MDedge Pediatrics

Regulators and the nation’s largest physician organization took separate steps in recent days to prepare for expected authorization of use of COVID-19 vaccines in children younger than age 6.

The Food and Drug Administration on May 23 announced its Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee will meet June 15 to discuss expanding the use of COVID vaccines from Pfizer and Moderna.

The panel will examine a request from Pfizer and its partner BioNTech for an emergency use authorization (EUA) of its vaccine to cover children ages 6 months through 4 years. The EUA expansion for the Moderna shot would cover children ages 6 months through 5 years, the FDA said.

Many parents and physicians have been urging regulators to clear COVID shots for young children, among whom rates of infection are high.

The American Medical Association in February announced an update of its Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) to prepare for an eventual FDA clearance of the Pfizer-BioNTech shot for children aged 6 months to younger than 5 years. On May 19, the association announced a new CPT update to prepare for FDA clearance for use of the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine for children 6 months through 5 years.

“Extending COVID-19 vaccination protection to approximately 18 million young children will significantly reduce their risk of COVID-19 infection, hospitalization, and death, and give their parents incredible peace of mind,” Gerald Harmon, MD, AMA’s president, said in a statement. “We strongly urge all parents to get their infants and toddlers vaccinated as soon as they are eligible for a COVID-19 vaccine.”

Both the Moderna and the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID vaccines would be given to these young children in low doses.

On May 23, Pfizer announced results from a phase 2/3 trial evaluating a series of three shots of its vaccine in children ages 6 months to younger than 5 years.

Vaccine efficacy, which was a secondary endpoint in this study, was 80.3% in this age group, Pfizer said. The analysis was based on 10 symptomatic cases of COVID-19. The trial’s protocol specifies a formal analysis will be performed when at least 21 cases have accrued from 7 days after the third dose. The company said it would share final data on the effectiveness of the vaccine once the results are available.

Moderna on April 28 issued a statement with details about testing of its vaccine in young children. Vaccine efficacy was estimated at about 51% for children aged 6 months to younger than 2 years and 37% for the children aged 2 years to younger than 6. Paul Burton, MD, Moderna’s chief medical officer, spoke about this rate during a May 1 appearance on CBS’ Face the Nation.

“What it means for parents, for caregivers, is that if they give the Moderna vaccine to these little kids, they would basically cut in half the risk of that child getting symptomatic COVID,” Dr. Burton said in the interview. “Now, the number, 50%, I know is often lower than we are used to seeing with our vaccine, but it’s because this study was conducted during a time of Omicron.”

The FDA’s vaccine advisory committee also will meet on June 14 discuss potential use under an EUA of Moderna’s COVID vaccine for children and teenagers aged 6-17 years. The Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine already is authorized under an EUA for people aged 5 years and older.

The FDA has to date granted both conditional clearances, or EUAs, and regular approvals for COVID vaccines.

EUAs are meant to be temporary, allowing for rapid introduction of medicines in response to public health crises such as the pandemic. The FDA also uses EUAs to provide initial clearances of additional indications for products, as would be the case with the authorizations Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech are seeking for their COVID vaccines.

Companies that want to continue to sell EUA-cleared products or promote EUA-cleared indications beyond the time of the public health crisis must seek regular approvals.

The FDA cleared the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna COVID vaccines under EUAs in December 2020. The agency then granted a regular approval for the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine for people ages 16 and older in August 2021 based on more robust data. Regular approval for the Moderna vaccine for people ages 18 and older followed in January 2022.
 

Varied reactions among parents

Attitudes in the United States about pediatric COVID vaccines are far from uniform.

The initial uptake has disappointed physicians and researchers, who have been urging wider use of the COVID vaccination among children and teens for whom the FDA already has granted a clearance. Many parents are hesitating to bring their children for the COVID vaccines, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Only 35.4% of children ages 5-11 had received at least one dose of a COVID vaccine, CDC staff said during a meeting.

Yet many other parents are demanding this medicine for their young children, urging the FDA to move quickly to clear COVID shots.

A private Facebook group called “Protect Their Future: A Call to Action for COVID Vaccines in Kids <5” boasts about 6,200 members. Many parents and physicians have used Twitter in recent months to press for a speedy review of COVID vaccines for the youngest children, often using the hashtag #immunizeunder5s. A group called Protect Their Future, which uses @ImmunizeUnder5s as its Twitter handle, had 5,288 followers as of the afternoon of May 23.

A special panel of the House of Representatives, the Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Crisis, on May 23 joined those tweeting about the need to soon authorize COVID vaccines for very young children.

“Parents have been waiting many months for vaccines for their young children,” the subcommittee tweeted. “They deserve to hear from @US_FDA why this lengthy process has been in children’s best interests.”

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

Regulators and the nation’s largest physician organization took separate steps in recent days to prepare for expected authorization of use of COVID-19 vaccines in children younger than age 6.

The Food and Drug Administration on May 23 announced its Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee will meet June 15 to discuss expanding the use of COVID vaccines from Pfizer and Moderna.

The panel will examine a request from Pfizer and its partner BioNTech for an emergency use authorization (EUA) of its vaccine to cover children ages 6 months through 4 years. The EUA expansion for the Moderna shot would cover children ages 6 months through 5 years, the FDA said.

Many parents and physicians have been urging regulators to clear COVID shots for young children, among whom rates of infection are high.

The American Medical Association in February announced an update of its Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) to prepare for an eventual FDA clearance of the Pfizer-BioNTech shot for children aged 6 months to younger than 5 years. On May 19, the association announced a new CPT update to prepare for FDA clearance for use of the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine for children 6 months through 5 years.

“Extending COVID-19 vaccination protection to approximately 18 million young children will significantly reduce their risk of COVID-19 infection, hospitalization, and death, and give their parents incredible peace of mind,” Gerald Harmon, MD, AMA’s president, said in a statement. “We strongly urge all parents to get their infants and toddlers vaccinated as soon as they are eligible for a COVID-19 vaccine.”

Both the Moderna and the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID vaccines would be given to these young children in low doses.

On May 23, Pfizer announced results from a phase 2/3 trial evaluating a series of three shots of its vaccine in children ages 6 months to younger than 5 years.

Vaccine efficacy, which was a secondary endpoint in this study, was 80.3% in this age group, Pfizer said. The analysis was based on 10 symptomatic cases of COVID-19. The trial’s protocol specifies a formal analysis will be performed when at least 21 cases have accrued from 7 days after the third dose. The company said it would share final data on the effectiveness of the vaccine once the results are available.

Moderna on April 28 issued a statement with details about testing of its vaccine in young children. Vaccine efficacy was estimated at about 51% for children aged 6 months to younger than 2 years and 37% for the children aged 2 years to younger than 6. Paul Burton, MD, Moderna’s chief medical officer, spoke about this rate during a May 1 appearance on CBS’ Face the Nation.

“What it means for parents, for caregivers, is that if they give the Moderna vaccine to these little kids, they would basically cut in half the risk of that child getting symptomatic COVID,” Dr. Burton said in the interview. “Now, the number, 50%, I know is often lower than we are used to seeing with our vaccine, but it’s because this study was conducted during a time of Omicron.”

The FDA’s vaccine advisory committee also will meet on June 14 discuss potential use under an EUA of Moderna’s COVID vaccine for children and teenagers aged 6-17 years. The Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine already is authorized under an EUA for people aged 5 years and older.

The FDA has to date granted both conditional clearances, or EUAs, and regular approvals for COVID vaccines.

EUAs are meant to be temporary, allowing for rapid introduction of medicines in response to public health crises such as the pandemic. The FDA also uses EUAs to provide initial clearances of additional indications for products, as would be the case with the authorizations Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech are seeking for their COVID vaccines.

Companies that want to continue to sell EUA-cleared products or promote EUA-cleared indications beyond the time of the public health crisis must seek regular approvals.

The FDA cleared the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna COVID vaccines under EUAs in December 2020. The agency then granted a regular approval for the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine for people ages 16 and older in August 2021 based on more robust data. Regular approval for the Moderna vaccine for people ages 18 and older followed in January 2022.
 

Varied reactions among parents

Attitudes in the United States about pediatric COVID vaccines are far from uniform.

The initial uptake has disappointed physicians and researchers, who have been urging wider use of the COVID vaccination among children and teens for whom the FDA already has granted a clearance. Many parents are hesitating to bring their children for the COVID vaccines, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Only 35.4% of children ages 5-11 had received at least one dose of a COVID vaccine, CDC staff said during a meeting.

Yet many other parents are demanding this medicine for their young children, urging the FDA to move quickly to clear COVID shots.

A private Facebook group called “Protect Their Future: A Call to Action for COVID Vaccines in Kids <5” boasts about 6,200 members. Many parents and physicians have used Twitter in recent months to press for a speedy review of COVID vaccines for the youngest children, often using the hashtag #immunizeunder5s. A group called Protect Their Future, which uses @ImmunizeUnder5s as its Twitter handle, had 5,288 followers as of the afternoon of May 23.

A special panel of the House of Representatives, the Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Crisis, on May 23 joined those tweeting about the need to soon authorize COVID vaccines for very young children.

“Parents have been waiting many months for vaccines for their young children,” the subcommittee tweeted. “They deserve to hear from @US_FDA why this lengthy process has been in children’s best interests.”

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

Regulators and the nation’s largest physician organization took separate steps in recent days to prepare for expected authorization of use of COVID-19 vaccines in children younger than age 6.

The Food and Drug Administration on May 23 announced its Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee will meet June 15 to discuss expanding the use of COVID vaccines from Pfizer and Moderna.

The panel will examine a request from Pfizer and its partner BioNTech for an emergency use authorization (EUA) of its vaccine to cover children ages 6 months through 4 years. The EUA expansion for the Moderna shot would cover children ages 6 months through 5 years, the FDA said.

Many parents and physicians have been urging regulators to clear COVID shots for young children, among whom rates of infection are high.

The American Medical Association in February announced an update of its Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) to prepare for an eventual FDA clearance of the Pfizer-BioNTech shot for children aged 6 months to younger than 5 years. On May 19, the association announced a new CPT update to prepare for FDA clearance for use of the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine for children 6 months through 5 years.

“Extending COVID-19 vaccination protection to approximately 18 million young children will significantly reduce their risk of COVID-19 infection, hospitalization, and death, and give their parents incredible peace of mind,” Gerald Harmon, MD, AMA’s president, said in a statement. “We strongly urge all parents to get their infants and toddlers vaccinated as soon as they are eligible for a COVID-19 vaccine.”

Both the Moderna and the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID vaccines would be given to these young children in low doses.

On May 23, Pfizer announced results from a phase 2/3 trial evaluating a series of three shots of its vaccine in children ages 6 months to younger than 5 years.

Vaccine efficacy, which was a secondary endpoint in this study, was 80.3% in this age group, Pfizer said. The analysis was based on 10 symptomatic cases of COVID-19. The trial’s protocol specifies a formal analysis will be performed when at least 21 cases have accrued from 7 days after the third dose. The company said it would share final data on the effectiveness of the vaccine once the results are available.

Moderna on April 28 issued a statement with details about testing of its vaccine in young children. Vaccine efficacy was estimated at about 51% for children aged 6 months to younger than 2 years and 37% for the children aged 2 years to younger than 6. Paul Burton, MD, Moderna’s chief medical officer, spoke about this rate during a May 1 appearance on CBS’ Face the Nation.

“What it means for parents, for caregivers, is that if they give the Moderna vaccine to these little kids, they would basically cut in half the risk of that child getting symptomatic COVID,” Dr. Burton said in the interview. “Now, the number, 50%, I know is often lower than we are used to seeing with our vaccine, but it’s because this study was conducted during a time of Omicron.”

The FDA’s vaccine advisory committee also will meet on June 14 discuss potential use under an EUA of Moderna’s COVID vaccine for children and teenagers aged 6-17 years. The Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine already is authorized under an EUA for people aged 5 years and older.

The FDA has to date granted both conditional clearances, or EUAs, and regular approvals for COVID vaccines.

EUAs are meant to be temporary, allowing for rapid introduction of medicines in response to public health crises such as the pandemic. The FDA also uses EUAs to provide initial clearances of additional indications for products, as would be the case with the authorizations Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech are seeking for their COVID vaccines.

Companies that want to continue to sell EUA-cleared products or promote EUA-cleared indications beyond the time of the public health crisis must seek regular approvals.

The FDA cleared the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna COVID vaccines under EUAs in December 2020. The agency then granted a regular approval for the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine for people ages 16 and older in August 2021 based on more robust data. Regular approval for the Moderna vaccine for people ages 18 and older followed in January 2022.
 

Varied reactions among parents

Attitudes in the United States about pediatric COVID vaccines are far from uniform.

The initial uptake has disappointed physicians and researchers, who have been urging wider use of the COVID vaccination among children and teens for whom the FDA already has granted a clearance. Many parents are hesitating to bring their children for the COVID vaccines, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Only 35.4% of children ages 5-11 had received at least one dose of a COVID vaccine, CDC staff said during a meeting.

Yet many other parents are demanding this medicine for their young children, urging the FDA to move quickly to clear COVID shots.

A private Facebook group called “Protect Their Future: A Call to Action for COVID Vaccines in Kids <5” boasts about 6,200 members. Many parents and physicians have used Twitter in recent months to press for a speedy review of COVID vaccines for the youngest children, often using the hashtag #immunizeunder5s. A group called Protect Their Future, which uses @ImmunizeUnder5s as its Twitter handle, had 5,288 followers as of the afternoon of May 23.

A special panel of the House of Representatives, the Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Crisis, on May 23 joined those tweeting about the need to soon authorize COVID vaccines for very young children.

“Parents have been waiting many months for vaccines for their young children,” the subcommittee tweeted. “They deserve to hear from @US_FDA why this lengthy process has been in children’s best interests.”

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

Cesarean births are not likely linked to an elevated risk of food allergy during the first year of life, an Australian study found.

Published online in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, the findings may help assess the risks and benefits of cesarean delivery and reassure women who require it that their babies are not more likely to develop food allergy, according to Rachel L. Peters, PhD, an epidemiologist at the Murdoch Child Research Institute (MCRI) in Melbourne, and colleagues.

Dr. Peters’ group undertook the analysis to clarify a possible association between mode of delivery and food allergy risk, which has remained unclear owing to the absence of studies with both challenge-proven food allergy outcomes and detailed information on the type and timing of cesarean delivery.

“The infant immune system undergoes rapid development during the neonatal period,” Dr. Peters said in an MCRI press release, and the mode of delivery may interfere with the normal development of the immune system. “Babies born by cesarean have less exposure to the bacteria from the mother’s gut and vagina, which influence the composition of the baby’s microbiome and immune system development. However, this doesn’t appear to play a major role in the development of food allergy,” she said.
 

The HealthNuts study

In the period 2007-2011, the longitudinal population-based HealthNuts cohort study enrolled 5,276 12-month-olds who underwent skin prick testing and oral food challenge for sensitization to egg, peanut, sesame, and either shellfish or cow’s milk. It linked the resulting data to additional birth statistics from the Victorian Perinatal Data Collection when children turned 6.

Birth data were obtained on 2,045 babies, and in this subgroup with linked data, 30% were born by cesarean – similar to the 31.7% of U.S. cesarean births in 2019 – and 12.7% of these had food allergy versus 13.2% of those delivered vaginally.

Compared with vaginal birth, C-section was not associated with the risk of food allergy (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.95, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.70-0.30).

Nor did the timing of the C-section have an effect. Cesarean delivery either before labor or after onset of labor was not associated with the risk of food allergy (aOR, 0.83, 95% CI, 0.55-1.23) and aOR, 1.13, 95% CI, 0.75-1.72), respectively.

Compared with vaginal delivery, elective or emergency cesarean was not associated with food allergy risk (aOR, 1.05, 95% CI, 0.71-1.55, and aOR, 0.86, 95% CI, 0.56-1.31).

Similarly, no evidence emerged of an effect modification by breastfeeding, older siblings, pet dog ownership, or maternal allergy.

“This study is helpful because in addition to blood and skin tests, it also used food challenge, which is the gold standard,” Terri Brown-Whitehorn, MD, an attending physician in the division of allergy and immunology at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, said in an interview. “If no actual food is given, the other tests could lead to false positives.”

Dr. Brown-Whitehorn, who was not involved in the MCRI research, said the findings are not likely to affect most decisions about C-sections because most are not voluntary. “But if a mother had a first baby by emergency cesarean section, she might be given the option of having the next one by the same method.”

She said the current advice is to introduce even high-risk foods to a child’s diet early on to ward off the development of food allergies.

According to the microbial exposure hypothesis, it was previously thought that a potential link between cesarean birth and allergy might reflect differences in early exposure to maternal flora beneficial to the immune system in the vagina during delivery. A C-section might bypass the opportunity for neonatal gut colonization with maternal gut and vaginal flora, thereby raising allergy risk. A 2018 meta-analysis, for example, suggested cesarean birth could raise the risk for food allergies by 21%.

In other research from HealthNuts, 30% of child peanut allergy and 90% of egg allergy appear to resolve naturally by age 6. These numbers are somewhat higher than what Dr. Brown-Whitehorn sees. “We find that about 20% of peanut allergies and about 70% or 80% – maybe a bit less – of egg allergies resolve by age 6.”

This research was supported by the National Health & Medical Research Council of Australia, the Ilhan Food Allergy Foundation, AnaphylaxiStop, the Charles and Sylvia Viertel Medical Research Foundation, the Victorian Government’s Operational Infrastructure Support Program, and the Melbourne Children’s Clinician-Scientist Fellowship.

Dr. Peters disclosed no competing interests. Several coauthors reported research support or employment with private companies and one is the inventor of an MCRI-held patent. Dr. Brown-Whitehorn had no competing interests to disclose.

Cesarean births are not likely linked to an elevated risk of food allergy during the first year of life, an Australian study found.

Published online in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, the findings may help assess the risks and benefits of cesarean delivery and reassure women who require it that their babies are not more likely to develop food allergy, according to Rachel L. Peters, PhD, an epidemiologist at the Murdoch Child Research Institute (MCRI) in Melbourne, and colleagues.

Dr. Peters’ group undertook the analysis to clarify a possible association between mode of delivery and food allergy risk, which has remained unclear owing to the absence of studies with both challenge-proven food allergy outcomes and detailed information on the type and timing of cesarean delivery.

“The infant immune system undergoes rapid development during the neonatal period,” Dr. Peters said in an MCRI press release, and the mode of delivery may interfere with the normal development of the immune system. “Babies born by cesarean have less exposure to the bacteria from the mother’s gut and vagina, which influence the composition of the baby’s microbiome and immune system development. However, this doesn’t appear to play a major role in the development of food allergy,” she said.
 

The HealthNuts study

In the period 2007-2011, the longitudinal population-based HealthNuts cohort study enrolled 5,276 12-month-olds who underwent skin prick testing and oral food challenge for sensitization to egg, peanut, sesame, and either shellfish or cow’s milk. It linked the resulting data to additional birth statistics from the Victorian Perinatal Data Collection when children turned 6.

Birth data were obtained on 2,045 babies, and in this subgroup with linked data, 30% were born by cesarean – similar to the 31.7% of U.S. cesarean births in 2019 – and 12.7% of these had food allergy versus 13.2% of those delivered vaginally.

Compared with vaginal birth, C-section was not associated with the risk of food allergy (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.95, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.70-0.30).

Nor did the timing of the C-section have an effect. Cesarean delivery either before labor or after onset of labor was not associated with the risk of food allergy (aOR, 0.83, 95% CI, 0.55-1.23) and aOR, 1.13, 95% CI, 0.75-1.72), respectively.

Compared with vaginal delivery, elective or emergency cesarean was not associated with food allergy risk (aOR, 1.05, 95% CI, 0.71-1.55, and aOR, 0.86, 95% CI, 0.56-1.31).

Similarly, no evidence emerged of an effect modification by breastfeeding, older siblings, pet dog ownership, or maternal allergy.

“This study is helpful because in addition to blood and skin tests, it also used food challenge, which is the gold standard,” Terri Brown-Whitehorn, MD, an attending physician in the division of allergy and immunology at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, said in an interview. “If no actual food is given, the other tests could lead to false positives.”

Dr. Brown-Whitehorn, who was not involved in the MCRI research, said the findings are not likely to affect most decisions about C-sections because most are not voluntary. “But if a mother had a first baby by emergency cesarean section, she might be given the option of having the next one by the same method.”

She said the current advice is to introduce even high-risk foods to a child’s diet early on to ward off the development of food allergies.

According to the microbial exposure hypothesis, it was previously thought that a potential link between cesarean birth and allergy might reflect differences in early exposure to maternal flora beneficial to the immune system in the vagina during delivery. A C-section might bypass the opportunity for neonatal gut colonization with maternal gut and vaginal flora, thereby raising allergy risk. A 2018 meta-analysis, for example, suggested cesarean birth could raise the risk for food allergies by 21%.

In other research from HealthNuts, 30% of child peanut allergy and 90% of egg allergy appear to resolve naturally by age 6. These numbers are somewhat higher than what Dr. Brown-Whitehorn sees. “We find that about 20% of peanut allergies and about 70% or 80% – maybe a bit less – of egg allergies resolve by age 6.”

This research was supported by the National Health & Medical Research Council of Australia, the Ilhan Food Allergy Foundation, AnaphylaxiStop, the Charles and Sylvia Viertel Medical Research Foundation, the Victorian Government’s Operational Infrastructure Support Program, and the Melbourne Children’s Clinician-Scientist Fellowship.

Dr. Peters disclosed no competing interests. Several coauthors reported research support or employment with private companies and one is the inventor of an MCRI-held patent. Dr. Brown-Whitehorn had no competing interests to disclose.

Cesarean births are not likely linked to an elevated risk of food allergy during the first year of life, an Australian study found.

Published online in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, the findings may help assess the risks and benefits of cesarean delivery and reassure women who require it that their babies are not more likely to develop food allergy, according to Rachel L. Peters, PhD, an epidemiologist at the Murdoch Child Research Institute (MCRI) in Melbourne, and colleagues.

Dr. Peters’ group undertook the analysis to clarify a possible association between mode of delivery and food allergy risk, which has remained unclear owing to the absence of studies with both challenge-proven food allergy outcomes and detailed information on the type and timing of cesarean delivery.

“The infant immune system undergoes rapid development during the neonatal period,” Dr. Peters said in an MCRI press release, and the mode of delivery may interfere with the normal development of the immune system. “Babies born by cesarean have less exposure to the bacteria from the mother’s gut and vagina, which influence the composition of the baby’s microbiome and immune system development. However, this doesn’t appear to play a major role in the development of food allergy,” she said.
 

The HealthNuts study

In the period 2007-2011, the longitudinal population-based HealthNuts cohort study enrolled 5,276 12-month-olds who underwent skin prick testing and oral food challenge for sensitization to egg, peanut, sesame, and either shellfish or cow’s milk. It linked the resulting data to additional birth statistics from the Victorian Perinatal Data Collection when children turned 6.

Birth data were obtained on 2,045 babies, and in this subgroup with linked data, 30% were born by cesarean – similar to the 31.7% of U.S. cesarean births in 2019 – and 12.7% of these had food allergy versus 13.2% of those delivered vaginally.

Compared with vaginal birth, C-section was not associated with the risk of food allergy (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.95, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.70-0.30).

Nor did the timing of the C-section have an effect. Cesarean delivery either before labor or after onset of labor was not associated with the risk of food allergy (aOR, 0.83, 95% CI, 0.55-1.23) and aOR, 1.13, 95% CI, 0.75-1.72), respectively.

Compared with vaginal delivery, elective or emergency cesarean was not associated with food allergy risk (aOR, 1.05, 95% CI, 0.71-1.55, and aOR, 0.86, 95% CI, 0.56-1.31).

Similarly, no evidence emerged of an effect modification by breastfeeding, older siblings, pet dog ownership, or maternal allergy.

“This study is helpful because in addition to blood and skin tests, it also used food challenge, which is the gold standard,” Terri Brown-Whitehorn, MD, an attending physician in the division of allergy and immunology at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, said in an interview. “If no actual food is given, the other tests could lead to false positives.”

Dr. Brown-Whitehorn, who was not involved in the MCRI research, said the findings are not likely to affect most decisions about C-sections because most are not voluntary. “But if a mother had a first baby by emergency cesarean section, she might be given the option of having the next one by the same method.”

She said the current advice is to introduce even high-risk foods to a child’s diet early on to ward off the development of food allergies.

According to the microbial exposure hypothesis, it was previously thought that a potential link between cesarean birth and allergy might reflect differences in early exposure to maternal flora beneficial to the immune system in the vagina during delivery. A C-section might bypass the opportunity for neonatal gut colonization with maternal gut and vaginal flora, thereby raising allergy risk. A 2018 meta-analysis, for example, suggested cesarean birth could raise the risk for food allergies by 21%.

In other research from HealthNuts, 30% of child peanut allergy and 90% of egg allergy appear to resolve naturally by age 6. These numbers are somewhat higher than what Dr. Brown-Whitehorn sees. “We find that about 20% of peanut allergies and about 70% or 80% – maybe a bit less – of egg allergies resolve by age 6.”

This research was supported by the National Health & Medical Research Council of Australia, the Ilhan Food Allergy Foundation, AnaphylaxiStop, the Charles and Sylvia Viertel Medical Research Foundation, the Victorian Government’s Operational Infrastructure Support Program, and the Melbourne Children’s Clinician-Scientist Fellowship.

Dr. Peters disclosed no competing interests. Several coauthors reported research support or employment with private companies and one is the inventor of an MCRI-held patent. Dr. Brown-Whitehorn had no competing interests to disclose.

A study shows that, over a 4-year period, 15 teenagers were injured from exploding e-cigarettes, according to surgeons who have treated young people at nine hospitals in the United States.

“It definitely was an injury we were seeing frequently,” Shannon Acker, MD, an assistant professor of pediatric surgery at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, and a pediatric surgeon at Children’s Hospital Colorado, said in a statement.

Reporting in the Journal of Surgical Research, doctors detail injuries from e-cigarette explosions from January 2016 through December 2019. Ten teens were hospitalized, including three who were admitted to ICUs.

“When we think about e-cigarettes, vaping, and the problems of marketing cigarettes to teenagers, it usually has to do with addiction and lung injury,” said Dr. Acker, a coauthor of the new study. “Whereas we, as trauma surgeons, were seeing these other traumatic injuries.”

Six of the teens had facial burns, five of them lost multiple teeth, five had burns around the thighs and groin, four burned their hands, and four burned their eyes. One teen injured their radial nerve, which runs through the arm. Another cut their face, and one fractured their jaw.

Overall, six teens needed surgery, including one who needed multiple operations for a severe hand injury.

Three of the teenagers had never used e-cigarettes before the day they were hurt.

Vaping has become far more common than smoking traditional cigarettes among U.S. teens in recent years. More than 2 million of them currently use e-cigarettes, according to the Food and Drug Administration, including more than 11% of high school students and almost 3% of middle schoolers.

Most e-cigarettes contain nicotine, which is highly addictive and can impair healthy brain development in adolescents, according to the CDC. Other chemicals and flavorings in the liquids that are heated during vaping can also damage the lungs. Fires and explosions, while rare, are also a risk that’s been previously documented by the FDA, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

Nationwide, there were 195 reported explosions and fires involving e-cigarettes in all ages between 2009 and 2016, according to a FEMA report. While no deaths were reported, 29% of these cases involved severe injuries.

“The shape and construction of electronic cigarettes” can make them behave like “flaming rockets when a battery fails,” according to FEMA.

Vaping devices typically use a rechargeable lithium-ion battery that vaporizes the liquid nicotine solution, Dr. Acker said. “They are not highly regulated, and the batteries may be of inferior quality and prone to explosion.”

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

A study shows that, over a 4-year period, 15 teenagers were injured from exploding e-cigarettes, according to surgeons who have treated young people at nine hospitals in the United States.

“It definitely was an injury we were seeing frequently,” Shannon Acker, MD, an assistant professor of pediatric surgery at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, and a pediatric surgeon at Children’s Hospital Colorado, said in a statement.

Reporting in the Journal of Surgical Research, doctors detail injuries from e-cigarette explosions from January 2016 through December 2019. Ten teens were hospitalized, including three who were admitted to ICUs.

“When we think about e-cigarettes, vaping, and the problems of marketing cigarettes to teenagers, it usually has to do with addiction and lung injury,” said Dr. Acker, a coauthor of the new study. “Whereas we, as trauma surgeons, were seeing these other traumatic injuries.”

Six of the teens had facial burns, five of them lost multiple teeth, five had burns around the thighs and groin, four burned their hands, and four burned their eyes. One teen injured their radial nerve, which runs through the arm. Another cut their face, and one fractured their jaw.

Overall, six teens needed surgery, including one who needed multiple operations for a severe hand injury.

Three of the teenagers had never used e-cigarettes before the day they were hurt.

Vaping has become far more common than smoking traditional cigarettes among U.S. teens in recent years. More than 2 million of them currently use e-cigarettes, according to the Food and Drug Administration, including more than 11% of high school students and almost 3% of middle schoolers.

Most e-cigarettes contain nicotine, which is highly addictive and can impair healthy brain development in adolescents, according to the CDC. Other chemicals and flavorings in the liquids that are heated during vaping can also damage the lungs. Fires and explosions, while rare, are also a risk that’s been previously documented by the FDA, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

Nationwide, there were 195 reported explosions and fires involving e-cigarettes in all ages between 2009 and 2016, according to a FEMA report. While no deaths were reported, 29% of these cases involved severe injuries.

“The shape and construction of electronic cigarettes” can make them behave like “flaming rockets when a battery fails,” according to FEMA.

Vaping devices typically use a rechargeable lithium-ion battery that vaporizes the liquid nicotine solution, Dr. Acker said. “They are not highly regulated, and the batteries may be of inferior quality and prone to explosion.”

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

A study shows that, over a 4-year period, 15 teenagers were injured from exploding e-cigarettes, according to surgeons who have treated young people at nine hospitals in the United States.

“It definitely was an injury we were seeing frequently,” Shannon Acker, MD, an assistant professor of pediatric surgery at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, and a pediatric surgeon at Children’s Hospital Colorado, said in a statement.

Reporting in the Journal of Surgical Research, doctors detail injuries from e-cigarette explosions from January 2016 through December 2019. Ten teens were hospitalized, including three who were admitted to ICUs.

“When we think about e-cigarettes, vaping, and the problems of marketing cigarettes to teenagers, it usually has to do with addiction and lung injury,” said Dr. Acker, a coauthor of the new study. “Whereas we, as trauma surgeons, were seeing these other traumatic injuries.”

Six of the teens had facial burns, five of them lost multiple teeth, five had burns around the thighs and groin, four burned their hands, and four burned their eyes. One teen injured their radial nerve, which runs through the arm. Another cut their face, and one fractured their jaw.

Overall, six teens needed surgery, including one who needed multiple operations for a severe hand injury.

Three of the teenagers had never used e-cigarettes before the day they were hurt.

Vaping has become far more common than smoking traditional cigarettes among U.S. teens in recent years. More than 2 million of them currently use e-cigarettes, according to the Food and Drug Administration, including more than 11% of high school students and almost 3% of middle schoolers.

Most e-cigarettes contain nicotine, which is highly addictive and can impair healthy brain development in adolescents, according to the CDC. Other chemicals and flavorings in the liquids that are heated during vaping can also damage the lungs. Fires and explosions, while rare, are also a risk that’s been previously documented by the FDA, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

Nationwide, there were 195 reported explosions and fires involving e-cigarettes in all ages between 2009 and 2016, according to a FEMA report. While no deaths were reported, 29% of these cases involved severe injuries.

“The shape and construction of electronic cigarettes” can make them behave like “flaming rockets when a battery fails,” according to FEMA.

Vaping devices typically use a rechargeable lithium-ion battery that vaporizes the liquid nicotine solution, Dr. Acker said. “They are not highly regulated, and the batteries may be of inferior quality and prone to explosion.”

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

Children who have first-degree relatives with celiac disease (CD) may be at higher risk of developing CD before age 10 than previously thought, according to results of an analysis of 10-year follow-up data. This analysis also yielded a web-based prediction model to help with screening for CD in children.

Screening is recommended for children who have a first-degree relative with celiac disease (CD) because they have a much higher risk for CD, but it has been unclear when to screen such children and how frequently. The researchers, led by Caroline Meijer, MD, in the department of pediatrics and medical statistics at Leiden (the Netherlands) University Medical Center, wrote in Gastroenterology that a prediction model they developed can help parents and providers with those questions.

NormaF/ThinkStock

The researchers analyzed prospective data from 10 years of follow-up from the PreventCD birth cohort with 944 children genetically predisposed to celiac disease with at least one first-degree relative affected. The children were enrolled at birth between 2007 and 2010 in Croatia, Germany, Hungary, Israel, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, and Spain.

“The data of the follow-up of the PreventCD cohort at the mean age of 10 years offers a unique opportunity to study the natural development of CD in children from high risk families,” the authors wrote.

Children were assessed regularly from birth for CD development at specific intervals, including seven times during the first 3 years of age and once a year after that or at least once between March 2016 and March 2019.

The researchers monitored parent-reported health status, recorded weight and height and gluten consumption and serum IgA against anti-transglutaminase. They found that risk for CD differs by gender, age, and human leukocyte antigen (HLA-DQ) genes. Variables that significantly affected the risk were combined to develop a risk score.

The noted that CD affects as many as 1%-3% of the general population. Until recently, the lifetime risk of CD when a child has a first-degree CD connection was considered to be 5%-10%, with one review indicating a pooled prevalence of 7.5%. However, the investigators found that the cumulative incidence of CD was 7.5%, 16.6%, and 17.5% at 3, 8, and 10 years of age, respectively.

“Our data show that, at the age of 8 years, this is as high as 17%, emphasizing the importance of a sound advice for early screening,” Dr. Meijer and coauthors wrote. “We also confirm that CD develops in children with affected FDR at a very young age, as the mean age of diagnosis in our cohort was 4 years of age.”

They found that CD developed more often in girls (P = .0005). Data show that, at the age of 10 years, girls in the cohort have a 7.7% higher cumulative incidence compared to boys (21.5% vs 13.8%). CD also developed more often in HLA-DQ2 homozygous participants than in other HLA-risk groups (8-year cumulative incidence of 35.4% vs. the maximum of the other groups of 18.2%; P < .001).

Benjamin Lebwohl, MD, MS, said the study provides data that can help parents of a child with a family history of celiac disease.

“The results of the study include an estimate of celiac disease risk over time, based on the child’s age, number of affected relatives, and genetic test results. Using this information, the web-based prediction model provides advice on how often to test the child for celiac disease, based on the child’s risk of developing the condition in the years ahead,” said Dr. Lebwohl, director of clinical research at the Celiac Disease Center at Columbia University Medical Center, New York, said in an interview.

“Overall,” he said, “the study advances our understanding of the natural history of celiac disease among children with a family history and gives clinicians and families practical advice on when to test.”

Validation of the prediction model was done with data from the independent NeoCel cohort. In that cohort, all children were assessed regularly from birth for CD development at predefined intervals, in a similar way as in the PreventCD cohort.

The investigators concluded that children should be screened early in life and that screening should include HLA-DQ2/8-typing. If children are genetically predisposed to CD, they should get further personalized screening advice using the web-based prediction “app” developed by the investigators.

“If the prediction for CD development [according to the app] is higher than 10% in the next 2 years, we advise to repeat the screening after 6 months. If the prediction is between 5%-10%, the advice is to repeat the screening after 1 year and if the prediction is lower than 5%, to repeat the screening after 2 years.”

The study authors reported no relevant financial relationships. The work is supported by funding from the European Commission; the Azrieli Foundation; Deutsche Zöliakie Gesellschaft; Eurospital; Fondazione Celiachia; Fria Bröd Sweden; Instituto de Salud Carlos III; Spanish Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition; Komitet Badań Naukowych; Fundacja Nutricia; Hungarian Scientific Research Funds; and TAMOP; Stichting Coeliakie Onderzoek Nederland; Thermo Fisher Scientific; and the European Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition. Dr. Lebwohl reported having no relevant disclosures.

Children who have first-degree relatives with celiac disease (CD) may be at higher risk of developing CD before age 10 than previously thought, according to results of an analysis of 10-year follow-up data. This analysis also yielded a web-based prediction model to help with screening for CD in children.

Screening is recommended for children who have a first-degree relative with celiac disease (CD) because they have a much higher risk for CD, but it has been unclear when to screen such children and how frequently. The researchers, led by Caroline Meijer, MD, in the department of pediatrics and medical statistics at Leiden (the Netherlands) University Medical Center, wrote in Gastroenterology that a prediction model they developed can help parents and providers with those questions.

NormaF/ThinkStock

The researchers analyzed prospective data from 10 years of follow-up from the PreventCD birth cohort with 944 children genetically predisposed to celiac disease with at least one first-degree relative affected. The children were enrolled at birth between 2007 and 2010 in Croatia, Germany, Hungary, Israel, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, and Spain.

“The data of the follow-up of the PreventCD cohort at the mean age of 10 years offers a unique opportunity to study the natural development of CD in children from high risk families,” the authors wrote.

Children were assessed regularly from birth for CD development at specific intervals, including seven times during the first 3 years of age and once a year after that or at least once between March 2016 and March 2019.

The researchers monitored parent-reported health status, recorded weight and height and gluten consumption and serum IgA against anti-transglutaminase. They found that risk for CD differs by gender, age, and human leukocyte antigen (HLA-DQ) genes. Variables that significantly affected the risk were combined to develop a risk score.

The noted that CD affects as many as 1%-3% of the general population. Until recently, the lifetime risk of CD when a child has a first-degree CD connection was considered to be 5%-10%, with one review indicating a pooled prevalence of 7.5%. However, the investigators found that the cumulative incidence of CD was 7.5%, 16.6%, and 17.5% at 3, 8, and 10 years of age, respectively.

“Our data show that, at the age of 8 years, this is as high as 17%, emphasizing the importance of a sound advice for early screening,” Dr. Meijer and coauthors wrote. “We also confirm that CD develops in children with affected FDR at a very young age, as the mean age of diagnosis in our cohort was 4 years of age.”

They found that CD developed more often in girls (P = .0005). Data show that, at the age of 10 years, girls in the cohort have a 7.7% higher cumulative incidence compared to boys (21.5% vs 13.8%). CD also developed more often in HLA-DQ2 homozygous participants than in other HLA-risk groups (8-year cumulative incidence of 35.4% vs. the maximum of the other groups of 18.2%; P < .001).

Benjamin Lebwohl, MD, MS, said the study provides data that can help parents of a child with a family history of celiac disease.

“The results of the study include an estimate of celiac disease risk over time, based on the child’s age, number of affected relatives, and genetic test results. Using this information, the web-based prediction model provides advice on how often to test the child for celiac disease, based on the child’s risk of developing the condition in the years ahead,” said Dr. Lebwohl, director of clinical research at the Celiac Disease Center at Columbia University Medical Center, New York, said in an interview.

“Overall,” he said, “the study advances our understanding of the natural history of celiac disease among children with a family history and gives clinicians and families practical advice on when to test.”

Validation of the prediction model was done with data from the independent NeoCel cohort. In that cohort, all children were assessed regularly from birth for CD development at predefined intervals, in a similar way as in the PreventCD cohort.

The investigators concluded that children should be screened early in life and that screening should include HLA-DQ2/8-typing. If children are genetically predisposed to CD, they should get further personalized screening advice using the web-based prediction “app” developed by the investigators.

“If the prediction for CD development [according to the app] is higher than 10% in the next 2 years, we advise to repeat the screening after 6 months. If the prediction is between 5%-10%, the advice is to repeat the screening after 1 year and if the prediction is lower than 5%, to repeat the screening after 2 years.”

The study authors reported no relevant financial relationships. The work is supported by funding from the European Commission; the Azrieli Foundation; Deutsche Zöliakie Gesellschaft; Eurospital; Fondazione Celiachia; Fria Bröd Sweden; Instituto de Salud Carlos III; Spanish Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition; Komitet Badań Naukowych; Fundacja Nutricia; Hungarian Scientific Research Funds; and TAMOP; Stichting Coeliakie Onderzoek Nederland; Thermo Fisher Scientific; and the European Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition. Dr. Lebwohl reported having no relevant disclosures.

Children who have first-degree relatives with celiac disease (CD) may be at higher risk of developing CD before age 10 than previously thought, according to results of an analysis of 10-year follow-up data. This analysis also yielded a web-based prediction model to help with screening for CD in children.

Screening is recommended for children who have a first-degree relative with celiac disease (CD) because they have a much higher risk for CD, but it has been unclear when to screen such children and how frequently. The researchers, led by Caroline Meijer, MD, in the department of pediatrics and medical statistics at Leiden (the Netherlands) University Medical Center, wrote in Gastroenterology that a prediction model they developed can help parents and providers with those questions.

NormaF/ThinkStock

The researchers analyzed prospective data from 10 years of follow-up from the PreventCD birth cohort with 944 children genetically predisposed to celiac disease with at least one first-degree relative affected. The children were enrolled at birth between 2007 and 2010 in Croatia, Germany, Hungary, Israel, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, and Spain.

“The data of the follow-up of the PreventCD cohort at the mean age of 10 years offers a unique opportunity to study the natural development of CD in children from high risk families,” the authors wrote.

Children were assessed regularly from birth for CD development at specific intervals, including seven times during the first 3 years of age and once a year after that or at least once between March 2016 and March 2019.

The researchers monitored parent-reported health status, recorded weight and height and gluten consumption and serum IgA against anti-transglutaminase. They found that risk for CD differs by gender, age, and human leukocyte antigen (HLA-DQ) genes. Variables that significantly affected the risk were combined to develop a risk score.

The noted that CD affects as many as 1%-3% of the general population. Until recently, the lifetime risk of CD when a child has a first-degree CD connection was considered to be 5%-10%, with one review indicating a pooled prevalence of 7.5%. However, the investigators found that the cumulative incidence of CD was 7.5%, 16.6%, and 17.5% at 3, 8, and 10 years of age, respectively.

“Our data show that, at the age of 8 years, this is as high as 17%, emphasizing the importance of a sound advice for early screening,” Dr. Meijer and coauthors wrote. “We also confirm that CD develops in children with affected FDR at a very young age, as the mean age of diagnosis in our cohort was 4 years of age.”

They found that CD developed more often in girls (P = .0005). Data show that, at the age of 10 years, girls in the cohort have a 7.7% higher cumulative incidence compared to boys (21.5% vs 13.8%). CD also developed more often in HLA-DQ2 homozygous participants than in other HLA-risk groups (8-year cumulative incidence of 35.4% vs. the maximum of the other groups of 18.2%; P < .001).

Benjamin Lebwohl, MD, MS, said the study provides data that can help parents of a child with a family history of celiac disease.

“The results of the study include an estimate of celiac disease risk over time, based on the child’s age, number of affected relatives, and genetic test results. Using this information, the web-based prediction model provides advice on how often to test the child for celiac disease, based on the child’s risk of developing the condition in the years ahead,” said Dr. Lebwohl, director of clinical research at the Celiac Disease Center at Columbia University Medical Center, New York, said in an interview.

“Overall,” he said, “the study advances our understanding of the natural history of celiac disease among children with a family history and gives clinicians and families practical advice on when to test.”

Validation of the prediction model was done with data from the independent NeoCel cohort. In that cohort, all children were assessed regularly from birth for CD development at predefined intervals, in a similar way as in the PreventCD cohort.

The investigators concluded that children should be screened early in life and that screening should include HLA-DQ2/8-typing. If children are genetically predisposed to CD, they should get further personalized screening advice using the web-based prediction “app” developed by the investigators.

“If the prediction for CD development [according to the app] is higher than 10% in the next 2 years, we advise to repeat the screening after 6 months. If the prediction is between 5%-10%, the advice is to repeat the screening after 1 year and if the prediction is lower than 5%, to repeat the screening after 2 years.”

The study authors reported no relevant financial relationships. The work is supported by funding from the European Commission; the Azrieli Foundation; Deutsche Zöliakie Gesellschaft; Eurospital; Fondazione Celiachia; Fria Bröd Sweden; Instituto de Salud Carlos III; Spanish Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition; Komitet Badań Naukowych; Fundacja Nutricia; Hungarian Scientific Research Funds; and TAMOP; Stichting Coeliakie Onderzoek Nederland; Thermo Fisher Scientific; and the European Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition. Dr. Lebwohl reported having no relevant disclosures.

The European Medicines Agency’s (EMA) Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) has recommended approval of baricitinib, a Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor, for the treatment of adults with severe alopecia areata (AA).

The development, which was announced in a May 20, 2022, press release from the manufacturer, Eli Lilly and Incyte, marks the first step toward European regulatory approval of baricitinib (Olumiant) for patients with severe AA, and it is now referred to the European Commission for final action. A decision is expected within the next 2 months.

The committee based its positive opinion on the results of the phase 3 BRAVE-AA1 and BRAVE-AA2 trials, recently published in the New England Journal of Medicine, which evaluated the efficacy and safety of baricitinib in 1,200 patients with severe AA, according to the press release. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients achieving a Severity of Alopecia Tool (SALT) score of ≤20 at week 36. In both studies, 1 out of 3 patients treated with baricitinib 4-mg achieved 80% or more scalp hair coverage, compared with 1 out of 20 patients and 1 out of 50 patients taking placebo in BRAVE-AA1 and BRAVE-AA2, respectively (P ≤ .001 for all comparisons to placebo).

According to safety profile information from the phase 3 BRAVE-AA clinical program, few patients discontinued treatment because of adverse events (2.6% or less across both studies), and most treatment-emergent adverse events were mild or moderate in severity.

In February 2022, the Food and Drug Administration granted priority review for baricitinib in adults with severe AA. Lilly expects additional regulatory decisions in the United States and Japan in 2022.

Baricitinib is approved in the United States as a treatment for adults with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis. Prescribing information can be viewed here.

The European Medicines Agency’s (EMA) Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) has recommended approval of baricitinib, a Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor, for the treatment of adults with severe alopecia areata (AA).

The development, which was announced in a May 20, 2022, press release from the manufacturer, Eli Lilly and Incyte, marks the first step toward European regulatory approval of baricitinib (Olumiant) for patients with severe AA, and it is now referred to the European Commission for final action. A decision is expected within the next 2 months.

The committee based its positive opinion on the results of the phase 3 BRAVE-AA1 and BRAVE-AA2 trials, recently published in the New England Journal of Medicine, which evaluated the efficacy and safety of baricitinib in 1,200 patients with severe AA, according to the press release. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients achieving a Severity of Alopecia Tool (SALT) score of ≤20 at week 36. In both studies, 1 out of 3 patients treated with baricitinib 4-mg achieved 80% or more scalp hair coverage, compared with 1 out of 20 patients and 1 out of 50 patients taking placebo in BRAVE-AA1 and BRAVE-AA2, respectively (P ≤ .001 for all comparisons to placebo).

According to safety profile information from the phase 3 BRAVE-AA clinical program, few patients discontinued treatment because of adverse events (2.6% or less across both studies), and most treatment-emergent adverse events were mild or moderate in severity.

In February 2022, the Food and Drug Administration granted priority review for baricitinib in adults with severe AA. Lilly expects additional regulatory decisions in the United States and Japan in 2022.

Baricitinib is approved in the United States as a treatment for adults with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis. Prescribing information can be viewed here.

The European Medicines Agency’s (EMA) Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) has recommended approval of baricitinib, a Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor, for the treatment of adults with severe alopecia areata (AA).

The development, which was announced in a May 20, 2022, press release from the manufacturer, Eli Lilly and Incyte, marks the first step toward European regulatory approval of baricitinib (Olumiant) for patients with severe AA, and it is now referred to the European Commission for final action. A decision is expected within the next 2 months.

The committee based its positive opinion on the results of the phase 3 BRAVE-AA1 and BRAVE-AA2 trials, recently published in the New England Journal of Medicine, which evaluated the efficacy and safety of baricitinib in 1,200 patients with severe AA, according to the press release. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients achieving a Severity of Alopecia Tool (SALT) score of ≤20 at week 36. In both studies, 1 out of 3 patients treated with baricitinib 4-mg achieved 80% or more scalp hair coverage, compared with 1 out of 20 patients and 1 out of 50 patients taking placebo in BRAVE-AA1 and BRAVE-AA2, respectively (P ≤ .001 for all comparisons to placebo).

According to safety profile information from the phase 3 BRAVE-AA clinical program, few patients discontinued treatment because of adverse events (2.6% or less across both studies), and most treatment-emergent adverse events were mild or moderate in severity.

In February 2022, the Food and Drug Administration granted priority review for baricitinib in adults with severe AA. Lilly expects additional regulatory decisions in the United States and Japan in 2022.

Baricitinib is approved in the United States as a treatment for adults with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis. Prescribing information can be viewed here.

Each year, there are about 59,000 deaths from rabies globally. Most of these occur outside the United States and are the result of dog bites. Since infection with rabies is almost always fatal, there has been considerable attention given to vaccinating people at high risk before likely exposure and responding immediately to those bitten by a rabid animal.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recently revised its preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) recommendations for rabies. Under the previous 2008 guidelines, PrEP injections were given on days 0, 7, and 21 and cost more than $1,100. In trying to simplify recommendations and make immunization less expensive, the agency designated five risk levels with different advice based on the level of risk.

The first two groups are those with very high risk of occupational exposures – either working with rabies virus in the laboratory or working with or having contact with bats or performing animal necropsies. They are now advised to get two doses of rabies vaccine on days 0 and 7. The lab workers should have titers checked every 6 months to ensure that they remain adequately protected. And a booster should be given if the titer drops to < 0.5 IU/mL. The second group, with bat exposures, should have titers checked every 2 years.

Risk category 3 is those with long-term (> 3 years) exposure to mammals other than bats that might be rabid. This group would include veterinarians, wildlife biologists, animal control officers, and spelunkers (cavers). Category 3 also includes travelers who may encounter rabid dogs, which is not a risk in the United States. They would get the same initial two doses. The new recommendations for a third dose are based either on a titer drawn 1-3 years later being < 0.5 IU/mL or choosing to give a booster between 3 weeks and 3 years after the second dose.

The same groups are covered in risk group 4, but these are expected to have less than 3 years of potential exposure after PrEP. They would receive two doses on days 0 and 7.

Finally, group 5, at the lowest risk, includes most of the U.S. population. They do not require any PrEP.

Agam Rao, MD, CAPT, U.S. Public Health Service, CDC, told this news organization that the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) has been working on updating the 2008 rabies PrEP recommendations for several years. The committee wanted the new guideline to be “as easily followable as possible but also based on the evidence itself.”

There were two significant problems the committee tried to address. “One was that travelers who book their travel on kind of short notice don’t have enough time to get that third dose, which at the earliest can be given on day 21,” Dr. Rao said.

The second problem is that “a three-dose series [is] just really expensive. And what we found from data that had been published since the last ACIP recommendations is that fewer people than we recommend get vaccinated were getting vaccinated. So hopefully, the two-dose series helps with that.”

The ACIP used an adapted Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to determine the certainty of the evidence for immunogenicity. The ACIP also used an evidence to recommendations (EtR) framework. “This incorporates a lot of other factors like the acceptability, usability, equity, all of these other variables that are important to the evidence being translated into recommendations,” Dr. Rao said. A table details their analysis.

Rabies expert Thiravat Hemachudha, MD, professor of neurology at WHO Collaborating Centre for Research and Training on Viral Zoonoses, Chulalongkorn University Hospital, Bangkok, told this news organization via email that “the ACIP relies mostly on serology, whereas the rest of the world cannot afford the test or testing may not be available.”

He added: “The issue of ‘long-term immunogenicity’ after receiving [PrEP is] an anamnestic response. All standard tissue culture rabies vaccines with appropriate dosage and route of delivery, either IM or ID, are considered safe and effective. There are many studies in Asian countries confirming that with only one primary series of PrEP, ID or IM with reduced doses, can produce immunity for as long as 20 years. Therefore, serology check is not necessary in general populations in rabies endemic countries where most of the rabies deaths occur. Investigation of all death cases was performed in Thailand and did not reveal any failure. Cases with PrEP in the past who died did not receive a booster after exposure.”

Dr. Rao offered one additional suggestion to clinicians faced with an urgent need to get a rabies titer: “They really should reach out to the lab (with all the information) before they send the specimen for the titer check ... so that the testing can be facilitated. All of these laboratories have the capacity to do stat and ASAP testing ... Clinicians do not know that they can call laboratories directly and expedite this sort of testing.” 

Dr. Rao emphasized that PrEP does not eliminate the need for postexposure prophylaxis (PEP). Still, it eliminates the need for rabies immunoglobulin and decreases the number of vaccine doses required for PEP. “I hope more people will take advantage of the titer checks and potentially save the patient some money,” she concluded.

Dr. Rao and Dr. Hemachudha have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Each year, there are about 59,000 deaths from rabies globally. Most of these occur outside the United States and are the result of dog bites. Since infection with rabies is almost always fatal, there has been considerable attention given to vaccinating people at high risk before likely exposure and responding immediately to those bitten by a rabid animal.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recently revised its preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) recommendations for rabies. Under the previous 2008 guidelines, PrEP injections were given on days 0, 7, and 21 and cost more than $1,100. In trying to simplify recommendations and make immunization less expensive, the agency designated five risk levels with different advice based on the level of risk.

The first two groups are those with very high risk of occupational exposures – either working with rabies virus in the laboratory or working with or having contact with bats or performing animal necropsies. They are now advised to get two doses of rabies vaccine on days 0 and 7. The lab workers should have titers checked every 6 months to ensure that they remain adequately protected. And a booster should be given if the titer drops to < 0.5 IU/mL. The second group, with bat exposures, should have titers checked every 2 years.

Risk category 3 is those with long-term (> 3 years) exposure to mammals other than bats that might be rabid. This group would include veterinarians, wildlife biologists, animal control officers, and spelunkers (cavers). Category 3 also includes travelers who may encounter rabid dogs, which is not a risk in the United States. They would get the same initial two doses. The new recommendations for a third dose are based either on a titer drawn 1-3 years later being < 0.5 IU/mL or choosing to give a booster between 3 weeks and 3 years after the second dose.

The same groups are covered in risk group 4, but these are expected to have less than 3 years of potential exposure after PrEP. They would receive two doses on days 0 and 7.

Finally, group 5, at the lowest risk, includes most of the U.S. population. They do not require any PrEP.

Agam Rao, MD, CAPT, U.S. Public Health Service, CDC, told this news organization that the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) has been working on updating the 2008 rabies PrEP recommendations for several years. The committee wanted the new guideline to be “as easily followable as possible but also based on the evidence itself.”

There were two significant problems the committee tried to address. “One was that travelers who book their travel on kind of short notice don’t have enough time to get that third dose, which at the earliest can be given on day 21,” Dr. Rao said.

The second problem is that “a three-dose series [is] just really expensive. And what we found from data that had been published since the last ACIP recommendations is that fewer people than we recommend get vaccinated were getting vaccinated. So hopefully, the two-dose series helps with that.”

The ACIP used an adapted Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to determine the certainty of the evidence for immunogenicity. The ACIP also used an evidence to recommendations (EtR) framework. “This incorporates a lot of other factors like the acceptability, usability, equity, all of these other variables that are important to the evidence being translated into recommendations,” Dr. Rao said. A table details their analysis.

Rabies expert Thiravat Hemachudha, MD, professor of neurology at WHO Collaborating Centre for Research and Training on Viral Zoonoses, Chulalongkorn University Hospital, Bangkok, told this news organization via email that “the ACIP relies mostly on serology, whereas the rest of the world cannot afford the test or testing may not be available.”

He added: “The issue of ‘long-term immunogenicity’ after receiving [PrEP is] an anamnestic response. All standard tissue culture rabies vaccines with appropriate dosage and route of delivery, either IM or ID, are considered safe and effective. There are many studies in Asian countries confirming that with only one primary series of PrEP, ID or IM with reduced doses, can produce immunity for as long as 20 years. Therefore, serology check is not necessary in general populations in rabies endemic countries where most of the rabies deaths occur. Investigation of all death cases was performed in Thailand and did not reveal any failure. Cases with PrEP in the past who died did not receive a booster after exposure.”

Dr. Rao offered one additional suggestion to clinicians faced with an urgent need to get a rabies titer: “They really should reach out to the lab (with all the information) before they send the specimen for the titer check ... so that the testing can be facilitated. All of these laboratories have the capacity to do stat and ASAP testing ... Clinicians do not know that they can call laboratories directly and expedite this sort of testing.” 

Dr. Rao emphasized that PrEP does not eliminate the need for postexposure prophylaxis (PEP). Still, it eliminates the need for rabies immunoglobulin and decreases the number of vaccine doses required for PEP. “I hope more people will take advantage of the titer checks and potentially save the patient some money,” she concluded.

Dr. Rao and Dr. Hemachudha have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Each year, there are about 59,000 deaths from rabies globally. Most of these occur outside the United States and are the result of dog bites. Since infection with rabies is almost always fatal, there has been considerable attention given to vaccinating people at high risk before likely exposure and responding immediately to those bitten by a rabid animal.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recently revised its preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) recommendations for rabies. Under the previous 2008 guidelines, PrEP injections were given on days 0, 7, and 21 and cost more than $1,100. In trying to simplify recommendations and make immunization less expensive, the agency designated five risk levels with different advice based on the level of risk.

The first two groups are those with very high risk of occupational exposures – either working with rabies virus in the laboratory or working with or having contact with bats or performing animal necropsies. They are now advised to get two doses of rabies vaccine on days 0 and 7. The lab workers should have titers checked every 6 months to ensure that they remain adequately protected. And a booster should be given if the titer drops to < 0.5 IU/mL. The second group, with bat exposures, should have titers checked every 2 years.

Risk category 3 is those with long-term (> 3 years) exposure to mammals other than bats that might be rabid. This group would include veterinarians, wildlife biologists, animal control officers, and spelunkers (cavers). Category 3 also includes travelers who may encounter rabid dogs, which is not a risk in the United States. They would get the same initial two doses. The new recommendations for a third dose are based either on a titer drawn 1-3 years later being < 0.5 IU/mL or choosing to give a booster between 3 weeks and 3 years after the second dose.

The same groups are covered in risk group 4, but these are expected to have less than 3 years of potential exposure after PrEP. They would receive two doses on days 0 and 7.

Finally, group 5, at the lowest risk, includes most of the U.S. population. They do not require any PrEP.

Agam Rao, MD, CAPT, U.S. Public Health Service, CDC, told this news organization that the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) has been working on updating the 2008 rabies PrEP recommendations for several years. The committee wanted the new guideline to be “as easily followable as possible but also based on the evidence itself.”

There were two significant problems the committee tried to address. “One was that travelers who book their travel on kind of short notice don’t have enough time to get that third dose, which at the earliest can be given on day 21,” Dr. Rao said.

The second problem is that “a three-dose series [is] just really expensive. And what we found from data that had been published since the last ACIP recommendations is that fewer people than we recommend get vaccinated were getting vaccinated. So hopefully, the two-dose series helps with that.”

The ACIP used an adapted Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to determine the certainty of the evidence for immunogenicity. The ACIP also used an evidence to recommendations (EtR) framework. “This incorporates a lot of other factors like the acceptability, usability, equity, all of these other variables that are important to the evidence being translated into recommendations,” Dr. Rao said. A table details their analysis.

Rabies expert Thiravat Hemachudha, MD, professor of neurology at WHO Collaborating Centre for Research and Training on Viral Zoonoses, Chulalongkorn University Hospital, Bangkok, told this news organization via email that “the ACIP relies mostly on serology, whereas the rest of the world cannot afford the test or testing may not be available.”

He added: “The issue of ‘long-term immunogenicity’ after receiving [PrEP is] an anamnestic response. All standard tissue culture rabies vaccines with appropriate dosage and route of delivery, either IM or ID, are considered safe and effective. There are many studies in Asian countries confirming that with only one primary series of PrEP, ID or IM with reduced doses, can produce immunity for as long as 20 years. Therefore, serology check is not necessary in general populations in rabies endemic countries where most of the rabies deaths occur. Investigation of all death cases was performed in Thailand and did not reveal any failure. Cases with PrEP in the past who died did not receive a booster after exposure.”

Dr. Rao offered one additional suggestion to clinicians faced with an urgent need to get a rabies titer: “They really should reach out to the lab (with all the information) before they send the specimen for the titer check ... so that the testing can be facilitated. All of these laboratories have the capacity to do stat and ASAP testing ... Clinicians do not know that they can call laboratories directly and expedite this sort of testing.” 

Dr. Rao emphasized that PrEP does not eliminate the need for postexposure prophylaxis (PEP). Still, it eliminates the need for rabies immunoglobulin and decreases the number of vaccine doses required for PEP. “I hope more people will take advantage of the titer checks and potentially save the patient some money,” she concluded.

Dr. Rao and Dr. Hemachudha have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) caused more than 100,000 deaths in children under age 5 years globally in 2019, according to an analysis published online in The Lancet.

Researchers, led by You Li, PhD, of Nanjing (China) Medical University, found that nearly half of those (more than 45,000) occurred in children younger than 6 months old.

They estimated that RSV causes 1 in 50 deaths among children under 5 years old, and 1 in 28 deaths in children under 6 months old.

Additionally, RSV is responsible for an estimated 3.6 million hospital admissions globally each year, according to the report.

This analysis is the first to sift RSV disease burden into narrow age brackets, the authors said.

The numbers highlight that almost all of the deaths (97%) were in low- and middle-income countries.
 

Messages for prevention

Tina Hartert, MD, MPH, a professor in the division of allergy, pulmonary, and critical care medicine at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., who was not part of the study, wrote in an invited commentary that these findings will be important in RSV prevention.

Among the most notable findings, she wrote, is the heavy mortality in the 0- to 6-month age group, which she notes is “the age group targeted by vaccination during pregnancy and birth-dose immunoprophylaxis.”

Dr. Hartert, who coauthored the commentary with Justin R. Ortiz, MD, MS, with the Center for Vaccine Development and Global Health, University of Maryland, Baltimore, told this news organization, “RSV is a respiratory virus that infects nearly every child by the time they are 2-3 years of age, with severe infection and death most common in the youngest infants. Vaccines that prevent the most severe infections in these young infants will likely be one of the best ways to prevent these severe infections and death.”

Though the authors found most deaths occur in low- and middle-income countries, RSV is one of the most common reasons for infant hospitalization in the US and affects 1% to 3% of infants, half of whom are full-term and otherwise healthy, Dr. Hartert said.

It is also one of the most common causes of infant lower respiratory tract infection in young children in the United States, she said, and it causes the most severe disease at the age extremes, with older adults experiencing significant morbidity with RSV.

Dr. Li said in an interview that although the team did not focus on reporting country-specific estimates in this work, their previous work, resulted in estimates of 98,000-155,000 RSV-related hospitalizations in children under 5 years old in the United States in 2019. Between 65,000 and 86,000 were in infants less than 1 year old.

Currently, he said, the only available RSV prophylaxis is palivizumab (Synagis), which is expensive and given only to high-risk infants in high-income countries, including the United States.

“There have been a number of promising RSV prophylactic products including maternal vaccine and monoclonal antibodies that have the potential for targeting the general infant population – not just high-risk infants – in late-phase clinical trials,” he said. “Our estimates of RSV-related disease burden will help anticipate the impact of future RSV immunization programs.”
 

Pandemic changed patterns

This research was completed before the COVID-19 pandemic, and it is not yet known how that could affect RSV disease burden long term.

However, Dr. Hartert said, RSV circulation has been significantly changed during the pandemic, both in intensity and timing, likely because of a combination of COVID and the public health preventive measures.

“As people return to normal activities and the public health measures put in place to stop the spread of COVID are eased, we are likely to see increases in circulation of RSV and return to its circulation during the winter months – typically similar to circulation of flu – from November through March in temperate climates in the northern hemisphere,” she said.

A coauthor of the paper, Harish Nair, PhD, with the Centre for Global Health, Usher Institute, University of Edinburgh, said in a press release that their findings have particular significance as COVID restrictions ease around the globe.

“The majority of the young children born in the last 2 years have never been exposed to RSV (and therefore have no immunity against this virus),” Nair wrote.
 

Most deaths occurring outside hospitals

A challenge in reducing the deaths in those 5 years old and younger is that most (76%) of deaths are happening in the community outside hospitals.

The authors wrote: “For every RSV-associated acute lower respiratory infection in-hospital death, we estimate approximately three more deaths attributable to RSV in the community.”

The percentage dying outside hospitals is even larger (81%) in low- to middle-income countries.

This work built on a previous review by the team that analyzed 317 studies. They updated their search with 113 new eligible studies and unpublished data from 51 papers published between Jan. 1, 2017, and Dec. 31, 2020.

The authors acknowledged some limitations, including variations in study settings and in definitions for acute lower respiratory infection, healthcare access, and eligibility for RSV testing.

The study was funded by EU Innovative Medicines Initiative Respiratory Syncytial Virus Consortium in Europe. Dr. Li reported grants from Wellcome Trust and the World Health Organization outside the submitted work. Dr. Hartert, Dr. Ortiz, and Dr. Nair disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) caused more than 100,000 deaths in children under age 5 years globally in 2019, according to an analysis published online in The Lancet.

Researchers, led by You Li, PhD, of Nanjing (China) Medical University, found that nearly half of those (more than 45,000) occurred in children younger than 6 months old.

They estimated that RSV causes 1 in 50 deaths among children under 5 years old, and 1 in 28 deaths in children under 6 months old.

Additionally, RSV is responsible for an estimated 3.6 million hospital admissions globally each year, according to the report.

This analysis is the first to sift RSV disease burden into narrow age brackets, the authors said.

The numbers highlight that almost all of the deaths (97%) were in low- and middle-income countries.
 

Messages for prevention

Tina Hartert, MD, MPH, a professor in the division of allergy, pulmonary, and critical care medicine at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., who was not part of the study, wrote in an invited commentary that these findings will be important in RSV prevention.

Among the most notable findings, she wrote, is the heavy mortality in the 0- to 6-month age group, which she notes is “the age group targeted by vaccination during pregnancy and birth-dose immunoprophylaxis.”

Dr. Hartert, who coauthored the commentary with Justin R. Ortiz, MD, MS, with the Center for Vaccine Development and Global Health, University of Maryland, Baltimore, told this news organization, “RSV is a respiratory virus that infects nearly every child by the time they are 2-3 years of age, with severe infection and death most common in the youngest infants. Vaccines that prevent the most severe infections in these young infants will likely be one of the best ways to prevent these severe infections and death.”

Though the authors found most deaths occur in low- and middle-income countries, RSV is one of the most common reasons for infant hospitalization in the US and affects 1% to 3% of infants, half of whom are full-term and otherwise healthy, Dr. Hartert said.

It is also one of the most common causes of infant lower respiratory tract infection in young children in the United States, she said, and it causes the most severe disease at the age extremes, with older adults experiencing significant morbidity with RSV.

Dr. Li said in an interview that although the team did not focus on reporting country-specific estimates in this work, their previous work, resulted in estimates of 98,000-155,000 RSV-related hospitalizations in children under 5 years old in the United States in 2019. Between 65,000 and 86,000 were in infants less than 1 year old.

Currently, he said, the only available RSV prophylaxis is palivizumab (Synagis), which is expensive and given only to high-risk infants in high-income countries, including the United States.

“There have been a number of promising RSV prophylactic products including maternal vaccine and monoclonal antibodies that have the potential for targeting the general infant population – not just high-risk infants – in late-phase clinical trials,” he said. “Our estimates of RSV-related disease burden will help anticipate the impact of future RSV immunization programs.”
 

Pandemic changed patterns

This research was completed before the COVID-19 pandemic, and it is not yet known how that could affect RSV disease burden long term.

However, Dr. Hartert said, RSV circulation has been significantly changed during the pandemic, both in intensity and timing, likely because of a combination of COVID and the public health preventive measures.

“As people return to normal activities and the public health measures put in place to stop the spread of COVID are eased, we are likely to see increases in circulation of RSV and return to its circulation during the winter months – typically similar to circulation of flu – from November through March in temperate climates in the northern hemisphere,” she said.

A coauthor of the paper, Harish Nair, PhD, with the Centre for Global Health, Usher Institute, University of Edinburgh, said in a press release that their findings have particular significance as COVID restrictions ease around the globe.

“The majority of the young children born in the last 2 years have never been exposed to RSV (and therefore have no immunity against this virus),” Nair wrote.
 

Most deaths occurring outside hospitals

A challenge in reducing the deaths in those 5 years old and younger is that most (76%) of deaths are happening in the community outside hospitals.

The authors wrote: “For every RSV-associated acute lower respiratory infection in-hospital death, we estimate approximately three more deaths attributable to RSV in the community.”

The percentage dying outside hospitals is even larger (81%) in low- to middle-income countries.

This work built on a previous review by the team that analyzed 317 studies. They updated their search with 113 new eligible studies and unpublished data from 51 papers published between Jan. 1, 2017, and Dec. 31, 2020.

The authors acknowledged some limitations, including variations in study settings and in definitions for acute lower respiratory infection, healthcare access, and eligibility for RSV testing.

The study was funded by EU Innovative Medicines Initiative Respiratory Syncytial Virus Consortium in Europe. Dr. Li reported grants from Wellcome Trust and the World Health Organization outside the submitted work. Dr. Hartert, Dr. Ortiz, and Dr. Nair disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) caused more than 100,000 deaths in children under age 5 years globally in 2019, according to an analysis published online in The Lancet.

Researchers, led by You Li, PhD, of Nanjing (China) Medical University, found that nearly half of those (more than 45,000) occurred in children younger than 6 months old.

They estimated that RSV causes 1 in 50 deaths among children under 5 years old, and 1 in 28 deaths in children under 6 months old.

Additionally, RSV is responsible for an estimated 3.6 million hospital admissions globally each year, according to the report.

This analysis is the first to sift RSV disease burden into narrow age brackets, the authors said.

The numbers highlight that almost all of the deaths (97%) were in low- and middle-income countries.
 

Messages for prevention

Tina Hartert, MD, MPH, a professor in the division of allergy, pulmonary, and critical care medicine at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., who was not part of the study, wrote in an invited commentary that these findings will be important in RSV prevention.

Among the most notable findings, she wrote, is the heavy mortality in the 0- to 6-month age group, which she notes is “the age group targeted by vaccination during pregnancy and birth-dose immunoprophylaxis.”

Dr. Hartert, who coauthored the commentary with Justin R. Ortiz, MD, MS, with the Center for Vaccine Development and Global Health, University of Maryland, Baltimore, told this news organization, “RSV is a respiratory virus that infects nearly every child by the time they are 2-3 years of age, with severe infection and death most common in the youngest infants. Vaccines that prevent the most severe infections in these young infants will likely be one of the best ways to prevent these severe infections and death.”

Though the authors found most deaths occur in low- and middle-income countries, RSV is one of the most common reasons for infant hospitalization in the US and affects 1% to 3% of infants, half of whom are full-term and otherwise healthy, Dr. Hartert said.

It is also one of the most common causes of infant lower respiratory tract infection in young children in the United States, she said, and it causes the most severe disease at the age extremes, with older adults experiencing significant morbidity with RSV.

Dr. Li said in an interview that although the team did not focus on reporting country-specific estimates in this work, their previous work, resulted in estimates of 98,000-155,000 RSV-related hospitalizations in children under 5 years old in the United States in 2019. Between 65,000 and 86,000 were in infants less than 1 year old.

Currently, he said, the only available RSV prophylaxis is palivizumab (Synagis), which is expensive and given only to high-risk infants in high-income countries, including the United States.

“There have been a number of promising RSV prophylactic products including maternal vaccine and monoclonal antibodies that have the potential for targeting the general infant population – not just high-risk infants – in late-phase clinical trials,” he said. “Our estimates of RSV-related disease burden will help anticipate the impact of future RSV immunization programs.”
 

Pandemic changed patterns

This research was completed before the COVID-19 pandemic, and it is not yet known how that could affect RSV disease burden long term.

However, Dr. Hartert said, RSV circulation has been significantly changed during the pandemic, both in intensity and timing, likely because of a combination of COVID and the public health preventive measures.

“As people return to normal activities and the public health measures put in place to stop the spread of COVID are eased, we are likely to see increases in circulation of RSV and return to its circulation during the winter months – typically similar to circulation of flu – from November through March in temperate climates in the northern hemisphere,” she said.

A coauthor of the paper, Harish Nair, PhD, with the Centre for Global Health, Usher Institute, University of Edinburgh, said in a press release that their findings have particular significance as COVID restrictions ease around the globe.

“The majority of the young children born in the last 2 years have never been exposed to RSV (and therefore have no immunity against this virus),” Nair wrote.
 

Most deaths occurring outside hospitals

A challenge in reducing the deaths in those 5 years old and younger is that most (76%) of deaths are happening in the community outside hospitals.

The authors wrote: “For every RSV-associated acute lower respiratory infection in-hospital death, we estimate approximately three more deaths attributable to RSV in the community.”

The percentage dying outside hospitals is even larger (81%) in low- to middle-income countries.

This work built on a previous review by the team that analyzed 317 studies. They updated their search with 113 new eligible studies and unpublished data from 51 papers published between Jan. 1, 2017, and Dec. 31, 2020.

The authors acknowledged some limitations, including variations in study settings and in definitions for acute lower respiratory infection, healthcare access, and eligibility for RSV testing.

The study was funded by EU Innovative Medicines Initiative Respiratory Syncytial Virus Consortium in Europe. Dr. Li reported grants from Wellcome Trust and the World Health Organization outside the submitted work. Dr. Hartert, Dr. Ortiz, and Dr. Nair disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, signed off May 19 on an advisory panel’s recommendation that children ages 5 to 11 years should receive a Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine booster dose at least 5 months after completion of the primary series.

The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) voted 11:1, with one abstention, on a question about whether it recommended these additional shots in this age group.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration on May 17 amended the emergency use authorization (EUA) for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine to cover a single booster dose for administration to individuals 5 through 11 years of age.

At the request of CDC staff, ACIP members considered whether there should be softer wording for this recommendation, stating that children in this age group “may” receive a booster. This kind of phrasing would better reflect uncertainty about the course of COVID in the months ahead and allow flexibility for a stronger recommendation in the fall.

ACIP panelists and members of key groups argued strongly for a “should” recommendation, despite the uncertainties.

They also called for stronger efforts to make sure eligible children received their initial COVID-19 shots. Data gathered between November and April show only 14.4% of children ages 5 to 11 in rural areas have received at least one dose of COVID-19 vaccination, with top rates of 39.8% in large urban communities and 36% in larger suburban regions, CDC staff said.

CDC staff also said nearly 40% of parents in rural areas reported that their children’s pediatricians did not recommend COVID-19 vaccinations, compared with only 8% of parents in urban communities. These figures concerned ACIP members and liaisons from medical associations who take part in the panel’s deliberations but not in its votes.

“People will hear the word ‘m-a-y’ as ‘m-e-h’,” said Patricia Stinchfield, RN, MS, who served as the liaison for National Association of Pediatric Nurse Practitioners to ACIP. “I think we need to add urgency” to efforts to increase use of COVID vaccinations, she said.

Voting no on Thursday was Helen Keipp Talbot, MD, of Vanderbilt University. She explained after the vote that she is in favor of having young children vaccinated, but she’s concerned about the low rates of initial uptake of the COVID-19 shots.

“Boosters are great once we’ve gotten everyone their first round,” she said. “That needs to be our priority in this.”

Sandra Fryhofer, MD, the American Medical Association’s liaison to ACIP, stressed the add-on benefits from more widespread vaccination of children against COVID. Dr. Fryhofer said she serves adults in her practice as an internal medicine physician, with many of her patients being at high risk for complications from COVID.

Too many people are assuming the spread of infections in the community has lessened the risk of the virus, Dr. Fryhofer said.

“Not everyone’s had COVID yet, and my patients will be likely to get COVID if their grandchildren get it. We’re going through pandemic fatigue in this country,” she said. “Unfortunately, masks are now more off than on. Winter’s coming. They’re more variants” of the virus likely to emerge.

The data emerging so far suggests COVID vaccines will become a three-dose medicine, as is already accepted for other shots like hepatitis B vaccine, Dr. Fryhofer said.

Data gathered to date show the vaccine decreases risk of hospitalization for COVID and for complications such as multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C), she said.

“The bottom line is children in this age group are getting COVID,” Dr. Fryhofer said of the 5- to 11-year-olds. “Some do fine. Some are getting real sick. Some are hospitalized, some have died.”

At the meeting, CDC staff cited data from a paper published in the New England Journal of Medicine in March showing that vaccination had reduced the risk of hospitalization for COVID-19 among children 5 to 11 years of age by two-thirds during the Omicron period; most children with critical COVID-19 were unvaccinated.

COVID-19 led to 66 deaths among children ages 5 to 11 in the October 2020 to October 2021 timeframe, said ACIP member Matthew F. Daley, MD, of Kaiser Permanente Colorado during a presentation to his fellow panel members.

Parents may underestimate children’s risk from COVID and thus hold off on vaccinations, stressed AMA President Gerald E. Harmon, MD, in a statement issued after the meeting.

“It is concerning that only 1 in 3 children between the ages of 5 and 11 in the United States have received two doses of the vaccine, in part because parents believe them to be at lower risk for severe disease than adults,” Dr. Harmon said. “But the Omicron variant brought about change that should alter that calculus.”
 

Responding to early data

As Dr. Fryhofer put it, the medical community has been learning in “real time” about how COVID vaccines work and how to use them.

The EUA granted on May 17 for booster shots for children ages 5 to 11 was based on an analysis of immune response data in a subset of children from an ongoing randomized placebo-controlled trial, the FDA said.

Antibody responses were evaluated in 67 study participants who received a booster dose 7 to 9 months after completing a two-dose primary series of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine. The EUA for the booster shot was intended to respond to emerging data that suggest that vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19 wanes after the second dose of the vaccine, the FDA said.
 

CDC seeks help tracking vaccine complications

At the ACIP meeting, a top CDC vaccine-safety official, Tom Shimabukuro, MD, MPH, MBA, asked physicians to make sure their patients know about the agency’s V-Safe program for gathering reports from the public about their experiences with COVID vaccines. This is intended to help the CDC monitor for side effects of these medications.

“We need your help,” he said during a presentation about adverse events reported to date in children ages 5 to 11 who took the Pfizer vaccine.

About 18.1 million doses of Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine have been administered to children ages 5 to 11 years in the United States so far. Most of the reports of adverse events following vaccination were not serious, he said. But there were 20 reports of myocarditis verified to meet CDC case definition among children ages 5 to 11 years.

One case involved a death with histopathologic evidence of myocarditis on autopsy. The CDC continues to assist with case review, he said.

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

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, signed off May 19 on an advisory panel’s recommendation that children ages 5 to 11 years should receive a Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine booster dose at least 5 months after completion of the primary series.

The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) voted 11:1, with one abstention, on a question about whether it recommended these additional shots in this age group.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration on May 17 amended the emergency use authorization (EUA) for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine to cover a single booster dose for administration to individuals 5 through 11 years of age.

At the request of CDC staff, ACIP members considered whether there should be softer wording for this recommendation, stating that children in this age group “may” receive a booster. This kind of phrasing would better reflect uncertainty about the course of COVID in the months ahead and allow flexibility for a stronger recommendation in the fall.

ACIP panelists and members of key groups argued strongly for a “should” recommendation, despite the uncertainties.

They also called for stronger efforts to make sure eligible children received their initial COVID-19 shots. Data gathered between November and April show only 14.4% of children ages 5 to 11 in rural areas have received at least one dose of COVID-19 vaccination, with top rates of 39.8% in large urban communities and 36% in larger suburban regions, CDC staff said.

CDC staff also said nearly 40% of parents in rural areas reported that their children’s pediatricians did not recommend COVID-19 vaccinations, compared with only 8% of parents in urban communities. These figures concerned ACIP members and liaisons from medical associations who take part in the panel’s deliberations but not in its votes.

“People will hear the word ‘m-a-y’ as ‘m-e-h’,” said Patricia Stinchfield, RN, MS, who served as the liaison for National Association of Pediatric Nurse Practitioners to ACIP. “I think we need to add urgency” to efforts to increase use of COVID vaccinations, she said.

Voting no on Thursday was Helen Keipp Talbot, MD, of Vanderbilt University. She explained after the vote that she is in favor of having young children vaccinated, but she’s concerned about the low rates of initial uptake of the COVID-19 shots.

“Boosters are great once we’ve gotten everyone their first round,” she said. “That needs to be our priority in this.”

Sandra Fryhofer, MD, the American Medical Association’s liaison to ACIP, stressed the add-on benefits from more widespread vaccination of children against COVID. Dr. Fryhofer said she serves adults in her practice as an internal medicine physician, with many of her patients being at high risk for complications from COVID.

Too many people are assuming the spread of infections in the community has lessened the risk of the virus, Dr. Fryhofer said.

“Not everyone’s had COVID yet, and my patients will be likely to get COVID if their grandchildren get it. We’re going through pandemic fatigue in this country,” she said. “Unfortunately, masks are now more off than on. Winter’s coming. They’re more variants” of the virus likely to emerge.

The data emerging so far suggests COVID vaccines will become a three-dose medicine, as is already accepted for other shots like hepatitis B vaccine, Dr. Fryhofer said.

Data gathered to date show the vaccine decreases risk of hospitalization for COVID and for complications such as multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C), she said.

“The bottom line is children in this age group are getting COVID,” Dr. Fryhofer said of the 5- to 11-year-olds. “Some do fine. Some are getting real sick. Some are hospitalized, some have died.”

At the meeting, CDC staff cited data from a paper published in the New England Journal of Medicine in March showing that vaccination had reduced the risk of hospitalization for COVID-19 among children 5 to 11 years of age by two-thirds during the Omicron period; most children with critical COVID-19 were unvaccinated.

COVID-19 led to 66 deaths among children ages 5 to 11 in the October 2020 to October 2021 timeframe, said ACIP member Matthew F. Daley, MD, of Kaiser Permanente Colorado during a presentation to his fellow panel members.

Parents may underestimate children’s risk from COVID and thus hold off on vaccinations, stressed AMA President Gerald E. Harmon, MD, in a statement issued after the meeting.

“It is concerning that only 1 in 3 children between the ages of 5 and 11 in the United States have received two doses of the vaccine, in part because parents believe them to be at lower risk for severe disease than adults,” Dr. Harmon said. “But the Omicron variant brought about change that should alter that calculus.”
 

Responding to early data

As Dr. Fryhofer put it, the medical community has been learning in “real time” about how COVID vaccines work and how to use them.

The EUA granted on May 17 for booster shots for children ages 5 to 11 was based on an analysis of immune response data in a subset of children from an ongoing randomized placebo-controlled trial, the FDA said.

Antibody responses were evaluated in 67 study participants who received a booster dose 7 to 9 months after completing a two-dose primary series of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine. The EUA for the booster shot was intended to respond to emerging data that suggest that vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19 wanes after the second dose of the vaccine, the FDA said.
 

CDC seeks help tracking vaccine complications

At the ACIP meeting, a top CDC vaccine-safety official, Tom Shimabukuro, MD, MPH, MBA, asked physicians to make sure their patients know about the agency’s V-Safe program for gathering reports from the public about their experiences with COVID vaccines. This is intended to help the CDC monitor for side effects of these medications.

“We need your help,” he said during a presentation about adverse events reported to date in children ages 5 to 11 who took the Pfizer vaccine.

About 18.1 million doses of Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine have been administered to children ages 5 to 11 years in the United States so far. Most of the reports of adverse events following vaccination were not serious, he said. But there were 20 reports of myocarditis verified to meet CDC case definition among children ages 5 to 11 years.

One case involved a death with histopathologic evidence of myocarditis on autopsy. The CDC continues to assist with case review, he said.

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

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, signed off May 19 on an advisory panel’s recommendation that children ages 5 to 11 years should receive a Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine booster dose at least 5 months after completion of the primary series.

The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) voted 11:1, with one abstention, on a question about whether it recommended these additional shots in this age group.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration on May 17 amended the emergency use authorization (EUA) for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine to cover a single booster dose for administration to individuals 5 through 11 years of age.

At the request of CDC staff, ACIP members considered whether there should be softer wording for this recommendation, stating that children in this age group “may” receive a booster. This kind of phrasing would better reflect uncertainty about the course of COVID in the months ahead and allow flexibility for a stronger recommendation in the fall.

ACIP panelists and members of key groups argued strongly for a “should” recommendation, despite the uncertainties.

They also called for stronger efforts to make sure eligible children received their initial COVID-19 shots. Data gathered between November and April show only 14.4% of children ages 5 to 11 in rural areas have received at least one dose of COVID-19 vaccination, with top rates of 39.8% in large urban communities and 36% in larger suburban regions, CDC staff said.

CDC staff also said nearly 40% of parents in rural areas reported that their children’s pediatricians did not recommend COVID-19 vaccinations, compared with only 8% of parents in urban communities. These figures concerned ACIP members and liaisons from medical associations who take part in the panel’s deliberations but not in its votes.

“People will hear the word ‘m-a-y’ as ‘m-e-h’,” said Patricia Stinchfield, RN, MS, who served as the liaison for National Association of Pediatric Nurse Practitioners to ACIP. “I think we need to add urgency” to efforts to increase use of COVID vaccinations, she said.

Voting no on Thursday was Helen Keipp Talbot, MD, of Vanderbilt University. She explained after the vote that she is in favor of having young children vaccinated, but she’s concerned about the low rates of initial uptake of the COVID-19 shots.

“Boosters are great once we’ve gotten everyone their first round,” she said. “That needs to be our priority in this.”

Sandra Fryhofer, MD, the American Medical Association’s liaison to ACIP, stressed the add-on benefits from more widespread vaccination of children against COVID. Dr. Fryhofer said she serves adults in her practice as an internal medicine physician, with many of her patients being at high risk for complications from COVID.

Too many people are assuming the spread of infections in the community has lessened the risk of the virus, Dr. Fryhofer said.

“Not everyone’s had COVID yet, and my patients will be likely to get COVID if their grandchildren get it. We’re going through pandemic fatigue in this country,” she said. “Unfortunately, masks are now more off than on. Winter’s coming. They’re more variants” of the virus likely to emerge.

The data emerging so far suggests COVID vaccines will become a three-dose medicine, as is already accepted for other shots like hepatitis B vaccine, Dr. Fryhofer said.

Data gathered to date show the vaccine decreases risk of hospitalization for COVID and for complications such as multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C), she said.

“The bottom line is children in this age group are getting COVID,” Dr. Fryhofer said of the 5- to 11-year-olds. “Some do fine. Some are getting real sick. Some are hospitalized, some have died.”

At the meeting, CDC staff cited data from a paper published in the New England Journal of Medicine in March showing that vaccination had reduced the risk of hospitalization for COVID-19 among children 5 to 11 years of age by two-thirds during the Omicron period; most children with critical COVID-19 were unvaccinated.

COVID-19 led to 66 deaths among children ages 5 to 11 in the October 2020 to October 2021 timeframe, said ACIP member Matthew F. Daley, MD, of Kaiser Permanente Colorado during a presentation to his fellow panel members.

Parents may underestimate children’s risk from COVID and thus hold off on vaccinations, stressed AMA President Gerald E. Harmon, MD, in a statement issued after the meeting.

“It is concerning that only 1 in 3 children between the ages of 5 and 11 in the United States have received two doses of the vaccine, in part because parents believe them to be at lower risk for severe disease than adults,” Dr. Harmon said. “But the Omicron variant brought about change that should alter that calculus.”
 

Responding to early data

As Dr. Fryhofer put it, the medical community has been learning in “real time” about how COVID vaccines work and how to use them.

The EUA granted on May 17 for booster shots for children ages 5 to 11 was based on an analysis of immune response data in a subset of children from an ongoing randomized placebo-controlled trial, the FDA said.

Antibody responses were evaluated in 67 study participants who received a booster dose 7 to 9 months after completing a two-dose primary series of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine. The EUA for the booster shot was intended to respond to emerging data that suggest that vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19 wanes after the second dose of the vaccine, the FDA said.
 

CDC seeks help tracking vaccine complications

At the ACIP meeting, a top CDC vaccine-safety official, Tom Shimabukuro, MD, MPH, MBA, asked physicians to make sure their patients know about the agency’s V-Safe program for gathering reports from the public about their experiences with COVID vaccines. This is intended to help the CDC monitor for side effects of these medications.

“We need your help,” he said during a presentation about adverse events reported to date in children ages 5 to 11 who took the Pfizer vaccine.

About 18.1 million doses of Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine have been administered to children ages 5 to 11 years in the United States so far. Most of the reports of adverse events following vaccination were not serious, he said. But there were 20 reports of myocarditis verified to meet CDC case definition among children ages 5 to 11 years.

One case involved a death with histopathologic evidence of myocarditis on autopsy. The CDC continues to assist with case review, he said.

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

When you speak to Santiaga Nunez, right away, you can sense her deep and unwavering devotion to her son, Lloyd Tyler Rochez, born in 2002 with trisomy 13, a genetic disorder that can involve severe learning problems and health woes that affect nearly every organ.

Lloyd’s diagnosis was confirmed shortly after he was born, when his doctors noticed that his facial features weren’t measuring right for a baby of his size, he had an extra finger on his left hand, and his fingers were joined on the right. His heart was also on the right side of his chest instead of the left. When he had breathing issues, he was quickly rushed to the neonatal ICU (NICU) in the New York City hospital where he was born.

Ms. Nunez wasn’t sure exactly what was wrong with her newborn, but the next morning, a genetics expert came to her room to discuss her medical history and whether anyone in the family had Down syndrome. That same health care provider told her that the next step was to run some tests and do more bloodwork.

Four days later, when Ms. Nunez was told that Lloyd had trisomy 13 and was likely to live for only 2 weeks, she was unable to come to terms with the news.

“There was so much information being told to me at once,” recalls Ms. Nunez, now 42, who is also the mom of two daughters, ages 8 and 10. “I had just turned 22, and this was my first experience giving birth. I can’t even remember everything the doctors told me.”

But she does remember her doctor telling her something about faith.

“After he tried to explain trisomy 13 to me, the downside and the prognosis, at the end he said, ‘I don’t know if you believe in some supernatural being, but if you want to ask that someone for a miracle, I would advise you to do that. Pray for your miracle, and you may get it.’”

Prepared for the worst, Ms. Nunez, who now works from her Martinsburg, WV, home as a case manager for unaccompanied minors coming to the U.S., decided that she would commit to providing the best possible care for her new baby no matter how long he lived.

Thus began an incredible story of Lloyd defying all the odds. While he stayed in the hospital for 2 weeks, his breathing soon began to stabilize, and he could eat by mouth. With that, he was discharged and allowed to go home.

“I was this inexperienced first-time mom who had been told to watch for all sorts of things, like making sure he didn’t turn blue at night,” she says. “I spent so many sleepless nights, but I was dedicated to Lloyd.”

Then, when Lloyd was 6 months old, Ms. Nunez made another important choice.

“I decided that I wasn’t going to live each day as if he was going to die,” she says. “I decided, instead, to enjoy him every day.”

But many health complications still came about, including a serious intestine issue at 8 months, at which point Lloyd’s doctors suggested waiting until he was a year old to have surgery.

Lloyd was able to get through the procedure, but while he was in the recovery room, he stopped breathing.

“I started screaming ‘my son is dying,’” Ms. Nunez recalls. “The nurses put me in a room, and I think I was in there for 10 minutes, but it felt like an eternity of me screaming.”She soon learned that Lloyd had had a seizure. He spent the next 3 weeks in the hospital.

“That was our life,” she says. “He would have respiratory pneumonia, for example, and we would go back to the hospital. We were in and out and in and out.”

But she kept the faith, and since then, Lloyd’s health has mostly stabilized. Ms. Nunez can care for him at home on her own and with family members who help out from time to time.

And, while Lloyd is unable to speak, he smiles and laughs when he’s happy, he’s quiet when he feels ill, and, when he wants to be alone, he groans, Ms. Nunez says. He can stand up, and he crawls from place to place. He also can’t go to the bathroom on his own and is fed by a gastrostomy tube, or G-tube.

In December, when Lloyd was diagnosed with COVID-19, Ms. Nunez started worrying all over again.

“Seeing him in the ICU, all I could think of was ‘please don’t make my son suffer,’” she says. “If he goes, I want him to go in peace, and I don’t want to see him in a machine and suffering.”

But Lloyd once again defied the odds against him and came home again. He has since faced yet another health challenge: He recently had a pelvic fracture.

“When I saw the orthopedist, he told me that Lloyd has a bone deficiency and that his bones don’t have enough room to grow,” she says. “I’m afraid this will be the beginning of a new journey.”
 

How this mom finds strength

While Ms. Nunez doesn’t go to a support group or speak with a mental health professional about all that she’s juggling, she says she draws strength from Lloyd himself.

“I’m very private, and I come from a culture where you don’t want people feeling sorry for you,” she says. “But I want to give Lloyd everything – he goes to school, we go to church, he had a quinceañera when he was 15, we’ve been to Disney, and we’ve both gotten on a roller coaster. I haven’t limited his life.”

She also draws comfort from her daughters.

“Everyone calls him ‘Baby Lloyd,’” she says. “My girls come right home from school, wash their hands, and throw themselves on his bed and watch TV with him. They also worry about him a lot. When he goes to the hospital, they suffer more than I do.”

In the end, Ms. Nunez hopes her story inspires others to think beyond a prognosis.

“Don’t lose hope,” she says. “I want people to feel hopeful when they read about Lloyd. He’s going to be 20 years old, and no one ever believed he would be here today ... I feel blessed.”

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

When you speak to Santiaga Nunez, right away, you can sense her deep and unwavering devotion to her son, Lloyd Tyler Rochez, born in 2002 with trisomy 13, a genetic disorder that can involve severe learning problems and health woes that affect nearly every organ.

Lloyd’s diagnosis was confirmed shortly after he was born, when his doctors noticed that his facial features weren’t measuring right for a baby of his size, he had an extra finger on his left hand, and his fingers were joined on the right. His heart was also on the right side of his chest instead of the left. When he had breathing issues, he was quickly rushed to the neonatal ICU (NICU) in the New York City hospital where he was born.

Ms. Nunez wasn’t sure exactly what was wrong with her newborn, but the next morning, a genetics expert came to her room to discuss her medical history and whether anyone in the family had Down syndrome. That same health care provider told her that the next step was to run some tests and do more bloodwork.

Four days later, when Ms. Nunez was told that Lloyd had trisomy 13 and was likely to live for only 2 weeks, she was unable to come to terms with the news.

“There was so much information being told to me at once,” recalls Ms. Nunez, now 42, who is also the mom of two daughters, ages 8 and 10. “I had just turned 22, and this was my first experience giving birth. I can’t even remember everything the doctors told me.”

But she does remember her doctor telling her something about faith.

“After he tried to explain trisomy 13 to me, the downside and the prognosis, at the end he said, ‘I don’t know if you believe in some supernatural being, but if you want to ask that someone for a miracle, I would advise you to do that. Pray for your miracle, and you may get it.’”

Prepared for the worst, Ms. Nunez, who now works from her Martinsburg, WV, home as a case manager for unaccompanied minors coming to the U.S., decided that she would commit to providing the best possible care for her new baby no matter how long he lived.

Thus began an incredible story of Lloyd defying all the odds. While he stayed in the hospital for 2 weeks, his breathing soon began to stabilize, and he could eat by mouth. With that, he was discharged and allowed to go home.

“I was this inexperienced first-time mom who had been told to watch for all sorts of things, like making sure he didn’t turn blue at night,” she says. “I spent so many sleepless nights, but I was dedicated to Lloyd.”

Then, when Lloyd was 6 months old, Ms. Nunez made another important choice.

“I decided that I wasn’t going to live each day as if he was going to die,” she says. “I decided, instead, to enjoy him every day.”

But many health complications still came about, including a serious intestine issue at 8 months, at which point Lloyd’s doctors suggested waiting until he was a year old to have surgery.

Lloyd was able to get through the procedure, but while he was in the recovery room, he stopped breathing.

“I started screaming ‘my son is dying,’” Ms. Nunez recalls. “The nurses put me in a room, and I think I was in there for 10 minutes, but it felt like an eternity of me screaming.”She soon learned that Lloyd had had a seizure. He spent the next 3 weeks in the hospital.

“That was our life,” she says. “He would have respiratory pneumonia, for example, and we would go back to the hospital. We were in and out and in and out.”

But she kept the faith, and since then, Lloyd’s health has mostly stabilized. Ms. Nunez can care for him at home on her own and with family members who help out from time to time.

And, while Lloyd is unable to speak, he smiles and laughs when he’s happy, he’s quiet when he feels ill, and, when he wants to be alone, he groans, Ms. Nunez says. He can stand up, and he crawls from place to place. He also can’t go to the bathroom on his own and is fed by a gastrostomy tube, or G-tube.

In December, when Lloyd was diagnosed with COVID-19, Ms. Nunez started worrying all over again.

“Seeing him in the ICU, all I could think of was ‘please don’t make my son suffer,’” she says. “If he goes, I want him to go in peace, and I don’t want to see him in a machine and suffering.”

But Lloyd once again defied the odds against him and came home again. He has since faced yet another health challenge: He recently had a pelvic fracture.

“When I saw the orthopedist, he told me that Lloyd has a bone deficiency and that his bones don’t have enough room to grow,” she says. “I’m afraid this will be the beginning of a new journey.”
 

How this mom finds strength

While Ms. Nunez doesn’t go to a support group or speak with a mental health professional about all that she’s juggling, she says she draws strength from Lloyd himself.

“I’m very private, and I come from a culture where you don’t want people feeling sorry for you,” she says. “But I want to give Lloyd everything – he goes to school, we go to church, he had a quinceañera when he was 15, we’ve been to Disney, and we’ve both gotten on a roller coaster. I haven’t limited his life.”

She also draws comfort from her daughters.

“Everyone calls him ‘Baby Lloyd,’” she says. “My girls come right home from school, wash their hands, and throw themselves on his bed and watch TV with him. They also worry about him a lot. When he goes to the hospital, they suffer more than I do.”

In the end, Ms. Nunez hopes her story inspires others to think beyond a prognosis.

“Don’t lose hope,” she says. “I want people to feel hopeful when they read about Lloyd. He’s going to be 20 years old, and no one ever believed he would be here today ... I feel blessed.”

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

When you speak to Santiaga Nunez, right away, you can sense her deep and unwavering devotion to her son, Lloyd Tyler Rochez, born in 2002 with trisomy 13, a genetic disorder that can involve severe learning problems and health woes that affect nearly every organ.

Lloyd’s diagnosis was confirmed shortly after he was born, when his doctors noticed that his facial features weren’t measuring right for a baby of his size, he had an extra finger on his left hand, and his fingers were joined on the right. His heart was also on the right side of his chest instead of the left. When he had breathing issues, he was quickly rushed to the neonatal ICU (NICU) in the New York City hospital where he was born.

Ms. Nunez wasn’t sure exactly what was wrong with her newborn, but the next morning, a genetics expert came to her room to discuss her medical history and whether anyone in the family had Down syndrome. That same health care provider told her that the next step was to run some tests and do more bloodwork.

Four days later, when Ms. Nunez was told that Lloyd had trisomy 13 and was likely to live for only 2 weeks, she was unable to come to terms with the news.

“There was so much information being told to me at once,” recalls Ms. Nunez, now 42, who is also the mom of two daughters, ages 8 and 10. “I had just turned 22, and this was my first experience giving birth. I can’t even remember everything the doctors told me.”

But she does remember her doctor telling her something about faith.

“After he tried to explain trisomy 13 to me, the downside and the prognosis, at the end he said, ‘I don’t know if you believe in some supernatural being, but if you want to ask that someone for a miracle, I would advise you to do that. Pray for your miracle, and you may get it.’”

Prepared for the worst, Ms. Nunez, who now works from her Martinsburg, WV, home as a case manager for unaccompanied minors coming to the U.S., decided that she would commit to providing the best possible care for her new baby no matter how long he lived.

Thus began an incredible story of Lloyd defying all the odds. While he stayed in the hospital for 2 weeks, his breathing soon began to stabilize, and he could eat by mouth. With that, he was discharged and allowed to go home.

“I was this inexperienced first-time mom who had been told to watch for all sorts of things, like making sure he didn’t turn blue at night,” she says. “I spent so many sleepless nights, but I was dedicated to Lloyd.”

Then, when Lloyd was 6 months old, Ms. Nunez made another important choice.

“I decided that I wasn’t going to live each day as if he was going to die,” she says. “I decided, instead, to enjoy him every day.”

But many health complications still came about, including a serious intestine issue at 8 months, at which point Lloyd’s doctors suggested waiting until he was a year old to have surgery.

Lloyd was able to get through the procedure, but while he was in the recovery room, he stopped breathing.

“I started screaming ‘my son is dying,’” Ms. Nunez recalls. “The nurses put me in a room, and I think I was in there for 10 minutes, but it felt like an eternity of me screaming.”She soon learned that Lloyd had had a seizure. He spent the next 3 weeks in the hospital.

“That was our life,” she says. “He would have respiratory pneumonia, for example, and we would go back to the hospital. We were in and out and in and out.”

But she kept the faith, and since then, Lloyd’s health has mostly stabilized. Ms. Nunez can care for him at home on her own and with family members who help out from time to time.

And, while Lloyd is unable to speak, he smiles and laughs when he’s happy, he’s quiet when he feels ill, and, when he wants to be alone, he groans, Ms. Nunez says. He can stand up, and he crawls from place to place. He also can’t go to the bathroom on his own and is fed by a gastrostomy tube, or G-tube.

In December, when Lloyd was diagnosed with COVID-19, Ms. Nunez started worrying all over again.

“Seeing him in the ICU, all I could think of was ‘please don’t make my son suffer,’” she says. “If he goes, I want him to go in peace, and I don’t want to see him in a machine and suffering.”

But Lloyd once again defied the odds against him and came home again. He has since faced yet another health challenge: He recently had a pelvic fracture.

“When I saw the orthopedist, he told me that Lloyd has a bone deficiency and that his bones don’t have enough room to grow,” she says. “I’m afraid this will be the beginning of a new journey.”
 

How this mom finds strength

While Ms. Nunez doesn’t go to a support group or speak with a mental health professional about all that she’s juggling, she says she draws strength from Lloyd himself.

“I’m very private, and I come from a culture where you don’t want people feeling sorry for you,” she says. “But I want to give Lloyd everything – he goes to school, we go to church, he had a quinceañera when he was 15, we’ve been to Disney, and we’ve both gotten on a roller coaster. I haven’t limited his life.”

She also draws comfort from her daughters.

“Everyone calls him ‘Baby Lloyd,’” she says. “My girls come right home from school, wash their hands, and throw themselves on his bed and watch TV with him. They also worry about him a lot. When he goes to the hospital, they suffer more than I do.”

In the end, Ms. Nunez hopes her story inspires others to think beyond a prognosis.

“Don’t lose hope,” she says. “I want people to feel hopeful when they read about Lloyd. He’s going to be 20 years old, and no one ever believed he would be here today ... I feel blessed.”

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

More teenagers in the United States reported cannabis use with vaping in 2019, compared with 2017, while cannabis use without vaping declined, based on annual survey data from more than 50,000 teens.

“With vaping prevalence rising so quickly among teens, getting a clearer picture of how cannabis use is shifting helps inform prevention and cessation efforts,” corresponding author Noah T. Kreski, MPH, of Columbia University, New York, said in an interview.

“In just 2 years, the most common cannabis use pattern changed from ‘occasional use without vaping’ to ‘frequent use with vaping,’ said Mx. Kreski, who uses the honorific Mx. and the pronouns they/them. “Knowing that, as well as the high overlap of cannabis vaping with nicotine use and binge drinking, adds to the urgency of reducing adolescent vaping.”

To quantify the trends in cannabis vaping, the researchers reviewed data from Monitoring the Future, an annual survey of high school students across the United States. The study population included 51,052 individuals; approximately 49% were male and 49% were non-Hispanic White. The researchers examined frequency of cannabis use, trends across demographic groups, and concurrent use of cannabis and other substances such as alcohol and tobacco. The findings were published in the journal Addiction.

Frequent cannabis use was defined as six or more times in the past 30 days; occasional use was defined as one to five times in the past 30 days.

Frequent cannabis use with vaping increased from 2.1% in 2017 to 5.4% in 2019. Occasional cannabis use with vaping also increased, though less dramatically, from less than 2% in 2017 to approximately 3.5% in 2019.

By contrast, both frequent and occasional cannabis use without vaping declined from 2017 to 2019 (from 3.8% to 2.1% and from 6.9% to 4.4%, respectively).

Overall, the prevalence of any level of cannabis use increased from 13.9% in 2017 to 15.4% in 2019. Both males and females showed a similar increase in reported frequent cannabis use with vaping of approximately 3%.

The results document that vaping cannabis has become more common than smoking alone among U.S. teens across almost all demographic groups, and across sex, race, urbanicity, and level of parent education; however, the increased was especially marked among Hispanic/Latinx teens and those of lower socioeconomic status, the researchers wrote.

The researchers also examined the associations between cannabis use with and without vaping and concurrent nicotine and alcohol use. Overall, the strongest association was between smoking or vaping nicotine and vaping cannabis; teens who smoked or vaped nicotine were 42 times more likely than nonnicotine users to report vaping cannabis in the past 30 days (adjusted odds ratio, 42.28). In addition, more occasions of binge drinking were more strongly associated with cannabis use with vaping (up to 10 times more likely), compared with cannabis use without vaping, (aORs, 4.48-10.09).

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the lack of questions on tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) or cannabidiol content of the cannabis products used, although evidence suggests that the potency of cannabis products in the United States is increasing, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the cross-sectional design, which prevents making associations about causality, and lack of data on the quantity of cannabis used; only data on frequency of use were recorded.

However, the results reflect a rise in cannabis use with vaping among teens in the United States, along with an increased risk of tobacco use, e-cigarette use, and binge drinking, the researchers said.

As cannabis legalization expands across the United States, policies are needed to deter use among adolescents, the researchers wrote. “These policies should be crafted to reduce an emphasis on criminalization in preference for public health promotion given the history of unequal application of punitive consequences of drug use for racialized minorities in the United States. As products, delivery systems, potency, and marketing proliferate within a for-profit industry, increased attention to youth trends, including investment in sustained and evidence-based prevention and intervention, is increasingly necessary.”

The take-home message for clinicians is to ask whether your patients are vaping, because the prevalence is not only up, but fairly universal, Mx. Kreski said. “Have a discussion that covers a broad range of substance use topics and informs teens of the potential risks of vaping, while avoiding stigma.”

The message for parents is “to talk to your kids about the risks of vaping,” said Mx. Kreski. “Prioritize open communication rather than punishment, and work together with your teens to prevent or reduce vaping.” The message for teens: “Understand that vaping has risks. You should feel empowered to talk to your parents or doctor about those risks. While it may seem like everyone’s vaping, the majority don’t. Keeping communication open between parents/caregivers, teens, and health care providers is one of the best ways to address these trends in vaping.”
 

Beware more powerful cannabis products

“While drug use in general is declining in adolescents, marijuana use remains very common,” Kelly A. Curran, MD, of the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, said in an interview.

“There is growing evidence that marijuana is now the first drug used by adolescents – replacing alcohol and nicotine – and frequent use can lead to substance abuse,” said Dr. Curran, who specializes in adolescent medicine but was involved in the study. “Cannabis use patterns have evolved over time. As I frequently tell my patients and their families, new strains and hybrids of marijuana have higher potencies of THC. Many adolescents are eschewing smoking and in its place using marijuana concentrates (wax, oil, shatter) via vape, dab pen, or rig. Use of these methods puts adolescents at high risk of social and health complications such as [e-cigarette or vaping use-associated lung injury], cannabis hyperemesis syndrome, and psychosis – and understanding these patterns and associated drug use helps health care professionals and parents keep adolescents safe.”

The take-home message for clinicians is that marijuana use via vaping continues to rise and to become more common than “traditional” marijuana smoking, Dr. Curran said. “This increase is across genders, in nearly all race/ethnicities (especially in Latinx youth), and in youth from lower socioeconomic status.” Vaping marijuana is associated with other substance abuse, so health care professionals should include questions about different forms of marijuana use, such as vape, dab pen, or rig, when working with patients, and counsel patients and families about the risks associated with use of any of these products.

The study was supported by the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control and by the National Institute on Drug Abuse. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Curran had no financial conflicts to disclose and serves on the editorial advisory board of Pediatric News.
 

More teenagers in the United States reported cannabis use with vaping in 2019, compared with 2017, while cannabis use without vaping declined, based on annual survey data from more than 50,000 teens.

“With vaping prevalence rising so quickly among teens, getting a clearer picture of how cannabis use is shifting helps inform prevention and cessation efforts,” corresponding author Noah T. Kreski, MPH, of Columbia University, New York, said in an interview.

“In just 2 years, the most common cannabis use pattern changed from ‘occasional use without vaping’ to ‘frequent use with vaping,’ said Mx. Kreski, who uses the honorific Mx. and the pronouns they/them. “Knowing that, as well as the high overlap of cannabis vaping with nicotine use and binge drinking, adds to the urgency of reducing adolescent vaping.”

To quantify the trends in cannabis vaping, the researchers reviewed data from Monitoring the Future, an annual survey of high school students across the United States. The study population included 51,052 individuals; approximately 49% were male and 49% were non-Hispanic White. The researchers examined frequency of cannabis use, trends across demographic groups, and concurrent use of cannabis and other substances such as alcohol and tobacco. The findings were published in the journal Addiction.

Frequent cannabis use was defined as six or more times in the past 30 days; occasional use was defined as one to five times in the past 30 days.

Frequent cannabis use with vaping increased from 2.1% in 2017 to 5.4% in 2019. Occasional cannabis use with vaping also increased, though less dramatically, from less than 2% in 2017 to approximately 3.5% in 2019.

By contrast, both frequent and occasional cannabis use without vaping declined from 2017 to 2019 (from 3.8% to 2.1% and from 6.9% to 4.4%, respectively).

Overall, the prevalence of any level of cannabis use increased from 13.9% in 2017 to 15.4% in 2019. Both males and females showed a similar increase in reported frequent cannabis use with vaping of approximately 3%.

The results document that vaping cannabis has become more common than smoking alone among U.S. teens across almost all demographic groups, and across sex, race, urbanicity, and level of parent education; however, the increased was especially marked among Hispanic/Latinx teens and those of lower socioeconomic status, the researchers wrote.

The researchers also examined the associations between cannabis use with and without vaping and concurrent nicotine and alcohol use. Overall, the strongest association was between smoking or vaping nicotine and vaping cannabis; teens who smoked or vaped nicotine were 42 times more likely than nonnicotine users to report vaping cannabis in the past 30 days (adjusted odds ratio, 42.28). In addition, more occasions of binge drinking were more strongly associated with cannabis use with vaping (up to 10 times more likely), compared with cannabis use without vaping, (aORs, 4.48-10.09).

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the lack of questions on tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) or cannabidiol content of the cannabis products used, although evidence suggests that the potency of cannabis products in the United States is increasing, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the cross-sectional design, which prevents making associations about causality, and lack of data on the quantity of cannabis used; only data on frequency of use were recorded.

However, the results reflect a rise in cannabis use with vaping among teens in the United States, along with an increased risk of tobacco use, e-cigarette use, and binge drinking, the researchers said.

As cannabis legalization expands across the United States, policies are needed to deter use among adolescents, the researchers wrote. “These policies should be crafted to reduce an emphasis on criminalization in preference for public health promotion given the history of unequal application of punitive consequences of drug use for racialized minorities in the United States. As products, delivery systems, potency, and marketing proliferate within a for-profit industry, increased attention to youth trends, including investment in sustained and evidence-based prevention and intervention, is increasingly necessary.”

The take-home message for clinicians is to ask whether your patients are vaping, because the prevalence is not only up, but fairly universal, Mx. Kreski said. “Have a discussion that covers a broad range of substance use topics and informs teens of the potential risks of vaping, while avoiding stigma.”

The message for parents is “to talk to your kids about the risks of vaping,” said Mx. Kreski. “Prioritize open communication rather than punishment, and work together with your teens to prevent or reduce vaping.” The message for teens: “Understand that vaping has risks. You should feel empowered to talk to your parents or doctor about those risks. While it may seem like everyone’s vaping, the majority don’t. Keeping communication open between parents/caregivers, teens, and health care providers is one of the best ways to address these trends in vaping.”
 

Beware more powerful cannabis products

“While drug use in general is declining in adolescents, marijuana use remains very common,” Kelly A. Curran, MD, of the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, said in an interview.

“There is growing evidence that marijuana is now the first drug used by adolescents – replacing alcohol and nicotine – and frequent use can lead to substance abuse,” said Dr. Curran, who specializes in adolescent medicine but was involved in the study. “Cannabis use patterns have evolved over time. As I frequently tell my patients and their families, new strains and hybrids of marijuana have higher potencies of THC. Many adolescents are eschewing smoking and in its place using marijuana concentrates (wax, oil, shatter) via vape, dab pen, or rig. Use of these methods puts adolescents at high risk of social and health complications such as [e-cigarette or vaping use-associated lung injury], cannabis hyperemesis syndrome, and psychosis – and understanding these patterns and associated drug use helps health care professionals and parents keep adolescents safe.”

The take-home message for clinicians is that marijuana use via vaping continues to rise and to become more common than “traditional” marijuana smoking, Dr. Curran said. “This increase is across genders, in nearly all race/ethnicities (especially in Latinx youth), and in youth from lower socioeconomic status.” Vaping marijuana is associated with other substance abuse, so health care professionals should include questions about different forms of marijuana use, such as vape, dab pen, or rig, when working with patients, and counsel patients and families about the risks associated with use of any of these products.

The study was supported by the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control and by the National Institute on Drug Abuse. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Curran had no financial conflicts to disclose and serves on the editorial advisory board of Pediatric News.
 

More teenagers in the United States reported cannabis use with vaping in 2019, compared with 2017, while cannabis use without vaping declined, based on annual survey data from more than 50,000 teens.

“With vaping prevalence rising so quickly among teens, getting a clearer picture of how cannabis use is shifting helps inform prevention and cessation efforts,” corresponding author Noah T. Kreski, MPH, of Columbia University, New York, said in an interview.

“In just 2 years, the most common cannabis use pattern changed from ‘occasional use without vaping’ to ‘frequent use with vaping,’ said Mx. Kreski, who uses the honorific Mx. and the pronouns they/them. “Knowing that, as well as the high overlap of cannabis vaping with nicotine use and binge drinking, adds to the urgency of reducing adolescent vaping.”

To quantify the trends in cannabis vaping, the researchers reviewed data from Monitoring the Future, an annual survey of high school students across the United States. The study population included 51,052 individuals; approximately 49% were male and 49% were non-Hispanic White. The researchers examined frequency of cannabis use, trends across demographic groups, and concurrent use of cannabis and other substances such as alcohol and tobacco. The findings were published in the journal Addiction.

Frequent cannabis use was defined as six or more times in the past 30 days; occasional use was defined as one to five times in the past 30 days.

Frequent cannabis use with vaping increased from 2.1% in 2017 to 5.4% in 2019. Occasional cannabis use with vaping also increased, though less dramatically, from less than 2% in 2017 to approximately 3.5% in 2019.

By contrast, both frequent and occasional cannabis use without vaping declined from 2017 to 2019 (from 3.8% to 2.1% and from 6.9% to 4.4%, respectively).

Overall, the prevalence of any level of cannabis use increased from 13.9% in 2017 to 15.4% in 2019. Both males and females showed a similar increase in reported frequent cannabis use with vaping of approximately 3%.

The results document that vaping cannabis has become more common than smoking alone among U.S. teens across almost all demographic groups, and across sex, race, urbanicity, and level of parent education; however, the increased was especially marked among Hispanic/Latinx teens and those of lower socioeconomic status, the researchers wrote.

The researchers also examined the associations between cannabis use with and without vaping and concurrent nicotine and alcohol use. Overall, the strongest association was between smoking or vaping nicotine and vaping cannabis; teens who smoked or vaped nicotine were 42 times more likely than nonnicotine users to report vaping cannabis in the past 30 days (adjusted odds ratio, 42.28). In addition, more occasions of binge drinking were more strongly associated with cannabis use with vaping (up to 10 times more likely), compared with cannabis use without vaping, (aORs, 4.48-10.09).

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the lack of questions on tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) or cannabidiol content of the cannabis products used, although evidence suggests that the potency of cannabis products in the United States is increasing, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the cross-sectional design, which prevents making associations about causality, and lack of data on the quantity of cannabis used; only data on frequency of use were recorded.

However, the results reflect a rise in cannabis use with vaping among teens in the United States, along with an increased risk of tobacco use, e-cigarette use, and binge drinking, the researchers said.

As cannabis legalization expands across the United States, policies are needed to deter use among adolescents, the researchers wrote. “These policies should be crafted to reduce an emphasis on criminalization in preference for public health promotion given the history of unequal application of punitive consequences of drug use for racialized minorities in the United States. As products, delivery systems, potency, and marketing proliferate within a for-profit industry, increased attention to youth trends, including investment in sustained and evidence-based prevention and intervention, is increasingly necessary.”

The take-home message for clinicians is to ask whether your patients are vaping, because the prevalence is not only up, but fairly universal, Mx. Kreski said. “Have a discussion that covers a broad range of substance use topics and informs teens of the potential risks of vaping, while avoiding stigma.”

The message for parents is “to talk to your kids about the risks of vaping,” said Mx. Kreski. “Prioritize open communication rather than punishment, and work together with your teens to prevent or reduce vaping.” The message for teens: “Understand that vaping has risks. You should feel empowered to talk to your parents or doctor about those risks. While it may seem like everyone’s vaping, the majority don’t. Keeping communication open between parents/caregivers, teens, and health care providers is one of the best ways to address these trends in vaping.”
 

Beware more powerful cannabis products

“While drug use in general is declining in adolescents, marijuana use remains very common,” Kelly A. Curran, MD, of the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, said in an interview.

“There is growing evidence that marijuana is now the first drug used by adolescents – replacing alcohol and nicotine – and frequent use can lead to substance abuse,” said Dr. Curran, who specializes in adolescent medicine but was involved in the study. “Cannabis use patterns have evolved over time. As I frequently tell my patients and their families, new strains and hybrids of marijuana have higher potencies of THC. Many adolescents are eschewing smoking and in its place using marijuana concentrates (wax, oil, shatter) via vape, dab pen, or rig. Use of these methods puts adolescents at high risk of social and health complications such as [e-cigarette or vaping use-associated lung injury], cannabis hyperemesis syndrome, and psychosis – and understanding these patterns and associated drug use helps health care professionals and parents keep adolescents safe.”

The take-home message for clinicians is that marijuana use via vaping continues to rise and to become more common than “traditional” marijuana smoking, Dr. Curran said. “This increase is across genders, in nearly all race/ethnicities (especially in Latinx youth), and in youth from lower socioeconomic status.” Vaping marijuana is associated with other substance abuse, so health care professionals should include questions about different forms of marijuana use, such as vape, dab pen, or rig, when working with patients, and counsel patients and families about the risks associated with use of any of these products.

The study was supported by the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control and by the National Institute on Drug Abuse. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Curran had no financial conflicts to disclose and serves on the editorial advisory board of Pediatric News.