MDedge Pediatrics

Final results from the landmark SPRINT study confirm that aggressive blood pressure (BP) management, targeting a systolic blood pressure (SBP) below 120 mm Hg, significantly reduces the risk for heart disease, stroke, and death from these diseases, as well as death from all causes.

The results include data on some outcome events from the trial that had yet to be adjudicated when the primary analysis was released in 2015, as well as posttrial observational follow-up data collected through July 2016.

The data confirm and enhance the earlier findings and show that “lower is better” when it comes to blood pressure, primary investigator Cora E. Lewis, MD, professor and chair, department of epidemiology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, said in an interview.

Final results of the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT) were published in the May 20 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine.

For the trial, researchers enrolled 9,361 adults 50 years and older with a SBP between 130 and 180 mm Hg who were at increased risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD) but did not have a history of diabetes or stroke. Patients were randomly assigned to an intensive treatment target (SBP < 120 mm Hg) or a standard treatment target (SBP < 140 mm Hg).

In the final analysis, the rate of the primary outcome was 1.77% per year in the intensive-treatment group and 2.40% per year in the standard-treatment group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.73; 95% confidence interval [CR], 0.63-0.86; P < .001), similar to the earlier SPRINT findings.

All-cause mortality was 1.06% per year in the intensive-treatment group and 1.41% per year in the standard-treatment group (HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.61-0.92; P = .006), again similar to the previous findings.

“These results were highly statistically significant. It is remarkable in a trial powered for a composite CVD outcome to obtain a significant benefit for total mortality,” Dr. Lewis said.

She noted that one criticism of the initial SPRINT results was that, for the components of the primary outcome, only heart failure and death due to CVD were significantly lower in the intensively treated group.

“Heart failure can be difficult to diagnose from records in a clinical trial, and the critiques were that this was shaky evidence, given that more participants treated to less than 120 were on diuretics, which could decrease swelling, a key symptom of heart failure,” she explained.

“In these final results, SPRINT found that risk of myocardial infarction, heart failure, and death from CVD were significantly lower in the group treated to less than 120, and risk of the primary outcome, excluding heart failure, was still significantly lower in the more intensively treated group,” she noted.

After the trial phase ended, blood pressure treatment was returned to the participants’ usual source of medical care and the trial treatment goals were no longer pursued. SPRINT continued to collect data on the outcomes through July 2016. During this time, SBP rose 6.9 mm Hg in the intensive-treatment group and 2.6 mm Hg in the standard-treatment group.

“Putting all the data together from the trial phase and the phase after randomized interventions had been stopped, there was still a significant benefit for the more intensive treatment on the primary outcome and on death from all causes,” Dr. Lewis said.

In addition, a separate new analysis based on all the data showed significantly fewer first and recurrent primary outcome events with intensive treatment than with standard treatment (435 vs. 552; HR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.69-0.89; P < .001).
 

Manageable risk

The pattern of safety events in the final analysis was similar to the 2015 report. In the intervention period, rates of serious adverse events overall did not differ significantly between the groups. However, rates of hypotension, electrolyte abnormalities, syncope (none leading to injurious falls), and acute kidney injury were higher in the intensive-treatment group.

As in other SPRINT reports, “acute kidney injury safety events were generally mild and there was nearly complete recovery of kidney function within 1 year,” Dr. Lewis said. “This and other analyses we have published indicate this is probably a hemodynamic effect.”

“Intensive treatment can be well tolerated and is generally safe with proper patient selection and monitoring. There are advantages to intensive therapy, and some risks, but I don’t think the risks are such that we should just throw the idea of more intensive treatment out the window,” Dr. Lewis said.

Reached for comment, Carlos G. Santos-Gallego, MD, from the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, said there has been “controversy” over whether intensive blood pressure control targeting systolic to below 120 mm Hg is beneficial.

“The original SPRINT trial is incredibly important, in that it conclusively demonstrated that among patients with hypertension and increased cardiovascular risk, targeting systolic blood pressure to below 120 mm Hg resulted in lower rates of adverse cardiovascular events and, importantly, all-cause mortality," compared with the conventional target of 140 mm Hg, he said in an interview.

“This final report of the SPRINT trial basically consolidates, confirms, and corroborates the original SPRINT data,” he noted. However, the final data are “more robust, with additional primary outcome events and all events having been adjudicated by a central committee, and there is an additional observation period of 1 extra year in which the treatment has been discontinued,” he said.

“Over time, we are becoming more and more certain that lower is better with blood pressure. We still have a long way to go, but the cardiology community is slowly becoming more intense in our treatment of blood pressure for our patients,” Dr. Santos-Gallego said.

The potential adverse effects of intensive blood pressure control are “very manageable,” he added.

Support for SPRINT was provided by the National Institutes of Health. Full disclosures for authors are available in the original article. Dr. Santos-Gallego has no relevant disclosures.

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

Final results from the landmark SPRINT study confirm that aggressive blood pressure (BP) management, targeting a systolic blood pressure (SBP) below 120 mm Hg, significantly reduces the risk for heart disease, stroke, and death from these diseases, as well as death from all causes.

The results include data on some outcome events from the trial that had yet to be adjudicated when the primary analysis was released in 2015, as well as posttrial observational follow-up data collected through July 2016.

The data confirm and enhance the earlier findings and show that “lower is better” when it comes to blood pressure, primary investigator Cora E. Lewis, MD, professor and chair, department of epidemiology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, said in an interview.

Final results of the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT) were published in the May 20 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine.

For the trial, researchers enrolled 9,361 adults 50 years and older with a SBP between 130 and 180 mm Hg who were at increased risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD) but did not have a history of diabetes or stroke. Patients were randomly assigned to an intensive treatment target (SBP < 120 mm Hg) or a standard treatment target (SBP < 140 mm Hg).

In the final analysis, the rate of the primary outcome was 1.77% per year in the intensive-treatment group and 2.40% per year in the standard-treatment group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.73; 95% confidence interval [CR], 0.63-0.86; P < .001), similar to the earlier SPRINT findings.

All-cause mortality was 1.06% per year in the intensive-treatment group and 1.41% per year in the standard-treatment group (HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.61-0.92; P = .006), again similar to the previous findings.

“These results were highly statistically significant. It is remarkable in a trial powered for a composite CVD outcome to obtain a significant benefit for total mortality,” Dr. Lewis said.

She noted that one criticism of the initial SPRINT results was that, for the components of the primary outcome, only heart failure and death due to CVD were significantly lower in the intensively treated group.

“Heart failure can be difficult to diagnose from records in a clinical trial, and the critiques were that this was shaky evidence, given that more participants treated to less than 120 were on diuretics, which could decrease swelling, a key symptom of heart failure,” she explained.

“In these final results, SPRINT found that risk of myocardial infarction, heart failure, and death from CVD were significantly lower in the group treated to less than 120, and risk of the primary outcome, excluding heart failure, was still significantly lower in the more intensively treated group,” she noted.

After the trial phase ended, blood pressure treatment was returned to the participants’ usual source of medical care and the trial treatment goals were no longer pursued. SPRINT continued to collect data on the outcomes through July 2016. During this time, SBP rose 6.9 mm Hg in the intensive-treatment group and 2.6 mm Hg in the standard-treatment group.

“Putting all the data together from the trial phase and the phase after randomized interventions had been stopped, there was still a significant benefit for the more intensive treatment on the primary outcome and on death from all causes,” Dr. Lewis said.

In addition, a separate new analysis based on all the data showed significantly fewer first and recurrent primary outcome events with intensive treatment than with standard treatment (435 vs. 552; HR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.69-0.89; P < .001).
 

Manageable risk

The pattern of safety events in the final analysis was similar to the 2015 report. In the intervention period, rates of serious adverse events overall did not differ significantly between the groups. However, rates of hypotension, electrolyte abnormalities, syncope (none leading to injurious falls), and acute kidney injury were higher in the intensive-treatment group.

As in other SPRINT reports, “acute kidney injury safety events were generally mild and there was nearly complete recovery of kidney function within 1 year,” Dr. Lewis said. “This and other analyses we have published indicate this is probably a hemodynamic effect.”

“Intensive treatment can be well tolerated and is generally safe with proper patient selection and monitoring. There are advantages to intensive therapy, and some risks, but I don’t think the risks are such that we should just throw the idea of more intensive treatment out the window,” Dr. Lewis said.

Reached for comment, Carlos G. Santos-Gallego, MD, from the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, said there has been “controversy” over whether intensive blood pressure control targeting systolic to below 120 mm Hg is beneficial.

“The original SPRINT trial is incredibly important, in that it conclusively demonstrated that among patients with hypertension and increased cardiovascular risk, targeting systolic blood pressure to below 120 mm Hg resulted in lower rates of adverse cardiovascular events and, importantly, all-cause mortality," compared with the conventional target of 140 mm Hg, he said in an interview.

“This final report of the SPRINT trial basically consolidates, confirms, and corroborates the original SPRINT data,” he noted. However, the final data are “more robust, with additional primary outcome events and all events having been adjudicated by a central committee, and there is an additional observation period of 1 extra year in which the treatment has been discontinued,” he said.

“Over time, we are becoming more and more certain that lower is better with blood pressure. We still have a long way to go, but the cardiology community is slowly becoming more intense in our treatment of blood pressure for our patients,” Dr. Santos-Gallego said.

The potential adverse effects of intensive blood pressure control are “very manageable,” he added.

Support for SPRINT was provided by the National Institutes of Health. Full disclosures for authors are available in the original article. Dr. Santos-Gallego has no relevant disclosures.

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

Final results from the landmark SPRINT study confirm that aggressive blood pressure (BP) management, targeting a systolic blood pressure (SBP) below 120 mm Hg, significantly reduces the risk for heart disease, stroke, and death from these diseases, as well as death from all causes.

The results include data on some outcome events from the trial that had yet to be adjudicated when the primary analysis was released in 2015, as well as posttrial observational follow-up data collected through July 2016.

The data confirm and enhance the earlier findings and show that “lower is better” when it comes to blood pressure, primary investigator Cora E. Lewis, MD, professor and chair, department of epidemiology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, said in an interview.

Final results of the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT) were published in the May 20 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine.

For the trial, researchers enrolled 9,361 adults 50 years and older with a SBP between 130 and 180 mm Hg who were at increased risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD) but did not have a history of diabetes or stroke. Patients were randomly assigned to an intensive treatment target (SBP < 120 mm Hg) or a standard treatment target (SBP < 140 mm Hg).

In the final analysis, the rate of the primary outcome was 1.77% per year in the intensive-treatment group and 2.40% per year in the standard-treatment group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.73; 95% confidence interval [CR], 0.63-0.86; P < .001), similar to the earlier SPRINT findings.

All-cause mortality was 1.06% per year in the intensive-treatment group and 1.41% per year in the standard-treatment group (HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.61-0.92; P = .006), again similar to the previous findings.

“These results were highly statistically significant. It is remarkable in a trial powered for a composite CVD outcome to obtain a significant benefit for total mortality,” Dr. Lewis said.

She noted that one criticism of the initial SPRINT results was that, for the components of the primary outcome, only heart failure and death due to CVD were significantly lower in the intensively treated group.

“Heart failure can be difficult to diagnose from records in a clinical trial, and the critiques were that this was shaky evidence, given that more participants treated to less than 120 were on diuretics, which could decrease swelling, a key symptom of heart failure,” she explained.

“In these final results, SPRINT found that risk of myocardial infarction, heart failure, and death from CVD were significantly lower in the group treated to less than 120, and risk of the primary outcome, excluding heart failure, was still significantly lower in the more intensively treated group,” she noted.

After the trial phase ended, blood pressure treatment was returned to the participants’ usual source of medical care and the trial treatment goals were no longer pursued. SPRINT continued to collect data on the outcomes through July 2016. During this time, SBP rose 6.9 mm Hg in the intensive-treatment group and 2.6 mm Hg in the standard-treatment group.

“Putting all the data together from the trial phase and the phase after randomized interventions had been stopped, there was still a significant benefit for the more intensive treatment on the primary outcome and on death from all causes,” Dr. Lewis said.

In addition, a separate new analysis based on all the data showed significantly fewer first and recurrent primary outcome events with intensive treatment than with standard treatment (435 vs. 552; HR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.69-0.89; P < .001).
 

Manageable risk

The pattern of safety events in the final analysis was similar to the 2015 report. In the intervention period, rates of serious adverse events overall did not differ significantly between the groups. However, rates of hypotension, electrolyte abnormalities, syncope (none leading to injurious falls), and acute kidney injury were higher in the intensive-treatment group.

As in other SPRINT reports, “acute kidney injury safety events were generally mild and there was nearly complete recovery of kidney function within 1 year,” Dr. Lewis said. “This and other analyses we have published indicate this is probably a hemodynamic effect.”

“Intensive treatment can be well tolerated and is generally safe with proper patient selection and monitoring. There are advantages to intensive therapy, and some risks, but I don’t think the risks are such that we should just throw the idea of more intensive treatment out the window,” Dr. Lewis said.

Reached for comment, Carlos G. Santos-Gallego, MD, from the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, said there has been “controversy” over whether intensive blood pressure control targeting systolic to below 120 mm Hg is beneficial.

“The original SPRINT trial is incredibly important, in that it conclusively demonstrated that among patients with hypertension and increased cardiovascular risk, targeting systolic blood pressure to below 120 mm Hg resulted in lower rates of adverse cardiovascular events and, importantly, all-cause mortality," compared with the conventional target of 140 mm Hg, he said in an interview.

“This final report of the SPRINT trial basically consolidates, confirms, and corroborates the original SPRINT data,” he noted. However, the final data are “more robust, with additional primary outcome events and all events having been adjudicated by a central committee, and there is an additional observation period of 1 extra year in which the treatment has been discontinued,” he said.

“Over time, we are becoming more and more certain that lower is better with blood pressure. We still have a long way to go, but the cardiology community is slowly becoming more intense in our treatment of blood pressure for our patients,” Dr. Santos-Gallego said.

The potential adverse effects of intensive blood pressure control are “very manageable,” he added.

Support for SPRINT was provided by the National Institutes of Health. Full disclosures for authors are available in the original article. Dr. Santos-Gallego has no relevant disclosures.

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

A parenting assessment can add value to a clinic visit by facilitating conversations about discipline and potentially mitigating adverse childhood experiences, based on survey data from 167 health care providers.

“Some of the most modifiable adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) are unhealthy parenting behaviors,” according to Amber J. Cooke, MD, of Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., and colleagues. “Despite the widespread use of standardized health assessment tools in pediatrics, a gap in services is that parenting assessments are not routinely administered,” they said.

In a study presented at the virtual meeting of the Pediatric Academic Societies, the researchers assessed clinicians’ perspectives on the use of the Quick Parenting Assessment (QPA), a validated 13-item parent support tool designed to identify children exposed to unhealthy parenting practices such as yelling, threatening, humiliating language, and physical punishment.

The researchers surveyed clinicians about how they integrated the QPA into a 15-month or 30-month well-child visit. Clinicians were trained to review the QPA and respond to parents during the visit.

Overall, the health care providers reported that the QPA could be reviewed with parents in less than 3 minutes for more than 80% of encounters.

The QPA takes approximately 1 minute for parents or caregivers to complete. Participating clinicians underwent training to learn how to interpret and respond to the QPA, and responded to a survey based on their inclusion of it in clinical visits. Key factors measured in the survey included the time needed for the clinician to review the QPA with the parent; whether the QPA increased clinicians’ objectivity about the level of support needed for the caregivers, whether the QPA affected communications with the caregiver about parenting, and whether the QPA added value to the well-child visit.

The survey respondents included resident physicians, nurse practitioners, and attending physicians. Approximately 75% of the providers said they were able to review the QPA in 1 minute or less; approximately 24% took 1-5 minutes, and less than 1% took longer than 5 minutes.

A majority of respondents (79%) said that the parent or caregiver was receptive to the QPA, and 74% said that the QPA facilitated communications with caregivers about parenting. In addition, 61% and 60% said the QPA improved the quality and value, respectively, of the visit, and 64% of the respondents said that the QPA increased their objectivity in assessing the level of support needed by caregivers.

Responses were similar, but slightly higher, in each category when the researchers compared providers who reviewed three or more QPAs with parents to those who reviewed less than three QPAs with parents.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the use of data from a single clinic site serving primarily low-income families, which might affect the generalizability of the results, the researchers noted. A lack of data on all QPA encounters might result in a participation bias as well, they said.

However, the results support the feasibility of the QPA, and clinical implications include mitigating ACEs, preventing child abuse, and enhancing the value of the well-child visit, they said. Next steps for research include integrating the QPA into 5-year and 8-year well-child visits, they concluded.
 

Data support value of parenting assessment screening tool

“In order to be useful, a screening tool has to be validated, not add significant time to the well-child visit, and result in useful data for the clinician to more effectively serve their families,” Suzanne C. Boulter, MD, of the Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, N.H., said in an interview. “The Quick Parenting Assessment Screen was developed at Vanderbilt, is free for clinicians to use, and takes an average of 1 minute to assess,” she noted. “This poster highlights a study that was done by residents and attendings at Vanderbilt who administered the tool to caregivers attending their well child clinics.”

Dr. Boulter explained the study was important because “there is increased emphasis on the social determinants of health within the context of well child care, and discipline is one aspect of significance in the assessment of adverse childhood experiences,” she said. “The practitioners overall felt that the tool improved communication with their caregivers, which increased the quality of the visit. It was also surprising that 79% of the providers noted that the caregiver was receptive to the assessment tool,” Dr. Boulter added. 

“In general, this tool offers clinicians a quick overview of disciplinary practices in the households of their patients. It would be useful, as a next step, to expand the testing to a wider socioeconomic population of families,” she concluded.

The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Boulter had no financial conflicts to disclose, but serves on the Pediatric News Editorial Advisory Board.

A parenting assessment can add value to a clinic visit by facilitating conversations about discipline and potentially mitigating adverse childhood experiences, based on survey data from 167 health care providers.

“Some of the most modifiable adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) are unhealthy parenting behaviors,” according to Amber J. Cooke, MD, of Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., and colleagues. “Despite the widespread use of standardized health assessment tools in pediatrics, a gap in services is that parenting assessments are not routinely administered,” they said.

In a study presented at the virtual meeting of the Pediatric Academic Societies, the researchers assessed clinicians’ perspectives on the use of the Quick Parenting Assessment (QPA), a validated 13-item parent support tool designed to identify children exposed to unhealthy parenting practices such as yelling, threatening, humiliating language, and physical punishment.

The researchers surveyed clinicians about how they integrated the QPA into a 15-month or 30-month well-child visit. Clinicians were trained to review the QPA and respond to parents during the visit.

Overall, the health care providers reported that the QPA could be reviewed with parents in less than 3 minutes for more than 80% of encounters.

The QPA takes approximately 1 minute for parents or caregivers to complete. Participating clinicians underwent training to learn how to interpret and respond to the QPA, and responded to a survey based on their inclusion of it in clinical visits. Key factors measured in the survey included the time needed for the clinician to review the QPA with the parent; whether the QPA increased clinicians’ objectivity about the level of support needed for the caregivers, whether the QPA affected communications with the caregiver about parenting, and whether the QPA added value to the well-child visit.

The survey respondents included resident physicians, nurse practitioners, and attending physicians. Approximately 75% of the providers said they were able to review the QPA in 1 minute or less; approximately 24% took 1-5 minutes, and less than 1% took longer than 5 minutes.

A majority of respondents (79%) said that the parent or caregiver was receptive to the QPA, and 74% said that the QPA facilitated communications with caregivers about parenting. In addition, 61% and 60% said the QPA improved the quality and value, respectively, of the visit, and 64% of the respondents said that the QPA increased their objectivity in assessing the level of support needed by caregivers.

Responses were similar, but slightly higher, in each category when the researchers compared providers who reviewed three or more QPAs with parents to those who reviewed less than three QPAs with parents.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the use of data from a single clinic site serving primarily low-income families, which might affect the generalizability of the results, the researchers noted. A lack of data on all QPA encounters might result in a participation bias as well, they said.

However, the results support the feasibility of the QPA, and clinical implications include mitigating ACEs, preventing child abuse, and enhancing the value of the well-child visit, they said. Next steps for research include integrating the QPA into 5-year and 8-year well-child visits, they concluded.
 

Data support value of parenting assessment screening tool

“In order to be useful, a screening tool has to be validated, not add significant time to the well-child visit, and result in useful data for the clinician to more effectively serve their families,” Suzanne C. Boulter, MD, of the Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, N.H., said in an interview. “The Quick Parenting Assessment Screen was developed at Vanderbilt, is free for clinicians to use, and takes an average of 1 minute to assess,” she noted. “This poster highlights a study that was done by residents and attendings at Vanderbilt who administered the tool to caregivers attending their well child clinics.”

Dr. Boulter explained the study was important because “there is increased emphasis on the social determinants of health within the context of well child care, and discipline is one aspect of significance in the assessment of adverse childhood experiences,” she said. “The practitioners overall felt that the tool improved communication with their caregivers, which increased the quality of the visit. It was also surprising that 79% of the providers noted that the caregiver was receptive to the assessment tool,” Dr. Boulter added. 

“In general, this tool offers clinicians a quick overview of disciplinary practices in the households of their patients. It would be useful, as a next step, to expand the testing to a wider socioeconomic population of families,” she concluded.

The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Boulter had no financial conflicts to disclose, but serves on the Pediatric News Editorial Advisory Board.

A parenting assessment can add value to a clinic visit by facilitating conversations about discipline and potentially mitigating adverse childhood experiences, based on survey data from 167 health care providers.

“Some of the most modifiable adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) are unhealthy parenting behaviors,” according to Amber J. Cooke, MD, of Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., and colleagues. “Despite the widespread use of standardized health assessment tools in pediatrics, a gap in services is that parenting assessments are not routinely administered,” they said.

In a study presented at the virtual meeting of the Pediatric Academic Societies, the researchers assessed clinicians’ perspectives on the use of the Quick Parenting Assessment (QPA), a validated 13-item parent support tool designed to identify children exposed to unhealthy parenting practices such as yelling, threatening, humiliating language, and physical punishment.

The researchers surveyed clinicians about how they integrated the QPA into a 15-month or 30-month well-child visit. Clinicians were trained to review the QPA and respond to parents during the visit.

Overall, the health care providers reported that the QPA could be reviewed with parents in less than 3 minutes for more than 80% of encounters.

The QPA takes approximately 1 minute for parents or caregivers to complete. Participating clinicians underwent training to learn how to interpret and respond to the QPA, and responded to a survey based on their inclusion of it in clinical visits. Key factors measured in the survey included the time needed for the clinician to review the QPA with the parent; whether the QPA increased clinicians’ objectivity about the level of support needed for the caregivers, whether the QPA affected communications with the caregiver about parenting, and whether the QPA added value to the well-child visit.

The survey respondents included resident physicians, nurse practitioners, and attending physicians. Approximately 75% of the providers said they were able to review the QPA in 1 minute or less; approximately 24% took 1-5 minutes, and less than 1% took longer than 5 minutes.

A majority of respondents (79%) said that the parent or caregiver was receptive to the QPA, and 74% said that the QPA facilitated communications with caregivers about parenting. In addition, 61% and 60% said the QPA improved the quality and value, respectively, of the visit, and 64% of the respondents said that the QPA increased their objectivity in assessing the level of support needed by caregivers.

Responses were similar, but slightly higher, in each category when the researchers compared providers who reviewed three or more QPAs with parents to those who reviewed less than three QPAs with parents.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the use of data from a single clinic site serving primarily low-income families, which might affect the generalizability of the results, the researchers noted. A lack of data on all QPA encounters might result in a participation bias as well, they said.

However, the results support the feasibility of the QPA, and clinical implications include mitigating ACEs, preventing child abuse, and enhancing the value of the well-child visit, they said. Next steps for research include integrating the QPA into 5-year and 8-year well-child visits, they concluded.
 

Data support value of parenting assessment screening tool

“In order to be useful, a screening tool has to be validated, not add significant time to the well-child visit, and result in useful data for the clinician to more effectively serve their families,” Suzanne C. Boulter, MD, of the Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, N.H., said in an interview. “The Quick Parenting Assessment Screen was developed at Vanderbilt, is free for clinicians to use, and takes an average of 1 minute to assess,” she noted. “This poster highlights a study that was done by residents and attendings at Vanderbilt who administered the tool to caregivers attending their well child clinics.”

Dr. Boulter explained the study was important because “there is increased emphasis on the social determinants of health within the context of well child care, and discipline is one aspect of significance in the assessment of adverse childhood experiences,” she said. “The practitioners overall felt that the tool improved communication with their caregivers, which increased the quality of the visit. It was also surprising that 79% of the providers noted that the caregiver was receptive to the assessment tool,” Dr. Boulter added. 

“In general, this tool offers clinicians a quick overview of disciplinary practices in the households of their patients. It would be useful, as a next step, to expand the testing to a wider socioeconomic population of families,” she concluded.

The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Boulter had no financial conflicts to disclose, but serves on the Pediatric News Editorial Advisory Board.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services will inject billions of dollars into programs designed to address mental health and substance use disorders, including $3 billion released to states as of May 18, said federal officials.

The American Rescue Plan, a COVID-relief package signed into law in March, contained the money, which will be divided equally between the Community Mental Health Services Block Grant Program and the Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment Block Grant Program, said Tom Coderre, Acting Assistant Secretary for Mental Health and Substance Use, in a call with reporters.

The award amounts will vary by state.

The mental health program helps states and territories provide services for children with serious emotional issues and adults with serious mental illness.

The substance use program provides money to plan, implement, and evaluate prevention, intervention, treatment, and recovery services.

‘A huge step forward’

The American Psychiatric Association welcomed the new money and the return of the council.

“In the wake of the pandemic an unprecedented, and as of yet untold, number of Americans are faced with mental health and substance use disorders, particularly in communities impacted by structural racism,” said APA President Vivian Pender, MD, in a statement. “With the creation of this Council and this investment in mental health, the administration is taking a huge step forward.” 

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

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services will inject billions of dollars into programs designed to address mental health and substance use disorders, including $3 billion released to states as of May 18, said federal officials.

The American Rescue Plan, a COVID-relief package signed into law in March, contained the money, which will be divided equally between the Community Mental Health Services Block Grant Program and the Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment Block Grant Program, said Tom Coderre, Acting Assistant Secretary for Mental Health and Substance Use, in a call with reporters.

The award amounts will vary by state.

The mental health program helps states and territories provide services for children with serious emotional issues and adults with serious mental illness.

The substance use program provides money to plan, implement, and evaluate prevention, intervention, treatment, and recovery services.

‘A huge step forward’

The American Psychiatric Association welcomed the new money and the return of the council.

“In the wake of the pandemic an unprecedented, and as of yet untold, number of Americans are faced with mental health and substance use disorders, particularly in communities impacted by structural racism,” said APA President Vivian Pender, MD, in a statement. “With the creation of this Council and this investment in mental health, the administration is taking a huge step forward.” 

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

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services will inject billions of dollars into programs designed to address mental health and substance use disorders, including $3 billion released to states as of May 18, said federal officials.

The American Rescue Plan, a COVID-relief package signed into law in March, contained the money, which will be divided equally between the Community Mental Health Services Block Grant Program and the Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment Block Grant Program, said Tom Coderre, Acting Assistant Secretary for Mental Health and Substance Use, in a call with reporters.

The award amounts will vary by state.

The mental health program helps states and territories provide services for children with serious emotional issues and adults with serious mental illness.

The substance use program provides money to plan, implement, and evaluate prevention, intervention, treatment, and recovery services.

‘A huge step forward’

The American Psychiatric Association welcomed the new money and the return of the council.

“In the wake of the pandemic an unprecedented, and as of yet untold, number of Americans are faced with mental health and substance use disorders, particularly in communities impacted by structural racism,” said APA President Vivian Pender, MD, in a statement. “With the creation of this Council and this investment in mental health, the administration is taking a huge step forward.” 

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

Two widely used rotavirus vaccines performed comparably in a meta-analysis, reducing risk of rotavirus gastroenteritis (RVGE) by more than 60% in young children. While the findings evidence a high protection level and low-risk safety profile, investigators of the study called for additional head-to-head comparisons to assess risks and benefits.

RVGE, which accounts for 28.8% of all deaths from diarrhea worldwide, is the leading cause of diarrhea in children under age 5. More than 100 countries include rotavirus vaccines in their immunization programs. Among six types of vaccines currently in use, two live-attenuated oral vaccines: the two-dose monovalent Rotarix (RV1) and three-dose pentavalent RotaTeq (RV5]) are in use worldwide.

Not much is known about their interchangeability, although a previous meta-analysis reported similarities in effectiveness of Rotarix (83%), RotaTeq (85%), and Rotarix and RotaTeq mixed series (86%) in low-mortality countries. RVGE morbidity and mortality have declined since the introduction of these vaccines, but concerns persist about their safety, Zi-Wei Sun, MSc, of Nanjing (China) Medical University and colleagues wrote in JAMA Pediatrics.

Their systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials, case-control, and cohort studies compared benefit, risk, and immunogenicity of these vaccines and their effectiveness in reducing RVGE. Combing through databases Embase, PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science using search terms “rotavirus” and “vaccine,” they chose 121 randomized clinical trials and cohort and case-control studies that included more than 100 children younger than 5 years. Thirty-eight of the randomized clinical trials had related data that examined the vaccines’ protection against RVGE hospitalization, study coauthor Hemant Goyal, MD, FACP, explained in an interview.

All of the studies reported on the safety and effectiveness or immunogenicity of rotavirus vaccines. The investigators used a random-effects model to calculate relative risks, odds ratios, risk differences, and 95% confidence intervals. They also stratified studies by economic development of countries, given that vaccine efficacy is often higher in middle- and high-income countries, compared with low-income countries. An adjusted indirect treatment comparison evaluated differences in vaccine protection among different subgroups, adopting P < .05 as the level of statistical significance.

Primary outcomes included RVGE, severe RVGE, and RVGE hospitalization and safety-associated outcomes such as serious adverse events, intussusception, and mortality.

Rotarix and RotaTeq reduced RVGE in children younger than 5 years by 68.4% and 63.6%, respectively. Dr. Goyal and colleagues confirmed these results in case-control studies (65.3% and 72.8%, respectively). Both vaccines significantly reduced RVGE and RVGE hospitalization risk and demonstrated higher protection against severe RVGE. In adjusted indirect comparisons, the two vaccines showed no significant differences in protection. They also found a positive correlation between immunogenicity and vaccine protection.

“RotaTeq seems to show lower protection in low-income countries, compared with Rotarix, but these estimates should be interpreted with caution as there was only one study for low-income countries and indirect comparison," said Dr. Goyal, a second-year gastroenterology fellow at the Wright Center for Graduate Medical Education, Scranton, Penn.

None of the vaccines demonstrated risk of serious adverse events. However, an Australian study in 2013 did report a small increased risk of intussusception after RV1 and RV5 vaccination. “Therefore, continuous surveillance of the benefits and adverse effects of rotavirus vaccines is required after vaccination,” the investigators noted.

Analyzing newer, less widely distributed vaccines, Rotavac, Rotasiil, and Lanzhou lamb rotavirus vaccine also showed moderate effectiveness in reducing RVGE risk.
 

Immunity wanes over time

Protection against rotavirus diseases seems to wane over time after vaccination. “Although our results indicated that rotavirus vaccines can provide substantial protection against RVGE during the first 2 years of life, more studies following up the vaccine efficacy for more than 2 years are required,” the investigators recommended.

Declining vaccine-induced antibodies, RVGE-acquired protection from the vaccine’s indirect effects, or exposure to unvaccinated populations may explain gradual loss of immunity.

Monitoring of rotavirus strains following vaccination should take place “to avoid population-based selection of so-called escape strains, especially fully heterotypic strains and new strains, because of the long-term pressure of vaccine immunity,” they recommended.

The findings emphasize the importance of introducing vaccines worldwide to reduce infection, summarized Dr. Goyal and colleagues. Given how challenging it is to treat the wide varieties of rotavirus, “It encouraging that RV1 and RV5 work well against heterotypic strains,” they added. Similar performance between Rotarix and RotaTeq also makes it easier for clinicians to choose a vaccine.

Increasing the availability and efficacy of these vaccines in low-income countries with high mortality rates is a high priority,

David I. Bernstein, MD, MA, wrote in a related editorial: “A clear gradient in vaccine protections was noted by country income level in the analysis presented, and much effort has been spent to understand this discrepancy.”

Overall, the study confirmed the efficacy of these two vaccines and their equivalence, noted Dr. Bernstein.

The study’s literature search process had some limitations. “Especially in stratified analyses, sparse data in some subgroups limit generalizability. ... The most accurate method, head-to-head comparisons, to evaluate the comparative efficacy of different vaccines is required in further studies,” the study investigators wrote.

Such studies would directly compare Rotarix and RotaTeq from multiple perspectives: efficacy, cost-effectiveness, strain-specific protection, the duration of protection, safety, and immunogenicity, said Dr. Goyal.

*This story was updated on May 24, 2021.

Two widely used rotavirus vaccines performed comparably in a meta-analysis, reducing risk of rotavirus gastroenteritis (RVGE) by more than 60% in young children. While the findings evidence a high protection level and low-risk safety profile, investigators of the study called for additional head-to-head comparisons to assess risks and benefits.

RVGE, which accounts for 28.8% of all deaths from diarrhea worldwide, is the leading cause of diarrhea in children under age 5. More than 100 countries include rotavirus vaccines in their immunization programs. Among six types of vaccines currently in use, two live-attenuated oral vaccines: the two-dose monovalent Rotarix (RV1) and three-dose pentavalent RotaTeq (RV5]) are in use worldwide.

Not much is known about their interchangeability, although a previous meta-analysis reported similarities in effectiveness of Rotarix (83%), RotaTeq (85%), and Rotarix and RotaTeq mixed series (86%) in low-mortality countries. RVGE morbidity and mortality have declined since the introduction of these vaccines, but concerns persist about their safety, Zi-Wei Sun, MSc, of Nanjing (China) Medical University and colleagues wrote in JAMA Pediatrics.

Their systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials, case-control, and cohort studies compared benefit, risk, and immunogenicity of these vaccines and their effectiveness in reducing RVGE. Combing through databases Embase, PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science using search terms “rotavirus” and “vaccine,” they chose 121 randomized clinical trials and cohort and case-control studies that included more than 100 children younger than 5 years. Thirty-eight of the randomized clinical trials had related data that examined the vaccines’ protection against RVGE hospitalization, study coauthor Hemant Goyal, MD, FACP, explained in an interview.

All of the studies reported on the safety and effectiveness or immunogenicity of rotavirus vaccines. The investigators used a random-effects model to calculate relative risks, odds ratios, risk differences, and 95% confidence intervals. They also stratified studies by economic development of countries, given that vaccine efficacy is often higher in middle- and high-income countries, compared with low-income countries. An adjusted indirect treatment comparison evaluated differences in vaccine protection among different subgroups, adopting P < .05 as the level of statistical significance.

Primary outcomes included RVGE, severe RVGE, and RVGE hospitalization and safety-associated outcomes such as serious adverse events, intussusception, and mortality.

Rotarix and RotaTeq reduced RVGE in children younger than 5 years by 68.4% and 63.6%, respectively. Dr. Goyal and colleagues confirmed these results in case-control studies (65.3% and 72.8%, respectively). Both vaccines significantly reduced RVGE and RVGE hospitalization risk and demonstrated higher protection against severe RVGE. In adjusted indirect comparisons, the two vaccines showed no significant differences in protection. They also found a positive correlation between immunogenicity and vaccine protection.

“RotaTeq seems to show lower protection in low-income countries, compared with Rotarix, but these estimates should be interpreted with caution as there was only one study for low-income countries and indirect comparison," said Dr. Goyal, a second-year gastroenterology fellow at the Wright Center for Graduate Medical Education, Scranton, Penn.

None of the vaccines demonstrated risk of serious adverse events. However, an Australian study in 2013 did report a small increased risk of intussusception after RV1 and RV5 vaccination. “Therefore, continuous surveillance of the benefits and adverse effects of rotavirus vaccines is required after vaccination,” the investigators noted.

Analyzing newer, less widely distributed vaccines, Rotavac, Rotasiil, and Lanzhou lamb rotavirus vaccine also showed moderate effectiveness in reducing RVGE risk.
 

Immunity wanes over time

Protection against rotavirus diseases seems to wane over time after vaccination. “Although our results indicated that rotavirus vaccines can provide substantial protection against RVGE during the first 2 years of life, more studies following up the vaccine efficacy for more than 2 years are required,” the investigators recommended.

Declining vaccine-induced antibodies, RVGE-acquired protection from the vaccine’s indirect effects, or exposure to unvaccinated populations may explain gradual loss of immunity.

Monitoring of rotavirus strains following vaccination should take place “to avoid population-based selection of so-called escape strains, especially fully heterotypic strains and new strains, because of the long-term pressure of vaccine immunity,” they recommended.

The findings emphasize the importance of introducing vaccines worldwide to reduce infection, summarized Dr. Goyal and colleagues. Given how challenging it is to treat the wide varieties of rotavirus, “It encouraging that RV1 and RV5 work well against heterotypic strains,” they added. Similar performance between Rotarix and RotaTeq also makes it easier for clinicians to choose a vaccine.

Increasing the availability and efficacy of these vaccines in low-income countries with high mortality rates is a high priority,

David I. Bernstein, MD, MA, wrote in a related editorial: “A clear gradient in vaccine protections was noted by country income level in the analysis presented, and much effort has been spent to understand this discrepancy.”

Overall, the study confirmed the efficacy of these two vaccines and their equivalence, noted Dr. Bernstein.

The study’s literature search process had some limitations. “Especially in stratified analyses, sparse data in some subgroups limit generalizability. ... The most accurate method, head-to-head comparisons, to evaluate the comparative efficacy of different vaccines is required in further studies,” the study investigators wrote.

Such studies would directly compare Rotarix and RotaTeq from multiple perspectives: efficacy, cost-effectiveness, strain-specific protection, the duration of protection, safety, and immunogenicity, said Dr. Goyal.

*This story was updated on May 24, 2021.

Two widely used rotavirus vaccines performed comparably in a meta-analysis, reducing risk of rotavirus gastroenteritis (RVGE) by more than 60% in young children. While the findings evidence a high protection level and low-risk safety profile, investigators of the study called for additional head-to-head comparisons to assess risks and benefits.

RVGE, which accounts for 28.8% of all deaths from diarrhea worldwide, is the leading cause of diarrhea in children under age 5. More than 100 countries include rotavirus vaccines in their immunization programs. Among six types of vaccines currently in use, two live-attenuated oral vaccines: the two-dose monovalent Rotarix (RV1) and three-dose pentavalent RotaTeq (RV5]) are in use worldwide.

Not much is known about their interchangeability, although a previous meta-analysis reported similarities in effectiveness of Rotarix (83%), RotaTeq (85%), and Rotarix and RotaTeq mixed series (86%) in low-mortality countries. RVGE morbidity and mortality have declined since the introduction of these vaccines, but concerns persist about their safety, Zi-Wei Sun, MSc, of Nanjing (China) Medical University and colleagues wrote in JAMA Pediatrics.

Their systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials, case-control, and cohort studies compared benefit, risk, and immunogenicity of these vaccines and their effectiveness in reducing RVGE. Combing through databases Embase, PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science using search terms “rotavirus” and “vaccine,” they chose 121 randomized clinical trials and cohort and case-control studies that included more than 100 children younger than 5 years. Thirty-eight of the randomized clinical trials had related data that examined the vaccines’ protection against RVGE hospitalization, study coauthor Hemant Goyal, MD, FACP, explained in an interview.

All of the studies reported on the safety and effectiveness or immunogenicity of rotavirus vaccines. The investigators used a random-effects model to calculate relative risks, odds ratios, risk differences, and 95% confidence intervals. They also stratified studies by economic development of countries, given that vaccine efficacy is often higher in middle- and high-income countries, compared with low-income countries. An adjusted indirect treatment comparison evaluated differences in vaccine protection among different subgroups, adopting P < .05 as the level of statistical significance.

Primary outcomes included RVGE, severe RVGE, and RVGE hospitalization and safety-associated outcomes such as serious adverse events, intussusception, and mortality.

Rotarix and RotaTeq reduced RVGE in children younger than 5 years by 68.4% and 63.6%, respectively. Dr. Goyal and colleagues confirmed these results in case-control studies (65.3% and 72.8%, respectively). Both vaccines significantly reduced RVGE and RVGE hospitalization risk and demonstrated higher protection against severe RVGE. In adjusted indirect comparisons, the two vaccines showed no significant differences in protection. They also found a positive correlation between immunogenicity and vaccine protection.

“RotaTeq seems to show lower protection in low-income countries, compared with Rotarix, but these estimates should be interpreted with caution as there was only one study for low-income countries and indirect comparison," said Dr. Goyal, a second-year gastroenterology fellow at the Wright Center for Graduate Medical Education, Scranton, Penn.

None of the vaccines demonstrated risk of serious adverse events. However, an Australian study in 2013 did report a small increased risk of intussusception after RV1 and RV5 vaccination. “Therefore, continuous surveillance of the benefits and adverse effects of rotavirus vaccines is required after vaccination,” the investigators noted.

Analyzing newer, less widely distributed vaccines, Rotavac, Rotasiil, and Lanzhou lamb rotavirus vaccine also showed moderate effectiveness in reducing RVGE risk.
 

Immunity wanes over time

Protection against rotavirus diseases seems to wane over time after vaccination. “Although our results indicated that rotavirus vaccines can provide substantial protection against RVGE during the first 2 years of life, more studies following up the vaccine efficacy for more than 2 years are required,” the investigators recommended.

Declining vaccine-induced antibodies, RVGE-acquired protection from the vaccine’s indirect effects, or exposure to unvaccinated populations may explain gradual loss of immunity.

Monitoring of rotavirus strains following vaccination should take place “to avoid population-based selection of so-called escape strains, especially fully heterotypic strains and new strains, because of the long-term pressure of vaccine immunity,” they recommended.

The findings emphasize the importance of introducing vaccines worldwide to reduce infection, summarized Dr. Goyal and colleagues. Given how challenging it is to treat the wide varieties of rotavirus, “It encouraging that RV1 and RV5 work well against heterotypic strains,” they added. Similar performance between Rotarix and RotaTeq also makes it easier for clinicians to choose a vaccine.

Increasing the availability and efficacy of these vaccines in low-income countries with high mortality rates is a high priority,

David I. Bernstein, MD, MA, wrote in a related editorial: “A clear gradient in vaccine protections was noted by country income level in the analysis presented, and much effort has been spent to understand this discrepancy.”

Overall, the study confirmed the efficacy of these two vaccines and their equivalence, noted Dr. Bernstein.

The study’s literature search process had some limitations. “Especially in stratified analyses, sparse data in some subgroups limit generalizability. ... The most accurate method, head-to-head comparisons, to evaluate the comparative efficacy of different vaccines is required in further studies,” the study investigators wrote.

Such studies would directly compare Rotarix and RotaTeq from multiple perspectives: efficacy, cost-effectiveness, strain-specific protection, the duration of protection, safety, and immunogenicity, said Dr. Goyal.

*This story was updated on May 24, 2021.

Length of hospital stay and the need for intensive care for pediatric COVID-19 patients with multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children was not significantly different for those who presented first as outpatients or emergency patients, based on data from 34 children.

Multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) can be challenging to diagnose, as the key characteristics of fever, elevated inflammatory markers, and involvement of at least two organ systems often overlap with other illnesses, said Erin B. Treemarcki, DO, of the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, and colleagues.

“Primary care and urgent care providers are often the first point of health care for children with symptoms of MIS-C,” the researchers wrote. In a study (Poster 142) presented at the annual meeting of the Pediatric Academic Societies, held virtually, the researchers conducted a retrospective review of 34 patients younger than 21 years who were hospitalized with MIS-C at a single center between April 2020 and December 2020. The average age of the patients was 7.9 years, 68% were male, 82% were White, and 53% first presented to an outpatient clinic.

Sixteen patients presented to an emergency department and 18 presented to an ambulatory setting. The length of hospitalization ranged from 3 to 16 days with a median of 6 days, and the PICU stay ranged from 1 to 10 days with a median of 2 days.

Overall, the length of hospital stay and rate of PICU admission were not significantly different between the emergency presentation and outpatient presentation groups. Twenty-four patients entered the PICU, 13 at admission and 11 as transfers. However, the median number of days of symptoms prior to admission was significantly higher for outpatient cases (6 days vs. 4 days, P = .03).

One patient was readmitted to the hospital within 30 days for aseptic meningitis, and none of the patients died.

Initial symptoms were not significantly different for outpatient vs. emergency department patients. The most common initial manifestations of MIS-C included fever (100%), gastrointestinal symptoms (85%), and mucocutaneous symptoms (88%). Mucocutaneous symptoms included rash, oral mucosal changes, conjunctivitis, and hand/foot edema. In addition, 65% of the patients met at least 3 criteria for Kawasaki disease, the researchers noted.

The most common elevated labs at presentation regardless of setting were D-dimer (100%), C-reactive protein (97%), ferritin (97%), procalcitonin (97%), and serum IL-6 (94%).

The study findings were limited by the small sample size and focus on data from a single center. However, the results emphasize the varied presentations of MIS-C and the importance that both primary care and urgent care providers know the signs, as they are often the first point of health care for children with MIS-C, the researchers noted.
 

Keep looking for factors that put children at risk

“MIS-C is probably the most serious complication of COVID in children, so we as pediatricians on the front line need to know what it looks like,” Karalyn Kinsella, MD, a pediatrician in Cheshire, Conn., said in an interview.

Dr. Kinsella said she was surprised by the study finding that children’s length of hospital stay was not affected by presentation setting.

“I would have thought the kids presenting in an outpatient setting would take longer to diagnose, and therefore have a longer hospital stay,” she noted. Instead, the take-home message is that whether the MIS-C diagnosis occurs in the outpatient or emergency setting, the length of stay is the same, and that the most common symptoms are fever, gastrointestinal, mucocutaneous, and cardiac symptoms regardless of initial presentation setting, she said.

More research is needed, and future studies should examine “any potential underlying factors making these particular kids susceptible to MIS-C,” Dr. Kinsella added.

The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Kinsella had no financial conflicts, but serves on the Pediatric News Editorial Advisory Board.

Length of hospital stay and the need for intensive care for pediatric COVID-19 patients with multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children was not significantly different for those who presented first as outpatients or emergency patients, based on data from 34 children.

Multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) can be challenging to diagnose, as the key characteristics of fever, elevated inflammatory markers, and involvement of at least two organ systems often overlap with other illnesses, said Erin B. Treemarcki, DO, of the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, and colleagues.

“Primary care and urgent care providers are often the first point of health care for children with symptoms of MIS-C,” the researchers wrote. In a study (Poster 142) presented at the annual meeting of the Pediatric Academic Societies, held virtually, the researchers conducted a retrospective review of 34 patients younger than 21 years who were hospitalized with MIS-C at a single center between April 2020 and December 2020. The average age of the patients was 7.9 years, 68% were male, 82% were White, and 53% first presented to an outpatient clinic.

Sixteen patients presented to an emergency department and 18 presented to an ambulatory setting. The length of hospitalization ranged from 3 to 16 days with a median of 6 days, and the PICU stay ranged from 1 to 10 days with a median of 2 days.

Overall, the length of hospital stay and rate of PICU admission were not significantly different between the emergency presentation and outpatient presentation groups. Twenty-four patients entered the PICU, 13 at admission and 11 as transfers. However, the median number of days of symptoms prior to admission was significantly higher for outpatient cases (6 days vs. 4 days, P = .03).

One patient was readmitted to the hospital within 30 days for aseptic meningitis, and none of the patients died.

Initial symptoms were not significantly different for outpatient vs. emergency department patients. The most common initial manifestations of MIS-C included fever (100%), gastrointestinal symptoms (85%), and mucocutaneous symptoms (88%). Mucocutaneous symptoms included rash, oral mucosal changes, conjunctivitis, and hand/foot edema. In addition, 65% of the patients met at least 3 criteria for Kawasaki disease, the researchers noted.

The most common elevated labs at presentation regardless of setting were D-dimer (100%), C-reactive protein (97%), ferritin (97%), procalcitonin (97%), and serum IL-6 (94%).

The study findings were limited by the small sample size and focus on data from a single center. However, the results emphasize the varied presentations of MIS-C and the importance that both primary care and urgent care providers know the signs, as they are often the first point of health care for children with MIS-C, the researchers noted.
 

Keep looking for factors that put children at risk

“MIS-C is probably the most serious complication of COVID in children, so we as pediatricians on the front line need to know what it looks like,” Karalyn Kinsella, MD, a pediatrician in Cheshire, Conn., said in an interview.

Dr. Kinsella said she was surprised by the study finding that children’s length of hospital stay was not affected by presentation setting.

“I would have thought the kids presenting in an outpatient setting would take longer to diagnose, and therefore have a longer hospital stay,” she noted. Instead, the take-home message is that whether the MIS-C diagnosis occurs in the outpatient or emergency setting, the length of stay is the same, and that the most common symptoms are fever, gastrointestinal, mucocutaneous, and cardiac symptoms regardless of initial presentation setting, she said.

More research is needed, and future studies should examine “any potential underlying factors making these particular kids susceptible to MIS-C,” Dr. Kinsella added.

The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Kinsella had no financial conflicts, but serves on the Pediatric News Editorial Advisory Board.

Length of hospital stay and the need for intensive care for pediatric COVID-19 patients with multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children was not significantly different for those who presented first as outpatients or emergency patients, based on data from 34 children.

Multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) can be challenging to diagnose, as the key characteristics of fever, elevated inflammatory markers, and involvement of at least two organ systems often overlap with other illnesses, said Erin B. Treemarcki, DO, of the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, and colleagues.

“Primary care and urgent care providers are often the first point of health care for children with symptoms of MIS-C,” the researchers wrote. In a study (Poster 142) presented at the annual meeting of the Pediatric Academic Societies, held virtually, the researchers conducted a retrospective review of 34 patients younger than 21 years who were hospitalized with MIS-C at a single center between April 2020 and December 2020. The average age of the patients was 7.9 years, 68% were male, 82% were White, and 53% first presented to an outpatient clinic.

Sixteen patients presented to an emergency department and 18 presented to an ambulatory setting. The length of hospitalization ranged from 3 to 16 days with a median of 6 days, and the PICU stay ranged from 1 to 10 days with a median of 2 days.

Overall, the length of hospital stay and rate of PICU admission were not significantly different between the emergency presentation and outpatient presentation groups. Twenty-four patients entered the PICU, 13 at admission and 11 as transfers. However, the median number of days of symptoms prior to admission was significantly higher for outpatient cases (6 days vs. 4 days, P = .03).

One patient was readmitted to the hospital within 30 days for aseptic meningitis, and none of the patients died.

Initial symptoms were not significantly different for outpatient vs. emergency department patients. The most common initial manifestations of MIS-C included fever (100%), gastrointestinal symptoms (85%), and mucocutaneous symptoms (88%). Mucocutaneous symptoms included rash, oral mucosal changes, conjunctivitis, and hand/foot edema. In addition, 65% of the patients met at least 3 criteria for Kawasaki disease, the researchers noted.

The most common elevated labs at presentation regardless of setting were D-dimer (100%), C-reactive protein (97%), ferritin (97%), procalcitonin (97%), and serum IL-6 (94%).

The study findings were limited by the small sample size and focus on data from a single center. However, the results emphasize the varied presentations of MIS-C and the importance that both primary care and urgent care providers know the signs, as they are often the first point of health care for children with MIS-C, the researchers noted.
 

Keep looking for factors that put children at risk

“MIS-C is probably the most serious complication of COVID in children, so we as pediatricians on the front line need to know what it looks like,” Karalyn Kinsella, MD, a pediatrician in Cheshire, Conn., said in an interview.

Dr. Kinsella said she was surprised by the study finding that children’s length of hospital stay was not affected by presentation setting.

“I would have thought the kids presenting in an outpatient setting would take longer to diagnose, and therefore have a longer hospital stay,” she noted. Instead, the take-home message is that whether the MIS-C diagnosis occurs in the outpatient or emergency setting, the length of stay is the same, and that the most common symptoms are fever, gastrointestinal, mucocutaneous, and cardiac symptoms regardless of initial presentation setting, she said.

More research is needed, and future studies should examine “any potential underlying factors making these particular kids susceptible to MIS-C,” Dr. Kinsella added.

The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Kinsella had no financial conflicts, but serves on the Pediatric News Editorial Advisory Board.

No ifs, ands, or butt ventilators

Breathing, on most days, is a pretty simple task. You inhale, the oxygen goes in, fills your lungs, becomes carbon dioxide, and is exhaled. But as certain recent events have made very clear, some diseases make this task difficult, which is where ventilators come in. The issue is, some patients can’t really use ventilators.

Enter a new study from Japan, which tested the ability of mice and pigs to absorb oxygen through the rectum. Yes, breathing through the butt. It’s not actually such a far-fetched idea; several aquatic animals such as sea cucumbers and catfish absorb oxygen through their intestines, and as any drunken frat boy can tell you after a good butt chug, other chemicals can absolutely be absorbed by human intestines.

After an initial successful experiment where a group of mice had their intestines scrubbed, had pure oxygen inserted enterally, and were exposed to a hypoxic environment, the researchers decided to step up their game and avoid the exhaustive act of digestive scrubbing by enlisting the aid of something out of science fiction: perfluorocarbon. If you haven’t seen “The Abyss,” this liquid can absorb massive amounts of oxygen, so you can actually breathe it in the same way you do with air.

Robert Jones/Pixabay

Better, stronger, faster … pinker

Many people, most of whom aren’t even athletes, commit huge amounts of time, effort, and expense to improve their athletic performance. But what if there’s an easier way?

Research conducted at the University of Westminster (England) showed that participants could, with one fairly simple intervention, get on a treadmill and run 212 meters further in 30 minutes, increasing their speed by an average of 4.4%. Not only that, but “feelings of pleasure were also enhanced, meaning participants found running more enjoyable,” according to a statement from the university.

Is this amazing intervention a new wonder drug? No. Is it a super special nutritional supplement? Negatory. An energy drink that “gives you wiiings”? Nope. The latest designer steroid? Nyet.

Kristan Hutchison (Property of National Science Foundation)

Hey … I’m singing here!

Noise pollution has been linked to plenty of negative outcomes, but the latest target is the poor baby zebra finch.

Researchers at the Max Planck Institute of Ornithology in Germany say traffic noise disrupts the timing of vocal development and impairs learning in the flying finches. The noise was also shown to suppress their immune systems, because of lingering stress.

pixel2013/pixabay

Slimy soap

Remember at the beginning of the pandemic when it was almost impossible to find sufficient hand-washing supplies? Just when you thought you’d tried everything, there is soap made from snail slime.

Snail slime, surprisingly, has many beneficial properties for humans. The slime has antiaging and skin healing properties and is actually used in some Korean beauty supplies. The snails even use the slime to help fix their shells if they become damaged.

Petra Göschel/Pixabay

No ifs, ands, or butt ventilators

Breathing, on most days, is a pretty simple task. You inhale, the oxygen goes in, fills your lungs, becomes carbon dioxide, and is exhaled. But as certain recent events have made very clear, some diseases make this task difficult, which is where ventilators come in. The issue is, some patients can’t really use ventilators.

Enter a new study from Japan, which tested the ability of mice and pigs to absorb oxygen through the rectum. Yes, breathing through the butt. It’s not actually such a far-fetched idea; several aquatic animals such as sea cucumbers and catfish absorb oxygen through their intestines, and as any drunken frat boy can tell you after a good butt chug, other chemicals can absolutely be absorbed by human intestines.

After an initial successful experiment where a group of mice had their intestines scrubbed, had pure oxygen inserted enterally, and were exposed to a hypoxic environment, the researchers decided to step up their game and avoid the exhaustive act of digestive scrubbing by enlisting the aid of something out of science fiction: perfluorocarbon. If you haven’t seen “The Abyss,” this liquid can absorb massive amounts of oxygen, so you can actually breathe it in the same way you do with air.

Robert Jones/Pixabay

Better, stronger, faster … pinker

Many people, most of whom aren’t even athletes, commit huge amounts of time, effort, and expense to improve their athletic performance. But what if there’s an easier way?

Research conducted at the University of Westminster (England) showed that participants could, with one fairly simple intervention, get on a treadmill and run 212 meters further in 30 minutes, increasing their speed by an average of 4.4%. Not only that, but “feelings of pleasure were also enhanced, meaning participants found running more enjoyable,” according to a statement from the university.

Is this amazing intervention a new wonder drug? No. Is it a super special nutritional supplement? Negatory. An energy drink that “gives you wiiings”? Nope. The latest designer steroid? Nyet.

Kristan Hutchison (Property of National Science Foundation)

Hey … I’m singing here!

Noise pollution has been linked to plenty of negative outcomes, but the latest target is the poor baby zebra finch.

Researchers at the Max Planck Institute of Ornithology in Germany say traffic noise disrupts the timing of vocal development and impairs learning in the flying finches. The noise was also shown to suppress their immune systems, because of lingering stress.

pixel2013/pixabay

Slimy soap

Remember at the beginning of the pandemic when it was almost impossible to find sufficient hand-washing supplies? Just when you thought you’d tried everything, there is soap made from snail slime.

Snail slime, surprisingly, has many beneficial properties for humans. The slime has antiaging and skin healing properties and is actually used in some Korean beauty supplies. The snails even use the slime to help fix their shells if they become damaged.

Petra Göschel/Pixabay

No ifs, ands, or butt ventilators

Breathing, on most days, is a pretty simple task. You inhale, the oxygen goes in, fills your lungs, becomes carbon dioxide, and is exhaled. But as certain recent events have made very clear, some diseases make this task difficult, which is where ventilators come in. The issue is, some patients can’t really use ventilators.

Enter a new study from Japan, which tested the ability of mice and pigs to absorb oxygen through the rectum. Yes, breathing through the butt. It’s not actually such a far-fetched idea; several aquatic animals such as sea cucumbers and catfish absorb oxygen through their intestines, and as any drunken frat boy can tell you after a good butt chug, other chemicals can absolutely be absorbed by human intestines.

After an initial successful experiment where a group of mice had their intestines scrubbed, had pure oxygen inserted enterally, and were exposed to a hypoxic environment, the researchers decided to step up their game and avoid the exhaustive act of digestive scrubbing by enlisting the aid of something out of science fiction: perfluorocarbon. If you haven’t seen “The Abyss,” this liquid can absorb massive amounts of oxygen, so you can actually breathe it in the same way you do with air.

Robert Jones/Pixabay

Better, stronger, faster … pinker

Many people, most of whom aren’t even athletes, commit huge amounts of time, effort, and expense to improve their athletic performance. But what if there’s an easier way?

Research conducted at the University of Westminster (England) showed that participants could, with one fairly simple intervention, get on a treadmill and run 212 meters further in 30 minutes, increasing their speed by an average of 4.4%. Not only that, but “feelings of pleasure were also enhanced, meaning participants found running more enjoyable,” according to a statement from the university.

Is this amazing intervention a new wonder drug? No. Is it a super special nutritional supplement? Negatory. An energy drink that “gives you wiiings”? Nope. The latest designer steroid? Nyet.

Kristan Hutchison (Property of National Science Foundation)

Hey … I’m singing here!

Noise pollution has been linked to plenty of negative outcomes, but the latest target is the poor baby zebra finch.

Researchers at the Max Planck Institute of Ornithology in Germany say traffic noise disrupts the timing of vocal development and impairs learning in the flying finches. The noise was also shown to suppress their immune systems, because of lingering stress.

pixel2013/pixabay

Slimy soap

Remember at the beginning of the pandemic when it was almost impossible to find sufficient hand-washing supplies? Just when you thought you’d tried everything, there is soap made from snail slime.

Snail slime, surprisingly, has many beneficial properties for humans. The slime has antiaging and skin healing properties and is actually used in some Korean beauty supplies. The snails even use the slime to help fix their shells if they become damaged.

Petra Göschel/Pixabay

As the protective effect of the vaccines becomes increasingly apparent, a large number of school systems are beginning to return to prepandemic in-school learning. But anecdotal reports from around the country are making it clear that some children or their families are hesitant to return to the old norm of face to face learning (Goldstein D. “Schools Are Open, but Many Families Remain Hesitant to Return.” New York Times. 2021 May 9). The possible explanations for this hesitancy include a broad list that goes well beyond the obvious concern about the child contracting COVID-19.

I hear from my grandchildren that remote learning has for the most part been unpleasant and lacked the rigor of their in-class experiences. But, they admit that they have found that, in some situations, they prefer the environment at home because it is less distracting. They also acknowledge that, while they miss seeing their friends, at times the isolation has allowed them to be more efficient. Of course, their observations must be viewed in light of their personalities and the support provided by their parents. For these motivated teenagers, the bottom line is that they would prefer to be in school.

However, for the children who have always been a bit ambivalent about school either because they were anxious in social situations or because they found the academics too challenging, one can easily understand why they might prefer to remain in a less-intimidating home environment. For them, missing their friends may have little draw because they may not have had any friends. And, the negative feedback and bullying they have received at school is too overwhelming. A teenager for whom the pandemic has offered the out-of-school free time to explore her independence, feel more like an adult, and enjoy the benefits of having a job may be hesitant to return to the restrictions imposed by what she sees as the childishness of in-school learning.

Compounding the problem is the risk avoidance posture of some school systems and the hesitancy of some teachers to return to an environment that they continue to view as unsafe despite the evidence of the effectiveness of the vaccines and the minimal threat of in-school spread. It is going to be interesting to see how school administrators and politicians deal with this level of institutional hesitancy. Some schools may take what might be considered a hard-line approach and eliminate remote learning completely.

Regardless of how swiftly and thoughtfully schools return to in-class learning, a large number of children will eventually be faced with the stark reality of returning to a place in which they had felt painfully uncomfortable in the past. Pediatricians must be prepared to see this current wave of school hesitancy morph into a full-fledged tsunami of school refusals.

Successful management of a family whose child finds school too challenging emotionally has always required a combination of careful attention to the possible medical causes of the child’s complaints, consultation with a mental health practitioner, and thoughtful coordination with educators sensitive to the child’s school-generated distress.

It has never been easy to reassure the family of a child with frequent headaches or belly pain that his symptoms have no physical basis and then gently point out that the stress of school attendance may be a contributing factor. Some families who buy into the association may be fortunate enough to be able to offer their child home schooling as a solution to school refusal. But this strategy often requires that one parent remain home and has the temperament and the skills to teach.

Now that we have all seen that remote learning has the potential to work in a crisis, will some parents begin to demand it for their children with school refusal? Who will pay for it? I think you and I would prefer to see a solution that targeted therapeutic interventions aimed at getting the child back in school. But you and I also know those strategies don’t always work.

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].

As the protective effect of the vaccines becomes increasingly apparent, a large number of school systems are beginning to return to prepandemic in-school learning. But anecdotal reports from around the country are making it clear that some children or their families are hesitant to return to the old norm of face to face learning (Goldstein D. “Schools Are Open, but Many Families Remain Hesitant to Return.” New York Times. 2021 May 9). The possible explanations for this hesitancy include a broad list that goes well beyond the obvious concern about the child contracting COVID-19.

I hear from my grandchildren that remote learning has for the most part been unpleasant and lacked the rigor of their in-class experiences. But, they admit that they have found that, in some situations, they prefer the environment at home because it is less distracting. They also acknowledge that, while they miss seeing their friends, at times the isolation has allowed them to be more efficient. Of course, their observations must be viewed in light of their personalities and the support provided by their parents. For these motivated teenagers, the bottom line is that they would prefer to be in school.

However, for the children who have always been a bit ambivalent about school either because they were anxious in social situations or because they found the academics too challenging, one can easily understand why they might prefer to remain in a less-intimidating home environment. For them, missing their friends may have little draw because they may not have had any friends. And, the negative feedback and bullying they have received at school is too overwhelming. A teenager for whom the pandemic has offered the out-of-school free time to explore her independence, feel more like an adult, and enjoy the benefits of having a job may be hesitant to return to the restrictions imposed by what she sees as the childishness of in-school learning.

Compounding the problem is the risk avoidance posture of some school systems and the hesitancy of some teachers to return to an environment that they continue to view as unsafe despite the evidence of the effectiveness of the vaccines and the minimal threat of in-school spread. It is going to be interesting to see how school administrators and politicians deal with this level of institutional hesitancy. Some schools may take what might be considered a hard-line approach and eliminate remote learning completely.

Regardless of how swiftly and thoughtfully schools return to in-class learning, a large number of children will eventually be faced with the stark reality of returning to a place in which they had felt painfully uncomfortable in the past. Pediatricians must be prepared to see this current wave of school hesitancy morph into a full-fledged tsunami of school refusals.

Successful management of a family whose child finds school too challenging emotionally has always required a combination of careful attention to the possible medical causes of the child’s complaints, consultation with a mental health practitioner, and thoughtful coordination with educators sensitive to the child’s school-generated distress.

It has never been easy to reassure the family of a child with frequent headaches or belly pain that his symptoms have no physical basis and then gently point out that the stress of school attendance may be a contributing factor. Some families who buy into the association may be fortunate enough to be able to offer their child home schooling as a solution to school refusal. But this strategy often requires that one parent remain home and has the temperament and the skills to teach.

Now that we have all seen that remote learning has the potential to work in a crisis, will some parents begin to demand it for their children with school refusal? Who will pay for it? I think you and I would prefer to see a solution that targeted therapeutic interventions aimed at getting the child back in school. But you and I also know those strategies don’t always work.

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].

As the protective effect of the vaccines becomes increasingly apparent, a large number of school systems are beginning to return to prepandemic in-school learning. But anecdotal reports from around the country are making it clear that some children or their families are hesitant to return to the old norm of face to face learning (Goldstein D. “Schools Are Open, but Many Families Remain Hesitant to Return.” New York Times. 2021 May 9). The possible explanations for this hesitancy include a broad list that goes well beyond the obvious concern about the child contracting COVID-19.

I hear from my grandchildren that remote learning has for the most part been unpleasant and lacked the rigor of their in-class experiences. But, they admit that they have found that, in some situations, they prefer the environment at home because it is less distracting. They also acknowledge that, while they miss seeing their friends, at times the isolation has allowed them to be more efficient. Of course, their observations must be viewed in light of their personalities and the support provided by their parents. For these motivated teenagers, the bottom line is that they would prefer to be in school.

However, for the children who have always been a bit ambivalent about school either because they were anxious in social situations or because they found the academics too challenging, one can easily understand why they might prefer to remain in a less-intimidating home environment. For them, missing their friends may have little draw because they may not have had any friends. And, the negative feedback and bullying they have received at school is too overwhelming. A teenager for whom the pandemic has offered the out-of-school free time to explore her independence, feel more like an adult, and enjoy the benefits of having a job may be hesitant to return to the restrictions imposed by what she sees as the childishness of in-school learning.

Compounding the problem is the risk avoidance posture of some school systems and the hesitancy of some teachers to return to an environment that they continue to view as unsafe despite the evidence of the effectiveness of the vaccines and the minimal threat of in-school spread. It is going to be interesting to see how school administrators and politicians deal with this level of institutional hesitancy. Some schools may take what might be considered a hard-line approach and eliminate remote learning completely.

Regardless of how swiftly and thoughtfully schools return to in-class learning, a large number of children will eventually be faced with the stark reality of returning to a place in which they had felt painfully uncomfortable in the past. Pediatricians must be prepared to see this current wave of school hesitancy morph into a full-fledged tsunami of school refusals.

Successful management of a family whose child finds school too challenging emotionally has always required a combination of careful attention to the possible medical causes of the child’s complaints, consultation with a mental health practitioner, and thoughtful coordination with educators sensitive to the child’s school-generated distress.

It has never been easy to reassure the family of a child with frequent headaches or belly pain that his symptoms have no physical basis and then gently point out that the stress of school attendance may be a contributing factor. Some families who buy into the association may be fortunate enough to be able to offer their child home schooling as a solution to school refusal. But this strategy often requires that one parent remain home and has the temperament and the skills to teach.

Now that we have all seen that remote learning has the potential to work in a crisis, will some parents begin to demand it for their children with school refusal? Who will pay for it? I think you and I would prefer to see a solution that targeted therapeutic interventions aimed at getting the child back in school. But you and I also know those strategies don’t always work.

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].

Mothers with a history of COVID-19 exposure during pregnancy are not likely to transmit the infection to their newborns, based on data from more than 2,000 women.

“Uncertainty at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic led to varying postnatal care recommendations for newborns exposed to SARS-CoV-2 in utero,” said Margaret H. Kyle, of Columbia University, New York, and colleagues.

The Columbia University Irving Medical Center, an early epicenter of the pandemic, allowed rooming-in and encouraged direct breastfeeding between infected mothers and their newborns while adopting extensive safety measures, the researchers said.

In a study presented at the virtual meeting of the Pediatric Academic Societies (Poster 141), the researchers conducted a retrospective chart review of all newborns born at the medical center from March 22, 2020, through August 7, 2020. The study was part of Columbia University’s ongoing COVID-19 Mother Baby Outcomes (COMBO) initiative to “describe the health and well-being of mother-infant dyads with and without prenatal SARS-CoV-2 infections,” according to the researchers.

During the study period, the researchers identified newborns of 327 women who tested positive for COVID-19 at any point during pregnancy and compared them to newborns of 2,125 unexposed women. Demographics were similar between the groups.

Overall, the total test positivity was 0.7% for exposed newborns; 1.0% tested positive on an initial test, and 0% were positive on retest. During the newborn hospital stay and a 2-week follow-up, 0% of all newborns showed clinical evidence of infection.

No significant differences were noted between exposed and unexposed newborns in clinical outcomes including gestational age, mode of delivery, 5-minute Apgar score, heart rate, respiratory rate, or temperature. Although more infants of COVID-19–exposed mothers compared with unexposed mothers had an emergency department visit within the first 14 days of life (6% vs. 3%, P = .002), none of the infants was diagnosed with COVID-19 during these visits. Cough, fever, congestion, or bilirubin were more frequent reasons for emergency department visits in the exposed infants compared with unexposed infants, but these differences were not significant.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the retrospective design and the limited follow-up period to only the first 2 weeks of life, the researchers noted. In addition, perinatal transmission rates were available only for the 202 newborns who were followed up in the hospital system, they said. However, the results suggest that the risk of mother-to-newborn vertical transmission of COVID-19 remains low, even when mothers are breastfeeding and infants are rooming in, they concluded.
 

Study supports safety of rooming in

The study is important because of the value of mother and infant bonding, Karalyn Kinsella, MD, a pediatrician in Cheshire, Conn., said in an interview. “We know maternal and infant bonding and breastfeeding are extremely important in the first few days of life,” she said. “Initially, COVID-positive moms were separated from their babies during this important time.” Dr. Kinsella said she was not surprised by the study findings, as they reflect other research that newborns have not been getting infected with COVID-19 from their mothers.

Consequently, the take-home message is that newborns can room in with their mothers in the hospital setting, and they are at low risk for COVID-19 regardless of the mother’s exposure history, said Dr. Kinsella. Looking ahead, future areas of research could include examining SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in newborns, she noted.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Kinsella had no financial conflicts to disclose, but serves on the Pediatric News Editorial Advisory Board.

Mothers with a history of COVID-19 exposure during pregnancy are not likely to transmit the infection to their newborns, based on data from more than 2,000 women.

“Uncertainty at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic led to varying postnatal care recommendations for newborns exposed to SARS-CoV-2 in utero,” said Margaret H. Kyle, of Columbia University, New York, and colleagues.

The Columbia University Irving Medical Center, an early epicenter of the pandemic, allowed rooming-in and encouraged direct breastfeeding between infected mothers and their newborns while adopting extensive safety measures, the researchers said.

In a study presented at the virtual meeting of the Pediatric Academic Societies (Poster 141), the researchers conducted a retrospective chart review of all newborns born at the medical center from March 22, 2020, through August 7, 2020. The study was part of Columbia University’s ongoing COVID-19 Mother Baby Outcomes (COMBO) initiative to “describe the health and well-being of mother-infant dyads with and without prenatal SARS-CoV-2 infections,” according to the researchers.

During the study period, the researchers identified newborns of 327 women who tested positive for COVID-19 at any point during pregnancy and compared them to newborns of 2,125 unexposed women. Demographics were similar between the groups.

Overall, the total test positivity was 0.7% for exposed newborns; 1.0% tested positive on an initial test, and 0% were positive on retest. During the newborn hospital stay and a 2-week follow-up, 0% of all newborns showed clinical evidence of infection.

No significant differences were noted between exposed and unexposed newborns in clinical outcomes including gestational age, mode of delivery, 5-minute Apgar score, heart rate, respiratory rate, or temperature. Although more infants of COVID-19–exposed mothers compared with unexposed mothers had an emergency department visit within the first 14 days of life (6% vs. 3%, P = .002), none of the infants was diagnosed with COVID-19 during these visits. Cough, fever, congestion, or bilirubin were more frequent reasons for emergency department visits in the exposed infants compared with unexposed infants, but these differences were not significant.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the retrospective design and the limited follow-up period to only the first 2 weeks of life, the researchers noted. In addition, perinatal transmission rates were available only for the 202 newborns who were followed up in the hospital system, they said. However, the results suggest that the risk of mother-to-newborn vertical transmission of COVID-19 remains low, even when mothers are breastfeeding and infants are rooming in, they concluded.
 

Study supports safety of rooming in

The study is important because of the value of mother and infant bonding, Karalyn Kinsella, MD, a pediatrician in Cheshire, Conn., said in an interview. “We know maternal and infant bonding and breastfeeding are extremely important in the first few days of life,” she said. “Initially, COVID-positive moms were separated from their babies during this important time.” Dr. Kinsella said she was not surprised by the study findings, as they reflect other research that newborns have not been getting infected with COVID-19 from their mothers.

Consequently, the take-home message is that newborns can room in with their mothers in the hospital setting, and they are at low risk for COVID-19 regardless of the mother’s exposure history, said Dr. Kinsella. Looking ahead, future areas of research could include examining SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in newborns, she noted.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Kinsella had no financial conflicts to disclose, but serves on the Pediatric News Editorial Advisory Board.

Mothers with a history of COVID-19 exposure during pregnancy are not likely to transmit the infection to their newborns, based on data from more than 2,000 women.

“Uncertainty at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic led to varying postnatal care recommendations for newborns exposed to SARS-CoV-2 in utero,” said Margaret H. Kyle, of Columbia University, New York, and colleagues.

The Columbia University Irving Medical Center, an early epicenter of the pandemic, allowed rooming-in and encouraged direct breastfeeding between infected mothers and their newborns while adopting extensive safety measures, the researchers said.

In a study presented at the virtual meeting of the Pediatric Academic Societies (Poster 141), the researchers conducted a retrospective chart review of all newborns born at the medical center from March 22, 2020, through August 7, 2020. The study was part of Columbia University’s ongoing COVID-19 Mother Baby Outcomes (COMBO) initiative to “describe the health and well-being of mother-infant dyads with and without prenatal SARS-CoV-2 infections,” according to the researchers.

During the study period, the researchers identified newborns of 327 women who tested positive for COVID-19 at any point during pregnancy and compared them to newborns of 2,125 unexposed women. Demographics were similar between the groups.

Overall, the total test positivity was 0.7% for exposed newborns; 1.0% tested positive on an initial test, and 0% were positive on retest. During the newborn hospital stay and a 2-week follow-up, 0% of all newborns showed clinical evidence of infection.

No significant differences were noted between exposed and unexposed newborns in clinical outcomes including gestational age, mode of delivery, 5-minute Apgar score, heart rate, respiratory rate, or temperature. Although more infants of COVID-19–exposed mothers compared with unexposed mothers had an emergency department visit within the first 14 days of life (6% vs. 3%, P = .002), none of the infants was diagnosed with COVID-19 during these visits. Cough, fever, congestion, or bilirubin were more frequent reasons for emergency department visits in the exposed infants compared with unexposed infants, but these differences were not significant.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the retrospective design and the limited follow-up period to only the first 2 weeks of life, the researchers noted. In addition, perinatal transmission rates were available only for the 202 newborns who were followed up in the hospital system, they said. However, the results suggest that the risk of mother-to-newborn vertical transmission of COVID-19 remains low, even when mothers are breastfeeding and infants are rooming in, they concluded.
 

Study supports safety of rooming in

The study is important because of the value of mother and infant bonding, Karalyn Kinsella, MD, a pediatrician in Cheshire, Conn., said in an interview. “We know maternal and infant bonding and breastfeeding are extremely important in the first few days of life,” she said. “Initially, COVID-positive moms were separated from their babies during this important time.” Dr. Kinsella said she was not surprised by the study findings, as they reflect other research that newborns have not been getting infected with COVID-19 from their mothers.

Consequently, the take-home message is that newborns can room in with their mothers in the hospital setting, and they are at low risk for COVID-19 regardless of the mother’s exposure history, said Dr. Kinsella. Looking ahead, future areas of research could include examining SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in newborns, she noted.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Kinsella had no financial conflicts to disclose, but serves on the Pediatric News Editorial Advisory Board.

Even in the age of intensive therapy and extensive risk stratification, there are small but significant differences in outcomes between boys and girls with B-lineage acute lymphoblastic leukemia (B-ALL).

This finding comes from a review of 10 years of clinical trials by the Children’s Oncology Group (COG), which showed that, among patients with B-ALL, 5-year event-free survival (EFS) and overall survival (OS) were inferior with boys, compared with girls, even when adjusted for prognostic factors, reported Sumit Gupta, MD, PhD, FRCPC, from the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto.

“Inferior outcomes, although small in absolute terms, continue to exist among boys versus girls despite modern therapy and after adjusting for other risk factors. These persist also despite the longer duration of therapy among boys,” he said in an oral abstract presentation during the annual meeting of the American Society of Pediatric Hematology/Oncology. (Abstract 2025).

Among pediatric patients with T-cell lineage ALL (T-ALL), however, there were no significant sex-based differences in either EFS or OS, he said.

Although survival for children with ALL has continued to improve, previous studies found inferior survival outcomes in boys, and suggested that the difference might be explained by imbalances in risk factors.

To see whether sex-based disparities persist with modern intensive therapy protocols after adjustment for risk factors, and to determine whether there are sex-based differences in toxicities or patterns of treatment failure, Dr. Gupta and colleagues created a cohort of all patients age 1-30 years enrolled in frontline COG trial for B-ALL and T-ALL from 2004 to 2014.

During this period, boys received an extra year of maintenance. Cranial radiation was limited to B-ALL patients with slow treatment responses and central nervous system status 3, signifying definite CNS involvement. Among patients with T-ALL, cranial radiation was given to all intermediate- and high-risk patients.
 

Sex differences small, but significant

The investigators identified a total of 8,202 patients (4,463 males and 3,739 females) with B-ALL, and 1,562 (1,161 males and 401 females) with T-ALL. Boys were likely to be older (P < .0001), and to have a small but significantly greater likelihood of having unfavorable B-ALL cytogenetics, compared with girls (P = .05).

Boys with B-ALL were less likely to be negative for minimal residual disease (76.1% vs. 78.1%, P = .04), but the opposite was true for those with T-ALL (59% vs. 56.8%, P = .01).

As noted before, among pediatric patients with B-ALL, EFS and OS were both inferior for males, with a hazard ratio for higher EFS rates in girls of 1.19 (P = .001) and a HR for OS of 1.17 (P = .046).

Both EFS and OS were similar between the sexes among patients with T-ALL.

The differences in EFS in patients with B-ALL was attributable to higher CNS relapses among boys (4.2% vs. 2.5%, P < .0001). The CNS relapses occurred at a median of 2.5 years in boys versus 2.1 years in girls, although most relapses occurred during therapy.

There were no differences in cumulative isolated bone marrow relapses, however.

Treatment-related mortality rates were the same, but osteonecrosis rates were significantly lower for boys, with a 5-year cumulative incidence of 5.2% versus 6.7% for girls (P = .001).
 

Possible explanations

Dr. Gupta noted that the inferior outcomes among boys may be attributable to extramedullary relapses among patients with B-ALL.

In addition, the lack of sex-based differences in T-ALL may be caused in part by the increased use of CNS radiation in this population. Previous studies in which CNS radiation was omitted showed an increase in CNS relapsed rates among boys but not girls, he pointed out.

“This does imply that in the more recent generation of T-lineage ALL treatment trials that we’ll need to monitor sex-based differences in outcome, as fewer and fewer patients with T-ALL disease received cranial radiation in these more recent trials and in contemporary therapy,” he said.

One possible mechanism for sex-based outcome differences might be differences in steroid metabolism, as suggested by the higher osteonecrosis rate among girls, he added.

In the question-and-answer following the presentation, William G. Woods, MD, from Emory University, Atlanta, asked what role testicular relapse played in outcomes.

Dr. Gupta replied that the investigators had considered that the excess risk for extramedullary relapse in boys might be accounted for by testicular relapse, but “when you take away testicular relapse from those numbers and really just concentrate on CNS, it’s still that substantial difference when you’re talking about B-lineage disease.”

In patients with T-ALL as well, CNS relapse was more common in boys after controlling for testicular relapse, he said.

Another audience member asked whether the data suggest a benefit to treating boys with CNS-penetrating drugs such as dexamethasone or high-dose methotrexate,

Dr. Gupta said that it’s still uncertain whether it is clinically sound to subject a boy with otherwise–standard-risk disease to more intensive high-risk therapy, given the relatively small absolute differences in outcomes between the sexes.

The study was supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute and the St. Baldrick’s Foundation. Dr. Gupta, Dr. Woods, and Dr. Meret had no relevant conflicts of interest to report.

Even in the age of intensive therapy and extensive risk stratification, there are small but significant differences in outcomes between boys and girls with B-lineage acute lymphoblastic leukemia (B-ALL).

This finding comes from a review of 10 years of clinical trials by the Children’s Oncology Group (COG), which showed that, among patients with B-ALL, 5-year event-free survival (EFS) and overall survival (OS) were inferior with boys, compared with girls, even when adjusted for prognostic factors, reported Sumit Gupta, MD, PhD, FRCPC, from the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto.

“Inferior outcomes, although small in absolute terms, continue to exist among boys versus girls despite modern therapy and after adjusting for other risk factors. These persist also despite the longer duration of therapy among boys,” he said in an oral abstract presentation during the annual meeting of the American Society of Pediatric Hematology/Oncology. (Abstract 2025).

Among pediatric patients with T-cell lineage ALL (T-ALL), however, there were no significant sex-based differences in either EFS or OS, he said.

Although survival for children with ALL has continued to improve, previous studies found inferior survival outcomes in boys, and suggested that the difference might be explained by imbalances in risk factors.

To see whether sex-based disparities persist with modern intensive therapy protocols after adjustment for risk factors, and to determine whether there are sex-based differences in toxicities or patterns of treatment failure, Dr. Gupta and colleagues created a cohort of all patients age 1-30 years enrolled in frontline COG trial for B-ALL and T-ALL from 2004 to 2014.

During this period, boys received an extra year of maintenance. Cranial radiation was limited to B-ALL patients with slow treatment responses and central nervous system status 3, signifying definite CNS involvement. Among patients with T-ALL, cranial radiation was given to all intermediate- and high-risk patients.
 

Sex differences small, but significant

The investigators identified a total of 8,202 patients (4,463 males and 3,739 females) with B-ALL, and 1,562 (1,161 males and 401 females) with T-ALL. Boys were likely to be older (P < .0001), and to have a small but significantly greater likelihood of having unfavorable B-ALL cytogenetics, compared with girls (P = .05).

Boys with B-ALL were less likely to be negative for minimal residual disease (76.1% vs. 78.1%, P = .04), but the opposite was true for those with T-ALL (59% vs. 56.8%, P = .01).

As noted before, among pediatric patients with B-ALL, EFS and OS were both inferior for males, with a hazard ratio for higher EFS rates in girls of 1.19 (P = .001) and a HR for OS of 1.17 (P = .046).

Both EFS and OS were similar between the sexes among patients with T-ALL.

The differences in EFS in patients with B-ALL was attributable to higher CNS relapses among boys (4.2% vs. 2.5%, P < .0001). The CNS relapses occurred at a median of 2.5 years in boys versus 2.1 years in girls, although most relapses occurred during therapy.

There were no differences in cumulative isolated bone marrow relapses, however.

Treatment-related mortality rates were the same, but osteonecrosis rates were significantly lower for boys, with a 5-year cumulative incidence of 5.2% versus 6.7% for girls (P = .001).
 

Possible explanations

Dr. Gupta noted that the inferior outcomes among boys may be attributable to extramedullary relapses among patients with B-ALL.

In addition, the lack of sex-based differences in T-ALL may be caused in part by the increased use of CNS radiation in this population. Previous studies in which CNS radiation was omitted showed an increase in CNS relapsed rates among boys but not girls, he pointed out.

“This does imply that in the more recent generation of T-lineage ALL treatment trials that we’ll need to monitor sex-based differences in outcome, as fewer and fewer patients with T-ALL disease received cranial radiation in these more recent trials and in contemporary therapy,” he said.

One possible mechanism for sex-based outcome differences might be differences in steroid metabolism, as suggested by the higher osteonecrosis rate among girls, he added.

In the question-and-answer following the presentation, William G. Woods, MD, from Emory University, Atlanta, asked what role testicular relapse played in outcomes.

Dr. Gupta replied that the investigators had considered that the excess risk for extramedullary relapse in boys might be accounted for by testicular relapse, but “when you take away testicular relapse from those numbers and really just concentrate on CNS, it’s still that substantial difference when you’re talking about B-lineage disease.”

In patients with T-ALL as well, CNS relapse was more common in boys after controlling for testicular relapse, he said.

Another audience member asked whether the data suggest a benefit to treating boys with CNS-penetrating drugs such as dexamethasone or high-dose methotrexate,

Dr. Gupta said that it’s still uncertain whether it is clinically sound to subject a boy with otherwise–standard-risk disease to more intensive high-risk therapy, given the relatively small absolute differences in outcomes between the sexes.

The study was supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute and the St. Baldrick’s Foundation. Dr. Gupta, Dr. Woods, and Dr. Meret had no relevant conflicts of interest to report.

Even in the age of intensive therapy and extensive risk stratification, there are small but significant differences in outcomes between boys and girls with B-lineage acute lymphoblastic leukemia (B-ALL).

This finding comes from a review of 10 years of clinical trials by the Children’s Oncology Group (COG), which showed that, among patients with B-ALL, 5-year event-free survival (EFS) and overall survival (OS) were inferior with boys, compared with girls, even when adjusted for prognostic factors, reported Sumit Gupta, MD, PhD, FRCPC, from the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto.

“Inferior outcomes, although small in absolute terms, continue to exist among boys versus girls despite modern therapy and after adjusting for other risk factors. These persist also despite the longer duration of therapy among boys,” he said in an oral abstract presentation during the annual meeting of the American Society of Pediatric Hematology/Oncology. (Abstract 2025).

Among pediatric patients with T-cell lineage ALL (T-ALL), however, there were no significant sex-based differences in either EFS or OS, he said.

Although survival for children with ALL has continued to improve, previous studies found inferior survival outcomes in boys, and suggested that the difference might be explained by imbalances in risk factors.

To see whether sex-based disparities persist with modern intensive therapy protocols after adjustment for risk factors, and to determine whether there are sex-based differences in toxicities or patterns of treatment failure, Dr. Gupta and colleagues created a cohort of all patients age 1-30 years enrolled in frontline COG trial for B-ALL and T-ALL from 2004 to 2014.

During this period, boys received an extra year of maintenance. Cranial radiation was limited to B-ALL patients with slow treatment responses and central nervous system status 3, signifying definite CNS involvement. Among patients with T-ALL, cranial radiation was given to all intermediate- and high-risk patients.
 

Sex differences small, but significant

The investigators identified a total of 8,202 patients (4,463 males and 3,739 females) with B-ALL, and 1,562 (1,161 males and 401 females) with T-ALL. Boys were likely to be older (P < .0001), and to have a small but significantly greater likelihood of having unfavorable B-ALL cytogenetics, compared with girls (P = .05).

Boys with B-ALL were less likely to be negative for minimal residual disease (76.1% vs. 78.1%, P = .04), but the opposite was true for those with T-ALL (59% vs. 56.8%, P = .01).

As noted before, among pediatric patients with B-ALL, EFS and OS were both inferior for males, with a hazard ratio for higher EFS rates in girls of 1.19 (P = .001) and a HR for OS of 1.17 (P = .046).

Both EFS and OS were similar between the sexes among patients with T-ALL.

The differences in EFS in patients with B-ALL was attributable to higher CNS relapses among boys (4.2% vs. 2.5%, P < .0001). The CNS relapses occurred at a median of 2.5 years in boys versus 2.1 years in girls, although most relapses occurred during therapy.

There were no differences in cumulative isolated bone marrow relapses, however.

Treatment-related mortality rates were the same, but osteonecrosis rates were significantly lower for boys, with a 5-year cumulative incidence of 5.2% versus 6.7% for girls (P = .001).
 

Possible explanations

Dr. Gupta noted that the inferior outcomes among boys may be attributable to extramedullary relapses among patients with B-ALL.

In addition, the lack of sex-based differences in T-ALL may be caused in part by the increased use of CNS radiation in this population. Previous studies in which CNS radiation was omitted showed an increase in CNS relapsed rates among boys but not girls, he pointed out.

“This does imply that in the more recent generation of T-lineage ALL treatment trials that we’ll need to monitor sex-based differences in outcome, as fewer and fewer patients with T-ALL disease received cranial radiation in these more recent trials and in contemporary therapy,” he said.

One possible mechanism for sex-based outcome differences might be differences in steroid metabolism, as suggested by the higher osteonecrosis rate among girls, he added.

In the question-and-answer following the presentation, William G. Woods, MD, from Emory University, Atlanta, asked what role testicular relapse played in outcomes.

Dr. Gupta replied that the investigators had considered that the excess risk for extramedullary relapse in boys might be accounted for by testicular relapse, but “when you take away testicular relapse from those numbers and really just concentrate on CNS, it’s still that substantial difference when you’re talking about B-lineage disease.”

In patients with T-ALL as well, CNS relapse was more common in boys after controlling for testicular relapse, he said.

Another audience member asked whether the data suggest a benefit to treating boys with CNS-penetrating drugs such as dexamethasone or high-dose methotrexate,

Dr. Gupta said that it’s still uncertain whether it is clinically sound to subject a boy with otherwise–standard-risk disease to more intensive high-risk therapy, given the relatively small absolute differences in outcomes between the sexes.

The study was supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute and the St. Baldrick’s Foundation. Dr. Gupta, Dr. Woods, and Dr. Meret had no relevant conflicts of interest to report.

As has been dominating the headlines, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recently released updated public health guidance for those who are fully vaccinated against COVID-19. This guidance was issued on May 13, 2021, and has potentially provided some relief to those who are fully vaccinated, though some are concerned and confused about the implications of this guidance.

This new guidance applies to those who are fully vaccinated as indicated by 2 weeks after the second dose in a 2-dose series or 2 weeks after a single-dose vaccine. Those who meet these criteria no longer need to wear a mask or physically distance themselves from others in both indoor and outdoor settings. For those not fully vaccinated, masking and social distancing should continue to be practiced.

The new guidance indicates that quarantine after a known exposure is no longer necessary.

Unless required by local, state, or territorial health authorities, testing is no longer required following domestic travel for fully vaccinated individuals. A negative test is still required prior to boarding an international flight to the United States and testing 3-5 days after arrival is still recommended. Self-quarantine is no longer required after international travel for fully vaccinated individuals.

The new guidance recommends that individuals who are fully vaccinated not participate in routine screening programs when feasible. Finally, if an individual has tested positive for COVID-19, regardless of vaccination status, that person should isolate and not visit public or private settings for a minimum of ten days.¹

Updated guidance for health care facilities

In addition to changes for the general public in all settings, the CDC updated guidance for health care facilities on April 27, 2021. These updated guidelines allow for communal dining and visitation for fully vaccinated patients and their visitors. The guidelines indicate that fully vaccinated health care personnel (HCP) do not require quarantine after exposure to patients who have tested positive for COVID-19 as long as the HCP remains asymptomatic. They should, however, continue to utilize personal protective equipment as previously recommended. HCPs are able to be in break and meeting rooms unmasked if all HCPs are vaccinated.²

There are some important caveats to these updated guidelines. They do not apply to those who have immunocompromising conditions, including those using immunosuppressant agents. They also do not apply to locations subject to federal, state, local, tribal, or territorial laws, rules, and regulations, including local business and workplace guidance.

Those who work or reside in correction or detention facilities and homeless shelters are also still required to test after known exposures. Masking is still required by all travelers on all forms of public transportation into and within the United States.

Most importantly, the guidelines apply only to those who are fully vaccinated. Finally, no vaccine is perfect. As such, anyone who experiences symptoms indicative of COVID-19, regardless of vaccination status, should obtain viral testing and isolate themselves from others.^1,2

Pros and cons to new guidance

Both sets of updated guidelines are a great example of public health guidance that is changing as the evidence is gathered and changes. This guidance is also a welcome encouragement that the vaccines are effective at decreasing transmission of this virus that has upended our world.

These guidelines leave room for change as evidence is gathered on emerging novel variants. There are, however, a few remaining concerns.

My first concern is for those who are not yet able to be vaccinated, including children under the age of 12. For families with members who are not fully vaccinated, they may have first heard the headlines of “you do not have to mask” to then read the fine print that remains. When truly following these guidelines, many social situations in both the public and private setting should still include both masking and social distancing.

There is no clarity on how these guidelines are enforced. Within the guidance, it is clear that individuals’ privacy is of utmost importance. In the absence of knowledge, that means that the assumption should be that all are not yet vaccinated. Unless there is a way to reliably demonstrate vaccination status, it would likely still be safer to assume that there are individuals who are not fully vaccinated within the setting.

Finally, although this is great news surrounding the efficacy of the vaccine, some are concerned that local mask mandates that have already started to be lifted will be completely removed. As there is still a large portion of the population not yet fully vaccinated, it seems premature for local, state, and territorial authorities to lift these mandates.
 

How to continue exercising caution

With the outstanding concerns, I will continue to mask in settings, particularly indoors, where I do not definitely know that everyone is vaccinated. I will continue to do this to protect my children and my patients who are not yet vaccinated, and my patients who are immunosuppressed for whom we do not yet have enough information.

I will continue to advise my patients to be thoughtful about the risk for themselves and their families as well.

There has been more benefit to these public health measures then just decreased transmission of COVID-19. I hope that this year has reinforced within us the benefits of masking and self-isolation in the cases of any contagious illnesses.

Although I am looking forward to the opportunities to interact in person with more colleagues and friends, I think we should continue to do this with caution and thoughtfulness. We must be prepared for the possibility of vaccines having decreased efficacy against novel variants as well as eventually the possibility of waning immunity. If these should occur, we need to be prepared for additional recommendation changes and tightening of restrictions.
 

Dr. Wheat is a family physician at Erie Family Health Center in Chicago. She is program director of Northwestern’s McGaw Family Medicine residency program at Humboldt Park, Chicago. Dr. Wheat serves on the editorial advisory board of Family Practice News. You can contact her at [email protected].

References

1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Interim Public Health Recommendations for Fully Vaccinated People. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, May 13, 2021.

2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Updated Healthcare Infection Prevention and Control Recommendations in Response to COVID-19 Vaccination. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, April 27, 2021.

As has been dominating the headlines, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recently released updated public health guidance for those who are fully vaccinated against COVID-19. This guidance was issued on May 13, 2021, and has potentially provided some relief to those who are fully vaccinated, though some are concerned and confused about the implications of this guidance.

This new guidance applies to those who are fully vaccinated as indicated by 2 weeks after the second dose in a 2-dose series or 2 weeks after a single-dose vaccine. Those who meet these criteria no longer need to wear a mask or physically distance themselves from others in both indoor and outdoor settings. For those not fully vaccinated, masking and social distancing should continue to be practiced.

The new guidance indicates that quarantine after a known exposure is no longer necessary.

Unless required by local, state, or territorial health authorities, testing is no longer required following domestic travel for fully vaccinated individuals. A negative test is still required prior to boarding an international flight to the United States and testing 3-5 days after arrival is still recommended. Self-quarantine is no longer required after international travel for fully vaccinated individuals.

The new guidance recommends that individuals who are fully vaccinated not participate in routine screening programs when feasible. Finally, if an individual has tested positive for COVID-19, regardless of vaccination status, that person should isolate and not visit public or private settings for a minimum of ten days.¹

Updated guidance for health care facilities

In addition to changes for the general public in all settings, the CDC updated guidance for health care facilities on April 27, 2021. These updated guidelines allow for communal dining and visitation for fully vaccinated patients and their visitors. The guidelines indicate that fully vaccinated health care personnel (HCP) do not require quarantine after exposure to patients who have tested positive for COVID-19 as long as the HCP remains asymptomatic. They should, however, continue to utilize personal protective equipment as previously recommended. HCPs are able to be in break and meeting rooms unmasked if all HCPs are vaccinated.²

There are some important caveats to these updated guidelines. They do not apply to those who have immunocompromising conditions, including those using immunosuppressant agents. They also do not apply to locations subject to federal, state, local, tribal, or territorial laws, rules, and regulations, including local business and workplace guidance.

Those who work or reside in correction or detention facilities and homeless shelters are also still required to test after known exposures. Masking is still required by all travelers on all forms of public transportation into and within the United States.

Most importantly, the guidelines apply only to those who are fully vaccinated. Finally, no vaccine is perfect. As such, anyone who experiences symptoms indicative of COVID-19, regardless of vaccination status, should obtain viral testing and isolate themselves from others.^1,2

Pros and cons to new guidance

Both sets of updated guidelines are a great example of public health guidance that is changing as the evidence is gathered and changes. This guidance is also a welcome encouragement that the vaccines are effective at decreasing transmission of this virus that has upended our world.

These guidelines leave room for change as evidence is gathered on emerging novel variants. There are, however, a few remaining concerns.

My first concern is for those who are not yet able to be vaccinated, including children under the age of 12. For families with members who are not fully vaccinated, they may have first heard the headlines of “you do not have to mask” to then read the fine print that remains. When truly following these guidelines, many social situations in both the public and private setting should still include both masking and social distancing.

There is no clarity on how these guidelines are enforced. Within the guidance, it is clear that individuals’ privacy is of utmost importance. In the absence of knowledge, that means that the assumption should be that all are not yet vaccinated. Unless there is a way to reliably demonstrate vaccination status, it would likely still be safer to assume that there are individuals who are not fully vaccinated within the setting.

Finally, although this is great news surrounding the efficacy of the vaccine, some are concerned that local mask mandates that have already started to be lifted will be completely removed. As there is still a large portion of the population not yet fully vaccinated, it seems premature for local, state, and territorial authorities to lift these mandates.
 

How to continue exercising caution

With the outstanding concerns, I will continue to mask in settings, particularly indoors, where I do not definitely know that everyone is vaccinated. I will continue to do this to protect my children and my patients who are not yet vaccinated, and my patients who are immunosuppressed for whom we do not yet have enough information.

I will continue to advise my patients to be thoughtful about the risk for themselves and their families as well.

There has been more benefit to these public health measures then just decreased transmission of COVID-19. I hope that this year has reinforced within us the benefits of masking and self-isolation in the cases of any contagious illnesses.

Although I am looking forward to the opportunities to interact in person with more colleagues and friends, I think we should continue to do this with caution and thoughtfulness. We must be prepared for the possibility of vaccines having decreased efficacy against novel variants as well as eventually the possibility of waning immunity. If these should occur, we need to be prepared for additional recommendation changes and tightening of restrictions.
 

Dr. Wheat is a family physician at Erie Family Health Center in Chicago. She is program director of Northwestern’s McGaw Family Medicine residency program at Humboldt Park, Chicago. Dr. Wheat serves on the editorial advisory board of Family Practice News. You can contact her at [email protected].

References

1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Interim Public Health Recommendations for Fully Vaccinated People. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, May 13, 2021.

2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Updated Healthcare Infection Prevention and Control Recommendations in Response to COVID-19 Vaccination. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, April 27, 2021.

As has been dominating the headlines, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recently released updated public health guidance for those who are fully vaccinated against COVID-19. This guidance was issued on May 13, 2021, and has potentially provided some relief to those who are fully vaccinated, though some are concerned and confused about the implications of this guidance.

This new guidance applies to those who are fully vaccinated as indicated by 2 weeks after the second dose in a 2-dose series or 2 weeks after a single-dose vaccine. Those who meet these criteria no longer need to wear a mask or physically distance themselves from others in both indoor and outdoor settings. For those not fully vaccinated, masking and social distancing should continue to be practiced.

The new guidance indicates that quarantine after a known exposure is no longer necessary.

Unless required by local, state, or territorial health authorities, testing is no longer required following domestic travel for fully vaccinated individuals. A negative test is still required prior to boarding an international flight to the United States and testing 3-5 days after arrival is still recommended. Self-quarantine is no longer required after international travel for fully vaccinated individuals.

The new guidance recommends that individuals who are fully vaccinated not participate in routine screening programs when feasible. Finally, if an individual has tested positive for COVID-19, regardless of vaccination status, that person should isolate and not visit public or private settings for a minimum of ten days.¹

Updated guidance for health care facilities

In addition to changes for the general public in all settings, the CDC updated guidance for health care facilities on April 27, 2021. These updated guidelines allow for communal dining and visitation for fully vaccinated patients and their visitors. The guidelines indicate that fully vaccinated health care personnel (HCP) do not require quarantine after exposure to patients who have tested positive for COVID-19 as long as the HCP remains asymptomatic. They should, however, continue to utilize personal protective equipment as previously recommended. HCPs are able to be in break and meeting rooms unmasked if all HCPs are vaccinated.²

There are some important caveats to these updated guidelines. They do not apply to those who have immunocompromising conditions, including those using immunosuppressant agents. They also do not apply to locations subject to federal, state, local, tribal, or territorial laws, rules, and regulations, including local business and workplace guidance.

Those who work or reside in correction or detention facilities and homeless shelters are also still required to test after known exposures. Masking is still required by all travelers on all forms of public transportation into and within the United States.

Most importantly, the guidelines apply only to those who are fully vaccinated. Finally, no vaccine is perfect. As such, anyone who experiences symptoms indicative of COVID-19, regardless of vaccination status, should obtain viral testing and isolate themselves from others.^1,2

Pros and cons to new guidance

Both sets of updated guidelines are a great example of public health guidance that is changing as the evidence is gathered and changes. This guidance is also a welcome encouragement that the vaccines are effective at decreasing transmission of this virus that has upended our world.

These guidelines leave room for change as evidence is gathered on emerging novel variants. There are, however, a few remaining concerns.

My first concern is for those who are not yet able to be vaccinated, including children under the age of 12. For families with members who are not fully vaccinated, they may have first heard the headlines of “you do not have to mask” to then read the fine print that remains. When truly following these guidelines, many social situations in both the public and private setting should still include both masking and social distancing.

There is no clarity on how these guidelines are enforced. Within the guidance, it is clear that individuals’ privacy is of utmost importance. In the absence of knowledge, that means that the assumption should be that all are not yet vaccinated. Unless there is a way to reliably demonstrate vaccination status, it would likely still be safer to assume that there are individuals who are not fully vaccinated within the setting.

Finally, although this is great news surrounding the efficacy of the vaccine, some are concerned that local mask mandates that have already started to be lifted will be completely removed. As there is still a large portion of the population not yet fully vaccinated, it seems premature for local, state, and territorial authorities to lift these mandates.
 

How to continue exercising caution

With the outstanding concerns, I will continue to mask in settings, particularly indoors, where I do not definitely know that everyone is vaccinated. I will continue to do this to protect my children and my patients who are not yet vaccinated, and my patients who are immunosuppressed for whom we do not yet have enough information.

I will continue to advise my patients to be thoughtful about the risk for themselves and their families as well.

There has been more benefit to these public health measures then just decreased transmission of COVID-19. I hope that this year has reinforced within us the benefits of masking and self-isolation in the cases of any contagious illnesses.

Although I am looking forward to the opportunities to interact in person with more colleagues and friends, I think we should continue to do this with caution and thoughtfulness. We must be prepared for the possibility of vaccines having decreased efficacy against novel variants as well as eventually the possibility of waning immunity. If these should occur, we need to be prepared for additional recommendation changes and tightening of restrictions.
 

Dr. Wheat is a family physician at Erie Family Health Center in Chicago. She is program director of Northwestern’s McGaw Family Medicine residency program at Humboldt Park, Chicago. Dr. Wheat serves on the editorial advisory board of Family Practice News. You can contact her at [email protected].

References

1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Interim Public Health Recommendations for Fully Vaccinated People. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, May 13, 2021.

2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Updated Healthcare Infection Prevention and Control Recommendations in Response to COVID-19 Vaccination. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, April 27, 2021.