Pediatrics

The Food and Drug Administration has approved one formulation of azelastine (Astepro) nasal spray for nonprescription treatment of allergies, making it the first nasal antihistamine available over the counter in the United States.

The 0.15% strength of azelastine hydrochloride nasal spray is now approved for nonprescription treatment of seasonal and perennial allergic rhinitis in adults and children 6 years of age or older, the agency said. The 0.1% strength remains a prescription product that is indicated in younger children.

The “approval provides individuals an option for a safe and effective nasal antihistamine without requiring the assistance of a health care provider,” Theresa M. Michele, MD, director of the office of nonprescription drugs in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in a prepared statement.

The FDA granted the nonprescription approval to Bayer Healthcare LLC, which said in a press release that the nasal spray would be available in national mass retail locations starting in the first quarter of 2022.

Oral antihistamines such as cetirizine (Zyrtec), loratadine (Claritin), and fexofenadine (Allegra) have been on store shelves for years. Azelastine 0.15% will be the first and only over-the-counter antihistamine for indoor and outdoor allergy relief in a nasal formulation, Bayer said.

An over-the-counter nasal antihistamine could be a better option for some allergy sufferers when compared with what is already over the counter, said Tracy Prematta, MD, a private practice allergist in Havertown, Pa.

“In general, I like the nasal antihistamines,” Dr. Prematta said in an interview. “They work quickly, whereas the nasal steroids don’t, and I think a lot of people who go to the drugstore looking for allergy relief are actually looking for something quick-acting.”

However, the cost of the over-the-counter azelastine may play a big role in whether patients go with the prescription or nonprescription option, according to Dr. Prematta.

Bayer has not yet set the price for nonprescription azelastine, a company spokesperson told this news organization.

The change in azelastine approval status happened through a regulatory process called an Rx-to-OTC switch. According to the FDA, products switched to nonprescription status need to have data demonstrating that they are safe and effective as self-medication when used as directed.

The product manufacturer has to show that consumers know how to use the drug safely and effectively without a health care professional supervising them, the FDA said.

The FDA considers the change in status for azelastine a partial Rx-to-OTC switch, since the 0.15% strength is now over the counter and the 0.1% strength remains a prescription product.

The 0.1% strength is indicated for perennial allergies in children 6 months to 6 years old, and seasonal allergies for children 2-6 years old, according to the FDA.

Drowsiness is a side effect of azelastine, the FDA said. According to prescribing information, consumers using the nasal spray need to be careful when driving or operating machinery, and should avoid alcohol.

Using the product with alcohol, sedatives, or tranquilizers may increase drowsiness, the agency added.

Sedation is also common with the oral antihistamines people take to treat their allergies, said Dr. Prematta, who added that patients may also complain of dry mouth, nose, or throat.

Although some allergy sufferers dislike the taste of antihistamine nasal spray, they can try to overcome that issue by tilting the head forward, pointing the tip of the nozzle toward the outside of the nose, and sniffing gently, Dr. Prematta said.

“That really minimizes what gets in the back of your throat, so taste becomes less of a problem,” she explained.

Dr. Prematta has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved one formulation of azelastine (Astepro) nasal spray for nonprescription treatment of allergies, making it the first nasal antihistamine available over the counter in the United States.

The 0.15% strength of azelastine hydrochloride nasal spray is now approved for nonprescription treatment of seasonal and perennial allergic rhinitis in adults and children 6 years of age or older, the agency said. The 0.1% strength remains a prescription product that is indicated in younger children.

The “approval provides individuals an option for a safe and effective nasal antihistamine without requiring the assistance of a health care provider,” Theresa M. Michele, MD, director of the office of nonprescription drugs in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in a prepared statement.

The FDA granted the nonprescription approval to Bayer Healthcare LLC, which said in a press release that the nasal spray would be available in national mass retail locations starting in the first quarter of 2022.

Oral antihistamines such as cetirizine (Zyrtec), loratadine (Claritin), and fexofenadine (Allegra) have been on store shelves for years. Azelastine 0.15% will be the first and only over-the-counter antihistamine for indoor and outdoor allergy relief in a nasal formulation, Bayer said.

An over-the-counter nasal antihistamine could be a better option for some allergy sufferers when compared with what is already over the counter, said Tracy Prematta, MD, a private practice allergist in Havertown, Pa.

“In general, I like the nasal antihistamines,” Dr. Prematta said in an interview. “They work quickly, whereas the nasal steroids don’t, and I think a lot of people who go to the drugstore looking for allergy relief are actually looking for something quick-acting.”

However, the cost of the over-the-counter azelastine may play a big role in whether patients go with the prescription or nonprescription option, according to Dr. Prematta.

Bayer has not yet set the price for nonprescription azelastine, a company spokesperson told this news organization.

The change in azelastine approval status happened through a regulatory process called an Rx-to-OTC switch. According to the FDA, products switched to nonprescription status need to have data demonstrating that they are safe and effective as self-medication when used as directed.

The product manufacturer has to show that consumers know how to use the drug safely and effectively without a health care professional supervising them, the FDA said.

The FDA considers the change in status for azelastine a partial Rx-to-OTC switch, since the 0.15% strength is now over the counter and the 0.1% strength remains a prescription product.

The 0.1% strength is indicated for perennial allergies in children 6 months to 6 years old, and seasonal allergies for children 2-6 years old, according to the FDA.

Drowsiness is a side effect of azelastine, the FDA said. According to prescribing information, consumers using the nasal spray need to be careful when driving or operating machinery, and should avoid alcohol.

Using the product with alcohol, sedatives, or tranquilizers may increase drowsiness, the agency added.

Sedation is also common with the oral antihistamines people take to treat their allergies, said Dr. Prematta, who added that patients may also complain of dry mouth, nose, or throat.

Although some allergy sufferers dislike the taste of antihistamine nasal spray, they can try to overcome that issue by tilting the head forward, pointing the tip of the nozzle toward the outside of the nose, and sniffing gently, Dr. Prematta said.

“That really minimizes what gets in the back of your throat, so taste becomes less of a problem,” she explained.

Dr. Prematta has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved one formulation of azelastine (Astepro) nasal spray for nonprescription treatment of allergies, making it the first nasal antihistamine available over the counter in the United States.

The 0.15% strength of azelastine hydrochloride nasal spray is now approved for nonprescription treatment of seasonal and perennial allergic rhinitis in adults and children 6 years of age or older, the agency said. The 0.1% strength remains a prescription product that is indicated in younger children.

The “approval provides individuals an option for a safe and effective nasal antihistamine without requiring the assistance of a health care provider,” Theresa M. Michele, MD, director of the office of nonprescription drugs in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in a prepared statement.

The FDA granted the nonprescription approval to Bayer Healthcare LLC, which said in a press release that the nasal spray would be available in national mass retail locations starting in the first quarter of 2022.

Oral antihistamines such as cetirizine (Zyrtec), loratadine (Claritin), and fexofenadine (Allegra) have been on store shelves for years. Azelastine 0.15% will be the first and only over-the-counter antihistamine for indoor and outdoor allergy relief in a nasal formulation, Bayer said.

An over-the-counter nasal antihistamine could be a better option for some allergy sufferers when compared with what is already over the counter, said Tracy Prematta, MD, a private practice allergist in Havertown, Pa.

“In general, I like the nasal antihistamines,” Dr. Prematta said in an interview. “They work quickly, whereas the nasal steroids don’t, and I think a lot of people who go to the drugstore looking for allergy relief are actually looking for something quick-acting.”

However, the cost of the over-the-counter azelastine may play a big role in whether patients go with the prescription or nonprescription option, according to Dr. Prematta.

Bayer has not yet set the price for nonprescription azelastine, a company spokesperson told this news organization.

The change in azelastine approval status happened through a regulatory process called an Rx-to-OTC switch. According to the FDA, products switched to nonprescription status need to have data demonstrating that they are safe and effective as self-medication when used as directed.

The product manufacturer has to show that consumers know how to use the drug safely and effectively without a health care professional supervising them, the FDA said.

The FDA considers the change in status for azelastine a partial Rx-to-OTC switch, since the 0.15% strength is now over the counter and the 0.1% strength remains a prescription product.

The 0.1% strength is indicated for perennial allergies in children 6 months to 6 years old, and seasonal allergies for children 2-6 years old, according to the FDA.

Drowsiness is a side effect of azelastine, the FDA said. According to prescribing information, consumers using the nasal spray need to be careful when driving or operating machinery, and should avoid alcohol.

Using the product with alcohol, sedatives, or tranquilizers may increase drowsiness, the agency added.

Sedation is also common with the oral antihistamines people take to treat their allergies, said Dr. Prematta, who added that patients may also complain of dry mouth, nose, or throat.

Although some allergy sufferers dislike the taste of antihistamine nasal spray, they can try to overcome that issue by tilting the head forward, pointing the tip of the nozzle toward the outside of the nose, and sniffing gently, Dr. Prematta said.

“That really minimizes what gets in the back of your throat, so taste becomes less of a problem,” she explained.

Dr. Prematta has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

THE CASE

A 5-year-old previously healthy white boy presented to clinic with bilateral calf pain and refusal to bear weight since awakening that morning. Associated symptoms included a 3-day history of generalized fatigue, subjective fevers, cough, congestion, and rhinitis. The night prior to presentation, he showed no symptoms of gait abnormalities, muscle pain, or weakness. There was no history of similar symptoms, trauma, overexertion, foreign travel, or family history of musculoskeletal disease. He was fully immunized, except for the annual influenza vaccine. He was not taking any medications. This case occurred before the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Objective findings included fever of 101 °F, refusal to bear weight, and symmetrical bilateral tenderness to palpation of the gastrocnemius-soleus complex. Pain was elicited with passive dorsiflexion. There was no erythema, edema, or sensory deficits, and the distal leg compartments were soft. There was normal range of motion of the hips, knees, and ankles. Dorsalis pedis pulses were 2+, and patella reflexes were 2/4 bilaterally.

Lab results included a white blood cell count of 2500/μL (normal range, 4500 to 11,000/μL);absolute neutrophil count, 900/μL (1500 to 8000/μL); platelet count, 131,000/μL (150,000 to 450,000/μL); creatine kinase level, 869 IU/L (22 to 198 U/L); and aspartate aminotransferase level, 116 U/L (8 to 33 U/L). A rapid influenza swab was positive for influenza B. Plain films of the bilateral hips and lower extremities were unremarkable. C-reactive protein (CRP) level, urinalysis, and renal function tests were within normal limits. Creatine kinase (CK) level peaked (1935 U/L; normal range, 22 to 198 U/L) within the first 24 hours of presentation and then trended down.

The Diagnosis

The patient’s sudden onset of symmetrical bilateral calf pain in the setting of an upper respiratory tract infection was extremely suspicious for benign acute childhood myositis (BACM). Lab work and radiologic evaluation were performed to rule out more ominous causes of refusal to bear weight. The suspicion of BACM was further validated by influenza B serology, an elevated CK, and a normal CRP.

While several infectious etiologies have been linked to benign acute childhood myositis, influenza B has the greatest association.

Discussion

BACM was first described by Lundberg in 1957.¹ The overall incidence and prevalence are unclear.² A viral prodrome involving rhinorrhea, low-grade fever, sore throat, cough, and malaise typically precedes bilateral calf pain by 3 days.^2-4 Myositis symptoms typically last for 4 days.³ While several infectious etiologies have been linked to this condition, influenza B has the greatest association.^5,6

 ❚ Patient population. BACM occurs predominately in school-aged children (6-8 years old) and has a male-to-female ratio of 2:1.^3,5,6 In a retrospective study of 219 children, BACM was strongly associated with male gender and ages 6 to 9 years.³ In another retrospective study of 54 children,80% of patients were male, and the mean age was 7.3 years.⁵

❚ Key symptoms and differential. The distinguishing feature of BACM is bilateral symmetric gastrocnemius-soleus tenderness.^2,4 Additionally, the lack of neurologic symptoms is an important differentiator, as long as refusal to bear weight is not mistaken for weakness.⁶ These features help to distinguish BACM from other items in the differential, including trauma, Guillain-Barre syndrome, osteomyelitis, malignancy, deep vein thrombosis, and inherited musculoskeletal disorders.²

Continue to: Labratory evaluation...

❚ Laboratory evaluation will often show mild neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, and mild elevation in CK.^7,8 CRP is typically normal.^4,7,9 In a retrospective study of 28 admissions for BACM from 2001 to 2012, common findings included leukopenia (35%), neutropenia (25%), and thrombocytopenia (21%). The median CK value was 4181 U/L.⁴ In another analysis of BACM cases, mean CK was 1872 U/L.⁵

❚ Biopsy is unnecessary; however, calf muscle samples from 11 of 12 children with suspected BACM due to influenza B infection were consistent with patchy necrosis without significant myositis.¹⁰

❚ Complications. Rhabdomyolysis, although rare, has been reported with BACM. In 1 analysis, 10 of 316 patients with influenza-associated myositis developed rhabdomyolysis; 8 experienced renal failure. Rhabdomyolysis was 4 times more likely to occur in girls, and 86% of cases were associated with influenza A.⁶ Common manifestations of rhabdomyolysis associated with influenza include diffuse myopathy, gross hematuria, and myoglobinuria.⁶

❚ Treatment is mainly supportive.^4,8,9 Antivirals typically are not indicated, as the bilateral calf pain manifests during the recovery phase of the illness.^4,9,11 BACM is self-limited and should resolve within 3 days of myositis manifestation.² Patients should follow up in 2 to 3 weeks to verify symptom resolution.²

If muscle pain, swelling, and tenderness worsen, further work-up is indicated. In more severe cases, including those involving renal failure, intensive care management and even dialysis may be necessary.^4,6

❚ Our patient was hospitalized due to fever in the setting of neutropenia. Ultimately, he was treated with acetaminophen and intravenous fluids for mild dehydration and elevated CK levels. He was discharged home after 3 days, at which time he had complete resolution of pain and was able to resume normal activities.

The Takeaway

Benign acute childhood myositis is a self-limited disorder with an excellent prognosis. It has a typical presentation and therefore should be a clinical diagnosis; however, investigative studies may be warranted to rule out more ominous causes. Reassurance to family that the condition should self-resolve in a few days is important. Close follow-up should be scheduled to ensure resolution of symptoms. 

CORRESPONDENCE

Nicholas A. Rathjen, DO, William Beaumont Army Medical Center, Department of Soldier and Family Care, 11335 SSG Sims Street, Fort Bliss, TX 79918; nicholas.a.rathjen@gmail. com

THE CASE

A 5-year-old previously healthy white boy presented to clinic with bilateral calf pain and refusal to bear weight since awakening that morning. Associated symptoms included a 3-day history of generalized fatigue, subjective fevers, cough, congestion, and rhinitis. The night prior to presentation, he showed no symptoms of gait abnormalities, muscle pain, or weakness. There was no history of similar symptoms, trauma, overexertion, foreign travel, or family history of musculoskeletal disease. He was fully immunized, except for the annual influenza vaccine. He was not taking any medications. This case occurred before the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Objective findings included fever of 101 °F, refusal to bear weight, and symmetrical bilateral tenderness to palpation of the gastrocnemius-soleus complex. Pain was elicited with passive dorsiflexion. There was no erythema, edema, or sensory deficits, and the distal leg compartments were soft. There was normal range of motion of the hips, knees, and ankles. Dorsalis pedis pulses were 2+, and patella reflexes were 2/4 bilaterally.

Lab results included a white blood cell count of 2500/μL (normal range, 4500 to 11,000/μL);absolute neutrophil count, 900/μL (1500 to 8000/μL); platelet count, 131,000/μL (150,000 to 450,000/μL); creatine kinase level, 869 IU/L (22 to 198 U/L); and aspartate aminotransferase level, 116 U/L (8 to 33 U/L). A rapid influenza swab was positive for influenza B. Plain films of the bilateral hips and lower extremities were unremarkable. C-reactive protein (CRP) level, urinalysis, and renal function tests were within normal limits. Creatine kinase (CK) level peaked (1935 U/L; normal range, 22 to 198 U/L) within the first 24 hours of presentation and then trended down.

The Diagnosis

The patient’s sudden onset of symmetrical bilateral calf pain in the setting of an upper respiratory tract infection was extremely suspicious for benign acute childhood myositis (BACM). Lab work and radiologic evaluation were performed to rule out more ominous causes of refusal to bear weight. The suspicion of BACM was further validated by influenza B serology, an elevated CK, and a normal CRP.

While several infectious etiologies have been linked to benign acute childhood myositis, influenza B has the greatest association.

Discussion

BACM was first described by Lundberg in 1957.¹ The overall incidence and prevalence are unclear.² A viral prodrome involving rhinorrhea, low-grade fever, sore throat, cough, and malaise typically precedes bilateral calf pain by 3 days.^2-4 Myositis symptoms typically last for 4 days.³ While several infectious etiologies have been linked to this condition, influenza B has the greatest association.^5,6

 ❚ Patient population. BACM occurs predominately in school-aged children (6-8 years old) and has a male-to-female ratio of 2:1.^3,5,6 In a retrospective study of 219 children, BACM was strongly associated with male gender and ages 6 to 9 years.³ In another retrospective study of 54 children,80% of patients were male, and the mean age was 7.3 years.⁵

❚ Key symptoms and differential. The distinguishing feature of BACM is bilateral symmetric gastrocnemius-soleus tenderness.^2,4 Additionally, the lack of neurologic symptoms is an important differentiator, as long as refusal to bear weight is not mistaken for weakness.⁶ These features help to distinguish BACM from other items in the differential, including trauma, Guillain-Barre syndrome, osteomyelitis, malignancy, deep vein thrombosis, and inherited musculoskeletal disorders.²

Continue to: Labratory evaluation...

❚ Laboratory evaluation will often show mild neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, and mild elevation in CK.^7,8 CRP is typically normal.^4,7,9 In a retrospective study of 28 admissions for BACM from 2001 to 2012, common findings included leukopenia (35%), neutropenia (25%), and thrombocytopenia (21%). The median CK value was 4181 U/L.⁴ In another analysis of BACM cases, mean CK was 1872 U/L.⁵

❚ Biopsy is unnecessary; however, calf muscle samples from 11 of 12 children with suspected BACM due to influenza B infection were consistent with patchy necrosis without significant myositis.¹⁰

❚ Complications. Rhabdomyolysis, although rare, has been reported with BACM. In 1 analysis, 10 of 316 patients with influenza-associated myositis developed rhabdomyolysis; 8 experienced renal failure. Rhabdomyolysis was 4 times more likely to occur in girls, and 86% of cases were associated with influenza A.⁶ Common manifestations of rhabdomyolysis associated with influenza include diffuse myopathy, gross hematuria, and myoglobinuria.⁶

❚ Treatment is mainly supportive.^4,8,9 Antivirals typically are not indicated, as the bilateral calf pain manifests during the recovery phase of the illness.^4,9,11 BACM is self-limited and should resolve within 3 days of myositis manifestation.² Patients should follow up in 2 to 3 weeks to verify symptom resolution.²

If muscle pain, swelling, and tenderness worsen, further work-up is indicated. In more severe cases, including those involving renal failure, intensive care management and even dialysis may be necessary.^4,6

❚ Our patient was hospitalized due to fever in the setting of neutropenia. Ultimately, he was treated with acetaminophen and intravenous fluids for mild dehydration and elevated CK levels. He was discharged home after 3 days, at which time he had complete resolution of pain and was able to resume normal activities.

The Takeaway

Benign acute childhood myositis is a self-limited disorder with an excellent prognosis. It has a typical presentation and therefore should be a clinical diagnosis; however, investigative studies may be warranted to rule out more ominous causes. Reassurance to family that the condition should self-resolve in a few days is important. Close follow-up should be scheduled to ensure resolution of symptoms. 

CORRESPONDENCE

Nicholas A. Rathjen, DO, William Beaumont Army Medical Center, Department of Soldier and Family Care, 11335 SSG Sims Street, Fort Bliss, TX 79918; nicholas.a.rathjen@gmail. com

THE CASE

A 5-year-old previously healthy white boy presented to clinic with bilateral calf pain and refusal to bear weight since awakening that morning. Associated symptoms included a 3-day history of generalized fatigue, subjective fevers, cough, congestion, and rhinitis. The night prior to presentation, he showed no symptoms of gait abnormalities, muscle pain, or weakness. There was no history of similar symptoms, trauma, overexertion, foreign travel, or family history of musculoskeletal disease. He was fully immunized, except for the annual influenza vaccine. He was not taking any medications. This case occurred before the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Objective findings included fever of 101 °F, refusal to bear weight, and symmetrical bilateral tenderness to palpation of the gastrocnemius-soleus complex. Pain was elicited with passive dorsiflexion. There was no erythema, edema, or sensory deficits, and the distal leg compartments were soft. There was normal range of motion of the hips, knees, and ankles. Dorsalis pedis pulses were 2+, and patella reflexes were 2/4 bilaterally.

Lab results included a white blood cell count of 2500/μL (normal range, 4500 to 11,000/μL);absolute neutrophil count, 900/μL (1500 to 8000/μL); platelet count, 131,000/μL (150,000 to 450,000/μL); creatine kinase level, 869 IU/L (22 to 198 U/L); and aspartate aminotransferase level, 116 U/L (8 to 33 U/L). A rapid influenza swab was positive for influenza B. Plain films of the bilateral hips and lower extremities were unremarkable. C-reactive protein (CRP) level, urinalysis, and renal function tests were within normal limits. Creatine kinase (CK) level peaked (1935 U/L; normal range, 22 to 198 U/L) within the first 24 hours of presentation and then trended down.

The Diagnosis

The patient’s sudden onset of symmetrical bilateral calf pain in the setting of an upper respiratory tract infection was extremely suspicious for benign acute childhood myositis (BACM). Lab work and radiologic evaluation were performed to rule out more ominous causes of refusal to bear weight. The suspicion of BACM was further validated by influenza B serology, an elevated CK, and a normal CRP.

While several infectious etiologies have been linked to benign acute childhood myositis, influenza B has the greatest association.

Discussion

BACM was first described by Lundberg in 1957.¹ The overall incidence and prevalence are unclear.² A viral prodrome involving rhinorrhea, low-grade fever, sore throat, cough, and malaise typically precedes bilateral calf pain by 3 days.^2-4 Myositis symptoms typically last for 4 days.³ While several infectious etiologies have been linked to this condition, influenza B has the greatest association.^5,6

 ❚ Patient population. BACM occurs predominately in school-aged children (6-8 years old) and has a male-to-female ratio of 2:1.^3,5,6 In a retrospective study of 219 children, BACM was strongly associated with male gender and ages 6 to 9 years.³ In another retrospective study of 54 children,80% of patients were male, and the mean age was 7.3 years.⁵

❚ Key symptoms and differential. The distinguishing feature of BACM is bilateral symmetric gastrocnemius-soleus tenderness.^2,4 Additionally, the lack of neurologic symptoms is an important differentiator, as long as refusal to bear weight is not mistaken for weakness.⁶ These features help to distinguish BACM from other items in the differential, including trauma, Guillain-Barre syndrome, osteomyelitis, malignancy, deep vein thrombosis, and inherited musculoskeletal disorders.²

Continue to: Labratory evaluation...

❚ Laboratory evaluation will often show mild neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, and mild elevation in CK.^7,8 CRP is typically normal.^4,7,9 In a retrospective study of 28 admissions for BACM from 2001 to 2012, common findings included leukopenia (35%), neutropenia (25%), and thrombocytopenia (21%). The median CK value was 4181 U/L.⁴ In another analysis of BACM cases, mean CK was 1872 U/L.⁵

❚ Biopsy is unnecessary; however, calf muscle samples from 11 of 12 children with suspected BACM due to influenza B infection were consistent with patchy necrosis without significant myositis.¹⁰

❚ Complications. Rhabdomyolysis, although rare, has been reported with BACM. In 1 analysis, 10 of 316 patients with influenza-associated myositis developed rhabdomyolysis; 8 experienced renal failure. Rhabdomyolysis was 4 times more likely to occur in girls, and 86% of cases were associated with influenza A.⁶ Common manifestations of rhabdomyolysis associated with influenza include diffuse myopathy, gross hematuria, and myoglobinuria.⁶

❚ Treatment is mainly supportive.^4,8,9 Antivirals typically are not indicated, as the bilateral calf pain manifests during the recovery phase of the illness.^4,9,11 BACM is self-limited and should resolve within 3 days of myositis manifestation.² Patients should follow up in 2 to 3 weeks to verify symptom resolution.²

If muscle pain, swelling, and tenderness worsen, further work-up is indicated. In more severe cases, including those involving renal failure, intensive care management and even dialysis may be necessary.^4,6

❚ Our patient was hospitalized due to fever in the setting of neutropenia. Ultimately, he was treated with acetaminophen and intravenous fluids for mild dehydration and elevated CK levels. He was discharged home after 3 days, at which time he had complete resolution of pain and was able to resume normal activities.

The Takeaway

Benign acute childhood myositis is a self-limited disorder with an excellent prognosis. It has a typical presentation and therefore should be a clinical diagnosis; however, investigative studies may be warranted to rule out more ominous causes. Reassurance to family that the condition should self-resolve in a few days is important. Close follow-up should be scheduled to ensure resolution of symptoms. 

CORRESPONDENCE

Nicholas A. Rathjen, DO, William Beaumont Army Medical Center, Department of Soldier and Family Care, 11335 SSG Sims Street, Fort Bliss, TX 79918; nicholas.a.rathjen@gmail. com

In this issue of JFP, Smith et al recommend following guidelines from the American Academy of Pediatrics to annually screen children for hypertension (see page 220). This recommendation appears to be at odds with the recent US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) statement that concluded there is insufficient evidence for screening children and adolescents for hypertension. But an “I” recommendation from the USPSTF is not the same as a “D” recommendation. “D” means don’t do it, because the evidence indicates that the harms outweigh the benefits. “I” means we don’t have enough evidence to weigh the harms and benefits, so it is up to you and your patients to decide what to do.

So whose recommendations should we follow?

Our decision should be based on a thorough understanding of the evidence, and that evidence is well summarized in the recent USPSTF report.¹ The reviewers found no studies that evaluated the benefits and harms of screening children and adolescents for hypertension and no studies evaluating disease outcomes from treating hypertension in these patients.

What we can all agree on is that, when hypertension is identified in a child or adolescent, it is important to determine if there is a treatable cause.

There is, however, an association between elevated blood pressure in childhood and outcomes such as left ventricular hypertrophy and carotid intimal thickness.² Some physicians contend that these “disease-oriented outcomes” are sufficient reason to identify and treat hypertension in children and adolescents.³ The USPSTF, however, requires a higher level of evidence that includes patient-oriented outcomes, such as a lower risk of congestive heart failure, renal failure, or death, before recommending treatment. Physicians and patients have to choose what level of evidence is sufficient to take action.

Dr. Smith comments: “As noted in their report, the USPSTF acknowledges that observational studies indicate an association between hypertension in childhood and hypertension in adulthood, but there have been no randomized trials to determine if treating hypertension in children and adolescents reduces risk of cardiovascular events. Although it is a cohort study, not a randomized trial, the ongoing i3C Consortium Outcomes Study⁴ may provide better information to guide decision-making for children and adolescents with elevated blood pressure.”

What we can all agree on is that, when hypertension is identified in a child or adolescent, it is important to determine if there is a treatable cause of elevated blood pressure such as coarctation of the aorta or renal disease. It is also important to address risk factors for elevated blood pressure and cardiovascular disease, such as obesity, poor dietary habits, and smoking. The treatment is lifestyle modification with diet, exercise, and smoking cessation. 

In this issue of JFP, Smith et al recommend following guidelines from the American Academy of Pediatrics to annually screen children for hypertension (see page 220). This recommendation appears to be at odds with the recent US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) statement that concluded there is insufficient evidence for screening children and adolescents for hypertension. But an “I” recommendation from the USPSTF is not the same as a “D” recommendation. “D” means don’t do it, because the evidence indicates that the harms outweigh the benefits. “I” means we don’t have enough evidence to weigh the harms and benefits, so it is up to you and your patients to decide what to do.

So whose recommendations should we follow?

Our decision should be based on a thorough understanding of the evidence, and that evidence is well summarized in the recent USPSTF report.¹ The reviewers found no studies that evaluated the benefits and harms of screening children and adolescents for hypertension and no studies evaluating disease outcomes from treating hypertension in these patients.

What we can all agree on is that, when hypertension is identified in a child or adolescent, it is important to determine if there is a treatable cause.

There is, however, an association between elevated blood pressure in childhood and outcomes such as left ventricular hypertrophy and carotid intimal thickness.² Some physicians contend that these “disease-oriented outcomes” are sufficient reason to identify and treat hypertension in children and adolescents.³ The USPSTF, however, requires a higher level of evidence that includes patient-oriented outcomes, such as a lower risk of congestive heart failure, renal failure, or death, before recommending treatment. Physicians and patients have to choose what level of evidence is sufficient to take action.

Dr. Smith comments: “As noted in their report, the USPSTF acknowledges that observational studies indicate an association between hypertension in childhood and hypertension in adulthood, but there have been no randomized trials to determine if treating hypertension in children and adolescents reduces risk of cardiovascular events. Although it is a cohort study, not a randomized trial, the ongoing i3C Consortium Outcomes Study⁴ may provide better information to guide decision-making for children and adolescents with elevated blood pressure.”

What we can all agree on is that, when hypertension is identified in a child or adolescent, it is important to determine if there is a treatable cause of elevated blood pressure such as coarctation of the aorta or renal disease. It is also important to address risk factors for elevated blood pressure and cardiovascular disease, such as obesity, poor dietary habits, and smoking. The treatment is lifestyle modification with diet, exercise, and smoking cessation. 

In this issue of JFP, Smith et al recommend following guidelines from the American Academy of Pediatrics to annually screen children for hypertension (see page 220). This recommendation appears to be at odds with the recent US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) statement that concluded there is insufficient evidence for screening children and adolescents for hypertension. But an “I” recommendation from the USPSTF is not the same as a “D” recommendation. “D” means don’t do it, because the evidence indicates that the harms outweigh the benefits. “I” means we don’t have enough evidence to weigh the harms and benefits, so it is up to you and your patients to decide what to do.

So whose recommendations should we follow?

Our decision should be based on a thorough understanding of the evidence, and that evidence is well summarized in the recent USPSTF report.¹ The reviewers found no studies that evaluated the benefits and harms of screening children and adolescents for hypertension and no studies evaluating disease outcomes from treating hypertension in these patients.

What we can all agree on is that, when hypertension is identified in a child or adolescent, it is important to determine if there is a treatable cause.

There is, however, an association between elevated blood pressure in childhood and outcomes such as left ventricular hypertrophy and carotid intimal thickness.² Some physicians contend that these “disease-oriented outcomes” are sufficient reason to identify and treat hypertension in children and adolescents.³ The USPSTF, however, requires a higher level of evidence that includes patient-oriented outcomes, such as a lower risk of congestive heart failure, renal failure, or death, before recommending treatment. Physicians and patients have to choose what level of evidence is sufficient to take action.

Dr. Smith comments: “As noted in their report, the USPSTF acknowledges that observational studies indicate an association between hypertension in childhood and hypertension in adulthood, but there have been no randomized trials to determine if treating hypertension in children and adolescents reduces risk of cardiovascular events. Although it is a cohort study, not a randomized trial, the ongoing i3C Consortium Outcomes Study⁴ may provide better information to guide decision-making for children and adolescents with elevated blood pressure.”

What we can all agree on is that, when hypertension is identified in a child or adolescent, it is important to determine if there is a treatable cause of elevated blood pressure such as coarctation of the aorta or renal disease. It is also important to address risk factors for elevated blood pressure and cardiovascular disease, such as obesity, poor dietary habits, and smoking. The treatment is lifestyle modification with diet, exercise, and smoking cessation. 

Testing COVID-19 vaccines in young children is going to be tricky. Deciding how to approve them and who should get them may be even more difficult.

So far, the vaccines available to Americans ages 12 and up have sailed through the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s regulatory checks, taking advantage of an accelerated clearance process called an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA). 

EUAs set a lower bar for effectiveness, saying the vaccines may be safe and effective based on just a few months of data. 

But with COVID cases plummeting in the United States and children historically seeing far less serious disease than adults, a panel of expert advisors to the FDA was asked to deliberate on Thursday whether the agency could consider vaccines for this age group under the same standard. 

Stated another way: Is COVID an emergency for kids? 

There’s another wrinkle in the mix, too – heart inflammation, which appears to be a very rare emerging adverse event tied to vaccination. It seems to happen more often in teens and young adults. To date, cases of myocarditis and pericarditis appear to be happening in 16 to 30 people for every 1 million doses given. 

But if it is conclusively linked to the shots, some wonder whether it might tip the balance between benefits and risks for kids.

That left some of the experts who sit on the FDA’s advisory committee for vaccines and related biological products urging the FDA to take its time and more thoroughly study the shots before they’re given to millions of children.
 

Vaccine studies different in children?

Clinical studies of the vaccines in teens and adults have thus far relied on some straightforward math. You take two groups of similar people. You give half the vaccine and half a placebo. Then you wait and see which group has more symptomatic infections. To date, the vaccines have dramatically cut the risk of getting severely ill with COVID for every age group tested.

But COVID infections are falling rapidly in the U.S., and that may make it more difficult for researchers to conduct a similar kind of experiment in children.

The FDA is considering different approaches to figure out whether a vaccine would be effective in kids, including something called an “immunobridging trial.” 

In bridging trials, researchers don’t look for infections; rather, they look for proven signs that someone has developed immunity, like antibody levels. Those biomarkers are then compared to the immune responses of younger adults who have demonstrated good protection against infection.

The main advantage of bridging studies is speed. It’s possible to get a snapshot of how the immune system responds to a vaccine within weeks of the final dose.

The drawback is that researchers don’t know exactly what to look for to judge how well the shots are generating protection. 

That’s made even more difficult because kids’ immune systems are still developing, so it may be tough to draw direct parallels to adults.

“We don’t know what the serologic correlate of immunity is now. We don’t know how much antibody you have to get in order to be protected. We don’t know what the role of T cells will be,” said H. Cody Meissner, MD, chief of the division of pediatric infectious disease at Tufts Medical Center, Boston.

“I have so much sympathy for the FDA because these are enormous problems, and you have to make a decision,” said Dr. Meissner, who is a member of the FDA’s vaccines and related biological products advisory committee.
 

Speed vaccines to market, or gather more data?

The plummeting rate of infections in the United States also means that it may be more difficult for the FDA to justify allowing a vaccine on the market for emergency use for children under age 12.

In its recent advisory committee meeting, the agency asked the panel whether it should consider COVID vaccines for children under an EUA or a biologics license application (BLA), aka full approval. 

A BLA typically means the agency considers a year or two of data on a new product, rather than just 2 months’ worth. Emergency use also allows products on the market under a looser standard – they “may be” safe and effective, instead of has been proven to be safe and effective.

Several committee members said they didn’t feel the United States was still in an emergency with COVID and couldn’t see the FDA allowing a vaccine to be used in kids that wasn’t given the agency’s highest level of scrutiny, particularly with reports of adverse events like myocarditis coming to light.

“I just want to be sure the price we pay for vaccinating millions of children justifies the side effects, and I don’t think we know that yet,” Dr. Meissner said.

Others acknowledged that there was little risk to kids now with infections on the decline but said that picture could change as variants spread, schools reopen, and colder temperatures force people indoors. 

The FDA must decide whether to act based on where we are now or where we could be in a few months.

“I think it’s the million-dollar question right now,” said Hannah Kirking, MD, a medical epidemiologist with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention who presented new and unpublished data on COVID’s impact in children to the FDA’s advisory committee.

She said prospective studies tracking the way COVID moves through a household with weekly testing from New York City and Utah had found that children catch and transmit COVID almost as readily as adults. But they don’t usually get as sick as adults do, so their cases are easy to miss. 

She also presented the results of blood tests from samples around the country looking for evidence of past infection. In these seroprevalence studies, about 27% of children under age 17 had antibodies to COVID – the most of any age group. So more than 1 in 4 kids already has some natural immunity.

That means the main benefit of vaccinating children might be the protection of others, while they still bear the risks – however tiny.

Some experts felt that wasn’t enough reason to justify mass distribution of the vaccines to kids, and from a regulatory standpoint, it might not be permissible.

“FDA can only approve a medical product in a population if the benefits outweigh the risks in that population,” said Peter Doshi, PhD, assistant professor of pharmaceutical health services research in the University of Maryland’s school of pharmacy, Baltimore.

“If benefits don’t outweigh risks in children, it can’t be indicated for children. Full stop,” said Dr. Doshi, who is also an editor at the BMJ.

He said there’s another way to give children access to vaccines, through an expanded access or compassionate use program. Because most COVID deaths have been in children with underlying health conditions, Dr. Doshi and others said it might make sense to allow expanded access – which would get vaccines to children at high risk for complications – without turning them loose on millions before they are more thoroughly studied.

“It’s not a particularly attractive option for industry, because there’s no money to be made. Your medicine can’t be commercialized under expanded access. The most you can reap is manufacturing cost, which is not a lot,” he said.

Art Caplan, a professor of bioethics at New York University’s Langone medical center, said the argument for vaccinating children for flu falls along the same lines. The benefit-to-risk ratio is finely balanced in children.  The main value of protecting them is to protect others.

“Flu rarely kills young folks. But you’re really trying to protect old folks and that’s the classic example,” he said.

What’s more, he said the idea that children would take on some risk with a vaccine for little personal benefit is oversimplified.

“Yes, you might get vaccinated to prevent harm to others, but those others are providing benefits to you. It’s not a one-way street. I think that’s a little morally distorted,” Mr. Caplan said. “Being able to keep society open benefits kids and adults alike.”

Other committee members felt like it was too early to sound the all-clear on COVID and said the FDA should authorize vaccines for children as quickly as it had for other age groups.

“We are still, I believe, in an emergency situation. I think that when this virus goes into our children, which is what it’s going to do, that will give it an incubator to change,” said Oveta Fuller, PhD, associate professor of microbiology and immunology at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Fuller said that for the good of the world, Americans needed to vaccinate children to prevent the virus from mutating and creating new and potentially more dangerous variants.
 

Weighing risk over safety

Beth Thielen, MD, PhD, pediatric infectious disease specialist and virologist at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, said she had not followed the committee’s discussions, but about once a month she treats kids who are very sick because of the virus – either because of a COVID infection or because of multisystem inflammatory syndrome (MIS-C), an inflammatory reaction that strikes after infection.

She’s worried about how the virus has already changed. She said the kind of disease she’s seeing in kids now is different than what she saw in the early months of the pandemic.

“In the last couple of months, I’ve actually seen a few cases of severe pulmonary disease, more similar to adult disease in children,” Dr. Thielen said. “I see on the horizon that we could start seeing more significant disease in young people, and then the risks of being unvaccinated go up substantially.” 

But she also knows nobody has a crystal ball, and right now, everything seems to be trending in the right direction with COVID. That makes the risk-to-benefit consideration murkier.

“The question in my mind is, what is the risk of side effects from the vaccine?” she said. “I think we really need to know what the safety profile of vaccine looks like in children because we do have a decent understanding now what risk from disease looks like, because it’s small, but we are seeing it.”

Dr. Thielen said she’ll be keeping an eye on the next meeting of the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices for more answers.

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

Testing COVID-19 vaccines in young children is going to be tricky. Deciding how to approve them and who should get them may be even more difficult.

So far, the vaccines available to Americans ages 12 and up have sailed through the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s regulatory checks, taking advantage of an accelerated clearance process called an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA). 

EUAs set a lower bar for effectiveness, saying the vaccines may be safe and effective based on just a few months of data. 

But with COVID cases plummeting in the United States and children historically seeing far less serious disease than adults, a panel of expert advisors to the FDA was asked to deliberate on Thursday whether the agency could consider vaccines for this age group under the same standard. 

Stated another way: Is COVID an emergency for kids? 

There’s another wrinkle in the mix, too – heart inflammation, which appears to be a very rare emerging adverse event tied to vaccination. It seems to happen more often in teens and young adults. To date, cases of myocarditis and pericarditis appear to be happening in 16 to 30 people for every 1 million doses given. 

But if it is conclusively linked to the shots, some wonder whether it might tip the balance between benefits and risks for kids.

That left some of the experts who sit on the FDA’s advisory committee for vaccines and related biological products urging the FDA to take its time and more thoroughly study the shots before they’re given to millions of children.
 

Vaccine studies different in children?

Clinical studies of the vaccines in teens and adults have thus far relied on some straightforward math. You take two groups of similar people. You give half the vaccine and half a placebo. Then you wait and see which group has more symptomatic infections. To date, the vaccines have dramatically cut the risk of getting severely ill with COVID for every age group tested.

But COVID infections are falling rapidly in the U.S., and that may make it more difficult for researchers to conduct a similar kind of experiment in children.

The FDA is considering different approaches to figure out whether a vaccine would be effective in kids, including something called an “immunobridging trial.” 

In bridging trials, researchers don’t look for infections; rather, they look for proven signs that someone has developed immunity, like antibody levels. Those biomarkers are then compared to the immune responses of younger adults who have demonstrated good protection against infection.

The main advantage of bridging studies is speed. It’s possible to get a snapshot of how the immune system responds to a vaccine within weeks of the final dose.

The drawback is that researchers don’t know exactly what to look for to judge how well the shots are generating protection. 

That’s made even more difficult because kids’ immune systems are still developing, so it may be tough to draw direct parallels to adults.

“We don’t know what the serologic correlate of immunity is now. We don’t know how much antibody you have to get in order to be protected. We don’t know what the role of T cells will be,” said H. Cody Meissner, MD, chief of the division of pediatric infectious disease at Tufts Medical Center, Boston.

“I have so much sympathy for the FDA because these are enormous problems, and you have to make a decision,” said Dr. Meissner, who is a member of the FDA’s vaccines and related biological products advisory committee.
 

Speed vaccines to market, or gather more data?

The plummeting rate of infections in the United States also means that it may be more difficult for the FDA to justify allowing a vaccine on the market for emergency use for children under age 12.

In its recent advisory committee meeting, the agency asked the panel whether it should consider COVID vaccines for children under an EUA or a biologics license application (BLA), aka full approval. 

A BLA typically means the agency considers a year or two of data on a new product, rather than just 2 months’ worth. Emergency use also allows products on the market under a looser standard – they “may be” safe and effective, instead of has been proven to be safe and effective.

Several committee members said they didn’t feel the United States was still in an emergency with COVID and couldn’t see the FDA allowing a vaccine to be used in kids that wasn’t given the agency’s highest level of scrutiny, particularly with reports of adverse events like myocarditis coming to light.

“I just want to be sure the price we pay for vaccinating millions of children justifies the side effects, and I don’t think we know that yet,” Dr. Meissner said.

Others acknowledged that there was little risk to kids now with infections on the decline but said that picture could change as variants spread, schools reopen, and colder temperatures force people indoors. 

The FDA must decide whether to act based on where we are now or where we could be in a few months.

“I think it’s the million-dollar question right now,” said Hannah Kirking, MD, a medical epidemiologist with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention who presented new and unpublished data on COVID’s impact in children to the FDA’s advisory committee.

She said prospective studies tracking the way COVID moves through a household with weekly testing from New York City and Utah had found that children catch and transmit COVID almost as readily as adults. But they don’t usually get as sick as adults do, so their cases are easy to miss. 

She also presented the results of blood tests from samples around the country looking for evidence of past infection. In these seroprevalence studies, about 27% of children under age 17 had antibodies to COVID – the most of any age group. So more than 1 in 4 kids already has some natural immunity.

That means the main benefit of vaccinating children might be the protection of others, while they still bear the risks – however tiny.

Some experts felt that wasn’t enough reason to justify mass distribution of the vaccines to kids, and from a regulatory standpoint, it might not be permissible.

“FDA can only approve a medical product in a population if the benefits outweigh the risks in that population,” said Peter Doshi, PhD, assistant professor of pharmaceutical health services research in the University of Maryland’s school of pharmacy, Baltimore.

“If benefits don’t outweigh risks in children, it can’t be indicated for children. Full stop,” said Dr. Doshi, who is also an editor at the BMJ.

He said there’s another way to give children access to vaccines, through an expanded access or compassionate use program. Because most COVID deaths have been in children with underlying health conditions, Dr. Doshi and others said it might make sense to allow expanded access – which would get vaccines to children at high risk for complications – without turning them loose on millions before they are more thoroughly studied.

“It’s not a particularly attractive option for industry, because there’s no money to be made. Your medicine can’t be commercialized under expanded access. The most you can reap is manufacturing cost, which is not a lot,” he said.

Art Caplan, a professor of bioethics at New York University’s Langone medical center, said the argument for vaccinating children for flu falls along the same lines. The benefit-to-risk ratio is finely balanced in children.  The main value of protecting them is to protect others.

“Flu rarely kills young folks. But you’re really trying to protect old folks and that’s the classic example,” he said.

What’s more, he said the idea that children would take on some risk with a vaccine for little personal benefit is oversimplified.

“Yes, you might get vaccinated to prevent harm to others, but those others are providing benefits to you. It’s not a one-way street. I think that’s a little morally distorted,” Mr. Caplan said. “Being able to keep society open benefits kids and adults alike.”

Other committee members felt like it was too early to sound the all-clear on COVID and said the FDA should authorize vaccines for children as quickly as it had for other age groups.

“We are still, I believe, in an emergency situation. I think that when this virus goes into our children, which is what it’s going to do, that will give it an incubator to change,” said Oveta Fuller, PhD, associate professor of microbiology and immunology at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Fuller said that for the good of the world, Americans needed to vaccinate children to prevent the virus from mutating and creating new and potentially more dangerous variants.
 

Weighing risk over safety

Beth Thielen, MD, PhD, pediatric infectious disease specialist and virologist at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, said she had not followed the committee’s discussions, but about once a month she treats kids who are very sick because of the virus – either because of a COVID infection or because of multisystem inflammatory syndrome (MIS-C), an inflammatory reaction that strikes after infection.

She’s worried about how the virus has already changed. She said the kind of disease she’s seeing in kids now is different than what she saw in the early months of the pandemic.

“In the last couple of months, I’ve actually seen a few cases of severe pulmonary disease, more similar to adult disease in children,” Dr. Thielen said. “I see on the horizon that we could start seeing more significant disease in young people, and then the risks of being unvaccinated go up substantially.” 

But she also knows nobody has a crystal ball, and right now, everything seems to be trending in the right direction with COVID. That makes the risk-to-benefit consideration murkier.

“The question in my mind is, what is the risk of side effects from the vaccine?” she said. “I think we really need to know what the safety profile of vaccine looks like in children because we do have a decent understanding now what risk from disease looks like, because it’s small, but we are seeing it.”

Dr. Thielen said she’ll be keeping an eye on the next meeting of the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices for more answers.

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

Testing COVID-19 vaccines in young children is going to be tricky. Deciding how to approve them and who should get them may be even more difficult.

So far, the vaccines available to Americans ages 12 and up have sailed through the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s regulatory checks, taking advantage of an accelerated clearance process called an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA). 

EUAs set a lower bar for effectiveness, saying the vaccines may be safe and effective based on just a few months of data. 

But with COVID cases plummeting in the United States and children historically seeing far less serious disease than adults, a panel of expert advisors to the FDA was asked to deliberate on Thursday whether the agency could consider vaccines for this age group under the same standard. 

Stated another way: Is COVID an emergency for kids? 

There’s another wrinkle in the mix, too – heart inflammation, which appears to be a very rare emerging adverse event tied to vaccination. It seems to happen more often in teens and young adults. To date, cases of myocarditis and pericarditis appear to be happening in 16 to 30 people for every 1 million doses given. 

But if it is conclusively linked to the shots, some wonder whether it might tip the balance between benefits and risks for kids.

That left some of the experts who sit on the FDA’s advisory committee for vaccines and related biological products urging the FDA to take its time and more thoroughly study the shots before they’re given to millions of children.
 

Vaccine studies different in children?

Clinical studies of the vaccines in teens and adults have thus far relied on some straightforward math. You take two groups of similar people. You give half the vaccine and half a placebo. Then you wait and see which group has more symptomatic infections. To date, the vaccines have dramatically cut the risk of getting severely ill with COVID for every age group tested.

But COVID infections are falling rapidly in the U.S., and that may make it more difficult for researchers to conduct a similar kind of experiment in children.

The FDA is considering different approaches to figure out whether a vaccine would be effective in kids, including something called an “immunobridging trial.” 

In bridging trials, researchers don’t look for infections; rather, they look for proven signs that someone has developed immunity, like antibody levels. Those biomarkers are then compared to the immune responses of younger adults who have demonstrated good protection against infection.

The main advantage of bridging studies is speed. It’s possible to get a snapshot of how the immune system responds to a vaccine within weeks of the final dose.

The drawback is that researchers don’t know exactly what to look for to judge how well the shots are generating protection. 

That’s made even more difficult because kids’ immune systems are still developing, so it may be tough to draw direct parallels to adults.

“We don’t know what the serologic correlate of immunity is now. We don’t know how much antibody you have to get in order to be protected. We don’t know what the role of T cells will be,” said H. Cody Meissner, MD, chief of the division of pediatric infectious disease at Tufts Medical Center, Boston.

“I have so much sympathy for the FDA because these are enormous problems, and you have to make a decision,” said Dr. Meissner, who is a member of the FDA’s vaccines and related biological products advisory committee.
 

Speed vaccines to market, or gather more data?

The plummeting rate of infections in the United States also means that it may be more difficult for the FDA to justify allowing a vaccine on the market for emergency use for children under age 12.

In its recent advisory committee meeting, the agency asked the panel whether it should consider COVID vaccines for children under an EUA or a biologics license application (BLA), aka full approval. 

A BLA typically means the agency considers a year or two of data on a new product, rather than just 2 months’ worth. Emergency use also allows products on the market under a looser standard – they “may be” safe and effective, instead of has been proven to be safe and effective.

Several committee members said they didn’t feel the United States was still in an emergency with COVID and couldn’t see the FDA allowing a vaccine to be used in kids that wasn’t given the agency’s highest level of scrutiny, particularly with reports of adverse events like myocarditis coming to light.

“I just want to be sure the price we pay for vaccinating millions of children justifies the side effects, and I don’t think we know that yet,” Dr. Meissner said.

Others acknowledged that there was little risk to kids now with infections on the decline but said that picture could change as variants spread, schools reopen, and colder temperatures force people indoors. 

The FDA must decide whether to act based on where we are now or where we could be in a few months.

“I think it’s the million-dollar question right now,” said Hannah Kirking, MD, a medical epidemiologist with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention who presented new and unpublished data on COVID’s impact in children to the FDA’s advisory committee.

She said prospective studies tracking the way COVID moves through a household with weekly testing from New York City and Utah had found that children catch and transmit COVID almost as readily as adults. But they don’t usually get as sick as adults do, so their cases are easy to miss. 

She also presented the results of blood tests from samples around the country looking for evidence of past infection. In these seroprevalence studies, about 27% of children under age 17 had antibodies to COVID – the most of any age group. So more than 1 in 4 kids already has some natural immunity.

That means the main benefit of vaccinating children might be the protection of others, while they still bear the risks – however tiny.

Some experts felt that wasn’t enough reason to justify mass distribution of the vaccines to kids, and from a regulatory standpoint, it might not be permissible.

“FDA can only approve a medical product in a population if the benefits outweigh the risks in that population,” said Peter Doshi, PhD, assistant professor of pharmaceutical health services research in the University of Maryland’s school of pharmacy, Baltimore.

“If benefits don’t outweigh risks in children, it can’t be indicated for children. Full stop,” said Dr. Doshi, who is also an editor at the BMJ.

He said there’s another way to give children access to vaccines, through an expanded access or compassionate use program. Because most COVID deaths have been in children with underlying health conditions, Dr. Doshi and others said it might make sense to allow expanded access – which would get vaccines to children at high risk for complications – without turning them loose on millions before they are more thoroughly studied.

“It’s not a particularly attractive option for industry, because there’s no money to be made. Your medicine can’t be commercialized under expanded access. The most you can reap is manufacturing cost, which is not a lot,” he said.

Art Caplan, a professor of bioethics at New York University’s Langone medical center, said the argument for vaccinating children for flu falls along the same lines. The benefit-to-risk ratio is finely balanced in children.  The main value of protecting them is to protect others.

“Flu rarely kills young folks. But you’re really trying to protect old folks and that’s the classic example,” he said.

What’s more, he said the idea that children would take on some risk with a vaccine for little personal benefit is oversimplified.

“Yes, you might get vaccinated to prevent harm to others, but those others are providing benefits to you. It’s not a one-way street. I think that’s a little morally distorted,” Mr. Caplan said. “Being able to keep society open benefits kids and adults alike.”

Other committee members felt like it was too early to sound the all-clear on COVID and said the FDA should authorize vaccines for children as quickly as it had for other age groups.

“We are still, I believe, in an emergency situation. I think that when this virus goes into our children, which is what it’s going to do, that will give it an incubator to change,” said Oveta Fuller, PhD, associate professor of microbiology and immunology at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Fuller said that for the good of the world, Americans needed to vaccinate children to prevent the virus from mutating and creating new and potentially more dangerous variants.
 

Weighing risk over safety

Beth Thielen, MD, PhD, pediatric infectious disease specialist and virologist at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, said she had not followed the committee’s discussions, but about once a month she treats kids who are very sick because of the virus – either because of a COVID infection or because of multisystem inflammatory syndrome (MIS-C), an inflammatory reaction that strikes after infection.

She’s worried about how the virus has already changed. She said the kind of disease she’s seeing in kids now is different than what she saw in the early months of the pandemic.

“In the last couple of months, I’ve actually seen a few cases of severe pulmonary disease, more similar to adult disease in children,” Dr. Thielen said. “I see on the horizon that we could start seeing more significant disease in young people, and then the risks of being unvaccinated go up substantially.” 

But she also knows nobody has a crystal ball, and right now, everything seems to be trending in the right direction with COVID. That makes the risk-to-benefit consideration murkier.

“The question in my mind is, what is the risk of side effects from the vaccine?” she said. “I think we really need to know what the safety profile of vaccine looks like in children because we do have a decent understanding now what risk from disease looks like, because it’s small, but we are seeing it.”

Dr. Thielen said she’ll be keeping an eye on the next meeting of the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices for more answers.

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

Insomnia in childhood persists into adulthood and may raise the risk for internalizing disorders in young adults, new research indicates. However, insomnia symptoms in childhood that remit in the transition to adolescence do not confer increased risk of mood or anxiety disorders later on, the study found.

“As insomnia symptoms may precipitate or maintain internalizing disorders, our findings further reinforce the need for early sleep interventions to prevent future mental health disorders,” said lead investigator Julio Fernandez-Mendoza, PhD, associate professor at Penn State University, Hershey.

He presented his research at Virtual SLEEP 2021, the 35th annual meeting of the Associated Professional Sleep Societies.
 

Results ‘very clear’

The findings are based on data from the Penn State Child Cohort, a longitudinal, population-based sample of 700 children with a median age of 9 years, including 421 who were followed up 8 years later as adolescents (median age, 16 years) and 502 who were followed up 15 years later as young adults (median age, 24 years).

The data are “very clear that the risk of having internalizing disorders in young adulthood associated with having persistent insomnia symptoms, since childhood through adolescence into young adulthood,” Dr. Fernandez-Mendoza said in his presentation.

A persistent developmental trajectory was associated with a threefold increased risk of adult internalizing disorder (hazard ratio, 3.19).

The risk of having an internalizing disorder in young adulthood associated with newly developing (incident) insomnia symptoms is about twofold higher (HR, 1.94), whereas the risk associated with the waxing and waning pattern of insomnia is 1.5-fold (HR, 1.53) higher and only marginally significant, he reported.

An equally important finding, said Dr. Fernandez-Mendoza, is that those who had remitted insomnia symptoms in the transition to adolescence and throughout young adulthood were not at increased risk of having an internalizing disorder in young adulthood.

“Insomnia symptoms in a persistent manner associated with long-term adverse mental health outcomes, but remission of those insomnia symptoms associated with a good prognosis,” he said.

It’s also important to note, he said, that about 40% of children do not outgrow their insomnia symptoms in the transition to adolescence and are at risk of developing mental health disorders later on during early adulthood.

Reached for comment, Nitun Verma, MD, a spokesperson for the American Academy of Sleep Medicine, said: “There is a connection with mood and anxiety disorders with sleep, especially insomnia. This is a good reminder that reviewing someone’s sleep habits should always be a part of assessing someone’s mental health.”

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

Insomnia in childhood persists into adulthood and may raise the risk for internalizing disorders in young adults, new research indicates. However, insomnia symptoms in childhood that remit in the transition to adolescence do not confer increased risk of mood or anxiety disorders later on, the study found.

“As insomnia symptoms may precipitate or maintain internalizing disorders, our findings further reinforce the need for early sleep interventions to prevent future mental health disorders,” said lead investigator Julio Fernandez-Mendoza, PhD, associate professor at Penn State University, Hershey.

He presented his research at Virtual SLEEP 2021, the 35th annual meeting of the Associated Professional Sleep Societies.
 

Results ‘very clear’

The findings are based on data from the Penn State Child Cohort, a longitudinal, population-based sample of 700 children with a median age of 9 years, including 421 who were followed up 8 years later as adolescents (median age, 16 years) and 502 who were followed up 15 years later as young adults (median age, 24 years).

The data are “very clear that the risk of having internalizing disorders in young adulthood associated with having persistent insomnia symptoms, since childhood through adolescence into young adulthood,” Dr. Fernandez-Mendoza said in his presentation.

A persistent developmental trajectory was associated with a threefold increased risk of adult internalizing disorder (hazard ratio, 3.19).

The risk of having an internalizing disorder in young adulthood associated with newly developing (incident) insomnia symptoms is about twofold higher (HR, 1.94), whereas the risk associated with the waxing and waning pattern of insomnia is 1.5-fold (HR, 1.53) higher and only marginally significant, he reported.

An equally important finding, said Dr. Fernandez-Mendoza, is that those who had remitted insomnia symptoms in the transition to adolescence and throughout young adulthood were not at increased risk of having an internalizing disorder in young adulthood.

“Insomnia symptoms in a persistent manner associated with long-term adverse mental health outcomes, but remission of those insomnia symptoms associated with a good prognosis,” he said.

It’s also important to note, he said, that about 40% of children do not outgrow their insomnia symptoms in the transition to adolescence and are at risk of developing mental health disorders later on during early adulthood.

Reached for comment, Nitun Verma, MD, a spokesperson for the American Academy of Sleep Medicine, said: “There is a connection with mood and anxiety disorders with sleep, especially insomnia. This is a good reminder that reviewing someone’s sleep habits should always be a part of assessing someone’s mental health.”

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

Insomnia in childhood persists into adulthood and may raise the risk for internalizing disorders in young adults, new research indicates. However, insomnia symptoms in childhood that remit in the transition to adolescence do not confer increased risk of mood or anxiety disorders later on, the study found.

“As insomnia symptoms may precipitate or maintain internalizing disorders, our findings further reinforce the need for early sleep interventions to prevent future mental health disorders,” said lead investigator Julio Fernandez-Mendoza, PhD, associate professor at Penn State University, Hershey.

He presented his research at Virtual SLEEP 2021, the 35th annual meeting of the Associated Professional Sleep Societies.
 

Results ‘very clear’

The findings are based on data from the Penn State Child Cohort, a longitudinal, population-based sample of 700 children with a median age of 9 years, including 421 who were followed up 8 years later as adolescents (median age, 16 years) and 502 who were followed up 15 years later as young adults (median age, 24 years).

The data are “very clear that the risk of having internalizing disorders in young adulthood associated with having persistent insomnia symptoms, since childhood through adolescence into young adulthood,” Dr. Fernandez-Mendoza said in his presentation.

A persistent developmental trajectory was associated with a threefold increased risk of adult internalizing disorder (hazard ratio, 3.19).

The risk of having an internalizing disorder in young adulthood associated with newly developing (incident) insomnia symptoms is about twofold higher (HR, 1.94), whereas the risk associated with the waxing and waning pattern of insomnia is 1.5-fold (HR, 1.53) higher and only marginally significant, he reported.

An equally important finding, said Dr. Fernandez-Mendoza, is that those who had remitted insomnia symptoms in the transition to adolescence and throughout young adulthood were not at increased risk of having an internalizing disorder in young adulthood.

“Insomnia symptoms in a persistent manner associated with long-term adverse mental health outcomes, but remission of those insomnia symptoms associated with a good prognosis,” he said.

It’s also important to note, he said, that about 40% of children do not outgrow their insomnia symptoms in the transition to adolescence and are at risk of developing mental health disorders later on during early adulthood.

Reached for comment, Nitun Verma, MD, a spokesperson for the American Academy of Sleep Medicine, said: “There is a connection with mood and anxiety disorders with sleep, especially insomnia. This is a good reminder that reviewing someone’s sleep habits should always be a part of assessing someone’s mental health.”

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

Allergic conjunctivitis harms quality of life for children and their parents, apparently causing greater day-to-day worries than potentially blinding diseases, researchers report.

Parents worry especially that treatments might not be effective, according to Shi-yao Zhang, MD, and colleagues from Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China. “This finding suggests that more communication with parents regarding treatment and prognosis is needed,” they write in an article published online June 10 in JAMA Ophthalmology.

One of the most prevalent eye disorders in children, allergic conjunctivitis is often chronic, leading patients to ask repeatedly for help from physicians. It can take an emotional toll and can cause children to miss school.

“With any sign of a slightly pink eye [or a] runny nose, which are very common with allergies, children are being sent home, because everyone’s concerned about COVID,” said Yi Ning J. Strube, MD, an associate professor of ophthalmology and pediatrics at Queen’s University, Kingston, Canada, whose commentary appears in the same issue of JAMA Ophthalmology.

Adolescents are also sometimes accused of smoking cannabis because of their red eyes, she said.

However, little research has examined the effects of allergic conjunctivitis on the quality of life of children and their guardians, Dr. Zhang and colleagues write. To fill that gap, the researchers administered the Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory (PedsQL) to 92 children with allergic conjunctivitis and their parents. The children were aged 5 to 18 years.

The researchers administered the same questionnaire to 96 healthy children of the same ages, along with their parents. These participants served as a control group.

On a scale of 0 to 100, in which a higher score signifies a better quality of life, the median total PedsQL score was 69.6 for children with allergic conjunctivitis versus 96.7 for the control group.

Subscores of physical, emotional, social, and especially school functioning were all significantly lower for the children with allergic conjunctivitis than for the control persons. “Because children generally spend most of their time in the school environment, this outcome raises an issue regarding whether children have a poorer performance in their education,” Dr. Zhang and colleagues write.

Dr. Strube recommends that physicians educate their patients about allergic conjunctivitis using handouts or high-quality websites. She often refers patients and their families to the allergic conjunctivitis webpage of the American Academy of Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus.

She tells parents to have their child “take a shower and wash their hair when they get home before they rub their pollen-filled hair on their pillowcase and make their allergy symptoms worse.”

Parents and schools should try to filter pollen and other allergens from indoor air, she added.

Parents of the children with allergic conjunctivitis in the study also reported lower quality of life; they scored 68.8, versus 96.5 for parents of children in the control group. The differences for both parents and children were statistically significant (P < .001). Overall, the parents’ quality-of-life scores correlated with their children’s (correlation coefficient, r = 0.59; P < .001).

Children with vernal or atopic keratoconjunctivitis scored 3.3 points lower on health-related quality of life than those with seasonal allergic conjunctivitis.

Children with higher corneal fluorescein staining scores also had lower quality-of-life scores. Parents whose children had higher corneal fluorescein staining scores and also those who had multiple consultations with health care practitioners also reported lower quality of life.

The quality-of-life scores of the children with allergic conjunctivitis were lower than scores in previous studies for children with vision-threatening diseases, such as glaucoma and congenital cataract. This may be because glaucoma and cataracts do not typically cause discomfort even if they impair the patient’s vision, said Dr. Strube.

She pointed out one potential flaw in the study: In the cohort with allergic conjunctivitis, 83.7% were boys, compared to 42.7% of the control group. Vernal keratoconjunctivitis affects more boys than girls, and not controlling for this factor could have confounded the data, Dr. Strube said.

It could also be useful to replicate the study in other countries to see whether geographic or cultural factors affected the results, she said. “A lot of these big centers around the world, including in China, have poor air quality, so that may be contributing to patients’ symptoms,” she said. “With regards to reported health quality of life and impact on education, results from different parts of the world may be different, due to parenting styles and education styles,” she said.

The study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China and the Science Foundation of Guangdong Province. Dr. Zhang and colleagues reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Strube reported receiving personal fees from Santen Canada Advisory Board Consultant outside the submitted work.

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

Allergic conjunctivitis harms quality of life for children and their parents, apparently causing greater day-to-day worries than potentially blinding diseases, researchers report.

Parents worry especially that treatments might not be effective, according to Shi-yao Zhang, MD, and colleagues from Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China. “This finding suggests that more communication with parents regarding treatment and prognosis is needed,” they write in an article published online June 10 in JAMA Ophthalmology.

One of the most prevalent eye disorders in children, allergic conjunctivitis is often chronic, leading patients to ask repeatedly for help from physicians. It can take an emotional toll and can cause children to miss school.

“With any sign of a slightly pink eye [or a] runny nose, which are very common with allergies, children are being sent home, because everyone’s concerned about COVID,” said Yi Ning J. Strube, MD, an associate professor of ophthalmology and pediatrics at Queen’s University, Kingston, Canada, whose commentary appears in the same issue of JAMA Ophthalmology.

Adolescents are also sometimes accused of smoking cannabis because of their red eyes, she said.

However, little research has examined the effects of allergic conjunctivitis on the quality of life of children and their guardians, Dr. Zhang and colleagues write. To fill that gap, the researchers administered the Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory (PedsQL) to 92 children with allergic conjunctivitis and their parents. The children were aged 5 to 18 years.

The researchers administered the same questionnaire to 96 healthy children of the same ages, along with their parents. These participants served as a control group.

On a scale of 0 to 100, in which a higher score signifies a better quality of life, the median total PedsQL score was 69.6 for children with allergic conjunctivitis versus 96.7 for the control group.

Subscores of physical, emotional, social, and especially school functioning were all significantly lower for the children with allergic conjunctivitis than for the control persons. “Because children generally spend most of their time in the school environment, this outcome raises an issue regarding whether children have a poorer performance in their education,” Dr. Zhang and colleagues write.

Dr. Strube recommends that physicians educate their patients about allergic conjunctivitis using handouts or high-quality websites. She often refers patients and their families to the allergic conjunctivitis webpage of the American Academy of Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus.

She tells parents to have their child “take a shower and wash their hair when they get home before they rub their pollen-filled hair on their pillowcase and make their allergy symptoms worse.”

Parents and schools should try to filter pollen and other allergens from indoor air, she added.

Parents of the children with allergic conjunctivitis in the study also reported lower quality of life; they scored 68.8, versus 96.5 for parents of children in the control group. The differences for both parents and children were statistically significant (P < .001). Overall, the parents’ quality-of-life scores correlated with their children’s (correlation coefficient, r = 0.59; P < .001).

Children with vernal or atopic keratoconjunctivitis scored 3.3 points lower on health-related quality of life than those with seasonal allergic conjunctivitis.

Children with higher corneal fluorescein staining scores also had lower quality-of-life scores. Parents whose children had higher corneal fluorescein staining scores and also those who had multiple consultations with health care practitioners also reported lower quality of life.

The quality-of-life scores of the children with allergic conjunctivitis were lower than scores in previous studies for children with vision-threatening diseases, such as glaucoma and congenital cataract. This may be because glaucoma and cataracts do not typically cause discomfort even if they impair the patient’s vision, said Dr. Strube.

She pointed out one potential flaw in the study: In the cohort with allergic conjunctivitis, 83.7% were boys, compared to 42.7% of the control group. Vernal keratoconjunctivitis affects more boys than girls, and not controlling for this factor could have confounded the data, Dr. Strube said.

It could also be useful to replicate the study in other countries to see whether geographic or cultural factors affected the results, she said. “A lot of these big centers around the world, including in China, have poor air quality, so that may be contributing to patients’ symptoms,” she said. “With regards to reported health quality of life and impact on education, results from different parts of the world may be different, due to parenting styles and education styles,” she said.

The study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China and the Science Foundation of Guangdong Province. Dr. Zhang and colleagues reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Strube reported receiving personal fees from Santen Canada Advisory Board Consultant outside the submitted work.

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

Allergic conjunctivitis harms quality of life for children and their parents, apparently causing greater day-to-day worries than potentially blinding diseases, researchers report.

Parents worry especially that treatments might not be effective, according to Shi-yao Zhang, MD, and colleagues from Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China. “This finding suggests that more communication with parents regarding treatment and prognosis is needed,” they write in an article published online June 10 in JAMA Ophthalmology.

One of the most prevalent eye disorders in children, allergic conjunctivitis is often chronic, leading patients to ask repeatedly for help from physicians. It can take an emotional toll and can cause children to miss school.

“With any sign of a slightly pink eye [or a] runny nose, which are very common with allergies, children are being sent home, because everyone’s concerned about COVID,” said Yi Ning J. Strube, MD, an associate professor of ophthalmology and pediatrics at Queen’s University, Kingston, Canada, whose commentary appears in the same issue of JAMA Ophthalmology.

Adolescents are also sometimes accused of smoking cannabis because of their red eyes, she said.

However, little research has examined the effects of allergic conjunctivitis on the quality of life of children and their guardians, Dr. Zhang and colleagues write. To fill that gap, the researchers administered the Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory (PedsQL) to 92 children with allergic conjunctivitis and their parents. The children were aged 5 to 18 years.

The researchers administered the same questionnaire to 96 healthy children of the same ages, along with their parents. These participants served as a control group.

On a scale of 0 to 100, in which a higher score signifies a better quality of life, the median total PedsQL score was 69.6 for children with allergic conjunctivitis versus 96.7 for the control group.

Subscores of physical, emotional, social, and especially school functioning were all significantly lower for the children with allergic conjunctivitis than for the control persons. “Because children generally spend most of their time in the school environment, this outcome raises an issue regarding whether children have a poorer performance in their education,” Dr. Zhang and colleagues write.

Dr. Strube recommends that physicians educate their patients about allergic conjunctivitis using handouts or high-quality websites. She often refers patients and their families to the allergic conjunctivitis webpage of the American Academy of Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus.

She tells parents to have their child “take a shower and wash their hair when they get home before they rub their pollen-filled hair on their pillowcase and make their allergy symptoms worse.”

Parents and schools should try to filter pollen and other allergens from indoor air, she added.

Parents of the children with allergic conjunctivitis in the study also reported lower quality of life; they scored 68.8, versus 96.5 for parents of children in the control group. The differences for both parents and children were statistically significant (P < .001). Overall, the parents’ quality-of-life scores correlated with their children’s (correlation coefficient, r = 0.59; P < .001).

Children with vernal or atopic keratoconjunctivitis scored 3.3 points lower on health-related quality of life than those with seasonal allergic conjunctivitis.

Children with higher corneal fluorescein staining scores also had lower quality-of-life scores. Parents whose children had higher corneal fluorescein staining scores and also those who had multiple consultations with health care practitioners also reported lower quality of life.

The quality-of-life scores of the children with allergic conjunctivitis were lower than scores in previous studies for children with vision-threatening diseases, such as glaucoma and congenital cataract. This may be because glaucoma and cataracts do not typically cause discomfort even if they impair the patient’s vision, said Dr. Strube.

She pointed out one potential flaw in the study: In the cohort with allergic conjunctivitis, 83.7% were boys, compared to 42.7% of the control group. Vernal keratoconjunctivitis affects more boys than girls, and not controlling for this factor could have confounded the data, Dr. Strube said.

It could also be useful to replicate the study in other countries to see whether geographic or cultural factors affected the results, she said. “A lot of these big centers around the world, including in China, have poor air quality, so that may be contributing to patients’ symptoms,” she said. “With regards to reported health quality of life and impact on education, results from different parts of the world may be different, due to parenting styles and education styles,” she said.

The study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China and the Science Foundation of Guangdong Province. Dr. Zhang and colleagues reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Strube reported receiving personal fees from Santen Canada Advisory Board Consultant outside the submitted work.

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

Nearly all Americans say that sun protection is important, but almost half don’t use sunscreen regularly and more than a third believe that tanning is healthy, according to the results of a recent survey commissioned by the American Academy of Dermatology.

With the pandemic seemingly behind it, the United States enters the summer months facing the paradox of sun protection. Four out of five adults know that sunscreen should be reapplied every 2 hours when they’re outdoors, but only one in three make the actual effort, and 77% are likely to use sunscreen at the beach or a pool, compared with 41% when they’re gardening or working outside on their homes, the AAD reported.

“These findings are surprising and seem to suggest that many people do not take skin cancer seriously or perhaps believe skin cancer won’t happen to them,” Robert T. Brodell, MD, professor of dermatology at the University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson, said in a written statement from the AAD, adding that “unprotected exposure to ultraviolet rays is the most preventable risk factor for skin cancer, including melanoma.”

A quarter of all survey respondents reported getting sunburned in 2020, with the youngest adults most likely to feel the wrath of the sun. Sunburn was reported by 43% of those aged 18-23 years, 37% of those aged 24-39, 25% of the 40- to 55-year-olds, 12% of the 56- to 74-year-olds, and 7% of those aged 75 and older. More than a quarter of those who got sunburned said that it was bad enough to make their clothes feel uncomfortable, the academy said.

“Americans see the damaging effects of the sun on their skin as they get older, and two out of three look back and wish they had been more careful. But when it comes to cancer, specifically, most feel unconcerned in spite of their own risk,” according to a statement from Versta Research, which conducted the poll on behalf of the AAD. The survey was conducted from Feb. 22 to March 10, 2021, and involved 1,056 respondents, with a ±3% margin of error.

The lack of concern for skin cancer looks like this: More than two-thirds of the respondents (69%) have at least one possible risk factor – lighter skin tone, blue or green eyes, more than 50 moles, family history – but only 36% expressed concern about developing it. “Indeed, half of survey respondents (49%) say they are more worried about avoiding sunburn than they are about preventing skin cancer, and a third (32%) are more worried about avoiding premature wrinkles than they are about preventing cancer,” the AAD said.

The AAD is considering the creation of a social media quiz or interactive tool, and if the results of this survey were recast as a potential “Knowledge and Awareness Quiz” and graded with a traditional scheme (A = 90%-100%, B = 80%-89%, etc.), then 34% of the respondents would have failed, 15% would have gotten a D, and only 5% would have earned an A, the academy noted.

[email protected]

Nearly all Americans say that sun protection is important, but almost half don’t use sunscreen regularly and more than a third believe that tanning is healthy, according to the results of a recent survey commissioned by the American Academy of Dermatology.

With the pandemic seemingly behind it, the United States enters the summer months facing the paradox of sun protection. Four out of five adults know that sunscreen should be reapplied every 2 hours when they’re outdoors, but only one in three make the actual effort, and 77% are likely to use sunscreen at the beach or a pool, compared with 41% when they’re gardening or working outside on their homes, the AAD reported.

“These findings are surprising and seem to suggest that many people do not take skin cancer seriously or perhaps believe skin cancer won’t happen to them,” Robert T. Brodell, MD, professor of dermatology at the University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson, said in a written statement from the AAD, adding that “unprotected exposure to ultraviolet rays is the most preventable risk factor for skin cancer, including melanoma.”

A quarter of all survey respondents reported getting sunburned in 2020, with the youngest adults most likely to feel the wrath of the sun. Sunburn was reported by 43% of those aged 18-23 years, 37% of those aged 24-39, 25% of the 40- to 55-year-olds, 12% of the 56- to 74-year-olds, and 7% of those aged 75 and older. More than a quarter of those who got sunburned said that it was bad enough to make their clothes feel uncomfortable, the academy said.

“Americans see the damaging effects of the sun on their skin as they get older, and two out of three look back and wish they had been more careful. But when it comes to cancer, specifically, most feel unconcerned in spite of their own risk,” according to a statement from Versta Research, which conducted the poll on behalf of the AAD. The survey was conducted from Feb. 22 to March 10, 2021, and involved 1,056 respondents, with a ±3% margin of error.

The lack of concern for skin cancer looks like this: More than two-thirds of the respondents (69%) have at least one possible risk factor – lighter skin tone, blue or green eyes, more than 50 moles, family history – but only 36% expressed concern about developing it. “Indeed, half of survey respondents (49%) say they are more worried about avoiding sunburn than they are about preventing skin cancer, and a third (32%) are more worried about avoiding premature wrinkles than they are about preventing cancer,” the AAD said.

The AAD is considering the creation of a social media quiz or interactive tool, and if the results of this survey were recast as a potential “Knowledge and Awareness Quiz” and graded with a traditional scheme (A = 90%-100%, B = 80%-89%, etc.), then 34% of the respondents would have failed, 15% would have gotten a D, and only 5% would have earned an A, the academy noted.

[email protected]

Nearly all Americans say that sun protection is important, but almost half don’t use sunscreen regularly and more than a third believe that tanning is healthy, according to the results of a recent survey commissioned by the American Academy of Dermatology.

With the pandemic seemingly behind it, the United States enters the summer months facing the paradox of sun protection. Four out of five adults know that sunscreen should be reapplied every 2 hours when they’re outdoors, but only one in three make the actual effort, and 77% are likely to use sunscreen at the beach or a pool, compared with 41% when they’re gardening or working outside on their homes, the AAD reported.

“These findings are surprising and seem to suggest that many people do not take skin cancer seriously or perhaps believe skin cancer won’t happen to them,” Robert T. Brodell, MD, professor of dermatology at the University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson, said in a written statement from the AAD, adding that “unprotected exposure to ultraviolet rays is the most preventable risk factor for skin cancer, including melanoma.”

A quarter of all survey respondents reported getting sunburned in 2020, with the youngest adults most likely to feel the wrath of the sun. Sunburn was reported by 43% of those aged 18-23 years, 37% of those aged 24-39, 25% of the 40- to 55-year-olds, 12% of the 56- to 74-year-olds, and 7% of those aged 75 and older. More than a quarter of those who got sunburned said that it was bad enough to make their clothes feel uncomfortable, the academy said.

“Americans see the damaging effects of the sun on their skin as they get older, and two out of three look back and wish they had been more careful. But when it comes to cancer, specifically, most feel unconcerned in spite of their own risk,” according to a statement from Versta Research, which conducted the poll on behalf of the AAD. The survey was conducted from Feb. 22 to March 10, 2021, and involved 1,056 respondents, with a ±3% margin of error.

The lack of concern for skin cancer looks like this: More than two-thirds of the respondents (69%) have at least one possible risk factor – lighter skin tone, blue or green eyes, more than 50 moles, family history – but only 36% expressed concern about developing it. “Indeed, half of survey respondents (49%) say they are more worried about avoiding sunburn than they are about preventing skin cancer, and a third (32%) are more worried about avoiding premature wrinkles than they are about preventing cancer,” the AAD said.

The AAD is considering the creation of a social media quiz or interactive tool, and if the results of this survey were recast as a potential “Knowledge and Awareness Quiz” and graded with a traditional scheme (A = 90%-100%, B = 80%-89%, etc.), then 34% of the respondents would have failed, 15% would have gotten a D, and only 5% would have earned an A, the academy noted.

[email protected]

The practice of pediatric hospital medicine (PHM) has been evolving and rapidly expanding over the last several decades. Not only has the scope of clinical practice matured and become more defined, but hospitalists now also have the responsibility to advance the performance of hospitals and health care systems. Pediatric hospitalists are increasingly incorporating medical education, research, high-value care, patient quality and safety initiatives, and process improvement into their careers.¹ As a result, pediatric hospitalists are occupying a wider range of administrative and leadership positions within the health care system.

The field of PHM has highlighted the importance of leadership in the practice of hospital medicine by dedicating a chapter to “Leadership in Healthcare” in the PHM Core Competencies.¹ The competencies define the expertise required of hospitalists and serve as guidance for the development of education, training, and career development series. Hospitalists may seek out opportunities for leadership training at an institutional or national level. Options may include advanced degrees, national conferences, division training seminars, or self-directed learning through reading or observational experiences. Unfortunately, all of these take time and motivation. As a result, hospitalists tend to pursue these opportunities only after they have already been appointed to leadership positions.

PHM fellowship is the optimal time to build a foundation of leadership skills. Over the course of a 2-year fellowship, fellows have a combined 16 weeks dedicated to educational activities beyond direct patient care.² The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) encourages educational innovation during this time, allowing programs to create unique opportunities for their fellows that will promote progress towards their ultimate career goals.³ This curricular framework provides the flexibility to integrate leadership training into fellowship training.

Many fellows are eager for leadership experiences and mentorship, myself included. As a pediatric chief resident, I was immersed in a diverse range of clinical, educational, research, and administrative responsibilities. I found myself in a leadership position with no prior education on how to manage people or team dynamics, make high-stress decisions on behalf of a group of people, or handle conflict. Although I learned new strategies on a daily basis, the experience showed me how much more I still had to learn in order to be a successful leader. This was one of the reasons I decided to pursue fellowship training. I think many PHM fellowship applicants feel similarly. They may have served in a leadership position in the past but feel underprepared to fulfill leadership positions in the next phase of their careers.

But despite this eagerness, evidence suggests that fellows do not feel that they receive as much management training as they need to start their careers. In a 2014 survey of PHM fellowship graduates, many held formal leadership positions within their institution (23/51) and within national organizations (6/51), despite having only five years of hospitalist experience on average (including time spent in fellowship). When asked about training needs, respondents identified “hospital program management” as an area where they wished they received more training during fellowship.⁴

Anyone who has gone through the PHM fellowship interview process can tell you that a common refrain of program directors is, “One of the goals of our program is to create future leaders in PHM.” This led me to wonder: how do fellowship programs prepare their fellows for future leadership positions?

I began my fellowship training at Nationwide Children’s Hospital in the summer of 2020. The program had just designed a longitudinal leadership elective, which the second-year fellow and I decided to pilot together. As I reflected on the first half of this academic year, I realized that it is unique experiences like this elective that make me thankful I pursued fellowship. I want to share with the hospitalist community the structure of the elective and why it has been particularly valuable with the hope that it will inspire similar opportunities for other fellows.

The program is semi-structured but allows the fellow and preceptors the flexibility to decide what activities would benefit that particular fellow. We attend a variety of administrative and committee meetings with each preceptor that expose us to the responsibilities of their positions, their leadership style in action, their approach to crisis management, and differences in divisional operations. On a monthly basis we meet with a preceptor to discuss a topic related to leadership. Examples of topics include how to run a more effective meeting, barriers to organizational change, leading in crisis, and the importance of mission, vision, values, and goals of organizations. The preceptor sends us articles or other learning materials they have found useful on the topic, and these serve as a starting point for our discussions. These discussions provide a point of reflection as we apply the day’s concept to our own prior experiences or to our observations during the elective.

The combination of learning experiences, discussions, and dedicated preceptorship has prepared me far better for future leadership than my past personal and observational experiences. I have summarized my top three reasons why this structure of leadership development is particularly valuable to me as a fellow.

First, the longitudinal structure of the elective allows us to learn from multiple preceptors over the course of the academic year. The preceptors include the current chief of hospital pediatrics at Nationwide Children’s Hospital; the division director of hospital medicine at the Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center; and the physician lead for hospital medicine at one of the satellite hospitals in the region. With faculty from the Department of Pediatrics and the Department of Internal Medicine-Pediatrics in these leadership positions, we have the unique ability to compare and contrast operational systems between the two different hospital systems.

Recently, we also had the opportunity to meet with both the chairman of the department of pediatrics and chief medical officer. All of these physician leaders hold a variety of administrative roles and have differing leadership philosophies, each providing useful insights. For instance, one leader ensures his team holds him accountable as the leader by always asking for honest feedback. He recommends telling those you work with to “never let me fail.” Another leader acknowledges that creating five-year plans can be daunting but encouraged us to still be intentional with our direction on a smaller scale by writing down goals for the year and sharing with a mentor. Ultimately, I came away with a wide variety of perspectives to reference as I go forward.

Second, the learning is contextualized. I can take concepts that I learn through reading and discussions and construct meaning based on observations from meetings or other encounters with different leaders. For example, after reviewing several articles on strategies to make meetings more effective, I started noticing what went well and what didn’t go well in every meeting I attended. I observed preceptors employing many of the strategies successfully with positive feedback. This included not only simple practices, such as setting an agenda to provide a compass for the conversation, but also more nuanced practices like controlling the meeting but not the conversation.

After reading about leadership styles I also found myself analyzing the qualities and strategies of leaders I encountered and reflecting on their approach, noticing what I could possibly interlace in my own practice. Several of the leaders I spoke with during the elective recommended paying attention to the actions of the ineffective bosses or mentors because they can teach you something too: how not to act. I even started applying this strategy to the popular television series The Office – Michael Scott, the regional manager of a fictional paper company, demonstrates some of the best and worst leadership skills in every episode. I am developing a repertoire of strategies to lead and motivate people.

Finally, the design allows for real-time application of new methods to my current practice. One particularly useful tool I have learned is Leader Standard Work, a systematic method to get leaders to maintain stability, problem solve, and drive continuous improvement within their organization.⁵ I have used elements of Leader Standard Work on a personal level to improve my time management skills and increase my productivity. For example, I reconceptualized my calendar as a standardized checklist and I organized it to allot more time to critical activities, such as my research and scholarly output, and less on administrative tasks. I am also implementing changes to how I prepare and run meetings, collaborate, and communicate with members of my research team.

Mastery requires practice and feedback, so applying concepts even on a small, personal scale shortly after learning them has been very valuable. Over the last several months I have often wished I had this type of structured leadership education during my year as a chief resident. I think I could have been more intentional in my decision-making, possibly being a stronger leader for the program. Now that I am transferring skills into practice right away, I am setting the stage for lasting changes in behavior that will hopefully benefit all those that I work with in the future.

Leadership development through a customizable longitudinal elective may be an effective way to prepare PHM fellow graduates for future leadership positions. Fellows can emerge with the skills and real-world practice to allow them to feel confident in future positions. However, leadership doesn’t end when we get the position. We must remember to continuously ask for feedback and build upon our experiences to evolve as leaders in PHM.
 

Dr. Westphal is a first-year pediatric hospital medicine fellow at Nationwide Children’s Hospital in Columbus, Ohio with an interest in improving the delivery of quality care for hospitalized infants.

References

1. Maniscalco, J, et al. The Pediatric Hospital Medicine Core Competencies: 2020 Revision. Introduction and Methodology (C). J Hosp Med. 2020;S1;E12-E17. doi: 10.12788/jhm.3391.

2. Jerardi KE, et al; Council of Pediatric Hospital Medicine Fellowship Directors. Development of a Curricular Framework for Pediatric Hospital Medicine Fellowships. Pediatrics. 2017 Jul;140(1):e20170698. doi: 10.1542/peds.2017-0698.

3. ACGME Program Requirements for Graduate Medical Education in Pediatric Hospital Medicine. 2020 Edition. Accessed 2021 Jan 14.

4. Oshimura, JM et al. Current roles and perceived needs of pediatric hospital medicine fellowship graduates. Hosp Pediatr. 2016;6(10):633-7. doi: 10.1542/hpeds.2016-0031.

5. Murli, J. Standard Work for Lean Leaders: One of the Keys to Sustaining Performance Gains. Lean Institute Enterprise, Lean Institute Enterprise Inc. 4 Dec 2013. www.lean.org/common/display/?o=2493

The practice of pediatric hospital medicine (PHM) has been evolving and rapidly expanding over the last several decades. Not only has the scope of clinical practice matured and become more defined, but hospitalists now also have the responsibility to advance the performance of hospitals and health care systems. Pediatric hospitalists are increasingly incorporating medical education, research, high-value care, patient quality and safety initiatives, and process improvement into their careers.¹ As a result, pediatric hospitalists are occupying a wider range of administrative and leadership positions within the health care system.

The field of PHM has highlighted the importance of leadership in the practice of hospital medicine by dedicating a chapter to “Leadership in Healthcare” in the PHM Core Competencies.¹ The competencies define the expertise required of hospitalists and serve as guidance for the development of education, training, and career development series. Hospitalists may seek out opportunities for leadership training at an institutional or national level. Options may include advanced degrees, national conferences, division training seminars, or self-directed learning through reading or observational experiences. Unfortunately, all of these take time and motivation. As a result, hospitalists tend to pursue these opportunities only after they have already been appointed to leadership positions.

PHM fellowship is the optimal time to build a foundation of leadership skills. Over the course of a 2-year fellowship, fellows have a combined 16 weeks dedicated to educational activities beyond direct patient care.² The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) encourages educational innovation during this time, allowing programs to create unique opportunities for their fellows that will promote progress towards their ultimate career goals.³ This curricular framework provides the flexibility to integrate leadership training into fellowship training.

Many fellows are eager for leadership experiences and mentorship, myself included. As a pediatric chief resident, I was immersed in a diverse range of clinical, educational, research, and administrative responsibilities. I found myself in a leadership position with no prior education on how to manage people or team dynamics, make high-stress decisions on behalf of a group of people, or handle conflict. Although I learned new strategies on a daily basis, the experience showed me how much more I still had to learn in order to be a successful leader. This was one of the reasons I decided to pursue fellowship training. I think many PHM fellowship applicants feel similarly. They may have served in a leadership position in the past but feel underprepared to fulfill leadership positions in the next phase of their careers.

But despite this eagerness, evidence suggests that fellows do not feel that they receive as much management training as they need to start their careers. In a 2014 survey of PHM fellowship graduates, many held formal leadership positions within their institution (23/51) and within national organizations (6/51), despite having only five years of hospitalist experience on average (including time spent in fellowship). When asked about training needs, respondents identified “hospital program management” as an area where they wished they received more training during fellowship.⁴

Anyone who has gone through the PHM fellowship interview process can tell you that a common refrain of program directors is, “One of the goals of our program is to create future leaders in PHM.” This led me to wonder: how do fellowship programs prepare their fellows for future leadership positions?

I began my fellowship training at Nationwide Children’s Hospital in the summer of 2020. The program had just designed a longitudinal leadership elective, which the second-year fellow and I decided to pilot together. As I reflected on the first half of this academic year, I realized that it is unique experiences like this elective that make me thankful I pursued fellowship. I want to share with the hospitalist community the structure of the elective and why it has been particularly valuable with the hope that it will inspire similar opportunities for other fellows.

The program is semi-structured but allows the fellow and preceptors the flexibility to decide what activities would benefit that particular fellow. We attend a variety of administrative and committee meetings with each preceptor that expose us to the responsibilities of their positions, their leadership style in action, their approach to crisis management, and differences in divisional operations. On a monthly basis we meet with a preceptor to discuss a topic related to leadership. Examples of topics include how to run a more effective meeting, barriers to organizational change, leading in crisis, and the importance of mission, vision, values, and goals of organizations. The preceptor sends us articles or other learning materials they have found useful on the topic, and these serve as a starting point for our discussions. These discussions provide a point of reflection as we apply the day’s concept to our own prior experiences or to our observations during the elective.

The combination of learning experiences, discussions, and dedicated preceptorship has prepared me far better for future leadership than my past personal and observational experiences. I have summarized my top three reasons why this structure of leadership development is particularly valuable to me as a fellow.

First, the longitudinal structure of the elective allows us to learn from multiple preceptors over the course of the academic year. The preceptors include the current chief of hospital pediatrics at Nationwide Children’s Hospital; the division director of hospital medicine at the Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center; and the physician lead for hospital medicine at one of the satellite hospitals in the region. With faculty from the Department of Pediatrics and the Department of Internal Medicine-Pediatrics in these leadership positions, we have the unique ability to compare and contrast operational systems between the two different hospital systems.

Recently, we also had the opportunity to meet with both the chairman of the department of pediatrics and chief medical officer. All of these physician leaders hold a variety of administrative roles and have differing leadership philosophies, each providing useful insights. For instance, one leader ensures his team holds him accountable as the leader by always asking for honest feedback. He recommends telling those you work with to “never let me fail.” Another leader acknowledges that creating five-year plans can be daunting but encouraged us to still be intentional with our direction on a smaller scale by writing down goals for the year and sharing with a mentor. Ultimately, I came away with a wide variety of perspectives to reference as I go forward.

Second, the learning is contextualized. I can take concepts that I learn through reading and discussions and construct meaning based on observations from meetings or other encounters with different leaders. For example, after reviewing several articles on strategies to make meetings more effective, I started noticing what went well and what didn’t go well in every meeting I attended. I observed preceptors employing many of the strategies successfully with positive feedback. This included not only simple practices, such as setting an agenda to provide a compass for the conversation, but also more nuanced practices like controlling the meeting but not the conversation.

After reading about leadership styles I also found myself analyzing the qualities and strategies of leaders I encountered and reflecting on their approach, noticing what I could possibly interlace in my own practice. Several of the leaders I spoke with during the elective recommended paying attention to the actions of the ineffective bosses or mentors because they can teach you something too: how not to act. I even started applying this strategy to the popular television series The Office – Michael Scott, the regional manager of a fictional paper company, demonstrates some of the best and worst leadership skills in every episode. I am developing a repertoire of strategies to lead and motivate people.

Finally, the design allows for real-time application of new methods to my current practice. One particularly useful tool I have learned is Leader Standard Work, a systematic method to get leaders to maintain stability, problem solve, and drive continuous improvement within their organization.⁵ I have used elements of Leader Standard Work on a personal level to improve my time management skills and increase my productivity. For example, I reconceptualized my calendar as a standardized checklist and I organized it to allot more time to critical activities, such as my research and scholarly output, and less on administrative tasks. I am also implementing changes to how I prepare and run meetings, collaborate, and communicate with members of my research team.

Mastery requires practice and feedback, so applying concepts even on a small, personal scale shortly after learning them has been very valuable. Over the last several months I have often wished I had this type of structured leadership education during my year as a chief resident. I think I could have been more intentional in my decision-making, possibly being a stronger leader for the program. Now that I am transferring skills into practice right away, I am setting the stage for lasting changes in behavior that will hopefully benefit all those that I work with in the future.

Leadership development through a customizable longitudinal elective may be an effective way to prepare PHM fellow graduates for future leadership positions. Fellows can emerge with the skills and real-world practice to allow them to feel confident in future positions. However, leadership doesn’t end when we get the position. We must remember to continuously ask for feedback and build upon our experiences to evolve as leaders in PHM.
 

Dr. Westphal is a first-year pediatric hospital medicine fellow at Nationwide Children’s Hospital in Columbus, Ohio with an interest in improving the delivery of quality care for hospitalized infants.

References

1. Maniscalco, J, et al. The Pediatric Hospital Medicine Core Competencies: 2020 Revision. Introduction and Methodology (C). J Hosp Med. 2020;S1;E12-E17. doi: 10.12788/jhm.3391.

2. Jerardi KE, et al; Council of Pediatric Hospital Medicine Fellowship Directors. Development of a Curricular Framework for Pediatric Hospital Medicine Fellowships. Pediatrics. 2017 Jul;140(1):e20170698. doi: 10.1542/peds.2017-0698.

3. ACGME Program Requirements for Graduate Medical Education in Pediatric Hospital Medicine. 2020 Edition. Accessed 2021 Jan 14.

4. Oshimura, JM et al. Current roles and perceived needs of pediatric hospital medicine fellowship graduates. Hosp Pediatr. 2016;6(10):633-7. doi: 10.1542/hpeds.2016-0031.

5. Murli, J. Standard Work for Lean Leaders: One of the Keys to Sustaining Performance Gains. Lean Institute Enterprise, Lean Institute Enterprise Inc. 4 Dec 2013. www.lean.org/common/display/?o=2493

The practice of pediatric hospital medicine (PHM) has been evolving and rapidly expanding over the last several decades. Not only has the scope of clinical practice matured and become more defined, but hospitalists now also have the responsibility to advance the performance of hospitals and health care systems. Pediatric hospitalists are increasingly incorporating medical education, research, high-value care, patient quality and safety initiatives, and process improvement into their careers.¹ As a result, pediatric hospitalists are occupying a wider range of administrative and leadership positions within the health care system.

The field of PHM has highlighted the importance of leadership in the practice of hospital medicine by dedicating a chapter to “Leadership in Healthcare” in the PHM Core Competencies.¹ The competencies define the expertise required of hospitalists and serve as guidance for the development of education, training, and career development series. Hospitalists may seek out opportunities for leadership training at an institutional or national level. Options may include advanced degrees, national conferences, division training seminars, or self-directed learning through reading or observational experiences. Unfortunately, all of these take time and motivation. As a result, hospitalists tend to pursue these opportunities only after they have already been appointed to leadership positions.

PHM fellowship is the optimal time to build a foundation of leadership skills. Over the course of a 2-year fellowship, fellows have a combined 16 weeks dedicated to educational activities beyond direct patient care.² The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) encourages educational innovation during this time, allowing programs to create unique opportunities for their fellows that will promote progress towards their ultimate career goals.³ This curricular framework provides the flexibility to integrate leadership training into fellowship training.

Many fellows are eager for leadership experiences and mentorship, myself included. As a pediatric chief resident, I was immersed in a diverse range of clinical, educational, research, and administrative responsibilities. I found myself in a leadership position with no prior education on how to manage people or team dynamics, make high-stress decisions on behalf of a group of people, or handle conflict. Although I learned new strategies on a daily basis, the experience showed me how much more I still had to learn in order to be a successful leader. This was one of the reasons I decided to pursue fellowship training. I think many PHM fellowship applicants feel similarly. They may have served in a leadership position in the past but feel underprepared to fulfill leadership positions in the next phase of their careers.

But despite this eagerness, evidence suggests that fellows do not feel that they receive as much management training as they need to start their careers. In a 2014 survey of PHM fellowship graduates, many held formal leadership positions within their institution (23/51) and within national organizations (6/51), despite having only five years of hospitalist experience on average (including time spent in fellowship). When asked about training needs, respondents identified “hospital program management” as an area where they wished they received more training during fellowship.⁴

Anyone who has gone through the PHM fellowship interview process can tell you that a common refrain of program directors is, “One of the goals of our program is to create future leaders in PHM.” This led me to wonder: how do fellowship programs prepare their fellows for future leadership positions?

I began my fellowship training at Nationwide Children’s Hospital in the summer of 2020. The program had just designed a longitudinal leadership elective, which the second-year fellow and I decided to pilot together. As I reflected on the first half of this academic year, I realized that it is unique experiences like this elective that make me thankful I pursued fellowship. I want to share with the hospitalist community the structure of the elective and why it has been particularly valuable with the hope that it will inspire similar opportunities for other fellows.

The program is semi-structured but allows the fellow and preceptors the flexibility to decide what activities would benefit that particular fellow. We attend a variety of administrative and committee meetings with each preceptor that expose us to the responsibilities of their positions, their leadership style in action, their approach to crisis management, and differences in divisional operations. On a monthly basis we meet with a preceptor to discuss a topic related to leadership. Examples of topics include how to run a more effective meeting, barriers to organizational change, leading in crisis, and the importance of mission, vision, values, and goals of organizations. The preceptor sends us articles or other learning materials they have found useful on the topic, and these serve as a starting point for our discussions. These discussions provide a point of reflection as we apply the day’s concept to our own prior experiences or to our observations during the elective.

The combination of learning experiences, discussions, and dedicated preceptorship has prepared me far better for future leadership than my past personal and observational experiences. I have summarized my top three reasons why this structure of leadership development is particularly valuable to me as a fellow.

First, the longitudinal structure of the elective allows us to learn from multiple preceptors over the course of the academic year. The preceptors include the current chief of hospital pediatrics at Nationwide Children’s Hospital; the division director of hospital medicine at the Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center; and the physician lead for hospital medicine at one of the satellite hospitals in the region. With faculty from the Department of Pediatrics and the Department of Internal Medicine-Pediatrics in these leadership positions, we have the unique ability to compare and contrast operational systems between the two different hospital systems.

Recently, we also had the opportunity to meet with both the chairman of the department of pediatrics and chief medical officer. All of these physician leaders hold a variety of administrative roles and have differing leadership philosophies, each providing useful insights. For instance, one leader ensures his team holds him accountable as the leader by always asking for honest feedback. He recommends telling those you work with to “never let me fail.” Another leader acknowledges that creating five-year plans can be daunting but encouraged us to still be intentional with our direction on a smaller scale by writing down goals for the year and sharing with a mentor. Ultimately, I came away with a wide variety of perspectives to reference as I go forward.

Second, the learning is contextualized. I can take concepts that I learn through reading and discussions and construct meaning based on observations from meetings or other encounters with different leaders. For example, after reviewing several articles on strategies to make meetings more effective, I started noticing what went well and what didn’t go well in every meeting I attended. I observed preceptors employing many of the strategies successfully with positive feedback. This included not only simple practices, such as setting an agenda to provide a compass for the conversation, but also more nuanced practices like controlling the meeting but not the conversation.

After reading about leadership styles I also found myself analyzing the qualities and strategies of leaders I encountered and reflecting on their approach, noticing what I could possibly interlace in my own practice. Several of the leaders I spoke with during the elective recommended paying attention to the actions of the ineffective bosses or mentors because they can teach you something too: how not to act. I even started applying this strategy to the popular television series The Office – Michael Scott, the regional manager of a fictional paper company, demonstrates some of the best and worst leadership skills in every episode. I am developing a repertoire of strategies to lead and motivate people.

Finally, the design allows for real-time application of new methods to my current practice. One particularly useful tool I have learned is Leader Standard Work, a systematic method to get leaders to maintain stability, problem solve, and drive continuous improvement within their organization.⁵ I have used elements of Leader Standard Work on a personal level to improve my time management skills and increase my productivity. For example, I reconceptualized my calendar as a standardized checklist and I organized it to allot more time to critical activities, such as my research and scholarly output, and less on administrative tasks. I am also implementing changes to how I prepare and run meetings, collaborate, and communicate with members of my research team.

Mastery requires practice and feedback, so applying concepts even on a small, personal scale shortly after learning them has been very valuable. Over the last several months I have often wished I had this type of structured leadership education during my year as a chief resident. I think I could have been more intentional in my decision-making, possibly being a stronger leader for the program. Now that I am transferring skills into practice right away, I am setting the stage for lasting changes in behavior that will hopefully benefit all those that I work with in the future.

Leadership development through a customizable longitudinal elective may be an effective way to prepare PHM fellow graduates for future leadership positions. Fellows can emerge with the skills and real-world practice to allow them to feel confident in future positions. However, leadership doesn’t end when we get the position. We must remember to continuously ask for feedback and build upon our experiences to evolve as leaders in PHM.
 

Dr. Westphal is a first-year pediatric hospital medicine fellow at Nationwide Children’s Hospital in Columbus, Ohio with an interest in improving the delivery of quality care for hospitalized infants.

References

1. Maniscalco, J, et al. The Pediatric Hospital Medicine Core Competencies: 2020 Revision. Introduction and Methodology (C). J Hosp Med. 2020;S1;E12-E17. doi: 10.12788/jhm.3391.

2. Jerardi KE, et al; Council of Pediatric Hospital Medicine Fellowship Directors. Development of a Curricular Framework for Pediatric Hospital Medicine Fellowships. Pediatrics. 2017 Jul;140(1):e20170698. doi: 10.1542/peds.2017-0698.

3. ACGME Program Requirements for Graduate Medical Education in Pediatric Hospital Medicine. 2020 Edition. Accessed 2021 Jan 14.

4. Oshimura, JM et al. Current roles and perceived needs of pediatric hospital medicine fellowship graduates. Hosp Pediatr. 2016;6(10):633-7. doi: 10.1542/hpeds.2016-0031.

5. Murli, J. Standard Work for Lean Leaders: One of the Keys to Sustaining Performance Gains. Lean Institute Enterprise, Lean Institute Enterprise Inc. 4 Dec 2013. www.lean.org/common/display/?o=2493

In the absence of formal clinical trials, pediatricians are racing to determine the efficacy and risks of currently used therapies for the SARS-CoV-2–linked multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C).

That requires rapid pragmatic evaluation of therapies. Two real-world observational studies published online June 16 in The New England Journal of Medicine do that, with differing results.

In the Overcoming COVID-19 study, investigators assessed initial therapy and outcomes for patients with MIS-C using surveillance data from 58 pediatric hospitals nationwide.

The results suggest that patients with MIS-C who were younger than 21 years of age and who were initially treated with intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) plus glucocorticoids fared better in terms of cardiovascular function.

The study included 518 children (median age, 8.7 years) who were admitted to the hospital between March and October 2020 and who received at least one immunomodulatory therapy. In a propensity score–matched analysis, those given IVIG plus glucocorticoids (n = 103) had a lower risk for the primary outcome of cardiovascular dysfunction on or after day 2 than those given IVIG alone (n = 103), at 17% versus 31% (risk ratio, 0.56; 95% confidence interval, 0.34-0.94).

Risks for individual aspects of the study’s composite outcome were also lower with IVIG plus glucocorticoids. Left ventricular dysfunction occurred in 8% and 17%, respectively (RR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.19-1.15). Shock requiring vasopressor use emerged in 13% and 24%, respectively (RR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.29-1.00).

In addition, there were fewer cases in which adjunctive therapy was given on day one among those who received combination therapy than among those who received IVIG alone, at 34% versus 70% (RR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.36-0.65), but the risk for fever was not lower on or after day two (31% and 40%, respectively; RR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.53-1.13).

Lead author Mary Beth F. Son, MD, director of the rheumatology program at Boston Children’s Hospital, who is also associate professor of pediatrics at Harvard Medical School, stressed that the study did not assess which MIS-C patients should receive treatment. “Rather, we studied children who had been treated with one of two initial regimens and then assessed short-term outcomes,” she told this news organization.

Going forward, it will be important to study which children should receive immunomodulatory treatment, Dr. Son said. “Specifically, can the less ill children receive IVIG alone or no treatment? This is an unanswered question at the moment, which could be addressed with a randomized controlled trial.”

Future directions, she added, will include assessing long-term cardiac outcomes for patients with MIS-C as well as studying outpatient regimens, especially those that involve steroids.

Earlier this year, French investigators found better outcomes with combined corticosteroids and IVIG than with IVIG alone. They suggested that combination therapy should be the standard of care, given the present state of therapeutic knowledge.
 

Maybe not so standard

Different results emerged, however, from an international study of MIS-C that compared three, rather than two, treatment approaches. Collaborators from the Best Available Treatment Study for MIS-C (BATS) evaluated data for 614 children with suspected MIS-C between June 2020 and February 2021 in 32 countries and found no substantial differences in recovery among children whose primary treatment was IVIG alone, IVIG plus glucocorticoids, or glucocorticoids alone.

The study by Andrew J. McArdle, MB BChir, MSC, a clinical research fellow at Imperial College London, and colleagues was published June 16 in The New England Journal of Medicine.

In the BATS cohort, 246 received IVIG alone, 208 received IVIG plus glucocorticoids, and 99 received glucocorticoids alone. Twenty-two patients received other combinations, including biologics, and 39 received no immunomodulatory therapy.

Among patients who were included in the primary analysis, death occurred or inotropic or ventilatory support was employed in 56 of 180 of the patients who received IVIG plus glucocorticoids, compared with 44 of 211 patients treated with IVIG alone, for an adjusted odds ratio (aOR) of 0.77 (95% CI, 0.33-1.82). Among those who received glucocorticoids alone, 17 of 83 met the primary endpoint of death or inotropic or ventilatory support, for an aOR relative to IVIG alone of 0.54 (95% CI, 0.22-1.33).

After adjustments, the likelihood for reduced disease severity was similar in the two groups relative to IVIG alone, at 0.90 for IVIG plus glucocorticoids and 0.93 for glucocorticoids alone. Time to reduction in disease severity was also comparable across all groups.

Some of the differences between the U.S. study and the global studies could be the result of the larger size of the international cohort and possibly a difference in the strains of virus in the United States and abroad, according to S. Sexson Tejtel, MD, PhD, MPH, a pediatric cardiologist at Texas Children’s Hospital and an assistant professor at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas. “Some strains make children sicker than others, and they’re going to need more treatment,” said Dr. Sexson Tejtel, who was not involved in either study.

Dr. Sexson Tejtel also noted that the U.S. researchers did not assess outcomes among children treated with steroids alone. “It would be interesting to know what steroids alone look like in the U.S. MIS-C population,” she said in an interview.

BATS corresponding author Michael Levin, MBE, PhD, FRCPCH, an Imperial College professor of pediatrics and international child health, told this news organization that the differing results may have arisen because of the international study’s three-treatment focus, its wider spectrum of patients, and its different endpoints: Death and inotropic support on or after day 2, versus echocardiographic left ventricular dysfunction or inotropic usage.

Regardless of the differences between the two studies, neither establishes the most effective single or combination treatment, writes Roberta L. DeBiasi, MD, of the Division of Pediatric Infectious Diseases at Children’s National Hospital and Research Institute and George Washington University, Washington, in an accompanying editorial. “Specifically, neither study was powered to include an evaluation of approaches that steer away from broad immunosuppression with glucocorticoids and that focus on more targeted and titratable treatments with biologic agents, such as anakinra and infliximab,” she writes.

Dr. DeBiasi adds that long-term follow-up studies of cardiac and noncardiac outcomes in these patients will launch soon. “Meanwhile, continued collaboration across centers is essential to decreasing the short-term incidence of death and complications,” she writes.

“It will be interesting as we apply results from these studies as they come out to see how they change our practice,” Dr. Sexson Tejtel said. “And it would be good to have some randomized clinical trials.”

For Dr. Levin, the bottom line is that all three treatments are associated with recovery for a majority of children. “This is good news for clinicians who have been guessing which treatment to use,” he said. “Both studies are attempts to provide doctors with some evidence on which to base treatment decisions and are not the final answer. Our study is ongoing, and with larger numbers of patients it may give clearer answers.”

The Overcoming COVID-19 study was funded by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Several coauthors have reported support from industry outside of the submitted work. BATS was funded by the European Union’s Horizons 2020 Program. The study authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. One coauthor’s spouse is employed by GlaxoSmithKline. Dr. DeBiasi and Dr. Sexson Tejtel have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

In the absence of formal clinical trials, pediatricians are racing to determine the efficacy and risks of currently used therapies for the SARS-CoV-2–linked multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C).

That requires rapid pragmatic evaluation of therapies. Two real-world observational studies published online June 16 in The New England Journal of Medicine do that, with differing results.

In the Overcoming COVID-19 study, investigators assessed initial therapy and outcomes for patients with MIS-C using surveillance data from 58 pediatric hospitals nationwide.

The results suggest that patients with MIS-C who were younger than 21 years of age and who were initially treated with intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) plus glucocorticoids fared better in terms of cardiovascular function.

The study included 518 children (median age, 8.7 years) who were admitted to the hospital between March and October 2020 and who received at least one immunomodulatory therapy. In a propensity score–matched analysis, those given IVIG plus glucocorticoids (n = 103) had a lower risk for the primary outcome of cardiovascular dysfunction on or after day 2 than those given IVIG alone (n = 103), at 17% versus 31% (risk ratio, 0.56; 95% confidence interval, 0.34-0.94).

Risks for individual aspects of the study’s composite outcome were also lower with IVIG plus glucocorticoids. Left ventricular dysfunction occurred in 8% and 17%, respectively (RR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.19-1.15). Shock requiring vasopressor use emerged in 13% and 24%, respectively (RR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.29-1.00).

In addition, there were fewer cases in which adjunctive therapy was given on day one among those who received combination therapy than among those who received IVIG alone, at 34% versus 70% (RR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.36-0.65), but the risk for fever was not lower on or after day two (31% and 40%, respectively; RR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.53-1.13).

Lead author Mary Beth F. Son, MD, director of the rheumatology program at Boston Children’s Hospital, who is also associate professor of pediatrics at Harvard Medical School, stressed that the study did not assess which MIS-C patients should receive treatment. “Rather, we studied children who had been treated with one of two initial regimens and then assessed short-term outcomes,” she told this news organization.

Going forward, it will be important to study which children should receive immunomodulatory treatment, Dr. Son said. “Specifically, can the less ill children receive IVIG alone or no treatment? This is an unanswered question at the moment, which could be addressed with a randomized controlled trial.”

Future directions, she added, will include assessing long-term cardiac outcomes for patients with MIS-C as well as studying outpatient regimens, especially those that involve steroids.

Earlier this year, French investigators found better outcomes with combined corticosteroids and IVIG than with IVIG alone. They suggested that combination therapy should be the standard of care, given the present state of therapeutic knowledge.
 

Maybe not so standard

Different results emerged, however, from an international study of MIS-C that compared three, rather than two, treatment approaches. Collaborators from the Best Available Treatment Study for MIS-C (BATS) evaluated data for 614 children with suspected MIS-C between June 2020 and February 2021 in 32 countries and found no substantial differences in recovery among children whose primary treatment was IVIG alone, IVIG plus glucocorticoids, or glucocorticoids alone.

The study by Andrew J. McArdle, MB BChir, MSC, a clinical research fellow at Imperial College London, and colleagues was published June 16 in The New England Journal of Medicine.

In the BATS cohort, 246 received IVIG alone, 208 received IVIG plus glucocorticoids, and 99 received glucocorticoids alone. Twenty-two patients received other combinations, including biologics, and 39 received no immunomodulatory therapy.

Among patients who were included in the primary analysis, death occurred or inotropic or ventilatory support was employed in 56 of 180 of the patients who received IVIG plus glucocorticoids, compared with 44 of 211 patients treated with IVIG alone, for an adjusted odds ratio (aOR) of 0.77 (95% CI, 0.33-1.82). Among those who received glucocorticoids alone, 17 of 83 met the primary endpoint of death or inotropic or ventilatory support, for an aOR relative to IVIG alone of 0.54 (95% CI, 0.22-1.33).

After adjustments, the likelihood for reduced disease severity was similar in the two groups relative to IVIG alone, at 0.90 for IVIG plus glucocorticoids and 0.93 for glucocorticoids alone. Time to reduction in disease severity was also comparable across all groups.

Some of the differences between the U.S. study and the global studies could be the result of the larger size of the international cohort and possibly a difference in the strains of virus in the United States and abroad, according to S. Sexson Tejtel, MD, PhD, MPH, a pediatric cardiologist at Texas Children’s Hospital and an assistant professor at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas. “Some strains make children sicker than others, and they’re going to need more treatment,” said Dr. Sexson Tejtel, who was not involved in either study.

Dr. Sexson Tejtel also noted that the U.S. researchers did not assess outcomes among children treated with steroids alone. “It would be interesting to know what steroids alone look like in the U.S. MIS-C population,” she said in an interview.

BATS corresponding author Michael Levin, MBE, PhD, FRCPCH, an Imperial College professor of pediatrics and international child health, told this news organization that the differing results may have arisen because of the international study’s three-treatment focus, its wider spectrum of patients, and its different endpoints: Death and inotropic support on or after day 2, versus echocardiographic left ventricular dysfunction or inotropic usage.

Regardless of the differences between the two studies, neither establishes the most effective single or combination treatment, writes Roberta L. DeBiasi, MD, of the Division of Pediatric Infectious Diseases at Children’s National Hospital and Research Institute and George Washington University, Washington, in an accompanying editorial. “Specifically, neither study was powered to include an evaluation of approaches that steer away from broad immunosuppression with glucocorticoids and that focus on more targeted and titratable treatments with biologic agents, such as anakinra and infliximab,” she writes.

Dr. DeBiasi adds that long-term follow-up studies of cardiac and noncardiac outcomes in these patients will launch soon. “Meanwhile, continued collaboration across centers is essential to decreasing the short-term incidence of death and complications,” she writes.

“It will be interesting as we apply results from these studies as they come out to see how they change our practice,” Dr. Sexson Tejtel said. “And it would be good to have some randomized clinical trials.”

For Dr. Levin, the bottom line is that all three treatments are associated with recovery for a majority of children. “This is good news for clinicians who have been guessing which treatment to use,” he said. “Both studies are attempts to provide doctors with some evidence on which to base treatment decisions and are not the final answer. Our study is ongoing, and with larger numbers of patients it may give clearer answers.”

The Overcoming COVID-19 study was funded by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Several coauthors have reported support from industry outside of the submitted work. BATS was funded by the European Union’s Horizons 2020 Program. The study authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. One coauthor’s spouse is employed by GlaxoSmithKline. Dr. DeBiasi and Dr. Sexson Tejtel have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

In the absence of formal clinical trials, pediatricians are racing to determine the efficacy and risks of currently used therapies for the SARS-CoV-2–linked multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C).

That requires rapid pragmatic evaluation of therapies. Two real-world observational studies published online June 16 in The New England Journal of Medicine do that, with differing results.

In the Overcoming COVID-19 study, investigators assessed initial therapy and outcomes for patients with MIS-C using surveillance data from 58 pediatric hospitals nationwide.

The results suggest that patients with MIS-C who were younger than 21 years of age and who were initially treated with intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) plus glucocorticoids fared better in terms of cardiovascular function.

The study included 518 children (median age, 8.7 years) who were admitted to the hospital between March and October 2020 and who received at least one immunomodulatory therapy. In a propensity score–matched analysis, those given IVIG plus glucocorticoids (n = 103) had a lower risk for the primary outcome of cardiovascular dysfunction on or after day 2 than those given IVIG alone (n = 103), at 17% versus 31% (risk ratio, 0.56; 95% confidence interval, 0.34-0.94).

Risks for individual aspects of the study’s composite outcome were also lower with IVIG plus glucocorticoids. Left ventricular dysfunction occurred in 8% and 17%, respectively (RR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.19-1.15). Shock requiring vasopressor use emerged in 13% and 24%, respectively (RR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.29-1.00).

In addition, there were fewer cases in which adjunctive therapy was given on day one among those who received combination therapy than among those who received IVIG alone, at 34% versus 70% (RR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.36-0.65), but the risk for fever was not lower on or after day two (31% and 40%, respectively; RR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.53-1.13).

Lead author Mary Beth F. Son, MD, director of the rheumatology program at Boston Children’s Hospital, who is also associate professor of pediatrics at Harvard Medical School, stressed that the study did not assess which MIS-C patients should receive treatment. “Rather, we studied children who had been treated with one of two initial regimens and then assessed short-term outcomes,” she told this news organization.

Going forward, it will be important to study which children should receive immunomodulatory treatment, Dr. Son said. “Specifically, can the less ill children receive IVIG alone or no treatment? This is an unanswered question at the moment, which could be addressed with a randomized controlled trial.”

Future directions, she added, will include assessing long-term cardiac outcomes for patients with MIS-C as well as studying outpatient regimens, especially those that involve steroids.

Earlier this year, French investigators found better outcomes with combined corticosteroids and IVIG than with IVIG alone. They suggested that combination therapy should be the standard of care, given the present state of therapeutic knowledge.
 

Maybe not so standard

Different results emerged, however, from an international study of MIS-C that compared three, rather than two, treatment approaches. Collaborators from the Best Available Treatment Study for MIS-C (BATS) evaluated data for 614 children with suspected MIS-C between June 2020 and February 2021 in 32 countries and found no substantial differences in recovery among children whose primary treatment was IVIG alone, IVIG plus glucocorticoids, or glucocorticoids alone.

The study by Andrew J. McArdle, MB BChir, MSC, a clinical research fellow at Imperial College London, and colleagues was published June 16 in The New England Journal of Medicine.

In the BATS cohort, 246 received IVIG alone, 208 received IVIG plus glucocorticoids, and 99 received glucocorticoids alone. Twenty-two patients received other combinations, including biologics, and 39 received no immunomodulatory therapy.

Among patients who were included in the primary analysis, death occurred or inotropic or ventilatory support was employed in 56 of 180 of the patients who received IVIG plus glucocorticoids, compared with 44 of 211 patients treated with IVIG alone, for an adjusted odds ratio (aOR) of 0.77 (95% CI, 0.33-1.82). Among those who received glucocorticoids alone, 17 of 83 met the primary endpoint of death or inotropic or ventilatory support, for an aOR relative to IVIG alone of 0.54 (95% CI, 0.22-1.33).

After adjustments, the likelihood for reduced disease severity was similar in the two groups relative to IVIG alone, at 0.90 for IVIG plus glucocorticoids and 0.93 for glucocorticoids alone. Time to reduction in disease severity was also comparable across all groups.

Some of the differences between the U.S. study and the global studies could be the result of the larger size of the international cohort and possibly a difference in the strains of virus in the United States and abroad, according to S. Sexson Tejtel, MD, PhD, MPH, a pediatric cardiologist at Texas Children’s Hospital and an assistant professor at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas. “Some strains make children sicker than others, and they’re going to need more treatment,” said Dr. Sexson Tejtel, who was not involved in either study.

Dr. Sexson Tejtel also noted that the U.S. researchers did not assess outcomes among children treated with steroids alone. “It would be interesting to know what steroids alone look like in the U.S. MIS-C population,” she said in an interview.

BATS corresponding author Michael Levin, MBE, PhD, FRCPCH, an Imperial College professor of pediatrics and international child health, told this news organization that the differing results may have arisen because of the international study’s three-treatment focus, its wider spectrum of patients, and its different endpoints: Death and inotropic support on or after day 2, versus echocardiographic left ventricular dysfunction or inotropic usage.

Regardless of the differences between the two studies, neither establishes the most effective single or combination treatment, writes Roberta L. DeBiasi, MD, of the Division of Pediatric Infectious Diseases at Children’s National Hospital and Research Institute and George Washington University, Washington, in an accompanying editorial. “Specifically, neither study was powered to include an evaluation of approaches that steer away from broad immunosuppression with glucocorticoids and that focus on more targeted and titratable treatments with biologic agents, such as anakinra and infliximab,” she writes.

Dr. DeBiasi adds that long-term follow-up studies of cardiac and noncardiac outcomes in these patients will launch soon. “Meanwhile, continued collaboration across centers is essential to decreasing the short-term incidence of death and complications,” she writes.

“It will be interesting as we apply results from these studies as they come out to see how they change our practice,” Dr. Sexson Tejtel said. “And it would be good to have some randomized clinical trials.”

For Dr. Levin, the bottom line is that all three treatments are associated with recovery for a majority of children. “This is good news for clinicians who have been guessing which treatment to use,” he said. “Both studies are attempts to provide doctors with some evidence on which to base treatment decisions and are not the final answer. Our study is ongoing, and with larger numbers of patients it may give clearer answers.”

The Overcoming COVID-19 study was funded by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Several coauthors have reported support from industry outside of the submitted work. BATS was funded by the European Union’s Horizons 2020 Program. The study authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. One coauthor’s spouse is employed by GlaxoSmithKline. Dr. DeBiasi and Dr. Sexson Tejtel have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A 19-month-old boy comes to the office with a large firm erythematous swelling of his anterior left thigh that reaches from just below the inguinal crease to the patella. He got his routine immunizations 2 days prior to this visit including the fourth DTaP dose in his left thigh. Clinicians who care for children and who give routine immunizations occasionally see such an adverse effect following immunization (AEFI). These large local reactions have been described for many decades and occur after many vaccines.

What is extensive limb swelling (ELS)? ELS is defined as erythema/swelling crossing a joint or extending mostly joint to joint. It is a subset of large local AEFIs. ELS is generally firm and often erythematous with varying degrees of pain. ELS is now most frequent after pneumococcal conjugate vaccines (PCV) and DTaP, with a 1%-4% rate after DTaP boosters.^1-3 ELS and other large local swelling reactions occur at nearly any age.¹ And yet there is still much that is not known about their true pathogenesis. Likewise, there are no accurate predictors of which vaccinees will develop large inflammatory processes at or near the site of immunization.
 

ELS after standard vaccines

The largest report to date on AEFI of all ages, including ELS, covered 1990-2003.¹ Two upfront caveats are: This study evaluated ELS before PCVs were available, and in adults, repeat 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine was the most common cause of ELS in this study, comprising 45% of all adult ELS.

Considering all ages, ELS onset was nearly always greater than 1 hour and was less than 24 hours post vaccine in almost 75% of patients. However, for those aged under 2 years, onset in less than 24 hours was even more frequent (84%). Interestingly, concomitant fever occurred in less than 25% regardless of age. In adults, ELS after tetanus- and diphtheria-containing vaccines occurred mostly in women (75%); whereas for ELS under 8 years of age, males predominated (about 60%). Of note, tetanus- and diphtheria-containing vaccines were the most frequent ELS-inducing vaccines in children, that is, 75% aged under 8 years and 55% for those aged 8-17 years. Focusing on pediatric ELS after DTaP by dose, 33% were after the fourth, 31% after the fifth, 12% after the second, 10% after the first, and 3% after the third dose. In the case above, ELS was after the fourth dose.

Clinicians caring for children know how to manage ELS after DTaP or PCVs. They understand that ELS looks scary and is uncomfortable but is not dangerous and requires no specific treatment. Supportive management, that is, pain reliever, cool compresses, and TLC, are warranted. ELS is not a contraindication to subsequent immunization with the same vaccine. That said, large local reactions or ELS do occur with subsequent doses of that same vaccine at varying rates up to 66% of the time. Management is the same with repeat episodes, and no sequelae are expected. Supportive management only is standard unless one suspects a very rare Arthus reaction. If central necrosis occurs or swelling evolution/resolution is not per expectations, referral to a vaccine expert can sort out if it is an Arthus reaction, in which case, subsequent use of the same vaccine in not recommended.
 

ELS and SARS-CoV-2 vaccines

With SARS-CoV-2 vaccines now authorized for adolescents and expected in a few months for younger children, large local AEFI reactions related to pediatric SARS-CoV-2 vaccines are expected, given that “COVID arm” is now well described in adults.⁴ Overall, ELS/large local reactions have been reported more frequently with the Moderna than Pfizer mRNA vaccine.⁴ In the almost 42% of adults having ELS post first dose, repeat ELS post second dose often appears sooner but also resolves more quickly, with no known sequelae.⁵

Some biopsies have shown delayed-type hypersensitivity reactions (DTH) (superficial perivascular and perifollicular lymphocytic infiltrates with rare eosinophils and scattered mast cells),^6,7 while others show no DTH but these patients have findings of immediate hypersensitivity findings and negative skin testing to the vaccine.⁸ With regard to sex, Dutch ELS data in White adults reveal 90% occur in females – higher than the 75% female rate after standard vaccines.⁷ Onset of ELS data show that Pfizer mRNA vaccinees had onset on average at 38 hours (range, <1 hr to 12 days). Boston data mostly in White adults reveal later onset (median, 6 days; range, 2-12 days).⁴ In contrast, adults of color appear to have later onset (mean, 8 days; range, 4-14 days).⁹

In addition to the local swelling, patients had concurrent injection-site AEFIs of pain (65%), warmth (63%), and pruritus (26%), plus myalgia (51%), headache (48%), malaise (45%), fatigue (43%), chills (33%), arthralgia (30%), and fever (28%).⁷

What should we tell families about pediatric ELS before we give SARS-CoV-2 vaccines to children? Clinical pediatric SARS-CoV-2 vaccine trials are smaller “immunologic bridging” studies, not requiring proof of efficacy. So, the precise incidence of pediatric ELS (adult rate is estimated under 1/100,000) may not be known until months after general use. Nevertheless, part of our counseling of families will need to include ELS/large local reactions. Unless new data show otherwise, the spiel that clinicians have developed to counsel about the rare chance of ELS after routine vaccines should also be useful to inform families of the rare chance of ELS post SARS-CoV-2 vaccine.

The bottom line is that the management of pediatric ELS after SARS-CoV-2 vaccines should be the same as after standard vaccines. And remember, whether the reactions are DTH or not, neither immediate local injection-site reactions nor DTH reactions are contraindications to subsequent vaccination unless anaphylaxis or Arthus reaction is suspected.^10,11

Dr. Harrison is professor of pediatrics and pediatric infectious diseases at Children’s Mercy Hospitals and Clinics, Kansas City, Mo. He said he had no relevant financial disclosures. Email him at [email protected].

References

1. Woo EJ and the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System Working Group. Clin Infect Dis 2003;37:351-8.

2. Rennels MB et al. Pediatrics 2000;105:e12.

3. Huber BM, Goetschel P. J Pediatr. 2011;158:1033.

4. Blumenthal KG et al. N Engl J Med. 2021;384:1273-7.

5. McMahon DE et al. J Amer Acad Dermatol. 2021;85(1):46-55. 6. Johnston MS et al. JAMA Dermatol. 2021;157(6):716-20 .

7. ELS associated with the administration of Comirnaty®. WHO database Vigilyze (cited 2021 Feb 22). Available from https://vigilyze.who-umc.org/.

8. Baeck M et al. N Engl J Med. 2021 Jun. doi: 10.1056/NEJMc2104751.

9. Samarakoon U et al. N Eng J Med. 2021 Jun 9. doi: 10.1056/NEJMc2108620.

10. Kelso JM et al. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2012;130:25-43.

11. Zafack JG et al. Pediatrics. 2017;140(3):e20163707.

A 19-month-old boy comes to the office with a large firm erythematous swelling of his anterior left thigh that reaches from just below the inguinal crease to the patella. He got his routine immunizations 2 days prior to this visit including the fourth DTaP dose in his left thigh. Clinicians who care for children and who give routine immunizations occasionally see such an adverse effect following immunization (AEFI). These large local reactions have been described for many decades and occur after many vaccines.

What is extensive limb swelling (ELS)? ELS is defined as erythema/swelling crossing a joint or extending mostly joint to joint. It is a subset of large local AEFIs. ELS is generally firm and often erythematous with varying degrees of pain. ELS is now most frequent after pneumococcal conjugate vaccines (PCV) and DTaP, with a 1%-4% rate after DTaP boosters.^1-3 ELS and other large local swelling reactions occur at nearly any age.¹ And yet there is still much that is not known about their true pathogenesis. Likewise, there are no accurate predictors of which vaccinees will develop large inflammatory processes at or near the site of immunization.
 

ELS after standard vaccines

The largest report to date on AEFI of all ages, including ELS, covered 1990-2003.¹ Two upfront caveats are: This study evaluated ELS before PCVs were available, and in adults, repeat 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine was the most common cause of ELS in this study, comprising 45% of all adult ELS.

Considering all ages, ELS onset was nearly always greater than 1 hour and was less than 24 hours post vaccine in almost 75% of patients. However, for those aged under 2 years, onset in less than 24 hours was even more frequent (84%). Interestingly, concomitant fever occurred in less than 25% regardless of age. In adults, ELS after tetanus- and diphtheria-containing vaccines occurred mostly in women (75%); whereas for ELS under 8 years of age, males predominated (about 60%). Of note, tetanus- and diphtheria-containing vaccines were the most frequent ELS-inducing vaccines in children, that is, 75% aged under 8 years and 55% for those aged 8-17 years. Focusing on pediatric ELS after DTaP by dose, 33% were after the fourth, 31% after the fifth, 12% after the second, 10% after the first, and 3% after the third dose. In the case above, ELS was after the fourth dose.

Clinicians caring for children know how to manage ELS after DTaP or PCVs. They understand that ELS looks scary and is uncomfortable but is not dangerous and requires no specific treatment. Supportive management, that is, pain reliever, cool compresses, and TLC, are warranted. ELS is not a contraindication to subsequent immunization with the same vaccine. That said, large local reactions or ELS do occur with subsequent doses of that same vaccine at varying rates up to 66% of the time. Management is the same with repeat episodes, and no sequelae are expected. Supportive management only is standard unless one suspects a very rare Arthus reaction. If central necrosis occurs or swelling evolution/resolution is not per expectations, referral to a vaccine expert can sort out if it is an Arthus reaction, in which case, subsequent use of the same vaccine in not recommended.
 

ELS and SARS-CoV-2 vaccines

With SARS-CoV-2 vaccines now authorized for adolescents and expected in a few months for younger children, large local AEFI reactions related to pediatric SARS-CoV-2 vaccines are expected, given that “COVID arm” is now well described in adults.⁴ Overall, ELS/large local reactions have been reported more frequently with the Moderna than Pfizer mRNA vaccine.⁴ In the almost 42% of adults having ELS post first dose, repeat ELS post second dose often appears sooner but also resolves more quickly, with no known sequelae.⁵

Some biopsies have shown delayed-type hypersensitivity reactions (DTH) (superficial perivascular and perifollicular lymphocytic infiltrates with rare eosinophils and scattered mast cells),^6,7 while others show no DTH but these patients have findings of immediate hypersensitivity findings and negative skin testing to the vaccine.⁸ With regard to sex, Dutch ELS data in White adults reveal 90% occur in females – higher than the 75% female rate after standard vaccines.⁷ Onset of ELS data show that Pfizer mRNA vaccinees had onset on average at 38 hours (range, <1 hr to 12 days). Boston data mostly in White adults reveal later onset (median, 6 days; range, 2-12 days).⁴ In contrast, adults of color appear to have later onset (mean, 8 days; range, 4-14 days).⁹

In addition to the local swelling, patients had concurrent injection-site AEFIs of pain (65%), warmth (63%), and pruritus (26%), plus myalgia (51%), headache (48%), malaise (45%), fatigue (43%), chills (33%), arthralgia (30%), and fever (28%).⁷

What should we tell families about pediatric ELS before we give SARS-CoV-2 vaccines to children? Clinical pediatric SARS-CoV-2 vaccine trials are smaller “immunologic bridging” studies, not requiring proof of efficacy. So, the precise incidence of pediatric ELS (adult rate is estimated under 1/100,000) may not be known until months after general use. Nevertheless, part of our counseling of families will need to include ELS/large local reactions. Unless new data show otherwise, the spiel that clinicians have developed to counsel about the rare chance of ELS after routine vaccines should also be useful to inform families of the rare chance of ELS post SARS-CoV-2 vaccine.

The bottom line is that the management of pediatric ELS after SARS-CoV-2 vaccines should be the same as after standard vaccines. And remember, whether the reactions are DTH or not, neither immediate local injection-site reactions nor DTH reactions are contraindications to subsequent vaccination unless anaphylaxis or Arthus reaction is suspected.^10,11

Dr. Harrison is professor of pediatrics and pediatric infectious diseases at Children’s Mercy Hospitals and Clinics, Kansas City, Mo. He said he had no relevant financial disclosures. Email him at [email protected].

References

1. Woo EJ and the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System Working Group. Clin Infect Dis 2003;37:351-8.

2. Rennels MB et al. Pediatrics 2000;105:e12.

3. Huber BM, Goetschel P. J Pediatr. 2011;158:1033.

4. Blumenthal KG et al. N Engl J Med. 2021;384:1273-7.

5. McMahon DE et al. J Amer Acad Dermatol. 2021;85(1):46-55. 6. Johnston MS et al. JAMA Dermatol. 2021;157(6):716-20 .

7. ELS associated with the administration of Comirnaty®. WHO database Vigilyze (cited 2021 Feb 22). Available from https://vigilyze.who-umc.org/.

8. Baeck M et al. N Engl J Med. 2021 Jun. doi: 10.1056/NEJMc2104751.

9. Samarakoon U et al. N Eng J Med. 2021 Jun 9. doi: 10.1056/NEJMc2108620.

10. Kelso JM et al. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2012;130:25-43.

11. Zafack JG et al. Pediatrics. 2017;140(3):e20163707.

A 19-month-old boy comes to the office with a large firm erythematous swelling of his anterior left thigh that reaches from just below the inguinal crease to the patella. He got his routine immunizations 2 days prior to this visit including the fourth DTaP dose in his left thigh. Clinicians who care for children and who give routine immunizations occasionally see such an adverse effect following immunization (AEFI). These large local reactions have been described for many decades and occur after many vaccines.

What is extensive limb swelling (ELS)? ELS is defined as erythema/swelling crossing a joint or extending mostly joint to joint. It is a subset of large local AEFIs. ELS is generally firm and often erythematous with varying degrees of pain. ELS is now most frequent after pneumococcal conjugate vaccines (PCV) and DTaP, with a 1%-4% rate after DTaP boosters.^1-3 ELS and other large local swelling reactions occur at nearly any age.¹ And yet there is still much that is not known about their true pathogenesis. Likewise, there are no accurate predictors of which vaccinees will develop large inflammatory processes at or near the site of immunization.
 

ELS after standard vaccines

The largest report to date on AEFI of all ages, including ELS, covered 1990-2003.¹ Two upfront caveats are: This study evaluated ELS before PCVs were available, and in adults, repeat 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine was the most common cause of ELS in this study, comprising 45% of all adult ELS.

Considering all ages, ELS onset was nearly always greater than 1 hour and was less than 24 hours post vaccine in almost 75% of patients. However, for those aged under 2 years, onset in less than 24 hours was even more frequent (84%). Interestingly, concomitant fever occurred in less than 25% regardless of age. In adults, ELS after tetanus- and diphtheria-containing vaccines occurred mostly in women (75%); whereas for ELS under 8 years of age, males predominated (about 60%). Of note, tetanus- and diphtheria-containing vaccines were the most frequent ELS-inducing vaccines in children, that is, 75% aged under 8 years and 55% for those aged 8-17 years. Focusing on pediatric ELS after DTaP by dose, 33% were after the fourth, 31% after the fifth, 12% after the second, 10% after the first, and 3% after the third dose. In the case above, ELS was after the fourth dose.

Clinicians caring for children know how to manage ELS after DTaP or PCVs. They understand that ELS looks scary and is uncomfortable but is not dangerous and requires no specific treatment. Supportive management, that is, pain reliever, cool compresses, and TLC, are warranted. ELS is not a contraindication to subsequent immunization with the same vaccine. That said, large local reactions or ELS do occur with subsequent doses of that same vaccine at varying rates up to 66% of the time. Management is the same with repeat episodes, and no sequelae are expected. Supportive management only is standard unless one suspects a very rare Arthus reaction. If central necrosis occurs or swelling evolution/resolution is not per expectations, referral to a vaccine expert can sort out if it is an Arthus reaction, in which case, subsequent use of the same vaccine in not recommended.
 

ELS and SARS-CoV-2 vaccines

With SARS-CoV-2 vaccines now authorized for adolescents and expected in a few months for younger children, large local AEFI reactions related to pediatric SARS-CoV-2 vaccines are expected, given that “COVID arm” is now well described in adults.⁴ Overall, ELS/large local reactions have been reported more frequently with the Moderna than Pfizer mRNA vaccine.⁴ In the almost 42% of adults having ELS post first dose, repeat ELS post second dose often appears sooner but also resolves more quickly, with no known sequelae.⁵

Some biopsies have shown delayed-type hypersensitivity reactions (DTH) (superficial perivascular and perifollicular lymphocytic infiltrates with rare eosinophils and scattered mast cells),^6,7 while others show no DTH but these patients have findings of immediate hypersensitivity findings and negative skin testing to the vaccine.⁸ With regard to sex, Dutch ELS data in White adults reveal 90% occur in females – higher than the 75% female rate after standard vaccines.⁷ Onset of ELS data show that Pfizer mRNA vaccinees had onset on average at 38 hours (range, <1 hr to 12 days). Boston data mostly in White adults reveal later onset (median, 6 days; range, 2-12 days).⁴ In contrast, adults of color appear to have later onset (mean, 8 days; range, 4-14 days).⁹

In addition to the local swelling, patients had concurrent injection-site AEFIs of pain (65%), warmth (63%), and pruritus (26%), plus myalgia (51%), headache (48%), malaise (45%), fatigue (43%), chills (33%), arthralgia (30%), and fever (28%).⁷

What should we tell families about pediatric ELS before we give SARS-CoV-2 vaccines to children? Clinical pediatric SARS-CoV-2 vaccine trials are smaller “immunologic bridging” studies, not requiring proof of efficacy. So, the precise incidence of pediatric ELS (adult rate is estimated under 1/100,000) may not be known until months after general use. Nevertheless, part of our counseling of families will need to include ELS/large local reactions. Unless new data show otherwise, the spiel that clinicians have developed to counsel about the rare chance of ELS after routine vaccines should also be useful to inform families of the rare chance of ELS post SARS-CoV-2 vaccine.

The bottom line is that the management of pediatric ELS after SARS-CoV-2 vaccines should be the same as after standard vaccines. And remember, whether the reactions are DTH or not, neither immediate local injection-site reactions nor DTH reactions are contraindications to subsequent vaccination unless anaphylaxis or Arthus reaction is suspected.^10,11

Dr. Harrison is professor of pediatrics and pediatric infectious diseases at Children’s Mercy Hospitals and Clinics, Kansas City, Mo. He said he had no relevant financial disclosures. Email him at [email protected].

References

1. Woo EJ and the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System Working Group. Clin Infect Dis 2003;37:351-8.

2. Rennels MB et al. Pediatrics 2000;105:e12.

3. Huber BM, Goetschel P. J Pediatr. 2011;158:1033.

4. Blumenthal KG et al. N Engl J Med. 2021;384:1273-7.

5. McMahon DE et al. J Amer Acad Dermatol. 2021;85(1):46-55. 6. Johnston MS et al. JAMA Dermatol. 2021;157(6):716-20 .

7. ELS associated with the administration of Comirnaty®. WHO database Vigilyze (cited 2021 Feb 22). Available from https://vigilyze.who-umc.org/.

8. Baeck M et al. N Engl J Med. 2021 Jun. doi: 10.1056/NEJMc2104751.

9. Samarakoon U et al. N Eng J Med. 2021 Jun 9. doi: 10.1056/NEJMc2108620.

10. Kelso JM et al. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2012;130:25-43.

11. Zafack JG et al. Pediatrics. 2017;140(3):e20163707.