Pediatrics

The Tiger Woods saga, which has been broadcast on HBO, is a “child” of the ESPN Michael Jordan series – which riveted early pandemic America. It is likely to exert a similar vicelike hold on the imagination of Biden transition/Trump impeachment II United States, despite not having the express participation of Woods himself.

The differences in parenting styles of these young African American men, at least superficially, appears in amazingly stark contrast.

Whereas Michael Jordan’s parents appear to have shown good old, red-blooded North Carolina ambitious and hard-driven tough parenting, Earl and Kultida Woods seem to have exerted a textbook example of what we call “achievement by proxy distortion” (ABPD) parenting style.^1-5

By deciding, even prior to birth, what their son’s future career would be, Earl, aided by Kultida Woods, created a master plan that came to fruition when Eldrick Tont “Tiger” Woods won his first Masters Tournament at the ripe old age of 21.

His parents’ fine-tuning of the ABPD template for professional sports parenting is often emulated. It had been earlier developed, in an industrial model – especially in women’s gymnastics – where Bela Karolyi and others in the Romanian Eastern Bloc system had developed Nadia Comaneci and others to be prepubescent superstars of the 1970s. When it was transferred to the more financially supportive, fertile base of the U.S., physical and sexual abuse were the acceptable price paid for Olympic gold medals.

When Tiger first appeared on the U.S. radar at the age of 2 on the Mike Douglas show in 1977, he was already definitively on the way to “prodigy” territory. Earl, a retired Vietnam veteran and product of the U.S. Marines, was able to model his own extraordinarily rigorous training where breaking down soldiers psychologically helps them survive special ops behind enemy lines. He trained his son essentially from birth, imprinting through somatic and postural echo these golf skills and habits for playing under pressure, handling annoying distraction, and self-hypnosis. These all clearly accelerated his son’s ability to enter the “zone,” a level of high attunement required, even demanded, at the highest levels of professional golf.

His parents’ ruthless approach, clearly accompanied by undoubted love and enthusiasm, to ending what appears to have been an age-appropriate high school relationship with his then “sweetheart,” appears on the surface a little cruel. But their approach achieved its purpose of sacrificing a distraction on the glorious golden path toward inevitable success and superstardom. This likely also produced a degree of self-objectification and further compartmentalization.

The typical outcome of ABPD is a fairly unidimensional identity defined by the activity, or in this case, the sport. In this case, where Earl was building or imagining a Messianic role for Tiger, multidimensionality was important as the self-described “Cablinasian” moniker suggests, whereby all of Tiger’s background of Caucasian, Black, Indian, and Asian ancestry was acknowledged as they all became lifelong fans.

What most likely saved Tiger Woods from the most debilitating aspects of his father’s master plan was that golfers cannot compete and achieve mega endorsements at the professional level until they have established credentials and grow into their adult bodies, when their stroke making becomes fully competitive and their product image ideal.

Therefore, a 6-year-old JonBenet Ramsey competing in beauty contests, or a 7-year-old Jessica Dubroff flying across country could have been Tiger, but they were not.

While awaiting his preordained career and endorsement deals, Tiger still needed to at least spend some time at college, in his case on a Stanford (Calif.) University golfing scholarship, while he accumulated U.S. amateur titles and fully established his credentials during this crucial time of normal development and “adolescent moratorium.”

According to the documentary,* being exposed to the “secret” extracurricular fringe benefits and sexual proclivities of golf pros with his father is likely to have been part of a traumatic “adultification” and compartmentalizing process. Whereby, one of Tiger’s roles became keeping his parents’ marriage together. That alleged exposure may also have planted the seeds for the “groupie” and sexual acting out challenges he so publicly experienced later in his career.

While Michael Jordan’s career has almost receded into the ancient and “hoary” past, Tiger Woods’s career at age 45, after overcoming significant back injuries and multiple failed surgeries, continues to astonish the golf and sporting world in general.

Most of his now deceased father Earl’s ambitions have indeed been realized despite some hiccups, setbacks, and loss of endorsements.

As parents in these challenging times, we all make sacrifices for our children, and in turn, expect them to step up to the plate and within reason, sacrifice and defer short-term excitement and fun for long-term educational, social, and life goals. How we as parents, and that includes Tiger Woods now, rise to this challenge is often a daily and humbling struggle.

While you watch this series, please keep your psychiatrist and family dynamics eyes wide open.
 

Dr. Tofler is a child and adolescent, sport psychiatrist, and is affiliated with Kaiser Permanente Psychiatry in West Los Angeles. He also is a visiting faculty member in the department of psychiatry and biobehavioral sciences at the University of California, Los Angeles. Dr. Tofler has no conflicts of interest.

References

1. Tofler IR et al. N Engl J Med. 1996 Jul 25;335(4):281-3.

2. Jellinek MS et al. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 1999 Feb;38(2):213-6.

3. Tofler IR and DiGeronimo TF. “Keeping Your Kids Out Front Without Kicking Them From Behind: How to Nurture High-Achieving Athletes, Scholars, and Performing Artists.” (Hoboken, N.J,: Jossey-Bass, 2000).

4. Tofler IR et al. Clin Sports Med. 2005 Oct;24(4):805-28.

5. Clark TP et al. Clin Sports Med. 2005 Oct;24(4):959-71.

*Updated 1/25/2021

The Tiger Woods saga, which has been broadcast on HBO, is a “child” of the ESPN Michael Jordan series – which riveted early pandemic America. It is likely to exert a similar vicelike hold on the imagination of Biden transition/Trump impeachment II United States, despite not having the express participation of Woods himself.

The differences in parenting styles of these young African American men, at least superficially, appears in amazingly stark contrast.

Whereas Michael Jordan’s parents appear to have shown good old, red-blooded North Carolina ambitious and hard-driven tough parenting, Earl and Kultida Woods seem to have exerted a textbook example of what we call “achievement by proxy distortion” (ABPD) parenting style.^1-5

By deciding, even prior to birth, what their son’s future career would be, Earl, aided by Kultida Woods, created a master plan that came to fruition when Eldrick Tont “Tiger” Woods won his first Masters Tournament at the ripe old age of 21.

His parents’ fine-tuning of the ABPD template for professional sports parenting is often emulated. It had been earlier developed, in an industrial model – especially in women’s gymnastics – where Bela Karolyi and others in the Romanian Eastern Bloc system had developed Nadia Comaneci and others to be prepubescent superstars of the 1970s. When it was transferred to the more financially supportive, fertile base of the U.S., physical and sexual abuse were the acceptable price paid for Olympic gold medals.

When Tiger first appeared on the U.S. radar at the age of 2 on the Mike Douglas show in 1977, he was already definitively on the way to “prodigy” territory. Earl, a retired Vietnam veteran and product of the U.S. Marines, was able to model his own extraordinarily rigorous training where breaking down soldiers psychologically helps them survive special ops behind enemy lines. He trained his son essentially from birth, imprinting through somatic and postural echo these golf skills and habits for playing under pressure, handling annoying distraction, and self-hypnosis. These all clearly accelerated his son’s ability to enter the “zone,” a level of high attunement required, even demanded, at the highest levels of professional golf.

His parents’ ruthless approach, clearly accompanied by undoubted love and enthusiasm, to ending what appears to have been an age-appropriate high school relationship with his then “sweetheart,” appears on the surface a little cruel. But their approach achieved its purpose of sacrificing a distraction on the glorious golden path toward inevitable success and superstardom. This likely also produced a degree of self-objectification and further compartmentalization.

The typical outcome of ABPD is a fairly unidimensional identity defined by the activity, or in this case, the sport. In this case, where Earl was building or imagining a Messianic role for Tiger, multidimensionality was important as the self-described “Cablinasian” moniker suggests, whereby all of Tiger’s background of Caucasian, Black, Indian, and Asian ancestry was acknowledged as they all became lifelong fans.

What most likely saved Tiger Woods from the most debilitating aspects of his father’s master plan was that golfers cannot compete and achieve mega endorsements at the professional level until they have established credentials and grow into their adult bodies, when their stroke making becomes fully competitive and their product image ideal.

Therefore, a 6-year-old JonBenet Ramsey competing in beauty contests, or a 7-year-old Jessica Dubroff flying across country could have been Tiger, but they were not.

While awaiting his preordained career and endorsement deals, Tiger still needed to at least spend some time at college, in his case on a Stanford (Calif.) University golfing scholarship, while he accumulated U.S. amateur titles and fully established his credentials during this crucial time of normal development and “adolescent moratorium.”

According to the documentary,* being exposed to the “secret” extracurricular fringe benefits and sexual proclivities of golf pros with his father is likely to have been part of a traumatic “adultification” and compartmentalizing process. Whereby, one of Tiger’s roles became keeping his parents’ marriage together. That alleged exposure may also have planted the seeds for the “groupie” and sexual acting out challenges he so publicly experienced later in his career.

While Michael Jordan’s career has almost receded into the ancient and “hoary” past, Tiger Woods’s career at age 45, after overcoming significant back injuries and multiple failed surgeries, continues to astonish the golf and sporting world in general.

Most of his now deceased father Earl’s ambitions have indeed been realized despite some hiccups, setbacks, and loss of endorsements.

As parents in these challenging times, we all make sacrifices for our children, and in turn, expect them to step up to the plate and within reason, sacrifice and defer short-term excitement and fun for long-term educational, social, and life goals. How we as parents, and that includes Tiger Woods now, rise to this challenge is often a daily and humbling struggle.

While you watch this series, please keep your psychiatrist and family dynamics eyes wide open.
 

Dr. Tofler is a child and adolescent, sport psychiatrist, and is affiliated with Kaiser Permanente Psychiatry in West Los Angeles. He also is a visiting faculty member in the department of psychiatry and biobehavioral sciences at the University of California, Los Angeles. Dr. Tofler has no conflicts of interest.

References

1. Tofler IR et al. N Engl J Med. 1996 Jul 25;335(4):281-3.

2. Jellinek MS et al. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 1999 Feb;38(2):213-6.

3. Tofler IR and DiGeronimo TF. “Keeping Your Kids Out Front Without Kicking Them From Behind: How to Nurture High-Achieving Athletes, Scholars, and Performing Artists.” (Hoboken, N.J,: Jossey-Bass, 2000).

4. Tofler IR et al. Clin Sports Med. 2005 Oct;24(4):805-28.

5. Clark TP et al. Clin Sports Med. 2005 Oct;24(4):959-71.

*Updated 1/25/2021

The Tiger Woods saga, which has been broadcast on HBO, is a “child” of the ESPN Michael Jordan series – which riveted early pandemic America. It is likely to exert a similar vicelike hold on the imagination of Biden transition/Trump impeachment II United States, despite not having the express participation of Woods himself.

The differences in parenting styles of these young African American men, at least superficially, appears in amazingly stark contrast.

Whereas Michael Jordan’s parents appear to have shown good old, red-blooded North Carolina ambitious and hard-driven tough parenting, Earl and Kultida Woods seem to have exerted a textbook example of what we call “achievement by proxy distortion” (ABPD) parenting style.^1-5

By deciding, even prior to birth, what their son’s future career would be, Earl, aided by Kultida Woods, created a master plan that came to fruition when Eldrick Tont “Tiger” Woods won his first Masters Tournament at the ripe old age of 21.

His parents’ fine-tuning of the ABPD template for professional sports parenting is often emulated. It had been earlier developed, in an industrial model – especially in women’s gymnastics – where Bela Karolyi and others in the Romanian Eastern Bloc system had developed Nadia Comaneci and others to be prepubescent superstars of the 1970s. When it was transferred to the more financially supportive, fertile base of the U.S., physical and sexual abuse were the acceptable price paid for Olympic gold medals.

When Tiger first appeared on the U.S. radar at the age of 2 on the Mike Douglas show in 1977, he was already definitively on the way to “prodigy” territory. Earl, a retired Vietnam veteran and product of the U.S. Marines, was able to model his own extraordinarily rigorous training where breaking down soldiers psychologically helps them survive special ops behind enemy lines. He trained his son essentially from birth, imprinting through somatic and postural echo these golf skills and habits for playing under pressure, handling annoying distraction, and self-hypnosis. These all clearly accelerated his son’s ability to enter the “zone,” a level of high attunement required, even demanded, at the highest levels of professional golf.

His parents’ ruthless approach, clearly accompanied by undoubted love and enthusiasm, to ending what appears to have been an age-appropriate high school relationship with his then “sweetheart,” appears on the surface a little cruel. But their approach achieved its purpose of sacrificing a distraction on the glorious golden path toward inevitable success and superstardom. This likely also produced a degree of self-objectification and further compartmentalization.

The typical outcome of ABPD is a fairly unidimensional identity defined by the activity, or in this case, the sport. In this case, where Earl was building or imagining a Messianic role for Tiger, multidimensionality was important as the self-described “Cablinasian” moniker suggests, whereby all of Tiger’s background of Caucasian, Black, Indian, and Asian ancestry was acknowledged as they all became lifelong fans.

What most likely saved Tiger Woods from the most debilitating aspects of his father’s master plan was that golfers cannot compete and achieve mega endorsements at the professional level until they have established credentials and grow into their adult bodies, when their stroke making becomes fully competitive and their product image ideal.

Therefore, a 6-year-old JonBenet Ramsey competing in beauty contests, or a 7-year-old Jessica Dubroff flying across country could have been Tiger, but they were not.

While awaiting his preordained career and endorsement deals, Tiger still needed to at least spend some time at college, in his case on a Stanford (Calif.) University golfing scholarship, while he accumulated U.S. amateur titles and fully established his credentials during this crucial time of normal development and “adolescent moratorium.”

According to the documentary,* being exposed to the “secret” extracurricular fringe benefits and sexual proclivities of golf pros with his father is likely to have been part of a traumatic “adultification” and compartmentalizing process. Whereby, one of Tiger’s roles became keeping his parents’ marriage together. That alleged exposure may also have planted the seeds for the “groupie” and sexual acting out challenges he so publicly experienced later in his career.

While Michael Jordan’s career has almost receded into the ancient and “hoary” past, Tiger Woods’s career at age 45, after overcoming significant back injuries and multiple failed surgeries, continues to astonish the golf and sporting world in general.

Most of his now deceased father Earl’s ambitions have indeed been realized despite some hiccups, setbacks, and loss of endorsements.

As parents in these challenging times, we all make sacrifices for our children, and in turn, expect them to step up to the plate and within reason, sacrifice and defer short-term excitement and fun for long-term educational, social, and life goals. How we as parents, and that includes Tiger Woods now, rise to this challenge is often a daily and humbling struggle.

While you watch this series, please keep your psychiatrist and family dynamics eyes wide open.
 

Dr. Tofler is a child and adolescent, sport psychiatrist, and is affiliated with Kaiser Permanente Psychiatry in West Los Angeles. He also is a visiting faculty member in the department of psychiatry and biobehavioral sciences at the University of California, Los Angeles. Dr. Tofler has no conflicts of interest.

References

1. Tofler IR et al. N Engl J Med. 1996 Jul 25;335(4):281-3.

2. Jellinek MS et al. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 1999 Feb;38(2):213-6.

3. Tofler IR and DiGeronimo TF. “Keeping Your Kids Out Front Without Kicking Them From Behind: How to Nurture High-Achieving Athletes, Scholars, and Performing Artists.” (Hoboken, N.J,: Jossey-Bass, 2000).

4. Tofler IR et al. Clin Sports Med. 2005 Oct;24(4):805-28.

5. Clark TP et al. Clin Sports Med. 2005 Oct;24(4):959-71.

*Updated 1/25/2021

Childhood treatment with recombinant human growth hormone was associated with a significantly increased risk of cardiovascular events, based on data from more than 3,000 individuals.

“Both excess levels of growth hormone and [growth hormone deficiency] have been associated with increased cardiovascular morbidity and mortality,” but data on long-term cardiovascular morbidity in individuals treated with growth hormone in childhood are lacking, wrote Anders Tinblad, MD, of Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, and colleagues.

In a population-based cohort study published in JAMA Pediatrics, the researchers identified 3,408 Swedish patients treated as children with recombinant human growth hormone (rhGH) between Jan. 1, 1985, and Dec. 31, 2010, and compared each with 15 matched controls (a total of 50,036 controls). The patients were treated for one of three conditions: isolated growth hormone deficiency (GHD), small for gestational age (SGA), and idiopathic short stature (ISS).

Data on cardiovascular outcomes were collected from health care and population-based registers and analyzed between Jan. 1, 1985, and Dec. 31, 2014. The average age of the participants at the study’s end was 25.1 years.

In all, 1,809 cardiovascular disease events were recorded over a median follow-up period of 14.9 years, for an incidence rate of 25.6 events per 10,000 person-years in patients and 22.6 events per 10,000 person-years in controls.

When separated by sex, the incidence was higher in female patients compared with controls (31.2 vs. 23.4 events per 10,000 person-years, respectively, but similar in male patients vs. controls (23.3 vs. 22.3 events per 10,000 person-years). “Differences in estrogen levels or responsiveness to rhGH treatment have previously been hypothesized as possible explanations, but the underlying mechanism for this sex difference still remains unclear and merits further investigation,” the researchers wrote.

Overall, the highest adjusted hazard ratios occurred in subgroups of patients with the longest treatment duration (HR 2.08) and highest cumulative dose of growth hormone (HR 2.05), but no association was noted between highest daily hormone dose and cardiovascular event risk. Hazard ratios were higher across all three treatment subgroups of SGA, GHD, and ISS compared with controls (HR 1.97, 1.66, and 1.55, respectively).

“The association between childhood rhGH treatment and CVD events was also seen when assessing only severe CVD outcomes, but with even lower absolute risks,” the researchers noted.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the potential for confounding by treatment indication and the lack of long-term follow-up data given the relatively young age of the study population, the researchers said. The results were strengthened by the large sample size and showed that the absolute risk for overall and severe cardiovascular disease in children treated with growth hormones was low, “which could be reassuring to individual patients,” they added. However, “At the group level, and perhaps especially for female patients and those treated for SGA indication, further close monitoring and future studies of CVD safety are warranted,” they concluded.
 

Safety and ethical concerns persist

Although the study authors cite limited conclusions on causality and low absolute risk, several issues persist that prompt ongoing analysis of pediatric growth hormone use, namely “worrisome indirect evidence, challenges and limitations in the direct evidence, and the changing world of growth hormone treatment,” Adda Grimberg, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

“Although evidence asserts that neither growth hormone nor insulinlike growth factor I is carcinogenic, the basic science and oncology literatures are rife with reports showing that they can make aberrant cells more aggressive,” and such indirect evidence supports the need for more direct evidence of possible harm from growth hormone treatment, Dr. Grimberg wrote. Most current safety data on growth hormone come from postmarketing surveillance studies, but these studies do not include controls or data on outcomes after discontinuation of treatment, she noted.

The current study, while able to follow patients across the lifespan, cannot indicate “whether the small but increased risk of cardiovascular disease found in this study was caused by the pediatric growth hormone treatment that identified the participants, by the conditions being treated, by other potential confounder(s) not captured by the study’s methods, or by a combination of the above,” said Dr. Grimberg.

In addition, “the move from replacement of GHD to pharmacologic height augmentation in children who already make sufficient growth hormone had the potential to change the safety profile of treatment,” she said.

“Parents of patients in pediatric primary care practices and of patients seeking growth-related care in a subspecialty endocrine clinic rated treatment characteristics (i.e., proven efficacy and safety) as the factor most having a big or extreme effect on their growth-related medical decision-making,” Dr. Grimberg said. “The centrality of treatment safety to patient-family decision-making underscores the importance of continued scrutiny of growth hormone safety as the treatment and its recipients continue to evolve,” she concluded.

The study was supported by the Swedish Research Council, the Stockholm City Council, the Karolinska Institute, the Society for Child Care, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, and the Stockholm County Council’s combined clinical residency and PhD training program. Lead author Dr. Tidblad disclosed funding from the Society for Child Care and Stockholm County Council during the conduct of the study and personal fees from Pfizer. Dr. Grimberg disclosed serving as a member of the steering committee for the Pfizer International Growth Study Database, and as a consultant for the Pediatric Endocrine Society GH Deficiency Knowledge Center, sponsored by Sandoz AG.

Childhood treatment with recombinant human growth hormone was associated with a significantly increased risk of cardiovascular events, based on data from more than 3,000 individuals.

“Both excess levels of growth hormone and [growth hormone deficiency] have been associated with increased cardiovascular morbidity and mortality,” but data on long-term cardiovascular morbidity in individuals treated with growth hormone in childhood are lacking, wrote Anders Tinblad, MD, of Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, and colleagues.

In a population-based cohort study published in JAMA Pediatrics, the researchers identified 3,408 Swedish patients treated as children with recombinant human growth hormone (rhGH) between Jan. 1, 1985, and Dec. 31, 2010, and compared each with 15 matched controls (a total of 50,036 controls). The patients were treated for one of three conditions: isolated growth hormone deficiency (GHD), small for gestational age (SGA), and idiopathic short stature (ISS).

Data on cardiovascular outcomes were collected from health care and population-based registers and analyzed between Jan. 1, 1985, and Dec. 31, 2014. The average age of the participants at the study’s end was 25.1 years.

In all, 1,809 cardiovascular disease events were recorded over a median follow-up period of 14.9 years, for an incidence rate of 25.6 events per 10,000 person-years in patients and 22.6 events per 10,000 person-years in controls.

When separated by sex, the incidence was higher in female patients compared with controls (31.2 vs. 23.4 events per 10,000 person-years, respectively, but similar in male patients vs. controls (23.3 vs. 22.3 events per 10,000 person-years). “Differences in estrogen levels or responsiveness to rhGH treatment have previously been hypothesized as possible explanations, but the underlying mechanism for this sex difference still remains unclear and merits further investigation,” the researchers wrote.

Overall, the highest adjusted hazard ratios occurred in subgroups of patients with the longest treatment duration (HR 2.08) and highest cumulative dose of growth hormone (HR 2.05), but no association was noted between highest daily hormone dose and cardiovascular event risk. Hazard ratios were higher across all three treatment subgroups of SGA, GHD, and ISS compared with controls (HR 1.97, 1.66, and 1.55, respectively).

“The association between childhood rhGH treatment and CVD events was also seen when assessing only severe CVD outcomes, but with even lower absolute risks,” the researchers noted.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the potential for confounding by treatment indication and the lack of long-term follow-up data given the relatively young age of the study population, the researchers said. The results were strengthened by the large sample size and showed that the absolute risk for overall and severe cardiovascular disease in children treated with growth hormones was low, “which could be reassuring to individual patients,” they added. However, “At the group level, and perhaps especially for female patients and those treated for SGA indication, further close monitoring and future studies of CVD safety are warranted,” they concluded.
 

Safety and ethical concerns persist

Although the study authors cite limited conclusions on causality and low absolute risk, several issues persist that prompt ongoing analysis of pediatric growth hormone use, namely “worrisome indirect evidence, challenges and limitations in the direct evidence, and the changing world of growth hormone treatment,” Adda Grimberg, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

“Although evidence asserts that neither growth hormone nor insulinlike growth factor I is carcinogenic, the basic science and oncology literatures are rife with reports showing that they can make aberrant cells more aggressive,” and such indirect evidence supports the need for more direct evidence of possible harm from growth hormone treatment, Dr. Grimberg wrote. Most current safety data on growth hormone come from postmarketing surveillance studies, but these studies do not include controls or data on outcomes after discontinuation of treatment, she noted.

The current study, while able to follow patients across the lifespan, cannot indicate “whether the small but increased risk of cardiovascular disease found in this study was caused by the pediatric growth hormone treatment that identified the participants, by the conditions being treated, by other potential confounder(s) not captured by the study’s methods, or by a combination of the above,” said Dr. Grimberg.

In addition, “the move from replacement of GHD to pharmacologic height augmentation in children who already make sufficient growth hormone had the potential to change the safety profile of treatment,” she said.

“Parents of patients in pediatric primary care practices and of patients seeking growth-related care in a subspecialty endocrine clinic rated treatment characteristics (i.e., proven efficacy and safety) as the factor most having a big or extreme effect on their growth-related medical decision-making,” Dr. Grimberg said. “The centrality of treatment safety to patient-family decision-making underscores the importance of continued scrutiny of growth hormone safety as the treatment and its recipients continue to evolve,” she concluded.

The study was supported by the Swedish Research Council, the Stockholm City Council, the Karolinska Institute, the Society for Child Care, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, and the Stockholm County Council’s combined clinical residency and PhD training program. Lead author Dr. Tidblad disclosed funding from the Society for Child Care and Stockholm County Council during the conduct of the study and personal fees from Pfizer. Dr. Grimberg disclosed serving as a member of the steering committee for the Pfizer International Growth Study Database, and as a consultant for the Pediatric Endocrine Society GH Deficiency Knowledge Center, sponsored by Sandoz AG.

Childhood treatment with recombinant human growth hormone was associated with a significantly increased risk of cardiovascular events, based on data from more than 3,000 individuals.

“Both excess levels of growth hormone and [growth hormone deficiency] have been associated with increased cardiovascular morbidity and mortality,” but data on long-term cardiovascular morbidity in individuals treated with growth hormone in childhood are lacking, wrote Anders Tinblad, MD, of Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, and colleagues.

In a population-based cohort study published in JAMA Pediatrics, the researchers identified 3,408 Swedish patients treated as children with recombinant human growth hormone (rhGH) between Jan. 1, 1985, and Dec. 31, 2010, and compared each with 15 matched controls (a total of 50,036 controls). The patients were treated for one of three conditions: isolated growth hormone deficiency (GHD), small for gestational age (SGA), and idiopathic short stature (ISS).

Data on cardiovascular outcomes were collected from health care and population-based registers and analyzed between Jan. 1, 1985, and Dec. 31, 2014. The average age of the participants at the study’s end was 25.1 years.

In all, 1,809 cardiovascular disease events were recorded over a median follow-up period of 14.9 years, for an incidence rate of 25.6 events per 10,000 person-years in patients and 22.6 events per 10,000 person-years in controls.

When separated by sex, the incidence was higher in female patients compared with controls (31.2 vs. 23.4 events per 10,000 person-years, respectively, but similar in male patients vs. controls (23.3 vs. 22.3 events per 10,000 person-years). “Differences in estrogen levels or responsiveness to rhGH treatment have previously been hypothesized as possible explanations, but the underlying mechanism for this sex difference still remains unclear and merits further investigation,” the researchers wrote.

Overall, the highest adjusted hazard ratios occurred in subgroups of patients with the longest treatment duration (HR 2.08) and highest cumulative dose of growth hormone (HR 2.05), but no association was noted between highest daily hormone dose and cardiovascular event risk. Hazard ratios were higher across all three treatment subgroups of SGA, GHD, and ISS compared with controls (HR 1.97, 1.66, and 1.55, respectively).

“The association between childhood rhGH treatment and CVD events was also seen when assessing only severe CVD outcomes, but with even lower absolute risks,” the researchers noted.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the potential for confounding by treatment indication and the lack of long-term follow-up data given the relatively young age of the study population, the researchers said. The results were strengthened by the large sample size and showed that the absolute risk for overall and severe cardiovascular disease in children treated with growth hormones was low, “which could be reassuring to individual patients,” they added. However, “At the group level, and perhaps especially for female patients and those treated for SGA indication, further close monitoring and future studies of CVD safety are warranted,” they concluded.
 

Safety and ethical concerns persist

Although the study authors cite limited conclusions on causality and low absolute risk, several issues persist that prompt ongoing analysis of pediatric growth hormone use, namely “worrisome indirect evidence, challenges and limitations in the direct evidence, and the changing world of growth hormone treatment,” Adda Grimberg, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

“Although evidence asserts that neither growth hormone nor insulinlike growth factor I is carcinogenic, the basic science and oncology literatures are rife with reports showing that they can make aberrant cells more aggressive,” and such indirect evidence supports the need for more direct evidence of possible harm from growth hormone treatment, Dr. Grimberg wrote. Most current safety data on growth hormone come from postmarketing surveillance studies, but these studies do not include controls or data on outcomes after discontinuation of treatment, she noted.

The current study, while able to follow patients across the lifespan, cannot indicate “whether the small but increased risk of cardiovascular disease found in this study was caused by the pediatric growth hormone treatment that identified the participants, by the conditions being treated, by other potential confounder(s) not captured by the study’s methods, or by a combination of the above,” said Dr. Grimberg.

In addition, “the move from replacement of GHD to pharmacologic height augmentation in children who already make sufficient growth hormone had the potential to change the safety profile of treatment,” she said.

“Parents of patients in pediatric primary care practices and of patients seeking growth-related care in a subspecialty endocrine clinic rated treatment characteristics (i.e., proven efficacy and safety) as the factor most having a big or extreme effect on their growth-related medical decision-making,” Dr. Grimberg said. “The centrality of treatment safety to patient-family decision-making underscores the importance of continued scrutiny of growth hormone safety as the treatment and its recipients continue to evolve,” she concluded.

The study was supported by the Swedish Research Council, the Stockholm City Council, the Karolinska Institute, the Society for Child Care, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, and the Stockholm County Council’s combined clinical residency and PhD training program. Lead author Dr. Tidblad disclosed funding from the Society for Child Care and Stockholm County Council during the conduct of the study and personal fees from Pfizer. Dr. Grimberg disclosed serving as a member of the steering committee for the Pfizer International Growth Study Database, and as a consultant for the Pediatric Endocrine Society GH Deficiency Knowledge Center, sponsored by Sandoz AG.

Moderna probably will not have clinical trial results anytime soon on how its COVID-19 vaccine affects children and adolescents, according to the company CEO and a federal official.

The Moderna vaccine was authorized for use in December and is now being given to people 18 and over. But children would receive lower doses, so new clinical trials must be done, Moderna CEO Stephane Bancel said at the JPMorgan virtual Health Care Conference on Monday.

Clinical trials on children 11 and younger “will take much longer, because we have to age deescalate and start at a lower dose. So we should not anticipate clinical data in 2021, but more in 2022,” Ms. Bancel said, according to Business Insider.

Moderna’s clinical trials for 12- to 17-year-olds started 4 weeks ago, but the company is having trouble getting enough participants, said Moncef Slaoui, PhD, the scientific head of Operation Warp Speed, the U.S. government’s vaccine effort. That could delay Food and Drug Administration approval, he said.

“It’s really very important for all of us, for all the population in America, to realize that we can’t have that indication unless adolescents aged 12-18 decide to participate,” Dr. Slaoui said, according to USA Today.

He said the adolescent trials are getting only about 800 volunteers a month, but need at least 3,000 volunteers to complete the study, USA Today reported. Parents interested in having their child participate can check eligibility and sign at this website.

The Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine won authorization for use in 16- to 17-year-olds as well as adults.

The coronavirus doesn’t appear to have as serious complications for children as for adults.

“At this time, it appears that severe illness due to COVID-19 is rare among children,” the American Association of Pediatrics says. “However, there is an urgent need to collect more data on longer-term impacts of the pandemic on children, including ways the virus may harm the long-term physical health of infected children, as well as its emotional and mental health effects.”

The association says 179 children had died of COVID-related reasons in 43 states and New York City as of Dec. 31, 2020. That’s about 0.06% of total COVID deaths, it says.

But children do get sick. As of Jan. 7, 2021, nearly 2.3 million children had tested positive for COVID-19 since the start of the pandemic, the association says.

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

Moderna probably will not have clinical trial results anytime soon on how its COVID-19 vaccine affects children and adolescents, according to the company CEO and a federal official.

The Moderna vaccine was authorized for use in December and is now being given to people 18 and over. But children would receive lower doses, so new clinical trials must be done, Moderna CEO Stephane Bancel said at the JPMorgan virtual Health Care Conference on Monday.

Clinical trials on children 11 and younger “will take much longer, because we have to age deescalate and start at a lower dose. So we should not anticipate clinical data in 2021, but more in 2022,” Ms. Bancel said, according to Business Insider.

Moderna’s clinical trials for 12- to 17-year-olds started 4 weeks ago, but the company is having trouble getting enough participants, said Moncef Slaoui, PhD, the scientific head of Operation Warp Speed, the U.S. government’s vaccine effort. That could delay Food and Drug Administration approval, he said.

“It’s really very important for all of us, for all the population in America, to realize that we can’t have that indication unless adolescents aged 12-18 decide to participate,” Dr. Slaoui said, according to USA Today.

He said the adolescent trials are getting only about 800 volunteers a month, but need at least 3,000 volunteers to complete the study, USA Today reported. Parents interested in having their child participate can check eligibility and sign at this website.

The Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine won authorization for use in 16- to 17-year-olds as well as adults.

The coronavirus doesn’t appear to have as serious complications for children as for adults.

“At this time, it appears that severe illness due to COVID-19 is rare among children,” the American Association of Pediatrics says. “However, there is an urgent need to collect more data on longer-term impacts of the pandemic on children, including ways the virus may harm the long-term physical health of infected children, as well as its emotional and mental health effects.”

The association says 179 children had died of COVID-related reasons in 43 states and New York City as of Dec. 31, 2020. That’s about 0.06% of total COVID deaths, it says.

But children do get sick. As of Jan. 7, 2021, nearly 2.3 million children had tested positive for COVID-19 since the start of the pandemic, the association says.

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

Moderna probably will not have clinical trial results anytime soon on how its COVID-19 vaccine affects children and adolescents, according to the company CEO and a federal official.

The Moderna vaccine was authorized for use in December and is now being given to people 18 and over. But children would receive lower doses, so new clinical trials must be done, Moderna CEO Stephane Bancel said at the JPMorgan virtual Health Care Conference on Monday.

Clinical trials on children 11 and younger “will take much longer, because we have to age deescalate and start at a lower dose. So we should not anticipate clinical data in 2021, but more in 2022,” Ms. Bancel said, according to Business Insider.

Moderna’s clinical trials for 12- to 17-year-olds started 4 weeks ago, but the company is having trouble getting enough participants, said Moncef Slaoui, PhD, the scientific head of Operation Warp Speed, the U.S. government’s vaccine effort. That could delay Food and Drug Administration approval, he said.

“It’s really very important for all of us, for all the population in America, to realize that we can’t have that indication unless adolescents aged 12-18 decide to participate,” Dr. Slaoui said, according to USA Today.

He said the adolescent trials are getting only about 800 volunteers a month, but need at least 3,000 volunteers to complete the study, USA Today reported. Parents interested in having their child participate can check eligibility and sign at this website.

The Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine won authorization for use in 16- to 17-year-olds as well as adults.

The coronavirus doesn’t appear to have as serious complications for children as for adults.

“At this time, it appears that severe illness due to COVID-19 is rare among children,” the American Association of Pediatrics says. “However, there is an urgent need to collect more data on longer-term impacts of the pandemic on children, including ways the virus may harm the long-term physical health of infected children, as well as its emotional and mental health effects.”

The association says 179 children had died of COVID-related reasons in 43 states and New York City as of Dec. 31, 2020. That’s about 0.06% of total COVID deaths, it says.

But children do get sick. As of Jan. 7, 2021, nearly 2.3 million children had tested positive for COVID-19 since the start of the pandemic, the association says.

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

Do you accept new families into your practice who have already chosen to not have their children immunized? What about families who have been in your practice for several months or years? In 2016 the American Academy of Pediatrics published a clinical report in which it stated that, under some circumstances, dismissing families who refuse to vaccinate is permissible. Have you felt sufficiently supported by that statement and dismissed any families after multiple attempts at education on your part?

In a Pediatrics Perspective article in the December issue of Pediatrics, two philosophers and a physician make the argument that, while in some situations dismissing a family who refuses vaccines may be “an ethically acceptable option” refusing to accept a family with the same philosophy is not. It is an interesting paper and worth reading regardless of whether or not you already accept and continue to tolerate vaccine deniers in your practice.

The Pediatrics Perspective is certainly not the last word on the ethics of caring for families who deny their children care that we believe is critical to their health and the welfare of the community at large. There has been a lot of discussion about the issue but little has been written about how we as the physicians on the front line are coping emotionally with what the authors of the paper call the “burdens associated with treating” families who refuse to follow our guidance.

It is hard not to feel angry when a family you have invested valuable office time in discussing the benefits and safety of vaccines continues to disregard what you see as the facts. The time you have spent with them is not just income-generating time for your practice, it is time stolen from other families who are more willing to follow your recommendations. In how many visits will you continue to raise the issue? Unless I saw a glimmer of hope I would usually stop after two wasted encounters. But, the issue would still linger as the elephant in the examination room for as long as I continued to see the patient.

How have you expressed your anger? Have you been argumentative or rude? You may have been able maintain your composure and remain civil and appear caring, but I suspect the anger is still gnawing at you. And, there is still the frustration and feeling of impotence. You may have questioned your ability as an educator. You should get over that notion quickly. There is ample evidence that most vaccine deniers are not going to be convinced by even the most carefully presented information. I suggest you leave it to others to try their hands at education. Let them invest their time while you tend to the needs of your other patients. You can try being a fear monger and, while fear can be effective, you have better ways to spend your office day than telling horror stories.

If vaccine denial makes you feel powerless, you should get over that pretty quickly as well and accept the fact that you are simply an advisor. If you believe that most of the families in your practice are following your recommendations as though you had presented them on stone tablets, it is time for a wakeup call.

Finally, there is the most troubling emotion associated with vaccine refusal and that is fear, the fear of being sued. Establishing a relationship with a family is one that requires mutual trust and certainly vaccine refusal will put that trust in question, particularly if you have done a less than adequate job of hiding your anger and frustration with their unfortunate decision.

For now, vaccine refusal is just another one of those crosses that those of us in primary care must bear together wearing the best face we can put forward. That doesn’t mean we can’t share those emotions with our peers. Misery does love company.
 

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].

Do you accept new families into your practice who have already chosen to not have their children immunized? What about families who have been in your practice for several months or years? In 2016 the American Academy of Pediatrics published a clinical report in which it stated that, under some circumstances, dismissing families who refuse to vaccinate is permissible. Have you felt sufficiently supported by that statement and dismissed any families after multiple attempts at education on your part?

In a Pediatrics Perspective article in the December issue of Pediatrics, two philosophers and a physician make the argument that, while in some situations dismissing a family who refuses vaccines may be “an ethically acceptable option” refusing to accept a family with the same philosophy is not. It is an interesting paper and worth reading regardless of whether or not you already accept and continue to tolerate vaccine deniers in your practice.

The Pediatrics Perspective is certainly not the last word on the ethics of caring for families who deny their children care that we believe is critical to their health and the welfare of the community at large. There has been a lot of discussion about the issue but little has been written about how we as the physicians on the front line are coping emotionally with what the authors of the paper call the “burdens associated with treating” families who refuse to follow our guidance.

It is hard not to feel angry when a family you have invested valuable office time in discussing the benefits and safety of vaccines continues to disregard what you see as the facts. The time you have spent with them is not just income-generating time for your practice, it is time stolen from other families who are more willing to follow your recommendations. In how many visits will you continue to raise the issue? Unless I saw a glimmer of hope I would usually stop after two wasted encounters. But, the issue would still linger as the elephant in the examination room for as long as I continued to see the patient.

How have you expressed your anger? Have you been argumentative or rude? You may have been able maintain your composure and remain civil and appear caring, but I suspect the anger is still gnawing at you. And, there is still the frustration and feeling of impotence. You may have questioned your ability as an educator. You should get over that notion quickly. There is ample evidence that most vaccine deniers are not going to be convinced by even the most carefully presented information. I suggest you leave it to others to try their hands at education. Let them invest their time while you tend to the needs of your other patients. You can try being a fear monger and, while fear can be effective, you have better ways to spend your office day than telling horror stories.

If vaccine denial makes you feel powerless, you should get over that pretty quickly as well and accept the fact that you are simply an advisor. If you believe that most of the families in your practice are following your recommendations as though you had presented them on stone tablets, it is time for a wakeup call.

Finally, there is the most troubling emotion associated with vaccine refusal and that is fear, the fear of being sued. Establishing a relationship with a family is one that requires mutual trust and certainly vaccine refusal will put that trust in question, particularly if you have done a less than adequate job of hiding your anger and frustration with their unfortunate decision.

For now, vaccine refusal is just another one of those crosses that those of us in primary care must bear together wearing the best face we can put forward. That doesn’t mean we can’t share those emotions with our peers. Misery does love company.
 

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].

Do you accept new families into your practice who have already chosen to not have their children immunized? What about families who have been in your practice for several months or years? In 2016 the American Academy of Pediatrics published a clinical report in which it stated that, under some circumstances, dismissing families who refuse to vaccinate is permissible. Have you felt sufficiently supported by that statement and dismissed any families after multiple attempts at education on your part?

In a Pediatrics Perspective article in the December issue of Pediatrics, two philosophers and a physician make the argument that, while in some situations dismissing a family who refuses vaccines may be “an ethically acceptable option” refusing to accept a family with the same philosophy is not. It is an interesting paper and worth reading regardless of whether or not you already accept and continue to tolerate vaccine deniers in your practice.

The Pediatrics Perspective is certainly not the last word on the ethics of caring for families who deny their children care that we believe is critical to their health and the welfare of the community at large. There has been a lot of discussion about the issue but little has been written about how we as the physicians on the front line are coping emotionally with what the authors of the paper call the “burdens associated with treating” families who refuse to follow our guidance.

It is hard not to feel angry when a family you have invested valuable office time in discussing the benefits and safety of vaccines continues to disregard what you see as the facts. The time you have spent with them is not just income-generating time for your practice, it is time stolen from other families who are more willing to follow your recommendations. In how many visits will you continue to raise the issue? Unless I saw a glimmer of hope I would usually stop after two wasted encounters. But, the issue would still linger as the elephant in the examination room for as long as I continued to see the patient.

How have you expressed your anger? Have you been argumentative or rude? You may have been able maintain your composure and remain civil and appear caring, but I suspect the anger is still gnawing at you. And, there is still the frustration and feeling of impotence. You may have questioned your ability as an educator. You should get over that notion quickly. There is ample evidence that most vaccine deniers are not going to be convinced by even the most carefully presented information. I suggest you leave it to others to try their hands at education. Let them invest their time while you tend to the needs of your other patients. You can try being a fear monger and, while fear can be effective, you have better ways to spend your office day than telling horror stories.

If vaccine denial makes you feel powerless, you should get over that pretty quickly as well and accept the fact that you are simply an advisor. If you believe that most of the families in your practice are following your recommendations as though you had presented them on stone tablets, it is time for a wakeup call.

Finally, there is the most troubling emotion associated with vaccine refusal and that is fear, the fear of being sued. Establishing a relationship with a family is one that requires mutual trust and certainly vaccine refusal will put that trust in question, particularly if you have done a less than adequate job of hiding your anger and frustration with their unfortunate decision.

For now, vaccine refusal is just another one of those crosses that those of us in primary care must bear together wearing the best face we can put forward. That doesn’t mean we can’t share those emotions with our peers. Misery does love company.
 

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].

Outpatient management of most afebrile infants with acute otitis media who haven’t been tested for invasive bacterial infection may be reasonable given the low occurrence of adverse events, said Son H. McLaren, MD, MS, of Columbia University, New York, and colleagues.

Dr. McLaren and associates conducted an international cross-sectional study at 33 emergency departments participating in the Pediatric Emergency Medicine Collaborative Research Committee of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP): 29 in the United States, 2 in Canada and 2 in Spain.

The researchers sought first to assess prevalence of invasive bacterial infections and adverse events tied to acute otitis media (AOM) in infants 90 days and younger. Those who were clinically diagnosed with AOM and presented without fever between January 2007 and December 2017 were included in the study. The presence of fever, they explained, “is a primary driver for more expanded testing and/or empirical treatment of invasive bacterial infection (IBI). Secondarily, they sought to characterize patterns of diagnostic testing and the factors associated with it specifically in this patient population.

Of 5,270 patients screened, 1,637 met study criteria. Included patients were a median age of 68 days. A total of 1,459 (89.1%) met AAP diagnostic criteria for AOM. The remaining 178 patients were examined and found to have more than one of these criteria: 113 had opacification of tympanic membrane, 57 had dull tympanic membrane, 25 had decreased visualization of middle ear structures, 9 had middle ear effusion, 8 had visible tympanic membrane perforation and 5 had decreased tympanic membrane mobility with insufflation. None of the 278 infants with blood cultures had bacteremia, nor were they diagnosed with bacterial meningitis. Two of 645 (0.3%) infants experienced adverse events, as evidenced with 30-day follow-up or history of hospitalization.

Dr. McLaren and colleagues observed that despite a low prevalence of IBI and AOM-associated adverse events, more than one-fifth of patients were prescribed diagnostic testing for IBI and subsequently hospitalized, a practice that appeared more common with younger patients.
 

Significant testing and hospitalizations persisted despite low prevalence of IBIs

Although diagnostic testing and hospitalizations differed by site, they were, in fact, “substantial in contrast to the low prevalence of IBIs and adverse events,” the researchers noted. “Our data may be used to help guide clinical management of afebrile infants with clinician-diagnosed AOM, who are not included in the current AAP AOM practice guideline,” the authors said. They speculated that this practice may be due, in part, to young-age risk of IBI and the concern for IBI in this population based on febrile infant population data and a general hesitance to begin antibiotics without first evaluating for IBI. They also cited a low prevalence ranging from 0.8% to 2.5% as evidence for low risk of IBI in afebrile infants with AOM.

Also of note, given that roughly three-fourths of infants included in the study were reported to have symptoms of upper respiratory infection that can lead to viral AOM, including these infants who could have a lower likelihood of IBI than those with known bacterial AOM, may have led the researchers to underestimate IBI prevalence. Because existing data do not allow for clear distinction of viral from bacterial AOM without tympanocentesis, and because more than 85% of older patients with clinically diagnosed AOM also have observed bacterial otopathogens, the authors clarify that “it is understandable why clinicians would manage infants with AOM conservatively, regardless of the presence of concurrent viral illnesses.” They also acknowledged that one major challenge in working with infants believed to have AOM is ensuring that it is actually present since it is so hard to diagnose.

Dr. McLaren and colleagues cited several study limitations: 1) completeness and accuracy of data couldn’t be ensured because of the retrospective study design; 2) because not all infants were tested for IBI, its prevalence may have been underestimated; 3) infants whose discharge codes did not include AOM may have been missed, although all infants with positive blood or cerebrospinal fluid cultures were screened for missed AOM diagnosis; and 4) it is important to consider that any issues associated with testing and hospitalization that were identified may have been the result of management decisions driven by factors that cannot be captured retrospectively or by a diagnosis of AOM.
 

The findings are not generalizable to infants aged younger than 28 days

Finally, the authors cautioned that because the number of infants younger than 28 days was quite small, and it is therefore infinitely more challenging to diagnose AOM for these patients, results of the study should be applied to infants older than 28 days and are not generalizable to febrile infants.

“This report will not resolve the significant challenge faced by clinicians in treating infants aged [younger than] 28 days who have the highest risk of occult bacteremia and systemic spread of a focal bacterial infection,” Joseph Ravera, MD, and M.W. Stevens, MD, of the University of Vermont, Burlington, noted in an accompanying editorial. Previous studies have identified this age group “to be at the highest risk for systemic bacterial involvement and the most difficult to risk stratify on the basis of physical examination findings and initial laboratory results,” they noted. That the subjects aged younger than 28 days in this study had nearly a 50% admission rate illustrates the clinical uncertainty pediatric emergency medicine providers are challenged with, they added. Just 100 (6%) of the 1,637 patients in the study sample were in this age category, which makes it difficult, given the lack of sufficient data, to generalize findings to the youngest infants.

“Despite a paucity of young infants and limitations inherent to the design, this study does contribute to the literature with a robust retrospective data set of afebrile infants between 1 and 3 months of age with an ED diagnosis of AOM ... It certainly provides a base of support for carefully designed prospective studies in which researchers aim to determine the best care for AOM in children under 6 months of age,” reflected Dr. Ravera and Dr. Stevens.

In a separate interview, Karalyn Kinsella, MD, private practice, Cheshire, Conn. noted, “What is confusing is the absence of documented symptoms for infants presenting to the emergency department, as the symptoms they presented with would influence our concern for IBI. Diagnosing AOM in infants under 90 days old is extremely uncommon as an outpatient pediatrician. Although the finding of AOM in an afebrile infant is very rare in the outpatient setting, this study assures us the risk of IBI is almost nonexistent. Therefore, further workup is unnecessary unless providers have clinical suspicions to the contrary.”

Dr. McLaren and colleagues as well as Dr. Ravera, Dr. Stevens, and Dr. Kinsella, had no conflicts of interest and no relevant financial disclosures.

Outpatient management of most afebrile infants with acute otitis media who haven’t been tested for invasive bacterial infection may be reasonable given the low occurrence of adverse events, said Son H. McLaren, MD, MS, of Columbia University, New York, and colleagues.

Dr. McLaren and associates conducted an international cross-sectional study at 33 emergency departments participating in the Pediatric Emergency Medicine Collaborative Research Committee of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP): 29 in the United States, 2 in Canada and 2 in Spain.

The researchers sought first to assess prevalence of invasive bacterial infections and adverse events tied to acute otitis media (AOM) in infants 90 days and younger. Those who were clinically diagnosed with AOM and presented without fever between January 2007 and December 2017 were included in the study. The presence of fever, they explained, “is a primary driver for more expanded testing and/or empirical treatment of invasive bacterial infection (IBI). Secondarily, they sought to characterize patterns of diagnostic testing and the factors associated with it specifically in this patient population.

Of 5,270 patients screened, 1,637 met study criteria. Included patients were a median age of 68 days. A total of 1,459 (89.1%) met AAP diagnostic criteria for AOM. The remaining 178 patients were examined and found to have more than one of these criteria: 113 had opacification of tympanic membrane, 57 had dull tympanic membrane, 25 had decreased visualization of middle ear structures, 9 had middle ear effusion, 8 had visible tympanic membrane perforation and 5 had decreased tympanic membrane mobility with insufflation. None of the 278 infants with blood cultures had bacteremia, nor were they diagnosed with bacterial meningitis. Two of 645 (0.3%) infants experienced adverse events, as evidenced with 30-day follow-up or history of hospitalization.

Dr. McLaren and colleagues observed that despite a low prevalence of IBI and AOM-associated adverse events, more than one-fifth of patients were prescribed diagnostic testing for IBI and subsequently hospitalized, a practice that appeared more common with younger patients.
 

Significant testing and hospitalizations persisted despite low prevalence of IBIs

Although diagnostic testing and hospitalizations differed by site, they were, in fact, “substantial in contrast to the low prevalence of IBIs and adverse events,” the researchers noted. “Our data may be used to help guide clinical management of afebrile infants with clinician-diagnosed AOM, who are not included in the current AAP AOM practice guideline,” the authors said. They speculated that this practice may be due, in part, to young-age risk of IBI and the concern for IBI in this population based on febrile infant population data and a general hesitance to begin antibiotics without first evaluating for IBI. They also cited a low prevalence ranging from 0.8% to 2.5% as evidence for low risk of IBI in afebrile infants with AOM.

Also of note, given that roughly three-fourths of infants included in the study were reported to have symptoms of upper respiratory infection that can lead to viral AOM, including these infants who could have a lower likelihood of IBI than those with known bacterial AOM, may have led the researchers to underestimate IBI prevalence. Because existing data do not allow for clear distinction of viral from bacterial AOM without tympanocentesis, and because more than 85% of older patients with clinically diagnosed AOM also have observed bacterial otopathogens, the authors clarify that “it is understandable why clinicians would manage infants with AOM conservatively, regardless of the presence of concurrent viral illnesses.” They also acknowledged that one major challenge in working with infants believed to have AOM is ensuring that it is actually present since it is so hard to diagnose.

Dr. McLaren and colleagues cited several study limitations: 1) completeness and accuracy of data couldn’t be ensured because of the retrospective study design; 2) because not all infants were tested for IBI, its prevalence may have been underestimated; 3) infants whose discharge codes did not include AOM may have been missed, although all infants with positive blood or cerebrospinal fluid cultures were screened for missed AOM diagnosis; and 4) it is important to consider that any issues associated with testing and hospitalization that were identified may have been the result of management decisions driven by factors that cannot be captured retrospectively or by a diagnosis of AOM.
 

The findings are not generalizable to infants aged younger than 28 days

Finally, the authors cautioned that because the number of infants younger than 28 days was quite small, and it is therefore infinitely more challenging to diagnose AOM for these patients, results of the study should be applied to infants older than 28 days and are not generalizable to febrile infants.

“This report will not resolve the significant challenge faced by clinicians in treating infants aged [younger than] 28 days who have the highest risk of occult bacteremia and systemic spread of a focal bacterial infection,” Joseph Ravera, MD, and M.W. Stevens, MD, of the University of Vermont, Burlington, noted in an accompanying editorial. Previous studies have identified this age group “to be at the highest risk for systemic bacterial involvement and the most difficult to risk stratify on the basis of physical examination findings and initial laboratory results,” they noted. That the subjects aged younger than 28 days in this study had nearly a 50% admission rate illustrates the clinical uncertainty pediatric emergency medicine providers are challenged with, they added. Just 100 (6%) of the 1,637 patients in the study sample were in this age category, which makes it difficult, given the lack of sufficient data, to generalize findings to the youngest infants.

“Despite a paucity of young infants and limitations inherent to the design, this study does contribute to the literature with a robust retrospective data set of afebrile infants between 1 and 3 months of age with an ED diagnosis of AOM ... It certainly provides a base of support for carefully designed prospective studies in which researchers aim to determine the best care for AOM in children under 6 months of age,” reflected Dr. Ravera and Dr. Stevens.

In a separate interview, Karalyn Kinsella, MD, private practice, Cheshire, Conn. noted, “What is confusing is the absence of documented symptoms for infants presenting to the emergency department, as the symptoms they presented with would influence our concern for IBI. Diagnosing AOM in infants under 90 days old is extremely uncommon as an outpatient pediatrician. Although the finding of AOM in an afebrile infant is very rare in the outpatient setting, this study assures us the risk of IBI is almost nonexistent. Therefore, further workup is unnecessary unless providers have clinical suspicions to the contrary.”

Dr. McLaren and colleagues as well as Dr. Ravera, Dr. Stevens, and Dr. Kinsella, had no conflicts of interest and no relevant financial disclosures.

Outpatient management of most afebrile infants with acute otitis media who haven’t been tested for invasive bacterial infection may be reasonable given the low occurrence of adverse events, said Son H. McLaren, MD, MS, of Columbia University, New York, and colleagues.

Dr. McLaren and associates conducted an international cross-sectional study at 33 emergency departments participating in the Pediatric Emergency Medicine Collaborative Research Committee of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP): 29 in the United States, 2 in Canada and 2 in Spain.

The researchers sought first to assess prevalence of invasive bacterial infections and adverse events tied to acute otitis media (AOM) in infants 90 days and younger. Those who were clinically diagnosed with AOM and presented without fever between January 2007 and December 2017 were included in the study. The presence of fever, they explained, “is a primary driver for more expanded testing and/or empirical treatment of invasive bacterial infection (IBI). Secondarily, they sought to characterize patterns of diagnostic testing and the factors associated with it specifically in this patient population.

Of 5,270 patients screened, 1,637 met study criteria. Included patients were a median age of 68 days. A total of 1,459 (89.1%) met AAP diagnostic criteria for AOM. The remaining 178 patients were examined and found to have more than one of these criteria: 113 had opacification of tympanic membrane, 57 had dull tympanic membrane, 25 had decreased visualization of middle ear structures, 9 had middle ear effusion, 8 had visible tympanic membrane perforation and 5 had decreased tympanic membrane mobility with insufflation. None of the 278 infants with blood cultures had bacteremia, nor were they diagnosed with bacterial meningitis. Two of 645 (0.3%) infants experienced adverse events, as evidenced with 30-day follow-up or history of hospitalization.

Dr. McLaren and colleagues observed that despite a low prevalence of IBI and AOM-associated adverse events, more than one-fifth of patients were prescribed diagnostic testing for IBI and subsequently hospitalized, a practice that appeared more common with younger patients.
 

Significant testing and hospitalizations persisted despite low prevalence of IBIs

Although diagnostic testing and hospitalizations differed by site, they were, in fact, “substantial in contrast to the low prevalence of IBIs and adverse events,” the researchers noted. “Our data may be used to help guide clinical management of afebrile infants with clinician-diagnosed AOM, who are not included in the current AAP AOM practice guideline,” the authors said. They speculated that this practice may be due, in part, to young-age risk of IBI and the concern for IBI in this population based on febrile infant population data and a general hesitance to begin antibiotics without first evaluating for IBI. They also cited a low prevalence ranging from 0.8% to 2.5% as evidence for low risk of IBI in afebrile infants with AOM.

Also of note, given that roughly three-fourths of infants included in the study were reported to have symptoms of upper respiratory infection that can lead to viral AOM, including these infants who could have a lower likelihood of IBI than those with known bacterial AOM, may have led the researchers to underestimate IBI prevalence. Because existing data do not allow for clear distinction of viral from bacterial AOM without tympanocentesis, and because more than 85% of older patients with clinically diagnosed AOM also have observed bacterial otopathogens, the authors clarify that “it is understandable why clinicians would manage infants with AOM conservatively, regardless of the presence of concurrent viral illnesses.” They also acknowledged that one major challenge in working with infants believed to have AOM is ensuring that it is actually present since it is so hard to diagnose.

Dr. McLaren and colleagues cited several study limitations: 1) completeness and accuracy of data couldn’t be ensured because of the retrospective study design; 2) because not all infants were tested for IBI, its prevalence may have been underestimated; 3) infants whose discharge codes did not include AOM may have been missed, although all infants with positive blood or cerebrospinal fluid cultures were screened for missed AOM diagnosis; and 4) it is important to consider that any issues associated with testing and hospitalization that were identified may have been the result of management decisions driven by factors that cannot be captured retrospectively or by a diagnosis of AOM.
 

The findings are not generalizable to infants aged younger than 28 days

Finally, the authors cautioned that because the number of infants younger than 28 days was quite small, and it is therefore infinitely more challenging to diagnose AOM for these patients, results of the study should be applied to infants older than 28 days and are not generalizable to febrile infants.

“This report will not resolve the significant challenge faced by clinicians in treating infants aged [younger than] 28 days who have the highest risk of occult bacteremia and systemic spread of a focal bacterial infection,” Joseph Ravera, MD, and M.W. Stevens, MD, of the University of Vermont, Burlington, noted in an accompanying editorial. Previous studies have identified this age group “to be at the highest risk for systemic bacterial involvement and the most difficult to risk stratify on the basis of physical examination findings and initial laboratory results,” they noted. That the subjects aged younger than 28 days in this study had nearly a 50% admission rate illustrates the clinical uncertainty pediatric emergency medicine providers are challenged with, they added. Just 100 (6%) of the 1,637 patients in the study sample were in this age category, which makes it difficult, given the lack of sufficient data, to generalize findings to the youngest infants.

“Despite a paucity of young infants and limitations inherent to the design, this study does contribute to the literature with a robust retrospective data set of afebrile infants between 1 and 3 months of age with an ED diagnosis of AOM ... It certainly provides a base of support for carefully designed prospective studies in which researchers aim to determine the best care for AOM in children under 6 months of age,” reflected Dr. Ravera and Dr. Stevens.

In a separate interview, Karalyn Kinsella, MD, private practice, Cheshire, Conn. noted, “What is confusing is the absence of documented symptoms for infants presenting to the emergency department, as the symptoms they presented with would influence our concern for IBI. Diagnosing AOM in infants under 90 days old is extremely uncommon as an outpatient pediatrician. Although the finding of AOM in an afebrile infant is very rare in the outpatient setting, this study assures us the risk of IBI is almost nonexistent. Therefore, further workup is unnecessary unless providers have clinical suspicions to the contrary.”

Dr. McLaren and colleagues as well as Dr. Ravera, Dr. Stevens, and Dr. Kinsella, had no conflicts of interest and no relevant financial disclosures.

A shot of relief. A shot of hope. Those are the words used to describe COVID-19 vaccines on a television commercial running in prime time in Kentucky.

“We all can’t get the vaccine at once,” the announcer says solemnly, “but we’ll all get a turn.”

For some of us, that turn came quickly. In December, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommended that health care personnel (HCP) and long-term care facility residents be the first to be immunized with COVID-19 vaccines (see table).

On Dec. 14, 2020, Sandra Lindsay, a nurse and director of patient care services in the intensive care unit at Long Island Jewish Medical Center, was the first person in the United States to receive a COVID-19 vaccine outside a clinical trial.

In subsequent days, social media sites were quickly flooded with photos of HCP rolling up their sleeves or flashing their immunization cards. There was jubilation ... and perhaps a little bit of jealousy. There were tears of joy and some tears of frustration.

There are more than 21 million HCP in the United States and to date, there have not been enough vaccines nor adequate infrastructure to immunize all of them. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Data Tracker, as of Jan. 7, 2021, 21,419,800 doses of vaccine had been distributed to states to immunize everyone identified in phase 1a, but only 5,919,418 people had received a first dose. Limited supply has necessitated prioritization of subgroups of HCP; those in the front of the line have varied by state, and even by hospital or health care systems within states. Both the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Academy of Family Physicians have noted that primary care providers not employed by a hospital may have more difficulty accessing vaccine.

The mismatch between supply and demand has created an intense focus on improving supply and distribution. Soon though, we’re going to shift our attention to how we increase demand. We don’t have good data on those who being are offered COVID-19 vaccine and declining, but several studies that predate the Emergency Use Authorization for the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines suggest significant COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among adults in the United States.

One large, longitudinal Internet-based study of U.S. adults found that the proportion who reported they were “somewhat or very likely” to receive COVID-19 vaccine declined from 74% in early April to 56% in early December.

In the Understanding America Study, self-reported likelihood of being vaccinated with COVID-19 vaccine was lower among Black compared to White respondents (38% vs. 59%; aRR, 0.7 [95% confidence interval, 0.6-0.8]), and lower among women compared to men (51% vs. 62%; aRR, 0.9 [95% CI, 0.8-0.9]). Those 65 years of age and older were more likely to report a willingness to be vaccinated than were those 18-49 years of age, as were those with at least a bachelor’s degree compared to those with a high school education or less.

A study conducted by the Pew Research Center in November – before any COVID-19 vaccines were available – found that only 60% of American adults said they would “definitely or probably get a vaccine for coronavirus” if one were available. That was an increase from 51% in September, but and overall decrease of 72% in May. Of the remaining 40%, just over half said they did not intend to get vaccinated and were “pretty certain” that more information would not change their minds.

Concern about acquiring a serious case of COVID-19 and trust in the vaccine development process were associated with an intent to receive vaccine, as was a personal history of receiving a flu shot annually. Willingness to be vaccinated varied by age, race, and family income, with Black respondents, women, and those with a lower family incomes less likely to accept a vaccine.

To date, few data are available about HCP and willingness to receive COVID-19 vaccine. A preprint posted at medrxiv.org reports on a cross-sectional study of more than 3,400 HCP surveyed between Oct. 7 and Nov. 9, 2020. In that study, only 36% of respondents voiced a willingness to be immunized as soon as vaccine is available. Vaccine acceptance increased with increasing age, income level, and education. As in other studies, self-reported willingness to accept vaccine was lower in women and Black individuals. While vaccine acceptance was higher in direct medical care providers than others, it was still only 49%.

So here’s the paradox: Even as limited supplies of vaccine are available and many are frustrated about lack of access, we need to promote the value of immunization to those who are hesitant. Pediatricians are trusted sources of vaccine information and we are in a good position to educate our colleagues, our staff, the parents of our patients and the community at-large.

A useful resource for those ready to take that step it is the CDC’s COVID-19 Vaccination Communication Toolkit. While this collection is designed to build vaccine confidence and promote immunization among health care providers, many of the strategies will be easily adapted for use with patients.

It’s not clear when we might have a COVID 19 vaccine for most children. The Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine emergency use authorization includes those as young as 16 years of age, and 16- and 17-year-olds with high risk medical conditions are included in phase 1c of vaccine allocation. Pfizer is currently enrolling children as young as 12 years of age in clinical trials, and Moderna and Janssen are poised to do the same. It is conceivable but far from certain that we could have a vaccine for children late this year. Are parents going to be ready to vaccinate their children?

Limited data about parental acceptance of vaccine for their children mirrors what was seen in the Understanding America Study and the Pew Research Study. In December 2020, the National Parents Union surveyed 1,008 parents of public school students enrolled in kindergarten through 12th grade. Sixty percent of parents said they would allow their children to receive a COVID-19 vaccine, while 25% would not and 15% were unsure. This suggests that now is the time to begin building vaccine confidence with parents. One conversation starter might be, “I am going to be vaccinated as soon as the vaccine is available.” Ideally, many of you will soon be able to say what I do: “I am excited to tell you that I have been immunized with the COVID-19 vaccine. I did this to protect myself, my family, and our community. I’m hopeful that vaccine will soon be available for all of us.”
 

Dr. Bryant is a pediatrician specializing in infectious diseases at the University of Louisville (Ky.) and Norton Children’s Hospital, also in Louisville. She said she had no relevant financial disclosures. Email her at [email protected].

A shot of relief. A shot of hope. Those are the words used to describe COVID-19 vaccines on a television commercial running in prime time in Kentucky.

“We all can’t get the vaccine at once,” the announcer says solemnly, “but we’ll all get a turn.”

For some of us, that turn came quickly. In December, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommended that health care personnel (HCP) and long-term care facility residents be the first to be immunized with COVID-19 vaccines (see table).

On Dec. 14, 2020, Sandra Lindsay, a nurse and director of patient care services in the intensive care unit at Long Island Jewish Medical Center, was the first person in the United States to receive a COVID-19 vaccine outside a clinical trial.

In subsequent days, social media sites were quickly flooded with photos of HCP rolling up their sleeves or flashing their immunization cards. There was jubilation ... and perhaps a little bit of jealousy. There were tears of joy and some tears of frustration.

There are more than 21 million HCP in the United States and to date, there have not been enough vaccines nor adequate infrastructure to immunize all of them. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Data Tracker, as of Jan. 7, 2021, 21,419,800 doses of vaccine had been distributed to states to immunize everyone identified in phase 1a, but only 5,919,418 people had received a first dose. Limited supply has necessitated prioritization of subgroups of HCP; those in the front of the line have varied by state, and even by hospital or health care systems within states. Both the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Academy of Family Physicians have noted that primary care providers not employed by a hospital may have more difficulty accessing vaccine.

The mismatch between supply and demand has created an intense focus on improving supply and distribution. Soon though, we’re going to shift our attention to how we increase demand. We don’t have good data on those who being are offered COVID-19 vaccine and declining, but several studies that predate the Emergency Use Authorization for the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines suggest significant COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among adults in the United States.

One large, longitudinal Internet-based study of U.S. adults found that the proportion who reported they were “somewhat or very likely” to receive COVID-19 vaccine declined from 74% in early April to 56% in early December.

In the Understanding America Study, self-reported likelihood of being vaccinated with COVID-19 vaccine was lower among Black compared to White respondents (38% vs. 59%; aRR, 0.7 [95% confidence interval, 0.6-0.8]), and lower among women compared to men (51% vs. 62%; aRR, 0.9 [95% CI, 0.8-0.9]). Those 65 years of age and older were more likely to report a willingness to be vaccinated than were those 18-49 years of age, as were those with at least a bachelor’s degree compared to those with a high school education or less.

A study conducted by the Pew Research Center in November – before any COVID-19 vaccines were available – found that only 60% of American adults said they would “definitely or probably get a vaccine for coronavirus” if one were available. That was an increase from 51% in September, but and overall decrease of 72% in May. Of the remaining 40%, just over half said they did not intend to get vaccinated and were “pretty certain” that more information would not change their minds.

Concern about acquiring a serious case of COVID-19 and trust in the vaccine development process were associated with an intent to receive vaccine, as was a personal history of receiving a flu shot annually. Willingness to be vaccinated varied by age, race, and family income, with Black respondents, women, and those with a lower family incomes less likely to accept a vaccine.

To date, few data are available about HCP and willingness to receive COVID-19 vaccine. A preprint posted at medrxiv.org reports on a cross-sectional study of more than 3,400 HCP surveyed between Oct. 7 and Nov. 9, 2020. In that study, only 36% of respondents voiced a willingness to be immunized as soon as vaccine is available. Vaccine acceptance increased with increasing age, income level, and education. As in other studies, self-reported willingness to accept vaccine was lower in women and Black individuals. While vaccine acceptance was higher in direct medical care providers than others, it was still only 49%.

So here’s the paradox: Even as limited supplies of vaccine are available and many are frustrated about lack of access, we need to promote the value of immunization to those who are hesitant. Pediatricians are trusted sources of vaccine information and we are in a good position to educate our colleagues, our staff, the parents of our patients and the community at-large.

A useful resource for those ready to take that step it is the CDC’s COVID-19 Vaccination Communication Toolkit. While this collection is designed to build vaccine confidence and promote immunization among health care providers, many of the strategies will be easily adapted for use with patients.

It’s not clear when we might have a COVID 19 vaccine for most children. The Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine emergency use authorization includes those as young as 16 years of age, and 16- and 17-year-olds with high risk medical conditions are included in phase 1c of vaccine allocation. Pfizer is currently enrolling children as young as 12 years of age in clinical trials, and Moderna and Janssen are poised to do the same. It is conceivable but far from certain that we could have a vaccine for children late this year. Are parents going to be ready to vaccinate their children?

Limited data about parental acceptance of vaccine for their children mirrors what was seen in the Understanding America Study and the Pew Research Study. In December 2020, the National Parents Union surveyed 1,008 parents of public school students enrolled in kindergarten through 12th grade. Sixty percent of parents said they would allow their children to receive a COVID-19 vaccine, while 25% would not and 15% were unsure. This suggests that now is the time to begin building vaccine confidence with parents. One conversation starter might be, “I am going to be vaccinated as soon as the vaccine is available.” Ideally, many of you will soon be able to say what I do: “I am excited to tell you that I have been immunized with the COVID-19 vaccine. I did this to protect myself, my family, and our community. I’m hopeful that vaccine will soon be available for all of us.”
 

Dr. Bryant is a pediatrician specializing in infectious diseases at the University of Louisville (Ky.) and Norton Children’s Hospital, also in Louisville. She said she had no relevant financial disclosures. Email her at [email protected].

A shot of relief. A shot of hope. Those are the words used to describe COVID-19 vaccines on a television commercial running in prime time in Kentucky.

“We all can’t get the vaccine at once,” the announcer says solemnly, “but we’ll all get a turn.”

For some of us, that turn came quickly. In December, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommended that health care personnel (HCP) and long-term care facility residents be the first to be immunized with COVID-19 vaccines (see table).

On Dec. 14, 2020, Sandra Lindsay, a nurse and director of patient care services in the intensive care unit at Long Island Jewish Medical Center, was the first person in the United States to receive a COVID-19 vaccine outside a clinical trial.

In subsequent days, social media sites were quickly flooded with photos of HCP rolling up their sleeves or flashing their immunization cards. There was jubilation ... and perhaps a little bit of jealousy. There were tears of joy and some tears of frustration.

There are more than 21 million HCP in the United States and to date, there have not been enough vaccines nor adequate infrastructure to immunize all of them. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Data Tracker, as of Jan. 7, 2021, 21,419,800 doses of vaccine had been distributed to states to immunize everyone identified in phase 1a, but only 5,919,418 people had received a first dose. Limited supply has necessitated prioritization of subgroups of HCP; those in the front of the line have varied by state, and even by hospital or health care systems within states. Both the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Academy of Family Physicians have noted that primary care providers not employed by a hospital may have more difficulty accessing vaccine.

The mismatch between supply and demand has created an intense focus on improving supply and distribution. Soon though, we’re going to shift our attention to how we increase demand. We don’t have good data on those who being are offered COVID-19 vaccine and declining, but several studies that predate the Emergency Use Authorization for the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines suggest significant COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among adults in the United States.

One large, longitudinal Internet-based study of U.S. adults found that the proportion who reported they were “somewhat or very likely” to receive COVID-19 vaccine declined from 74% in early April to 56% in early December.

In the Understanding America Study, self-reported likelihood of being vaccinated with COVID-19 vaccine was lower among Black compared to White respondents (38% vs. 59%; aRR, 0.7 [95% confidence interval, 0.6-0.8]), and lower among women compared to men (51% vs. 62%; aRR, 0.9 [95% CI, 0.8-0.9]). Those 65 years of age and older were more likely to report a willingness to be vaccinated than were those 18-49 years of age, as were those with at least a bachelor’s degree compared to those with a high school education or less.

A study conducted by the Pew Research Center in November – before any COVID-19 vaccines were available – found that only 60% of American adults said they would “definitely or probably get a vaccine for coronavirus” if one were available. That was an increase from 51% in September, but and overall decrease of 72% in May. Of the remaining 40%, just over half said they did not intend to get vaccinated and were “pretty certain” that more information would not change their minds.

Concern about acquiring a serious case of COVID-19 and trust in the vaccine development process were associated with an intent to receive vaccine, as was a personal history of receiving a flu shot annually. Willingness to be vaccinated varied by age, race, and family income, with Black respondents, women, and those with a lower family incomes less likely to accept a vaccine.

To date, few data are available about HCP and willingness to receive COVID-19 vaccine. A preprint posted at medrxiv.org reports on a cross-sectional study of more than 3,400 HCP surveyed between Oct. 7 and Nov. 9, 2020. In that study, only 36% of respondents voiced a willingness to be immunized as soon as vaccine is available. Vaccine acceptance increased with increasing age, income level, and education. As in other studies, self-reported willingness to accept vaccine was lower in women and Black individuals. While vaccine acceptance was higher in direct medical care providers than others, it was still only 49%.

So here’s the paradox: Even as limited supplies of vaccine are available and many are frustrated about lack of access, we need to promote the value of immunization to those who are hesitant. Pediatricians are trusted sources of vaccine information and we are in a good position to educate our colleagues, our staff, the parents of our patients and the community at-large.

A useful resource for those ready to take that step it is the CDC’s COVID-19 Vaccination Communication Toolkit. While this collection is designed to build vaccine confidence and promote immunization among health care providers, many of the strategies will be easily adapted for use with patients.

It’s not clear when we might have a COVID 19 vaccine for most children. The Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine emergency use authorization includes those as young as 16 years of age, and 16- and 17-year-olds with high risk medical conditions are included in phase 1c of vaccine allocation. Pfizer is currently enrolling children as young as 12 years of age in clinical trials, and Moderna and Janssen are poised to do the same. It is conceivable but far from certain that we could have a vaccine for children late this year. Are parents going to be ready to vaccinate their children?

Limited data about parental acceptance of vaccine for their children mirrors what was seen in the Understanding America Study and the Pew Research Study. In December 2020, the National Parents Union surveyed 1,008 parents of public school students enrolled in kindergarten through 12th grade. Sixty percent of parents said they would allow their children to receive a COVID-19 vaccine, while 25% would not and 15% were unsure. This suggests that now is the time to begin building vaccine confidence with parents. One conversation starter might be, “I am going to be vaccinated as soon as the vaccine is available.” Ideally, many of you will soon be able to say what I do: “I am excited to tell you that I have been immunized with the COVID-19 vaccine. I did this to protect myself, my family, and our community. I’m hopeful that vaccine will soon be available for all of us.”
 

Dr. Bryant is a pediatrician specializing in infectious diseases at the University of Louisville (Ky.) and Norton Children’s Hospital, also in Louisville. She said she had no relevant financial disclosures. Email her at [email protected].

Depression and tobacco use in childhood significantly increased the risk for opioid use in young adults, according to data from a prospective study of approximately 1,000 individuals.

Previous research, including the annual Monitoring the Future study, documents opioid use among adolescents in the United States, but childhood risk factors for opioid use in young adults have not been well studied, wrote Lilly Shanahan, PhD, of the University of Zürich, and colleagues.

In a prospective cohort study published in JAMA Pediatrics, the researchers identified 1,252 non-Hispanic White and American Indian opioid-naive individuals aged 9-16 years in rural North Carolina. They interviewed participants and parents up to 7 times between January 1993 and December 2000, and interviewed participants only at ages 19, 21, 25, and 30 years between January 1999 and December 2015.

Overall, 24.2% of study participants had used a nonheroin opioid by age 30 years, and both chronic depression and dysthymia were significantly associated with this use (odds ratios 5.43 and 7.13, respectively).

In addition, 155 participants (8.8%) reported weekly use of a nonheroin opioid, and 95 (6.6%) reported weekly heroin use by age 30 years. Chronic depression and dysthymia also were strongly associated with weekly nonheroin opioid use (OR 8.89 and 11.51, respectively).

In a multivariate analysis, depression, tobacco use, and cannabis use at ages 9-16 years were strongly associated with overall opioid use at ages 19-30 years.

“One possible reason childhood chronic depression increases the risk of later opioid use is self-medication, including the use of psychoactive substances, to alleviate depression,” the researchers noted. In addition, the mood-altering properties of opioids may increase their appeal to depressed youth as a way to relieve impaired reward system function, they said.

Potential mechanisms for the association between early tobacco use and later opioid use include the alterations to neurodevelopment caused by nicotine exposure in adolescence, as well as increased risk for depression, reduced pain thresholds, and use of nicotine as a gateway to harder drugs, the researchers added.

Several childhood risk factors were not associated with young adult opioid use in multivariate analysis in this study, including alcohol use, sociodemographic status, maltreatment, family dysfunction, and anxiety, the researchers wrote. “Previous studies typically measured these risk factors retrospectively or in late adolescence and young adulthood, and most did not consider depressive disorders, which may mediate associations between select childhood risk factors and later opioid use,” they said.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the inability to distinguish between medical and nonmedical opioid use, the incomplete list of available opioids, and the exclusion of Black participants because of low sample size, the researchers noted. However, the results were strengthened by the longitudinal, community-representative design and the inclusion of up to 11 assessments of opioid use, they said.

“Our findings suggest strong opportunities for early prevention and intervention, including in primary care settings,” using known evidence-based strategies, they concluded.
 

More screening is needed

“Children in the United States are at high risk of serious adult health issues as a result of childhood factors such as ACEs (adverse childhood experiences),” said Suzanne C. Boulter, MD, of the Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, N.H. “This study looks prospectively at other factors in childhood over a long period of time leading to opioid usage, with its serious risks and health consequences including overdose death,” she said. “It is unclear what the effects of COVID-19 will be on the population of children growing up now and how opioid usage might change as a result,” she noted.

“Some of the links to adult usage are predictable, such as depression, tobacco use, and cannabis use in early adolescence,” said Dr. Boulter. “Surprising was the lack of correlation between anxiety, early alcohol use, child mistreatment, and sociodemographic factors with future opioid use,” she said.

The take-home message for clinicians is to screen children and adolescents for factors leading to opioid usage in young adults “with preventive strategies including avoidance of pain medication prescriptions and early referral and treatment for depression and use of cannabis and tobacco products using tools like SBIRT (Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment),” Dr. Boulter emphasized.

As for additional research, “It would be interesting to study e-cigarette usage and see if the correlation with future opioid usage is similar to older tobacco products,” she said. “Also helpful would be to delve deeper into connections between medical or dental diagnoses when opioids were first prescribed and later usage of those products,” Dr. Boulter noted.

The study was supported in part by the by the National Institute of Mental Health and the National Institute on Drug Abuse. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Boulter had no disclosures but serves on the Pediatric News Editorial Advisory Board.

Depression and tobacco use in childhood significantly increased the risk for opioid use in young adults, according to data from a prospective study of approximately 1,000 individuals.

Previous research, including the annual Monitoring the Future study, documents opioid use among adolescents in the United States, but childhood risk factors for opioid use in young adults have not been well studied, wrote Lilly Shanahan, PhD, of the University of Zürich, and colleagues.

In a prospective cohort study published in JAMA Pediatrics, the researchers identified 1,252 non-Hispanic White and American Indian opioid-naive individuals aged 9-16 years in rural North Carolina. They interviewed participants and parents up to 7 times between January 1993 and December 2000, and interviewed participants only at ages 19, 21, 25, and 30 years between January 1999 and December 2015.

Overall, 24.2% of study participants had used a nonheroin opioid by age 30 years, and both chronic depression and dysthymia were significantly associated with this use (odds ratios 5.43 and 7.13, respectively).

In addition, 155 participants (8.8%) reported weekly use of a nonheroin opioid, and 95 (6.6%) reported weekly heroin use by age 30 years. Chronic depression and dysthymia also were strongly associated with weekly nonheroin opioid use (OR 8.89 and 11.51, respectively).

In a multivariate analysis, depression, tobacco use, and cannabis use at ages 9-16 years were strongly associated with overall opioid use at ages 19-30 years.

“One possible reason childhood chronic depression increases the risk of later opioid use is self-medication, including the use of psychoactive substances, to alleviate depression,” the researchers noted. In addition, the mood-altering properties of opioids may increase their appeal to depressed youth as a way to relieve impaired reward system function, they said.

Potential mechanisms for the association between early tobacco use and later opioid use include the alterations to neurodevelopment caused by nicotine exposure in adolescence, as well as increased risk for depression, reduced pain thresholds, and use of nicotine as a gateway to harder drugs, the researchers added.

Several childhood risk factors were not associated with young adult opioid use in multivariate analysis in this study, including alcohol use, sociodemographic status, maltreatment, family dysfunction, and anxiety, the researchers wrote. “Previous studies typically measured these risk factors retrospectively or in late adolescence and young adulthood, and most did not consider depressive disorders, which may mediate associations between select childhood risk factors and later opioid use,” they said.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the inability to distinguish between medical and nonmedical opioid use, the incomplete list of available opioids, and the exclusion of Black participants because of low sample size, the researchers noted. However, the results were strengthened by the longitudinal, community-representative design and the inclusion of up to 11 assessments of opioid use, they said.

“Our findings suggest strong opportunities for early prevention and intervention, including in primary care settings,” using known evidence-based strategies, they concluded.
 

More screening is needed

“Children in the United States are at high risk of serious adult health issues as a result of childhood factors such as ACEs (adverse childhood experiences),” said Suzanne C. Boulter, MD, of the Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, N.H. “This study looks prospectively at other factors in childhood over a long period of time leading to opioid usage, with its serious risks and health consequences including overdose death,” she said. “It is unclear what the effects of COVID-19 will be on the population of children growing up now and how opioid usage might change as a result,” she noted.

“Some of the links to adult usage are predictable, such as depression, tobacco use, and cannabis use in early adolescence,” said Dr. Boulter. “Surprising was the lack of correlation between anxiety, early alcohol use, child mistreatment, and sociodemographic factors with future opioid use,” she said.

The take-home message for clinicians is to screen children and adolescents for factors leading to opioid usage in young adults “with preventive strategies including avoidance of pain medication prescriptions and early referral and treatment for depression and use of cannabis and tobacco products using tools like SBIRT (Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment),” Dr. Boulter emphasized.

As for additional research, “It would be interesting to study e-cigarette usage and see if the correlation with future opioid usage is similar to older tobacco products,” she said. “Also helpful would be to delve deeper into connections between medical or dental diagnoses when opioids were first prescribed and later usage of those products,” Dr. Boulter noted.

The study was supported in part by the by the National Institute of Mental Health and the National Institute on Drug Abuse. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Boulter had no disclosures but serves on the Pediatric News Editorial Advisory Board.

Depression and tobacco use in childhood significantly increased the risk for opioid use in young adults, according to data from a prospective study of approximately 1,000 individuals.

Previous research, including the annual Monitoring the Future study, documents opioid use among adolescents in the United States, but childhood risk factors for opioid use in young adults have not been well studied, wrote Lilly Shanahan, PhD, of the University of Zürich, and colleagues.

In a prospective cohort study published in JAMA Pediatrics, the researchers identified 1,252 non-Hispanic White and American Indian opioid-naive individuals aged 9-16 years in rural North Carolina. They interviewed participants and parents up to 7 times between January 1993 and December 2000, and interviewed participants only at ages 19, 21, 25, and 30 years between January 1999 and December 2015.

Overall, 24.2% of study participants had used a nonheroin opioid by age 30 years, and both chronic depression and dysthymia were significantly associated with this use (odds ratios 5.43 and 7.13, respectively).

In addition, 155 participants (8.8%) reported weekly use of a nonheroin opioid, and 95 (6.6%) reported weekly heroin use by age 30 years. Chronic depression and dysthymia also were strongly associated with weekly nonheroin opioid use (OR 8.89 and 11.51, respectively).

In a multivariate analysis, depression, tobacco use, and cannabis use at ages 9-16 years were strongly associated with overall opioid use at ages 19-30 years.

“One possible reason childhood chronic depression increases the risk of later opioid use is self-medication, including the use of psychoactive substances, to alleviate depression,” the researchers noted. In addition, the mood-altering properties of opioids may increase their appeal to depressed youth as a way to relieve impaired reward system function, they said.

Potential mechanisms for the association between early tobacco use and later opioid use include the alterations to neurodevelopment caused by nicotine exposure in adolescence, as well as increased risk for depression, reduced pain thresholds, and use of nicotine as a gateway to harder drugs, the researchers added.

Several childhood risk factors were not associated with young adult opioid use in multivariate analysis in this study, including alcohol use, sociodemographic status, maltreatment, family dysfunction, and anxiety, the researchers wrote. “Previous studies typically measured these risk factors retrospectively or in late adolescence and young adulthood, and most did not consider depressive disorders, which may mediate associations between select childhood risk factors and later opioid use,” they said.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the inability to distinguish between medical and nonmedical opioid use, the incomplete list of available opioids, and the exclusion of Black participants because of low sample size, the researchers noted. However, the results were strengthened by the longitudinal, community-representative design and the inclusion of up to 11 assessments of opioid use, they said.

“Our findings suggest strong opportunities for early prevention and intervention, including in primary care settings,” using known evidence-based strategies, they concluded.
 

More screening is needed

“Children in the United States are at high risk of serious adult health issues as a result of childhood factors such as ACEs (adverse childhood experiences),” said Suzanne C. Boulter, MD, of the Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, N.H. “This study looks prospectively at other factors in childhood over a long period of time leading to opioid usage, with its serious risks and health consequences including overdose death,” she said. “It is unclear what the effects of COVID-19 will be on the population of children growing up now and how opioid usage might change as a result,” she noted.

“Some of the links to adult usage are predictable, such as depression, tobacco use, and cannabis use in early adolescence,” said Dr. Boulter. “Surprising was the lack of correlation between anxiety, early alcohol use, child mistreatment, and sociodemographic factors with future opioid use,” she said.

The take-home message for clinicians is to screen children and adolescents for factors leading to opioid usage in young adults “with preventive strategies including avoidance of pain medication prescriptions and early referral and treatment for depression and use of cannabis and tobacco products using tools like SBIRT (Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment),” Dr. Boulter emphasized.

As for additional research, “It would be interesting to study e-cigarette usage and see if the correlation with future opioid usage is similar to older tobacco products,” she said. “Also helpful would be to delve deeper into connections between medical or dental diagnoses when opioids were first prescribed and later usage of those products,” Dr. Boulter noted.

The study was supported in part by the by the National Institute of Mental Health and the National Institute on Drug Abuse. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Boulter had no disclosures but serves on the Pediatric News Editorial Advisory Board.

The United States added over 171,000 new COVID-19 cases in children during the week ending Jan. 7, but that figure is lower than 3 of the previous 4 weeks, according to a report from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

Despite an increase compared with the week ending Dec. 31, the most recent weekly total is down from the high of 182,000 cases reported for the week ending Dec. 17, based on data collected from the health department websites of 49 states (excluding New York), the District of Columbia, New York City, Puerto Rico, and Guam.

Those jurisdictions have recorded a total of almost 2.3 million COVID-19 cases in children since the beginning of the pandemic, which amounts to 12.5% of reported cases among all ages. The 171,000 child cases for the most recent week represented 12.9% of the more than 1.3 million cases nationwide, the AAP and CHA said in their latest weekly update.

The United States now has a rate of 3,055 COVID-19 cases per 100,000 children in the population, the report shows, with 31 states above that figure and 14 states reporting rates above 4,500 per 100,000 children.

Severe illness, however, continues to be rare among children. So far, children represent 1.8% of all hospitalizations in the jurisdictions reporting such data (24 states and New York City), and just 0.9% of infected children have been hospitalized. There have been 188 deaths among children in 42 states and New York City, which makes up just 0.06% of the total for all ages in those jurisdictions, the AAP and CHA reported.

There are 13 states that have reported no coronavirus-related deaths in children, while Texas (34), New York City (21), Arizona (17), and Illinois (11) are the only jurisdictions with 10 or more. Nevada has the highest proportion of child deaths to all deaths at 0.2%, with Arizona and Nebraska next at 0.18%, according to the AAP/CHA report.

[email protected]

The United States added over 171,000 new COVID-19 cases in children during the week ending Jan. 7, but that figure is lower than 3 of the previous 4 weeks, according to a report from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

Despite an increase compared with the week ending Dec. 31, the most recent weekly total is down from the high of 182,000 cases reported for the week ending Dec. 17, based on data collected from the health department websites of 49 states (excluding New York), the District of Columbia, New York City, Puerto Rico, and Guam.

Those jurisdictions have recorded a total of almost 2.3 million COVID-19 cases in children since the beginning of the pandemic, which amounts to 12.5% of reported cases among all ages. The 171,000 child cases for the most recent week represented 12.9% of the more than 1.3 million cases nationwide, the AAP and CHA said in their latest weekly update.

The United States now has a rate of 3,055 COVID-19 cases per 100,000 children in the population, the report shows, with 31 states above that figure and 14 states reporting rates above 4,500 per 100,000 children.

Severe illness, however, continues to be rare among children. So far, children represent 1.8% of all hospitalizations in the jurisdictions reporting such data (24 states and New York City), and just 0.9% of infected children have been hospitalized. There have been 188 deaths among children in 42 states and New York City, which makes up just 0.06% of the total for all ages in those jurisdictions, the AAP and CHA reported.

There are 13 states that have reported no coronavirus-related deaths in children, while Texas (34), New York City (21), Arizona (17), and Illinois (11) are the only jurisdictions with 10 or more. Nevada has the highest proportion of child deaths to all deaths at 0.2%, with Arizona and Nebraska next at 0.18%, according to the AAP/CHA report.

[email protected]

The United States added over 171,000 new COVID-19 cases in children during the week ending Jan. 7, but that figure is lower than 3 of the previous 4 weeks, according to a report from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

Despite an increase compared with the week ending Dec. 31, the most recent weekly total is down from the high of 182,000 cases reported for the week ending Dec. 17, based on data collected from the health department websites of 49 states (excluding New York), the District of Columbia, New York City, Puerto Rico, and Guam.

Those jurisdictions have recorded a total of almost 2.3 million COVID-19 cases in children since the beginning of the pandemic, which amounts to 12.5% of reported cases among all ages. The 171,000 child cases for the most recent week represented 12.9% of the more than 1.3 million cases nationwide, the AAP and CHA said in their latest weekly update.

The United States now has a rate of 3,055 COVID-19 cases per 100,000 children in the population, the report shows, with 31 states above that figure and 14 states reporting rates above 4,500 per 100,000 children.

Severe illness, however, continues to be rare among children. So far, children represent 1.8% of all hospitalizations in the jurisdictions reporting such data (24 states and New York City), and just 0.9% of infected children have been hospitalized. There have been 188 deaths among children in 42 states and New York City, which makes up just 0.06% of the total for all ages in those jurisdictions, the AAP and CHA reported.

There are 13 states that have reported no coronavirus-related deaths in children, while Texas (34), New York City (21), Arizona (17), and Illinois (11) are the only jurisdictions with 10 or more. Nevada has the highest proportion of child deaths to all deaths at 0.2%, with Arizona and Nebraska next at 0.18%, according to the AAP/CHA report.

[email protected]

There’s little doubt that the COVID-19 pandemic has been hard on many children and adolescents just as it has been difficult for adults. The disruption of routines, reduced contact with friends, concern over getting ill, and financial turmoil suffered by many families is exacting a toll on our mental health, as has been documented by a number of recent surveys and studies.^1,2

Quite understandably, concern about rising levels of anxiety and depression in youth prompts additional worries about suicide, the second leading cause of death in adolescents and young adults. In response, many organizations have rallied to provide additional resources to help prevent suicidal thinking and actions. Online mental health tips, support phone and text lines, and the availability of telemedicine have all been mobilized to help people cope and stay safe both physically and psychologically.

But what are the actual numbers when it comes to youth suicide during COVID-19? According to many headlines in the press, the statistics are grim and support many of distressing predictions that have been made. A December story in an Arizona newspaper, “With Teen Suicides on the Rise, Tucson Educators Struggle to Prioritize Mental Health,” described a 67% increase in teen suicides in 2020 compared with 2019 in one county.³ Another post from Psychology Today, “America is Facing a Teen Suicide Pandemic,” raised similar alarms.⁴ Concern over suicide has even been used politically to argue against restrictions that could reduce the spread of COVID-19 infections.

But despite this common perception shared by both health care professionals and the public, there actually is not evidence at this point that the COVID-19 pandemic has led to a broad spike in youth suicide deaths or attempts. A recent study published in the journal Pediatrics compared suicide screening results on youth presenting to emergency departments for any reason in 2020 to the same month in 2019.⁵ The authors found no consistent increases in reported suicidal ideation or suicide attempts with scattered elevations found in some months during 2020 compared with the previous year (including February 2020 before the pandemic really began) but not others. Internationally, newly analyzed data from 2020 with regard to suicide deaths have suggested “either no rise in suicide rates ... or a fall in the early months of the pandemic.” In my home and, admittedly small, state of Vermont, data from the Department of Health have shown 93 suicide deaths across all ages as of mid-November 2020 compared with a 5-year average of 96.

Why don’t the data match the headlines? There are a number of possibilities.

1. Suicide rates in youth were going up before the pandemic. As it takes time to verify and analyze data from large populations, many of the reports on suicide that have been published and released in 2020 summarize data from prior years. Without looking closely, a news organization can easily slap on a headline that implies that the data were obtained during the pandemic.

2. Fluctuations tend to occur from year to year. Thankfully, youth suicide remains rare (although not rare enough). With small numbers, regular variations from year to year can look huge in terms of percentages, especially if one doesn’t pull back and look at longer trends over time.

3. People are reaching out for mental health services. The public health message to access support and treatment for COVID 19–related mental health struggles appears to be having an effect, but this increased demand should not necessarily be viewed as a proxy for suicidal ideation and attempts.

While the understanding that we are not actually in the midst of a surge in COVID 19–related youth suicide is reassuring, it is important not to get complacent. Much of the data remains preliminary, and, even if these numbers hold up, there is no guarantee that things will continue this way, especially if the pandemic and it restrictions continue to drag on for many more months. And of course, whether or not the pandemic is making things significantly worse, youth suicide remains an enormous public health imperative with every one being a human tragedy.

It is also quite possible that more detailed analyses will eventually reveal a more complex association between youth suicide and COVID-19, with effects of the pandemic being realized regionally or more for some groups than others. Data from before the pandemic indicated, for example, that suicide rates are increasing more rapidly among African American youth compared with white children and adolescents.⁶ With the COVID-19 pandemic itself affecting disadvantaged communities more strongly, one could readily expect variable impacts in mental health related to race or socioeconomic status. A recent article voices these concerns for indigenous youth in Montana: a state with one of the highest per capita suicide rates in the country.⁷ The article notes, however, that the rate of suicide overall in Montana in 2020 is comparable to those of previous years.

Overall, pediatricians should not be needlessly panicked that the COVID-19 pandemic has sparked a surge in youth suicide. The data at this point simply don’t support that assertion despite many headlines to the contrary. At the same time, many children and adolescents are certainly struggling with the stresses the pandemic has created and continue to need our close monitoring and support.
 

Dr. Rettew is a child and adolescent psychiatrist and associate professor of psychiatry and pediatrics at the University of Vermont Larner College of Medicine. Follow him on Twitter @PediPsych. His new book, “Parenting Made Complicated: What Science Really Knows About the Greatest Debates of Early Childhood,” launches Feb. 1, 2021.

References

1. Copeland WE et al. Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on college student mental health and wellness. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2020;60(1):134-41. doi: 10.1016/j.jaac.2020.08.466.

2. Qiu J et al. A nationwide survey of psychological distress among Chinese people in the COVID-19 epidemic: Implications and policy recommendations. Gen Psychiatry. 2020;33:e100213. doi: 10.1136/gpsych-2020-100213.

3. Dhmara K. With teen suicides on the rise, Tucson educators struggle to prioritize mental health. Tuscon.com. Dec. 27, 2020.

4. Chafouleas, SM. America is facing a suicide epidemic: New data confirm the urgency of confronting it now. Psychology Today blog. Sept. 4, 2020.

5. Hill RM et al. Suicide ideation and attempts in a pediatric emergency department before and after COVID-19. Pediatrics. 2020. doi: 10.1542/peds.2020-029280.

6. John A et al. Trends in suicide during the covid-19 pandemic. BMJ 2020;371:m4352. doi: 10.1136/bmj.m4352.

7. Reardon S. Health officials fear COVID-19 pandemic-related suicide spike among indigenous youth. Time Magazine. December 2020.

There’s little doubt that the COVID-19 pandemic has been hard on many children and adolescents just as it has been difficult for adults. The disruption of routines, reduced contact with friends, concern over getting ill, and financial turmoil suffered by many families is exacting a toll on our mental health, as has been documented by a number of recent surveys and studies.^1,2

Quite understandably, concern about rising levels of anxiety and depression in youth prompts additional worries about suicide, the second leading cause of death in adolescents and young adults. In response, many organizations have rallied to provide additional resources to help prevent suicidal thinking and actions. Online mental health tips, support phone and text lines, and the availability of telemedicine have all been mobilized to help people cope and stay safe both physically and psychologically.

But what are the actual numbers when it comes to youth suicide during COVID-19? According to many headlines in the press, the statistics are grim and support many of distressing predictions that have been made. A December story in an Arizona newspaper, “With Teen Suicides on the Rise, Tucson Educators Struggle to Prioritize Mental Health,” described a 67% increase in teen suicides in 2020 compared with 2019 in one county.³ Another post from Psychology Today, “America is Facing a Teen Suicide Pandemic,” raised similar alarms.⁴ Concern over suicide has even been used politically to argue against restrictions that could reduce the spread of COVID-19 infections.

But despite this common perception shared by both health care professionals and the public, there actually is not evidence at this point that the COVID-19 pandemic has led to a broad spike in youth suicide deaths or attempts. A recent study published in the journal Pediatrics compared suicide screening results on youth presenting to emergency departments for any reason in 2020 to the same month in 2019.⁵ The authors found no consistent increases in reported suicidal ideation or suicide attempts with scattered elevations found in some months during 2020 compared with the previous year (including February 2020 before the pandemic really began) but not others. Internationally, newly analyzed data from 2020 with regard to suicide deaths have suggested “either no rise in suicide rates ... or a fall in the early months of the pandemic.” In my home and, admittedly small, state of Vermont, data from the Department of Health have shown 93 suicide deaths across all ages as of mid-November 2020 compared with a 5-year average of 96.

Why don’t the data match the headlines? There are a number of possibilities.

1. Suicide rates in youth were going up before the pandemic. As it takes time to verify and analyze data from large populations, many of the reports on suicide that have been published and released in 2020 summarize data from prior years. Without looking closely, a news organization can easily slap on a headline that implies that the data were obtained during the pandemic.

2. Fluctuations tend to occur from year to year. Thankfully, youth suicide remains rare (although not rare enough). With small numbers, regular variations from year to year can look huge in terms of percentages, especially if one doesn’t pull back and look at longer trends over time.

3. People are reaching out for mental health services. The public health message to access support and treatment for COVID 19–related mental health struggles appears to be having an effect, but this increased demand should not necessarily be viewed as a proxy for suicidal ideation and attempts.

While the understanding that we are not actually in the midst of a surge in COVID 19–related youth suicide is reassuring, it is important not to get complacent. Much of the data remains preliminary, and, even if these numbers hold up, there is no guarantee that things will continue this way, especially if the pandemic and it restrictions continue to drag on for many more months. And of course, whether or not the pandemic is making things significantly worse, youth suicide remains an enormous public health imperative with every one being a human tragedy.

It is also quite possible that more detailed analyses will eventually reveal a more complex association between youth suicide and COVID-19, with effects of the pandemic being realized regionally or more for some groups than others. Data from before the pandemic indicated, for example, that suicide rates are increasing more rapidly among African American youth compared with white children and adolescents.⁶ With the COVID-19 pandemic itself affecting disadvantaged communities more strongly, one could readily expect variable impacts in mental health related to race or socioeconomic status. A recent article voices these concerns for indigenous youth in Montana: a state with one of the highest per capita suicide rates in the country.⁷ The article notes, however, that the rate of suicide overall in Montana in 2020 is comparable to those of previous years.

Overall, pediatricians should not be needlessly panicked that the COVID-19 pandemic has sparked a surge in youth suicide. The data at this point simply don’t support that assertion despite many headlines to the contrary. At the same time, many children and adolescents are certainly struggling with the stresses the pandemic has created and continue to need our close monitoring and support.
 

Dr. Rettew is a child and adolescent psychiatrist and associate professor of psychiatry and pediatrics at the University of Vermont Larner College of Medicine. Follow him on Twitter @PediPsych. His new book, “Parenting Made Complicated: What Science Really Knows About the Greatest Debates of Early Childhood,” launches Feb. 1, 2021.

References

1. Copeland WE et al. Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on college student mental health and wellness. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2020;60(1):134-41. doi: 10.1016/j.jaac.2020.08.466.

2. Qiu J et al. A nationwide survey of psychological distress among Chinese people in the COVID-19 epidemic: Implications and policy recommendations. Gen Psychiatry. 2020;33:e100213. doi: 10.1136/gpsych-2020-100213.

3. Dhmara K. With teen suicides on the rise, Tucson educators struggle to prioritize mental health. Tuscon.com. Dec. 27, 2020.

4. Chafouleas, SM. America is facing a suicide epidemic: New data confirm the urgency of confronting it now. Psychology Today blog. Sept. 4, 2020.

5. Hill RM et al. Suicide ideation and attempts in a pediatric emergency department before and after COVID-19. Pediatrics. 2020. doi: 10.1542/peds.2020-029280.

6. John A et al. Trends in suicide during the covid-19 pandemic. BMJ 2020;371:m4352. doi: 10.1136/bmj.m4352.

7. Reardon S. Health officials fear COVID-19 pandemic-related suicide spike among indigenous youth. Time Magazine. December 2020.

There’s little doubt that the COVID-19 pandemic has been hard on many children and adolescents just as it has been difficult for adults. The disruption of routines, reduced contact with friends, concern over getting ill, and financial turmoil suffered by many families is exacting a toll on our mental health, as has been documented by a number of recent surveys and studies.^1,2

Quite understandably, concern about rising levels of anxiety and depression in youth prompts additional worries about suicide, the second leading cause of death in adolescents and young adults. In response, many organizations have rallied to provide additional resources to help prevent suicidal thinking and actions. Online mental health tips, support phone and text lines, and the availability of telemedicine have all been mobilized to help people cope and stay safe both physically and psychologically.

But what are the actual numbers when it comes to youth suicide during COVID-19? According to many headlines in the press, the statistics are grim and support many of distressing predictions that have been made. A December story in an Arizona newspaper, “With Teen Suicides on the Rise, Tucson Educators Struggle to Prioritize Mental Health,” described a 67% increase in teen suicides in 2020 compared with 2019 in one county.³ Another post from Psychology Today, “America is Facing a Teen Suicide Pandemic,” raised similar alarms.⁴ Concern over suicide has even been used politically to argue against restrictions that could reduce the spread of COVID-19 infections.

But despite this common perception shared by both health care professionals and the public, there actually is not evidence at this point that the COVID-19 pandemic has led to a broad spike in youth suicide deaths or attempts. A recent study published in the journal Pediatrics compared suicide screening results on youth presenting to emergency departments for any reason in 2020 to the same month in 2019.⁵ The authors found no consistent increases in reported suicidal ideation or suicide attempts with scattered elevations found in some months during 2020 compared with the previous year (including February 2020 before the pandemic really began) but not others. Internationally, newly analyzed data from 2020 with regard to suicide deaths have suggested “either no rise in suicide rates ... or a fall in the early months of the pandemic.” In my home and, admittedly small, state of Vermont, data from the Department of Health have shown 93 suicide deaths across all ages as of mid-November 2020 compared with a 5-year average of 96.

Why don’t the data match the headlines? There are a number of possibilities.

1. Suicide rates in youth were going up before the pandemic. As it takes time to verify and analyze data from large populations, many of the reports on suicide that have been published and released in 2020 summarize data from prior years. Without looking closely, a news organization can easily slap on a headline that implies that the data were obtained during the pandemic.

2. Fluctuations tend to occur from year to year. Thankfully, youth suicide remains rare (although not rare enough). With small numbers, regular variations from year to year can look huge in terms of percentages, especially if one doesn’t pull back and look at longer trends over time.

3. People are reaching out for mental health services. The public health message to access support and treatment for COVID 19–related mental health struggles appears to be having an effect, but this increased demand should not necessarily be viewed as a proxy for suicidal ideation and attempts.

While the understanding that we are not actually in the midst of a surge in COVID 19–related youth suicide is reassuring, it is important not to get complacent. Much of the data remains preliminary, and, even if these numbers hold up, there is no guarantee that things will continue this way, especially if the pandemic and it restrictions continue to drag on for many more months. And of course, whether or not the pandemic is making things significantly worse, youth suicide remains an enormous public health imperative with every one being a human tragedy.

It is also quite possible that more detailed analyses will eventually reveal a more complex association between youth suicide and COVID-19, with effects of the pandemic being realized regionally or more for some groups than others. Data from before the pandemic indicated, for example, that suicide rates are increasing more rapidly among African American youth compared with white children and adolescents.⁶ With the COVID-19 pandemic itself affecting disadvantaged communities more strongly, one could readily expect variable impacts in mental health related to race or socioeconomic status. A recent article voices these concerns for indigenous youth in Montana: a state with one of the highest per capita suicide rates in the country.⁷ The article notes, however, that the rate of suicide overall in Montana in 2020 is comparable to those of previous years.

Overall, pediatricians should not be needlessly panicked that the COVID-19 pandemic has sparked a surge in youth suicide. The data at this point simply don’t support that assertion despite many headlines to the contrary. At the same time, many children and adolescents are certainly struggling with the stresses the pandemic has created and continue to need our close monitoring and support.
 

Dr. Rettew is a child and adolescent psychiatrist and associate professor of psychiatry and pediatrics at the University of Vermont Larner College of Medicine. Follow him on Twitter @PediPsych. His new book, “Parenting Made Complicated: What Science Really Knows About the Greatest Debates of Early Childhood,” launches Feb. 1, 2021.

References

1. Copeland WE et al. Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on college student mental health and wellness. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2020;60(1):134-41. doi: 10.1016/j.jaac.2020.08.466.

2. Qiu J et al. A nationwide survey of psychological distress among Chinese people in the COVID-19 epidemic: Implications and policy recommendations. Gen Psychiatry. 2020;33:e100213. doi: 10.1136/gpsych-2020-100213.

3. Dhmara K. With teen suicides on the rise, Tucson educators struggle to prioritize mental health. Tuscon.com. Dec. 27, 2020.

4. Chafouleas, SM. America is facing a suicide epidemic: New data confirm the urgency of confronting it now. Psychology Today blog. Sept. 4, 2020.

5. Hill RM et al. Suicide ideation and attempts in a pediatric emergency department before and after COVID-19. Pediatrics. 2020. doi: 10.1542/peds.2020-029280.

6. John A et al. Trends in suicide during the covid-19 pandemic. BMJ 2020;371:m4352. doi: 10.1136/bmj.m4352.

7. Reardon S. Health officials fear COVID-19 pandemic-related suicide spike among indigenous youth. Time Magazine. December 2020.

In a recent New York Times opinion article, author Aubrey Gordon claims that since a visit to her pediatrician in fourth grade she has felt like an “enemy combatant in the nation’s war on childhood obesity.” (“Leave Fat Kids Alone,” Nov. 13, 2020).

At that unfortunate encounter, she recalls being told that “You’ll be thin and beautiful ... If you can just stay the same weight.” In retrospect she feels that the comment by her well-meaning but misguided physician “planted the seeds of depression” that have plagued her ever since.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].

In a recent New York Times opinion article, author Aubrey Gordon claims that since a visit to her pediatrician in fourth grade she has felt like an “enemy combatant in the nation’s war on childhood obesity.” (“Leave Fat Kids Alone,” Nov. 13, 2020).

At that unfortunate encounter, she recalls being told that “You’ll be thin and beautiful ... If you can just stay the same weight.” In retrospect she feels that the comment by her well-meaning but misguided physician “planted the seeds of depression” that have plagued her ever since.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].

In a recent New York Times opinion article, author Aubrey Gordon claims that since a visit to her pediatrician in fourth grade she has felt like an “enemy combatant in the nation’s war on childhood obesity.” (“Leave Fat Kids Alone,” Nov. 13, 2020).

At that unfortunate encounter, she recalls being told that “You’ll be thin and beautiful ... If you can just stay the same weight.” In retrospect she feels that the comment by her well-meaning but misguided physician “planted the seeds of depression” that have plagued her ever since.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].