MDedge Pediatrics

When pediatricians and other pediatric providers are given training and resource materials, levels of firearm screenings and anticipatory guidance about firearm safety increase significantly, according to two new studies presented at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Pediatrics.

“With the rise in firearm sales and injuries during the COVID-19 pandemic, it is more important than ever that pediatricians address the firearm epidemic,” said Alexandra Byrne, MD, a pediatric resident at the University of Florida in Gainesville, who presented one of the studies.

There were 4.3 million more firearms purchased from March through July 2020 than expected, a recent study estimates, and 4,075 more firearm injuries than expected from April through July 2020.

In states with more excess purchases, firearm injuries related to domestic violence increased in April (rate ratio, 2.60; 95% CI, 1.32-5.93) and May (RR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.19-2.91) 2020. However, excess gun purchases had no effect on rates of firearm violence outside the home.

In addition to the link between firearms in the home and domestic violence, they are also linked to a three- to fourfold greater risk for teen suicide, and both depression and suicidal thoughts have risen in teens during the pandemic.

“The data are pretty clear that if you have an unlocked, loaded weapon in your home, and you have a kid who’s depressed or anxious or dysregulated or doing maladaptive things for the pandemic, they’re much more likely to inadvertently take their own or someone else’s life by grabbing [a gun],” said Cora Breuner, MD, MPH, professor of pediatrics at Seattle Children’s Hospital.

However, there is no difference in gun ownership or gun-safety measures between homes with and without at-risk children, previous research shows.
 

Training, guidance, and locks

Previous research has also shown that there has been a reluctance by pediatricians to conduct firearm screenings and counsel parents about gun safety in the home.

For their two-step program, Dr. Byrne’s team used a plan-do-study-act approach. They started by providing training on firearm safety, evidence-based recommendations for firearm screening, and anticipatory guidance regarding safe firearm storage to members of the general pediatrics division at the University of Florida. And they supplied clinics with free firearm locks.

Next they supplied clinics with posters and educational cards from the Be SMART campaign, an initiative of the Everytown for Gun Safety Support Fund, which provides materials for anyone, including physicians, to use.

During their study, the researchers sent three anonymous six-question online surveys – at baseline and 3 to 4 months after each of the two steps – to pediatric residents, physician assistants, advanced practice registered nurses, and attendings to assess the project. There were 52 responses to the first survey, for a response rate of 58.4%, 42 responses to the second survey, for a response rate of 47.2%, and 23 responses to the third survey, for a rate of response 25.8%.

The program nearly doubled screenings during well-child visits and dramatically increased the proportion of families who received a firearm lock when they told providers they had a firearm at home.

Adding a social-history component

A program to increase firearm screening was also presented at the AAP conference.

After random review of medical records from 30 patients admitted to the hospital documented zero firearm screenings, Marjorie Farrington, MD, and Samantha Gunkelman, MD, from Akron Children’s Hospital in Ohio, implemented a program that they hope will increase firearm screenings during inpatient admissions to at least 50%.

They started their ongoing program in April 2020 by adding a social-history component to the history and physical (H&P) exam template and educating residents on how to screen and included guidance on safe firearm storage.

They also had physicians with firearm expertise give gun-safety lectures, and they plan to involve the Family Resource Center at their hospital in the creation of resources that can be incorporated into discharge instructions.

From April 2020 to June 2021, after the addition to the H&P template, 63% of the 5196 patients admitted to the hospital underwent a firearm screening. Of the 25% of patients who reported guns at home, 3% were not storing their firearms safely.

The pair used the “Store It Safe” Physician Handout provided by the Ohio chapter of the AAP.

Many pediatricians and pediatric trainees are not comfortable counseling on firearm safety, often a result of inadequate training on the topic.

The BulletPoints Project — developed by the Violence Prevention Research Program at the University of California, Davis — can also help physicians talk to patients about guns.

“Many pediatricians and pediatric trainees are not comfortable counseling on firearm safety, often a result of inadequate training on the topic,” Dr. Byrne said in an interview. “Additionally, it is a challenging topic that can often be met with resistance from patients and families. Lack of time during visits is also a huge barrier.”

Lack of training is an obstacle to greater firearm screenings, Dr. Greeley agreed, as are the feeling that guidance simply won’t make a difference and concerns about political pressure and divineness. The lack of research on firearm injuries and the impact of firearm screenings and anticipatory guidance is a challenge, he added, although that is starting to change.

Pediatricians need education on how to make a difference when it comes to firearm safety, and should follow AAP guidelines, Dr. Greeley said.

Counseling on firearm safety is in the same category as immunizations, seatbelts, substance use, helmets, and other public-health issues that are important to address at visits, regardless of how difficult it might be, Dr. Breuner told this news organization.

“It is our mission, as pediatricians, to provide every ounce of prevention in our well-child and anticipatory guidance visits,” she said. “It’s our job, so we shouldn’t shy away from it even though it’s hard.”

Doctors are more comfortable discussing firearm safety if they are firearm owners, previous research has shown, so she advises pediatricians who feel unqualified to discuss firearms to seek guidance from their peers on how to approach screenings and anticipatory guidance, she noted.

The firearm study being done in an academic center gives me great pause. The populations are often very different than private practice.

Both of these studies were conducted at single institutions and might not reflect what would work in private clinics.

“The firearm study being done in an academic center gives me great pause,” Dr. Greeley said. “The populations are often very different than private practice. I think that there is still a lot that remains unknown about decreasing household firearm injury and death.”

And the degree to which findings from these two gun-safety programs can be generalized to other academic centers or children’s hospitals is unclear.

“There are states where, I suspect, firearm screening is much more common. Some states have very pro-firearm cultures and others are anti-firearm,” Dr. Greeley said. “There are also likely differences within states,” particularly between urban and rural regions.

“Firearms are often a very personal issue for families, and pediatricians in ‘pro-firearm’ communities may have greater resistance to working on this,” he pointed out.

Nevertheless, Dr. Greeley said, “this is a promising strategy that could be part of a broad injury prevention initiative.”

Neither study noted any external funding. Dr. Byrne is a member of the Moms Demand Action Gainesville Chapter, which donated the firearm locks for the project. Dr. Breuner, Dr. Greeley, and Dr. Farrington have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

When pediatricians and other pediatric providers are given training and resource materials, levels of firearm screenings and anticipatory guidance about firearm safety increase significantly, according to two new studies presented at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Pediatrics.

“With the rise in firearm sales and injuries during the COVID-19 pandemic, it is more important than ever that pediatricians address the firearm epidemic,” said Alexandra Byrne, MD, a pediatric resident at the University of Florida in Gainesville, who presented one of the studies.

There were 4.3 million more firearms purchased from March through July 2020 than expected, a recent study estimates, and 4,075 more firearm injuries than expected from April through July 2020.

In states with more excess purchases, firearm injuries related to domestic violence increased in April (rate ratio, 2.60; 95% CI, 1.32-5.93) and May (RR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.19-2.91) 2020. However, excess gun purchases had no effect on rates of firearm violence outside the home.

In addition to the link between firearms in the home and domestic violence, they are also linked to a three- to fourfold greater risk for teen suicide, and both depression and suicidal thoughts have risen in teens during the pandemic.

“The data are pretty clear that if you have an unlocked, loaded weapon in your home, and you have a kid who’s depressed or anxious or dysregulated or doing maladaptive things for the pandemic, they’re much more likely to inadvertently take their own or someone else’s life by grabbing [a gun],” said Cora Breuner, MD, MPH, professor of pediatrics at Seattle Children’s Hospital.

However, there is no difference in gun ownership or gun-safety measures between homes with and without at-risk children, previous research shows.
 

Training, guidance, and locks

Previous research has also shown that there has been a reluctance by pediatricians to conduct firearm screenings and counsel parents about gun safety in the home.

For their two-step program, Dr. Byrne’s team used a plan-do-study-act approach. They started by providing training on firearm safety, evidence-based recommendations for firearm screening, and anticipatory guidance regarding safe firearm storage to members of the general pediatrics division at the University of Florida. And they supplied clinics with free firearm locks.

Next they supplied clinics with posters and educational cards from the Be SMART campaign, an initiative of the Everytown for Gun Safety Support Fund, which provides materials for anyone, including physicians, to use.

During their study, the researchers sent three anonymous six-question online surveys – at baseline and 3 to 4 months after each of the two steps – to pediatric residents, physician assistants, advanced practice registered nurses, and attendings to assess the project. There were 52 responses to the first survey, for a response rate of 58.4%, 42 responses to the second survey, for a response rate of 47.2%, and 23 responses to the third survey, for a rate of response 25.8%.

The program nearly doubled screenings during well-child visits and dramatically increased the proportion of families who received a firearm lock when they told providers they had a firearm at home.

Adding a social-history component

A program to increase firearm screening was also presented at the AAP conference.

After random review of medical records from 30 patients admitted to the hospital documented zero firearm screenings, Marjorie Farrington, MD, and Samantha Gunkelman, MD, from Akron Children’s Hospital in Ohio, implemented a program that they hope will increase firearm screenings during inpatient admissions to at least 50%.

They started their ongoing program in April 2020 by adding a social-history component to the history and physical (H&P) exam template and educating residents on how to screen and included guidance on safe firearm storage.

They also had physicians with firearm expertise give gun-safety lectures, and they plan to involve the Family Resource Center at their hospital in the creation of resources that can be incorporated into discharge instructions.

From April 2020 to June 2021, after the addition to the H&P template, 63% of the 5196 patients admitted to the hospital underwent a firearm screening. Of the 25% of patients who reported guns at home, 3% were not storing their firearms safely.

The pair used the “Store It Safe” Physician Handout provided by the Ohio chapter of the AAP.

Many pediatricians and pediatric trainees are not comfortable counseling on firearm safety, often a result of inadequate training on the topic.

The BulletPoints Project — developed by the Violence Prevention Research Program at the University of California, Davis — can also help physicians talk to patients about guns.

“Many pediatricians and pediatric trainees are not comfortable counseling on firearm safety, often a result of inadequate training on the topic,” Dr. Byrne said in an interview. “Additionally, it is a challenging topic that can often be met with resistance from patients and families. Lack of time during visits is also a huge barrier.”

Lack of training is an obstacle to greater firearm screenings, Dr. Greeley agreed, as are the feeling that guidance simply won’t make a difference and concerns about political pressure and divineness. The lack of research on firearm injuries and the impact of firearm screenings and anticipatory guidance is a challenge, he added, although that is starting to change.

Pediatricians need education on how to make a difference when it comes to firearm safety, and should follow AAP guidelines, Dr. Greeley said.

Counseling on firearm safety is in the same category as immunizations, seatbelts, substance use, helmets, and other public-health issues that are important to address at visits, regardless of how difficult it might be, Dr. Breuner told this news organization.

“It is our mission, as pediatricians, to provide every ounce of prevention in our well-child and anticipatory guidance visits,” she said. “It’s our job, so we shouldn’t shy away from it even though it’s hard.”

Doctors are more comfortable discussing firearm safety if they are firearm owners, previous research has shown, so she advises pediatricians who feel unqualified to discuss firearms to seek guidance from their peers on how to approach screenings and anticipatory guidance, she noted.

The firearm study being done in an academic center gives me great pause. The populations are often very different than private practice.

Both of these studies were conducted at single institutions and might not reflect what would work in private clinics.

“The firearm study being done in an academic center gives me great pause,” Dr. Greeley said. “The populations are often very different than private practice. I think that there is still a lot that remains unknown about decreasing household firearm injury and death.”

And the degree to which findings from these two gun-safety programs can be generalized to other academic centers or children’s hospitals is unclear.

“There are states where, I suspect, firearm screening is much more common. Some states have very pro-firearm cultures and others are anti-firearm,” Dr. Greeley said. “There are also likely differences within states,” particularly between urban and rural regions.

“Firearms are often a very personal issue for families, and pediatricians in ‘pro-firearm’ communities may have greater resistance to working on this,” he pointed out.

Nevertheless, Dr. Greeley said, “this is a promising strategy that could be part of a broad injury prevention initiative.”

Neither study noted any external funding. Dr. Byrne is a member of the Moms Demand Action Gainesville Chapter, which donated the firearm locks for the project. Dr. Breuner, Dr. Greeley, and Dr. Farrington have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

When pediatricians and other pediatric providers are given training and resource materials, levels of firearm screenings and anticipatory guidance about firearm safety increase significantly, according to two new studies presented at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Pediatrics.

“With the rise in firearm sales and injuries during the COVID-19 pandemic, it is more important than ever that pediatricians address the firearm epidemic,” said Alexandra Byrne, MD, a pediatric resident at the University of Florida in Gainesville, who presented one of the studies.

There were 4.3 million more firearms purchased from March through July 2020 than expected, a recent study estimates, and 4,075 more firearm injuries than expected from April through July 2020.

In states with more excess purchases, firearm injuries related to domestic violence increased in April (rate ratio, 2.60; 95% CI, 1.32-5.93) and May (RR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.19-2.91) 2020. However, excess gun purchases had no effect on rates of firearm violence outside the home.

In addition to the link between firearms in the home and domestic violence, they are also linked to a three- to fourfold greater risk for teen suicide, and both depression and suicidal thoughts have risen in teens during the pandemic.

“The data are pretty clear that if you have an unlocked, loaded weapon in your home, and you have a kid who’s depressed or anxious or dysregulated or doing maladaptive things for the pandemic, they’re much more likely to inadvertently take their own or someone else’s life by grabbing [a gun],” said Cora Breuner, MD, MPH, professor of pediatrics at Seattle Children’s Hospital.

However, there is no difference in gun ownership or gun-safety measures between homes with and without at-risk children, previous research shows.
 

Training, guidance, and locks

Previous research has also shown that there has been a reluctance by pediatricians to conduct firearm screenings and counsel parents about gun safety in the home.

For their two-step program, Dr. Byrne’s team used a plan-do-study-act approach. They started by providing training on firearm safety, evidence-based recommendations for firearm screening, and anticipatory guidance regarding safe firearm storage to members of the general pediatrics division at the University of Florida. And they supplied clinics with free firearm locks.

Next they supplied clinics with posters and educational cards from the Be SMART campaign, an initiative of the Everytown for Gun Safety Support Fund, which provides materials for anyone, including physicians, to use.

During their study, the researchers sent three anonymous six-question online surveys – at baseline and 3 to 4 months after each of the two steps – to pediatric residents, physician assistants, advanced practice registered nurses, and attendings to assess the project. There were 52 responses to the first survey, for a response rate of 58.4%, 42 responses to the second survey, for a response rate of 47.2%, and 23 responses to the third survey, for a rate of response 25.8%.

The program nearly doubled screenings during well-child visits and dramatically increased the proportion of families who received a firearm lock when they told providers they had a firearm at home.

Adding a social-history component

A program to increase firearm screening was also presented at the AAP conference.

After random review of medical records from 30 patients admitted to the hospital documented zero firearm screenings, Marjorie Farrington, MD, and Samantha Gunkelman, MD, from Akron Children’s Hospital in Ohio, implemented a program that they hope will increase firearm screenings during inpatient admissions to at least 50%.

They started their ongoing program in April 2020 by adding a social-history component to the history and physical (H&P) exam template and educating residents on how to screen and included guidance on safe firearm storage.

They also had physicians with firearm expertise give gun-safety lectures, and they plan to involve the Family Resource Center at their hospital in the creation of resources that can be incorporated into discharge instructions.

From April 2020 to June 2021, after the addition to the H&P template, 63% of the 5196 patients admitted to the hospital underwent a firearm screening. Of the 25% of patients who reported guns at home, 3% were not storing their firearms safely.

The pair used the “Store It Safe” Physician Handout provided by the Ohio chapter of the AAP.

Many pediatricians and pediatric trainees are not comfortable counseling on firearm safety, often a result of inadequate training on the topic.

The BulletPoints Project — developed by the Violence Prevention Research Program at the University of California, Davis — can also help physicians talk to patients about guns.

“Many pediatricians and pediatric trainees are not comfortable counseling on firearm safety, often a result of inadequate training on the topic,” Dr. Byrne said in an interview. “Additionally, it is a challenging topic that can often be met with resistance from patients and families. Lack of time during visits is also a huge barrier.”

Lack of training is an obstacle to greater firearm screenings, Dr. Greeley agreed, as are the feeling that guidance simply won’t make a difference and concerns about political pressure and divineness. The lack of research on firearm injuries and the impact of firearm screenings and anticipatory guidance is a challenge, he added, although that is starting to change.

Pediatricians need education on how to make a difference when it comes to firearm safety, and should follow AAP guidelines, Dr. Greeley said.

Counseling on firearm safety is in the same category as immunizations, seatbelts, substance use, helmets, and other public-health issues that are important to address at visits, regardless of how difficult it might be, Dr. Breuner told this news organization.

“It is our mission, as pediatricians, to provide every ounce of prevention in our well-child and anticipatory guidance visits,” she said. “It’s our job, so we shouldn’t shy away from it even though it’s hard.”

Doctors are more comfortable discussing firearm safety if they are firearm owners, previous research has shown, so she advises pediatricians who feel unqualified to discuss firearms to seek guidance from their peers on how to approach screenings and anticipatory guidance, she noted.

The firearm study being done in an academic center gives me great pause. The populations are often very different than private practice.

Both of these studies were conducted at single institutions and might not reflect what would work in private clinics.

“The firearm study being done in an academic center gives me great pause,” Dr. Greeley said. “The populations are often very different than private practice. I think that there is still a lot that remains unknown about decreasing household firearm injury and death.”

And the degree to which findings from these two gun-safety programs can be generalized to other academic centers or children’s hospitals is unclear.

“There are states where, I suspect, firearm screening is much more common. Some states have very pro-firearm cultures and others are anti-firearm,” Dr. Greeley said. “There are also likely differences within states,” particularly between urban and rural regions.

“Firearms are often a very personal issue for families, and pediatricians in ‘pro-firearm’ communities may have greater resistance to working on this,” he pointed out.

Nevertheless, Dr. Greeley said, “this is a promising strategy that could be part of a broad injury prevention initiative.”

Neither study noted any external funding. Dr. Byrne is a member of the Moms Demand Action Gainesville Chapter, which donated the firearm locks for the project. Dr. Breuner, Dr. Greeley, and Dr. Farrington have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The first patient of the afternoon is a 4-month-old in for his health maintenance visit. You’ve known his 20-year-old mother since she was a toddler. This infant has a 2-year-old sister. Also in the exam room is a young man you don’t recognize whom the mother introduces as Jason, her new boyfriend. He never makes eye contact and despite your best efforts you can’t get him to engage.

At the child’s next visit you are relieved to see the 6-month-old is alive and well and learn that your former patient and her two children have moved back in with her parents and Jason is no longer in the picture.

You don’t have to have been doing pediatrics very long to have learned that a “family” that includes an infant and a young adult male who is probably not the father is an environment in which the infant’s health and well-being is at significant risk. It is a situation in which child abuse even to the point of infanticide should be waving a red flag in your face.

Infanticide occurs in many animal species including our own. As abhorrent we may find the act, it occurs often enough to be, if not normal, at least not unexpected in certain circumstances. Theories abound as to what advantage the act of infanticide might convey to the success of a species. However, little if anything is known about any possible mechanisms that would allow it to occur.

Recently, a professor of molecular and cellular biology at Harvard University discovered a specific set of neurons in the mouse brain that controls aggressive behavior toward infants (Biological triggers for infant abuse, by Juan Siliezar, The Harvard Gazette, Sept 27, 2021). This same set of neurons also appears to trigger avoidance and neglect behaviors as well.

Research in other animal species has found that these antiparental behaviors occur in both virgins and sexually mature males who are strangers to the group. Interestingly, the behaviors switch off once individuals have their own offspring or have had the opportunity to familiarize themselves with infants. Not surprisingly, other studies have found that in some species environmental stress such as food shortage or threats of predation have triggered females to attack or ignore their offspring.

I think it is safe to assume a similar collection of neurons controlling aggressive behavior also exists in humans. One can imagine some well-read defense attorney dredging up this study and claiming that because his client had not yet fathered a child of his own that it was his nervous system’s normal response that made him toss his girlfriend’s baby against the wall.

The lead author of the study intends to study this collection of neurons in more depth to discover more about the process. It is conceivable that with more information her initial findings may help in the development of treatment and specific prevention strategies. Until that happens, we must rely on our intuition and keep our antennae tuned and alert for high-risk scenarios like the one I described at the opening of this letter.

We are left with leaning heavily on our community social work networks to keep close tabs on these high-risk families, offering both financial and emotional support. Parenting classes may be helpful, but some of this research leads me to suspect that immersing these young parents-to-be in hands-on child care situations might provide the best protection we can offer.
 

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

The first patient of the afternoon is a 4-month-old in for his health maintenance visit. You’ve known his 20-year-old mother since she was a toddler. This infant has a 2-year-old sister. Also in the exam room is a young man you don’t recognize whom the mother introduces as Jason, her new boyfriend. He never makes eye contact and despite your best efforts you can’t get him to engage.

At the child’s next visit you are relieved to see the 6-month-old is alive and well and learn that your former patient and her two children have moved back in with her parents and Jason is no longer in the picture.

You don’t have to have been doing pediatrics very long to have learned that a “family” that includes an infant and a young adult male who is probably not the father is an environment in which the infant’s health and well-being is at significant risk. It is a situation in which child abuse even to the point of infanticide should be waving a red flag in your face.

Infanticide occurs in many animal species including our own. As abhorrent we may find the act, it occurs often enough to be, if not normal, at least not unexpected in certain circumstances. Theories abound as to what advantage the act of infanticide might convey to the success of a species. However, little if anything is known about any possible mechanisms that would allow it to occur.

Recently, a professor of molecular and cellular biology at Harvard University discovered a specific set of neurons in the mouse brain that controls aggressive behavior toward infants (Biological triggers for infant abuse, by Juan Siliezar, The Harvard Gazette, Sept 27, 2021). This same set of neurons also appears to trigger avoidance and neglect behaviors as well.

Research in other animal species has found that these antiparental behaviors occur in both virgins and sexually mature males who are strangers to the group. Interestingly, the behaviors switch off once individuals have their own offspring or have had the opportunity to familiarize themselves with infants. Not surprisingly, other studies have found that in some species environmental stress such as food shortage or threats of predation have triggered females to attack or ignore their offspring.

I think it is safe to assume a similar collection of neurons controlling aggressive behavior also exists in humans. One can imagine some well-read defense attorney dredging up this study and claiming that because his client had not yet fathered a child of his own that it was his nervous system’s normal response that made him toss his girlfriend’s baby against the wall.

The lead author of the study intends to study this collection of neurons in more depth to discover more about the process. It is conceivable that with more information her initial findings may help in the development of treatment and specific prevention strategies. Until that happens, we must rely on our intuition and keep our antennae tuned and alert for high-risk scenarios like the one I described at the opening of this letter.

We are left with leaning heavily on our community social work networks to keep close tabs on these high-risk families, offering both financial and emotional support. Parenting classes may be helpful, but some of this research leads me to suspect that immersing these young parents-to-be in hands-on child care situations might provide the best protection we can offer.
 

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

The first patient of the afternoon is a 4-month-old in for his health maintenance visit. You’ve known his 20-year-old mother since she was a toddler. This infant has a 2-year-old sister. Also in the exam room is a young man you don’t recognize whom the mother introduces as Jason, her new boyfriend. He never makes eye contact and despite your best efforts you can’t get him to engage.

At the child’s next visit you are relieved to see the 6-month-old is alive and well and learn that your former patient and her two children have moved back in with her parents and Jason is no longer in the picture.

You don’t have to have been doing pediatrics very long to have learned that a “family” that includes an infant and a young adult male who is probably not the father is an environment in which the infant’s health and well-being is at significant risk. It is a situation in which child abuse even to the point of infanticide should be waving a red flag in your face.

Infanticide occurs in many animal species including our own. As abhorrent we may find the act, it occurs often enough to be, if not normal, at least not unexpected in certain circumstances. Theories abound as to what advantage the act of infanticide might convey to the success of a species. However, little if anything is known about any possible mechanisms that would allow it to occur.

Recently, a professor of molecular and cellular biology at Harvard University discovered a specific set of neurons in the mouse brain that controls aggressive behavior toward infants (Biological triggers for infant abuse, by Juan Siliezar, The Harvard Gazette, Sept 27, 2021). This same set of neurons also appears to trigger avoidance and neglect behaviors as well.

Research in other animal species has found that these antiparental behaviors occur in both virgins and sexually mature males who are strangers to the group. Interestingly, the behaviors switch off once individuals have their own offspring or have had the opportunity to familiarize themselves with infants. Not surprisingly, other studies have found that in some species environmental stress such as food shortage or threats of predation have triggered females to attack or ignore their offspring.

I think it is safe to assume a similar collection of neurons controlling aggressive behavior also exists in humans. One can imagine some well-read defense attorney dredging up this study and claiming that because his client had not yet fathered a child of his own that it was his nervous system’s normal response that made him toss his girlfriend’s baby against the wall.

The lead author of the study intends to study this collection of neurons in more depth to discover more about the process. It is conceivable that with more information her initial findings may help in the development of treatment and specific prevention strategies. Until that happens, we must rely on our intuition and keep our antennae tuned and alert for high-risk scenarios like the one I described at the opening of this letter.

We are left with leaning heavily on our community social work networks to keep close tabs on these high-risk families, offering both financial and emotional support. Parenting classes may be helpful, but some of this research leads me to suspect that immersing these young parents-to-be in hands-on child care situations might provide the best protection we can offer.
 

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

Daily exposure to phthalates, which are synthetic chemicals founds in many consumer products, may lead to hundreds of thousands of early deaths each year among older adults in the United States, according to a new study published Oct. 12, 2021, in the peer-reviewed journal Environmental Pollution.

The chemicals are found in hundreds of types of products, including children’s toys, food storage containers, makeup, perfume, and shampoo. In the study, those with the highest levels of phthalates had a greater risk of death from any cause, especially heart disease.

“This study adds to the growing database on the impact of plastics on the human body and bolsters public health and business cases for reducing or eliminating the use of plastics,” Leonardo Trasande, MD, the lead author and a professor of environmental medicine and population health at New York University Langone Health, told CNN.

Dr. Trasande and colleagues measured the urine concentration of phthalates in more than 5,000 adults aged 55-64 and compared the levels with the risk of early death over an average of 10 years. The research team controlled for preexisting heart diseases, diabetes, cancer, poor eating habits, physical activity, body mass, and other known hormone disruptors such as bisphenol A, or BPA, an industrial chemical that’s been used since the 1950s to make certain plastics and resins, according to the Mayo Clinic

The research team found that phthalates could contribute to 91,000-107,000 premature deaths per year in the United States. These early deaths could cost the nation $40 billion to $47 billion each year in lost economic productivity.

Phthalates interrupt the body’s endocrine system and hormone production. Previous studies have found that the chemicals are linked with developmental, reproductive, and immune system problems, according to NYU Langone Health. They’ve also been linked with asthma, childhood obesity, heart issues, and cancer.

“These chemicals have a rap sheet,” Dr. Trasande told CNN. “And the fact of the matter is that when you look at the entire body of evidence, it provides a haunting pattern of concern.”

Phthalates are often called “everywhere chemicals” because they are so common, CNN reported. Also called “plasticizers,” they are added to products to make them more durable, including PVC plumbing, vinyl flooring, medical tubing, garden hoses, food packaging, detergents, clothing, furniture, and automotive materials.

People are often exposed when they breathe contaminated air or consume food that comes into contact with the chemical, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Children may be exposed by touching plastic items and putting their hands in their mouth.

Dr. Trasande told CNN that it’s possible to lessen exposure to phthalates and other endocrine disruptors such as BPA by using unscented lotions, laundry detergents, and cleaning supplies, as well as substituting glass, stainless steel, ceramic, and wood for plastic food storage.

“First, avoid plastics as much as you can. Never put plastic containers in the microwave or dishwasher, where the heat can break down the linings so they might be absorbed more readily,” he said. “In addition, cooking at home and reducing your use of processed foods can reduce the levels of the chemical exposures you come in contact with.”

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

Daily exposure to phthalates, which are synthetic chemicals founds in many consumer products, may lead to hundreds of thousands of early deaths each year among older adults in the United States, according to a new study published Oct. 12, 2021, in the peer-reviewed journal Environmental Pollution.

The chemicals are found in hundreds of types of products, including children’s toys, food storage containers, makeup, perfume, and shampoo. In the study, those with the highest levels of phthalates had a greater risk of death from any cause, especially heart disease.

“This study adds to the growing database on the impact of plastics on the human body and bolsters public health and business cases for reducing or eliminating the use of plastics,” Leonardo Trasande, MD, the lead author and a professor of environmental medicine and population health at New York University Langone Health, told CNN.

Dr. Trasande and colleagues measured the urine concentration of phthalates in more than 5,000 adults aged 55-64 and compared the levels with the risk of early death over an average of 10 years. The research team controlled for preexisting heart diseases, diabetes, cancer, poor eating habits, physical activity, body mass, and other known hormone disruptors such as bisphenol A, or BPA, an industrial chemical that’s been used since the 1950s to make certain plastics and resins, according to the Mayo Clinic

The research team found that phthalates could contribute to 91,000-107,000 premature deaths per year in the United States. These early deaths could cost the nation $40 billion to $47 billion each year in lost economic productivity.

Phthalates interrupt the body’s endocrine system and hormone production. Previous studies have found that the chemicals are linked with developmental, reproductive, and immune system problems, according to NYU Langone Health. They’ve also been linked with asthma, childhood obesity, heart issues, and cancer.

“These chemicals have a rap sheet,” Dr. Trasande told CNN. “And the fact of the matter is that when you look at the entire body of evidence, it provides a haunting pattern of concern.”

Phthalates are often called “everywhere chemicals” because they are so common, CNN reported. Also called “plasticizers,” they are added to products to make them more durable, including PVC plumbing, vinyl flooring, medical tubing, garden hoses, food packaging, detergents, clothing, furniture, and automotive materials.

People are often exposed when they breathe contaminated air or consume food that comes into contact with the chemical, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Children may be exposed by touching plastic items and putting their hands in their mouth.

Dr. Trasande told CNN that it’s possible to lessen exposure to phthalates and other endocrine disruptors such as BPA by using unscented lotions, laundry detergents, and cleaning supplies, as well as substituting glass, stainless steel, ceramic, and wood for plastic food storage.

“First, avoid plastics as much as you can. Never put plastic containers in the microwave or dishwasher, where the heat can break down the linings so they might be absorbed more readily,” he said. “In addition, cooking at home and reducing your use of processed foods can reduce the levels of the chemical exposures you come in contact with.”

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

Daily exposure to phthalates, which are synthetic chemicals founds in many consumer products, may lead to hundreds of thousands of early deaths each year among older adults in the United States, according to a new study published Oct. 12, 2021, in the peer-reviewed journal Environmental Pollution.

The chemicals are found in hundreds of types of products, including children’s toys, food storage containers, makeup, perfume, and shampoo. In the study, those with the highest levels of phthalates had a greater risk of death from any cause, especially heart disease.

“This study adds to the growing database on the impact of plastics on the human body and bolsters public health and business cases for reducing or eliminating the use of plastics,” Leonardo Trasande, MD, the lead author and a professor of environmental medicine and population health at New York University Langone Health, told CNN.

Dr. Trasande and colleagues measured the urine concentration of phthalates in more than 5,000 adults aged 55-64 and compared the levels with the risk of early death over an average of 10 years. The research team controlled for preexisting heart diseases, diabetes, cancer, poor eating habits, physical activity, body mass, and other known hormone disruptors such as bisphenol A, or BPA, an industrial chemical that’s been used since the 1950s to make certain plastics and resins, according to the Mayo Clinic

The research team found that phthalates could contribute to 91,000-107,000 premature deaths per year in the United States. These early deaths could cost the nation $40 billion to $47 billion each year in lost economic productivity.

Phthalates interrupt the body’s endocrine system and hormone production. Previous studies have found that the chemicals are linked with developmental, reproductive, and immune system problems, according to NYU Langone Health. They’ve also been linked with asthma, childhood obesity, heart issues, and cancer.

“These chemicals have a rap sheet,” Dr. Trasande told CNN. “And the fact of the matter is that when you look at the entire body of evidence, it provides a haunting pattern of concern.”

Phthalates are often called “everywhere chemicals” because they are so common, CNN reported. Also called “plasticizers,” they are added to products to make them more durable, including PVC plumbing, vinyl flooring, medical tubing, garden hoses, food packaging, detergents, clothing, furniture, and automotive materials.

People are often exposed when they breathe contaminated air or consume food that comes into contact with the chemical, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Children may be exposed by touching plastic items and putting their hands in their mouth.

Dr. Trasande told CNN that it’s possible to lessen exposure to phthalates and other endocrine disruptors such as BPA by using unscented lotions, laundry detergents, and cleaning supplies, as well as substituting glass, stainless steel, ceramic, and wood for plastic food storage.

“First, avoid plastics as much as you can. Never put plastic containers in the microwave or dishwasher, where the heat can break down the linings so they might be absorbed more readily,” he said. “In addition, cooking at home and reducing your use of processed foods can reduce the levels of the chemical exposures you come in contact with.”

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

The United States just passed the 6-million mark in COVID-19 cases among children, with the last million cases taking less time to record than any of the first five, according to new data from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

The five-millionth case was reported during the week of Aug. 27 to Sept. 2, and case number 6 million came during the week of Oct. 1-7, just 5 weeks later, compared with the 6 weeks it took to go from 1 million to 2 million last November and December, the AAP and CHA said in their weekly COVID-19 report.

There were 148,222 new cases reported during the week ending Oct. 7, bringing the total case count to 6,047,371 since the pandemic started. New cases continued to drop, however, and that weekly count was down by 14.6% from the previous week and by 41.1% from the peak of almost 252,000 reached in early September, the two groups said while also noting limitations to the data, such as three states (Alabama, Nebraska, and Texas) that are no longer updating their COVID-19 dashboards.

Other metrics show similar drops in recent weeks. Among children aged 0-11 years, emergency department visits involving a COVID-19 diagnosis dropped from 4.1% of all ED visits in late August to 1.4% of ED visits on Oct. 6. ED visits with a COVID-19 diagnosis fell from a peak of 8.5% on Aug. 22 to 1.5% on Oct. 6 for 12- to 15-year-olds and from 8.5% to 1.5% in those aged 16-17 years, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The rate of new hospital admissions for children aged 0-17 years was down to 0.26 per 100,000 population on Oct. 9 after reaching 0.51 per 100,000 on Sept. 4. Hospitalizations in children totaled just over 64,000 from Aug. 1, 2020, to Oct. 9, 2021, which is just over 2% of all COVID-19–related admissions over that time period, the CDC said on its COVID Data Tracker.

That pattern, unfortunately, also applies to vaccinations. “The number of children receiving their first COVID-19 vaccine this week [Sept. 30 to Oct. 6], about 156,000, was the lowest number since vaccines were available,” the AAP said in a separate report on vaccination trends, adding that “the number of children receiving their first dose has steadily declined from 8 weeks ago when 586,000 children received their initial dose the week ending Aug. 11.”

[email protected]

The United States just passed the 6-million mark in COVID-19 cases among children, with the last million cases taking less time to record than any of the first five, according to new data from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

The five-millionth case was reported during the week of Aug. 27 to Sept. 2, and case number 6 million came during the week of Oct. 1-7, just 5 weeks later, compared with the 6 weeks it took to go from 1 million to 2 million last November and December, the AAP and CHA said in their weekly COVID-19 report.

There were 148,222 new cases reported during the week ending Oct. 7, bringing the total case count to 6,047,371 since the pandemic started. New cases continued to drop, however, and that weekly count was down by 14.6% from the previous week and by 41.1% from the peak of almost 252,000 reached in early September, the two groups said while also noting limitations to the data, such as three states (Alabama, Nebraska, and Texas) that are no longer updating their COVID-19 dashboards.

Other metrics show similar drops in recent weeks. Among children aged 0-11 years, emergency department visits involving a COVID-19 diagnosis dropped from 4.1% of all ED visits in late August to 1.4% of ED visits on Oct. 6. ED visits with a COVID-19 diagnosis fell from a peak of 8.5% on Aug. 22 to 1.5% on Oct. 6 for 12- to 15-year-olds and from 8.5% to 1.5% in those aged 16-17 years, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The rate of new hospital admissions for children aged 0-17 years was down to 0.26 per 100,000 population on Oct. 9 after reaching 0.51 per 100,000 on Sept. 4. Hospitalizations in children totaled just over 64,000 from Aug. 1, 2020, to Oct. 9, 2021, which is just over 2% of all COVID-19–related admissions over that time period, the CDC said on its COVID Data Tracker.

That pattern, unfortunately, also applies to vaccinations. “The number of children receiving their first COVID-19 vaccine this week [Sept. 30 to Oct. 6], about 156,000, was the lowest number since vaccines were available,” the AAP said in a separate report on vaccination trends, adding that “the number of children receiving their first dose has steadily declined from 8 weeks ago when 586,000 children received their initial dose the week ending Aug. 11.”

[email protected]

The United States just passed the 6-million mark in COVID-19 cases among children, with the last million cases taking less time to record than any of the first five, according to new data from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

The five-millionth case was reported during the week of Aug. 27 to Sept. 2, and case number 6 million came during the week of Oct. 1-7, just 5 weeks later, compared with the 6 weeks it took to go from 1 million to 2 million last November and December, the AAP and CHA said in their weekly COVID-19 report.

There were 148,222 new cases reported during the week ending Oct. 7, bringing the total case count to 6,047,371 since the pandemic started. New cases continued to drop, however, and that weekly count was down by 14.6% from the previous week and by 41.1% from the peak of almost 252,000 reached in early September, the two groups said while also noting limitations to the data, such as three states (Alabama, Nebraska, and Texas) that are no longer updating their COVID-19 dashboards.

Other metrics show similar drops in recent weeks. Among children aged 0-11 years, emergency department visits involving a COVID-19 diagnosis dropped from 4.1% of all ED visits in late August to 1.4% of ED visits on Oct. 6. ED visits with a COVID-19 diagnosis fell from a peak of 8.5% on Aug. 22 to 1.5% on Oct. 6 for 12- to 15-year-olds and from 8.5% to 1.5% in those aged 16-17 years, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The rate of new hospital admissions for children aged 0-17 years was down to 0.26 per 100,000 population on Oct. 9 after reaching 0.51 per 100,000 on Sept. 4. Hospitalizations in children totaled just over 64,000 from Aug. 1, 2020, to Oct. 9, 2021, which is just over 2% of all COVID-19–related admissions over that time period, the CDC said on its COVID Data Tracker.

That pattern, unfortunately, also applies to vaccinations. “The number of children receiving their first COVID-19 vaccine this week [Sept. 30 to Oct. 6], about 156,000, was the lowest number since vaccines were available,” the AAP said in a separate report on vaccination trends, adding that “the number of children receiving their first dose has steadily declined from 8 weeks ago when 586,000 children received their initial dose the week ending Aug. 11.”

[email protected]

The likelihood that a child will survive a near-drowning without long-term damage is substantially greater if a bystander attempts a rescue, even if that person doesn’t perform cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), according to new research presented October 10 at the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) 2021 National Conference.

“The extent to which bystander rescue is associated with reduced odds of unfavorable drowning outcomes was surprising,” said lead investigator Rohit P. Shenoi, MD, professor of pediatrics at Baylor College of Medicine and attending physician at Texas Children’s Hospital, Houston.

“While we do know that early rescue and resuscitation is helpful in preventing severe drowning injury, the degree of benefit from bystander rescue in all cases of pediatric drowning has not been described so far,” he told this news organization.

The fact that a bystander’s rescue attempt improves a child’s odds of a good outcome is not surprising on its own, but the magnitude of the finding really affirms the importance of bystander intervention, said Benjamin Hoffman, MD, professor of pediatrics at the Oregon Health & Science University School of Medicine and medical director of the Tom Sargent Safety Center at the Doernbecher Children’s Hospital, Portland.

“If an adult finds a child in the water, even if they don’t administer formal CPR, they’re going to be doing things” to try to help, Dr. Hoffman, who was not involved in this research but who specializes in child injury prevention, said in an interview. The act of intervening – whether it’s formal CPR or a CPR attempt or even just calling appropriate first responders – “likely impacts the duration of the submersion” and “clearly makes a difference.”

Drowning is the leading cause of death for children younger than 4 years, Dr. Hoffman noted, adding that the AAP recommends swimming lessons for children older than 1 year to reduce that risk.

In their cross-sectional study, Dr. Shenoi and his colleagues analyzed data on drownings and near-drownings in children and adolescents younger than 18 years using hospital, emergency medical services, and child fatality records from Harris County, Texas.

They analyzed 237 incidents from 2010 to 2013 in which the young person was submerged. Median age of the victims was 3.2 years, 60% were male, 64% were Black, Hispanic, or Native American, and 78% occurred in a swimming pool.

Unfavorable outcomes – defined as death or severe impairment after hospital discharge – were experienced by 38 victims (16%) and were significantly associated with being submerged for longer than 5 minutes (P < .001).

The odds of an unfavorable outcome dropped by 80% if a bystander attempted a rescue, whether or not they performed CPR (adjusted odds ratio, 0.2; P = .004). If the bystander performed CPR, the odds of an unfavorable outcome dropped by a similar amount, but the difference was not statistically significant (aOR, 0.22; P = .07).

However, previous research has shown a significant reduction in poor outcomes when CPR is administered to children who have been submerged, Dr. Hoffman explained.

The most important thing a bystander can do is simply get a submerged child out of the water. “Early rescue in drowning terminates what is initially a respiratory arrest from progressing to a full cardiopulmonary arrest with severe hypoxic brain injury and death,” Dr. Shenoi said.

“CPR is also very important, and rescue and resuscitation go hand in hand. We encourage all laypersons to be trained in CPR so that they can administer correct CPR techniques,” he added.

Both Dr. Shenoi and Dr. Hoffman emphasized the value of CPR training for adults, as the AAP recommends, and the importance of other precautions that reduce the risk of drowning.

“Drowning prevention should consist of multiple layers of prevention,” Dr. Shenoi said. These consist of “close, constant, and attentive supervision; isolation fencing for swimming pools; and water competency, including water-safety knowledge, basic swim skills, and the ability to recognize and respond to a swimmer in trouble, use of life jackets, and early bystander CPR.”

The relative importance of each of those layers depends on geography and circumstances, Dr. Hoffman said. Pools are the most common drowning sites in the United States overall, but they’re much more common in warmer states, such as California, Florida, and Texas, which have more pools. In contrast, drownings in Oregon are more likely to occur in rivers, so prevention is more about access to life jackets and increasing access to swim lessons.

The findings from this study drive home how important it is for physicians to provide anticipatory guidance to families on reducing the risk of drowning. Pediatricians should convey to families the need for different layers of protection, he added.

“If your family spends a lot of time around water, whether open water or swimming pools, the more layers you can provide, the better off you’re going to be,” Dr. Hoffman said.

Dr. Shenoi echoed this sentiment.

“The take-home message is to be observant if you are entrusted with the care of a child around water,” Dr. Shenoi said. “If you notice the child to be drowning, either attempt rescue yourself if it is safe to do so or enlist the help of others to save the victim as soon as possible. However, the rescuer should not place himself or herself in danger when attempting rescue.”

The five steps in the “drowning chain of survival” – preventing drowning, recognizing distress, providing flotation, removing the victim from the water, and providing care and CPR as needed – are key to reducing drowning deaths and injury, Dr. Shenoi emphasized.

Dr. Shenoi has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Hoffman is a paid consultant on child drowning prevention for the nonprofit Anonymous Philanthropy.

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

The likelihood that a child will survive a near-drowning without long-term damage is substantially greater if a bystander attempts a rescue, even if that person doesn’t perform cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), according to new research presented October 10 at the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) 2021 National Conference.

“The extent to which bystander rescue is associated with reduced odds of unfavorable drowning outcomes was surprising,” said lead investigator Rohit P. Shenoi, MD, professor of pediatrics at Baylor College of Medicine and attending physician at Texas Children’s Hospital, Houston.

“While we do know that early rescue and resuscitation is helpful in preventing severe drowning injury, the degree of benefit from bystander rescue in all cases of pediatric drowning has not been described so far,” he told this news organization.

The fact that a bystander’s rescue attempt improves a child’s odds of a good outcome is not surprising on its own, but the magnitude of the finding really affirms the importance of bystander intervention, said Benjamin Hoffman, MD, professor of pediatrics at the Oregon Health & Science University School of Medicine and medical director of the Tom Sargent Safety Center at the Doernbecher Children’s Hospital, Portland.

“If an adult finds a child in the water, even if they don’t administer formal CPR, they’re going to be doing things” to try to help, Dr. Hoffman, who was not involved in this research but who specializes in child injury prevention, said in an interview. The act of intervening – whether it’s formal CPR or a CPR attempt or even just calling appropriate first responders – “likely impacts the duration of the submersion” and “clearly makes a difference.”

Drowning is the leading cause of death for children younger than 4 years, Dr. Hoffman noted, adding that the AAP recommends swimming lessons for children older than 1 year to reduce that risk.

In their cross-sectional study, Dr. Shenoi and his colleagues analyzed data on drownings and near-drownings in children and adolescents younger than 18 years using hospital, emergency medical services, and child fatality records from Harris County, Texas.

They analyzed 237 incidents from 2010 to 2013 in which the young person was submerged. Median age of the victims was 3.2 years, 60% were male, 64% were Black, Hispanic, or Native American, and 78% occurred in a swimming pool.

Unfavorable outcomes – defined as death or severe impairment after hospital discharge – were experienced by 38 victims (16%) and were significantly associated with being submerged for longer than 5 minutes (P < .001).

The odds of an unfavorable outcome dropped by 80% if a bystander attempted a rescue, whether or not they performed CPR (adjusted odds ratio, 0.2; P = .004). If the bystander performed CPR, the odds of an unfavorable outcome dropped by a similar amount, but the difference was not statistically significant (aOR, 0.22; P = .07).

However, previous research has shown a significant reduction in poor outcomes when CPR is administered to children who have been submerged, Dr. Hoffman explained.

The most important thing a bystander can do is simply get a submerged child out of the water. “Early rescue in drowning terminates what is initially a respiratory arrest from progressing to a full cardiopulmonary arrest with severe hypoxic brain injury and death,” Dr. Shenoi said.

“CPR is also very important, and rescue and resuscitation go hand in hand. We encourage all laypersons to be trained in CPR so that they can administer correct CPR techniques,” he added.

Both Dr. Shenoi and Dr. Hoffman emphasized the value of CPR training for adults, as the AAP recommends, and the importance of other precautions that reduce the risk of drowning.

“Drowning prevention should consist of multiple layers of prevention,” Dr. Shenoi said. These consist of “close, constant, and attentive supervision; isolation fencing for swimming pools; and water competency, including water-safety knowledge, basic swim skills, and the ability to recognize and respond to a swimmer in trouble, use of life jackets, and early bystander CPR.”

The relative importance of each of those layers depends on geography and circumstances, Dr. Hoffman said. Pools are the most common drowning sites in the United States overall, but they’re much more common in warmer states, such as California, Florida, and Texas, which have more pools. In contrast, drownings in Oregon are more likely to occur in rivers, so prevention is more about access to life jackets and increasing access to swim lessons.

The findings from this study drive home how important it is for physicians to provide anticipatory guidance to families on reducing the risk of drowning. Pediatricians should convey to families the need for different layers of protection, he added.

“If your family spends a lot of time around water, whether open water or swimming pools, the more layers you can provide, the better off you’re going to be,” Dr. Hoffman said.

Dr. Shenoi echoed this sentiment.

“The take-home message is to be observant if you are entrusted with the care of a child around water,” Dr. Shenoi said. “If you notice the child to be drowning, either attempt rescue yourself if it is safe to do so or enlist the help of others to save the victim as soon as possible. However, the rescuer should not place himself or herself in danger when attempting rescue.”

The five steps in the “drowning chain of survival” – preventing drowning, recognizing distress, providing flotation, removing the victim from the water, and providing care and CPR as needed – are key to reducing drowning deaths and injury, Dr. Shenoi emphasized.

Dr. Shenoi has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Hoffman is a paid consultant on child drowning prevention for the nonprofit Anonymous Philanthropy.

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

The likelihood that a child will survive a near-drowning without long-term damage is substantially greater if a bystander attempts a rescue, even if that person doesn’t perform cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), according to new research presented October 10 at the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) 2021 National Conference.

“The extent to which bystander rescue is associated with reduced odds of unfavorable drowning outcomes was surprising,” said lead investigator Rohit P. Shenoi, MD, professor of pediatrics at Baylor College of Medicine and attending physician at Texas Children’s Hospital, Houston.

“While we do know that early rescue and resuscitation is helpful in preventing severe drowning injury, the degree of benefit from bystander rescue in all cases of pediatric drowning has not been described so far,” he told this news organization.

The fact that a bystander’s rescue attempt improves a child’s odds of a good outcome is not surprising on its own, but the magnitude of the finding really affirms the importance of bystander intervention, said Benjamin Hoffman, MD, professor of pediatrics at the Oregon Health & Science University School of Medicine and medical director of the Tom Sargent Safety Center at the Doernbecher Children’s Hospital, Portland.

“If an adult finds a child in the water, even if they don’t administer formal CPR, they’re going to be doing things” to try to help, Dr. Hoffman, who was not involved in this research but who specializes in child injury prevention, said in an interview. The act of intervening – whether it’s formal CPR or a CPR attempt or even just calling appropriate first responders – “likely impacts the duration of the submersion” and “clearly makes a difference.”

Drowning is the leading cause of death for children younger than 4 years, Dr. Hoffman noted, adding that the AAP recommends swimming lessons for children older than 1 year to reduce that risk.

In their cross-sectional study, Dr. Shenoi and his colleagues analyzed data on drownings and near-drownings in children and adolescents younger than 18 years using hospital, emergency medical services, and child fatality records from Harris County, Texas.

They analyzed 237 incidents from 2010 to 2013 in which the young person was submerged. Median age of the victims was 3.2 years, 60% were male, 64% were Black, Hispanic, or Native American, and 78% occurred in a swimming pool.

Unfavorable outcomes – defined as death or severe impairment after hospital discharge – were experienced by 38 victims (16%) and were significantly associated with being submerged for longer than 5 minutes (P < .001).

The odds of an unfavorable outcome dropped by 80% if a bystander attempted a rescue, whether or not they performed CPR (adjusted odds ratio, 0.2; P = .004). If the bystander performed CPR, the odds of an unfavorable outcome dropped by a similar amount, but the difference was not statistically significant (aOR, 0.22; P = .07).

However, previous research has shown a significant reduction in poor outcomes when CPR is administered to children who have been submerged, Dr. Hoffman explained.

The most important thing a bystander can do is simply get a submerged child out of the water. “Early rescue in drowning terminates what is initially a respiratory arrest from progressing to a full cardiopulmonary arrest with severe hypoxic brain injury and death,” Dr. Shenoi said.

“CPR is also very important, and rescue and resuscitation go hand in hand. We encourage all laypersons to be trained in CPR so that they can administer correct CPR techniques,” he added.

Both Dr. Shenoi and Dr. Hoffman emphasized the value of CPR training for adults, as the AAP recommends, and the importance of other precautions that reduce the risk of drowning.

“Drowning prevention should consist of multiple layers of prevention,” Dr. Shenoi said. These consist of “close, constant, and attentive supervision; isolation fencing for swimming pools; and water competency, including water-safety knowledge, basic swim skills, and the ability to recognize and respond to a swimmer in trouble, use of life jackets, and early bystander CPR.”

The relative importance of each of those layers depends on geography and circumstances, Dr. Hoffman said. Pools are the most common drowning sites in the United States overall, but they’re much more common in warmer states, such as California, Florida, and Texas, which have more pools. In contrast, drownings in Oregon are more likely to occur in rivers, so prevention is more about access to life jackets and increasing access to swim lessons.

The findings from this study drive home how important it is for physicians to provide anticipatory guidance to families on reducing the risk of drowning. Pediatricians should convey to families the need for different layers of protection, he added.

“If your family spends a lot of time around water, whether open water or swimming pools, the more layers you can provide, the better off you’re going to be,” Dr. Hoffman said.

Dr. Shenoi echoed this sentiment.

“The take-home message is to be observant if you are entrusted with the care of a child around water,” Dr. Shenoi said. “If you notice the child to be drowning, either attempt rescue yourself if it is safe to do so or enlist the help of others to save the victim as soon as possible. However, the rescuer should not place himself or herself in danger when attempting rescue.”

The five steps in the “drowning chain of survival” – preventing drowning, recognizing distress, providing flotation, removing the victim from the water, and providing care and CPR as needed – are key to reducing drowning deaths and injury, Dr. Shenoi emphasized.

Dr. Shenoi has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Hoffman is a paid consultant on child drowning prevention for the nonprofit Anonymous Philanthropy.

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

A secondary consequence of public health measures to prevent the spread of SARS-CoV-2 included a concurrent reduction in risk for children to acquire and spread other respiratory viral infectious diseases. In the Rochester, N.Y., area, we had an ongoing prospective study in primary care pediatric practices that afforded an opportunity to assess the effect of the pandemic control measures on all infectious disease illness visits in young children. Specifically, in children aged 6-36 months old, our study was in place when the pandemic began with a primary objective to evaluate the changing epidemiology of acute otitis media (AOM) and nasopharyngeal colonization by potential bacterial respiratory pathogens in community-based primary care pediatric practices. As the public health measures mandated by New York State Department of Health were implemented, we prospectively quantified their effect on physician-diagnosed infectious disease illness visits. The incidence of infectious disease visits by a cohort of young children during the COVID-19 pandemic period March 15, 2020, through Dec. 31, 2020, was compared with the same time frame in the preceding year, 2019.¹

Recommendations of the New York State Department of Health for public health, changes in school and day care attendance, and clinical practice during the study time frame

On March 7, 2020, a state of emergency was declared in New York because of the COVID-19 pandemic. All schools were required to close. A mandated order for public use of masks in adults and children more than 2 years of age was enacted. In the Finger Lakes region of Upstate New York, where the two primary care pediatric practices reside, complete lockdown was partially lifted on May 15, 2020, and further lifted on June 26, 2020. Almost all regional school districts opened to at least hybrid learning models for all students starting Sept. 8, 2020. On March 6, 2020, video telehealth and telephone call visits were introduced as routine practice. Well-child visits were limited to those less than 2 years of age, then gradually expanded to all ages by late May 2020. During the “stay at home” phase of the New York State lockdown, day care services were considered an essential business. Day care child density was limited. All children less than 2 years old were required to wear a mask while in the facility. Upon arrival, children with any respiratory symptoms or fever were excluded. For the school year commencing September 2020, almost all regional school districts opened to virtual, hybrid, or in-person learning models. Exclusion occurred similar to that of the day care facilities.

Incidence of respiratory infectious disease illnesses

Clinical diagnoses and healthy visits of 144 children from March 15 to Dec. 31, 2020 (beginning of the pandemic) were compared to 215 children during the same months in 2019 (prepandemic). Pediatric SARS-CoV-2 positivity rates trended up alongside community spread. Pediatric practice positivity rates rose from 1.9% in October 2020 to 19% in December 2020.

The table shows the incidence of significantly different infectious disease illness visits in the two study cohorts.

Change in care practices

In the prepandemic period, virtual visits, leading to a diagnosis and treatment and referring children to an urgent care or hospital emergency department during regular office hours were rare. During the pandemic, this changed. Significantly increased use of telemedicine visits (P < .0001) and significantly decreased office and urgent care visits (P < .0001) occurred during the pandemic. Telehealth visits peaked the week of April 12, 2020, at 45% of all pediatric visits. In-person illness visits gradually returned to year-to-year volumes in August-September 2020 with school opening. Early in the pandemic, both pediatric offices limited patient encounters to well-child visits in the first 2 years of life to not miss opportunities for childhood vaccinations. However, some parents were reluctant to bring their children to those visits. There was no significant change in frequency of healthy child visits during the pandemic.

To our knowledge, this was the first study from primary care pediatric practices in the United States to analyze the effect on infectious diseases during the first 9 months of the pandemic, including the 6-month time period after the reopening from the first 3 months of lockdown. One prior study from a primary care network in Massachusetts reported significant decreases in respiratory infectious diseases for children aged 0-17 years during the first months of the pandemic during lockdown.² A study in Tennessee that included hospital emergency department, urgent care, primary care, and retail health clinics also reported respiratory infection diagnoses as well as antibiotic prescription were reduced in the early months of the pandemic.³

Our study shows an overall reduction in frequency of respiratory illness visits in children 6-36 months old during the first 9 months of the COVID-19 pandemic. We learned the value of using technology in the form of virtual visits to render care. Perhaps as the pandemic subsides, many of the hand-washing and sanitizing practices will remain in place and lead to less frequent illness in children in the future. However, there may be temporary negative consequences from the “immune debt” that has occurred from a prolonged time span when children were not becoming infected with respiratory pathogens.⁴ We will see what unfolds in the future.
 

Dr. Pichichero is a specialist in pediatric infectious diseases and director of the Research Institute at Rochester (N.Y.) General Hospital. Dr. Schulz is pediatric medical director at Rochester (N.Y.) Regional Health. Dr. Pichichero and Dr. Schulz have no conflicts of interest to disclose. This study was funded in part by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

References

1. Kaur R et al. Front Pediatr. 2021;(9)722483:1-8.

2. Hatoun J et al. Pediatrics. 2020;146(4):e2020006460.

3. Katz SE et al. J Pediatric Infect Dis Soc. 2021;10(1):62-4.

4. Cohen R et al. Infect. Dis Now. 2021; 51(5)418-23.

A secondary consequence of public health measures to prevent the spread of SARS-CoV-2 included a concurrent reduction in risk for children to acquire and spread other respiratory viral infectious diseases. In the Rochester, N.Y., area, we had an ongoing prospective study in primary care pediatric practices that afforded an opportunity to assess the effect of the pandemic control measures on all infectious disease illness visits in young children. Specifically, in children aged 6-36 months old, our study was in place when the pandemic began with a primary objective to evaluate the changing epidemiology of acute otitis media (AOM) and nasopharyngeal colonization by potential bacterial respiratory pathogens in community-based primary care pediatric practices. As the public health measures mandated by New York State Department of Health were implemented, we prospectively quantified their effect on physician-diagnosed infectious disease illness visits. The incidence of infectious disease visits by a cohort of young children during the COVID-19 pandemic period March 15, 2020, through Dec. 31, 2020, was compared with the same time frame in the preceding year, 2019.¹

Recommendations of the New York State Department of Health for public health, changes in school and day care attendance, and clinical practice during the study time frame

On March 7, 2020, a state of emergency was declared in New York because of the COVID-19 pandemic. All schools were required to close. A mandated order for public use of masks in adults and children more than 2 years of age was enacted. In the Finger Lakes region of Upstate New York, where the two primary care pediatric practices reside, complete lockdown was partially lifted on May 15, 2020, and further lifted on June 26, 2020. Almost all regional school districts opened to at least hybrid learning models for all students starting Sept. 8, 2020. On March 6, 2020, video telehealth and telephone call visits were introduced as routine practice. Well-child visits were limited to those less than 2 years of age, then gradually expanded to all ages by late May 2020. During the “stay at home” phase of the New York State lockdown, day care services were considered an essential business. Day care child density was limited. All children less than 2 years old were required to wear a mask while in the facility. Upon arrival, children with any respiratory symptoms or fever were excluded. For the school year commencing September 2020, almost all regional school districts opened to virtual, hybrid, or in-person learning models. Exclusion occurred similar to that of the day care facilities.

Incidence of respiratory infectious disease illnesses

Clinical diagnoses and healthy visits of 144 children from March 15 to Dec. 31, 2020 (beginning of the pandemic) were compared to 215 children during the same months in 2019 (prepandemic). Pediatric SARS-CoV-2 positivity rates trended up alongside community spread. Pediatric practice positivity rates rose from 1.9% in October 2020 to 19% in December 2020.

The table shows the incidence of significantly different infectious disease illness visits in the two study cohorts.

Change in care practices

In the prepandemic period, virtual visits, leading to a diagnosis and treatment and referring children to an urgent care or hospital emergency department during regular office hours were rare. During the pandemic, this changed. Significantly increased use of telemedicine visits (P < .0001) and significantly decreased office and urgent care visits (P < .0001) occurred during the pandemic. Telehealth visits peaked the week of April 12, 2020, at 45% of all pediatric visits. In-person illness visits gradually returned to year-to-year volumes in August-September 2020 with school opening. Early in the pandemic, both pediatric offices limited patient encounters to well-child visits in the first 2 years of life to not miss opportunities for childhood vaccinations. However, some parents were reluctant to bring their children to those visits. There was no significant change in frequency of healthy child visits during the pandemic.

To our knowledge, this was the first study from primary care pediatric practices in the United States to analyze the effect on infectious diseases during the first 9 months of the pandemic, including the 6-month time period after the reopening from the first 3 months of lockdown. One prior study from a primary care network in Massachusetts reported significant decreases in respiratory infectious diseases for children aged 0-17 years during the first months of the pandemic during lockdown.² A study in Tennessee that included hospital emergency department, urgent care, primary care, and retail health clinics also reported respiratory infection diagnoses as well as antibiotic prescription were reduced in the early months of the pandemic.³

Our study shows an overall reduction in frequency of respiratory illness visits in children 6-36 months old during the first 9 months of the COVID-19 pandemic. We learned the value of using technology in the form of virtual visits to render care. Perhaps as the pandemic subsides, many of the hand-washing and sanitizing practices will remain in place and lead to less frequent illness in children in the future. However, there may be temporary negative consequences from the “immune debt” that has occurred from a prolonged time span when children were not becoming infected with respiratory pathogens.⁴ We will see what unfolds in the future.
 

Dr. Pichichero is a specialist in pediatric infectious diseases and director of the Research Institute at Rochester (N.Y.) General Hospital. Dr. Schulz is pediatric medical director at Rochester (N.Y.) Regional Health. Dr. Pichichero and Dr. Schulz have no conflicts of interest to disclose. This study was funded in part by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

References

1. Kaur R et al. Front Pediatr. 2021;(9)722483:1-8.

2. Hatoun J et al. Pediatrics. 2020;146(4):e2020006460.

3. Katz SE et al. J Pediatric Infect Dis Soc. 2021;10(1):62-4.

4. Cohen R et al. Infect. Dis Now. 2021; 51(5)418-23.

A secondary consequence of public health measures to prevent the spread of SARS-CoV-2 included a concurrent reduction in risk for children to acquire and spread other respiratory viral infectious diseases. In the Rochester, N.Y., area, we had an ongoing prospective study in primary care pediatric practices that afforded an opportunity to assess the effect of the pandemic control measures on all infectious disease illness visits in young children. Specifically, in children aged 6-36 months old, our study was in place when the pandemic began with a primary objective to evaluate the changing epidemiology of acute otitis media (AOM) and nasopharyngeal colonization by potential bacterial respiratory pathogens in community-based primary care pediatric practices. As the public health measures mandated by New York State Department of Health were implemented, we prospectively quantified their effect on physician-diagnosed infectious disease illness visits. The incidence of infectious disease visits by a cohort of young children during the COVID-19 pandemic period March 15, 2020, through Dec. 31, 2020, was compared with the same time frame in the preceding year, 2019.¹

Recommendations of the New York State Department of Health for public health, changes in school and day care attendance, and clinical practice during the study time frame

On March 7, 2020, a state of emergency was declared in New York because of the COVID-19 pandemic. All schools were required to close. A mandated order for public use of masks in adults and children more than 2 years of age was enacted. In the Finger Lakes region of Upstate New York, where the two primary care pediatric practices reside, complete lockdown was partially lifted on May 15, 2020, and further lifted on June 26, 2020. Almost all regional school districts opened to at least hybrid learning models for all students starting Sept. 8, 2020. On March 6, 2020, video telehealth and telephone call visits were introduced as routine practice. Well-child visits were limited to those less than 2 years of age, then gradually expanded to all ages by late May 2020. During the “stay at home” phase of the New York State lockdown, day care services were considered an essential business. Day care child density was limited. All children less than 2 years old were required to wear a mask while in the facility. Upon arrival, children with any respiratory symptoms or fever were excluded. For the school year commencing September 2020, almost all regional school districts opened to virtual, hybrid, or in-person learning models. Exclusion occurred similar to that of the day care facilities.

Incidence of respiratory infectious disease illnesses

Clinical diagnoses and healthy visits of 144 children from March 15 to Dec. 31, 2020 (beginning of the pandemic) were compared to 215 children during the same months in 2019 (prepandemic). Pediatric SARS-CoV-2 positivity rates trended up alongside community spread. Pediatric practice positivity rates rose from 1.9% in October 2020 to 19% in December 2020.

The table shows the incidence of significantly different infectious disease illness visits in the two study cohorts.

Change in care practices

In the prepandemic period, virtual visits, leading to a diagnosis and treatment and referring children to an urgent care or hospital emergency department during regular office hours were rare. During the pandemic, this changed. Significantly increased use of telemedicine visits (P < .0001) and significantly decreased office and urgent care visits (P < .0001) occurred during the pandemic. Telehealth visits peaked the week of April 12, 2020, at 45% of all pediatric visits. In-person illness visits gradually returned to year-to-year volumes in August-September 2020 with school opening. Early in the pandemic, both pediatric offices limited patient encounters to well-child visits in the first 2 years of life to not miss opportunities for childhood vaccinations. However, some parents were reluctant to bring their children to those visits. There was no significant change in frequency of healthy child visits during the pandemic.

To our knowledge, this was the first study from primary care pediatric practices in the United States to analyze the effect on infectious diseases during the first 9 months of the pandemic, including the 6-month time period after the reopening from the first 3 months of lockdown. One prior study from a primary care network in Massachusetts reported significant decreases in respiratory infectious diseases for children aged 0-17 years during the first months of the pandemic during lockdown.² A study in Tennessee that included hospital emergency department, urgent care, primary care, and retail health clinics also reported respiratory infection diagnoses as well as antibiotic prescription were reduced in the early months of the pandemic.³

Our study shows an overall reduction in frequency of respiratory illness visits in children 6-36 months old during the first 9 months of the COVID-19 pandemic. We learned the value of using technology in the form of virtual visits to render care. Perhaps as the pandemic subsides, many of the hand-washing and sanitizing practices will remain in place and lead to less frequent illness in children in the future. However, there may be temporary negative consequences from the “immune debt” that has occurred from a prolonged time span when children were not becoming infected with respiratory pathogens.⁴ We will see what unfolds in the future.
 

Dr. Pichichero is a specialist in pediatric infectious diseases and director of the Research Institute at Rochester (N.Y.) General Hospital. Dr. Schulz is pediatric medical director at Rochester (N.Y.) Regional Health. Dr. Pichichero and Dr. Schulz have no conflicts of interest to disclose. This study was funded in part by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

References

1. Kaur R et al. Front Pediatr. 2021;(9)722483:1-8.

2. Hatoun J et al. Pediatrics. 2020;146(4):e2020006460.

3. Katz SE et al. J Pediatric Infect Dis Soc. 2021;10(1):62-4.

4. Cohen R et al. Infect. Dis Now. 2021; 51(5)418-23.

A study that compared three types of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) found that rivaroxaban was associated with a much higher risk of overall and major gastrointestinal bleeding than apixaban or dabigatran.

The results, which were published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, could help guide DOAC selection for high-risk groups with a prior history of peptic ulcer disease or major GI bleeding, said lead study authors Arnar Bragi Ingason, MD and Einar S. Björnsson, MD, PhD, in an email.

DOACs treat conditions such as atrial fibrillation, venous thromboembolism, and ischemic stroke and are known to cause GI bleeding. Previous studies have suggested that rivaroxaban poses a higher GI-bleeding risk than other DOACs.

These studies, which used large administrative databases, “had an inherent risk of selection bias due to insurance status, age, and comorbidities due to their origin from insurance/administrative databases. In addition, they lacked phenotypic details on GI bleeding events,” said Dr. Björnsson and Dr. Ingason, who are both of Landspitali University Hospital, Reykjavik, Iceland,

Daily dosage may exacerbate risk

Rivaroxaban is administered as a single daily dose, compared with apixaban’s and dabigatran’s twice-daily regimens. “We hypothesized that this may lead to a greater variance in drug plasma concentration, making these patients more susceptible to GI bleeding,” the lead authors said.

Using data from the Icelandic Medicine Registry, a national database of outpatient prescription information, they compared rates of GI bleeding among new users of apixaban, dabigatran, and rivaroxaban from 2014 to 2019. Overall, 5,868 patients receiving one of the DOACs took part in the study. Among these participants, 3,217 received rivaroxaban, 2,157 received apixaban, and 494 received dabigatran. The researchers used inverse probability weighting, Kaplan–Meier survival estimates, and Cox regression to compare GI bleeding.

Compared with dabigatran, rivaroxaban was associated with a 63%-104% higher overall risk for GI bleeding and 39%-95% higher risk for major GI bleeding. Rivaroxaban also had a 40%-42% higher overall risk for GI bleeding and 49%-50% higher risk for major GI bleeding, compared with apixaban.

The investigators were surprised by the low rate of upper GI bleeding for dabigatran, compared with the other two drugs. “However, these results must be interpreted in the context that the dabigatran group was relatively small,” said Dr. Björnsson and Dr. Ingason via email.

Overall, the study cohort was small, compared with previous registry studies.

Investigators also did not account for account for socioeconomic status or lifestyle factors, such as alcohol consumption or smoking. “However, because the cost of all DOACs is similar in Iceland, selection bias due to socioeconomic status is unlikely,” the investigators reported in their paper. “We are currently working on comparing the rates of thromboembolisms and overall major bleeding events between the drugs,” the lead authors said.
 

Clinicians should consider location of bleeding

Though retrospective, the study by Ingason et. al. “is likely as close as is feasible to a randomized trial as is possible,” said Don C. Rockey, MD, a professor of medicine at the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, in an interview.

“From the clinician’s perspective, it is important to take away that there may be differences among the DOACs in terms of where in the GI tract the bleeding occurs,” said Dr. Rockey. In the study, the greatest differences appeared to be in the upper GI tract, with rivaroxaban outpacing apixaban and dabigatran. In patients who are at risk for upper GI bleeding, it may be reasonable to consider use of dabigatran or apixaban, he suggested.

“A limitation of the study is that it is likely underpowered overall,” said Dr. Rockey. It also wasn’t clear how many deaths occurred either directly from GI bleeding or as a complication of GI bleeding, he said.The study also didn’t differentiate major bleeding among DOACs specifically in the upper or lower GI tract, Dr. Rockey added.
 

Other studies yield similar results

Dr. Ingason and Dr. Björnsson said their work complements previous studies, and Neena S. Abraham, MD, MSc , who has conducted a similar investigation to the new study, agreed with that statement.

Data from the last 4 years overwhelmingly show that rivaroxaban is most likely to cause GI bleeding, said Dr. Abraham, professor of medicine and a consultant with Mayo Clinic’s division of gastroenterology and hepatology, in an interview.

A comparative safety study Dr. Abraham coauthored in 2017 of rivaroxaban, apixaban, and dabigatran in a much larger U.S. cohort of 372,380 patients revealed that rivaroxaban had the worst GI bleeding profile. Apixaban was 66% safer than rivaroxaban and 64% safer than dabigatran to prevent gastrointestinal bleeding.

“I believe our group was the first to conduct this study and show clinically significant differences in GI safety of the available direct oral anticoagulants,” she said. Other investigators have since published similar results, and the topic of the new study needs no further investigation, according to Dr. Abraham.

“It is time for physicians to choose a better choice when prescribing a direct oral anticoagulant to their atrial fibrillation patients, and that choice is not rivaroxaban,” she said.

The Icelandic Centre for Research and the Landspítali University Hospital Research Fund provided funds for this study. Dr. Ingason, Dr. Björnsson, Dr. Rockey, and Dr. Abraham reported no disclosures.

A study that compared three types of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) found that rivaroxaban was associated with a much higher risk of overall and major gastrointestinal bleeding than apixaban or dabigatran.

The results, which were published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, could help guide DOAC selection for high-risk groups with a prior history of peptic ulcer disease or major GI bleeding, said lead study authors Arnar Bragi Ingason, MD and Einar S. Björnsson, MD, PhD, in an email.

DOACs treat conditions such as atrial fibrillation, venous thromboembolism, and ischemic stroke and are known to cause GI bleeding. Previous studies have suggested that rivaroxaban poses a higher GI-bleeding risk than other DOACs.

These studies, which used large administrative databases, “had an inherent risk of selection bias due to insurance status, age, and comorbidities due to their origin from insurance/administrative databases. In addition, they lacked phenotypic details on GI bleeding events,” said Dr. Björnsson and Dr. Ingason, who are both of Landspitali University Hospital, Reykjavik, Iceland,

Daily dosage may exacerbate risk

Rivaroxaban is administered as a single daily dose, compared with apixaban’s and dabigatran’s twice-daily regimens. “We hypothesized that this may lead to a greater variance in drug plasma concentration, making these patients more susceptible to GI bleeding,” the lead authors said.

Using data from the Icelandic Medicine Registry, a national database of outpatient prescription information, they compared rates of GI bleeding among new users of apixaban, dabigatran, and rivaroxaban from 2014 to 2019. Overall, 5,868 patients receiving one of the DOACs took part in the study. Among these participants, 3,217 received rivaroxaban, 2,157 received apixaban, and 494 received dabigatran. The researchers used inverse probability weighting, Kaplan–Meier survival estimates, and Cox regression to compare GI bleeding.

Compared with dabigatran, rivaroxaban was associated with a 63%-104% higher overall risk for GI bleeding and 39%-95% higher risk for major GI bleeding. Rivaroxaban also had a 40%-42% higher overall risk for GI bleeding and 49%-50% higher risk for major GI bleeding, compared with apixaban.

The investigators were surprised by the low rate of upper GI bleeding for dabigatran, compared with the other two drugs. “However, these results must be interpreted in the context that the dabigatran group was relatively small,” said Dr. Björnsson and Dr. Ingason via email.

Overall, the study cohort was small, compared with previous registry studies.

Investigators also did not account for account for socioeconomic status or lifestyle factors, such as alcohol consumption or smoking. “However, because the cost of all DOACs is similar in Iceland, selection bias due to socioeconomic status is unlikely,” the investigators reported in their paper. “We are currently working on comparing the rates of thromboembolisms and overall major bleeding events between the drugs,” the lead authors said.
 

Clinicians should consider location of bleeding

Though retrospective, the study by Ingason et. al. “is likely as close as is feasible to a randomized trial as is possible,” said Don C. Rockey, MD, a professor of medicine at the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, in an interview.

“From the clinician’s perspective, it is important to take away that there may be differences among the DOACs in terms of where in the GI tract the bleeding occurs,” said Dr. Rockey. In the study, the greatest differences appeared to be in the upper GI tract, with rivaroxaban outpacing apixaban and dabigatran. In patients who are at risk for upper GI bleeding, it may be reasonable to consider use of dabigatran or apixaban, he suggested.

“A limitation of the study is that it is likely underpowered overall,” said Dr. Rockey. It also wasn’t clear how many deaths occurred either directly from GI bleeding or as a complication of GI bleeding, he said.The study also didn’t differentiate major bleeding among DOACs specifically in the upper or lower GI tract, Dr. Rockey added.
 

Other studies yield similar results

Dr. Ingason and Dr. Björnsson said their work complements previous studies, and Neena S. Abraham, MD, MSc , who has conducted a similar investigation to the new study, agreed with that statement.

Data from the last 4 years overwhelmingly show that rivaroxaban is most likely to cause GI bleeding, said Dr. Abraham, professor of medicine and a consultant with Mayo Clinic’s division of gastroenterology and hepatology, in an interview.

A comparative safety study Dr. Abraham coauthored in 2017 of rivaroxaban, apixaban, and dabigatran in a much larger U.S. cohort of 372,380 patients revealed that rivaroxaban had the worst GI bleeding profile. Apixaban was 66% safer than rivaroxaban and 64% safer than dabigatran to prevent gastrointestinal bleeding.

“I believe our group was the first to conduct this study and show clinically significant differences in GI safety of the available direct oral anticoagulants,” she said. Other investigators have since published similar results, and the topic of the new study needs no further investigation, according to Dr. Abraham.

“It is time for physicians to choose a better choice when prescribing a direct oral anticoagulant to their atrial fibrillation patients, and that choice is not rivaroxaban,” she said.

The Icelandic Centre for Research and the Landspítali University Hospital Research Fund provided funds for this study. Dr. Ingason, Dr. Björnsson, Dr. Rockey, and Dr. Abraham reported no disclosures.

A study that compared three types of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) found that rivaroxaban was associated with a much higher risk of overall and major gastrointestinal bleeding than apixaban or dabigatran.

The results, which were published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, could help guide DOAC selection for high-risk groups with a prior history of peptic ulcer disease or major GI bleeding, said lead study authors Arnar Bragi Ingason, MD and Einar S. Björnsson, MD, PhD, in an email.

DOACs treat conditions such as atrial fibrillation, venous thromboembolism, and ischemic stroke and are known to cause GI bleeding. Previous studies have suggested that rivaroxaban poses a higher GI-bleeding risk than other DOACs.

These studies, which used large administrative databases, “had an inherent risk of selection bias due to insurance status, age, and comorbidities due to their origin from insurance/administrative databases. In addition, they lacked phenotypic details on GI bleeding events,” said Dr. Björnsson and Dr. Ingason, who are both of Landspitali University Hospital, Reykjavik, Iceland,

Daily dosage may exacerbate risk

Rivaroxaban is administered as a single daily dose, compared with apixaban’s and dabigatran’s twice-daily regimens. “We hypothesized that this may lead to a greater variance in drug plasma concentration, making these patients more susceptible to GI bleeding,” the lead authors said.

Using data from the Icelandic Medicine Registry, a national database of outpatient prescription information, they compared rates of GI bleeding among new users of apixaban, dabigatran, and rivaroxaban from 2014 to 2019. Overall, 5,868 patients receiving one of the DOACs took part in the study. Among these participants, 3,217 received rivaroxaban, 2,157 received apixaban, and 494 received dabigatran. The researchers used inverse probability weighting, Kaplan–Meier survival estimates, and Cox regression to compare GI bleeding.

Compared with dabigatran, rivaroxaban was associated with a 63%-104% higher overall risk for GI bleeding and 39%-95% higher risk for major GI bleeding. Rivaroxaban also had a 40%-42% higher overall risk for GI bleeding and 49%-50% higher risk for major GI bleeding, compared with apixaban.

The investigators were surprised by the low rate of upper GI bleeding for dabigatran, compared with the other two drugs. “However, these results must be interpreted in the context that the dabigatran group was relatively small,” said Dr. Björnsson and Dr. Ingason via email.

Overall, the study cohort was small, compared with previous registry studies.

Investigators also did not account for account for socioeconomic status or lifestyle factors, such as alcohol consumption or smoking. “However, because the cost of all DOACs is similar in Iceland, selection bias due to socioeconomic status is unlikely,” the investigators reported in their paper. “We are currently working on comparing the rates of thromboembolisms and overall major bleeding events between the drugs,” the lead authors said.
 

Clinicians should consider location of bleeding

Though retrospective, the study by Ingason et. al. “is likely as close as is feasible to a randomized trial as is possible,” said Don C. Rockey, MD, a professor of medicine at the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, in an interview.

“From the clinician’s perspective, it is important to take away that there may be differences among the DOACs in terms of where in the GI tract the bleeding occurs,” said Dr. Rockey. In the study, the greatest differences appeared to be in the upper GI tract, with rivaroxaban outpacing apixaban and dabigatran. In patients who are at risk for upper GI bleeding, it may be reasonable to consider use of dabigatran or apixaban, he suggested.

“A limitation of the study is that it is likely underpowered overall,” said Dr. Rockey. It also wasn’t clear how many deaths occurred either directly from GI bleeding or as a complication of GI bleeding, he said.The study also didn’t differentiate major bleeding among DOACs specifically in the upper or lower GI tract, Dr. Rockey added.
 

Other studies yield similar results

Dr. Ingason and Dr. Björnsson said their work complements previous studies, and Neena S. Abraham, MD, MSc , who has conducted a similar investigation to the new study, agreed with that statement.

Data from the last 4 years overwhelmingly show that rivaroxaban is most likely to cause GI bleeding, said Dr. Abraham, professor of medicine and a consultant with Mayo Clinic’s division of gastroenterology and hepatology, in an interview.

A comparative safety study Dr. Abraham coauthored in 2017 of rivaroxaban, apixaban, and dabigatran in a much larger U.S. cohort of 372,380 patients revealed that rivaroxaban had the worst GI bleeding profile. Apixaban was 66% safer than rivaroxaban and 64% safer than dabigatran to prevent gastrointestinal bleeding.

“I believe our group was the first to conduct this study and show clinically significant differences in GI safety of the available direct oral anticoagulants,” she said. Other investigators have since published similar results, and the topic of the new study needs no further investigation, according to Dr. Abraham.

“It is time for physicians to choose a better choice when prescribing a direct oral anticoagulant to their atrial fibrillation patients, and that choice is not rivaroxaban,” she said.

The Icelandic Centre for Research and the Landspítali University Hospital Research Fund provided funds for this study. Dr. Ingason, Dr. Björnsson, Dr. Rockey, and Dr. Abraham reported no disclosures.

Among adolescents treated for injuries caused by family-member violence, the proportion of incidents that involved illegal drugs or weapons more than doubled during the pandemic, and incidents that involved alcohol nearly doubled, according to data presented October 10 at the American Academy of Pediatrics 2021 National Conference.

“The COVID-19 pandemic amplified risk factors known to increase family interpersonal violence, such as increased need for parental supervision, parental stress, financial hardship, poor mental health, and isolation,” said investigator Mattea Miller, an MD candidate at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore.

To examine the issue, she and her colleagues “sought to characterize the prevalence and circumstances of adolescent injuries resulting from family interpersonal violence,” Ms. Miller told this news organization.

Their retrospective analysis involved children 10 to 15 years of age seen before or during the pandemic in the emergency department at Johns Hopkins Children’s Center for injuries that resulted from a violent incident with a family member.

Of the 819 incidents of violence-related injuries seen during the study period – the prepandemic ran from Jan. 1, 2019 to March 29, 2020, and the pandemic period ran from March 30, 2020, the date a stay-at-home order was first issued in Maryland, to Dec. 31, 2020 – 448 (54.7%) involved a family member. The proportion of such injuries was similar before and during the pandemic (54.6% vs. 54.9%; P = .99).

Most (83.9%) of these incidents occurred at home, 76.6% involved a parent or guardian, and 66.7% involved the youth being transported to the hospital by police.

It is surprising that families accounted for such a high level of violence involving adolescents, said Christopher S. Greeley, MD, MS, chief of the division of public health pediatrics at Texas Children’s Hospital and professor of pediatrics at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, who was not involved in the research.

“The most common source of child physical abuse in younger children – infants and toddlers – [is the] parents,” who account for about 75% of cases, “but to see that amount of violence in adolescents was unexpected,” he told this news organization.

Patients in the study cohort were more likely to be Black than the hospital’s overall emergency-department population (84.4% vs. 60.0%), and more likely to be covered by public insurance (71.2% vs. 60.0%).

In the study cohort, 54.0% of the patients were female.

“We were surprised to see that 8% of visits did not have a referral to a social worker” – 92% of patients in the study cohort received a social work consult during their visit to the emergency department – and that number “did not vary during the COVID-19 pandemic,” Ms. Miller said. The pandemic exacerbated the types of stresses that social workers can help address, so “this potentially represents a gap in care that is important to address,” she added.
 

Increase in use of alcohol, drugs, weapons

The most significant increases from the prepandemic period to the pandemic period were in incidents that involved alcohol (10.0% vs. 18.8%; P ≤ .001), illegal drugs (6.5% vs. 14.9%; P ≤ .001), and weapons, most often a knife (10.7% vs. 23.8%; P ≤ .001).

“An obvious potential explanation for the increase in alcohol, drug, and weapons [involvement] would be the mental health impact of the pandemic in conjunction with the economic stressors that some families may be feeling,” Dr. Greeley said. Teachers are the most common reporters of child abuse, so it’s possible that reports of violence decreased when schools switched to remote learning. But with most schools back to in-person learning, data have not yet shown a surge in reporting, he noted.

The “epidemiology of family violence may be impacted by increased time at home, disruptions in school and family routines, exacerbations in mental health conditions, and financial stresses common during the pandemic,” said senior study investigator Leticia Ryan, MD, MPH, director of research in pediatrics at Johns Hopkins Medicine.

And research has shown increases in the use of alcohol and illegal drugs during the pandemic, she noted.

“As we transition to postpandemic life, it will be important to identify at-risk adolescents and families and provide supports,” Dr. Ryan told this news organization. “The emergency department is an appropriate setting to intervene with youth who have experienced family violence and initiate preventive strategies to avoid future violence.”

Among the strategies to identify and intervene for at-risk patients is the CRAFFT substance use screening tool. Furthermore, “case management, involvement of child protection services, and linkage with relevant support services may all be appropriate, depending on circumstances,” Ms. Miller added.

“Exposure to family violence at a young age increases the likelihood that a child will be exposed to additional violence or become a perpetrator of violence in the future, continuing a cycle of violence,” Ms. Miller explained. “Given that studies of adolescent violence often focus on peer violence, a better understanding of the epidemiology of violence-related injuries resulting from family violence is needed to better inform the development of more comprehensive prevention strategies.”

This study did not note any external funding. Ms. Miller, Dr. Greeley, and Dr. Ryan have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Among adolescents treated for injuries caused by family-member violence, the proportion of incidents that involved illegal drugs or weapons more than doubled during the pandemic, and incidents that involved alcohol nearly doubled, according to data presented October 10 at the American Academy of Pediatrics 2021 National Conference.

“The COVID-19 pandemic amplified risk factors known to increase family interpersonal violence, such as increased need for parental supervision, parental stress, financial hardship, poor mental health, and isolation,” said investigator Mattea Miller, an MD candidate at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore.

To examine the issue, she and her colleagues “sought to characterize the prevalence and circumstances of adolescent injuries resulting from family interpersonal violence,” Ms. Miller told this news organization.

Their retrospective analysis involved children 10 to 15 years of age seen before or during the pandemic in the emergency department at Johns Hopkins Children’s Center for injuries that resulted from a violent incident with a family member.

Of the 819 incidents of violence-related injuries seen during the study period – the prepandemic ran from Jan. 1, 2019 to March 29, 2020, and the pandemic period ran from March 30, 2020, the date a stay-at-home order was first issued in Maryland, to Dec. 31, 2020 – 448 (54.7%) involved a family member. The proportion of such injuries was similar before and during the pandemic (54.6% vs. 54.9%; P = .99).

Most (83.9%) of these incidents occurred at home, 76.6% involved a parent or guardian, and 66.7% involved the youth being transported to the hospital by police.

It is surprising that families accounted for such a high level of violence involving adolescents, said Christopher S. Greeley, MD, MS, chief of the division of public health pediatrics at Texas Children’s Hospital and professor of pediatrics at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, who was not involved in the research.

“The most common source of child physical abuse in younger children – infants and toddlers – [is the] parents,” who account for about 75% of cases, “but to see that amount of violence in adolescents was unexpected,” he told this news organization.

Patients in the study cohort were more likely to be Black than the hospital’s overall emergency-department population (84.4% vs. 60.0%), and more likely to be covered by public insurance (71.2% vs. 60.0%).

In the study cohort, 54.0% of the patients were female.

“We were surprised to see that 8% of visits did not have a referral to a social worker” – 92% of patients in the study cohort received a social work consult during their visit to the emergency department – and that number “did not vary during the COVID-19 pandemic,” Ms. Miller said. The pandemic exacerbated the types of stresses that social workers can help address, so “this potentially represents a gap in care that is important to address,” she added.
 

Increase in use of alcohol, drugs, weapons

The most significant increases from the prepandemic period to the pandemic period were in incidents that involved alcohol (10.0% vs. 18.8%; P ≤ .001), illegal drugs (6.5% vs. 14.9%; P ≤ .001), and weapons, most often a knife (10.7% vs. 23.8%; P ≤ .001).

“An obvious potential explanation for the increase in alcohol, drug, and weapons [involvement] would be the mental health impact of the pandemic in conjunction with the economic stressors that some families may be feeling,” Dr. Greeley said. Teachers are the most common reporters of child abuse, so it’s possible that reports of violence decreased when schools switched to remote learning. But with most schools back to in-person learning, data have not yet shown a surge in reporting, he noted.

The “epidemiology of family violence may be impacted by increased time at home, disruptions in school and family routines, exacerbations in mental health conditions, and financial stresses common during the pandemic,” said senior study investigator Leticia Ryan, MD, MPH, director of research in pediatrics at Johns Hopkins Medicine.

And research has shown increases in the use of alcohol and illegal drugs during the pandemic, she noted.

“As we transition to postpandemic life, it will be important to identify at-risk adolescents and families and provide supports,” Dr. Ryan told this news organization. “The emergency department is an appropriate setting to intervene with youth who have experienced family violence and initiate preventive strategies to avoid future violence.”

Among the strategies to identify and intervene for at-risk patients is the CRAFFT substance use screening tool. Furthermore, “case management, involvement of child protection services, and linkage with relevant support services may all be appropriate, depending on circumstances,” Ms. Miller added.

“Exposure to family violence at a young age increases the likelihood that a child will be exposed to additional violence or become a perpetrator of violence in the future, continuing a cycle of violence,” Ms. Miller explained. “Given that studies of adolescent violence often focus on peer violence, a better understanding of the epidemiology of violence-related injuries resulting from family violence is needed to better inform the development of more comprehensive prevention strategies.”

This study did not note any external funding. Ms. Miller, Dr. Greeley, and Dr. Ryan have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Among adolescents treated for injuries caused by family-member violence, the proportion of incidents that involved illegal drugs or weapons more than doubled during the pandemic, and incidents that involved alcohol nearly doubled, according to data presented October 10 at the American Academy of Pediatrics 2021 National Conference.

“The COVID-19 pandemic amplified risk factors known to increase family interpersonal violence, such as increased need for parental supervision, parental stress, financial hardship, poor mental health, and isolation,” said investigator Mattea Miller, an MD candidate at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore.

To examine the issue, she and her colleagues “sought to characterize the prevalence and circumstances of adolescent injuries resulting from family interpersonal violence,” Ms. Miller told this news organization.

Their retrospective analysis involved children 10 to 15 years of age seen before or during the pandemic in the emergency department at Johns Hopkins Children’s Center for injuries that resulted from a violent incident with a family member.

Of the 819 incidents of violence-related injuries seen during the study period – the prepandemic ran from Jan. 1, 2019 to March 29, 2020, and the pandemic period ran from March 30, 2020, the date a stay-at-home order was first issued in Maryland, to Dec. 31, 2020 – 448 (54.7%) involved a family member. The proportion of such injuries was similar before and during the pandemic (54.6% vs. 54.9%; P = .99).

Most (83.9%) of these incidents occurred at home, 76.6% involved a parent or guardian, and 66.7% involved the youth being transported to the hospital by police.

It is surprising that families accounted for such a high level of violence involving adolescents, said Christopher S. Greeley, MD, MS, chief of the division of public health pediatrics at Texas Children’s Hospital and professor of pediatrics at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, who was not involved in the research.

“The most common source of child physical abuse in younger children – infants and toddlers – [is the] parents,” who account for about 75% of cases, “but to see that amount of violence in adolescents was unexpected,” he told this news organization.

Patients in the study cohort were more likely to be Black than the hospital’s overall emergency-department population (84.4% vs. 60.0%), and more likely to be covered by public insurance (71.2% vs. 60.0%).

In the study cohort, 54.0% of the patients were female.

“We were surprised to see that 8% of visits did not have a referral to a social worker” – 92% of patients in the study cohort received a social work consult during their visit to the emergency department – and that number “did not vary during the COVID-19 pandemic,” Ms. Miller said. The pandemic exacerbated the types of stresses that social workers can help address, so “this potentially represents a gap in care that is important to address,” she added.
 

Increase in use of alcohol, drugs, weapons

The most significant increases from the prepandemic period to the pandemic period were in incidents that involved alcohol (10.0% vs. 18.8%; P ≤ .001), illegal drugs (6.5% vs. 14.9%; P ≤ .001), and weapons, most often a knife (10.7% vs. 23.8%; P ≤ .001).

“An obvious potential explanation for the increase in alcohol, drug, and weapons [involvement] would be the mental health impact of the pandemic in conjunction with the economic stressors that some families may be feeling,” Dr. Greeley said. Teachers are the most common reporters of child abuse, so it’s possible that reports of violence decreased when schools switched to remote learning. But with most schools back to in-person learning, data have not yet shown a surge in reporting, he noted.

The “epidemiology of family violence may be impacted by increased time at home, disruptions in school and family routines, exacerbations in mental health conditions, and financial stresses common during the pandemic,” said senior study investigator Leticia Ryan, MD, MPH, director of research in pediatrics at Johns Hopkins Medicine.

And research has shown increases in the use of alcohol and illegal drugs during the pandemic, she noted.

“As we transition to postpandemic life, it will be important to identify at-risk adolescents and families and provide supports,” Dr. Ryan told this news organization. “The emergency department is an appropriate setting to intervene with youth who have experienced family violence and initiate preventive strategies to avoid future violence.”

Among the strategies to identify and intervene for at-risk patients is the CRAFFT substance use screening tool. Furthermore, “case management, involvement of child protection services, and linkage with relevant support services may all be appropriate, depending on circumstances,” Ms. Miller added.

“Exposure to family violence at a young age increases the likelihood that a child will be exposed to additional violence or become a perpetrator of violence in the future, continuing a cycle of violence,” Ms. Miller explained. “Given that studies of adolescent violence often focus on peer violence, a better understanding of the epidemiology of violence-related injuries resulting from family violence is needed to better inform the development of more comprehensive prevention strategies.”

This study did not note any external funding. Ms. Miller, Dr. Greeley, and Dr. Ryan have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

High-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filters and ultraviolet (UV) light sterilization effectively remove SARS-CoV-2 particles from the air — the first such evidence in a real-world test, researchers report in the preprint server medRxiv.

The journal Nature reported Oct. 6 that the research, which has not been peer-reviewed, suggests the filters may help reduce the risk of hospital-acquired SARS-CoV-2.

Researchers, led by intensivist Andrew Conway-Morris, MBChB, PhD, with the division of anaesthesia in the school of clinical medicine at University of Cambridge, United Kingdom, write that earlier experiments assessed air filters’ ability to remove inactive particles in carefully controlled environments, but it was unknown how they would work in a real-world setting.

Co-author Vilas Navapurkar, MBChB, an ICU physician at Addenbrooke’s Hospital in Cambridge, United Kingdom, said that hospitals have used portable air filters when their isolation facilities are full, but evidence was needed as to whether such filters are effective or whether they provide a false sense of security.

The researchers installed the filters in two fully occupied COVID-19 wards — a general ward and an ICU. They chose HEPA filters because they can catch extremely small particles.

The team collected air samples from the wards during a week when the air filters were on and 2 weeks when they were turned off, then compared results.

According to the study, “airborne SARS-CoV-2 was detected in the ward on all five days before activation of air/UV filtration, but on none of the five days when the air/UV filter was operational; SARS-CoV-2 was again detected on four out of five days when the filter was off.”

Airborne SARS-CoV-2 was not frequently detected in the ICU, even when the filters were off.

Cheap and easy

According to the Nature article, the authors suggest several potential explanations for this, “including slower viral replication at later stages of the disease.” Therefore, the authors say, filtering the virus from the air might be more important in general wards than in ICUs.

The filters significantly reduced the other microbial bioaerosols in both the ward (48 pathogens detected before filtration, 2 after, P = .05) and the ICU (45 pathogens detected before filtration, 5 after P = .05).

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) cyclonic aerosol samplers and PCR tests were used to detect airborne SARS-CoV-2 and other microbial bioaerosol.

David Fisman, MD, an epidemiologist at the University of Toronto, who was not involved in the research, said in the Nature article, “This study suggests that HEPA air cleaners, which remain little-used in Canadian hospitals, are a cheap and easy way to reduce risk from airborne pathogens.”This work was supported by a Wellcome senior research fellowship to co-author Stephen Baker. Conway Morris is supported by a Clinician Scientist Fellowship from the Medical Research Council. Dr. Navapurkar is the founder, director, and shareholder of Cambridge Infection Diagnostics Ltd. Dr. Conway-Morris and several co-authors are members of the Scientific Advisory Board of Cambridge Infection Diagnostics Ltd. Co-author Theodore Gouliouris has received a research grant from Shionogi and co-author R. Andres Floto has received research grants and/or consultancy payments from GSK, AstraZeneca, Chiesi, Shionogi, Insmed, and Thirty Technology.

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

High-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filters and ultraviolet (UV) light sterilization effectively remove SARS-CoV-2 particles from the air — the first such evidence in a real-world test, researchers report in the preprint server medRxiv.

The journal Nature reported Oct. 6 that the research, which has not been peer-reviewed, suggests the filters may help reduce the risk of hospital-acquired SARS-CoV-2.

Researchers, led by intensivist Andrew Conway-Morris, MBChB, PhD, with the division of anaesthesia in the school of clinical medicine at University of Cambridge, United Kingdom, write that earlier experiments assessed air filters’ ability to remove inactive particles in carefully controlled environments, but it was unknown how they would work in a real-world setting.

Co-author Vilas Navapurkar, MBChB, an ICU physician at Addenbrooke’s Hospital in Cambridge, United Kingdom, said that hospitals have used portable air filters when their isolation facilities are full, but evidence was needed as to whether such filters are effective or whether they provide a false sense of security.

The researchers installed the filters in two fully occupied COVID-19 wards — a general ward and an ICU. They chose HEPA filters because they can catch extremely small particles.

The team collected air samples from the wards during a week when the air filters were on and 2 weeks when they were turned off, then compared results.

According to the study, “airborne SARS-CoV-2 was detected in the ward on all five days before activation of air/UV filtration, but on none of the five days when the air/UV filter was operational; SARS-CoV-2 was again detected on four out of five days when the filter was off.”

Airborne SARS-CoV-2 was not frequently detected in the ICU, even when the filters were off.

Cheap and easy

According to the Nature article, the authors suggest several potential explanations for this, “including slower viral replication at later stages of the disease.” Therefore, the authors say, filtering the virus from the air might be more important in general wards than in ICUs.

The filters significantly reduced the other microbial bioaerosols in both the ward (48 pathogens detected before filtration, 2 after, P = .05) and the ICU (45 pathogens detected before filtration, 5 after P = .05).

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) cyclonic aerosol samplers and PCR tests were used to detect airborne SARS-CoV-2 and other microbial bioaerosol.

David Fisman, MD, an epidemiologist at the University of Toronto, who was not involved in the research, said in the Nature article, “This study suggests that HEPA air cleaners, which remain little-used in Canadian hospitals, are a cheap and easy way to reduce risk from airborne pathogens.”This work was supported by a Wellcome senior research fellowship to co-author Stephen Baker. Conway Morris is supported by a Clinician Scientist Fellowship from the Medical Research Council. Dr. Navapurkar is the founder, director, and shareholder of Cambridge Infection Diagnostics Ltd. Dr. Conway-Morris and several co-authors are members of the Scientific Advisory Board of Cambridge Infection Diagnostics Ltd. Co-author Theodore Gouliouris has received a research grant from Shionogi and co-author R. Andres Floto has received research grants and/or consultancy payments from GSK, AstraZeneca, Chiesi, Shionogi, Insmed, and Thirty Technology.

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

High-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filters and ultraviolet (UV) light sterilization effectively remove SARS-CoV-2 particles from the air — the first such evidence in a real-world test, researchers report in the preprint server medRxiv.

The journal Nature reported Oct. 6 that the research, which has not been peer-reviewed, suggests the filters may help reduce the risk of hospital-acquired SARS-CoV-2.

Researchers, led by intensivist Andrew Conway-Morris, MBChB, PhD, with the division of anaesthesia in the school of clinical medicine at University of Cambridge, United Kingdom, write that earlier experiments assessed air filters’ ability to remove inactive particles in carefully controlled environments, but it was unknown how they would work in a real-world setting.

Co-author Vilas Navapurkar, MBChB, an ICU physician at Addenbrooke’s Hospital in Cambridge, United Kingdom, said that hospitals have used portable air filters when their isolation facilities are full, but evidence was needed as to whether such filters are effective or whether they provide a false sense of security.

The researchers installed the filters in two fully occupied COVID-19 wards — a general ward and an ICU. They chose HEPA filters because they can catch extremely small particles.

The team collected air samples from the wards during a week when the air filters were on and 2 weeks when they were turned off, then compared results.

According to the study, “airborne SARS-CoV-2 was detected in the ward on all five days before activation of air/UV filtration, but on none of the five days when the air/UV filter was operational; SARS-CoV-2 was again detected on four out of five days when the filter was off.”

Airborne SARS-CoV-2 was not frequently detected in the ICU, even when the filters were off.

Cheap and easy

According to the Nature article, the authors suggest several potential explanations for this, “including slower viral replication at later stages of the disease.” Therefore, the authors say, filtering the virus from the air might be more important in general wards than in ICUs.

The filters significantly reduced the other microbial bioaerosols in both the ward (48 pathogens detected before filtration, 2 after, P = .05) and the ICU (45 pathogens detected before filtration, 5 after P = .05).

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) cyclonic aerosol samplers and PCR tests were used to detect airborne SARS-CoV-2 and other microbial bioaerosol.

David Fisman, MD, an epidemiologist at the University of Toronto, who was not involved in the research, said in the Nature article, “This study suggests that HEPA air cleaners, which remain little-used in Canadian hospitals, are a cheap and easy way to reduce risk from airborne pathogens.”This work was supported by a Wellcome senior research fellowship to co-author Stephen Baker. Conway Morris is supported by a Clinician Scientist Fellowship from the Medical Research Council. Dr. Navapurkar is the founder, director, and shareholder of Cambridge Infection Diagnostics Ltd. Dr. Conway-Morris and several co-authors are members of the Scientific Advisory Board of Cambridge Infection Diagnostics Ltd. Co-author Theodore Gouliouris has received a research grant from Shionogi and co-author R. Andres Floto has received research grants and/or consultancy payments from GSK, AstraZeneca, Chiesi, Shionogi, Insmed, and Thirty Technology.

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

The Food and Drug Administration issued a warning today about the use of needle-free devices for injecting dermal fillers – which are promoted to the public on social media and have resulted in serious and permanent injuries.

Specifically, the warning advises consumers and health care professionals “not to use needle-free devices such as hyaluron pens for injection of hyaluronic acid (HA) or other lip and facial fillers, collectively and commonly referred to as dermal fillers or fillers.”

According to the statement, the agency “is aware of serious injuries and in some cases, permanent harm to the skin, lips, or eyes with the use of needle-free devices for injection of fillers.”

Needle-free devices and lip and facial fillers for use with these devices are being sold directly to consumers online, and are promoted on social media “to increase lip volume, improve the appearance of wrinkles, change the shape of the nose, and other similar procedures,” according to the FDA warning.

The FDA points out that FDA-approved dermal fillers are for prescription use only, and should be administered only by licensed health care professionals using a syringe with a needle or cannula, and advises consumers not to buy or use lip or facial fillers sold directly to the public.

These products may be contaminated with infectious agents or chemicals. Moreover, “needle-free injection devices for aesthetic purposes do not provide enough control over where the injected product is placed,” the statement adds. In addition to infections, other risks include bleeding and bruising, formation of lumps, allergic reactions, blockage of a blood vessel (which can result in necrosis, blindness, or stroke), and transmission of diseases from sharing devices.

The FDA’s recommendations for health care providers include not using any aesthetic fillers with a needle-free device, and not using approved dermal fillers in such devices.

The American Society for Dermatologic Surgery Association (ASDSA) commended the FDA on the safety communication in a statement issued on October 11. In February, the ASDSA issued an alert about children using hyaluron pens to self-inject hyaluronic filler into the epidermal and upper dermal skin layers. 

“I am pleased that the FDA has taken notice of this disturbing new trend, especially that of children using these devices on social media,” ASDSA president Mathew Avram, MD, JD, director of the Dermatology Laser and Cosmetic Center, at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said in the statement. “The complexity of facial anatomy requires in-depth knowledge and expertise, and patients should always have medical procedures done by a physician who also has knowledge of adverse events,” he added, urging consumers to see a board-certified dermatologist before undergoing any cosmetic procedure.

In response to a query, an FDA spokesperson did not have an estimate of the number of reports of these adverse events.

People who have problems or are concerned about having had a filler injected with a needle-free device should contact a licensed health care provider. Consumers and health care professionals should report adverse events related to injection of fillers with a needle-free device to the FDA’s MedWatch program. In addition to MedWatch, adverse events can also be reported to the Cutaneous Procedures Adverse Events Reporting (CAPER) Registry, established earlier this year by the ASDSA with the department of dermatology at Northwestern University, Chicago.

*This story was updated on October 12. 

The Food and Drug Administration issued a warning today about the use of needle-free devices for injecting dermal fillers – which are promoted to the public on social media and have resulted in serious and permanent injuries.

Specifically, the warning advises consumers and health care professionals “not to use needle-free devices such as hyaluron pens for injection of hyaluronic acid (HA) or other lip and facial fillers, collectively and commonly referred to as dermal fillers or fillers.”

According to the statement, the agency “is aware of serious injuries and in some cases, permanent harm to the skin, lips, or eyes with the use of needle-free devices for injection of fillers.”

Needle-free devices and lip and facial fillers for use with these devices are being sold directly to consumers online, and are promoted on social media “to increase lip volume, improve the appearance of wrinkles, change the shape of the nose, and other similar procedures,” according to the FDA warning.

The FDA points out that FDA-approved dermal fillers are for prescription use only, and should be administered only by licensed health care professionals using a syringe with a needle or cannula, and advises consumers not to buy or use lip or facial fillers sold directly to the public.

These products may be contaminated with infectious agents or chemicals. Moreover, “needle-free injection devices for aesthetic purposes do not provide enough control over where the injected product is placed,” the statement adds. In addition to infections, other risks include bleeding and bruising, formation of lumps, allergic reactions, blockage of a blood vessel (which can result in necrosis, blindness, or stroke), and transmission of diseases from sharing devices.

The FDA’s recommendations for health care providers include not using any aesthetic fillers with a needle-free device, and not using approved dermal fillers in such devices.

The American Society for Dermatologic Surgery Association (ASDSA) commended the FDA on the safety communication in a statement issued on October 11. In February, the ASDSA issued an alert about children using hyaluron pens to self-inject hyaluronic filler into the epidermal and upper dermal skin layers. 

“I am pleased that the FDA has taken notice of this disturbing new trend, especially that of children using these devices on social media,” ASDSA president Mathew Avram, MD, JD, director of the Dermatology Laser and Cosmetic Center, at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said in the statement. “The complexity of facial anatomy requires in-depth knowledge and expertise, and patients should always have medical procedures done by a physician who also has knowledge of adverse events,” he added, urging consumers to see a board-certified dermatologist before undergoing any cosmetic procedure.

In response to a query, an FDA spokesperson did not have an estimate of the number of reports of these adverse events.

People who have problems or are concerned about having had a filler injected with a needle-free device should contact a licensed health care provider. Consumers and health care professionals should report adverse events related to injection of fillers with a needle-free device to the FDA’s MedWatch program. In addition to MedWatch, adverse events can also be reported to the Cutaneous Procedures Adverse Events Reporting (CAPER) Registry, established earlier this year by the ASDSA with the department of dermatology at Northwestern University, Chicago.

*This story was updated on October 12. 

The Food and Drug Administration issued a warning today about the use of needle-free devices for injecting dermal fillers – which are promoted to the public on social media and have resulted in serious and permanent injuries.

Specifically, the warning advises consumers and health care professionals “not to use needle-free devices such as hyaluron pens for injection of hyaluronic acid (HA) or other lip and facial fillers, collectively and commonly referred to as dermal fillers or fillers.”

According to the statement, the agency “is aware of serious injuries and in some cases, permanent harm to the skin, lips, or eyes with the use of needle-free devices for injection of fillers.”

Needle-free devices and lip and facial fillers for use with these devices are being sold directly to consumers online, and are promoted on social media “to increase lip volume, improve the appearance of wrinkles, change the shape of the nose, and other similar procedures,” according to the FDA warning.

The FDA points out that FDA-approved dermal fillers are for prescription use only, and should be administered only by licensed health care professionals using a syringe with a needle or cannula, and advises consumers not to buy or use lip or facial fillers sold directly to the public.

These products may be contaminated with infectious agents or chemicals. Moreover, “needle-free injection devices for aesthetic purposes do not provide enough control over where the injected product is placed,” the statement adds. In addition to infections, other risks include bleeding and bruising, formation of lumps, allergic reactions, blockage of a blood vessel (which can result in necrosis, blindness, or stroke), and transmission of diseases from sharing devices.

The FDA’s recommendations for health care providers include not using any aesthetic fillers with a needle-free device, and not using approved dermal fillers in such devices.

The American Society for Dermatologic Surgery Association (ASDSA) commended the FDA on the safety communication in a statement issued on October 11. In February, the ASDSA issued an alert about children using hyaluron pens to self-inject hyaluronic filler into the epidermal and upper dermal skin layers. 

“I am pleased that the FDA has taken notice of this disturbing new trend, especially that of children using these devices on social media,” ASDSA president Mathew Avram, MD, JD, director of the Dermatology Laser and Cosmetic Center, at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said in the statement. “The complexity of facial anatomy requires in-depth knowledge and expertise, and patients should always have medical procedures done by a physician who also has knowledge of adverse events,” he added, urging consumers to see a board-certified dermatologist before undergoing any cosmetic procedure.

In response to a query, an FDA spokesperson did not have an estimate of the number of reports of these adverse events.

People who have problems or are concerned about having had a filler injected with a needle-free device should contact a licensed health care provider. Consumers and health care professionals should report adverse events related to injection of fillers with a needle-free device to the FDA’s MedWatch program. In addition to MedWatch, adverse events can also be reported to the Cutaneous Procedures Adverse Events Reporting (CAPER) Registry, established earlier this year by the ASDSA with the department of dermatology at Northwestern University, Chicago.

*This story was updated on October 12.