Pediatrics

In the periurban slum of Lusaka, Zambia, asymptomatic pertussis infections were common among both mothers and infants, a surprising finding since asymptomatic infections are assumed to be rare in infants. The findings suggested that pertussis should be considered in cases of chronic cough, and that current standards of treating pertussis infections in low-resource settings may need to be reexamined.

The results come from testing of 1,320 infant-mother pairs who were first enrolled at a public health clinic, then followed over at least four visits. The researchers tracked pertussis infection using quantitative PCR (qPCR) on nasopharyngeal swabs. Over the course of the study, 8.9% tested positive, although only one infant developed clinical pertussis during the study.

The study was presented by Christian Gunning, a postdoctoral researcher at the University of Georgia, at the annual meeting of the European Society for Paediatric Infectious Diseases, held virtually this year. The group also included researchers at Boston University and the University of Zambia, where PCR tests were conducted.

“That was amazing,” said session moderator Vana Spoulou, MD, PhD, professor of pediatric infectious diseases at National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, who is associated with Aghia Sofia Children’s Hospital of Athens. She noted that the study found that many physicians misdiagnosed coughs, believing them to be caused by another agent. “It was very interesting that there was so much pertussis spreading around in that community, and that nobody knew that it was around,” said Dr. Spoulou.

It’s important that physicians provide appropriate treatment, since ampicillin, which is typically prescribed for childhood upper respiratory illnesses, is believed to be ineffective against pertussis, while macrolides are effective and can prevent transmission.

Dr. Spoulou also noted that Zambia uses a whole cell vaccine, which is contraindicated in pregnant women because of potential side effects. “The good thing, despite that there was [a lot of] infection, there were no deaths, which means that maybe because the mother was infected, maybe some antibodies of the mother had passed to the child and could help the child to develop milder symptoms. So these are the pros and cons of natural infection,” said Dr. Spoulou.

The study took place in 2015, and participants were seen at the Chawama Public Health Clinic from about age 1 week to 4 months (with a target of seven clinic visits). Researchers recorded respiratory symptoms and antibiotics use at each visit, and collected a nasopharyngeal swab that was tested retrospectively using qPCR for Bordetella pertussis.

Real-time PCR analysis of the samples yields the CT value, which represents the number of amplification cycles that the PCR test must complete before Bordetella pertussis is detectable. The fewer the cycles (and the lower the CT value), the more infectious particles must have been present in the sample. For pertussis testing, a value below 35 is considered a clinically positive result. Tests that come back with higher CT values are increasingly likely to be false positives.

The researchers plotted a value called evidence for infection (EFI), which combined a range of CT values with the number of positive tests over the seven clinic visits to group patients into none, weak, or strong EFI. Among infants with no symptoms, 77% were in the no EFI category, 16% were in the weak category, and 7% were in the strong EFI group. Of infants with minimal respiratory symptoms, 18% were in the strong group, and 20% with moderate to severe symptoms were in the strong EFI group. Among mothers, 13% with no symptoms were in the strong group. 19% in the minimal symptom group were categorized as strong EFI, as were 11% in the moderate to severe symptom group.

The study used a full range of CT, not just positive test results (for pertussis, CT ≤ 35). Beyond contributing to composite measures such as EFI, CT values can serve as leading indicators of infectious disease outbreaks in a population, according to Dr. Gunning. That’s because weaker qPCR signals (CT > 35) can provide additional information within a large sample population. Higher CT values are successively more prone to false positives, but that’s less important for disease surveillance where sensitivity is of the highest importance. The false positive “noise” tends to cancel out over time. “It may be the case that you don’t make that call (correctly) 100% of the time for 100% of the people, but if you get it right in 80 out of 100 people, that’s sufficient to say we see this pathogen circulating in the population,” said Dr. Gunning.

The study was funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Dr. Gunning and Dr. Spoulou have no relevant financial disclosures.

In the periurban slum of Lusaka, Zambia, asymptomatic pertussis infections were common among both mothers and infants, a surprising finding since asymptomatic infections are assumed to be rare in infants. The findings suggested that pertussis should be considered in cases of chronic cough, and that current standards of treating pertussis infections in low-resource settings may need to be reexamined.

The results come from testing of 1,320 infant-mother pairs who were first enrolled at a public health clinic, then followed over at least four visits. The researchers tracked pertussis infection using quantitative PCR (qPCR) on nasopharyngeal swabs. Over the course of the study, 8.9% tested positive, although only one infant developed clinical pertussis during the study.

The study was presented by Christian Gunning, a postdoctoral researcher at the University of Georgia, at the annual meeting of the European Society for Paediatric Infectious Diseases, held virtually this year. The group also included researchers at Boston University and the University of Zambia, where PCR tests were conducted.

“That was amazing,” said session moderator Vana Spoulou, MD, PhD, professor of pediatric infectious diseases at National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, who is associated with Aghia Sofia Children’s Hospital of Athens. She noted that the study found that many physicians misdiagnosed coughs, believing them to be caused by another agent. “It was very interesting that there was so much pertussis spreading around in that community, and that nobody knew that it was around,” said Dr. Spoulou.

It’s important that physicians provide appropriate treatment, since ampicillin, which is typically prescribed for childhood upper respiratory illnesses, is believed to be ineffective against pertussis, while macrolides are effective and can prevent transmission.

Dr. Spoulou also noted that Zambia uses a whole cell vaccine, which is contraindicated in pregnant women because of potential side effects. “The good thing, despite that there was [a lot of] infection, there were no deaths, which means that maybe because the mother was infected, maybe some antibodies of the mother had passed to the child and could help the child to develop milder symptoms. So these are the pros and cons of natural infection,” said Dr. Spoulou.

The study took place in 2015, and participants were seen at the Chawama Public Health Clinic from about age 1 week to 4 months (with a target of seven clinic visits). Researchers recorded respiratory symptoms and antibiotics use at each visit, and collected a nasopharyngeal swab that was tested retrospectively using qPCR for Bordetella pertussis.

Real-time PCR analysis of the samples yields the CT value, which represents the number of amplification cycles that the PCR test must complete before Bordetella pertussis is detectable. The fewer the cycles (and the lower the CT value), the more infectious particles must have been present in the sample. For pertussis testing, a value below 35 is considered a clinically positive result. Tests that come back with higher CT values are increasingly likely to be false positives.

The researchers plotted a value called evidence for infection (EFI), which combined a range of CT values with the number of positive tests over the seven clinic visits to group patients into none, weak, or strong EFI. Among infants with no symptoms, 77% were in the no EFI category, 16% were in the weak category, and 7% were in the strong EFI group. Of infants with minimal respiratory symptoms, 18% were in the strong group, and 20% with moderate to severe symptoms were in the strong EFI group. Among mothers, 13% with no symptoms were in the strong group. 19% in the minimal symptom group were categorized as strong EFI, as were 11% in the moderate to severe symptom group.

The study used a full range of CT, not just positive test results (for pertussis, CT ≤ 35). Beyond contributing to composite measures such as EFI, CT values can serve as leading indicators of infectious disease outbreaks in a population, according to Dr. Gunning. That’s because weaker qPCR signals (CT > 35) can provide additional information within a large sample population. Higher CT values are successively more prone to false positives, but that’s less important for disease surveillance where sensitivity is of the highest importance. The false positive “noise” tends to cancel out over time. “It may be the case that you don’t make that call (correctly) 100% of the time for 100% of the people, but if you get it right in 80 out of 100 people, that’s sufficient to say we see this pathogen circulating in the population,” said Dr. Gunning.

The study was funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Dr. Gunning and Dr. Spoulou have no relevant financial disclosures.

In the periurban slum of Lusaka, Zambia, asymptomatic pertussis infections were common among both mothers and infants, a surprising finding since asymptomatic infections are assumed to be rare in infants. The findings suggested that pertussis should be considered in cases of chronic cough, and that current standards of treating pertussis infections in low-resource settings may need to be reexamined.

The results come from testing of 1,320 infant-mother pairs who were first enrolled at a public health clinic, then followed over at least four visits. The researchers tracked pertussis infection using quantitative PCR (qPCR) on nasopharyngeal swabs. Over the course of the study, 8.9% tested positive, although only one infant developed clinical pertussis during the study.

The study was presented by Christian Gunning, a postdoctoral researcher at the University of Georgia, at the annual meeting of the European Society for Paediatric Infectious Diseases, held virtually this year. The group also included researchers at Boston University and the University of Zambia, where PCR tests were conducted.

“That was amazing,” said session moderator Vana Spoulou, MD, PhD, professor of pediatric infectious diseases at National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, who is associated with Aghia Sofia Children’s Hospital of Athens. She noted that the study found that many physicians misdiagnosed coughs, believing them to be caused by another agent. “It was very interesting that there was so much pertussis spreading around in that community, and that nobody knew that it was around,” said Dr. Spoulou.

It’s important that physicians provide appropriate treatment, since ampicillin, which is typically prescribed for childhood upper respiratory illnesses, is believed to be ineffective against pertussis, while macrolides are effective and can prevent transmission.

Dr. Spoulou also noted that Zambia uses a whole cell vaccine, which is contraindicated in pregnant women because of potential side effects. “The good thing, despite that there was [a lot of] infection, there were no deaths, which means that maybe because the mother was infected, maybe some antibodies of the mother had passed to the child and could help the child to develop milder symptoms. So these are the pros and cons of natural infection,” said Dr. Spoulou.

The study took place in 2015, and participants were seen at the Chawama Public Health Clinic from about age 1 week to 4 months (with a target of seven clinic visits). Researchers recorded respiratory symptoms and antibiotics use at each visit, and collected a nasopharyngeal swab that was tested retrospectively using qPCR for Bordetella pertussis.

Real-time PCR analysis of the samples yields the CT value, which represents the number of amplification cycles that the PCR test must complete before Bordetella pertussis is detectable. The fewer the cycles (and the lower the CT value), the more infectious particles must have been present in the sample. For pertussis testing, a value below 35 is considered a clinically positive result. Tests that come back with higher CT values are increasingly likely to be false positives.

The researchers plotted a value called evidence for infection (EFI), which combined a range of CT values with the number of positive tests over the seven clinic visits to group patients into none, weak, or strong EFI. Among infants with no symptoms, 77% were in the no EFI category, 16% were in the weak category, and 7% were in the strong EFI group. Of infants with minimal respiratory symptoms, 18% were in the strong group, and 20% with moderate to severe symptoms were in the strong EFI group. Among mothers, 13% with no symptoms were in the strong group. 19% in the minimal symptom group were categorized as strong EFI, as were 11% in the moderate to severe symptom group.

The study used a full range of CT, not just positive test results (for pertussis, CT ≤ 35). Beyond contributing to composite measures such as EFI, CT values can serve as leading indicators of infectious disease outbreaks in a population, according to Dr. Gunning. That’s because weaker qPCR signals (CT > 35) can provide additional information within a large sample population. Higher CT values are successively more prone to false positives, but that’s less important for disease surveillance where sensitivity is of the highest importance. The false positive “noise” tends to cancel out over time. “It may be the case that you don’t make that call (correctly) 100% of the time for 100% of the people, but if you get it right in 80 out of 100 people, that’s sufficient to say we see this pathogen circulating in the population,” said Dr. Gunning.

The study was funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Dr. Gunning and Dr. Spoulou have no relevant financial disclosures.

More children aged 12-15 years already have received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine than have 16- and 17-year-olds, based on data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

As of May 30, almost 2.89 million children aged 12-15 years had received at least one dose, compared with nearly 2.73 million children aged 16-17, with those figures representing increases of 31.6% and 6.6% in the past week, respectively. Since the overall size of the 12-15 population is much larger, however, the proportion vaccinated is still smaller: 19.5% to 36.4%, according to the CDC’s COVID Data Tracker.

A look at full vaccination status shows that only 0.7% of those aged 12-15 years have received both doses of a two-dose vaccine or one dose of the single-shot variety, compared with 24% of those aged 16-17. For the country as a whole, 50.5% of all ages have received at least one dose and 40.7% are fully vaccinated, the CDC said.

Children aged 12-15 represent the largest share of the U.S. population (23.4%) initiating vaccination in the 14 days ending May 30, while children aged 16-17 made up just 4.5% of those getting their first dose. The younger group’s later entry into the vaccination pool shows up again when looking at completion rates, though, representing just 0.4% of all Americans who reached full vaccination during that same 14-day period, compared with 4.6% of the older children, the CDC data show.

Not all states are reporting data such as age for vaccine recipients, the CDC noted, and there are other variables that affect data collection. “Demographic data ... might differ by populations prioritized within each state or jurisdiction’s vaccination phase. Every geographic area has a different racial and ethnic composition, and not all are in the same vaccination phase,” the CDC said.

[email protected]

More children aged 12-15 years already have received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine than have 16- and 17-year-olds, based on data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

As of May 30, almost 2.89 million children aged 12-15 years had received at least one dose, compared with nearly 2.73 million children aged 16-17, with those figures representing increases of 31.6% and 6.6% in the past week, respectively. Since the overall size of the 12-15 population is much larger, however, the proportion vaccinated is still smaller: 19.5% to 36.4%, according to the CDC’s COVID Data Tracker.

A look at full vaccination status shows that only 0.7% of those aged 12-15 years have received both doses of a two-dose vaccine or one dose of the single-shot variety, compared with 24% of those aged 16-17. For the country as a whole, 50.5% of all ages have received at least one dose and 40.7% are fully vaccinated, the CDC said.

Children aged 12-15 represent the largest share of the U.S. population (23.4%) initiating vaccination in the 14 days ending May 30, while children aged 16-17 made up just 4.5% of those getting their first dose. The younger group’s later entry into the vaccination pool shows up again when looking at completion rates, though, representing just 0.4% of all Americans who reached full vaccination during that same 14-day period, compared with 4.6% of the older children, the CDC data show.

Not all states are reporting data such as age for vaccine recipients, the CDC noted, and there are other variables that affect data collection. “Demographic data ... might differ by populations prioritized within each state or jurisdiction’s vaccination phase. Every geographic area has a different racial and ethnic composition, and not all are in the same vaccination phase,” the CDC said.

[email protected]

More children aged 12-15 years already have received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine than have 16- and 17-year-olds, based on data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

As of May 30, almost 2.89 million children aged 12-15 years had received at least one dose, compared with nearly 2.73 million children aged 16-17, with those figures representing increases of 31.6% and 6.6% in the past week, respectively. Since the overall size of the 12-15 population is much larger, however, the proportion vaccinated is still smaller: 19.5% to 36.4%, according to the CDC’s COVID Data Tracker.

A look at full vaccination status shows that only 0.7% of those aged 12-15 years have received both doses of a two-dose vaccine or one dose of the single-shot variety, compared with 24% of those aged 16-17. For the country as a whole, 50.5% of all ages have received at least one dose and 40.7% are fully vaccinated, the CDC said.

Children aged 12-15 represent the largest share of the U.S. population (23.4%) initiating vaccination in the 14 days ending May 30, while children aged 16-17 made up just 4.5% of those getting their first dose. The younger group’s later entry into the vaccination pool shows up again when looking at completion rates, though, representing just 0.4% of all Americans who reached full vaccination during that same 14-day period, compared with 4.6% of the older children, the CDC data show.

Not all states are reporting data such as age for vaccine recipients, the CDC noted, and there are other variables that affect data collection. “Demographic data ... might differ by populations prioritized within each state or jurisdiction’s vaccination phase. Every geographic area has a different racial and ethnic composition, and not all are in the same vaccination phase,” the CDC said.

[email protected]

Among children with sickle cell disease who have not undergone hematopoietic stem cell transplant, Salmonella is now the leading cause of invasive bacterial infection (IBI), according to a new retrospective study (BACT-SPRING) conducted in Europe. Streptococcus pneumoniae was the second most common source of infection, marking a shift from years past, when S. pneumoniae was the most common source. The epidemiology of IBI in Europe has been altered by adoption of prophylaxis and the introduction of the pneumococcal conjugated vaccine (PCV13) in 2009.

Previous studies of IBI have been single center with small sample sizes, and few have been conducted since 2016, said Jean Gaschignard, MD, PhD, during his presentation of the study at the annual meeting of the European Society for Paediatric Infectious Diseases, held virtually this year.

Dr. Gaschignard is head of pediatrics at Groupe Hospitalier Nord Essonne in Longjumeau, France.

The study produced some unexpected results. “We were surprised,” said Dr. Gaschignard, by results indicating that not all children aged under 10 years were undergoing prophylaxis. Instead, the figures were closer to 80% or 90%. Among children over 10, the rate of prophylaxis varies between countries. “Our study is a clue to discuss again the indications for the age limit for prophylaxis against pneumococcus,” said Dr. Gauschignard, during the question-and-answer session following his talk.

The data give clinicians an updated picture of the epidemiology in this population following introduction of the PCV13 vaccine. “It was very important to have new data on microbiology after this implementation,” said Marie Rohr, MD, who is a fellow in pediatric infectious diseases at the University Hospitals of Geneva. Dr. Rohr moderated the session where the study was presented.

Dr. Rohr noted the shift from the dominant cause of IBI after the introduction of the PCV10/13 vaccine, from S. pneumoniae to Salmonella. The researchers also found a preponderance of bacteremia and osteoarticular infections. “The mortality and morbidity are still considerable despite infection preventive measures,” said Dr. Rohr.

The results should also prompt a second look at prevention strategies. “Even if the antibiotic prophylaxis is prescribed for a large [proportion of children with sickle cell disease] under 10 years old, the median age of invasive bacterial infection is 7 years old. This calls into question systematic antibiotic prophylaxis and case-control studies are needed to evaluate this and possibly modify antibiotic prophylaxis recommendations in the future,” said Dr. Rohr.

The BACT-SPRING study was conducted between Jan. 1, 2014, and Dec. 31, 2019, using online data. It included 217 IBI episodes from 26 centers in five European countries. Just over half were from France, while about a quarter occurred in Spain. Other countries included Belgium, Portugal, and Great Britain. Participants were younger than 18 and had an IBI confirmed by bacterial culture or PCR from normally sterile fluid.

Thirty-eight episodes occurred in children who had undergone hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT), and 179 in children who had not undergone HSCT. The presentation focused exclusively on the latter group.

Among episodes in children without HSCT, the mean age was 7. Forty-eight patients had a history of acute chest syndrome, 47 had a history of ICU admission, 29 had a history of IBI, and 27 had a history of acute splenic sequestration. Thirteen underwent a splenectomy. Almost half of children had none of these characteristics, while about one-fourth had two or more.

In the HSCT group, 141 children were on prophylaxis at the time of the infection; 74 were on hydroxyurea, and 36 were currently or previously on a transfusion program. Sixty-eight cases were primary bacteremia and 55 were osteoarticular. Other syndromes included pneumonia empyema (n = 18), and meningitis (n = 17), among others. In 44 cases, the isolated bacteria was Salmonella, followed by S. pneumoniae in 32 cases. Escherichia coli accounted for 22. Haemophilus influenza was identified in six episodes, and group A Streptococcus in three.

The study is the first large European epidemiologic study investigating IBI in children with sickle cell disease, and one of its strengths was the strict inclusion criteria. However, it was limited by its retrospective nature.

Dr. Gaschignard and Dr. Rohr have no relevant financial disclosures.

Among children with sickle cell disease who have not undergone hematopoietic stem cell transplant, Salmonella is now the leading cause of invasive bacterial infection (IBI), according to a new retrospective study (BACT-SPRING) conducted in Europe. Streptococcus pneumoniae was the second most common source of infection, marking a shift from years past, when S. pneumoniae was the most common source. The epidemiology of IBI in Europe has been altered by adoption of prophylaxis and the introduction of the pneumococcal conjugated vaccine (PCV13) in 2009.

Previous studies of IBI have been single center with small sample sizes, and few have been conducted since 2016, said Jean Gaschignard, MD, PhD, during his presentation of the study at the annual meeting of the European Society for Paediatric Infectious Diseases, held virtually this year.

Dr. Gaschignard is head of pediatrics at Groupe Hospitalier Nord Essonne in Longjumeau, France.

The study produced some unexpected results. “We were surprised,” said Dr. Gaschignard, by results indicating that not all children aged under 10 years were undergoing prophylaxis. Instead, the figures were closer to 80% or 90%. Among children over 10, the rate of prophylaxis varies between countries. “Our study is a clue to discuss again the indications for the age limit for prophylaxis against pneumococcus,” said Dr. Gauschignard, during the question-and-answer session following his talk.

The data give clinicians an updated picture of the epidemiology in this population following introduction of the PCV13 vaccine. “It was very important to have new data on microbiology after this implementation,” said Marie Rohr, MD, who is a fellow in pediatric infectious diseases at the University Hospitals of Geneva. Dr. Rohr moderated the session where the study was presented.

Dr. Rohr noted the shift from the dominant cause of IBI after the introduction of the PCV10/13 vaccine, from S. pneumoniae to Salmonella. The researchers also found a preponderance of bacteremia and osteoarticular infections. “The mortality and morbidity are still considerable despite infection preventive measures,” said Dr. Rohr.

The results should also prompt a second look at prevention strategies. “Even if the antibiotic prophylaxis is prescribed for a large [proportion of children with sickle cell disease] under 10 years old, the median age of invasive bacterial infection is 7 years old. This calls into question systematic antibiotic prophylaxis and case-control studies are needed to evaluate this and possibly modify antibiotic prophylaxis recommendations in the future,” said Dr. Rohr.

The BACT-SPRING study was conducted between Jan. 1, 2014, and Dec. 31, 2019, using online data. It included 217 IBI episodes from 26 centers in five European countries. Just over half were from France, while about a quarter occurred in Spain. Other countries included Belgium, Portugal, and Great Britain. Participants were younger than 18 and had an IBI confirmed by bacterial culture or PCR from normally sterile fluid.

Thirty-eight episodes occurred in children who had undergone hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT), and 179 in children who had not undergone HSCT. The presentation focused exclusively on the latter group.

Among episodes in children without HSCT, the mean age was 7. Forty-eight patients had a history of acute chest syndrome, 47 had a history of ICU admission, 29 had a history of IBI, and 27 had a history of acute splenic sequestration. Thirteen underwent a splenectomy. Almost half of children had none of these characteristics, while about one-fourth had two or more.

In the HSCT group, 141 children were on prophylaxis at the time of the infection; 74 were on hydroxyurea, and 36 were currently or previously on a transfusion program. Sixty-eight cases were primary bacteremia and 55 were osteoarticular. Other syndromes included pneumonia empyema (n = 18), and meningitis (n = 17), among others. In 44 cases, the isolated bacteria was Salmonella, followed by S. pneumoniae in 32 cases. Escherichia coli accounted for 22. Haemophilus influenza was identified in six episodes, and group A Streptococcus in three.

The study is the first large European epidemiologic study investigating IBI in children with sickle cell disease, and one of its strengths was the strict inclusion criteria. However, it was limited by its retrospective nature.

Dr. Gaschignard and Dr. Rohr have no relevant financial disclosures.

Among children with sickle cell disease who have not undergone hematopoietic stem cell transplant, Salmonella is now the leading cause of invasive bacterial infection (IBI), according to a new retrospective study (BACT-SPRING) conducted in Europe. Streptococcus pneumoniae was the second most common source of infection, marking a shift from years past, when S. pneumoniae was the most common source. The epidemiology of IBI in Europe has been altered by adoption of prophylaxis and the introduction of the pneumococcal conjugated vaccine (PCV13) in 2009.

Previous studies of IBI have been single center with small sample sizes, and few have been conducted since 2016, said Jean Gaschignard, MD, PhD, during his presentation of the study at the annual meeting of the European Society for Paediatric Infectious Diseases, held virtually this year.

Dr. Gaschignard is head of pediatrics at Groupe Hospitalier Nord Essonne in Longjumeau, France.

The study produced some unexpected results. “We were surprised,” said Dr. Gaschignard, by results indicating that not all children aged under 10 years were undergoing prophylaxis. Instead, the figures were closer to 80% or 90%. Among children over 10, the rate of prophylaxis varies between countries. “Our study is a clue to discuss again the indications for the age limit for prophylaxis against pneumococcus,” said Dr. Gauschignard, during the question-and-answer session following his talk.

The data give clinicians an updated picture of the epidemiology in this population following introduction of the PCV13 vaccine. “It was very important to have new data on microbiology after this implementation,” said Marie Rohr, MD, who is a fellow in pediatric infectious diseases at the University Hospitals of Geneva. Dr. Rohr moderated the session where the study was presented.

Dr. Rohr noted the shift from the dominant cause of IBI after the introduction of the PCV10/13 vaccine, from S. pneumoniae to Salmonella. The researchers also found a preponderance of bacteremia and osteoarticular infections. “The mortality and morbidity are still considerable despite infection preventive measures,” said Dr. Rohr.

The results should also prompt a second look at prevention strategies. “Even if the antibiotic prophylaxis is prescribed for a large [proportion of children with sickle cell disease] under 10 years old, the median age of invasive bacterial infection is 7 years old. This calls into question systematic antibiotic prophylaxis and case-control studies are needed to evaluate this and possibly modify antibiotic prophylaxis recommendations in the future,” said Dr. Rohr.

The BACT-SPRING study was conducted between Jan. 1, 2014, and Dec. 31, 2019, using online data. It included 217 IBI episodes from 26 centers in five European countries. Just over half were from France, while about a quarter occurred in Spain. Other countries included Belgium, Portugal, and Great Britain. Participants were younger than 18 and had an IBI confirmed by bacterial culture or PCR from normally sterile fluid.

Thirty-eight episodes occurred in children who had undergone hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT), and 179 in children who had not undergone HSCT. The presentation focused exclusively on the latter group.

Among episodes in children without HSCT, the mean age was 7. Forty-eight patients had a history of acute chest syndrome, 47 had a history of ICU admission, 29 had a history of IBI, and 27 had a history of acute splenic sequestration. Thirteen underwent a splenectomy. Almost half of children had none of these characteristics, while about one-fourth had two or more.

In the HSCT group, 141 children were on prophylaxis at the time of the infection; 74 were on hydroxyurea, and 36 were currently or previously on a transfusion program. Sixty-eight cases were primary bacteremia and 55 were osteoarticular. Other syndromes included pneumonia empyema (n = 18), and meningitis (n = 17), among others. In 44 cases, the isolated bacteria was Salmonella, followed by S. pneumoniae in 32 cases. Escherichia coli accounted for 22. Haemophilus influenza was identified in six episodes, and group A Streptococcus in three.

The study is the first large European epidemiologic study investigating IBI in children with sickle cell disease, and one of its strengths was the strict inclusion criteria. However, it was limited by its retrospective nature.

Dr. Gaschignard and Dr. Rohr have no relevant financial disclosures.

Infants with isolated sensorineural hearing loss as a result of congenital cytomegalovirus (cCMV) infection may benefit from treatment with valganciclovir, according to results from the CONCERT nonrandomized trial.

Subjects were found through the Newborn Hearing Screening program, using dried blood spot screening to confirm cCMV Infection. As a result of 6 weeks of therapy, more patients in the treatment group had improvements in hearing at age 20 months, and fewer had deterioration compared with untreated controls.

There is a general consensus that symptomatic cCMV should be treated with valganciclovir for 6 weeks or 6 months, but treatment of patients with only hearing loss is still under debate. The average age of participants was 8 weeks.

The study was presented by Pui Khi Chung, MD, a clinical microbiologist at the Leiden University Medical Center, the Netherlands, at the annual meeting of the European Society for Paediatric Infectious Diseases, held virtually this year.

Out of 1,377 NHS-referred infants, 59 were diagnosed with cCMV (4.3%), and 35 were included in the study. Twenty-five patients received 6 weeks of valganciclovir, while 10 patients received placebo. The control group was expanded to 12 when two additional subjects were identified retrospectively and were successfully followed up at 20 months. Subjects in the treatment group were an average of 8 weeks old when treatment began. Both groups had similar neurodevelopmental outcomes at 20 months, as measured by the Bayley Scales of Infant and Toddler Development (BSID-III) and the Child Development Inventory (CDI). There were no serious adverse events associated with treatment.

To measure efficacy, the researchers used a random intercept, random slope model that accounted for repeated measurements. The differences in slopes for analyses of the best ear were significantly different between the treatment and control groups (estimated difference in slopes, –0.93; P = .0071). Further analyses of total hearing found that improvement was more common in the treatment group, and deterioration/no change was more common in the nontreatment group (P = .044). In another analysis that excluded the most profoundly impaired ears (> 70 db hearing loss), none in the control group experienced improvement and almost half deteriorated. In the treatment group, most were unchanged and a small number improved, with almost none deteriorating (P = .006).

Asked whether the treatment has any effect on the most profoundly impaired ears, Dr. Chung said she had not yet completed that analysis, but the hypothesis is that the treatment is unlikely to lead to any improvement. “When you take out the severely impaired ears, you can see a greater [treatment] effect, so it does suggest that it doesn’t do anything for those ears,” Dr. Chung said during the Q&A session following her talk.

She was also asked why the treatment period was 6 weeks, rather than 6 months – a period of treatment that has shown a better effect on long-term hearing and developmental outcomes than 6 weeks of treatment in symptomatic patients. Dr. Chung replied that she wasn’t involved in the study design, but said that at her center, the 6-month regimen is not standard.

There were two key weaknesses in the study. One was the small sample size, and the other was its nonrandomized nature, which could have led to bias in the treated versus untreated group. “Although we don’t see any baseline differences between the groups, we have to be wary in analyses. Unfortunately, an RCT proved impossible in our setting. The CONCERT Trial started as randomized but this was amended to nonrandomized, as both parents and pediatricians had a clear preference for treatment,” said Dr. Chung.

The study could provide useful information about the timing of oral antiviral medication, according to Vana Spoulou, MD, who moderated the session where the research was presented. “The earliest you can give it is best, but sometimes it’s not easy to get them diagnosed immediately after birth. What they showed us is that even giving it so late, there was some improvement,” Dr. Spoulou said in an interview.

Dr. Spoulou isn’t ready to change practice based on the results, because she noted that some other studies have shown no benefit of treatment at 3 months. “But this was a hint that maybe even in these later diagnosed cases there could be some benefit,” she said.

Dr. Chung and Dr. Spoulou have no relevant financial disclosures.

Infants with isolated sensorineural hearing loss as a result of congenital cytomegalovirus (cCMV) infection may benefit from treatment with valganciclovir, according to results from the CONCERT nonrandomized trial.

Subjects were found through the Newborn Hearing Screening program, using dried blood spot screening to confirm cCMV Infection. As a result of 6 weeks of therapy, more patients in the treatment group had improvements in hearing at age 20 months, and fewer had deterioration compared with untreated controls.

There is a general consensus that symptomatic cCMV should be treated with valganciclovir for 6 weeks or 6 months, but treatment of patients with only hearing loss is still under debate. The average age of participants was 8 weeks.

The study was presented by Pui Khi Chung, MD, a clinical microbiologist at the Leiden University Medical Center, the Netherlands, at the annual meeting of the European Society for Paediatric Infectious Diseases, held virtually this year.

Out of 1,377 NHS-referred infants, 59 were diagnosed with cCMV (4.3%), and 35 were included in the study. Twenty-five patients received 6 weeks of valganciclovir, while 10 patients received placebo. The control group was expanded to 12 when two additional subjects were identified retrospectively and were successfully followed up at 20 months. Subjects in the treatment group were an average of 8 weeks old when treatment began. Both groups had similar neurodevelopmental outcomes at 20 months, as measured by the Bayley Scales of Infant and Toddler Development (BSID-III) and the Child Development Inventory (CDI). There were no serious adverse events associated with treatment.

To measure efficacy, the researchers used a random intercept, random slope model that accounted for repeated measurements. The differences in slopes for analyses of the best ear were significantly different between the treatment and control groups (estimated difference in slopes, –0.93; P = .0071). Further analyses of total hearing found that improvement was more common in the treatment group, and deterioration/no change was more common in the nontreatment group (P = .044). In another analysis that excluded the most profoundly impaired ears (> 70 db hearing loss), none in the control group experienced improvement and almost half deteriorated. In the treatment group, most were unchanged and a small number improved, with almost none deteriorating (P = .006).

Asked whether the treatment has any effect on the most profoundly impaired ears, Dr. Chung said she had not yet completed that analysis, but the hypothesis is that the treatment is unlikely to lead to any improvement. “When you take out the severely impaired ears, you can see a greater [treatment] effect, so it does suggest that it doesn’t do anything for those ears,” Dr. Chung said during the Q&A session following her talk.

She was also asked why the treatment period was 6 weeks, rather than 6 months – a period of treatment that has shown a better effect on long-term hearing and developmental outcomes than 6 weeks of treatment in symptomatic patients. Dr. Chung replied that she wasn’t involved in the study design, but said that at her center, the 6-month regimen is not standard.

There were two key weaknesses in the study. One was the small sample size, and the other was its nonrandomized nature, which could have led to bias in the treated versus untreated group. “Although we don’t see any baseline differences between the groups, we have to be wary in analyses. Unfortunately, an RCT proved impossible in our setting. The CONCERT Trial started as randomized but this was amended to nonrandomized, as both parents and pediatricians had a clear preference for treatment,” said Dr. Chung.

The study could provide useful information about the timing of oral antiviral medication, according to Vana Spoulou, MD, who moderated the session where the research was presented. “The earliest you can give it is best, but sometimes it’s not easy to get them diagnosed immediately after birth. What they showed us is that even giving it so late, there was some improvement,” Dr. Spoulou said in an interview.

Dr. Spoulou isn’t ready to change practice based on the results, because she noted that some other studies have shown no benefit of treatment at 3 months. “But this was a hint that maybe even in these later diagnosed cases there could be some benefit,” she said.

Dr. Chung and Dr. Spoulou have no relevant financial disclosures.

Infants with isolated sensorineural hearing loss as a result of congenital cytomegalovirus (cCMV) infection may benefit from treatment with valganciclovir, according to results from the CONCERT nonrandomized trial.

Subjects were found through the Newborn Hearing Screening program, using dried blood spot screening to confirm cCMV Infection. As a result of 6 weeks of therapy, more patients in the treatment group had improvements in hearing at age 20 months, and fewer had deterioration compared with untreated controls.

There is a general consensus that symptomatic cCMV should be treated with valganciclovir for 6 weeks or 6 months, but treatment of patients with only hearing loss is still under debate. The average age of participants was 8 weeks.

The study was presented by Pui Khi Chung, MD, a clinical microbiologist at the Leiden University Medical Center, the Netherlands, at the annual meeting of the European Society for Paediatric Infectious Diseases, held virtually this year.

Out of 1,377 NHS-referred infants, 59 were diagnosed with cCMV (4.3%), and 35 were included in the study. Twenty-five patients received 6 weeks of valganciclovir, while 10 patients received placebo. The control group was expanded to 12 when two additional subjects were identified retrospectively and were successfully followed up at 20 months. Subjects in the treatment group were an average of 8 weeks old when treatment began. Both groups had similar neurodevelopmental outcomes at 20 months, as measured by the Bayley Scales of Infant and Toddler Development (BSID-III) and the Child Development Inventory (CDI). There were no serious adverse events associated with treatment.

To measure efficacy, the researchers used a random intercept, random slope model that accounted for repeated measurements. The differences in slopes for analyses of the best ear were significantly different between the treatment and control groups (estimated difference in slopes, –0.93; P = .0071). Further analyses of total hearing found that improvement was more common in the treatment group, and deterioration/no change was more common in the nontreatment group (P = .044). In another analysis that excluded the most profoundly impaired ears (> 70 db hearing loss), none in the control group experienced improvement and almost half deteriorated. In the treatment group, most were unchanged and a small number improved, with almost none deteriorating (P = .006).

Asked whether the treatment has any effect on the most profoundly impaired ears, Dr. Chung said she had not yet completed that analysis, but the hypothesis is that the treatment is unlikely to lead to any improvement. “When you take out the severely impaired ears, you can see a greater [treatment] effect, so it does suggest that it doesn’t do anything for those ears,” Dr. Chung said during the Q&A session following her talk.

She was also asked why the treatment period was 6 weeks, rather than 6 months – a period of treatment that has shown a better effect on long-term hearing and developmental outcomes than 6 weeks of treatment in symptomatic patients. Dr. Chung replied that she wasn’t involved in the study design, but said that at her center, the 6-month regimen is not standard.

There were two key weaknesses in the study. One was the small sample size, and the other was its nonrandomized nature, which could have led to bias in the treated versus untreated group. “Although we don’t see any baseline differences between the groups, we have to be wary in analyses. Unfortunately, an RCT proved impossible in our setting. The CONCERT Trial started as randomized but this was amended to nonrandomized, as both parents and pediatricians had a clear preference for treatment,” said Dr. Chung.

The study could provide useful information about the timing of oral antiviral medication, according to Vana Spoulou, MD, who moderated the session where the research was presented. “The earliest you can give it is best, but sometimes it’s not easy to get them diagnosed immediately after birth. What they showed us is that even giving it so late, there was some improvement,” Dr. Spoulou said in an interview.

Dr. Spoulou isn’t ready to change practice based on the results, because she noted that some other studies have shown no benefit of treatment at 3 months. “But this was a hint that maybe even in these later diagnosed cases there could be some benefit,” she said.

Dr. Chung and Dr. Spoulou have no relevant financial disclosures.

Treating port wine birthmarks with pulsed dye laser (PDL) can be safely done within the first few days after birth as an in-office procedure without any complications, results from a single-center study showed.

Courtesy RegionalDerm.com

“The current modality of choice for the treatment of port wine birthmarks is pulsed dye laser,” Chelsea Grimes Fidai, MD, said during the annual conference of the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery. “When performed by a highly trained expert at efficient frequencies, PDL is a safe, effective treatment that is successful in the majority of patients. We know that earlier treatment yields maximal clearance. However, just how early can you initiate treatment?”

To find out, Dr. Fidai, Roy G. Geronemus, MD, and colleagues at the Laser and Skin Surgery Center of New York, conducted a retrospective chart review of 39 infants with port wine birthmarks who were treated with a 595-nm PDL between 2015 and 2020 at the center. Of the 39 infants, the average age at first treatment was 18 days, with a range from 5 to 29 days. The youngest patient was born prematurely at 35 weeks’ gestation and presented for his first treatment even before his expected due date. Most (74%) had facial lesions with the remaining distributed on the trunk or extremities. The average number of treatments was 15 over the course of 15 months.

The initial settings chosen for facial lesions were a 10-mm spot size, a fluence of 8.0 J/cm², and a 1.5-millisecond pulse duration. For body lesions, the typical initial settings were a 12-mm spot size, a fluence of 6.7 J/cm², and 1.5-millisecond pulse duration. Corneal eye shields were placed for all cases with port wine birthmarks approaching the eyelid. “We do recommend a treatment interval of every 2-3 weeks, with longer intervals for patients of darker skin type until the child is 2 years old, at which time the interval is increased to every 3-6 months,” said Dr. Fidai.

Patients in the study experienced the expected short-term side effects of erythema, edema, purpura, and mild transient postinflammatory hyperpigmentation, but there were no cases of atrophy, scarring, infection, or permanent pigmentary change.

“Families seeking early treatment of port wine birthmarks can be reassured that it can be safely initiated within the first few days after birth,” Dr. Fidai concluded. “This procedure can be quickly and confidently performed as an in-office procedure without any complications. The early intervention allows for treatment without general anesthesia and it maximizes the chance of significant clearance as early in life as possible.”

During a question-and-answer session, the abstract section chair, Albert Wolkerstorfer, MD, PhD, expressed concern about the effect of PDL on developing infants. “We do repeated treatments at this young age without any type of anesthesia,” said Dr. Wolkerstorfer, a dermatologist at the Netherlands Institute for Pigment Disorders, department of dermatology, University of Amsterdam.

“Will that influence the development of the child, especially when I hear there might be 15 or 20 treatments done within the first year of life? I think this is a problem where we need to ask the experts in the field of pain management in children, like pediatric anesthesiologists, to find the right way, because I think that the results that you showed are fantastic. I don’t think we can achieve that at a later age, although there’s no direct comparison at this moment.”

Dr. Fidai said that she understood the concern, but pointed to a 2020 article by Dr. Geronemus and colleagues that assessed treatment tolerance and parental perspective of outpatient PDL treatment for port-wine birthmarks without general anesthesia in infants and toddlers. “The kids recover pretty quickly after the treatment,” she said. “There has never been any longstanding issue from the parents’ perspective.”

Dr. Fidai reported having no financial disclosures. Dr. Geronemus disclosed having financial conflicts with numerous device and pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Wolkerstorfer disclosed that he has received consulting fees from Lumenis and InCyte and equipment from Humeca and PerfAction Technologies. He has also received grant funding from Novartis and InCyte and he is a member of InCyte’s advisory board.

[email protected]

Treating port wine birthmarks with pulsed dye laser (PDL) can be safely done within the first few days after birth as an in-office procedure without any complications, results from a single-center study showed.

Courtesy RegionalDerm.com

“The current modality of choice for the treatment of port wine birthmarks is pulsed dye laser,” Chelsea Grimes Fidai, MD, said during the annual conference of the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery. “When performed by a highly trained expert at efficient frequencies, PDL is a safe, effective treatment that is successful in the majority of patients. We know that earlier treatment yields maximal clearance. However, just how early can you initiate treatment?”

To find out, Dr. Fidai, Roy G. Geronemus, MD, and colleagues at the Laser and Skin Surgery Center of New York, conducted a retrospective chart review of 39 infants with port wine birthmarks who were treated with a 595-nm PDL between 2015 and 2020 at the center. Of the 39 infants, the average age at first treatment was 18 days, with a range from 5 to 29 days. The youngest patient was born prematurely at 35 weeks’ gestation and presented for his first treatment even before his expected due date. Most (74%) had facial lesions with the remaining distributed on the trunk or extremities. The average number of treatments was 15 over the course of 15 months.

The initial settings chosen for facial lesions were a 10-mm spot size, a fluence of 8.0 J/cm², and a 1.5-millisecond pulse duration. For body lesions, the typical initial settings were a 12-mm spot size, a fluence of 6.7 J/cm², and 1.5-millisecond pulse duration. Corneal eye shields were placed for all cases with port wine birthmarks approaching the eyelid. “We do recommend a treatment interval of every 2-3 weeks, with longer intervals for patients of darker skin type until the child is 2 years old, at which time the interval is increased to every 3-6 months,” said Dr. Fidai.

Patients in the study experienced the expected short-term side effects of erythema, edema, purpura, and mild transient postinflammatory hyperpigmentation, but there were no cases of atrophy, scarring, infection, or permanent pigmentary change.

“Families seeking early treatment of port wine birthmarks can be reassured that it can be safely initiated within the first few days after birth,” Dr. Fidai concluded. “This procedure can be quickly and confidently performed as an in-office procedure without any complications. The early intervention allows for treatment without general anesthesia and it maximizes the chance of significant clearance as early in life as possible.”

During a question-and-answer session, the abstract section chair, Albert Wolkerstorfer, MD, PhD, expressed concern about the effect of PDL on developing infants. “We do repeated treatments at this young age without any type of anesthesia,” said Dr. Wolkerstorfer, a dermatologist at the Netherlands Institute for Pigment Disorders, department of dermatology, University of Amsterdam.

“Will that influence the development of the child, especially when I hear there might be 15 or 20 treatments done within the first year of life? I think this is a problem where we need to ask the experts in the field of pain management in children, like pediatric anesthesiologists, to find the right way, because I think that the results that you showed are fantastic. I don’t think we can achieve that at a later age, although there’s no direct comparison at this moment.”

Dr. Fidai said that she understood the concern, but pointed to a 2020 article by Dr. Geronemus and colleagues that assessed treatment tolerance and parental perspective of outpatient PDL treatment for port-wine birthmarks without general anesthesia in infants and toddlers. “The kids recover pretty quickly after the treatment,” she said. “There has never been any longstanding issue from the parents’ perspective.”

Dr. Fidai reported having no financial disclosures. Dr. Geronemus disclosed having financial conflicts with numerous device and pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Wolkerstorfer disclosed that he has received consulting fees from Lumenis and InCyte and equipment from Humeca and PerfAction Technologies. He has also received grant funding from Novartis and InCyte and he is a member of InCyte’s advisory board.

[email protected]

Treating port wine birthmarks with pulsed dye laser (PDL) can be safely done within the first few days after birth as an in-office procedure without any complications, results from a single-center study showed.

Courtesy RegionalDerm.com

“The current modality of choice for the treatment of port wine birthmarks is pulsed dye laser,” Chelsea Grimes Fidai, MD, said during the annual conference of the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery. “When performed by a highly trained expert at efficient frequencies, PDL is a safe, effective treatment that is successful in the majority of patients. We know that earlier treatment yields maximal clearance. However, just how early can you initiate treatment?”

To find out, Dr. Fidai, Roy G. Geronemus, MD, and colleagues at the Laser and Skin Surgery Center of New York, conducted a retrospective chart review of 39 infants with port wine birthmarks who were treated with a 595-nm PDL between 2015 and 2020 at the center. Of the 39 infants, the average age at first treatment was 18 days, with a range from 5 to 29 days. The youngest patient was born prematurely at 35 weeks’ gestation and presented for his first treatment even before his expected due date. Most (74%) had facial lesions with the remaining distributed on the trunk or extremities. The average number of treatments was 15 over the course of 15 months.

The initial settings chosen for facial lesions were a 10-mm spot size, a fluence of 8.0 J/cm², and a 1.5-millisecond pulse duration. For body lesions, the typical initial settings were a 12-mm spot size, a fluence of 6.7 J/cm², and 1.5-millisecond pulse duration. Corneal eye shields were placed for all cases with port wine birthmarks approaching the eyelid. “We do recommend a treatment interval of every 2-3 weeks, with longer intervals for patients of darker skin type until the child is 2 years old, at which time the interval is increased to every 3-6 months,” said Dr. Fidai.

Patients in the study experienced the expected short-term side effects of erythema, edema, purpura, and mild transient postinflammatory hyperpigmentation, but there were no cases of atrophy, scarring, infection, or permanent pigmentary change.

“Families seeking early treatment of port wine birthmarks can be reassured that it can be safely initiated within the first few days after birth,” Dr. Fidai concluded. “This procedure can be quickly and confidently performed as an in-office procedure without any complications. The early intervention allows for treatment without general anesthesia and it maximizes the chance of significant clearance as early in life as possible.”

During a question-and-answer session, the abstract section chair, Albert Wolkerstorfer, MD, PhD, expressed concern about the effect of PDL on developing infants. “We do repeated treatments at this young age without any type of anesthesia,” said Dr. Wolkerstorfer, a dermatologist at the Netherlands Institute for Pigment Disorders, department of dermatology, University of Amsterdam.

“Will that influence the development of the child, especially when I hear there might be 15 or 20 treatments done within the first year of life? I think this is a problem where we need to ask the experts in the field of pain management in children, like pediatric anesthesiologists, to find the right way, because I think that the results that you showed are fantastic. I don’t think we can achieve that at a later age, although there’s no direct comparison at this moment.”

Dr. Fidai said that she understood the concern, but pointed to a 2020 article by Dr. Geronemus and colleagues that assessed treatment tolerance and parental perspective of outpatient PDL treatment for port-wine birthmarks without general anesthesia in infants and toddlers. “The kids recover pretty quickly after the treatment,” she said. “There has never been any longstanding issue from the parents’ perspective.”

Dr. Fidai reported having no financial disclosures. Dr. Geronemus disclosed having financial conflicts with numerous device and pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Wolkerstorfer disclosed that he has received consulting fees from Lumenis and InCyte and equipment from Humeca and PerfAction Technologies. He has also received grant funding from Novartis and InCyte and he is a member of InCyte’s advisory board.

[email protected]

Researchers are trying to understand how e-cigarette use affects pregnancy and birth outcomes. This question may become more relevant as younger vapers, among whom the devices gained considerable popularity, start having children.

Limited emerging data from animal experiments and human epidemiologic studies suggest that vaping may have negative effects on fertility and pregnancy. “Even if these impacts are less severe than conventional smoking, we really should be thinking about alternate options that may be safer for our patients than inhalation of this aerosol,” said Blair J. Wylie, MD, MPH, a maternal-fetal medicine physician at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston.

Dr. Wylie reviewed what is known about vaping, including chemicals other than nicotine that have been detected in vape aerosols, and pregnancy at the 2021 virtual meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

“There’s a lot we don’t know,” she said. “These products were only introduced recently, in 2003. They are marketed aggressively to our youth and have gained tremendous popularity among that population. And it’s only a matter of time, I think, before we see a lot of use in our own patient population.”

In a separate study presented at the ACOG meeting, Nicole Izhakoff, a researcher at Florida International University, Miami, and colleagues evaluated the association between e-cigarette use during pregnancy and unfavorable birth outcomes, such as preterm birth, low birth weight, or extended hospital stay for the newborn.

The investigators used 2016-2017 survey data from the Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System. In all, 71,940 women completed the survey, including 859 who reported e-cigarette use during pregnancy.

After adjusting for age, race, ethnicity, insurance, maternal education, prenatal care, abuse during pregnancy, and complications during pregnancy, the researchers estimated that the odds of an unfavorable birth outcome were 62% greater among women who used e-cigarettes during pregnancy, compared with those who did not.

The researchers lacked information about simultaneous use of alcohol, traditional tobacco, or other drugs, however.

“Physicians of all subspecialties, especially those of obstetrics-gynecology and pediatrics, need to increase the implementation of screening for past or current e-cigarette use in at-risk patients,” Ms. Izhakoff and coauthors concluded. “Further research regarding the long-term health effects of e-cigarettes is warranted.”

Dr. Wylie coauthored another study related to this topic that was published online May 24, 2021, in the Journal of Maternal-Fetal & Neonatal Medicine.

The researchers examined birth weights of children whose mothers use e-cigarettes alone, those whose mothers used both e-cigarettes and conventional cigarettes, and those whose mothers smoked conventional cigarettes only. Their estimates were imprecise, but signaled that e-cigarette use may reduce birth weight. The use of e-cigarettes alone appeared to have less of an impact on birth weight than the dual use of conventional cigarettes and e-cigarettes did.

Dr. Wylie cautioned that outcomes like birth weight are “pretty crude measures of whether an exposure is okay or not in pregnancy. Many of these toxins that we know that are in the aerosols can cause harm, but they may not be reflected in the absolute value of the birth weight.”

In addition, clinicians should avoid focusing on the wrong question when caring for patients.

“I think the wrong question is: Is vaping safer than smoking?” Dr. Wylie said in an interview. “Metals are going into your lungs. Plastics are going into your lungs. It is hard for me to think that we are going to identify that as our champion smoking cessation strategy in pregnancy.”
 

Rapidly changing landscape

Answering the question of which is safer is a challenge anyway because researchers likely have incomplete information about who vapes, who smokes, and who does both.

Still, the new research illustrates that “people are starting to think about this and beginning to do some analysis that is really hypothesis generating at this point,” Dr. Wylie said. Such studies may prompt clinicians to ask their patients about e-cigarette use. “Marijuana is sort of a similar thing where patients’ perception of safety, because things are legal, can lead to use during pregnancy without ... letting their care teams know,” she said. “Things are changing so rapidly in terms of what’s available to people to use that we need to stay on top of that as obstetricians and ask the right questions and try to understand what the risks are and potential benefits.”

Dr. Wylie is an obstetric consultant to the New England Pediatric Environmental Health Specialty Unit, which is where she heard pediatricians discussing widespread e-cigarette use among youth. It occurred to her that some of these teens eventually would be seeing obstetricians. She also saw parallels to prior research she conducted that focused on household air pollution or cooking from wood-burning fires in Africa.

“What is frightening, I think, about these electronic cigarettes is that you’re heating this liquid to extraordinarily high temperatures to create the vapor,” and the extreme heat vaporizes plastics and metals as well as nicotine, Dr. Wylie said.

An ACOG committee opinion discusses approaches to smoking and vaping cessation such as counseling, behavioral therapy, and medication.

The publication also lists a host of elements have been isolated from vape aerosol, including “carbonyl compounds (formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, acetone, and acrolein); volatile organic compounds (benzene and toluene); nitrosamines; particulate matter; and heavy metals such as copper, lead, zinc, and tin.”

In addition to the nicotine in e-cigarette liquids, which is harmful in itself, there is “all of this other company that it keeps,” including solvent byproducts, known carcinogens, and lung irritants, Dr. Wylie said. Fine particulate matter “can land in the small airways and cause inflammation, even translocate into the systemic circulation and cause systemic inflammation.”

The use of flavoring “likely alters perceptions of harm” and contributes to the popularity of vaping, Dr. Wylie noted. At the same time, the use of flavoring also has little regulatory oversight. Flavors usually are approved for marketing based on safety for ingestion, but that may not translate into safety for inhalation.
 

Parsing the health effects

People who vape have increased cough, wheezing, and phlegm production, compared with people who do not vape. Vaping also may worsen underlying lung disease like asthma. Lung function on spirometry decreases after e-cigarette use, studies have shown.

In 2019, researchers described e-cigarette or vaping product use–related acute lung injury (EVALI), which has caused more than 60 deaths in the United States. The condition may be related to vitamin E acetate, a component that had been used in some liquids used by patients with EVALI.

And the nicotine in e-cigarettes can accelerate atherogenesis and affect blood pressure, heart rate, and arterial stiffness.

Initially introduced as a smoking cessation tool, e-cigarettes now often are used on their own or in addition to cigarettes, rather than strictly for smoking cessation.

A Cochrane review suggests that e-cigarettes may be more effective than other approaches to smoking cessation. But “the effect is modest at best,” Dr. Wylie said. Among 100 people attempting to quit cigarette smoking, there might four to six more quitters with the use of e-cigarettes as a smoking cessation intervention, compared with other approaches.

Animal models provide other reasons for caution. One experiment in mice showed that exposure to e-cigarette aerosol impaired implantation and fetal health. The results suggest “that there might be some negative impacts across generations,” Dr. Wylie said.

Another study has suggested the possibility that women who currently use e-cigarettes may have slightly diminished fecundability. The results were not statistically significant, but the study “gives us pause about whether there could be some impact on early pregnancy and fertility,” Dr. Wylie said.

In mouse models, prenatal exposure to e-cigarette aerosol has decreased fetal weight and length, altered neurodevelopment and neuroregulatory gene expression, and increased proinflammatory cytokines. E-cigarette aerosol also has caused birth defects in zebrafish and facial clefting in frogs. Whether and how these data relate to human pregnancy is unclear.

While e-cigarette ads may convey a sense of style and harmlessness, clinicians have reasons to worry about the effects. “We have to be a little bit more cautious when we are talking about this with our patients,” Dr. Wylie said.

Dr. Wylie had no relevant financial disclosures. She is a Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine board member and receives grant support related to research of household air pollution and pregnancy, prenatal pesticide exposure, preeclampsia in low income settings, and malaria during pregnancy. Ms. Izhakoff and coauthors had no disclosures.

[email protected]

Researchers are trying to understand how e-cigarette use affects pregnancy and birth outcomes. This question may become more relevant as younger vapers, among whom the devices gained considerable popularity, start having children.

Limited emerging data from animal experiments and human epidemiologic studies suggest that vaping may have negative effects on fertility and pregnancy. “Even if these impacts are less severe than conventional smoking, we really should be thinking about alternate options that may be safer for our patients than inhalation of this aerosol,” said Blair J. Wylie, MD, MPH, a maternal-fetal medicine physician at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston.

Dr. Wylie reviewed what is known about vaping, including chemicals other than nicotine that have been detected in vape aerosols, and pregnancy at the 2021 virtual meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

“There’s a lot we don’t know,” she said. “These products were only introduced recently, in 2003. They are marketed aggressively to our youth and have gained tremendous popularity among that population. And it’s only a matter of time, I think, before we see a lot of use in our own patient population.”

In a separate study presented at the ACOG meeting, Nicole Izhakoff, a researcher at Florida International University, Miami, and colleagues evaluated the association between e-cigarette use during pregnancy and unfavorable birth outcomes, such as preterm birth, low birth weight, or extended hospital stay for the newborn.

The investigators used 2016-2017 survey data from the Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System. In all, 71,940 women completed the survey, including 859 who reported e-cigarette use during pregnancy.

After adjusting for age, race, ethnicity, insurance, maternal education, prenatal care, abuse during pregnancy, and complications during pregnancy, the researchers estimated that the odds of an unfavorable birth outcome were 62% greater among women who used e-cigarettes during pregnancy, compared with those who did not.

The researchers lacked information about simultaneous use of alcohol, traditional tobacco, or other drugs, however.

“Physicians of all subspecialties, especially those of obstetrics-gynecology and pediatrics, need to increase the implementation of screening for past or current e-cigarette use in at-risk patients,” Ms. Izhakoff and coauthors concluded. “Further research regarding the long-term health effects of e-cigarettes is warranted.”

Dr. Wylie coauthored another study related to this topic that was published online May 24, 2021, in the Journal of Maternal-Fetal & Neonatal Medicine.

The researchers examined birth weights of children whose mothers use e-cigarettes alone, those whose mothers used both e-cigarettes and conventional cigarettes, and those whose mothers smoked conventional cigarettes only. Their estimates were imprecise, but signaled that e-cigarette use may reduce birth weight. The use of e-cigarettes alone appeared to have less of an impact on birth weight than the dual use of conventional cigarettes and e-cigarettes did.

Dr. Wylie cautioned that outcomes like birth weight are “pretty crude measures of whether an exposure is okay or not in pregnancy. Many of these toxins that we know that are in the aerosols can cause harm, but they may not be reflected in the absolute value of the birth weight.”

In addition, clinicians should avoid focusing on the wrong question when caring for patients.

“I think the wrong question is: Is vaping safer than smoking?” Dr. Wylie said in an interview. “Metals are going into your lungs. Plastics are going into your lungs. It is hard for me to think that we are going to identify that as our champion smoking cessation strategy in pregnancy.”
 

Rapidly changing landscape

Answering the question of which is safer is a challenge anyway because researchers likely have incomplete information about who vapes, who smokes, and who does both.

Still, the new research illustrates that “people are starting to think about this and beginning to do some analysis that is really hypothesis generating at this point,” Dr. Wylie said. Such studies may prompt clinicians to ask their patients about e-cigarette use. “Marijuana is sort of a similar thing where patients’ perception of safety, because things are legal, can lead to use during pregnancy without ... letting their care teams know,” she said. “Things are changing so rapidly in terms of what’s available to people to use that we need to stay on top of that as obstetricians and ask the right questions and try to understand what the risks are and potential benefits.”

Dr. Wylie is an obstetric consultant to the New England Pediatric Environmental Health Specialty Unit, which is where she heard pediatricians discussing widespread e-cigarette use among youth. It occurred to her that some of these teens eventually would be seeing obstetricians. She also saw parallels to prior research she conducted that focused on household air pollution or cooking from wood-burning fires in Africa.

“What is frightening, I think, about these electronic cigarettes is that you’re heating this liquid to extraordinarily high temperatures to create the vapor,” and the extreme heat vaporizes plastics and metals as well as nicotine, Dr. Wylie said.

An ACOG committee opinion discusses approaches to smoking and vaping cessation such as counseling, behavioral therapy, and medication.

The publication also lists a host of elements have been isolated from vape aerosol, including “carbonyl compounds (formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, acetone, and acrolein); volatile organic compounds (benzene and toluene); nitrosamines; particulate matter; and heavy metals such as copper, lead, zinc, and tin.”

In addition to the nicotine in e-cigarette liquids, which is harmful in itself, there is “all of this other company that it keeps,” including solvent byproducts, known carcinogens, and lung irritants, Dr. Wylie said. Fine particulate matter “can land in the small airways and cause inflammation, even translocate into the systemic circulation and cause systemic inflammation.”

The use of flavoring “likely alters perceptions of harm” and contributes to the popularity of vaping, Dr. Wylie noted. At the same time, the use of flavoring also has little regulatory oversight. Flavors usually are approved for marketing based on safety for ingestion, but that may not translate into safety for inhalation.
 

Parsing the health effects

People who vape have increased cough, wheezing, and phlegm production, compared with people who do not vape. Vaping also may worsen underlying lung disease like asthma. Lung function on spirometry decreases after e-cigarette use, studies have shown.

In 2019, researchers described e-cigarette or vaping product use–related acute lung injury (EVALI), which has caused more than 60 deaths in the United States. The condition may be related to vitamin E acetate, a component that had been used in some liquids used by patients with EVALI.

And the nicotine in e-cigarettes can accelerate atherogenesis and affect blood pressure, heart rate, and arterial stiffness.

Initially introduced as a smoking cessation tool, e-cigarettes now often are used on their own or in addition to cigarettes, rather than strictly for smoking cessation.

A Cochrane review suggests that e-cigarettes may be more effective than other approaches to smoking cessation. But “the effect is modest at best,” Dr. Wylie said. Among 100 people attempting to quit cigarette smoking, there might four to six more quitters with the use of e-cigarettes as a smoking cessation intervention, compared with other approaches.

Animal models provide other reasons for caution. One experiment in mice showed that exposure to e-cigarette aerosol impaired implantation and fetal health. The results suggest “that there might be some negative impacts across generations,” Dr. Wylie said.

Another study has suggested the possibility that women who currently use e-cigarettes may have slightly diminished fecundability. The results were not statistically significant, but the study “gives us pause about whether there could be some impact on early pregnancy and fertility,” Dr. Wylie said.

In mouse models, prenatal exposure to e-cigarette aerosol has decreased fetal weight and length, altered neurodevelopment and neuroregulatory gene expression, and increased proinflammatory cytokines. E-cigarette aerosol also has caused birth defects in zebrafish and facial clefting in frogs. Whether and how these data relate to human pregnancy is unclear.

While e-cigarette ads may convey a sense of style and harmlessness, clinicians have reasons to worry about the effects. “We have to be a little bit more cautious when we are talking about this with our patients,” Dr. Wylie said.

Dr. Wylie had no relevant financial disclosures. She is a Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine board member and receives grant support related to research of household air pollution and pregnancy, prenatal pesticide exposure, preeclampsia in low income settings, and malaria during pregnancy. Ms. Izhakoff and coauthors had no disclosures.

[email protected]

Researchers are trying to understand how e-cigarette use affects pregnancy and birth outcomes. This question may become more relevant as younger vapers, among whom the devices gained considerable popularity, start having children.

Limited emerging data from animal experiments and human epidemiologic studies suggest that vaping may have negative effects on fertility and pregnancy. “Even if these impacts are less severe than conventional smoking, we really should be thinking about alternate options that may be safer for our patients than inhalation of this aerosol,” said Blair J. Wylie, MD, MPH, a maternal-fetal medicine physician at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston.

Dr. Wylie reviewed what is known about vaping, including chemicals other than nicotine that have been detected in vape aerosols, and pregnancy at the 2021 virtual meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

“There’s a lot we don’t know,” she said. “These products were only introduced recently, in 2003. They are marketed aggressively to our youth and have gained tremendous popularity among that population. And it’s only a matter of time, I think, before we see a lot of use in our own patient population.”

In a separate study presented at the ACOG meeting, Nicole Izhakoff, a researcher at Florida International University, Miami, and colleagues evaluated the association between e-cigarette use during pregnancy and unfavorable birth outcomes, such as preterm birth, low birth weight, or extended hospital stay for the newborn.

The investigators used 2016-2017 survey data from the Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System. In all, 71,940 women completed the survey, including 859 who reported e-cigarette use during pregnancy.

After adjusting for age, race, ethnicity, insurance, maternal education, prenatal care, abuse during pregnancy, and complications during pregnancy, the researchers estimated that the odds of an unfavorable birth outcome were 62% greater among women who used e-cigarettes during pregnancy, compared with those who did not.

The researchers lacked information about simultaneous use of alcohol, traditional tobacco, or other drugs, however.

“Physicians of all subspecialties, especially those of obstetrics-gynecology and pediatrics, need to increase the implementation of screening for past or current e-cigarette use in at-risk patients,” Ms. Izhakoff and coauthors concluded. “Further research regarding the long-term health effects of e-cigarettes is warranted.”

Dr. Wylie coauthored another study related to this topic that was published online May 24, 2021, in the Journal of Maternal-Fetal & Neonatal Medicine.

The researchers examined birth weights of children whose mothers use e-cigarettes alone, those whose mothers used both e-cigarettes and conventional cigarettes, and those whose mothers smoked conventional cigarettes only. Their estimates were imprecise, but signaled that e-cigarette use may reduce birth weight. The use of e-cigarettes alone appeared to have less of an impact on birth weight than the dual use of conventional cigarettes and e-cigarettes did.

Dr. Wylie cautioned that outcomes like birth weight are “pretty crude measures of whether an exposure is okay or not in pregnancy. Many of these toxins that we know that are in the aerosols can cause harm, but they may not be reflected in the absolute value of the birth weight.”

In addition, clinicians should avoid focusing on the wrong question when caring for patients.

“I think the wrong question is: Is vaping safer than smoking?” Dr. Wylie said in an interview. “Metals are going into your lungs. Plastics are going into your lungs. It is hard for me to think that we are going to identify that as our champion smoking cessation strategy in pregnancy.”
 

Rapidly changing landscape

Answering the question of which is safer is a challenge anyway because researchers likely have incomplete information about who vapes, who smokes, and who does both.

Still, the new research illustrates that “people are starting to think about this and beginning to do some analysis that is really hypothesis generating at this point,” Dr. Wylie said. Such studies may prompt clinicians to ask their patients about e-cigarette use. “Marijuana is sort of a similar thing where patients’ perception of safety, because things are legal, can lead to use during pregnancy without ... letting their care teams know,” she said. “Things are changing so rapidly in terms of what’s available to people to use that we need to stay on top of that as obstetricians and ask the right questions and try to understand what the risks are and potential benefits.”

Dr. Wylie is an obstetric consultant to the New England Pediatric Environmental Health Specialty Unit, which is where she heard pediatricians discussing widespread e-cigarette use among youth. It occurred to her that some of these teens eventually would be seeing obstetricians. She also saw parallels to prior research she conducted that focused on household air pollution or cooking from wood-burning fires in Africa.

“What is frightening, I think, about these electronic cigarettes is that you’re heating this liquid to extraordinarily high temperatures to create the vapor,” and the extreme heat vaporizes plastics and metals as well as nicotine, Dr. Wylie said.

An ACOG committee opinion discusses approaches to smoking and vaping cessation such as counseling, behavioral therapy, and medication.

The publication also lists a host of elements have been isolated from vape aerosol, including “carbonyl compounds (formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, acetone, and acrolein); volatile organic compounds (benzene and toluene); nitrosamines; particulate matter; and heavy metals such as copper, lead, zinc, and tin.”

In addition to the nicotine in e-cigarette liquids, which is harmful in itself, there is “all of this other company that it keeps,” including solvent byproducts, known carcinogens, and lung irritants, Dr. Wylie said. Fine particulate matter “can land in the small airways and cause inflammation, even translocate into the systemic circulation and cause systemic inflammation.”

The use of flavoring “likely alters perceptions of harm” and contributes to the popularity of vaping, Dr. Wylie noted. At the same time, the use of flavoring also has little regulatory oversight. Flavors usually are approved for marketing based on safety for ingestion, but that may not translate into safety for inhalation.
 

Parsing the health effects

People who vape have increased cough, wheezing, and phlegm production, compared with people who do not vape. Vaping also may worsen underlying lung disease like asthma. Lung function on spirometry decreases after e-cigarette use, studies have shown.

In 2019, researchers described e-cigarette or vaping product use–related acute lung injury (EVALI), which has caused more than 60 deaths in the United States. The condition may be related to vitamin E acetate, a component that had been used in some liquids used by patients with EVALI.

And the nicotine in e-cigarettes can accelerate atherogenesis and affect blood pressure, heart rate, and arterial stiffness.

Initially introduced as a smoking cessation tool, e-cigarettes now often are used on their own or in addition to cigarettes, rather than strictly for smoking cessation.

A Cochrane review suggests that e-cigarettes may be more effective than other approaches to smoking cessation. But “the effect is modest at best,” Dr. Wylie said. Among 100 people attempting to quit cigarette smoking, there might four to six more quitters with the use of e-cigarettes as a smoking cessation intervention, compared with other approaches.

Animal models provide other reasons for caution. One experiment in mice showed that exposure to e-cigarette aerosol impaired implantation and fetal health. The results suggest “that there might be some negative impacts across generations,” Dr. Wylie said.

Another study has suggested the possibility that women who currently use e-cigarettes may have slightly diminished fecundability. The results were not statistically significant, but the study “gives us pause about whether there could be some impact on early pregnancy and fertility,” Dr. Wylie said.

In mouse models, prenatal exposure to e-cigarette aerosol has decreased fetal weight and length, altered neurodevelopment and neuroregulatory gene expression, and increased proinflammatory cytokines. E-cigarette aerosol also has caused birth defects in zebrafish and facial clefting in frogs. Whether and how these data relate to human pregnancy is unclear.

While e-cigarette ads may convey a sense of style and harmlessness, clinicians have reasons to worry about the effects. “We have to be a little bit more cautious when we are talking about this with our patients,” Dr. Wylie said.

Dr. Wylie had no relevant financial disclosures. She is a Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine board member and receives grant support related to research of household air pollution and pregnancy, prenatal pesticide exposure, preeclampsia in low income settings, and malaria during pregnancy. Ms. Izhakoff and coauthors had no disclosures.

[email protected]

A Food and Drug Administration advisory panel has voted narrowly to recommend approval of the monoclonal antibody teplizumab (Tzield, Provention Bio) for the delay of type 1 diabetes in at-risk individuals.

The 10-7 vote of the FDA’s endocrinologic and metabolic drugs advisory committee on May 27 reflected a difficult decision-making process on the part of many members to weigh the benefits of a potential 2-year delay in the onset of type 1 diabetes against both observed and theoretical risks, as well as what most considered to be insufficient data.

Regardless of their vote, nearly all panel members advised the FDA that the company should be required to conduct at least one additional larger long-term efficacy and safety trial to satisfy what they felt were major gaps in the data. Some advised that use of the drug be restricted to a very narrow group of recipients until efficacy and safety can be better established.

If approved, teplizumab, which interferes with T cell–mediated autoimmune destruction of pancreatic beta cells, would be the first disease-modifying therapy for impeding progression of type 1 diabetes. The proposed indication is for individuals who have two or more type 1 diabetes-associated autoantibodies and subclinical dysglycemia.

That “stage 2” or “at-risk” condition is associated with a nearly 100% lifetime risk of progression to clinical (“stage 3”) type 1 diabetes and a 75% risk of developing the disease within 5 years. As of now, most such individuals are first-degree relatives of people with type 1 diabetes identified through TrialNet.
 

What’s the evidence to support approval so far?

In 2019, a pivotal phase 2 randomized, placebo-controlled TN-10 trial involving 76 at-risk children and adults ages 8 years and older showed that a single 14-day treatment of daily intravenous infusions of teplizumab in 44 patients resulted in a significant median 2-year delay to onset of clinical type 1 diabetes, compared with 32 who received placebo. Further follow-up data continue to show that fewer patients who received teplizumab have progressed to clinical type 1 diabetes.

While most advisory panelists agreed that the TN-10 study demonstrated efficacy, several also said that the sample size was insufficient and at least one additional randomized trial should be conducted to replicate the findings.

Although the FDA typically requires companies to demonstrate a drug’s effectiveness with at least two separate clinical trials, the agency allows companies to substitute other forms of data for a second randomized clinical trial, such as study results for the drug in a closely related condition, mechanistic data, or knowledge of other drugs from the same class.

In this case, Provention’s submission included as “confirmatory” evidence a meta-analysis of data from five earlier randomized trials (three placebo controlled, two open label) of a total 942 individuals with newly diagnosed type 1 diabetes (“stage 3”) who received either one or two 14-day teplizumab courses (n = 729) or placebo. These showed consistent preservation of C-peptide, a surrogate marker of beta-cell function, along with lower mean insulin use.

Several panel members expressed dissatisfaction with those confirmatory data, noting the patient population was different from those for which the company is currently seeking the indication, and that C-peptide is an inadequate endpoint for demonstrating efficacy.
 

Safety: Adverse events mostly transient, but unanswered questions

Adverse events reported in at least 10% of teplizumab recipients included lymphopenia (76.8% vs. 9.4% placebo; relative risk, 8.2), leukopenia (82.1% vs. 24.1%; RR, 3.4), and rash (44.5% vs. 9.0%; RR, 4.9).

“Most adverse events related to teplizumab were mechanism-based, predictable, transient, and manageable,” Chief Medical Officer of Provention Bio, Eleanor Ramos, MD, said.

Among other safety issues that concerned the panel, diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) was seen in 2.3% of 773 teplizumab recipients with new-onset type 1 diabetes versus just 1% among the 245 controls, a significant, nearly sixfold increase. No DKA occurred in the TN-10 trial. No clear explanation was offered for the imbalance in the meta-analysis.

Cytokine release syndrome occurred in 0.6% of patients who received teplizumab versus no controls, and infections in 3.4% versus 2.0%, respectively.

Approximately 10% of patients were not able to complete the treatment course because of protocol-directed withdrawal criteria, which included elevations in bilirubin or liver enzymes, or drops in platelet count, neutrophils, or hemoglobin, FDA reviewer Lauren Wood Heickman, MD, noted.

There was only one malignancy, a melanoma in a patient with a preexisting lesion, but malignancy is a theoretical concern with long-term immunosuppression, Dr. Heickman said.

Despite the concerns about the data, panel members expressed unanimous appreciation for the 18 people who spoke during public comments attesting to the lifelong burdens involved in living with type 1 diabetes who urged the FDA to approve teplizumab.

Many of them noted that even a 2-year reprieve from the burden of constant attention to managing blood glucose can make a major difference in the life of a young person. The speakers included physicians, parents of children with type 1 diabetes, adults who have the condition themselves and who worry about their children getting it, and researchers in the field.
 

Panel members describe ‘struggle’ with vote decision

Panel member Michael Blaha, MD, of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, voted in favor of teplizumab approval. However, he said, “I was very conflicted on this one and my ‘yes’ is very qualified. In my opinion the risk-benefit is very narrow, and I would only approve this drug for the exact indication of the trial. ... Patients who don’t fit the criteria could hopefully be enrolled in a second confirmatory trial.”

He also advised an extensive Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies program to look for both short- and long-term adverse effects.

“My overall take on this is that I do think it’s a promising paradigm-shifting therapy that really needs to move forward, at least scientifically. I’m excited about it, but I have a lot of skepticism about the entire body of data to make any more than the most narrow of approval,” Dr. Blaha said.  

Susan S. Ellenberg, PhD, professor of biostatistics, medical ethics, and health policy at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, voted yes but also with difficulty.

“I really struggled with it. ... I was pushed by the very encouraging results of what is admittedly a very small study and something I can’t feel is completely definitive. But I would not like to deny the kind of people that we heard from today the opportunity to weigh their own risks and benefits to try this. And I would certainly agree that a very, very rigorous postmarketing program, preferably including another controlled trial, should be carried out.”

But David M. Nathan, MD, director of the Diabetes Center and Clinical Research Center, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, voted no.

“I struggled with this vote, tremendously, having listened carefully to the patients with type 1 diabetes ... but that said, having done clinical research for 40 years in type 1 diabetes, I think we need more data, both in terms of efficacy and of safety. I would hate a number of years down the road to figure out that we actually caused more harm than good, especially keeping in mind that the treatment of type 1 diabetes is evolving rapidly.”

A different perspective came from Mara L. Becker, MD, vice chair of the department of pediatric rheumatology at Duke University, Durham, N.C. She voted yes, pointing out that she’s accustomed to prescribing biologics for chronic conditions in children.

“I was unconflicted in my vote, which was yes. I thought the data ... were convincing and the need is great. I would support a label for children [aged 8 years] and older with at least stage 2 disease ... and I would require postmarketing safety surveillance to understand what the long-term side effects could be, but I would still be in favor of it.”

FDA advisory panel committee members are vetted for conflicts of interest and waivers granted for participation if necessary; none were granted for this meeting.

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

A Food and Drug Administration advisory panel has voted narrowly to recommend approval of the monoclonal antibody teplizumab (Tzield, Provention Bio) for the delay of type 1 diabetes in at-risk individuals.

The 10-7 vote of the FDA’s endocrinologic and metabolic drugs advisory committee on May 27 reflected a difficult decision-making process on the part of many members to weigh the benefits of a potential 2-year delay in the onset of type 1 diabetes against both observed and theoretical risks, as well as what most considered to be insufficient data.

Regardless of their vote, nearly all panel members advised the FDA that the company should be required to conduct at least one additional larger long-term efficacy and safety trial to satisfy what they felt were major gaps in the data. Some advised that use of the drug be restricted to a very narrow group of recipients until efficacy and safety can be better established.

If approved, teplizumab, which interferes with T cell–mediated autoimmune destruction of pancreatic beta cells, would be the first disease-modifying therapy for impeding progression of type 1 diabetes. The proposed indication is for individuals who have two or more type 1 diabetes-associated autoantibodies and subclinical dysglycemia.

That “stage 2” or “at-risk” condition is associated with a nearly 100% lifetime risk of progression to clinical (“stage 3”) type 1 diabetes and a 75% risk of developing the disease within 5 years. As of now, most such individuals are first-degree relatives of people with type 1 diabetes identified through TrialNet.
 

What’s the evidence to support approval so far?

In 2019, a pivotal phase 2 randomized, placebo-controlled TN-10 trial involving 76 at-risk children and adults ages 8 years and older showed that a single 14-day treatment of daily intravenous infusions of teplizumab in 44 patients resulted in a significant median 2-year delay to onset of clinical type 1 diabetes, compared with 32 who received placebo. Further follow-up data continue to show that fewer patients who received teplizumab have progressed to clinical type 1 diabetes.

While most advisory panelists agreed that the TN-10 study demonstrated efficacy, several also said that the sample size was insufficient and at least one additional randomized trial should be conducted to replicate the findings.

Although the FDA typically requires companies to demonstrate a drug’s effectiveness with at least two separate clinical trials, the agency allows companies to substitute other forms of data for a second randomized clinical trial, such as study results for the drug in a closely related condition, mechanistic data, or knowledge of other drugs from the same class.

In this case, Provention’s submission included as “confirmatory” evidence a meta-analysis of data from five earlier randomized trials (three placebo controlled, two open label) of a total 942 individuals with newly diagnosed type 1 diabetes (“stage 3”) who received either one or two 14-day teplizumab courses (n = 729) or placebo. These showed consistent preservation of C-peptide, a surrogate marker of beta-cell function, along with lower mean insulin use.

Several panel members expressed dissatisfaction with those confirmatory data, noting the patient population was different from those for which the company is currently seeking the indication, and that C-peptide is an inadequate endpoint for demonstrating efficacy.
 

Safety: Adverse events mostly transient, but unanswered questions

Adverse events reported in at least 10% of teplizumab recipients included lymphopenia (76.8% vs. 9.4% placebo; relative risk, 8.2), leukopenia (82.1% vs. 24.1%; RR, 3.4), and rash (44.5% vs. 9.0%; RR, 4.9).

“Most adverse events related to teplizumab were mechanism-based, predictable, transient, and manageable,” Chief Medical Officer of Provention Bio, Eleanor Ramos, MD, said.

Among other safety issues that concerned the panel, diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) was seen in 2.3% of 773 teplizumab recipients with new-onset type 1 diabetes versus just 1% among the 245 controls, a significant, nearly sixfold increase. No DKA occurred in the TN-10 trial. No clear explanation was offered for the imbalance in the meta-analysis.

Cytokine release syndrome occurred in 0.6% of patients who received teplizumab versus no controls, and infections in 3.4% versus 2.0%, respectively.

Approximately 10% of patients were not able to complete the treatment course because of protocol-directed withdrawal criteria, which included elevations in bilirubin or liver enzymes, or drops in platelet count, neutrophils, or hemoglobin, FDA reviewer Lauren Wood Heickman, MD, noted.

There was only one malignancy, a melanoma in a patient with a preexisting lesion, but malignancy is a theoretical concern with long-term immunosuppression, Dr. Heickman said.

Despite the concerns about the data, panel members expressed unanimous appreciation for the 18 people who spoke during public comments attesting to the lifelong burdens involved in living with type 1 diabetes who urged the FDA to approve teplizumab.

Many of them noted that even a 2-year reprieve from the burden of constant attention to managing blood glucose can make a major difference in the life of a young person. The speakers included physicians, parents of children with type 1 diabetes, adults who have the condition themselves and who worry about their children getting it, and researchers in the field.
 

Panel members describe ‘struggle’ with vote decision

Panel member Michael Blaha, MD, of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, voted in favor of teplizumab approval. However, he said, “I was very conflicted on this one and my ‘yes’ is very qualified. In my opinion the risk-benefit is very narrow, and I would only approve this drug for the exact indication of the trial. ... Patients who don’t fit the criteria could hopefully be enrolled in a second confirmatory trial.”

He also advised an extensive Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies program to look for both short- and long-term adverse effects.

“My overall take on this is that I do think it’s a promising paradigm-shifting therapy that really needs to move forward, at least scientifically. I’m excited about it, but I have a lot of skepticism about the entire body of data to make any more than the most narrow of approval,” Dr. Blaha said.  

Susan S. Ellenberg, PhD, professor of biostatistics, medical ethics, and health policy at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, voted yes but also with difficulty.

“I really struggled with it. ... I was pushed by the very encouraging results of what is admittedly a very small study and something I can’t feel is completely definitive. But I would not like to deny the kind of people that we heard from today the opportunity to weigh their own risks and benefits to try this. And I would certainly agree that a very, very rigorous postmarketing program, preferably including another controlled trial, should be carried out.”

But David M. Nathan, MD, director of the Diabetes Center and Clinical Research Center, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, voted no.

“I struggled with this vote, tremendously, having listened carefully to the patients with type 1 diabetes ... but that said, having done clinical research for 40 years in type 1 diabetes, I think we need more data, both in terms of efficacy and of safety. I would hate a number of years down the road to figure out that we actually caused more harm than good, especially keeping in mind that the treatment of type 1 diabetes is evolving rapidly.”

A different perspective came from Mara L. Becker, MD, vice chair of the department of pediatric rheumatology at Duke University, Durham, N.C. She voted yes, pointing out that she’s accustomed to prescribing biologics for chronic conditions in children.

“I was unconflicted in my vote, which was yes. I thought the data ... were convincing and the need is great. I would support a label for children [aged 8 years] and older with at least stage 2 disease ... and I would require postmarketing safety surveillance to understand what the long-term side effects could be, but I would still be in favor of it.”

FDA advisory panel committee members are vetted for conflicts of interest and waivers granted for participation if necessary; none were granted for this meeting.

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

A Food and Drug Administration advisory panel has voted narrowly to recommend approval of the monoclonal antibody teplizumab (Tzield, Provention Bio) for the delay of type 1 diabetes in at-risk individuals.

The 10-7 vote of the FDA’s endocrinologic and metabolic drugs advisory committee on May 27 reflected a difficult decision-making process on the part of many members to weigh the benefits of a potential 2-year delay in the onset of type 1 diabetes against both observed and theoretical risks, as well as what most considered to be insufficient data.

Regardless of their vote, nearly all panel members advised the FDA that the company should be required to conduct at least one additional larger long-term efficacy and safety trial to satisfy what they felt were major gaps in the data. Some advised that use of the drug be restricted to a very narrow group of recipients until efficacy and safety can be better established.

If approved, teplizumab, which interferes with T cell–mediated autoimmune destruction of pancreatic beta cells, would be the first disease-modifying therapy for impeding progression of type 1 diabetes. The proposed indication is for individuals who have two or more type 1 diabetes-associated autoantibodies and subclinical dysglycemia.

That “stage 2” or “at-risk” condition is associated with a nearly 100% lifetime risk of progression to clinical (“stage 3”) type 1 diabetes and a 75% risk of developing the disease within 5 years. As of now, most such individuals are first-degree relatives of people with type 1 diabetes identified through TrialNet.
 

What’s the evidence to support approval so far?

In 2019, a pivotal phase 2 randomized, placebo-controlled TN-10 trial involving 76 at-risk children and adults ages 8 years and older showed that a single 14-day treatment of daily intravenous infusions of teplizumab in 44 patients resulted in a significant median 2-year delay to onset of clinical type 1 diabetes, compared with 32 who received placebo. Further follow-up data continue to show that fewer patients who received teplizumab have progressed to clinical type 1 diabetes.

While most advisory panelists agreed that the TN-10 study demonstrated efficacy, several also said that the sample size was insufficient and at least one additional randomized trial should be conducted to replicate the findings.

Although the FDA typically requires companies to demonstrate a drug’s effectiveness with at least two separate clinical trials, the agency allows companies to substitute other forms of data for a second randomized clinical trial, such as study results for the drug in a closely related condition, mechanistic data, or knowledge of other drugs from the same class.

In this case, Provention’s submission included as “confirmatory” evidence a meta-analysis of data from five earlier randomized trials (three placebo controlled, two open label) of a total 942 individuals with newly diagnosed type 1 diabetes (“stage 3”) who received either one or two 14-day teplizumab courses (n = 729) or placebo. These showed consistent preservation of C-peptide, a surrogate marker of beta-cell function, along with lower mean insulin use.

Several panel members expressed dissatisfaction with those confirmatory data, noting the patient population was different from those for which the company is currently seeking the indication, and that C-peptide is an inadequate endpoint for demonstrating efficacy.
 

Safety: Adverse events mostly transient, but unanswered questions

Adverse events reported in at least 10% of teplizumab recipients included lymphopenia (76.8% vs. 9.4% placebo; relative risk, 8.2), leukopenia (82.1% vs. 24.1%; RR, 3.4), and rash (44.5% vs. 9.0%; RR, 4.9).

“Most adverse events related to teplizumab were mechanism-based, predictable, transient, and manageable,” Chief Medical Officer of Provention Bio, Eleanor Ramos, MD, said.

Among other safety issues that concerned the panel, diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) was seen in 2.3% of 773 teplizumab recipients with new-onset type 1 diabetes versus just 1% among the 245 controls, a significant, nearly sixfold increase. No DKA occurred in the TN-10 trial. No clear explanation was offered for the imbalance in the meta-analysis.

Cytokine release syndrome occurred in 0.6% of patients who received teplizumab versus no controls, and infections in 3.4% versus 2.0%, respectively.

Approximately 10% of patients were not able to complete the treatment course because of protocol-directed withdrawal criteria, which included elevations in bilirubin or liver enzymes, or drops in platelet count, neutrophils, or hemoglobin, FDA reviewer Lauren Wood Heickman, MD, noted.

There was only one malignancy, a melanoma in a patient with a preexisting lesion, but malignancy is a theoretical concern with long-term immunosuppression, Dr. Heickman said.

Despite the concerns about the data, panel members expressed unanimous appreciation for the 18 people who spoke during public comments attesting to the lifelong burdens involved in living with type 1 diabetes who urged the FDA to approve teplizumab.

Many of them noted that even a 2-year reprieve from the burden of constant attention to managing blood glucose can make a major difference in the life of a young person. The speakers included physicians, parents of children with type 1 diabetes, adults who have the condition themselves and who worry about their children getting it, and researchers in the field.
 

Panel members describe ‘struggle’ with vote decision

Panel member Michael Blaha, MD, of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, voted in favor of teplizumab approval. However, he said, “I was very conflicted on this one and my ‘yes’ is very qualified. In my opinion the risk-benefit is very narrow, and I would only approve this drug for the exact indication of the trial. ... Patients who don’t fit the criteria could hopefully be enrolled in a second confirmatory trial.”

He also advised an extensive Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies program to look for both short- and long-term adverse effects.

“My overall take on this is that I do think it’s a promising paradigm-shifting therapy that really needs to move forward, at least scientifically. I’m excited about it, but I have a lot of skepticism about the entire body of data to make any more than the most narrow of approval,” Dr. Blaha said.  

Susan S. Ellenberg, PhD, professor of biostatistics, medical ethics, and health policy at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, voted yes but also with difficulty.

“I really struggled with it. ... I was pushed by the very encouraging results of what is admittedly a very small study and something I can’t feel is completely definitive. But I would not like to deny the kind of people that we heard from today the opportunity to weigh their own risks and benefits to try this. And I would certainly agree that a very, very rigorous postmarketing program, preferably including another controlled trial, should be carried out.”

But David M. Nathan, MD, director of the Diabetes Center and Clinical Research Center, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, voted no.

“I struggled with this vote, tremendously, having listened carefully to the patients with type 1 diabetes ... but that said, having done clinical research for 40 years in type 1 diabetes, I think we need more data, both in terms of efficacy and of safety. I would hate a number of years down the road to figure out that we actually caused more harm than good, especially keeping in mind that the treatment of type 1 diabetes is evolving rapidly.”

A different perspective came from Mara L. Becker, MD, vice chair of the department of pediatric rheumatology at Duke University, Durham, N.C. She voted yes, pointing out that she’s accustomed to prescribing biologics for chronic conditions in children.

“I was unconflicted in my vote, which was yes. I thought the data ... were convincing and the need is great. I would support a label for children [aged 8 years] and older with at least stage 2 disease ... and I would require postmarketing safety surveillance to understand what the long-term side effects could be, but I would still be in favor of it.”

FDA advisory panel committee members are vetted for conflicts of interest and waivers granted for participation if necessary; none were granted for this meeting.

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

For children with spinal muscular atrophy (SMA), gene therapy with onasemnogene abeparvovec (Zolgensma, Novartis) provides long-lasting benefits with a favorable safety profile, new long-term follow-up data show. At a median of 5.2 years since receiving the approved therapeutic dose, onasemnogene abeparvovec provided “sustained, durable efficacy, with all patients alive and without the need for permanent ventilation,” reported Jerry Mendell, MD, with the Center for Gene Therapy, Nationwide Children’s Hospital, Columbus, Ohio, and colleagues.

The study was published online May 17 in JAMA Neurology.
 

Single infusion

SMA is a rare genetic disease that can lead to paralysis, breathing difficulty, and death. The disorder is caused by a mutation in the survival motor neuron 1 (SMN1) gene, which encodes the SMN protein critical for maintenance and function of motor neurons.

In 2019, Zolgensma was approved in the United States for children with SMA and younger than 2 years of age.

Zolgensma is an adeno-associated virus vector-based gene therapy that addresses the genetic root cause of SMA by replacing the defective or missing SMN1 gene to halt disease progression. A single, one-time intravenous infusion results in expression of the SMN protein motor neurons, which improves chances of survival, as well as muscle movement and function.

In the phase 1 START study, 15 infants with SMA type 1 were treated with either a low or therapeutic dose of Zolgensma at Nationwide Children’s Hospital between 2014 and 2017.

The START long-term follow-up study (START LTFU) is an ongoing, observational study assessing safety and durability of response over 15 years in 13 of the infants; three infants received the low dose and 10 received the approved high dose.

Prior to baseline, four patients (40%) in the therapeutic dose cohort required noninvasive ventilatory support, and six (60%) did not require regular ventilatory support, which did not change in long-term follow-up.

All 10 patients who received the therapeutic dose remained alive and without the need for permanent ventilation up to 6.2 years after dosing, Dr. Mendell and colleagues report.

These patients also maintained previously acquired motor milestones. Two patients attained the new milestone of “standing with assistance” without the use of nusinersen (Spinraza, Biogen). 

Serious adverse events occurred in eight patients (62%), none of which resulted in study discontinuation or death. The most common serious adverse events were related to the underlying SMA disease process and included acute respiratory failure (31%), pneumonia (31%), dehydration (23%), respiratory distress (15%), and bronchiolitis (15%).

Importantly, the investigators noted, no new safety signals or “adverse events of special interest” emerged during follow-up, including liver function enzyme elevations, new incidences of malignancy or hematologic disorders, and new incidences or exacerbations of existing neurologic or autoimmune disorders.

The investigators acknowledged that this follow-up study is limited by the small sample size of the patient population and confounded by treatment with nusinersen in several patients. “However, given that the two patients who acquired the new motor milestone of standing with assistance did not receive nusinersen at any time, this benefit can be attributed solely to onasemnogene abeparvovec,” Dr. Mendell and colleagues said. 

The study was supported by Novartis Gene Therapies. Dr. Mendell and several co-investigators have disclosed financial relationships with the company.

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

For children with spinal muscular atrophy (SMA), gene therapy with onasemnogene abeparvovec (Zolgensma, Novartis) provides long-lasting benefits with a favorable safety profile, new long-term follow-up data show. At a median of 5.2 years since receiving the approved therapeutic dose, onasemnogene abeparvovec provided “sustained, durable efficacy, with all patients alive and without the need for permanent ventilation,” reported Jerry Mendell, MD, with the Center for Gene Therapy, Nationwide Children’s Hospital, Columbus, Ohio, and colleagues.

The study was published online May 17 in JAMA Neurology.
 

Single infusion

SMA is a rare genetic disease that can lead to paralysis, breathing difficulty, and death. The disorder is caused by a mutation in the survival motor neuron 1 (SMN1) gene, which encodes the SMN protein critical for maintenance and function of motor neurons.

In 2019, Zolgensma was approved in the United States for children with SMA and younger than 2 years of age.

Zolgensma is an adeno-associated virus vector-based gene therapy that addresses the genetic root cause of SMA by replacing the defective or missing SMN1 gene to halt disease progression. A single, one-time intravenous infusion results in expression of the SMN protein motor neurons, which improves chances of survival, as well as muscle movement and function.

In the phase 1 START study, 15 infants with SMA type 1 were treated with either a low or therapeutic dose of Zolgensma at Nationwide Children’s Hospital between 2014 and 2017.

The START long-term follow-up study (START LTFU) is an ongoing, observational study assessing safety and durability of response over 15 years in 13 of the infants; three infants received the low dose and 10 received the approved high dose.

Prior to baseline, four patients (40%) in the therapeutic dose cohort required noninvasive ventilatory support, and six (60%) did not require regular ventilatory support, which did not change in long-term follow-up.

All 10 patients who received the therapeutic dose remained alive and without the need for permanent ventilation up to 6.2 years after dosing, Dr. Mendell and colleagues report.

These patients also maintained previously acquired motor milestones. Two patients attained the new milestone of “standing with assistance” without the use of nusinersen (Spinraza, Biogen). 

Serious adverse events occurred in eight patients (62%), none of which resulted in study discontinuation or death. The most common serious adverse events were related to the underlying SMA disease process and included acute respiratory failure (31%), pneumonia (31%), dehydration (23%), respiratory distress (15%), and bronchiolitis (15%).

Importantly, the investigators noted, no new safety signals or “adverse events of special interest” emerged during follow-up, including liver function enzyme elevations, new incidences of malignancy or hematologic disorders, and new incidences or exacerbations of existing neurologic or autoimmune disorders.

The investigators acknowledged that this follow-up study is limited by the small sample size of the patient population and confounded by treatment with nusinersen in several patients. “However, given that the two patients who acquired the new motor milestone of standing with assistance did not receive nusinersen at any time, this benefit can be attributed solely to onasemnogene abeparvovec,” Dr. Mendell and colleagues said. 

The study was supported by Novartis Gene Therapies. Dr. Mendell and several co-investigators have disclosed financial relationships with the company.

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

For children with spinal muscular atrophy (SMA), gene therapy with onasemnogene abeparvovec (Zolgensma, Novartis) provides long-lasting benefits with a favorable safety profile, new long-term follow-up data show. At a median of 5.2 years since receiving the approved therapeutic dose, onasemnogene abeparvovec provided “sustained, durable efficacy, with all patients alive and without the need for permanent ventilation,” reported Jerry Mendell, MD, with the Center for Gene Therapy, Nationwide Children’s Hospital, Columbus, Ohio, and colleagues.

The study was published online May 17 in JAMA Neurology.
 

Single infusion

SMA is a rare genetic disease that can lead to paralysis, breathing difficulty, and death. The disorder is caused by a mutation in the survival motor neuron 1 (SMN1) gene, which encodes the SMN protein critical for maintenance and function of motor neurons.

In 2019, Zolgensma was approved in the United States for children with SMA and younger than 2 years of age.

Zolgensma is an adeno-associated virus vector-based gene therapy that addresses the genetic root cause of SMA by replacing the defective or missing SMN1 gene to halt disease progression. A single, one-time intravenous infusion results in expression of the SMN protein motor neurons, which improves chances of survival, as well as muscle movement and function.

In the phase 1 START study, 15 infants with SMA type 1 were treated with either a low or therapeutic dose of Zolgensma at Nationwide Children’s Hospital between 2014 and 2017.

The START long-term follow-up study (START LTFU) is an ongoing, observational study assessing safety and durability of response over 15 years in 13 of the infants; three infants received the low dose and 10 received the approved high dose.

Prior to baseline, four patients (40%) in the therapeutic dose cohort required noninvasive ventilatory support, and six (60%) did not require regular ventilatory support, which did not change in long-term follow-up.

All 10 patients who received the therapeutic dose remained alive and without the need for permanent ventilation up to 6.2 years after dosing, Dr. Mendell and colleagues report.

These patients also maintained previously acquired motor milestones. Two patients attained the new milestone of “standing with assistance” without the use of nusinersen (Spinraza, Biogen). 

Serious adverse events occurred in eight patients (62%), none of which resulted in study discontinuation or death. The most common serious adverse events were related to the underlying SMA disease process and included acute respiratory failure (31%), pneumonia (31%), dehydration (23%), respiratory distress (15%), and bronchiolitis (15%).

Importantly, the investigators noted, no new safety signals or “adverse events of special interest” emerged during follow-up, including liver function enzyme elevations, new incidences of malignancy or hematologic disorders, and new incidences or exacerbations of existing neurologic or autoimmune disorders.

The investigators acknowledged that this follow-up study is limited by the small sample size of the patient population and confounded by treatment with nusinersen in several patients. “However, given that the two patients who acquired the new motor milestone of standing with assistance did not receive nusinersen at any time, this benefit can be attributed solely to onasemnogene abeparvovec,” Dr. Mendell and colleagues said. 

The study was supported by Novartis Gene Therapies. Dr. Mendell and several co-investigators have disclosed financial relationships with the company.

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

The COVID-19 pandemic upended the U.S. health care market and disrupted much of what was thought to be consistent and necessary hospital-based care for children. Early in the pandemic, clinics closed, elective surgeries were delayed, and well visits were postponed. Mitigation strategies were launched nationwide to limit the spread of SARS-CoV-2 including mask mandates, social distancing, shelter-in-place orders, and school closures. While these measures were enacted to target COVID-19, a potential off-target effect was reductions in transmission of other respiratory illness, and potentially nonrespiratory infectious illnesses and conditions exacerbated by acute infections.¹ These measures have heavily impacted the pediatric population, wherein respiratory infections are common, and also because daycares and school can be hubs for disease transmission.²

To evaluate the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on pediatric health care utilization, we performed a multicenter, cross-sectional study of 44 children’s hospitals using the Pediatric Health Information System (PHIS) database.³ Children aged 2 months to 18 years discharged from a PHIS hospital with nonsurgical diagnoses from Jan. 1 to Sept. 30 over a 4-year period (2017-2020) were included in the study. The primary exposure was the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic, which was divided into three study periods: pre–COVID-19 (January–February 2020), early COVID-19 (March-April 2020), and COVID-19 (May-September 2020). The primary outcomes were the observed-to-expected ratio of respiratory and nonrespiratory illness encounters of the study period, compared with the 3 years prior to the pandemic. For these calculations, the expected encounters for each period was derived from the same calendar periods from prepandemic years (2017-2019).

A total of 9,051,980 pediatric encounters were included in the analyses: 6,811,799 with nonrespiratory illnesses and 2,240,181 with respiratory illnesses. We found a 42% reduction in overall encounters during the COVID-19 period, compared with the 3 years prior to the pandemic, with a greater reduction in respiratory, compared with nonrespiratory illnesses, which decreased 62% and 38%, respectively. These reductions were consistent across geographic and encounter type (ED vs. hospitalization). The frequency of hospital-based encounters for common pediatric respiratory illnesses was substantially reduced, with reductions in asthma exacerbations (down 76%), pneumonia (down 81%), croup (down 84%), influenza (down 87%) and bronchiolitis (down 91%). Differences in both respiratory and nonrespiratory illnesses varied by age, with larger reductions found in children aged less than 12 years. While adolescent (children aged over 12 years) encounters diminished during the early COVID period for both respiratory and nonrespiratory illnesses, their encounters returned to previous levels faster than those from younger children. For respiratory illnesses, hospital-based adolescents encounters had returned to prepandemic levels by the end of the study period (September 2020).

These findings warrant consideration as relaxation of SARS-CoV-2 mitigation are contemplated. Encounters for respiratory and nonrespiratory illnesses declined less and recovered faster in adolescents, compared with younger children. The underlying contributors to this trend are likely multifactorial. For example, respiratory illnesses such as croup and bronchiolitis are more common in younger children and adolescents may be more likely to transmit SARS-CoV-2, compared with younger age groups.^4,5 However, adolescents may have had less strict adherence to social distancing measures.⁶ Future efforts to halt transmission of SARS-CoV-2, as well as other respiratory pathogens, should inform mitigation efforts in the adolescent population with considerations of the intensity of social mixing in different pediatric age groups.

While reductions in encounters caused by respiratory illnesses were substantial, more modest but similar age-based trends were seen in nonrespiratory illnesses. Yet, reduced transmission of infectious agents may not fully explain these findings. For example, it is possible that families sought care for mild to moderate nonrespiratory illness in clinics or via telehealth rather than the EDs.⁷ Provided there were no unintended negative consequences, such transition of care to non-ED settings would suggest there was overutilization of hospital resources prior to the pandemic. Additional assessments would be helpful to examine this more closely and to clarify the long-term impact of those transitions.

It is also possible that the pandemic effects on financial, social, and family stress may have led to increases in some pediatric health care encounters, such as those for mental health conditions,⁸ nonaccidental trauma or inability to adhere to treatment because of lack of resources.^9,10 Additional study on the evolution and distribution of social and stress-related illnesses is critical to maintain and improve the health of children and adolescents.

The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in rapid and marked changes to both communicable and noncommunicable illnesses and care-seeking behaviors. Some of these findings are encouraging, such as large reductions in respiratory and nonrespiratory illnesses. However, other trends may be harbingers of negative health consequences of the pandemic, such as increases in health care utilization later in the pandemic. Further study of the evolving pandemic’s effects on disease and health care utilization is needed to benefit our children now and during the next pandemic.

Dr. Antoon is an assistant professor of pediatrics at Vanderbilt University and a pediatric hospitalist at the Monroe Carroll Jr. Children’s Hospital at Vanderbilt, both in Nashville, Tenn.

References

1. Kenyon CC et al. Initial effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on pediatric asthma emergency department utilization. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2020 Sep;8(8):2774-6.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.jaip.2020.05.045.

2. Luca G et al. The impact of regular school closure on seasonal influenza epidemics: A data-driven spatial transmission model for Belgium. BMC Infect Dis. 2018;18(1):29. doi: 10.1186/s12879-017-2934-3.

3. Antoon JW et al. The COVID-19 Pandemic and changes in healthcare utilization for pediatric respiratory and nonrespiratory illnesses in the United States. J Hosp Med. 2021 Mar 8. doi: 10.12788/jhm.3608.

4. Park YJ et al. Contact tracing during coronavirus disease outbreak, South Korea, 2020. Emerg Infect Dis. 2020 Oct;26(10):2465-8. doi: 10.3201/eid2610.201315.

5. Davies NG et al. Age-dependent effects in the transmission and control of COVID-19 epidemics. Nat Med. 2020 Aug;26(8):1205-11. doi: 10.1038/s41591-020-0962-9.

6. Andrews JL et al. Peer influence in adolescence: Public health implications for COVID-19. Trends Cogn Sci. 2020;24(8):585-7. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2020.05.001.

7. Taquechel K et al. Pediatric asthma healthcare utilization, viral testing, and air pollution changes during the COVID-19 pandemic. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2020 Nov-Dec;8(10):3378-87.e11. doi: 10.1016/j.jaip.2020.07.057.

8. Hill RM et al. Suicide ideation and attempts in a pediatric emergency department before and during COVID-19. Pediatrics. 2021;147(3):e2020029280. doi: 10.1542/peds.2020-029280.

9. Sharma S et al. COVID-19: Differences in sentinel injury and child abuse reporting during a pandemic. Child Abuse Negl. 2020 Dec;110:104709. doi: 10.1016/j.chiabu.2020.104709.

10. Lauren BN et al. Predictors of households at risk for food insecurity in the United States during the COVID-19 pandemic. Public Health Nutr. 2021 Jan 27. doi: 10.1017/S1368980021000355.

The COVID-19 pandemic upended the U.S. health care market and disrupted much of what was thought to be consistent and necessary hospital-based care for children. Early in the pandemic, clinics closed, elective surgeries were delayed, and well visits were postponed. Mitigation strategies were launched nationwide to limit the spread of SARS-CoV-2 including mask mandates, social distancing, shelter-in-place orders, and school closures. While these measures were enacted to target COVID-19, a potential off-target effect was reductions in transmission of other respiratory illness, and potentially nonrespiratory infectious illnesses and conditions exacerbated by acute infections.¹ These measures have heavily impacted the pediatric population, wherein respiratory infections are common, and also because daycares and school can be hubs for disease transmission.²

To evaluate the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on pediatric health care utilization, we performed a multicenter, cross-sectional study of 44 children’s hospitals using the Pediatric Health Information System (PHIS) database.³ Children aged 2 months to 18 years discharged from a PHIS hospital with nonsurgical diagnoses from Jan. 1 to Sept. 30 over a 4-year period (2017-2020) were included in the study. The primary exposure was the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic, which was divided into three study periods: pre–COVID-19 (January–February 2020), early COVID-19 (March-April 2020), and COVID-19 (May-September 2020). The primary outcomes were the observed-to-expected ratio of respiratory and nonrespiratory illness encounters of the study period, compared with the 3 years prior to the pandemic. For these calculations, the expected encounters for each period was derived from the same calendar periods from prepandemic years (2017-2019).

A total of 9,051,980 pediatric encounters were included in the analyses: 6,811,799 with nonrespiratory illnesses and 2,240,181 with respiratory illnesses. We found a 42% reduction in overall encounters during the COVID-19 period, compared with the 3 years prior to the pandemic, with a greater reduction in respiratory, compared with nonrespiratory illnesses, which decreased 62% and 38%, respectively. These reductions were consistent across geographic and encounter type (ED vs. hospitalization). The frequency of hospital-based encounters for common pediatric respiratory illnesses was substantially reduced, with reductions in asthma exacerbations (down 76%), pneumonia (down 81%), croup (down 84%), influenza (down 87%) and bronchiolitis (down 91%). Differences in both respiratory and nonrespiratory illnesses varied by age, with larger reductions found in children aged less than 12 years. While adolescent (children aged over 12 years) encounters diminished during the early COVID period for both respiratory and nonrespiratory illnesses, their encounters returned to previous levels faster than those from younger children. For respiratory illnesses, hospital-based adolescents encounters had returned to prepandemic levels by the end of the study period (September 2020).

These findings warrant consideration as relaxation of SARS-CoV-2 mitigation are contemplated. Encounters for respiratory and nonrespiratory illnesses declined less and recovered faster in adolescents, compared with younger children. The underlying contributors to this trend are likely multifactorial. For example, respiratory illnesses such as croup and bronchiolitis are more common in younger children and adolescents may be more likely to transmit SARS-CoV-2, compared with younger age groups.^4,5 However, adolescents may have had less strict adherence to social distancing measures.⁶ Future efforts to halt transmission of SARS-CoV-2, as well as other respiratory pathogens, should inform mitigation efforts in the adolescent population with considerations of the intensity of social mixing in different pediatric age groups.

While reductions in encounters caused by respiratory illnesses were substantial, more modest but similar age-based trends were seen in nonrespiratory illnesses. Yet, reduced transmission of infectious agents may not fully explain these findings. For example, it is possible that families sought care for mild to moderate nonrespiratory illness in clinics or via telehealth rather than the EDs.⁷ Provided there were no unintended negative consequences, such transition of care to non-ED settings would suggest there was overutilization of hospital resources prior to the pandemic. Additional assessments would be helpful to examine this more closely and to clarify the long-term impact of those transitions.

It is also possible that the pandemic effects on financial, social, and family stress may have led to increases in some pediatric health care encounters, such as those for mental health conditions,⁸ nonaccidental trauma or inability to adhere to treatment because of lack of resources.^9,10 Additional study on the evolution and distribution of social and stress-related illnesses is critical to maintain and improve the health of children and adolescents.

The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in rapid and marked changes to both communicable and noncommunicable illnesses and care-seeking behaviors. Some of these findings are encouraging, such as large reductions in respiratory and nonrespiratory illnesses. However, other trends may be harbingers of negative health consequences of the pandemic, such as increases in health care utilization later in the pandemic. Further study of the evolving pandemic’s effects on disease and health care utilization is needed to benefit our children now and during the next pandemic.

Dr. Antoon is an assistant professor of pediatrics at Vanderbilt University and a pediatric hospitalist at the Monroe Carroll Jr. Children’s Hospital at Vanderbilt, both in Nashville, Tenn.

References

1. Kenyon CC et al. Initial effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on pediatric asthma emergency department utilization. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2020 Sep;8(8):2774-6.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.jaip.2020.05.045.

2. Luca G et al. The impact of regular school closure on seasonal influenza epidemics: A data-driven spatial transmission model for Belgium. BMC Infect Dis. 2018;18(1):29. doi: 10.1186/s12879-017-2934-3.

3. Antoon JW et al. The COVID-19 Pandemic and changes in healthcare utilization for pediatric respiratory and nonrespiratory illnesses in the United States. J Hosp Med. 2021 Mar 8. doi: 10.12788/jhm.3608.

4. Park YJ et al. Contact tracing during coronavirus disease outbreak, South Korea, 2020. Emerg Infect Dis. 2020 Oct;26(10):2465-8. doi: 10.3201/eid2610.201315.

5. Davies NG et al. Age-dependent effects in the transmission and control of COVID-19 epidemics. Nat Med. 2020 Aug;26(8):1205-11. doi: 10.1038/s41591-020-0962-9.

6. Andrews JL et al. Peer influence in adolescence: Public health implications for COVID-19. Trends Cogn Sci. 2020;24(8):585-7. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2020.05.001.

7. Taquechel K et al. Pediatric asthma healthcare utilization, viral testing, and air pollution changes during the COVID-19 pandemic. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2020 Nov-Dec;8(10):3378-87.e11. doi: 10.1016/j.jaip.2020.07.057.

8. Hill RM et al. Suicide ideation and attempts in a pediatric emergency department before and during COVID-19. Pediatrics. 2021;147(3):e2020029280. doi: 10.1542/peds.2020-029280.

9. Sharma S et al. COVID-19: Differences in sentinel injury and child abuse reporting during a pandemic. Child Abuse Negl. 2020 Dec;110:104709. doi: 10.1016/j.chiabu.2020.104709.

10. Lauren BN et al. Predictors of households at risk for food insecurity in the United States during the COVID-19 pandemic. Public Health Nutr. 2021 Jan 27. doi: 10.1017/S1368980021000355.

The COVID-19 pandemic upended the U.S. health care market and disrupted much of what was thought to be consistent and necessary hospital-based care for children. Early in the pandemic, clinics closed, elective surgeries were delayed, and well visits were postponed. Mitigation strategies were launched nationwide to limit the spread of SARS-CoV-2 including mask mandates, social distancing, shelter-in-place orders, and school closures. While these measures were enacted to target COVID-19, a potential off-target effect was reductions in transmission of other respiratory illness, and potentially nonrespiratory infectious illnesses and conditions exacerbated by acute infections.¹ These measures have heavily impacted the pediatric population, wherein respiratory infections are common, and also because daycares and school can be hubs for disease transmission.²

To evaluate the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on pediatric health care utilization, we performed a multicenter, cross-sectional study of 44 children’s hospitals using the Pediatric Health Information System (PHIS) database.³ Children aged 2 months to 18 years discharged from a PHIS hospital with nonsurgical diagnoses from Jan. 1 to Sept. 30 over a 4-year period (2017-2020) were included in the study. The primary exposure was the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic, which was divided into three study periods: pre–COVID-19 (January–February 2020), early COVID-19 (March-April 2020), and COVID-19 (May-September 2020). The primary outcomes were the observed-to-expected ratio of respiratory and nonrespiratory illness encounters of the study period, compared with the 3 years prior to the pandemic. For these calculations, the expected encounters for each period was derived from the same calendar periods from prepandemic years (2017-2019).

A total of 9,051,980 pediatric encounters were included in the analyses: 6,811,799 with nonrespiratory illnesses and 2,240,181 with respiratory illnesses. We found a 42% reduction in overall encounters during the COVID-19 period, compared with the 3 years prior to the pandemic, with a greater reduction in respiratory, compared with nonrespiratory illnesses, which decreased 62% and 38%, respectively. These reductions were consistent across geographic and encounter type (ED vs. hospitalization). The frequency of hospital-based encounters for common pediatric respiratory illnesses was substantially reduced, with reductions in asthma exacerbations (down 76%), pneumonia (down 81%), croup (down 84%), influenza (down 87%) and bronchiolitis (down 91%). Differences in both respiratory and nonrespiratory illnesses varied by age, with larger reductions found in children aged less than 12 years. While adolescent (children aged over 12 years) encounters diminished during the early COVID period for both respiratory and nonrespiratory illnesses, their encounters returned to previous levels faster than those from younger children. For respiratory illnesses, hospital-based adolescents encounters had returned to prepandemic levels by the end of the study period (September 2020).

These findings warrant consideration as relaxation of SARS-CoV-2 mitigation are contemplated. Encounters for respiratory and nonrespiratory illnesses declined less and recovered faster in adolescents, compared with younger children. The underlying contributors to this trend are likely multifactorial. For example, respiratory illnesses such as croup and bronchiolitis are more common in younger children and adolescents may be more likely to transmit SARS-CoV-2, compared with younger age groups.^4,5 However, adolescents may have had less strict adherence to social distancing measures.⁶ Future efforts to halt transmission of SARS-CoV-2, as well as other respiratory pathogens, should inform mitigation efforts in the adolescent population with considerations of the intensity of social mixing in different pediatric age groups.

While reductions in encounters caused by respiratory illnesses were substantial, more modest but similar age-based trends were seen in nonrespiratory illnesses. Yet, reduced transmission of infectious agents may not fully explain these findings. For example, it is possible that families sought care for mild to moderate nonrespiratory illness in clinics or via telehealth rather than the EDs.⁷ Provided there were no unintended negative consequences, such transition of care to non-ED settings would suggest there was overutilization of hospital resources prior to the pandemic. Additional assessments would be helpful to examine this more closely and to clarify the long-term impact of those transitions.

It is also possible that the pandemic effects on financial, social, and family stress may have led to increases in some pediatric health care encounters, such as those for mental health conditions,⁸ nonaccidental trauma or inability to adhere to treatment because of lack of resources.^9,10 Additional study on the evolution and distribution of social and stress-related illnesses is critical to maintain and improve the health of children and adolescents.

The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in rapid and marked changes to both communicable and noncommunicable illnesses and care-seeking behaviors. Some of these findings are encouraging, such as large reductions in respiratory and nonrespiratory illnesses. However, other trends may be harbingers of negative health consequences of the pandemic, such as increases in health care utilization later in the pandemic. Further study of the evolving pandemic’s effects on disease and health care utilization is needed to benefit our children now and during the next pandemic.

Dr. Antoon is an assistant professor of pediatrics at Vanderbilt University and a pediatric hospitalist at the Monroe Carroll Jr. Children’s Hospital at Vanderbilt, both in Nashville, Tenn.

References

1. Kenyon CC et al. Initial effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on pediatric asthma emergency department utilization. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2020 Sep;8(8):2774-6.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.jaip.2020.05.045.

2. Luca G et al. The impact of regular school closure on seasonal influenza epidemics: A data-driven spatial transmission model for Belgium. BMC Infect Dis. 2018;18(1):29. doi: 10.1186/s12879-017-2934-3.

3. Antoon JW et al. The COVID-19 Pandemic and changes in healthcare utilization for pediatric respiratory and nonrespiratory illnesses in the United States. J Hosp Med. 2021 Mar 8. doi: 10.12788/jhm.3608.

4. Park YJ et al. Contact tracing during coronavirus disease outbreak, South Korea, 2020. Emerg Infect Dis. 2020 Oct;26(10):2465-8. doi: 10.3201/eid2610.201315.

5. Davies NG et al. Age-dependent effects in the transmission and control of COVID-19 epidemics. Nat Med. 2020 Aug;26(8):1205-11. doi: 10.1038/s41591-020-0962-9.

6. Andrews JL et al. Peer influence in adolescence: Public health implications for COVID-19. Trends Cogn Sci. 2020;24(8):585-7. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2020.05.001.

7. Taquechel K et al. Pediatric asthma healthcare utilization, viral testing, and air pollution changes during the COVID-19 pandemic. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2020 Nov-Dec;8(10):3378-87.e11. doi: 10.1016/j.jaip.2020.07.057.

8. Hill RM et al. Suicide ideation and attempts in a pediatric emergency department before and during COVID-19. Pediatrics. 2021;147(3):e2020029280. doi: 10.1542/peds.2020-029280.

9. Sharma S et al. COVID-19: Differences in sentinel injury and child abuse reporting during a pandemic. Child Abuse Negl. 2020 Dec;110:104709. doi: 10.1016/j.chiabu.2020.104709.

10. Lauren BN et al. Predictors of households at risk for food insecurity in the United States during the COVID-19 pandemic. Public Health Nutr. 2021 Jan 27. doi: 10.1017/S1368980021000355.

Children with food allergies often require diligent monitoring and a restricted diet to reduce allergic attacks, but there is little evidence available to support so-called “food bans” at schools and childcare centers.

Instead, a new practice guideline published earlier this month in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology calls for better allergy management training for staff, as well as increased epinephrine availability in educational environments. The guidelines were developed by an international panel of clinicians, school personnel, and parents.
 

The guidance at a glance

Rather than creating site-wide food prohibitions on nuts, dairy, and other allergenic foods, the practice guidance recommends centers and schools use “common-sense approaches” to reduce allergic reaction risk among school-aged children. According to the guideline authors, these strategies could include promoting handwashing, providing adult supervision during snacks and meals, and cleaning surfaces where food is either eaten or prepared.

Additionally, the new evidence-based guidance calls for schools and childcare centers to teach school personnel to recognize, prevent, and respond appropriately to food-related allergic reactions when they do occur.

The guidance also recommends that educational institutions require an up-to-date allergy ‘action plan’ from parents, designed for their children with allergies. These action plans can be integrated into the training of teachers and nurses to help manage potential allergic reactions.

Moreover, the guidance suggests schools should keep unassigned epinephrine autoinjectors in stock, both on site and even when traveling, where laws permit, rather than requiring students with allergies to bring in their own autoinjectors. Ultimately, this represents a more proactive approach to treating anaphylaxis, particularly in settings where treatment is urgently needed, such as when students are away from campus and participating in a school-designated trip or event.
 

Expert perspectives

Jennifer A. Dantzer, MD, MHS, allergist-immunologist and assistant professor of pediatrics at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, told this news organization via email that the practice guidelines offer an important starting point for ensuring quality of life of students, parents, and other school personnel.

While the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention published voluntary guidance for managing food allergies in schools back in 2013, there has since “been a lack of universal policies and procedures to manage the risk of allergic reactions in schools,” explained Dr. Dantzer. “The new guidelines are a good first step of using available evidence and all the key stakeholders, clinicians, school personnel, and families to figure out the best way to keep children with food allergies safe at school.”

Dr. Dantzer wasn’t involved in the creation of the new practice guidelines, but she shared how her clinical experience reinforces the need for the evidence-based recommendations. “Every single week we talk with families, both in clinic and in our research studies, about living with food allergies, and we recognize that every child is different,” she said. “We constantly work to advocate for each individual child with food allergies.”

Pediatric allergist Malika Gupta, MBBS, MD, said in an interview via email that the guidelines could assist in the creation of new nationwide policies for food allergy management at schools. “Also, the guidelines are labeled ‘conditional,’ which gives policymakers the ability to adapt to their specific circumstances and individuals, as well as make modifications according to regional trends,” she added.

Dr. Gupta, a clinical assistant professor in the Division of Allergy and Clinical Immunology at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, echoed the guideline panel’s sentiments regarding food bans, explaining that prohibiting certain foods could lend a “false sense of security” and could also “promote bullying and a sense of isolation for the food-allergic child.” In spite of the lack of evidence supporting food bans, Dr. Gupta noted that these bans can give families a sense of control and security. Ideally, more research should be performed to determine whether food bans actually work, she added.

In addition to promoting the new guidelines, allergists and pediatricians can also implement proactive allergy reaction mitigation strategies that work with school systems, according to Dr. Gupta. “In-clinic, we ensure all families have food allergy action plans for school and current epinephrine auto-injectors,” she said. “We also often have our food allergy nurses educate schools when food allergy awareness is a concern.”

Many of the 25 authors of the food allergy guidelines disclosed relevant financial relationships. The full list is with the original article. According to a footnote within the guidelines, “Panel members who were deemed to have a real, perceived, or potential conflict of interest were asked to abstain from voting on recommendations related to that interest.”  

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

Children with food allergies often require diligent monitoring and a restricted diet to reduce allergic attacks, but there is little evidence available to support so-called “food bans” at schools and childcare centers.

Instead, a new practice guideline published earlier this month in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology calls for better allergy management training for staff, as well as increased epinephrine availability in educational environments. The guidelines were developed by an international panel of clinicians, school personnel, and parents.
 

The guidance at a glance

Rather than creating site-wide food prohibitions on nuts, dairy, and other allergenic foods, the practice guidance recommends centers and schools use “common-sense approaches” to reduce allergic reaction risk among school-aged children. According to the guideline authors, these strategies could include promoting handwashing, providing adult supervision during snacks and meals, and cleaning surfaces where food is either eaten or prepared.

Additionally, the new evidence-based guidance calls for schools and childcare centers to teach school personnel to recognize, prevent, and respond appropriately to food-related allergic reactions when they do occur.

The guidance also recommends that educational institutions require an up-to-date allergy ‘action plan’ from parents, designed for their children with allergies. These action plans can be integrated into the training of teachers and nurses to help manage potential allergic reactions.

Moreover, the guidance suggests schools should keep unassigned epinephrine autoinjectors in stock, both on site and even when traveling, where laws permit, rather than requiring students with allergies to bring in their own autoinjectors. Ultimately, this represents a more proactive approach to treating anaphylaxis, particularly in settings where treatment is urgently needed, such as when students are away from campus and participating in a school-designated trip or event.
 

Expert perspectives

Jennifer A. Dantzer, MD, MHS, allergist-immunologist and assistant professor of pediatrics at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, told this news organization via email that the practice guidelines offer an important starting point for ensuring quality of life of students, parents, and other school personnel.

While the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention published voluntary guidance for managing food allergies in schools back in 2013, there has since “been a lack of universal policies and procedures to manage the risk of allergic reactions in schools,” explained Dr. Dantzer. “The new guidelines are a good first step of using available evidence and all the key stakeholders, clinicians, school personnel, and families to figure out the best way to keep children with food allergies safe at school.”

Dr. Dantzer wasn’t involved in the creation of the new practice guidelines, but she shared how her clinical experience reinforces the need for the evidence-based recommendations. “Every single week we talk with families, both in clinic and in our research studies, about living with food allergies, and we recognize that every child is different,” she said. “We constantly work to advocate for each individual child with food allergies.”

Pediatric allergist Malika Gupta, MBBS, MD, said in an interview via email that the guidelines could assist in the creation of new nationwide policies for food allergy management at schools. “Also, the guidelines are labeled ‘conditional,’ which gives policymakers the ability to adapt to their specific circumstances and individuals, as well as make modifications according to regional trends,” she added.

Dr. Gupta, a clinical assistant professor in the Division of Allergy and Clinical Immunology at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, echoed the guideline panel’s sentiments regarding food bans, explaining that prohibiting certain foods could lend a “false sense of security” and could also “promote bullying and a sense of isolation for the food-allergic child.” In spite of the lack of evidence supporting food bans, Dr. Gupta noted that these bans can give families a sense of control and security. Ideally, more research should be performed to determine whether food bans actually work, she added.

In addition to promoting the new guidelines, allergists and pediatricians can also implement proactive allergy reaction mitigation strategies that work with school systems, according to Dr. Gupta. “In-clinic, we ensure all families have food allergy action plans for school and current epinephrine auto-injectors,” she said. “We also often have our food allergy nurses educate schools when food allergy awareness is a concern.”

Many of the 25 authors of the food allergy guidelines disclosed relevant financial relationships. The full list is with the original article. According to a footnote within the guidelines, “Panel members who were deemed to have a real, perceived, or potential conflict of interest were asked to abstain from voting on recommendations related to that interest.”  

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

Children with food allergies often require diligent monitoring and a restricted diet to reduce allergic attacks, but there is little evidence available to support so-called “food bans” at schools and childcare centers.

Instead, a new practice guideline published earlier this month in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology calls for better allergy management training for staff, as well as increased epinephrine availability in educational environments. The guidelines were developed by an international panel of clinicians, school personnel, and parents.
 

The guidance at a glance

Rather than creating site-wide food prohibitions on nuts, dairy, and other allergenic foods, the practice guidance recommends centers and schools use “common-sense approaches” to reduce allergic reaction risk among school-aged children. According to the guideline authors, these strategies could include promoting handwashing, providing adult supervision during snacks and meals, and cleaning surfaces where food is either eaten or prepared.

Additionally, the new evidence-based guidance calls for schools and childcare centers to teach school personnel to recognize, prevent, and respond appropriately to food-related allergic reactions when they do occur.

The guidance also recommends that educational institutions require an up-to-date allergy ‘action plan’ from parents, designed for their children with allergies. These action plans can be integrated into the training of teachers and nurses to help manage potential allergic reactions.

Moreover, the guidance suggests schools should keep unassigned epinephrine autoinjectors in stock, both on site and even when traveling, where laws permit, rather than requiring students with allergies to bring in their own autoinjectors. Ultimately, this represents a more proactive approach to treating anaphylaxis, particularly in settings where treatment is urgently needed, such as when students are away from campus and participating in a school-designated trip or event.
 

Expert perspectives

Jennifer A. Dantzer, MD, MHS, allergist-immunologist and assistant professor of pediatrics at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, told this news organization via email that the practice guidelines offer an important starting point for ensuring quality of life of students, parents, and other school personnel.

While the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention published voluntary guidance for managing food allergies in schools back in 2013, there has since “been a lack of universal policies and procedures to manage the risk of allergic reactions in schools,” explained Dr. Dantzer. “The new guidelines are a good first step of using available evidence and all the key stakeholders, clinicians, school personnel, and families to figure out the best way to keep children with food allergies safe at school.”

Dr. Dantzer wasn’t involved in the creation of the new practice guidelines, but she shared how her clinical experience reinforces the need for the evidence-based recommendations. “Every single week we talk with families, both in clinic and in our research studies, about living with food allergies, and we recognize that every child is different,” she said. “We constantly work to advocate for each individual child with food allergies.”

Pediatric allergist Malika Gupta, MBBS, MD, said in an interview via email that the guidelines could assist in the creation of new nationwide policies for food allergy management at schools. “Also, the guidelines are labeled ‘conditional,’ which gives policymakers the ability to adapt to their specific circumstances and individuals, as well as make modifications according to regional trends,” she added.

Dr. Gupta, a clinical assistant professor in the Division of Allergy and Clinical Immunology at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, echoed the guideline panel’s sentiments regarding food bans, explaining that prohibiting certain foods could lend a “false sense of security” and could also “promote bullying and a sense of isolation for the food-allergic child.” In spite of the lack of evidence supporting food bans, Dr. Gupta noted that these bans can give families a sense of control and security. Ideally, more research should be performed to determine whether food bans actually work, she added.

In addition to promoting the new guidelines, allergists and pediatricians can also implement proactive allergy reaction mitigation strategies that work with school systems, according to Dr. Gupta. “In-clinic, we ensure all families have food allergy action plans for school and current epinephrine auto-injectors,” she said. “We also often have our food allergy nurses educate schools when food allergy awareness is a concern.”

Many of the 25 authors of the food allergy guidelines disclosed relevant financial relationships. The full list is with the original article. According to a footnote within the guidelines, “Panel members who were deemed to have a real, perceived, or potential conflict of interest were asked to abstain from voting on recommendations related to that interest.”  

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