MDedge Pediatrics

India is in a crisis as the burden of COVID-19 has collapsed parts of the health care system. There are not enough beds, not enough oxygen, and not enough crematoria to handle the pandemic. India is also a major supplier of vaccines for itself and many other countries. That production capacity has also been affected by the local events, further worsening the response to the pandemic over the next few months.

This collapse is the specter that, in April 2020, placed a hospital ship next to Manhattan and rows of beds in its convention center. Fortunately, the lockdown in March 2020 sufficiently flattened the curve. The city avoided utilizing that disaster capacity, though many New Yorkers died out of sight in nursing homes. When the third and largest wave of cases in the United States peaked in January 2021, hospitals throughout California reached capacity but avoided bursting. In April 2021, localized outbreaks in Michigan, Arizona, and Ontario again tested the maximum capacity for providing modern medical treatments. Great Britain used a second lockdown in October 2020 and a third in January 2021 to control the pandemic, with Prime Minister Boris Johnson emphasizing that it was these social interventions, and not vaccines, which provided the mitigating effects. Other European Union nations adopted similar strategies. Prudent choices by government guided by science, combined with the cooperation of the public, have been and still are crucial to mollify the pandemic.

There is hope that soon vaccines will return daily life to a new normal. In the United States, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has loosened restrictions on social gathering. An increase in daily new cases of COVID-19 in April 2021 has turned into just a blip before continuing to recede. Perhaps that is the first sign of vaccination working at the level of public health. However, the May 2021 lockdown in highly vaccinated Seychelles is a warning that the danger remains. A single match can start a huge forest fire. The first 150 million cases of COVID-19 worldwide have, through natural rates of mutation, produced several variants that might partially evade current vaccines. The danger of newer variants persists with the next 150 million cases as the pandemic continues to rage in many nations which are just one airplane ride away. All human inhabitants of this blue-covered third rock from the sun are interconnected.

The benefits of scientific advancement have been extolled for centuries. This includes both individual discoveries as well as a mindset that favors rationalism over fatalism. On the whole, the benefits of scientific progress outweigh the negatives. Negative environmental impacts include pollution and climate change. Economic impacts include raising the mean economic standard of living but with greater inequity. Historically, governmental and social institutions have attempted to mitigate these negative consequences. Those efforts have attempted to provide guidance and a moral compass to direct the progress of scientific advancement, particularly in fields like gene therapy. Those efforts have called upon developed nations to share the bounties of progress with other nations.

Modern medicine has provided the fruit of these scientific advancements to a limited fraction of the world’s population during the 20th century. The improvements in life expectancy and infant mortality have come primarily from civil engineers getting running water into cities and sewage out. A smaller portion of the benefits are from public health measures that reduced tuberculosis, smallpox, polio, and measles. Agriculture became more reliable, productive, and nutritious. In the 21st century, medical care (control of hypertension, diabetes, and clotting) aimed at reducing heart disease and strokes have added another 2-3 years to the life expectancy in the United States, with much of that benefit erased by the epidemics of obesity and opioid abuse.

Modern medical technology has created treatments that cost $10,000 a month to add a few extra months of life to geriatric patients with terminal cancer. Meanwhile, in more mundane care, efforts like Choosing Wisely seek to save money wasted on low-value, useless, and even harmful tests and therapies. There is no single person or agency managing this chaotic process of inventing expensive new technologies while inadequately addressing the widespread shortages of mental health care, disparities in education, and other social determinants of health. The pandemic has highlighted these preexisting weaknesses in the social fabric.

The cries from India have been accompanied by voices of anger from India and other nations accusing the United States of hoarding vaccines and the raw materials needed to produce them. This has been called vaccine apartheid. The United States is not alone in its political decision to prioritize domestic interests over international ones; India’s recent government is similarly nationalistic. Scientists warn that no one is safe locally as long as the pandemic rages in other countries. The Biden administration, in a delayed response to the crisis in India, finally announced plans to share some unused vaccines (of a brand not yet Food and Drug Administration approved) as well as some vaccine raw materials whose export was forbidden by a regulation under the Defense Production Act. Reading below the headlines, the promised response won’t be implemented for weeks or months. We must do better.

The logistics of sharing the benefits of advanced science are complicated. The ethics are not. Who is my neighbor? If you didn’t learn the answer to that in Sunday school, there isn’t much more I can say.

Dr. Powell is a retired pediatric hospitalist and clinical ethics consultant living in St. Louis. He has no financial disclosures, Email him at [email protected]

India is in a crisis as the burden of COVID-19 has collapsed parts of the health care system. There are not enough beds, not enough oxygen, and not enough crematoria to handle the pandemic. India is also a major supplier of vaccines for itself and many other countries. That production capacity has also been affected by the local events, further worsening the response to the pandemic over the next few months.

This collapse is the specter that, in April 2020, placed a hospital ship next to Manhattan and rows of beds in its convention center. Fortunately, the lockdown in March 2020 sufficiently flattened the curve. The city avoided utilizing that disaster capacity, though many New Yorkers died out of sight in nursing homes. When the third and largest wave of cases in the United States peaked in January 2021, hospitals throughout California reached capacity but avoided bursting. In April 2021, localized outbreaks in Michigan, Arizona, and Ontario again tested the maximum capacity for providing modern medical treatments. Great Britain used a second lockdown in October 2020 and a third in January 2021 to control the pandemic, with Prime Minister Boris Johnson emphasizing that it was these social interventions, and not vaccines, which provided the mitigating effects. Other European Union nations adopted similar strategies. Prudent choices by government guided by science, combined with the cooperation of the public, have been and still are crucial to mollify the pandemic.

There is hope that soon vaccines will return daily life to a new normal. In the United States, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has loosened restrictions on social gathering. An increase in daily new cases of COVID-19 in April 2021 has turned into just a blip before continuing to recede. Perhaps that is the first sign of vaccination working at the level of public health. However, the May 2021 lockdown in highly vaccinated Seychelles is a warning that the danger remains. A single match can start a huge forest fire. The first 150 million cases of COVID-19 worldwide have, through natural rates of mutation, produced several variants that might partially evade current vaccines. The danger of newer variants persists with the next 150 million cases as the pandemic continues to rage in many nations which are just one airplane ride away. All human inhabitants of this blue-covered third rock from the sun are interconnected.

The benefits of scientific advancement have been extolled for centuries. This includes both individual discoveries as well as a mindset that favors rationalism over fatalism. On the whole, the benefits of scientific progress outweigh the negatives. Negative environmental impacts include pollution and climate change. Economic impacts include raising the mean economic standard of living but with greater inequity. Historically, governmental and social institutions have attempted to mitigate these negative consequences. Those efforts have attempted to provide guidance and a moral compass to direct the progress of scientific advancement, particularly in fields like gene therapy. Those efforts have called upon developed nations to share the bounties of progress with other nations.

Modern medicine has provided the fruit of these scientific advancements to a limited fraction of the world’s population during the 20th century. The improvements in life expectancy and infant mortality have come primarily from civil engineers getting running water into cities and sewage out. A smaller portion of the benefits are from public health measures that reduced tuberculosis, smallpox, polio, and measles. Agriculture became more reliable, productive, and nutritious. In the 21st century, medical care (control of hypertension, diabetes, and clotting) aimed at reducing heart disease and strokes have added another 2-3 years to the life expectancy in the United States, with much of that benefit erased by the epidemics of obesity and opioid abuse.

Modern medical technology has created treatments that cost $10,000 a month to add a few extra months of life to geriatric patients with terminal cancer. Meanwhile, in more mundane care, efforts like Choosing Wisely seek to save money wasted on low-value, useless, and even harmful tests and therapies. There is no single person or agency managing this chaotic process of inventing expensive new technologies while inadequately addressing the widespread shortages of mental health care, disparities in education, and other social determinants of health. The pandemic has highlighted these preexisting weaknesses in the social fabric.

The cries from India have been accompanied by voices of anger from India and other nations accusing the United States of hoarding vaccines and the raw materials needed to produce them. This has been called vaccine apartheid. The United States is not alone in its political decision to prioritize domestic interests over international ones; India’s recent government is similarly nationalistic. Scientists warn that no one is safe locally as long as the pandemic rages in other countries. The Biden administration, in a delayed response to the crisis in India, finally announced plans to share some unused vaccines (of a brand not yet Food and Drug Administration approved) as well as some vaccine raw materials whose export was forbidden by a regulation under the Defense Production Act. Reading below the headlines, the promised response won’t be implemented for weeks or months. We must do better.

The logistics of sharing the benefits of advanced science are complicated. The ethics are not. Who is my neighbor? If you didn’t learn the answer to that in Sunday school, there isn’t much more I can say.

Dr. Powell is a retired pediatric hospitalist and clinical ethics consultant living in St. Louis. He has no financial disclosures, Email him at [email protected]

India is in a crisis as the burden of COVID-19 has collapsed parts of the health care system. There are not enough beds, not enough oxygen, and not enough crematoria to handle the pandemic. India is also a major supplier of vaccines for itself and many other countries. That production capacity has also been affected by the local events, further worsening the response to the pandemic over the next few months.

This collapse is the specter that, in April 2020, placed a hospital ship next to Manhattan and rows of beds in its convention center. Fortunately, the lockdown in March 2020 sufficiently flattened the curve. The city avoided utilizing that disaster capacity, though many New Yorkers died out of sight in nursing homes. When the third and largest wave of cases in the United States peaked in January 2021, hospitals throughout California reached capacity but avoided bursting. In April 2021, localized outbreaks in Michigan, Arizona, and Ontario again tested the maximum capacity for providing modern medical treatments. Great Britain used a second lockdown in October 2020 and a third in January 2021 to control the pandemic, with Prime Minister Boris Johnson emphasizing that it was these social interventions, and not vaccines, which provided the mitigating effects. Other European Union nations adopted similar strategies. Prudent choices by government guided by science, combined with the cooperation of the public, have been and still are crucial to mollify the pandemic.

There is hope that soon vaccines will return daily life to a new normal. In the United States, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has loosened restrictions on social gathering. An increase in daily new cases of COVID-19 in April 2021 has turned into just a blip before continuing to recede. Perhaps that is the first sign of vaccination working at the level of public health. However, the May 2021 lockdown in highly vaccinated Seychelles is a warning that the danger remains. A single match can start a huge forest fire. The first 150 million cases of COVID-19 worldwide have, through natural rates of mutation, produced several variants that might partially evade current vaccines. The danger of newer variants persists with the next 150 million cases as the pandemic continues to rage in many nations which are just one airplane ride away. All human inhabitants of this blue-covered third rock from the sun are interconnected.

The benefits of scientific advancement have been extolled for centuries. This includes both individual discoveries as well as a mindset that favors rationalism over fatalism. On the whole, the benefits of scientific progress outweigh the negatives. Negative environmental impacts include pollution and climate change. Economic impacts include raising the mean economic standard of living but with greater inequity. Historically, governmental and social institutions have attempted to mitigate these negative consequences. Those efforts have attempted to provide guidance and a moral compass to direct the progress of scientific advancement, particularly in fields like gene therapy. Those efforts have called upon developed nations to share the bounties of progress with other nations.

Modern medicine has provided the fruit of these scientific advancements to a limited fraction of the world’s population during the 20th century. The improvements in life expectancy and infant mortality have come primarily from civil engineers getting running water into cities and sewage out. A smaller portion of the benefits are from public health measures that reduced tuberculosis, smallpox, polio, and measles. Agriculture became more reliable, productive, and nutritious. In the 21st century, medical care (control of hypertension, diabetes, and clotting) aimed at reducing heart disease and strokes have added another 2-3 years to the life expectancy in the United States, with much of that benefit erased by the epidemics of obesity and opioid abuse.

Modern medical technology has created treatments that cost $10,000 a month to add a few extra months of life to geriatric patients with terminal cancer. Meanwhile, in more mundane care, efforts like Choosing Wisely seek to save money wasted on low-value, useless, and even harmful tests and therapies. There is no single person or agency managing this chaotic process of inventing expensive new technologies while inadequately addressing the widespread shortages of mental health care, disparities in education, and other social determinants of health. The pandemic has highlighted these preexisting weaknesses in the social fabric.

The cries from India have been accompanied by voices of anger from India and other nations accusing the United States of hoarding vaccines and the raw materials needed to produce them. This has been called vaccine apartheid. The United States is not alone in its political decision to prioritize domestic interests over international ones; India’s recent government is similarly nationalistic. Scientists warn that no one is safe locally as long as the pandemic rages in other countries. The Biden administration, in a delayed response to the crisis in India, finally announced plans to share some unused vaccines (of a brand not yet Food and Drug Administration approved) as well as some vaccine raw materials whose export was forbidden by a regulation under the Defense Production Act. Reading below the headlines, the promised response won’t be implemented for weeks or months. We must do better.

The logistics of sharing the benefits of advanced science are complicated. The ethics are not. Who is my neighbor? If you didn’t learn the answer to that in Sunday school, there isn’t much more I can say.

Dr. Powell is a retired pediatric hospitalist and clinical ethics consultant living in St. Louis. He has no financial disclosures, Email him at [email protected]

Postpartum depression (PPD) is a common and treatable problem affecting over 10% of all pregnant women. Without routine use of a screening questionnaire, many women go undiagnosed and without treatment. The risks of untreated PPD in a new mother are the risks of depression tripled: to her health and to the health of her new infant and their whole family. Although pediatricians treat children, they take care of the whole family. They appreciate their role in offering support and guidance to new parents, and in the case of PPD, they are in a unique position. The American Academy of Pediatrics recognized this when they issued their policy statement, “Incorporating Recognition and Management of Perinatal Depression into Pediatric Practice,” in January 2019. By screening, tracking, and connecting affected mothers to care and services, you can truly provide “two-generational care” for your youngest patients.

PPD affects an estimated one in seven women (13%) globally. In one large retrospective study that looked at the 39 weeks before and after delivery, 15.4% of mothers received a diagnosis of PPD and a second study indicated that 22% of new mothers had depressive symptoms that were persistent for 6 months.¹ The pathways to PPD include prior personal or family history of depression, stressors in the family (connected to social determinants of health), previous miscarriage or serious complications in a previous pregnancy, and sensitivity to hormonal changes. Indeed, PPD is the most common complication of childbirth.² Although as many as half of all women eventually diagnosed with PPD had symptoms during their pregnancy, the misperception that PPD is only post partum leads to it being mistaken for the normal process of adjustment to parenthood. PPD is particularly insidious as new mothers are likely to be silent if they feel shame for not enjoying what they have been told will be a special and happy time, and those around them may mistake symptoms for the normal “baby blues” that will resolve quickly and with routine supports.

Untreated PPD, creates risks for mother, infant, and family as she manages needless suffering during a critical period for her new baby. While depression may remit over months without treatment, suicide is a real risk, and accounts for 20% of postpartum deaths.³ Infants face serious developmental consequences when their mothers are withdrawn and disconnected from them during the first months of life, including impaired social development, physical growth, and cognitive development. This impairment persists. Exposure to maternal depression during infancy is associated with lower IQ, attentional problems, and special educational needs by elementary school,⁴ and is a risk factor for psychiatric illnesses in childhood and adolescence.^5,6 PPD has a broad range of severity, including psychosis that may include paranoia with the rare risk of infanticide. And maternal depression can add to the strains in a vulnerable caregiver relationship that can raise the risk for neglect or abuse of the mother, children, or both.

It is important to note that anxiety is often the presenting problem in perinatal mood disorders, with mothers experiencing intense morbid worries about their infant’s safety and health, and fear of inadequacy, criticism, and even infant removal. These fears may reinforce silence and isolation. But pediatricians are one group that these mothers are most likely to share their anxieties with as they look for reassurance. It can be challenging to distinguish PPD from obsessive-compulsive disorder or PTSD. The critical work of the pediatrician is not specific diagnosis and treatment. Instead, your task is to provide screening and support, to create a safe place to overcome silence and shame.

There are many reliable and valid screening instruments available for depression, but the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EDPS) has been specially developed for and tested in this population. It is a 10-item scale that is easy to complete and to score. Scores range from 0 to 30 and a score of 10 is considered a cutoff for depression. It can be used to track symptoms and is free and widely available online and in multiple languages. Ideally, this scale can be administered as part of a previsit, automatically entered into an electronic medical record and given at regular intervals during the infant’s first year of primary care. Some new mothers, especially if they are suffering from depression, may feel anxious about filling this out. It is important that your staff tell them that you screen all new mothers in your practice, and that PPD is common and treatable and the pediatrician’s office is committed to the health of the whole family.

If a new mother screens positive, you might consider yourself to have three tasks: Reassure her that she is a wonderful mother and this is a treatable illness, not a cause for guilt, shame, or alarm; expand her support and decrease her isolation by helping her to communicate with her family; and identify treatment resources for her. Start by being curious about some of her specific worries or feelings, her energy level, feelings of isolation or trouble with sleep. Offer compassion and validation around the pain of these experiences in the midst of so much transition. Only after hearing a little detail about her experience, then you may offer that such feelings are common, but when they are persistent or severe, they often indicate PPD, and that her screening test suggests they do for her. Offer that this form of depression is very treatable, with both pharmacologic and psychotherapy interventions. And if she is resistant, gently offer that treatment will be very protective of her new infant’s physical, social, and cognitive growth and development. Hearing this from a pediatrician is powerful for a new mother, even if depressed. Finally, ask if you might help her bring other important adults in her family into an understanding of this. Could she tell her spouse? Her sister? Her best friend? Perhaps she could bring one of them to the next weekly visit, so you can all speak together. This intervention greatly improves the likelihood of her engaging in treatment, and strong interpersonal connections are therapeutic in and of themselves.

For treatment, the easier your office can make it, the more likely she is to follow up. Identify local resources, perhaps through connected community organizations such as Jewish Family and Children’s Services or through a public program like California’s First Five. Connect with the local obstetric practice, which may already have a referral process in place. If you can connect with her primary care provider, they may take on the referral process or may even have integrated capacity for treatment. Identify strategies that may support her restful sleep, including realistic daily exercise, sharing infant care, and being cautious with caffeine and screen time. Identify ways for her to meet other new mothers or reconnect with friends. Reassure her that easy attachment activities, such as reading a book or singing to her baby can be good for both of them without requiring much energy. This may sound like a daunting task, but the conversation will only take a few minutes. Helping an isolated new parent recognize that their feelings of fear, inadequacy, and guilt are not facts, offering some simple immediate strategies and facilitating a referral can be lifesaving.

Dr. Swick is physician in chief at Ohana, Center for Child and Adolescent Behavioral Health, Community Hospital of the Monterey (Calif.) Peninsula. Dr. Jellinek is professor of psychiatry and pediatrics, Harvard Medical School, Boston. Email them at [email protected]

References

1. Dietz PM et al. Am J Psychiatry. 2007;164(10):1515-20.

2. Hanusa BH et al. J Women’s Health (Larchmt) 2008;17(4):585-96.

3. Lindahl V et al. Arch Womens Ment Health. 2005;8(2):77-87.

4. Hay DF et al. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2001;42(7):871-89.

5. Tully EC et al. Am J Psychiatry. 2008:165(9):1148-54.

6. Maternal depression and child development. Paediatr. Child Health 2004;9(8):575-98.

Postpartum depression (PPD) is a common and treatable problem affecting over 10% of all pregnant women. Without routine use of a screening questionnaire, many women go undiagnosed and without treatment. The risks of untreated PPD in a new mother are the risks of depression tripled: to her health and to the health of her new infant and their whole family. Although pediatricians treat children, they take care of the whole family. They appreciate their role in offering support and guidance to new parents, and in the case of PPD, they are in a unique position. The American Academy of Pediatrics recognized this when they issued their policy statement, “Incorporating Recognition and Management of Perinatal Depression into Pediatric Practice,” in January 2019. By screening, tracking, and connecting affected mothers to care and services, you can truly provide “two-generational care” for your youngest patients.

PPD affects an estimated one in seven women (13%) globally. In one large retrospective study that looked at the 39 weeks before and after delivery, 15.4% of mothers received a diagnosis of PPD and a second study indicated that 22% of new mothers had depressive symptoms that were persistent for 6 months.¹ The pathways to PPD include prior personal or family history of depression, stressors in the family (connected to social determinants of health), previous miscarriage or serious complications in a previous pregnancy, and sensitivity to hormonal changes. Indeed, PPD is the most common complication of childbirth.² Although as many as half of all women eventually diagnosed with PPD had symptoms during their pregnancy, the misperception that PPD is only post partum leads to it being mistaken for the normal process of adjustment to parenthood. PPD is particularly insidious as new mothers are likely to be silent if they feel shame for not enjoying what they have been told will be a special and happy time, and those around them may mistake symptoms for the normal “baby blues” that will resolve quickly and with routine supports.

Untreated PPD, creates risks for mother, infant, and family as she manages needless suffering during a critical period for her new baby. While depression may remit over months without treatment, suicide is a real risk, and accounts for 20% of postpartum deaths.³ Infants face serious developmental consequences when their mothers are withdrawn and disconnected from them during the first months of life, including impaired social development, physical growth, and cognitive development. This impairment persists. Exposure to maternal depression during infancy is associated with lower IQ, attentional problems, and special educational needs by elementary school,⁴ and is a risk factor for psychiatric illnesses in childhood and adolescence.^5,6 PPD has a broad range of severity, including psychosis that may include paranoia with the rare risk of infanticide. And maternal depression can add to the strains in a vulnerable caregiver relationship that can raise the risk for neglect or abuse of the mother, children, or both.

It is important to note that anxiety is often the presenting problem in perinatal mood disorders, with mothers experiencing intense morbid worries about their infant’s safety and health, and fear of inadequacy, criticism, and even infant removal. These fears may reinforce silence and isolation. But pediatricians are one group that these mothers are most likely to share their anxieties with as they look for reassurance. It can be challenging to distinguish PPD from obsessive-compulsive disorder or PTSD. The critical work of the pediatrician is not specific diagnosis and treatment. Instead, your task is to provide screening and support, to create a safe place to overcome silence and shame.

There are many reliable and valid screening instruments available for depression, but the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EDPS) has been specially developed for and tested in this population. It is a 10-item scale that is easy to complete and to score. Scores range from 0 to 30 and a score of 10 is considered a cutoff for depression. It can be used to track symptoms and is free and widely available online and in multiple languages. Ideally, this scale can be administered as part of a previsit, automatically entered into an electronic medical record and given at regular intervals during the infant’s first year of primary care. Some new mothers, especially if they are suffering from depression, may feel anxious about filling this out. It is important that your staff tell them that you screen all new mothers in your practice, and that PPD is common and treatable and the pediatrician’s office is committed to the health of the whole family.

If a new mother screens positive, you might consider yourself to have three tasks: Reassure her that she is a wonderful mother and this is a treatable illness, not a cause for guilt, shame, or alarm; expand her support and decrease her isolation by helping her to communicate with her family; and identify treatment resources for her. Start by being curious about some of her specific worries or feelings, her energy level, feelings of isolation or trouble with sleep. Offer compassion and validation around the pain of these experiences in the midst of so much transition. Only after hearing a little detail about her experience, then you may offer that such feelings are common, but when they are persistent or severe, they often indicate PPD, and that her screening test suggests they do for her. Offer that this form of depression is very treatable, with both pharmacologic and psychotherapy interventions. And if she is resistant, gently offer that treatment will be very protective of her new infant’s physical, social, and cognitive growth and development. Hearing this from a pediatrician is powerful for a new mother, even if depressed. Finally, ask if you might help her bring other important adults in her family into an understanding of this. Could she tell her spouse? Her sister? Her best friend? Perhaps she could bring one of them to the next weekly visit, so you can all speak together. This intervention greatly improves the likelihood of her engaging in treatment, and strong interpersonal connections are therapeutic in and of themselves.

For treatment, the easier your office can make it, the more likely she is to follow up. Identify local resources, perhaps through connected community organizations such as Jewish Family and Children’s Services or through a public program like California’s First Five. Connect with the local obstetric practice, which may already have a referral process in place. If you can connect with her primary care provider, they may take on the referral process or may even have integrated capacity for treatment. Identify strategies that may support her restful sleep, including realistic daily exercise, sharing infant care, and being cautious with caffeine and screen time. Identify ways for her to meet other new mothers or reconnect with friends. Reassure her that easy attachment activities, such as reading a book or singing to her baby can be good for both of them without requiring much energy. This may sound like a daunting task, but the conversation will only take a few minutes. Helping an isolated new parent recognize that their feelings of fear, inadequacy, and guilt are not facts, offering some simple immediate strategies and facilitating a referral can be lifesaving.

Dr. Swick is physician in chief at Ohana, Center for Child and Adolescent Behavioral Health, Community Hospital of the Monterey (Calif.) Peninsula. Dr. Jellinek is professor of psychiatry and pediatrics, Harvard Medical School, Boston. Email them at [email protected]

References

1. Dietz PM et al. Am J Psychiatry. 2007;164(10):1515-20.

2. Hanusa BH et al. J Women’s Health (Larchmt) 2008;17(4):585-96.

3. Lindahl V et al. Arch Womens Ment Health. 2005;8(2):77-87.

4. Hay DF et al. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2001;42(7):871-89.

5. Tully EC et al. Am J Psychiatry. 2008:165(9):1148-54.

6. Maternal depression and child development. Paediatr. Child Health 2004;9(8):575-98.

Postpartum depression (PPD) is a common and treatable problem affecting over 10% of all pregnant women. Without routine use of a screening questionnaire, many women go undiagnosed and without treatment. The risks of untreated PPD in a new mother are the risks of depression tripled: to her health and to the health of her new infant and their whole family. Although pediatricians treat children, they take care of the whole family. They appreciate their role in offering support and guidance to new parents, and in the case of PPD, they are in a unique position. The American Academy of Pediatrics recognized this when they issued their policy statement, “Incorporating Recognition and Management of Perinatal Depression into Pediatric Practice,” in January 2019. By screening, tracking, and connecting affected mothers to care and services, you can truly provide “two-generational care” for your youngest patients.

PPD affects an estimated one in seven women (13%) globally. In one large retrospective study that looked at the 39 weeks before and after delivery, 15.4% of mothers received a diagnosis of PPD and a second study indicated that 22% of new mothers had depressive symptoms that were persistent for 6 months.¹ The pathways to PPD include prior personal or family history of depression, stressors in the family (connected to social determinants of health), previous miscarriage or serious complications in a previous pregnancy, and sensitivity to hormonal changes. Indeed, PPD is the most common complication of childbirth.² Although as many as half of all women eventually diagnosed with PPD had symptoms during their pregnancy, the misperception that PPD is only post partum leads to it being mistaken for the normal process of adjustment to parenthood. PPD is particularly insidious as new mothers are likely to be silent if they feel shame for not enjoying what they have been told will be a special and happy time, and those around them may mistake symptoms for the normal “baby blues” that will resolve quickly and with routine supports.

Untreated PPD, creates risks for mother, infant, and family as she manages needless suffering during a critical period for her new baby. While depression may remit over months without treatment, suicide is a real risk, and accounts for 20% of postpartum deaths.³ Infants face serious developmental consequences when their mothers are withdrawn and disconnected from them during the first months of life, including impaired social development, physical growth, and cognitive development. This impairment persists. Exposure to maternal depression during infancy is associated with lower IQ, attentional problems, and special educational needs by elementary school,⁴ and is a risk factor for psychiatric illnesses in childhood and adolescence.^5,6 PPD has a broad range of severity, including psychosis that may include paranoia with the rare risk of infanticide. And maternal depression can add to the strains in a vulnerable caregiver relationship that can raise the risk for neglect or abuse of the mother, children, or both.

It is important to note that anxiety is often the presenting problem in perinatal mood disorders, with mothers experiencing intense morbid worries about their infant’s safety and health, and fear of inadequacy, criticism, and even infant removal. These fears may reinforce silence and isolation. But pediatricians are one group that these mothers are most likely to share their anxieties with as they look for reassurance. It can be challenging to distinguish PPD from obsessive-compulsive disorder or PTSD. The critical work of the pediatrician is not specific diagnosis and treatment. Instead, your task is to provide screening and support, to create a safe place to overcome silence and shame.

There are many reliable and valid screening instruments available for depression, but the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EDPS) has been specially developed for and tested in this population. It is a 10-item scale that is easy to complete and to score. Scores range from 0 to 30 and a score of 10 is considered a cutoff for depression. It can be used to track symptoms and is free and widely available online and in multiple languages. Ideally, this scale can be administered as part of a previsit, automatically entered into an electronic medical record and given at regular intervals during the infant’s first year of primary care. Some new mothers, especially if they are suffering from depression, may feel anxious about filling this out. It is important that your staff tell them that you screen all new mothers in your practice, and that PPD is common and treatable and the pediatrician’s office is committed to the health of the whole family.

If a new mother screens positive, you might consider yourself to have three tasks: Reassure her that she is a wonderful mother and this is a treatable illness, not a cause for guilt, shame, or alarm; expand her support and decrease her isolation by helping her to communicate with her family; and identify treatment resources for her. Start by being curious about some of her specific worries or feelings, her energy level, feelings of isolation or trouble with sleep. Offer compassion and validation around the pain of these experiences in the midst of so much transition. Only after hearing a little detail about her experience, then you may offer that such feelings are common, but when they are persistent or severe, they often indicate PPD, and that her screening test suggests they do for her. Offer that this form of depression is very treatable, with both pharmacologic and psychotherapy interventions. And if she is resistant, gently offer that treatment will be very protective of her new infant’s physical, social, and cognitive growth and development. Hearing this from a pediatrician is powerful for a new mother, even if depressed. Finally, ask if you might help her bring other important adults in her family into an understanding of this. Could she tell her spouse? Her sister? Her best friend? Perhaps she could bring one of them to the next weekly visit, so you can all speak together. This intervention greatly improves the likelihood of her engaging in treatment, and strong interpersonal connections are therapeutic in and of themselves.

For treatment, the easier your office can make it, the more likely she is to follow up. Identify local resources, perhaps through connected community organizations such as Jewish Family and Children’s Services or through a public program like California’s First Five. Connect with the local obstetric practice, which may already have a referral process in place. If you can connect with her primary care provider, they may take on the referral process or may even have integrated capacity for treatment. Identify strategies that may support her restful sleep, including realistic daily exercise, sharing infant care, and being cautious with caffeine and screen time. Identify ways for her to meet other new mothers or reconnect with friends. Reassure her that easy attachment activities, such as reading a book or singing to her baby can be good for both of them without requiring much energy. This may sound like a daunting task, but the conversation will only take a few minutes. Helping an isolated new parent recognize that their feelings of fear, inadequacy, and guilt are not facts, offering some simple immediate strategies and facilitating a referral can be lifesaving.

Dr. Swick is physician in chief at Ohana, Center for Child and Adolescent Behavioral Health, Community Hospital of the Monterey (Calif.) Peninsula. Dr. Jellinek is professor of psychiatry and pediatrics, Harvard Medical School, Boston. Email them at [email protected]

References

1. Dietz PM et al. Am J Psychiatry. 2007;164(10):1515-20.

2. Hanusa BH et al. J Women’s Health (Larchmt) 2008;17(4):585-96.

3. Lindahl V et al. Arch Womens Ment Health. 2005;8(2):77-87.

4. Hay DF et al. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2001;42(7):871-89.

5. Tully EC et al. Am J Psychiatry. 2008:165(9):1148-54.

6. Maternal depression and child development. Paediatr. Child Health 2004;9(8):575-98.

The debate over tympanostomy tubes versus antibiotics for recurrent acute otitis media (AOM) in young children is long-standing. Now, results of a randomized controlled trial show that tubes do not significantly lower the rate of episodes, compared with antibiotics, and medical management doesn’t increase antibiotic resistance.

“We found no evidence of microbial resistance from treating with antibiotics. If there’s not an impact on resistance, why take unnecessary chances on complications of surgery?” lead author Alejandro Hoberman, MD, from Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh, said in an interview.

The study by Dr. Hoberman and colleagues was published May 13 in the New England Journal of Medicine.

AOM is the most frequent condition diagnosed in children in the United States after the common cold, affecting five of six children younger than 3 years. It is the leading indication for antimicrobial treatment, and tympanostomy tube insertion is the most frequently performed pediatric operation after the newborn period.

Randomized controlled clinical trials were conducted in the 1980s, but by the 1990s, questions of overuse arose. The American Academy of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery Foundation published the first clinical practice guidelines in 2013.

Parents must weigh the pros and cons. The use of tubes may avoid or delay the next round of drugs, but tubes cost more and introduce small risks (anesthesia, refractory otorrhea, tube blockage, premature dislocation or extrusion, and mild conductive hearing loss).

“We addressed issues that plagued older studies – a longer-term follow-up of 2 years, validated diagnoses of infection to determine eligibility – and used rating scales to measure quality of life,” Dr. Hoberman said.

The researchers randomly assigned children to receive antibiotics or tubes. To be eligible, children had to be 6-35 months of age and have had at least three episodes of AOM within 6 months or at least four episodes within 12 months, including at least one within the preceding 6 months.

The primary outcome was the mean number of episodes of AOM per child-year. Children were assessed at 8-week intervals and within 48 hours of developing symptoms of ear infection. The medically treated children received oral amoxicillin or, if that was ineffective, intramuscular ceftriaxone.

Criteria for determining treatment failure included persistent otorrhea, tympanic membrane perforation, antibiotic-associated diarrhea, reaction to anesthesia, and recurrence of AOM at a frequency equal to the frequency before antibiotic treatment.

In comparing tympanostomy tubes with antibiotics, Dr. Hoberman said, “We were unable to show benefit in the rate of ear infections per child per year over a 2-year period.” As expected, the infection rate fell by about half from the first year to the second in all children.

Overall, the investigators found “no substantial differences between treatment groups” with regard to AOM frequency, percentage of severe episodes, extent of antimicrobial resistance, quality of life for the children, and parental stress.

In an intention-to-treat analysis, the rate of AOM episodes per child-year during the study was 1.48 ± 0.08 for tubes and 1.56 ± 0.08 for antibiotics (P = .66).

However, randomization was not maintained in the intention-to-treat arm. Ten percent (13 of 129) of the children slated to receive tubes didn’t get them because of parental request. Conversely, 16% (54 of 121) of children in the antibiotic group received tubes, 35 (29%) of them in accordance with the trial protocol because of frequent recurrences, and 19 (16%) at parental request.

In a per-protocol analysis, rates of AOM episodes per child-year were 1.47 ± 0.08 for tubes and 1.72 ± 0.11 for antibiotics.

Tubes were associated with longer time until the first ear infection post placement, at a median of 4.34 months, compared with 2.33 months for children who received antibiotics. A smaller percentage of children in the tube group had treatment failure than in the antibiotic group (45% vs. 62%). Children who received tubes also had fewer days per year with symptoms in comparison with the children in the antibiotic group (mean, 2.00 ± 0.29 days vs. 8.33 ± 0.59 days).

The frequency distribution of AOM episodes, the percentage of severe episodes, and antimicrobial resistance detected in respiratory specimens were the same for both groups.

“Hoberman and colleagues add to our knowledge of managing children with recurrent ear infections with a large and rigorous clinical trial showing comparable efficacy of tympanostomy tube insertion, with antibiotic eardrops for new infections versus watchful waiting, with intermittent oral antibiotics, if further ear infections occur,” said Richard M. Rosenfeld, MD, MPH, MBA, distinguished professor and chairman, department of otolaryngology, SUNY Downstate Medical Center, New York.

However, in an accompanying editorial, Ellen R. Wald, MD, from the University of Wisconsin, Madison, pointed out that the sample size was smaller than desired, owing to participants switching groups.

In addition, Dr. Rosenfeld, who was the lead author of the 2013 guidelines, said the study likely underestimates the impact of tubes “because about two-thirds of the children who received them did not have persistent middle-ear fluid at baseline and would not have been candidates for tubes based on the current national guideline on tube indications.”

“Both tubes and intermittent antibiotic therapy are effective for managing recurrent AOM, and parents of children with persistent middle-ear effusion should engage in shared decision-making with their physician to decide on the best management option,” said Dr. Rosenfeld. “When in doubt, watchful waiting is appropriate because many children with recurrent AOM do better over time.”

Dr. Hoberman owns stock in Kaizen Bioscience and holds patents on devices to diagnose and treat AOM. One coauthor consults for Merck. Dr. Wald and Dr. Rosenfeld report no relevant financial relationships.

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

The debate over tympanostomy tubes versus antibiotics for recurrent acute otitis media (AOM) in young children is long-standing. Now, results of a randomized controlled trial show that tubes do not significantly lower the rate of episodes, compared with antibiotics, and medical management doesn’t increase antibiotic resistance.

“We found no evidence of microbial resistance from treating with antibiotics. If there’s not an impact on resistance, why take unnecessary chances on complications of surgery?” lead author Alejandro Hoberman, MD, from Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh, said in an interview.

The study by Dr. Hoberman and colleagues was published May 13 in the New England Journal of Medicine.

AOM is the most frequent condition diagnosed in children in the United States after the common cold, affecting five of six children younger than 3 years. It is the leading indication for antimicrobial treatment, and tympanostomy tube insertion is the most frequently performed pediatric operation after the newborn period.

Randomized controlled clinical trials were conducted in the 1980s, but by the 1990s, questions of overuse arose. The American Academy of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery Foundation published the first clinical practice guidelines in 2013.

Parents must weigh the pros and cons. The use of tubes may avoid or delay the next round of drugs, but tubes cost more and introduce small risks (anesthesia, refractory otorrhea, tube blockage, premature dislocation or extrusion, and mild conductive hearing loss).

“We addressed issues that plagued older studies – a longer-term follow-up of 2 years, validated diagnoses of infection to determine eligibility – and used rating scales to measure quality of life,” Dr. Hoberman said.

The researchers randomly assigned children to receive antibiotics or tubes. To be eligible, children had to be 6-35 months of age and have had at least three episodes of AOM within 6 months or at least four episodes within 12 months, including at least one within the preceding 6 months.

The primary outcome was the mean number of episodes of AOM per child-year. Children were assessed at 8-week intervals and within 48 hours of developing symptoms of ear infection. The medically treated children received oral amoxicillin or, if that was ineffective, intramuscular ceftriaxone.

Criteria for determining treatment failure included persistent otorrhea, tympanic membrane perforation, antibiotic-associated diarrhea, reaction to anesthesia, and recurrence of AOM at a frequency equal to the frequency before antibiotic treatment.

In comparing tympanostomy tubes with antibiotics, Dr. Hoberman said, “We were unable to show benefit in the rate of ear infections per child per year over a 2-year period.” As expected, the infection rate fell by about half from the first year to the second in all children.

Overall, the investigators found “no substantial differences between treatment groups” with regard to AOM frequency, percentage of severe episodes, extent of antimicrobial resistance, quality of life for the children, and parental stress.

In an intention-to-treat analysis, the rate of AOM episodes per child-year during the study was 1.48 ± 0.08 for tubes and 1.56 ± 0.08 for antibiotics (P = .66).

However, randomization was not maintained in the intention-to-treat arm. Ten percent (13 of 129) of the children slated to receive tubes didn’t get them because of parental request. Conversely, 16% (54 of 121) of children in the antibiotic group received tubes, 35 (29%) of them in accordance with the trial protocol because of frequent recurrences, and 19 (16%) at parental request.

In a per-protocol analysis, rates of AOM episodes per child-year were 1.47 ± 0.08 for tubes and 1.72 ± 0.11 for antibiotics.

Tubes were associated with longer time until the first ear infection post placement, at a median of 4.34 months, compared with 2.33 months for children who received antibiotics. A smaller percentage of children in the tube group had treatment failure than in the antibiotic group (45% vs. 62%). Children who received tubes also had fewer days per year with symptoms in comparison with the children in the antibiotic group (mean, 2.00 ± 0.29 days vs. 8.33 ± 0.59 days).

The frequency distribution of AOM episodes, the percentage of severe episodes, and antimicrobial resistance detected in respiratory specimens were the same for both groups.

“Hoberman and colleagues add to our knowledge of managing children with recurrent ear infections with a large and rigorous clinical trial showing comparable efficacy of tympanostomy tube insertion, with antibiotic eardrops for new infections versus watchful waiting, with intermittent oral antibiotics, if further ear infections occur,” said Richard M. Rosenfeld, MD, MPH, MBA, distinguished professor and chairman, department of otolaryngology, SUNY Downstate Medical Center, New York.

However, in an accompanying editorial, Ellen R. Wald, MD, from the University of Wisconsin, Madison, pointed out that the sample size was smaller than desired, owing to participants switching groups.

In addition, Dr. Rosenfeld, who was the lead author of the 2013 guidelines, said the study likely underestimates the impact of tubes “because about two-thirds of the children who received them did not have persistent middle-ear fluid at baseline and would not have been candidates for tubes based on the current national guideline on tube indications.”

“Both tubes and intermittent antibiotic therapy are effective for managing recurrent AOM, and parents of children with persistent middle-ear effusion should engage in shared decision-making with their physician to decide on the best management option,” said Dr. Rosenfeld. “When in doubt, watchful waiting is appropriate because many children with recurrent AOM do better over time.”

Dr. Hoberman owns stock in Kaizen Bioscience and holds patents on devices to diagnose and treat AOM. One coauthor consults for Merck. Dr. Wald and Dr. Rosenfeld report no relevant financial relationships.

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

The debate over tympanostomy tubes versus antibiotics for recurrent acute otitis media (AOM) in young children is long-standing. Now, results of a randomized controlled trial show that tubes do not significantly lower the rate of episodes, compared with antibiotics, and medical management doesn’t increase antibiotic resistance.

“We found no evidence of microbial resistance from treating with antibiotics. If there’s not an impact on resistance, why take unnecessary chances on complications of surgery?” lead author Alejandro Hoberman, MD, from Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh, said in an interview.

The study by Dr. Hoberman and colleagues was published May 13 in the New England Journal of Medicine.

AOM is the most frequent condition diagnosed in children in the United States after the common cold, affecting five of six children younger than 3 years. It is the leading indication for antimicrobial treatment, and tympanostomy tube insertion is the most frequently performed pediatric operation after the newborn period.

Randomized controlled clinical trials were conducted in the 1980s, but by the 1990s, questions of overuse arose. The American Academy of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery Foundation published the first clinical practice guidelines in 2013.

Parents must weigh the pros and cons. The use of tubes may avoid or delay the next round of drugs, but tubes cost more and introduce small risks (anesthesia, refractory otorrhea, tube blockage, premature dislocation or extrusion, and mild conductive hearing loss).

“We addressed issues that plagued older studies – a longer-term follow-up of 2 years, validated diagnoses of infection to determine eligibility – and used rating scales to measure quality of life,” Dr. Hoberman said.

The researchers randomly assigned children to receive antibiotics or tubes. To be eligible, children had to be 6-35 months of age and have had at least three episodes of AOM within 6 months or at least four episodes within 12 months, including at least one within the preceding 6 months.

The primary outcome was the mean number of episodes of AOM per child-year. Children were assessed at 8-week intervals and within 48 hours of developing symptoms of ear infection. The medically treated children received oral amoxicillin or, if that was ineffective, intramuscular ceftriaxone.

Criteria for determining treatment failure included persistent otorrhea, tympanic membrane perforation, antibiotic-associated diarrhea, reaction to anesthesia, and recurrence of AOM at a frequency equal to the frequency before antibiotic treatment.

In comparing tympanostomy tubes with antibiotics, Dr. Hoberman said, “We were unable to show benefit in the rate of ear infections per child per year over a 2-year period.” As expected, the infection rate fell by about half from the first year to the second in all children.

Overall, the investigators found “no substantial differences between treatment groups” with regard to AOM frequency, percentage of severe episodes, extent of antimicrobial resistance, quality of life for the children, and parental stress.

In an intention-to-treat analysis, the rate of AOM episodes per child-year during the study was 1.48 ± 0.08 for tubes and 1.56 ± 0.08 for antibiotics (P = .66).

However, randomization was not maintained in the intention-to-treat arm. Ten percent (13 of 129) of the children slated to receive tubes didn’t get them because of parental request. Conversely, 16% (54 of 121) of children in the antibiotic group received tubes, 35 (29%) of them in accordance with the trial protocol because of frequent recurrences, and 19 (16%) at parental request.

In a per-protocol analysis, rates of AOM episodes per child-year were 1.47 ± 0.08 for tubes and 1.72 ± 0.11 for antibiotics.

Tubes were associated with longer time until the first ear infection post placement, at a median of 4.34 months, compared with 2.33 months for children who received antibiotics. A smaller percentage of children in the tube group had treatment failure than in the antibiotic group (45% vs. 62%). Children who received tubes also had fewer days per year with symptoms in comparison with the children in the antibiotic group (mean, 2.00 ± 0.29 days vs. 8.33 ± 0.59 days).

The frequency distribution of AOM episodes, the percentage of severe episodes, and antimicrobial resistance detected in respiratory specimens were the same for both groups.

“Hoberman and colleagues add to our knowledge of managing children with recurrent ear infections with a large and rigorous clinical trial showing comparable efficacy of tympanostomy tube insertion, with antibiotic eardrops for new infections versus watchful waiting, with intermittent oral antibiotics, if further ear infections occur,” said Richard M. Rosenfeld, MD, MPH, MBA, distinguished professor and chairman, department of otolaryngology, SUNY Downstate Medical Center, New York.

However, in an accompanying editorial, Ellen R. Wald, MD, from the University of Wisconsin, Madison, pointed out that the sample size was smaller than desired, owing to participants switching groups.

In addition, Dr. Rosenfeld, who was the lead author of the 2013 guidelines, said the study likely underestimates the impact of tubes “because about two-thirds of the children who received them did not have persistent middle-ear fluid at baseline and would not have been candidates for tubes based on the current national guideline on tube indications.”

“Both tubes and intermittent antibiotic therapy are effective for managing recurrent AOM, and parents of children with persistent middle-ear effusion should engage in shared decision-making with their physician to decide on the best management option,” said Dr. Rosenfeld. “When in doubt, watchful waiting is appropriate because many children with recurrent AOM do better over time.”

Dr. Hoberman owns stock in Kaizen Bioscience and holds patents on devices to diagnose and treat AOM. One coauthor consults for Merck. Dr. Wald and Dr. Rosenfeld report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Selective use of antibiotics based on birth circumstances may reduce unnecessary antibiotic exposure for preterm infants at risk of early-onset sepsis, based on data from 340 preterm infants at a single center.

Preterm infants born because of preterm labor, premature rupture of membranes, and/or intraamniotic infection (IAI) are considered at increased risk for early-onset sepsis, and current management strategies include a blood culture and initiation of empirical antibiotics, said Kirtan Patel, MD, of Texas A&M University, Dallas, and colleagues in a poster (# 1720) presented at the Pediatric Academic Societies annual meeting.

However, this blanket approach “may increase the unnecessary early antibiotic exposure in preterm infants possibly leading to future adverse health outcomes,” and physicians are advised to review the risks and benefits, Dr. Patel said.

Data from previous studies suggest that preterm infants born as a result of preterm labor and/or premature rupture of membranes with adequate Group B Streptococcus (GBS) intrapartum antibiotic prophylaxis and no indication of IAI may be managed without empiric antibiotics because the early-onset sepsis risk in these infants is much lower than the ones born through IAI and inadequate GBS intrapartum antibiotic prophylaxis.

To better identify preterm birth circumstances in which antibiotics might be avoided, the researchers conducted a retrospective cohort study of preterm infants born at 28-34 weeks’ gestation during the period from Jan. 1, 2015, to Dec. 31, 2018. These infants were in the low-risk category of preterm birth because of preterm labor or premature rupture of membranes, with no IAI and adequate GBS intrapartum antibiotic prophylaxis, and no signs of cardiovascular or respiratory instability after birth. Of these, 157 (46.2%) received empiric antibiotics soon after birth and 183 infants (53.8%) did not receive empiric antibiotics.

The mean gestational age and birth weight were significantly lower in the empiric antibiotic group, but after correcting for these variables, the factors with the greatest influence on the initiation of antibiotics were maternal intrapartum antibiotic prophylaxis (odds ratio, 3.13); premature rupture of membranes (OR, 3.75); use of continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) in the delivery room (OR, 1.84); CPAP on admission to the neonatal intensive care unit (OR, 1.94); drawing a blood culture (OR, 13.72); and a complete blood count with immature to total neutrophil ratio greater than 0.2 (OR, 3.84).

Three infants (2%) in the antibiotics group had culture-positive early-onset sepsis with Escherichia coli, compared with no infants in the no-antibiotics group. No differences in short-term hospital outcomes appeared between the two groups. The study was limited in part by the retrospective design and sample size, the researchers noted.

However, the results support a selective approach to antibiotics for preterm infants, taking various birth circumstances into account, they said.
 

Further risk factor identification could curb antibiotic use

In this study, empiric antibiotics were cast as a wide net to avoid missing serious infections in a few patients, said Tim Joos, MD, a Seattle-based clinician with a combination internal medicine/pediatrics practice, in an interview.

“It is interesting in this retrospective review of 340 preterm infants that the three newborns that did have serious bacterial infection were correctly given empiric antibiotics from the start,” Dr. Joos noted. “The authors were very effective at elucidating the possible factors that go into starting or not starting empiric antibiotics, although there may be other factors in the clinician’s judgment that are being missed. … More studies are needed on this topic,” Dr. Joos said. “Further research examining how the septic newborns differ from the nonseptic ones could help to even further narrow the use of empiric antibiotics,” he added.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Joos had no financial conflicts to disclose, but serves as a member of the Pediatric News Editorial Advisory Board.

Selective use of antibiotics based on birth circumstances may reduce unnecessary antibiotic exposure for preterm infants at risk of early-onset sepsis, based on data from 340 preterm infants at a single center.

Preterm infants born because of preterm labor, premature rupture of membranes, and/or intraamniotic infection (IAI) are considered at increased risk for early-onset sepsis, and current management strategies include a blood culture and initiation of empirical antibiotics, said Kirtan Patel, MD, of Texas A&M University, Dallas, and colleagues in a poster (# 1720) presented at the Pediatric Academic Societies annual meeting.

However, this blanket approach “may increase the unnecessary early antibiotic exposure in preterm infants possibly leading to future adverse health outcomes,” and physicians are advised to review the risks and benefits, Dr. Patel said.

Data from previous studies suggest that preterm infants born as a result of preterm labor and/or premature rupture of membranes with adequate Group B Streptococcus (GBS) intrapartum antibiotic prophylaxis and no indication of IAI may be managed without empiric antibiotics because the early-onset sepsis risk in these infants is much lower than the ones born through IAI and inadequate GBS intrapartum antibiotic prophylaxis.

To better identify preterm birth circumstances in which antibiotics might be avoided, the researchers conducted a retrospective cohort study of preterm infants born at 28-34 weeks’ gestation during the period from Jan. 1, 2015, to Dec. 31, 2018. These infants were in the low-risk category of preterm birth because of preterm labor or premature rupture of membranes, with no IAI and adequate GBS intrapartum antibiotic prophylaxis, and no signs of cardiovascular or respiratory instability after birth. Of these, 157 (46.2%) received empiric antibiotics soon after birth and 183 infants (53.8%) did not receive empiric antibiotics.

The mean gestational age and birth weight were significantly lower in the empiric antibiotic group, but after correcting for these variables, the factors with the greatest influence on the initiation of antibiotics were maternal intrapartum antibiotic prophylaxis (odds ratio, 3.13); premature rupture of membranes (OR, 3.75); use of continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) in the delivery room (OR, 1.84); CPAP on admission to the neonatal intensive care unit (OR, 1.94); drawing a blood culture (OR, 13.72); and a complete blood count with immature to total neutrophil ratio greater than 0.2 (OR, 3.84).

Three infants (2%) in the antibiotics group had culture-positive early-onset sepsis with Escherichia coli, compared with no infants in the no-antibiotics group. No differences in short-term hospital outcomes appeared between the two groups. The study was limited in part by the retrospective design and sample size, the researchers noted.

However, the results support a selective approach to antibiotics for preterm infants, taking various birth circumstances into account, they said.
 

Further risk factor identification could curb antibiotic use

In this study, empiric antibiotics were cast as a wide net to avoid missing serious infections in a few patients, said Tim Joos, MD, a Seattle-based clinician with a combination internal medicine/pediatrics practice, in an interview.

“It is interesting in this retrospective review of 340 preterm infants that the three newborns that did have serious bacterial infection were correctly given empiric antibiotics from the start,” Dr. Joos noted. “The authors were very effective at elucidating the possible factors that go into starting or not starting empiric antibiotics, although there may be other factors in the clinician’s judgment that are being missed. … More studies are needed on this topic,” Dr. Joos said. “Further research examining how the septic newborns differ from the nonseptic ones could help to even further narrow the use of empiric antibiotics,” he added.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Joos had no financial conflicts to disclose, but serves as a member of the Pediatric News Editorial Advisory Board.

Selective use of antibiotics based on birth circumstances may reduce unnecessary antibiotic exposure for preterm infants at risk of early-onset sepsis, based on data from 340 preterm infants at a single center.

Preterm infants born because of preterm labor, premature rupture of membranes, and/or intraamniotic infection (IAI) are considered at increased risk for early-onset sepsis, and current management strategies include a blood culture and initiation of empirical antibiotics, said Kirtan Patel, MD, of Texas A&M University, Dallas, and colleagues in a poster (# 1720) presented at the Pediatric Academic Societies annual meeting.

However, this blanket approach “may increase the unnecessary early antibiotic exposure in preterm infants possibly leading to future adverse health outcomes,” and physicians are advised to review the risks and benefits, Dr. Patel said.

Data from previous studies suggest that preterm infants born as a result of preterm labor and/or premature rupture of membranes with adequate Group B Streptococcus (GBS) intrapartum antibiotic prophylaxis and no indication of IAI may be managed without empiric antibiotics because the early-onset sepsis risk in these infants is much lower than the ones born through IAI and inadequate GBS intrapartum antibiotic prophylaxis.

To better identify preterm birth circumstances in which antibiotics might be avoided, the researchers conducted a retrospective cohort study of preterm infants born at 28-34 weeks’ gestation during the period from Jan. 1, 2015, to Dec. 31, 2018. These infants were in the low-risk category of preterm birth because of preterm labor or premature rupture of membranes, with no IAI and adequate GBS intrapartum antibiotic prophylaxis, and no signs of cardiovascular or respiratory instability after birth. Of these, 157 (46.2%) received empiric antibiotics soon after birth and 183 infants (53.8%) did not receive empiric antibiotics.

The mean gestational age and birth weight were significantly lower in the empiric antibiotic group, but after correcting for these variables, the factors with the greatest influence on the initiation of antibiotics were maternal intrapartum antibiotic prophylaxis (odds ratio, 3.13); premature rupture of membranes (OR, 3.75); use of continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) in the delivery room (OR, 1.84); CPAP on admission to the neonatal intensive care unit (OR, 1.94); drawing a blood culture (OR, 13.72); and a complete blood count with immature to total neutrophil ratio greater than 0.2 (OR, 3.84).

Three infants (2%) in the antibiotics group had culture-positive early-onset sepsis with Escherichia coli, compared with no infants in the no-antibiotics group. No differences in short-term hospital outcomes appeared between the two groups. The study was limited in part by the retrospective design and sample size, the researchers noted.

However, the results support a selective approach to antibiotics for preterm infants, taking various birth circumstances into account, they said.
 

Further risk factor identification could curb antibiotic use

In this study, empiric antibiotics were cast as a wide net to avoid missing serious infections in a few patients, said Tim Joos, MD, a Seattle-based clinician with a combination internal medicine/pediatrics practice, in an interview.

“It is interesting in this retrospective review of 340 preterm infants that the three newborns that did have serious bacterial infection were correctly given empiric antibiotics from the start,” Dr. Joos noted. “The authors were very effective at elucidating the possible factors that go into starting or not starting empiric antibiotics, although there may be other factors in the clinician’s judgment that are being missed. … More studies are needed on this topic,” Dr. Joos said. “Further research examining how the septic newborns differ from the nonseptic ones could help to even further narrow the use of empiric antibiotics,” he added.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Joos had no financial conflicts to disclose, but serves as a member of the Pediatric News Editorial Advisory Board.

My first thought on this column was maybe Pediatric News has written sufficiently about SARS-CoV-2 infection, and it is time to move on. However, the agenda for the May 12th Advisory Committee on Immunization Practice includes a review of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine safety and immunogenicity data for the 12- to 15-year-old age cohort that suggests the potential for vaccine availability and roll out for early adolescents in the near future and the need for up-to-date knowledge about the incidence, severity, and long-term outcome of COVID-19 in the pediatric population.

Updating and summarizing the pediatric experience for the pediatric community on what children and adolescents have experienced because of SARS-CoV-2 infection is critical to address the myriad of questions that will come from colleagues, parents, and adolescents themselves. A great resource, published weekly, is the joint report from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.¹ As of April 29, 2021, 3,782,724 total child COVID-19 cases have been reported from 49 states, New York City (NYC), the District of Columbia, Guam, and Puerto Rico. Children represent approximately 14% of cases in the United States and not surprisingly are an increasing proportion of total cases as vaccine impact reduces cases among older age groups. Nearly 5% of the pediatric population has already been infected with SARS-CoV-2. Fortunately, compared with adults, hospitalization, severe disease, and mortality remain far lower both in number and proportion than in the adult population. Cumulative hospitalizations from 24 states and NYC total 15,456 (0.8%) among those infected, with 303 deaths reported (from 43 states, NYC, Guam, and Puerto Rico). Case fatality rate approximates 0.01% in the most recent summary of state reports. One of the limitations of this report is that each state decides how to report the age distribution of COVID-19 cases resulting in variation in age range; another is the data are limited to those details individual states chose to make publicly available.

Although children do not commonly develop severe disease, and the case fatality is low, there are still insights to be learned from understanding risk features for severe disease. Preston et al. reviewed discharge data from 869 medical facilities to describe patients 18 years or younger who had an inpatient or emergency department encounter with a primary or secondary COVID-19 discharge diagnosis from March 1 through October 31, 2020.² They reported that approximately 2,430 (11.7%) children were hospitalized and 746, nearly 31% of those hospitalized, had severe COVID disease. Those at greatest risk for severe disease were children with comorbid conditions and those less than 12 years, compared with the 12- to 18-year age group. They did not identify race as a risk for severe disease in this study. Moreira et al. described risk factors for morbidity and death from COVID in children less than 18 years of age³ using CDC COVID-NET, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention COVID-19–associated hospitalization surveillance network. They reported a hospitalization rate of 4.7% among 27,045 cases. They identified three risk factors for hospitalization – age, race/ethnicity, and comorbid conditions. Thirty-nine children (0.19%) died; children who were black, non-Hispanic, and those with an underlying medical condition had a significantly increased risk of death. Thirty-three (85%) children who died had a comorbidity, and 27 (69%) were African American or Hispanic/Latino. The U.S. experience in children is also consistent with reports from the United Kingdom, Italy, Spain, Germany, France, and South Korea.⁴ Deaths from COVID-19 were uncommon but relatively more frequent in older children, compared with younger age groups among children less than 18 years of age in these countries.

Acute COVID-19 and multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) do not predominantly target the neurologic systems; however, neurologic complications have been reported, some of which appear to result in long-lasting disability. LaRovere et al. identified 354 (22%) of 1,695 patients less than 21 years of age with acute COVID or MIS-C who had neurologic signs or symptoms during their illness. Among those with neurologic involvement, most children had prior neurologic deficits, mild symptoms, that resolved by the time of discharge. Forty-three (12%) were considered life threatening and included severe encephalopathy, stroke, central nervous system infection/demyelination, Guillain-Barre syndrome or variant, or acute cerebral edema. Several children, including some who were previously healthy prior to COVID, had persistent neurologic deficits at discharge. In addition to neurologic morbidity, long COVID – a syndrome of persistent symptoms following acute COVID that lasts for more than 12 weeks without alternative diagnosis – has also been described in children. Buonsenso et al. assessed 129 children diagnosed with COVID-19 between March and November 2020 in Rome, Italy.⁵ Persisting symptoms after 120 days were reported by more than 50%. Symptoms like fatigue, muscle and joint pain, headache, insomnia, respiratory problems, and palpitations were most common. Clearly, further follow-up of the long-term outcomes is necessary to understand the full spectrum of morbidity resulting from COVID-19 disease in children and its natural history.

The current picture of COVID infection in children younger than 18 reinforces that children are part of the pandemic. Although deaths in children have now exceeded 300 cases, severe disease remains uncommon in both the United States and western Europe. Risk factors for severe disease include comorbid illness and race/ethnicity with a disproportionate number of severe cases in children with underlying comorbidity and in African American and Hispanic/Latino children. Ongoing surveillance is critical as changes are likely to be observed over time as viral evolution affects disease burden and characteristics.
 

Dr. Pelton is professor of pediatrics and epidemiology at Boston University schools of medicine and public health and senior attending physician in pediatric infectious diseases, Boston Medical Center. Email him at [email protected].

References

1. Children and COVID-19: State-Level Data Report. Services AAP.org.

2. Preston LE et al. JAMA Network Open. 2021;4(4):e215298. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.5298

3. Moreira A et al. Eur J Pediatr. 2021;180:1659-63.

4. SS Bhopal et al. Lancet 2021. doi: 10.1016/ S2352-4642(21)00066-3.

5. Buonsenso D et al. medRxiv preprint. doi: 10.1101/2021.01.23.21250375.

My first thought on this column was maybe Pediatric News has written sufficiently about SARS-CoV-2 infection, and it is time to move on. However, the agenda for the May 12th Advisory Committee on Immunization Practice includes a review of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine safety and immunogenicity data for the 12- to 15-year-old age cohort that suggests the potential for vaccine availability and roll out for early adolescents in the near future and the need for up-to-date knowledge about the incidence, severity, and long-term outcome of COVID-19 in the pediatric population.

Updating and summarizing the pediatric experience for the pediatric community on what children and adolescents have experienced because of SARS-CoV-2 infection is critical to address the myriad of questions that will come from colleagues, parents, and adolescents themselves. A great resource, published weekly, is the joint report from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.¹ As of April 29, 2021, 3,782,724 total child COVID-19 cases have been reported from 49 states, New York City (NYC), the District of Columbia, Guam, and Puerto Rico. Children represent approximately 14% of cases in the United States and not surprisingly are an increasing proportion of total cases as vaccine impact reduces cases among older age groups. Nearly 5% of the pediatric population has already been infected with SARS-CoV-2. Fortunately, compared with adults, hospitalization, severe disease, and mortality remain far lower both in number and proportion than in the adult population. Cumulative hospitalizations from 24 states and NYC total 15,456 (0.8%) among those infected, with 303 deaths reported (from 43 states, NYC, Guam, and Puerto Rico). Case fatality rate approximates 0.01% in the most recent summary of state reports. One of the limitations of this report is that each state decides how to report the age distribution of COVID-19 cases resulting in variation in age range; another is the data are limited to those details individual states chose to make publicly available.

Although children do not commonly develop severe disease, and the case fatality is low, there are still insights to be learned from understanding risk features for severe disease. Preston et al. reviewed discharge data from 869 medical facilities to describe patients 18 years or younger who had an inpatient or emergency department encounter with a primary or secondary COVID-19 discharge diagnosis from March 1 through October 31, 2020.² They reported that approximately 2,430 (11.7%) children were hospitalized and 746, nearly 31% of those hospitalized, had severe COVID disease. Those at greatest risk for severe disease were children with comorbid conditions and those less than 12 years, compared with the 12- to 18-year age group. They did not identify race as a risk for severe disease in this study. Moreira et al. described risk factors for morbidity and death from COVID in children less than 18 years of age³ using CDC COVID-NET, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention COVID-19–associated hospitalization surveillance network. They reported a hospitalization rate of 4.7% among 27,045 cases. They identified three risk factors for hospitalization – age, race/ethnicity, and comorbid conditions. Thirty-nine children (0.19%) died; children who were black, non-Hispanic, and those with an underlying medical condition had a significantly increased risk of death. Thirty-three (85%) children who died had a comorbidity, and 27 (69%) were African American or Hispanic/Latino. The U.S. experience in children is also consistent with reports from the United Kingdom, Italy, Spain, Germany, France, and South Korea.⁴ Deaths from COVID-19 were uncommon but relatively more frequent in older children, compared with younger age groups among children less than 18 years of age in these countries.

Acute COVID-19 and multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) do not predominantly target the neurologic systems; however, neurologic complications have been reported, some of which appear to result in long-lasting disability. LaRovere et al. identified 354 (22%) of 1,695 patients less than 21 years of age with acute COVID or MIS-C who had neurologic signs or symptoms during their illness. Among those with neurologic involvement, most children had prior neurologic deficits, mild symptoms, that resolved by the time of discharge. Forty-three (12%) were considered life threatening and included severe encephalopathy, stroke, central nervous system infection/demyelination, Guillain-Barre syndrome or variant, or acute cerebral edema. Several children, including some who were previously healthy prior to COVID, had persistent neurologic deficits at discharge. In addition to neurologic morbidity, long COVID – a syndrome of persistent symptoms following acute COVID that lasts for more than 12 weeks without alternative diagnosis – has also been described in children. Buonsenso et al. assessed 129 children diagnosed with COVID-19 between March and November 2020 in Rome, Italy.⁵ Persisting symptoms after 120 days were reported by more than 50%. Symptoms like fatigue, muscle and joint pain, headache, insomnia, respiratory problems, and palpitations were most common. Clearly, further follow-up of the long-term outcomes is necessary to understand the full spectrum of morbidity resulting from COVID-19 disease in children and its natural history.

The current picture of COVID infection in children younger than 18 reinforces that children are part of the pandemic. Although deaths in children have now exceeded 300 cases, severe disease remains uncommon in both the United States and western Europe. Risk factors for severe disease include comorbid illness and race/ethnicity with a disproportionate number of severe cases in children with underlying comorbidity and in African American and Hispanic/Latino children. Ongoing surveillance is critical as changes are likely to be observed over time as viral evolution affects disease burden and characteristics.
 

Dr. Pelton is professor of pediatrics and epidemiology at Boston University schools of medicine and public health and senior attending physician in pediatric infectious diseases, Boston Medical Center. Email him at [email protected].

References

1. Children and COVID-19: State-Level Data Report. Services AAP.org.

2. Preston LE et al. JAMA Network Open. 2021;4(4):e215298. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.5298

3. Moreira A et al. Eur J Pediatr. 2021;180:1659-63.

4. SS Bhopal et al. Lancet 2021. doi: 10.1016/ S2352-4642(21)00066-3.

5. Buonsenso D et al. medRxiv preprint. doi: 10.1101/2021.01.23.21250375.

My first thought on this column was maybe Pediatric News has written sufficiently about SARS-CoV-2 infection, and it is time to move on. However, the agenda for the May 12th Advisory Committee on Immunization Practice includes a review of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine safety and immunogenicity data for the 12- to 15-year-old age cohort that suggests the potential for vaccine availability and roll out for early adolescents in the near future and the need for up-to-date knowledge about the incidence, severity, and long-term outcome of COVID-19 in the pediatric population.

Updating and summarizing the pediatric experience for the pediatric community on what children and adolescents have experienced because of SARS-CoV-2 infection is critical to address the myriad of questions that will come from colleagues, parents, and adolescents themselves. A great resource, published weekly, is the joint report from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.¹ As of April 29, 2021, 3,782,724 total child COVID-19 cases have been reported from 49 states, New York City (NYC), the District of Columbia, Guam, and Puerto Rico. Children represent approximately 14% of cases in the United States and not surprisingly are an increasing proportion of total cases as vaccine impact reduces cases among older age groups. Nearly 5% of the pediatric population has already been infected with SARS-CoV-2. Fortunately, compared with adults, hospitalization, severe disease, and mortality remain far lower both in number and proportion than in the adult population. Cumulative hospitalizations from 24 states and NYC total 15,456 (0.8%) among those infected, with 303 deaths reported (from 43 states, NYC, Guam, and Puerto Rico). Case fatality rate approximates 0.01% in the most recent summary of state reports. One of the limitations of this report is that each state decides how to report the age distribution of COVID-19 cases resulting in variation in age range; another is the data are limited to those details individual states chose to make publicly available.

Although children do not commonly develop severe disease, and the case fatality is low, there are still insights to be learned from understanding risk features for severe disease. Preston et al. reviewed discharge data from 869 medical facilities to describe patients 18 years or younger who had an inpatient or emergency department encounter with a primary or secondary COVID-19 discharge diagnosis from March 1 through October 31, 2020.² They reported that approximately 2,430 (11.7%) children were hospitalized and 746, nearly 31% of those hospitalized, had severe COVID disease. Those at greatest risk for severe disease were children with comorbid conditions and those less than 12 years, compared with the 12- to 18-year age group. They did not identify race as a risk for severe disease in this study. Moreira et al. described risk factors for morbidity and death from COVID in children less than 18 years of age³ using CDC COVID-NET, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention COVID-19–associated hospitalization surveillance network. They reported a hospitalization rate of 4.7% among 27,045 cases. They identified three risk factors for hospitalization – age, race/ethnicity, and comorbid conditions. Thirty-nine children (0.19%) died; children who were black, non-Hispanic, and those with an underlying medical condition had a significantly increased risk of death. Thirty-three (85%) children who died had a comorbidity, and 27 (69%) were African American or Hispanic/Latino. The U.S. experience in children is also consistent with reports from the United Kingdom, Italy, Spain, Germany, France, and South Korea.⁴ Deaths from COVID-19 were uncommon but relatively more frequent in older children, compared with younger age groups among children less than 18 years of age in these countries.

Acute COVID-19 and multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) do not predominantly target the neurologic systems; however, neurologic complications have been reported, some of which appear to result in long-lasting disability. LaRovere et al. identified 354 (22%) of 1,695 patients less than 21 years of age with acute COVID or MIS-C who had neurologic signs or symptoms during their illness. Among those with neurologic involvement, most children had prior neurologic deficits, mild symptoms, that resolved by the time of discharge. Forty-three (12%) were considered life threatening and included severe encephalopathy, stroke, central nervous system infection/demyelination, Guillain-Barre syndrome or variant, or acute cerebral edema. Several children, including some who were previously healthy prior to COVID, had persistent neurologic deficits at discharge. In addition to neurologic morbidity, long COVID – a syndrome of persistent symptoms following acute COVID that lasts for more than 12 weeks without alternative diagnosis – has also been described in children. Buonsenso et al. assessed 129 children diagnosed with COVID-19 between March and November 2020 in Rome, Italy.⁵ Persisting symptoms after 120 days were reported by more than 50%. Symptoms like fatigue, muscle and joint pain, headache, insomnia, respiratory problems, and palpitations were most common. Clearly, further follow-up of the long-term outcomes is necessary to understand the full spectrum of morbidity resulting from COVID-19 disease in children and its natural history.

The current picture of COVID infection in children younger than 18 reinforces that children are part of the pandemic. Although deaths in children have now exceeded 300 cases, severe disease remains uncommon in both the United States and western Europe. Risk factors for severe disease include comorbid illness and race/ethnicity with a disproportionate number of severe cases in children with underlying comorbidity and in African American and Hispanic/Latino children. Ongoing surveillance is critical as changes are likely to be observed over time as viral evolution affects disease burden and characteristics.
 

Dr. Pelton is professor of pediatrics and epidemiology at Boston University schools of medicine and public health and senior attending physician in pediatric infectious diseases, Boston Medical Center. Email him at [email protected].

References

1. Children and COVID-19: State-Level Data Report. Services AAP.org.

2. Preston LE et al. JAMA Network Open. 2021;4(4):e215298. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.5298

3. Moreira A et al. Eur J Pediatr. 2021;180:1659-63.

4. SS Bhopal et al. Lancet 2021. doi: 10.1016/ S2352-4642(21)00066-3.

5. Buonsenso D et al. medRxiv preprint. doi: 10.1101/2021.01.23.21250375.

People who are fully vaccinated against COVID-19 are no longer required to wear masks or physically distance, regardless of location or size of the gathering, the CDC announced on May 13.

“Anyone who is fully vaccinated can participate in indoor and outdoor activities, large or small, without wearing a mask or physically distancing,” CDC director Rochelle Walensky, MD, said at a press briefing. “We have all longed for this moment when we can get back to some sense of normalcy.

“This is an exciting and powerful moment,” she added, “It could only happen because of the work from so many who made sure we had the rapid administration of three safe and effective vaccines.”

Dr. Walensky cited three large studies on the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines against the original virus and its variants. One study from Israel found the vaccine to be 97% effective against symptomatic infection.

Those who are symptomatic should still wear masks, Dr. Walensky said, and those who are immunocompromised should talk to their doctors for further guidance. The CDC still advises travelers to wear masks while on airplanes or trains.

The COVID-19 death rates are now the lowest they have been since April 2020.

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

People who are fully vaccinated against COVID-19 are no longer required to wear masks or physically distance, regardless of location or size of the gathering, the CDC announced on May 13.

“Anyone who is fully vaccinated can participate in indoor and outdoor activities, large or small, without wearing a mask or physically distancing,” CDC director Rochelle Walensky, MD, said at a press briefing. “We have all longed for this moment when we can get back to some sense of normalcy.

“This is an exciting and powerful moment,” she added, “It could only happen because of the work from so many who made sure we had the rapid administration of three safe and effective vaccines.”

Dr. Walensky cited three large studies on the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines against the original virus and its variants. One study from Israel found the vaccine to be 97% effective against symptomatic infection.

Those who are symptomatic should still wear masks, Dr. Walensky said, and those who are immunocompromised should talk to their doctors for further guidance. The CDC still advises travelers to wear masks while on airplanes or trains.

The COVID-19 death rates are now the lowest they have been since April 2020.

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

People who are fully vaccinated against COVID-19 are no longer required to wear masks or physically distance, regardless of location or size of the gathering, the CDC announced on May 13.

“Anyone who is fully vaccinated can participate in indoor and outdoor activities, large or small, without wearing a mask or physically distancing,” CDC director Rochelle Walensky, MD, said at a press briefing. “We have all longed for this moment when we can get back to some sense of normalcy.

“This is an exciting and powerful moment,” she added, “It could only happen because of the work from so many who made sure we had the rapid administration of three safe and effective vaccines.”

Dr. Walensky cited three large studies on the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines against the original virus and its variants. One study from Israel found the vaccine to be 97% effective against symptomatic infection.

Those who are symptomatic should still wear masks, Dr. Walensky said, and those who are immunocompromised should talk to their doctors for further guidance. The CDC still advises travelers to wear masks while on airplanes or trains.

The COVID-19 death rates are now the lowest they have been since April 2020.

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

The history of a brownish to pink patch with color change and rapid growth within the first year combined with the exam findings, are suggestive of a tufted angioma, though the findings presented may be nonspecific.

A tufted angioma is a rare vascular tumor of infancy or early childhood, that is present at birth in approximately half of cases. It may initially present as a faint pink to brown plaque, but develops as a firm, red to violaceous nodule or plaque, usually with “lumpiness” or nodularity.^1-3 Lesions usually are infiltrative with indistinct borders. They are named for their histologic appearance, with lobules of capillaries which appear as “tufts” in the dermis and subdermis with “cannonball” appearance, and are considered to be on a spectrum with another vascular tumor called kaposiform hemangioendothelioma (KHE).⁴ These vascular tumors can trigger Kasabach-Merritt syndrome, a disease process in which vascular tumors trap platelets and clotting factors, resulting in a life-threatening thrombocytopenia and consumptive coagulopathy with a high risk of bleeding and high-output heart failure.⁵
 

What’s the differential diagnosis?

The differential diagnosis of tufted angioma includes other potentially large vascular lesions including infantile hemangioma, congenital hemangioma, port-wine birth marks (capillary malformations), hemangioendotheliomas, and rhabdomyosarcomas.

Infantile hemangiomas (IH) are common vascular tumors of infancy seen in 4%-5% of infants that are characterized by a growth and involution phase. Classically, lesions can be absent or minimally evident at birth, becoming noticeable within the first months of life with a rapid growth phase and typical progression to bright red papules, nodules, or plaques. Deeper hemangiomas may appear more skin colored on the surface with a bluish coloration underneath. They are usually more discreet, with relatively defined borders. Diagnosis is typically clinical and many IHs self-resolve, albeit with residual findings including skin atrophy, scarring, and telangiectasia. Observation or topical timolol are first-line treatment options for more superficial lesions while systemic propranolol is the treatment of choice for deeper IHs or those resulting in possible airway or vision compromise.

Congenital hemangiomas (CH) are another type of vascular growth characterized by a solitary erythematous to violaceous plaque or nodule present at birth with overlying telangiectasia. CHs can be subdivided into categories including rapidly involuting (RICH), partially involuting (PICH), and noninvoluting (NICH). Diagnosis is usually clinical and, depending on the subtype, treatment can involve watchful waiting (for RICHs) or more active intervention such as pulse dye laser or surgical resection (for PICHs or NICHs). The growing nature of this patient’s mass makes a diagnosis of CH unlikely.

Port-wine birth mark, also known as nevus flammeus, is a vascular malformation that appears at birth as a nonpalpable irregular erythematous to violaceous macular plaque. Port-wine stains may be isolated birthmarks, or associated with Sturge-Weber syndrome, complex vascular malformations, or soft-tissue overgrowth. Klippel-Trenauny syndrome (KTS) describes capillary-venous malformations with limb overgrowth, with or without lymphatic malformations, and many are associated with somatic mutations in the PIK3CA gene. While KTS could be considered in this patient, the nodular appearance with lumpy texture and rapid growth makes a vascular tumor more likely.

Rhabdomyosarcoma is a malignancy of skeletal muscle lineage and the most common soft tissue tumor in pediatrics. Cutaneous rhabdomyosarcomas present as erythematous nodules, markedly firm, often “fixed” to deep tissue. A rapidly growing atypical, firm tumor of infancy should raise the consideration of rhabdomyosarcoma and imaging and biopsy are appropriate for evaluation.
 

What should the evaluation and management of this patient be?

Initial workup should include a complete blood count with platelet count as well as coagulation studies including D-dimer, fibrinogen, prothrombin time, and activated partial thromboplastin time, to assess for any thrombocytopenia or coagulopathy.⁶ Ultrasound and/or MRI may also be performed to determine lesion extent. While typical MRI findings might be suggestive of a tufted angioma or hemangioendothelioma, biopsy for histologic examination is usually the approach to diagnosis, which will demonstrate stereotypic round lobules of capillaries in a “tufted” distribution.^2,7 Biopsy may be performed by a surgeon or dermatologist but bleeding at time of biopsy needs to be considered before moving forward with the procedure.

Tufted angiomas of early life may regress spontaneously, though lesions with symptoms, with functional significance, or associated with KHE may require therapy. Surgical excision is one option, but it may be difficult to execute given that these lesions often have poorly defined margins.¹ Other treatment choices include but are not limited to aspirin, systemic corticosteroids, vincristine, interferon-alpha, embolization, and sirolimus.⁸ No specific expert-directed consensus guidelines exist for these lesions, and suspicion of this lesion should prompt urgent referral to a pediatric dermatologist. Concern for Kasabach-Merritt syndrome should trigger immediate referral for rapid evaluation and management.

Complete blood count with platelet count and coagulation studies were normal in our patient. This infant underwent biopsy to confirm the diagnosis of tufted angioma and MRI to determine lesion extent. The lesion slowly involuted spontaneously without recurrence.
 

Mr. Haft is a pediatric dermatology research associate in the division of pediatric and adolescent dermatology at the University of California, San Diego, and Rady Children’s Hospital, San Diego. He is MS4 at the University of Rochester, N.Y. Dr. Eichenfield is vice chair of the department of dermatology and professor of dermatology and pediatrics at the University of California, San Diego, and Rady Children’s Hospital, San Diego. Neither Mr. Haft nor Dr. Eichenfield have any relevant financial disclosures.

References

1. Herron MD et al. Pediatr Dermatol. 2002;19(5):394-401.

2. Jones EW and Orkin M. J Am Acad Dermatol. 1989;20(2 Pt 1):214-25.

3. Wong SN and Tay YK. Pediatr Dermatol. 2002;19(5):388-93.

4. Croteau SE and Gupta D. Semin Cutan Med Surg. 2016;35(3):147-52.

5. Kelly M. Pediatr Clin North Am. 2010;57(5):1085-9.

6. Osio A et al. Arch Dermatol. 2010;146(7):758-63.

7. Padilla RS et al. Am J Dermatopathol. 1987;9(4):292-300.

8. Liu XH et al. Int J Cancer. 2016;139(7):1658-66.

The history of a brownish to pink patch with color change and rapid growth within the first year combined with the exam findings, are suggestive of a tufted angioma, though the findings presented may be nonspecific.

A tufted angioma is a rare vascular tumor of infancy or early childhood, that is present at birth in approximately half of cases. It may initially present as a faint pink to brown plaque, but develops as a firm, red to violaceous nodule or plaque, usually with “lumpiness” or nodularity.^1-3 Lesions usually are infiltrative with indistinct borders. They are named for their histologic appearance, with lobules of capillaries which appear as “tufts” in the dermis and subdermis with “cannonball” appearance, and are considered to be on a spectrum with another vascular tumor called kaposiform hemangioendothelioma (KHE).⁴ These vascular tumors can trigger Kasabach-Merritt syndrome, a disease process in which vascular tumors trap platelets and clotting factors, resulting in a life-threatening thrombocytopenia and consumptive coagulopathy with a high risk of bleeding and high-output heart failure.⁵
 

What’s the differential diagnosis?

The differential diagnosis of tufted angioma includes other potentially large vascular lesions including infantile hemangioma, congenital hemangioma, port-wine birth marks (capillary malformations), hemangioendotheliomas, and rhabdomyosarcomas.

Infantile hemangiomas (IH) are common vascular tumors of infancy seen in 4%-5% of infants that are characterized by a growth and involution phase. Classically, lesions can be absent or minimally evident at birth, becoming noticeable within the first months of life with a rapid growth phase and typical progression to bright red papules, nodules, or plaques. Deeper hemangiomas may appear more skin colored on the surface with a bluish coloration underneath. They are usually more discreet, with relatively defined borders. Diagnosis is typically clinical and many IHs self-resolve, albeit with residual findings including skin atrophy, scarring, and telangiectasia. Observation or topical timolol are first-line treatment options for more superficial lesions while systemic propranolol is the treatment of choice for deeper IHs or those resulting in possible airway or vision compromise.

Congenital hemangiomas (CH) are another type of vascular growth characterized by a solitary erythematous to violaceous plaque or nodule present at birth with overlying telangiectasia. CHs can be subdivided into categories including rapidly involuting (RICH), partially involuting (PICH), and noninvoluting (NICH). Diagnosis is usually clinical and, depending on the subtype, treatment can involve watchful waiting (for RICHs) or more active intervention such as pulse dye laser or surgical resection (for PICHs or NICHs). The growing nature of this patient’s mass makes a diagnosis of CH unlikely.

Port-wine birth mark, also known as nevus flammeus, is a vascular malformation that appears at birth as a nonpalpable irregular erythematous to violaceous macular plaque. Port-wine stains may be isolated birthmarks, or associated with Sturge-Weber syndrome, complex vascular malformations, or soft-tissue overgrowth. Klippel-Trenauny syndrome (KTS) describes capillary-venous malformations with limb overgrowth, with or without lymphatic malformations, and many are associated with somatic mutations in the PIK3CA gene. While KTS could be considered in this patient, the nodular appearance with lumpy texture and rapid growth makes a vascular tumor more likely.

Rhabdomyosarcoma is a malignancy of skeletal muscle lineage and the most common soft tissue tumor in pediatrics. Cutaneous rhabdomyosarcomas present as erythematous nodules, markedly firm, often “fixed” to deep tissue. A rapidly growing atypical, firm tumor of infancy should raise the consideration of rhabdomyosarcoma and imaging and biopsy are appropriate for evaluation.
 

What should the evaluation and management of this patient be?

Initial workup should include a complete blood count with platelet count as well as coagulation studies including D-dimer, fibrinogen, prothrombin time, and activated partial thromboplastin time, to assess for any thrombocytopenia or coagulopathy.⁶ Ultrasound and/or MRI may also be performed to determine lesion extent. While typical MRI findings might be suggestive of a tufted angioma or hemangioendothelioma, biopsy for histologic examination is usually the approach to diagnosis, which will demonstrate stereotypic round lobules of capillaries in a “tufted” distribution.^2,7 Biopsy may be performed by a surgeon or dermatologist but bleeding at time of biopsy needs to be considered before moving forward with the procedure.

Tufted angiomas of early life may regress spontaneously, though lesions with symptoms, with functional significance, or associated with KHE may require therapy. Surgical excision is one option, but it may be difficult to execute given that these lesions often have poorly defined margins.¹ Other treatment choices include but are not limited to aspirin, systemic corticosteroids, vincristine, interferon-alpha, embolization, and sirolimus.⁸ No specific expert-directed consensus guidelines exist for these lesions, and suspicion of this lesion should prompt urgent referral to a pediatric dermatologist. Concern for Kasabach-Merritt syndrome should trigger immediate referral for rapid evaluation and management.

Complete blood count with platelet count and coagulation studies were normal in our patient. This infant underwent biopsy to confirm the diagnosis of tufted angioma and MRI to determine lesion extent. The lesion slowly involuted spontaneously without recurrence.
 

Mr. Haft is a pediatric dermatology research associate in the division of pediatric and adolescent dermatology at the University of California, San Diego, and Rady Children’s Hospital, San Diego. He is MS4 at the University of Rochester, N.Y. Dr. Eichenfield is vice chair of the department of dermatology and professor of dermatology and pediatrics at the University of California, San Diego, and Rady Children’s Hospital, San Diego. Neither Mr. Haft nor Dr. Eichenfield have any relevant financial disclosures.

References

1. Herron MD et al. Pediatr Dermatol. 2002;19(5):394-401.

2. Jones EW and Orkin M. J Am Acad Dermatol. 1989;20(2 Pt 1):214-25.

3. Wong SN and Tay YK. Pediatr Dermatol. 2002;19(5):388-93.

4. Croteau SE and Gupta D. Semin Cutan Med Surg. 2016;35(3):147-52.

5. Kelly M. Pediatr Clin North Am. 2010;57(5):1085-9.

6. Osio A et al. Arch Dermatol. 2010;146(7):758-63.

7. Padilla RS et al. Am J Dermatopathol. 1987;9(4):292-300.

8. Liu XH et al. Int J Cancer. 2016;139(7):1658-66.

The history of a brownish to pink patch with color change and rapid growth within the first year combined with the exam findings, are suggestive of a tufted angioma, though the findings presented may be nonspecific.

A tufted angioma is a rare vascular tumor of infancy or early childhood, that is present at birth in approximately half of cases. It may initially present as a faint pink to brown plaque, but develops as a firm, red to violaceous nodule or plaque, usually with “lumpiness” or nodularity.^1-3 Lesions usually are infiltrative with indistinct borders. They are named for their histologic appearance, with lobules of capillaries which appear as “tufts” in the dermis and subdermis with “cannonball” appearance, and are considered to be on a spectrum with another vascular tumor called kaposiform hemangioendothelioma (KHE).⁴ These vascular tumors can trigger Kasabach-Merritt syndrome, a disease process in which vascular tumors trap platelets and clotting factors, resulting in a life-threatening thrombocytopenia and consumptive coagulopathy with a high risk of bleeding and high-output heart failure.⁵
 

What’s the differential diagnosis?

The differential diagnosis of tufted angioma includes other potentially large vascular lesions including infantile hemangioma, congenital hemangioma, port-wine birth marks (capillary malformations), hemangioendotheliomas, and rhabdomyosarcomas.

Infantile hemangiomas (IH) are common vascular tumors of infancy seen in 4%-5% of infants that are characterized by a growth and involution phase. Classically, lesions can be absent or minimally evident at birth, becoming noticeable within the first months of life with a rapid growth phase and typical progression to bright red papules, nodules, or plaques. Deeper hemangiomas may appear more skin colored on the surface with a bluish coloration underneath. They are usually more discreet, with relatively defined borders. Diagnosis is typically clinical and many IHs self-resolve, albeit with residual findings including skin atrophy, scarring, and telangiectasia. Observation or topical timolol are first-line treatment options for more superficial lesions while systemic propranolol is the treatment of choice for deeper IHs or those resulting in possible airway or vision compromise.

Congenital hemangiomas (CH) are another type of vascular growth characterized by a solitary erythematous to violaceous plaque or nodule present at birth with overlying telangiectasia. CHs can be subdivided into categories including rapidly involuting (RICH), partially involuting (PICH), and noninvoluting (NICH). Diagnosis is usually clinical and, depending on the subtype, treatment can involve watchful waiting (for RICHs) or more active intervention such as pulse dye laser or surgical resection (for PICHs or NICHs). The growing nature of this patient’s mass makes a diagnosis of CH unlikely.

Port-wine birth mark, also known as nevus flammeus, is a vascular malformation that appears at birth as a nonpalpable irregular erythematous to violaceous macular plaque. Port-wine stains may be isolated birthmarks, or associated with Sturge-Weber syndrome, complex vascular malformations, or soft-tissue overgrowth. Klippel-Trenauny syndrome (KTS) describes capillary-venous malformations with limb overgrowth, with or without lymphatic malformations, and many are associated with somatic mutations in the PIK3CA gene. While KTS could be considered in this patient, the nodular appearance with lumpy texture and rapid growth makes a vascular tumor more likely.

Rhabdomyosarcoma is a malignancy of skeletal muscle lineage and the most common soft tissue tumor in pediatrics. Cutaneous rhabdomyosarcomas present as erythematous nodules, markedly firm, often “fixed” to deep tissue. A rapidly growing atypical, firm tumor of infancy should raise the consideration of rhabdomyosarcoma and imaging and biopsy are appropriate for evaluation.
 

What should the evaluation and management of this patient be?

Initial workup should include a complete blood count with platelet count as well as coagulation studies including D-dimer, fibrinogen, prothrombin time, and activated partial thromboplastin time, to assess for any thrombocytopenia or coagulopathy.⁶ Ultrasound and/or MRI may also be performed to determine lesion extent. While typical MRI findings might be suggestive of a tufted angioma or hemangioendothelioma, biopsy for histologic examination is usually the approach to diagnosis, which will demonstrate stereotypic round lobules of capillaries in a “tufted” distribution.^2,7 Biopsy may be performed by a surgeon or dermatologist but bleeding at time of biopsy needs to be considered before moving forward with the procedure.

Tufted angiomas of early life may regress spontaneously, though lesions with symptoms, with functional significance, or associated with KHE may require therapy. Surgical excision is one option, but it may be difficult to execute given that these lesions often have poorly defined margins.¹ Other treatment choices include but are not limited to aspirin, systemic corticosteroids, vincristine, interferon-alpha, embolization, and sirolimus.⁸ No specific expert-directed consensus guidelines exist for these lesions, and suspicion of this lesion should prompt urgent referral to a pediatric dermatologist. Concern for Kasabach-Merritt syndrome should trigger immediate referral for rapid evaluation and management.

Complete blood count with platelet count and coagulation studies were normal in our patient. This infant underwent biopsy to confirm the diagnosis of tufted angioma and MRI to determine lesion extent. The lesion slowly involuted spontaneously without recurrence.
 

Mr. Haft is a pediatric dermatology research associate in the division of pediatric and adolescent dermatology at the University of California, San Diego, and Rady Children’s Hospital, San Diego. He is MS4 at the University of Rochester, N.Y. Dr. Eichenfield is vice chair of the department of dermatology and professor of dermatology and pediatrics at the University of California, San Diego, and Rady Children’s Hospital, San Diego. Neither Mr. Haft nor Dr. Eichenfield have any relevant financial disclosures.

References

1. Herron MD et al. Pediatr Dermatol. 2002;19(5):394-401.

2. Jones EW and Orkin M. J Am Acad Dermatol. 1989;20(2 Pt 1):214-25.

3. Wong SN and Tay YK. Pediatr Dermatol. 2002;19(5):388-93.

4. Croteau SE and Gupta D. Semin Cutan Med Surg. 2016;35(3):147-52.

5. Kelly M. Pediatr Clin North Am. 2010;57(5):1085-9.

6. Osio A et al. Arch Dermatol. 2010;146(7):758-63.

7. Padilla RS et al. Am J Dermatopathol. 1987;9(4):292-300.

8. Liu XH et al. Int J Cancer. 2016;139(7):1658-66.

The American Medical Association has released a 3-year strategic plan to counter longstanding health inequities that hurt marginalized communities and to improve the AMA’s own performance in this regard.

The 82-page report, which was created by the association’s Center for Health Equity, argues for both internal changes at the AMA and changes in how the association addresses race-based inequities in general.

The report was released just 2 months after this news organization reported that a podcast hosted by AMA’s top journal was lambasted as racist and out of touch. In the podcast – entitled “Stuctural Racism for Doctors – What Is It?” – one JAMA editor argued that structural racism doesn’t exist. He eventually resigned and the journal’s top editor was placed on administration leave.

The new AMA report’s strategic framework “is driven by the immense need for equity-centered solutions to confront harms produced by systemic racism and other forms of oppression for Black, Latinx, Indigenous, Asian, and other people of color, as well as people who identify as LGBTQ+ and people with disabilities,” the AMA said in a news release. “Its urgency is underscored by ongoing circumstances including inequities exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic, ongoing police brutality, and hate crimes targeting Asian, Black, and Brown communities.”

The plan includes five main approaches to addressing inequities in health care and the AMA:

• Implement antiracist equity strategies through AMA practices, programming, policies, and culture.
• Build alliances with marginalized doctors and other stakeholders to elevate the experiences and ideas of historically marginalized and minority health care leaders.
• Strengthen, empower, and equip doctors with the knowledge and tools to dismantle structural and social health inequities.
• Ensure equitable opportunities in innovation.
• Foster truth, racial healing, reconciliation, and transformation for AMA’s past by accounting for how policies and processes excluded, discriminated, and harmed communities.

As the report acknowledges, the AMA has a long history of exclusion of and discrimination against Black physicians, for which the association publicly apologized in 2008. Within the past year, the AMA has reaffirmed its commitment to addressing this legacy and to be proactive on health equity.

Among other things, the association has described racism as a public health crisis, stated that race has nothing to do with biology, said police brutality is a product of structural racism, and called on the federal government to collect and release COVID-19 race/ethnicity data. It also removed the name of AMA founder Nathan Davis, MD, from an annual award and display because of his contribution to explicit racist practices.
 

Equity-centered solutions

The AMA launched its Center for Health Equity in 2019 with a mandate “to embed health equity across the organization.” Aletha Maybank, MD, was named the AMA’s chief health equity officer to lead the center.

In the report that Dr. Maybank helped write, the AMA discusses the consequences of individual and systemic injustice toward minorities. Among these consequences, the report said, is “segregated and inequitable health care systems.”

The “equity-centered solutions” listed in the report include:

• End segregated health care.
• Establish national health care equity and racial justice standards.
• End the use of race-based clinical decision models.
• Eliminate all forms of discrimination, exclusion and oppression in medical and physician education, training, hiring, and promotion.
• Prevent exclusion of and ensure equal representation of Black, Indigenous and Latinx people in medical school admissions as well as medical school and hospital leadership ranks.
• Ensure equity in innovation, including design, development, implementation along with support for equitable innovation opportunities and entrepreneurship.
• Solidify connections and coordination between health care and public health.
• Acknowledge and repair past harms committed by institutions.
•  

Changing medical education

In an exclusive interview, Gerald E. Harmon, MD, president-elect of the AMA, singled out medical education as an area that is ripe for change. “One of the most threatened phenotypes on the planet is the Black male physician,” he said. “Their numbers among medical school applicants continue to drop. We have increasing numbers of women in medical schools – over 50% of trainees are women – and more Black women are entering medical school, but Black men in medical school are an endangered species.

“We’re trying to get the physician workforce to look like the patient workforce.”

Dr. Harmon cited the “pipeline program” at the Morehouse School of Medicine in Atlanta and the AMA’s “doctors back to school” program as examples of efforts to attract minority high school students to health care careers. Much more needs to be done, he added. “We have to put equity and representation into our medical workforce so we can provide better high quality, more reliable care for underrepresented patients.”
 

Putting the AMA’s house in order

In its report, the AMA also makes recommendations about how it can improve equity within its own organization. Over the next 3 years, among other things, the association plans to improve the diversity of leadership at the AMA and its journal, JAMA; train all staff on equity requirements; and develop a plan to recruit more racial and ethnic minorities, LGBTQ+ people, and disabled people.

Dr. Maybank, the AMA’s chief health equity officer, said in an interview that she wouldn’t describe these efforts as affirmative action. “This is beyond affirmative action. It’s about intentional activity and action to ensure equity and justice within the AMA.”

The AMA has to thoroughly examine its own processes and determine “how inequity shows up on a day-to-day basis,” she said. “Whether it’s through hiring, innovation, publishing or communications, everybody needs to know how inequity shows up and how their own mental models can exacerbate inequities. People need tools to challenge themselves and ask themselves critical questions about racism in their processes and what they can do to mitigate those.”

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

The American Medical Association has released a 3-year strategic plan to counter longstanding health inequities that hurt marginalized communities and to improve the AMA’s own performance in this regard.

The 82-page report, which was created by the association’s Center for Health Equity, argues for both internal changes at the AMA and changes in how the association addresses race-based inequities in general.

The report was released just 2 months after this news organization reported that a podcast hosted by AMA’s top journal was lambasted as racist and out of touch. In the podcast – entitled “Stuctural Racism for Doctors – What Is It?” – one JAMA editor argued that structural racism doesn’t exist. He eventually resigned and the journal’s top editor was placed on administration leave.

The new AMA report’s strategic framework “is driven by the immense need for equity-centered solutions to confront harms produced by systemic racism and other forms of oppression for Black, Latinx, Indigenous, Asian, and other people of color, as well as people who identify as LGBTQ+ and people with disabilities,” the AMA said in a news release. “Its urgency is underscored by ongoing circumstances including inequities exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic, ongoing police brutality, and hate crimes targeting Asian, Black, and Brown communities.”

The plan includes five main approaches to addressing inequities in health care and the AMA:

• Implement antiracist equity strategies through AMA practices, programming, policies, and culture.
• Build alliances with marginalized doctors and other stakeholders to elevate the experiences and ideas of historically marginalized and minority health care leaders.
• Strengthen, empower, and equip doctors with the knowledge and tools to dismantle structural and social health inequities.
• Ensure equitable opportunities in innovation.
• Foster truth, racial healing, reconciliation, and transformation for AMA’s past by accounting for how policies and processes excluded, discriminated, and harmed communities.

As the report acknowledges, the AMA has a long history of exclusion of and discrimination against Black physicians, for which the association publicly apologized in 2008. Within the past year, the AMA has reaffirmed its commitment to addressing this legacy and to be proactive on health equity.

Among other things, the association has described racism as a public health crisis, stated that race has nothing to do with biology, said police brutality is a product of structural racism, and called on the federal government to collect and release COVID-19 race/ethnicity data. It also removed the name of AMA founder Nathan Davis, MD, from an annual award and display because of his contribution to explicit racist practices.
 

Equity-centered solutions

The AMA launched its Center for Health Equity in 2019 with a mandate “to embed health equity across the organization.” Aletha Maybank, MD, was named the AMA’s chief health equity officer to lead the center.

In the report that Dr. Maybank helped write, the AMA discusses the consequences of individual and systemic injustice toward minorities. Among these consequences, the report said, is “segregated and inequitable health care systems.”

The “equity-centered solutions” listed in the report include:

• End segregated health care.
• Establish national health care equity and racial justice standards.
• End the use of race-based clinical decision models.
• Eliminate all forms of discrimination, exclusion and oppression in medical and physician education, training, hiring, and promotion.
• Prevent exclusion of and ensure equal representation of Black, Indigenous and Latinx people in medical school admissions as well as medical school and hospital leadership ranks.
• Ensure equity in innovation, including design, development, implementation along with support for equitable innovation opportunities and entrepreneurship.
• Solidify connections and coordination between health care and public health.
• Acknowledge and repair past harms committed by institutions.
•  

Changing medical education

In an exclusive interview, Gerald E. Harmon, MD, president-elect of the AMA, singled out medical education as an area that is ripe for change. “One of the most threatened phenotypes on the planet is the Black male physician,” he said. “Their numbers among medical school applicants continue to drop. We have increasing numbers of women in medical schools – over 50% of trainees are women – and more Black women are entering medical school, but Black men in medical school are an endangered species.

“We’re trying to get the physician workforce to look like the patient workforce.”

Dr. Harmon cited the “pipeline program” at the Morehouse School of Medicine in Atlanta and the AMA’s “doctors back to school” program as examples of efforts to attract minority high school students to health care careers. Much more needs to be done, he added. “We have to put equity and representation into our medical workforce so we can provide better high quality, more reliable care for underrepresented patients.”
 

Putting the AMA’s house in order

In its report, the AMA also makes recommendations about how it can improve equity within its own organization. Over the next 3 years, among other things, the association plans to improve the diversity of leadership at the AMA and its journal, JAMA; train all staff on equity requirements; and develop a plan to recruit more racial and ethnic minorities, LGBTQ+ people, and disabled people.

Dr. Maybank, the AMA’s chief health equity officer, said in an interview that she wouldn’t describe these efforts as affirmative action. “This is beyond affirmative action. It’s about intentional activity and action to ensure equity and justice within the AMA.”

The AMA has to thoroughly examine its own processes and determine “how inequity shows up on a day-to-day basis,” she said. “Whether it’s through hiring, innovation, publishing or communications, everybody needs to know how inequity shows up and how their own mental models can exacerbate inequities. People need tools to challenge themselves and ask themselves critical questions about racism in their processes and what they can do to mitigate those.”

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

The American Medical Association has released a 3-year strategic plan to counter longstanding health inequities that hurt marginalized communities and to improve the AMA’s own performance in this regard.

The 82-page report, which was created by the association’s Center for Health Equity, argues for both internal changes at the AMA and changes in how the association addresses race-based inequities in general.

The report was released just 2 months after this news organization reported that a podcast hosted by AMA’s top journal was lambasted as racist and out of touch. In the podcast – entitled “Stuctural Racism for Doctors – What Is It?” – one JAMA editor argued that structural racism doesn’t exist. He eventually resigned and the journal’s top editor was placed on administration leave.

The new AMA report’s strategic framework “is driven by the immense need for equity-centered solutions to confront harms produced by systemic racism and other forms of oppression for Black, Latinx, Indigenous, Asian, and other people of color, as well as people who identify as LGBTQ+ and people with disabilities,” the AMA said in a news release. “Its urgency is underscored by ongoing circumstances including inequities exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic, ongoing police brutality, and hate crimes targeting Asian, Black, and Brown communities.”

The plan includes five main approaches to addressing inequities in health care and the AMA:

• Implement antiracist equity strategies through AMA practices, programming, policies, and culture.
• Build alliances with marginalized doctors and other stakeholders to elevate the experiences and ideas of historically marginalized and minority health care leaders.
• Strengthen, empower, and equip doctors with the knowledge and tools to dismantle structural and social health inequities.
• Ensure equitable opportunities in innovation.
• Foster truth, racial healing, reconciliation, and transformation for AMA’s past by accounting for how policies and processes excluded, discriminated, and harmed communities.

As the report acknowledges, the AMA has a long history of exclusion of and discrimination against Black physicians, for which the association publicly apologized in 2008. Within the past year, the AMA has reaffirmed its commitment to addressing this legacy and to be proactive on health equity.

Among other things, the association has described racism as a public health crisis, stated that race has nothing to do with biology, said police brutality is a product of structural racism, and called on the federal government to collect and release COVID-19 race/ethnicity data. It also removed the name of AMA founder Nathan Davis, MD, from an annual award and display because of his contribution to explicit racist practices.
 

Equity-centered solutions

The AMA launched its Center for Health Equity in 2019 with a mandate “to embed health equity across the organization.” Aletha Maybank, MD, was named the AMA’s chief health equity officer to lead the center.

In the report that Dr. Maybank helped write, the AMA discusses the consequences of individual and systemic injustice toward minorities. Among these consequences, the report said, is “segregated and inequitable health care systems.”

The “equity-centered solutions” listed in the report include:

• End segregated health care.
• Establish national health care equity and racial justice standards.
• End the use of race-based clinical decision models.
• Eliminate all forms of discrimination, exclusion and oppression in medical and physician education, training, hiring, and promotion.
• Prevent exclusion of and ensure equal representation of Black, Indigenous and Latinx people in medical school admissions as well as medical school and hospital leadership ranks.
• Ensure equity in innovation, including design, development, implementation along with support for equitable innovation opportunities and entrepreneurship.
• Solidify connections and coordination between health care and public health.
• Acknowledge and repair past harms committed by institutions.
•  

Changing medical education

In an exclusive interview, Gerald E. Harmon, MD, president-elect of the AMA, singled out medical education as an area that is ripe for change. “One of the most threatened phenotypes on the planet is the Black male physician,” he said. “Their numbers among medical school applicants continue to drop. We have increasing numbers of women in medical schools – over 50% of trainees are women – and more Black women are entering medical school, but Black men in medical school are an endangered species.

“We’re trying to get the physician workforce to look like the patient workforce.”

Dr. Harmon cited the “pipeline program” at the Morehouse School of Medicine in Atlanta and the AMA’s “doctors back to school” program as examples of efforts to attract minority high school students to health care careers. Much more needs to be done, he added. “We have to put equity and representation into our medical workforce so we can provide better high quality, more reliable care for underrepresented patients.”
 

Putting the AMA’s house in order

In its report, the AMA also makes recommendations about how it can improve equity within its own organization. Over the next 3 years, among other things, the association plans to improve the diversity of leadership at the AMA and its journal, JAMA; train all staff on equity requirements; and develop a plan to recruit more racial and ethnic minorities, LGBTQ+ people, and disabled people.

Dr. Maybank, the AMA’s chief health equity officer, said in an interview that she wouldn’t describe these efforts as affirmative action. “This is beyond affirmative action. It’s about intentional activity and action to ensure equity and justice within the AMA.”

The AMA has to thoroughly examine its own processes and determine “how inequity shows up on a day-to-day basis,” she said. “Whether it’s through hiring, innovation, publishing or communications, everybody needs to know how inequity shows up and how their own mental models can exacerbate inequities. People need tools to challenge themselves and ask themselves critical questions about racism in their processes and what they can do to mitigate those.”

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

Lower blood sugar with sardines

Brand X Pictures/thinkstock.com

If you’ve ever turned your nose up at someone eating sardines straight from the can, you could be the one missing out on a good way to boost your own health.

New research from Open University of Catalonia (Spain) has found that eating two cans of whole sardines a week can help prevent people from developing type 2 diabetes (T2D). Now you might be thinking: That’s a lot of fish, can’t I just take a supplement pill? Actually, no.

“Nutrients can play an essential role in the prevention and treatment of many different pathologies, but their effect is usually caused by the synergy that exists between them and the food that they are contained in,” study coauthor Diana Rizzolo, PhD, said in a written statement. See, we told you.

In a study of 152 patients with prediabetes, each participant was put on a specific diet to reduce their chances of developing T2D. Among the patients who were not given sardines each week, the proportion considered to be at the highest risk fell from 27% to 22% after 1 year, but for those who did get the sardines, the size of the high-risk group shrank from 37% to just 8%.

Suggesting sardines during checkups could make eating them more widely accepted, Dr. Rizzolo and associates said. Sardines are cheap, easy to find, and also have the benefits of other oily fish, like boosting insulin resistance and increasing good cholesterol.

So why not have a can with a couple of saltine crackers for lunch? Your blood sugar will thank you. Just please avoid indulging on a plane or in your office, where workers are slowly returning – no need to give them another excuse to avoid their cubicle.
 

Come for the torture, stay for the vaccine

MMZ84 from Pixabay

Bran Castle. Home of Dracula and Vlad the Impaler (at least in pop culture’s eyes). A moody Gothic structure atop a hill. You can practically hear the ancient screams of thousands of tortured souls as you wander the grounds and its cursed halls. Naturally, it’s a major tourist destination.

Unfortunately for Romania, the pandemic has rather put a damper on tourism. The restrictions have done their damage, but here’s a quick LOTME theory: Perhaps people don’t want to be reminded of medieval tortures when we’ve got plenty of modern-day ones right now.

The management of Bran Castle has developed a new gimmick to drum up attendance – come to Bran Castle and get your COVID vaccine. Anyone can come and get jabbed with the Pfizer vaccine on all weekends in May, and when they do, they gain free admittance to the castle and the exhibit within, home to 52 medieval torture instruments. “The idea … was to show how people got jabbed 500-600 years ago in Europe,” the castle’s marketing director said.

While it may not be kind of the jabbing ole Vladdy got his name for – fully impaling people on hundreds of wooden stakes while you eat a nice dinner isn’t exactly smiled upon in today’s world – we’re sure he’d approve of this more limited but ultimately beneficial version. Jabbing people while helping them really is the dream.
 

Fuzzy little COVID detectors

temmuzcan/Getty Images

Before we get started, we need a moment to get our deep, movie trailer announcer-type voice ready. Okay, here goes.

“In a world where an organism too tiny to see brings entire economies to a standstill and pits scientists against doofuses, who can humanity turn to for help?”

How about bees? That’s right, we said bees. But not just any bees. Specially trained bees. Specially trained Dutch bees. Bees trained to sniff out our greatest nemesis. No, we’re not talking about Ted Cruz anymore. Let it go, that was just a joke. We’re talking COVID.

We’ll let Wim van der Poel, professor of virology at Wageningen (the Netherlands) University, explain the process: “We collect normal honeybees from a beekeeper, and we put the bees in harnesses.” And you thought their tulips were pretty great – the Dutch are putting harnesses on bees! (Which is much better than our previous story of bees involving a Taiwanese patient.)

The researchers presented the bees with two types of samples: COVID infected and non–COVID infected. The infected samples came with a sugary water reward and the noninfected samples did not, so the bees quickly learned to tell the difference.

The bees, then, could cut the waiting time for test results down to seconds, and at a fraction of the cost, making them an option in countries without a lot of testing infrastructure, the research team suggested.

The plan is not without its flaws, of course, but we’re convinced. More than that, we are true bee-lievers.
 

A little slice of … well, not heaven

risalbudiman006/Pixaby

If you’ve been around for the last 2 decades, you’ve seen your share of Internet trends: Remember the ice bucket challenge? Tide pod eating? We know what you’re thinking: Sigh, what could they be doing now?

Well, people are eating old meat, and before you think about the expired ground beef you got on special from the grocery store yesterday, that’s not quite what we mean. We all know expiration dates are “suggestions,” like yield signs and yellow lights. People are eating rotten, decomposing, borderline moldy meat.

They claim that the meat tastes better. We’re not so sure, but don’t worry, because it gets weirder. Some folks, apparently, are getting high from eating this meat, experiencing a feeling of euphoria. Personally, we think that rotten fumes probably knocked these people out and made them hallucinate.

Singaporean dietitian Naras Lapsys says that eating rotten meat can possibly cause a person to go into another state of consciousness, but it’s not a good thing. We don’t think you have to be a dietitian to know that.

It has not been definitively proven that eating rotting meat makes you high, but it’s definitely proven that this is disgusting … and very dangerous.
 

Lower blood sugar with sardines

Brand X Pictures/thinkstock.com

If you’ve ever turned your nose up at someone eating sardines straight from the can, you could be the one missing out on a good way to boost your own health.

New research from Open University of Catalonia (Spain) has found that eating two cans of whole sardines a week can help prevent people from developing type 2 diabetes (T2D). Now you might be thinking: That’s a lot of fish, can’t I just take a supplement pill? Actually, no.

“Nutrients can play an essential role in the prevention and treatment of many different pathologies, but their effect is usually caused by the synergy that exists between them and the food that they are contained in,” study coauthor Diana Rizzolo, PhD, said in a written statement. See, we told you.

In a study of 152 patients with prediabetes, each participant was put on a specific diet to reduce their chances of developing T2D. Among the patients who were not given sardines each week, the proportion considered to be at the highest risk fell from 27% to 22% after 1 year, but for those who did get the sardines, the size of the high-risk group shrank from 37% to just 8%.

Suggesting sardines during checkups could make eating them more widely accepted, Dr. Rizzolo and associates said. Sardines are cheap, easy to find, and also have the benefits of other oily fish, like boosting insulin resistance and increasing good cholesterol.

So why not have a can with a couple of saltine crackers for lunch? Your blood sugar will thank you. Just please avoid indulging on a plane or in your office, where workers are slowly returning – no need to give them another excuse to avoid their cubicle.
 

Come for the torture, stay for the vaccine

MMZ84 from Pixabay

Bran Castle. Home of Dracula and Vlad the Impaler (at least in pop culture’s eyes). A moody Gothic structure atop a hill. You can practically hear the ancient screams of thousands of tortured souls as you wander the grounds and its cursed halls. Naturally, it’s a major tourist destination.

Unfortunately for Romania, the pandemic has rather put a damper on tourism. The restrictions have done their damage, but here’s a quick LOTME theory: Perhaps people don’t want to be reminded of medieval tortures when we’ve got plenty of modern-day ones right now.

The management of Bran Castle has developed a new gimmick to drum up attendance – come to Bran Castle and get your COVID vaccine. Anyone can come and get jabbed with the Pfizer vaccine on all weekends in May, and when they do, they gain free admittance to the castle and the exhibit within, home to 52 medieval torture instruments. “The idea … was to show how people got jabbed 500-600 years ago in Europe,” the castle’s marketing director said.

While it may not be kind of the jabbing ole Vladdy got his name for – fully impaling people on hundreds of wooden stakes while you eat a nice dinner isn’t exactly smiled upon in today’s world – we’re sure he’d approve of this more limited but ultimately beneficial version. Jabbing people while helping them really is the dream.
 

Fuzzy little COVID detectors

temmuzcan/Getty Images

Before we get started, we need a moment to get our deep, movie trailer announcer-type voice ready. Okay, here goes.

“In a world where an organism too tiny to see brings entire economies to a standstill and pits scientists against doofuses, who can humanity turn to for help?”

How about bees? That’s right, we said bees. But not just any bees. Specially trained bees. Specially trained Dutch bees. Bees trained to sniff out our greatest nemesis. No, we’re not talking about Ted Cruz anymore. Let it go, that was just a joke. We’re talking COVID.

We’ll let Wim van der Poel, professor of virology at Wageningen (the Netherlands) University, explain the process: “We collect normal honeybees from a beekeeper, and we put the bees in harnesses.” And you thought their tulips were pretty great – the Dutch are putting harnesses on bees! (Which is much better than our previous story of bees involving a Taiwanese patient.)

The researchers presented the bees with two types of samples: COVID infected and non–COVID infected. The infected samples came with a sugary water reward and the noninfected samples did not, so the bees quickly learned to tell the difference.

The bees, then, could cut the waiting time for test results down to seconds, and at a fraction of the cost, making them an option in countries without a lot of testing infrastructure, the research team suggested.

The plan is not without its flaws, of course, but we’re convinced. More than that, we are true bee-lievers.
 

A little slice of … well, not heaven

risalbudiman006/Pixaby

If you’ve been around for the last 2 decades, you’ve seen your share of Internet trends: Remember the ice bucket challenge? Tide pod eating? We know what you’re thinking: Sigh, what could they be doing now?

Well, people are eating old meat, and before you think about the expired ground beef you got on special from the grocery store yesterday, that’s not quite what we mean. We all know expiration dates are “suggestions,” like yield signs and yellow lights. People are eating rotten, decomposing, borderline moldy meat.

They claim that the meat tastes better. We’re not so sure, but don’t worry, because it gets weirder. Some folks, apparently, are getting high from eating this meat, experiencing a feeling of euphoria. Personally, we think that rotten fumes probably knocked these people out and made them hallucinate.

Singaporean dietitian Naras Lapsys says that eating rotten meat can possibly cause a person to go into another state of consciousness, but it’s not a good thing. We don’t think you have to be a dietitian to know that.

It has not been definitively proven that eating rotting meat makes you high, but it’s definitely proven that this is disgusting … and very dangerous.
 

Lower blood sugar with sardines

Brand X Pictures/thinkstock.com

If you’ve ever turned your nose up at someone eating sardines straight from the can, you could be the one missing out on a good way to boost your own health.

New research from Open University of Catalonia (Spain) has found that eating two cans of whole sardines a week can help prevent people from developing type 2 diabetes (T2D). Now you might be thinking: That’s a lot of fish, can’t I just take a supplement pill? Actually, no.

“Nutrients can play an essential role in the prevention and treatment of many different pathologies, but their effect is usually caused by the synergy that exists between them and the food that they are contained in,” study coauthor Diana Rizzolo, PhD, said in a written statement. See, we told you.

In a study of 152 patients with prediabetes, each participant was put on a specific diet to reduce their chances of developing T2D. Among the patients who were not given sardines each week, the proportion considered to be at the highest risk fell from 27% to 22% after 1 year, but for those who did get the sardines, the size of the high-risk group shrank from 37% to just 8%.

Suggesting sardines during checkups could make eating them more widely accepted, Dr. Rizzolo and associates said. Sardines are cheap, easy to find, and also have the benefits of other oily fish, like boosting insulin resistance and increasing good cholesterol.

So why not have a can with a couple of saltine crackers for lunch? Your blood sugar will thank you. Just please avoid indulging on a plane or in your office, where workers are slowly returning – no need to give them another excuse to avoid their cubicle.
 

Come for the torture, stay for the vaccine

MMZ84 from Pixabay

Bran Castle. Home of Dracula and Vlad the Impaler (at least in pop culture’s eyes). A moody Gothic structure atop a hill. You can practically hear the ancient screams of thousands of tortured souls as you wander the grounds and its cursed halls. Naturally, it’s a major tourist destination.

Unfortunately for Romania, the pandemic has rather put a damper on tourism. The restrictions have done their damage, but here’s a quick LOTME theory: Perhaps people don’t want to be reminded of medieval tortures when we’ve got plenty of modern-day ones right now.

The management of Bran Castle has developed a new gimmick to drum up attendance – come to Bran Castle and get your COVID vaccine. Anyone can come and get jabbed with the Pfizer vaccine on all weekends in May, and when they do, they gain free admittance to the castle and the exhibit within, home to 52 medieval torture instruments. “The idea … was to show how people got jabbed 500-600 years ago in Europe,” the castle’s marketing director said.

While it may not be kind of the jabbing ole Vladdy got his name for – fully impaling people on hundreds of wooden stakes while you eat a nice dinner isn’t exactly smiled upon in today’s world – we’re sure he’d approve of this more limited but ultimately beneficial version. Jabbing people while helping them really is the dream.
 

Fuzzy little COVID detectors

temmuzcan/Getty Images

Before we get started, we need a moment to get our deep, movie trailer announcer-type voice ready. Okay, here goes.

“In a world where an organism too tiny to see brings entire economies to a standstill and pits scientists against doofuses, who can humanity turn to for help?”

How about bees? That’s right, we said bees. But not just any bees. Specially trained bees. Specially trained Dutch bees. Bees trained to sniff out our greatest nemesis. No, we’re not talking about Ted Cruz anymore. Let it go, that was just a joke. We’re talking COVID.

We’ll let Wim van der Poel, professor of virology at Wageningen (the Netherlands) University, explain the process: “We collect normal honeybees from a beekeeper, and we put the bees in harnesses.” And you thought their tulips were pretty great – the Dutch are putting harnesses on bees! (Which is much better than our previous story of bees involving a Taiwanese patient.)

The researchers presented the bees with two types of samples: COVID infected and non–COVID infected. The infected samples came with a sugary water reward and the noninfected samples did not, so the bees quickly learned to tell the difference.

The bees, then, could cut the waiting time for test results down to seconds, and at a fraction of the cost, making them an option in countries without a lot of testing infrastructure, the research team suggested.

The plan is not without its flaws, of course, but we’re convinced. More than that, we are true bee-lievers.
 

A little slice of … well, not heaven

risalbudiman006/Pixaby

If you’ve been around for the last 2 decades, you’ve seen your share of Internet trends: Remember the ice bucket challenge? Tide pod eating? We know what you’re thinking: Sigh, what could they be doing now?

Well, people are eating old meat, and before you think about the expired ground beef you got on special from the grocery store yesterday, that’s not quite what we mean. We all know expiration dates are “suggestions,” like yield signs and yellow lights. People are eating rotten, decomposing, borderline moldy meat.

They claim that the meat tastes better. We’re not so sure, but don’t worry, because it gets weirder. Some folks, apparently, are getting high from eating this meat, experiencing a feeling of euphoria. Personally, we think that rotten fumes probably knocked these people out and made them hallucinate.

Singaporean dietitian Naras Lapsys says that eating rotten meat can possibly cause a person to go into another state of consciousness, but it’s not a good thing. We don’t think you have to be a dietitian to know that.

It has not been definitively proven that eating rotting meat makes you high, but it’s definitely proven that this is disgusting … and very dangerous.
 

Emerging data suggest that molecular classification of vascular anomalies can improve prognostication and treatment for babies born with these malformations, according to Beth Drolet, MD.

“We now know that 75%-80% of vascular malformations have gene mutations that make the cells either live longer, grow faster, or make them bigger in size,” Dr. Drolet, professor and chair of dermatology at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, said during the Society for Pediatric Dermatology pre-AAD meeting. “The basic binary premise of the current ISSVA [International Society for the Study of Vascular Anomalies] classification dividing vascular anomalies into tumors and malformations is wrong; the biology is not that straightforward. It may be helpful to differentiate between an infantile hemangioma and a capillary malformation during infancy as the hemangioma will grow in the next month, but we now know that patients with capillary malformations also have significant overgrowth of their tissue. We’ve all seen that; it just takes years, not months for us to notice it.”

The change in thinking about the root causes of vascular anomalies, she noted, stems from scientific advances in the understanding of embryonic mosaicism, DNA variation that happens after the zygote is formed, but before birth. “We know that each cell in a zygote will undergo 40 cell divisions before a baby is born,” she said. “Those cell divisions are not as neat as we thought they were. That cell and DNA duplication is actually quite messy, so there are mutations that happen purely because of embryonic cell division.”

Everyone is born with 120 somatic mutations per cell, she continued, “so we have multiple genomes in one human. Not all of those mutations are going to cause disease. Not all of those are going to be functional. About 10% of those mutations will actually be in a coding region of the gene and have the potential to change the function of the protein. If it changes the function of the protein so that the cell can’t survive, that cell dies off, but it gives the cell an advantage. It grows a little bit faster, let’s say. That cell survives, divides, producing a line of cells that can cause disease.”

In 2011, Dr. Drolet and colleagues from the Hemangioma Investigator Group and the Pediatric Dermatology Research Alliance (PeDRA) launched a multisite collaborative group to investigate the role of mosaic genetics in patients with vascular anomalies and discrepancy of growth. To date, 365 patients are enrolled, and the researchers have sequenced 97 of 165 affected tissue samples collected. “What’s nice about the registry is that we enrolled a wide spectrum of diseases: very mild diseases that might be treated by dermatologists to complex, syndromic diseases that might end up in an interdisciplinary vascular anomalies clinic,” she said.

For gene sequencing, the researchers drew from solid tumor biology and used next-generation sequencing with semi-target hybrid capture, “so we’re only looking at a subset of genes,” she said. “Right now, the chip we’re using has 180 cancer-related genes. It sequences the entire exome of the gene with a high depth of coverage, usually over 1,000 X. We use a specific pipeline that can detect very low allele frequency mutation: down to 1%, and robust criteria to determine variant pathogenicity.”

In 75% of tissue samples so far, the researchers have found a gene mutation in one of 13 genes: AKT1, AKT3, BRAF, GNA11, GNAQ, KRAS, MAP2K1, NRAS, PIK3CA, PIK3R1, PTPN11, RASA1, and TEK. According to Dr. Drolet, the common thread in these 13 genes is that they are implicated in cancer and have direct control over the cell cycle. “They’re intracellular proteins that control the cell cycle,” she explained. “These are proteins that are in the cell but interact with transmembrane proteins that receive extracellular messengers of cell growth”.

Understanding and recognizing genetic conditions is complicated, she said, because it involves determining which gene is altered, where in the DNA the gene is altered, how the gene variation will influence the function of the protein, and what tissue expresses that gene. “Then you get your phenotype,” Dr. Drolet said. “If you add mosaicism onto that, you have several additional variables. You need to know: When in embryogenesis did the mutation occur? What region of the body is affected? What cell lineage is affected? That predicts what phenotype you’re going to have.”

While molecular classification efforts continue to be refined, Dr. Drolet incorporates genotyping at every opportunity, like when she counsels parents of a baby born with a vascular stain on its face. “What can we tell them about what else might be wrong? What can we tell them about how this will change over time? What can we tell them about how we can treat it? I think genotyping absolutely helps to clarify that for me,” she said. “I can’t use that alone, but it gives me another piece of evidence to help do a better job in predicting when I need to screen, what I need to screen for, and what might happen in the future. If you combine your genotype with your clinical exam, I really do believe we can start to offer some prognostication for our families, to say, ‘this is the degree of overgrowth we may see over time; these are the complications I predict that you might have.’ ”

Even the vascular stain can give you a clue. “If it’s light and lacey, you probably don’t have a lot of cell cycle activation,” Dr. Drolet said. “If it’s dark and there’s blebs and you’ve got some bleeding at a young age, you’ve got a highly activated mutation, and there’s everything in between.”

Dr. Drolet disclosed that she is a consultant for Venthera and Novartis and is a board member for the Isthmus Project. She also holds intellectual property rights in and is a patent holder for Peds Derm Development Group. Dr. Drolet has also received funding from the Spirit Foundation, Kayleigh’s Crew Endowment, the SPD, PeDRA, and the National Institutes of Health.

[email protected]

Emerging data suggest that molecular classification of vascular anomalies can improve prognostication and treatment for babies born with these malformations, according to Beth Drolet, MD.

“We now know that 75%-80% of vascular malformations have gene mutations that make the cells either live longer, grow faster, or make them bigger in size,” Dr. Drolet, professor and chair of dermatology at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, said during the Society for Pediatric Dermatology pre-AAD meeting. “The basic binary premise of the current ISSVA [International Society for the Study of Vascular Anomalies] classification dividing vascular anomalies into tumors and malformations is wrong; the biology is not that straightforward. It may be helpful to differentiate between an infantile hemangioma and a capillary malformation during infancy as the hemangioma will grow in the next month, but we now know that patients with capillary malformations also have significant overgrowth of their tissue. We’ve all seen that; it just takes years, not months for us to notice it.”

The change in thinking about the root causes of vascular anomalies, she noted, stems from scientific advances in the understanding of embryonic mosaicism, DNA variation that happens after the zygote is formed, but before birth. “We know that each cell in a zygote will undergo 40 cell divisions before a baby is born,” she said. “Those cell divisions are not as neat as we thought they were. That cell and DNA duplication is actually quite messy, so there are mutations that happen purely because of embryonic cell division.”

Everyone is born with 120 somatic mutations per cell, she continued, “so we have multiple genomes in one human. Not all of those mutations are going to cause disease. Not all of those are going to be functional. About 10% of those mutations will actually be in a coding region of the gene and have the potential to change the function of the protein. If it changes the function of the protein so that the cell can’t survive, that cell dies off, but it gives the cell an advantage. It grows a little bit faster, let’s say. That cell survives, divides, producing a line of cells that can cause disease.”

In 2011, Dr. Drolet and colleagues from the Hemangioma Investigator Group and the Pediatric Dermatology Research Alliance (PeDRA) launched a multisite collaborative group to investigate the role of mosaic genetics in patients with vascular anomalies and discrepancy of growth. To date, 365 patients are enrolled, and the researchers have sequenced 97 of 165 affected tissue samples collected. “What’s nice about the registry is that we enrolled a wide spectrum of diseases: very mild diseases that might be treated by dermatologists to complex, syndromic diseases that might end up in an interdisciplinary vascular anomalies clinic,” she said.

For gene sequencing, the researchers drew from solid tumor biology and used next-generation sequencing with semi-target hybrid capture, “so we’re only looking at a subset of genes,” she said. “Right now, the chip we’re using has 180 cancer-related genes. It sequences the entire exome of the gene with a high depth of coverage, usually over 1,000 X. We use a specific pipeline that can detect very low allele frequency mutation: down to 1%, and robust criteria to determine variant pathogenicity.”

In 75% of tissue samples so far, the researchers have found a gene mutation in one of 13 genes: AKT1, AKT3, BRAF, GNA11, GNAQ, KRAS, MAP2K1, NRAS, PIK3CA, PIK3R1, PTPN11, RASA1, and TEK. According to Dr. Drolet, the common thread in these 13 genes is that they are implicated in cancer and have direct control over the cell cycle. “They’re intracellular proteins that control the cell cycle,” she explained. “These are proteins that are in the cell but interact with transmembrane proteins that receive extracellular messengers of cell growth”.

Understanding and recognizing genetic conditions is complicated, she said, because it involves determining which gene is altered, where in the DNA the gene is altered, how the gene variation will influence the function of the protein, and what tissue expresses that gene. “Then you get your phenotype,” Dr. Drolet said. “If you add mosaicism onto that, you have several additional variables. You need to know: When in embryogenesis did the mutation occur? What region of the body is affected? What cell lineage is affected? That predicts what phenotype you’re going to have.”

While molecular classification efforts continue to be refined, Dr. Drolet incorporates genotyping at every opportunity, like when she counsels parents of a baby born with a vascular stain on its face. “What can we tell them about what else might be wrong? What can we tell them about how this will change over time? What can we tell them about how we can treat it? I think genotyping absolutely helps to clarify that for me,” she said. “I can’t use that alone, but it gives me another piece of evidence to help do a better job in predicting when I need to screen, what I need to screen for, and what might happen in the future. If you combine your genotype with your clinical exam, I really do believe we can start to offer some prognostication for our families, to say, ‘this is the degree of overgrowth we may see over time; these are the complications I predict that you might have.’ ”

Even the vascular stain can give you a clue. “If it’s light and lacey, you probably don’t have a lot of cell cycle activation,” Dr. Drolet said. “If it’s dark and there’s blebs and you’ve got some bleeding at a young age, you’ve got a highly activated mutation, and there’s everything in between.”

Dr. Drolet disclosed that she is a consultant for Venthera and Novartis and is a board member for the Isthmus Project. She also holds intellectual property rights in and is a patent holder for Peds Derm Development Group. Dr. Drolet has also received funding from the Spirit Foundation, Kayleigh’s Crew Endowment, the SPD, PeDRA, and the National Institutes of Health.

[email protected]

Emerging data suggest that molecular classification of vascular anomalies can improve prognostication and treatment for babies born with these malformations, according to Beth Drolet, MD.

“We now know that 75%-80% of vascular malformations have gene mutations that make the cells either live longer, grow faster, or make them bigger in size,” Dr. Drolet, professor and chair of dermatology at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, said during the Society for Pediatric Dermatology pre-AAD meeting. “The basic binary premise of the current ISSVA [International Society for the Study of Vascular Anomalies] classification dividing vascular anomalies into tumors and malformations is wrong; the biology is not that straightforward. It may be helpful to differentiate between an infantile hemangioma and a capillary malformation during infancy as the hemangioma will grow in the next month, but we now know that patients with capillary malformations also have significant overgrowth of their tissue. We’ve all seen that; it just takes years, not months for us to notice it.”

The change in thinking about the root causes of vascular anomalies, she noted, stems from scientific advances in the understanding of embryonic mosaicism, DNA variation that happens after the zygote is formed, but before birth. “We know that each cell in a zygote will undergo 40 cell divisions before a baby is born,” she said. “Those cell divisions are not as neat as we thought they were. That cell and DNA duplication is actually quite messy, so there are mutations that happen purely because of embryonic cell division.”

Everyone is born with 120 somatic mutations per cell, she continued, “so we have multiple genomes in one human. Not all of those mutations are going to cause disease. Not all of those are going to be functional. About 10% of those mutations will actually be in a coding region of the gene and have the potential to change the function of the protein. If it changes the function of the protein so that the cell can’t survive, that cell dies off, but it gives the cell an advantage. It grows a little bit faster, let’s say. That cell survives, divides, producing a line of cells that can cause disease.”

In 2011, Dr. Drolet and colleagues from the Hemangioma Investigator Group and the Pediatric Dermatology Research Alliance (PeDRA) launched a multisite collaborative group to investigate the role of mosaic genetics in patients with vascular anomalies and discrepancy of growth. To date, 365 patients are enrolled, and the researchers have sequenced 97 of 165 affected tissue samples collected. “What’s nice about the registry is that we enrolled a wide spectrum of diseases: very mild diseases that might be treated by dermatologists to complex, syndromic diseases that might end up in an interdisciplinary vascular anomalies clinic,” she said.

For gene sequencing, the researchers drew from solid tumor biology and used next-generation sequencing with semi-target hybrid capture, “so we’re only looking at a subset of genes,” she said. “Right now, the chip we’re using has 180 cancer-related genes. It sequences the entire exome of the gene with a high depth of coverage, usually over 1,000 X. We use a specific pipeline that can detect very low allele frequency mutation: down to 1%, and robust criteria to determine variant pathogenicity.”

In 75% of tissue samples so far, the researchers have found a gene mutation in one of 13 genes: AKT1, AKT3, BRAF, GNA11, GNAQ, KRAS, MAP2K1, NRAS, PIK3CA, PIK3R1, PTPN11, RASA1, and TEK. According to Dr. Drolet, the common thread in these 13 genes is that they are implicated in cancer and have direct control over the cell cycle. “They’re intracellular proteins that control the cell cycle,” she explained. “These are proteins that are in the cell but interact with transmembrane proteins that receive extracellular messengers of cell growth”.

Understanding and recognizing genetic conditions is complicated, she said, because it involves determining which gene is altered, where in the DNA the gene is altered, how the gene variation will influence the function of the protein, and what tissue expresses that gene. “Then you get your phenotype,” Dr. Drolet said. “If you add mosaicism onto that, you have several additional variables. You need to know: When in embryogenesis did the mutation occur? What region of the body is affected? What cell lineage is affected? That predicts what phenotype you’re going to have.”

While molecular classification efforts continue to be refined, Dr. Drolet incorporates genotyping at every opportunity, like when she counsels parents of a baby born with a vascular stain on its face. “What can we tell them about what else might be wrong? What can we tell them about how this will change over time? What can we tell them about how we can treat it? I think genotyping absolutely helps to clarify that for me,” she said. “I can’t use that alone, but it gives me another piece of evidence to help do a better job in predicting when I need to screen, what I need to screen for, and what might happen in the future. If you combine your genotype with your clinical exam, I really do believe we can start to offer some prognostication for our families, to say, ‘this is the degree of overgrowth we may see over time; these are the complications I predict that you might have.’ ”

Even the vascular stain can give you a clue. “If it’s light and lacey, you probably don’t have a lot of cell cycle activation,” Dr. Drolet said. “If it’s dark and there’s blebs and you’ve got some bleeding at a young age, you’ve got a highly activated mutation, and there’s everything in between.”

Dr. Drolet disclosed that she is a consultant for Venthera and Novartis and is a board member for the Isthmus Project. She also holds intellectual property rights in and is a patent holder for Peds Derm Development Group. Dr. Drolet has also received funding from the Spirit Foundation, Kayleigh’s Crew Endowment, the SPD, PeDRA, and the National Institutes of Health.

[email protected]