Pediatrics

Measles has sickened 59 children in an outbreak that began in November and now spans four Ohio counties.

None of the children had been fully vaccinated against measles, and 23 of them have been hospitalized, local officials report.

“Measles can be very serious, especially for children under age 5,” Columbus Public Health spokesperson Kelli Newman told CNN.

Nearly all of the infected children are under age 5, with 12 of them being under 1 year old. 

“Many children are hospitalized for dehydration,” Ms. Newman told CNN in an email. “Other serious complications also can include pneumonia and neurological conditions such as encephalitis. There’s no way of knowing which children will become so sick they have to be hospitalized. The safest way to protect children from measles is to make sure they are vaccinated with MMR.”

Of the 59 infected children, 56 were unvaccinated and three had been partially vaccinated. The MMR (measles, mumps, and rubella) vaccine is recommended for children beginning at 12 months old, according to the Centers for Disease Control and American Academy of Pediatrics. Two doses are needed to be considered fully vaccinated, and the second dose is usually given between 4 and 6 years old.

Measles “is one of the most infectious agents known to man,” the academy says.

It is so contagious that if one person has it, up to 9 out of 10 people around that person will also become infected if they are not protected, the CDC explains. Measles infection causes a rash and a fever that can spike beyond 104° F. Sometimes, the illness can lead to brain swelling, brain damage, or death.

Last month, the World Health Organization and CDC warned that 40 million children worldwide missed their measles vaccinations in 2021, partly due to pandemic disruptions. The American Academy of Pediatrics also notes that many parents choose not to vaccinate their children due to misinformation.

Infants are at heightened risk because they are too young to be vaccinated.

The academy offered several tips for protecting unvaccinated infants during a measles outbreak:

• Limit your baby’s exposure to crowds, other children, and people with cold symptoms.
• Disinfect objects and surfaces at home regularly, because the measles virus can live on surfaces or suspended in the air for 2 hours.
• If possible, feed your baby breast milk, because it has antibodies to prevent and fight infections.

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

Measles has sickened 59 children in an outbreak that began in November and now spans four Ohio counties.

None of the children had been fully vaccinated against measles, and 23 of them have been hospitalized, local officials report.

“Measles can be very serious, especially for children under age 5,” Columbus Public Health spokesperson Kelli Newman told CNN.

Nearly all of the infected children are under age 5, with 12 of them being under 1 year old. 

“Many children are hospitalized for dehydration,” Ms. Newman told CNN in an email. “Other serious complications also can include pneumonia and neurological conditions such as encephalitis. There’s no way of knowing which children will become so sick they have to be hospitalized. The safest way to protect children from measles is to make sure they are vaccinated with MMR.”

Of the 59 infected children, 56 were unvaccinated and three had been partially vaccinated. The MMR (measles, mumps, and rubella) vaccine is recommended for children beginning at 12 months old, according to the Centers for Disease Control and American Academy of Pediatrics. Two doses are needed to be considered fully vaccinated, and the second dose is usually given between 4 and 6 years old.

Measles “is one of the most infectious agents known to man,” the academy says.

It is so contagious that if one person has it, up to 9 out of 10 people around that person will also become infected if they are not protected, the CDC explains. Measles infection causes a rash and a fever that can spike beyond 104° F. Sometimes, the illness can lead to brain swelling, brain damage, or death.

Last month, the World Health Organization and CDC warned that 40 million children worldwide missed their measles vaccinations in 2021, partly due to pandemic disruptions. The American Academy of Pediatrics also notes that many parents choose not to vaccinate their children due to misinformation.

Infants are at heightened risk because they are too young to be vaccinated.

The academy offered several tips for protecting unvaccinated infants during a measles outbreak:

• Limit your baby’s exposure to crowds, other children, and people with cold symptoms.
• Disinfect objects and surfaces at home regularly, because the measles virus can live on surfaces or suspended in the air for 2 hours.
• If possible, feed your baby breast milk, because it has antibodies to prevent and fight infections.

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

Measles has sickened 59 children in an outbreak that began in November and now spans four Ohio counties.

None of the children had been fully vaccinated against measles, and 23 of them have been hospitalized, local officials report.

“Measles can be very serious, especially for children under age 5,” Columbus Public Health spokesperson Kelli Newman told CNN.

Nearly all of the infected children are under age 5, with 12 of them being under 1 year old. 

“Many children are hospitalized for dehydration,” Ms. Newman told CNN in an email. “Other serious complications also can include pneumonia and neurological conditions such as encephalitis. There’s no way of knowing which children will become so sick they have to be hospitalized. The safest way to protect children from measles is to make sure they are vaccinated with MMR.”

Of the 59 infected children, 56 were unvaccinated and three had been partially vaccinated. The MMR (measles, mumps, and rubella) vaccine is recommended for children beginning at 12 months old, according to the Centers for Disease Control and American Academy of Pediatrics. Two doses are needed to be considered fully vaccinated, and the second dose is usually given between 4 and 6 years old.

Measles “is one of the most infectious agents known to man,” the academy says.

It is so contagious that if one person has it, up to 9 out of 10 people around that person will also become infected if they are not protected, the CDC explains. Measles infection causes a rash and a fever that can spike beyond 104° F. Sometimes, the illness can lead to brain swelling, brain damage, or death.

Last month, the World Health Organization and CDC warned that 40 million children worldwide missed their measles vaccinations in 2021, partly due to pandemic disruptions. The American Academy of Pediatrics also notes that many parents choose not to vaccinate their children due to misinformation.

Infants are at heightened risk because they are too young to be vaccinated.

The academy offered several tips for protecting unvaccinated infants during a measles outbreak:

• Limit your baby’s exposure to crowds, other children, and people with cold symptoms.
• Disinfect objects and surfaces at home regularly, because the measles virus can live on surfaces or suspended in the air for 2 hours.
• If possible, feed your baby breast milk, because it has antibodies to prevent and fight infections.

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

Scarlet fever, commonly described in young children and adolescents, is characterized by a papular, blanching rash that may be described as having a “sandpaper” texture. This condition typically presents in the setting of Streptococcus pyogenes pharyngitis, or strep throat, and is spread via mucosal transfer in close proximity such as classrooms and nurseries. The dermatologic symptoms are a result of the endotoxin produced by S. pyogenes, which is part of the group A Strep bacteria. Clinically, the presentation can be differentiated from an allergic eruption by its relation to acute pharyngitis, insidious onset, and lack of confluence of the lesions. Diagnosis is supported by a throat culture and rapid strep test, although a rapid test lacks reliability in older patients who are less commonly affected and likely to be carriers. First-line treatment is penicillin or amoxicillin, but first-generation cephalosporins, clindamycin, or erythromycin are sufficient if the patient is allergic to penicillins. Prognosis worsens as time between onset and treatment increases, but is overall excellent now with the introduction of antibiotics and improved hygiene.

Scarlet fever is among a list of many common childhood rashes, and it can be difficult to differentiate between these pathologies on clinical presentation. A few notable childhood dermatologic eruptions include erythema infectiosum (fifth disease), roseola (exanthema subitum or sixth disease), and measles. These cases can be distinguished clinically by the age of the patient, distribution, and quality of the symptoms. Laboratory testing may be used to confirm the diagnosis.

Erythema infectiosum is known as fifth disease or slapped-cheek rash because it commonly presents on the cheeks as a pink, maculopapular rash in a reticular pattern. The disease is caused by parvovirus B19 and is accompanied by low fever, malaise, headache, sore throat, and nausea, which precedes the erythematous rash. The facial rash appears first and is followed by patchy eruptions on the extremities. Appearance of the rash typically indicates the patient is no longer contagious, and patients are treated symptomatically with NSAIDs and antihistamines for associated pruritus.

Roseola infantum is commonly caused by human herpesvirus 6 and is usually found in children 3 years and younger. The defining symptom is a high fever, which is paired with a mild cough, runny nose, and diarrhea. A maculopapular rash appears after the fever subsides, starting centrally and spreading outward to the extremities. Although this rash is similar to measles, they can be differentiated by the order of onset. The rash caused by measles begins on the face and mouth (Koplik spots) and moves downward. Additionally, the patient appears generally healthy and the disease is self-limiting in roseola, while patients with measles will appear more ill and require further attention. Measles is caused by the measles virus of the genus Morbillivirus and is highly contagious. It is spread via respiratory route presenting with fever, cough, coryza, and conjunctivitis followed by the rash. Fortunately, the measles vaccine is in widespread use, so cases have declined over the years.

Our patient had a positive strep test. Influenza and coronavirus tests were negative. She was started on daily amoxicillin and the rash resolved within 2 days of taking the antibiotics.

This case and photo were submitted by Lucas Shapiro, BS, Nova Southeastern University, Tampa, and Dr. Bilu Martin.

Dr. Bilu Martin is a board-certified dermatologist in private practice at Premier Dermatology, MD, in Aventura, Fla. More diagnostic cases are available at mdedge.com/dermatology. To submit a case for possible publication, send an email to [email protected].

References

Allmon A et al.. Am Fam Physician. 2015 Aug 1;92(3):211-6.

Moss WJ. Lancet. 2017 Dec 2;390(10111):2490-502.

Mullins TB and Krishnamurthy K. Roseola Infantum, in “StatPearls.” Treasure Islan, Fla.: StatPearls Publishing, 2022.

Pardo S and Perera TB. Scarlet Fever, in “StatPearls.” Treasure Island, Fla.: StatPearls Publishing, 2022.
 

Scarlet fever, commonly described in young children and adolescents, is characterized by a papular, blanching rash that may be described as having a “sandpaper” texture. This condition typically presents in the setting of Streptococcus pyogenes pharyngitis, or strep throat, and is spread via mucosal transfer in close proximity such as classrooms and nurseries. The dermatologic symptoms are a result of the endotoxin produced by S. pyogenes, which is part of the group A Strep bacteria. Clinically, the presentation can be differentiated from an allergic eruption by its relation to acute pharyngitis, insidious onset, and lack of confluence of the lesions. Diagnosis is supported by a throat culture and rapid strep test, although a rapid test lacks reliability in older patients who are less commonly affected and likely to be carriers. First-line treatment is penicillin or amoxicillin, but first-generation cephalosporins, clindamycin, or erythromycin are sufficient if the patient is allergic to penicillins. Prognosis worsens as time between onset and treatment increases, but is overall excellent now with the introduction of antibiotics and improved hygiene.

Scarlet fever is among a list of many common childhood rashes, and it can be difficult to differentiate between these pathologies on clinical presentation. A few notable childhood dermatologic eruptions include erythema infectiosum (fifth disease), roseola (exanthema subitum or sixth disease), and measles. These cases can be distinguished clinically by the age of the patient, distribution, and quality of the symptoms. Laboratory testing may be used to confirm the diagnosis.

Erythema infectiosum is known as fifth disease or slapped-cheek rash because it commonly presents on the cheeks as a pink, maculopapular rash in a reticular pattern. The disease is caused by parvovirus B19 and is accompanied by low fever, malaise, headache, sore throat, and nausea, which precedes the erythematous rash. The facial rash appears first and is followed by patchy eruptions on the extremities. Appearance of the rash typically indicates the patient is no longer contagious, and patients are treated symptomatically with NSAIDs and antihistamines for associated pruritus.

Roseola infantum is commonly caused by human herpesvirus 6 and is usually found in children 3 years and younger. The defining symptom is a high fever, which is paired with a mild cough, runny nose, and diarrhea. A maculopapular rash appears after the fever subsides, starting centrally and spreading outward to the extremities. Although this rash is similar to measles, they can be differentiated by the order of onset. The rash caused by measles begins on the face and mouth (Koplik spots) and moves downward. Additionally, the patient appears generally healthy and the disease is self-limiting in roseola, while patients with measles will appear more ill and require further attention. Measles is caused by the measles virus of the genus Morbillivirus and is highly contagious. It is spread via respiratory route presenting with fever, cough, coryza, and conjunctivitis followed by the rash. Fortunately, the measles vaccine is in widespread use, so cases have declined over the years.

Our patient had a positive strep test. Influenza and coronavirus tests were negative. She was started on daily amoxicillin and the rash resolved within 2 days of taking the antibiotics.

This case and photo were submitted by Lucas Shapiro, BS, Nova Southeastern University, Tampa, and Dr. Bilu Martin.

Dr. Bilu Martin is a board-certified dermatologist in private practice at Premier Dermatology, MD, in Aventura, Fla. More diagnostic cases are available at mdedge.com/dermatology. To submit a case for possible publication, send an email to [email protected].

References

Allmon A et al.. Am Fam Physician. 2015 Aug 1;92(3):211-6.

Moss WJ. Lancet. 2017 Dec 2;390(10111):2490-502.

Mullins TB and Krishnamurthy K. Roseola Infantum, in “StatPearls.” Treasure Islan, Fla.: StatPearls Publishing, 2022.

Pardo S and Perera TB. Scarlet Fever, in “StatPearls.” Treasure Island, Fla.: StatPearls Publishing, 2022.
 

Scarlet fever, commonly described in young children and adolescents, is characterized by a papular, blanching rash that may be described as having a “sandpaper” texture. This condition typically presents in the setting of Streptococcus pyogenes pharyngitis, or strep throat, and is spread via mucosal transfer in close proximity such as classrooms and nurseries. The dermatologic symptoms are a result of the endotoxin produced by S. pyogenes, which is part of the group A Strep bacteria. Clinically, the presentation can be differentiated from an allergic eruption by its relation to acute pharyngitis, insidious onset, and lack of confluence of the lesions. Diagnosis is supported by a throat culture and rapid strep test, although a rapid test lacks reliability in older patients who are less commonly affected and likely to be carriers. First-line treatment is penicillin or amoxicillin, but first-generation cephalosporins, clindamycin, or erythromycin are sufficient if the patient is allergic to penicillins. Prognosis worsens as time between onset and treatment increases, but is overall excellent now with the introduction of antibiotics and improved hygiene.

Scarlet fever is among a list of many common childhood rashes, and it can be difficult to differentiate between these pathologies on clinical presentation. A few notable childhood dermatologic eruptions include erythema infectiosum (fifth disease), roseola (exanthema subitum or sixth disease), and measles. These cases can be distinguished clinically by the age of the patient, distribution, and quality of the symptoms. Laboratory testing may be used to confirm the diagnosis.

Erythema infectiosum is known as fifth disease or slapped-cheek rash because it commonly presents on the cheeks as a pink, maculopapular rash in a reticular pattern. The disease is caused by parvovirus B19 and is accompanied by low fever, malaise, headache, sore throat, and nausea, which precedes the erythematous rash. The facial rash appears first and is followed by patchy eruptions on the extremities. Appearance of the rash typically indicates the patient is no longer contagious, and patients are treated symptomatically with NSAIDs and antihistamines for associated pruritus.

Roseola infantum is commonly caused by human herpesvirus 6 and is usually found in children 3 years and younger. The defining symptom is a high fever, which is paired with a mild cough, runny nose, and diarrhea. A maculopapular rash appears after the fever subsides, starting centrally and spreading outward to the extremities. Although this rash is similar to measles, they can be differentiated by the order of onset. The rash caused by measles begins on the face and mouth (Koplik spots) and moves downward. Additionally, the patient appears generally healthy and the disease is self-limiting in roseola, while patients with measles will appear more ill and require further attention. Measles is caused by the measles virus of the genus Morbillivirus and is highly contagious. It is spread via respiratory route presenting with fever, cough, coryza, and conjunctivitis followed by the rash. Fortunately, the measles vaccine is in widespread use, so cases have declined over the years.

Our patient had a positive strep test. Influenza and coronavirus tests were negative. She was started on daily amoxicillin and the rash resolved within 2 days of taking the antibiotics.

This case and photo were submitted by Lucas Shapiro, BS, Nova Southeastern University, Tampa, and Dr. Bilu Martin.

Dr. Bilu Martin is a board-certified dermatologist in private practice at Premier Dermatology, MD, in Aventura, Fla. More diagnostic cases are available at mdedge.com/dermatology. To submit a case for possible publication, send an email to [email protected].

References

Allmon A et al.. Am Fam Physician. 2015 Aug 1;92(3):211-6.

Moss WJ. Lancet. 2017 Dec 2;390(10111):2490-502.

Mullins TB and Krishnamurthy K. Roseola Infantum, in “StatPearls.” Treasure Islan, Fla.: StatPearls Publishing, 2022.

Pardo S and Perera TB. Scarlet Fever, in “StatPearls.” Treasure Island, Fla.: StatPearls Publishing, 2022.
 

Tooth decay can be easy to overlook – particularly for pediatricians and family physicians, who may be neglecting a crucial aspect of childhood health.

Left untreated, it can lead to serious and even fatal medical problems. The incorporation of preventive oral health care services like the application of fluoride varnish into primary care may be helping protect kids’ smiles and improving their overall physical well-being, according to doctors and a recent government report.
 

‘We don’t deal with that in pediatrics’

Physicians historically were not trained to examine teeth. That was the dentist’s job.

But dental caries is one of the most common chronic diseases in children, and many children do not regularly see a dentist.

“I stumbled across the statistic that oral health problems in children are five times as common as asthma,” said Susan A. Fisher-Owens, MD, MPH, professor of pediatrics at the University of California, San Francisco. “And I said to myself, ‘Well, that can’t be. We don’t deal with that in pediatrics.’ And then I realized, ‘Oh my goodness, we don’t deal with that in pediatrics!’ ”

Children should see a dentist, of course. Physicians should refer families to a dentist by age 1 for routine care, Dr. Fisher-Owens said. The sooner kids are seen, the more likely they are to stay healthy and avoid the need for costlier care, she said.

But the receipt of dental care has gaps.

“About half of all American children do not receive regular dental care because of social, economic, and geographic obstacles,” according to a 2021 fact sheet from the National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research. “Integrating dental care within family and pediatric medical care settings is improving children’s oral health.”

Many children do not start to see a dentist when they are supposed to, acknowledged Kami Hoss, DDS, MS, founder of a large dental practice in California and the author of a new book, “If Your Mouth Could Talk,” that examines links between oral health and physical disease.

Although the American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry says every child should see a pediatric dentist by the time their first baby teeth come in, usually at around 6 months or no later than age 1 year, that does not always happen.

Indeed, only about 16% of children adhere to that guidance, Dr. Hoss said, “which means 84% of parents rely on their pediatricians for oral health advice.”

At older ages, oral health problems like gum disease are linked to almost every chronic disease, Dr. Hoss said.

“We love to bridge the gap, to build bridges between medicine and dentistry,” he said. “After all, your mouth is part of your body.”

A 2021 NIDCR report similarly describes the stakes: “Although caries is largely preventable, if untreated it can lead to pain, inflammation, and the spread of infection to bone and soft tissue. Children may suffer from difficulty eating, poor nutrition, delayed physical development, and poor self-image and socialization. Even academic performance can be affected.”

In November, the World Health Organization published a report showing that about 45% of the world’s population – 3.5 billion people – have oral diseases, including 2.5 billion people with untreated dental caries.

Oral health care is often neglected in public health research, and often entails high out-of-pocket costs for families, the organization notes.
 

‘Strep tooth’

Dental cavities are caused by bacteria – mainly Streptococcus mutans – that eat sugars or carbohydrates in the mouth. That process causes acid, which can erode teeth. In that way, the development of caries is a fully preventable infectious disease process, Dr. Fisher-Owens said.

“I think if people looked at this disease as ‘strep tooth,’ it would get a lot more people interested,” she said.

Bacteria that cause caries can spread from caregiver to child, such as when a parent tries to clean a dropped pacifier in their own mouth, or from child to child.

Caries can be prevented with proper diet and oral hygiene: toothbrushing and then applying fluoride to strengthen teeth or restrengthen teeth that have been weakened by the disease process, Dr. Fisher-Owens said.

The biggest risk factor for having cavities in adult teeth is having them in primary teeth, she said. “There is a common misconception that it doesn’t matter what happens with baby teeth. They’ll fall out,” she said. “But actually it does because it puts you on a trajectory of having cavities in the adult teeth and worse outcomes with other adult conditions, such as diabetes.”

At the 2022 annual meeting of the American Academy of Pediatrics in Anaheim in October, Dr. Fisher-Owens and Jean Calvo, DDS, MPH, also with the University of California, San Francisco, trained colleagues to apply fluoride varnish to primary teeth – so-called baby teeth – in the doctor’s office. This session is a regular feature at these conferences.

Since 2014, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force has recommended that primary care clinicians apply fluoride varnish to the primary teeth of all infants and children.

Many pediatricians may not do this regularly, however.

Researchers recently reported that, despite insurance coverage, less than 5% of well-child visits for privately insured young children between 2016 and 2018 included the service.

Nevertheless, the practice may be helping, according to the NIDCR report.

Since 2000, untreated tooth decay in primary teeth among children younger than 12 years has fallen from 23% to 15%, according to the report. For children aged 2-5 years, untreated tooth decay decreased from at least 19% to 10%. For children aged 6-11 years, the prevalence of dental cavities in permanent teeth fell from 25% to 18%, the report states.

“Fluoridated water, toothpastes, and varnish – as well as dental sealants – can work together to dramatically reduce the incidence of caries,” according to the NIDCR. “Integrating dental care within family and pediatric medical care settings has been another important advancement. The delivery of preventive oral health services, such as fluoride varnish, during well-child visits in medical offices is showing promise in reducing dental caries among preschool-age children.”

Integrating oral health care with medical primary care has met challenges, however, including “resistance by providers, lack of training, and the need for insurance reimbursement for services,” the report notes.

Clinicians can already bill for the application of fluoride varnish using Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) code 99188, and additional oral health care procedures may be on the horizon.

The American Medical Association this fall established a new Category III CPT code for the application of silver diamine fluoride to dental cavities.

Silver diamine fluoride is a newer product that was approved as a desensitizing agent by the Food and Drug Administration in 2014. It has antimicrobial and remineralizing properties, and researchers have found that it can stop the progression of early tooth decay and is more effective than fluoride varnish in preventing cavities.

Several dental groups supported the creation of this new code, which is expected to be made available by electronic health records vendors in July.

Some dentists have reservations, however. The Academy of General Dentistry in October expressed concerns that allowing “nondental health care workers to administer silver diamine fluoride is a temporary solution to a growing oral health crisis.”

Silver diamine fluoride may stop about 80% of cavities. Although the CPT code for silver diamine fluoride has been established, whether insurers will reimburse health care professionals for the service is another matter, said Richard Niederman, DMD, professor and chair of epidemiology and health promotion at New York University College of Dentistry.
 

Fatal consequences

Disparities in oral health in children may be greater than with almost any other disease process. The rate of caries in children who are poor is about twice that for children who are not poor, Dr. Fisher-Owens said. Disparities by race or ethnicity compound these differences.

In 2007, 12-year-old Deamonte Driver died after bacteria from a dental abscess spread to his brain. He had needed a tooth extraction, but his family lacked insurance and had had trouble finding dentists that accepted Medicaid near where they lived in Maryland.

After two emergency brain surgeries, 2 weeks in a hospital, and another 6 weeks in a hospital for rehabilitation, Deamonte died from the infection. The case sparked calls to fix the dental health system.

Physicians may notice more oral health problems in their patients, including dental abscesses, once they start looking for them, Dr. Fisher-Owens said.

She recalled one instance where a child with an underlying seizure disorder was hospitalized at an academic center because they appeared to be having more seizures.

“They eventually discharged the kid because they looked at all of the things related to seizures. None of them were there,” she said.

When Dr. Fisher-Owens saw the child for a discharge exam, she looked in the mouth and saw a whopping dental abscess.

“I realized that this kid wasn’t seizing but was actually rigoring in pain,” she said. No one else on the medical team had seen the true problem despite multiple examinations. The child started antibiotics, was referred to a dentist to have the abscess drained, and had a good outcome.

Suzanne C. Boulter, MD, adjunct clinical professor of pediatrics and community health at the Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, N.H., had noticed that many of her poorer patients had oral health problems, but many pediatric dentists were not able or willing to see them to provide treatment.

“Taking it one step further, you really want to prevent early childhood caries,” Dr. Boulter said. She started speaking up about oral health at pediatric meetings and became an early adopter of preventive interventions, including the use of fluoride varnish.

“Fluoride varnish is a sticky substance that has a very high concentration of fluoride in it,and it’s a very powerful reducer of oral childhood caries, by maybe 35%,” Dr. Boulter said.

Applying the varnish is fairly simple, but it had never been part of the well-child exam. Dr. Boulter started using it around 2005.

Initially, convincing other pediatricians to adopt this procedure – when visits are already time-constrained – was not always easy, she said.

Now that fluoride varnish is recommended for all children and is part of Bright Futures recommendations and is covered in the Affordable Care Act, “it became more the norm,” Dr. Boulter said. But there is room for improvement.

“There is still not a high enough percentage of pediatricians and family physicians who actually have incorporated application of fluoride varnish into their practice,” she said.
 

Brush, book, bed

Clinicians can take other steps to counsel parents about protecting their child’s teeth, like making sure that their teeth get brushed before bed, encouraging kids to drink tap water, especially if it’s fluoridated, and avoiding juice. The AAP has a program called Brush, Book, Bed to promote oral health, along with reading and good sleep habits.

Dr. Hoss noted that parents, and even dentists, may have misconceptions about optimal oral hygiene. “For example, you’re supposed to brush your teeth before breakfast, not after breakfast. But I’ve seen dentists even tell their patients, brush after breakfast,” he said.

In addition, people should brush gently but thoroughly using high-quality toothbrushes with soft bristles – “not scrubbing the teeth away with a coarse toothbrush,” he said.

Dr. Niederman has studied ways to prevent caries in underserved communities and is co-CEO of CariedAway, an organization that brings free cavity-prevention programs to schools.

In an average classroom of 24 students, about 6 children would be expected to have untreated tooth decay, Dr. Niederman said. And about 10% of the children with untreated tooth decay experience a toothache. So in two classrooms, at least one child would be expected to be experiencing pain, while the other students with caries might feel a lesser degree of discomfort. “That reduces presenteeism in the classroom and certainly presenteeism for the kid with a toothache,” Dr. Niederman said.

In communities with less access to dental care, including rural areas, the number of students with tooth decay might be double.

The new WHO report shows that the prevalence of caries in permanent teeth in various countries has remained at roughly 30%, regardless of a country’s income level, and despite efforts to bolster the dental workforce, said Dr. Niederman.

“The dental system is similar globally and focused on drilling and filling rather than prevention,” he said.

A 2019 Lancet series on oral health called for radical change in dental care, Dr. Niederman noted. “One of those radical changes would be primary care physicians or their offices participating in outreach programs to deliver care in schools,” he said.

Dr. Fisher-Owens is on a data and safety monitoring board for research by Colgate. Dr. Boulter serves on the editorial advisory board of Pediatric News. Dr. Hoss is the author of “If Your Mouth Could Talk” and the founder and CEO of SuperMouth, which markets children’s oral care products. Dr. Niederman’s research has used toothbrushes, toothpaste, and fluoride varnish donated by Colgate; silver diamine fluoride provided by Elevate Oral Health; and glass ionomer provided by GC America.

Tooth decay can be easy to overlook – particularly for pediatricians and family physicians, who may be neglecting a crucial aspect of childhood health.

Left untreated, it can lead to serious and even fatal medical problems. The incorporation of preventive oral health care services like the application of fluoride varnish into primary care may be helping protect kids’ smiles and improving their overall physical well-being, according to doctors and a recent government report.
 

‘We don’t deal with that in pediatrics’

Physicians historically were not trained to examine teeth. That was the dentist’s job.

But dental caries is one of the most common chronic diseases in children, and many children do not regularly see a dentist.

“I stumbled across the statistic that oral health problems in children are five times as common as asthma,” said Susan A. Fisher-Owens, MD, MPH, professor of pediatrics at the University of California, San Francisco. “And I said to myself, ‘Well, that can’t be. We don’t deal with that in pediatrics.’ And then I realized, ‘Oh my goodness, we don’t deal with that in pediatrics!’ ”

Children should see a dentist, of course. Physicians should refer families to a dentist by age 1 for routine care, Dr. Fisher-Owens said. The sooner kids are seen, the more likely they are to stay healthy and avoid the need for costlier care, she said.

But the receipt of dental care has gaps.

“About half of all American children do not receive regular dental care because of social, economic, and geographic obstacles,” according to a 2021 fact sheet from the National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research. “Integrating dental care within family and pediatric medical care settings is improving children’s oral health.”

Many children do not start to see a dentist when they are supposed to, acknowledged Kami Hoss, DDS, MS, founder of a large dental practice in California and the author of a new book, “If Your Mouth Could Talk,” that examines links between oral health and physical disease.

Although the American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry says every child should see a pediatric dentist by the time their first baby teeth come in, usually at around 6 months or no later than age 1 year, that does not always happen.

Indeed, only about 16% of children adhere to that guidance, Dr. Hoss said, “which means 84% of parents rely on their pediatricians for oral health advice.”

At older ages, oral health problems like gum disease are linked to almost every chronic disease, Dr. Hoss said.

“We love to bridge the gap, to build bridges between medicine and dentistry,” he said. “After all, your mouth is part of your body.”

A 2021 NIDCR report similarly describes the stakes: “Although caries is largely preventable, if untreated it can lead to pain, inflammation, and the spread of infection to bone and soft tissue. Children may suffer from difficulty eating, poor nutrition, delayed physical development, and poor self-image and socialization. Even academic performance can be affected.”

In November, the World Health Organization published a report showing that about 45% of the world’s population – 3.5 billion people – have oral diseases, including 2.5 billion people with untreated dental caries.

Oral health care is often neglected in public health research, and often entails high out-of-pocket costs for families, the organization notes.
 

‘Strep tooth’

Dental cavities are caused by bacteria – mainly Streptococcus mutans – that eat sugars or carbohydrates in the mouth. That process causes acid, which can erode teeth. In that way, the development of caries is a fully preventable infectious disease process, Dr. Fisher-Owens said.

“I think if people looked at this disease as ‘strep tooth,’ it would get a lot more people interested,” she said.

Bacteria that cause caries can spread from caregiver to child, such as when a parent tries to clean a dropped pacifier in their own mouth, or from child to child.

Caries can be prevented with proper diet and oral hygiene: toothbrushing and then applying fluoride to strengthen teeth or restrengthen teeth that have been weakened by the disease process, Dr. Fisher-Owens said.

The biggest risk factor for having cavities in adult teeth is having them in primary teeth, she said. “There is a common misconception that it doesn’t matter what happens with baby teeth. They’ll fall out,” she said. “But actually it does because it puts you on a trajectory of having cavities in the adult teeth and worse outcomes with other adult conditions, such as diabetes.”

At the 2022 annual meeting of the American Academy of Pediatrics in Anaheim in October, Dr. Fisher-Owens and Jean Calvo, DDS, MPH, also with the University of California, San Francisco, trained colleagues to apply fluoride varnish to primary teeth – so-called baby teeth – in the doctor’s office. This session is a regular feature at these conferences.

Since 2014, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force has recommended that primary care clinicians apply fluoride varnish to the primary teeth of all infants and children.

Many pediatricians may not do this regularly, however.

Researchers recently reported that, despite insurance coverage, less than 5% of well-child visits for privately insured young children between 2016 and 2018 included the service.

Nevertheless, the practice may be helping, according to the NIDCR report.

Since 2000, untreated tooth decay in primary teeth among children younger than 12 years has fallen from 23% to 15%, according to the report. For children aged 2-5 years, untreated tooth decay decreased from at least 19% to 10%. For children aged 6-11 years, the prevalence of dental cavities in permanent teeth fell from 25% to 18%, the report states.

“Fluoridated water, toothpastes, and varnish – as well as dental sealants – can work together to dramatically reduce the incidence of caries,” according to the NIDCR. “Integrating dental care within family and pediatric medical care settings has been another important advancement. The delivery of preventive oral health services, such as fluoride varnish, during well-child visits in medical offices is showing promise in reducing dental caries among preschool-age children.”

Integrating oral health care with medical primary care has met challenges, however, including “resistance by providers, lack of training, and the need for insurance reimbursement for services,” the report notes.

Clinicians can already bill for the application of fluoride varnish using Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) code 99188, and additional oral health care procedures may be on the horizon.

The American Medical Association this fall established a new Category III CPT code for the application of silver diamine fluoride to dental cavities.

Silver diamine fluoride is a newer product that was approved as a desensitizing agent by the Food and Drug Administration in 2014. It has antimicrobial and remineralizing properties, and researchers have found that it can stop the progression of early tooth decay and is more effective than fluoride varnish in preventing cavities.

Several dental groups supported the creation of this new code, which is expected to be made available by electronic health records vendors in July.

Some dentists have reservations, however. The Academy of General Dentistry in October expressed concerns that allowing “nondental health care workers to administer silver diamine fluoride is a temporary solution to a growing oral health crisis.”

Silver diamine fluoride may stop about 80% of cavities. Although the CPT code for silver diamine fluoride has been established, whether insurers will reimburse health care professionals for the service is another matter, said Richard Niederman, DMD, professor and chair of epidemiology and health promotion at New York University College of Dentistry.
 

Fatal consequences

Disparities in oral health in children may be greater than with almost any other disease process. The rate of caries in children who are poor is about twice that for children who are not poor, Dr. Fisher-Owens said. Disparities by race or ethnicity compound these differences.

In 2007, 12-year-old Deamonte Driver died after bacteria from a dental abscess spread to his brain. He had needed a tooth extraction, but his family lacked insurance and had had trouble finding dentists that accepted Medicaid near where they lived in Maryland.

After two emergency brain surgeries, 2 weeks in a hospital, and another 6 weeks in a hospital for rehabilitation, Deamonte died from the infection. The case sparked calls to fix the dental health system.

Physicians may notice more oral health problems in their patients, including dental abscesses, once they start looking for them, Dr. Fisher-Owens said.

She recalled one instance where a child with an underlying seizure disorder was hospitalized at an academic center because they appeared to be having more seizures.

“They eventually discharged the kid because they looked at all of the things related to seizures. None of them were there,” she said.

When Dr. Fisher-Owens saw the child for a discharge exam, she looked in the mouth and saw a whopping dental abscess.

“I realized that this kid wasn’t seizing but was actually rigoring in pain,” she said. No one else on the medical team had seen the true problem despite multiple examinations. The child started antibiotics, was referred to a dentist to have the abscess drained, and had a good outcome.

Suzanne C. Boulter, MD, adjunct clinical professor of pediatrics and community health at the Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, N.H., had noticed that many of her poorer patients had oral health problems, but many pediatric dentists were not able or willing to see them to provide treatment.

“Taking it one step further, you really want to prevent early childhood caries,” Dr. Boulter said. She started speaking up about oral health at pediatric meetings and became an early adopter of preventive interventions, including the use of fluoride varnish.

“Fluoride varnish is a sticky substance that has a very high concentration of fluoride in it,and it’s a very powerful reducer of oral childhood caries, by maybe 35%,” Dr. Boulter said.

Applying the varnish is fairly simple, but it had never been part of the well-child exam. Dr. Boulter started using it around 2005.

Initially, convincing other pediatricians to adopt this procedure – when visits are already time-constrained – was not always easy, she said.

Now that fluoride varnish is recommended for all children and is part of Bright Futures recommendations and is covered in the Affordable Care Act, “it became more the norm,” Dr. Boulter said. But there is room for improvement.

“There is still not a high enough percentage of pediatricians and family physicians who actually have incorporated application of fluoride varnish into their practice,” she said.
 

Brush, book, bed

Clinicians can take other steps to counsel parents about protecting their child’s teeth, like making sure that their teeth get brushed before bed, encouraging kids to drink tap water, especially if it’s fluoridated, and avoiding juice. The AAP has a program called Brush, Book, Bed to promote oral health, along with reading and good sleep habits.

Dr. Hoss noted that parents, and even dentists, may have misconceptions about optimal oral hygiene. “For example, you’re supposed to brush your teeth before breakfast, not after breakfast. But I’ve seen dentists even tell their patients, brush after breakfast,” he said.

In addition, people should brush gently but thoroughly using high-quality toothbrushes with soft bristles – “not scrubbing the teeth away with a coarse toothbrush,” he said.

Dr. Niederman has studied ways to prevent caries in underserved communities and is co-CEO of CariedAway, an organization that brings free cavity-prevention programs to schools.

In an average classroom of 24 students, about 6 children would be expected to have untreated tooth decay, Dr. Niederman said. And about 10% of the children with untreated tooth decay experience a toothache. So in two classrooms, at least one child would be expected to be experiencing pain, while the other students with caries might feel a lesser degree of discomfort. “That reduces presenteeism in the classroom and certainly presenteeism for the kid with a toothache,” Dr. Niederman said.

In communities with less access to dental care, including rural areas, the number of students with tooth decay might be double.

The new WHO report shows that the prevalence of caries in permanent teeth in various countries has remained at roughly 30%, regardless of a country’s income level, and despite efforts to bolster the dental workforce, said Dr. Niederman.

“The dental system is similar globally and focused on drilling and filling rather than prevention,” he said.

A 2019 Lancet series on oral health called for radical change in dental care, Dr. Niederman noted. “One of those radical changes would be primary care physicians or their offices participating in outreach programs to deliver care in schools,” he said.

Dr. Fisher-Owens is on a data and safety monitoring board for research by Colgate. Dr. Boulter serves on the editorial advisory board of Pediatric News. Dr. Hoss is the author of “If Your Mouth Could Talk” and the founder and CEO of SuperMouth, which markets children’s oral care products. Dr. Niederman’s research has used toothbrushes, toothpaste, and fluoride varnish donated by Colgate; silver diamine fluoride provided by Elevate Oral Health; and glass ionomer provided by GC America.

Tooth decay can be easy to overlook – particularly for pediatricians and family physicians, who may be neglecting a crucial aspect of childhood health.

Left untreated, it can lead to serious and even fatal medical problems. The incorporation of preventive oral health care services like the application of fluoride varnish into primary care may be helping protect kids’ smiles and improving their overall physical well-being, according to doctors and a recent government report.
 

‘We don’t deal with that in pediatrics’

Physicians historically were not trained to examine teeth. That was the dentist’s job.

But dental caries is one of the most common chronic diseases in children, and many children do not regularly see a dentist.

“I stumbled across the statistic that oral health problems in children are five times as common as asthma,” said Susan A. Fisher-Owens, MD, MPH, professor of pediatrics at the University of California, San Francisco. “And I said to myself, ‘Well, that can’t be. We don’t deal with that in pediatrics.’ And then I realized, ‘Oh my goodness, we don’t deal with that in pediatrics!’ ”

Children should see a dentist, of course. Physicians should refer families to a dentist by age 1 for routine care, Dr. Fisher-Owens said. The sooner kids are seen, the more likely they are to stay healthy and avoid the need for costlier care, she said.

But the receipt of dental care has gaps.

“About half of all American children do not receive regular dental care because of social, economic, and geographic obstacles,” according to a 2021 fact sheet from the National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research. “Integrating dental care within family and pediatric medical care settings is improving children’s oral health.”

Many children do not start to see a dentist when they are supposed to, acknowledged Kami Hoss, DDS, MS, founder of a large dental practice in California and the author of a new book, “If Your Mouth Could Talk,” that examines links between oral health and physical disease.

Although the American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry says every child should see a pediatric dentist by the time their first baby teeth come in, usually at around 6 months or no later than age 1 year, that does not always happen.

Indeed, only about 16% of children adhere to that guidance, Dr. Hoss said, “which means 84% of parents rely on their pediatricians for oral health advice.”

At older ages, oral health problems like gum disease are linked to almost every chronic disease, Dr. Hoss said.

“We love to bridge the gap, to build bridges between medicine and dentistry,” he said. “After all, your mouth is part of your body.”

A 2021 NIDCR report similarly describes the stakes: “Although caries is largely preventable, if untreated it can lead to pain, inflammation, and the spread of infection to bone and soft tissue. Children may suffer from difficulty eating, poor nutrition, delayed physical development, and poor self-image and socialization. Even academic performance can be affected.”

In November, the World Health Organization published a report showing that about 45% of the world’s population – 3.5 billion people – have oral diseases, including 2.5 billion people with untreated dental caries.

Oral health care is often neglected in public health research, and often entails high out-of-pocket costs for families, the organization notes.
 

‘Strep tooth’

Dental cavities are caused by bacteria – mainly Streptococcus mutans – that eat sugars or carbohydrates in the mouth. That process causes acid, which can erode teeth. In that way, the development of caries is a fully preventable infectious disease process, Dr. Fisher-Owens said.

“I think if people looked at this disease as ‘strep tooth,’ it would get a lot more people interested,” she said.

Bacteria that cause caries can spread from caregiver to child, such as when a parent tries to clean a dropped pacifier in their own mouth, or from child to child.

Caries can be prevented with proper diet and oral hygiene: toothbrushing and then applying fluoride to strengthen teeth or restrengthen teeth that have been weakened by the disease process, Dr. Fisher-Owens said.

The biggest risk factor for having cavities in adult teeth is having them in primary teeth, she said. “There is a common misconception that it doesn’t matter what happens with baby teeth. They’ll fall out,” she said. “But actually it does because it puts you on a trajectory of having cavities in the adult teeth and worse outcomes with other adult conditions, such as diabetes.”

At the 2022 annual meeting of the American Academy of Pediatrics in Anaheim in October, Dr. Fisher-Owens and Jean Calvo, DDS, MPH, also with the University of California, San Francisco, trained colleagues to apply fluoride varnish to primary teeth – so-called baby teeth – in the doctor’s office. This session is a regular feature at these conferences.

Since 2014, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force has recommended that primary care clinicians apply fluoride varnish to the primary teeth of all infants and children.

Many pediatricians may not do this regularly, however.

Researchers recently reported that, despite insurance coverage, less than 5% of well-child visits for privately insured young children between 2016 and 2018 included the service.

Nevertheless, the practice may be helping, according to the NIDCR report.

Since 2000, untreated tooth decay in primary teeth among children younger than 12 years has fallen from 23% to 15%, according to the report. For children aged 2-5 years, untreated tooth decay decreased from at least 19% to 10%. For children aged 6-11 years, the prevalence of dental cavities in permanent teeth fell from 25% to 18%, the report states.

“Fluoridated water, toothpastes, and varnish – as well as dental sealants – can work together to dramatically reduce the incidence of caries,” according to the NIDCR. “Integrating dental care within family and pediatric medical care settings has been another important advancement. The delivery of preventive oral health services, such as fluoride varnish, during well-child visits in medical offices is showing promise in reducing dental caries among preschool-age children.”

Integrating oral health care with medical primary care has met challenges, however, including “resistance by providers, lack of training, and the need for insurance reimbursement for services,” the report notes.

Clinicians can already bill for the application of fluoride varnish using Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) code 99188, and additional oral health care procedures may be on the horizon.

The American Medical Association this fall established a new Category III CPT code for the application of silver diamine fluoride to dental cavities.

Silver diamine fluoride is a newer product that was approved as a desensitizing agent by the Food and Drug Administration in 2014. It has antimicrobial and remineralizing properties, and researchers have found that it can stop the progression of early tooth decay and is more effective than fluoride varnish in preventing cavities.

Several dental groups supported the creation of this new code, which is expected to be made available by electronic health records vendors in July.

Some dentists have reservations, however. The Academy of General Dentistry in October expressed concerns that allowing “nondental health care workers to administer silver diamine fluoride is a temporary solution to a growing oral health crisis.”

Silver diamine fluoride may stop about 80% of cavities. Although the CPT code for silver diamine fluoride has been established, whether insurers will reimburse health care professionals for the service is another matter, said Richard Niederman, DMD, professor and chair of epidemiology and health promotion at New York University College of Dentistry.
 

Fatal consequences

Disparities in oral health in children may be greater than with almost any other disease process. The rate of caries in children who are poor is about twice that for children who are not poor, Dr. Fisher-Owens said. Disparities by race or ethnicity compound these differences.

In 2007, 12-year-old Deamonte Driver died after bacteria from a dental abscess spread to his brain. He had needed a tooth extraction, but his family lacked insurance and had had trouble finding dentists that accepted Medicaid near where they lived in Maryland.

After two emergency brain surgeries, 2 weeks in a hospital, and another 6 weeks in a hospital for rehabilitation, Deamonte died from the infection. The case sparked calls to fix the dental health system.

Physicians may notice more oral health problems in their patients, including dental abscesses, once they start looking for them, Dr. Fisher-Owens said.

She recalled one instance where a child with an underlying seizure disorder was hospitalized at an academic center because they appeared to be having more seizures.

“They eventually discharged the kid because they looked at all of the things related to seizures. None of them were there,” she said.

When Dr. Fisher-Owens saw the child for a discharge exam, she looked in the mouth and saw a whopping dental abscess.

“I realized that this kid wasn’t seizing but was actually rigoring in pain,” she said. No one else on the medical team had seen the true problem despite multiple examinations. The child started antibiotics, was referred to a dentist to have the abscess drained, and had a good outcome.

Suzanne C. Boulter, MD, adjunct clinical professor of pediatrics and community health at the Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, N.H., had noticed that many of her poorer patients had oral health problems, but many pediatric dentists were not able or willing to see them to provide treatment.

“Taking it one step further, you really want to prevent early childhood caries,” Dr. Boulter said. She started speaking up about oral health at pediatric meetings and became an early adopter of preventive interventions, including the use of fluoride varnish.

“Fluoride varnish is a sticky substance that has a very high concentration of fluoride in it,and it’s a very powerful reducer of oral childhood caries, by maybe 35%,” Dr. Boulter said.

Applying the varnish is fairly simple, but it had never been part of the well-child exam. Dr. Boulter started using it around 2005.

Initially, convincing other pediatricians to adopt this procedure – when visits are already time-constrained – was not always easy, she said.

Now that fluoride varnish is recommended for all children and is part of Bright Futures recommendations and is covered in the Affordable Care Act, “it became more the norm,” Dr. Boulter said. But there is room for improvement.

“There is still not a high enough percentage of pediatricians and family physicians who actually have incorporated application of fluoride varnish into their practice,” she said.
 

Brush, book, bed

Clinicians can take other steps to counsel parents about protecting their child’s teeth, like making sure that their teeth get brushed before bed, encouraging kids to drink tap water, especially if it’s fluoridated, and avoiding juice. The AAP has a program called Brush, Book, Bed to promote oral health, along with reading and good sleep habits.

Dr. Hoss noted that parents, and even dentists, may have misconceptions about optimal oral hygiene. “For example, you’re supposed to brush your teeth before breakfast, not after breakfast. But I’ve seen dentists even tell their patients, brush after breakfast,” he said.

In addition, people should brush gently but thoroughly using high-quality toothbrushes with soft bristles – “not scrubbing the teeth away with a coarse toothbrush,” he said.

Dr. Niederman has studied ways to prevent caries in underserved communities and is co-CEO of CariedAway, an organization that brings free cavity-prevention programs to schools.

In an average classroom of 24 students, about 6 children would be expected to have untreated tooth decay, Dr. Niederman said. And about 10% of the children with untreated tooth decay experience a toothache. So in two classrooms, at least one child would be expected to be experiencing pain, while the other students with caries might feel a lesser degree of discomfort. “That reduces presenteeism in the classroom and certainly presenteeism for the kid with a toothache,” Dr. Niederman said.

In communities with less access to dental care, including rural areas, the number of students with tooth decay might be double.

The new WHO report shows that the prevalence of caries in permanent teeth in various countries has remained at roughly 30%, regardless of a country’s income level, and despite efforts to bolster the dental workforce, said Dr. Niederman.

“The dental system is similar globally and focused on drilling and filling rather than prevention,” he said.

A 2019 Lancet series on oral health called for radical change in dental care, Dr. Niederman noted. “One of those radical changes would be primary care physicians or their offices participating in outreach programs to deliver care in schools,” he said.

Dr. Fisher-Owens is on a data and safety monitoring board for research by Colgate. Dr. Boulter serves on the editorial advisory board of Pediatric News. Dr. Hoss is the author of “If Your Mouth Could Talk” and the founder and CEO of SuperMouth, which markets children’s oral care products. Dr. Niederman’s research has used toothbrushes, toothpaste, and fluoride varnish donated by Colgate; silver diamine fluoride provided by Elevate Oral Health; and glass ionomer provided by GC America.

New cases of COVID-19 in children largely held steady over the Thanksgiving holiday, but hospital admissions are telling a somewhat different story.

New pediatric COVID cases for the week ending on Thanksgiving (11/18-11/24) were up by 5.3% over the previous week, but in the most recent week (11/25-12/1) new cases dropped by 2.6%, according to state data collected by the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

In both weeks, though, the total case count stayed below 30,000 – a streak that has now lasted 8 weeks – so the actual number of weekly cases remained fairly low, the AAP/CHA weekly report indicates.

The nation’s emergency departments also experienced a small Thanksgiving bump, as the proportion of visits with diagnosed COVID went from 1.0% of all ED visits for children aged 0-11 years on Nov. 14 to 2.0% on Nov. 27, just 3 days after the official holiday, based on data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The rate was down to 1.5% on Dec. 1, and similar patterns can be seen for children aged 12-15 and 16-17 years.

New hospital admissions, on the other hand, seem to be following a different path, at least according to the CDC. The hospitalization rate for children aged 0-17 years bottomed out at 0.16 new admissions per 100,000 population back on Oct. 21 and has climbed fairly steadily since then. It was up to 0.20 per 100,000 by Nov. 14, had reached 0.22 per 100,000 on Thanksgiving day (11/24), and then continued to 0.26 per 100,000 by Dec. 2, the latest date for which CDC data are available.

The hospitalization story, however, offers yet another twist. The New York Times, using data from the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, reports that new COVID-related admissions have held steady at 1.0 per 100,000 since Nov. 18. The rate is much higher than has been reported by the CDC, but no increase can be seen in recent weeks among children, which is not the case for Americans overall, Medscape recently reported.

New cases of COVID-19 in children largely held steady over the Thanksgiving holiday, but hospital admissions are telling a somewhat different story.

New pediatric COVID cases for the week ending on Thanksgiving (11/18-11/24) were up by 5.3% over the previous week, but in the most recent week (11/25-12/1) new cases dropped by 2.6%, according to state data collected by the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

In both weeks, though, the total case count stayed below 30,000 – a streak that has now lasted 8 weeks – so the actual number of weekly cases remained fairly low, the AAP/CHA weekly report indicates.

The nation’s emergency departments also experienced a small Thanksgiving bump, as the proportion of visits with diagnosed COVID went from 1.0% of all ED visits for children aged 0-11 years on Nov. 14 to 2.0% on Nov. 27, just 3 days after the official holiday, based on data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The rate was down to 1.5% on Dec. 1, and similar patterns can be seen for children aged 12-15 and 16-17 years.

New hospital admissions, on the other hand, seem to be following a different path, at least according to the CDC. The hospitalization rate for children aged 0-17 years bottomed out at 0.16 new admissions per 100,000 population back on Oct. 21 and has climbed fairly steadily since then. It was up to 0.20 per 100,000 by Nov. 14, had reached 0.22 per 100,000 on Thanksgiving day (11/24), and then continued to 0.26 per 100,000 by Dec. 2, the latest date for which CDC data are available.

The hospitalization story, however, offers yet another twist. The New York Times, using data from the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, reports that new COVID-related admissions have held steady at 1.0 per 100,000 since Nov. 18. The rate is much higher than has been reported by the CDC, but no increase can be seen in recent weeks among children, which is not the case for Americans overall, Medscape recently reported.

New cases of COVID-19 in children largely held steady over the Thanksgiving holiday, but hospital admissions are telling a somewhat different story.

New pediatric COVID cases for the week ending on Thanksgiving (11/18-11/24) were up by 5.3% over the previous week, but in the most recent week (11/25-12/1) new cases dropped by 2.6%, according to state data collected by the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

In both weeks, though, the total case count stayed below 30,000 – a streak that has now lasted 8 weeks – so the actual number of weekly cases remained fairly low, the AAP/CHA weekly report indicates.

The nation’s emergency departments also experienced a small Thanksgiving bump, as the proportion of visits with diagnosed COVID went from 1.0% of all ED visits for children aged 0-11 years on Nov. 14 to 2.0% on Nov. 27, just 3 days after the official holiday, based on data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The rate was down to 1.5% on Dec. 1, and similar patterns can be seen for children aged 12-15 and 16-17 years.

New hospital admissions, on the other hand, seem to be following a different path, at least according to the CDC. The hospitalization rate for children aged 0-17 years bottomed out at 0.16 new admissions per 100,000 population back on Oct. 21 and has climbed fairly steadily since then. It was up to 0.20 per 100,000 by Nov. 14, had reached 0.22 per 100,000 on Thanksgiving day (11/24), and then continued to 0.26 per 100,000 by Dec. 2, the latest date for which CDC data are available.

The hospitalization story, however, offers yet another twist. The New York Times, using data from the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, reports that new COVID-related admissions have held steady at 1.0 per 100,000 since Nov. 18. The rate is much higher than has been reported by the CDC, but no increase can be seen in recent weeks among children, which is not the case for Americans overall, Medscape recently reported.

With youth obesity on the rise – an estimated 1 in 5 youths are impacted by obesity, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention – conversations about healthy weight are becoming more commonplace, not only in the pediatrician’s office, but at home, too. But the language we use around this sensitive topic is important, as youths are acutely aware that words have a direct impact on their mental health.

Sixteen-year-old Avery DiCocco of Northbrook, Ill., knows how vulnerable teenagers feel. 

“I think it definitely matters the way that parents and doctors address weight,” she said. “You never know who may be insecure, and using negative words could go a lot further than they think with impacting self-esteem.” 

A new study published in Pediatrics brings light to the words that parents (and providers) use when speaking to youths (ages 10-17) about their weight.

Researchers from the University of Connecticut Rudd Center for Food Policy & Health, Hartford, led an online survey of youths and their parents. Those who took part were asked about 27  terms related to body weight. Parents were asked to comment on their use of these words, while youths commented on the emotional response. The researchers said 1,936 parents and 2,032 adolescents were surveyed between September and December 2021.

Although results skewed toward the use of more positive words, such as “healthy weight,” over terms like “obese,” “fat” or “large,” there was variation across ethnicity, sexual orientation, and weight status. For example, it was noted in the study, funded by WW International, that preference for the word “curvy” was higher among Hispanic/Latino youths, sexual minority youths, and those with a body mass index in the 95th percentile, compared with their White, heterosexual, and lower-weight peers.
 

Words matter

In 2017, the American Academy of Pediatrics came out with a policy statement on weight stigma and the need for doctors to use more neutral language and less stigmatizing terms in practice when discussing weight among youths.

But one of the reasons this new study is important, said Gregory Germain, MD, associate chief of pediatrics at Yale New Haven (Conn.) Children’s Hospital, is that this study focuses on parents who interact with their kids much more often than a pediatrician who sees them a few times a year.

“Parental motivation, discussion, interaction on a consistent basis – that dialogue is so critical in kids with obesity,” said Germain, who stresses that all adults, coaches, and educators should consider this study as well.

“When we think about those detrimental impacts on mental health when more stigmatizing language is used, just us being more mindful in how we are talking to youth can make such a profound impact,” said Rebecca Kamody, PhD, a clinical psychologist at Yale University, with a research and clinical focus on eating and weight disorders.

“In essence, this is a low-hanging fruit intervention,” she said. 

Dr. Kamody recommends we take a lesson from “cultural humility” in psychology to understand how to approach this with kids, calling for “the humbleness as parents or providers in asking someone what they want used to make it the safest place for a discussion with our youth.”
 

One piece of the puzzle 

Dr. Germain and Dr. Kamody agreed that language in discussing this topic is important but that we need to recognize that this topic in general is extremely tricky.

For one, “there are these very real metabolic complications of having high weight at a young age,” said Kamody, who stresses the need for balance to make real change.

Dr. Germain agreed. “Finding a fine line between discussing obesity and not kicking your kid into disordered eating is important.”

The researchers also recognize the limits of an online study, where self-reporting parents may not want to admit using negative weight terminology, but certainly believe it’s a start in identifying some of the undesirable patterns that may be occurring when it comes to weight.

“The overarching message is a positive one, that with our preteens and teenage kids, we need to watch our language, to create a nonjudgmental and safe environment to discuss weight and any issue involved with taking care of themselves,” said Dr. Germain.

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

With youth obesity on the rise – an estimated 1 in 5 youths are impacted by obesity, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention – conversations about healthy weight are becoming more commonplace, not only in the pediatrician’s office, but at home, too. But the language we use around this sensitive topic is important, as youths are acutely aware that words have a direct impact on their mental health.

Sixteen-year-old Avery DiCocco of Northbrook, Ill., knows how vulnerable teenagers feel. 

“I think it definitely matters the way that parents and doctors address weight,” she said. “You never know who may be insecure, and using negative words could go a lot further than they think with impacting self-esteem.” 

A new study published in Pediatrics brings light to the words that parents (and providers) use when speaking to youths (ages 10-17) about their weight.

Researchers from the University of Connecticut Rudd Center for Food Policy & Health, Hartford, led an online survey of youths and their parents. Those who took part were asked about 27  terms related to body weight. Parents were asked to comment on their use of these words, while youths commented on the emotional response. The researchers said 1,936 parents and 2,032 adolescents were surveyed between September and December 2021.

Although results skewed toward the use of more positive words, such as “healthy weight,” over terms like “obese,” “fat” or “large,” there was variation across ethnicity, sexual orientation, and weight status. For example, it was noted in the study, funded by WW International, that preference for the word “curvy” was higher among Hispanic/Latino youths, sexual minority youths, and those with a body mass index in the 95th percentile, compared with their White, heterosexual, and lower-weight peers.
 

Words matter

In 2017, the American Academy of Pediatrics came out with a policy statement on weight stigma and the need for doctors to use more neutral language and less stigmatizing terms in practice when discussing weight among youths.

But one of the reasons this new study is important, said Gregory Germain, MD, associate chief of pediatrics at Yale New Haven (Conn.) Children’s Hospital, is that this study focuses on parents who interact with their kids much more often than a pediatrician who sees them a few times a year.

“Parental motivation, discussion, interaction on a consistent basis – that dialogue is so critical in kids with obesity,” said Germain, who stresses that all adults, coaches, and educators should consider this study as well.

“When we think about those detrimental impacts on mental health when more stigmatizing language is used, just us being more mindful in how we are talking to youth can make such a profound impact,” said Rebecca Kamody, PhD, a clinical psychologist at Yale University, with a research and clinical focus on eating and weight disorders.

“In essence, this is a low-hanging fruit intervention,” she said. 

Dr. Kamody recommends we take a lesson from “cultural humility” in psychology to understand how to approach this with kids, calling for “the humbleness as parents or providers in asking someone what they want used to make it the safest place for a discussion with our youth.”
 

One piece of the puzzle 

Dr. Germain and Dr. Kamody agreed that language in discussing this topic is important but that we need to recognize that this topic in general is extremely tricky.

For one, “there are these very real metabolic complications of having high weight at a young age,” said Kamody, who stresses the need for balance to make real change.

Dr. Germain agreed. “Finding a fine line between discussing obesity and not kicking your kid into disordered eating is important.”

The researchers also recognize the limits of an online study, where self-reporting parents may not want to admit using negative weight terminology, but certainly believe it’s a start in identifying some of the undesirable patterns that may be occurring when it comes to weight.

“The overarching message is a positive one, that with our preteens and teenage kids, we need to watch our language, to create a nonjudgmental and safe environment to discuss weight and any issue involved with taking care of themselves,” said Dr. Germain.

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

With youth obesity on the rise – an estimated 1 in 5 youths are impacted by obesity, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention – conversations about healthy weight are becoming more commonplace, not only in the pediatrician’s office, but at home, too. But the language we use around this sensitive topic is important, as youths are acutely aware that words have a direct impact on their mental health.

Sixteen-year-old Avery DiCocco of Northbrook, Ill., knows how vulnerable teenagers feel. 

“I think it definitely matters the way that parents and doctors address weight,” she said. “You never know who may be insecure, and using negative words could go a lot further than they think with impacting self-esteem.” 

A new study published in Pediatrics brings light to the words that parents (and providers) use when speaking to youths (ages 10-17) about their weight.

Researchers from the University of Connecticut Rudd Center for Food Policy & Health, Hartford, led an online survey of youths and their parents. Those who took part were asked about 27  terms related to body weight. Parents were asked to comment on their use of these words, while youths commented on the emotional response. The researchers said 1,936 parents and 2,032 adolescents were surveyed between September and December 2021.

Although results skewed toward the use of more positive words, such as “healthy weight,” over terms like “obese,” “fat” or “large,” there was variation across ethnicity, sexual orientation, and weight status. For example, it was noted in the study, funded by WW International, that preference for the word “curvy” was higher among Hispanic/Latino youths, sexual minority youths, and those with a body mass index in the 95th percentile, compared with their White, heterosexual, and lower-weight peers.
 

Words matter

In 2017, the American Academy of Pediatrics came out with a policy statement on weight stigma and the need for doctors to use more neutral language and less stigmatizing terms in practice when discussing weight among youths.

But one of the reasons this new study is important, said Gregory Germain, MD, associate chief of pediatrics at Yale New Haven (Conn.) Children’s Hospital, is that this study focuses on parents who interact with their kids much more often than a pediatrician who sees them a few times a year.

“Parental motivation, discussion, interaction on a consistent basis – that dialogue is so critical in kids with obesity,” said Germain, who stresses that all adults, coaches, and educators should consider this study as well.

“When we think about those detrimental impacts on mental health when more stigmatizing language is used, just us being more mindful in how we are talking to youth can make such a profound impact,” said Rebecca Kamody, PhD, a clinical psychologist at Yale University, with a research and clinical focus on eating and weight disorders.

“In essence, this is a low-hanging fruit intervention,” she said. 

Dr. Kamody recommends we take a lesson from “cultural humility” in psychology to understand how to approach this with kids, calling for “the humbleness as parents or providers in asking someone what they want used to make it the safest place for a discussion with our youth.”
 

One piece of the puzzle 

Dr. Germain and Dr. Kamody agreed that language in discussing this topic is important but that we need to recognize that this topic in general is extremely tricky.

For one, “there are these very real metabolic complications of having high weight at a young age,” said Kamody, who stresses the need for balance to make real change.

Dr. Germain agreed. “Finding a fine line between discussing obesity and not kicking your kid into disordered eating is important.”

The researchers also recognize the limits of an online study, where self-reporting parents may not want to admit using negative weight terminology, but certainly believe it’s a start in identifying some of the undesirable patterns that may be occurring when it comes to weight.

“The overarching message is a positive one, that with our preteens and teenage kids, we need to watch our language, to create a nonjudgmental and safe environment to discuss weight and any issue involved with taking care of themselves,” said Dr. Germain.

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

Headlines from earlier in the fall were grim: Thanks to the COVID-19 pandemic, life expectancy in the United States has fallen for 2 years running. Last year, according to health officials, the average American newborn could hope to reach 76.1 years, down from 79 years in 2019.

So far, so bad. But the headlines don’t tell the full story, which is much less dire. In fact, 2022 is the best year in human history for a child to arrive on Earth.

For a child born this year, in a developed country, into a family with access to good health care, the odds of living into the 22nd century are almost 50%. One in three will live to be 100. Those estimates reflect only incremental progress in medicine and public health, with COVID-19 baked in. They don’t account for biotechnologies beckoning to take control of the cell cycle and aging itself – which could make the outlook much brighter.

For some perspective, consider that a century ago, life expectancy for an American neonate was about 60 years. That 1922 figure was itself nothing short of miraculous, representing a 25% jump since 1901 – a leap that far outstrips the first 2 decades of the current century, during which life expectancy rose by just 2.5 years.

A gain of 2.5 years over 2 decades might not sound impressive, even without COVID-19 causing life expectancy in this country and abroad to sag. But during the pandemic, exciting new technologies that could drive gains in lifespan and healthspan, even bigger than those seen in the early 20th century, have moved closer to clinical reality. Think Star Trek-ish technologies like human hibernation, universal blood, mRNA therapy able to reprogram immune cells to hunt malignancies and fibrotic tissue, even head transplantation.

How long that last one will take to reach a clinic near you is hard to predict, but advances in the needed technology to anastomose cephalic and somatic portions of the spinal cord are mind-boggling. All this means that, from a medical standpoint, the future for babies born in the early 2020s looks dazzlingly bright.

Those sunny rays of optimism likely have failed to pierce the gloom of public discourse. Between “breakthrough infections,” “long COVID,” “Paxlovid rebound,” vaccine-induced myopericarditis, the current respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) outbreak, school shootings, climate change, and the youth mental health crisis, news headlines are undoubtedly frightful.
 

RSV: What’s old is new again

For the youngest children, the RSV outbreak is currently the scariest story. With social interactions returning toward a pre-COVID state, RSV has rebounded with a vengeance. In many places, pediatric wards are close to, at, or even beyond capacity. With no antiviral treatment for RSV, no licensed vaccine quite yet, and passive immunization (intravenous palivizumab) reserved for children at greatest risk (those under age 6 months and born preterm 35 weeks or earlier), the situation does have the feel of the first year of COVID-19, when treatments were similarly limited.

But let’s keep some perspective. RSV has always been a devastating infection. Prior to COVID-19, in the United States alone RSV killed 100-300 children below age 5 and 6,000-10,000 adults above age 65. The toll has always been worse on the international level. In 2019, 3.6 million people around the world were hospitalized for RSV infections, mostly the very old and the very young. Among causes of death below the age of 5, RSV ranks second only to malaria.

Postvaccine myopericarditis, a favorite concern of the vaccine hesitant, is a real phenomenon in young males. But generally, the condition has a subclinical to mild manifestation and fully resolves within 2 weeks.
 

Vaccines on the horizon

Monkeypox also was putting a damper on health news in recent months. Yet outreach efforts and selective vaccination and other precautions based on risk stratification appear to have calmed the outbreak. That’s good news, as is the fact that the struggle against malaria may be about to change. After decades of trying, we now have a malaria vaccine with what appears to be 80% efficacy against the infection. The same goes for RSV; finally, not one but two RSV vaccines are showing promise in late-stage clinical trials.

To be sure, for many young people, the times don’t seem so wonderful. The rate of teen suicide is alarming – yet it remains well below that seen in the 1990s. Are social media to blame, or is it something more complex?

If COVID-19 has taught us anything, it’s that development of vaccines and treatments need not take a decade or more. Operation Warp Speed may have seemed like a marketing gimmick and political grandstanding, but you can’t argue with the results.

Keep that perspective in mind to appreciate the moment – which I believe is coming soon – when the same type of intramuscular injection that we now use to trigger immunity against SARS-CoV-2 hits clinics, only this time as a way to cure cancer. Or when you read the stories of young victims of firearm violence who would have died but are rapidly cooled and kept hibernating for hours, so that their wounds can be repaired. And although you may not see that head transplant, one of these new babies might see it, or even might perform the procedure.
 

Dr. Warmflash is a freelance health and science writer living in Portland, Ore. His recent book, Moon: An Illustrated History: From Ancient Myths to the Colonies of Tomorrow, tells the story of the moon’s role in a plethora of historical events, from the origin of life to early calendar systems, the emergence of science and technology, and the dawn of the Space Age. He reported having no relevant financial disclosures. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Headlines from earlier in the fall were grim: Thanks to the COVID-19 pandemic, life expectancy in the United States has fallen for 2 years running. Last year, according to health officials, the average American newborn could hope to reach 76.1 years, down from 79 years in 2019.

So far, so bad. But the headlines don’t tell the full story, which is much less dire. In fact, 2022 is the best year in human history for a child to arrive on Earth.

For a child born this year, in a developed country, into a family with access to good health care, the odds of living into the 22nd century are almost 50%. One in three will live to be 100. Those estimates reflect only incremental progress in medicine and public health, with COVID-19 baked in. They don’t account for biotechnologies beckoning to take control of the cell cycle and aging itself – which could make the outlook much brighter.

For some perspective, consider that a century ago, life expectancy for an American neonate was about 60 years. That 1922 figure was itself nothing short of miraculous, representing a 25% jump since 1901 – a leap that far outstrips the first 2 decades of the current century, during which life expectancy rose by just 2.5 years.

A gain of 2.5 years over 2 decades might not sound impressive, even without COVID-19 causing life expectancy in this country and abroad to sag. But during the pandemic, exciting new technologies that could drive gains in lifespan and healthspan, even bigger than those seen in the early 20th century, have moved closer to clinical reality. Think Star Trek-ish technologies like human hibernation, universal blood, mRNA therapy able to reprogram immune cells to hunt malignancies and fibrotic tissue, even head transplantation.

How long that last one will take to reach a clinic near you is hard to predict, but advances in the needed technology to anastomose cephalic and somatic portions of the spinal cord are mind-boggling. All this means that, from a medical standpoint, the future for babies born in the early 2020s looks dazzlingly bright.

Those sunny rays of optimism likely have failed to pierce the gloom of public discourse. Between “breakthrough infections,” “long COVID,” “Paxlovid rebound,” vaccine-induced myopericarditis, the current respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) outbreak, school shootings, climate change, and the youth mental health crisis, news headlines are undoubtedly frightful.
 

RSV: What’s old is new again

For the youngest children, the RSV outbreak is currently the scariest story. With social interactions returning toward a pre-COVID state, RSV has rebounded with a vengeance. In many places, pediatric wards are close to, at, or even beyond capacity. With no antiviral treatment for RSV, no licensed vaccine quite yet, and passive immunization (intravenous palivizumab) reserved for children at greatest risk (those under age 6 months and born preterm 35 weeks or earlier), the situation does have the feel of the first year of COVID-19, when treatments were similarly limited.

But let’s keep some perspective. RSV has always been a devastating infection. Prior to COVID-19, in the United States alone RSV killed 100-300 children below age 5 and 6,000-10,000 adults above age 65. The toll has always been worse on the international level. In 2019, 3.6 million people around the world were hospitalized for RSV infections, mostly the very old and the very young. Among causes of death below the age of 5, RSV ranks second only to malaria.

Postvaccine myopericarditis, a favorite concern of the vaccine hesitant, is a real phenomenon in young males. But generally, the condition has a subclinical to mild manifestation and fully resolves within 2 weeks.
 

Vaccines on the horizon

Monkeypox also was putting a damper on health news in recent months. Yet outreach efforts and selective vaccination and other precautions based on risk stratification appear to have calmed the outbreak. That’s good news, as is the fact that the struggle against malaria may be about to change. After decades of trying, we now have a malaria vaccine with what appears to be 80% efficacy against the infection. The same goes for RSV; finally, not one but two RSV vaccines are showing promise in late-stage clinical trials.

To be sure, for many young people, the times don’t seem so wonderful. The rate of teen suicide is alarming – yet it remains well below that seen in the 1990s. Are social media to blame, or is it something more complex?

If COVID-19 has taught us anything, it’s that development of vaccines and treatments need not take a decade or more. Operation Warp Speed may have seemed like a marketing gimmick and political grandstanding, but you can’t argue with the results.

Keep that perspective in mind to appreciate the moment – which I believe is coming soon – when the same type of intramuscular injection that we now use to trigger immunity against SARS-CoV-2 hits clinics, only this time as a way to cure cancer. Or when you read the stories of young victims of firearm violence who would have died but are rapidly cooled and kept hibernating for hours, so that their wounds can be repaired. And although you may not see that head transplant, one of these new babies might see it, or even might perform the procedure.
 

Dr. Warmflash is a freelance health and science writer living in Portland, Ore. His recent book, Moon: An Illustrated History: From Ancient Myths to the Colonies of Tomorrow, tells the story of the moon’s role in a plethora of historical events, from the origin of life to early calendar systems, the emergence of science and technology, and the dawn of the Space Age. He reported having no relevant financial disclosures. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Headlines from earlier in the fall were grim: Thanks to the COVID-19 pandemic, life expectancy in the United States has fallen for 2 years running. Last year, according to health officials, the average American newborn could hope to reach 76.1 years, down from 79 years in 2019.

So far, so bad. But the headlines don’t tell the full story, which is much less dire. In fact, 2022 is the best year in human history for a child to arrive on Earth.

For a child born this year, in a developed country, into a family with access to good health care, the odds of living into the 22nd century are almost 50%. One in three will live to be 100. Those estimates reflect only incremental progress in medicine and public health, with COVID-19 baked in. They don’t account for biotechnologies beckoning to take control of the cell cycle and aging itself – which could make the outlook much brighter.

For some perspective, consider that a century ago, life expectancy for an American neonate was about 60 years. That 1922 figure was itself nothing short of miraculous, representing a 25% jump since 1901 – a leap that far outstrips the first 2 decades of the current century, during which life expectancy rose by just 2.5 years.

A gain of 2.5 years over 2 decades might not sound impressive, even without COVID-19 causing life expectancy in this country and abroad to sag. But during the pandemic, exciting new technologies that could drive gains in lifespan and healthspan, even bigger than those seen in the early 20th century, have moved closer to clinical reality. Think Star Trek-ish technologies like human hibernation, universal blood, mRNA therapy able to reprogram immune cells to hunt malignancies and fibrotic tissue, even head transplantation.

How long that last one will take to reach a clinic near you is hard to predict, but advances in the needed technology to anastomose cephalic and somatic portions of the spinal cord are mind-boggling. All this means that, from a medical standpoint, the future for babies born in the early 2020s looks dazzlingly bright.

Those sunny rays of optimism likely have failed to pierce the gloom of public discourse. Between “breakthrough infections,” “long COVID,” “Paxlovid rebound,” vaccine-induced myopericarditis, the current respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) outbreak, school shootings, climate change, and the youth mental health crisis, news headlines are undoubtedly frightful.
 

RSV: What’s old is new again

For the youngest children, the RSV outbreak is currently the scariest story. With social interactions returning toward a pre-COVID state, RSV has rebounded with a vengeance. In many places, pediatric wards are close to, at, or even beyond capacity. With no antiviral treatment for RSV, no licensed vaccine quite yet, and passive immunization (intravenous palivizumab) reserved for children at greatest risk (those under age 6 months and born preterm 35 weeks or earlier), the situation does have the feel of the first year of COVID-19, when treatments were similarly limited.

But let’s keep some perspective. RSV has always been a devastating infection. Prior to COVID-19, in the United States alone RSV killed 100-300 children below age 5 and 6,000-10,000 adults above age 65. The toll has always been worse on the international level. In 2019, 3.6 million people around the world were hospitalized for RSV infections, mostly the very old and the very young. Among causes of death below the age of 5, RSV ranks second only to malaria.

Postvaccine myopericarditis, a favorite concern of the vaccine hesitant, is a real phenomenon in young males. But generally, the condition has a subclinical to mild manifestation and fully resolves within 2 weeks.
 

Vaccines on the horizon

Monkeypox also was putting a damper on health news in recent months. Yet outreach efforts and selective vaccination and other precautions based on risk stratification appear to have calmed the outbreak. That’s good news, as is the fact that the struggle against malaria may be about to change. After decades of trying, we now have a malaria vaccine with what appears to be 80% efficacy against the infection. The same goes for RSV; finally, not one but two RSV vaccines are showing promise in late-stage clinical trials.

To be sure, for many young people, the times don’t seem so wonderful. The rate of teen suicide is alarming – yet it remains well below that seen in the 1990s. Are social media to blame, or is it something more complex?

If COVID-19 has taught us anything, it’s that development of vaccines and treatments need not take a decade or more. Operation Warp Speed may have seemed like a marketing gimmick and political grandstanding, but you can’t argue with the results.

Keep that perspective in mind to appreciate the moment – which I believe is coming soon – when the same type of intramuscular injection that we now use to trigger immunity against SARS-CoV-2 hits clinics, only this time as a way to cure cancer. Or when you read the stories of young victims of firearm violence who would have died but are rapidly cooled and kept hibernating for hours, so that their wounds can be repaired. And although you may not see that head transplant, one of these new babies might see it, or even might perform the procedure.
 

Dr. Warmflash is a freelance health and science writer living in Portland, Ore. His recent book, Moon: An Illustrated History: From Ancient Myths to the Colonies of Tomorrow, tells the story of the moon’s role in a plethora of historical events, from the origin of life to early calendar systems, the emergence of science and technology, and the dawn of the Space Age. He reported having no relevant financial disclosures. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Recently the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force issued a formal recommendation that adolescents and children as young as 8 should be screened for anxiety.¹ The advice was based on a review of the research that concluded that anxiety disorders were common in youth (prevalence around 8%), screening was not overly burdensome or dangerous, and treatments were available and effective.

While pediatricians fully appreciate how common clinically significant anxiety is and its impact on the lives of youth, the reception for the recommendations have been mixed. Some are concerned that it could lead to the overprescribing of medications. Arguably, the biggest pushback, however, relates to the question of what to do when a child screens positive in a time when finding an available child and adolescent psychiatrist or other type of pediatric mental health professional can feel next to impossible. The hope of this article is to fill in some of those gaps.

Screening for anxiety disorders

The recommendations suggest using a rating scale as part of the screen but doesn’t dictate which one. A common instrument that has been employed is the Screen for Child Anxiety and Related Disorders, which is a freely available 41-item instrument that has versions for youth self-report and parent-report. A shorter 7-item rating scale, the General Anxiety Disorder–7, and the even shorter GAD-2 (the first two questions of the GAD-7), are also popular but focus, as the name applies, on general anxiety disorder and not related conditions such as social or separation anxiety that can have some different symptoms. These instruments can be given to patients and families in the waiting room or administered with the help of a nurse, physician, or embedded mental health professional. The recommendations do not include specific guidance on how often the screening should be done but repeated screenings are likely important at some interval.

Confirming the diagnosis

Of course, a screening isn’t a formal diagnosis. The American Academy of Pediatrics has expressed the view that the initial diagnosis and treatment for anxiety disorders is well within a pediatrician’s scope of practice, which means further steps are likely required beyond a referral. Fortunately, going from a positive screen to an initial diagnosis does not have to overly laborious and can focus on reviewing the DSM-5 criteria for key anxiety disorders while also ensuring that there isn’t a nonpsychiatric cause driving the symptoms, such as the often cited but rarely seen pheochromocytoma. More common rule-outs include medication-induced anxiety or substance use, excessive caffeine intake, and cardiac arrhythmias. Assessing for current and past trauma or specific causes of the anxiety such as bullying are also important.

It is important to note that it is the rule rather than the exception that youth with clinical levels of anxiety will frequently endorse a number of criteria that span multiple diagnoses including generalized anxiety disorder, social anxiety disorder, and separation anxiety disorder.² Spending a lot of effort to narrow things down to a single anxiety diagnosis often is unnecessary, as both pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic treatments don’t change all that much between individual diagnoses.
 

Explaining the diagnosis

In general, I’m a strong proponent of trying to explain any behavioral diagnoses that you make to kids in a way that is accurate but nonstigmatizing. When it comes to anxiety, one parallel I often draw is to our immune system, which most youth understand at least in basic terms. Both our immune system and our anxiety networks are natural and important; as a species, we wouldn’t have lasted long without them. Both are built to assess and respond to threats. Problems can arise, however, if the response is too strong relative to the threat or the response is activated when it doesn’t need to be. Treatment is directed not at ridding ourselves of anxiety but at helping regulate it so it works for us and not against us. Spending a few minutes going through a discussion like this can be very helpful, and perhaps more so than some dry summary of DSM-5 criteria.

Starting treatment

It is important to note that best practice recommendations when it comes to the treatment of anxiety disorder in youth do not suggest medications as the only type of treatment and often urge clinicians to try nonpharmacological interventions first.³ A specific type of psychotherapy called cognitive-behavioral therapy has the strongest scientific support as an effective treatment for anxiety but other modalities, including parenting guidance, can be helpful as well. Consequently, a referral to a good psychotherapist is paramount. For many kids, the key to overcoming anxiety is exposure: which means confronting anxiety slowly, with support, and with specific skills.

If there is a traumatic source of the anxiety, addressing that as much as possible is obviously critical and could involve working with the family or school. For some kids, this may involve frightening things they are seeing online or through other media. Finally, some health promotion activities such as exercise or mindfulness can also be quite useful.

Despite the fact that SSRIs are referred to as antidepressants, there is increasing appreciation that these medications are useful for anxiety, perhaps even more so than for mood. While only one medication, duloxetine, has Food and Drug Administration approval to treat anxiety in children as young as 7, there is good evidence to support the use of many of the most common SSRIs in treating clinical anxiety. Buspirone, beta-blockers, and antihistamine medications like hydroxyzine also can have their place in treatment, while benzodiazepines and antipsychotic medications are generally best avoided for anxious youth, especially in the primary care setting. A short but helpful medication guide with regard to pediatric anxiety has been published by the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry.⁴

Conclusions

Clinical levels of anxiety in children and adolescents are both common and quite treatable, which has prompted new recommendations that primary care clinicians screen for them starting at age 8. While this recommendation may at first seem like yet one more task to fit in, following the guidance can be accomplished with the help of short screening tools and a managed multimodal approach to treatment.

Dr. Rettew is a child and adolescent psychiatrist with Lane County Behavioral Health in Eugene, Ore., and Oregon Health & Science University, Portland. You can follow him on Twitter and Facebook @PediPsych.

References

1. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. JAMA. 2022;328(14):1438-44.

2. Strawn JR. Curr Psychiatry. 2012;11(9):16-21.

3. Walter HJ et al. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2020;59(10):1107-24.

4. Anxiety Disorders: Parents’ Medication Guide Workgroup. “Anxiety disorders: Parents’ medication guide.” Washington D.C.: American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 2020.

Recently the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force issued a formal recommendation that adolescents and children as young as 8 should be screened for anxiety.¹ The advice was based on a review of the research that concluded that anxiety disorders were common in youth (prevalence around 8%), screening was not overly burdensome or dangerous, and treatments were available and effective.

While pediatricians fully appreciate how common clinically significant anxiety is and its impact on the lives of youth, the reception for the recommendations have been mixed. Some are concerned that it could lead to the overprescribing of medications. Arguably, the biggest pushback, however, relates to the question of what to do when a child screens positive in a time when finding an available child and adolescent psychiatrist or other type of pediatric mental health professional can feel next to impossible. The hope of this article is to fill in some of those gaps.

Screening for anxiety disorders

The recommendations suggest using a rating scale as part of the screen but doesn’t dictate which one. A common instrument that has been employed is the Screen for Child Anxiety and Related Disorders, which is a freely available 41-item instrument that has versions for youth self-report and parent-report. A shorter 7-item rating scale, the General Anxiety Disorder–7, and the even shorter GAD-2 (the first two questions of the GAD-7), are also popular but focus, as the name applies, on general anxiety disorder and not related conditions such as social or separation anxiety that can have some different symptoms. These instruments can be given to patients and families in the waiting room or administered with the help of a nurse, physician, or embedded mental health professional. The recommendations do not include specific guidance on how often the screening should be done but repeated screenings are likely important at some interval.

Confirming the diagnosis

Of course, a screening isn’t a formal diagnosis. The American Academy of Pediatrics has expressed the view that the initial diagnosis and treatment for anxiety disorders is well within a pediatrician’s scope of practice, which means further steps are likely required beyond a referral. Fortunately, going from a positive screen to an initial diagnosis does not have to overly laborious and can focus on reviewing the DSM-5 criteria for key anxiety disorders while also ensuring that there isn’t a nonpsychiatric cause driving the symptoms, such as the often cited but rarely seen pheochromocytoma. More common rule-outs include medication-induced anxiety or substance use, excessive caffeine intake, and cardiac arrhythmias. Assessing for current and past trauma or specific causes of the anxiety such as bullying are also important.

It is important to note that it is the rule rather than the exception that youth with clinical levels of anxiety will frequently endorse a number of criteria that span multiple diagnoses including generalized anxiety disorder, social anxiety disorder, and separation anxiety disorder.² Spending a lot of effort to narrow things down to a single anxiety diagnosis often is unnecessary, as both pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic treatments don’t change all that much between individual diagnoses.
 

Explaining the diagnosis

In general, I’m a strong proponent of trying to explain any behavioral diagnoses that you make to kids in a way that is accurate but nonstigmatizing. When it comes to anxiety, one parallel I often draw is to our immune system, which most youth understand at least in basic terms. Both our immune system and our anxiety networks are natural and important; as a species, we wouldn’t have lasted long without them. Both are built to assess and respond to threats. Problems can arise, however, if the response is too strong relative to the threat or the response is activated when it doesn’t need to be. Treatment is directed not at ridding ourselves of anxiety but at helping regulate it so it works for us and not against us. Spending a few minutes going through a discussion like this can be very helpful, and perhaps more so than some dry summary of DSM-5 criteria.

Starting treatment

It is important to note that best practice recommendations when it comes to the treatment of anxiety disorder in youth do not suggest medications as the only type of treatment and often urge clinicians to try nonpharmacological interventions first.³ A specific type of psychotherapy called cognitive-behavioral therapy has the strongest scientific support as an effective treatment for anxiety but other modalities, including parenting guidance, can be helpful as well. Consequently, a referral to a good psychotherapist is paramount. For many kids, the key to overcoming anxiety is exposure: which means confronting anxiety slowly, with support, and with specific skills.

If there is a traumatic source of the anxiety, addressing that as much as possible is obviously critical and could involve working with the family or school. For some kids, this may involve frightening things they are seeing online or through other media. Finally, some health promotion activities such as exercise or mindfulness can also be quite useful.

Despite the fact that SSRIs are referred to as antidepressants, there is increasing appreciation that these medications are useful for anxiety, perhaps even more so than for mood. While only one medication, duloxetine, has Food and Drug Administration approval to treat anxiety in children as young as 7, there is good evidence to support the use of many of the most common SSRIs in treating clinical anxiety. Buspirone, beta-blockers, and antihistamine medications like hydroxyzine also can have their place in treatment, while benzodiazepines and antipsychotic medications are generally best avoided for anxious youth, especially in the primary care setting. A short but helpful medication guide with regard to pediatric anxiety has been published by the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry.⁴

Conclusions

Clinical levels of anxiety in children and adolescents are both common and quite treatable, which has prompted new recommendations that primary care clinicians screen for them starting at age 8. While this recommendation may at first seem like yet one more task to fit in, following the guidance can be accomplished with the help of short screening tools and a managed multimodal approach to treatment.

Dr. Rettew is a child and adolescent psychiatrist with Lane County Behavioral Health in Eugene, Ore., and Oregon Health & Science University, Portland. You can follow him on Twitter and Facebook @PediPsych.

References

1. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. JAMA. 2022;328(14):1438-44.

2. Strawn JR. Curr Psychiatry. 2012;11(9):16-21.

3. Walter HJ et al. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2020;59(10):1107-24.

4. Anxiety Disorders: Parents’ Medication Guide Workgroup. “Anxiety disorders: Parents’ medication guide.” Washington D.C.: American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 2020.

Recently the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force issued a formal recommendation that adolescents and children as young as 8 should be screened for anxiety.¹ The advice was based on a review of the research that concluded that anxiety disorders were common in youth (prevalence around 8%), screening was not overly burdensome or dangerous, and treatments were available and effective.

While pediatricians fully appreciate how common clinically significant anxiety is and its impact on the lives of youth, the reception for the recommendations have been mixed. Some are concerned that it could lead to the overprescribing of medications. Arguably, the biggest pushback, however, relates to the question of what to do when a child screens positive in a time when finding an available child and adolescent psychiatrist or other type of pediatric mental health professional can feel next to impossible. The hope of this article is to fill in some of those gaps.

Screening for anxiety disorders

The recommendations suggest using a rating scale as part of the screen but doesn’t dictate which one. A common instrument that has been employed is the Screen for Child Anxiety and Related Disorders, which is a freely available 41-item instrument that has versions for youth self-report and parent-report. A shorter 7-item rating scale, the General Anxiety Disorder–7, and the even shorter GAD-2 (the first two questions of the GAD-7), are also popular but focus, as the name applies, on general anxiety disorder and not related conditions such as social or separation anxiety that can have some different symptoms. These instruments can be given to patients and families in the waiting room or administered with the help of a nurse, physician, or embedded mental health professional. The recommendations do not include specific guidance on how often the screening should be done but repeated screenings are likely important at some interval.

Confirming the diagnosis

Of course, a screening isn’t a formal diagnosis. The American Academy of Pediatrics has expressed the view that the initial diagnosis and treatment for anxiety disorders is well within a pediatrician’s scope of practice, which means further steps are likely required beyond a referral. Fortunately, going from a positive screen to an initial diagnosis does not have to overly laborious and can focus on reviewing the DSM-5 criteria for key anxiety disorders while also ensuring that there isn’t a nonpsychiatric cause driving the symptoms, such as the often cited but rarely seen pheochromocytoma. More common rule-outs include medication-induced anxiety or substance use, excessive caffeine intake, and cardiac arrhythmias. Assessing for current and past trauma or specific causes of the anxiety such as bullying are also important.

It is important to note that it is the rule rather than the exception that youth with clinical levels of anxiety will frequently endorse a number of criteria that span multiple diagnoses including generalized anxiety disorder, social anxiety disorder, and separation anxiety disorder.² Spending a lot of effort to narrow things down to a single anxiety diagnosis often is unnecessary, as both pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic treatments don’t change all that much between individual diagnoses.
 

Explaining the diagnosis

In general, I’m a strong proponent of trying to explain any behavioral diagnoses that you make to kids in a way that is accurate but nonstigmatizing. When it comes to anxiety, one parallel I often draw is to our immune system, which most youth understand at least in basic terms. Both our immune system and our anxiety networks are natural and important; as a species, we wouldn’t have lasted long without them. Both are built to assess and respond to threats. Problems can arise, however, if the response is too strong relative to the threat or the response is activated when it doesn’t need to be. Treatment is directed not at ridding ourselves of anxiety but at helping regulate it so it works for us and not against us. Spending a few minutes going through a discussion like this can be very helpful, and perhaps more so than some dry summary of DSM-5 criteria.

Starting treatment

It is important to note that best practice recommendations when it comes to the treatment of anxiety disorder in youth do not suggest medications as the only type of treatment and often urge clinicians to try nonpharmacological interventions first.³ A specific type of psychotherapy called cognitive-behavioral therapy has the strongest scientific support as an effective treatment for anxiety but other modalities, including parenting guidance, can be helpful as well. Consequently, a referral to a good psychotherapist is paramount. For many kids, the key to overcoming anxiety is exposure: which means confronting anxiety slowly, with support, and with specific skills.

If there is a traumatic source of the anxiety, addressing that as much as possible is obviously critical and could involve working with the family or school. For some kids, this may involve frightening things they are seeing online or through other media. Finally, some health promotion activities such as exercise or mindfulness can also be quite useful.

Despite the fact that SSRIs are referred to as antidepressants, there is increasing appreciation that these medications are useful for anxiety, perhaps even more so than for mood. While only one medication, duloxetine, has Food and Drug Administration approval to treat anxiety in children as young as 7, there is good evidence to support the use of many of the most common SSRIs in treating clinical anxiety. Buspirone, beta-blockers, and antihistamine medications like hydroxyzine also can have their place in treatment, while benzodiazepines and antipsychotic medications are generally best avoided for anxious youth, especially in the primary care setting. A short but helpful medication guide with regard to pediatric anxiety has been published by the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry.⁴

Conclusions

Clinical levels of anxiety in children and adolescents are both common and quite treatable, which has prompted new recommendations that primary care clinicians screen for them starting at age 8. While this recommendation may at first seem like yet one more task to fit in, following the guidance can be accomplished with the help of short screening tools and a managed multimodal approach to treatment.

Dr. Rettew is a child and adolescent psychiatrist with Lane County Behavioral Health in Eugene, Ore., and Oregon Health & Science University, Portland. You can follow him on Twitter and Facebook @PediPsych.

References

1. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. JAMA. 2022;328(14):1438-44.

2. Strawn JR. Curr Psychiatry. 2012;11(9):16-21.

3. Walter HJ et al. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2020;59(10):1107-24.

4. Anxiety Disorders: Parents’ Medication Guide Workgroup. “Anxiety disorders: Parents’ medication guide.” Washington D.C.: American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 2020.

Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) vaccines are given to more than 100 million children every year, but there is considerable debate regarding the effectiveness of BCG vaccination in preventing tuberculosis and death, particularly among older children and adults.

The most extensive study ever conducted on the efficacy of the BCG vaccine for protection against tuberculosis, stratified by age and history of previous tuberculosis, was published in September 2022 in The Lancet Global Health. The study, which comprises a systematic review and meta-analysis, analyzed individual-level data from 26 case-contact cohort studies published over the past 20 years. The studies included data from 70,000 participants. The primary outcome was a composite of prevalent (diagnosed at or within 90 days of baseline) and incident (diagnosed more than 90 days after baseline) tuberculosis in contacts exposed to tuberculosis. Secondary outcomes were pulmonary tuberculosis, extrapulmonary tuberculosis, and mortality.

Participants were characterized as having been exposed to tuberculosis if they were reported to have been a close contact (either living in the same household or having substantial interaction outside the household) of a person with microbiologically or radiologically diagnosed pulmonary tuberculosis. Previous tuberculosis was defined as a positive interferon-gamma (IFN-gamma) release assay or tuberculin skin test, also known as PPD or Mantoux test.

Most studies included in the analysis were conducted in the past 10 years in countries with a high tuberculosis burden. Those countries included India, South Africa, China, Vietnam, Indonesia, Uganda, the Gambia, and Brazil.
 

Primary outcomes

The study’s main findings included the following:

• The overall effectiveness of BCG vaccination against all forms of tuberculosis was 18% (adjusted odds ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.74-0.91).
• Stratified by age, BCG vaccination only significantly protected against all tuberculosis in children younger than 5 years (aOR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.49-0.81).
• There was no protective effect among those whose previous tests for tuberculosis were negative unless they were younger than 5 years (aOR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.32-0.90).
• Among contacts who had a positive tuberculin skin test or IFN-gamma release assay, BCG vaccination significantly protected against tuberculosis among all participants (aOR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.69-0.96), participants younger than 5 years (aOR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.47-0.97), and participants aged 5-9 years (aOR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.38-0.99).
• BCG vaccination was protective against pulmonary tuberculosis (19% effectiveness), but this effect was only seen in children younger than 3 years (42% effectiveness) when stratified by age.
• Protection against all tuberculosis and pulmonary tuberculosis was greater among female participants than male participants.

“This is a definitive BCG protection study because it involves a significant number of individuals evaluated using this meta-analysis. Protection is clearly lost with age. From as early as age 5, no protective effect can be observed. Protection, including against pulmonary tuberculosis, can be observed up to 3 years of age,” stated study author Julio Croda, MD, PhD, chair of the Brazilian Society of Tropical Medicine.

Dr. Croda emphasized that the findings from their study indicate that BCG vaccine protects against pulmonary tuberculosis and that those results differ from results of some previous studies.

“Every physician believes the BCG vaccine protects against serious forms of tuberculosis up to age 5. That fact is not surprising at all,” Dr. Croda remarked. “However, the fact that it protects against pulmonary tuberculosis, especially in children younger than 3, was surprising. In medical practice, we did not believe in this protection.”

Currently, 1.2% of new tuberculosis cases in Brazil occur among those younger than 5. Nevertheless, these cases represent 40.1% of new diagnoses recorded among those younger than 15, highlighting the importance of protection for this age group. An increase in extrapulmonary tuberculosis cases was recently observed in patients younger than 5.

Isabella Ballalai, MD, PhD, is deputy chair of the Brazilian Society of Immunizations. Although she did not participate in this study, she commented on its findings. “All publications are welcome; they help us think,” she explained. She emphasized that the BCG vaccine is not optimal. “There are studies indicating 80% efficacy and others indicating 0%. So, what we can look at is decades of effectiveness in practice.”

Dr. Ballalai explained that the BCG vaccine could keep severe forms of tuberculosis, meningitis, and miliary tuberculosis at bay. She shared her experience of caring for several patients with tuberculous meningitis shortly after she had graduated. “Today, thanks to the BCG vaccine, we don’t see it anymore.” However, she pointed out that the vaccine›s efficacy and effectiveness against pulmonary tuberculosis are low and that pulmonary tuberculosis remains the most significant problem among adults.

Dr. Ballalai also emphasized a few shortcomings of the study. “One is the definition of ‘vaccinated’ and ‘unvaccinated,’ which was based on the presence or absence of a mark on the arm. Today, we know that the absence of a mark does not indicate that the child has not been vaccinated, nor that the vaccine has not been effective. Therefore, several vaccinated participants may have been included amongst the unvaccinated participants.”

The authors emphasized that the definition of “vaccinated” and “unvaccinated” was based on a scar and on vaccination records, and they recognized that participants who did not have a scar on their arm could have been misclassified. Regardless, it is still considered a sensitive indicator. “Few vaccinated children from various settings do not show a scar years after vaccine administration,” they stated in their article.
 

Adults unprotected

Dr. Ballalai also shared her concerns regarding the lack of protection for older individuals. “We know those older than 60 are at greater risk for complications of tuberculosis. Individuals in this age group naturally have a lower immunity, and they usually have comorbidities. From this study, I can only conclude what was already expected: that adults who received a BCG vaccine as infants are not clear of pulmonary tuberculosis.”

Dr. Croda agreed that it was already evident that the BCG vaccine administered at birth did not provide protection for adults. “In the past, even with 80%-90% vaccine coverage, there were numerous tuberculosis cases in adults in Brazil.”
 

Are boosters needed?

The authors concluded that immunoprotection needs to be boosted in older populations, as vaccination at birth is ineffective for adolescents and adults. They have also discussed whether children older than 10 years and adults could benefit from a booster shot.

Dr. Croda emphasized that there is no indication for this, because there are no data regarding protection with a booster dose during adulthood. However, he cited a study conducted in South Africa in which the BCG vaccine was compared with another vaccine, and another study, which is being conducted in India, is assessing whether a BCG booster offers protection against pulmonary tuberculosis. “There are few studies. Perhaps the revaccination of more vulnerable groups could be of interest, but additional studies are needed first.”

Dr. Croda intends to assess revaccination in those deprived of liberty, in which the incidence of tuberculosis is very high. From 2015 to 2021, many new cases were recorded in this population in Brazil. The number rose from 5,860 to 6,773 during that period.

“However, BCG revaccination carries a significant risk of patients presenting with serious adverse events,” Dr. Ballalai pointed out. He noted that several years ago, to extend protection, Brazil adopted a booster program for persons aged 10 years or older, but the program was discontinued owing to the numerous adverse events reported and the absence of evidence of benefit from increased protection against tuberculosis.

“The adult groups at greater risk for severe tuberculosis manifestations normally presented with an underlying disease, particularly in immunocompromised patient groups. The [administration of the] BCG [vaccine] is contraindicated for those who are immunocompromised. And, for the older population, we do not have data on [vaccine] safety,” she emphasized.
 

Nonspecific immune protection

One of the study’s secondary outcomes regarded mortality. Four studies in the meta-analysis followed up tuberculosis contacts for death. In these studies, which evaluated 20,000 participants, BCG vaccination was shown to be significantly protective against death for participants younger than 15 years.

However, the authors urged caution in interpreting these data. They emphasized that they were unable to identify specific mechanisms by which BCG vaccination might have reduced mortality, and there are possible study biases that could have led to an overestimation of mortality benefit. Moreover, given the observational nature of the included studies, vaccinated children might have had higher socioeconomic status and greater access to health care, and they may have been more likely to have received other vaccinations, compared with children who did not receive BCG vaccines.

Nevertheless, previous experimental and observational studies have found that BCG vaccination might provide nonspecific or off-target immune protection against an array of other pathogens.

“In small studies conducted in Africa, those younger than 5 were protected not only against tuberculosis but also against other respiratory diseases,” Dr. Croda affirmed. “However, these are small studies, and for now, there is no recommendation for using BCG vaccination to prevent other respiratory infections.”

A long-awaited, critical study on the impact of the BCG vaccine on COVID-19, in which Brazilian researchers participated, will be published in the New England Journal of Medicine.
 

New vaccines needed

The BCG vaccine is one of the oldest vaccines, but there are still several crucial unanswered questions about its use.

Previously published studies that examined the protective effect of BCG vaccination only considered low-burden settings and the historical literature before 1950. These studies need updating, but doing so has not been a simple task. To answer their questions, individual-level participant data for a prespecified list of variables, including the characteristics of the exposed participant (contact), the index case, and the environment, were requested from authors of all eligible studies.

Much of the data used in the published research were found through discussions with authors and experts in the field, as well as through data deposited in data storage repositories, conference abstracts, dissertations, and even direct requests to the authors. “The Pan-American Health Organization helped with this data collection and contacting some authors,” said Dr. Croda.

With the new data, the authors confirmed that infant BCG vaccination, although important to young children who are at high risk for tuberculosis, does not prevent adult-type cavitary tuberculosis and is therefore insufficient to impede the tuberculosis epidemic. “Novel vaccines are urgently needed,” they concluded.

“We need to develop novel, more effective vaccines, which, when administered during infancy, would ensure lifelong protection,” Dr. Croda added.

Dr. Croda and Dr. Ballalai reported no relevant financial relationships.

This article was translated from the Medscape Portuguese edition. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) vaccines are given to more than 100 million children every year, but there is considerable debate regarding the effectiveness of BCG vaccination in preventing tuberculosis and death, particularly among older children and adults.

The most extensive study ever conducted on the efficacy of the BCG vaccine for protection against tuberculosis, stratified by age and history of previous tuberculosis, was published in September 2022 in The Lancet Global Health. The study, which comprises a systematic review and meta-analysis, analyzed individual-level data from 26 case-contact cohort studies published over the past 20 years. The studies included data from 70,000 participants. The primary outcome was a composite of prevalent (diagnosed at or within 90 days of baseline) and incident (diagnosed more than 90 days after baseline) tuberculosis in contacts exposed to tuberculosis. Secondary outcomes were pulmonary tuberculosis, extrapulmonary tuberculosis, and mortality.

Participants were characterized as having been exposed to tuberculosis if they were reported to have been a close contact (either living in the same household or having substantial interaction outside the household) of a person with microbiologically or radiologically diagnosed pulmonary tuberculosis. Previous tuberculosis was defined as a positive interferon-gamma (IFN-gamma) release assay or tuberculin skin test, also known as PPD or Mantoux test.

Most studies included in the analysis were conducted in the past 10 years in countries with a high tuberculosis burden. Those countries included India, South Africa, China, Vietnam, Indonesia, Uganda, the Gambia, and Brazil.
 

Primary outcomes

The study’s main findings included the following:

• The overall effectiveness of BCG vaccination against all forms of tuberculosis was 18% (adjusted odds ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.74-0.91).
• Stratified by age, BCG vaccination only significantly protected against all tuberculosis in children younger than 5 years (aOR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.49-0.81).
• There was no protective effect among those whose previous tests for tuberculosis were negative unless they were younger than 5 years (aOR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.32-0.90).
• Among contacts who had a positive tuberculin skin test or IFN-gamma release assay, BCG vaccination significantly protected against tuberculosis among all participants (aOR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.69-0.96), participants younger than 5 years (aOR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.47-0.97), and participants aged 5-9 years (aOR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.38-0.99).
• BCG vaccination was protective against pulmonary tuberculosis (19% effectiveness), but this effect was only seen in children younger than 3 years (42% effectiveness) when stratified by age.
• Protection against all tuberculosis and pulmonary tuberculosis was greater among female participants than male participants.

“This is a definitive BCG protection study because it involves a significant number of individuals evaluated using this meta-analysis. Protection is clearly lost with age. From as early as age 5, no protective effect can be observed. Protection, including against pulmonary tuberculosis, can be observed up to 3 years of age,” stated study author Julio Croda, MD, PhD, chair of the Brazilian Society of Tropical Medicine.

Dr. Croda emphasized that the findings from their study indicate that BCG vaccine protects against pulmonary tuberculosis and that those results differ from results of some previous studies.

“Every physician believes the BCG vaccine protects against serious forms of tuberculosis up to age 5. That fact is not surprising at all,” Dr. Croda remarked. “However, the fact that it protects against pulmonary tuberculosis, especially in children younger than 3, was surprising. In medical practice, we did not believe in this protection.”

Currently, 1.2% of new tuberculosis cases in Brazil occur among those younger than 5. Nevertheless, these cases represent 40.1% of new diagnoses recorded among those younger than 15, highlighting the importance of protection for this age group. An increase in extrapulmonary tuberculosis cases was recently observed in patients younger than 5.

Isabella Ballalai, MD, PhD, is deputy chair of the Brazilian Society of Immunizations. Although she did not participate in this study, she commented on its findings. “All publications are welcome; they help us think,” she explained. She emphasized that the BCG vaccine is not optimal. “There are studies indicating 80% efficacy and others indicating 0%. So, what we can look at is decades of effectiveness in practice.”

Dr. Ballalai explained that the BCG vaccine could keep severe forms of tuberculosis, meningitis, and miliary tuberculosis at bay. She shared her experience of caring for several patients with tuberculous meningitis shortly after she had graduated. “Today, thanks to the BCG vaccine, we don’t see it anymore.” However, she pointed out that the vaccine›s efficacy and effectiveness against pulmonary tuberculosis are low and that pulmonary tuberculosis remains the most significant problem among adults.

Dr. Ballalai also emphasized a few shortcomings of the study. “One is the definition of ‘vaccinated’ and ‘unvaccinated,’ which was based on the presence or absence of a mark on the arm. Today, we know that the absence of a mark does not indicate that the child has not been vaccinated, nor that the vaccine has not been effective. Therefore, several vaccinated participants may have been included amongst the unvaccinated participants.”

The authors emphasized that the definition of “vaccinated” and “unvaccinated” was based on a scar and on vaccination records, and they recognized that participants who did not have a scar on their arm could have been misclassified. Regardless, it is still considered a sensitive indicator. “Few vaccinated children from various settings do not show a scar years after vaccine administration,” they stated in their article.
 

Adults unprotected

Dr. Ballalai also shared her concerns regarding the lack of protection for older individuals. “We know those older than 60 are at greater risk for complications of tuberculosis. Individuals in this age group naturally have a lower immunity, and they usually have comorbidities. From this study, I can only conclude what was already expected: that adults who received a BCG vaccine as infants are not clear of pulmonary tuberculosis.”

Dr. Croda agreed that it was already evident that the BCG vaccine administered at birth did not provide protection for adults. “In the past, even with 80%-90% vaccine coverage, there were numerous tuberculosis cases in adults in Brazil.”
 

Are boosters needed?

The authors concluded that immunoprotection needs to be boosted in older populations, as vaccination at birth is ineffective for adolescents and adults. They have also discussed whether children older than 10 years and adults could benefit from a booster shot.

Dr. Croda emphasized that there is no indication for this, because there are no data regarding protection with a booster dose during adulthood. However, he cited a study conducted in South Africa in which the BCG vaccine was compared with another vaccine, and another study, which is being conducted in India, is assessing whether a BCG booster offers protection against pulmonary tuberculosis. “There are few studies. Perhaps the revaccination of more vulnerable groups could be of interest, but additional studies are needed first.”

Dr. Croda intends to assess revaccination in those deprived of liberty, in which the incidence of tuberculosis is very high. From 2015 to 2021, many new cases were recorded in this population in Brazil. The number rose from 5,860 to 6,773 during that period.

“However, BCG revaccination carries a significant risk of patients presenting with serious adverse events,” Dr. Ballalai pointed out. He noted that several years ago, to extend protection, Brazil adopted a booster program for persons aged 10 years or older, but the program was discontinued owing to the numerous adverse events reported and the absence of evidence of benefit from increased protection against tuberculosis.

“The adult groups at greater risk for severe tuberculosis manifestations normally presented with an underlying disease, particularly in immunocompromised patient groups. The [administration of the] BCG [vaccine] is contraindicated for those who are immunocompromised. And, for the older population, we do not have data on [vaccine] safety,” she emphasized.
 

Nonspecific immune protection

One of the study’s secondary outcomes regarded mortality. Four studies in the meta-analysis followed up tuberculosis contacts for death. In these studies, which evaluated 20,000 participants, BCG vaccination was shown to be significantly protective against death for participants younger than 15 years.

However, the authors urged caution in interpreting these data. They emphasized that they were unable to identify specific mechanisms by which BCG vaccination might have reduced mortality, and there are possible study biases that could have led to an overestimation of mortality benefit. Moreover, given the observational nature of the included studies, vaccinated children might have had higher socioeconomic status and greater access to health care, and they may have been more likely to have received other vaccinations, compared with children who did not receive BCG vaccines.

Nevertheless, previous experimental and observational studies have found that BCG vaccination might provide nonspecific or off-target immune protection against an array of other pathogens.

“In small studies conducted in Africa, those younger than 5 were protected not only against tuberculosis but also against other respiratory diseases,” Dr. Croda affirmed. “However, these are small studies, and for now, there is no recommendation for using BCG vaccination to prevent other respiratory infections.”

A long-awaited, critical study on the impact of the BCG vaccine on COVID-19, in which Brazilian researchers participated, will be published in the New England Journal of Medicine.
 

New vaccines needed

The BCG vaccine is one of the oldest vaccines, but there are still several crucial unanswered questions about its use.

Previously published studies that examined the protective effect of BCG vaccination only considered low-burden settings and the historical literature before 1950. These studies need updating, but doing so has not been a simple task. To answer their questions, individual-level participant data for a prespecified list of variables, including the characteristics of the exposed participant (contact), the index case, and the environment, were requested from authors of all eligible studies.

Much of the data used in the published research were found through discussions with authors and experts in the field, as well as through data deposited in data storage repositories, conference abstracts, dissertations, and even direct requests to the authors. “The Pan-American Health Organization helped with this data collection and contacting some authors,” said Dr. Croda.

With the new data, the authors confirmed that infant BCG vaccination, although important to young children who are at high risk for tuberculosis, does not prevent adult-type cavitary tuberculosis and is therefore insufficient to impede the tuberculosis epidemic. “Novel vaccines are urgently needed,” they concluded.

“We need to develop novel, more effective vaccines, which, when administered during infancy, would ensure lifelong protection,” Dr. Croda added.

Dr. Croda and Dr. Ballalai reported no relevant financial relationships.

This article was translated from the Medscape Portuguese edition. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) vaccines are given to more than 100 million children every year, but there is considerable debate regarding the effectiveness of BCG vaccination in preventing tuberculosis and death, particularly among older children and adults.

The most extensive study ever conducted on the efficacy of the BCG vaccine for protection against tuberculosis, stratified by age and history of previous tuberculosis, was published in September 2022 in The Lancet Global Health. The study, which comprises a systematic review and meta-analysis, analyzed individual-level data from 26 case-contact cohort studies published over the past 20 years. The studies included data from 70,000 participants. The primary outcome was a composite of prevalent (diagnosed at or within 90 days of baseline) and incident (diagnosed more than 90 days after baseline) tuberculosis in contacts exposed to tuberculosis. Secondary outcomes were pulmonary tuberculosis, extrapulmonary tuberculosis, and mortality.

Participants were characterized as having been exposed to tuberculosis if they were reported to have been a close contact (either living in the same household or having substantial interaction outside the household) of a person with microbiologically or radiologically diagnosed pulmonary tuberculosis. Previous tuberculosis was defined as a positive interferon-gamma (IFN-gamma) release assay or tuberculin skin test, also known as PPD or Mantoux test.

Most studies included in the analysis were conducted in the past 10 years in countries with a high tuberculosis burden. Those countries included India, South Africa, China, Vietnam, Indonesia, Uganda, the Gambia, and Brazil.
 

Primary outcomes

The study’s main findings included the following:

• The overall effectiveness of BCG vaccination against all forms of tuberculosis was 18% (adjusted odds ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.74-0.91).
• Stratified by age, BCG vaccination only significantly protected against all tuberculosis in children younger than 5 years (aOR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.49-0.81).
• There was no protective effect among those whose previous tests for tuberculosis were negative unless they were younger than 5 years (aOR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.32-0.90).
• Among contacts who had a positive tuberculin skin test or IFN-gamma release assay, BCG vaccination significantly protected against tuberculosis among all participants (aOR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.69-0.96), participants younger than 5 years (aOR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.47-0.97), and participants aged 5-9 years (aOR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.38-0.99).
• BCG vaccination was protective against pulmonary tuberculosis (19% effectiveness), but this effect was only seen in children younger than 3 years (42% effectiveness) when stratified by age.
• Protection against all tuberculosis and pulmonary tuberculosis was greater among female participants than male participants.

“This is a definitive BCG protection study because it involves a significant number of individuals evaluated using this meta-analysis. Protection is clearly lost with age. From as early as age 5, no protective effect can be observed. Protection, including against pulmonary tuberculosis, can be observed up to 3 years of age,” stated study author Julio Croda, MD, PhD, chair of the Brazilian Society of Tropical Medicine.

Dr. Croda emphasized that the findings from their study indicate that BCG vaccine protects against pulmonary tuberculosis and that those results differ from results of some previous studies.

“Every physician believes the BCG vaccine protects against serious forms of tuberculosis up to age 5. That fact is not surprising at all,” Dr. Croda remarked. “However, the fact that it protects against pulmonary tuberculosis, especially in children younger than 3, was surprising. In medical practice, we did not believe in this protection.”

Currently, 1.2% of new tuberculosis cases in Brazil occur among those younger than 5. Nevertheless, these cases represent 40.1% of new diagnoses recorded among those younger than 15, highlighting the importance of protection for this age group. An increase in extrapulmonary tuberculosis cases was recently observed in patients younger than 5.

Isabella Ballalai, MD, PhD, is deputy chair of the Brazilian Society of Immunizations. Although she did not participate in this study, she commented on its findings. “All publications are welcome; they help us think,” she explained. She emphasized that the BCG vaccine is not optimal. “There are studies indicating 80% efficacy and others indicating 0%. So, what we can look at is decades of effectiveness in practice.”

Dr. Ballalai explained that the BCG vaccine could keep severe forms of tuberculosis, meningitis, and miliary tuberculosis at bay. She shared her experience of caring for several patients with tuberculous meningitis shortly after she had graduated. “Today, thanks to the BCG vaccine, we don’t see it anymore.” However, she pointed out that the vaccine›s efficacy and effectiveness against pulmonary tuberculosis are low and that pulmonary tuberculosis remains the most significant problem among adults.

Dr. Ballalai also emphasized a few shortcomings of the study. “One is the definition of ‘vaccinated’ and ‘unvaccinated,’ which was based on the presence or absence of a mark on the arm. Today, we know that the absence of a mark does not indicate that the child has not been vaccinated, nor that the vaccine has not been effective. Therefore, several vaccinated participants may have been included amongst the unvaccinated participants.”

The authors emphasized that the definition of “vaccinated” and “unvaccinated” was based on a scar and on vaccination records, and they recognized that participants who did not have a scar on their arm could have been misclassified. Regardless, it is still considered a sensitive indicator. “Few vaccinated children from various settings do not show a scar years after vaccine administration,” they stated in their article.
 

Adults unprotected

Dr. Ballalai also shared her concerns regarding the lack of protection for older individuals. “We know those older than 60 are at greater risk for complications of tuberculosis. Individuals in this age group naturally have a lower immunity, and they usually have comorbidities. From this study, I can only conclude what was already expected: that adults who received a BCG vaccine as infants are not clear of pulmonary tuberculosis.”

Dr. Croda agreed that it was already evident that the BCG vaccine administered at birth did not provide protection for adults. “In the past, even with 80%-90% vaccine coverage, there were numerous tuberculosis cases in adults in Brazil.”
 

Are boosters needed?

The authors concluded that immunoprotection needs to be boosted in older populations, as vaccination at birth is ineffective for adolescents and adults. They have also discussed whether children older than 10 years and adults could benefit from a booster shot.

Dr. Croda emphasized that there is no indication for this, because there are no data regarding protection with a booster dose during adulthood. However, he cited a study conducted in South Africa in which the BCG vaccine was compared with another vaccine, and another study, which is being conducted in India, is assessing whether a BCG booster offers protection against pulmonary tuberculosis. “There are few studies. Perhaps the revaccination of more vulnerable groups could be of interest, but additional studies are needed first.”

Dr. Croda intends to assess revaccination in those deprived of liberty, in which the incidence of tuberculosis is very high. From 2015 to 2021, many new cases were recorded in this population in Brazil. The number rose from 5,860 to 6,773 during that period.

“However, BCG revaccination carries a significant risk of patients presenting with serious adverse events,” Dr. Ballalai pointed out. He noted that several years ago, to extend protection, Brazil adopted a booster program for persons aged 10 years or older, but the program was discontinued owing to the numerous adverse events reported and the absence of evidence of benefit from increased protection against tuberculosis.

“The adult groups at greater risk for severe tuberculosis manifestations normally presented with an underlying disease, particularly in immunocompromised patient groups. The [administration of the] BCG [vaccine] is contraindicated for those who are immunocompromised. And, for the older population, we do not have data on [vaccine] safety,” she emphasized.
 

Nonspecific immune protection

One of the study’s secondary outcomes regarded mortality. Four studies in the meta-analysis followed up tuberculosis contacts for death. In these studies, which evaluated 20,000 participants, BCG vaccination was shown to be significantly protective against death for participants younger than 15 years.

However, the authors urged caution in interpreting these data. They emphasized that they were unable to identify specific mechanisms by which BCG vaccination might have reduced mortality, and there are possible study biases that could have led to an overestimation of mortality benefit. Moreover, given the observational nature of the included studies, vaccinated children might have had higher socioeconomic status and greater access to health care, and they may have been more likely to have received other vaccinations, compared with children who did not receive BCG vaccines.

Nevertheless, previous experimental and observational studies have found that BCG vaccination might provide nonspecific or off-target immune protection against an array of other pathogens.

“In small studies conducted in Africa, those younger than 5 were protected not only against tuberculosis but also against other respiratory diseases,” Dr. Croda affirmed. “However, these are small studies, and for now, there is no recommendation for using BCG vaccination to prevent other respiratory infections.”

A long-awaited, critical study on the impact of the BCG vaccine on COVID-19, in which Brazilian researchers participated, will be published in the New England Journal of Medicine.
 

New vaccines needed

The BCG vaccine is one of the oldest vaccines, but there are still several crucial unanswered questions about its use.

Previously published studies that examined the protective effect of BCG vaccination only considered low-burden settings and the historical literature before 1950. These studies need updating, but doing so has not been a simple task. To answer their questions, individual-level participant data for a prespecified list of variables, including the characteristics of the exposed participant (contact), the index case, and the environment, were requested from authors of all eligible studies.

Much of the data used in the published research were found through discussions with authors and experts in the field, as well as through data deposited in data storage repositories, conference abstracts, dissertations, and even direct requests to the authors. “The Pan-American Health Organization helped with this data collection and contacting some authors,” said Dr. Croda.

With the new data, the authors confirmed that infant BCG vaccination, although important to young children who are at high risk for tuberculosis, does not prevent adult-type cavitary tuberculosis and is therefore insufficient to impede the tuberculosis epidemic. “Novel vaccines are urgently needed,” they concluded.

“We need to develop novel, more effective vaccines, which, when administered during infancy, would ensure lifelong protection,” Dr. Croda added.

Dr. Croda and Dr. Ballalai reported no relevant financial relationships.

This article was translated from the Medscape Portuguese edition. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The American Academy of Pediatrics is cautioning physicians and parents to be on the lookout for unnecessary diagnostic testing associated with several common pediatric conditions.

Children seen for these conditions in emergency settings and even in primary care offices could experience avoidable pain, exposure to harmful radiation, and other harms, according to the group.

“The emergency department has the ability to rapidly perform myriad diagnostic tests and receive results quickly,” said Paul Mullan, MD, MPH, chair of the AAP’s Section of Emergency Medicine’s Choosing Wisely task force. “However, this comes with the danger of diagnostic overtesting.”

The five recommendations are as follows:

• Radiographs should not be obtained for children with bronchiolitis, croup, asthma, or first-time wheezing.
• Laboratory tests for screening should not be undertaken in the medical clearance process of children who require inpatient psychiatric admission unless clinically indicated.
• Laboratory testing or a CT scan of the head should not be ordered for a child with an unprovoked, generalized seizure or a simple febrile seizure whose mental status has returned to baseline.
• Abdominal radiographs should not be obtained for suspected constipation.
• Comprehensive viral panel testing should not be undertaken for children who are suspected of having respiratory viral illnesses.

The AAP task force partnered with Choosing Wisely Canada to create the recommendations. The list is the first of its kind to be published jointly by two countries, according to the release.

“We hope this Choosing Wisely list will encourage clinicians to rely on their clinical skills and avoid unnecessary tests,” said Dr. Mullan, who is also a physician at Children’s Hospital of the King’s Daughters and professor of pediatrics at Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk.

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

The American Academy of Pediatrics is cautioning physicians and parents to be on the lookout for unnecessary diagnostic testing associated with several common pediatric conditions.

Children seen for these conditions in emergency settings and even in primary care offices could experience avoidable pain, exposure to harmful radiation, and other harms, according to the group.

“The emergency department has the ability to rapidly perform myriad diagnostic tests and receive results quickly,” said Paul Mullan, MD, MPH, chair of the AAP’s Section of Emergency Medicine’s Choosing Wisely task force. “However, this comes with the danger of diagnostic overtesting.”

The five recommendations are as follows:

• Radiographs should not be obtained for children with bronchiolitis, croup, asthma, or first-time wheezing.
• Laboratory tests for screening should not be undertaken in the medical clearance process of children who require inpatient psychiatric admission unless clinically indicated.
• Laboratory testing or a CT scan of the head should not be ordered for a child with an unprovoked, generalized seizure or a simple febrile seizure whose mental status has returned to baseline.
• Abdominal radiographs should not be obtained for suspected constipation.
• Comprehensive viral panel testing should not be undertaken for children who are suspected of having respiratory viral illnesses.

The AAP task force partnered with Choosing Wisely Canada to create the recommendations. The list is the first of its kind to be published jointly by two countries, according to the release.

“We hope this Choosing Wisely list will encourage clinicians to rely on their clinical skills and avoid unnecessary tests,” said Dr. Mullan, who is also a physician at Children’s Hospital of the King’s Daughters and professor of pediatrics at Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk.

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

The American Academy of Pediatrics is cautioning physicians and parents to be on the lookout for unnecessary diagnostic testing associated with several common pediatric conditions.

Children seen for these conditions in emergency settings and even in primary care offices could experience avoidable pain, exposure to harmful radiation, and other harms, according to the group.

“The emergency department has the ability to rapidly perform myriad diagnostic tests and receive results quickly,” said Paul Mullan, MD, MPH, chair of the AAP’s Section of Emergency Medicine’s Choosing Wisely task force. “However, this comes with the danger of diagnostic overtesting.”

The five recommendations are as follows:

• Radiographs should not be obtained for children with bronchiolitis, croup, asthma, or first-time wheezing.
• Laboratory tests for screening should not be undertaken in the medical clearance process of children who require inpatient psychiatric admission unless clinically indicated.
• Laboratory testing or a CT scan of the head should not be ordered for a child with an unprovoked, generalized seizure or a simple febrile seizure whose mental status has returned to baseline.
• Abdominal radiographs should not be obtained for suspected constipation.
• Comprehensive viral panel testing should not be undertaken for children who are suspected of having respiratory viral illnesses.

The AAP task force partnered with Choosing Wisely Canada to create the recommendations. The list is the first of its kind to be published jointly by two countries, according to the release.

“We hope this Choosing Wisely list will encourage clinicians to rely on their clinical skills and avoid unnecessary tests,” said Dr. Mullan, who is also a physician at Children’s Hospital of the King’s Daughters and professor of pediatrics at Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk.

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

The offspring of mothers who sustain unintentional injuries during pregnancy appear to have a modest 33% increased risk of developing cerebral palsy (CP) – higher when injuries are more severe, multiple, or lead to delivery soon afterward, a Canadian birth cohort study found.

Such children may benefit from long-term monitoring for neurodevelpmental issues, wrote a group led by Asma Ahmed, MD, PhD, MPH, a pediatric epidemiologist at the Hospital for Sick Children Research Institute in Toronto in JAMA Pediatrics.

“We need to provide better support for babies whose mothers have been injured in pregnancy, especially after severe injuries,” Dr. Ahmed said in a press release. “As well, these findings suggest the need for early monitoring of babies’ development, regular check-ups, and longer-term neurodevelopmental assessments.” Future studies should directly measure injury severity and its possible link to CP.

Current guidelines, however, focus on monitoring fetal condition immediately after injury with little attention to its long-term effects.

In their findings from the population-based linkage study of 2,110,177 children born in Ontario’s public health system during 2002-2017 and followed to 2018 with a median follow-up of 8 years:

• A total of 81,281 fetuses were exposed in utero to unintentional maternal injury.
• Overall, 0.3% children were diagnosed with CP, and the mean CP incidence rates were 4.36 per 10,000 child-years for the exposed versus 2.93 for the unexposed.
• In those exposed, the hazard ratio was 1.33 (95% confidence interval, 1.18-1.50) after adjusting for maternal sociodemographic and clinical characteristics.
• Injuries resulting in hospitalization or delivery within 1 week were linked to higher adjusted hazard ratios of 2.18 (95% CI, 1.29-3.68) and 3.40 (95% CI, 1.93-6.00), respectively.
• Injuries most frequently resulted from transportation mishaps, falls, and being struck by a person or object. They were most commonly associated with age younger than 20 years, substance use disorder, residence in rural and under-resourced areas, and lower socioeconomic status.

The authors noted that complications after maternal injuries – which affect 6%-8% of pregnant women – include uterine rupture, preterm delivery, and placental abruption and are linked to fetal complications such as asphyxia. The association with an offspring’s neurodevelopment has been rarely investigated. One U.K. population study, however, suggested a link between vehicular crashes and higher CP risk in preterm infants.

A related editorial on the study noted that while CP affects about two to four children per 1,000 live births each year in high-income countries, the etiological causes of most cases remain unknown. “This large population-based cohort study ... should inspire more research into preventing and mitigating factors for maternal injuries and offspring CP development,” wrote Zeyan Liew, PhD, MPH, and Haoran Zhuo, MPH, of Yale University School of Public Health in New Haven, Conn.

This study was supported by Santé-Québec and ICES, a research institute funded by the Ontario Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Long-Term Care.

Dr. Ahmed and coauthor Seungmi Yang, PhD, reported research funding from Santé-Québec during the conduct of the study.

The offspring of mothers who sustain unintentional injuries during pregnancy appear to have a modest 33% increased risk of developing cerebral palsy (CP) – higher when injuries are more severe, multiple, or lead to delivery soon afterward, a Canadian birth cohort study found.

Such children may benefit from long-term monitoring for neurodevelpmental issues, wrote a group led by Asma Ahmed, MD, PhD, MPH, a pediatric epidemiologist at the Hospital for Sick Children Research Institute in Toronto in JAMA Pediatrics.

“We need to provide better support for babies whose mothers have been injured in pregnancy, especially after severe injuries,” Dr. Ahmed said in a press release. “As well, these findings suggest the need for early monitoring of babies’ development, regular check-ups, and longer-term neurodevelopmental assessments.” Future studies should directly measure injury severity and its possible link to CP.

Current guidelines, however, focus on monitoring fetal condition immediately after injury with little attention to its long-term effects.

In their findings from the population-based linkage study of 2,110,177 children born in Ontario’s public health system during 2002-2017 and followed to 2018 with a median follow-up of 8 years:

• A total of 81,281 fetuses were exposed in utero to unintentional maternal injury.
• Overall, 0.3% children were diagnosed with CP, and the mean CP incidence rates were 4.36 per 10,000 child-years for the exposed versus 2.93 for the unexposed.
• In those exposed, the hazard ratio was 1.33 (95% confidence interval, 1.18-1.50) after adjusting for maternal sociodemographic and clinical characteristics.
• Injuries resulting in hospitalization or delivery within 1 week were linked to higher adjusted hazard ratios of 2.18 (95% CI, 1.29-3.68) and 3.40 (95% CI, 1.93-6.00), respectively.
• Injuries most frequently resulted from transportation mishaps, falls, and being struck by a person or object. They were most commonly associated with age younger than 20 years, substance use disorder, residence in rural and under-resourced areas, and lower socioeconomic status.

The authors noted that complications after maternal injuries – which affect 6%-8% of pregnant women – include uterine rupture, preterm delivery, and placental abruption and are linked to fetal complications such as asphyxia. The association with an offspring’s neurodevelopment has been rarely investigated. One U.K. population study, however, suggested a link between vehicular crashes and higher CP risk in preterm infants.

A related editorial on the study noted that while CP affects about two to four children per 1,000 live births each year in high-income countries, the etiological causes of most cases remain unknown. “This large population-based cohort study ... should inspire more research into preventing and mitigating factors for maternal injuries and offspring CP development,” wrote Zeyan Liew, PhD, MPH, and Haoran Zhuo, MPH, of Yale University School of Public Health in New Haven, Conn.

This study was supported by Santé-Québec and ICES, a research institute funded by the Ontario Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Long-Term Care.

Dr. Ahmed and coauthor Seungmi Yang, PhD, reported research funding from Santé-Québec during the conduct of the study.

The offspring of mothers who sustain unintentional injuries during pregnancy appear to have a modest 33% increased risk of developing cerebral palsy (CP) – higher when injuries are more severe, multiple, or lead to delivery soon afterward, a Canadian birth cohort study found.

Such children may benefit from long-term monitoring for neurodevelpmental issues, wrote a group led by Asma Ahmed, MD, PhD, MPH, a pediatric epidemiologist at the Hospital for Sick Children Research Institute in Toronto in JAMA Pediatrics.

“We need to provide better support for babies whose mothers have been injured in pregnancy, especially after severe injuries,” Dr. Ahmed said in a press release. “As well, these findings suggest the need for early monitoring of babies’ development, regular check-ups, and longer-term neurodevelopmental assessments.” Future studies should directly measure injury severity and its possible link to CP.

Current guidelines, however, focus on monitoring fetal condition immediately after injury with little attention to its long-term effects.

In their findings from the population-based linkage study of 2,110,177 children born in Ontario’s public health system during 2002-2017 and followed to 2018 with a median follow-up of 8 years:

• A total of 81,281 fetuses were exposed in utero to unintentional maternal injury.
• Overall, 0.3% children were diagnosed with CP, and the mean CP incidence rates were 4.36 per 10,000 child-years for the exposed versus 2.93 for the unexposed.
• In those exposed, the hazard ratio was 1.33 (95% confidence interval, 1.18-1.50) after adjusting for maternal sociodemographic and clinical characteristics.
• Injuries resulting in hospitalization or delivery within 1 week were linked to higher adjusted hazard ratios of 2.18 (95% CI, 1.29-3.68) and 3.40 (95% CI, 1.93-6.00), respectively.
• Injuries most frequently resulted from transportation mishaps, falls, and being struck by a person or object. They were most commonly associated with age younger than 20 years, substance use disorder, residence in rural and under-resourced areas, and lower socioeconomic status.

The authors noted that complications after maternal injuries – which affect 6%-8% of pregnant women – include uterine rupture, preterm delivery, and placental abruption and are linked to fetal complications such as asphyxia. The association with an offspring’s neurodevelopment has been rarely investigated. One U.K. population study, however, suggested a link between vehicular crashes and higher CP risk in preterm infants.

A related editorial on the study noted that while CP affects about two to four children per 1,000 live births each year in high-income countries, the etiological causes of most cases remain unknown. “This large population-based cohort study ... should inspire more research into preventing and mitigating factors for maternal injuries and offspring CP development,” wrote Zeyan Liew, PhD, MPH, and Haoran Zhuo, MPH, of Yale University School of Public Health in New Haven, Conn.

This study was supported by Santé-Québec and ICES, a research institute funded by the Ontario Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Long-Term Care.

Dr. Ahmed and coauthor Seungmi Yang, PhD, reported research funding from Santé-Québec during the conduct of the study.