User login
News and Views that Matter to Pediatricians
The leading independent newspaper covering news and commentary in pediatrics.
Flu and COVID-19 vaccines can be given on the same day: CDC and AAP
Previously, the CDC recommended that people receive their COVID-19 vaccinations alone and schedule any other vaccinations at least 2 weeks before or after their COVID-19 immunization. “This was out of an abundance of caution during a period when these vaccines were new and not due to any known safety or immunogenicity concerns,” the CDC guidance states. “However, substantial data have now been collected regarding the safety of COVID-19 vaccines currently approved or authorized by FDA.”
The guidance allowing for coadministration of COVID-19 vaccines with other immunizations, including the flu shot, was issued in mid-May 2021, and was restated in influenza vaccine recommendations released Aug. 27. The American Academy of Pediatrics soon followed suit, announcing that, for children eligible for the COVID-19 vaccine (age 12 and older), AAP recommendations allow for both the influenza and COVID-19 vaccines to be administered during the same visit.
Although there is limited data around giving COVID-19 vaccines with other vaccines, “extensive experience with non–COVID-19 vaccines has demonstrated that immunogenicity and adverse-event profiles are generally similar when vaccines are administered simultaneously as when they are administered alone,” the recommendations state. If administering other immunizations along with COVID-19 vaccines, providers should separate injection sites by at least 1 inch, the CDC recommends, and influenza vaccines that are more likely to cause a local reaction, like high-dose or the adjuvanted inactivated flu vaccine, should be administered in different limbs, if possible.
Whether someone should get their flu vaccine at the same time or separate from a COVID-19 vaccination or booster is a matter of personal preference as well as convenience, Susan Coffin, MD, MPH, an attending physician in the division of infectious diseases at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, said in an interview. “It basically boils down to: Will you be able to get your flu shot without any difficulty in 2 weeks’ time?” she said. “We don’t want inconvenience or difficulties in access to get the way of people getting their flu shot this year.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Previously, the CDC recommended that people receive their COVID-19 vaccinations alone and schedule any other vaccinations at least 2 weeks before or after their COVID-19 immunization. “This was out of an abundance of caution during a period when these vaccines were new and not due to any known safety or immunogenicity concerns,” the CDC guidance states. “However, substantial data have now been collected regarding the safety of COVID-19 vaccines currently approved or authorized by FDA.”
The guidance allowing for coadministration of COVID-19 vaccines with other immunizations, including the flu shot, was issued in mid-May 2021, and was restated in influenza vaccine recommendations released Aug. 27. The American Academy of Pediatrics soon followed suit, announcing that, for children eligible for the COVID-19 vaccine (age 12 and older), AAP recommendations allow for both the influenza and COVID-19 vaccines to be administered during the same visit.
Although there is limited data around giving COVID-19 vaccines with other vaccines, “extensive experience with non–COVID-19 vaccines has demonstrated that immunogenicity and adverse-event profiles are generally similar when vaccines are administered simultaneously as when they are administered alone,” the recommendations state. If administering other immunizations along with COVID-19 vaccines, providers should separate injection sites by at least 1 inch, the CDC recommends, and influenza vaccines that are more likely to cause a local reaction, like high-dose or the adjuvanted inactivated flu vaccine, should be administered in different limbs, if possible.
Whether someone should get their flu vaccine at the same time or separate from a COVID-19 vaccination or booster is a matter of personal preference as well as convenience, Susan Coffin, MD, MPH, an attending physician in the division of infectious diseases at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, said in an interview. “It basically boils down to: Will you be able to get your flu shot without any difficulty in 2 weeks’ time?” she said. “We don’t want inconvenience or difficulties in access to get the way of people getting their flu shot this year.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Previously, the CDC recommended that people receive their COVID-19 vaccinations alone and schedule any other vaccinations at least 2 weeks before or after their COVID-19 immunization. “This was out of an abundance of caution during a period when these vaccines were new and not due to any known safety or immunogenicity concerns,” the CDC guidance states. “However, substantial data have now been collected regarding the safety of COVID-19 vaccines currently approved or authorized by FDA.”
The guidance allowing for coadministration of COVID-19 vaccines with other immunizations, including the flu shot, was issued in mid-May 2021, and was restated in influenza vaccine recommendations released Aug. 27. The American Academy of Pediatrics soon followed suit, announcing that, for children eligible for the COVID-19 vaccine (age 12 and older), AAP recommendations allow for both the influenza and COVID-19 vaccines to be administered during the same visit.
Although there is limited data around giving COVID-19 vaccines with other vaccines, “extensive experience with non–COVID-19 vaccines has demonstrated that immunogenicity and adverse-event profiles are generally similar when vaccines are administered simultaneously as when they are administered alone,” the recommendations state. If administering other immunizations along with COVID-19 vaccines, providers should separate injection sites by at least 1 inch, the CDC recommends, and influenza vaccines that are more likely to cause a local reaction, like high-dose or the adjuvanted inactivated flu vaccine, should be administered in different limbs, if possible.
Whether someone should get their flu vaccine at the same time or separate from a COVID-19 vaccination or booster is a matter of personal preference as well as convenience, Susan Coffin, MD, MPH, an attending physician in the division of infectious diseases at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, said in an interview. “It basically boils down to: Will you be able to get your flu shot without any difficulty in 2 weeks’ time?” she said. “We don’t want inconvenience or difficulties in access to get the way of people getting their flu shot this year.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Infants breathe better when pregnant moms exercise
Lung function in early infancy may be influenced by the mother’s level of physical activity during pregnancy, results of a study from Sweden suggest.
Low-lung function at 3 months of age, as measured by the ratio of time to peak tidal expiratory flow to expiratory time (tPTEF/tE), was more frequent among children whose mothers were physically inactive during the first half of pregnancy compared with those who exercised either moderately or strenuously, reported Hrefna Katrin Gudmundsdottir, MD, a pediatrician and PhD candidate at the University of Oslo, Norway. The results were based on a prospective observational study of 841 mother-child pairs.
“The potential link between maternal inactivity and low lung function in infancy adds to the importance of advising pregnant women and women of childbearing age on physical activity,” she said in an oral abstract presented during the virtual European Respiratory Society (ERS) International Congress.
Jonathan Grigg, MD, professor of pediatric respiratory and environmental medicine at Queen Mary University of London, who was not involved in the study, commented that it “offers a fascinating hint that increased physical activity of mothers is associated with better lung function in their babies and, therefore, possibly their health in later life. More research is needed to confirm this link, but it is important that women feel supported by their health care providers to be active in a way that is comfortable and accessible to them.”
Impaired lung function in infancy is associated with wheezing and asthma in childhood, and lower lung function later in life, Dr. Gudmundsdottir said. She also noted that impaired lung function begins in utero and is related to fetal and infant size, family history of asthma, and/or maternal smoking.
Physical activity during pregnancy has been demonstrated to reduce the risk of preterm birth and cesarean birth and of children being born either abnormally small or abnormally large for their gestational age, she explained.
To see where physical inactivity in the first half of pregnancy is associated with lower lung function in otherwise healthy 3-month old infants, Dr. Gudmundsdottir and colleagues looked at data on a mother-child cohort from the prospective population-based PreventADALL study, which was designed to study prevention of atopic dermatitis and allergies in children in Norway and Sweden.
A total of 814 infants (49% female) had available measures of tidal flow volume in the awake state at 3 months, as well as mother-reported data on physical activity at 18 weeks of pregnancy.
The investigators categorized the mothers as inactive, with either no or only low-intensity physical activity, “fairly” active, or “very” active based on self reporting.
The average tPTEF/tE value among all infants in the study was 0.391. The average value for 290 infants born to inactive mothers was 0.387, compared with 0.394 for 299 infants born to very active mothers, a difference that was not statistically significant.
Maternal physical activity level was not significantly associated with continuous tPTEF/tE, but the investigators did find that the offspring of inactive mothers were significantly more likely than the children of fairly or very active mothers to have a tPTEF/tE below 0.25 in both univariate analysis (odds ratio, 2.15; P = .011), and in multivariate analysis controlling for maternal age, education, parity, prepregnancy body-mass index, parental atopy, and in-utero exposure to nicotine (OR, 2.18; P = .013).
In univariate but not multivariate analysis, children of inactive mothers were significantly more likely than infants of more active mothers to have tPTEF/tE values below the 50th percentile (OR, 1.35; P = .042).
“We observed a trend that adds to the importance of advising women of childbearing age and pregnant women about physical activity. However, there may be factors that affect both maternal physical activity and lung function in offspring that we have not accounted for and could affect the results, so more research is needed,” Dr. Gudmundsdottir said in a statement.
Dr. Grigg pointed out that “it’s also worth keeping in mind that the single most important thing that mothers can do for their own health and that of their baby is to ensure that they do not smoke or use other tobacco products before, during, and after pregnancy. A smoke-free home has the biggest impact on lung function and health in childhood and later life.”
The study was supported by the University of Oslo. Dr. Gudmundsdottir and Dr. Grigg have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Lung function in early infancy may be influenced by the mother’s level of physical activity during pregnancy, results of a study from Sweden suggest.
Low-lung function at 3 months of age, as measured by the ratio of time to peak tidal expiratory flow to expiratory time (tPTEF/tE), was more frequent among children whose mothers were physically inactive during the first half of pregnancy compared with those who exercised either moderately or strenuously, reported Hrefna Katrin Gudmundsdottir, MD, a pediatrician and PhD candidate at the University of Oslo, Norway. The results were based on a prospective observational study of 841 mother-child pairs.
“The potential link between maternal inactivity and low lung function in infancy adds to the importance of advising pregnant women and women of childbearing age on physical activity,” she said in an oral abstract presented during the virtual European Respiratory Society (ERS) International Congress.
Jonathan Grigg, MD, professor of pediatric respiratory and environmental medicine at Queen Mary University of London, who was not involved in the study, commented that it “offers a fascinating hint that increased physical activity of mothers is associated with better lung function in their babies and, therefore, possibly their health in later life. More research is needed to confirm this link, but it is important that women feel supported by their health care providers to be active in a way that is comfortable and accessible to them.”
Impaired lung function in infancy is associated with wheezing and asthma in childhood, and lower lung function later in life, Dr. Gudmundsdottir said. She also noted that impaired lung function begins in utero and is related to fetal and infant size, family history of asthma, and/or maternal smoking.
Physical activity during pregnancy has been demonstrated to reduce the risk of preterm birth and cesarean birth and of children being born either abnormally small or abnormally large for their gestational age, she explained.
To see where physical inactivity in the first half of pregnancy is associated with lower lung function in otherwise healthy 3-month old infants, Dr. Gudmundsdottir and colleagues looked at data on a mother-child cohort from the prospective population-based PreventADALL study, which was designed to study prevention of atopic dermatitis and allergies in children in Norway and Sweden.
A total of 814 infants (49% female) had available measures of tidal flow volume in the awake state at 3 months, as well as mother-reported data on physical activity at 18 weeks of pregnancy.
The investigators categorized the mothers as inactive, with either no or only low-intensity physical activity, “fairly” active, or “very” active based on self reporting.
The average tPTEF/tE value among all infants in the study was 0.391. The average value for 290 infants born to inactive mothers was 0.387, compared with 0.394 for 299 infants born to very active mothers, a difference that was not statistically significant.
Maternal physical activity level was not significantly associated with continuous tPTEF/tE, but the investigators did find that the offspring of inactive mothers were significantly more likely than the children of fairly or very active mothers to have a tPTEF/tE below 0.25 in both univariate analysis (odds ratio, 2.15; P = .011), and in multivariate analysis controlling for maternal age, education, parity, prepregnancy body-mass index, parental atopy, and in-utero exposure to nicotine (OR, 2.18; P = .013).
In univariate but not multivariate analysis, children of inactive mothers were significantly more likely than infants of more active mothers to have tPTEF/tE values below the 50th percentile (OR, 1.35; P = .042).
“We observed a trend that adds to the importance of advising women of childbearing age and pregnant women about physical activity. However, there may be factors that affect both maternal physical activity and lung function in offspring that we have not accounted for and could affect the results, so more research is needed,” Dr. Gudmundsdottir said in a statement.
Dr. Grigg pointed out that “it’s also worth keeping in mind that the single most important thing that mothers can do for their own health and that of their baby is to ensure that they do not smoke or use other tobacco products before, during, and after pregnancy. A smoke-free home has the biggest impact on lung function and health in childhood and later life.”
The study was supported by the University of Oslo. Dr. Gudmundsdottir and Dr. Grigg have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Lung function in early infancy may be influenced by the mother’s level of physical activity during pregnancy, results of a study from Sweden suggest.
Low-lung function at 3 months of age, as measured by the ratio of time to peak tidal expiratory flow to expiratory time (tPTEF/tE), was more frequent among children whose mothers were physically inactive during the first half of pregnancy compared with those who exercised either moderately or strenuously, reported Hrefna Katrin Gudmundsdottir, MD, a pediatrician and PhD candidate at the University of Oslo, Norway. The results were based on a prospective observational study of 841 mother-child pairs.
“The potential link between maternal inactivity and low lung function in infancy adds to the importance of advising pregnant women and women of childbearing age on physical activity,” she said in an oral abstract presented during the virtual European Respiratory Society (ERS) International Congress.
Jonathan Grigg, MD, professor of pediatric respiratory and environmental medicine at Queen Mary University of London, who was not involved in the study, commented that it “offers a fascinating hint that increased physical activity of mothers is associated with better lung function in their babies and, therefore, possibly their health in later life. More research is needed to confirm this link, but it is important that women feel supported by their health care providers to be active in a way that is comfortable and accessible to them.”
Impaired lung function in infancy is associated with wheezing and asthma in childhood, and lower lung function later in life, Dr. Gudmundsdottir said. She also noted that impaired lung function begins in utero and is related to fetal and infant size, family history of asthma, and/or maternal smoking.
Physical activity during pregnancy has been demonstrated to reduce the risk of preterm birth and cesarean birth and of children being born either abnormally small or abnormally large for their gestational age, she explained.
To see where physical inactivity in the first half of pregnancy is associated with lower lung function in otherwise healthy 3-month old infants, Dr. Gudmundsdottir and colleagues looked at data on a mother-child cohort from the prospective population-based PreventADALL study, which was designed to study prevention of atopic dermatitis and allergies in children in Norway and Sweden.
A total of 814 infants (49% female) had available measures of tidal flow volume in the awake state at 3 months, as well as mother-reported data on physical activity at 18 weeks of pregnancy.
The investigators categorized the mothers as inactive, with either no or only low-intensity physical activity, “fairly” active, or “very” active based on self reporting.
The average tPTEF/tE value among all infants in the study was 0.391. The average value for 290 infants born to inactive mothers was 0.387, compared with 0.394 for 299 infants born to very active mothers, a difference that was not statistically significant.
Maternal physical activity level was not significantly associated with continuous tPTEF/tE, but the investigators did find that the offspring of inactive mothers were significantly more likely than the children of fairly or very active mothers to have a tPTEF/tE below 0.25 in both univariate analysis (odds ratio, 2.15; P = .011), and in multivariate analysis controlling for maternal age, education, parity, prepregnancy body-mass index, parental atopy, and in-utero exposure to nicotine (OR, 2.18; P = .013).
In univariate but not multivariate analysis, children of inactive mothers were significantly more likely than infants of more active mothers to have tPTEF/tE values below the 50th percentile (OR, 1.35; P = .042).
“We observed a trend that adds to the importance of advising women of childbearing age and pregnant women about physical activity. However, there may be factors that affect both maternal physical activity and lung function in offspring that we have not accounted for and could affect the results, so more research is needed,” Dr. Gudmundsdottir said in a statement.
Dr. Grigg pointed out that “it’s also worth keeping in mind that the single most important thing that mothers can do for their own health and that of their baby is to ensure that they do not smoke or use other tobacco products before, during, and after pregnancy. A smoke-free home has the biggest impact on lung function and health in childhood and later life.”
The study was supported by the University of Oslo. Dr. Gudmundsdottir and Dr. Grigg have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Seizure a first sign of COVID in kids?
Unlike in adults, seizures, including status epilepticus (SE), may be the first and main manifestation of COVID-19 in children, new research suggests.
Seizures may occur even in children with no history of epilepsy and in the absence of fever or severe COVID-19 illness, necessitating a “high index” of suspicion for the virus to make an early diagnosis and allow for appropriate infection control measures, say the researchers.
“We hope to increase physicians’ awareness of noninfluenza-like presentations of COVID in children. In areas with a high prevalence of COVID, we suggest that children with seizures be tested for COVID,” Tal Gilboa, MD, director of the child neurology unit and codirector of epilepsy, Hadassah Medical Center, Jerusalem, told this news organization.
The study was published online August 27 in the journal Seizure.
Presenting symptom
Among 175 children diagnosed with acute SARS-CoV-2 infection in the emergency department over 10 months in 2020, 11 (6%) presented with seizures. Studies in adults with COVID-19 have reported seizures in 0% to 2% of cases, the investigators note.
The 11 children with seizures (seven boys) ranged in age from 6 months to 17 years (median age, 11.5 years). All of them had seizures as the presenting sign of infection and none had severe COVID-19 requiring ventilatory or hemodynamic support. Six of the 11 children presented with fever.
Seven of the children had a prior history of neurological disorder: Five had epilepsy, one had a single unprovoked seizure 3 years before admission, and one had an intellectual disability. Three of the children had uncontrolled seizures despite appropriate treatment with antiseizure medication.
Nine of the 11 children presented with generalized tonic-clonic seizures. One child with a prior history of uncontrolled epilepsy with multiple seizure types had a focal tonic seizure. The youngest patient, a 5-month-old infant, presented with bilateral asymmetrical tonic-clonic seizure.
Of note, say the investigators, five of the 11 children presented with convulsive SE; none had a history of prior SE, and one had no history of seizures.
Although young age, especially under 12 months, is a known risk factor for SE, four of the five patients with SE were between 5 and 17 years old. All five children with SE responded to treatment with antiseizure medications.
All 11 children made a full recovery while in hospital, although further follow-up is essential to determine long-term outcomes, the researchers report.
“Children with no prior history of epilepsy and those with well-controlled epilepsy who present with breakthrough seizures, regardless of their body temperature, should be considered as potentially infected by SARS-CoV-2,” said Dr. Gilboa.
“It is possible, however unlikely, that a child, especially with prior epilepsy, may have an unprovoked seizure while being asymptomatically infected by SARS-CoV-2; in any case, infection control measures should be taken,” Dr. Gilboa added.
Need for replication
Weighing in on the study, Carl E. Stafstrom, MD, PhD, professor of neurology and pediatrics, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said it’s important to note that “about half of the children had had epilepsy already, and for whatever reason, had a seizure, which required an ED visit, and then they found COVID.”
“Nevertheless, this article is interesting and surprising in what they found because nobody else has found nearly as frequent a seizure presentation,” said Dr. Stafstrom, director of the John M. Freeman Pediatric Epilepsy Center, Johns Hopkins Medicine.
“We would want to see some replication from other institutions and other populations,” he added.
The study had no specific funding. Dr. Gilboa and Dr. Stafstrom have reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Unlike in adults, seizures, including status epilepticus (SE), may be the first and main manifestation of COVID-19 in children, new research suggests.
Seizures may occur even in children with no history of epilepsy and in the absence of fever or severe COVID-19 illness, necessitating a “high index” of suspicion for the virus to make an early diagnosis and allow for appropriate infection control measures, say the researchers.
“We hope to increase physicians’ awareness of noninfluenza-like presentations of COVID in children. In areas with a high prevalence of COVID, we suggest that children with seizures be tested for COVID,” Tal Gilboa, MD, director of the child neurology unit and codirector of epilepsy, Hadassah Medical Center, Jerusalem, told this news organization.
The study was published online August 27 in the journal Seizure.
Presenting symptom
Among 175 children diagnosed with acute SARS-CoV-2 infection in the emergency department over 10 months in 2020, 11 (6%) presented with seizures. Studies in adults with COVID-19 have reported seizures in 0% to 2% of cases, the investigators note.
The 11 children with seizures (seven boys) ranged in age from 6 months to 17 years (median age, 11.5 years). All of them had seizures as the presenting sign of infection and none had severe COVID-19 requiring ventilatory or hemodynamic support. Six of the 11 children presented with fever.
Seven of the children had a prior history of neurological disorder: Five had epilepsy, one had a single unprovoked seizure 3 years before admission, and one had an intellectual disability. Three of the children had uncontrolled seizures despite appropriate treatment with antiseizure medication.
Nine of the 11 children presented with generalized tonic-clonic seizures. One child with a prior history of uncontrolled epilepsy with multiple seizure types had a focal tonic seizure. The youngest patient, a 5-month-old infant, presented with bilateral asymmetrical tonic-clonic seizure.
Of note, say the investigators, five of the 11 children presented with convulsive SE; none had a history of prior SE, and one had no history of seizures.
Although young age, especially under 12 months, is a known risk factor for SE, four of the five patients with SE were between 5 and 17 years old. All five children with SE responded to treatment with antiseizure medications.
All 11 children made a full recovery while in hospital, although further follow-up is essential to determine long-term outcomes, the researchers report.
“Children with no prior history of epilepsy and those with well-controlled epilepsy who present with breakthrough seizures, regardless of their body temperature, should be considered as potentially infected by SARS-CoV-2,” said Dr. Gilboa.
“It is possible, however unlikely, that a child, especially with prior epilepsy, may have an unprovoked seizure while being asymptomatically infected by SARS-CoV-2; in any case, infection control measures should be taken,” Dr. Gilboa added.
Need for replication
Weighing in on the study, Carl E. Stafstrom, MD, PhD, professor of neurology and pediatrics, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said it’s important to note that “about half of the children had had epilepsy already, and for whatever reason, had a seizure, which required an ED visit, and then they found COVID.”
“Nevertheless, this article is interesting and surprising in what they found because nobody else has found nearly as frequent a seizure presentation,” said Dr. Stafstrom, director of the John M. Freeman Pediatric Epilepsy Center, Johns Hopkins Medicine.
“We would want to see some replication from other institutions and other populations,” he added.
The study had no specific funding. Dr. Gilboa and Dr. Stafstrom have reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Unlike in adults, seizures, including status epilepticus (SE), may be the first and main manifestation of COVID-19 in children, new research suggests.
Seizures may occur even in children with no history of epilepsy and in the absence of fever or severe COVID-19 illness, necessitating a “high index” of suspicion for the virus to make an early diagnosis and allow for appropriate infection control measures, say the researchers.
“We hope to increase physicians’ awareness of noninfluenza-like presentations of COVID in children. In areas with a high prevalence of COVID, we suggest that children with seizures be tested for COVID,” Tal Gilboa, MD, director of the child neurology unit and codirector of epilepsy, Hadassah Medical Center, Jerusalem, told this news organization.
The study was published online August 27 in the journal Seizure.
Presenting symptom
Among 175 children diagnosed with acute SARS-CoV-2 infection in the emergency department over 10 months in 2020, 11 (6%) presented with seizures. Studies in adults with COVID-19 have reported seizures in 0% to 2% of cases, the investigators note.
The 11 children with seizures (seven boys) ranged in age from 6 months to 17 years (median age, 11.5 years). All of them had seizures as the presenting sign of infection and none had severe COVID-19 requiring ventilatory or hemodynamic support. Six of the 11 children presented with fever.
Seven of the children had a prior history of neurological disorder: Five had epilepsy, one had a single unprovoked seizure 3 years before admission, and one had an intellectual disability. Three of the children had uncontrolled seizures despite appropriate treatment with antiseizure medication.
Nine of the 11 children presented with generalized tonic-clonic seizures. One child with a prior history of uncontrolled epilepsy with multiple seizure types had a focal tonic seizure. The youngest patient, a 5-month-old infant, presented with bilateral asymmetrical tonic-clonic seizure.
Of note, say the investigators, five of the 11 children presented with convulsive SE; none had a history of prior SE, and one had no history of seizures.
Although young age, especially under 12 months, is a known risk factor for SE, four of the five patients with SE were between 5 and 17 years old. All five children with SE responded to treatment with antiseizure medications.
All 11 children made a full recovery while in hospital, although further follow-up is essential to determine long-term outcomes, the researchers report.
“Children with no prior history of epilepsy and those with well-controlled epilepsy who present with breakthrough seizures, regardless of their body temperature, should be considered as potentially infected by SARS-CoV-2,” said Dr. Gilboa.
“It is possible, however unlikely, that a child, especially with prior epilepsy, may have an unprovoked seizure while being asymptomatically infected by SARS-CoV-2; in any case, infection control measures should be taken,” Dr. Gilboa added.
Need for replication
Weighing in on the study, Carl E. Stafstrom, MD, PhD, professor of neurology and pediatrics, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said it’s important to note that “about half of the children had had epilepsy already, and for whatever reason, had a seizure, which required an ED visit, and then they found COVID.”
“Nevertheless, this article is interesting and surprising in what they found because nobody else has found nearly as frequent a seizure presentation,” said Dr. Stafstrom, director of the John M. Freeman Pediatric Epilepsy Center, Johns Hopkins Medicine.
“We would want to see some replication from other institutions and other populations,” he added.
The study had no specific funding. Dr. Gilboa and Dr. Stafstrom have reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Medical boards: Docs who spread COVID misinformation put license at risk
Leaders of the American Board of Family Medicine, the American Board of Internal Medicine, and the American Board of Pediatrics said Sept. 9 that they support FSMB’s position.
“We also want all physicians certified by our boards to know that such unethical or unprofessional conduct may prompt their respective Board to take action that could put their certification at risk,” a statement read.
“Expertise matters, and board-certified physicians have demonstrated that they have stayed current in their field. Spreading misinformation or falsehoods to the public during a time of a public health emergency goes against everything our boards and our community of board-certified physicians stand for,” the leaders wrote.
“The evidence that we have safe, effective, and widely available vaccines against COVID-19 is overwhelming. We are particularly concerned about physicians who use their authority to denigrate vaccination at a time when vaccines continue to demonstrate excellent effectiveness against severe illness, hospitalization, and death.”
Small number spread false information
However, a small number of doctors continue to spread misinformation against the vaccines and communicate other false information surrounding COVID-19.
Some of the misinformation spreaders have had ultra-viral reach.
Among them is Daniel Stock, MD, a family physician in Indiana who has come out against COVID-19 vaccines. At a recent meeting of the Mt. Vernon Community School board in Indiana, he gave a speech urging the board to ignore the prevailing recommendations around COVID-19, such as test-and-trace measures.
Forbes reported in August that versions of the video of Stock›s speech on Facebook “have collected a total of 90 million engagements – a metric encompassing things such as comments, likes and shares – according to data collected by Media Matters for America, a liberal tech-watchdog group.”
This news organization published a story in August asking whether physicians who spread such information should lose their license and the question drew rapid-fire comments.
Commenters who argued with potential disciplinary actions raised questions about where the line will be drawn between misinformation and deeply held beliefs in terms of care.
Several comments centered on ivermectin, which is not approved by the Food and Drug Administration to treat COVID-19 but is enthusiastically supported as a COVID-19 treatment by a group of physicians called the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance, whose website includes requests for donations.
Some cited free speech protections.
‘Not consistent with standards’
As for ivermectin, David G. Nichols, MD, president and CEO of the American Board of Pediatrics, gave this news organization an example: “Spreading the notion that one would not need to get vaccinated because if you get sick you could take ivermectin is a very dangerous statement. That is not consistent with the standards of professionalism required for certification or licensure.”
Ivermectin, he noted, is not an approved treatment for COVID-19.
“To say that it is or has any benefit is a false statement. We’re not willing to allow individuals who make false statements to devalue the terrific work of tens of thousands of physicians across the United States doing work under very difficult circumstances,” Dr. Nichols said.
He continued: “To suggest treatments that are known not to be effective in exchange for treatment that is known to be effective is dangerous – and ivermectin falls under that category.”
Asked whether such suggestions could result in suspension or revocation of a physician’s license, Dr. Nichols said, “It’s the kind of thing that would certainly trigger a review.”
He said the standard for separating misinformation from personal beliefs is based on whether there is scientific evidence to support the belief.
The boards are not, with this statement, attempting to referee legitimate scientific debate, he said.
The misinformation the boards are referring to, Dr. Nichols said, is “where the evidence is 100% on one side and zero on another. And the zero is not only that the opinions or beliefs are unsupported or unsubstantiated, they are indeed harmful if followed. That’s the distinction we’re trying to make here.”
As for free-speech arguments, he said, “Free speech is a constitutional right. You can say whatever you want. The issue here is you do not have the right to expect continued professional sanction of a board certificate if you are lying to the public.”
The board statement also said: “We all look to board-certified physicians to provide outstanding care and guidance; providing misinformation about a lethal disease is unethical, unprofessional, and dangerous. In times of medical emergency, the community of expert physicians committed to science and evidence collectively shares a responsibility for giving the public the most accurate and timely health information available, so they can make decisions that work best for themselves and their families.”
In addition to Dr. Nichols, the statement was signed by Warren Newton, MD, MPH, president and CEO of the American Board of Family Medicine, and Richard J. Baron, MD, president and CEO of the American Board of Internal Medicine.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Leaders of the American Board of Family Medicine, the American Board of Internal Medicine, and the American Board of Pediatrics said Sept. 9 that they support FSMB’s position.
“We also want all physicians certified by our boards to know that such unethical or unprofessional conduct may prompt their respective Board to take action that could put their certification at risk,” a statement read.
“Expertise matters, and board-certified physicians have demonstrated that they have stayed current in their field. Spreading misinformation or falsehoods to the public during a time of a public health emergency goes against everything our boards and our community of board-certified physicians stand for,” the leaders wrote.
“The evidence that we have safe, effective, and widely available vaccines against COVID-19 is overwhelming. We are particularly concerned about physicians who use their authority to denigrate vaccination at a time when vaccines continue to demonstrate excellent effectiveness against severe illness, hospitalization, and death.”
Small number spread false information
However, a small number of doctors continue to spread misinformation against the vaccines and communicate other false information surrounding COVID-19.
Some of the misinformation spreaders have had ultra-viral reach.
Among them is Daniel Stock, MD, a family physician in Indiana who has come out against COVID-19 vaccines. At a recent meeting of the Mt. Vernon Community School board in Indiana, he gave a speech urging the board to ignore the prevailing recommendations around COVID-19, such as test-and-trace measures.
Forbes reported in August that versions of the video of Stock›s speech on Facebook “have collected a total of 90 million engagements – a metric encompassing things such as comments, likes and shares – according to data collected by Media Matters for America, a liberal tech-watchdog group.”
This news organization published a story in August asking whether physicians who spread such information should lose their license and the question drew rapid-fire comments.
Commenters who argued with potential disciplinary actions raised questions about where the line will be drawn between misinformation and deeply held beliefs in terms of care.
Several comments centered on ivermectin, which is not approved by the Food and Drug Administration to treat COVID-19 but is enthusiastically supported as a COVID-19 treatment by a group of physicians called the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance, whose website includes requests for donations.
Some cited free speech protections.
‘Not consistent with standards’
As for ivermectin, David G. Nichols, MD, president and CEO of the American Board of Pediatrics, gave this news organization an example: “Spreading the notion that one would not need to get vaccinated because if you get sick you could take ivermectin is a very dangerous statement. That is not consistent with the standards of professionalism required for certification or licensure.”
Ivermectin, he noted, is not an approved treatment for COVID-19.
“To say that it is or has any benefit is a false statement. We’re not willing to allow individuals who make false statements to devalue the terrific work of tens of thousands of physicians across the United States doing work under very difficult circumstances,” Dr. Nichols said.
He continued: “To suggest treatments that are known not to be effective in exchange for treatment that is known to be effective is dangerous – and ivermectin falls under that category.”
Asked whether such suggestions could result in suspension or revocation of a physician’s license, Dr. Nichols said, “It’s the kind of thing that would certainly trigger a review.”
He said the standard for separating misinformation from personal beliefs is based on whether there is scientific evidence to support the belief.
The boards are not, with this statement, attempting to referee legitimate scientific debate, he said.
The misinformation the boards are referring to, Dr. Nichols said, is “where the evidence is 100% on one side and zero on another. And the zero is not only that the opinions or beliefs are unsupported or unsubstantiated, they are indeed harmful if followed. That’s the distinction we’re trying to make here.”
As for free-speech arguments, he said, “Free speech is a constitutional right. You can say whatever you want. The issue here is you do not have the right to expect continued professional sanction of a board certificate if you are lying to the public.”
The board statement also said: “We all look to board-certified physicians to provide outstanding care and guidance; providing misinformation about a lethal disease is unethical, unprofessional, and dangerous. In times of medical emergency, the community of expert physicians committed to science and evidence collectively shares a responsibility for giving the public the most accurate and timely health information available, so they can make decisions that work best for themselves and their families.”
In addition to Dr. Nichols, the statement was signed by Warren Newton, MD, MPH, president and CEO of the American Board of Family Medicine, and Richard J. Baron, MD, president and CEO of the American Board of Internal Medicine.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Leaders of the American Board of Family Medicine, the American Board of Internal Medicine, and the American Board of Pediatrics said Sept. 9 that they support FSMB’s position.
“We also want all physicians certified by our boards to know that such unethical or unprofessional conduct may prompt their respective Board to take action that could put their certification at risk,” a statement read.
“Expertise matters, and board-certified physicians have demonstrated that they have stayed current in their field. Spreading misinformation or falsehoods to the public during a time of a public health emergency goes against everything our boards and our community of board-certified physicians stand for,” the leaders wrote.
“The evidence that we have safe, effective, and widely available vaccines against COVID-19 is overwhelming. We are particularly concerned about physicians who use their authority to denigrate vaccination at a time when vaccines continue to demonstrate excellent effectiveness against severe illness, hospitalization, and death.”
Small number spread false information
However, a small number of doctors continue to spread misinformation against the vaccines and communicate other false information surrounding COVID-19.
Some of the misinformation spreaders have had ultra-viral reach.
Among them is Daniel Stock, MD, a family physician in Indiana who has come out against COVID-19 vaccines. At a recent meeting of the Mt. Vernon Community School board in Indiana, he gave a speech urging the board to ignore the prevailing recommendations around COVID-19, such as test-and-trace measures.
Forbes reported in August that versions of the video of Stock›s speech on Facebook “have collected a total of 90 million engagements – a metric encompassing things such as comments, likes and shares – according to data collected by Media Matters for America, a liberal tech-watchdog group.”
This news organization published a story in August asking whether physicians who spread such information should lose their license and the question drew rapid-fire comments.
Commenters who argued with potential disciplinary actions raised questions about where the line will be drawn between misinformation and deeply held beliefs in terms of care.
Several comments centered on ivermectin, which is not approved by the Food and Drug Administration to treat COVID-19 but is enthusiastically supported as a COVID-19 treatment by a group of physicians called the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance, whose website includes requests for donations.
Some cited free speech protections.
‘Not consistent with standards’
As for ivermectin, David G. Nichols, MD, president and CEO of the American Board of Pediatrics, gave this news organization an example: “Spreading the notion that one would not need to get vaccinated because if you get sick you could take ivermectin is a very dangerous statement. That is not consistent with the standards of professionalism required for certification or licensure.”
Ivermectin, he noted, is not an approved treatment for COVID-19.
“To say that it is or has any benefit is a false statement. We’re not willing to allow individuals who make false statements to devalue the terrific work of tens of thousands of physicians across the United States doing work under very difficult circumstances,” Dr. Nichols said.
He continued: “To suggest treatments that are known not to be effective in exchange for treatment that is known to be effective is dangerous – and ivermectin falls under that category.”
Asked whether such suggestions could result in suspension or revocation of a physician’s license, Dr. Nichols said, “It’s the kind of thing that would certainly trigger a review.”
He said the standard for separating misinformation from personal beliefs is based on whether there is scientific evidence to support the belief.
The boards are not, with this statement, attempting to referee legitimate scientific debate, he said.
The misinformation the boards are referring to, Dr. Nichols said, is “where the evidence is 100% on one side and zero on another. And the zero is not only that the opinions or beliefs are unsupported or unsubstantiated, they are indeed harmful if followed. That’s the distinction we’re trying to make here.”
As for free-speech arguments, he said, “Free speech is a constitutional right. You can say whatever you want. The issue here is you do not have the right to expect continued professional sanction of a board certificate if you are lying to the public.”
The board statement also said: “We all look to board-certified physicians to provide outstanding care and guidance; providing misinformation about a lethal disease is unethical, unprofessional, and dangerous. In times of medical emergency, the community of expert physicians committed to science and evidence collectively shares a responsibility for giving the public the most accurate and timely health information available, so they can make decisions that work best for themselves and their families.”
In addition to Dr. Nichols, the statement was signed by Warren Newton, MD, MPH, president and CEO of the American Board of Family Medicine, and Richard J. Baron, MD, president and CEO of the American Board of Internal Medicine.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Data supporting cannabis for childhood epilepsy remain scarce
, according to two leading experts.
In a recent invited review article, Martin Kirkpatrick, MD, of the University of Dundee (Scotland), and Finbar O’Callaghan, MD, PhD, of University College London suggested that childhood epilepsy may be easy terrain for commercial interests to break ground, and from there, build their presence.
“Children with epilepsy are at risk of being used as the ‘Trojan horse’ for the cannabis industry,” Dr. Kirkpatrick and Dr. O’Callaghan wrote in Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology.
They noted that some of the first publicized success stories involving cannabis oil for epilepsy coincided with the rise of the medicinal and recreational cannabis markets, which will constitute an estimated 55-billion-dollar industry by 2027.
“Pediatric neurologists, imbued with the need to practice evidence-based medicine and wary of prescribing unlicensed medicines that had inadequate safety data, suddenly found themselves at odds with an array of vested interests and, most unfortunately, with the families of patients who were keen to try anything that would alleviate the effects of their child’s seizures,” the investigators wrote.
According to the review, fundamental questions about cannabis remain unanswered, including concerns about safety with long-term use, and the medicinal value of various plant components, such as myrcene, a terpene that gives cannabis its characteristic smell.
“A widely discussed issue is whether the terpenes add any therapeutic benefit, contributing to the so-called entourage effect of ‘whole-plant’ medicines,” the investigators wrote. “The concept is that all the constituents of the plant together create ‘the sum of all the parts that leads to the magic or power of cannabis.’ Although commonly referred to, there is little or no robust evidence to support the entourage effect as a credible clinical concept.”
Clinical evidence for treatment of pediatric epilepsy is also lacking, according to Dr. Kirkpatrick and Dr. O’Callaghan.
“Unfortunately, apart from the studies of pure cannabidiol (CBD) in Lennox–Gastaut and Dravet syndromes and tuberous sclerosis complex, level I evidence in the field of CBMPs and refractory epilepsy is lacking,” they wrote.
While other experts have pointed out that lower-level evidence – such as patient-reported outcomes and observational data – have previously been sufficient for drug licensing, Dr. Kirkpatrick and Dr. O’Callaghan noted that such exceptions “almost always” involve conditions without any effective treatments, or drugs that are undeniably effective.
“This is not the scenario with CBMPs,” they wrote, referring to current clinical data as “low-level” evidence “suggesting … possible efficacy.”
They highlighted concerns about placebo effect with open-label epilepsy studies, citing a randomized controlled trial for Dravet syndrome, in which 27% of patients given placebo had a 50% reduction in seizure frequency.
“We need carefully designed, good-quality CBMP studies that produce results on which we can rely,” Dr. Kirkpatrick and Dr. O’Callaghan concluded. “We can then work with families to choose the best treatments for children and young people with epilepsy. We owe this to them.”
A therapy of last resort
Jerzy P. Szaflarski, MD, PhD, of the University of Alabama at Birmingham, agreed that data are lacking for the use of CBMPs with patients who have epilepsy and other neurologic conditions; however, he also suggested that Dr. Kirkpatrick and Dr. O’Callaghan did not provide adequate real-world clinical context.
“Medical cannabis is not used as a first-, second-, or third-line therapy,” Dr. Szaflarski said. “It’s mostly used as a last resort in the sense that patients have already failed multiple other therapies.” In that respect, patients and parents are desperate to try anything that might work. “We have medical cannabis, and our patients want to try it, and at the point when multiple therapies have failed, it’s a reasonable option.”
While Dr. Szaflarski agreed that more high-quality clinical trials are needed, he also noted the practical challenges involved in such trials, largely because of variations in cannabis plants.
“The content of the cannabis plant changes depending on the day that it’s collected and the exposure to sun and how much water it has and what’s in the soil and many other things,” Dr. Szaflarski said. “It’s hard to get a very good, standardized product, and that’s why there needs to be a good-quality product delivered by the industry, which I have not seen thus far.”
For this reason, Dr. Szaflarski steers parents and patients away from over-the-counter CBMPs and toward Epidiolex, the only FDA-approved form of CBD.
“There is evidence that Epidiolex works,” he said. “I don’t know whether the products that are sold in a local cannabis store have the same high purity as Epidiolex. I tell [parents] that we should try Epidiolex first because it’s the one that is approved. But if it doesn’t work, we can go in that [other] direction.”
For those going the commercial route, Dr. Szaflarski advised close attention to product ingredients, to ensure that CBMPs are “devoid of any impurities, pesticides, fungicides, and other products that could be potentially dangerous.”
Parents considering CBMPs for their children also need to weigh concerns about long-term neurological safety, he added, noting that, on one hand, commercial products lack data, while on the other, epilepsy itself may cause harm.
“They need to consider the potential effects [of CBMPs] on their child’s brain and development versus … the effects of seizures on the brain,” Dr. Szaflarski said.
Dr. Kirkpatrick and Dr. O’Callaghan disclosed an application for a National Institute for Health Research–funded randomized controlled trial on CBMPs and joint authorship of British Paediatric Neurology Association Guidance on the use of CBMPs in children and young people with epilepsy. Dr. Szaflarski disclosed a relationship with Greenwich Biosciences and several other cannabis companies.
, according to two leading experts.
In a recent invited review article, Martin Kirkpatrick, MD, of the University of Dundee (Scotland), and Finbar O’Callaghan, MD, PhD, of University College London suggested that childhood epilepsy may be easy terrain for commercial interests to break ground, and from there, build their presence.
“Children with epilepsy are at risk of being used as the ‘Trojan horse’ for the cannabis industry,” Dr. Kirkpatrick and Dr. O’Callaghan wrote in Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology.
They noted that some of the first publicized success stories involving cannabis oil for epilepsy coincided with the rise of the medicinal and recreational cannabis markets, which will constitute an estimated 55-billion-dollar industry by 2027.
“Pediatric neurologists, imbued with the need to practice evidence-based medicine and wary of prescribing unlicensed medicines that had inadequate safety data, suddenly found themselves at odds with an array of vested interests and, most unfortunately, with the families of patients who were keen to try anything that would alleviate the effects of their child’s seizures,” the investigators wrote.
According to the review, fundamental questions about cannabis remain unanswered, including concerns about safety with long-term use, and the medicinal value of various plant components, such as myrcene, a terpene that gives cannabis its characteristic smell.
“A widely discussed issue is whether the terpenes add any therapeutic benefit, contributing to the so-called entourage effect of ‘whole-plant’ medicines,” the investigators wrote. “The concept is that all the constituents of the plant together create ‘the sum of all the parts that leads to the magic or power of cannabis.’ Although commonly referred to, there is little or no robust evidence to support the entourage effect as a credible clinical concept.”
Clinical evidence for treatment of pediatric epilepsy is also lacking, according to Dr. Kirkpatrick and Dr. O’Callaghan.
“Unfortunately, apart from the studies of pure cannabidiol (CBD) in Lennox–Gastaut and Dravet syndromes and tuberous sclerosis complex, level I evidence in the field of CBMPs and refractory epilepsy is lacking,” they wrote.
While other experts have pointed out that lower-level evidence – such as patient-reported outcomes and observational data – have previously been sufficient for drug licensing, Dr. Kirkpatrick and Dr. O’Callaghan noted that such exceptions “almost always” involve conditions without any effective treatments, or drugs that are undeniably effective.
“This is not the scenario with CBMPs,” they wrote, referring to current clinical data as “low-level” evidence “suggesting … possible efficacy.”
They highlighted concerns about placebo effect with open-label epilepsy studies, citing a randomized controlled trial for Dravet syndrome, in which 27% of patients given placebo had a 50% reduction in seizure frequency.
“We need carefully designed, good-quality CBMP studies that produce results on which we can rely,” Dr. Kirkpatrick and Dr. O’Callaghan concluded. “We can then work with families to choose the best treatments for children and young people with epilepsy. We owe this to them.”
A therapy of last resort
Jerzy P. Szaflarski, MD, PhD, of the University of Alabama at Birmingham, agreed that data are lacking for the use of CBMPs with patients who have epilepsy and other neurologic conditions; however, he also suggested that Dr. Kirkpatrick and Dr. O’Callaghan did not provide adequate real-world clinical context.
“Medical cannabis is not used as a first-, second-, or third-line therapy,” Dr. Szaflarski said. “It’s mostly used as a last resort in the sense that patients have already failed multiple other therapies.” In that respect, patients and parents are desperate to try anything that might work. “We have medical cannabis, and our patients want to try it, and at the point when multiple therapies have failed, it’s a reasonable option.”
While Dr. Szaflarski agreed that more high-quality clinical trials are needed, he also noted the practical challenges involved in such trials, largely because of variations in cannabis plants.
“The content of the cannabis plant changes depending on the day that it’s collected and the exposure to sun and how much water it has and what’s in the soil and many other things,” Dr. Szaflarski said. “It’s hard to get a very good, standardized product, and that’s why there needs to be a good-quality product delivered by the industry, which I have not seen thus far.”
For this reason, Dr. Szaflarski steers parents and patients away from over-the-counter CBMPs and toward Epidiolex, the only FDA-approved form of CBD.
“There is evidence that Epidiolex works,” he said. “I don’t know whether the products that are sold in a local cannabis store have the same high purity as Epidiolex. I tell [parents] that we should try Epidiolex first because it’s the one that is approved. But if it doesn’t work, we can go in that [other] direction.”
For those going the commercial route, Dr. Szaflarski advised close attention to product ingredients, to ensure that CBMPs are “devoid of any impurities, pesticides, fungicides, and other products that could be potentially dangerous.”
Parents considering CBMPs for their children also need to weigh concerns about long-term neurological safety, he added, noting that, on one hand, commercial products lack data, while on the other, epilepsy itself may cause harm.
“They need to consider the potential effects [of CBMPs] on their child’s brain and development versus … the effects of seizures on the brain,” Dr. Szaflarski said.
Dr. Kirkpatrick and Dr. O’Callaghan disclosed an application for a National Institute for Health Research–funded randomized controlled trial on CBMPs and joint authorship of British Paediatric Neurology Association Guidance on the use of CBMPs in children and young people with epilepsy. Dr. Szaflarski disclosed a relationship with Greenwich Biosciences and several other cannabis companies.
, according to two leading experts.
In a recent invited review article, Martin Kirkpatrick, MD, of the University of Dundee (Scotland), and Finbar O’Callaghan, MD, PhD, of University College London suggested that childhood epilepsy may be easy terrain for commercial interests to break ground, and from there, build their presence.
“Children with epilepsy are at risk of being used as the ‘Trojan horse’ for the cannabis industry,” Dr. Kirkpatrick and Dr. O’Callaghan wrote in Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology.
They noted that some of the first publicized success stories involving cannabis oil for epilepsy coincided with the rise of the medicinal and recreational cannabis markets, which will constitute an estimated 55-billion-dollar industry by 2027.
“Pediatric neurologists, imbued with the need to practice evidence-based medicine and wary of prescribing unlicensed medicines that had inadequate safety data, suddenly found themselves at odds with an array of vested interests and, most unfortunately, with the families of patients who were keen to try anything that would alleviate the effects of their child’s seizures,” the investigators wrote.
According to the review, fundamental questions about cannabis remain unanswered, including concerns about safety with long-term use, and the medicinal value of various plant components, such as myrcene, a terpene that gives cannabis its characteristic smell.
“A widely discussed issue is whether the terpenes add any therapeutic benefit, contributing to the so-called entourage effect of ‘whole-plant’ medicines,” the investigators wrote. “The concept is that all the constituents of the plant together create ‘the sum of all the parts that leads to the magic or power of cannabis.’ Although commonly referred to, there is little or no robust evidence to support the entourage effect as a credible clinical concept.”
Clinical evidence for treatment of pediatric epilepsy is also lacking, according to Dr. Kirkpatrick and Dr. O’Callaghan.
“Unfortunately, apart from the studies of pure cannabidiol (CBD) in Lennox–Gastaut and Dravet syndromes and tuberous sclerosis complex, level I evidence in the field of CBMPs and refractory epilepsy is lacking,” they wrote.
While other experts have pointed out that lower-level evidence – such as patient-reported outcomes and observational data – have previously been sufficient for drug licensing, Dr. Kirkpatrick and Dr. O’Callaghan noted that such exceptions “almost always” involve conditions without any effective treatments, or drugs that are undeniably effective.
“This is not the scenario with CBMPs,” they wrote, referring to current clinical data as “low-level” evidence “suggesting … possible efficacy.”
They highlighted concerns about placebo effect with open-label epilepsy studies, citing a randomized controlled trial for Dravet syndrome, in which 27% of patients given placebo had a 50% reduction in seizure frequency.
“We need carefully designed, good-quality CBMP studies that produce results on which we can rely,” Dr. Kirkpatrick and Dr. O’Callaghan concluded. “We can then work with families to choose the best treatments for children and young people with epilepsy. We owe this to them.”
A therapy of last resort
Jerzy P. Szaflarski, MD, PhD, of the University of Alabama at Birmingham, agreed that data are lacking for the use of CBMPs with patients who have epilepsy and other neurologic conditions; however, he also suggested that Dr. Kirkpatrick and Dr. O’Callaghan did not provide adequate real-world clinical context.
“Medical cannabis is not used as a first-, second-, or third-line therapy,” Dr. Szaflarski said. “It’s mostly used as a last resort in the sense that patients have already failed multiple other therapies.” In that respect, patients and parents are desperate to try anything that might work. “We have medical cannabis, and our patients want to try it, and at the point when multiple therapies have failed, it’s a reasonable option.”
While Dr. Szaflarski agreed that more high-quality clinical trials are needed, he also noted the practical challenges involved in such trials, largely because of variations in cannabis plants.
“The content of the cannabis plant changes depending on the day that it’s collected and the exposure to sun and how much water it has and what’s in the soil and many other things,” Dr. Szaflarski said. “It’s hard to get a very good, standardized product, and that’s why there needs to be a good-quality product delivered by the industry, which I have not seen thus far.”
For this reason, Dr. Szaflarski steers parents and patients away from over-the-counter CBMPs and toward Epidiolex, the only FDA-approved form of CBD.
“There is evidence that Epidiolex works,” he said. “I don’t know whether the products that are sold in a local cannabis store have the same high purity as Epidiolex. I tell [parents] that we should try Epidiolex first because it’s the one that is approved. But if it doesn’t work, we can go in that [other] direction.”
For those going the commercial route, Dr. Szaflarski advised close attention to product ingredients, to ensure that CBMPs are “devoid of any impurities, pesticides, fungicides, and other products that could be potentially dangerous.”
Parents considering CBMPs for their children also need to weigh concerns about long-term neurological safety, he added, noting that, on one hand, commercial products lack data, while on the other, epilepsy itself may cause harm.
“They need to consider the potential effects [of CBMPs] on their child’s brain and development versus … the effects of seizures on the brain,” Dr. Szaflarski said.
Dr. Kirkpatrick and Dr. O’Callaghan disclosed an application for a National Institute for Health Research–funded randomized controlled trial on CBMPs and joint authorship of British Paediatric Neurology Association Guidance on the use of CBMPs in children and young people with epilepsy. Dr. Szaflarski disclosed a relationship with Greenwich Biosciences and several other cannabis companies.
FROM DEVELOPMENTAL MEDICINE & CHILD NEUROLOGY
FDA moves to block some vape products, delays action on Juul
The agency had a court-ordered deadline of Sept. 9 to review more than 6.5 million applications for approval of what are considered new tobacco products – the vast majority of which are e-cigarettes and liquids, none of which have gone through FDA review before.
The FDA reviewed 93% of those applications in the past year, acting FDA Commissioner Janet Woodcock, MD, and Mitch Zeller, director of the FDA’s Center for Tobacco Products, said in a statement.
Of those reviewed, the agency rejected more than 946,000 flavored vape products, “because their applications lacked sufficient evidence that they have a benefit to adult smokers sufficient to overcome the public health threat posed by the well-documented, alarming levels of youth use of such products,” Dr. Woodcock and Mr. Zeller said.
The pair said more work is needed to finish the reviews to “ensure that we continue taking appropriate action to protect our nation’s youth from the dangers of all tobacco products, including e-cigarettes, which remain the most commonly used tobacco product by youth in the United States.”
No e-cigarette product has been given official FDA approval to be sold, meaning all e-cigarette products technically are on the market illegally, the agency said in 2020, but federal officials decided only to begin enforcing rules against flavored products, which surveys show are more often used by children. Tobacco-flavored and menthol e-cigarette products – which some adults use to quit smoking cigarettes – were exempted.
The American Cancer Society and other advocacy groups slammed the FDA’s decision to withhold action on major e-cigarette manufacturers, including Juul.
“The FDA’s failure today to act on applications by Juul, the manufacturer with the single biggest e-cigarette market share, is extremely disappointing and will allow the industry to further endanger public health and hook more kids on their highly addictive products,” Lisa Lacasse, president of ACS CAN, said in a statement, according to CNN.
“The FDA has had ample time to review the applications and allowing additional delays is unconscionable. There is overwhelming data to demonstrate the negative impact these kinds of flavored products have had on public health and their role in the youth e-cigarette epidemic. The time to act is now,” Ms. Lacasse added.
E-cigarette use among high school students rose from 11.7% in 2017 to 19.6% in 2020, the American Cancer Society said. Nearly 5% of middle schoolers reported using them in 2020.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
The agency had a court-ordered deadline of Sept. 9 to review more than 6.5 million applications for approval of what are considered new tobacco products – the vast majority of which are e-cigarettes and liquids, none of which have gone through FDA review before.
The FDA reviewed 93% of those applications in the past year, acting FDA Commissioner Janet Woodcock, MD, and Mitch Zeller, director of the FDA’s Center for Tobacco Products, said in a statement.
Of those reviewed, the agency rejected more than 946,000 flavored vape products, “because their applications lacked sufficient evidence that they have a benefit to adult smokers sufficient to overcome the public health threat posed by the well-documented, alarming levels of youth use of such products,” Dr. Woodcock and Mr. Zeller said.
The pair said more work is needed to finish the reviews to “ensure that we continue taking appropriate action to protect our nation’s youth from the dangers of all tobacco products, including e-cigarettes, which remain the most commonly used tobacco product by youth in the United States.”
No e-cigarette product has been given official FDA approval to be sold, meaning all e-cigarette products technically are on the market illegally, the agency said in 2020, but federal officials decided only to begin enforcing rules against flavored products, which surveys show are more often used by children. Tobacco-flavored and menthol e-cigarette products – which some adults use to quit smoking cigarettes – were exempted.
The American Cancer Society and other advocacy groups slammed the FDA’s decision to withhold action on major e-cigarette manufacturers, including Juul.
“The FDA’s failure today to act on applications by Juul, the manufacturer with the single biggest e-cigarette market share, is extremely disappointing and will allow the industry to further endanger public health and hook more kids on their highly addictive products,” Lisa Lacasse, president of ACS CAN, said in a statement, according to CNN.
“The FDA has had ample time to review the applications and allowing additional delays is unconscionable. There is overwhelming data to demonstrate the negative impact these kinds of flavored products have had on public health and their role in the youth e-cigarette epidemic. The time to act is now,” Ms. Lacasse added.
E-cigarette use among high school students rose from 11.7% in 2017 to 19.6% in 2020, the American Cancer Society said. Nearly 5% of middle schoolers reported using them in 2020.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
The agency had a court-ordered deadline of Sept. 9 to review more than 6.5 million applications for approval of what are considered new tobacco products – the vast majority of which are e-cigarettes and liquids, none of which have gone through FDA review before.
The FDA reviewed 93% of those applications in the past year, acting FDA Commissioner Janet Woodcock, MD, and Mitch Zeller, director of the FDA’s Center for Tobacco Products, said in a statement.
Of those reviewed, the agency rejected more than 946,000 flavored vape products, “because their applications lacked sufficient evidence that they have a benefit to adult smokers sufficient to overcome the public health threat posed by the well-documented, alarming levels of youth use of such products,” Dr. Woodcock and Mr. Zeller said.
The pair said more work is needed to finish the reviews to “ensure that we continue taking appropriate action to protect our nation’s youth from the dangers of all tobacco products, including e-cigarettes, which remain the most commonly used tobacco product by youth in the United States.”
No e-cigarette product has been given official FDA approval to be sold, meaning all e-cigarette products technically are on the market illegally, the agency said in 2020, but federal officials decided only to begin enforcing rules against flavored products, which surveys show are more often used by children. Tobacco-flavored and menthol e-cigarette products – which some adults use to quit smoking cigarettes – were exempted.
The American Cancer Society and other advocacy groups slammed the FDA’s decision to withhold action on major e-cigarette manufacturers, including Juul.
“The FDA’s failure today to act on applications by Juul, the manufacturer with the single biggest e-cigarette market share, is extremely disappointing and will allow the industry to further endanger public health and hook more kids on their highly addictive products,” Lisa Lacasse, president of ACS CAN, said in a statement, according to CNN.
“The FDA has had ample time to review the applications and allowing additional delays is unconscionable. There is overwhelming data to demonstrate the negative impact these kinds of flavored products have had on public health and their role in the youth e-cigarette epidemic. The time to act is now,” Ms. Lacasse added.
E-cigarette use among high school students rose from 11.7% in 2017 to 19.6% in 2020, the American Cancer Society said. Nearly 5% of middle schoolers reported using them in 2020.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
COVID-19 spares lung function in young adults
Here’s some encouraging news for once regarding SARS-CoV-2 infections: A study of young adults for whom prepandemic spirometry data were available showed that COVID-19 did not have a significant impact on lung function, even among patients with asthma.
Among 853 Swedish men and women (mean age, 22 years) who were part of a birth cohort study, there were no significant differences in either forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) or in the ratio of FEV1 to forced vital capacity, reported Ida Mogensen, MD, PhD, a postdoctoral fellow at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm.
“We found no effect of COVID-19 on spirometric lung function in generally healthy adults,” she said in an oral abstract presented at the European Respiratory Society 2021 International Congress.
The findings echo those of a small study that involved 73 children and adolescents with COVID-19 and 45 uninfected control persons. The investigators in that study, which was also presented at ERS 2021, found that there were no significant differences in the frequency of abnormal pulmonary function measures between case patients and control patients (abstract OA1303).
“The findings from these two studies provide important reassurance about the impact of COVID infection on lung function in children and young adults,” commented Anita Simonds, MD, an honorary consultant in respiratory and sleep medicine at the Royal Brompton Hospital, London.
“We know already that this group is less likely to suffer severe illness if they contract the virus, and these studies, which importantly include comparator groups without COVID-19, show that they are also less likely to suffer long-term consequences with respect to lung function,” she said. Dr. Simonds was not involved in either study.
Young adult study
Dr. Mogenson and colleagues assessed data on 853 participants in the BAMSE Project, a prospective birth cohort study that included 4,089 children born in Stockholm from 1994 to 1996. Of the participants, 147 had asthma. They have been regularly followed with questionnaires on respiratory symptoms and medications. In addition, at 8 and 16 years’ follow-up, spirometry measures and fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) levels were assessed, allergic sensitization tests were administered, and blood eosinophil levels were measured.
In 2020 and 2021, during the pandemic, the participants underwent spirometry testing and were assessed for antibodies against SARS-CoV-2, and they self-reported use of inhaled corticosteroids.
The investigators defined asthma as any physician diagnosis and asthma symptoms and/or asthma medication use within the previous year. Participants were determined to be COVID-19 seropositive if they had IgG antibodies to the SARS-CoV-2 spike greater than 25.09 AU/mL, IgM antibodies greater than 14.42 AU/mL, or IgA antibodies greater than 2.61 AU/mL, as measured with enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay.
Participants who had been vaccinated against COVID-19 were excluded.
No significant decreases
A total of 243 participants, including 38 with asthma, were seropositive for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. The mean change in lung function from before the pandemic to the study end date during the pandemic were not significantly different between seropositive participants and seronegative participants or IgM-positive participants and seronegative participants.
Similarly, there were no significant differences in lung function between seropositive and seronegative participants in an analysis that was adjusted for sex, body mass index, smoking status, or prepandemic lung function.
Although there was a trend toward slightly lower function among seropositive participants with asthma in comparison with seronegative patients with asthma, it was not statistically significant, Dr. Mogenson said.
There were also no significant decreases in lung function from the prepandemic measure to the present in any of the inflammatory parameters, including blood eosinophil levels, FeNO, allergic sensitization, or inhaled corticosteroid use.
Potential misclassification
In the question-and-answer period that followed the presentation, session comoderator Sam Bayat, MD, PhD, from the University of Grenoble (France), who was not involved in the study, noted that “some subjects can have positive serology without any symptoms, while others can have symptomatic disease and a couple of months later they have negative serology.”
He asked Dr. Mogenson whether they had included in their study participants with symptomatic COVID-19 and whether that would change the findings.
“We did not have access to RNA testing, so we only had serology, and of course some participants could be wrongly classified to have disease – probably around 15%,” she acknowledged.
She noted that there were no significant changes in lung function among patients who reported having respiratory symptoms.
The study was funded by the Swedish Research Council, the Swedish Heart-Lung Foundation, the Swedish Research Council for Health, Working Life and Welfare, the Karolinska Institutet, Formas, the European Research Council, and Region Stockholm. Dr. Mogenson, Dr. Simonds, and Dr. Bayat disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Here’s some encouraging news for once regarding SARS-CoV-2 infections: A study of young adults for whom prepandemic spirometry data were available showed that COVID-19 did not have a significant impact on lung function, even among patients with asthma.
Among 853 Swedish men and women (mean age, 22 years) who were part of a birth cohort study, there were no significant differences in either forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) or in the ratio of FEV1 to forced vital capacity, reported Ida Mogensen, MD, PhD, a postdoctoral fellow at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm.
“We found no effect of COVID-19 on spirometric lung function in generally healthy adults,” she said in an oral abstract presented at the European Respiratory Society 2021 International Congress.
The findings echo those of a small study that involved 73 children and adolescents with COVID-19 and 45 uninfected control persons. The investigators in that study, which was also presented at ERS 2021, found that there were no significant differences in the frequency of abnormal pulmonary function measures between case patients and control patients (abstract OA1303).
“The findings from these two studies provide important reassurance about the impact of COVID infection on lung function in children and young adults,” commented Anita Simonds, MD, an honorary consultant in respiratory and sleep medicine at the Royal Brompton Hospital, London.
“We know already that this group is less likely to suffer severe illness if they contract the virus, and these studies, which importantly include comparator groups without COVID-19, show that they are also less likely to suffer long-term consequences with respect to lung function,” she said. Dr. Simonds was not involved in either study.
Young adult study
Dr. Mogenson and colleagues assessed data on 853 participants in the BAMSE Project, a prospective birth cohort study that included 4,089 children born in Stockholm from 1994 to 1996. Of the participants, 147 had asthma. They have been regularly followed with questionnaires on respiratory symptoms and medications. In addition, at 8 and 16 years’ follow-up, spirometry measures and fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) levels were assessed, allergic sensitization tests were administered, and blood eosinophil levels were measured.
In 2020 and 2021, during the pandemic, the participants underwent spirometry testing and were assessed for antibodies against SARS-CoV-2, and they self-reported use of inhaled corticosteroids.
The investigators defined asthma as any physician diagnosis and asthma symptoms and/or asthma medication use within the previous year. Participants were determined to be COVID-19 seropositive if they had IgG antibodies to the SARS-CoV-2 spike greater than 25.09 AU/mL, IgM antibodies greater than 14.42 AU/mL, or IgA antibodies greater than 2.61 AU/mL, as measured with enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay.
Participants who had been vaccinated against COVID-19 were excluded.
No significant decreases
A total of 243 participants, including 38 with asthma, were seropositive for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. The mean change in lung function from before the pandemic to the study end date during the pandemic were not significantly different between seropositive participants and seronegative participants or IgM-positive participants and seronegative participants.
Similarly, there were no significant differences in lung function between seropositive and seronegative participants in an analysis that was adjusted for sex, body mass index, smoking status, or prepandemic lung function.
Although there was a trend toward slightly lower function among seropositive participants with asthma in comparison with seronegative patients with asthma, it was not statistically significant, Dr. Mogenson said.
There were also no significant decreases in lung function from the prepandemic measure to the present in any of the inflammatory parameters, including blood eosinophil levels, FeNO, allergic sensitization, or inhaled corticosteroid use.
Potential misclassification
In the question-and-answer period that followed the presentation, session comoderator Sam Bayat, MD, PhD, from the University of Grenoble (France), who was not involved in the study, noted that “some subjects can have positive serology without any symptoms, while others can have symptomatic disease and a couple of months later they have negative serology.”
He asked Dr. Mogenson whether they had included in their study participants with symptomatic COVID-19 and whether that would change the findings.
“We did not have access to RNA testing, so we only had serology, and of course some participants could be wrongly classified to have disease – probably around 15%,” she acknowledged.
She noted that there were no significant changes in lung function among patients who reported having respiratory symptoms.
The study was funded by the Swedish Research Council, the Swedish Heart-Lung Foundation, the Swedish Research Council for Health, Working Life and Welfare, the Karolinska Institutet, Formas, the European Research Council, and Region Stockholm. Dr. Mogenson, Dr. Simonds, and Dr. Bayat disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Here’s some encouraging news for once regarding SARS-CoV-2 infections: A study of young adults for whom prepandemic spirometry data were available showed that COVID-19 did not have a significant impact on lung function, even among patients with asthma.
Among 853 Swedish men and women (mean age, 22 years) who were part of a birth cohort study, there were no significant differences in either forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) or in the ratio of FEV1 to forced vital capacity, reported Ida Mogensen, MD, PhD, a postdoctoral fellow at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm.
“We found no effect of COVID-19 on spirometric lung function in generally healthy adults,” she said in an oral abstract presented at the European Respiratory Society 2021 International Congress.
The findings echo those of a small study that involved 73 children and adolescents with COVID-19 and 45 uninfected control persons. The investigators in that study, which was also presented at ERS 2021, found that there were no significant differences in the frequency of abnormal pulmonary function measures between case patients and control patients (abstract OA1303).
“The findings from these two studies provide important reassurance about the impact of COVID infection on lung function in children and young adults,” commented Anita Simonds, MD, an honorary consultant in respiratory and sleep medicine at the Royal Brompton Hospital, London.
“We know already that this group is less likely to suffer severe illness if they contract the virus, and these studies, which importantly include comparator groups without COVID-19, show that they are also less likely to suffer long-term consequences with respect to lung function,” she said. Dr. Simonds was not involved in either study.
Young adult study
Dr. Mogenson and colleagues assessed data on 853 participants in the BAMSE Project, a prospective birth cohort study that included 4,089 children born in Stockholm from 1994 to 1996. Of the participants, 147 had asthma. They have been regularly followed with questionnaires on respiratory symptoms and medications. In addition, at 8 and 16 years’ follow-up, spirometry measures and fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) levels were assessed, allergic sensitization tests were administered, and blood eosinophil levels were measured.
In 2020 and 2021, during the pandemic, the participants underwent spirometry testing and were assessed for antibodies against SARS-CoV-2, and they self-reported use of inhaled corticosteroids.
The investigators defined asthma as any physician diagnosis and asthma symptoms and/or asthma medication use within the previous year. Participants were determined to be COVID-19 seropositive if they had IgG antibodies to the SARS-CoV-2 spike greater than 25.09 AU/mL, IgM antibodies greater than 14.42 AU/mL, or IgA antibodies greater than 2.61 AU/mL, as measured with enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay.
Participants who had been vaccinated against COVID-19 were excluded.
No significant decreases
A total of 243 participants, including 38 with asthma, were seropositive for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. The mean change in lung function from before the pandemic to the study end date during the pandemic were not significantly different between seropositive participants and seronegative participants or IgM-positive participants and seronegative participants.
Similarly, there were no significant differences in lung function between seropositive and seronegative participants in an analysis that was adjusted for sex, body mass index, smoking status, or prepandemic lung function.
Although there was a trend toward slightly lower function among seropositive participants with asthma in comparison with seronegative patients with asthma, it was not statistically significant, Dr. Mogenson said.
There were also no significant decreases in lung function from the prepandemic measure to the present in any of the inflammatory parameters, including blood eosinophil levels, FeNO, allergic sensitization, or inhaled corticosteroid use.
Potential misclassification
In the question-and-answer period that followed the presentation, session comoderator Sam Bayat, MD, PhD, from the University of Grenoble (France), who was not involved in the study, noted that “some subjects can have positive serology without any symptoms, while others can have symptomatic disease and a couple of months later they have negative serology.”
He asked Dr. Mogenson whether they had included in their study participants with symptomatic COVID-19 and whether that would change the findings.
“We did not have access to RNA testing, so we only had serology, and of course some participants could be wrongly classified to have disease – probably around 15%,” she acknowledged.
She noted that there were no significant changes in lung function among patients who reported having respiratory symptoms.
The study was funded by the Swedish Research Council, the Swedish Heart-Lung Foundation, the Swedish Research Council for Health, Working Life and Welfare, the Karolinska Institutet, Formas, the European Research Council, and Region Stockholm. Dr. Mogenson, Dr. Simonds, and Dr. Bayat disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Atopic dermatitis subtype worsens into midlife, predicting poor health
giving reason to observe patients beyond the pediatric stage, according to a cohort study of more than 30,000 patients.
Early-life environmental factors, such as tobacco smoke exposure, were not reliable predictors of increasing AD into mid-adulthood, suggesting that a patient’s contemporaneous environment may impact disease course throughout life, reported lead author Katrina Abuabara, MD, associate professor of dermatology at the University of California, San Francisco, and colleagues.
“There is a lack of studies that prospectively examine the course of atopic eczema beyond adolescence/early adulthood, and a more comprehensive understanding of disease activity across the life span is needed,” the investigators wrote in JAMA Dermatology. “Data on long-term disease course may offer insight into mechanisms for disease onset and persistence, are important when counseling patients, and would establish baseline trajectories for future studies of whether new treatments can modify disease course and development of comorbidities.”
The present study included 30,905 patients from two population-based birth cohorts: the 1958 National Childhood Development Study (NCDS) and the 1970 British Cohort Study (BCS70). Follow-up data were collected between 1958 and 2016 via nine waves of standardized questionnaires, and subtypes of atopic eczema patterns were identified “based on parent-reported or self-reported atopic eczema period prevalence.”
This measure “was previously shown to coincide with standardized clinical examinations among children in the NCDS, and a similar questionnaire demonstrated high sensitivity and specificity for physician-diagnosed atopic eczema in U.S. populations,” the investigators noted.
Latent class analysis identified four disease subtypes based on probability of reporting prevalent AD into midlife: low (88%-91%), decreasing (4%), increasing (2%-6%), and persistently high (2%-3%) probability.
Next, the investigators looked for associations between these subtypes and established early-life risk factors, such as history of breastfeeding and childhood smoke exposure. None of the childhood environmental factors differentiated between high versus decreasing disease in adulthood, or increasing versus decreasing disease in adulthood. In contrast, female sex predicted the high versus decreasing adult subtype (odds ratio, 1.99; 95% confidence interval, 1.66-2.38), and the increasing versus decreasing adult subtype (OR, 1.99; 95% CI, 1.69-2.35).
These findings suggest that “disease trajectory is modifiable and may be influenced by environmental factors throughout life,” the investigators wrote.
Further analysis uncovered associations between adult AD subtypes and other health outcomes. For example, compared with adults in the low probability group, those in the high probability group were significantly more likely to report rhinitis (OR, 2.70; 95% CI, 2.24-3.26) and asthma (OR, 3.45; 95% CI, 2.82-4.21). Adults with the increasing subtype also had elevated rates of asthma and rhinitis, along with worse self-reported mental health at age 42 (OR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.23-1.72) and poor general health at age 46/50 (OR, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.09-1.53).
“When extending the window of observation beyond childhood, clear subtypes of atopic eczema based on patterns of disease activity emerged,” the investigators concluded. “In particular, a newly identified subtype with increasing probability of activity in adulthood warrants additional attention given associations with poor self-reported physical and mental health in midlife.”
Commenting on these results, Robert Sidbury, MD, professor of dermatology at the University of Washington, Seattle, said that this is an “important study” because it adds to our understanding of natural disease course over time.
This knowledge, as a pediatric dermatologist, will help Dr. Sidbury answer one of the most common questions he hears from parents: When is it going to stop?
“Trying to put a little bit more evidence-based heft behind the answer ... is really important,” he said in an interview.
Based on available data, up to 10% of children with AD may have disease activity into adulthood, according to Dr. Sidbury, who is also chief of dermatology at Seattle Children’s Hospital.
“I would hazard to guess that most of those adults who have atopic dermatitis – at least the ones who had it in childhood – were told that they would grow out of it,” he said. “And so I think awareness is important – that [resolution with age] does not always happen.”
The findings also support the possibility that AD is a systemic disease, and that underlying immune dysregulation may be linked with serious health consequences later in life, Dr. Sidbury said, noting that “the stakes get higher and higher when you start speculating in that way.”
According to Dr. Sidbury, the reported link between childhood AD and poor midlife health raises questions about how modifiable the disease course may be, particularly in response to earlier intervention with emerging AD medications, which “seem to be much more effective and potent.”
“Will the advent of these medications and their adoption and use in treatment perhaps have a significant impact, not just on the prevention of atopic dermatitis itself, but maybe other comorbidities?” he asked.
For the time being, this question remains unanswered.
The study was funded by the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases and the Wellcome Trust. Dr. Abuabara received grants from the National Institutes of Health during the study, as well as personal fees from Target RWE and Pfizer outside of this study. One author reported receiving NIH grants during the study, another reported receiving grants from the Wellcome Trust and the Innovative Medicine Initiative Horizon 2020 (BIOMAP project) during the study; there were no other disclosures. Dr. Sidbury disclosed relationships with Galderma, Regeneron, and Pfizer.
giving reason to observe patients beyond the pediatric stage, according to a cohort study of more than 30,000 patients.
Early-life environmental factors, such as tobacco smoke exposure, were not reliable predictors of increasing AD into mid-adulthood, suggesting that a patient’s contemporaneous environment may impact disease course throughout life, reported lead author Katrina Abuabara, MD, associate professor of dermatology at the University of California, San Francisco, and colleagues.
“There is a lack of studies that prospectively examine the course of atopic eczema beyond adolescence/early adulthood, and a more comprehensive understanding of disease activity across the life span is needed,” the investigators wrote in JAMA Dermatology. “Data on long-term disease course may offer insight into mechanisms for disease onset and persistence, are important when counseling patients, and would establish baseline trajectories for future studies of whether new treatments can modify disease course and development of comorbidities.”
The present study included 30,905 patients from two population-based birth cohorts: the 1958 National Childhood Development Study (NCDS) and the 1970 British Cohort Study (BCS70). Follow-up data were collected between 1958 and 2016 via nine waves of standardized questionnaires, and subtypes of atopic eczema patterns were identified “based on parent-reported or self-reported atopic eczema period prevalence.”
This measure “was previously shown to coincide with standardized clinical examinations among children in the NCDS, and a similar questionnaire demonstrated high sensitivity and specificity for physician-diagnosed atopic eczema in U.S. populations,” the investigators noted.
Latent class analysis identified four disease subtypes based on probability of reporting prevalent AD into midlife: low (88%-91%), decreasing (4%), increasing (2%-6%), and persistently high (2%-3%) probability.
Next, the investigators looked for associations between these subtypes and established early-life risk factors, such as history of breastfeeding and childhood smoke exposure. None of the childhood environmental factors differentiated between high versus decreasing disease in adulthood, or increasing versus decreasing disease in adulthood. In contrast, female sex predicted the high versus decreasing adult subtype (odds ratio, 1.99; 95% confidence interval, 1.66-2.38), and the increasing versus decreasing adult subtype (OR, 1.99; 95% CI, 1.69-2.35).
These findings suggest that “disease trajectory is modifiable and may be influenced by environmental factors throughout life,” the investigators wrote.
Further analysis uncovered associations between adult AD subtypes and other health outcomes. For example, compared with adults in the low probability group, those in the high probability group were significantly more likely to report rhinitis (OR, 2.70; 95% CI, 2.24-3.26) and asthma (OR, 3.45; 95% CI, 2.82-4.21). Adults with the increasing subtype also had elevated rates of asthma and rhinitis, along with worse self-reported mental health at age 42 (OR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.23-1.72) and poor general health at age 46/50 (OR, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.09-1.53).
“When extending the window of observation beyond childhood, clear subtypes of atopic eczema based on patterns of disease activity emerged,” the investigators concluded. “In particular, a newly identified subtype with increasing probability of activity in adulthood warrants additional attention given associations with poor self-reported physical and mental health in midlife.”
Commenting on these results, Robert Sidbury, MD, professor of dermatology at the University of Washington, Seattle, said that this is an “important study” because it adds to our understanding of natural disease course over time.
This knowledge, as a pediatric dermatologist, will help Dr. Sidbury answer one of the most common questions he hears from parents: When is it going to stop?
“Trying to put a little bit more evidence-based heft behind the answer ... is really important,” he said in an interview.
Based on available data, up to 10% of children with AD may have disease activity into adulthood, according to Dr. Sidbury, who is also chief of dermatology at Seattle Children’s Hospital.
“I would hazard to guess that most of those adults who have atopic dermatitis – at least the ones who had it in childhood – were told that they would grow out of it,” he said. “And so I think awareness is important – that [resolution with age] does not always happen.”
The findings also support the possibility that AD is a systemic disease, and that underlying immune dysregulation may be linked with serious health consequences later in life, Dr. Sidbury said, noting that “the stakes get higher and higher when you start speculating in that way.”
According to Dr. Sidbury, the reported link between childhood AD and poor midlife health raises questions about how modifiable the disease course may be, particularly in response to earlier intervention with emerging AD medications, which “seem to be much more effective and potent.”
“Will the advent of these medications and their adoption and use in treatment perhaps have a significant impact, not just on the prevention of atopic dermatitis itself, but maybe other comorbidities?” he asked.
For the time being, this question remains unanswered.
The study was funded by the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases and the Wellcome Trust. Dr. Abuabara received grants from the National Institutes of Health during the study, as well as personal fees from Target RWE and Pfizer outside of this study. One author reported receiving NIH grants during the study, another reported receiving grants from the Wellcome Trust and the Innovative Medicine Initiative Horizon 2020 (BIOMAP project) during the study; there were no other disclosures. Dr. Sidbury disclosed relationships with Galderma, Regeneron, and Pfizer.
giving reason to observe patients beyond the pediatric stage, according to a cohort study of more than 30,000 patients.
Early-life environmental factors, such as tobacco smoke exposure, were not reliable predictors of increasing AD into mid-adulthood, suggesting that a patient’s contemporaneous environment may impact disease course throughout life, reported lead author Katrina Abuabara, MD, associate professor of dermatology at the University of California, San Francisco, and colleagues.
“There is a lack of studies that prospectively examine the course of atopic eczema beyond adolescence/early adulthood, and a more comprehensive understanding of disease activity across the life span is needed,” the investigators wrote in JAMA Dermatology. “Data on long-term disease course may offer insight into mechanisms for disease onset and persistence, are important when counseling patients, and would establish baseline trajectories for future studies of whether new treatments can modify disease course and development of comorbidities.”
The present study included 30,905 patients from two population-based birth cohorts: the 1958 National Childhood Development Study (NCDS) and the 1970 British Cohort Study (BCS70). Follow-up data were collected between 1958 and 2016 via nine waves of standardized questionnaires, and subtypes of atopic eczema patterns were identified “based on parent-reported or self-reported atopic eczema period prevalence.”
This measure “was previously shown to coincide with standardized clinical examinations among children in the NCDS, and a similar questionnaire demonstrated high sensitivity and specificity for physician-diagnosed atopic eczema in U.S. populations,” the investigators noted.
Latent class analysis identified four disease subtypes based on probability of reporting prevalent AD into midlife: low (88%-91%), decreasing (4%), increasing (2%-6%), and persistently high (2%-3%) probability.
Next, the investigators looked for associations between these subtypes and established early-life risk factors, such as history of breastfeeding and childhood smoke exposure. None of the childhood environmental factors differentiated between high versus decreasing disease in adulthood, or increasing versus decreasing disease in adulthood. In contrast, female sex predicted the high versus decreasing adult subtype (odds ratio, 1.99; 95% confidence interval, 1.66-2.38), and the increasing versus decreasing adult subtype (OR, 1.99; 95% CI, 1.69-2.35).
These findings suggest that “disease trajectory is modifiable and may be influenced by environmental factors throughout life,” the investigators wrote.
Further analysis uncovered associations between adult AD subtypes and other health outcomes. For example, compared with adults in the low probability group, those in the high probability group were significantly more likely to report rhinitis (OR, 2.70; 95% CI, 2.24-3.26) and asthma (OR, 3.45; 95% CI, 2.82-4.21). Adults with the increasing subtype also had elevated rates of asthma and rhinitis, along with worse self-reported mental health at age 42 (OR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.23-1.72) and poor general health at age 46/50 (OR, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.09-1.53).
“When extending the window of observation beyond childhood, clear subtypes of atopic eczema based on patterns of disease activity emerged,” the investigators concluded. “In particular, a newly identified subtype with increasing probability of activity in adulthood warrants additional attention given associations with poor self-reported physical and mental health in midlife.”
Commenting on these results, Robert Sidbury, MD, professor of dermatology at the University of Washington, Seattle, said that this is an “important study” because it adds to our understanding of natural disease course over time.
This knowledge, as a pediatric dermatologist, will help Dr. Sidbury answer one of the most common questions he hears from parents: When is it going to stop?
“Trying to put a little bit more evidence-based heft behind the answer ... is really important,” he said in an interview.
Based on available data, up to 10% of children with AD may have disease activity into adulthood, according to Dr. Sidbury, who is also chief of dermatology at Seattle Children’s Hospital.
“I would hazard to guess that most of those adults who have atopic dermatitis – at least the ones who had it in childhood – were told that they would grow out of it,” he said. “And so I think awareness is important – that [resolution with age] does not always happen.”
The findings also support the possibility that AD is a systemic disease, and that underlying immune dysregulation may be linked with serious health consequences later in life, Dr. Sidbury said, noting that “the stakes get higher and higher when you start speculating in that way.”
According to Dr. Sidbury, the reported link between childhood AD and poor midlife health raises questions about how modifiable the disease course may be, particularly in response to earlier intervention with emerging AD medications, which “seem to be much more effective and potent.”
“Will the advent of these medications and their adoption and use in treatment perhaps have a significant impact, not just on the prevention of atopic dermatitis itself, but maybe other comorbidities?” he asked.
For the time being, this question remains unanswered.
The study was funded by the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases and the Wellcome Trust. Dr. Abuabara received grants from the National Institutes of Health during the study, as well as personal fees from Target RWE and Pfizer outside of this study. One author reported receiving NIH grants during the study, another reported receiving grants from the Wellcome Trust and the Innovative Medicine Initiative Horizon 2020 (BIOMAP project) during the study; there were no other disclosures. Dr. Sidbury disclosed relationships with Galderma, Regeneron, and Pfizer.
FROM JAMA DERMATOLOGY
Sweeping new vaccine mandates will impact most U.S. workers
, including sweeping vaccine mandates that will affect 100 million American workers, nearly two-thirds of the country’s workforce.
“As your president, I’m announcing tonight a new plan to get more Americans vaccinated to combat those blocking public health,” he said Sept. 9.
As part of a six-part plan unveiled in a speech from the State Dining Room of the White House, President Biden said he would require vaccinations for nearly 4 million federal workers and the employees of companies that contract with the federal government.
He has also directed the Occupational Safety and Health Administration to develop a rule that will require large employers -- those with at least 100 employees -- to ensure their workers are vaccinated or tested weekly.
Nearly 17 million health care workers will face new vaccine mandates as part of the conditions of participation in the Medicare and Medicaid programs.
President Biden said the federal government will require staff at federally funded Head Start programs and schools to be vaccinated. He’s also calling on all states to mandate vaccines for teachers.
“A distinct minority of Americans, supported by a distinct minority of elected officials, are keeping us from turning the corner,” PresidentBiden said. “These pandemic politics, as I refer to them, are making people sick, causing unvaccinated people to die.”
One public health official said he was glad to see the president’s bold action.
“What I saw today was the federal government trying to use its powers to create greater safety in the American population,” said Ashish K. Jha, MD, dean of the school of public health at Brown University, Providence, R.I., in a call with reporters after the speech.
National Nurses United, the largest union of registered nurses in the United States, issued a statement in support of President Biden’s new vaccination requirements, but pushed back on his language.
“…as advocates for public health, registered nurses want to be extremely clear: There is no such thing as a pandemic of only the unvaccinated. The science of epidemiology tells us there is just one deadly, global pandemic that has not yet ended, and we are all in it together. To get out of it, we must act together. All of us,” the statement says.
A host of other professional groups, including the American Medical Association and the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials, also issued statements of support for President Biden’s plan.
But the plan was not well received by all.
“I will pursue every legal option available to the state of Georgia to stop this blatantly unlawful overreach by the Biden Administration,” said Georgia Governor Brian Kemp, a Republican, in a Tweet.
The National Council for Occupational Safety and Health called the plan “a missed opportunity” because it failed to include workplace protections for essential workers such as grocery, postal, and transit workers.
“Social distancing, improved ventilation, shift rotation, and protective equipment to reduce exposure are important components of an overall plan to reduce risk and stop the virus. These tools are missing from the new steps President Biden announced today,” said Jessica Martinez, co-executive director of the group.
In addition to the new vaccination requirements, President Biden said extra doses would be on the way for people who have already been fully vaccinated in order to protect against waning immunity, starting on Sept. 20. But he noted that those plans would be contingent on the Food and Drug Administration’s approval for third doses and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s recommendation of the shots.
President Biden pledged to use the Defense Production Act to ramp up production of at-home tests, which have been selling out across the nation as the Delta variant spreads.
He also announced plans to expand access to COVID-19 testing, including offering testing for free at thousands of pharmacies nationwide and getting major retailers to sell at-home COVID-19 tests at cost.
The BinaxNow test kit, which currently retails for $23.99, will now cost about $15 for two tests at Kroger, Amazon, and Walmart, according to the White House. Food banks and community health centers will get free tests, too.
He called on states to set up COVID-19 testing programs at all schools.
Jha said that in his view, the big, game-changing news out of the president’s speech was the expansion of testing.
“Our country has failed to deploy tests in a way that can really bring this pandemic under control,” Jha said. “There are plenty of reasons, data, experience to indicate that if these were widely available, it would make a dramatic difference in reducing infection numbers across our country.”.
Dr. Jha said the private market had not worked effectively to make testing more widely available, so it was “absolutely a requirement of the federal government to step in and make testing more widely available,” he said.
President Biden also announced new economic stimulus programs, saying he’s expanding loan programs to small businesses and streamlining the loan forgiveness process.
President Biden said he’s boosting help for overburdened hospitals, doubling the number of federal surge response teams sent to hard-hit areas to reduce the strain on local health care workers. He said he would increase the pace of antibody treatments to states by 50%.
“We made so much progress during the past 7 months of this pandemic. Even so, we remain at a critical moment, a critical time,” he said. “We have the tools. Now, we just have to finish the job with truth, with science, with confidence and together as one nation.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
, including sweeping vaccine mandates that will affect 100 million American workers, nearly two-thirds of the country’s workforce.
“As your president, I’m announcing tonight a new plan to get more Americans vaccinated to combat those blocking public health,” he said Sept. 9.
As part of a six-part plan unveiled in a speech from the State Dining Room of the White House, President Biden said he would require vaccinations for nearly 4 million federal workers and the employees of companies that contract with the federal government.
He has also directed the Occupational Safety and Health Administration to develop a rule that will require large employers -- those with at least 100 employees -- to ensure their workers are vaccinated or tested weekly.
Nearly 17 million health care workers will face new vaccine mandates as part of the conditions of participation in the Medicare and Medicaid programs.
President Biden said the federal government will require staff at federally funded Head Start programs and schools to be vaccinated. He’s also calling on all states to mandate vaccines for teachers.
“A distinct minority of Americans, supported by a distinct minority of elected officials, are keeping us from turning the corner,” PresidentBiden said. “These pandemic politics, as I refer to them, are making people sick, causing unvaccinated people to die.”
One public health official said he was glad to see the president’s bold action.
“What I saw today was the federal government trying to use its powers to create greater safety in the American population,” said Ashish K. Jha, MD, dean of the school of public health at Brown University, Providence, R.I., in a call with reporters after the speech.
National Nurses United, the largest union of registered nurses in the United States, issued a statement in support of President Biden’s new vaccination requirements, but pushed back on his language.
“…as advocates for public health, registered nurses want to be extremely clear: There is no such thing as a pandemic of only the unvaccinated. The science of epidemiology tells us there is just one deadly, global pandemic that has not yet ended, and we are all in it together. To get out of it, we must act together. All of us,” the statement says.
A host of other professional groups, including the American Medical Association and the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials, also issued statements of support for President Biden’s plan.
But the plan was not well received by all.
“I will pursue every legal option available to the state of Georgia to stop this blatantly unlawful overreach by the Biden Administration,” said Georgia Governor Brian Kemp, a Republican, in a Tweet.
The National Council for Occupational Safety and Health called the plan “a missed opportunity” because it failed to include workplace protections for essential workers such as grocery, postal, and transit workers.
“Social distancing, improved ventilation, shift rotation, and protective equipment to reduce exposure are important components of an overall plan to reduce risk and stop the virus. These tools are missing from the new steps President Biden announced today,” said Jessica Martinez, co-executive director of the group.
In addition to the new vaccination requirements, President Biden said extra doses would be on the way for people who have already been fully vaccinated in order to protect against waning immunity, starting on Sept. 20. But he noted that those plans would be contingent on the Food and Drug Administration’s approval for third doses and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s recommendation of the shots.
President Biden pledged to use the Defense Production Act to ramp up production of at-home tests, which have been selling out across the nation as the Delta variant spreads.
He also announced plans to expand access to COVID-19 testing, including offering testing for free at thousands of pharmacies nationwide and getting major retailers to sell at-home COVID-19 tests at cost.
The BinaxNow test kit, which currently retails for $23.99, will now cost about $15 for two tests at Kroger, Amazon, and Walmart, according to the White House. Food banks and community health centers will get free tests, too.
He called on states to set up COVID-19 testing programs at all schools.
Jha said that in his view, the big, game-changing news out of the president’s speech was the expansion of testing.
“Our country has failed to deploy tests in a way that can really bring this pandemic under control,” Jha said. “There are plenty of reasons, data, experience to indicate that if these were widely available, it would make a dramatic difference in reducing infection numbers across our country.”.
Dr. Jha said the private market had not worked effectively to make testing more widely available, so it was “absolutely a requirement of the federal government to step in and make testing more widely available,” he said.
President Biden also announced new economic stimulus programs, saying he’s expanding loan programs to small businesses and streamlining the loan forgiveness process.
President Biden said he’s boosting help for overburdened hospitals, doubling the number of federal surge response teams sent to hard-hit areas to reduce the strain on local health care workers. He said he would increase the pace of antibody treatments to states by 50%.
“We made so much progress during the past 7 months of this pandemic. Even so, we remain at a critical moment, a critical time,” he said. “We have the tools. Now, we just have to finish the job with truth, with science, with confidence and together as one nation.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
, including sweeping vaccine mandates that will affect 100 million American workers, nearly two-thirds of the country’s workforce.
“As your president, I’m announcing tonight a new plan to get more Americans vaccinated to combat those blocking public health,” he said Sept. 9.
As part of a six-part plan unveiled in a speech from the State Dining Room of the White House, President Biden said he would require vaccinations for nearly 4 million federal workers and the employees of companies that contract with the federal government.
He has also directed the Occupational Safety and Health Administration to develop a rule that will require large employers -- those with at least 100 employees -- to ensure their workers are vaccinated or tested weekly.
Nearly 17 million health care workers will face new vaccine mandates as part of the conditions of participation in the Medicare and Medicaid programs.
President Biden said the federal government will require staff at federally funded Head Start programs and schools to be vaccinated. He’s also calling on all states to mandate vaccines for teachers.
“A distinct minority of Americans, supported by a distinct minority of elected officials, are keeping us from turning the corner,” PresidentBiden said. “These pandemic politics, as I refer to them, are making people sick, causing unvaccinated people to die.”
One public health official said he was glad to see the president’s bold action.
“What I saw today was the federal government trying to use its powers to create greater safety in the American population,” said Ashish K. Jha, MD, dean of the school of public health at Brown University, Providence, R.I., in a call with reporters after the speech.
National Nurses United, the largest union of registered nurses in the United States, issued a statement in support of President Biden’s new vaccination requirements, but pushed back on his language.
“…as advocates for public health, registered nurses want to be extremely clear: There is no such thing as a pandemic of only the unvaccinated. The science of epidemiology tells us there is just one deadly, global pandemic that has not yet ended, and we are all in it together. To get out of it, we must act together. All of us,” the statement says.
A host of other professional groups, including the American Medical Association and the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials, also issued statements of support for President Biden’s plan.
But the plan was not well received by all.
“I will pursue every legal option available to the state of Georgia to stop this blatantly unlawful overreach by the Biden Administration,” said Georgia Governor Brian Kemp, a Republican, in a Tweet.
The National Council for Occupational Safety and Health called the plan “a missed opportunity” because it failed to include workplace protections for essential workers such as grocery, postal, and transit workers.
“Social distancing, improved ventilation, shift rotation, and protective equipment to reduce exposure are important components of an overall plan to reduce risk and stop the virus. These tools are missing from the new steps President Biden announced today,” said Jessica Martinez, co-executive director of the group.
In addition to the new vaccination requirements, President Biden said extra doses would be on the way for people who have already been fully vaccinated in order to protect against waning immunity, starting on Sept. 20. But he noted that those plans would be contingent on the Food and Drug Administration’s approval for third doses and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s recommendation of the shots.
President Biden pledged to use the Defense Production Act to ramp up production of at-home tests, which have been selling out across the nation as the Delta variant spreads.
He also announced plans to expand access to COVID-19 testing, including offering testing for free at thousands of pharmacies nationwide and getting major retailers to sell at-home COVID-19 tests at cost.
The BinaxNow test kit, which currently retails for $23.99, will now cost about $15 for two tests at Kroger, Amazon, and Walmart, according to the White House. Food banks and community health centers will get free tests, too.
He called on states to set up COVID-19 testing programs at all schools.
Jha said that in his view, the big, game-changing news out of the president’s speech was the expansion of testing.
“Our country has failed to deploy tests in a way that can really bring this pandemic under control,” Jha said. “There are plenty of reasons, data, experience to indicate that if these were widely available, it would make a dramatic difference in reducing infection numbers across our country.”.
Dr. Jha said the private market had not worked effectively to make testing more widely available, so it was “absolutely a requirement of the federal government to step in and make testing more widely available,” he said.
President Biden also announced new economic stimulus programs, saying he’s expanding loan programs to small businesses and streamlining the loan forgiveness process.
President Biden said he’s boosting help for overburdened hospitals, doubling the number of federal surge response teams sent to hard-hit areas to reduce the strain on local health care workers. He said he would increase the pace of antibody treatments to states by 50%.
“We made so much progress during the past 7 months of this pandemic. Even so, we remain at a critical moment, a critical time,” he said. “We have the tools. Now, we just have to finish the job with truth, with science, with confidence and together as one nation.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Pandemic-related school closures tied to mental health inequities
Back-to-school jitters are heightened this year, as children head back to the risk of COVID transmission in class, but one upside to the return of in-person school may be better mental health for students.
New research shows that virtual schooling, which dominated in many districts last year, was associated with worse mental health outcomes for students – especially older ones – and youth from Black, Hispanic, or lower-income families were hit hardest because they experienced the most closures.
“Schools with lower funding may have had more difficulty meeting guidelines for safe reopening, including updates to ventilation systems and finding the physical space to create safe distancing between children,” explained lead author Matt Hawrilenko, PhD, of the department of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at the University of Washington, Seattle, in an interview.
“In the context of complex school reopening decisions that balance competing risks and benefits, these findings suggest that allocating funding to support safe in-person instruction may reduce mental health inequities associated with race/ethnicity and income,” he and his coauthors noted in the study, published in JAMA Network Open. “Ensuring that all students have access to additional educational and mental health resources must be an important public health priority, met with appropriate funding and work force augmentation, during and beyond the COVID-19 pandemic.”
The study used a cross-sectional population-based survey of 2,324 parents of school-age children in the United States. It was administered in English and Spanish via web and telephone between Dec. 2 and Dec. 21, 2020, and used the parent-report version of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) to assess mental health difficulties of one child per family in four domains: emotional problems, peer problems, conduct, and hyperactivity. Parents were also asked about what kind of schooling their child had received in the last year (remote, in-person, or hybrid) and about demographic information such as child age, gender, household income, parent race and ethnicity, and parent education.
The results showed that, during the 2020 school year, 58.0% of children attended school remotely, 24% attended fully in person, and 18.0% attended in a hybrid format. “Fully remote schooling was strongly patterned along lines of parent race and ethnicity as well as income,” the authors noted. “Parents of 336 children attending school in person (65.8%) but of 597 children attending school fully remotely (44.5%) were White, whereas all other racial/ethnic groups had larger proportions of children attending school fully remotely (P < .001).”
In terms of mental health, the findings showed that older children who attended school remotely had more difficulties, compared with those who attended in-person – but among younger children, remote learning was comparable or slightly better for mental health.
Specifically, “a child aged 17 years attending school remotely would be expected to have a total difficulty score 2.4 points higher than a child of the same age attending school in person, corresponding to a small effect size in favor of in-person schooling,” the authors wrote. “Conversely, a child aged 4 years attending school remotely would be expected to have a total difficulty score 0.5 points lower than a child of the same age attending school in person, corresponding to a very small effect size in favor of remote schooling.”
Age of child proves critical
“Our best estimate is that remote schooling was associated with no difference in mental health difficulties at age 6, and with slightly more difficulties with each year of age after that, with differences most clearly apparent for high school–aged kids,” explained Dr. Hawrilenko, adding the finding suggests that school reopenings should prioritize older children.
However, “what kids are doing at home matters,” he added. “In the youngest age group, the biggest work kids are doing in school and childcare settings is social and emotional development. … Finding opportunities for regular, safe social interactions with peers – perhaps during outdoor playdates – can help them build those skills.”
He emphasized with the anticipated starts and stutters of the new school year there is an important role that doctors can play.
“First, they can help families assess their own risk profile, and whether it makes sense for their children to attend school in person or remotely [to the extent that is an option]. Second, they can help families think through how school closures might impact their child specifically. For those kids who wind up with long chunks of remote schooling, scheduling in regular interactions with other kids in safe ways could make a big difference. Another driver of child anxiety might be learning loss, and this is a good place to reinforce that not every mental health problem needs a mental health solution.
“A lot of kids might be rightfully anxious about having fallen behind over the pandemic. These kids are preparing to transition to college or to the workforce and may be feeling increasingly behind while approaching these moments of transition. Pointing families toward the resources to help them navigate these issues could go a long way to helping quell child anxiety.”
Research helps fill vacuum
Elizabeth A. Stuart, PhD, who was not involved in the study, said in an interview that this research is particularly valuable because there have been very few data on this topic, especially on a large-scale national sample.
“Sadly, many of the results are not surprising,” said Dr. Stuart, a statistician and professor of mental health at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. “Data have shown significant mental health challenges for adults during the pandemic, and it is not surprising that children and youth would experience that as well, especially for those whose daily routines and structures changed dramatically and who were not able to be interacting in-person with teachers, staff, and classmates. This is an important reminder that schools provide not just academic instruction for students, but that the social interactions and other services (such as behavioral health supports, meals, and connections with other social services) students might receive in school are crucial.
“It has been heartening to see a stronger commitment to getting students safely back into school this fall across the country, and that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention highlighted the benefits of in-person schooling in their COVID-19–related guidance for schools.”
Dr. Stuart added that, as students return to classes, it will be important for schools to tackle ongoing mental health challenges.
“Some students may be struggling in obvious ways; for others it may be harder to identify. It will also be important to continue to monitor children’s and youth mental health … as returning to in-person school may bring its own challenges. ”
Dr. Hawrilenko agreed.
“From a policy perspective, I am quite frankly terrified about how these inequities – in particular, learning loss – might play out long after school closures are a distant memory,” he said. “It is critical to provide schools the resources not just to minimize risk when reopening, but additional funding for workforce augmentation – both for mental health staffing and for additional educational support – to help students navigate the months and years over which they transition back into the classroom.”
Dr. Hawrilenko and Dr. Stuart had no disclosures.
Back-to-school jitters are heightened this year, as children head back to the risk of COVID transmission in class, but one upside to the return of in-person school may be better mental health for students.
New research shows that virtual schooling, which dominated in many districts last year, was associated with worse mental health outcomes for students – especially older ones – and youth from Black, Hispanic, or lower-income families were hit hardest because they experienced the most closures.
“Schools with lower funding may have had more difficulty meeting guidelines for safe reopening, including updates to ventilation systems and finding the physical space to create safe distancing between children,” explained lead author Matt Hawrilenko, PhD, of the department of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at the University of Washington, Seattle, in an interview.
“In the context of complex school reopening decisions that balance competing risks and benefits, these findings suggest that allocating funding to support safe in-person instruction may reduce mental health inequities associated with race/ethnicity and income,” he and his coauthors noted in the study, published in JAMA Network Open. “Ensuring that all students have access to additional educational and mental health resources must be an important public health priority, met with appropriate funding and work force augmentation, during and beyond the COVID-19 pandemic.”
The study used a cross-sectional population-based survey of 2,324 parents of school-age children in the United States. It was administered in English and Spanish via web and telephone between Dec. 2 and Dec. 21, 2020, and used the parent-report version of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) to assess mental health difficulties of one child per family in four domains: emotional problems, peer problems, conduct, and hyperactivity. Parents were also asked about what kind of schooling their child had received in the last year (remote, in-person, or hybrid) and about demographic information such as child age, gender, household income, parent race and ethnicity, and parent education.
The results showed that, during the 2020 school year, 58.0% of children attended school remotely, 24% attended fully in person, and 18.0% attended in a hybrid format. “Fully remote schooling was strongly patterned along lines of parent race and ethnicity as well as income,” the authors noted. “Parents of 336 children attending school in person (65.8%) but of 597 children attending school fully remotely (44.5%) were White, whereas all other racial/ethnic groups had larger proportions of children attending school fully remotely (P < .001).”
In terms of mental health, the findings showed that older children who attended school remotely had more difficulties, compared with those who attended in-person – but among younger children, remote learning was comparable or slightly better for mental health.
Specifically, “a child aged 17 years attending school remotely would be expected to have a total difficulty score 2.4 points higher than a child of the same age attending school in person, corresponding to a small effect size in favor of in-person schooling,” the authors wrote. “Conversely, a child aged 4 years attending school remotely would be expected to have a total difficulty score 0.5 points lower than a child of the same age attending school in person, corresponding to a very small effect size in favor of remote schooling.”
Age of child proves critical
“Our best estimate is that remote schooling was associated with no difference in mental health difficulties at age 6, and with slightly more difficulties with each year of age after that, with differences most clearly apparent for high school–aged kids,” explained Dr. Hawrilenko, adding the finding suggests that school reopenings should prioritize older children.
However, “what kids are doing at home matters,” he added. “In the youngest age group, the biggest work kids are doing in school and childcare settings is social and emotional development. … Finding opportunities for regular, safe social interactions with peers – perhaps during outdoor playdates – can help them build those skills.”
He emphasized with the anticipated starts and stutters of the new school year there is an important role that doctors can play.
“First, they can help families assess their own risk profile, and whether it makes sense for their children to attend school in person or remotely [to the extent that is an option]. Second, they can help families think through how school closures might impact their child specifically. For those kids who wind up with long chunks of remote schooling, scheduling in regular interactions with other kids in safe ways could make a big difference. Another driver of child anxiety might be learning loss, and this is a good place to reinforce that not every mental health problem needs a mental health solution.
“A lot of kids might be rightfully anxious about having fallen behind over the pandemic. These kids are preparing to transition to college or to the workforce and may be feeling increasingly behind while approaching these moments of transition. Pointing families toward the resources to help them navigate these issues could go a long way to helping quell child anxiety.”
Research helps fill vacuum
Elizabeth A. Stuart, PhD, who was not involved in the study, said in an interview that this research is particularly valuable because there have been very few data on this topic, especially on a large-scale national sample.
“Sadly, many of the results are not surprising,” said Dr. Stuart, a statistician and professor of mental health at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. “Data have shown significant mental health challenges for adults during the pandemic, and it is not surprising that children and youth would experience that as well, especially for those whose daily routines and structures changed dramatically and who were not able to be interacting in-person with teachers, staff, and classmates. This is an important reminder that schools provide not just academic instruction for students, but that the social interactions and other services (such as behavioral health supports, meals, and connections with other social services) students might receive in school are crucial.
“It has been heartening to see a stronger commitment to getting students safely back into school this fall across the country, and that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention highlighted the benefits of in-person schooling in their COVID-19–related guidance for schools.”
Dr. Stuart added that, as students return to classes, it will be important for schools to tackle ongoing mental health challenges.
“Some students may be struggling in obvious ways; for others it may be harder to identify. It will also be important to continue to monitor children’s and youth mental health … as returning to in-person school may bring its own challenges. ”
Dr. Hawrilenko agreed.
“From a policy perspective, I am quite frankly terrified about how these inequities – in particular, learning loss – might play out long after school closures are a distant memory,” he said. “It is critical to provide schools the resources not just to minimize risk when reopening, but additional funding for workforce augmentation – both for mental health staffing and for additional educational support – to help students navigate the months and years over which they transition back into the classroom.”
Dr. Hawrilenko and Dr. Stuart had no disclosures.
Back-to-school jitters are heightened this year, as children head back to the risk of COVID transmission in class, but one upside to the return of in-person school may be better mental health for students.
New research shows that virtual schooling, which dominated in many districts last year, was associated with worse mental health outcomes for students – especially older ones – and youth from Black, Hispanic, or lower-income families were hit hardest because they experienced the most closures.
“Schools with lower funding may have had more difficulty meeting guidelines for safe reopening, including updates to ventilation systems and finding the physical space to create safe distancing between children,” explained lead author Matt Hawrilenko, PhD, of the department of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at the University of Washington, Seattle, in an interview.
“In the context of complex school reopening decisions that balance competing risks and benefits, these findings suggest that allocating funding to support safe in-person instruction may reduce mental health inequities associated with race/ethnicity and income,” he and his coauthors noted in the study, published in JAMA Network Open. “Ensuring that all students have access to additional educational and mental health resources must be an important public health priority, met with appropriate funding and work force augmentation, during and beyond the COVID-19 pandemic.”
The study used a cross-sectional population-based survey of 2,324 parents of school-age children in the United States. It was administered in English and Spanish via web and telephone between Dec. 2 and Dec. 21, 2020, and used the parent-report version of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) to assess mental health difficulties of one child per family in four domains: emotional problems, peer problems, conduct, and hyperactivity. Parents were also asked about what kind of schooling their child had received in the last year (remote, in-person, or hybrid) and about demographic information such as child age, gender, household income, parent race and ethnicity, and parent education.
The results showed that, during the 2020 school year, 58.0% of children attended school remotely, 24% attended fully in person, and 18.0% attended in a hybrid format. “Fully remote schooling was strongly patterned along lines of parent race and ethnicity as well as income,” the authors noted. “Parents of 336 children attending school in person (65.8%) but of 597 children attending school fully remotely (44.5%) were White, whereas all other racial/ethnic groups had larger proportions of children attending school fully remotely (P < .001).”
In terms of mental health, the findings showed that older children who attended school remotely had more difficulties, compared with those who attended in-person – but among younger children, remote learning was comparable or slightly better for mental health.
Specifically, “a child aged 17 years attending school remotely would be expected to have a total difficulty score 2.4 points higher than a child of the same age attending school in person, corresponding to a small effect size in favor of in-person schooling,” the authors wrote. “Conversely, a child aged 4 years attending school remotely would be expected to have a total difficulty score 0.5 points lower than a child of the same age attending school in person, corresponding to a very small effect size in favor of remote schooling.”
Age of child proves critical
“Our best estimate is that remote schooling was associated with no difference in mental health difficulties at age 6, and with slightly more difficulties with each year of age after that, with differences most clearly apparent for high school–aged kids,” explained Dr. Hawrilenko, adding the finding suggests that school reopenings should prioritize older children.
However, “what kids are doing at home matters,” he added. “In the youngest age group, the biggest work kids are doing in school and childcare settings is social and emotional development. … Finding opportunities for regular, safe social interactions with peers – perhaps during outdoor playdates – can help them build those skills.”
He emphasized with the anticipated starts and stutters of the new school year there is an important role that doctors can play.
“First, they can help families assess their own risk profile, and whether it makes sense for their children to attend school in person or remotely [to the extent that is an option]. Second, they can help families think through how school closures might impact their child specifically. For those kids who wind up with long chunks of remote schooling, scheduling in regular interactions with other kids in safe ways could make a big difference. Another driver of child anxiety might be learning loss, and this is a good place to reinforce that not every mental health problem needs a mental health solution.
“A lot of kids might be rightfully anxious about having fallen behind over the pandemic. These kids are preparing to transition to college or to the workforce and may be feeling increasingly behind while approaching these moments of transition. Pointing families toward the resources to help them navigate these issues could go a long way to helping quell child anxiety.”
Research helps fill vacuum
Elizabeth A. Stuart, PhD, who was not involved in the study, said in an interview that this research is particularly valuable because there have been very few data on this topic, especially on a large-scale national sample.
“Sadly, many of the results are not surprising,” said Dr. Stuart, a statistician and professor of mental health at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. “Data have shown significant mental health challenges for adults during the pandemic, and it is not surprising that children and youth would experience that as well, especially for those whose daily routines and structures changed dramatically and who were not able to be interacting in-person with teachers, staff, and classmates. This is an important reminder that schools provide not just academic instruction for students, but that the social interactions and other services (such as behavioral health supports, meals, and connections with other social services) students might receive in school are crucial.
“It has been heartening to see a stronger commitment to getting students safely back into school this fall across the country, and that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention highlighted the benefits of in-person schooling in their COVID-19–related guidance for schools.”
Dr. Stuart added that, as students return to classes, it will be important for schools to tackle ongoing mental health challenges.
“Some students may be struggling in obvious ways; for others it may be harder to identify. It will also be important to continue to monitor children’s and youth mental health … as returning to in-person school may bring its own challenges. ”
Dr. Hawrilenko agreed.
“From a policy perspective, I am quite frankly terrified about how these inequities – in particular, learning loss – might play out long after school closures are a distant memory,” he said. “It is critical to provide schools the resources not just to minimize risk when reopening, but additional funding for workforce augmentation – both for mental health staffing and for additional educational support – to help students navigate the months and years over which they transition back into the classroom.”
Dr. Hawrilenko and Dr. Stuart had no disclosures.
FROM JAMA NETWORK OPEN