MDedge Pediatrics

Further details from multiple cases of myocarditis linked to the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA COVID vaccines have been described in recent papers in the medical literature.

The cases appear to occur almost exclusively in males and most often in younger age groups. While symptoms and signs of myocarditis mostly resolved with a few days of supportive care, long-term effects are unknown at present.

The authors of all the reports and of two accompanying editorials in JAMA Cardiology are unanimous in their opinion that the benefits of vaccination still outweigh the risks.  

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices met June 23 to discuss this issue. At that meeting, it was reported that 323 cases of myocarditis or pericarditis in individuals aged 29 years and younger have been confirmed, but committee members delivered a strong endorsement for continuing to vaccinate young people with the mRNA vaccines.

The current case reports are published in two papers in JAMA Cardiology and in three in Circulation.
 

U.S. military reports 23 cases

In one report in JAMA Cardiology, authors led by Jay Montgomery, MD, from Walter Reed National Military Medical Center in Bethesda, Md., described 23 cases from the U.S. Military Health System of individuals with acute myocarditis who presented within 4 days after mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccination (7 Pfizer and 16 Moderna).

All patients were male, 22 of 23 were on active duty, and the median age was 25 years (range, 20-51); 20 of the 23 cases occurred after receipt of a second dose of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine.

The patients all presented with acute onset of marked chest pain. All patients had significantly elevated cardiac troponin levels. Among eight patients who underwent cardiac MRI (cMRI), all had findings consistent with the clinical diagnosis of myocarditis.

Additional testing did not identify other possible causes of myocarditis. All patients received brief supportive care and were recovered or recovering.

The authors reported that the military administered more than 2.8 million doses of mRNA COVID-19 vaccine in this period, and while the observed number of myocarditis cases was small, the number was “substantially higher” than expected among male military members after a second vaccine dose.

They noted that, based on historical data, among the 544,000 second doses to military members there may have been 0-10 expected myocarditis cases, but they observed 19 cases.  

“All patients in this series reflect substantial similarities in demographic characteristics, proximate vaccine dose, onset interval, and character of vaccine-associated myocarditis. The consistent pattern of clinical presentation, rapid recovery, and absence of evidence of other causes support the diagnosis of hypersensitivity myocarditis,” they stated.

They added that presentation after a second vaccine dose or, in three patients, when vaccination followed SARS-CoV-2 infection, suggests that prior exposure was relevant in the hypersensitivity response.

“The spectrum of clinical presentation and reliance on patients seeking health care and on health care professionals recognizing a rare vaccine-associated adverse event limits determination of the true incidence of this condition,” the authors wrote.

They stressed that recognition of vaccine-associated myocarditis is clinically important because diagnosis impacts management, recommendations for exercise, and monitoring for cardiomyopathy.

But the authors also acknowledged that it is important to frame concerns about potential vaccine-associated myocarditis within the context of the current pandemic.

“Infection with SARS-CoV-2 is a clear cause of serious cardiac injury in many patients. ... Prevalence of cardiac injury may be as high as 60% in seriously ill patients. Notably, nearly 1% of highly fit athletes with mild COVID-19 infection have evidence of myocarditis on cMRI,” they wrote.

“Given that COVID-19 vaccines are remarkably effective at preventing infection, any risk of rare adverse events following immunization must be carefully weighed against the very substantial benefit of vaccination,” they concluded.
 

Four cases at Duke

In the second paper in JAMA Cardiology, a group led by Han W. Kim, MD, reported four patients with acute myocarditis occurring within days of mRNA COVID-19 vaccination (two Pfizer and two Moderna) in patients treated at Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C. The hospital courses of the four patients with myocarditis following COVID-19 vaccination were uneventful, and they were discharged within 2-4 days.

The authors said that, although a causal relationship cannot be established, none of the patients had a viral prodrome or had coincident testing that revealed an alternative explanation.

They stated that these four patients represent the majority of patients with acute myocarditis identified in the past 3 months at their institution, and this led to the highest total number of patients with acute myocarditis, compared with the same 3-month period for the past 5 years. 

“Additionally, we identified only those patients with severe unremitting chest pain who sought medical attention. Those with mild or moderate chest pain might not seek medical attention, and it is possible that subclinical myocarditis may occur and could be detected by active surveillance, as has been described with smallpox vaccination,” they wrote.
 

Further case reports

In one of the papers in Circulation, a group led by Kathryn F. Larson, MD, from the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., described eight patients hospitalized with chest pain who were diagnosed with myocarditis within 2-4 days of receiving either the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine.

Two of the patients had previously been infected by SARS-CoV-2 without need for hospitalization. All individuals were otherwise healthy males between the ages of 21 and 56 years. All but one patient developed symptoms after their second dose, and the one patient who developed myocarditis after the first vaccine dose had previously been infected with SARS-CoV-2.  

Systemic symptoms began within 24 hours after vaccine administration in five of eight patients, with chest pain presenting between 48 and 96 hours later. Troponin values were elevated in all individuals and appeared to peak the day after admission, whereas none had eosinophilia.

Cardiac MRI revealed findings consistent with myocarditis in all patients. All patients had resolution of their chest pain and were discharged from the hospital in stable condition.

“The patients presented here demonstrated typical signs, symptoms, and diagnostic features of acute myocarditis. The temporal association between receiving an mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccine and the development of myocarditis is notable,” the authors said.  

They added that they would consider the use of corticosteroids in these patients but cautioned that this could reduce the specific immune response against SARS-COV-2 triggered by the vaccine. “Thus, the duration of corticosteroid administration should be limited to the resolution of the symptoms or ventricular arrhythmias or the recovery of the left ventricular ejection fraction.”

Pending publication of long-term outcome data after SARS-CoV-2 vaccine–related myocarditis, they suggest adherence to the current consensus recommendation to abstain from competitive sports for a period of 3-6 months with reevaluation prior to sports participation. 

In another of the Circulation papers, a group led by Carolyn M. Rosner, MSN,  presented a case series of seven patients hospitalized for acute myocarditis-like illness following COVID-19 vaccination, from two U.S. medical centers, in Falls Church, Va., and Dallas. All patients were males below the age of 40 years and of White or Hispanic race/ethnicity. Only one patient reported prior history of COVID-19 infection. Six patients received mRNA (Moderna or Pfizer) and one received the adenovirus (Johnson & Johnson) vaccine. All patients presented 3-7 days post vaccination with acute onset chest pain and biochemical evidence of myocardial injury.

Hospital length of stay was 3 days, and all patients’ symptoms resolved by hospital discharge.

And finally, the third paper in Circulation reported a detailed description of one patient – a 52-year-old, previously healthy male who presented with acute myocarditis 3 days after the administration of the second dose of Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine. The symptoms resolved, and there was a gradual improvement in cMRI findings. Ischemic injury and other potential causes of acute myocardial injury were excluded, as were other potential infectious causes of myocarditis, and there was no evidence of systemic autoimmune disease.

“Clinicians should be aware that myocarditis may be present in patients exhibiting cardiac signs and symptoms 2-4 days after COVID-19 vaccination,” the authors said.

They added that additional surveillance of such adverse events post–COVID-19 vaccination will help identify subgroups at higher risk for this vaccine-related effect, and whether additional precautions are necessary.
 

‘Benefits outweigh risk’

In an accompanying editorial in JAMA Cardiology, three doctors from the CDC cite several other reports of myocarditis after mRNA COVID vaccination. These include a case report published in Pediatrics of seven male adolescents aged 14-19 years who presented with myocarditis or myopericarditis within 4 days after receipt of a second dose of the Pfizer vaccine.

But the editorialists noted that the most comprehensive data about the risk for myocarditis following immunization with mRNA vaccines comes from Israel.

The Israeli Ministry of Health recently posted data describing 121 myocarditis cases occurring within 30 days of a second dose of mRNA vaccine among 5,049,424 persons, suggesting a crude incidence rate of approximately 24 cases per million.

On the current case reports, the CDC doctors wrote: “The striking clinical similarities in the presentations of these patients, their recent vaccination with an mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccine, and the lack of any alternative etiologies for acute myocarditis suggest an association with immunization.”

They said that acute onset of chest pain 3-5 days after vaccine administration, usually after a second dose, is a typical feature of reported cases and suggests an immune-mediated mechanism.

But SARS-CoV-2 infection also causes cardiac injury which may result in severe outcomes, and based on currently available data, myocarditis following immunization with current mRNA-based vaccines is rare.

“At present, the benefits of immunization in preventing severe morbidity favors continued COVID-19 vaccination, particularly considering the increasing COVID-19 hospitalization rates among adolescents reported during spring 2021,” the editorialists stated.

But they added that many questions remain. These include whether modifications are needed to the vaccine schedule among persons with a history of possible or confirmed myocarditis after COVID vaccine, how should postvaccine myocarditis be managed, how often should follow-up assessments be performed, how might follow-up assessments affect recommendations to avoid vigorous physical activity following the diagnosis of myocarditis, and do all likely cases of acute myocarditis that appear to be uncomplicated require cardiac MRI for more definitive diagnosis?

“While the data needed to answer such questions are being collected, there is an opportunity for researchers with expertise in myocarditis to develop a comprehensive, national assessment of the natural history, pathogenesis, and treatment of acute myocarditis associated with receipt of mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines,” they concluded.

In a second editorial in JAMA Cardiology, a group of editors from the journal acknowledged that publication of the current case reports may contribute to additional public concern regarding immunization. But they added that clinicians discussing immunization with patients should recognize that these case series suggest that the symptomatic events consistent with myocarditis are still very rare and appear to be self-limiting.

“Given the risks of COVID-19, including the risk of myocarditis from COVID-19 infection, the editors do not believe these case reports are sufficient to interrupt the march toward maximal vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 as expeditiously as possible,” they said.

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

Further details from multiple cases of myocarditis linked to the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA COVID vaccines have been described in recent papers in the medical literature.

The cases appear to occur almost exclusively in males and most often in younger age groups. While symptoms and signs of myocarditis mostly resolved with a few days of supportive care, long-term effects are unknown at present.

The authors of all the reports and of two accompanying editorials in JAMA Cardiology are unanimous in their opinion that the benefits of vaccination still outweigh the risks.  

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices met June 23 to discuss this issue. At that meeting, it was reported that 323 cases of myocarditis or pericarditis in individuals aged 29 years and younger have been confirmed, but committee members delivered a strong endorsement for continuing to vaccinate young people with the mRNA vaccines.

The current case reports are published in two papers in JAMA Cardiology and in three in Circulation.
 

U.S. military reports 23 cases

In one report in JAMA Cardiology, authors led by Jay Montgomery, MD, from Walter Reed National Military Medical Center in Bethesda, Md., described 23 cases from the U.S. Military Health System of individuals with acute myocarditis who presented within 4 days after mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccination (7 Pfizer and 16 Moderna).

All patients were male, 22 of 23 were on active duty, and the median age was 25 years (range, 20-51); 20 of the 23 cases occurred after receipt of a second dose of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine.

The patients all presented with acute onset of marked chest pain. All patients had significantly elevated cardiac troponin levels. Among eight patients who underwent cardiac MRI (cMRI), all had findings consistent with the clinical diagnosis of myocarditis.

Additional testing did not identify other possible causes of myocarditis. All patients received brief supportive care and were recovered or recovering.

The authors reported that the military administered more than 2.8 million doses of mRNA COVID-19 vaccine in this period, and while the observed number of myocarditis cases was small, the number was “substantially higher” than expected among male military members after a second vaccine dose.

They noted that, based on historical data, among the 544,000 second doses to military members there may have been 0-10 expected myocarditis cases, but they observed 19 cases.  

“All patients in this series reflect substantial similarities in demographic characteristics, proximate vaccine dose, onset interval, and character of vaccine-associated myocarditis. The consistent pattern of clinical presentation, rapid recovery, and absence of evidence of other causes support the diagnosis of hypersensitivity myocarditis,” they stated.

They added that presentation after a second vaccine dose or, in three patients, when vaccination followed SARS-CoV-2 infection, suggests that prior exposure was relevant in the hypersensitivity response.

“The spectrum of clinical presentation and reliance on patients seeking health care and on health care professionals recognizing a rare vaccine-associated adverse event limits determination of the true incidence of this condition,” the authors wrote.

They stressed that recognition of vaccine-associated myocarditis is clinically important because diagnosis impacts management, recommendations for exercise, and monitoring for cardiomyopathy.

But the authors also acknowledged that it is important to frame concerns about potential vaccine-associated myocarditis within the context of the current pandemic.

“Infection with SARS-CoV-2 is a clear cause of serious cardiac injury in many patients. ... Prevalence of cardiac injury may be as high as 60% in seriously ill patients. Notably, nearly 1% of highly fit athletes with mild COVID-19 infection have evidence of myocarditis on cMRI,” they wrote.

“Given that COVID-19 vaccines are remarkably effective at preventing infection, any risk of rare adverse events following immunization must be carefully weighed against the very substantial benefit of vaccination,” they concluded.
 

Four cases at Duke

In the second paper in JAMA Cardiology, a group led by Han W. Kim, MD, reported four patients with acute myocarditis occurring within days of mRNA COVID-19 vaccination (two Pfizer and two Moderna) in patients treated at Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C. The hospital courses of the four patients with myocarditis following COVID-19 vaccination were uneventful, and they were discharged within 2-4 days.

The authors said that, although a causal relationship cannot be established, none of the patients had a viral prodrome or had coincident testing that revealed an alternative explanation.

They stated that these four patients represent the majority of patients with acute myocarditis identified in the past 3 months at their institution, and this led to the highest total number of patients with acute myocarditis, compared with the same 3-month period for the past 5 years. 

“Additionally, we identified only those patients with severe unremitting chest pain who sought medical attention. Those with mild or moderate chest pain might not seek medical attention, and it is possible that subclinical myocarditis may occur and could be detected by active surveillance, as has been described with smallpox vaccination,” they wrote.
 

Further case reports

In one of the papers in Circulation, a group led by Kathryn F. Larson, MD, from the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., described eight patients hospitalized with chest pain who were diagnosed with myocarditis within 2-4 days of receiving either the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine.

Two of the patients had previously been infected by SARS-CoV-2 without need for hospitalization. All individuals were otherwise healthy males between the ages of 21 and 56 years. All but one patient developed symptoms after their second dose, and the one patient who developed myocarditis after the first vaccine dose had previously been infected with SARS-CoV-2.  

Systemic symptoms began within 24 hours after vaccine administration in five of eight patients, with chest pain presenting between 48 and 96 hours later. Troponin values were elevated in all individuals and appeared to peak the day after admission, whereas none had eosinophilia.

Cardiac MRI revealed findings consistent with myocarditis in all patients. All patients had resolution of their chest pain and were discharged from the hospital in stable condition.

“The patients presented here demonstrated typical signs, symptoms, and diagnostic features of acute myocarditis. The temporal association between receiving an mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccine and the development of myocarditis is notable,” the authors said.  

They added that they would consider the use of corticosteroids in these patients but cautioned that this could reduce the specific immune response against SARS-COV-2 triggered by the vaccine. “Thus, the duration of corticosteroid administration should be limited to the resolution of the symptoms or ventricular arrhythmias or the recovery of the left ventricular ejection fraction.”

Pending publication of long-term outcome data after SARS-CoV-2 vaccine–related myocarditis, they suggest adherence to the current consensus recommendation to abstain from competitive sports for a period of 3-6 months with reevaluation prior to sports participation. 

In another of the Circulation papers, a group led by Carolyn M. Rosner, MSN,  presented a case series of seven patients hospitalized for acute myocarditis-like illness following COVID-19 vaccination, from two U.S. medical centers, in Falls Church, Va., and Dallas. All patients were males below the age of 40 years and of White or Hispanic race/ethnicity. Only one patient reported prior history of COVID-19 infection. Six patients received mRNA (Moderna or Pfizer) and one received the adenovirus (Johnson & Johnson) vaccine. All patients presented 3-7 days post vaccination with acute onset chest pain and biochemical evidence of myocardial injury.

Hospital length of stay was 3 days, and all patients’ symptoms resolved by hospital discharge.

And finally, the third paper in Circulation reported a detailed description of one patient – a 52-year-old, previously healthy male who presented with acute myocarditis 3 days after the administration of the second dose of Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine. The symptoms resolved, and there was a gradual improvement in cMRI findings. Ischemic injury and other potential causes of acute myocardial injury were excluded, as were other potential infectious causes of myocarditis, and there was no evidence of systemic autoimmune disease.

“Clinicians should be aware that myocarditis may be present in patients exhibiting cardiac signs and symptoms 2-4 days after COVID-19 vaccination,” the authors said.

They added that additional surveillance of such adverse events post–COVID-19 vaccination will help identify subgroups at higher risk for this vaccine-related effect, and whether additional precautions are necessary.
 

‘Benefits outweigh risk’

In an accompanying editorial in JAMA Cardiology, three doctors from the CDC cite several other reports of myocarditis after mRNA COVID vaccination. These include a case report published in Pediatrics of seven male adolescents aged 14-19 years who presented with myocarditis or myopericarditis within 4 days after receipt of a second dose of the Pfizer vaccine.

But the editorialists noted that the most comprehensive data about the risk for myocarditis following immunization with mRNA vaccines comes from Israel.

The Israeli Ministry of Health recently posted data describing 121 myocarditis cases occurring within 30 days of a second dose of mRNA vaccine among 5,049,424 persons, suggesting a crude incidence rate of approximately 24 cases per million.

On the current case reports, the CDC doctors wrote: “The striking clinical similarities in the presentations of these patients, their recent vaccination with an mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccine, and the lack of any alternative etiologies for acute myocarditis suggest an association with immunization.”

They said that acute onset of chest pain 3-5 days after vaccine administration, usually after a second dose, is a typical feature of reported cases and suggests an immune-mediated mechanism.

But SARS-CoV-2 infection also causes cardiac injury which may result in severe outcomes, and based on currently available data, myocarditis following immunization with current mRNA-based vaccines is rare.

“At present, the benefits of immunization in preventing severe morbidity favors continued COVID-19 vaccination, particularly considering the increasing COVID-19 hospitalization rates among adolescents reported during spring 2021,” the editorialists stated.

But they added that many questions remain. These include whether modifications are needed to the vaccine schedule among persons with a history of possible or confirmed myocarditis after COVID vaccine, how should postvaccine myocarditis be managed, how often should follow-up assessments be performed, how might follow-up assessments affect recommendations to avoid vigorous physical activity following the diagnosis of myocarditis, and do all likely cases of acute myocarditis that appear to be uncomplicated require cardiac MRI for more definitive diagnosis?

“While the data needed to answer such questions are being collected, there is an opportunity for researchers with expertise in myocarditis to develop a comprehensive, national assessment of the natural history, pathogenesis, and treatment of acute myocarditis associated with receipt of mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines,” they concluded.

In a second editorial in JAMA Cardiology, a group of editors from the journal acknowledged that publication of the current case reports may contribute to additional public concern regarding immunization. But they added that clinicians discussing immunization with patients should recognize that these case series suggest that the symptomatic events consistent with myocarditis are still very rare and appear to be self-limiting.

“Given the risks of COVID-19, including the risk of myocarditis from COVID-19 infection, the editors do not believe these case reports are sufficient to interrupt the march toward maximal vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 as expeditiously as possible,” they said.

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

Further details from multiple cases of myocarditis linked to the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA COVID vaccines have been described in recent papers in the medical literature.

The cases appear to occur almost exclusively in males and most often in younger age groups. While symptoms and signs of myocarditis mostly resolved with a few days of supportive care, long-term effects are unknown at present.

The authors of all the reports and of two accompanying editorials in JAMA Cardiology are unanimous in their opinion that the benefits of vaccination still outweigh the risks.  

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices met June 23 to discuss this issue. At that meeting, it was reported that 323 cases of myocarditis or pericarditis in individuals aged 29 years and younger have been confirmed, but committee members delivered a strong endorsement for continuing to vaccinate young people with the mRNA vaccines.

The current case reports are published in two papers in JAMA Cardiology and in three in Circulation.
 

U.S. military reports 23 cases

In one report in JAMA Cardiology, authors led by Jay Montgomery, MD, from Walter Reed National Military Medical Center in Bethesda, Md., described 23 cases from the U.S. Military Health System of individuals with acute myocarditis who presented within 4 days after mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccination (7 Pfizer and 16 Moderna).

All patients were male, 22 of 23 were on active duty, and the median age was 25 years (range, 20-51); 20 of the 23 cases occurred after receipt of a second dose of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine.

The patients all presented with acute onset of marked chest pain. All patients had significantly elevated cardiac troponin levels. Among eight patients who underwent cardiac MRI (cMRI), all had findings consistent with the clinical diagnosis of myocarditis.

Additional testing did not identify other possible causes of myocarditis. All patients received brief supportive care and were recovered or recovering.

The authors reported that the military administered more than 2.8 million doses of mRNA COVID-19 vaccine in this period, and while the observed number of myocarditis cases was small, the number was “substantially higher” than expected among male military members after a second vaccine dose.

They noted that, based on historical data, among the 544,000 second doses to military members there may have been 0-10 expected myocarditis cases, but they observed 19 cases.  

“All patients in this series reflect substantial similarities in demographic characteristics, proximate vaccine dose, onset interval, and character of vaccine-associated myocarditis. The consistent pattern of clinical presentation, rapid recovery, and absence of evidence of other causes support the diagnosis of hypersensitivity myocarditis,” they stated.

They added that presentation after a second vaccine dose or, in three patients, when vaccination followed SARS-CoV-2 infection, suggests that prior exposure was relevant in the hypersensitivity response.

“The spectrum of clinical presentation and reliance on patients seeking health care and on health care professionals recognizing a rare vaccine-associated adverse event limits determination of the true incidence of this condition,” the authors wrote.

They stressed that recognition of vaccine-associated myocarditis is clinically important because diagnosis impacts management, recommendations for exercise, and monitoring for cardiomyopathy.

But the authors also acknowledged that it is important to frame concerns about potential vaccine-associated myocarditis within the context of the current pandemic.

“Infection with SARS-CoV-2 is a clear cause of serious cardiac injury in many patients. ... Prevalence of cardiac injury may be as high as 60% in seriously ill patients. Notably, nearly 1% of highly fit athletes with mild COVID-19 infection have evidence of myocarditis on cMRI,” they wrote.

“Given that COVID-19 vaccines are remarkably effective at preventing infection, any risk of rare adverse events following immunization must be carefully weighed against the very substantial benefit of vaccination,” they concluded.
 

Four cases at Duke

In the second paper in JAMA Cardiology, a group led by Han W. Kim, MD, reported four patients with acute myocarditis occurring within days of mRNA COVID-19 vaccination (two Pfizer and two Moderna) in patients treated at Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C. The hospital courses of the four patients with myocarditis following COVID-19 vaccination were uneventful, and they were discharged within 2-4 days.

The authors said that, although a causal relationship cannot be established, none of the patients had a viral prodrome or had coincident testing that revealed an alternative explanation.

They stated that these four patients represent the majority of patients with acute myocarditis identified in the past 3 months at their institution, and this led to the highest total number of patients with acute myocarditis, compared with the same 3-month period for the past 5 years. 

“Additionally, we identified only those patients with severe unremitting chest pain who sought medical attention. Those with mild or moderate chest pain might not seek medical attention, and it is possible that subclinical myocarditis may occur and could be detected by active surveillance, as has been described with smallpox vaccination,” they wrote.
 

Further case reports

In one of the papers in Circulation, a group led by Kathryn F. Larson, MD, from the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., described eight patients hospitalized with chest pain who were diagnosed with myocarditis within 2-4 days of receiving either the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine.

Two of the patients had previously been infected by SARS-CoV-2 without need for hospitalization. All individuals were otherwise healthy males between the ages of 21 and 56 years. All but one patient developed symptoms after their second dose, and the one patient who developed myocarditis after the first vaccine dose had previously been infected with SARS-CoV-2.  

Systemic symptoms began within 24 hours after vaccine administration in five of eight patients, with chest pain presenting between 48 and 96 hours later. Troponin values were elevated in all individuals and appeared to peak the day after admission, whereas none had eosinophilia.

Cardiac MRI revealed findings consistent with myocarditis in all patients. All patients had resolution of their chest pain and were discharged from the hospital in stable condition.

“The patients presented here demonstrated typical signs, symptoms, and diagnostic features of acute myocarditis. The temporal association between receiving an mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccine and the development of myocarditis is notable,” the authors said.  

They added that they would consider the use of corticosteroids in these patients but cautioned that this could reduce the specific immune response against SARS-COV-2 triggered by the vaccine. “Thus, the duration of corticosteroid administration should be limited to the resolution of the symptoms or ventricular arrhythmias or the recovery of the left ventricular ejection fraction.”

Pending publication of long-term outcome data after SARS-CoV-2 vaccine–related myocarditis, they suggest adherence to the current consensus recommendation to abstain from competitive sports for a period of 3-6 months with reevaluation prior to sports participation. 

In another of the Circulation papers, a group led by Carolyn M. Rosner, MSN,  presented a case series of seven patients hospitalized for acute myocarditis-like illness following COVID-19 vaccination, from two U.S. medical centers, in Falls Church, Va., and Dallas. All patients were males below the age of 40 years and of White or Hispanic race/ethnicity. Only one patient reported prior history of COVID-19 infection. Six patients received mRNA (Moderna or Pfizer) and one received the adenovirus (Johnson & Johnson) vaccine. All patients presented 3-7 days post vaccination with acute onset chest pain and biochemical evidence of myocardial injury.

Hospital length of stay was 3 days, and all patients’ symptoms resolved by hospital discharge.

And finally, the third paper in Circulation reported a detailed description of one patient – a 52-year-old, previously healthy male who presented with acute myocarditis 3 days after the administration of the second dose of Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine. The symptoms resolved, and there was a gradual improvement in cMRI findings. Ischemic injury and other potential causes of acute myocardial injury were excluded, as were other potential infectious causes of myocarditis, and there was no evidence of systemic autoimmune disease.

“Clinicians should be aware that myocarditis may be present in patients exhibiting cardiac signs and symptoms 2-4 days after COVID-19 vaccination,” the authors said.

They added that additional surveillance of such adverse events post–COVID-19 vaccination will help identify subgroups at higher risk for this vaccine-related effect, and whether additional precautions are necessary.
 

‘Benefits outweigh risk’

In an accompanying editorial in JAMA Cardiology, three doctors from the CDC cite several other reports of myocarditis after mRNA COVID vaccination. These include a case report published in Pediatrics of seven male adolescents aged 14-19 years who presented with myocarditis or myopericarditis within 4 days after receipt of a second dose of the Pfizer vaccine.

But the editorialists noted that the most comprehensive data about the risk for myocarditis following immunization with mRNA vaccines comes from Israel.

The Israeli Ministry of Health recently posted data describing 121 myocarditis cases occurring within 30 days of a second dose of mRNA vaccine among 5,049,424 persons, suggesting a crude incidence rate of approximately 24 cases per million.

On the current case reports, the CDC doctors wrote: “The striking clinical similarities in the presentations of these patients, their recent vaccination with an mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccine, and the lack of any alternative etiologies for acute myocarditis suggest an association with immunization.”

They said that acute onset of chest pain 3-5 days after vaccine administration, usually after a second dose, is a typical feature of reported cases and suggests an immune-mediated mechanism.

But SARS-CoV-2 infection also causes cardiac injury which may result in severe outcomes, and based on currently available data, myocarditis following immunization with current mRNA-based vaccines is rare.

“At present, the benefits of immunization in preventing severe morbidity favors continued COVID-19 vaccination, particularly considering the increasing COVID-19 hospitalization rates among adolescents reported during spring 2021,” the editorialists stated.

But they added that many questions remain. These include whether modifications are needed to the vaccine schedule among persons with a history of possible or confirmed myocarditis after COVID vaccine, how should postvaccine myocarditis be managed, how often should follow-up assessments be performed, how might follow-up assessments affect recommendations to avoid vigorous physical activity following the diagnosis of myocarditis, and do all likely cases of acute myocarditis that appear to be uncomplicated require cardiac MRI for more definitive diagnosis?

“While the data needed to answer such questions are being collected, there is an opportunity for researchers with expertise in myocarditis to develop a comprehensive, national assessment of the natural history, pathogenesis, and treatment of acute myocarditis associated with receipt of mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines,” they concluded.

In a second editorial in JAMA Cardiology, a group of editors from the journal acknowledged that publication of the current case reports may contribute to additional public concern regarding immunization. But they added that clinicians discussing immunization with patients should recognize that these case series suggest that the symptomatic events consistent with myocarditis are still very rare and appear to be self-limiting.

“Given the risks of COVID-19, including the risk of myocarditis from COVID-19 infection, the editors do not believe these case reports are sufficient to interrupt the march toward maximal vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 as expeditiously as possible,” they said.

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

You are seeing a third-grader who has been experiencing some difficulty in school and his parents are wondering if he might have attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. In addition to interviewing his parents and doing a complete physical exam, you solicit information from his teacher, whose report confirms his struggles and also raises the possibility of an attention-deficit disorder. While the child has never been a model student, his parents have not voiced concerns at any of his previous health maintenance visits.

The child’s mother mentions that she has heard from another mother whose son and several other boys in the class have been struggling and misbehaving. Math seems to have been a particular problem. You don’t recall seeing any other third-graders whose parents have reported recent-onset school problems. But you practice in a large community with several grade schools spread out over a large county and may not be aware of a cluster.

As you get to know this child and his family better, you decide this doesn’t feel like a textbook case of ADHD, if indeed there is such a thing. You wonder if something is going on at school but you haven’t elicited any history that suggests bullying.

The parents have not expressed any concerns about the teacher, but you are beginning to wonder whether it’s time to consider the teacher’s role in this scenario. You recall reading about an article recently published in the journal Child Development that describes a study of more than 1,500 Head Start students in which the researchers found that teachers’ self-reported depressive symptoms were directly associated with lower math skills acquisition over the academic year.

There has been little published previously on an association between depressive symptoms in a teacher and academic achievement; however, the most quoted article I could find is from 2015 in which researchers studied 523 third-graders and 17 teachers at eight Florida school districts. The investigators found that in classes taught by teachers at increased risk for depression there was a decrease in the “quality of the learning environment” as determined by trained observers who watched classroom videos. It is interesting that a new math curriculum had been introduced during the academic year in which these observations were made.

Teaching can be a tough job and I guess we shouldn’t be surprised that the Rand Corporation has reported that teachers are nearly twice as likely to experience job stress and almost three times as likely to experience depression than is the general adult population.

Even if you have a strong suspicion that a depressed teacher is contributing to your patient’s academic struggles and maybe those of his classmates, what are your options? You don’t have enough information, nor would privacy concerns allow you to speak to the school administration. Your best approach would probably be to share with the child’s parents your concern that “something” in the school environment maybe contributing to the changes they are seeing, being careful to avoid singling out the teacher as the culprit because you really have nothing more than a suspicion. If the situation worsens and more parents share their stories, some of them may be bold enough to speak to the school administration.

I have always thought that here is a role for the principal. He or she may be aware of the teacher’s fragility and may be taking steps to correct the problem – but at a minimum, a visit to the classroom to get a sense for the “quality of the learning environment” would be in order.

Unfortunately, because mental health diagnoses continue to carry a stigma, it is very unlikely that a situation like this will resolve quickly to the benefit of the teacher or your patient and his classmates.
 

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].

You are seeing a third-grader who has been experiencing some difficulty in school and his parents are wondering if he might have attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. In addition to interviewing his parents and doing a complete physical exam, you solicit information from his teacher, whose report confirms his struggles and also raises the possibility of an attention-deficit disorder. While the child has never been a model student, his parents have not voiced concerns at any of his previous health maintenance visits.

The child’s mother mentions that she has heard from another mother whose son and several other boys in the class have been struggling and misbehaving. Math seems to have been a particular problem. You don’t recall seeing any other third-graders whose parents have reported recent-onset school problems. But you practice in a large community with several grade schools spread out over a large county and may not be aware of a cluster.

As you get to know this child and his family better, you decide this doesn’t feel like a textbook case of ADHD, if indeed there is such a thing. You wonder if something is going on at school but you haven’t elicited any history that suggests bullying.

The parents have not expressed any concerns about the teacher, but you are beginning to wonder whether it’s time to consider the teacher’s role in this scenario. You recall reading about an article recently published in the journal Child Development that describes a study of more than 1,500 Head Start students in which the researchers found that teachers’ self-reported depressive symptoms were directly associated with lower math skills acquisition over the academic year.

There has been little published previously on an association between depressive symptoms in a teacher and academic achievement; however, the most quoted article I could find is from 2015 in which researchers studied 523 third-graders and 17 teachers at eight Florida school districts. The investigators found that in classes taught by teachers at increased risk for depression there was a decrease in the “quality of the learning environment” as determined by trained observers who watched classroom videos. It is interesting that a new math curriculum had been introduced during the academic year in which these observations were made.

Teaching can be a tough job and I guess we shouldn’t be surprised that the Rand Corporation has reported that teachers are nearly twice as likely to experience job stress and almost three times as likely to experience depression than is the general adult population.

Even if you have a strong suspicion that a depressed teacher is contributing to your patient’s academic struggles and maybe those of his classmates, what are your options? You don’t have enough information, nor would privacy concerns allow you to speak to the school administration. Your best approach would probably be to share with the child’s parents your concern that “something” in the school environment maybe contributing to the changes they are seeing, being careful to avoid singling out the teacher as the culprit because you really have nothing more than a suspicion. If the situation worsens and more parents share their stories, some of them may be bold enough to speak to the school administration.

I have always thought that here is a role for the principal. He or she may be aware of the teacher’s fragility and may be taking steps to correct the problem – but at a minimum, a visit to the classroom to get a sense for the “quality of the learning environment” would be in order.

Unfortunately, because mental health diagnoses continue to carry a stigma, it is very unlikely that a situation like this will resolve quickly to the benefit of the teacher or your patient and his classmates.
 

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].

You are seeing a third-grader who has been experiencing some difficulty in school and his parents are wondering if he might have attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. In addition to interviewing his parents and doing a complete physical exam, you solicit information from his teacher, whose report confirms his struggles and also raises the possibility of an attention-deficit disorder. While the child has never been a model student, his parents have not voiced concerns at any of his previous health maintenance visits.

The child’s mother mentions that she has heard from another mother whose son and several other boys in the class have been struggling and misbehaving. Math seems to have been a particular problem. You don’t recall seeing any other third-graders whose parents have reported recent-onset school problems. But you practice in a large community with several grade schools spread out over a large county and may not be aware of a cluster.

As you get to know this child and his family better, you decide this doesn’t feel like a textbook case of ADHD, if indeed there is such a thing. You wonder if something is going on at school but you haven’t elicited any history that suggests bullying.

The parents have not expressed any concerns about the teacher, but you are beginning to wonder whether it’s time to consider the teacher’s role in this scenario. You recall reading about an article recently published in the journal Child Development that describes a study of more than 1,500 Head Start students in which the researchers found that teachers’ self-reported depressive symptoms were directly associated with lower math skills acquisition over the academic year.

There has been little published previously on an association between depressive symptoms in a teacher and academic achievement; however, the most quoted article I could find is from 2015 in which researchers studied 523 third-graders and 17 teachers at eight Florida school districts. The investigators found that in classes taught by teachers at increased risk for depression there was a decrease in the “quality of the learning environment” as determined by trained observers who watched classroom videos. It is interesting that a new math curriculum had been introduced during the academic year in which these observations were made.

Teaching can be a tough job and I guess we shouldn’t be surprised that the Rand Corporation has reported that teachers are nearly twice as likely to experience job stress and almost three times as likely to experience depression than is the general adult population.

Even if you have a strong suspicion that a depressed teacher is contributing to your patient’s academic struggles and maybe those of his classmates, what are your options? You don’t have enough information, nor would privacy concerns allow you to speak to the school administration. Your best approach would probably be to share with the child’s parents your concern that “something” in the school environment maybe contributing to the changes they are seeing, being careful to avoid singling out the teacher as the culprit because you really have nothing more than a suspicion. If the situation worsens and more parents share their stories, some of them may be bold enough to speak to the school administration.

I have always thought that here is a role for the principal. He or she may be aware of the teacher’s fragility and may be taking steps to correct the problem – but at a minimum, a visit to the classroom to get a sense for the “quality of the learning environment” would be in order.

Unfortunately, because mental health diagnoses continue to carry a stigma, it is very unlikely that a situation like this will resolve quickly to the benefit of the teacher or your patient and his classmates.
 

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].

Clinicians who struggle to get dupilumab approved for their patients with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis (AD) are not alone.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

This scenario was illustrated in a 2020 retrospective study of 179 adults with AD who were cared for at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, which found that 37% did not start dupilumab, mainly due to insurance denial (19%) and high copay (11%).

“We’ve all seen this in our practice,” Amy S. Paller, MD, said during the Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis symposium. “We’ve also seen the denials until we get step therapy in there, so if I have a child whom I want to treat with dupilumab for safety reasons, I don’t like being told that I’m going to have to use cyclosporine or methotrexate or a medication that I think may have higher risks and certainly [would] require blood monitoring–yet that’s the state for some patients.”

Dupilumab, an interleukin-4 receptor alpha antagonist, is approved for treatment of moderate to severe AD in patients ages 6 and older.

When working to obtain insurance approval of dupilumab, Dr. Paller reminded dermatologists to document that the patient has moderate to severe AD “and document the negative effect on quality of life in order to try to help make it easier to get these medications for our patients.”
 

Starting patients on dupilumab

Dr. Paller, the Walter J. Hamlin Chair and Professor of Dermatology at Northwestern University, Chicago, said that if patients are on another systemic medication prior to starting dupilumab, she allows a transition period of 1-2 months. “Don’t just stop that drug because it’s ‘not working,’ ” she said. “I usually do a full dose for the first month, and a half dose for the next month before starting dupilumab. Also, don’t stop the use of topical corticosteroids. They can increase treatment response by 10%-20%, even when patients are on dupilumab.”

She recommends a 3- to 4-month trial of dupilumab while monitoring changes in disease severity, itch, and quality of life. “Usually there’s evidence of early improvement by 2 months in those who are going to do well enough to stay on the drug by about 4 months out,” she said. “In my experience, most pediatric patients do very well. In those with an inadequate response, about 50% will do better if you can increase the dose or frequency. Flares can still occur in those who do well. I usually push topicals when that happens.”

If patients respond well after starting dupilumab, Dr. Paller recommends that they continue on the drug for at least a year before considering a taper with the hope of “resetting” the immune system and having sustained improvement off drug. “Some parents and patients don’t want to stop the drug,” but for those who do, she tells them that she does not want to abruptly stop treatment, but to “space out the dosing” instead. “If someone is pretty much clear with the medication and is able to continue with topicals as you dial down, that’s great. But don’t even think about taking them off if somebody’s not clear or virtually clear, particularly if they start to flare with lower frequency.”
 

Data on effectiveness

Real-world data suggest that the effectiveness of dupilumab is similar to the efficacy seen in clinical trials. For example, a recently published systematic review and meta-analysis of 3,303 AD patients on dupilumab found that after 16 weeks of therapy, 60% achieved a 75% improvement in the Eczema Area and Severity (EASI75) score, and 27% achieved an EASI90. In a Dutch study of 210 adults treated with dupilumab for 52 weeks, enrolled in a Dutch registry, the mean percent reduction in EASI score was 70% at 16 weeks and 76.6% by 52 weeks.

In addition, there was at least a 4-point improvement in the Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure (POEM) score and at least a 4-point improvement in the Itch Numeric Rating Scale (NRS), said Dr. Paller, who was not involved in the study. “These patient-reported improvements were seen very early on,” she noted.

What about drug survival at 1 year? In a retrospective cohort study that drew from insurance databases, 1,963 adults given dupilumab were studied for a mean of 315 days. The rate of persistence was 92% at 6 months and 77% at 12 months. “That means that it’s still effective,” Dr. Paller said.

While that is a short period of time, she compared these results with long-term survival of nonsteroid systemic immunosuppressants such as cyclosporine, referring to a study of adults with AD treated with systemic immunosuppressants, which found “a 32% persistence rate at 12 months in drugs that require more monitoring, so more burden.”

Dr. Paller disclosed that she is a consultant to and/or an investigator for dupilumab (Dupixent) manufacturers Regeneron and Sanofi, AbbVie, Arena, Bausch, Bristol Myers Squibb, Dermavant, Eli Lilly, Incyte, Forte, LEO Pharma, LifeMax, Pfizer, and RAPT Therapeutics.

Clinicians who struggle to get dupilumab approved for their patients with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis (AD) are not alone.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

This scenario was illustrated in a 2020 retrospective study of 179 adults with AD who were cared for at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, which found that 37% did not start dupilumab, mainly due to insurance denial (19%) and high copay (11%).

“We’ve all seen this in our practice,” Amy S. Paller, MD, said during the Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis symposium. “We’ve also seen the denials until we get step therapy in there, so if I have a child whom I want to treat with dupilumab for safety reasons, I don’t like being told that I’m going to have to use cyclosporine or methotrexate or a medication that I think may have higher risks and certainly [would] require blood monitoring–yet that’s the state for some patients.”

Dupilumab, an interleukin-4 receptor alpha antagonist, is approved for treatment of moderate to severe AD in patients ages 6 and older.

When working to obtain insurance approval of dupilumab, Dr. Paller reminded dermatologists to document that the patient has moderate to severe AD “and document the negative effect on quality of life in order to try to help make it easier to get these medications for our patients.”
 

Starting patients on dupilumab

Dr. Paller, the Walter J. Hamlin Chair and Professor of Dermatology at Northwestern University, Chicago, said that if patients are on another systemic medication prior to starting dupilumab, she allows a transition period of 1-2 months. “Don’t just stop that drug because it’s ‘not working,’ ” she said. “I usually do a full dose for the first month, and a half dose for the next month before starting dupilumab. Also, don’t stop the use of topical corticosteroids. They can increase treatment response by 10%-20%, even when patients are on dupilumab.”

She recommends a 3- to 4-month trial of dupilumab while monitoring changes in disease severity, itch, and quality of life. “Usually there’s evidence of early improvement by 2 months in those who are going to do well enough to stay on the drug by about 4 months out,” she said. “In my experience, most pediatric patients do very well. In those with an inadequate response, about 50% will do better if you can increase the dose or frequency. Flares can still occur in those who do well. I usually push topicals when that happens.”

If patients respond well after starting dupilumab, Dr. Paller recommends that they continue on the drug for at least a year before considering a taper with the hope of “resetting” the immune system and having sustained improvement off drug. “Some parents and patients don’t want to stop the drug,” but for those who do, she tells them that she does not want to abruptly stop treatment, but to “space out the dosing” instead. “If someone is pretty much clear with the medication and is able to continue with topicals as you dial down, that’s great. But don’t even think about taking them off if somebody’s not clear or virtually clear, particularly if they start to flare with lower frequency.”
 

Data on effectiveness

Real-world data suggest that the effectiveness of dupilumab is similar to the efficacy seen in clinical trials. For example, a recently published systematic review and meta-analysis of 3,303 AD patients on dupilumab found that after 16 weeks of therapy, 60% achieved a 75% improvement in the Eczema Area and Severity (EASI75) score, and 27% achieved an EASI90. In a Dutch study of 210 adults treated with dupilumab for 52 weeks, enrolled in a Dutch registry, the mean percent reduction in EASI score was 70% at 16 weeks and 76.6% by 52 weeks.

In addition, there was at least a 4-point improvement in the Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure (POEM) score and at least a 4-point improvement in the Itch Numeric Rating Scale (NRS), said Dr. Paller, who was not involved in the study. “These patient-reported improvements were seen very early on,” she noted.

What about drug survival at 1 year? In a retrospective cohort study that drew from insurance databases, 1,963 adults given dupilumab were studied for a mean of 315 days. The rate of persistence was 92% at 6 months and 77% at 12 months. “That means that it’s still effective,” Dr. Paller said.

While that is a short period of time, she compared these results with long-term survival of nonsteroid systemic immunosuppressants such as cyclosporine, referring to a study of adults with AD treated with systemic immunosuppressants, which found “a 32% persistence rate at 12 months in drugs that require more monitoring, so more burden.”

Dr. Paller disclosed that she is a consultant to and/or an investigator for dupilumab (Dupixent) manufacturers Regeneron and Sanofi, AbbVie, Arena, Bausch, Bristol Myers Squibb, Dermavant, Eli Lilly, Incyte, Forte, LEO Pharma, LifeMax, Pfizer, and RAPT Therapeutics.

Clinicians who struggle to get dupilumab approved for their patients with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis (AD) are not alone.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

This scenario was illustrated in a 2020 retrospective study of 179 adults with AD who were cared for at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, which found that 37% did not start dupilumab, mainly due to insurance denial (19%) and high copay (11%).

“We’ve all seen this in our practice,” Amy S. Paller, MD, said during the Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis symposium. “We’ve also seen the denials until we get step therapy in there, so if I have a child whom I want to treat with dupilumab for safety reasons, I don’t like being told that I’m going to have to use cyclosporine or methotrexate or a medication that I think may have higher risks and certainly [would] require blood monitoring–yet that’s the state for some patients.”

Dupilumab, an interleukin-4 receptor alpha antagonist, is approved for treatment of moderate to severe AD in patients ages 6 and older.

When working to obtain insurance approval of dupilumab, Dr. Paller reminded dermatologists to document that the patient has moderate to severe AD “and document the negative effect on quality of life in order to try to help make it easier to get these medications for our patients.”
 

Starting patients on dupilumab

Dr. Paller, the Walter J. Hamlin Chair and Professor of Dermatology at Northwestern University, Chicago, said that if patients are on another systemic medication prior to starting dupilumab, she allows a transition period of 1-2 months. “Don’t just stop that drug because it’s ‘not working,’ ” she said. “I usually do a full dose for the first month, and a half dose for the next month before starting dupilumab. Also, don’t stop the use of topical corticosteroids. They can increase treatment response by 10%-20%, even when patients are on dupilumab.”

She recommends a 3- to 4-month trial of dupilumab while monitoring changes in disease severity, itch, and quality of life. “Usually there’s evidence of early improvement by 2 months in those who are going to do well enough to stay on the drug by about 4 months out,” she said. “In my experience, most pediatric patients do very well. In those with an inadequate response, about 50% will do better if you can increase the dose or frequency. Flares can still occur in those who do well. I usually push topicals when that happens.”

If patients respond well after starting dupilumab, Dr. Paller recommends that they continue on the drug for at least a year before considering a taper with the hope of “resetting” the immune system and having sustained improvement off drug. “Some parents and patients don’t want to stop the drug,” but for those who do, she tells them that she does not want to abruptly stop treatment, but to “space out the dosing” instead. “If someone is pretty much clear with the medication and is able to continue with topicals as you dial down, that’s great. But don’t even think about taking them off if somebody’s not clear or virtually clear, particularly if they start to flare with lower frequency.”
 

Data on effectiveness

Real-world data suggest that the effectiveness of dupilumab is similar to the efficacy seen in clinical trials. For example, a recently published systematic review and meta-analysis of 3,303 AD patients on dupilumab found that after 16 weeks of therapy, 60% achieved a 75% improvement in the Eczema Area and Severity (EASI75) score, and 27% achieved an EASI90. In a Dutch study of 210 adults treated with dupilumab for 52 weeks, enrolled in a Dutch registry, the mean percent reduction in EASI score was 70% at 16 weeks and 76.6% by 52 weeks.

In addition, there was at least a 4-point improvement in the Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure (POEM) score and at least a 4-point improvement in the Itch Numeric Rating Scale (NRS), said Dr. Paller, who was not involved in the study. “These patient-reported improvements were seen very early on,” she noted.

What about drug survival at 1 year? In a retrospective cohort study that drew from insurance databases, 1,963 adults given dupilumab were studied for a mean of 315 days. The rate of persistence was 92% at 6 months and 77% at 12 months. “That means that it’s still effective,” Dr. Paller said.

While that is a short period of time, she compared these results with long-term survival of nonsteroid systemic immunosuppressants such as cyclosporine, referring to a study of adults with AD treated with systemic immunosuppressants, which found “a 32% persistence rate at 12 months in drugs that require more monitoring, so more burden.”

Dr. Paller disclosed that she is a consultant to and/or an investigator for dupilumab (Dupixent) manufacturers Regeneron and Sanofi, AbbVie, Arena, Bausch, Bristol Myers Squibb, Dermavant, Eli Lilly, Incyte, Forte, LEO Pharma, LifeMax, Pfizer, and RAPT Therapeutics.

Physical punishment doesn’t improve a child’s behavior or social competence, and in fact, it can make behavior worse, according to a new study published June 28, 2021, in The Lancet.

Spanking and hitting can also harm a child’s development and well-being, the authors wrote.

“Parents hit their children because they think doing so will improve their behavior,” Elizabeth Gershoff, PhD, the senior author and a human development professor at the University of Texas at Austin, told CNN. “Unfortunately for parents who hit, our research found clear and compelling evidence that physical punishment does not improve children’s behavior and instead makes it worse.”

Dr. Gershoff and colleagues reviewed 69 studies from numerous countries, including the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, China, Colombia, Greece, Japan, Switzerland, and Turkey. They focused on spanking and other physical punishment that parents might use to discipline a child, excluding verbal punishment and “severe” physical punishment such as punching or kicking that could be characterized as child abuse.

Some studies in the review found a mix of positive and negative results from spanking. But most of the studies showed a significant negative impact.

In 13 of 19 studies, spanking and other forms of physical punishment created more external negative behaviors over time, including increased aggression, increased antisocial behavior, and increased disruptive behavior at school. Children were more likely to “act out” after being physically punished, regardless of the child’s gender, race, or ethnicity, the authors found.

Several studies found that physical punishment increased signs of oppositional defiant disorder, which is linked with temper tantrums, spitefulness, vindictiveness, argumentative behavior, active defiance, and refusal to follow rules.

Dr. Gershoff and colleagues also looked at the link between how often physical punishment happened and a child’s negative behavior in seven of the studies. In five of those studies, there was a “dose-response effect.”

“In other words, as physical punishment increased in frequency, so did its likelihood of predicting worse outcomes over time,” Dr. Gershoff told CNN.

In addition, the review found that negative behavior wasn’t changed by parenting style. Even if parents had an overall warm and positive parenting style, physical punishment still led to an increase in behavioral issues.

In the United States, all 50 states allow parents to use physical punishment on children, and 19 states still have laws that allow schools to use corporal punishment, CNN reported.

But spanking appears to be declining in the United States, particularly among younger generations, according to a research letter published in JAMA Pediatrics in 2020. About 50% of parents reported spanking a child in 1993, which dropped to 35% in 2017.

The American Academy of Pediatrics issued a policy statement in 2018 in favor of “healthy forms of discipline,” such as positive reinforcement of good behavior, setting limits, and giving consequences such as time-out or taking away toys or privileges. The group recommends against spanking, hitting, slapping, threatening, insulting, humiliating, or shaming children, which can lead to behavioral problems and symptoms of depression in later years.

The AAP also suggests learning from mistakes, both for parents and children.

“Remember that, as a parent, you can give yourself a time out if you feel out of control,” the group wrote in a discipline tip sheet. “When you are feeling better, go back to your child, hug each other, and start over.”

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

Physical punishment doesn’t improve a child’s behavior or social competence, and in fact, it can make behavior worse, according to a new study published June 28, 2021, in The Lancet.

Spanking and hitting can also harm a child’s development and well-being, the authors wrote.

“Parents hit their children because they think doing so will improve their behavior,” Elizabeth Gershoff, PhD, the senior author and a human development professor at the University of Texas at Austin, told CNN. “Unfortunately for parents who hit, our research found clear and compelling evidence that physical punishment does not improve children’s behavior and instead makes it worse.”

Dr. Gershoff and colleagues reviewed 69 studies from numerous countries, including the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, China, Colombia, Greece, Japan, Switzerland, and Turkey. They focused on spanking and other physical punishment that parents might use to discipline a child, excluding verbal punishment and “severe” physical punishment such as punching or kicking that could be characterized as child abuse.

Some studies in the review found a mix of positive and negative results from spanking. But most of the studies showed a significant negative impact.

In 13 of 19 studies, spanking and other forms of physical punishment created more external negative behaviors over time, including increased aggression, increased antisocial behavior, and increased disruptive behavior at school. Children were more likely to “act out” after being physically punished, regardless of the child’s gender, race, or ethnicity, the authors found.

Several studies found that physical punishment increased signs of oppositional defiant disorder, which is linked with temper tantrums, spitefulness, vindictiveness, argumentative behavior, active defiance, and refusal to follow rules.

Dr. Gershoff and colleagues also looked at the link between how often physical punishment happened and a child’s negative behavior in seven of the studies. In five of those studies, there was a “dose-response effect.”

“In other words, as physical punishment increased in frequency, so did its likelihood of predicting worse outcomes over time,” Dr. Gershoff told CNN.

In addition, the review found that negative behavior wasn’t changed by parenting style. Even if parents had an overall warm and positive parenting style, physical punishment still led to an increase in behavioral issues.

In the United States, all 50 states allow parents to use physical punishment on children, and 19 states still have laws that allow schools to use corporal punishment, CNN reported.

But spanking appears to be declining in the United States, particularly among younger generations, according to a research letter published in JAMA Pediatrics in 2020. About 50% of parents reported spanking a child in 1993, which dropped to 35% in 2017.

The American Academy of Pediatrics issued a policy statement in 2018 in favor of “healthy forms of discipline,” such as positive reinforcement of good behavior, setting limits, and giving consequences such as time-out or taking away toys or privileges. The group recommends against spanking, hitting, slapping, threatening, insulting, humiliating, or shaming children, which can lead to behavioral problems and symptoms of depression in later years.

The AAP also suggests learning from mistakes, both for parents and children.

“Remember that, as a parent, you can give yourself a time out if you feel out of control,” the group wrote in a discipline tip sheet. “When you are feeling better, go back to your child, hug each other, and start over.”

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

Physical punishment doesn’t improve a child’s behavior or social competence, and in fact, it can make behavior worse, according to a new study published June 28, 2021, in The Lancet.

Spanking and hitting can also harm a child’s development and well-being, the authors wrote.

“Parents hit their children because they think doing so will improve their behavior,” Elizabeth Gershoff, PhD, the senior author and a human development professor at the University of Texas at Austin, told CNN. “Unfortunately for parents who hit, our research found clear and compelling evidence that physical punishment does not improve children’s behavior and instead makes it worse.”

Dr. Gershoff and colleagues reviewed 69 studies from numerous countries, including the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, China, Colombia, Greece, Japan, Switzerland, and Turkey. They focused on spanking and other physical punishment that parents might use to discipline a child, excluding verbal punishment and “severe” physical punishment such as punching or kicking that could be characterized as child abuse.

Some studies in the review found a mix of positive and negative results from spanking. But most of the studies showed a significant negative impact.

In 13 of 19 studies, spanking and other forms of physical punishment created more external negative behaviors over time, including increased aggression, increased antisocial behavior, and increased disruptive behavior at school. Children were more likely to “act out” after being physically punished, regardless of the child’s gender, race, or ethnicity, the authors found.

Several studies found that physical punishment increased signs of oppositional defiant disorder, which is linked with temper tantrums, spitefulness, vindictiveness, argumentative behavior, active defiance, and refusal to follow rules.

Dr. Gershoff and colleagues also looked at the link between how often physical punishment happened and a child’s negative behavior in seven of the studies. In five of those studies, there was a “dose-response effect.”

“In other words, as physical punishment increased in frequency, so did its likelihood of predicting worse outcomes over time,” Dr. Gershoff told CNN.

In addition, the review found that negative behavior wasn’t changed by parenting style. Even if parents had an overall warm and positive parenting style, physical punishment still led to an increase in behavioral issues.

In the United States, all 50 states allow parents to use physical punishment on children, and 19 states still have laws that allow schools to use corporal punishment, CNN reported.

But spanking appears to be declining in the United States, particularly among younger generations, according to a research letter published in JAMA Pediatrics in 2020. About 50% of parents reported spanking a child in 1993, which dropped to 35% in 2017.

The American Academy of Pediatrics issued a policy statement in 2018 in favor of “healthy forms of discipline,” such as positive reinforcement of good behavior, setting limits, and giving consequences such as time-out or taking away toys or privileges. The group recommends against spanking, hitting, slapping, threatening, insulting, humiliating, or shaming children, which can lead to behavioral problems and symptoms of depression in later years.

The AAP also suggests learning from mistakes, both for parents and children.

“Remember that, as a parent, you can give yourself a time out if you feel out of control,” the group wrote in a discipline tip sheet. “When you are feeling better, go back to your child, hug each other, and start over.”

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

Some days it feels like more than half of the journal articles I encounter report data suggesting that poverty is associated with some disease entity. I realize that young postgraduates are under some pressure to publish, but I’m ready for a break. I and most pediatricians already know, or at least have assumed, that in general and with few exceptions unwellness and poverty are closely linked. Whether that association is causal or not is a more interesting question. The answer, I suspect, depends on which health condition we are talking about. For the moment I think we should assume that poverty is more likely a major contributor and not merely a fellow traveler of poor health.

Some other questions: What are we as pediatricians expected to do about poverty? Is awareness sufficient? Should I be content with having an elevated awareness that a certain patient has a given disease because I know his family is economically challenged? Or, conversely, should I be satisfied that I have asked about a family’s economic distress when I have just diagnosed a child with asthma? The answer to those questions is a very personal one for each of us to ponder and may depend on where we feel we can best invest our time and skill set.

Like me, you may feel that the focus of your professional life is better spent diagnosing and treating the collateral damage of poverty and addressing economic inequities in your philanthropic activities and your choices at the polls. On the other hand, you may choose to use your public persona as a physician to more actively address poverty whether it is on a local, national, or global stage. There is no correct answer and a hybrid may work best for you.

On the other hand, while you agree that there is some link between poverty and unwellness, perhaps the issue is overblown and we should pay more attention to other factors such as the sad state of the family in both disadvantaged and advantaged populations. Maybe if we worked harder to foster and support two-parent families the drag of economic disadvantage would be reduced.

I recently encountered a study that explores this very question. Christina Cross, PhD, a postdoctoral fellow in the department of sociology at Harvard University, reports on her soon-to-be-published study of a nationally representative sample in which she found that, using a selection of academic metrics including earned grades, likelihood of grade repetition, and rates of suspension, in low-income families there was no difference in achievement between Black youth raised in single-parent households and Black youth raised in two-parent households. However, in well-off families, Black youth raised in two-parent households had better academic metrics. (“Why living in a two-parent home isn’t a cure-all for Black students.” Christina Cross. The Harvard Gazette. 2021 Jun 3).

I guess few of us are surprised that living in a two-parent household can provide a child with some advantages. However, it is disappointing and again not surprising that poverty can rob a child of these advantages. While it may make us feel like we are doing something when we offer counseling that promotes two-family households, this may be no more valuable than supporting apple pie and motherhood. Dr. Cross concludes that President Biden’s proposed American Families Plan is more likely to succeed than those focused on counseling because it will offer direct financial support with its tax credits and subsidies.*

Let’s hope she is correct.

* This story was updated on July 6, 2021. 

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].

Some days it feels like more than half of the journal articles I encounter report data suggesting that poverty is associated with some disease entity. I realize that young postgraduates are under some pressure to publish, but I’m ready for a break. I and most pediatricians already know, or at least have assumed, that in general and with few exceptions unwellness and poverty are closely linked. Whether that association is causal or not is a more interesting question. The answer, I suspect, depends on which health condition we are talking about. For the moment I think we should assume that poverty is more likely a major contributor and not merely a fellow traveler of poor health.

Some other questions: What are we as pediatricians expected to do about poverty? Is awareness sufficient? Should I be content with having an elevated awareness that a certain patient has a given disease because I know his family is economically challenged? Or, conversely, should I be satisfied that I have asked about a family’s economic distress when I have just diagnosed a child with asthma? The answer to those questions is a very personal one for each of us to ponder and may depend on where we feel we can best invest our time and skill set.

Like me, you may feel that the focus of your professional life is better spent diagnosing and treating the collateral damage of poverty and addressing economic inequities in your philanthropic activities and your choices at the polls. On the other hand, you may choose to use your public persona as a physician to more actively address poverty whether it is on a local, national, or global stage. There is no correct answer and a hybrid may work best for you.

On the other hand, while you agree that there is some link between poverty and unwellness, perhaps the issue is overblown and we should pay more attention to other factors such as the sad state of the family in both disadvantaged and advantaged populations. Maybe if we worked harder to foster and support two-parent families the drag of economic disadvantage would be reduced.

I recently encountered a study that explores this very question. Christina Cross, PhD, a postdoctoral fellow in the department of sociology at Harvard University, reports on her soon-to-be-published study of a nationally representative sample in which she found that, using a selection of academic metrics including earned grades, likelihood of grade repetition, and rates of suspension, in low-income families there was no difference in achievement between Black youth raised in single-parent households and Black youth raised in two-parent households. However, in well-off families, Black youth raised in two-parent households had better academic metrics. (“Why living in a two-parent home isn’t a cure-all for Black students.” Christina Cross. The Harvard Gazette. 2021 Jun 3).

I guess few of us are surprised that living in a two-parent household can provide a child with some advantages. However, it is disappointing and again not surprising that poverty can rob a child of these advantages. While it may make us feel like we are doing something when we offer counseling that promotes two-family households, this may be no more valuable than supporting apple pie and motherhood. Dr. Cross concludes that President Biden’s proposed American Families Plan is more likely to succeed than those focused on counseling because it will offer direct financial support with its tax credits and subsidies.*

Let’s hope she is correct.

* This story was updated on July 6, 2021. 

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].

Some days it feels like more than half of the journal articles I encounter report data suggesting that poverty is associated with some disease entity. I realize that young postgraduates are under some pressure to publish, but I’m ready for a break. I and most pediatricians already know, or at least have assumed, that in general and with few exceptions unwellness and poverty are closely linked. Whether that association is causal or not is a more interesting question. The answer, I suspect, depends on which health condition we are talking about. For the moment I think we should assume that poverty is more likely a major contributor and not merely a fellow traveler of poor health.

Some other questions: What are we as pediatricians expected to do about poverty? Is awareness sufficient? Should I be content with having an elevated awareness that a certain patient has a given disease because I know his family is economically challenged? Or, conversely, should I be satisfied that I have asked about a family’s economic distress when I have just diagnosed a child with asthma? The answer to those questions is a very personal one for each of us to ponder and may depend on where we feel we can best invest our time and skill set.

Like me, you may feel that the focus of your professional life is better spent diagnosing and treating the collateral damage of poverty and addressing economic inequities in your philanthropic activities and your choices at the polls. On the other hand, you may choose to use your public persona as a physician to more actively address poverty whether it is on a local, national, or global stage. There is no correct answer and a hybrid may work best for you.

On the other hand, while you agree that there is some link between poverty and unwellness, perhaps the issue is overblown and we should pay more attention to other factors such as the sad state of the family in both disadvantaged and advantaged populations. Maybe if we worked harder to foster and support two-parent families the drag of economic disadvantage would be reduced.

I recently encountered a study that explores this very question. Christina Cross, PhD, a postdoctoral fellow in the department of sociology at Harvard University, reports on her soon-to-be-published study of a nationally representative sample in which she found that, using a selection of academic metrics including earned grades, likelihood of grade repetition, and rates of suspension, in low-income families there was no difference in achievement between Black youth raised in single-parent households and Black youth raised in two-parent households. However, in well-off families, Black youth raised in two-parent households had better academic metrics. (“Why living in a two-parent home isn’t a cure-all for Black students.” Christina Cross. The Harvard Gazette. 2021 Jun 3).

I guess few of us are surprised that living in a two-parent household can provide a child with some advantages. However, it is disappointing and again not surprising that poverty can rob a child of these advantages. While it may make us feel like we are doing something when we offer counseling that promotes two-family households, this may be no more valuable than supporting apple pie and motherhood. Dr. Cross concludes that President Biden’s proposed American Families Plan is more likely to succeed than those focused on counseling because it will offer direct financial support with its tax credits and subsidies.*

Let’s hope she is correct.

* This story was updated on July 6, 2021. 

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 opioid prescription rates have significantly decreased for children, teens, and younger adults between 2006 and 2018, according to new research.

“What’s important about this new study is that it documented that these improvements were also occurring for children and young adults specifically,” said Kao-Ping Chua, MD, PhD, primary care physician and assistant professor of pediatrics at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, who was not involved in the study. “The reason that’s important is that changes in medical practice for adults aren’t always reflected in pediatrics.”

The study, published in JAMA Pediatrics, found that dispensed opioid prescriptions for this population have decreased by 15% annually since 2013. However, the study also examined specific prescribing variables, such as duration of opioid prescription and high-dosage prescriptions. Researchers found reduced rates of high-dosage and long-duration prescriptions for adolescents and younger adults. However, these types of prescription practices increased in children aged 0-5 years.

“I think [the findings are] promising, suggesting that opiate prescribing practices may be improving,” study author Madeline Renny, MD, pediatric emergency medicine doctor at New York University Langone Health, said in an interview. “But we did find that there were increases in the young children for the practice variables, which we didn’t expect. I think that was kind of one of the findings that we were a bit surprised about and want to explore further.”

Previous studies have linked prescription opioid use in children and teens to an increased risk of future opioid misuse. A 2015 study published in Pediatrics found that using prescribed opioids before the 12th grade is associated with a 33% increase in the risk of future opioid misuse by the age of 23. The study also found that for those with a low predicted risk of future opioid misuse, an opioid prescription increases the risk for misuse after high school threefold.

Furthermore, a 2018 study published in JAMA Network Open found that, between 1999 and 2016, the annual estimated mortality rate for all children and adolescents from prescription and illicit opioid use rose 268.2%.

In the new study, Dr. Renny and colleagues examined data from 2006 to 2018 from IQVIA Longitudinal Prescription Data, which captured 74%-92% of U.S. retail outpatient opioid prescriptions dispensed to people up to the age of 24. Researchers also examined prescribing practice variables, which included opioid dispensing rates, average amount of opioid dispensed per prescription, duration of opioid prescription, high-dosage opioid prescription for individuals, and the rate in which extended-release or long-acting opioids are prescribed.

Researchers found that between 2006 and 2018, the total U.S. annual opioid prescriptions dispensed to patients younger than 25 years was highest in 2007 at 15,689,779 prescriptions, and since 2012 has steadily decreased to 6,705,478 in 2018.

“Our study did show that there were declines, but opioids remain readily dispensed,” Dr. Renny said. “And I think it’s good that rates have gone down, but I think opioids are still commonly dispensed to children and adolescents and young adults and all of our age groups.”

Dr. Chua said that the study was important, but when it came to younger children, it didn’t account for the fact that “the underlying population of patients who were getting opioids changed because it’s not the same group of children.”

“Maybe at the beginning there were more surgical patients who are getting shorter duration, lower dosage opioids,” he added. “Now some of those surgical exceptions kind of went away and who’s left in the population of people who get opioids is a sicker population.”

“Who are the 0 to 5-year-olds who are getting opioids now?” Dr. Chua asked. “Well, some of them are going to be cancer or surgical patients. If you think about it, over time their surgeons may be more judicious and they stop prescribing opioids for some things like circumcision or something like that. So that means that who’s left in the population of children who get opiate prescriptions are the cancer patients. Cancer patients’ opioid dosages are going to be higher because they have chronic pain.”

Dr. Chua said it is important to remember that the number of children who are affected by those high-risk prescriptions are lower because the overall number of opioid prescriptions has gone down. He added that the key piece of missing information is the absolute number of prescriptions that were high risk.

Researchers of the current study suggested that, because of the differences between pediatric and adult pain and indications for opioid prescribing, there should be national guidelines on general opioid prescribing for children and adolescents.

Experts did not disclose relevant financial relationships.

The opioid prescription rates have significantly decreased for children, teens, and younger adults between 2006 and 2018, according to new research.

“What’s important about this new study is that it documented that these improvements were also occurring for children and young adults specifically,” said Kao-Ping Chua, MD, PhD, primary care physician and assistant professor of pediatrics at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, who was not involved in the study. “The reason that’s important is that changes in medical practice for adults aren’t always reflected in pediatrics.”

The study, published in JAMA Pediatrics, found that dispensed opioid prescriptions for this population have decreased by 15% annually since 2013. However, the study also examined specific prescribing variables, such as duration of opioid prescription and high-dosage prescriptions. Researchers found reduced rates of high-dosage and long-duration prescriptions for adolescents and younger adults. However, these types of prescription practices increased in children aged 0-5 years.

“I think [the findings are] promising, suggesting that opiate prescribing practices may be improving,” study author Madeline Renny, MD, pediatric emergency medicine doctor at New York University Langone Health, said in an interview. “But we did find that there were increases in the young children for the practice variables, which we didn’t expect. I think that was kind of one of the findings that we were a bit surprised about and want to explore further.”

Previous studies have linked prescription opioid use in children and teens to an increased risk of future opioid misuse. A 2015 study published in Pediatrics found that using prescribed opioids before the 12th grade is associated with a 33% increase in the risk of future opioid misuse by the age of 23. The study also found that for those with a low predicted risk of future opioid misuse, an opioid prescription increases the risk for misuse after high school threefold.

Furthermore, a 2018 study published in JAMA Network Open found that, between 1999 and 2016, the annual estimated mortality rate for all children and adolescents from prescription and illicit opioid use rose 268.2%.

In the new study, Dr. Renny and colleagues examined data from 2006 to 2018 from IQVIA Longitudinal Prescription Data, which captured 74%-92% of U.S. retail outpatient opioid prescriptions dispensed to people up to the age of 24. Researchers also examined prescribing practice variables, which included opioid dispensing rates, average amount of opioid dispensed per prescription, duration of opioid prescription, high-dosage opioid prescription for individuals, and the rate in which extended-release or long-acting opioids are prescribed.

Researchers found that between 2006 and 2018, the total U.S. annual opioid prescriptions dispensed to patients younger than 25 years was highest in 2007 at 15,689,779 prescriptions, and since 2012 has steadily decreased to 6,705,478 in 2018.

“Our study did show that there were declines, but opioids remain readily dispensed,” Dr. Renny said. “And I think it’s good that rates have gone down, but I think opioids are still commonly dispensed to children and adolescents and young adults and all of our age groups.”

Dr. Chua said that the study was important, but when it came to younger children, it didn’t account for the fact that “the underlying population of patients who were getting opioids changed because it’s not the same group of children.”

“Maybe at the beginning there were more surgical patients who are getting shorter duration, lower dosage opioids,” he added. “Now some of those surgical exceptions kind of went away and who’s left in the population of people who get opioids is a sicker population.”

“Who are the 0 to 5-year-olds who are getting opioids now?” Dr. Chua asked. “Well, some of them are going to be cancer or surgical patients. If you think about it, over time their surgeons may be more judicious and they stop prescribing opioids for some things like circumcision or something like that. So that means that who’s left in the population of children who get opiate prescriptions are the cancer patients. Cancer patients’ opioid dosages are going to be higher because they have chronic pain.”

Dr. Chua said it is important to remember that the number of children who are affected by those high-risk prescriptions are lower because the overall number of opioid prescriptions has gone down. He added that the key piece of missing information is the absolute number of prescriptions that were high risk.

Researchers of the current study suggested that, because of the differences between pediatric and adult pain and indications for opioid prescribing, there should be national guidelines on general opioid prescribing for children and adolescents.

Experts did not disclose relevant financial relationships.

The opioid prescription rates have significantly decreased for children, teens, and younger adults between 2006 and 2018, according to new research.

“What’s important about this new study is that it documented that these improvements were also occurring for children and young adults specifically,” said Kao-Ping Chua, MD, PhD, primary care physician and assistant professor of pediatrics at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, who was not involved in the study. “The reason that’s important is that changes in medical practice for adults aren’t always reflected in pediatrics.”

The study, published in JAMA Pediatrics, found that dispensed opioid prescriptions for this population have decreased by 15% annually since 2013. However, the study also examined specific prescribing variables, such as duration of opioid prescription and high-dosage prescriptions. Researchers found reduced rates of high-dosage and long-duration prescriptions for adolescents and younger adults. However, these types of prescription practices increased in children aged 0-5 years.

“I think [the findings are] promising, suggesting that opiate prescribing practices may be improving,” study author Madeline Renny, MD, pediatric emergency medicine doctor at New York University Langone Health, said in an interview. “But we did find that there were increases in the young children for the practice variables, which we didn’t expect. I think that was kind of one of the findings that we were a bit surprised about and want to explore further.”

Previous studies have linked prescription opioid use in children and teens to an increased risk of future opioid misuse. A 2015 study published in Pediatrics found that using prescribed opioids before the 12th grade is associated with a 33% increase in the risk of future opioid misuse by the age of 23. The study also found that for those with a low predicted risk of future opioid misuse, an opioid prescription increases the risk for misuse after high school threefold.

Furthermore, a 2018 study published in JAMA Network Open found that, between 1999 and 2016, the annual estimated mortality rate for all children and adolescents from prescription and illicit opioid use rose 268.2%.

In the new study, Dr. Renny and colleagues examined data from 2006 to 2018 from IQVIA Longitudinal Prescription Data, which captured 74%-92% of U.S. retail outpatient opioid prescriptions dispensed to people up to the age of 24. Researchers also examined prescribing practice variables, which included opioid dispensing rates, average amount of opioid dispensed per prescription, duration of opioid prescription, high-dosage opioid prescription for individuals, and the rate in which extended-release or long-acting opioids are prescribed.

Researchers found that between 2006 and 2018, the total U.S. annual opioid prescriptions dispensed to patients younger than 25 years was highest in 2007 at 15,689,779 prescriptions, and since 2012 has steadily decreased to 6,705,478 in 2018.

“Our study did show that there were declines, but opioids remain readily dispensed,” Dr. Renny said. “And I think it’s good that rates have gone down, but I think opioids are still commonly dispensed to children and adolescents and young adults and all of our age groups.”

Dr. Chua said that the study was important, but when it came to younger children, it didn’t account for the fact that “the underlying population of patients who were getting opioids changed because it’s not the same group of children.”

“Maybe at the beginning there were more surgical patients who are getting shorter duration, lower dosage opioids,” he added. “Now some of those surgical exceptions kind of went away and who’s left in the population of people who get opioids is a sicker population.”

“Who are the 0 to 5-year-olds who are getting opioids now?” Dr. Chua asked. “Well, some of them are going to be cancer or surgical patients. If you think about it, over time their surgeons may be more judicious and they stop prescribing opioids for some things like circumcision or something like that. So that means that who’s left in the population of children who get opiate prescriptions are the cancer patients. Cancer patients’ opioid dosages are going to be higher because they have chronic pain.”

Dr. Chua said it is important to remember that the number of children who are affected by those high-risk prescriptions are lower because the overall number of opioid prescriptions has gone down. He added that the key piece of missing information is the absolute number of prescriptions that were high risk.

Researchers of the current study suggested that, because of the differences between pediatric and adult pain and indications for opioid prescribing, there should be national guidelines on general opioid prescribing for children and adolescents.

Experts did not disclose relevant financial relationships.

Ignore this pacemaker and it will go away

At some point – and now seems to be that point – we have to say enough is enough. The throwaway culture that produces phones, TVs, and computers that get tossed in the trash because they can’t be repaired has gone too far. That’s right, we’re looking at you, medical science!

This time, it’s a pacemaker that just disappears when it’s no longer needed. Some lazy heart surgeon decided that it was way too much trouble to do another surgery to remove the leads when a temporary pacemaker was no longer needed. You know the type: “It sure would be nice if the pacemaker components were biocompatible and were naturally absorbed by the body over the course of a few weeks and wouldn’t need to be surgically extracted.” Slacker.

Well, get a load of this. Researchers at Northwestern and George Washington universities say that they have come up with a transient pacemaker that “harvests energy from an external, remote antenna using near-field communication protocols – the same technology used in smartphones for electronic payments and in RFID tags.”

Northwestern University/George Washington University

It’s a mask! No, it’s a COVID-19 test!

Mask wearing has gotten more lax as people get vaccinated for COVID-19, but as wearing masks for virus prevention is becoming more normalized in western society, some saw an opportunity to make them work for diagnosis.

Researchers from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the Wyss Institute for Biologically Inspired Engineering at Harvard University have found a way to do just that with their wearable freeze-dried cell-free (wFDCF) technology. A single push of a button releases water from a reservoir in the mask that sequentially activates three different freeze-dried biological reactions, which detect the SARS-CoV-2 virus in the wearer’s breath.

Initially meant as a tool for the Zika outbreak in 2015, the team made a quick pivot in May 2020. But this isn’t just some run-of-the-mill, at-home test. The data prove that the wFDCF mask is comparable to polymerase chain reactions tests, the standard in COVID-19 detection. Plus there aren’t any extra factors to deal with, like room or instrument temperature to ensure accuracy. In just 90 minutes, the mask gives results on a readout in a way similar to that of a pregnancy test. Voilà! To have COVID-19 or not to have COVID-19 is an easily answered question.

UerDomwet/PxHere

Finally, an excuse for the all-beer diet

Weight loss is hard work. Extremely hard work, and, as evidenced by the constant inundation and advertisement of quick fixes, crash diets, and expensive gym memberships, there’s not really a solid, 100% solution to the issue. Until now, thanks to a team of doctors from New Zealand, who’ve decided that the best way to combat obesity is to leave you in constant agony.

The DentalSlim Diet Control device is certainly a radical yet comically logical attempt to combat obesity. The creators say that the biggest problem with dieting is compliance, and, well, it’s difficult to eat too much if you can’t actually open your mouth. The metal contraption is mounted onto your teeth and uses magnetic locks to prevent the user from opening their mouths more than 2 mm. That’s less than a tenth of an inch. Which is not a lot. So not a lot that essentially all you can consume is liquid.

University of Otago

Ignore this pacemaker and it will go away

At some point – and now seems to be that point – we have to say enough is enough. The throwaway culture that produces phones, TVs, and computers that get tossed in the trash because they can’t be repaired has gone too far. That’s right, we’re looking at you, medical science!

This time, it’s a pacemaker that just disappears when it’s no longer needed. Some lazy heart surgeon decided that it was way too much trouble to do another surgery to remove the leads when a temporary pacemaker was no longer needed. You know the type: “It sure would be nice if the pacemaker components were biocompatible and were naturally absorbed by the body over the course of a few weeks and wouldn’t need to be surgically extracted.” Slacker.

Well, get a load of this. Researchers at Northwestern and George Washington universities say that they have come up with a transient pacemaker that “harvests energy from an external, remote antenna using near-field communication protocols – the same technology used in smartphones for electronic payments and in RFID tags.”

Northwestern University/George Washington University

It’s a mask! No, it’s a COVID-19 test!

Mask wearing has gotten more lax as people get vaccinated for COVID-19, but as wearing masks for virus prevention is becoming more normalized in western society, some saw an opportunity to make them work for diagnosis.

Researchers from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the Wyss Institute for Biologically Inspired Engineering at Harvard University have found a way to do just that with their wearable freeze-dried cell-free (wFDCF) technology. A single push of a button releases water from a reservoir in the mask that sequentially activates three different freeze-dried biological reactions, which detect the SARS-CoV-2 virus in the wearer’s breath.

Initially meant as a tool for the Zika outbreak in 2015, the team made a quick pivot in May 2020. But this isn’t just some run-of-the-mill, at-home test. The data prove that the wFDCF mask is comparable to polymerase chain reactions tests, the standard in COVID-19 detection. Plus there aren’t any extra factors to deal with, like room or instrument temperature to ensure accuracy. In just 90 minutes, the mask gives results on a readout in a way similar to that of a pregnancy test. Voilà! To have COVID-19 or not to have COVID-19 is an easily answered question.

UerDomwet/PxHere

Finally, an excuse for the all-beer diet

Weight loss is hard work. Extremely hard work, and, as evidenced by the constant inundation and advertisement of quick fixes, crash diets, and expensive gym memberships, there’s not really a solid, 100% solution to the issue. Until now, thanks to a team of doctors from New Zealand, who’ve decided that the best way to combat obesity is to leave you in constant agony.

The DentalSlim Diet Control device is certainly a radical yet comically logical attempt to combat obesity. The creators say that the biggest problem with dieting is compliance, and, well, it’s difficult to eat too much if you can’t actually open your mouth. The metal contraption is mounted onto your teeth and uses magnetic locks to prevent the user from opening their mouths more than 2 mm. That’s less than a tenth of an inch. Which is not a lot. So not a lot that essentially all you can consume is liquid.

University of Otago

Ignore this pacemaker and it will go away

At some point – and now seems to be that point – we have to say enough is enough. The throwaway culture that produces phones, TVs, and computers that get tossed in the trash because they can’t be repaired has gone too far. That’s right, we’re looking at you, medical science!

This time, it’s a pacemaker that just disappears when it’s no longer needed. Some lazy heart surgeon decided that it was way too much trouble to do another surgery to remove the leads when a temporary pacemaker was no longer needed. You know the type: “It sure would be nice if the pacemaker components were biocompatible and were naturally absorbed by the body over the course of a few weeks and wouldn’t need to be surgically extracted.” Slacker.

Well, get a load of this. Researchers at Northwestern and George Washington universities say that they have come up with a transient pacemaker that “harvests energy from an external, remote antenna using near-field communication protocols – the same technology used in smartphones for electronic payments and in RFID tags.”

Northwestern University/George Washington University

It’s a mask! No, it’s a COVID-19 test!

Mask wearing has gotten more lax as people get vaccinated for COVID-19, but as wearing masks for virus prevention is becoming more normalized in western society, some saw an opportunity to make them work for diagnosis.

Researchers from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the Wyss Institute for Biologically Inspired Engineering at Harvard University have found a way to do just that with their wearable freeze-dried cell-free (wFDCF) technology. A single push of a button releases water from a reservoir in the mask that sequentially activates three different freeze-dried biological reactions, which detect the SARS-CoV-2 virus in the wearer’s breath.

Initially meant as a tool for the Zika outbreak in 2015, the team made a quick pivot in May 2020. But this isn’t just some run-of-the-mill, at-home test. The data prove that the wFDCF mask is comparable to polymerase chain reactions tests, the standard in COVID-19 detection. Plus there aren’t any extra factors to deal with, like room or instrument temperature to ensure accuracy. In just 90 minutes, the mask gives results on a readout in a way similar to that of a pregnancy test. Voilà! To have COVID-19 or not to have COVID-19 is an easily answered question.

UerDomwet/PxHere

Finally, an excuse for the all-beer diet

Weight loss is hard work. Extremely hard work, and, as evidenced by the constant inundation and advertisement of quick fixes, crash diets, and expensive gym memberships, there’s not really a solid, 100% solution to the issue. Until now, thanks to a team of doctors from New Zealand, who’ve decided that the best way to combat obesity is to leave you in constant agony.

The DentalSlim Diet Control device is certainly a radical yet comically logical attempt to combat obesity. The creators say that the biggest problem with dieting is compliance, and, well, it’s difficult to eat too much if you can’t actually open your mouth. The metal contraption is mounted onto your teeth and uses magnetic locks to prevent the user from opening their mouths more than 2 mm. That’s less than a tenth of an inch. Which is not a lot. So not a lot that essentially all you can consume is liquid.

University of Otago

If you, a friend, or a loved one remain unvaccinated against COVID-19 at this point – for whatever reason – you are at higher risk of dying if you become infected.

That’s the conclusion of a new report released by the Associated Press looking at COVID-19 deaths during May 2021.

Of more than 18,000 people who died from COVID-19, for example, only about 150 were fully vaccinated. That’s less than 1%.

“Recently, I was working in the emergency room [and] I saw a 21-year-old African American who came in with shortness of breath,” said Vino K. Palli, MD, MPH, a physician specializing in emergency medicine, internal medicine, and urgent care.

The patient rapidly deteriorated and required intubation and ventilation. She was transferred to a specialized hospital for possible extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) treatment.

“This patient was unvaccinated, along with her entire family. This would have been easily preventable,” added Dr. Palli, who is also founder and CEO of MiDoctor Urgent Care in New York City.

“Vaccine misinformation, compounded with vaccine inertia and vaccine access, have contributed to this,” he added. “Even though we have a surplus amount of vaccines at this time, we are only seeing 50% to 55% of completely vaccinated patients.”

Authors of the Associated Press report also acknowledge that some people who are fully vaccinated can get a breakthrough infection. These occurred in fewer than 1,200 of more than 853,000 people hospitalized for COVID-19 in May, or about 0.1%.

The Associated Press came up with these numbers using data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The CDC tracks the numbers of cases, hospitalizations, and deaths but does not breakdown rates by vaccination status.  
 

Stronger argument for vaccination?

“The fact that only 0.8% of COVID-19 deaths are in the fully vaccinated should persuade those people still hesitant about vaccination,” said Hugh Cassiere, MD, medical director of Respiratory Therapy Services at North Shore University Hospital in Manhasset, New York.

Stuart C. Ray, MD, professor of medicine and oncology in the Division of Infectious Diseases at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, agreed. “It seems compelling, even for skeptics, that unvaccinated people represent 99% of those now dying from COVID-19 when they represent less than 50% of the adult population in the United States.”

The findings from the study could be more persuasive than previous arguments made in favor of immunization, Dr. Ray said. “These recent findings of striking reductions in risk of death in the vaccinated are more directly attributable and harder to ignore or dismiss.”

Brian Labus, PhD, MPH, of the University of Nevada Las Vegas (UNLV) is less convinced. “While this might change some peoples’ minds, it probably won’t make a major difference. People have many different reasons for not getting vaccinated, and this is only one of the things they consider.”

The study adds information that was not available before, said Dr. Labus, assistant professor in the Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics at the UNLV School of Public Health. “We study the vaccine under tightly controlled, ideal conditions. This is the evidence that it works as well in the real world as it did in the trials, and that is what is most important in implementing a vaccination program,” added Dr. Labus.

“The scientific data has honed in on one thing: Vaccines are effective in preventing hospitalizations, ICU admissions, ventilations, and deaths,” agreed Dr. Palli.

“We now know that almost all deaths occurred in patients who were not vaccinated. We also know that all vaccines are effective against various strains that are in circulation right now, including the Delta variant, which is rapidly spreading,” Dr. Palli said.

Dr. Cassiere pointed out that the unvaccinated are not only at higher risk of developing COVID-19 but also of spreading, being hospitalized for, and dying from the infection. Avoiding “long hauler” symptoms is another argument in favor of immunization, he added.

As of June 28, the CDC reports that 63% of Americans 12 years and older have received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine, and 54% are fully vaccinated.
 

Worldwide worry?

Although overall rates of U.S. COVID-19 hospitalizations and deaths are down, the outlook may not remain as encouraging. “I hope I’m wrong about this, but I anticipate that the coming fall and winter will bring increasingly localized versions of similar findings – severe disease and death due to SARS-CoV-2 infection in regions or groups with lower vaccination rates,” Dr. Ray said.

There could be a silver lining, he added: “If this unfortunate surge occurs, the health and economic consequences seem likely to erode much of the remaining hesitancy regarding vaccination.”

The rise of more infectious SARS-CoV-2 variants, such as the Delta variant, could also throw a wrench in controlling COVID-19. “This isn’t just a domestic issue,” Dr. Ray said. “We have learned that the world is a small place in pandemic times.”

The Associated Press investigators state that their findings support the high efficacy of the vaccine. Also, given the current widespread availability of COVID-19 vaccines in the United States, they believe many of the COVID-19 deaths now occurring are preventable.

Public health measures should have continued longer to protect unvaccinated individuals, especially Black Americans, Hispanic Americans, and other minorities, Dr. Palli said. “Only time will tell if re-opening and abandoning all public health measures by the CDC was premature.”

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

If you, a friend, or a loved one remain unvaccinated against COVID-19 at this point – for whatever reason – you are at higher risk of dying if you become infected.

That’s the conclusion of a new report released by the Associated Press looking at COVID-19 deaths during May 2021.

Of more than 18,000 people who died from COVID-19, for example, only about 150 were fully vaccinated. That’s less than 1%.

“Recently, I was working in the emergency room [and] I saw a 21-year-old African American who came in with shortness of breath,” said Vino K. Palli, MD, MPH, a physician specializing in emergency medicine, internal medicine, and urgent care.

The patient rapidly deteriorated and required intubation and ventilation. She was transferred to a specialized hospital for possible extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) treatment.

“This patient was unvaccinated, along with her entire family. This would have been easily preventable,” added Dr. Palli, who is also founder and CEO of MiDoctor Urgent Care in New York City.

“Vaccine misinformation, compounded with vaccine inertia and vaccine access, have contributed to this,” he added. “Even though we have a surplus amount of vaccines at this time, we are only seeing 50% to 55% of completely vaccinated patients.”

Authors of the Associated Press report also acknowledge that some people who are fully vaccinated can get a breakthrough infection. These occurred in fewer than 1,200 of more than 853,000 people hospitalized for COVID-19 in May, or about 0.1%.

The Associated Press came up with these numbers using data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The CDC tracks the numbers of cases, hospitalizations, and deaths but does not breakdown rates by vaccination status.  
 

Stronger argument for vaccination?

“The fact that only 0.8% of COVID-19 deaths are in the fully vaccinated should persuade those people still hesitant about vaccination,” said Hugh Cassiere, MD, medical director of Respiratory Therapy Services at North Shore University Hospital in Manhasset, New York.

Stuart C. Ray, MD, professor of medicine and oncology in the Division of Infectious Diseases at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, agreed. “It seems compelling, even for skeptics, that unvaccinated people represent 99% of those now dying from COVID-19 when they represent less than 50% of the adult population in the United States.”

The findings from the study could be more persuasive than previous arguments made in favor of immunization, Dr. Ray said. “These recent findings of striking reductions in risk of death in the vaccinated are more directly attributable and harder to ignore or dismiss.”

Brian Labus, PhD, MPH, of the University of Nevada Las Vegas (UNLV) is less convinced. “While this might change some peoples’ minds, it probably won’t make a major difference. People have many different reasons for not getting vaccinated, and this is only one of the things they consider.”

The study adds information that was not available before, said Dr. Labus, assistant professor in the Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics at the UNLV School of Public Health. “We study the vaccine under tightly controlled, ideal conditions. This is the evidence that it works as well in the real world as it did in the trials, and that is what is most important in implementing a vaccination program,” added Dr. Labus.

“The scientific data has honed in on one thing: Vaccines are effective in preventing hospitalizations, ICU admissions, ventilations, and deaths,” agreed Dr. Palli.

“We now know that almost all deaths occurred in patients who were not vaccinated. We also know that all vaccines are effective against various strains that are in circulation right now, including the Delta variant, which is rapidly spreading,” Dr. Palli said.

Dr. Cassiere pointed out that the unvaccinated are not only at higher risk of developing COVID-19 but also of spreading, being hospitalized for, and dying from the infection. Avoiding “long hauler” symptoms is another argument in favor of immunization, he added.

As of June 28, the CDC reports that 63% of Americans 12 years and older have received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine, and 54% are fully vaccinated.
 

Worldwide worry?

Although overall rates of U.S. COVID-19 hospitalizations and deaths are down, the outlook may not remain as encouraging. “I hope I’m wrong about this, but I anticipate that the coming fall and winter will bring increasingly localized versions of similar findings – severe disease and death due to SARS-CoV-2 infection in regions or groups with lower vaccination rates,” Dr. Ray said.

There could be a silver lining, he added: “If this unfortunate surge occurs, the health and economic consequences seem likely to erode much of the remaining hesitancy regarding vaccination.”

The rise of more infectious SARS-CoV-2 variants, such as the Delta variant, could also throw a wrench in controlling COVID-19. “This isn’t just a domestic issue,” Dr. Ray said. “We have learned that the world is a small place in pandemic times.”

The Associated Press investigators state that their findings support the high efficacy of the vaccine. Also, given the current widespread availability of COVID-19 vaccines in the United States, they believe many of the COVID-19 deaths now occurring are preventable.

Public health measures should have continued longer to protect unvaccinated individuals, especially Black Americans, Hispanic Americans, and other minorities, Dr. Palli said. “Only time will tell if re-opening and abandoning all public health measures by the CDC was premature.”

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

If you, a friend, or a loved one remain unvaccinated against COVID-19 at this point – for whatever reason – you are at higher risk of dying if you become infected.

That’s the conclusion of a new report released by the Associated Press looking at COVID-19 deaths during May 2021.

Of more than 18,000 people who died from COVID-19, for example, only about 150 were fully vaccinated. That’s less than 1%.

“Recently, I was working in the emergency room [and] I saw a 21-year-old African American who came in with shortness of breath,” said Vino K. Palli, MD, MPH, a physician specializing in emergency medicine, internal medicine, and urgent care.

The patient rapidly deteriorated and required intubation and ventilation. She was transferred to a specialized hospital for possible extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) treatment.

“This patient was unvaccinated, along with her entire family. This would have been easily preventable,” added Dr. Palli, who is also founder and CEO of MiDoctor Urgent Care in New York City.

“Vaccine misinformation, compounded with vaccine inertia and vaccine access, have contributed to this,” he added. “Even though we have a surplus amount of vaccines at this time, we are only seeing 50% to 55% of completely vaccinated patients.”

Authors of the Associated Press report also acknowledge that some people who are fully vaccinated can get a breakthrough infection. These occurred in fewer than 1,200 of more than 853,000 people hospitalized for COVID-19 in May, or about 0.1%.

The Associated Press came up with these numbers using data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The CDC tracks the numbers of cases, hospitalizations, and deaths but does not breakdown rates by vaccination status.  
 

Stronger argument for vaccination?

“The fact that only 0.8% of COVID-19 deaths are in the fully vaccinated should persuade those people still hesitant about vaccination,” said Hugh Cassiere, MD, medical director of Respiratory Therapy Services at North Shore University Hospital in Manhasset, New York.

Stuart C. Ray, MD, professor of medicine and oncology in the Division of Infectious Diseases at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, agreed. “It seems compelling, even for skeptics, that unvaccinated people represent 99% of those now dying from COVID-19 when they represent less than 50% of the adult population in the United States.”

The findings from the study could be more persuasive than previous arguments made in favor of immunization, Dr. Ray said. “These recent findings of striking reductions in risk of death in the vaccinated are more directly attributable and harder to ignore or dismiss.”

Brian Labus, PhD, MPH, of the University of Nevada Las Vegas (UNLV) is less convinced. “While this might change some peoples’ minds, it probably won’t make a major difference. People have many different reasons for not getting vaccinated, and this is only one of the things they consider.”

The study adds information that was not available before, said Dr. Labus, assistant professor in the Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics at the UNLV School of Public Health. “We study the vaccine under tightly controlled, ideal conditions. This is the evidence that it works as well in the real world as it did in the trials, and that is what is most important in implementing a vaccination program,” added Dr. Labus.

“The scientific data has honed in on one thing: Vaccines are effective in preventing hospitalizations, ICU admissions, ventilations, and deaths,” agreed Dr. Palli.

“We now know that almost all deaths occurred in patients who were not vaccinated. We also know that all vaccines are effective against various strains that are in circulation right now, including the Delta variant, which is rapidly spreading,” Dr. Palli said.

Dr. Cassiere pointed out that the unvaccinated are not only at higher risk of developing COVID-19 but also of spreading, being hospitalized for, and dying from the infection. Avoiding “long hauler” symptoms is another argument in favor of immunization, he added.

As of June 28, the CDC reports that 63% of Americans 12 years and older have received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine, and 54% are fully vaccinated.
 

Worldwide worry?

Although overall rates of U.S. COVID-19 hospitalizations and deaths are down, the outlook may not remain as encouraging. “I hope I’m wrong about this, but I anticipate that the coming fall and winter will bring increasingly localized versions of similar findings – severe disease and death due to SARS-CoV-2 infection in regions or groups with lower vaccination rates,” Dr. Ray said.

There could be a silver lining, he added: “If this unfortunate surge occurs, the health and economic consequences seem likely to erode much of the remaining hesitancy regarding vaccination.”

The rise of more infectious SARS-CoV-2 variants, such as the Delta variant, could also throw a wrench in controlling COVID-19. “This isn’t just a domestic issue,” Dr. Ray said. “We have learned that the world is a small place in pandemic times.”

The Associated Press investigators state that their findings support the high efficacy of the vaccine. Also, given the current widespread availability of COVID-19 vaccines in the United States, they believe many of the COVID-19 deaths now occurring are preventable.

Public health measures should have continued longer to protect unvaccinated individuals, especially Black Americans, Hispanic Americans, and other minorities, Dr. Palli said. “Only time will tell if re-opening and abandoning all public health measures by the CDC was premature.”

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

Fidaa Wishah, MD, a pediatric radiologist at Phoenix Children’s Hospital in Arizona, has been fired after the hospital reviewed evidence that included her anti-Israel comments on social media, according to the hospital’s statement.

On May 26, Dr. Wishah posted, “We will uncover your thirst to kill our Palestinian children. … We sense your fear. The fear of your collapse. A state based on atrocity, inhumanity, racism and cannibalism never last long! Hey #israel … your end is coming sooner than you think.”

Phoenix Children’s Hospital did not respond to this news organization’s request for comment but said in a statement to the Jewish News Syndicate : “After a thorough review of the facts related to this matter, this individual is no longer providing care at Phoenix Children’s. All children in the care of Phoenix Children’s receive hope, healing and the best possible health care, regardless of race, color, disability, religion, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation or national origin.”

Dr. Wishah’s profile has been removed from the hospital website. Her LinkedIn profile indicates she had been a pediatric radiology fellow at Stanford (Calif.) University, specializing in advanced magnetic resonance imaging and fetal imaging and had been a senior staff pediatric radiologist at Henry Ford Health System in Detroit.

It wasn’t the first time antisemitic comments have led to the firing of a physician. Last year, this news organization wrote about Lara Kollab, DO, a first-year resident fired for her antisemitic tweets. She was subsequently barred from medicine.

In the same post from May 26, Dr. Wishah also wrote: “We will not be #censored anymore! Bomb our media buildings and we have the phones[.] Bribe the mainstream media and we have our small #socialmedia platforms[.] From our windows ... from our streets ... next the rubble we will expose you to the world[.] We will expose the #massacre and #genocide you #zionists are proud of[.]”

Today, CAIR-AZ, a group whose mission is to “enhance understanding of Islam, protect civil rights, promote justice, and empower American Muslims,” according to its website, announced that it, along with three private law firms, will represent Dr. Wishah in what they referred to as “her wrongful termination case against Phoenix Children’s Hospital.”

The announcement, which mentions that Dr. Wishah was born and raised in Gaza, said, “Dr. Wishah has been a medical doctor since 2010 and has spent the vast majority of her career as a pediatric physician. Despite caring for thousands of children, many of whom are Jewish, she has never been accused of discriminating against any of her patients or colleagues.”

The statement added, “PCH’s decision to terminate Dr. Wishah is shameful and an attack on freedom of speech.”

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

Fidaa Wishah, MD, a pediatric radiologist at Phoenix Children’s Hospital in Arizona, has been fired after the hospital reviewed evidence that included her anti-Israel comments on social media, according to the hospital’s statement.

On May 26, Dr. Wishah posted, “We will uncover your thirst to kill our Palestinian children. … We sense your fear. The fear of your collapse. A state based on atrocity, inhumanity, racism and cannibalism never last long! Hey #israel … your end is coming sooner than you think.”

Phoenix Children’s Hospital did not respond to this news organization’s request for comment but said in a statement to the Jewish News Syndicate : “After a thorough review of the facts related to this matter, this individual is no longer providing care at Phoenix Children’s. All children in the care of Phoenix Children’s receive hope, healing and the best possible health care, regardless of race, color, disability, religion, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation or national origin.”

Dr. Wishah’s profile has been removed from the hospital website. Her LinkedIn profile indicates she had been a pediatric radiology fellow at Stanford (Calif.) University, specializing in advanced magnetic resonance imaging and fetal imaging and had been a senior staff pediatric radiologist at Henry Ford Health System in Detroit.

It wasn’t the first time antisemitic comments have led to the firing of a physician. Last year, this news organization wrote about Lara Kollab, DO, a first-year resident fired for her antisemitic tweets. She was subsequently barred from medicine.

In the same post from May 26, Dr. Wishah also wrote: “We will not be #censored anymore! Bomb our media buildings and we have the phones[.] Bribe the mainstream media and we have our small #socialmedia platforms[.] From our windows ... from our streets ... next the rubble we will expose you to the world[.] We will expose the #massacre and #genocide you #zionists are proud of[.]”

Today, CAIR-AZ, a group whose mission is to “enhance understanding of Islam, protect civil rights, promote justice, and empower American Muslims,” according to its website, announced that it, along with three private law firms, will represent Dr. Wishah in what they referred to as “her wrongful termination case against Phoenix Children’s Hospital.”

The announcement, which mentions that Dr. Wishah was born and raised in Gaza, said, “Dr. Wishah has been a medical doctor since 2010 and has spent the vast majority of her career as a pediatric physician. Despite caring for thousands of children, many of whom are Jewish, she has never been accused of discriminating against any of her patients or colleagues.”

The statement added, “PCH’s decision to terminate Dr. Wishah is shameful and an attack on freedom of speech.”

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

Fidaa Wishah, MD, a pediatric radiologist at Phoenix Children’s Hospital in Arizona, has been fired after the hospital reviewed evidence that included her anti-Israel comments on social media, according to the hospital’s statement.

On May 26, Dr. Wishah posted, “We will uncover your thirst to kill our Palestinian children. … We sense your fear. The fear of your collapse. A state based on atrocity, inhumanity, racism and cannibalism never last long! Hey #israel … your end is coming sooner than you think.”

Phoenix Children’s Hospital did not respond to this news organization’s request for comment but said in a statement to the Jewish News Syndicate : “After a thorough review of the facts related to this matter, this individual is no longer providing care at Phoenix Children’s. All children in the care of Phoenix Children’s receive hope, healing and the best possible health care, regardless of race, color, disability, religion, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation or national origin.”

Dr. Wishah’s profile has been removed from the hospital website. Her LinkedIn profile indicates she had been a pediatric radiology fellow at Stanford (Calif.) University, specializing in advanced magnetic resonance imaging and fetal imaging and had been a senior staff pediatric radiologist at Henry Ford Health System in Detroit.

It wasn’t the first time antisemitic comments have led to the firing of a physician. Last year, this news organization wrote about Lara Kollab, DO, a first-year resident fired for her antisemitic tweets. She was subsequently barred from medicine.

In the same post from May 26, Dr. Wishah also wrote: “We will not be #censored anymore! Bomb our media buildings and we have the phones[.] Bribe the mainstream media and we have our small #socialmedia platforms[.] From our windows ... from our streets ... next the rubble we will expose you to the world[.] We will expose the #massacre and #genocide you #zionists are proud of[.]”

Today, CAIR-AZ, a group whose mission is to “enhance understanding of Islam, protect civil rights, promote justice, and empower American Muslims,” according to its website, announced that it, along with three private law firms, will represent Dr. Wishah in what they referred to as “her wrongful termination case against Phoenix Children’s Hospital.”

The announcement, which mentions that Dr. Wishah was born and raised in Gaza, said, “Dr. Wishah has been a medical doctor since 2010 and has spent the vast majority of her career as a pediatric physician. Despite caring for thousands of children, many of whom are Jewish, she has never been accused of discriminating against any of her patients or colleagues.”

The statement added, “PCH’s decision to terminate Dr. Wishah is shameful and an attack on freedom of speech.”

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

Even though less than 21% of all children aged 12-15 years are fully vaccinated against COVID-19, the number seeking first vaccinations continues to decline, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Just over 283,000 children aged 12-15 received a first vaccination during the week ending June 28, compared with almost 420,000 for the week ending June 21 and 462,000 during the week ending June 14. Collectively, 30.2% of 12- to 15-year-olds have gotten at least one dose of vaccine so far and 20.7% are now fully vaccinated, the CDC said on its COVID Data Tracker site.

Among children aged 16-17 years, who were able to start the vaccination process earlier, 42.9% have received at least one dose and 34.0% have completed the COVID-19 vaccine regimen. Vaccine initiation – measured as the proportion of all individuals getting a first shot over the previous 2 weeks – has been consistently around 4.8% during the month of June for this age group but has dropped from 17.9% on June 7 to 14.3% on June 28 for those aged 12-15, the CDC data show.

Looking at the same measure for vaccine completion, 16.7% of all those who reached full vaccination status in the 14 days ending June 28 were 12- to 15-years-olds, down from 21.5% on June 21 and 19.6% on June 14. The numbers for those aged 15-16 were, respectively, 4.6%, 4.5%, and 4.2%, the CDC reported.

Fortunately, in the wake of recent vaccination trends, new cases of COVID-19 in children were down to their lowest level – just 8,447 for the week ending June 24 – since May of 2020, according to a new report from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

New cases had been well over 15,000 the previous week (June 17), following weeks of 14,000 (June 10) and 16,000 (June 3) new cases, so the latest drop down to just four digits represents a 1-week decline of over 46% in the 49 states (excluding New York) that are reporting age distribution, along with the District of Columbia, New York City, Puerto Rico, and Guam.

The cumulative number of child COVID-19 cases in those jurisdictions is about 4.03 million since the beginning of the pandemic, which represents 14.2% of all cases in the United States. At the state level, the cumulative rate of cases in children is highest in Vermont (22.7%) and lowest in Florida (8.9%), which uses an age range of 0-14 years for children, compared with 0-17 or 0-19 for most states, the AAP and CHA said.

Severe illness has been rare in children, which is reflected in the proportion of children among all hospitalizations, 2.2% in 24 jurisdictions, and the proportion of deaths, 0.06% in 46 jurisdictions, since the start of the pandemic, the AAP and CHA said, with a total of 336 COVID-19–related deaths reported.

[email protected]

Even though less than 21% of all children aged 12-15 years are fully vaccinated against COVID-19, the number seeking first vaccinations continues to decline, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Just over 283,000 children aged 12-15 received a first vaccination during the week ending June 28, compared with almost 420,000 for the week ending June 21 and 462,000 during the week ending June 14. Collectively, 30.2% of 12- to 15-year-olds have gotten at least one dose of vaccine so far and 20.7% are now fully vaccinated, the CDC said on its COVID Data Tracker site.

Among children aged 16-17 years, who were able to start the vaccination process earlier, 42.9% have received at least one dose and 34.0% have completed the COVID-19 vaccine regimen. Vaccine initiation – measured as the proportion of all individuals getting a first shot over the previous 2 weeks – has been consistently around 4.8% during the month of June for this age group but has dropped from 17.9% on June 7 to 14.3% on June 28 for those aged 12-15, the CDC data show.

Looking at the same measure for vaccine completion, 16.7% of all those who reached full vaccination status in the 14 days ending June 28 were 12- to 15-years-olds, down from 21.5% on June 21 and 19.6% on June 14. The numbers for those aged 15-16 were, respectively, 4.6%, 4.5%, and 4.2%, the CDC reported.

Fortunately, in the wake of recent vaccination trends, new cases of COVID-19 in children were down to their lowest level – just 8,447 for the week ending June 24 – since May of 2020, according to a new report from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

New cases had been well over 15,000 the previous week (June 17), following weeks of 14,000 (June 10) and 16,000 (June 3) new cases, so the latest drop down to just four digits represents a 1-week decline of over 46% in the 49 states (excluding New York) that are reporting age distribution, along with the District of Columbia, New York City, Puerto Rico, and Guam.

The cumulative number of child COVID-19 cases in those jurisdictions is about 4.03 million since the beginning of the pandemic, which represents 14.2% of all cases in the United States. At the state level, the cumulative rate of cases in children is highest in Vermont (22.7%) and lowest in Florida (8.9%), which uses an age range of 0-14 years for children, compared with 0-17 or 0-19 for most states, the AAP and CHA said.

Severe illness has been rare in children, which is reflected in the proportion of children among all hospitalizations, 2.2% in 24 jurisdictions, and the proportion of deaths, 0.06% in 46 jurisdictions, since the start of the pandemic, the AAP and CHA said, with a total of 336 COVID-19–related deaths reported.

[email protected]

Even though less than 21% of all children aged 12-15 years are fully vaccinated against COVID-19, the number seeking first vaccinations continues to decline, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Just over 283,000 children aged 12-15 received a first vaccination during the week ending June 28, compared with almost 420,000 for the week ending June 21 and 462,000 during the week ending June 14. Collectively, 30.2% of 12- to 15-year-olds have gotten at least one dose of vaccine so far and 20.7% are now fully vaccinated, the CDC said on its COVID Data Tracker site.

Among children aged 16-17 years, who were able to start the vaccination process earlier, 42.9% have received at least one dose and 34.0% have completed the COVID-19 vaccine regimen. Vaccine initiation – measured as the proportion of all individuals getting a first shot over the previous 2 weeks – has been consistently around 4.8% during the month of June for this age group but has dropped from 17.9% on June 7 to 14.3% on June 28 for those aged 12-15, the CDC data show.

Looking at the same measure for vaccine completion, 16.7% of all those who reached full vaccination status in the 14 days ending June 28 were 12- to 15-years-olds, down from 21.5% on June 21 and 19.6% on June 14. The numbers for those aged 15-16 were, respectively, 4.6%, 4.5%, and 4.2%, the CDC reported.

Fortunately, in the wake of recent vaccination trends, new cases of COVID-19 in children were down to their lowest level – just 8,447 for the week ending June 24 – since May of 2020, according to a new report from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

New cases had been well over 15,000 the previous week (June 17), following weeks of 14,000 (June 10) and 16,000 (June 3) new cases, so the latest drop down to just four digits represents a 1-week decline of over 46% in the 49 states (excluding New York) that are reporting age distribution, along with the District of Columbia, New York City, Puerto Rico, and Guam.

The cumulative number of child COVID-19 cases in those jurisdictions is about 4.03 million since the beginning of the pandemic, which represents 14.2% of all cases in the United States. At the state level, the cumulative rate of cases in children is highest in Vermont (22.7%) and lowest in Florida (8.9%), which uses an age range of 0-14 years for children, compared with 0-17 or 0-19 for most states, the AAP and CHA said.

Severe illness has been rare in children, which is reflected in the proportion of children among all hospitalizations, 2.2% in 24 jurisdictions, and the proportion of deaths, 0.06% in 46 jurisdictions, since the start of the pandemic, the AAP and CHA said, with a total of 336 COVID-19–related deaths reported.

[email protected]