Pediatrics

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE

A 9-year-old girl presents to your urgent care clinic after a fall while snowboarding for the first time. She reports falling forward onto her outstretched right hand and describes pain in her distal right forearm. She denies paresthesias, weakness, or lacerations. Physical examination reveals mild edema of the dorsal aspect of her distal right forearm and tenderness to palpation of the dorsal aspect of her distal radius. She denies tenderness to palpation of her ulna, anatomic snuffbox, hand, and elbow. Range of motion of the wrist is full on passive testing, but she declines active testing due to pain. Wrist radiographs reveal an uncomplicated torus fracture of the distal radius. Can immobilization with a soft bandage alone sufficiently treat this fracture?

Fractures of the distal radius are among the most common fractures of the upper extremity and commonly occur from a fall onto an outstretched hand.² In the pediatric population, torus fractures, also known as buckle fractures, are the most common type of distal radius fracture, comprising an estimated 50% of pediatric wrist fractures.^3,4 This is due to the presence of a physeal growth plate, thicker periosteum, and softer underlying bone in pediatric patients.^4,5 When an axial load is applied, as in a fall onto an outstretched hand, the force can lead to plastic deformation, with or without cortical disruption of the bone.^4,5

Pediatric torus fractures of the distal radius generally are treated with immobilization,² traditionally through a short arm cast or a removable, rigid wrist splint.^2,6 The wrist often is immobilized for 3 to 4 weeks, with routine follow-up and potential repeat plain film radiography to ensure stability.^2,6

Despite common use of immobilization, torus fractures of the distal radius are anatomically stable, and displacement is unlikely to occur.^7,8 As such, many studies have suggested that treatment of torus fractures with rigid immobilization in a cast or splint may not be necessary.^9,10 However, a 2018 Cochrane review concluded that the quality of evidence illustrating similar recovery between treatments was low, leaving uncertainty as to the most appropriate management strategy.⁶ Less casting and follow-up imaging could have positive implications for patient satisfaction, health care–associated costs, and radiation exposure.¹⁰

This study, the Forearm Fracture Recovery in Children Evaluation (FORCE) trial, compared the traditional treatment of distal radius torus fractures with rigid immobilization to soft immobilization and immediate discharge.

STUDY SUMMARY

Providing quality evidence for a standard of care

FORCE was a randomized controlled equivalence trial (N = 965) across 23 emergency departments (EDs) in the United Kingdom that compared pain and function in pediatric patients with distal radius torus fractures treated with a soft bandage and immediate discharge vs rigid immobilization and routine follow-up.¹ Patients included children ages 4 to 15 years presenting to the ED with a distal radius torus fracture, which was confirmed radiologically.

At 3 days, pain scores improved by 3.2 points in the soft bandage group and 3.1 points in the rigid immobilization group.

Patients with concomitant ipsilateral ulnar fractures were included in the study. Researchers excluded patients with injuries older than 36 hours, evidence of cortical disruption on radiograph (eg, greenstick fracture), or additional fractures other than the wrist, or those who were deemed unable to follow up with the full study protocol (eg, having insufficient English comprehension).

Continue to: Patients were randomly assigned...

Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive treatment with either a soft bandage such as a gauze roller bandage (n = 489) or rigid immobilization (n = 476). For patients in the bandage group, a soft bandage was applied in the ED or provided for home application without planned clinical follow-up. Patients in the rigid immobilization group were treated in the ED with either a removable manufactured splint or a molded splint or cast, followed by the standard follow-up practice of the treating center. Patients in the soft bandage group were advised not to wear the bandage for more than 3 weeks. Blinding was not possible, but the treatment team did not take part in patient follow-up.

The primary outcome was change in pain 3 days after treatment, measured on the Wong-Baker FACES Pain Rating Scale (an ordinal assessment using 6 illustrated facial expressions translated to a numeric rating on a scale of 0-10, with higher scores indicating worse pain). This scale has an established minimum clinically important difference (MCID) value of 1 face (2 points).¹¹ Per standard practice in equivalence trials, the equivalence margin was defined as half the MCID, with a value of 1.0 used in this study.

Secondary outcomes measured over the 6-week follow-up period included additional pain measurements using the Wong-Baker scale, measures of function and health-­related quality of life, analgesia use, days of absence from school or childcare, complication rates, and patient satisfaction. This study used modified intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses.

The mean age of participants was 9.6 years; 39% were girls and 61% were boys. In the bandage group, 94% opted to have the soft bandage applied in the ED, and 95% of the rigid immobilization group were treated with a removable wrist splint in the ED. At 3 days, pain scores improved by 3.2 points (standard deviation [SD] = 2.1) in the soft bandage group and 3.1 points (SD = 2.1) in the rigid immobilization group. The adjusted difference was –0.1 (95% CI, –0.37 to 0.17) in the intention-to-treat analysis and –0.06 (95% CI, –0.34 to 0.21) in the per-protocol analysis, which were both less than the predetermined equivalence margin. This equivalence margin also was met at all secondary time points (1 day, 7 days, 3 weeks, and 6 weeks after treatment) and in subgroup analysis of those 4 to 7 years and 8 to 15 years.

Use of any analgesia in the prior 24 hours was slightly higher in the soft bandage group on Day 1 (83% vs 78%; P = .04) and Day 3 (57% vs 51%; P = .05), but this difference was not seen on Day 7. Satisfaction, measured via a 7-point Likert scale (range from “extremely satisfied” to “extremely unsatisfied”), was slightly lower in the soft bandage group on Day 1 (median 2 [interquartile range = 1, 2] vs median 1 [interquartile range = 1, 2]; P < .0001) but was not different after 6 weeks. There were no measured differences in any other secondary outcomes, including function, quality of life, and complication rates.

Continue to: By the primary end point...

De-escalation of treatment offers an equivalent, resource-sparing alternative to traditional treatment of pediatric torus fractures of the distal radius.

By the primary end point of 3 days, 36 patients (7%) in the soft bandage group returned to medical care requesting a change to rigid immobilization, compared with 1 patient (0.2%) in the rigid immobilization group declining intervention.

WHAT’S NEW

Equivalence in pain and function scores

This trial showed equivalence in pain at 3 days’ follow-up in children with distal radius torus fractures who were offered bandaging and then immediately discharged from the ED, compared with rigid immobilization and clinical follow-up. There were no significant differences in pain or function between groups during the 6 weeks following the initial injury. De-escalation of treatment offers an equivalent, resource-sparing alternative to traditional treatment of these fractures.

CAVEATS

Lack of masking likely introduced bias

There are no major caveats associated with managing distal radius torus fractures with a soft bandage and discharge from the ED, compared with the traditional treatment of rigid immobilization. However, bias was likely introduced in patient-reported outcomes due to the inability to mask patients and families to the treatment allocation. This may have led to overstating the severity of outcomes in the bandage group, given the strong preference for rigid immobilization, although equivalence was illustrated despite this potential bias.

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

Preferences may be difficult to change

Parents and clinicians demonstrated a preference for rigid immobilization, as shown in the imbalance in treatment crossovers, with 7% of children changing to the rigid immobilization group by the primary study end point of 3 days. The study authors hypothesized that crossovers may have been due to the perception by some parents that rigid immobilization is the gold standard of treatment, as well as clinicians’ seeking to escalate care for patients returning for follow-up. Policy and guideline changes, as well as physician efforts to educate patients on outcomes with soft bandage treatment, are likely to improve these misconceptions.

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE

A 9-year-old girl presents to your urgent care clinic after a fall while snowboarding for the first time. She reports falling forward onto her outstretched right hand and describes pain in her distal right forearm. She denies paresthesias, weakness, or lacerations. Physical examination reveals mild edema of the dorsal aspect of her distal right forearm and tenderness to palpation of the dorsal aspect of her distal radius. She denies tenderness to palpation of her ulna, anatomic snuffbox, hand, and elbow. Range of motion of the wrist is full on passive testing, but she declines active testing due to pain. Wrist radiographs reveal an uncomplicated torus fracture of the distal radius. Can immobilization with a soft bandage alone sufficiently treat this fracture?

Fractures of the distal radius are among the most common fractures of the upper extremity and commonly occur from a fall onto an outstretched hand.² In the pediatric population, torus fractures, also known as buckle fractures, are the most common type of distal radius fracture, comprising an estimated 50% of pediatric wrist fractures.^3,4 This is due to the presence of a physeal growth plate, thicker periosteum, and softer underlying bone in pediatric patients.^4,5 When an axial load is applied, as in a fall onto an outstretched hand, the force can lead to plastic deformation, with or without cortical disruption of the bone.^4,5

Pediatric torus fractures of the distal radius generally are treated with immobilization,² traditionally through a short arm cast or a removable, rigid wrist splint.^2,6 The wrist often is immobilized for 3 to 4 weeks, with routine follow-up and potential repeat plain film radiography to ensure stability.^2,6

Despite common use of immobilization, torus fractures of the distal radius are anatomically stable, and displacement is unlikely to occur.^7,8 As such, many studies have suggested that treatment of torus fractures with rigid immobilization in a cast or splint may not be necessary.^9,10 However, a 2018 Cochrane review concluded that the quality of evidence illustrating similar recovery between treatments was low, leaving uncertainty as to the most appropriate management strategy.⁶ Less casting and follow-up imaging could have positive implications for patient satisfaction, health care–associated costs, and radiation exposure.¹⁰

This study, the Forearm Fracture Recovery in Children Evaluation (FORCE) trial, compared the traditional treatment of distal radius torus fractures with rigid immobilization to soft immobilization and immediate discharge.

STUDY SUMMARY

Providing quality evidence for a standard of care

FORCE was a randomized controlled equivalence trial (N = 965) across 23 emergency departments (EDs) in the United Kingdom that compared pain and function in pediatric patients with distal radius torus fractures treated with a soft bandage and immediate discharge vs rigid immobilization and routine follow-up.¹ Patients included children ages 4 to 15 years presenting to the ED with a distal radius torus fracture, which was confirmed radiologically.

At 3 days, pain scores improved by 3.2 points in the soft bandage group and 3.1 points in the rigid immobilization group.

Patients with concomitant ipsilateral ulnar fractures were included in the study. Researchers excluded patients with injuries older than 36 hours, evidence of cortical disruption on radiograph (eg, greenstick fracture), or additional fractures other than the wrist, or those who were deemed unable to follow up with the full study protocol (eg, having insufficient English comprehension).

Continue to: Patients were randomly assigned...

Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive treatment with either a soft bandage such as a gauze roller bandage (n = 489) or rigid immobilization (n = 476). For patients in the bandage group, a soft bandage was applied in the ED or provided for home application without planned clinical follow-up. Patients in the rigid immobilization group were treated in the ED with either a removable manufactured splint or a molded splint or cast, followed by the standard follow-up practice of the treating center. Patients in the soft bandage group were advised not to wear the bandage for more than 3 weeks. Blinding was not possible, but the treatment team did not take part in patient follow-up.

The primary outcome was change in pain 3 days after treatment, measured on the Wong-Baker FACES Pain Rating Scale (an ordinal assessment using 6 illustrated facial expressions translated to a numeric rating on a scale of 0-10, with higher scores indicating worse pain). This scale has an established minimum clinically important difference (MCID) value of 1 face (2 points).¹¹ Per standard practice in equivalence trials, the equivalence margin was defined as half the MCID, with a value of 1.0 used in this study.

Secondary outcomes measured over the 6-week follow-up period included additional pain measurements using the Wong-Baker scale, measures of function and health-­related quality of life, analgesia use, days of absence from school or childcare, complication rates, and patient satisfaction. This study used modified intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses.

The mean age of participants was 9.6 years; 39% were girls and 61% were boys. In the bandage group, 94% opted to have the soft bandage applied in the ED, and 95% of the rigid immobilization group were treated with a removable wrist splint in the ED. At 3 days, pain scores improved by 3.2 points (standard deviation [SD] = 2.1) in the soft bandage group and 3.1 points (SD = 2.1) in the rigid immobilization group. The adjusted difference was –0.1 (95% CI, –0.37 to 0.17) in the intention-to-treat analysis and –0.06 (95% CI, –0.34 to 0.21) in the per-protocol analysis, which were both less than the predetermined equivalence margin. This equivalence margin also was met at all secondary time points (1 day, 7 days, 3 weeks, and 6 weeks after treatment) and in subgroup analysis of those 4 to 7 years and 8 to 15 years.

Use of any analgesia in the prior 24 hours was slightly higher in the soft bandage group on Day 1 (83% vs 78%; P = .04) and Day 3 (57% vs 51%; P = .05), but this difference was not seen on Day 7. Satisfaction, measured via a 7-point Likert scale (range from “extremely satisfied” to “extremely unsatisfied”), was slightly lower in the soft bandage group on Day 1 (median 2 [interquartile range = 1, 2] vs median 1 [interquartile range = 1, 2]; P < .0001) but was not different after 6 weeks. There were no measured differences in any other secondary outcomes, including function, quality of life, and complication rates.

Continue to: By the primary end point...

De-escalation of treatment offers an equivalent, resource-sparing alternative to traditional treatment of pediatric torus fractures of the distal radius.

By the primary end point of 3 days, 36 patients (7%) in the soft bandage group returned to medical care requesting a change to rigid immobilization, compared with 1 patient (0.2%) in the rigid immobilization group declining intervention.

WHAT’S NEW

Equivalence in pain and function scores

This trial showed equivalence in pain at 3 days’ follow-up in children with distal radius torus fractures who were offered bandaging and then immediately discharged from the ED, compared with rigid immobilization and clinical follow-up. There were no significant differences in pain or function between groups during the 6 weeks following the initial injury. De-escalation of treatment offers an equivalent, resource-sparing alternative to traditional treatment of these fractures.

CAVEATS

Lack of masking likely introduced bias

There are no major caveats associated with managing distal radius torus fractures with a soft bandage and discharge from the ED, compared with the traditional treatment of rigid immobilization. However, bias was likely introduced in patient-reported outcomes due to the inability to mask patients and families to the treatment allocation. This may have led to overstating the severity of outcomes in the bandage group, given the strong preference for rigid immobilization, although equivalence was illustrated despite this potential bias.

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

Preferences may be difficult to change

Parents and clinicians demonstrated a preference for rigid immobilization, as shown in the imbalance in treatment crossovers, with 7% of children changing to the rigid immobilization group by the primary study end point of 3 days. The study authors hypothesized that crossovers may have been due to the perception by some parents that rigid immobilization is the gold standard of treatment, as well as clinicians’ seeking to escalate care for patients returning for follow-up. Policy and guideline changes, as well as physician efforts to educate patients on outcomes with soft bandage treatment, are likely to improve these misconceptions.

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE

A 9-year-old girl presents to your urgent care clinic after a fall while snowboarding for the first time. She reports falling forward onto her outstretched right hand and describes pain in her distal right forearm. She denies paresthesias, weakness, or lacerations. Physical examination reveals mild edema of the dorsal aspect of her distal right forearm and tenderness to palpation of the dorsal aspect of her distal radius. She denies tenderness to palpation of her ulna, anatomic snuffbox, hand, and elbow. Range of motion of the wrist is full on passive testing, but she declines active testing due to pain. Wrist radiographs reveal an uncomplicated torus fracture of the distal radius. Can immobilization with a soft bandage alone sufficiently treat this fracture?

Fractures of the distal radius are among the most common fractures of the upper extremity and commonly occur from a fall onto an outstretched hand.² In the pediatric population, torus fractures, also known as buckle fractures, are the most common type of distal radius fracture, comprising an estimated 50% of pediatric wrist fractures.^3,4 This is due to the presence of a physeal growth plate, thicker periosteum, and softer underlying bone in pediatric patients.^4,5 When an axial load is applied, as in a fall onto an outstretched hand, the force can lead to plastic deformation, with or without cortical disruption of the bone.^4,5

Pediatric torus fractures of the distal radius generally are treated with immobilization,² traditionally through a short arm cast or a removable, rigid wrist splint.^2,6 The wrist often is immobilized for 3 to 4 weeks, with routine follow-up and potential repeat plain film radiography to ensure stability.^2,6

Despite common use of immobilization, torus fractures of the distal radius are anatomically stable, and displacement is unlikely to occur.^7,8 As such, many studies have suggested that treatment of torus fractures with rigid immobilization in a cast or splint may not be necessary.^9,10 However, a 2018 Cochrane review concluded that the quality of evidence illustrating similar recovery between treatments was low, leaving uncertainty as to the most appropriate management strategy.⁶ Less casting and follow-up imaging could have positive implications for patient satisfaction, health care–associated costs, and radiation exposure.¹⁰

This study, the Forearm Fracture Recovery in Children Evaluation (FORCE) trial, compared the traditional treatment of distal radius torus fractures with rigid immobilization to soft immobilization and immediate discharge.

STUDY SUMMARY

Providing quality evidence for a standard of care

FORCE was a randomized controlled equivalence trial (N = 965) across 23 emergency departments (EDs) in the United Kingdom that compared pain and function in pediatric patients with distal radius torus fractures treated with a soft bandage and immediate discharge vs rigid immobilization and routine follow-up.¹ Patients included children ages 4 to 15 years presenting to the ED with a distal radius torus fracture, which was confirmed radiologically.

At 3 days, pain scores improved by 3.2 points in the soft bandage group and 3.1 points in the rigid immobilization group.

Patients with concomitant ipsilateral ulnar fractures were included in the study. Researchers excluded patients with injuries older than 36 hours, evidence of cortical disruption on radiograph (eg, greenstick fracture), or additional fractures other than the wrist, or those who were deemed unable to follow up with the full study protocol (eg, having insufficient English comprehension).

Continue to: Patients were randomly assigned...

Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive treatment with either a soft bandage such as a gauze roller bandage (n = 489) or rigid immobilization (n = 476). For patients in the bandage group, a soft bandage was applied in the ED or provided for home application without planned clinical follow-up. Patients in the rigid immobilization group were treated in the ED with either a removable manufactured splint or a molded splint or cast, followed by the standard follow-up practice of the treating center. Patients in the soft bandage group were advised not to wear the bandage for more than 3 weeks. Blinding was not possible, but the treatment team did not take part in patient follow-up.

The primary outcome was change in pain 3 days after treatment, measured on the Wong-Baker FACES Pain Rating Scale (an ordinal assessment using 6 illustrated facial expressions translated to a numeric rating on a scale of 0-10, with higher scores indicating worse pain). This scale has an established minimum clinically important difference (MCID) value of 1 face (2 points).¹¹ Per standard practice in equivalence trials, the equivalence margin was defined as half the MCID, with a value of 1.0 used in this study.

Secondary outcomes measured over the 6-week follow-up period included additional pain measurements using the Wong-Baker scale, measures of function and health-­related quality of life, analgesia use, days of absence from school or childcare, complication rates, and patient satisfaction. This study used modified intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses.

The mean age of participants was 9.6 years; 39% were girls and 61% were boys. In the bandage group, 94% opted to have the soft bandage applied in the ED, and 95% of the rigid immobilization group were treated with a removable wrist splint in the ED. At 3 days, pain scores improved by 3.2 points (standard deviation [SD] = 2.1) in the soft bandage group and 3.1 points (SD = 2.1) in the rigid immobilization group. The adjusted difference was –0.1 (95% CI, –0.37 to 0.17) in the intention-to-treat analysis and –0.06 (95% CI, –0.34 to 0.21) in the per-protocol analysis, which were both less than the predetermined equivalence margin. This equivalence margin also was met at all secondary time points (1 day, 7 days, 3 weeks, and 6 weeks after treatment) and in subgroup analysis of those 4 to 7 years and 8 to 15 years.

Use of any analgesia in the prior 24 hours was slightly higher in the soft bandage group on Day 1 (83% vs 78%; P = .04) and Day 3 (57% vs 51%; P = .05), but this difference was not seen on Day 7. Satisfaction, measured via a 7-point Likert scale (range from “extremely satisfied” to “extremely unsatisfied”), was slightly lower in the soft bandage group on Day 1 (median 2 [interquartile range = 1, 2] vs median 1 [interquartile range = 1, 2]; P < .0001) but was not different after 6 weeks. There were no measured differences in any other secondary outcomes, including function, quality of life, and complication rates.

Continue to: By the primary end point...

De-escalation of treatment offers an equivalent, resource-sparing alternative to traditional treatment of pediatric torus fractures of the distal radius.

By the primary end point of 3 days, 36 patients (7%) in the soft bandage group returned to medical care requesting a change to rigid immobilization, compared with 1 patient (0.2%) in the rigid immobilization group declining intervention.

WHAT’S NEW

Equivalence in pain and function scores

This trial showed equivalence in pain at 3 days’ follow-up in children with distal radius torus fractures who were offered bandaging and then immediately discharged from the ED, compared with rigid immobilization and clinical follow-up. There were no significant differences in pain or function between groups during the 6 weeks following the initial injury. De-escalation of treatment offers an equivalent, resource-sparing alternative to traditional treatment of these fractures.

CAVEATS

Lack of masking likely introduced bias

There are no major caveats associated with managing distal radius torus fractures with a soft bandage and discharge from the ED, compared with the traditional treatment of rigid immobilization. However, bias was likely introduced in patient-reported outcomes due to the inability to mask patients and families to the treatment allocation. This may have led to overstating the severity of outcomes in the bandage group, given the strong preference for rigid immobilization, although equivalence was illustrated despite this potential bias.

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

Preferences may be difficult to change

Parents and clinicians demonstrated a preference for rigid immobilization, as shown in the imbalance in treatment crossovers, with 7% of children changing to the rigid immobilization group by the primary study end point of 3 days. The study authors hypothesized that crossovers may have been due to the perception by some parents that rigid immobilization is the gold standard of treatment, as well as clinicians’ seeking to escalate care for patients returning for follow-up. Policy and guideline changes, as well as physician efforts to educate patients on outcomes with soft bandage treatment, are likely to improve these misconceptions.

Infant mortality rates rose in 2022 for the first time in more than 20 years, according to a new government report.

The overall mortality rate and the rate for neonatal infants, those younger than 28 days old, rose by 3% from 2021 to 2022, says the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Center for Health Statistics. The mortality rate for infants older than 28 days rose by 4%.

Meanwhile, infant deaths caused by maternal complications rose by 8% and those caused by bacterial sepsis rose by 14%, the report says.

“We live in a country with significant resources, so the infant mortality rate and the increase are shockingly high,” wrote Sandy Chung, MD, of the American Academy of Pediatrics, to CNN. “As pediatricians who help children grow into healthy adults, any death of any child is one too many. The infant mortality rate in this country in unacceptable.”

Experts say the increase could be a sign of an underlying health care issue, an unusual occurrence, or partly related to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The infant mortality rate rose among mothers aged 25-29 years; for preterm babies; for boys; and in Georgia, Iowa, Missouri, and Texas. The rate declined in Nevada.

“Mortality rates increased significantly among infants of American Indian and Alaska Native non-Hispanic ... and White non-Hispanic women,” the report says.

“Mortality rates for infants of Black women did not increase by much, the report found, but Black infants experienced the highest overall rates of infant mortality: nearly 11 deaths per 1,000 births, or over double the mortality rate of White infants,” CNN wrote.

“We know that for people who live in or near poverty and for certain racial and ethnic groups there are significant challenges with getting access to a doctor or getting treatments,” Dr. Chung wrote. “This can lead to moms and babies showing up for care when they are sicker and more likely have serious outcomes, even death.”

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

Infant mortality rates rose in 2022 for the first time in more than 20 years, according to a new government report.

The overall mortality rate and the rate for neonatal infants, those younger than 28 days old, rose by 3% from 2021 to 2022, says the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Center for Health Statistics. The mortality rate for infants older than 28 days rose by 4%.

Meanwhile, infant deaths caused by maternal complications rose by 8% and those caused by bacterial sepsis rose by 14%, the report says.

“We live in a country with significant resources, so the infant mortality rate and the increase are shockingly high,” wrote Sandy Chung, MD, of the American Academy of Pediatrics, to CNN. “As pediatricians who help children grow into healthy adults, any death of any child is one too many. The infant mortality rate in this country in unacceptable.”

Experts say the increase could be a sign of an underlying health care issue, an unusual occurrence, or partly related to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The infant mortality rate rose among mothers aged 25-29 years; for preterm babies; for boys; and in Georgia, Iowa, Missouri, and Texas. The rate declined in Nevada.

“Mortality rates increased significantly among infants of American Indian and Alaska Native non-Hispanic ... and White non-Hispanic women,” the report says.

“Mortality rates for infants of Black women did not increase by much, the report found, but Black infants experienced the highest overall rates of infant mortality: nearly 11 deaths per 1,000 births, or over double the mortality rate of White infants,” CNN wrote.

“We know that for people who live in or near poverty and for certain racial and ethnic groups there are significant challenges with getting access to a doctor or getting treatments,” Dr. Chung wrote. “This can lead to moms and babies showing up for care when they are sicker and more likely have serious outcomes, even death.”

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

Infant mortality rates rose in 2022 for the first time in more than 20 years, according to a new government report.

The overall mortality rate and the rate for neonatal infants, those younger than 28 days old, rose by 3% from 2021 to 2022, says the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Center for Health Statistics. The mortality rate for infants older than 28 days rose by 4%.

Meanwhile, infant deaths caused by maternal complications rose by 8% and those caused by bacterial sepsis rose by 14%, the report says.

“We live in a country with significant resources, so the infant mortality rate and the increase are shockingly high,” wrote Sandy Chung, MD, of the American Academy of Pediatrics, to CNN. “As pediatricians who help children grow into healthy adults, any death of any child is one too many. The infant mortality rate in this country in unacceptable.”

Experts say the increase could be a sign of an underlying health care issue, an unusual occurrence, or partly related to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The infant mortality rate rose among mothers aged 25-29 years; for preterm babies; for boys; and in Georgia, Iowa, Missouri, and Texas. The rate declined in Nevada.

“Mortality rates increased significantly among infants of American Indian and Alaska Native non-Hispanic ... and White non-Hispanic women,” the report says.

“Mortality rates for infants of Black women did not increase by much, the report found, but Black infants experienced the highest overall rates of infant mortality: nearly 11 deaths per 1,000 births, or over double the mortality rate of White infants,” CNN wrote.

“We know that for people who live in or near poverty and for certain racial and ethnic groups there are significant challenges with getting access to a doctor or getting treatments,” Dr. Chung wrote. “This can lead to moms and babies showing up for care when they are sicker and more likely have serious outcomes, even death.”

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

Case Report

An otherwise healthy 13-year-old boy was referred to pediatric dermatology with multiple asymptomatic erythematous papules throughout the trunk and arms of 6 months’ duration. He denied fevers, night sweats, or weight loss. A punch biopsy revealed a dense atypical lymphoid infiltrate with follicular prominence extending periadnexally and perivascularly, which was most consistent with extranodal marginal zone lymphoma of mucosa-associated lymphoid tissue (Figures 1A and 1B). Cells were positive for Bcl-2, CD23, and CD20 (Figure 1C). Polymerase chain reaction analysis of the immunoglobulin heavy and κ chain gene rearrangements were positive, indicating the presence of a clonal B-cell expansion. The patient’s complete blood cell count, complete metabolic profile, serum lactate dehydrogenase, and erythrocyte sedimentation rate were within reference range. Lyme disease antibodies, Helicobacter pylori testing, thyroid function testing, thyroid antibodies, anti–Sjogren syndrome–related antigen A antibody, and anti–Sjogren syndrome–related antigen B were negative. Additionally, positron emission tomography (PET) with computed tomography (CT) revealed no abnormalities. He was diagnosed with stage T3b primary cutaneous marginal zone lymphoma (PCMZL) due to cutaneous involvement of 3 or more body regions.

The patient was started on clobetasol ointment 0.05% twice daily to the affected areas. After 2 months, he had progression of cutaneous disease, including increased number of lesions; erythema; and induration of lesions on the chest, back, and arms (Figure 2A) and was started on oral doxycycline 100 mg twice daily with subsequent notable improvement of the skin lesions at 2-week follow-up, including decreased erythema and induration of all lesions. He then received intralesional triamcinolone 20 mg/mL injections to 4 residual lesions; clobetasol ointment 0.05% twice daily was continued for the remaining lesions as needed for pruritus. He continued doxycycline for 4 months with further improvement of lesions (Figure 2B). Six months after discontinuing doxycycline, 2 small residual lesions remained on the left arm and back, but the patient did not develop any new or recurrent lesions.

Comment

Clinical Presentation—Primary cutaneous B-cell lymphomas include PCMZL, primary cutaneous follicle center lymphoma, and primary cutaneous large B-cell lymphoma. Primary cutaneous marginal zone lymphoma is an indolent extranodal B-cell lymphoma composed of small B cells, marginal zone cells, lymphoplasmacytoid cells, and mature plasma cells.¹

Primary cutaneous marginal zone lymphoma typically presents in the fourth to sixth decades of life and is rare in children, with fewer than 40 cases in patients younger than 20 years.² Amitay-Laish and colleagues² reported 29 patients with pediatric PCMZL ranging in age from 1 to 19.5 years at diagnosis, with the majority of patients diagnosed after 10 years of age. Clinically, patients present with multifocal, erythematous to brown, dermal papules, plaques, and nodules most commonly distributed on the trunk and arms. A retrospective review of 11 pediatric patients with PCMZL over a median of 5.5 years demonstrated that the clinical presentation, histopathology, molecular findings, and prognosis of pediatric PCMZL appears similar to adult PCMZL.² Cutaneous relapse is common, but extracutaneous spread is rare. The prognosis is excellent, with a disease-free survival rate of 93%.³

Diagnosis—The diagnosis of PCMZL requires histopathologic analysis of involved skin as well as exclusion of extracutaneous disease at the time of diagnosis during initial staging evaluation. Histologically there are nodular infiltrates of small lymphocytes in interfollicular compartments, reactive germinal centers, and clonality with monotypic immunoglobulin heavy chain genes.⁴ Laboratory workup should include complete blood cell count with differential, complete metabolic panel, and serum lactate dehydrogenase level. If lymphocytosis is present, flow cytometry of peripheral blood cells should be performed. Radiographic imaging with contrast-enhanced CT or PET/CT of the chest, abdomen, and pelvis should be performed for routine staging in most patients, with imaging of the neck recommended when cervical lymphadenopathy is detected.⁵ Patients with multifocal skin lesions should receive PET/CT to exclude systemic disease and assess lymph nodes. Bone marrow studies are not required for diagnosis.^5,6

Associated Conditions—Systemic marginal zone lymphoma has been associated with autoimmune conditions, including Hashimoto thyroiditis and Sjögren syndrome; however, this association has not been shown in PCMZL and was not found in our patient.^7,8Borrelia-positive serology has been described in cases of PCMZL in Europe. The pathogenesis has been speculated to be due to chronic antigen stimulation related to the geographic distribution of Borrelia species.⁹ In endemic areas, Borrelia testing with serology or DNA testing of skin is recommended; however, there has been no strong correlation between Borrelia burgdorferi and PCMZL found in North America or Asia.^9,10Helicobacter pylori has been associated with gastric mucosal-associated lymphatic tissue lymphoma, which responds well to antibiotic therapy. However, an association between PCMZL and H pylori has not been well described.¹¹

Management—Several treatment modalities have been attempted in patients with PCMZL with varying efficacy. Given the rarity of this disease, there is no standard therapy. Treatment options include radiation therapy, excision, topical steroids, intralesional steroids, intralesional rituximab, and antibiotics.^2,12-14 Case reports of pediatric patients have demonstrated improvement with excision,^15-19 intralesional steroids,^20,21 intralesional rituximab,²² and clobetasol cream.^23,24 In asymptomatic patients, watchful waiting often is employed given the overall indolent nature of PCMZL. Antibiotic therapy may be favored in Borrelia-positive cases. However, even in B burgdorferi–negative patients, there have been cases where there is response to antibiotics, particularly doxycycline.^2,15,25 We elected for a trial of doxycycline in our patient based on these prior reports, along with the overall favorable side-effect profile of doxycycline for adolescents and our patient’s widespread cutaneous involvement.

Doxycycline is utilized in pediatric patients 8 years and older for numerous indications, including treatment of acne, Rocky Mountain spotted fever, and Lyme disease. Use of doxycycline in younger patients typically is avoided given the risk for dental enamel hypoplasia, tooth discoloration, and possible delays in skeletal development. Originally utilized for its antibacterial effects as an intracellular inhibitor of protein synthesis, doxycycline has been repurposed for oncologic therapies. It has been shown to have cytotoxic and antiproliferative properties in various cancer cells and also may inhibit leukemic cell migration.²⁶ In PCMZL, doxycycline initially was utilized in Borrelia-positive patients in Europe and found to improve disease clearance.²⁷ In patients without Borrelia infection, doxycycline is thought to enhance apoptosis through caspase-3 activation along with p53 and Bax upregulation.²⁸

Intralesional triamcinolone alone may not be feasible in pediatric PCMZL patients because of widespread involvement, and doxycycline may be considered as a treatment option. Multiple low-risk treatment modalities may be used in conjunction to clear disease in pediatric patients, as demonstrated in our case.

Acknowledgment—We thank Ali Nael Amzajerdi, MD (Orange, California), for his contributions to the pathologic imaging in this report.

Case Report

An otherwise healthy 13-year-old boy was referred to pediatric dermatology with multiple asymptomatic erythematous papules throughout the trunk and arms of 6 months’ duration. He denied fevers, night sweats, or weight loss. A punch biopsy revealed a dense atypical lymphoid infiltrate with follicular prominence extending periadnexally and perivascularly, which was most consistent with extranodal marginal zone lymphoma of mucosa-associated lymphoid tissue (Figures 1A and 1B). Cells were positive for Bcl-2, CD23, and CD20 (Figure 1C). Polymerase chain reaction analysis of the immunoglobulin heavy and κ chain gene rearrangements were positive, indicating the presence of a clonal B-cell expansion. The patient’s complete blood cell count, complete metabolic profile, serum lactate dehydrogenase, and erythrocyte sedimentation rate were within reference range. Lyme disease antibodies, Helicobacter pylori testing, thyroid function testing, thyroid antibodies, anti–Sjogren syndrome–related antigen A antibody, and anti–Sjogren syndrome–related antigen B were negative. Additionally, positron emission tomography (PET) with computed tomography (CT) revealed no abnormalities. He was diagnosed with stage T3b primary cutaneous marginal zone lymphoma (PCMZL) due to cutaneous involvement of 3 or more body regions.

The patient was started on clobetasol ointment 0.05% twice daily to the affected areas. After 2 months, he had progression of cutaneous disease, including increased number of lesions; erythema; and induration of lesions on the chest, back, and arms (Figure 2A) and was started on oral doxycycline 100 mg twice daily with subsequent notable improvement of the skin lesions at 2-week follow-up, including decreased erythema and induration of all lesions. He then received intralesional triamcinolone 20 mg/mL injections to 4 residual lesions; clobetasol ointment 0.05% twice daily was continued for the remaining lesions as needed for pruritus. He continued doxycycline for 4 months with further improvement of lesions (Figure 2B). Six months after discontinuing doxycycline, 2 small residual lesions remained on the left arm and back, but the patient did not develop any new or recurrent lesions.

Comment

Clinical Presentation—Primary cutaneous B-cell lymphomas include PCMZL, primary cutaneous follicle center lymphoma, and primary cutaneous large B-cell lymphoma. Primary cutaneous marginal zone lymphoma is an indolent extranodal B-cell lymphoma composed of small B cells, marginal zone cells, lymphoplasmacytoid cells, and mature plasma cells.¹

Primary cutaneous marginal zone lymphoma typically presents in the fourth to sixth decades of life and is rare in children, with fewer than 40 cases in patients younger than 20 years.² Amitay-Laish and colleagues² reported 29 patients with pediatric PCMZL ranging in age from 1 to 19.5 years at diagnosis, with the majority of patients diagnosed after 10 years of age. Clinically, patients present with multifocal, erythematous to brown, dermal papules, plaques, and nodules most commonly distributed on the trunk and arms. A retrospective review of 11 pediatric patients with PCMZL over a median of 5.5 years demonstrated that the clinical presentation, histopathology, molecular findings, and prognosis of pediatric PCMZL appears similar to adult PCMZL.² Cutaneous relapse is common, but extracutaneous spread is rare. The prognosis is excellent, with a disease-free survival rate of 93%.³

Diagnosis—The diagnosis of PCMZL requires histopathologic analysis of involved skin as well as exclusion of extracutaneous disease at the time of diagnosis during initial staging evaluation. Histologically there are nodular infiltrates of small lymphocytes in interfollicular compartments, reactive germinal centers, and clonality with monotypic immunoglobulin heavy chain genes.⁴ Laboratory workup should include complete blood cell count with differential, complete metabolic panel, and serum lactate dehydrogenase level. If lymphocytosis is present, flow cytometry of peripheral blood cells should be performed. Radiographic imaging with contrast-enhanced CT or PET/CT of the chest, abdomen, and pelvis should be performed for routine staging in most patients, with imaging of the neck recommended when cervical lymphadenopathy is detected.⁵ Patients with multifocal skin lesions should receive PET/CT to exclude systemic disease and assess lymph nodes. Bone marrow studies are not required for diagnosis.^5,6

Associated Conditions—Systemic marginal zone lymphoma has been associated with autoimmune conditions, including Hashimoto thyroiditis and Sjögren syndrome; however, this association has not been shown in PCMZL and was not found in our patient.^7,8Borrelia-positive serology has been described in cases of PCMZL in Europe. The pathogenesis has been speculated to be due to chronic antigen stimulation related to the geographic distribution of Borrelia species.⁹ In endemic areas, Borrelia testing with serology or DNA testing of skin is recommended; however, there has been no strong correlation between Borrelia burgdorferi and PCMZL found in North America or Asia.^9,10Helicobacter pylori has been associated with gastric mucosal-associated lymphatic tissue lymphoma, which responds well to antibiotic therapy. However, an association between PCMZL and H pylori has not been well described.¹¹

Management—Several treatment modalities have been attempted in patients with PCMZL with varying efficacy. Given the rarity of this disease, there is no standard therapy. Treatment options include radiation therapy, excision, topical steroids, intralesional steroids, intralesional rituximab, and antibiotics.^2,12-14 Case reports of pediatric patients have demonstrated improvement with excision,^15-19 intralesional steroids,^20,21 intralesional rituximab,²² and clobetasol cream.^23,24 In asymptomatic patients, watchful waiting often is employed given the overall indolent nature of PCMZL. Antibiotic therapy may be favored in Borrelia-positive cases. However, even in B burgdorferi–negative patients, there have been cases where there is response to antibiotics, particularly doxycycline.^2,15,25 We elected for a trial of doxycycline in our patient based on these prior reports, along with the overall favorable side-effect profile of doxycycline for adolescents and our patient’s widespread cutaneous involvement.

Doxycycline is utilized in pediatric patients 8 years and older for numerous indications, including treatment of acne, Rocky Mountain spotted fever, and Lyme disease. Use of doxycycline in younger patients typically is avoided given the risk for dental enamel hypoplasia, tooth discoloration, and possible delays in skeletal development. Originally utilized for its antibacterial effects as an intracellular inhibitor of protein synthesis, doxycycline has been repurposed for oncologic therapies. It has been shown to have cytotoxic and antiproliferative properties in various cancer cells and also may inhibit leukemic cell migration.²⁶ In PCMZL, doxycycline initially was utilized in Borrelia-positive patients in Europe and found to improve disease clearance.²⁷ In patients without Borrelia infection, doxycycline is thought to enhance apoptosis through caspase-3 activation along with p53 and Bax upregulation.²⁸

Intralesional triamcinolone alone may not be feasible in pediatric PCMZL patients because of widespread involvement, and doxycycline may be considered as a treatment option. Multiple low-risk treatment modalities may be used in conjunction to clear disease in pediatric patients, as demonstrated in our case.

Acknowledgment—We thank Ali Nael Amzajerdi, MD (Orange, California), for his contributions to the pathologic imaging in this report.

Case Report

An otherwise healthy 13-year-old boy was referred to pediatric dermatology with multiple asymptomatic erythematous papules throughout the trunk and arms of 6 months’ duration. He denied fevers, night sweats, or weight loss. A punch biopsy revealed a dense atypical lymphoid infiltrate with follicular prominence extending periadnexally and perivascularly, which was most consistent with extranodal marginal zone lymphoma of mucosa-associated lymphoid tissue (Figures 1A and 1B). Cells were positive for Bcl-2, CD23, and CD20 (Figure 1C). Polymerase chain reaction analysis of the immunoglobulin heavy and κ chain gene rearrangements were positive, indicating the presence of a clonal B-cell expansion. The patient’s complete blood cell count, complete metabolic profile, serum lactate dehydrogenase, and erythrocyte sedimentation rate were within reference range. Lyme disease antibodies, Helicobacter pylori testing, thyroid function testing, thyroid antibodies, anti–Sjogren syndrome–related antigen A antibody, and anti–Sjogren syndrome–related antigen B were negative. Additionally, positron emission tomography (PET) with computed tomography (CT) revealed no abnormalities. He was diagnosed with stage T3b primary cutaneous marginal zone lymphoma (PCMZL) due to cutaneous involvement of 3 or more body regions.

The patient was started on clobetasol ointment 0.05% twice daily to the affected areas. After 2 months, he had progression of cutaneous disease, including increased number of lesions; erythema; and induration of lesions on the chest, back, and arms (Figure 2A) and was started on oral doxycycline 100 mg twice daily with subsequent notable improvement of the skin lesions at 2-week follow-up, including decreased erythema and induration of all lesions. He then received intralesional triamcinolone 20 mg/mL injections to 4 residual lesions; clobetasol ointment 0.05% twice daily was continued for the remaining lesions as needed for pruritus. He continued doxycycline for 4 months with further improvement of lesions (Figure 2B). Six months after discontinuing doxycycline, 2 small residual lesions remained on the left arm and back, but the patient did not develop any new or recurrent lesions.

Comment

Clinical Presentation—Primary cutaneous B-cell lymphomas include PCMZL, primary cutaneous follicle center lymphoma, and primary cutaneous large B-cell lymphoma. Primary cutaneous marginal zone lymphoma is an indolent extranodal B-cell lymphoma composed of small B cells, marginal zone cells, lymphoplasmacytoid cells, and mature plasma cells.¹

Primary cutaneous marginal zone lymphoma typically presents in the fourth to sixth decades of life and is rare in children, with fewer than 40 cases in patients younger than 20 years.² Amitay-Laish and colleagues² reported 29 patients with pediatric PCMZL ranging in age from 1 to 19.5 years at diagnosis, with the majority of patients diagnosed after 10 years of age. Clinically, patients present with multifocal, erythematous to brown, dermal papules, plaques, and nodules most commonly distributed on the trunk and arms. A retrospective review of 11 pediatric patients with PCMZL over a median of 5.5 years demonstrated that the clinical presentation, histopathology, molecular findings, and prognosis of pediatric PCMZL appears similar to adult PCMZL.² Cutaneous relapse is common, but extracutaneous spread is rare. The prognosis is excellent, with a disease-free survival rate of 93%.³

Diagnosis—The diagnosis of PCMZL requires histopathologic analysis of involved skin as well as exclusion of extracutaneous disease at the time of diagnosis during initial staging evaluation. Histologically there are nodular infiltrates of small lymphocytes in interfollicular compartments, reactive germinal centers, and clonality with monotypic immunoglobulin heavy chain genes.⁴ Laboratory workup should include complete blood cell count with differential, complete metabolic panel, and serum lactate dehydrogenase level. If lymphocytosis is present, flow cytometry of peripheral blood cells should be performed. Radiographic imaging with contrast-enhanced CT or PET/CT of the chest, abdomen, and pelvis should be performed for routine staging in most patients, with imaging of the neck recommended when cervical lymphadenopathy is detected.⁵ Patients with multifocal skin lesions should receive PET/CT to exclude systemic disease and assess lymph nodes. Bone marrow studies are not required for diagnosis.^5,6

Associated Conditions—Systemic marginal zone lymphoma has been associated with autoimmune conditions, including Hashimoto thyroiditis and Sjögren syndrome; however, this association has not been shown in PCMZL and was not found in our patient.^7,8Borrelia-positive serology has been described in cases of PCMZL in Europe. The pathogenesis has been speculated to be due to chronic antigen stimulation related to the geographic distribution of Borrelia species.⁹ In endemic areas, Borrelia testing with serology or DNA testing of skin is recommended; however, there has been no strong correlation between Borrelia burgdorferi and PCMZL found in North America or Asia.^9,10Helicobacter pylori has been associated with gastric mucosal-associated lymphatic tissue lymphoma, which responds well to antibiotic therapy. However, an association between PCMZL and H pylori has not been well described.¹¹

Management—Several treatment modalities have been attempted in patients with PCMZL with varying efficacy. Given the rarity of this disease, there is no standard therapy. Treatment options include radiation therapy, excision, topical steroids, intralesional steroids, intralesional rituximab, and antibiotics.^2,12-14 Case reports of pediatric patients have demonstrated improvement with excision,^15-19 intralesional steroids,^20,21 intralesional rituximab,²² and clobetasol cream.^23,24 In asymptomatic patients, watchful waiting often is employed given the overall indolent nature of PCMZL. Antibiotic therapy may be favored in Borrelia-positive cases. However, even in B burgdorferi–negative patients, there have been cases where there is response to antibiotics, particularly doxycycline.^2,15,25 We elected for a trial of doxycycline in our patient based on these prior reports, along with the overall favorable side-effect profile of doxycycline for adolescents and our patient’s widespread cutaneous involvement.

Doxycycline is utilized in pediatric patients 8 years and older for numerous indications, including treatment of acne, Rocky Mountain spotted fever, and Lyme disease. Use of doxycycline in younger patients typically is avoided given the risk for dental enamel hypoplasia, tooth discoloration, and possible delays in skeletal development. Originally utilized for its antibacterial effects as an intracellular inhibitor of protein synthesis, doxycycline has been repurposed for oncologic therapies. It has been shown to have cytotoxic and antiproliferative properties in various cancer cells and also may inhibit leukemic cell migration.²⁶ In PCMZL, doxycycline initially was utilized in Borrelia-positive patients in Europe and found to improve disease clearance.²⁷ In patients without Borrelia infection, doxycycline is thought to enhance apoptosis through caspase-3 activation along with p53 and Bax upregulation.²⁸

Intralesional triamcinolone alone may not be feasible in pediatric PCMZL patients because of widespread involvement, and doxycycline may be considered as a treatment option. Multiple low-risk treatment modalities may be used in conjunction to clear disease in pediatric patients, as demonstrated in our case.

Acknowledgment—We thank Ali Nael Amzajerdi, MD (Orange, California), for his contributions to the pathologic imaging in this report.

Epilepsy affects over 50 million people worldwide, making it one of the most common neurologic disorders. Though current antiseizure medications can control seizures in two-thirds of patients, drug-resistant epilepsy remains a major challenge for the remaining one-third, as does the lack of disease-modifying therapies.

But RNA-based therapeutics offer new hope, and experts predict they could fill these gaps and revolutionize epilepsy treatment.

“Current medicines for epilepsy are barely scraping the surface of what could be targeted. RNA therapeutics is going to change everything. It opens up entirely new targets – virtually anything in our genome becomes ‘druggable,’ ” said David Henshall, PhD, Royal College of Surgeons Ireland, Dublin.

Edward Kaye, MD, a pediatric neurologist and CEO of Stoke Therapeutics, agrees. “RNA therapeutics open up possibilities that could not have been imagined when I started my career,” he said in an interview.

“We now have the potential to change the way genetic epilepsies are treated by addressing the underlying genetic cause of the disease instead of just the seizures,” Dr. Kaye said.
 

Thank COVID?

Henrik Klitgaard, PhD, and Sakari Kauppinen, PhD, scientific co-founders of NEUmiRNA Therapeutics, noted that the success of messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccines to counter the COVID-19 pandemic has fueled interest in exploring the potential of RNA-based therapies as a new modality in epilepsy with improved therapeutic properties.

Dr. Klitgaard and Dr. Kauppinen recently co-authored a “critical review” on RNA therapies for epilepsy published online in Epilepsia.

Unlike current antiseizure medications, which only target ion channels and receptors, RNA therapeutics can directly intervene at the genetic level.

RNA drugs can be targeted toward noncoding RNAs, such as microRNAs, or toward mRNA. Targeting noncoding RNAs shows promise in sporadic, nongenetic epilepsies, and targeting of mRNAs shows promise in childhood monogenic epilepsies.

Preclinical studies have highlighted the potential of RNA therapies for treatment of epilepsy.

“At NEUmiRNA Therapeutics, we have successfully designed potent and selective RNA drugs for a novel disease target that enable unprecedented elimination of the drug resistance and chronic epilepsy in a preclinical model mimicking temporal lobe epilepsy,” said Dr. Klitgaard.

“Interestingly,” he said, “these experiments also showed a disappearance of symptoms for epilepsy that outlasted drug exposure, suggesting significant disease-modifying properties with a curative potential for epilepsy.”
 

Hope for Dravet syndrome

Currently, there is significant interest in development of antisense oligonucleotides (ASOs), particularly for Dravet syndrome, a rare genetic epileptic encephalopathy that begins in infancy and gives rise to seizures that don’t respond well to seizure medications.

Stoke Therapeutics is developing antisense therapies aimed at correcting mutations in sodium channel genes, which cause up to 80% of cases of Dravet syndrome.

The company recently reported positive safety and efficacy data from patients treated with STK-001, a proprietary ASO, in the two ongoing phase 1/2a studies (MONARCH and ADMIRAL) and the SWALLOWTAIL open-label extension study.

“These new data suggest clinical benefit for patients 2-18 years of age treated with multiple doses of STK-001. The observed reductions in convulsive seizure frequency as well as substantial improvements in cognition and behavior support the potential for disease modification in a highly refractory patient population,” the company said in a news release.

Dr. Kaye noted that the company anticipates reporting additional data in the first quarter of 2024 and expects to provide an update on phase 3 planning in the first half of 2024.

“Twenty-five years ago, when I was caring for patients in my clinic, half of epilepsy was considered idiopathic because we didn’t know the cause,” Dr. Kaye commented.

“Since then, thanks to an understanding of the genetics and more widely available access to genetic testing, we can determine the root cause of most of them. Today, I believe we are on the verge of a fundamental shift in how we approach the treatment of Dravet syndrome and, hopefully, other genetic epilepsies,” said Dr. Kaye.

“We are now finally getting to the point that we not only know the causes, but we are in a position to develop medicines that target those causes. We have seen this happen in other diseases like cystic fibrosis, and the time has come for genetic epilepsies,” he added.
 

A promising future

Dr. Henshall said that the ability to target the cause rather than just the symptoms of epilepsy “offers the promise of disease-modifying and potentially curative medicines in the future.”

And what’s exciting is that the time frame of developing RNA medicines may be “radically” different than it is for traditional small-drug development, he noted.

Take, for example, a case reported recently in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Researchers identified a novel mutation in a child with neuronal ceroid lipofuscinosis 7 (a form of Batten’s disease), a rare and fatal neurodegenerative disease. Identification of the mutation was followed by the development and use (within 1 year) of a tailored RNA drug to treat the patient.

One downside perhaps is that current RNA drugs for epilepsy are delivered intrathecally, which is different from oral administration of small-molecule drugs.

However, Dr. Kauppinen from NEUmiRNA Therapeutics noted that “advances in intrathecal delivery technologies [and] the frequent use of this route of administration in other diseases and IT administration only being required two to three times per year will certainly facilitate use of RNA medicines.”

“This will also eliminate the issue of drug adherence by ensuring full patient compliance to treatment,” Dr. Kauppinen said.

The review article on RNA therapies in epilepsy had no commercial funding. Dr. Henshall holds a patent and has filed intellectual property related to microRNA targeting therapies for epilepsy and has received funding for microRNA research from NEUmiRNA Therapeutics. Dr. Klitgaard and Dr. Kauppinen are cofounders of NEUmiRNA Therapeutics. Dr. Kaye is CEO of Stoke Therapeutics.

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

Epilepsy affects over 50 million people worldwide, making it one of the most common neurologic disorders. Though current antiseizure medications can control seizures in two-thirds of patients, drug-resistant epilepsy remains a major challenge for the remaining one-third, as does the lack of disease-modifying therapies.

But RNA-based therapeutics offer new hope, and experts predict they could fill these gaps and revolutionize epilepsy treatment.

“Current medicines for epilepsy are barely scraping the surface of what could be targeted. RNA therapeutics is going to change everything. It opens up entirely new targets – virtually anything in our genome becomes ‘druggable,’ ” said David Henshall, PhD, Royal College of Surgeons Ireland, Dublin.

Edward Kaye, MD, a pediatric neurologist and CEO of Stoke Therapeutics, agrees. “RNA therapeutics open up possibilities that could not have been imagined when I started my career,” he said in an interview.

“We now have the potential to change the way genetic epilepsies are treated by addressing the underlying genetic cause of the disease instead of just the seizures,” Dr. Kaye said.
 

Thank COVID?

Henrik Klitgaard, PhD, and Sakari Kauppinen, PhD, scientific co-founders of NEUmiRNA Therapeutics, noted that the success of messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccines to counter the COVID-19 pandemic has fueled interest in exploring the potential of RNA-based therapies as a new modality in epilepsy with improved therapeutic properties.

Dr. Klitgaard and Dr. Kauppinen recently co-authored a “critical review” on RNA therapies for epilepsy published online in Epilepsia.

Unlike current antiseizure medications, which only target ion channels and receptors, RNA therapeutics can directly intervene at the genetic level.

RNA drugs can be targeted toward noncoding RNAs, such as microRNAs, or toward mRNA. Targeting noncoding RNAs shows promise in sporadic, nongenetic epilepsies, and targeting of mRNAs shows promise in childhood monogenic epilepsies.

Preclinical studies have highlighted the potential of RNA therapies for treatment of epilepsy.

“At NEUmiRNA Therapeutics, we have successfully designed potent and selective RNA drugs for a novel disease target that enable unprecedented elimination of the drug resistance and chronic epilepsy in a preclinical model mimicking temporal lobe epilepsy,” said Dr. Klitgaard.

“Interestingly,” he said, “these experiments also showed a disappearance of symptoms for epilepsy that outlasted drug exposure, suggesting significant disease-modifying properties with a curative potential for epilepsy.”
 

Hope for Dravet syndrome

Currently, there is significant interest in development of antisense oligonucleotides (ASOs), particularly for Dravet syndrome, a rare genetic epileptic encephalopathy that begins in infancy and gives rise to seizures that don’t respond well to seizure medications.

Stoke Therapeutics is developing antisense therapies aimed at correcting mutations in sodium channel genes, which cause up to 80% of cases of Dravet syndrome.

The company recently reported positive safety and efficacy data from patients treated with STK-001, a proprietary ASO, in the two ongoing phase 1/2a studies (MONARCH and ADMIRAL) and the SWALLOWTAIL open-label extension study.

“These new data suggest clinical benefit for patients 2-18 years of age treated with multiple doses of STK-001. The observed reductions in convulsive seizure frequency as well as substantial improvements in cognition and behavior support the potential for disease modification in a highly refractory patient population,” the company said in a news release.

Dr. Kaye noted that the company anticipates reporting additional data in the first quarter of 2024 and expects to provide an update on phase 3 planning in the first half of 2024.

“Twenty-five years ago, when I was caring for patients in my clinic, half of epilepsy was considered idiopathic because we didn’t know the cause,” Dr. Kaye commented.

“Since then, thanks to an understanding of the genetics and more widely available access to genetic testing, we can determine the root cause of most of them. Today, I believe we are on the verge of a fundamental shift in how we approach the treatment of Dravet syndrome and, hopefully, other genetic epilepsies,” said Dr. Kaye.

“We are now finally getting to the point that we not only know the causes, but we are in a position to develop medicines that target those causes. We have seen this happen in other diseases like cystic fibrosis, and the time has come for genetic epilepsies,” he added.
 

A promising future

Dr. Henshall said that the ability to target the cause rather than just the symptoms of epilepsy “offers the promise of disease-modifying and potentially curative medicines in the future.”

And what’s exciting is that the time frame of developing RNA medicines may be “radically” different than it is for traditional small-drug development, he noted.

Take, for example, a case reported recently in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Researchers identified a novel mutation in a child with neuronal ceroid lipofuscinosis 7 (a form of Batten’s disease), a rare and fatal neurodegenerative disease. Identification of the mutation was followed by the development and use (within 1 year) of a tailored RNA drug to treat the patient.

One downside perhaps is that current RNA drugs for epilepsy are delivered intrathecally, which is different from oral administration of small-molecule drugs.

However, Dr. Kauppinen from NEUmiRNA Therapeutics noted that “advances in intrathecal delivery technologies [and] the frequent use of this route of administration in other diseases and IT administration only being required two to three times per year will certainly facilitate use of RNA medicines.”

“This will also eliminate the issue of drug adherence by ensuring full patient compliance to treatment,” Dr. Kauppinen said.

The review article on RNA therapies in epilepsy had no commercial funding. Dr. Henshall holds a patent and has filed intellectual property related to microRNA targeting therapies for epilepsy and has received funding for microRNA research from NEUmiRNA Therapeutics. Dr. Klitgaard and Dr. Kauppinen are cofounders of NEUmiRNA Therapeutics. Dr. Kaye is CEO of Stoke Therapeutics.

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

Epilepsy affects over 50 million people worldwide, making it one of the most common neurologic disorders. Though current antiseizure medications can control seizures in two-thirds of patients, drug-resistant epilepsy remains a major challenge for the remaining one-third, as does the lack of disease-modifying therapies.

But RNA-based therapeutics offer new hope, and experts predict they could fill these gaps and revolutionize epilepsy treatment.

“Current medicines for epilepsy are barely scraping the surface of what could be targeted. RNA therapeutics is going to change everything. It opens up entirely new targets – virtually anything in our genome becomes ‘druggable,’ ” said David Henshall, PhD, Royal College of Surgeons Ireland, Dublin.

Edward Kaye, MD, a pediatric neurologist and CEO of Stoke Therapeutics, agrees. “RNA therapeutics open up possibilities that could not have been imagined when I started my career,” he said in an interview.

“We now have the potential to change the way genetic epilepsies are treated by addressing the underlying genetic cause of the disease instead of just the seizures,” Dr. Kaye said.
 

Thank COVID?

Henrik Klitgaard, PhD, and Sakari Kauppinen, PhD, scientific co-founders of NEUmiRNA Therapeutics, noted that the success of messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccines to counter the COVID-19 pandemic has fueled interest in exploring the potential of RNA-based therapies as a new modality in epilepsy with improved therapeutic properties.

Dr. Klitgaard and Dr. Kauppinen recently co-authored a “critical review” on RNA therapies for epilepsy published online in Epilepsia.

Unlike current antiseizure medications, which only target ion channels and receptors, RNA therapeutics can directly intervene at the genetic level.

RNA drugs can be targeted toward noncoding RNAs, such as microRNAs, or toward mRNA. Targeting noncoding RNAs shows promise in sporadic, nongenetic epilepsies, and targeting of mRNAs shows promise in childhood monogenic epilepsies.

Preclinical studies have highlighted the potential of RNA therapies for treatment of epilepsy.

“At NEUmiRNA Therapeutics, we have successfully designed potent and selective RNA drugs for a novel disease target that enable unprecedented elimination of the drug resistance and chronic epilepsy in a preclinical model mimicking temporal lobe epilepsy,” said Dr. Klitgaard.

“Interestingly,” he said, “these experiments also showed a disappearance of symptoms for epilepsy that outlasted drug exposure, suggesting significant disease-modifying properties with a curative potential for epilepsy.”
 

Hope for Dravet syndrome

Currently, there is significant interest in development of antisense oligonucleotides (ASOs), particularly for Dravet syndrome, a rare genetic epileptic encephalopathy that begins in infancy and gives rise to seizures that don’t respond well to seizure medications.

Stoke Therapeutics is developing antisense therapies aimed at correcting mutations in sodium channel genes, which cause up to 80% of cases of Dravet syndrome.

The company recently reported positive safety and efficacy data from patients treated with STK-001, a proprietary ASO, in the two ongoing phase 1/2a studies (MONARCH and ADMIRAL) and the SWALLOWTAIL open-label extension study.

“These new data suggest clinical benefit for patients 2-18 years of age treated with multiple doses of STK-001. The observed reductions in convulsive seizure frequency as well as substantial improvements in cognition and behavior support the potential for disease modification in a highly refractory patient population,” the company said in a news release.

Dr. Kaye noted that the company anticipates reporting additional data in the first quarter of 2024 and expects to provide an update on phase 3 planning in the first half of 2024.

“Twenty-five years ago, when I was caring for patients in my clinic, half of epilepsy was considered idiopathic because we didn’t know the cause,” Dr. Kaye commented.

“Since then, thanks to an understanding of the genetics and more widely available access to genetic testing, we can determine the root cause of most of them. Today, I believe we are on the verge of a fundamental shift in how we approach the treatment of Dravet syndrome and, hopefully, other genetic epilepsies,” said Dr. Kaye.

“We are now finally getting to the point that we not only know the causes, but we are in a position to develop medicines that target those causes. We have seen this happen in other diseases like cystic fibrosis, and the time has come for genetic epilepsies,” he added.
 

A promising future

Dr. Henshall said that the ability to target the cause rather than just the symptoms of epilepsy “offers the promise of disease-modifying and potentially curative medicines in the future.”

And what’s exciting is that the time frame of developing RNA medicines may be “radically” different than it is for traditional small-drug development, he noted.

Take, for example, a case reported recently in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Researchers identified a novel mutation in a child with neuronal ceroid lipofuscinosis 7 (a form of Batten’s disease), a rare and fatal neurodegenerative disease. Identification of the mutation was followed by the development and use (within 1 year) of a tailored RNA drug to treat the patient.

One downside perhaps is that current RNA drugs for epilepsy are delivered intrathecally, which is different from oral administration of small-molecule drugs.

However, Dr. Kauppinen from NEUmiRNA Therapeutics noted that “advances in intrathecal delivery technologies [and] the frequent use of this route of administration in other diseases and IT administration only being required two to three times per year will certainly facilitate use of RNA medicines.”

“This will also eliminate the issue of drug adherence by ensuring full patient compliance to treatment,” Dr. Kauppinen said.

The review article on RNA therapies in epilepsy had no commercial funding. Dr. Henshall holds a patent and has filed intellectual property related to microRNA targeting therapies for epilepsy and has received funding for microRNA research from NEUmiRNA Therapeutics. Dr. Klitgaard and Dr. Kauppinen are cofounders of NEUmiRNA Therapeutics. Dr. Kaye is CEO of Stoke Therapeutics.

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

Clinicians must monitor children with sickle cell disease for eye complications as much as they do for adults, a new research review suggests.

Earlier research indicated that older patients were more at risk for eye complications from sickle cell disease, but the new study found that a full third of young people aged 10-25 years with sickle cell disease had retinopathy, including nonproliferative retinopathy (33%) and proliferative retinopathy (6%), which can progress to vision loss.

Two patients experienced retinal detachment, while two suffered retinal artery occlusion. One patient with retinal artery occlusion lost their vision and had a final best-corrected visual acuity of 20/60, according to the researchers, who presented their findings at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Ophthalmology.

“Our data underscores the need for patients – including pediatric patients – with sickle cell disease to get routine ophthalmic screenings along with appropriate systemic and ophthalmic treatment,” Mary Ellen Hoehn, MD, a professor of ophthalmology at the University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, who led the research, said in a press release.

The review covered records for 652 patients with sickle cell disease aged 10-25 years (median age, 14 years), who underwent eye exams over a 12-year period.

Besides looking at rates of retinopathy, Dr. Hoehn’s group studied which treatments were most effective. They found that hydroxyurea and chronic transfusions best lowered retinopathy rates among all genotypes.

“We hope that people will use this information to better care for patients with sickle cell disease, and that more timely ophthalmic screen exams will be performed so that vision-threatening complications from this disease are prevented,” Dr. Hoehn said.

The authors reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Clinicians must monitor children with sickle cell disease for eye complications as much as they do for adults, a new research review suggests.

Earlier research indicated that older patients were more at risk for eye complications from sickle cell disease, but the new study found that a full third of young people aged 10-25 years with sickle cell disease had retinopathy, including nonproliferative retinopathy (33%) and proliferative retinopathy (6%), which can progress to vision loss.

Two patients experienced retinal detachment, while two suffered retinal artery occlusion. One patient with retinal artery occlusion lost their vision and had a final best-corrected visual acuity of 20/60, according to the researchers, who presented their findings at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Ophthalmology.

“Our data underscores the need for patients – including pediatric patients – with sickle cell disease to get routine ophthalmic screenings along with appropriate systemic and ophthalmic treatment,” Mary Ellen Hoehn, MD, a professor of ophthalmology at the University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, who led the research, said in a press release.

The review covered records for 652 patients with sickle cell disease aged 10-25 years (median age, 14 years), who underwent eye exams over a 12-year period.

Besides looking at rates of retinopathy, Dr. Hoehn’s group studied which treatments were most effective. They found that hydroxyurea and chronic transfusions best lowered retinopathy rates among all genotypes.

“We hope that people will use this information to better care for patients with sickle cell disease, and that more timely ophthalmic screen exams will be performed so that vision-threatening complications from this disease are prevented,” Dr. Hoehn said.

The authors reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Clinicians must monitor children with sickle cell disease for eye complications as much as they do for adults, a new research review suggests.

Earlier research indicated that older patients were more at risk for eye complications from sickle cell disease, but the new study found that a full third of young people aged 10-25 years with sickle cell disease had retinopathy, including nonproliferative retinopathy (33%) and proliferative retinopathy (6%), which can progress to vision loss.

Two patients experienced retinal detachment, while two suffered retinal artery occlusion. One patient with retinal artery occlusion lost their vision and had a final best-corrected visual acuity of 20/60, according to the researchers, who presented their findings at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Ophthalmology.

“Our data underscores the need for patients – including pediatric patients – with sickle cell disease to get routine ophthalmic screenings along with appropriate systemic and ophthalmic treatment,” Mary Ellen Hoehn, MD, a professor of ophthalmology at the University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, who led the research, said in a press release.

The review covered records for 652 patients with sickle cell disease aged 10-25 years (median age, 14 years), who underwent eye exams over a 12-year period.

Besides looking at rates of retinopathy, Dr. Hoehn’s group studied which treatments were most effective. They found that hydroxyurea and chronic transfusions best lowered retinopathy rates among all genotypes.

“We hope that people will use this information to better care for patients with sickle cell disease, and that more timely ophthalmic screen exams will be performed so that vision-threatening complications from this disease are prevented,” Dr. Hoehn said.

The authors reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Two sets of evidence reports address the primary care physicians’ role in children and adolescents’ oral health and the effectiveness of the fluoride gels and sealants offered at dental offices and schools.

Both were published online in JAMA.

In one report, the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) concludes that there is not enough evidence to assess harms versus benefits of routine screening or interventions for oral health conditions, including dental caries, in primary care for asymptomatic children and adolescents aged 5-17 years.

The evidence report on administering fluoride supplements, fluoride gels, sealants and varnish finds evidence that they improve outcomes. The report was done to inform the USPSTF for a new recommendation on primary care screening, dental referral, behavioral counseling, and preventive interventions for oral health in children and adolescents aged 5-17.
 

Primary care physicians’ role

One problem the USPSTF identified in its report was limited evidence on available clinical screening tools or assessments to identify which children have oral health conditions in the primary care setting.

The USPSTF’s team, led by Michael J. Barry, MD, of Harvard Medical School in Boston, calls for more research to fill in the gaps before it can reassess.

Michael S. Reddy, DMD, DMSc, with University of California San Francisco School of Dentistry, Oral Health Affairs, said in an accompanying editorial that the current lack of data should not keep primary care physicians from considering oral health during routine medical exams or keep dentists from finding ways to collaborate with primary care physicians. “Medical primary care must partner with dentistry,” they wrote.

Until there is enough evidence for a USPSTF reevaluation on the topic, primary care clinicians should ask patients about their oral hygiene routines, whether they have any dental symptoms, and when they last saw a dentist, as well as referring to a dentist as necessary, the editorialists wrote.

That works both ways, the editorialists added. “Equally important, oral health professionals are encouraged to collaborate and be a resource for their primary care colleagues. Prevention is one of the best tools clinicians have, and it is promoted by integrated, whole-person health effort, “ wrote Dr. Reddy and colleagues.

When oral health stays separate from medical care, patients are left vulnerable, and referrals between medical and dental offices should be a stronger two-way system, the editorialists said.

“[N]ot every primary care patient has access to a dentist,” they wrote. “Oral health screening and referral by medical primary care clinicians can help ensure that individuals get to the dental chair to receive needed interventions that can benefit both oral and potentially overall health. Likewise, medical challenges and oral mucosal manifestations of chronic health conditions detected at a dental visit should result in medical referral, allowing prompt evaluation and treatment.”
 

Evidence that gels, varnish, sealants are effective

In a companion paper, done to inform the USPSTF, Roger Chou, MD, with Pacific Northwest Evidence-based Practice Center, Department of Medical Informatics and Clinical Epidemiology at Oregon Health & Science University in Portland, and colleagues found that when administered by a dental professional or in school settings, fluoride supplements, gels and varnish, and resin-based sealants improved health outcomes.

The findings were based on three systematic reviews (20,684 participants) and 19 randomized clinical trials; three nonrandomized trials; and one observational study (total 15,026 participants.)

With fluoride versus placebo or no intervention, researchers found a decrease from baseline in the number of decayed, missing, or filled permanent teeth (DMFT index) or decayed or filled permanent teeth (DFT index). The average difference was −0.73 [95% confidence interval [CI], −1.30 to −0.19]) at 1.5 to 3 years (six trials; n = 1,395).

Fluoride gels were associated with a DMFT- or DFT-prevented fraction of 0.18 (95% CI, 0.09-0.27) at outcomes closest to 3 years (four trials; n = 1,525).

Researchers found an association between fluoride varnish and a DMFT- or DFT-prevented fraction of 0.44 (95% CI, 0.11-0.76) at 1 to 4.5 years (five trials; n = 3,902). The sealants tested were associated with decreased risk of caries in first molars (odds ratio, 0.21 [95% CI, 0.16-0.28]) at 48-54 months (four trials; n = 440).

They noted that the feasibility of administering preventive measures in primary care is unknown; the effectiveness shown here was based on administration in dental and supervised school settings.

Barriers in primary care settings may include lack of training and equipment (particularly for sealants), uncertain reimbursement and lack of acceptance and uptake.
 

USPSTF working to close evidence gaps

Wanda Nicholson, MD, MPH, Prevention and Community Health, George Washington Milken Institute of Public Health in Washington, wrote in an accompanying editorial that to speed necessary research to facilitate recommendations, “the USPSTF and its stakeholders need a transparent, easily implementable communication tool that will systematically describe the research necessary to be directly responsive to the evidence gaps.”

The editorialists noted that the USPSTF in trying to update recommendations often has few, if any, high-quality additional studies to consider since its previous recommendation.

To address that, meetings were conducted in November of 2022 involving USPSTF members, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) staff, and leadership from the Office of Disease Prevention and the National Institutes of Health. Members formed a working group “to develop a standardized template for communicating research gaps” according to a framework developed by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.

Dr. Nicholson and colleagues wrote, “classifying evidence gaps and calling for specific research needs is a prudent, collaborative step in addressing missing evidence,” particularly for underserved populations.

The authors and editorialists declared no relevant conflicts of interest.

Two sets of evidence reports address the primary care physicians’ role in children and adolescents’ oral health and the effectiveness of the fluoride gels and sealants offered at dental offices and schools.

Both were published online in JAMA.

In one report, the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) concludes that there is not enough evidence to assess harms versus benefits of routine screening or interventions for oral health conditions, including dental caries, in primary care for asymptomatic children and adolescents aged 5-17 years.

The evidence report on administering fluoride supplements, fluoride gels, sealants and varnish finds evidence that they improve outcomes. The report was done to inform the USPSTF for a new recommendation on primary care screening, dental referral, behavioral counseling, and preventive interventions for oral health in children and adolescents aged 5-17.
 

Primary care physicians’ role

One problem the USPSTF identified in its report was limited evidence on available clinical screening tools or assessments to identify which children have oral health conditions in the primary care setting.

The USPSTF’s team, led by Michael J. Barry, MD, of Harvard Medical School in Boston, calls for more research to fill in the gaps before it can reassess.

Michael S. Reddy, DMD, DMSc, with University of California San Francisco School of Dentistry, Oral Health Affairs, said in an accompanying editorial that the current lack of data should not keep primary care physicians from considering oral health during routine medical exams or keep dentists from finding ways to collaborate with primary care physicians. “Medical primary care must partner with dentistry,” they wrote.

Until there is enough evidence for a USPSTF reevaluation on the topic, primary care clinicians should ask patients about their oral hygiene routines, whether they have any dental symptoms, and when they last saw a dentist, as well as referring to a dentist as necessary, the editorialists wrote.

That works both ways, the editorialists added. “Equally important, oral health professionals are encouraged to collaborate and be a resource for their primary care colleagues. Prevention is one of the best tools clinicians have, and it is promoted by integrated, whole-person health effort, “ wrote Dr. Reddy and colleagues.

When oral health stays separate from medical care, patients are left vulnerable, and referrals between medical and dental offices should be a stronger two-way system, the editorialists said.

“[N]ot every primary care patient has access to a dentist,” they wrote. “Oral health screening and referral by medical primary care clinicians can help ensure that individuals get to the dental chair to receive needed interventions that can benefit both oral and potentially overall health. Likewise, medical challenges and oral mucosal manifestations of chronic health conditions detected at a dental visit should result in medical referral, allowing prompt evaluation and treatment.”
 

Evidence that gels, varnish, sealants are effective

In a companion paper, done to inform the USPSTF, Roger Chou, MD, with Pacific Northwest Evidence-based Practice Center, Department of Medical Informatics and Clinical Epidemiology at Oregon Health & Science University in Portland, and colleagues found that when administered by a dental professional or in school settings, fluoride supplements, gels and varnish, and resin-based sealants improved health outcomes.

The findings were based on three systematic reviews (20,684 participants) and 19 randomized clinical trials; three nonrandomized trials; and one observational study (total 15,026 participants.)

With fluoride versus placebo or no intervention, researchers found a decrease from baseline in the number of decayed, missing, or filled permanent teeth (DMFT index) or decayed or filled permanent teeth (DFT index). The average difference was −0.73 [95% confidence interval [CI], −1.30 to −0.19]) at 1.5 to 3 years (six trials; n = 1,395).

Fluoride gels were associated with a DMFT- or DFT-prevented fraction of 0.18 (95% CI, 0.09-0.27) at outcomes closest to 3 years (four trials; n = 1,525).

Researchers found an association between fluoride varnish and a DMFT- or DFT-prevented fraction of 0.44 (95% CI, 0.11-0.76) at 1 to 4.5 years (five trials; n = 3,902). The sealants tested were associated with decreased risk of caries in first molars (odds ratio, 0.21 [95% CI, 0.16-0.28]) at 48-54 months (four trials; n = 440).

They noted that the feasibility of administering preventive measures in primary care is unknown; the effectiveness shown here was based on administration in dental and supervised school settings.

Barriers in primary care settings may include lack of training and equipment (particularly for sealants), uncertain reimbursement and lack of acceptance and uptake.
 

USPSTF working to close evidence gaps

Wanda Nicholson, MD, MPH, Prevention and Community Health, George Washington Milken Institute of Public Health in Washington, wrote in an accompanying editorial that to speed necessary research to facilitate recommendations, “the USPSTF and its stakeholders need a transparent, easily implementable communication tool that will systematically describe the research necessary to be directly responsive to the evidence gaps.”

The editorialists noted that the USPSTF in trying to update recommendations often has few, if any, high-quality additional studies to consider since its previous recommendation.

To address that, meetings were conducted in November of 2022 involving USPSTF members, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) staff, and leadership from the Office of Disease Prevention and the National Institutes of Health. Members formed a working group “to develop a standardized template for communicating research gaps” according to a framework developed by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.

Dr. Nicholson and colleagues wrote, “classifying evidence gaps and calling for specific research needs is a prudent, collaborative step in addressing missing evidence,” particularly for underserved populations.

The authors and editorialists declared no relevant conflicts of interest.

Two sets of evidence reports address the primary care physicians’ role in children and adolescents’ oral health and the effectiveness of the fluoride gels and sealants offered at dental offices and schools.

Both were published online in JAMA.

In one report, the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) concludes that there is not enough evidence to assess harms versus benefits of routine screening or interventions for oral health conditions, including dental caries, in primary care for asymptomatic children and adolescents aged 5-17 years.

The evidence report on administering fluoride supplements, fluoride gels, sealants and varnish finds evidence that they improve outcomes. The report was done to inform the USPSTF for a new recommendation on primary care screening, dental referral, behavioral counseling, and preventive interventions for oral health in children and adolescents aged 5-17.
 

Primary care physicians’ role

One problem the USPSTF identified in its report was limited evidence on available clinical screening tools or assessments to identify which children have oral health conditions in the primary care setting.

The USPSTF’s team, led by Michael J. Barry, MD, of Harvard Medical School in Boston, calls for more research to fill in the gaps before it can reassess.

Michael S. Reddy, DMD, DMSc, with University of California San Francisco School of Dentistry, Oral Health Affairs, said in an accompanying editorial that the current lack of data should not keep primary care physicians from considering oral health during routine medical exams or keep dentists from finding ways to collaborate with primary care physicians. “Medical primary care must partner with dentistry,” they wrote.

Until there is enough evidence for a USPSTF reevaluation on the topic, primary care clinicians should ask patients about their oral hygiene routines, whether they have any dental symptoms, and when they last saw a dentist, as well as referring to a dentist as necessary, the editorialists wrote.

That works both ways, the editorialists added. “Equally important, oral health professionals are encouraged to collaborate and be a resource for their primary care colleagues. Prevention is one of the best tools clinicians have, and it is promoted by integrated, whole-person health effort, “ wrote Dr. Reddy and colleagues.

When oral health stays separate from medical care, patients are left vulnerable, and referrals between medical and dental offices should be a stronger two-way system, the editorialists said.

“[N]ot every primary care patient has access to a dentist,” they wrote. “Oral health screening and referral by medical primary care clinicians can help ensure that individuals get to the dental chair to receive needed interventions that can benefit both oral and potentially overall health. Likewise, medical challenges and oral mucosal manifestations of chronic health conditions detected at a dental visit should result in medical referral, allowing prompt evaluation and treatment.”
 

Evidence that gels, varnish, sealants are effective

In a companion paper, done to inform the USPSTF, Roger Chou, MD, with Pacific Northwest Evidence-based Practice Center, Department of Medical Informatics and Clinical Epidemiology at Oregon Health & Science University in Portland, and colleagues found that when administered by a dental professional or in school settings, fluoride supplements, gels and varnish, and resin-based sealants improved health outcomes.

The findings were based on three systematic reviews (20,684 participants) and 19 randomized clinical trials; three nonrandomized trials; and one observational study (total 15,026 participants.)

With fluoride versus placebo or no intervention, researchers found a decrease from baseline in the number of decayed, missing, or filled permanent teeth (DMFT index) or decayed or filled permanent teeth (DFT index). The average difference was −0.73 [95% confidence interval [CI], −1.30 to −0.19]) at 1.5 to 3 years (six trials; n = 1,395).

Fluoride gels were associated with a DMFT- or DFT-prevented fraction of 0.18 (95% CI, 0.09-0.27) at outcomes closest to 3 years (four trials; n = 1,525).

Researchers found an association between fluoride varnish and a DMFT- or DFT-prevented fraction of 0.44 (95% CI, 0.11-0.76) at 1 to 4.5 years (five trials; n = 3,902). The sealants tested were associated with decreased risk of caries in first molars (odds ratio, 0.21 [95% CI, 0.16-0.28]) at 48-54 months (four trials; n = 440).

They noted that the feasibility of administering preventive measures in primary care is unknown; the effectiveness shown here was based on administration in dental and supervised school settings.

Barriers in primary care settings may include lack of training and equipment (particularly for sealants), uncertain reimbursement and lack of acceptance and uptake.
 

USPSTF working to close evidence gaps

Wanda Nicholson, MD, MPH, Prevention and Community Health, George Washington Milken Institute of Public Health in Washington, wrote in an accompanying editorial that to speed necessary research to facilitate recommendations, “the USPSTF and its stakeholders need a transparent, easily implementable communication tool that will systematically describe the research necessary to be directly responsive to the evidence gaps.”

The editorialists noted that the USPSTF in trying to update recommendations often has few, if any, high-quality additional studies to consider since its previous recommendation.

To address that, meetings were conducted in November of 2022 involving USPSTF members, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) staff, and leadership from the Office of Disease Prevention and the National Institutes of Health. Members formed a working group “to develop a standardized template for communicating research gaps” according to a framework developed by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.

Dr. Nicholson and colleagues wrote, “classifying evidence gaps and calling for specific research needs is a prudent, collaborative step in addressing missing evidence,” particularly for underserved populations.

The authors and editorialists declared no relevant conflicts of interest.

Suicide is among the top three causes of death for young people in the United States. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the rate of suicide deaths has climbed from 4.4 per 100,000 American 12- to 17-year-olds in 2011 to 6.5 per 100,000 in 2021, an increase of almost 50%. As with accidents and homicides, we hope these are preventable deaths, although the factors contributing to them are complex.

We do know that more than half of the people who die by suicide visit a health care provider within 4 weeks of their death, highlighting an opportunity for screening and intervention.
 

Suicide screening

In 2022, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) recommended that all adolescents get screened for suicide risk annually. Given that less than 1 in 10,000 adolescents commit suicide and that there is no definitive data on how to prevent suicide in any individual, the goal of suicide screening is much broader than preventing suicide. Beyond universal screening, we will review how being open and curious with all of your patients can be the most extraordinary screening instrument.

There is extensive data that tells us that far from causing suicide, asking about suicidal thoughts is protective. When you make suicidal thoughts discussable, you directly counteract the isolation, stigma, and shame that are strong predictors of actual suicide attempts. You model the value of bringing difficult or frightening thoughts to the attention of caring adults, and you model calm listening rather than emotional overreaction for their parents. The resulting connectedness can lower the risk for vulnerable patients and enhance resilience for all of your patients.
 

Who is at greater risk?

We have robust data to guide our understanding of which youth have suicidal ideation, which is distinct from those who attempt suicide, which also may be quite distinct from those who complete. The CDC reports that the rate of suicidal thoughts (“seriously considering suicide”) in high school students climbed from 16% in 2011 to 22% in 2021. In that decade, the number of high schoolers with a suicide plan climbed from 13% to 18%, and those with suicide attempts climbed from 8% to 10%. Girls are at higher risk for suicidal thoughts and attempts, but boys are at greater risk for suicide completion. Black youth were more likely to attempt suicide than were their Asian, Hispanic, or White peers and LGBTQ+ youth are at particular risk; in 2021, they were three times as likely as were their heterosexual peers to have suicidal thoughts and attempts. Youth with psychiatric illness (particularly PTSD, mood or thought disorders), a family history of suicide, a history of risk-taking behavior (including sexual activity, smoking, drinking, and drug use) and those with prior suicide attempts are at the highest risk for suicide. Adding all these risk factors together means that many, if not the majority, of teenagers have risk factors.

Focus on the patient

In your office, though, a public health approach should give way to curiosity about your individual patient. Suicidal thoughts usually follow a substantial stress. Pay attention to exceptional stresses, especially if they have a component of social stigma or isolation. Did your patient report another student for an assault? Are they now being bullied or ostracized by friends? Have they lost an especially important relationship? Some other stresses may seem minor, such as a poor grade on a test. But for a very driven, perfectionistic teenager who believes that a perfect 4.0 GPA is essential to college admission and future success and happiness, one poor grade may feel like a catastrophe.

When your patients tell you about a challenge or setback, slow down and be curious. Listen to the importance they give it. How have they managed it? Are they finding it hard to go to school or back to practice? Do they feel discouraged or even hopeless? Discouragement is a normal response to adversity, but it should be temporary. This approach can make it easy to ask if they have ever wished they were dead, or made a suicide plan or an attempt. When you calmly and supportively learn about their inner experience, it will be easy for young people to be honest with you.

There will be teenagers in your practice who are sensation-seeking and impulsive, and you should pay special attention to this group. They may not be classically depressed, but in the aftermath of a stressful experience that they find humiliating or shameful, they are at risk for an impulsive act that could still be lethal. Be curious with these patients after they feel they have let down their team or their family, or if they have been caught in a crime or cheating, or even if their girlfriend breaks up with them. Find out how they are managing, and where their support comes from. Ask them in a nonjudgmental manner about whether they are having thoughts about death or suicide, and if those thoughts are troubling, frequent, or feel like a relief. What has stopped them from acting on these thoughts? Offer your patient the perspective that such thoughts may be normal in the face of a large stress, but that the pain of stress always subsides, whereas suicide is irreversible.

There will also be patients in your practice who cut themselves. This is sometimes called “nonsuicidal self-injury,” and it often raises concern about suicide risk. While accelerating frequency of self-injury in a teenager who is suicidal can indicate growing risk, this behavior alone is usually a mechanism for regulating emotion. Ask your patient about when they cut themselves. What are the triggers? How do they feel afterward? Are their friends all doing it? Is it only after fighting with their parents? Or does it make their parents worry instead of getting angry? As you learn about the nature of the behavior, you will be able to offer thoughtful guidance about better strategies for stress management or to pursue further assessment and support.
 

Next steps

Speaking comfortably with your patients about suicidal thoughts and behaviors requires that you also feel comfortable with what comes next. As in the ASQ screening instrument recommended by the AAP, you should always follow affirmative answers about suicidal thoughts with more questions. Do they have a plan? Do they have access to lethal means including any guns in the home? Have they ever made an attempt? Are they thinking about killing themselves now? If the thoughts are current, they have access, and they have tried before, it is clear that they need an urgent assessment, probably in an emergency department. But when the thoughts were in the past or have never been connected to plans or intent, there is an opportunity to enhance their connectedness. You can diminish the potential for shame, stigma and isolation by reminding them that such thoughts and feelings are normal in the face of difficulty. They deserve support to help them face and manage their adversity, whether that stress comes from an internal or external source. How do they feel now that they have shared these thoughts with you? Most will describe feeling better, relieved, even hopeful once they are not facing intense thoughts and feelings alone.

You should tell them that you would like to bring their parents into the conversation. You want them to know they can turn to their parents if they are having these thoughts, so they are never alone in facing them. Parents can learn from your model of calm and supportive listening to fully understand the situation before turning together to talk about what might be helpful next steps. It is always prudent to create “speed bumps” between thought and action with impulsive teens, so recommend limiting access to any lethal means (firearms especially). But the strongest protective intervention is for the child to feel confident in and connected to their support network, trusting you and their parents to listen and understand before figuring out together what else is needed to address the situation.

Lastly, recognize that talking about difficult issues with teenagers is among the most stressful and demanding aspects of pediatric primary care. Talk to colleagues, never worry alone, and recognize and manage your own stress. This is among the best ways to model for your patients and their parents that every challenge can be met, but we often need support.
 

Dr. Swick is physician in chief at Ohana, Center for Child and Adolescent Behavioral Health, Community Hospital of the Monterey (Calif.) Peninsula. Dr. Jellinek is professor emeritus of psychiatry and pediatrics, Harvard Medical School, Boston. Email them at [email protected].

Suicide is among the top three causes of death for young people in the United States. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the rate of suicide deaths has climbed from 4.4 per 100,000 American 12- to 17-year-olds in 2011 to 6.5 per 100,000 in 2021, an increase of almost 50%. As with accidents and homicides, we hope these are preventable deaths, although the factors contributing to them are complex.

We do know that more than half of the people who die by suicide visit a health care provider within 4 weeks of their death, highlighting an opportunity for screening and intervention.
 

Suicide screening

In 2022, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) recommended that all adolescents get screened for suicide risk annually. Given that less than 1 in 10,000 adolescents commit suicide and that there is no definitive data on how to prevent suicide in any individual, the goal of suicide screening is much broader than preventing suicide. Beyond universal screening, we will review how being open and curious with all of your patients can be the most extraordinary screening instrument.

There is extensive data that tells us that far from causing suicide, asking about suicidal thoughts is protective. When you make suicidal thoughts discussable, you directly counteract the isolation, stigma, and shame that are strong predictors of actual suicide attempts. You model the value of bringing difficult or frightening thoughts to the attention of caring adults, and you model calm listening rather than emotional overreaction for their parents. The resulting connectedness can lower the risk for vulnerable patients and enhance resilience for all of your patients.
 

Who is at greater risk?

We have robust data to guide our understanding of which youth have suicidal ideation, which is distinct from those who attempt suicide, which also may be quite distinct from those who complete. The CDC reports that the rate of suicidal thoughts (“seriously considering suicide”) in high school students climbed from 16% in 2011 to 22% in 2021. In that decade, the number of high schoolers with a suicide plan climbed from 13% to 18%, and those with suicide attempts climbed from 8% to 10%. Girls are at higher risk for suicidal thoughts and attempts, but boys are at greater risk for suicide completion. Black youth were more likely to attempt suicide than were their Asian, Hispanic, or White peers and LGBTQ+ youth are at particular risk; in 2021, they were three times as likely as were their heterosexual peers to have suicidal thoughts and attempts. Youth with psychiatric illness (particularly PTSD, mood or thought disorders), a family history of suicide, a history of risk-taking behavior (including sexual activity, smoking, drinking, and drug use) and those with prior suicide attempts are at the highest risk for suicide. Adding all these risk factors together means that many, if not the majority, of teenagers have risk factors.

Focus on the patient

In your office, though, a public health approach should give way to curiosity about your individual patient. Suicidal thoughts usually follow a substantial stress. Pay attention to exceptional stresses, especially if they have a component of social stigma or isolation. Did your patient report another student for an assault? Are they now being bullied or ostracized by friends? Have they lost an especially important relationship? Some other stresses may seem minor, such as a poor grade on a test. But for a very driven, perfectionistic teenager who believes that a perfect 4.0 GPA is essential to college admission and future success and happiness, one poor grade may feel like a catastrophe.

When your patients tell you about a challenge or setback, slow down and be curious. Listen to the importance they give it. How have they managed it? Are they finding it hard to go to school or back to practice? Do they feel discouraged or even hopeless? Discouragement is a normal response to adversity, but it should be temporary. This approach can make it easy to ask if they have ever wished they were dead, or made a suicide plan or an attempt. When you calmly and supportively learn about their inner experience, it will be easy for young people to be honest with you.

There will be teenagers in your practice who are sensation-seeking and impulsive, and you should pay special attention to this group. They may not be classically depressed, but in the aftermath of a stressful experience that they find humiliating or shameful, they are at risk for an impulsive act that could still be lethal. Be curious with these patients after they feel they have let down their team or their family, or if they have been caught in a crime or cheating, or even if their girlfriend breaks up with them. Find out how they are managing, and where their support comes from. Ask them in a nonjudgmental manner about whether they are having thoughts about death or suicide, and if those thoughts are troubling, frequent, or feel like a relief. What has stopped them from acting on these thoughts? Offer your patient the perspective that such thoughts may be normal in the face of a large stress, but that the pain of stress always subsides, whereas suicide is irreversible.

There will also be patients in your practice who cut themselves. This is sometimes called “nonsuicidal self-injury,” and it often raises concern about suicide risk. While accelerating frequency of self-injury in a teenager who is suicidal can indicate growing risk, this behavior alone is usually a mechanism for regulating emotion. Ask your patient about when they cut themselves. What are the triggers? How do they feel afterward? Are their friends all doing it? Is it only after fighting with their parents? Or does it make their parents worry instead of getting angry? As you learn about the nature of the behavior, you will be able to offer thoughtful guidance about better strategies for stress management or to pursue further assessment and support.
 

Next steps

Speaking comfortably with your patients about suicidal thoughts and behaviors requires that you also feel comfortable with what comes next. As in the ASQ screening instrument recommended by the AAP, you should always follow affirmative answers about suicidal thoughts with more questions. Do they have a plan? Do they have access to lethal means including any guns in the home? Have they ever made an attempt? Are they thinking about killing themselves now? If the thoughts are current, they have access, and they have tried before, it is clear that they need an urgent assessment, probably in an emergency department. But when the thoughts were in the past or have never been connected to plans or intent, there is an opportunity to enhance their connectedness. You can diminish the potential for shame, stigma and isolation by reminding them that such thoughts and feelings are normal in the face of difficulty. They deserve support to help them face and manage their adversity, whether that stress comes from an internal or external source. How do they feel now that they have shared these thoughts with you? Most will describe feeling better, relieved, even hopeful once they are not facing intense thoughts and feelings alone.

You should tell them that you would like to bring their parents into the conversation. You want them to know they can turn to their parents if they are having these thoughts, so they are never alone in facing them. Parents can learn from your model of calm and supportive listening to fully understand the situation before turning together to talk about what might be helpful next steps. It is always prudent to create “speed bumps” between thought and action with impulsive teens, so recommend limiting access to any lethal means (firearms especially). But the strongest protective intervention is for the child to feel confident in and connected to their support network, trusting you and their parents to listen and understand before figuring out together what else is needed to address the situation.

Lastly, recognize that talking about difficult issues with teenagers is among the most stressful and demanding aspects of pediatric primary care. Talk to colleagues, never worry alone, and recognize and manage your own stress. This is among the best ways to model for your patients and their parents that every challenge can be met, but we often need support.
 

Dr. Swick is physician in chief at Ohana, Center for Child and Adolescent Behavioral Health, Community Hospital of the Monterey (Calif.) Peninsula. Dr. Jellinek is professor emeritus of psychiatry and pediatrics, Harvard Medical School, Boston. Email them at [email protected].

Suicide is among the top three causes of death for young people in the United States. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the rate of suicide deaths has climbed from 4.4 per 100,000 American 12- to 17-year-olds in 2011 to 6.5 per 100,000 in 2021, an increase of almost 50%. As with accidents and homicides, we hope these are preventable deaths, although the factors contributing to them are complex.

We do know that more than half of the people who die by suicide visit a health care provider within 4 weeks of their death, highlighting an opportunity for screening and intervention.
 

Suicide screening

In 2022, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) recommended that all adolescents get screened for suicide risk annually. Given that less than 1 in 10,000 adolescents commit suicide and that there is no definitive data on how to prevent suicide in any individual, the goal of suicide screening is much broader than preventing suicide. Beyond universal screening, we will review how being open and curious with all of your patients can be the most extraordinary screening instrument.

There is extensive data that tells us that far from causing suicide, asking about suicidal thoughts is protective. When you make suicidal thoughts discussable, you directly counteract the isolation, stigma, and shame that are strong predictors of actual suicide attempts. You model the value of bringing difficult or frightening thoughts to the attention of caring adults, and you model calm listening rather than emotional overreaction for their parents. The resulting connectedness can lower the risk for vulnerable patients and enhance resilience for all of your patients.
 

Who is at greater risk?

We have robust data to guide our understanding of which youth have suicidal ideation, which is distinct from those who attempt suicide, which also may be quite distinct from those who complete. The CDC reports that the rate of suicidal thoughts (“seriously considering suicide”) in high school students climbed from 16% in 2011 to 22% in 2021. In that decade, the number of high schoolers with a suicide plan climbed from 13% to 18%, and those with suicide attempts climbed from 8% to 10%. Girls are at higher risk for suicidal thoughts and attempts, but boys are at greater risk for suicide completion. Black youth were more likely to attempt suicide than were their Asian, Hispanic, or White peers and LGBTQ+ youth are at particular risk; in 2021, they were three times as likely as were their heterosexual peers to have suicidal thoughts and attempts. Youth with psychiatric illness (particularly PTSD, mood or thought disorders), a family history of suicide, a history of risk-taking behavior (including sexual activity, smoking, drinking, and drug use) and those with prior suicide attempts are at the highest risk for suicide. Adding all these risk factors together means that many, if not the majority, of teenagers have risk factors.

Focus on the patient

In your office, though, a public health approach should give way to curiosity about your individual patient. Suicidal thoughts usually follow a substantial stress. Pay attention to exceptional stresses, especially if they have a component of social stigma or isolation. Did your patient report another student for an assault? Are they now being bullied or ostracized by friends? Have they lost an especially important relationship? Some other stresses may seem minor, such as a poor grade on a test. But for a very driven, perfectionistic teenager who believes that a perfect 4.0 GPA is essential to college admission and future success and happiness, one poor grade may feel like a catastrophe.

When your patients tell you about a challenge or setback, slow down and be curious. Listen to the importance they give it. How have they managed it? Are they finding it hard to go to school or back to practice? Do they feel discouraged or even hopeless? Discouragement is a normal response to adversity, but it should be temporary. This approach can make it easy to ask if they have ever wished they were dead, or made a suicide plan or an attempt. When you calmly and supportively learn about their inner experience, it will be easy for young people to be honest with you.

There will be teenagers in your practice who are sensation-seeking and impulsive, and you should pay special attention to this group. They may not be classically depressed, but in the aftermath of a stressful experience that they find humiliating or shameful, they are at risk for an impulsive act that could still be lethal. Be curious with these patients after they feel they have let down their team or their family, or if they have been caught in a crime or cheating, or even if their girlfriend breaks up with them. Find out how they are managing, and where their support comes from. Ask them in a nonjudgmental manner about whether they are having thoughts about death or suicide, and if those thoughts are troubling, frequent, or feel like a relief. What has stopped them from acting on these thoughts? Offer your patient the perspective that such thoughts may be normal in the face of a large stress, but that the pain of stress always subsides, whereas suicide is irreversible.

There will also be patients in your practice who cut themselves. This is sometimes called “nonsuicidal self-injury,” and it often raises concern about suicide risk. While accelerating frequency of self-injury in a teenager who is suicidal can indicate growing risk, this behavior alone is usually a mechanism for regulating emotion. Ask your patient about when they cut themselves. What are the triggers? How do they feel afterward? Are their friends all doing it? Is it only after fighting with their parents? Or does it make their parents worry instead of getting angry? As you learn about the nature of the behavior, you will be able to offer thoughtful guidance about better strategies for stress management or to pursue further assessment and support.
 

Next steps

Speaking comfortably with your patients about suicidal thoughts and behaviors requires that you also feel comfortable with what comes next. As in the ASQ screening instrument recommended by the AAP, you should always follow affirmative answers about suicidal thoughts with more questions. Do they have a plan? Do they have access to lethal means including any guns in the home? Have they ever made an attempt? Are they thinking about killing themselves now? If the thoughts are current, they have access, and they have tried before, it is clear that they need an urgent assessment, probably in an emergency department. But when the thoughts were in the past or have never been connected to plans or intent, there is an opportunity to enhance their connectedness. You can diminish the potential for shame, stigma and isolation by reminding them that such thoughts and feelings are normal in the face of difficulty. They deserve support to help them face and manage their adversity, whether that stress comes from an internal or external source. How do they feel now that they have shared these thoughts with you? Most will describe feeling better, relieved, even hopeful once they are not facing intense thoughts and feelings alone.

You should tell them that you would like to bring their parents into the conversation. You want them to know they can turn to their parents if they are having these thoughts, so they are never alone in facing them. Parents can learn from your model of calm and supportive listening to fully understand the situation before turning together to talk about what might be helpful next steps. It is always prudent to create “speed bumps” between thought and action with impulsive teens, so recommend limiting access to any lethal means (firearms especially). But the strongest protective intervention is for the child to feel confident in and connected to their support network, trusting you and their parents to listen and understand before figuring out together what else is needed to address the situation.

Lastly, recognize that talking about difficult issues with teenagers is among the most stressful and demanding aspects of pediatric primary care. Talk to colleagues, never worry alone, and recognize and manage your own stress. This is among the best ways to model for your patients and their parents that every challenge can be met, but we often need support.
 

Dr. Swick is physician in chief at Ohana, Center for Child and Adolescent Behavioral Health, Community Hospital of the Monterey (Calif.) Peninsula. Dr. Jellinek is professor emeritus of psychiatry and pediatrics, Harvard Medical School, Boston. Email them at [email protected].

PHOENIX – Children with Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD) treated with the only gene therapy to date to be approved for treatment of disease in the United States show sustained maintenance of motor function after 4 years, compared with untreated patients who showed significant decline over the same time period, new research shows.

“Functional assessments demonstrated long-term sustained stabilization of motor function that was clinically meaningful, at ages where functional decline would be expected based on natural history,” the investigators noted in their abstract. Furthermore, the treatment, known as delandistrogene moxeparvovec-rokl (SRP-9001), was well tolerated 4 years post treatment.

The study was presented at the annual meeting of the American Association of Neuromuscular Electrodiagnostic Medicine.
 

Severe type of DMD

Considered one of the most severe forms of muscular dystrophy, DMD causes progressive muscle wasting stemming from the root genetic cause of missing dystrophin in muscle cells. Often referred to as a molecular “shock absorber,” dystrophin stabilizes the sarcolemma during muscle contractions to prevent degeneration.

SRP-9001, a single-dose recombinant gene therapy administered as an intravenous infusion, was designed to deliver a trimmed down form of dystrophin to compensate for the deficit.

In July, the adeno-associated virus vector (AAV)–based SRP-9001 gene therapy was granted accelerated approval by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of ambulatory pediatric patients aged 4-5 years with DMD with a confirmed mutation in the DMD gene.

The therapy is administered over 1-2 hours at a dose of 133 trillion vector genomes per kilogram of body weight.

For Study 101, one of several evaluating the novel therapy, a research team led by senior investigator Jerry Mendell, MD, an attending neurologist at Nationwide Children’s Hospital and professor of pediatrics and neurology at Ohio State University, both in Columbus,evaluated data on four ambulatory male patients aged 4-8 years who received a single IV infusion of the therapy.

All patients also received prednisone 1 mg/kg, 1 day preinfusion and 30 days post infusion.

At 4 years post treatment, there were no new safety events. All treatment-related adverse events occurred mainly within the first 70 days, and all resolved.

The most commonly reported adverse reactions of the gene therapy include vomiting, nausea, increases in liver enzymes, pyrexia (fever), and thrombocytopenia, all of which occurred within 90 days of infusion and been manageable.

Risk mitigation strategies for hepatotoxicity or acute liver injury include pre- and postinfusion monitoring of liver enzymes, the authors noted.

No serious abnormalities were observed in hematologic or chemistry panels, and while three patients had elevated gamma-glutamyl transpeptidase in the first 3 months post treatment, those cases resolved with oral steroid treatment.

Significant improvements in function were observed, with a mean improvement in North Star Ambulatory Assessment (NSAA) scores from baseline of 7.0 points (range, 4-11).

Exploratory analyses further showed that, compared with a propensity score–weighted external control cohort of 21 patients with DMD who did not receive the therapy, those receiving SRP-9001 had a statistically significant difference of 9.4 points in least-squares mean change from baseline to 4 years on the NSAA score (P = .0125).

Similar trends were observed in improvement from baseline in key measures of time to rise, 4-stair climb, and 10- and 100-meter walk/run function tests.

Other reported adverse events include acute serious liver injury, immune-mediated myositis, and myocarditis. Because of the latter risk, the therapy is contraindicated in patients with any deletion in exon 8 and/or exon 9 in the DMD gene.

The current 4-year update on SRP-9001 adds to clinical trial results that have been reported on more than 80 patients treated to date, with favorable results and consistent safety profiles reported at other time points.

Continued FDA approval for the therapy will be contingent upon verification of a clinical benefit in the confirmatory trials, including the EMBARK trial.
 

Increased function, long-term stability

Discussing the research at the meeting, Craig McDonald, MD, professor and chair of physical medicine & rehabilitation, a professor of pediatrics and study chair of the CINRG Duchenne Natural History Study at University of California Davis Health, noted that top-line results from the ongoing, confirmatory phase 3 EMBARK trial show functional benefits of SRP-9001 not only in 4- to 5-year-olds but also in other older age groups.

“What’s really striking, and in my mind the most impressive, is that when you follow these patients out 3 or 4 years ... you see there is this bump in function followed by long-term stability, whereas the external control cohort predictably shows really quite significant declines in their [NSAA] functional values,” he said in his presentation.

“When you look at each individually treated patient versus their own predicted trajectory using their baseline values on the time function test, each of the patients actually has a really quite impressive stabilization of function over their predicted disease trajectory,” he added.

A caveat that SRP-9001 shares with other gene therapies is the issue of cost – reported in the range of $2 million–$3 million.

In the context of racial and socioeconomic disparities in access to diagnosis and care reported in DMD, Emma Ciafaloni, MD, a professor of neurology and pediatrics at the University of Rochester (N.Y.) Medical Center, underscored the need to consider approval versus access to gene therapies and how to optimize access to the novel treatments. 

“We need to consider what the cost is, how it’s going to be accessed, and whether there is a sustainable model,” said Ciafaloni, who was not associated with the study. “There will need to be institutional readiness and support for specialized multidisciplinary clinics for gene therapy.”

She also noted “we need to consider how we can do better on a broader level, because this is not a provider problem or a manufacturer problem — it’s a society problem.”

The study was funded by Sarepta Therapeutics. McDonald reported consulting work for Sarepta Therapeutics and has been an investigator in SRP-9001 research. Ciafaloni reported serving on advisory boards or other relationships with Alexion, Argenx, Biogen, Amicus, Momenta, Medscape, Pfizer, Sanofi/Genzyme, Sarepta, Jansen, NS Pharma, CureSMA, Orphazyme, the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, PPMD, PTC Therapeutics, and Santhera.

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

PHOENIX – Children with Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD) treated with the only gene therapy to date to be approved for treatment of disease in the United States show sustained maintenance of motor function after 4 years, compared with untreated patients who showed significant decline over the same time period, new research shows.

“Functional assessments demonstrated long-term sustained stabilization of motor function that was clinically meaningful, at ages where functional decline would be expected based on natural history,” the investigators noted in their abstract. Furthermore, the treatment, known as delandistrogene moxeparvovec-rokl (SRP-9001), was well tolerated 4 years post treatment.

The study was presented at the annual meeting of the American Association of Neuromuscular Electrodiagnostic Medicine.
 

Severe type of DMD

Considered one of the most severe forms of muscular dystrophy, DMD causes progressive muscle wasting stemming from the root genetic cause of missing dystrophin in muscle cells. Often referred to as a molecular “shock absorber,” dystrophin stabilizes the sarcolemma during muscle contractions to prevent degeneration.

SRP-9001, a single-dose recombinant gene therapy administered as an intravenous infusion, was designed to deliver a trimmed down form of dystrophin to compensate for the deficit.

In July, the adeno-associated virus vector (AAV)–based SRP-9001 gene therapy was granted accelerated approval by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of ambulatory pediatric patients aged 4-5 years with DMD with a confirmed mutation in the DMD gene.

The therapy is administered over 1-2 hours at a dose of 133 trillion vector genomes per kilogram of body weight.

For Study 101, one of several evaluating the novel therapy, a research team led by senior investigator Jerry Mendell, MD, an attending neurologist at Nationwide Children’s Hospital and professor of pediatrics and neurology at Ohio State University, both in Columbus,evaluated data on four ambulatory male patients aged 4-8 years who received a single IV infusion of the therapy.

All patients also received prednisone 1 mg/kg, 1 day preinfusion and 30 days post infusion.

At 4 years post treatment, there were no new safety events. All treatment-related adverse events occurred mainly within the first 70 days, and all resolved.

The most commonly reported adverse reactions of the gene therapy include vomiting, nausea, increases in liver enzymes, pyrexia (fever), and thrombocytopenia, all of which occurred within 90 days of infusion and been manageable.

Risk mitigation strategies for hepatotoxicity or acute liver injury include pre- and postinfusion monitoring of liver enzymes, the authors noted.

No serious abnormalities were observed in hematologic or chemistry panels, and while three patients had elevated gamma-glutamyl transpeptidase in the first 3 months post treatment, those cases resolved with oral steroid treatment.

Significant improvements in function were observed, with a mean improvement in North Star Ambulatory Assessment (NSAA) scores from baseline of 7.0 points (range, 4-11).

Exploratory analyses further showed that, compared with a propensity score–weighted external control cohort of 21 patients with DMD who did not receive the therapy, those receiving SRP-9001 had a statistically significant difference of 9.4 points in least-squares mean change from baseline to 4 years on the NSAA score (P = .0125).

Similar trends were observed in improvement from baseline in key measures of time to rise, 4-stair climb, and 10- and 100-meter walk/run function tests.

Other reported adverse events include acute serious liver injury, immune-mediated myositis, and myocarditis. Because of the latter risk, the therapy is contraindicated in patients with any deletion in exon 8 and/or exon 9 in the DMD gene.

The current 4-year update on SRP-9001 adds to clinical trial results that have been reported on more than 80 patients treated to date, with favorable results and consistent safety profiles reported at other time points.

Continued FDA approval for the therapy will be contingent upon verification of a clinical benefit in the confirmatory trials, including the EMBARK trial.
 

Increased function, long-term stability

Discussing the research at the meeting, Craig McDonald, MD, professor and chair of physical medicine & rehabilitation, a professor of pediatrics and study chair of the CINRG Duchenne Natural History Study at University of California Davis Health, noted that top-line results from the ongoing, confirmatory phase 3 EMBARK trial show functional benefits of SRP-9001 not only in 4- to 5-year-olds but also in other older age groups.

“What’s really striking, and in my mind the most impressive, is that when you follow these patients out 3 or 4 years ... you see there is this bump in function followed by long-term stability, whereas the external control cohort predictably shows really quite significant declines in their [NSAA] functional values,” he said in his presentation.

“When you look at each individually treated patient versus their own predicted trajectory using their baseline values on the time function test, each of the patients actually has a really quite impressive stabilization of function over their predicted disease trajectory,” he added.

A caveat that SRP-9001 shares with other gene therapies is the issue of cost – reported in the range of $2 million–$3 million.

In the context of racial and socioeconomic disparities in access to diagnosis and care reported in DMD, Emma Ciafaloni, MD, a professor of neurology and pediatrics at the University of Rochester (N.Y.) Medical Center, underscored the need to consider approval versus access to gene therapies and how to optimize access to the novel treatments. 

“We need to consider what the cost is, how it’s going to be accessed, and whether there is a sustainable model,” said Ciafaloni, who was not associated with the study. “There will need to be institutional readiness and support for specialized multidisciplinary clinics for gene therapy.”

She also noted “we need to consider how we can do better on a broader level, because this is not a provider problem or a manufacturer problem — it’s a society problem.”

The study was funded by Sarepta Therapeutics. McDonald reported consulting work for Sarepta Therapeutics and has been an investigator in SRP-9001 research. Ciafaloni reported serving on advisory boards or other relationships with Alexion, Argenx, Biogen, Amicus, Momenta, Medscape, Pfizer, Sanofi/Genzyme, Sarepta, Jansen, NS Pharma, CureSMA, Orphazyme, the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, PPMD, PTC Therapeutics, and Santhera.

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

PHOENIX – Children with Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD) treated with the only gene therapy to date to be approved for treatment of disease in the United States show sustained maintenance of motor function after 4 years, compared with untreated patients who showed significant decline over the same time period, new research shows.

“Functional assessments demonstrated long-term sustained stabilization of motor function that was clinically meaningful, at ages where functional decline would be expected based on natural history,” the investigators noted in their abstract. Furthermore, the treatment, known as delandistrogene moxeparvovec-rokl (SRP-9001), was well tolerated 4 years post treatment.

The study was presented at the annual meeting of the American Association of Neuromuscular Electrodiagnostic Medicine.
 

Severe type of DMD

Considered one of the most severe forms of muscular dystrophy, DMD causes progressive muscle wasting stemming from the root genetic cause of missing dystrophin in muscle cells. Often referred to as a molecular “shock absorber,” dystrophin stabilizes the sarcolemma during muscle contractions to prevent degeneration.

SRP-9001, a single-dose recombinant gene therapy administered as an intravenous infusion, was designed to deliver a trimmed down form of dystrophin to compensate for the deficit.

In July, the adeno-associated virus vector (AAV)–based SRP-9001 gene therapy was granted accelerated approval by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of ambulatory pediatric patients aged 4-5 years with DMD with a confirmed mutation in the DMD gene.

The therapy is administered over 1-2 hours at a dose of 133 trillion vector genomes per kilogram of body weight.

For Study 101, one of several evaluating the novel therapy, a research team led by senior investigator Jerry Mendell, MD, an attending neurologist at Nationwide Children’s Hospital and professor of pediatrics and neurology at Ohio State University, both in Columbus,evaluated data on four ambulatory male patients aged 4-8 years who received a single IV infusion of the therapy.

All patients also received prednisone 1 mg/kg, 1 day preinfusion and 30 days post infusion.

At 4 years post treatment, there were no new safety events. All treatment-related adverse events occurred mainly within the first 70 days, and all resolved.

The most commonly reported adverse reactions of the gene therapy include vomiting, nausea, increases in liver enzymes, pyrexia (fever), and thrombocytopenia, all of which occurred within 90 days of infusion and been manageable.

Risk mitigation strategies for hepatotoxicity or acute liver injury include pre- and postinfusion monitoring of liver enzymes, the authors noted.

No serious abnormalities were observed in hematologic or chemistry panels, and while three patients had elevated gamma-glutamyl transpeptidase in the first 3 months post treatment, those cases resolved with oral steroid treatment.

Significant improvements in function were observed, with a mean improvement in North Star Ambulatory Assessment (NSAA) scores from baseline of 7.0 points (range, 4-11).

Exploratory analyses further showed that, compared with a propensity score–weighted external control cohort of 21 patients with DMD who did not receive the therapy, those receiving SRP-9001 had a statistically significant difference of 9.4 points in least-squares mean change from baseline to 4 years on the NSAA score (P = .0125).

Similar trends were observed in improvement from baseline in key measures of time to rise, 4-stair climb, and 10- and 100-meter walk/run function tests.

Other reported adverse events include acute serious liver injury, immune-mediated myositis, and myocarditis. Because of the latter risk, the therapy is contraindicated in patients with any deletion in exon 8 and/or exon 9 in the DMD gene.

The current 4-year update on SRP-9001 adds to clinical trial results that have been reported on more than 80 patients treated to date, with favorable results and consistent safety profiles reported at other time points.

Continued FDA approval for the therapy will be contingent upon verification of a clinical benefit in the confirmatory trials, including the EMBARK trial.
 

Increased function, long-term stability

Discussing the research at the meeting, Craig McDonald, MD, professor and chair of physical medicine & rehabilitation, a professor of pediatrics and study chair of the CINRG Duchenne Natural History Study at University of California Davis Health, noted that top-line results from the ongoing, confirmatory phase 3 EMBARK trial show functional benefits of SRP-9001 not only in 4- to 5-year-olds but also in other older age groups.

“What’s really striking, and in my mind the most impressive, is that when you follow these patients out 3 or 4 years ... you see there is this bump in function followed by long-term stability, whereas the external control cohort predictably shows really quite significant declines in their [NSAA] functional values,” he said in his presentation.

“When you look at each individually treated patient versus their own predicted trajectory using their baseline values on the time function test, each of the patients actually has a really quite impressive stabilization of function over their predicted disease trajectory,” he added.

A caveat that SRP-9001 shares with other gene therapies is the issue of cost – reported in the range of $2 million–$3 million.

In the context of racial and socioeconomic disparities in access to diagnosis and care reported in DMD, Emma Ciafaloni, MD, a professor of neurology and pediatrics at the University of Rochester (N.Y.) Medical Center, underscored the need to consider approval versus access to gene therapies and how to optimize access to the novel treatments. 

“We need to consider what the cost is, how it’s going to be accessed, and whether there is a sustainable model,” said Ciafaloni, who was not associated with the study. “There will need to be institutional readiness and support for specialized multidisciplinary clinics for gene therapy.”

She also noted “we need to consider how we can do better on a broader level, because this is not a provider problem or a manufacturer problem — it’s a society problem.”

The study was funded by Sarepta Therapeutics. McDonald reported consulting work for Sarepta Therapeutics and has been an investigator in SRP-9001 research. Ciafaloni reported serving on advisory boards or other relationships with Alexion, Argenx, Biogen, Amicus, Momenta, Medscape, Pfizer, Sanofi/Genzyme, Sarepta, Jansen, NS Pharma, CureSMA, Orphazyme, the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, PPMD, PTC Therapeutics, and Santhera.

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

Children with obstructive sleep apnea syndrome showed significantly reduced nasal ventilation function, compared with healthy controls, based on data from more than 200 individuals.

Previous research has shown an increased risk of obstructive sleep apnea syndrome (OSAS) in patients with compromised nasal respiration, but the association between increased nasal resistance (NR) and OSAS in children is controversial and remains unclear, wrote Ying Pang, MD, of Children’s Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, China, and colleagues.

In a study published in the Ear, Nose & Throat Journal, the researchers enrolled 109 children aged 6-12 years with OSAS and 116 healthy control children, with the goal of examining the role of nasal ventilation function on OSAS. Participants underwent acoustic rhinometry (AR) following polysomnography, and measurements of the nasal minimal cross-sectional area (NMCA) were taken in 3 segments, as were nasal cavity volume (NCV) from 0 cm to 5 cm, nasopharyngeal volume (NPV) from 6 cm to 8 cm, and distance of the minimal cross-sectional area to the nostril (DCAN). The children also underwent NR testing in both nostrils while awake and lying in a supine position.

Overall, the NR of children with OSAS were significantly higher than that of controls (P < .05). For AR, children with OSAS had significantly lower measures of NMCA, NCV, and NPV, but DCAN values were between the groups. Both AR and NR measures were similar among children with mild, moderate, or severe OSAS.

A subset of 90 children with mild or moderate OSAS were treated with intranasal corticosteroids (ICS) and oral montelukast for 12 weeks. Of these, 69 completed the study and were divided into three groups: effectively cured (group A), successfully treated (group B), and treatment failure (group C). The researchers compared the size of the tonsil adenoids, the polysomnography, NR, and AR before and after treatment and found significant differences in NR, NMCA, and NCV for the A and B groups but no significant changes in DCAN following treatment.

For group A, treatment was associated with a significant reduction in adenoid size and increase in NPV, but these changes did not occur in group B.

The findings were limited by several factors, including the small sample size and measurement of NR when patients were awake and sitting upright, and larger studies are needed to confirm the results, the researchers noted.

However, the results suggest that NVF plays a role in the pathogenesis of OSAS in children and suggest a need to improve NVF in treating these patients they concluded.

This study was supported by the Medical Project of Chongqing Municipal Science and Health Bureau of China. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Children with obstructive sleep apnea syndrome showed significantly reduced nasal ventilation function, compared with healthy controls, based on data from more than 200 individuals.

Previous research has shown an increased risk of obstructive sleep apnea syndrome (OSAS) in patients with compromised nasal respiration, but the association between increased nasal resistance (NR) and OSAS in children is controversial and remains unclear, wrote Ying Pang, MD, of Children’s Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, China, and colleagues.

In a study published in the Ear, Nose & Throat Journal, the researchers enrolled 109 children aged 6-12 years with OSAS and 116 healthy control children, with the goal of examining the role of nasal ventilation function on OSAS. Participants underwent acoustic rhinometry (AR) following polysomnography, and measurements of the nasal minimal cross-sectional area (NMCA) were taken in 3 segments, as were nasal cavity volume (NCV) from 0 cm to 5 cm, nasopharyngeal volume (NPV) from 6 cm to 8 cm, and distance of the minimal cross-sectional area to the nostril (DCAN). The children also underwent NR testing in both nostrils while awake and lying in a supine position.

Overall, the NR of children with OSAS were significantly higher than that of controls (P < .05). For AR, children with OSAS had significantly lower measures of NMCA, NCV, and NPV, but DCAN values were between the groups. Both AR and NR measures were similar among children with mild, moderate, or severe OSAS.

A subset of 90 children with mild or moderate OSAS were treated with intranasal corticosteroids (ICS) and oral montelukast for 12 weeks. Of these, 69 completed the study and were divided into three groups: effectively cured (group A), successfully treated (group B), and treatment failure (group C). The researchers compared the size of the tonsil adenoids, the polysomnography, NR, and AR before and after treatment and found significant differences in NR, NMCA, and NCV for the A and B groups but no significant changes in DCAN following treatment.

For group A, treatment was associated with a significant reduction in adenoid size and increase in NPV, but these changes did not occur in group B.

The findings were limited by several factors, including the small sample size and measurement of NR when patients were awake and sitting upright, and larger studies are needed to confirm the results, the researchers noted.

However, the results suggest that NVF plays a role in the pathogenesis of OSAS in children and suggest a need to improve NVF in treating these patients they concluded.

This study was supported by the Medical Project of Chongqing Municipal Science and Health Bureau of China. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Children with obstructive sleep apnea syndrome showed significantly reduced nasal ventilation function, compared with healthy controls, based on data from more than 200 individuals.

Previous research has shown an increased risk of obstructive sleep apnea syndrome (OSAS) in patients with compromised nasal respiration, but the association between increased nasal resistance (NR) and OSAS in children is controversial and remains unclear, wrote Ying Pang, MD, of Children’s Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, China, and colleagues.

In a study published in the Ear, Nose & Throat Journal, the researchers enrolled 109 children aged 6-12 years with OSAS and 116 healthy control children, with the goal of examining the role of nasal ventilation function on OSAS. Participants underwent acoustic rhinometry (AR) following polysomnography, and measurements of the nasal minimal cross-sectional area (NMCA) were taken in 3 segments, as were nasal cavity volume (NCV) from 0 cm to 5 cm, nasopharyngeal volume (NPV) from 6 cm to 8 cm, and distance of the minimal cross-sectional area to the nostril (DCAN). The children also underwent NR testing in both nostrils while awake and lying in a supine position.

Overall, the NR of children with OSAS were significantly higher than that of controls (P < .05). For AR, children with OSAS had significantly lower measures of NMCA, NCV, and NPV, but DCAN values were between the groups. Both AR and NR measures were similar among children with mild, moderate, or severe OSAS.

A subset of 90 children with mild or moderate OSAS were treated with intranasal corticosteroids (ICS) and oral montelukast for 12 weeks. Of these, 69 completed the study and were divided into three groups: effectively cured (group A), successfully treated (group B), and treatment failure (group C). The researchers compared the size of the tonsil adenoids, the polysomnography, NR, and AR before and after treatment and found significant differences in NR, NMCA, and NCV for the A and B groups but no significant changes in DCAN following treatment.

For group A, treatment was associated with a significant reduction in adenoid size and increase in NPV, but these changes did not occur in group B.

The findings were limited by several factors, including the small sample size and measurement of NR when patients were awake and sitting upright, and larger studies are needed to confirm the results, the researchers noted.

However, the results suggest that NVF plays a role in the pathogenesis of OSAS in children and suggest a need to improve NVF in treating these patients they concluded.

This study was supported by the Medical Project of Chongqing Municipal Science and Health Bureau of China. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recently issued updated recommendations on the use of vaccines to protect against COVID-19.¹ In addition, 3 new COVID-19 vaccine products have been approved for use in the United States since September. Before we discuss both of these items, it’s important to understand why we’re still talking about COVID-19 vaccines.

The impact of vaccination can’t be understated. Vaccines to protect against COVID-19 have been hugely successful in preventing mortality and morbidity from illness caused by SARS-CoV-2. It is estimated that in the first year alone, after vaccines became widely available, they saved more than 14 million lives globally.² By the end of 2022, they had prevented 18.5 million hospitalizations and 3.2 million deaths in the United States.³ However, waning levels of vaccine-induced immunity and the continuous mutation of the virus have prompted the need for booster doses of vaccine and development of new vaccines.

Enter this year’s vaccines. The new products include updated (2023-2024 formula) COVID-19 mRNA vaccines from Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech, for use in those ages 6 months and older, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine for use in those ages 12 years and older. All 3 provide protection against the currently circulating XBB variants, which by September 2023 accounted for > 99% of circulating SARS-CoV-2 strains in the United States.¹

Novavax is an option for those who are hesitant to use an mRNA-based vaccine, although the exact recommendations for its use are still pending. Of note, the previously approved bivalent vaccines and the previous Novavax monovalent vaccine are no longer approved for use in the United States.

Current recommendations. For those ages 5 years and older, the recommendation is for a single dose of the 2023-2024 COVID-19 vaccine regardless of previous vaccination history—except for those who were previously unvaccinated and choose Novavax. (Those individuals should receive 2 doses, 3 to 8 weeks apart.) For those ages 6 months through 4 years, the recommended number of doses varies by vaccine and previous vaccination history¹; a table can be found at www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/72/wr/mm7242e1.htm.

Those who are moderately to severely immunocompromised should receive a 3-dose series with one of the 2023-2024 COVID-19 vaccines and may receive 1 or more additional updated doses.¹ These recommendations are more nuanced, and a full description of them can be found at www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/clinical-considerations/covid-19-vaccines-us.html.

Major changes in this year’s recommendations,⁴ compared to those previously made on the use of the bivalent vaccines, include:

• Eliminating complex recommendations for 5-year-olds, who are now included in the standard recommendation
• Reducing the number of COVID-19 vaccine products in use by standardizing the dose (25 mcg) for those ages 6 months to 11 years
• Choosing to monitor epidemiology and vaccine effectiveness data to determine whether an additional dose of this year’s vaccine will be needed for those ages 65 years and older, rather than making a recommendation now.

Who’s paying? Another change is how COVID-19 vaccines are paid for. The United States is moving from a system of federal procurement and distribution to the commercial marketplace. This may lead to some disruption and confusion.

All commercial health plans, as well as Medicare and Medicaid, must cover vaccines recommend by the ACIP with no out-of-pocket cost. The Vaccines for Children program provides free vaccine for uninsured and underinsured children up to age 19 years.

However, that leaves no payer for uninsured adults. In response, the CDC has announced the establishment of the Bridge Access Program, which is a private/government partnership to provide the vaccine to this age group. Details about where an adult can obtain a free COVID-19 vaccine through this program can be found by visiting www.cdc.gov/vaccines/programs/bridge/index.html or by calling 800-CDC-INFO.

A dynamic situation. COVID-19 vaccines and associated recommendations are likely to change with time, as we learn how best to formulate them to adjust to virus mutations and determine the optimal intervals to adjust and administer these vaccines. The result may (or may not) eventually resemble the approach recommended for influenza vaccines, which is annual assessment and adjustment of the targeted antigens, when needed, and annual universal vaccination.

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recently issued updated recommendations on the use of vaccines to protect against COVID-19.¹ In addition, 3 new COVID-19 vaccine products have been approved for use in the United States since September. Before we discuss both of these items, it’s important to understand why we’re still talking about COVID-19 vaccines.

The impact of vaccination can’t be understated. Vaccines to protect against COVID-19 have been hugely successful in preventing mortality and morbidity from illness caused by SARS-CoV-2. It is estimated that in the first year alone, after vaccines became widely available, they saved more than 14 million lives globally.² By the end of 2022, they had prevented 18.5 million hospitalizations and 3.2 million deaths in the United States.³ However, waning levels of vaccine-induced immunity and the continuous mutation of the virus have prompted the need for booster doses of vaccine and development of new vaccines.

Enter this year’s vaccines. The new products include updated (2023-2024 formula) COVID-19 mRNA vaccines from Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech, for use in those ages 6 months and older, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine for use in those ages 12 years and older. All 3 provide protection against the currently circulating XBB variants, which by September 2023 accounted for > 99% of circulating SARS-CoV-2 strains in the United States.¹

Novavax is an option for those who are hesitant to use an mRNA-based vaccine, although the exact recommendations for its use are still pending. Of note, the previously approved bivalent vaccines and the previous Novavax monovalent vaccine are no longer approved for use in the United States.

Current recommendations. For those ages 5 years and older, the recommendation is for a single dose of the 2023-2024 COVID-19 vaccine regardless of previous vaccination history—except for those who were previously unvaccinated and choose Novavax. (Those individuals should receive 2 doses, 3 to 8 weeks apart.) For those ages 6 months through 4 years, the recommended number of doses varies by vaccine and previous vaccination history¹; a table can be found at www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/72/wr/mm7242e1.htm.

Those who are moderately to severely immunocompromised should receive a 3-dose series with one of the 2023-2024 COVID-19 vaccines and may receive 1 or more additional updated doses.¹ These recommendations are more nuanced, and a full description of them can be found at www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/clinical-considerations/covid-19-vaccines-us.html.

Major changes in this year’s recommendations,⁴ compared to those previously made on the use of the bivalent vaccines, include:

• Eliminating complex recommendations for 5-year-olds, who are now included in the standard recommendation
• Reducing the number of COVID-19 vaccine products in use by standardizing the dose (25 mcg) for those ages 6 months to 11 years
• Choosing to monitor epidemiology and vaccine effectiveness data to determine whether an additional dose of this year’s vaccine will be needed for those ages 65 years and older, rather than making a recommendation now.

Who’s paying? Another change is how COVID-19 vaccines are paid for. The United States is moving from a system of federal procurement and distribution to the commercial marketplace. This may lead to some disruption and confusion.

All commercial health plans, as well as Medicare and Medicaid, must cover vaccines recommend by the ACIP with no out-of-pocket cost. The Vaccines for Children program provides free vaccine for uninsured and underinsured children up to age 19 years.

However, that leaves no payer for uninsured adults. In response, the CDC has announced the establishment of the Bridge Access Program, which is a private/government partnership to provide the vaccine to this age group. Details about where an adult can obtain a free COVID-19 vaccine through this program can be found by visiting www.cdc.gov/vaccines/programs/bridge/index.html or by calling 800-CDC-INFO.

A dynamic situation. COVID-19 vaccines and associated recommendations are likely to change with time, as we learn how best to formulate them to adjust to virus mutations and determine the optimal intervals to adjust and administer these vaccines. The result may (or may not) eventually resemble the approach recommended for influenza vaccines, which is annual assessment and adjustment of the targeted antigens, when needed, and annual universal vaccination.

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recently issued updated recommendations on the use of vaccines to protect against COVID-19.¹ In addition, 3 new COVID-19 vaccine products have been approved for use in the United States since September. Before we discuss both of these items, it’s important to understand why we’re still talking about COVID-19 vaccines.

The impact of vaccination can’t be understated. Vaccines to protect against COVID-19 have been hugely successful in preventing mortality and morbidity from illness caused by SARS-CoV-2. It is estimated that in the first year alone, after vaccines became widely available, they saved more than 14 million lives globally.² By the end of 2022, they had prevented 18.5 million hospitalizations and 3.2 million deaths in the United States.³ However, waning levels of vaccine-induced immunity and the continuous mutation of the virus have prompted the need for booster doses of vaccine and development of new vaccines.

Enter this year’s vaccines. The new products include updated (2023-2024 formula) COVID-19 mRNA vaccines from Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech, for use in those ages 6 months and older, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine for use in those ages 12 years and older. All 3 provide protection against the currently circulating XBB variants, which by September 2023 accounted for > 99% of circulating SARS-CoV-2 strains in the United States.¹

Novavax is an option for those who are hesitant to use an mRNA-based vaccine, although the exact recommendations for its use are still pending. Of note, the previously approved bivalent vaccines and the previous Novavax monovalent vaccine are no longer approved for use in the United States.

Current recommendations. For those ages 5 years and older, the recommendation is for a single dose of the 2023-2024 COVID-19 vaccine regardless of previous vaccination history—except for those who were previously unvaccinated and choose Novavax. (Those individuals should receive 2 doses, 3 to 8 weeks apart.) For those ages 6 months through 4 years, the recommended number of doses varies by vaccine and previous vaccination history¹; a table can be found at www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/72/wr/mm7242e1.htm.

Those who are moderately to severely immunocompromised should receive a 3-dose series with one of the 2023-2024 COVID-19 vaccines and may receive 1 or more additional updated doses.¹ These recommendations are more nuanced, and a full description of them can be found at www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/clinical-considerations/covid-19-vaccines-us.html.

Major changes in this year’s recommendations,⁴ compared to those previously made on the use of the bivalent vaccines, include:

• Eliminating complex recommendations for 5-year-olds, who are now included in the standard recommendation
• Reducing the number of COVID-19 vaccine products in use by standardizing the dose (25 mcg) for those ages 6 months to 11 years
• Choosing to monitor epidemiology and vaccine effectiveness data to determine whether an additional dose of this year’s vaccine will be needed for those ages 65 years and older, rather than making a recommendation now.

Who’s paying? Another change is how COVID-19 vaccines are paid for. The United States is moving from a system of federal procurement and distribution to the commercial marketplace. This may lead to some disruption and confusion.

All commercial health plans, as well as Medicare and Medicaid, must cover vaccines recommend by the ACIP with no out-of-pocket cost. The Vaccines for Children program provides free vaccine for uninsured and underinsured children up to age 19 years.

However, that leaves no payer for uninsured adults. In response, the CDC has announced the establishment of the Bridge Access Program, which is a private/government partnership to provide the vaccine to this age group. Details about where an adult can obtain a free COVID-19 vaccine through this program can be found by visiting www.cdc.gov/vaccines/programs/bridge/index.html or by calling 800-CDC-INFO.

A dynamic situation. COVID-19 vaccines and associated recommendations are likely to change with time, as we learn how best to formulate them to adjust to virus mutations and determine the optimal intervals to adjust and administer these vaccines. The result may (or may not) eventually resemble the approach recommended for influenza vaccines, which is annual assessment and adjustment of the targeted antigens, when needed, and annual universal vaccination.