed that 50% of patients with childhood AD lost their AD diagnosis about 5 years into it, while there was an increase in allergic rhino-conjunctivitis and asthma, similar to what’s been seen in atopic march studies,” he noted.

A separate group of investigators analyzed records from The Health Improvement Network in the UK to determine the prevalence of AD among more than 8 million patients seen in primary care between 1994 and 2013. They found that the cumulative lifetime prevalence of atopic eczema was 9.9% and the highest rates of active disease were among children and older adults. “The takeaway was markedly inconsistent in terms of whether AD went away over time or increased over time, so it’s really not especially helpful prevalence data,” Dr. Eichenfield said. “Overall, you have a high prevalence in the first years of life, it decreases, and it may increase again when people are 60 years and older. Whether that’s truly AD or xerotic eczema isn’t known in this data set.”

A separate meta-analysis of 17 studies reported that 26% of adults with AD said they had adult-onset disease, which is characterized by more atopy, more foot dermatitis, and less flexural involvement.

Dr. Eichenfield tells parents, “there’s a really good chance (depending on disease severity) that 60% to 70% of children will outgrow their eczema or most of it,” he said. “If you ask me when, I won’t tell you. The important thing is to treat it to minimize its impact. We want minimal rash, minimal itch, and minimal sleep disturbance. Sometimes I say, ‘that might improve the chance of the eczema getting better over time.’ ”

Following are four other common questions parents and patients ask him:

Can we figure out the allergies causing the eczema? “This is probably one of the most unnerving questions I get asked,” he said. “It’s a loaded question. My answer is that allergies are intertwined with AD. Searching for the secret allergy causing the atopic dermatitis is rarely successful.” Sensitization is much more common with AD, he added, meaning specific IgE testing, whether it be blood testing or skin prick testing. “The more severe your eczema is, the more chance you’ll have of real food allergy,” he said. “About 15% of milder eczema patients will have at least one food allergy, but when you get to the more moderate to severe cases, about 40% will have a true food allergy.”

Food reactions may not cause eczema, though. Food reactions can cause urticaria, angioedema, eczematous dermatitis, allergic contact dermatitis, contact urticaria, and respiratory findings. According to National Institutes of Health guidelines for food allergy, skin prick tests and serum IgE tests are recommended to assist in identification of foods that may be provoking IgE-mediated food reactions, but are not diagnostic of food allergy.

“There’s a huge literature showing that there’s a lot of food allergy testing that’s just not helpful,” he said. In one study, 89% of food challenges administered in patients who were listed as being allergic based on skin prick tests or serum IgE tests did not have a true food allergy.

“Empiric elimination diets aren’t especially useful. However, we occasionally see children who do have AD exacerbated by food allergies in the first year of life,” he said. NIH guidelines suggest that children younger than 5 years of age with moderate to severe AD be considered for food allergy evaluation for milk, egg, peanut, wheat, and soy, if at least one of the following conditions is met: the child has persistent AD in spite of optimized management and topical therapy, and/or the child has a reliable history of an immediate reaction after ingestion of a specific food.

“We do know that there are high rates of comorbid allergic processes, besides food allergy, associated with atopic dermatitis, including allergic rhinitis and asthma both in children and adults,” Dr. Eichenfield said. “I do discuss allergy triggers and their importance in the life of the individual, though not necessarily as factors in AD. There are a variety of environmental allergens and/or environmental triggers that can significantly impact AD. Recently, we have seen studies discussing air pollution and wildfires as exacerbators of AD.”

How should I bathe and moisturize? There are no standard guidelines for the frequency, type, or duration of bathing in patients with AD, he said, though in more severe disease, frequent bathing can be helpful along with standard anti-inflammatory topical medicines. “I keep my general recommendations vague,” Dr. Eichenfield said. “I do explain that we don’t want to use harsh soaps; we want to be gentle in our washing. I usually recommend daily to every other day bathing. It’s important to pat the skin dry and then apply a moisturizer. Applying a moisturizer 2-3 minutes after bathing is important and limited significant cleanser use can be helpful.”

Moisturizers and emollients are a standard of care in U.S. guidelines published in 2013 and 2014, and international guidelines, and are steroid-sparing and useful for both prevention and maintenance. “I tell parents and patients that there is no reason to avoid bathing because of AD as long as you moisturize after,” he said.

Do I have to use topical [name of drug]? “I try to explain that there is skin barrier dysfunction that stimulates the inflammatory milieu, and that inflammation in the skin or blood in AD negatively impacts skin barrier function,” Dr. Eichenfield said. “I explain that if inflammation doesn’t get better with good skin care, moisturizers, and avoidance of triggers, we need anti-inflammatory medication. Then we discuss what the options are, the significant variation in strengths of topical corticosteroids, and topical nonsteroid options.”

When he counsels parents and patients on the use of topical corticosteroids, he tells them that cortisone is a naturally-occurring metabolite, and that “we can work together to let you know how much medicine to use, and how a safe amount is a powerful tool to fix the eczema.” He often says that topical steroids “are like hammers. We have tiny hammers, like over-the-counter hydrocortisone, and sledgehammers like clobetasol. We also have ‘screwdrivers’ and ‘pliers’ with nonsteroidal topical calcineurin and PDE-4 inhibitors, which are especially useful for maintenance therapy. Topical ruxolitinib is a new medicine that we may use for patients as well. The label includes discussion of side effects from oral JAK inhibitors as well as from the drug development program, so it takes some time to talk through.”

Is it time for a stronger systemic medicine? Any conversation about this topic should support the concept that the AD is multifactorial. “We have the rash of eczema,” he said. “We have the itch. We have impact on sleep disturbance. We have the comorbidities. We have other physical changes, which can happen with bacterial infections and other immune system or cardiovascular changes. We have the impact on quality of life and impact on school and work. When we recognize that if patients have significant enough disease that it is not getting better with topicals and is having a negative impact on their lives, we can move our discussion to systemic therapy.”

When counseling patients about systemic therapy, Dr. Eichenfield will conduct a body surface area assessment and document how bad the itch is. “But I’m not just recording the information; I’m bringing it out in the room,” he said. “I’ll do a BSA assessment and say, for example, ‘oh, you have 32% of your body involved with eczema.’ I ask about sleep disturbance, to get the answer ‘out in the room.’ ” He also asks questions such as: “When was the last time your skin was last totally clear? Are there activities that you or your family don’t do because of your eczema, or that you’re living your life around it? Is there anxiety or depression?” Documenting both the impact on quality of life and the severity of disease “makes it easier to discuss systemic therapy,” Dr. Eichenfield said. “Meanwhile, as the provider, I am trying to figure out if the patient should ‘go into the topical therapy bucket’ or into the ‘systemic therapy bucket.’ ”

Counseling about systemic therapy includes shared decision-making regarding the choice of biologics versus oral JAK inhibitors versus traditional systemic agent or phototherapy. Factors to consider in the decision making include patient age, sex, severity, comorbidities, prior therapy, risk aversion, duration, medication access, and desired efficacy. “Evolving therapies can change the conversation, the questions, and the outcomes, but the overarching desired outcome is long-term disease control, minimal eczematous rash, minimal pruritus, and minimal sleep disturbance,” he said.

Dr. Eichenfield disclosed that he has served as a consultant to or investigator for AbbVie; Almirall; Arcutis; Arena; Asana; Termagant; Dermira; Forte Biosciences; Galderma Laboratories; Glenmark/Chinos; Incyte; Kyowa Kirin; Leo Pharma; Eli Lilly and Company; Novartis; Ortho Dermatology; Otsuka; Pfizer; Freestone; Regeneron, and Sanofi Genzyme.

MedscapeLive and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

[email protected]

Will my child outgrow the eczema?

That is perhaps the No. 1 atopic dermatitis–related question that Lawrence F. Eichenfield, MD, fields from parents in his role as chief of pediatric and adolescent dermatology at Rady’s Children’s Hospital, San Diego.

The answer “is pretty tricky,” he said during MedscapeLive’s annual Las Vegas Dermatology Seminar. “We used to say, ‘yeah, your kid will probably outgrow the disease,’ but we now have good data that show there are variable courses.”

Using data from the birth study cohort known as the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children, researchers in the United Kingdom investigated the existence of different longitudinal phenotypes of AD among 9,894 children. They found that 58% of the children in the cohort were unaffected or had transient AD, while 12.9% had early-onset/early-resolving AD. The remaining AD phenotypes consisted of 7%-8% patients each (early-onset persistent, early-onset late-resolving, mid-onset resolving, and late-onset resolving).

“There have been several studies that looked at the natural course of AD,” said Dr. Eichenfield, distinguished professor of dermatology and pediatrics at the University of California, San Diego. “A cohort study from Thailand showed that 50% of patients with childhood AD lost their AD diagnosis about 5 years into it, while there was an increase in allergic rhino-conjunctivitis and asthma, similar to what’s been seen in atopic march studies,” he noted.

A separate group of investigators analyzed records from The Health Improvement Network in the UK to determine the prevalence of AD among more than 8 million patients seen in primary care between 1994 and 2013. They found that the cumulative lifetime prevalence of atopic eczema was 9.9% and the highest rates of active disease were among children and older adults. “The takeaway was markedly inconsistent in terms of whether AD went away over time or increased over time, so it’s really not especially helpful prevalence data,” Dr. Eichenfield said. “Overall, you have a high prevalence in the first years of life, it decreases, and it may increase again when people are 60 years and older. Whether that’s truly AD or xerotic eczema isn’t known in this data set.”

A separate meta-analysis of 17 studies reported that 26% of adults with AD said they had adult-onset disease, which is characterized by more atopy, more foot dermatitis, and less flexural involvement.

Dr. Eichenfield tells parents, “there’s a really good chance (depending on disease severity) that 60% to 70% of children will outgrow their eczema or most of it,” he said. “If you ask me when, I won’t tell you. The important thing is to treat it to minimize its impact. We want minimal rash, minimal itch, and minimal sleep disturbance. Sometimes I say, ‘that might improve the chance of the eczema getting better over time.’ ”

Following are four other common questions parents and patients ask him:

Can we figure out the allergies causing the eczema? “This is probably one of the most unnerving questions I get asked,” he said. “It’s a loaded question. My answer is that allergies are intertwined with AD. Searching for the secret allergy causing the atopic dermatitis is rarely successful.” Sensitization is much more common with AD, he added, meaning specific IgE testing, whether it be blood testing or skin prick testing. “The more severe your eczema is, the more chance you’ll have of real food allergy,” he said. “About 15% of milder eczema patients will have at least one food allergy, but when you get to the more moderate to severe cases, about 40% will have a true food allergy.”

Food reactions may not cause eczema, though. Food reactions can cause urticaria, angioedema, eczematous dermatitis, allergic contact dermatitis, contact urticaria, and respiratory findings. According to National Institutes of Health guidelines for food allergy, skin prick tests and serum IgE tests are recommended to assist in identification of foods that may be provoking IgE-mediated food reactions, but are not diagnostic of food allergy.

“There’s a huge literature showing that there’s a lot of food allergy testing that’s just not helpful,” he said. In one study, 89% of food challenges administered in patients who were listed as being allergic based on skin prick tests or serum IgE tests did not have a true food allergy.

“Empiric elimination diets aren’t especially useful. However, we occasionally see children who do have AD exacerbated by food allergies in the first year of life,” he said. NIH guidelines suggest that children younger than 5 years of age with moderate to severe AD be considered for food allergy evaluation for milk, egg, peanut, wheat, and soy, if at least one of the following conditions is met: the child has persistent AD in spite of optimized management and topical therapy, and/or the child has a reliable history of an immediate reaction after ingestion of a specific food.

“We do know that there are high rates of comorbid allergic processes, besides food allergy, associated with atopic dermatitis, including allergic rhinitis and asthma both in children and adults,” Dr. Eichenfield said. “I do discuss allergy triggers and their importance in the life of the individual, though not necessarily as factors in AD. There are a variety of environmental allergens and/or environmental triggers that can significantly impact AD. Recently, we have seen studies discussing air pollution and wildfires as exacerbators of AD.”

How should I bathe and moisturize? There are no standard guidelines for the frequency, type, or duration of bathing in patients with AD, he said, though in more severe disease, frequent bathing can be helpful along with standard anti-inflammatory topical medicines. “I keep my general recommendations vague,” Dr. Eichenfield said. “I do explain that we don’t want to use harsh soaps; we want to be gentle in our washing. I usually recommend daily to every other day bathing. It’s important to pat the skin dry and then apply a moisturizer. Applying a moisturizer 2-3 minutes after bathing is important and limited significant cleanser use can be helpful.”

Moisturizers and emollients are a standard of care in U.S. guidelines published in 2013 and 2014, and international guidelines, and are steroid-sparing and useful for both prevention and maintenance. “I tell parents and patients that there is no reason to avoid bathing because of AD as long as you moisturize after,” he said.

Do I have to use topical [name of drug]? “I try to explain that there is skin barrier dysfunction that stimulates the inflammatory milieu, and that inflammation in the skin or blood in AD negatively impacts skin barrier function,” Dr. Eichenfield said. “I explain that if inflammation doesn’t get better with good skin care, moisturizers, and avoidance of triggers, we need anti-inflammatory medication. Then we discuss what the options are, the significant variation in strengths of topical corticosteroids, and topical nonsteroid options.”

When he counsels parents and patients on the use of topical corticosteroids, he tells them that cortisone is a naturally-occurring metabolite, and that “we can work together to let you know how much medicine to use, and how a safe amount is a powerful tool to fix the eczema.” He often says that topical steroids “are like hammers. We have tiny hammers, like over-the-counter hydrocortisone, and sledgehammers like clobetasol. We also have ‘screwdrivers’ and ‘pliers’ with nonsteroidal topical calcineurin and PDE-4 inhibitors, which are especially useful for maintenance therapy. Topical ruxolitinib is a new medicine that we may use for patients as well. The label includes discussion of side effects from oral JAK inhibitors as well as from the drug development program, so it takes some time to talk through.”

Is it time for a stronger systemic medicine? Any conversation about this topic should support the concept that the AD is multifactorial. “We have the rash of eczema,” he said. “We have the itch. We have impact on sleep disturbance. We have the comorbidities. We have other physical changes, which can happen with bacterial infections and other immune system or cardiovascular changes. We have the impact on quality of life and impact on school and work. When we recognize that if patients have significant enough disease that it is not getting better with topicals and is having a negative impact on their lives, we can move our discussion to systemic therapy.”

When counseling patients about systemic therapy, Dr. Eichenfield will conduct a body surface area assessment and document how bad the itch is. “But I’m not just recording the information; I’m bringing it out in the room,” he said. “I’ll do a BSA assessment and say, for example, ‘oh, you have 32% of your body involved with eczema.’ I ask about sleep disturbance, to get the answer ‘out in the room.’ ” He also asks questions such as: “When was the last time your skin was last totally clear? Are there activities that you or your family don’t do because of your eczema, or that you’re living your life around it? Is there anxiety or depression?” Documenting both the impact on quality of life and the severity of disease “makes it easier to discuss systemic therapy,” Dr. Eichenfield said. “Meanwhile, as the provider, I am trying to figure out if the patient should ‘go into the topical therapy bucket’ or into the ‘systemic therapy bucket.’ ”

Counseling about systemic therapy includes shared decision-making regarding the choice of biologics versus oral JAK inhibitors versus traditional systemic agent or phototherapy. Factors to consider in the decision making include patient age, sex, severity, comorbidities, prior therapy, risk aversion, duration, medication access, and desired efficacy. “Evolving therapies can change the conversation, the questions, and the outcomes, but the overarching desired outcome is long-term disease control, minimal eczematous rash, minimal pruritus, and minimal sleep disturbance,” he said.

Dr. Eichenfield disclosed that he has served as a consultant to or investigator for AbbVie; Almirall; Arcutis; Arena; Asana; Termagant; Dermira; Forte Biosciences; Galderma Laboratories; Glenmark/Chinos; Incyte; Kyowa Kirin; Leo Pharma; Eli Lilly and Company; Novartis; Ortho Dermatology; Otsuka; Pfizer; Freestone; Regeneron, and Sanofi Genzyme.

MedscapeLive and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

[email protected]

Will my child outgrow the eczema?

That is perhaps the No. 1 atopic dermatitis–related question that Lawrence F. Eichenfield, MD, fields from parents in his role as chief of pediatric and adolescent dermatology at Rady’s Children’s Hospital, San Diego.

The answer “is pretty tricky,” he said during MedscapeLive’s annual Las Vegas Dermatology Seminar. “We used to say, ‘yeah, your kid will probably outgrow the disease,’ but we now have good data that show there are variable courses.”

Using data from the birth study cohort known as the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children, researchers in the United Kingdom investigated the existence of different longitudinal phenotypes of AD among 9,894 children. They found that 58% of the children in the cohort were unaffected or had transient AD, while 12.9% had early-onset/early-resolving AD. The remaining AD phenotypes consisted of 7%-8% patients each (early-onset persistent, early-onset late-resolving, mid-onset resolving, and late-onset resolving).

“There have been several studies that looked at the natural course of AD,” said Dr. Eichenfield, distinguished professor of dermatology and pediatrics at the University of California, San Diego. “A cohort study from Thailand showed that 50% of patients with childhood AD lost their AD diagnosis about 5 years into it, while there was an increase in allergic rhino-conjunctivitis and asthma, similar to what’s been seen in atopic march studies,” he noted.

A separate group of investigators analyzed records from The Health Improvement Network in the UK to determine the prevalence of AD among more than 8 million patients seen in primary care between 1994 and 2013. They found that the cumulative lifetime prevalence of atopic eczema was 9.9% and the highest rates of active disease were among children and older adults. “The takeaway was markedly inconsistent in terms of whether AD went away over time or increased over time, so it’s really not especially helpful prevalence data,” Dr. Eichenfield said. “Overall, you have a high prevalence in the first years of life, it decreases, and it may increase again when people are 60 years and older. Whether that’s truly AD or xerotic eczema isn’t known in this data set.”

A separate meta-analysis of 17 studies reported that 26% of adults with AD said they had adult-onset disease, which is characterized by more atopy, more foot dermatitis, and less flexural involvement.

Dr. Eichenfield tells parents, “there’s a really good chance (depending on disease severity) that 60% to 70% of children will outgrow their eczema or most of it,” he said. “If you ask me when, I won’t tell you. The important thing is to treat it to minimize its impact. We want minimal rash, minimal itch, and minimal sleep disturbance. Sometimes I say, ‘that might improve the chance of the eczema getting better over time.’ ”

Following are four other common questions parents and patients ask him:

Can we figure out the allergies causing the eczema? “This is probably one of the most unnerving questions I get asked,” he said. “It’s a loaded question. My answer is that allergies are intertwined with AD. Searching for the secret allergy causing the atopic dermatitis is rarely successful.” Sensitization is much more common with AD, he added, meaning specific IgE testing, whether it be blood testing or skin prick testing. “The more severe your eczema is, the more chance you’ll have of real food allergy,” he said. “About 15% of milder eczema patients will have at least one food allergy, but when you get to the more moderate to severe cases, about 40% will have a true food allergy.”

Food reactions may not cause eczema, though. Food reactions can cause urticaria, angioedema, eczematous dermatitis, allergic contact dermatitis, contact urticaria, and respiratory findings. According to National Institutes of Health guidelines for food allergy, skin prick tests and serum IgE tests are recommended to assist in identification of foods that may be provoking IgE-mediated food reactions, but are not diagnostic of food allergy.

“There’s a huge literature showing that there’s a lot of food allergy testing that’s just not helpful,” he said. In one study, 89% of food challenges administered in patients who were listed as being allergic based on skin prick tests or serum IgE tests did not have a true food allergy.

“Empiric elimination diets aren’t especially useful. However, we occasionally see children who do have AD exacerbated by food allergies in the first year of life,” he said. NIH guidelines suggest that children younger than 5 years of age with moderate to severe AD be considered for food allergy evaluation for milk, egg, peanut, wheat, and soy, if at least one of the following conditions is met: the child has persistent AD in spite of optimized management and topical therapy, and/or the child has a reliable history of an immediate reaction after ingestion of a specific food.

“We do know that there are high rates of comorbid allergic processes, besides food allergy, associated with atopic dermatitis, including allergic rhinitis and asthma both in children and adults,” Dr. Eichenfield said. “I do discuss allergy triggers and their importance in the life of the individual, though not necessarily as factors in AD. There are a variety of environmental allergens and/or environmental triggers that can significantly impact AD. Recently, we have seen studies discussing air pollution and wildfires as exacerbators of AD.”

How should I bathe and moisturize? There are no standard guidelines for the frequency, type, or duration of bathing in patients with AD, he said, though in more severe disease, frequent bathing can be helpful along with standard anti-inflammatory topical medicines. “I keep my general recommendations vague,” Dr. Eichenfield said. “I do explain that we don’t want to use harsh soaps; we want to be gentle in our washing. I usually recommend daily to every other day bathing. It’s important to pat the skin dry and then apply a moisturizer. Applying a moisturizer 2-3 minutes after bathing is important and limited significant cleanser use can be helpful.”

Moisturizers and emollients are a standard of care in U.S. guidelines published in 2013 and 2014, and international guidelines, and are steroid-sparing and useful for both prevention and maintenance. “I tell parents and patients that there is no reason to avoid bathing because of AD as long as you moisturize after,” he said.

Do I have to use topical [name of drug]? “I try to explain that there is skin barrier dysfunction that stimulates the inflammatory milieu, and that inflammation in the skin or blood in AD negatively impacts skin barrier function,” Dr. Eichenfield said. “I explain that if inflammation doesn’t get better with good skin care, moisturizers, and avoidance of triggers, we need anti-inflammatory medication. Then we discuss what the options are, the significant variation in strengths of topical corticosteroids, and topical nonsteroid options.”

When he counsels parents and patients on the use of topical corticosteroids, he tells them that cortisone is a naturally-occurring metabolite, and that “we can work together to let you know how much medicine to use, and how a safe amount is a powerful tool to fix the eczema.” He often says that topical steroids “are like hammers. We have tiny hammers, like over-the-counter hydrocortisone, and sledgehammers like clobetasol. We also have ‘screwdrivers’ and ‘pliers’ with nonsteroidal topical calcineurin and PDE-4 inhibitors, which are especially useful for maintenance therapy. Topical ruxolitinib is a new medicine that we may use for patients as well. The label includes discussion of side effects from oral JAK inhibitors as well as from the drug development program, so it takes some time to talk through.”

Is it time for a stronger systemic medicine? Any conversation about this topic should support the concept that the AD is multifactorial. “We have the rash of eczema,” he said. “We have the itch. We have impact on sleep disturbance. We have the comorbidities. We have other physical changes, which can happen with bacterial infections and other immune system or cardiovascular changes. We have the impact on quality of life and impact on school and work. When we recognize that if patients have significant enough disease that it is not getting better with topicals and is having a negative impact on their lives, we can move our discussion to systemic therapy.”

When counseling patients about systemic therapy, Dr. Eichenfield will conduct a body surface area assessment and document how bad the itch is. “But I’m not just recording the information; I’m bringing it out in the room,” he said. “I’ll do a BSA assessment and say, for example, ‘oh, you have 32% of your body involved with eczema.’ I ask about sleep disturbance, to get the answer ‘out in the room.’ ” He also asks questions such as: “When was the last time your skin was last totally clear? Are there activities that you or your family don’t do because of your eczema, or that you’re living your life around it? Is there anxiety or depression?” Documenting both the impact on quality of life and the severity of disease “makes it easier to discuss systemic therapy,” Dr. Eichenfield said. “Meanwhile, as the provider, I am trying to figure out if the patient should ‘go into the topical therapy bucket’ or into the ‘systemic therapy bucket.’ ”

Counseling about systemic therapy includes shared decision-making regarding the choice of biologics versus oral JAK inhibitors versus traditional systemic agent or phototherapy. Factors to consider in the decision making include patient age, sex, severity, comorbidities, prior therapy, risk aversion, duration, medication access, and desired efficacy. “Evolving therapies can change the conversation, the questions, and the outcomes, but the overarching desired outcome is long-term disease control, minimal eczematous rash, minimal pruritus, and minimal sleep disturbance,” he said.

Dr. Eichenfield disclosed that he has served as a consultant to or investigator for AbbVie; Almirall; Arcutis; Arena; Asana; Termagant; Dermira; Forte Biosciences; Galderma Laboratories; Glenmark/Chinos; Incyte; Kyowa Kirin; Leo Pharma; Eli Lilly and Company; Novartis; Ortho Dermatology; Otsuka; Pfizer; Freestone; Regeneron, and Sanofi Genzyme.

MedscapeLive and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

[email protected]

Children diagnosed with type 2 diabetes (T2D) appear significantly more likely to develop retinopathy and other ocular complications over time than children who are diagnosed with type 1 diabetes (T1D), researchers report.

Among a population-based cohort of children (defined as younger than 22 years), the risk of diabetic retinopathy was 88% greater in those with T2D than T1D within the first 15 years of disease diagnosis.

“The purpose of this study was to assess the risk of developing diabetes-associated ocular complications among a population-based cohort of children diagnosed with either T1D or T2D during a 50-year period,” lead author Patricia Bai, BA, of Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, and colleagues reported in JAMA Ophthalmology.

The researchers retrospectively reviewed medical records from all residents of Olmsted County, Minn., from 1970 to 2019. The study cohort included 606 children with a confirmed a diagnosis of T1D or T2D, 525 (87%) of whom had at least one ocular examination.

The mean age at diabetes diagnosis was 12 years (standard deviation, 5.4 years); most participants were White (95.7% in 1990), and half (50%) were male. Diabetes-associated ocular complications occurred in 31.9% and 26.6% of children with T1D and T2D, respectively.

The hazard ratios illustrating the risk between T2D and T1D rates were 1.88 (95% confidence interval, 1.13-3.12; P = .02) for any diabetic retinopathy, 2.33 (95% CI, 0.99-5.50; P = .048) for proliferative diabetic retinopathy, 1.49 (95% CI, 0.46-4.89; P = .50) for diabetic macular edema, 2.43 (95% CI, 0.54-11.07; P = .24) for a visually significant cataract, and 4.06 (95% CI, 1.34-12.33; P = .007) for requiring pars plana vitrectomy within the first 15 years of diagnosis.

These results suggest that earlier surveillance and intervention may help prevent vision-threatening complications, the researchers explained.

“After adjusting for race using self-identified categories of White or not White, the adjusted HR of developing any retinopathy was 1.63 (95% CI, 0.96-2.79; P = .07), and the adjusted HR of developing proliferative diabetic retinopathy was 2.02 (95% CI, 0.79-5.16; P = .14)” in T2D versus T1D patients, the researchers wrote.

“We would expect the reported rate of type 2 diabetes to be potentially underestimated in our study cohort,” Ms. Bai commented in an interview. “Race has been suggested to be a surrogate for other social determinants of health, such as lower rates of optimal follow-up care received by racial and ethnic minorities, which could influence subsequent retinopathy rates.”
 

Understanding retinopathy outcomes in youth

In an accompanying editorial, Jennifer K. Sun, MD, MPH, from Harvard Medical School, Boston, wrote that the present study indicates the natural history of retinopathy may differ between patients with T1D and T2D.

While the pathophysiology of diabetic retinopathy in T1D and T2D appears similar, other patient-related factors such as lipid profiles, the presence of hypertension, and body mass index may differ between the two disease states.

She wrote that “there is a particular need to document retinopathy outcomes and risk factors for advanced disease in youth with T2D, for whom there is a paucity of information.”

Ms. Bai and colleagues acknowledged that a key limitation of the study was the retrospective design. As a result, irregular follow-up and incomplete data may limit the applicability of the findings.

“Some children with milder forms of diabetes may have eluded detection, a limitation that is more likely to affect T2D, which may exist undetected for years before a diagnosis,” Bai explained.

Dr. Sun recommended that further epidemiologic studies are needed to help optimize guidelines for screening and follow-up for young people diagnosed with diabetes. “Such efforts may potentially lead to increased understanding of the mechanistic differences between pathology in T1D versus T2D,” she concluded.

This study used the resources of the Rochester Epidemiology Project (REP) medical records linkage system, which is supported by grant funding from the National Institute on Aging, the Mayo Clinic Research Committee, and by fees paid annually by REP users. The study authors disclosed no conflicts of interest.

Children diagnosed with type 2 diabetes (T2D) appear significantly more likely to develop retinopathy and other ocular complications over time than children who are diagnosed with type 1 diabetes (T1D), researchers report.

Among a population-based cohort of children (defined as younger than 22 years), the risk of diabetic retinopathy was 88% greater in those with T2D than T1D within the first 15 years of disease diagnosis.

“The purpose of this study was to assess the risk of developing diabetes-associated ocular complications among a population-based cohort of children diagnosed with either T1D or T2D during a 50-year period,” lead author Patricia Bai, BA, of Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, and colleagues reported in JAMA Ophthalmology.

The researchers retrospectively reviewed medical records from all residents of Olmsted County, Minn., from 1970 to 2019. The study cohort included 606 children with a confirmed a diagnosis of T1D or T2D, 525 (87%) of whom had at least one ocular examination.

The mean age at diabetes diagnosis was 12 years (standard deviation, 5.4 years); most participants were White (95.7% in 1990), and half (50%) were male. Diabetes-associated ocular complications occurred in 31.9% and 26.6% of children with T1D and T2D, respectively.

The hazard ratios illustrating the risk between T2D and T1D rates were 1.88 (95% confidence interval, 1.13-3.12; P = .02) for any diabetic retinopathy, 2.33 (95% CI, 0.99-5.50; P = .048) for proliferative diabetic retinopathy, 1.49 (95% CI, 0.46-4.89; P = .50) for diabetic macular edema, 2.43 (95% CI, 0.54-11.07; P = .24) for a visually significant cataract, and 4.06 (95% CI, 1.34-12.33; P = .007) for requiring pars plana vitrectomy within the first 15 years of diagnosis.

These results suggest that earlier surveillance and intervention may help prevent vision-threatening complications, the researchers explained.

“After adjusting for race using self-identified categories of White or not White, the adjusted HR of developing any retinopathy was 1.63 (95% CI, 0.96-2.79; P = .07), and the adjusted HR of developing proliferative diabetic retinopathy was 2.02 (95% CI, 0.79-5.16; P = .14)” in T2D versus T1D patients, the researchers wrote.

“We would expect the reported rate of type 2 diabetes to be potentially underestimated in our study cohort,” Ms. Bai commented in an interview. “Race has been suggested to be a surrogate for other social determinants of health, such as lower rates of optimal follow-up care received by racial and ethnic minorities, which could influence subsequent retinopathy rates.”
 

Understanding retinopathy outcomes in youth

In an accompanying editorial, Jennifer K. Sun, MD, MPH, from Harvard Medical School, Boston, wrote that the present study indicates the natural history of retinopathy may differ between patients with T1D and T2D.

While the pathophysiology of diabetic retinopathy in T1D and T2D appears similar, other patient-related factors such as lipid profiles, the presence of hypertension, and body mass index may differ between the two disease states.

She wrote that “there is a particular need to document retinopathy outcomes and risk factors for advanced disease in youth with T2D, for whom there is a paucity of information.”

Ms. Bai and colleagues acknowledged that a key limitation of the study was the retrospective design. As a result, irregular follow-up and incomplete data may limit the applicability of the findings.

“Some children with milder forms of diabetes may have eluded detection, a limitation that is more likely to affect T2D, which may exist undetected for years before a diagnosis,” Bai explained.

Dr. Sun recommended that further epidemiologic studies are needed to help optimize guidelines for screening and follow-up for young people diagnosed with diabetes. “Such efforts may potentially lead to increased understanding of the mechanistic differences between pathology in T1D versus T2D,” she concluded.

This study used the resources of the Rochester Epidemiology Project (REP) medical records linkage system, which is supported by grant funding from the National Institute on Aging, the Mayo Clinic Research Committee, and by fees paid annually by REP users. The study authors disclosed no conflicts of interest.

Children diagnosed with type 2 diabetes (T2D) appear significantly more likely to develop retinopathy and other ocular complications over time than children who are diagnosed with type 1 diabetes (T1D), researchers report.

Among a population-based cohort of children (defined as younger than 22 years), the risk of diabetic retinopathy was 88% greater in those with T2D than T1D within the first 15 years of disease diagnosis.

“The purpose of this study was to assess the risk of developing diabetes-associated ocular complications among a population-based cohort of children diagnosed with either T1D or T2D during a 50-year period,” lead author Patricia Bai, BA, of Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, and colleagues reported in JAMA Ophthalmology.

The researchers retrospectively reviewed medical records from all residents of Olmsted County, Minn., from 1970 to 2019. The study cohort included 606 children with a confirmed a diagnosis of T1D or T2D, 525 (87%) of whom had at least one ocular examination.

The mean age at diabetes diagnosis was 12 years (standard deviation, 5.4 years); most participants were White (95.7% in 1990), and half (50%) were male. Diabetes-associated ocular complications occurred in 31.9% and 26.6% of children with T1D and T2D, respectively.

The hazard ratios illustrating the risk between T2D and T1D rates were 1.88 (95% confidence interval, 1.13-3.12; P = .02) for any diabetic retinopathy, 2.33 (95% CI, 0.99-5.50; P = .048) for proliferative diabetic retinopathy, 1.49 (95% CI, 0.46-4.89; P = .50) for diabetic macular edema, 2.43 (95% CI, 0.54-11.07; P = .24) for a visually significant cataract, and 4.06 (95% CI, 1.34-12.33; P = .007) for requiring pars plana vitrectomy within the first 15 years of diagnosis.

These results suggest that earlier surveillance and intervention may help prevent vision-threatening complications, the researchers explained.

“After adjusting for race using self-identified categories of White or not White, the adjusted HR of developing any retinopathy was 1.63 (95% CI, 0.96-2.79; P = .07), and the adjusted HR of developing proliferative diabetic retinopathy was 2.02 (95% CI, 0.79-5.16; P = .14)” in T2D versus T1D patients, the researchers wrote.

“We would expect the reported rate of type 2 diabetes to be potentially underestimated in our study cohort,” Ms. Bai commented in an interview. “Race has been suggested to be a surrogate for other social determinants of health, such as lower rates of optimal follow-up care received by racial and ethnic minorities, which could influence subsequent retinopathy rates.”
 

Understanding retinopathy outcomes in youth

In an accompanying editorial, Jennifer K. Sun, MD, MPH, from Harvard Medical School, Boston, wrote that the present study indicates the natural history of retinopathy may differ between patients with T1D and T2D.

While the pathophysiology of diabetic retinopathy in T1D and T2D appears similar, other patient-related factors such as lipid profiles, the presence of hypertension, and body mass index may differ between the two disease states.

She wrote that “there is a particular need to document retinopathy outcomes and risk factors for advanced disease in youth with T2D, for whom there is a paucity of information.”

Ms. Bai and colleagues acknowledged that a key limitation of the study was the retrospective design. As a result, irregular follow-up and incomplete data may limit the applicability of the findings.

“Some children with milder forms of diabetes may have eluded detection, a limitation that is more likely to affect T2D, which may exist undetected for years before a diagnosis,” Bai explained.

Dr. Sun recommended that further epidemiologic studies are needed to help optimize guidelines for screening and follow-up for young people diagnosed with diabetes. “Such efforts may potentially lead to increased understanding of the mechanistic differences between pathology in T1D versus T2D,” she concluded.

This study used the resources of the Rochester Epidemiology Project (REP) medical records linkage system, which is supported by grant funding from the National Institute on Aging, the Mayo Clinic Research Committee, and by fees paid annually by REP users. The study authors disclosed no conflicts of interest.