Pediatrics

The bonding process between individuals is essential to human life as we know it. The depth and strength of emotional bonds that we develop with other individuals are among the cardinal aspects of being human.

The strengths of the bonds that we form with others often are the most enduring aspects of our lives and can stretch back in time to include family members and friends who are no longer alive. The brain processes and neurochemicals involved in the bonding process are related to psychological processes using Bayesian theory. Abnormalities in attachment are described in terms of abnormal predictive models.

John Bowlby MD, and colleagues developed a psychological theory of early childhood attachment that shows the impact of different childhood experiences.¹ Over many decades, they conducted painstaking observations, trials, and retrials that elucidated specific types of attachment that reflect the child’s internal representations of the parent.

Dr. Bowlby described the mental representations of attachment as “the internal working models of expectations” about the maternal-child relationship. This internal model guides the child’s behaviors, attitudes, and expectations, and is constantly being revised and expanded as the child matures in order to adapt to increasingly complex relationships. More current research has shown that adults who have experienced extreme early childhood adversity develop odd or deficient descriptions of primary attachment relationships, now refined into a low-coherence CC category.² These children experience attachments that are characterized by feelings of emptiness, inconsistency, and fragmentation.

Object relations theory was created by Heinz Kohut, MD, to explain our internal models of others in psychoanalytic language.^{3 Dr.} Kohut expands the concept of transference describing three new transferential relationships: mirroring, idealized, and twinship transferences. A mirroring transference describes the psychological mechanism whereby “the other” serves as a mirror that reflects back to the person a sense of self-worth and value. A mirroring transference uses the affirming and positive responses of others so that a person then can see positive traits within themselves. The idealizing transference refers to a person’s need for “another” who will make them feel calm and comfortable. The other is idealized as somebody who is calm and soothing when the person cannot provide that on their own. The twinship/alter ego transference occurs when a person feels a sense of likeness with “an other.” These advances in psychoanalytic theory advance our understanding of how we internalize aspects of other people and use these internalizations in our own development.

The neuroscience of attachment was revealed in the study of the children abandoned in Romanian orphanages before the 1989 revolution. These children were placed in orphanages that lacked adequate staff, and they were subjected to profound psychosocial neglect. In the Bucharest Early Intervention Project, the effects of neglect were seen in children aged less than 30-96 months, in EEG data.⁴ Abnormalities were found in two aberrantly connected brain networks: a hyperconnected parieto-occipital network and a hypoconnected network between left temporal and distributed bilateral regions. This study provides the first evidence of the adverse effects of early psychosocial neglect on the wiring of the developing brain.

Neurochemistry has suggested the impact of oxytocin on the promotion of attachment. Oxytocin has been called the “cuddle hormone,” as it is stimulated in mothers to promote bonding with their infant. Many studies have examined the introduction of intranasal oxytocin increases bonding and trust with others, but recent meta-analyses challenge those findings.^5,6 Nevertheless, the process of bonding and attachment is thought to engage the mesocorticolimbic, nigrostriatal dopaminergic, and oxytocinergic systems. Tops and colleagues proposed that oxytocin facilitates a shift from ventral striatal “novelty processing” toward dorsal striatal “familiarity processing.”⁷ This shift to familiarity is thought to create secure internal working models. In addition, brain activity in specific regions, such as the right caudate, is correlated with romantic love.⁸ In summary, specific pathways and neurotransmitters underlie the emotional process of bonding and attachment.

However, it is Karl Friston, MD, who suggests a model of brain functioning that describes how we actually process our experiences of the world.⁹ Dr. Friston uses Bayesian modeling to describe how we interact and understand our world, describing the way we process information. Dr. Friston states that the process of inference that we use to discern our world is a process that uses Bayes’ theorem to update the probability for a specific hypothesis about our world. As more evidence or information becomes available, we update our internal models of the world. Predictive modeling is the term used in Bayesian terms to describe this process of continuous revision of our internal model of the world. Any new sensory input is compared to our current internal model, and if they do not match, our internal model of the world is updated and revised. Dr. Friston states: “As surprise is resolved, Bayesian model evidence is increased. This means that every living organism behaves as if it is a little statistician, analyzing its sensory data in exactly the same way that scientists evaluate the evidence for their hypotheses about how experimental data were caused. In this view, minimizing surprise is, literally, the search for evidence for one’s own existence.” This process of predictive modeling also can be applied to our internal models of other people, meaning that our internal model of another person is an iterative process that changes as the other person changes.

When our experience of the world and others fall into predictive patterns, we expect the “usual” responses from our world and from the people in it. This predictive processing makes it easier for us to understand our world, so that we do not have to continually analyze and reanalyze each event as a new experience. For example, a young child examines the waves as they crash on the shore. For a while, he will watch the waves but soon begins to recognize that there is a predictable pattern. With each ocean he visits, he will examine wave action and soon develop an internal model of what happens when the water reaches the shore. Similarly, when a young child has a secure and loving parent, he will expect security and love in his future relationships. On the other hand, the child who has been subjected to abuse and neglect has an internal working model of the other as nonreciprocal and perhaps irrelevant to their well-being. They will, therefore, have extreme difficulty in understanding the purpose or value of relationships. Their predictive model of the other reflects a lack of input in the case of neglect, or perverted input in the case of abuse. Their internal predictive model will require a great deal of therapeutic healthy inputs to be able to evolve to allow a healthy relationship with the other. This is the work of therapy.

When thinking about relationships, predictive processing makes clinical sense. In a committed partnership, each partner has a predictive model of their partner’s response to events/speech utterances/emotional displays. The prediction of the partner’s response is based on prior experience. This predictive model reduces the need to repeatedly reinterpret the partner’s actions. The partner is understood through an internal predictive model. When one partner changes their behavior, the other partner experiences the world/environment as disrupted or different. The couple, through an iterative process, can incorporate change and grow together. If the patient has an internalized model of a loving relationship, then they are more likely to find a partner who resonates with this internalized model. Using predictive modeling, we can understand how two people with their own internal models of each other interact. As one person approaches the other person, each internal model of the other person finds a “fit” with the behaviors of the other person. When a child with emotional deprivation approaches the other, the child perceives the other person in a way that fits with their prior experience of deprivation. It is an easy fit that requires little internal work, and the patient falls into a familiar relational pattern. This model of predictive processing explains why people repeatedly fall into similar familiar relationships: They recognize the relationship patterns. There is less predictive processing required, less emotional and cognitive work, and therefore less adjustment.

Psychotherapy helps patients by improving their understanding of the link between prior and current experience. Each piece of behavior is analyzed and compared with the patient’s internal model of the event. What neuroscience now provides is a deeper scientific understanding of this process. A neuroscience-based visualization of our internal models of other people can help us better describe the iterative process that occurs in therapeutic progress.

In summary, the processes of attachment and bonding occur through oxytocin-mediated caudate–dorsal striatum pathways. Bayesian predictive modeling describes the processes by which our internal models of others are shaped and refined, and underscores the work of our psychotherapies. Neuroscience is beginning to delineate the “where” and “how” of attachment and bonding, thus advancing our understanding of the attachment process and giving us a new language to describe the work of psychotherapy.
 

References

1. Bowlby J. “A Secure Base: Parent-Child Attachment and Healthy Human Development.” New York: Basic Books, 1988.

2. Speranza AM et al. Attach Hum Dev. 2017 Dec;19(6):613-34.

3. Kohut H. “How Does Analysis Cure?” Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1984.

4. Stamoulis C et al. J Neurophysiol. 2017 Oct 1;118(4):2275-88.

5. Leng G and Ludwig M.Biol Psychiatry. 2016 Feb 1;79(3):243-50.

6. Leppanen J et al. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2017 Jul;78:125-44.

7. Tops M et al. Pharmacol Biochem Behav. 2014 Apr;119:39-48.

8. Acevedo BP et al. Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci. 2012 Feb;7(2):145-59.

9. Friston K. Entropy (Basel). 2012 Nov;14(11):2100-21.

The bonding process between individuals is essential to human life as we know it. The depth and strength of emotional bonds that we develop with other individuals are among the cardinal aspects of being human.

The strengths of the bonds that we form with others often are the most enduring aspects of our lives and can stretch back in time to include family members and friends who are no longer alive. The brain processes and neurochemicals involved in the bonding process are related to psychological processes using Bayesian theory. Abnormalities in attachment are described in terms of abnormal predictive models.

John Bowlby MD, and colleagues developed a psychological theory of early childhood attachment that shows the impact of different childhood experiences.¹ Over many decades, they conducted painstaking observations, trials, and retrials that elucidated specific types of attachment that reflect the child’s internal representations of the parent.

Dr. Bowlby described the mental representations of attachment as “the internal working models of expectations” about the maternal-child relationship. This internal model guides the child’s behaviors, attitudes, and expectations, and is constantly being revised and expanded as the child matures in order to adapt to increasingly complex relationships. More current research has shown that adults who have experienced extreme early childhood adversity develop odd or deficient descriptions of primary attachment relationships, now refined into a low-coherence CC category.² These children experience attachments that are characterized by feelings of emptiness, inconsistency, and fragmentation.

Object relations theory was created by Heinz Kohut, MD, to explain our internal models of others in psychoanalytic language.^{3 Dr.} Kohut expands the concept of transference describing three new transferential relationships: mirroring, idealized, and twinship transferences. A mirroring transference describes the psychological mechanism whereby “the other” serves as a mirror that reflects back to the person a sense of self-worth and value. A mirroring transference uses the affirming and positive responses of others so that a person then can see positive traits within themselves. The idealizing transference refers to a person’s need for “another” who will make them feel calm and comfortable. The other is idealized as somebody who is calm and soothing when the person cannot provide that on their own. The twinship/alter ego transference occurs when a person feels a sense of likeness with “an other.” These advances in psychoanalytic theory advance our understanding of how we internalize aspects of other people and use these internalizations in our own development.

The neuroscience of attachment was revealed in the study of the children abandoned in Romanian orphanages before the 1989 revolution. These children were placed in orphanages that lacked adequate staff, and they were subjected to profound psychosocial neglect. In the Bucharest Early Intervention Project, the effects of neglect were seen in children aged less than 30-96 months, in EEG data.⁴ Abnormalities were found in two aberrantly connected brain networks: a hyperconnected parieto-occipital network and a hypoconnected network between left temporal and distributed bilateral regions. This study provides the first evidence of the adverse effects of early psychosocial neglect on the wiring of the developing brain.

Neurochemistry has suggested the impact of oxytocin on the promotion of attachment. Oxytocin has been called the “cuddle hormone,” as it is stimulated in mothers to promote bonding with their infant. Many studies have examined the introduction of intranasal oxytocin increases bonding and trust with others, but recent meta-analyses challenge those findings.^5,6 Nevertheless, the process of bonding and attachment is thought to engage the mesocorticolimbic, nigrostriatal dopaminergic, and oxytocinergic systems. Tops and colleagues proposed that oxytocin facilitates a shift from ventral striatal “novelty processing” toward dorsal striatal “familiarity processing.”⁷ This shift to familiarity is thought to create secure internal working models. In addition, brain activity in specific regions, such as the right caudate, is correlated with romantic love.⁸ In summary, specific pathways and neurotransmitters underlie the emotional process of bonding and attachment.

However, it is Karl Friston, MD, who suggests a model of brain functioning that describes how we actually process our experiences of the world.⁹ Dr. Friston uses Bayesian modeling to describe how we interact and understand our world, describing the way we process information. Dr. Friston states that the process of inference that we use to discern our world is a process that uses Bayes’ theorem to update the probability for a specific hypothesis about our world. As more evidence or information becomes available, we update our internal models of the world. Predictive modeling is the term used in Bayesian terms to describe this process of continuous revision of our internal model of the world. Any new sensory input is compared to our current internal model, and if they do not match, our internal model of the world is updated and revised. Dr. Friston states: “As surprise is resolved, Bayesian model evidence is increased. This means that every living organism behaves as if it is a little statistician, analyzing its sensory data in exactly the same way that scientists evaluate the evidence for their hypotheses about how experimental data were caused. In this view, minimizing surprise is, literally, the search for evidence for one’s own existence.” This process of predictive modeling also can be applied to our internal models of other people, meaning that our internal model of another person is an iterative process that changes as the other person changes.

When our experience of the world and others fall into predictive patterns, we expect the “usual” responses from our world and from the people in it. This predictive processing makes it easier for us to understand our world, so that we do not have to continually analyze and reanalyze each event as a new experience. For example, a young child examines the waves as they crash on the shore. For a while, he will watch the waves but soon begins to recognize that there is a predictable pattern. With each ocean he visits, he will examine wave action and soon develop an internal model of what happens when the water reaches the shore. Similarly, when a young child has a secure and loving parent, he will expect security and love in his future relationships. On the other hand, the child who has been subjected to abuse and neglect has an internal working model of the other as nonreciprocal and perhaps irrelevant to their well-being. They will, therefore, have extreme difficulty in understanding the purpose or value of relationships. Their predictive model of the other reflects a lack of input in the case of neglect, or perverted input in the case of abuse. Their internal predictive model will require a great deal of therapeutic healthy inputs to be able to evolve to allow a healthy relationship with the other. This is the work of therapy.

When thinking about relationships, predictive processing makes clinical sense. In a committed partnership, each partner has a predictive model of their partner’s response to events/speech utterances/emotional displays. The prediction of the partner’s response is based on prior experience. This predictive model reduces the need to repeatedly reinterpret the partner’s actions. The partner is understood through an internal predictive model. When one partner changes their behavior, the other partner experiences the world/environment as disrupted or different. The couple, through an iterative process, can incorporate change and grow together. If the patient has an internalized model of a loving relationship, then they are more likely to find a partner who resonates with this internalized model. Using predictive modeling, we can understand how two people with their own internal models of each other interact. As one person approaches the other person, each internal model of the other person finds a “fit” with the behaviors of the other person. When a child with emotional deprivation approaches the other, the child perceives the other person in a way that fits with their prior experience of deprivation. It is an easy fit that requires little internal work, and the patient falls into a familiar relational pattern. This model of predictive processing explains why people repeatedly fall into similar familiar relationships: They recognize the relationship patterns. There is less predictive processing required, less emotional and cognitive work, and therefore less adjustment.

Psychotherapy helps patients by improving their understanding of the link between prior and current experience. Each piece of behavior is analyzed and compared with the patient’s internal model of the event. What neuroscience now provides is a deeper scientific understanding of this process. A neuroscience-based visualization of our internal models of other people can help us better describe the iterative process that occurs in therapeutic progress.

In summary, the processes of attachment and bonding occur through oxytocin-mediated caudate–dorsal striatum pathways. Bayesian predictive modeling describes the processes by which our internal models of others are shaped and refined, and underscores the work of our psychotherapies. Neuroscience is beginning to delineate the “where” and “how” of attachment and bonding, thus advancing our understanding of the attachment process and giving us a new language to describe the work of psychotherapy.
 

References

1. Bowlby J. “A Secure Base: Parent-Child Attachment and Healthy Human Development.” New York: Basic Books, 1988.

2. Speranza AM et al. Attach Hum Dev. 2017 Dec;19(6):613-34.

3. Kohut H. “How Does Analysis Cure?” Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1984.

4. Stamoulis C et al. J Neurophysiol. 2017 Oct 1;118(4):2275-88.

5. Leng G and Ludwig M.Biol Psychiatry. 2016 Feb 1;79(3):243-50.

6. Leppanen J et al. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2017 Jul;78:125-44.

7. Tops M et al. Pharmacol Biochem Behav. 2014 Apr;119:39-48.

8. Acevedo BP et al. Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci. 2012 Feb;7(2):145-59.

9. Friston K. Entropy (Basel). 2012 Nov;14(11):2100-21.

The bonding process between individuals is essential to human life as we know it. The depth and strength of emotional bonds that we develop with other individuals are among the cardinal aspects of being human.

The strengths of the bonds that we form with others often are the most enduring aspects of our lives and can stretch back in time to include family members and friends who are no longer alive. The brain processes and neurochemicals involved in the bonding process are related to psychological processes using Bayesian theory. Abnormalities in attachment are described in terms of abnormal predictive models.

John Bowlby MD, and colleagues developed a psychological theory of early childhood attachment that shows the impact of different childhood experiences.¹ Over many decades, they conducted painstaking observations, trials, and retrials that elucidated specific types of attachment that reflect the child’s internal representations of the parent.

Dr. Bowlby described the mental representations of attachment as “the internal working models of expectations” about the maternal-child relationship. This internal model guides the child’s behaviors, attitudes, and expectations, and is constantly being revised and expanded as the child matures in order to adapt to increasingly complex relationships. More current research has shown that adults who have experienced extreme early childhood adversity develop odd or deficient descriptions of primary attachment relationships, now refined into a low-coherence CC category.² These children experience attachments that are characterized by feelings of emptiness, inconsistency, and fragmentation.

Object relations theory was created by Heinz Kohut, MD, to explain our internal models of others in psychoanalytic language.^{3 Dr.} Kohut expands the concept of transference describing three new transferential relationships: mirroring, idealized, and twinship transferences. A mirroring transference describes the psychological mechanism whereby “the other” serves as a mirror that reflects back to the person a sense of self-worth and value. A mirroring transference uses the affirming and positive responses of others so that a person then can see positive traits within themselves. The idealizing transference refers to a person’s need for “another” who will make them feel calm and comfortable. The other is idealized as somebody who is calm and soothing when the person cannot provide that on their own. The twinship/alter ego transference occurs when a person feels a sense of likeness with “an other.” These advances in psychoanalytic theory advance our understanding of how we internalize aspects of other people and use these internalizations in our own development.

The neuroscience of attachment was revealed in the study of the children abandoned in Romanian orphanages before the 1989 revolution. These children were placed in orphanages that lacked adequate staff, and they were subjected to profound psychosocial neglect. In the Bucharest Early Intervention Project, the effects of neglect were seen in children aged less than 30-96 months, in EEG data.⁴ Abnormalities were found in two aberrantly connected brain networks: a hyperconnected parieto-occipital network and a hypoconnected network between left temporal and distributed bilateral regions. This study provides the first evidence of the adverse effects of early psychosocial neglect on the wiring of the developing brain.

Neurochemistry has suggested the impact of oxytocin on the promotion of attachment. Oxytocin has been called the “cuddle hormone,” as it is stimulated in mothers to promote bonding with their infant. Many studies have examined the introduction of intranasal oxytocin increases bonding and trust with others, but recent meta-analyses challenge those findings.^5,6 Nevertheless, the process of bonding and attachment is thought to engage the mesocorticolimbic, nigrostriatal dopaminergic, and oxytocinergic systems. Tops and colleagues proposed that oxytocin facilitates a shift from ventral striatal “novelty processing” toward dorsal striatal “familiarity processing.”⁷ This shift to familiarity is thought to create secure internal working models. In addition, brain activity in specific regions, such as the right caudate, is correlated with romantic love.⁸ In summary, specific pathways and neurotransmitters underlie the emotional process of bonding and attachment.

However, it is Karl Friston, MD, who suggests a model of brain functioning that describes how we actually process our experiences of the world.⁹ Dr. Friston uses Bayesian modeling to describe how we interact and understand our world, describing the way we process information. Dr. Friston states that the process of inference that we use to discern our world is a process that uses Bayes’ theorem to update the probability for a specific hypothesis about our world. As more evidence or information becomes available, we update our internal models of the world. Predictive modeling is the term used in Bayesian terms to describe this process of continuous revision of our internal model of the world. Any new sensory input is compared to our current internal model, and if they do not match, our internal model of the world is updated and revised. Dr. Friston states: “As surprise is resolved, Bayesian model evidence is increased. This means that every living organism behaves as if it is a little statistician, analyzing its sensory data in exactly the same way that scientists evaluate the evidence for their hypotheses about how experimental data were caused. In this view, minimizing surprise is, literally, the search for evidence for one’s own existence.” This process of predictive modeling also can be applied to our internal models of other people, meaning that our internal model of another person is an iterative process that changes as the other person changes.

When our experience of the world and others fall into predictive patterns, we expect the “usual” responses from our world and from the people in it. This predictive processing makes it easier for us to understand our world, so that we do not have to continually analyze and reanalyze each event as a new experience. For example, a young child examines the waves as they crash on the shore. For a while, he will watch the waves but soon begins to recognize that there is a predictable pattern. With each ocean he visits, he will examine wave action and soon develop an internal model of what happens when the water reaches the shore. Similarly, when a young child has a secure and loving parent, he will expect security and love in his future relationships. On the other hand, the child who has been subjected to abuse and neglect has an internal working model of the other as nonreciprocal and perhaps irrelevant to their well-being. They will, therefore, have extreme difficulty in understanding the purpose or value of relationships. Their predictive model of the other reflects a lack of input in the case of neglect, or perverted input in the case of abuse. Their internal predictive model will require a great deal of therapeutic healthy inputs to be able to evolve to allow a healthy relationship with the other. This is the work of therapy.

When thinking about relationships, predictive processing makes clinical sense. In a committed partnership, each partner has a predictive model of their partner’s response to events/speech utterances/emotional displays. The prediction of the partner’s response is based on prior experience. This predictive model reduces the need to repeatedly reinterpret the partner’s actions. The partner is understood through an internal predictive model. When one partner changes their behavior, the other partner experiences the world/environment as disrupted or different. The couple, through an iterative process, can incorporate change and grow together. If the patient has an internalized model of a loving relationship, then they are more likely to find a partner who resonates with this internalized model. Using predictive modeling, we can understand how two people with their own internal models of each other interact. As one person approaches the other person, each internal model of the other person finds a “fit” with the behaviors of the other person. When a child with emotional deprivation approaches the other, the child perceives the other person in a way that fits with their prior experience of deprivation. It is an easy fit that requires little internal work, and the patient falls into a familiar relational pattern. This model of predictive processing explains why people repeatedly fall into similar familiar relationships: They recognize the relationship patterns. There is less predictive processing required, less emotional and cognitive work, and therefore less adjustment.

Psychotherapy helps patients by improving their understanding of the link between prior and current experience. Each piece of behavior is analyzed and compared with the patient’s internal model of the event. What neuroscience now provides is a deeper scientific understanding of this process. A neuroscience-based visualization of our internal models of other people can help us better describe the iterative process that occurs in therapeutic progress.

In summary, the processes of attachment and bonding occur through oxytocin-mediated caudate–dorsal striatum pathways. Bayesian predictive modeling describes the processes by which our internal models of others are shaped and refined, and underscores the work of our psychotherapies. Neuroscience is beginning to delineate the “where” and “how” of attachment and bonding, thus advancing our understanding of the attachment process and giving us a new language to describe the work of psychotherapy.
 

References

1. Bowlby J. “A Secure Base: Parent-Child Attachment and Healthy Human Development.” New York: Basic Books, 1988.

2. Speranza AM et al. Attach Hum Dev. 2017 Dec;19(6):613-34.

3. Kohut H. “How Does Analysis Cure?” Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1984.

4. Stamoulis C et al. J Neurophysiol. 2017 Oct 1;118(4):2275-88.

5. Leng G and Ludwig M.Biol Psychiatry. 2016 Feb 1;79(3):243-50.

6. Leppanen J et al. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2017 Jul;78:125-44.

7. Tops M et al. Pharmacol Biochem Behav. 2014 Apr;119:39-48.

8. Acevedo BP et al. Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci. 2012 Feb;7(2):145-59.

9. Friston K. Entropy (Basel). 2012 Nov;14(11):2100-21.

An important measure of U.S. flu activity for the 2019-2020 season has already surpassed last season’s high, and more than half the states are experiencing high levels of activity, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Nationwide, visits for influenza-like illness represented 5.1% of all outpatient visits to health care providers for the week ending Dec. 21, up from 4.0% the week before and higher than at any point during the 2018-2019 season, the CDC influenza division reported Dec. 27.

The last time the outpatient visit rate was higher than that was in February of the 2017-2018 season, when it peaked at 7.5%. The peak month of flu activity occurs most often – about once every 3 years – in February, and the odds of a December peak are about one in five, the CDC has said.

Outpatient illness activity also increased at the state level during the week ending Dec. 21. There were 20 jurisdictions – 18 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico – at level 10 on the CDC’s 1-10 scale of activity, compared with 13 the previous week, and the number of jurisdictions in the “high” range (levels 8-10) jumped from 21 to 28, the CDC data show.

The influenza division estimated that there have been 4.6 million flu illnesses so far this season, nearly a million more than the total after last week, along with 39,000 hospitalizations. The overall hospitalization rate for the season is up to 6.6 per 100,000 population, which is about average at this point. The proportion of deaths attributed to pneumonia and influenza increased to 5.7%, which is below the epidemic threshold, the CDC said.

Three pediatric deaths related to influenza-like illness were reported during the week ending Dec. 21, two of which occurred in an earlier week. For the 2019-2020 season so far, a total of 22 pediatric deaths have been reported to the CDC.

[email protected]

An important measure of U.S. flu activity for the 2019-2020 season has already surpassed last season’s high, and more than half the states are experiencing high levels of activity, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Nationwide, visits for influenza-like illness represented 5.1% of all outpatient visits to health care providers for the week ending Dec. 21, up from 4.0% the week before and higher than at any point during the 2018-2019 season, the CDC influenza division reported Dec. 27.

The last time the outpatient visit rate was higher than that was in February of the 2017-2018 season, when it peaked at 7.5%. The peak month of flu activity occurs most often – about once every 3 years – in February, and the odds of a December peak are about one in five, the CDC has said.

Outpatient illness activity also increased at the state level during the week ending Dec. 21. There were 20 jurisdictions – 18 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico – at level 10 on the CDC’s 1-10 scale of activity, compared with 13 the previous week, and the number of jurisdictions in the “high” range (levels 8-10) jumped from 21 to 28, the CDC data show.

The influenza division estimated that there have been 4.6 million flu illnesses so far this season, nearly a million more than the total after last week, along with 39,000 hospitalizations. The overall hospitalization rate for the season is up to 6.6 per 100,000 population, which is about average at this point. The proportion of deaths attributed to pneumonia and influenza increased to 5.7%, which is below the epidemic threshold, the CDC said.

Three pediatric deaths related to influenza-like illness were reported during the week ending Dec. 21, two of which occurred in an earlier week. For the 2019-2020 season so far, a total of 22 pediatric deaths have been reported to the CDC.

[email protected]

An important measure of U.S. flu activity for the 2019-2020 season has already surpassed last season’s high, and more than half the states are experiencing high levels of activity, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Nationwide, visits for influenza-like illness represented 5.1% of all outpatient visits to health care providers for the week ending Dec. 21, up from 4.0% the week before and higher than at any point during the 2018-2019 season, the CDC influenza division reported Dec. 27.

The last time the outpatient visit rate was higher than that was in February of the 2017-2018 season, when it peaked at 7.5%. The peak month of flu activity occurs most often – about once every 3 years – in February, and the odds of a December peak are about one in five, the CDC has said.

Outpatient illness activity also increased at the state level during the week ending Dec. 21. There were 20 jurisdictions – 18 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico – at level 10 on the CDC’s 1-10 scale of activity, compared with 13 the previous week, and the number of jurisdictions in the “high” range (levels 8-10) jumped from 21 to 28, the CDC data show.

The influenza division estimated that there have been 4.6 million flu illnesses so far this season, nearly a million more than the total after last week, along with 39,000 hospitalizations. The overall hospitalization rate for the season is up to 6.6 per 100,000 population, which is about average at this point. The proportion of deaths attributed to pneumonia and influenza increased to 5.7%, which is below the epidemic threshold, the CDC said.

Three pediatric deaths related to influenza-like illness were reported during the week ending Dec. 21, two of which occurred in an earlier week. For the 2019-2020 season so far, a total of 22 pediatric deaths have been reported to the CDC.

[email protected]

Measles made a comeback in 2019.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that, as of Dec. 5, 2019, 1,276 individual cases of measles of measles were confirmed in 31 states, the largest number since 1992. This number is a major uptick in cases, compared with previous years since 2000 when the CDC declared measles eliminated from the United States. No deaths have been reported for 2019.

Three-quarters of these cases in 2019 were linked to recent outbreaks in New York and occurred in primarily in underimmunized, close-knit communities and in patients with links to international travel. A total of 124 of the people who got measles this year were hospitalized, and 61 reported having complications, including pneumonia and encephalitis. The overall median patient age was 6 years (31% aged 1-4 years, 27% aged 5-17 years, and 29% aged at least 18 years).

The good news is that most of these cases occurred in unvaccinated patients. The national vaccination rate for the almost 4 million kindergartners reported as enrolled in 2018-2019 was 94.7% for two doses of the MMR vaccine, falling just short of the CDC recommended 95% vaccination rate threshold. The CDC reported an approximate 2.5% rate of vaccination exemptions among school-age children.

The bad news is that, despite the high rate of MMR vaccination rates among U.S. children, there are gaps in measles protection in the U.S. population because of factors leaving patients immunocompromised and antivaccination sentiment that has led some parents to defer or refuse the MMR.

In addition, adults who were vaccinated prior to 1968 with either inactivated measles vaccine or measles vaccine of unknown type may have limited immunity. The inactivated measles vaccine, which was available in 1963-1967, did not achieve effective measles protection.
 

A global measles surge

While antivaccination sentiment contributed to the 2019 measles cases, a more significant factor may be the global surge of measles. More than 140,000 people worldwide died from measles in 2018, according to the World Health Organization and the CDC.

“[Recent data on measles] indicates that during the first 6 months of the year there have been more measles cases reported worldwide than in any year since 2006. From Jan. 1 to July 31, 2019, 182 countries reported 364,808 measles cases to the WHO. This surpasses the 129,239 reported during the same time period in 2018. WHO regions with the biggest increases in cases include the African region (900%), the Western Pacific region (230%), and the European region (150%),” according to a CDC report.

Studies on hospitalization and complications linked to measles in the United States are scarce, but two outbreaks in Minnesota (2011 and 2017) provided some data on what to expect if the measles surge continues into 2020. The investigators found that poor feeding was a primary reason for admission (97%); additional complications included otitis media (42%), pneumonia (30%), and tracheitis (6%). Three-quarters received antibiotics, 30% required oxygen, and 21% received vitamin A. Median length of stay was 3.7 days (range, 1.1-26.2 days) (Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2019 Jun;38[6]:547-52. doi: 10.1097/INF.0000000000002221).
 

‘Immunological amnesia’

Infection with the measles virus appears to reduce immunity to other pathogens, according to a paper published in Science (2019 Nov 1;366[6465]599-606).

CDC/Dr. Edwin P. Ewing, Jr.

The hypothesis that the measles virus could cause “immunological amnesia” by impairing immune memory is supported by early research showing children with measles had negative cutaneous tuberculin reactions after having previously tested positive.

“Subsequent studies have shown decreased interferon signaling, skewed cytokine responses, lymphopenia, and suppression of lymphocyte proliferation shortly after infection,” wrote Michael Mina, MD, from Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, and coauthors.

“Given the variation in the degree of immune repertoire modulation we observed, we anticipate that future risk of morbidity and mortality after measles would not be homogeneous but would be skewed toward individuals with the most severe elimination of immunological memory,” they wrote. “These findings underscore the crucial need for continued widespread vaccination.”

In this study, researchers compared the levels of around 400 pathogen-specific antibodies in blood samples from 77 unvaccinated children, taken before and 2 months after natural measles infection, with 5 unvaccinated children who did not contract measles. A total of 34 children experienced mild measles, and 43 had severe measles.

They found that the samples taken after measles infection showed “substantial” reductions in the number of pathogen epitopes, compared with the samples from children who did not get infected with measles.

This amounted to approximately a 20% mean reduction in overall diversity or size of the antibody repertoire. However, in children who experienced severe measles, there was a median loss of 40% (range, 11%-62%) of antibody repertoire, compared with a median of 33% (range, 12%-73%) range in children who experienced mild infection. Meanwhile, the control subjects retained approximately 90% of their antibody repertoire over a similar or longer time period. Some children lost up to 70% of antibodies for specific pathogens.
 

Maternal-acquired immunity fades

In another study of measles immunity, maternal antibodies were found to be insufficient to provide immunity to infants after 6 months.

The study of 196 infants showed that maternal measles antibodies had dropped below the protective threshold by 3 months of age – well before the recommended age of 12-15 months for the first dose of MMR vaccine.

The odds of inadequate protection doubled for each additional month of age, Michelle Science, MD, of the University of Toronto and associates reported in Pediatrics (2019 Dec 1. doi 10.1542/peds.2019-0630).

“The widening gap between loss of maternal antibodies and measles vaccination described in our study leaves infants vulnerable to measles for much of their infancy and highlights the need for further research to support public health policy,” Dr. Science and colleagues wrote.

The researchers randomly selected 25 samples for each of eight different age groups: up to 30 days old; 1 month (31-60 days), 2 months (61-89 days), 3 months (90-119 days), 4 months, 5 months, 6-9 months, and 9-11 months.

Just over half the babies (56%) were male, and 35% had an underlying condition, but none had conditions that might affect antibody levels. The conditions were primarily a developmental delay or otherwise affecting the central nervous system, liver, or gastrointestinal function. Mean maternal age was 32 years.

To ensure high test sensitivity, the researchers used the plaque-reduction neutralization test to test for measles-neutralizing antibodies instead of using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay, because “ELISA sensitivity decreases as antibody titers decrease,” Dr. Science and colleagues wrote. They used a neutralization titer of less than 192 mIU/mL as the threshold for protection against measles.

When the researchers calculated the predicted standardized mean antibody titer for infants with a mother aged 32 years, they determined their mean to be 541 mIU/mL at 1 month, 142 mIU/mL at 3 months (below the measles threshold of susceptibility of 192 mIU/mL), and 64 mIU/mL at 6 months. None of the infants had measles antibodies above the protective threshold at 6 months old, the authors noted.

Children’s odds of susceptibility to measles doubled for each additional month of age, after adjustment for infant sex and maternal age (odds ratio, 2.13). Children’s likelihood of susceptibility to measles modestly increased as maternal age increased in 5-year increments from 25 to 40 years.

Children with an underlying conditions had greater susceptibility to measles (83%), compared with those without a comorbidity (68%, P = .03). No difference in susceptibility existed between males and females or based on gestational age at birth (ranging from 37 to 41 weeks).

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices permits measles vaccination “as early as 6 months for infants who plan to travel internationally, infants with ongoing risk for exposure during measles outbreaks and as postexposure prophylaxis,” Huong Q. McLean, PhD, of Marshfield (Wisc.) Clinic Research Institute, and Walter A. Orenstein, MD, of Emory University, Atlanta, noted in an editorial.

The research was funded by the Public Health Ontario Project Initiation Fund. The authors had no relevant financial disclosures.

[email protected]

Bianca Nogrady and Tara Haelle contributed to this story.

Measles made a comeback in 2019.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that, as of Dec. 5, 2019, 1,276 individual cases of measles of measles were confirmed in 31 states, the largest number since 1992. This number is a major uptick in cases, compared with previous years since 2000 when the CDC declared measles eliminated from the United States. No deaths have been reported for 2019.

Three-quarters of these cases in 2019 were linked to recent outbreaks in New York and occurred in primarily in underimmunized, close-knit communities and in patients with links to international travel. A total of 124 of the people who got measles this year were hospitalized, and 61 reported having complications, including pneumonia and encephalitis. The overall median patient age was 6 years (31% aged 1-4 years, 27% aged 5-17 years, and 29% aged at least 18 years).

The good news is that most of these cases occurred in unvaccinated patients. The national vaccination rate for the almost 4 million kindergartners reported as enrolled in 2018-2019 was 94.7% for two doses of the MMR vaccine, falling just short of the CDC recommended 95% vaccination rate threshold. The CDC reported an approximate 2.5% rate of vaccination exemptions among school-age children.

The bad news is that, despite the high rate of MMR vaccination rates among U.S. children, there are gaps in measles protection in the U.S. population because of factors leaving patients immunocompromised and antivaccination sentiment that has led some parents to defer or refuse the MMR.

In addition, adults who were vaccinated prior to 1968 with either inactivated measles vaccine or measles vaccine of unknown type may have limited immunity. The inactivated measles vaccine, which was available in 1963-1967, did not achieve effective measles protection.
 

A global measles surge

While antivaccination sentiment contributed to the 2019 measles cases, a more significant factor may be the global surge of measles. More than 140,000 people worldwide died from measles in 2018, according to the World Health Organization and the CDC.

“[Recent data on measles] indicates that during the first 6 months of the year there have been more measles cases reported worldwide than in any year since 2006. From Jan. 1 to July 31, 2019, 182 countries reported 364,808 measles cases to the WHO. This surpasses the 129,239 reported during the same time period in 2018. WHO regions with the biggest increases in cases include the African region (900%), the Western Pacific region (230%), and the European region (150%),” according to a CDC report.

Studies on hospitalization and complications linked to measles in the United States are scarce, but two outbreaks in Minnesota (2011 and 2017) provided some data on what to expect if the measles surge continues into 2020. The investigators found that poor feeding was a primary reason for admission (97%); additional complications included otitis media (42%), pneumonia (30%), and tracheitis (6%). Three-quarters received antibiotics, 30% required oxygen, and 21% received vitamin A. Median length of stay was 3.7 days (range, 1.1-26.2 days) (Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2019 Jun;38[6]:547-52. doi: 10.1097/INF.0000000000002221).
 

‘Immunological amnesia’

Infection with the measles virus appears to reduce immunity to other pathogens, according to a paper published in Science (2019 Nov 1;366[6465]599-606).

CDC/Dr. Edwin P. Ewing, Jr.

The hypothesis that the measles virus could cause “immunological amnesia” by impairing immune memory is supported by early research showing children with measles had negative cutaneous tuberculin reactions after having previously tested positive.

“Subsequent studies have shown decreased interferon signaling, skewed cytokine responses, lymphopenia, and suppression of lymphocyte proliferation shortly after infection,” wrote Michael Mina, MD, from Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, and coauthors.

“Given the variation in the degree of immune repertoire modulation we observed, we anticipate that future risk of morbidity and mortality after measles would not be homogeneous but would be skewed toward individuals with the most severe elimination of immunological memory,” they wrote. “These findings underscore the crucial need for continued widespread vaccination.”

In this study, researchers compared the levels of around 400 pathogen-specific antibodies in blood samples from 77 unvaccinated children, taken before and 2 months after natural measles infection, with 5 unvaccinated children who did not contract measles. A total of 34 children experienced mild measles, and 43 had severe measles.

They found that the samples taken after measles infection showed “substantial” reductions in the number of pathogen epitopes, compared with the samples from children who did not get infected with measles.

This amounted to approximately a 20% mean reduction in overall diversity or size of the antibody repertoire. However, in children who experienced severe measles, there was a median loss of 40% (range, 11%-62%) of antibody repertoire, compared with a median of 33% (range, 12%-73%) range in children who experienced mild infection. Meanwhile, the control subjects retained approximately 90% of their antibody repertoire over a similar or longer time period. Some children lost up to 70% of antibodies for specific pathogens.
 

Maternal-acquired immunity fades

In another study of measles immunity, maternal antibodies were found to be insufficient to provide immunity to infants after 6 months.

The study of 196 infants showed that maternal measles antibodies had dropped below the protective threshold by 3 months of age – well before the recommended age of 12-15 months for the first dose of MMR vaccine.

The odds of inadequate protection doubled for each additional month of age, Michelle Science, MD, of the University of Toronto and associates reported in Pediatrics (2019 Dec 1. doi 10.1542/peds.2019-0630).

“The widening gap between loss of maternal antibodies and measles vaccination described in our study leaves infants vulnerable to measles for much of their infancy and highlights the need for further research to support public health policy,” Dr. Science and colleagues wrote.

The researchers randomly selected 25 samples for each of eight different age groups: up to 30 days old; 1 month (31-60 days), 2 months (61-89 days), 3 months (90-119 days), 4 months, 5 months, 6-9 months, and 9-11 months.

Just over half the babies (56%) were male, and 35% had an underlying condition, but none had conditions that might affect antibody levels. The conditions were primarily a developmental delay or otherwise affecting the central nervous system, liver, or gastrointestinal function. Mean maternal age was 32 years.

To ensure high test sensitivity, the researchers used the plaque-reduction neutralization test to test for measles-neutralizing antibodies instead of using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay, because “ELISA sensitivity decreases as antibody titers decrease,” Dr. Science and colleagues wrote. They used a neutralization titer of less than 192 mIU/mL as the threshold for protection against measles.

When the researchers calculated the predicted standardized mean antibody titer for infants with a mother aged 32 years, they determined their mean to be 541 mIU/mL at 1 month, 142 mIU/mL at 3 months (below the measles threshold of susceptibility of 192 mIU/mL), and 64 mIU/mL at 6 months. None of the infants had measles antibodies above the protective threshold at 6 months old, the authors noted.

Children’s odds of susceptibility to measles doubled for each additional month of age, after adjustment for infant sex and maternal age (odds ratio, 2.13). Children’s likelihood of susceptibility to measles modestly increased as maternal age increased in 5-year increments from 25 to 40 years.

Children with an underlying conditions had greater susceptibility to measles (83%), compared with those without a comorbidity (68%, P = .03). No difference in susceptibility existed between males and females or based on gestational age at birth (ranging from 37 to 41 weeks).

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices permits measles vaccination “as early as 6 months for infants who plan to travel internationally, infants with ongoing risk for exposure during measles outbreaks and as postexposure prophylaxis,” Huong Q. McLean, PhD, of Marshfield (Wisc.) Clinic Research Institute, and Walter A. Orenstein, MD, of Emory University, Atlanta, noted in an editorial.

The research was funded by the Public Health Ontario Project Initiation Fund. The authors had no relevant financial disclosures.

[email protected]

Bianca Nogrady and Tara Haelle contributed to this story.

Measles made a comeback in 2019.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that, as of Dec. 5, 2019, 1,276 individual cases of measles of measles were confirmed in 31 states, the largest number since 1992. This number is a major uptick in cases, compared with previous years since 2000 when the CDC declared measles eliminated from the United States. No deaths have been reported for 2019.

Three-quarters of these cases in 2019 were linked to recent outbreaks in New York and occurred in primarily in underimmunized, close-knit communities and in patients with links to international travel. A total of 124 of the people who got measles this year were hospitalized, and 61 reported having complications, including pneumonia and encephalitis. The overall median patient age was 6 years (31% aged 1-4 years, 27% aged 5-17 years, and 29% aged at least 18 years).

The good news is that most of these cases occurred in unvaccinated patients. The national vaccination rate for the almost 4 million kindergartners reported as enrolled in 2018-2019 was 94.7% for two doses of the MMR vaccine, falling just short of the CDC recommended 95% vaccination rate threshold. The CDC reported an approximate 2.5% rate of vaccination exemptions among school-age children.

The bad news is that, despite the high rate of MMR vaccination rates among U.S. children, there are gaps in measles protection in the U.S. population because of factors leaving patients immunocompromised and antivaccination sentiment that has led some parents to defer or refuse the MMR.

In addition, adults who were vaccinated prior to 1968 with either inactivated measles vaccine or measles vaccine of unknown type may have limited immunity. The inactivated measles vaccine, which was available in 1963-1967, did not achieve effective measles protection.
 

A global measles surge

While antivaccination sentiment contributed to the 2019 measles cases, a more significant factor may be the global surge of measles. More than 140,000 people worldwide died from measles in 2018, according to the World Health Organization and the CDC.

“[Recent data on measles] indicates that during the first 6 months of the year there have been more measles cases reported worldwide than in any year since 2006. From Jan. 1 to July 31, 2019, 182 countries reported 364,808 measles cases to the WHO. This surpasses the 129,239 reported during the same time period in 2018. WHO regions with the biggest increases in cases include the African region (900%), the Western Pacific region (230%), and the European region (150%),” according to a CDC report.

Studies on hospitalization and complications linked to measles in the United States are scarce, but two outbreaks in Minnesota (2011 and 2017) provided some data on what to expect if the measles surge continues into 2020. The investigators found that poor feeding was a primary reason for admission (97%); additional complications included otitis media (42%), pneumonia (30%), and tracheitis (6%). Three-quarters received antibiotics, 30% required oxygen, and 21% received vitamin A. Median length of stay was 3.7 days (range, 1.1-26.2 days) (Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2019 Jun;38[6]:547-52. doi: 10.1097/INF.0000000000002221).
 

‘Immunological amnesia’

Infection with the measles virus appears to reduce immunity to other pathogens, according to a paper published in Science (2019 Nov 1;366[6465]599-606).

CDC/Dr. Edwin P. Ewing, Jr.

The hypothesis that the measles virus could cause “immunological amnesia” by impairing immune memory is supported by early research showing children with measles had negative cutaneous tuberculin reactions after having previously tested positive.

“Subsequent studies have shown decreased interferon signaling, skewed cytokine responses, lymphopenia, and suppression of lymphocyte proliferation shortly after infection,” wrote Michael Mina, MD, from Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, and coauthors.

“Given the variation in the degree of immune repertoire modulation we observed, we anticipate that future risk of morbidity and mortality after measles would not be homogeneous but would be skewed toward individuals with the most severe elimination of immunological memory,” they wrote. “These findings underscore the crucial need for continued widespread vaccination.”

In this study, researchers compared the levels of around 400 pathogen-specific antibodies in blood samples from 77 unvaccinated children, taken before and 2 months after natural measles infection, with 5 unvaccinated children who did not contract measles. A total of 34 children experienced mild measles, and 43 had severe measles.

They found that the samples taken after measles infection showed “substantial” reductions in the number of pathogen epitopes, compared with the samples from children who did not get infected with measles.

This amounted to approximately a 20% mean reduction in overall diversity or size of the antibody repertoire. However, in children who experienced severe measles, there was a median loss of 40% (range, 11%-62%) of antibody repertoire, compared with a median of 33% (range, 12%-73%) range in children who experienced mild infection. Meanwhile, the control subjects retained approximately 90% of their antibody repertoire over a similar or longer time period. Some children lost up to 70% of antibodies for specific pathogens.
 

Maternal-acquired immunity fades

In another study of measles immunity, maternal antibodies were found to be insufficient to provide immunity to infants after 6 months.

The study of 196 infants showed that maternal measles antibodies had dropped below the protective threshold by 3 months of age – well before the recommended age of 12-15 months for the first dose of MMR vaccine.

The odds of inadequate protection doubled for each additional month of age, Michelle Science, MD, of the University of Toronto and associates reported in Pediatrics (2019 Dec 1. doi 10.1542/peds.2019-0630).

“The widening gap between loss of maternal antibodies and measles vaccination described in our study leaves infants vulnerable to measles for much of their infancy and highlights the need for further research to support public health policy,” Dr. Science and colleagues wrote.

The researchers randomly selected 25 samples for each of eight different age groups: up to 30 days old; 1 month (31-60 days), 2 months (61-89 days), 3 months (90-119 days), 4 months, 5 months, 6-9 months, and 9-11 months.

Just over half the babies (56%) were male, and 35% had an underlying condition, but none had conditions that might affect antibody levels. The conditions were primarily a developmental delay or otherwise affecting the central nervous system, liver, or gastrointestinal function. Mean maternal age was 32 years.

To ensure high test sensitivity, the researchers used the plaque-reduction neutralization test to test for measles-neutralizing antibodies instead of using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay, because “ELISA sensitivity decreases as antibody titers decrease,” Dr. Science and colleagues wrote. They used a neutralization titer of less than 192 mIU/mL as the threshold for protection against measles.

When the researchers calculated the predicted standardized mean antibody titer for infants with a mother aged 32 years, they determined their mean to be 541 mIU/mL at 1 month, 142 mIU/mL at 3 months (below the measles threshold of susceptibility of 192 mIU/mL), and 64 mIU/mL at 6 months. None of the infants had measles antibodies above the protective threshold at 6 months old, the authors noted.

Children’s odds of susceptibility to measles doubled for each additional month of age, after adjustment for infant sex and maternal age (odds ratio, 2.13). Children’s likelihood of susceptibility to measles modestly increased as maternal age increased in 5-year increments from 25 to 40 years.

Children with an underlying conditions had greater susceptibility to measles (83%), compared with those without a comorbidity (68%, P = .03). No difference in susceptibility existed between males and females or based on gestational age at birth (ranging from 37 to 41 weeks).

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices permits measles vaccination “as early as 6 months for infants who plan to travel internationally, infants with ongoing risk for exposure during measles outbreaks and as postexposure prophylaxis,” Huong Q. McLean, PhD, of Marshfield (Wisc.) Clinic Research Institute, and Walter A. Orenstein, MD, of Emory University, Atlanta, noted in an editorial.

The research was funded by the Public Health Ontario Project Initiation Fund. The authors had no relevant financial disclosures.

[email protected]

Bianca Nogrady and Tara Haelle contributed to this story.

MADRID – A parental history of asthma or allergic rhinitis significantly increases the risk that a child will develop atopic dermatitis, and that risk doubles if a parent has a history of atopic dermatitis rather than another atopic disease, Nina H. Ravn reported at a meeting of the European Task Force on Atopic Dermatitis held in conjunction with the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

She presented a comprehensive meta-analysis of 149 published studies addressing the risk of developing atopic dermatitis according to parental history of atopic disease. The studies included more than 656,000 participants. The picture that emerged from the meta-analysis was one of a stepwise increase in the risk of pediatric atopic dermatitis according to the type and number of parental atopic diseases present.

“This is something that hopefully can be useful when you talk with parents or parents-to-be with atopic diseases and they want to know how their disease might affect their child,” explained Ms. Ravn of the University of Copenhagen.

It’s also information that clinicians will find helpful in appropriately targeting primary prevention interventions if and when methods of proven efficacy become available. That’s a likely prospect, as this is now an extremely active field of research, she noted.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

“An interesting result that was new to me what that fathers’ and mothers’ contribution to risk is equal,” said session cochair Andreas Wollenberg, MD, professor of dermatology at Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich. “For the past 2 decades we were always taught that the mother would have a greater impact on that risk.”

“I was also surprised by our findings,” Ms. Ravn replied. “But when we pooled all the data there really was no difference, nor in any of our subanalyses.”

She reported having no financial conflicts regarding her study.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Ravn NH. THE EADV CONGRESS.

MADRID – A parental history of asthma or allergic rhinitis significantly increases the risk that a child will develop atopic dermatitis, and that risk doubles if a parent has a history of atopic dermatitis rather than another atopic disease, Nina H. Ravn reported at a meeting of the European Task Force on Atopic Dermatitis held in conjunction with the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

She presented a comprehensive meta-analysis of 149 published studies addressing the risk of developing atopic dermatitis according to parental history of atopic disease. The studies included more than 656,000 participants. The picture that emerged from the meta-analysis was one of a stepwise increase in the risk of pediatric atopic dermatitis according to the type and number of parental atopic diseases present.

“This is something that hopefully can be useful when you talk with parents or parents-to-be with atopic diseases and they want to know how their disease might affect their child,” explained Ms. Ravn of the University of Copenhagen.

It’s also information that clinicians will find helpful in appropriately targeting primary prevention interventions if and when methods of proven efficacy become available. That’s a likely prospect, as this is now an extremely active field of research, she noted.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

“An interesting result that was new to me what that fathers’ and mothers’ contribution to risk is equal,” said session cochair Andreas Wollenberg, MD, professor of dermatology at Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich. “For the past 2 decades we were always taught that the mother would have a greater impact on that risk.”

“I was also surprised by our findings,” Ms. Ravn replied. “But when we pooled all the data there really was no difference, nor in any of our subanalyses.”

She reported having no financial conflicts regarding her study.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Ravn NH. THE EADV CONGRESS.

MADRID – A parental history of asthma or allergic rhinitis significantly increases the risk that a child will develop atopic dermatitis, and that risk doubles if a parent has a history of atopic dermatitis rather than another atopic disease, Nina H. Ravn reported at a meeting of the European Task Force on Atopic Dermatitis held in conjunction with the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

She presented a comprehensive meta-analysis of 149 published studies addressing the risk of developing atopic dermatitis according to parental history of atopic disease. The studies included more than 656,000 participants. The picture that emerged from the meta-analysis was one of a stepwise increase in the risk of pediatric atopic dermatitis according to the type and number of parental atopic diseases present.

“This is something that hopefully can be useful when you talk with parents or parents-to-be with atopic diseases and they want to know how their disease might affect their child,” explained Ms. Ravn of the University of Copenhagen.

It’s also information that clinicians will find helpful in appropriately targeting primary prevention interventions if and when methods of proven efficacy become available. That’s a likely prospect, as this is now an extremely active field of research, she noted.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

“An interesting result that was new to me what that fathers’ and mothers’ contribution to risk is equal,” said session cochair Andreas Wollenberg, MD, professor of dermatology at Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich. “For the past 2 decades we were always taught that the mother would have a greater impact on that risk.”

“I was also surprised by our findings,” Ms. Ravn replied. “But when we pooled all the data there really was no difference, nor in any of our subanalyses.”

She reported having no financial conflicts regarding her study.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Ravn NH. THE EADV CONGRESS.

The 2019-2020 flu season continues its unusually early rise in activity, with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimating that 3.7 million cases have occurred through Dec. 14.

Patients with influenza-like illness (ILI) accounted for an estimated 3.9% of all outpatient visits to health care professionals for the week of Dec. 8-14, which is up from 3.2% the previous week and is the sixth consecutive week that the United States has been at or above the national baseline of 2.4%, the CDC reported Dec. 20. This year’s 3.9% is the highest mid-December rate recorded since 2003, when it reached almost 7.4%.

Most of the influenza activity so far this season is being driven by influenza B/Victoria viruses. Nationwide testing puts influenza B prevalence at 68.5% of all positive specimens, exactly the same as last week, but A(H1N1) viruses “are increasing in proportion relative to other influenza viruses in some regions,” the CDC’s influenza division said.

A look at this week’s activity map shows that 21 states, compared with 12 last week, were in the “high” range of activity – that’s levels 8-10 on the CDC’s 1-10 scale. Twelve of those states, along with Puerto Rico, were at level 10, which was up from nine a week earlier, the CDC said.

The overall hospitalization rate through the week of Dec. 8-14 (5.5 per 100,000 population) “is similar to what has been seen at this time during recent seasons,” the CDC noted. The highest rates are occurring among adults over age 65 years (12.7 per 100,000) and children aged 0-4 years (10.9 per 100,000).

Three ILI-related deaths among children that occurred last week were reported, which brings the total for the 2019-2020 season to 19, the CDC said.

[email protected]

The 2019-2020 flu season continues its unusually early rise in activity, with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimating that 3.7 million cases have occurred through Dec. 14.

Patients with influenza-like illness (ILI) accounted for an estimated 3.9% of all outpatient visits to health care professionals for the week of Dec. 8-14, which is up from 3.2% the previous week and is the sixth consecutive week that the United States has been at or above the national baseline of 2.4%, the CDC reported Dec. 20. This year’s 3.9% is the highest mid-December rate recorded since 2003, when it reached almost 7.4%.

Most of the influenza activity so far this season is being driven by influenza B/Victoria viruses. Nationwide testing puts influenza B prevalence at 68.5% of all positive specimens, exactly the same as last week, but A(H1N1) viruses “are increasing in proportion relative to other influenza viruses in some regions,” the CDC’s influenza division said.

A look at this week’s activity map shows that 21 states, compared with 12 last week, were in the “high” range of activity – that’s levels 8-10 on the CDC’s 1-10 scale. Twelve of those states, along with Puerto Rico, were at level 10, which was up from nine a week earlier, the CDC said.

The overall hospitalization rate through the week of Dec. 8-14 (5.5 per 100,000 population) “is similar to what has been seen at this time during recent seasons,” the CDC noted. The highest rates are occurring among adults over age 65 years (12.7 per 100,000) and children aged 0-4 years (10.9 per 100,000).

Three ILI-related deaths among children that occurred last week were reported, which brings the total for the 2019-2020 season to 19, the CDC said.

[email protected]

The 2019-2020 flu season continues its unusually early rise in activity, with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimating that 3.7 million cases have occurred through Dec. 14.

Patients with influenza-like illness (ILI) accounted for an estimated 3.9% of all outpatient visits to health care professionals for the week of Dec. 8-14, which is up from 3.2% the previous week and is the sixth consecutive week that the United States has been at or above the national baseline of 2.4%, the CDC reported Dec. 20. This year’s 3.9% is the highest mid-December rate recorded since 2003, when it reached almost 7.4%.

Most of the influenza activity so far this season is being driven by influenza B/Victoria viruses. Nationwide testing puts influenza B prevalence at 68.5% of all positive specimens, exactly the same as last week, but A(H1N1) viruses “are increasing in proportion relative to other influenza viruses in some regions,” the CDC’s influenza division said.

A look at this week’s activity map shows that 21 states, compared with 12 last week, were in the “high” range of activity – that’s levels 8-10 on the CDC’s 1-10 scale. Twelve of those states, along with Puerto Rico, were at level 10, which was up from nine a week earlier, the CDC said.

The overall hospitalization rate through the week of Dec. 8-14 (5.5 per 100,000 population) “is similar to what has been seen at this time during recent seasons,” the CDC noted. The highest rates are occurring among adults over age 65 years (12.7 per 100,000) and children aged 0-4 years (10.9 per 100,000).

Three ILI-related deaths among children that occurred last week were reported, which brings the total for the 2019-2020 season to 19, the CDC said.

[email protected]

NEW ORLEANS – It wasn’t until her teenage daughter wanted to get her belly button pierced that Cora Breuner, MD, became interested in the safety of tattoos and piercings for adolescents.

“You’re a pediatrician,” her daughter said. “Where should I go? Should I get this done?” Although Dr. Breuner didn’t want her daughter to get the piercing, she knew saying “no” wasn’t likely to stop her teenager any more than it would another adolescent, so she looked to the medical literature … and didn’t find much.

“I couldn’t find an article summarizing complication rates or just about the legality of it or other issues around tattooing and piercing,” said Dr. Breuner a professor of pediatrics at Seattle Children’s Hospital and the University of Washington, also in Seattle. So she and the American Academy of Pediatrics’ Committee on Adolescent Health did the work themselves and wrote one.

Now she recommends that all health care workers treating children ask their adolescent patients about tattoos and piercings at every health care visit. “I want to make sure that you are talking to your teenagers about this,” she told attendees at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Pediatrics. In her presentation, she focused on knowing the legal age of consent for body modifications and what to watch for in terms of complications.
 

Tattoos growing in popularity

More than a third (38%) of people aged 18-29 years have at least one tattoo, according to a Pew Research Center report Dr. Breuner cited, and 23% had piercings somewhere on their body besides their ears. In fact, Americans spend about $1.65 billion on tattoos each year.

Most of the people with tattoos (72%), however, had them in places that were covered and not visible, reinforcing the need to ask about them. The popularity of tattoos has been increasing in general, Dr. Breuner noted. In just the 4 years from 2012 to 2016, the prevalence of U.S. adults with at least one tattoo increased 20%.

And people don’t appear to be sorry to have them. According to a Harris Poll that Dr. Breuner cited, 86% of respondents in 2012 did not regret getting their tattoo, and respondents listed a number of feelings they associated with their tattoos: feeling sexy, rebellious, attractive, strong, spiritual, healthier, intelligent, and athletic.

Although the techniques for tattooing have changed over the years since the first documented ones in 4,000 B.C., the basic concept of injecting ink into the dermis hasn’t changed much. By injecting the ink below the epidermis, the ink remains visible for the rest of a person’s life.

Courtesy Annie Fulton

The laws for tattoos vary by state, so you need to check the laws where they live. Not much data exist on infections and complaints, but data from the Michigan Department of Health & Human Services suggests the infection rate – at least those infections reported – is low while the rate of illegally operating facilities is a bigger risk. Local health districts in Michigan have received reports of only 18 infections since 2010, but they’ve received 85 reports of illegal operations and 69 reports of social media parties centered on all attendees getting a tattoo.
 

Risks of tattoos

The biggest concern for adolescents is ensuring they understand the risks of tattoos and piercings and what to look for. One risk for tattoos is hepatitis C. However, the studies on the risk of contracting hepatitis C from tattooing are confounded by the fact that many people getting tattoos also may be engaging in other risky behaviors, such as intravenous drug use or risky sexual behaviors. Still, some research suggests that “commercially acquired tattoos accounted for more than twice as many infections as injection-drug use,” Dr. Breuner said.

Another risk is tattoo-associated bacterial skin infections (Clin Infect Dis. 2019 Aug 30;69[6]:949-55; MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2012 Aug 24;61[33]:653-6).
 

Risks of body piercing

Although body piercing doesn’t date back quite as far as tattoos – about 700 A.D. – its history remains long. Research suggests the top reason people get body piercings is simply liking the way it looks, as 77% of respondents reported in one study (J Am Osteopath Assoc. 2007 Oct;107[10]:432-8). Other reasons including looking fashionable, catching attention, feeling different, making a personal statement, being daring, fitting in, pressuring from peers, and defying parents.

The most serious potential complication from piercings is gangrene, but the most common is infection. Other possible complications include an allergic reaction to the metal used, a bleeding complication (estimated in 1 of 10), a scar or site reaction (estimated in 1 of 15), or, much less commonly, toxic shock syndrome. In some areas, there’s a risk of nerve damage if the nerve is pierced, such as in the eyebrow or in the bridge of the nose.

Teens particularly should be aware of the average time it takes for a piercing to heal, depending on where they get it. A navel piercing, for example, can take up to 9 months to heal. Others with long healing times include the penis (3-9 months), labia majora (2-4 months), nipple (2-4 months), and scrotum (2-3 months). Other non-ear regions range from 2 to 8 weeks.

Bleeding definitely is a risk for piercings, Dr. Breuner said, especially now that so many teens are piercing body parts besides their ears. “The one I found most disturbing was that of the uvula,” she said. Bleeding risks tend to be low with ear and nose piercings, but the risk increases with the tongue, uvula, navel, nipples, and genitalia.

Another risk of mouth piercings, particularly tongue piercing, is damage to the teeth and gums, Dr. Breuner said. Barbells, the most popular type of mouth piercing, can lead to receding gums and chipped teeth with extended wear, especially because people wearing them have a tendency to frequently bite down on them.

One study found that half the participants who wore a long barbell piercing (1.59 cm or longer) for at least 2 years had lingual recession on their mandibular central incisors (J Periodontol. 2002 Mar;73[3]:289-97). Among those with a tongue piercing of at least 4 years, 47% had tooth chipping on their molars and premolars.

Another study found gingival recession was 11 times more likely among people with tongue piercings than without (J Clin Periodontol. 2010 Aug 1;37(8):712-8). Gingival recession also is a risk with lip piercings, but the risk is greater with tongue piercing, and only tongue piercings have been associated with tooth injuries (Aust Dent J. 2012 Mar;57[1]:71-8; Int J Dent Hyg. 2016 Feb;14[1]:62-73).

Hepatitis C also is a concern with body piercing. According to a systematic review of 12 studies, body piercing was a risk factor for hepatitis C infection in the majority of them (Am J Infect Control. 2001 Aug;29[4]:271-4).
 

Counseling adolescents on body modifications

You should ask teens about any tattoos or piercings they have at each visit and ask whether they have any plans to get any. Then you can answer questions about them and ensure the teens are aware of risks, particularly viral and bacterial infections and, with piercing, bleeding.

Beyond the medical risks, it’s important for teens to understand that tattoos have the potential to limit their employment in the future, depending on the job and how visible their tattoo is.

Social acceptance of tattoos and piercings have been increasing, but a survey of nearly 2,700 people conducted by Salary.com in 2013 found that 76% of respondents believed tattoos and piercings could reduce a job applicant’s chances of being hired.

If you want to learn more specifically about the safest places in your community for tattoos and piercings, Dr. Breuner recommended going out and visiting the shops. Tattoo artists generally are the most knowledgeable people in the community about the risks of their industry and often welcome local physicians who want to learn and see their equipment, she said.

NEW ORLEANS – It wasn’t until her teenage daughter wanted to get her belly button pierced that Cora Breuner, MD, became interested in the safety of tattoos and piercings for adolescents.

“You’re a pediatrician,” her daughter said. “Where should I go? Should I get this done?” Although Dr. Breuner didn’t want her daughter to get the piercing, she knew saying “no” wasn’t likely to stop her teenager any more than it would another adolescent, so she looked to the medical literature … and didn’t find much.

“I couldn’t find an article summarizing complication rates or just about the legality of it or other issues around tattooing and piercing,” said Dr. Breuner a professor of pediatrics at Seattle Children’s Hospital and the University of Washington, also in Seattle. So she and the American Academy of Pediatrics’ Committee on Adolescent Health did the work themselves and wrote one.

Now she recommends that all health care workers treating children ask their adolescent patients about tattoos and piercings at every health care visit. “I want to make sure that you are talking to your teenagers about this,” she told attendees at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Pediatrics. In her presentation, she focused on knowing the legal age of consent for body modifications and what to watch for in terms of complications.
 

Tattoos growing in popularity

More than a third (38%) of people aged 18-29 years have at least one tattoo, according to a Pew Research Center report Dr. Breuner cited, and 23% had piercings somewhere on their body besides their ears. In fact, Americans spend about $1.65 billion on tattoos each year.

Most of the people with tattoos (72%), however, had them in places that were covered and not visible, reinforcing the need to ask about them. The popularity of tattoos has been increasing in general, Dr. Breuner noted. In just the 4 years from 2012 to 2016, the prevalence of U.S. adults with at least one tattoo increased 20%.

And people don’t appear to be sorry to have them. According to a Harris Poll that Dr. Breuner cited, 86% of respondents in 2012 did not regret getting their tattoo, and respondents listed a number of feelings they associated with their tattoos: feeling sexy, rebellious, attractive, strong, spiritual, healthier, intelligent, and athletic.

Although the techniques for tattooing have changed over the years since the first documented ones in 4,000 B.C., the basic concept of injecting ink into the dermis hasn’t changed much. By injecting the ink below the epidermis, the ink remains visible for the rest of a person’s life.

Courtesy Annie Fulton

The laws for tattoos vary by state, so you need to check the laws where they live. Not much data exist on infections and complaints, but data from the Michigan Department of Health & Human Services suggests the infection rate – at least those infections reported – is low while the rate of illegally operating facilities is a bigger risk. Local health districts in Michigan have received reports of only 18 infections since 2010, but they’ve received 85 reports of illegal operations and 69 reports of social media parties centered on all attendees getting a tattoo.
 

Risks of tattoos

The biggest concern for adolescents is ensuring they understand the risks of tattoos and piercings and what to look for. One risk for tattoos is hepatitis C. However, the studies on the risk of contracting hepatitis C from tattooing are confounded by the fact that many people getting tattoos also may be engaging in other risky behaviors, such as intravenous drug use or risky sexual behaviors. Still, some research suggests that “commercially acquired tattoos accounted for more than twice as many infections as injection-drug use,” Dr. Breuner said.

Another risk is tattoo-associated bacterial skin infections (Clin Infect Dis. 2019 Aug 30;69[6]:949-55; MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2012 Aug 24;61[33]:653-6).
 

Risks of body piercing

Although body piercing doesn’t date back quite as far as tattoos – about 700 A.D. – its history remains long. Research suggests the top reason people get body piercings is simply liking the way it looks, as 77% of respondents reported in one study (J Am Osteopath Assoc. 2007 Oct;107[10]:432-8). Other reasons including looking fashionable, catching attention, feeling different, making a personal statement, being daring, fitting in, pressuring from peers, and defying parents.

The most serious potential complication from piercings is gangrene, but the most common is infection. Other possible complications include an allergic reaction to the metal used, a bleeding complication (estimated in 1 of 10), a scar or site reaction (estimated in 1 of 15), or, much less commonly, toxic shock syndrome. In some areas, there’s a risk of nerve damage if the nerve is pierced, such as in the eyebrow or in the bridge of the nose.

Teens particularly should be aware of the average time it takes for a piercing to heal, depending on where they get it. A navel piercing, for example, can take up to 9 months to heal. Others with long healing times include the penis (3-9 months), labia majora (2-4 months), nipple (2-4 months), and scrotum (2-3 months). Other non-ear regions range from 2 to 8 weeks.

Bleeding definitely is a risk for piercings, Dr. Breuner said, especially now that so many teens are piercing body parts besides their ears. “The one I found most disturbing was that of the uvula,” she said. Bleeding risks tend to be low with ear and nose piercings, but the risk increases with the tongue, uvula, navel, nipples, and genitalia.

Another risk of mouth piercings, particularly tongue piercing, is damage to the teeth and gums, Dr. Breuner said. Barbells, the most popular type of mouth piercing, can lead to receding gums and chipped teeth with extended wear, especially because people wearing them have a tendency to frequently bite down on them.

One study found that half the participants who wore a long barbell piercing (1.59 cm or longer) for at least 2 years had lingual recession on their mandibular central incisors (J Periodontol. 2002 Mar;73[3]:289-97). Among those with a tongue piercing of at least 4 years, 47% had tooth chipping on their molars and premolars.

Another study found gingival recession was 11 times more likely among people with tongue piercings than without (J Clin Periodontol. 2010 Aug 1;37(8):712-8). Gingival recession also is a risk with lip piercings, but the risk is greater with tongue piercing, and only tongue piercings have been associated with tooth injuries (Aust Dent J. 2012 Mar;57[1]:71-8; Int J Dent Hyg. 2016 Feb;14[1]:62-73).

Hepatitis C also is a concern with body piercing. According to a systematic review of 12 studies, body piercing was a risk factor for hepatitis C infection in the majority of them (Am J Infect Control. 2001 Aug;29[4]:271-4).
 

Counseling adolescents on body modifications

You should ask teens about any tattoos or piercings they have at each visit and ask whether they have any plans to get any. Then you can answer questions about them and ensure the teens are aware of risks, particularly viral and bacterial infections and, with piercing, bleeding.

Beyond the medical risks, it’s important for teens to understand that tattoos have the potential to limit their employment in the future, depending on the job and how visible their tattoo is.

Social acceptance of tattoos and piercings have been increasing, but a survey of nearly 2,700 people conducted by Salary.com in 2013 found that 76% of respondents believed tattoos and piercings could reduce a job applicant’s chances of being hired.

If you want to learn more specifically about the safest places in your community for tattoos and piercings, Dr. Breuner recommended going out and visiting the shops. Tattoo artists generally are the most knowledgeable people in the community about the risks of their industry and often welcome local physicians who want to learn and see their equipment, she said.

NEW ORLEANS – It wasn’t until her teenage daughter wanted to get her belly button pierced that Cora Breuner, MD, became interested in the safety of tattoos and piercings for adolescents.

“You’re a pediatrician,” her daughter said. “Where should I go? Should I get this done?” Although Dr. Breuner didn’t want her daughter to get the piercing, she knew saying “no” wasn’t likely to stop her teenager any more than it would another adolescent, so she looked to the medical literature … and didn’t find much.

“I couldn’t find an article summarizing complication rates or just about the legality of it or other issues around tattooing and piercing,” said Dr. Breuner a professor of pediatrics at Seattle Children’s Hospital and the University of Washington, also in Seattle. So she and the American Academy of Pediatrics’ Committee on Adolescent Health did the work themselves and wrote one.

Now she recommends that all health care workers treating children ask their adolescent patients about tattoos and piercings at every health care visit. “I want to make sure that you are talking to your teenagers about this,” she told attendees at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Pediatrics. In her presentation, she focused on knowing the legal age of consent for body modifications and what to watch for in terms of complications.
 

Tattoos growing in popularity

More than a third (38%) of people aged 18-29 years have at least one tattoo, according to a Pew Research Center report Dr. Breuner cited, and 23% had piercings somewhere on their body besides their ears. In fact, Americans spend about $1.65 billion on tattoos each year.

Most of the people with tattoos (72%), however, had them in places that were covered and not visible, reinforcing the need to ask about them. The popularity of tattoos has been increasing in general, Dr. Breuner noted. In just the 4 years from 2012 to 2016, the prevalence of U.S. adults with at least one tattoo increased 20%.

And people don’t appear to be sorry to have them. According to a Harris Poll that Dr. Breuner cited, 86% of respondents in 2012 did not regret getting their tattoo, and respondents listed a number of feelings they associated with their tattoos: feeling sexy, rebellious, attractive, strong, spiritual, healthier, intelligent, and athletic.

Although the techniques for tattooing have changed over the years since the first documented ones in 4,000 B.C., the basic concept of injecting ink into the dermis hasn’t changed much. By injecting the ink below the epidermis, the ink remains visible for the rest of a person’s life.

Courtesy Annie Fulton

The laws for tattoos vary by state, so you need to check the laws where they live. Not much data exist on infections and complaints, but data from the Michigan Department of Health & Human Services suggests the infection rate – at least those infections reported – is low while the rate of illegally operating facilities is a bigger risk. Local health districts in Michigan have received reports of only 18 infections since 2010, but they’ve received 85 reports of illegal operations and 69 reports of social media parties centered on all attendees getting a tattoo.
 

Risks of tattoos

The biggest concern for adolescents is ensuring they understand the risks of tattoos and piercings and what to look for. One risk for tattoos is hepatitis C. However, the studies on the risk of contracting hepatitis C from tattooing are confounded by the fact that many people getting tattoos also may be engaging in other risky behaviors, such as intravenous drug use or risky sexual behaviors. Still, some research suggests that “commercially acquired tattoos accounted for more than twice as many infections as injection-drug use,” Dr. Breuner said.

Another risk is tattoo-associated bacterial skin infections (Clin Infect Dis. 2019 Aug 30;69[6]:949-55; MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2012 Aug 24;61[33]:653-6).
 

Risks of body piercing

Although body piercing doesn’t date back quite as far as tattoos – about 700 A.D. – its history remains long. Research suggests the top reason people get body piercings is simply liking the way it looks, as 77% of respondents reported in one study (J Am Osteopath Assoc. 2007 Oct;107[10]:432-8). Other reasons including looking fashionable, catching attention, feeling different, making a personal statement, being daring, fitting in, pressuring from peers, and defying parents.

The most serious potential complication from piercings is gangrene, but the most common is infection. Other possible complications include an allergic reaction to the metal used, a bleeding complication (estimated in 1 of 10), a scar or site reaction (estimated in 1 of 15), or, much less commonly, toxic shock syndrome. In some areas, there’s a risk of nerve damage if the nerve is pierced, such as in the eyebrow or in the bridge of the nose.

Teens particularly should be aware of the average time it takes for a piercing to heal, depending on where they get it. A navel piercing, for example, can take up to 9 months to heal. Others with long healing times include the penis (3-9 months), labia majora (2-4 months), nipple (2-4 months), and scrotum (2-3 months). Other non-ear regions range from 2 to 8 weeks.

Bleeding definitely is a risk for piercings, Dr. Breuner said, especially now that so many teens are piercing body parts besides their ears. “The one I found most disturbing was that of the uvula,” she said. Bleeding risks tend to be low with ear and nose piercings, but the risk increases with the tongue, uvula, navel, nipples, and genitalia.

Another risk of mouth piercings, particularly tongue piercing, is damage to the teeth and gums, Dr. Breuner said. Barbells, the most popular type of mouth piercing, can lead to receding gums and chipped teeth with extended wear, especially because people wearing them have a tendency to frequently bite down on them.

One study found that half the participants who wore a long barbell piercing (1.59 cm or longer) for at least 2 years had lingual recession on their mandibular central incisors (J Periodontol. 2002 Mar;73[3]:289-97). Among those with a tongue piercing of at least 4 years, 47% had tooth chipping on their molars and premolars.

Another study found gingival recession was 11 times more likely among people with tongue piercings than without (J Clin Periodontol. 2010 Aug 1;37(8):712-8). Gingival recession also is a risk with lip piercings, but the risk is greater with tongue piercing, and only tongue piercings have been associated with tooth injuries (Aust Dent J. 2012 Mar;57[1]:71-8; Int J Dent Hyg. 2016 Feb;14[1]:62-73).

Hepatitis C also is a concern with body piercing. According to a systematic review of 12 studies, body piercing was a risk factor for hepatitis C infection in the majority of them (Am J Infect Control. 2001 Aug;29[4]:271-4).
 

Counseling adolescents on body modifications

You should ask teens about any tattoos or piercings they have at each visit and ask whether they have any plans to get any. Then you can answer questions about them and ensure the teens are aware of risks, particularly viral and bacterial infections and, with piercing, bleeding.

Beyond the medical risks, it’s important for teens to understand that tattoos have the potential to limit their employment in the future, depending on the job and how visible their tattoo is.

Social acceptance of tattoos and piercings have been increasing, but a survey of nearly 2,700 people conducted by Salary.com in 2013 found that 76% of respondents believed tattoos and piercings could reduce a job applicant’s chances of being hired.

If you want to learn more specifically about the safest places in your community for tattoos and piercings, Dr. Breuner recommended going out and visiting the shops. Tattoo artists generally are the most knowledgeable people in the community about the risks of their industry and often welcome local physicians who want to learn and see their equipment, she said.

A skin biopsy of one of the lesions showed granulomatous inflammation composed of lymphocytes, macrophages, and giant cells around hair follicles with negative mycobacterium stains and fungal stains, consistent with granulomatous periorificial dermatitis. Tissue cultures from a skin biopsy for aerobic bacteria, mycobacteria, and fungus all were negative.

The patient initially was treated with erythromycin, but after 2 weeks, he reported abdominal pain and nausea and was unable to tolerate the medication. He was switched to clarithromycin, which he took for 6 weeks with clearance of the lesions.

A year later, some of the lesions recurred. He was treated again with clarithromycin and the lesions resolved.

Childhood granulomatous periorificial dermatitis (CGPD) is a benign skin eruption that occurs in prepubertal children. It also has been called facial Afro-Caribbean childhood eruption (FACE), and it tends to occur most commonly in children of darker skin types.¹CGPD is characterized by dome shape, monomorphous papules ranging from skin color to pink around the eyes, nose, and mouth, but there are some cases reported of extra facial involvement.² The lesions usually are not symptomatic, and they are more common in boys. The cause of this condition is not known, but possible triggers could include prior exposure to topical and systemic corticosteroids, as well as exposure to certain allergens such as formaldehyde.¹

In histopathology, the lesions are characterized by granulomatous infiltrates around the hair follicles and the upper dermis. The granulomas are formed of macrophages, lymphocytes, and giant cell, as were seen in our patient.³

Several conditions can look very similar to CGPD; these include sarcoidosis, lupus miliaris disseminatus faciei (LMDF), and granulomatous rosacea.

Sarcoidosis is a rare condition in children, and the lesions can be similar to the ones seen in our patient. Patients with sarcoidosis usually present with other systemic symptoms including fever, weight loss, respiratory symptoms, and fatigue; none of these were seen in our patient. Under the microscope, the lesions are characterized by “naked granulomas” instead of the inflammatory granulomas seen on our patient.

Lupus miliaris disseminatus faciei is a rare inflammatory skin condition commonly seen in young adults and is thought to be a variant of rosacea. It is characterized by skin-color to pink to yellow dome-shaped papules on the central face. Histologically, the lesions present as dermal epithelioid cell granulomas with central necrosis and surrounding lymphocytic infiltrate with multinucleate giant cells.⁴

Granulomatous rosacea and CGPD are considered two separate entities. Granulomatous rosacea tends to have a more chronic course, is not that common in children, and clinically presents with pustules, papules, and cysts around the eyes and cheeks.

Infectious processes like tuberculosis and fungal infections were ruled out in our patient with cultures and histopathology. Allergic contact dermatitis on the face can present with skin-color to pink papules, but they usually are very pruritic and improve with topical corticosteroids, while these medications can worsen CGPD.

CGPD can be a self-limiting condition. When mild, it can be treated with topical metronidazole, topical erythromycin, topical clindamycin solution, or pimecrolimus. Our patient failed treatment with pimecrolimus. For severe presentations, oral tetracyclines, erythromycin, and other macrolides, metronidazole, and oral isotretinoin can help clear the lesions.⁵
 

Dr. Matiz is a pediatric dermatologist at Southern California Permanente Medical Group, San Diego. She said she had no relevant financial disclosures. Email her at [email protected].

References

1. Ann Dermatol. 2011 Aug;23(3):386-8.

2. Int J Dermatol. 2007 Feb;46(2):143-5.

3. J Cutan Med Surg. 2009 Feb 28;13(2):115-8.

4. An Bras Dermatol. 2017 Nov-Dec;92(6):851-3.

5. Indian Dermatol Online J. 2018 Jan-Feb; 9(1):68-70.

A skin biopsy of one of the lesions showed granulomatous inflammation composed of lymphocytes, macrophages, and giant cells around hair follicles with negative mycobacterium stains and fungal stains, consistent with granulomatous periorificial dermatitis. Tissue cultures from a skin biopsy for aerobic bacteria, mycobacteria, and fungus all were negative.

The patient initially was treated with erythromycin, but after 2 weeks, he reported abdominal pain and nausea and was unable to tolerate the medication. He was switched to clarithromycin, which he took for 6 weeks with clearance of the lesions.

A year later, some of the lesions recurred. He was treated again with clarithromycin and the lesions resolved.

Childhood granulomatous periorificial dermatitis (CGPD) is a benign skin eruption that occurs in prepubertal children. It also has been called facial Afro-Caribbean childhood eruption (FACE), and it tends to occur most commonly in children of darker skin types.¹CGPD is characterized by dome shape, monomorphous papules ranging from skin color to pink around the eyes, nose, and mouth, but there are some cases reported of extra facial involvement.² The lesions usually are not symptomatic, and they are more common in boys. The cause of this condition is not known, but possible triggers could include prior exposure to topical and systemic corticosteroids, as well as exposure to certain allergens such as formaldehyde.¹

In histopathology, the lesions are characterized by granulomatous infiltrates around the hair follicles and the upper dermis. The granulomas are formed of macrophages, lymphocytes, and giant cell, as were seen in our patient.³

Several conditions can look very similar to CGPD; these include sarcoidosis, lupus miliaris disseminatus faciei (LMDF), and granulomatous rosacea.

Sarcoidosis is a rare condition in children, and the lesions can be similar to the ones seen in our patient. Patients with sarcoidosis usually present with other systemic symptoms including fever, weight loss, respiratory symptoms, and fatigue; none of these were seen in our patient. Under the microscope, the lesions are characterized by “naked granulomas” instead of the inflammatory granulomas seen on our patient.

Lupus miliaris disseminatus faciei is a rare inflammatory skin condition commonly seen in young adults and is thought to be a variant of rosacea. It is characterized by skin-color to pink to yellow dome-shaped papules on the central face. Histologically, the lesions present as dermal epithelioid cell granulomas with central necrosis and surrounding lymphocytic infiltrate with multinucleate giant cells.⁴

Granulomatous rosacea and CGPD are considered two separate entities. Granulomatous rosacea tends to have a more chronic course, is not that common in children, and clinically presents with pustules, papules, and cysts around the eyes and cheeks.

Infectious processes like tuberculosis and fungal infections were ruled out in our patient with cultures and histopathology. Allergic contact dermatitis on the face can present with skin-color to pink papules, but they usually are very pruritic and improve with topical corticosteroids, while these medications can worsen CGPD.

CGPD can be a self-limiting condition. When mild, it can be treated with topical metronidazole, topical erythromycin, topical clindamycin solution, or pimecrolimus. Our patient failed treatment with pimecrolimus. For severe presentations, oral tetracyclines, erythromycin, and other macrolides, metronidazole, and oral isotretinoin can help clear the lesions.⁵
 

Dr. Matiz is a pediatric dermatologist at Southern California Permanente Medical Group, San Diego. She said she had no relevant financial disclosures. Email her at [email protected].

References

1. Ann Dermatol. 2011 Aug;23(3):386-8.

2. Int J Dermatol. 2007 Feb;46(2):143-5.

3. J Cutan Med Surg. 2009 Feb 28;13(2):115-8.

4. An Bras Dermatol. 2017 Nov-Dec;92(6):851-3.

5. Indian Dermatol Online J. 2018 Jan-Feb; 9(1):68-70.

A skin biopsy of one of the lesions showed granulomatous inflammation composed of lymphocytes, macrophages, and giant cells around hair follicles with negative mycobacterium stains and fungal stains, consistent with granulomatous periorificial dermatitis. Tissue cultures from a skin biopsy for aerobic bacteria, mycobacteria, and fungus all were negative.

The patient initially was treated with erythromycin, but after 2 weeks, he reported abdominal pain and nausea and was unable to tolerate the medication. He was switched to clarithromycin, which he took for 6 weeks with clearance of the lesions.

A year later, some of the lesions recurred. He was treated again with clarithromycin and the lesions resolved.

Childhood granulomatous periorificial dermatitis (CGPD) is a benign skin eruption that occurs in prepubertal children. It also has been called facial Afro-Caribbean childhood eruption (FACE), and it tends to occur most commonly in children of darker skin types.¹CGPD is characterized by dome shape, monomorphous papules ranging from skin color to pink around the eyes, nose, and mouth, but there are some cases reported of extra facial involvement.² The lesions usually are not symptomatic, and they are more common in boys. The cause of this condition is not known, but possible triggers could include prior exposure to topical and systemic corticosteroids, as well as exposure to certain allergens such as formaldehyde.¹

In histopathology, the lesions are characterized by granulomatous infiltrates around the hair follicles and the upper dermis. The granulomas are formed of macrophages, lymphocytes, and giant cell, as were seen in our patient.³

Several conditions can look very similar to CGPD; these include sarcoidosis, lupus miliaris disseminatus faciei (LMDF), and granulomatous rosacea.

Sarcoidosis is a rare condition in children, and the lesions can be similar to the ones seen in our patient. Patients with sarcoidosis usually present with other systemic symptoms including fever, weight loss, respiratory symptoms, and fatigue; none of these were seen in our patient. Under the microscope, the lesions are characterized by “naked granulomas” instead of the inflammatory granulomas seen on our patient.

Lupus miliaris disseminatus faciei is a rare inflammatory skin condition commonly seen in young adults and is thought to be a variant of rosacea. It is characterized by skin-color to pink to yellow dome-shaped papules on the central face. Histologically, the lesions present as dermal epithelioid cell granulomas with central necrosis and surrounding lymphocytic infiltrate with multinucleate giant cells.⁴

Granulomatous rosacea and CGPD are considered two separate entities. Granulomatous rosacea tends to have a more chronic course, is not that common in children, and clinically presents with pustules, papules, and cysts around the eyes and cheeks.

Infectious processes like tuberculosis and fungal infections were ruled out in our patient with cultures and histopathology. Allergic contact dermatitis on the face can present with skin-color to pink papules, but they usually are very pruritic and improve with topical corticosteroids, while these medications can worsen CGPD.

CGPD can be a self-limiting condition. When mild, it can be treated with topical metronidazole, topical erythromycin, topical clindamycin solution, or pimecrolimus. Our patient failed treatment with pimecrolimus. For severe presentations, oral tetracyclines, erythromycin, and other macrolides, metronidazole, and oral isotretinoin can help clear the lesions.⁵
 

Dr. Matiz is a pediatric dermatologist at Southern California Permanente Medical Group, San Diego. She said she had no relevant financial disclosures. Email her at [email protected].

References

1. Ann Dermatol. 2011 Aug;23(3):386-8.

2. Int J Dermatol. 2007 Feb;46(2):143-5.

3. J Cutan Med Surg. 2009 Feb 28;13(2):115-8.

4. An Bras Dermatol. 2017 Nov-Dec;92(6):851-3.

5. Indian Dermatol Online J. 2018 Jan-Feb; 9(1):68-70.

The first time I was sure I was witnessing someone vaping occurred when I saw an alarming cloud of smoke billowing from driver’s side window of the car in front of me. My initial concern was that vehicle was on fire. But none of the other drivers around me seemed concerned and as I pulled up next to the car I could see the driver ostentatiously inhaling deeply in preparation for releasing another monstrous cloud of vapor.

However, you probably have learned, as have I, that most vaping is done furtively. In fact, the pocketability of vaping devices is part of their appeal to teenagers. Hiding a lit cigarette in one’s pocket is something even the most risk-loving adolescent usually won’t attempt. I suspect that regardless of what is in the vapor, the high one can get by putting one over on the school administration by vaping in the school restroom or in the middle of history class is a temptation that many teenagers can’t resist.

Listening to educators, substance abuse counselors, and police officers who have first hand knowledge, it’s clear that vaping is an activity that’s very difficult to detect and police. Where there’s smoke there’s fire, but if it’s just a vapor it is easy to hide.

Part of the problem seems to be that vaping was flying under the radar and expanding rapidly long before educators, parents, and I fear physicians woke up to the severity and magnitude of the problem. And now everybody is playing catchup.

Of course the initial, and as yet unconfirmed, notion that e-cigarettes might provide a viable strategy for tobacco withdrawal has added confusion to the mix. It turns out that vaping can provide many orders of magnitude more nicotine in a small volume than cigarettes, which creates an outsized addiction potential for those more vulnerable users – even with a very short history of use. My experts tell me that this level of addiction has forced them to consider strategies and dosages far beyond those they are accustomed to using with patients whose addiction stems from standard cigarette use.

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.” Email him at [email protected].

The first time I was sure I was witnessing someone vaping occurred when I saw an alarming cloud of smoke billowing from driver’s side window of the car in front of me. My initial concern was that vehicle was on fire. But none of the other drivers around me seemed concerned and as I pulled up next to the car I could see the driver ostentatiously inhaling deeply in preparation for releasing another monstrous cloud of vapor.

However, you probably have learned, as have I, that most vaping is done furtively. In fact, the pocketability of vaping devices is part of their appeal to teenagers. Hiding a lit cigarette in one’s pocket is something even the most risk-loving adolescent usually won’t attempt. I suspect that regardless of what is in the vapor, the high one can get by putting one over on the school administration by vaping in the school restroom or in the middle of history class is a temptation that many teenagers can’t resist.

Listening to educators, substance abuse counselors, and police officers who have first hand knowledge, it’s clear that vaping is an activity that’s very difficult to detect and police. Where there’s smoke there’s fire, but if it’s just a vapor it is easy to hide.

Part of the problem seems to be that vaping was flying under the radar and expanding rapidly long before educators, parents, and I fear physicians woke up to the severity and magnitude of the problem. And now everybody is playing catchup.

Of course the initial, and as yet unconfirmed, notion that e-cigarettes might provide a viable strategy for tobacco withdrawal has added confusion to the mix. It turns out that vaping can provide many orders of magnitude more nicotine in a small volume than cigarettes, which creates an outsized addiction potential for those more vulnerable users – even with a very short history of use. My experts tell me that this level of addiction has forced them to consider strategies and dosages far beyond those they are accustomed to using with patients whose addiction stems from standard cigarette use.

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.” Email him at [email protected].

The first time I was sure I was witnessing someone vaping occurred when I saw an alarming cloud of smoke billowing from driver’s side window of the car in front of me. My initial concern was that vehicle was on fire. But none of the other drivers around me seemed concerned and as I pulled up next to the car I could see the driver ostentatiously inhaling deeply in preparation for releasing another monstrous cloud of vapor.

However, you probably have learned, as have I, that most vaping is done furtively. In fact, the pocketability of vaping devices is part of their appeal to teenagers. Hiding a lit cigarette in one’s pocket is something even the most risk-loving adolescent usually won’t attempt. I suspect that regardless of what is in the vapor, the high one can get by putting one over on the school administration by vaping in the school restroom or in the middle of history class is a temptation that many teenagers can’t resist.

Listening to educators, substance abuse counselors, and police officers who have first hand knowledge, it’s clear that vaping is an activity that’s very difficult to detect and police. Where there’s smoke there’s fire, but if it’s just a vapor it is easy to hide.

Part of the problem seems to be that vaping was flying under the radar and expanding rapidly long before educators, parents, and I fear physicians woke up to the severity and magnitude of the problem. And now everybody is playing catchup.

Of course the initial, and as yet unconfirmed, notion that e-cigarettes might provide a viable strategy for tobacco withdrawal has added confusion to the mix. It turns out that vaping can provide many orders of magnitude more nicotine in a small volume than cigarettes, which creates an outsized addiction potential for those more vulnerable users – even with a very short history of use. My experts tell me that this level of addiction has forced them to consider strategies and dosages far beyond those they are accustomed to using with patients whose addiction stems from standard cigarette use.

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.” Email him at [email protected].

In North America, breakfast is the most personal of all the traditional daily meals and usually the one at which people show the least amount of day-to-day variation.

FluxFactory/E+

For example, since retiring from active practice I eat three scrambled eggs and bowl of fresh fruit every morning (yes, I have my lipid screen done annually and it’s fine). When I was a child there were stretches measuring in years during which I would eat the same cold cereal and drink a glass of orange juice. As an adolescent trying to bulk up for football, there was a breakfast-in-a-glass that I drank along with the cereal every morning. There was the frozen waffle decade.

When I was a busy general pediatrician, the meals were short on preparation and equally short on variety. But I always had something to eat before heading out for the day. That’s what my folks did, and that’s the pattern my wife and I programmed into our children. I think my dietary history is not unique. Most people don’t have time for a complex breakfast, and in many cases, they aren’t feeling terribly adventuresome when it comes to food at 6 or 7 in the morning. Breakfast is more of a habit than an event to satisfy one’s hunger. Several generations ago, breakfast was a big deal. Men (and occasionally women) were headed out for a day of demanding physical labor and stoking the furnace at the beginning of the day made sense. In farm families, breakfast was a major meal after the morning chores were completed. Those Norman Rockwellesque days are behind us, and breakfast has receded into a minor nutritional role.

For many adults, it’s just something to chew on with a cup of a stimulant liquid. In some families, breakfast has disappeared completely. For as long as there have been dietitians and nutritionists, we have been told that breakfast can be the most important meal of the day. And for a child, the failure to eat breakfast could jeopardize his or her ability to perform in school. I guess at face value this dictum makes sense, but I’ve never been terribly impressed with the evidence supporting it. A recent study from England has gotten me thinking about the whole issue of breakfast and school performance again (“associations between habitual school-day breakfast consumption frequency and academic performance in British adolescents.” Front Public Health. 2019 Nov 20. doi. 10.3389/fpubh.2019.00283). A trio of researchers at the Human Appetite Research Unit of the School of Psychology, University of Leeds (England), found that in the study group of nearly 300 adolescents aged 16-18 years, the students who frequently skipped breakfast performed more poorly on a battery of standardized national tests. Well, I guess we have to chalk another one up for the dietitians and nutritionists. But let’s think this through again. The authors observe in the discussion of their results that “breakfast quality was not considered in the analysis and therefore conclusions regarding what aspects of breakfast are correlated with academic performance cannot be drawn.”

Maybe it’s not the food consumed at breakfast but merely taking part in the event itself that is associated with better school performance. Could it be that families who don’t give breakfast a priority also don’t prioritize school work? Maybe teenagers with poor sleep hygiene who are habitually difficult to awaken in the morning don’t have time to eat breakfast. It is likely their sleep deprivation is more of a factor in their school performance than the small nutritional deficit that they have incurred by not eating breakfast. The study that might answer these questions hasn’t been done yet. And maybe it doesn’t need to be done. We don’t need to be asking children what they have for breakfast. But we should be entering into a dialogue that begins with “Why don’t you have breakfast?” The answers may lead into a productive discussion with the family about more important contributors to poor school performance.
 

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.” Email him at [email protected].

In North America, breakfast is the most personal of all the traditional daily meals and usually the one at which people show the least amount of day-to-day variation.

FluxFactory/E+

For example, since retiring from active practice I eat three scrambled eggs and bowl of fresh fruit every morning (yes, I have my lipid screen done annually and it’s fine). When I was a child there were stretches measuring in years during which I would eat the same cold cereal and drink a glass of orange juice. As an adolescent trying to bulk up for football, there was a breakfast-in-a-glass that I drank along with the cereal every morning. There was the frozen waffle decade.

When I was a busy general pediatrician, the meals were short on preparation and equally short on variety. But I always had something to eat before heading out for the day. That’s what my folks did, and that’s the pattern my wife and I programmed into our children. I think my dietary history is not unique. Most people don’t have time for a complex breakfast, and in many cases, they aren’t feeling terribly adventuresome when it comes to food at 6 or 7 in the morning. Breakfast is more of a habit than an event to satisfy one’s hunger. Several generations ago, breakfast was a big deal. Men (and occasionally women) were headed out for a day of demanding physical labor and stoking the furnace at the beginning of the day made sense. In farm families, breakfast was a major meal after the morning chores were completed. Those Norman Rockwellesque days are behind us, and breakfast has receded into a minor nutritional role.

For many adults, it’s just something to chew on with a cup of a stimulant liquid. In some families, breakfast has disappeared completely. For as long as there have been dietitians and nutritionists, we have been told that breakfast can be the most important meal of the day. And for a child, the failure to eat breakfast could jeopardize his or her ability to perform in school. I guess at face value this dictum makes sense, but I’ve never been terribly impressed with the evidence supporting it. A recent study from England has gotten me thinking about the whole issue of breakfast and school performance again (“associations between habitual school-day breakfast consumption frequency and academic performance in British adolescents.” Front Public Health. 2019 Nov 20. doi. 10.3389/fpubh.2019.00283). A trio of researchers at the Human Appetite Research Unit of the School of Psychology, University of Leeds (England), found that in the study group of nearly 300 adolescents aged 16-18 years, the students who frequently skipped breakfast performed more poorly on a battery of standardized national tests. Well, I guess we have to chalk another one up for the dietitians and nutritionists. But let’s think this through again. The authors observe in the discussion of their results that “breakfast quality was not considered in the analysis and therefore conclusions regarding what aspects of breakfast are correlated with academic performance cannot be drawn.”

Maybe it’s not the food consumed at breakfast but merely taking part in the event itself that is associated with better school performance. Could it be that families who don’t give breakfast a priority also don’t prioritize school work? Maybe teenagers with poor sleep hygiene who are habitually difficult to awaken in the morning don’t have time to eat breakfast. It is likely their sleep deprivation is more of a factor in their school performance than the small nutritional deficit that they have incurred by not eating breakfast. The study that might answer these questions hasn’t been done yet. And maybe it doesn’t need to be done. We don’t need to be asking children what they have for breakfast. But we should be entering into a dialogue that begins with “Why don’t you have breakfast?” The answers may lead into a productive discussion with the family about more important contributors to poor school performance.
 

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.” Email him at [email protected].

In North America, breakfast is the most personal of all the traditional daily meals and usually the one at which people show the least amount of day-to-day variation.

FluxFactory/E+

For example, since retiring from active practice I eat three scrambled eggs and bowl of fresh fruit every morning (yes, I have my lipid screen done annually and it’s fine). When I was a child there were stretches measuring in years during which I would eat the same cold cereal and drink a glass of orange juice. As an adolescent trying to bulk up for football, there was a breakfast-in-a-glass that I drank along with the cereal every morning. There was the frozen waffle decade.

When I was a busy general pediatrician, the meals were short on preparation and equally short on variety. But I always had something to eat before heading out for the day. That’s what my folks did, and that’s the pattern my wife and I programmed into our children. I think my dietary history is not unique. Most people don’t have time for a complex breakfast, and in many cases, they aren’t feeling terribly adventuresome when it comes to food at 6 or 7 in the morning. Breakfast is more of a habit than an event to satisfy one’s hunger. Several generations ago, breakfast was a big deal. Men (and occasionally women) were headed out for a day of demanding physical labor and stoking the furnace at the beginning of the day made sense. In farm families, breakfast was a major meal after the morning chores were completed. Those Norman Rockwellesque days are behind us, and breakfast has receded into a minor nutritional role.

For many adults, it’s just something to chew on with a cup of a stimulant liquid. In some families, breakfast has disappeared completely. For as long as there have been dietitians and nutritionists, we have been told that breakfast can be the most important meal of the day. And for a child, the failure to eat breakfast could jeopardize his or her ability to perform in school. I guess at face value this dictum makes sense, but I’ve never been terribly impressed with the evidence supporting it. A recent study from England has gotten me thinking about the whole issue of breakfast and school performance again (“associations between habitual school-day breakfast consumption frequency and academic performance in British adolescents.” Front Public Health. 2019 Nov 20. doi. 10.3389/fpubh.2019.00283). A trio of researchers at the Human Appetite Research Unit of the School of Psychology, University of Leeds (England), found that in the study group of nearly 300 adolescents aged 16-18 years, the students who frequently skipped breakfast performed more poorly on a battery of standardized national tests. Well, I guess we have to chalk another one up for the dietitians and nutritionists. But let’s think this through again. The authors observe in the discussion of their results that “breakfast quality was not considered in the analysis and therefore conclusions regarding what aspects of breakfast are correlated with academic performance cannot be drawn.”

Maybe it’s not the food consumed at breakfast but merely taking part in the event itself that is associated with better school performance. Could it be that families who don’t give breakfast a priority also don’t prioritize school work? Maybe teenagers with poor sleep hygiene who are habitually difficult to awaken in the morning don’t have time to eat breakfast. It is likely their sleep deprivation is more of a factor in their school performance than the small nutritional deficit that they have incurred by not eating breakfast. The study that might answer these questions hasn’t been done yet. And maybe it doesn’t need to be done. We don’t need to be asking children what they have for breakfast. But we should be entering into a dialogue that begins with “Why don’t you have breakfast?” The answers may lead into a productive discussion with the family about more important contributors to poor school performance.
 

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.” Email him at [email protected].

The Food and Drug Administration has granted accelerated approval to Vyondys 53 (golodirsen) to treat patients with Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD) who have a mutation of the dystrophin gene that is amenable to exon 53 skipping. About 8% of patients with DMD have this type of mutation. Further research is required to establish whether the antisense oligonucleotide provides clinical benefit, the agency said.

Separately, the agency approved the first newborn screening test for DMD.

DMD is a “rare and devastating disease,” said Billy Dunn, MD, acting director of the office of neuroscience in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research.

“Patients ... who have a confirmed mutation of the dystrophin gene amenable to exon 53 skipping will now have available the first treatment targeted specifically for this disease subtype,” Dr. Dunn said in a news release. “Use of the accelerated approval pathway will make Vyondys 53 available to patients based on initial data, and we look forward to learning more about the drug’s clinical benefit from the ongoing confirmatory clinical trial.”
 

A surrogate endpoint

The FDA approved Vyondys 53 based on the surrogate endpoint of increased dystrophin production in the skeletal muscle in some patients treated with the drug. Sarepta Therapeutics, the developer of Vyondys 53, evaluated the treatment in a two-part clinical study. In the first part, eight patients with DMD received Vyondys 53, and four received placebo. In the second part, 25 patients, including the 12 patients from the first part, received open-label treatment. Dystrophin levels increased from 0.10% of normal at baseline to 1.02% of normal after at least 48 weeks of treatment.

A placebo-controlled, confirmatory trial is expected to conclude by 2024, the company said. If the trial does not confirm clinical benefit, the FDA could withdraw approval of the drug.

The most common side effects in patients who received Vyondys 53 include headache, fever, fall, cough, vomiting, abdominal pain, cold symptoms, and nausea. Some patients had hypersensitivity reactions. Renal toxicity occurred in animal studies of golodirsen, but not in the clinical studies. Renal toxicity, however, has occurred after treatment with other antisense oligonucleotides, the FDA noted.

Sarepta said Vyondys 53, an injection, would be available immediately. The drug is the company’s second RNA exon-skipping treatment for DMD. The FDA approved the first treatment, Exondys 51 (eteplirsen), in 2016. Together, the two drugs can treat about 20% of patients with DMD, the company said.
 

Newborn screening

On the same day, Dec. 12, 2019, the FDA authorized marketing of the first test to aid in newborn screening for DMD. Although authorization for the GSP Neonatal Creatine Kinase–MM kit enables laboratories to add this test to their newborn screening panel, it “does not signal a recommendation for DMD to be added ... as a condition for which newborn screening is recommended,” the agency said. In addition, the FDA noted that the kit is not meant to diagnose DMD or to screen for other muscular dystrophies.

The GSP Neonatal Creatine Kinase–MM kit measures the concentration of CK-MM, a type of protein that increases when there is muscle damage. The test measures CK-MM in dried blood samples collected from a newborn’s heel 24-48 hours after birth. Elevated levels may indicate DMD, but physicians must confirm the diagnosis using other methods, such as muscle biopsies, genetic testing, and other laboratory tests.

DMD primarily affects boys, and patients often do not have a family history of the condition. About 1 in 3,600 male live-born infants worldwide have DMD. Symptom onset usually occurs between the ages of 3 and 5 years.

The FDA reviewed the kit through the de novo premarket review pathway for low to moderate risk devices. In a clinical study of 3,041 newborns, the kit identified the four screened newborns who had DMD-causing genetic mutations. In addition, the test correctly identified 30 samples from newborns with clinically confirmed cases of DMD.

PerkinElmer developed the GSP Neonatal Creatine Kinase–MM kit.
 

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration has granted accelerated approval to Vyondys 53 (golodirsen) to treat patients with Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD) who have a mutation of the dystrophin gene that is amenable to exon 53 skipping. About 8% of patients with DMD have this type of mutation. Further research is required to establish whether the antisense oligonucleotide provides clinical benefit, the agency said.

Separately, the agency approved the first newborn screening test for DMD.

DMD is a “rare and devastating disease,” said Billy Dunn, MD, acting director of the office of neuroscience in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research.

“Patients ... who have a confirmed mutation of the dystrophin gene amenable to exon 53 skipping will now have available the first treatment targeted specifically for this disease subtype,” Dr. Dunn said in a news release. “Use of the accelerated approval pathway will make Vyondys 53 available to patients based on initial data, and we look forward to learning more about the drug’s clinical benefit from the ongoing confirmatory clinical trial.”
 

A surrogate endpoint

The FDA approved Vyondys 53 based on the surrogate endpoint of increased dystrophin production in the skeletal muscle in some patients treated with the drug. Sarepta Therapeutics, the developer of Vyondys 53, evaluated the treatment in a two-part clinical study. In the first part, eight patients with DMD received Vyondys 53, and four received placebo. In the second part, 25 patients, including the 12 patients from the first part, received open-label treatment. Dystrophin levels increased from 0.10% of normal at baseline to 1.02% of normal after at least 48 weeks of treatment.

A placebo-controlled, confirmatory trial is expected to conclude by 2024, the company said. If the trial does not confirm clinical benefit, the FDA could withdraw approval of the drug.

The most common side effects in patients who received Vyondys 53 include headache, fever, fall, cough, vomiting, abdominal pain, cold symptoms, and nausea. Some patients had hypersensitivity reactions. Renal toxicity occurred in animal studies of golodirsen, but not in the clinical studies. Renal toxicity, however, has occurred after treatment with other antisense oligonucleotides, the FDA noted.

Sarepta said Vyondys 53, an injection, would be available immediately. The drug is the company’s second RNA exon-skipping treatment for DMD. The FDA approved the first treatment, Exondys 51 (eteplirsen), in 2016. Together, the two drugs can treat about 20% of patients with DMD, the company said.
 

Newborn screening

On the same day, Dec. 12, 2019, the FDA authorized marketing of the first test to aid in newborn screening for DMD. Although authorization for the GSP Neonatal Creatine Kinase–MM kit enables laboratories to add this test to their newborn screening panel, it “does not signal a recommendation for DMD to be added ... as a condition for which newborn screening is recommended,” the agency said. In addition, the FDA noted that the kit is not meant to diagnose DMD or to screen for other muscular dystrophies.

The GSP Neonatal Creatine Kinase–MM kit measures the concentration of CK-MM, a type of protein that increases when there is muscle damage. The test measures CK-MM in dried blood samples collected from a newborn’s heel 24-48 hours after birth. Elevated levels may indicate DMD, but physicians must confirm the diagnosis using other methods, such as muscle biopsies, genetic testing, and other laboratory tests.

DMD primarily affects boys, and patients often do not have a family history of the condition. About 1 in 3,600 male live-born infants worldwide have DMD. Symptom onset usually occurs between the ages of 3 and 5 years.

The FDA reviewed the kit through the de novo premarket review pathway for low to moderate risk devices. In a clinical study of 3,041 newborns, the kit identified the four screened newborns who had DMD-causing genetic mutations. In addition, the test correctly identified 30 samples from newborns with clinically confirmed cases of DMD.

PerkinElmer developed the GSP Neonatal Creatine Kinase–MM kit.
 

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration has granted accelerated approval to Vyondys 53 (golodirsen) to treat patients with Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD) who have a mutation of the dystrophin gene that is amenable to exon 53 skipping. About 8% of patients with DMD have this type of mutation. Further research is required to establish whether the antisense oligonucleotide provides clinical benefit, the agency said.

Separately, the agency approved the first newborn screening test for DMD.

DMD is a “rare and devastating disease,” said Billy Dunn, MD, acting director of the office of neuroscience in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research.

“Patients ... who have a confirmed mutation of the dystrophin gene amenable to exon 53 skipping will now have available the first treatment targeted specifically for this disease subtype,” Dr. Dunn said in a news release. “Use of the accelerated approval pathway will make Vyondys 53 available to patients based on initial data, and we look forward to learning more about the drug’s clinical benefit from the ongoing confirmatory clinical trial.”
 

A surrogate endpoint

The FDA approved Vyondys 53 based on the surrogate endpoint of increased dystrophin production in the skeletal muscle in some patients treated with the drug. Sarepta Therapeutics, the developer of Vyondys 53, evaluated the treatment in a two-part clinical study. In the first part, eight patients with DMD received Vyondys 53, and four received placebo. In the second part, 25 patients, including the 12 patients from the first part, received open-label treatment. Dystrophin levels increased from 0.10% of normal at baseline to 1.02% of normal after at least 48 weeks of treatment.

A placebo-controlled, confirmatory trial is expected to conclude by 2024, the company said. If the trial does not confirm clinical benefit, the FDA could withdraw approval of the drug.

The most common side effects in patients who received Vyondys 53 include headache, fever, fall, cough, vomiting, abdominal pain, cold symptoms, and nausea. Some patients had hypersensitivity reactions. Renal toxicity occurred in animal studies of golodirsen, but not in the clinical studies. Renal toxicity, however, has occurred after treatment with other antisense oligonucleotides, the FDA noted.

Sarepta said Vyondys 53, an injection, would be available immediately. The drug is the company’s second RNA exon-skipping treatment for DMD. The FDA approved the first treatment, Exondys 51 (eteplirsen), in 2016. Together, the two drugs can treat about 20% of patients with DMD, the company said.
 

Newborn screening

On the same day, Dec. 12, 2019, the FDA authorized marketing of the first test to aid in newborn screening for DMD. Although authorization for the GSP Neonatal Creatine Kinase–MM kit enables laboratories to add this test to their newborn screening panel, it “does not signal a recommendation for DMD to be added ... as a condition for which newborn screening is recommended,” the agency said. In addition, the FDA noted that the kit is not meant to diagnose DMD or to screen for other muscular dystrophies.

The GSP Neonatal Creatine Kinase–MM kit measures the concentration of CK-MM, a type of protein that increases when there is muscle damage. The test measures CK-MM in dried blood samples collected from a newborn’s heel 24-48 hours after birth. Elevated levels may indicate DMD, but physicians must confirm the diagnosis using other methods, such as muscle biopsies, genetic testing, and other laboratory tests.

DMD primarily affects boys, and patients often do not have a family history of the condition. About 1 in 3,600 male live-born infants worldwide have DMD. Symptom onset usually occurs between the ages of 3 and 5 years.

The FDA reviewed the kit through the de novo premarket review pathway for low to moderate risk devices. In a clinical study of 3,041 newborns, the kit identified the four screened newborns who had DMD-causing genetic mutations. In addition, the test correctly identified 30 samples from newborns with clinically confirmed cases of DMD.

PerkinElmer developed the GSP Neonatal Creatine Kinase–MM kit.
 

[email protected]