MDedge Pediatrics

A new type of wound dressing might change burn care for the better with one amazing property: dissolvability. Surgically debriding burn wounds can be tedious for doctors and excruciating for patients. To change that, bioengineers have created a new hydrogel formula that dissolves rapidly from wound sites, melting off in 6 minutes or less.

“The removal of dressings, with the current standard of care, is very hard and time-consuming. It becomes very painful for the patient. People are screaming, or they’re given a lot of opioids,” said senior author O. Berk Usta, PhD, of the Center for Engineering in Medicine and Surgery at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston. “Those are the things we wanted to minimize: the pain and the time.”

Although beneficial for all patients, a short, painless bandage change would be a particular boon for younger patients. At the pediatric burns care center at Shriners Hospitals for Children (an MGH partner), researchers “observe a lot of children who go through therapy or treatment after burns,” said Dr. Usta. The team at MGH collaborated with scientists at Tufts University, Boston, with those patients in mind, setting out to create a new hydrogel that would transform burn wound care.
 

A better bandage

Hydrogels provide cooling relief to burn wounds and maintain a moist environment that can speed healing. There are currently hydrogel sheets and hydrogel-infused dressings, as well as gel that is applied directly to burn wounds before being covered with protective material. These dressings must be replaced frequently to prevent infections, but that can be unbearably painful and drawn out, as dressings often stick to wounds.

Mechanical debridement can be especially difficult for second-degree burn patients, whose wounds may still retain nerve endings. Debridement tends to also remove some healthy tissue and can damage newly formed tissue, slowing down healing.

“It can take up to 2, 3 hours, and it requires multiple people working on it,” said Dr. Usta.

The new hydrogel treatment can be applied directly to a wound and it forms a protective barrier around the site in 15 seconds. The hydrogel is then covered by a protective dressing until it needs to be changed.

“After you take off the protective covering, you add another solution, which dissolves the [hydrogel] dressing, so that it can be easily removed from the burn site,” Dr. Usta said.

The solution dissolves the hydrogel in 4-6 minutes.
 

Hybrid gels

Many hydrogels currently used for burn wounds feature physically cross-linked molecules. This makes them strong and capable of retaining moisture, but also difficult to dissolve. The researchers used a different approach.

“This is not physical cross-linking like the traditional approaches, but rather, softer covalent bonds between the different molecules. And that’s why, when you bring in another solution, the hydrogel dissolves away,” Dr. Usta said.

The new hydrogels rely on a supramolecular assembly: a network of synthetic polymers whose connections can be reversed more easily, meaning they can be dissolved quickly. Another standout feature of the new hydrogels is their hybrid composition, displaying characteristics of both liquids and solids. The polymers are knitted together into a mesh-like network that enables water retention, with the goal of maintaining the moist environment needed for wound healing.

The supramolecular assembly is also greener, Dr. Usta explained; traditional cross-linking approaches produce a lot of toxic by-products that could harm the environment.

And whereas traditional hydrogels can require a dozen chemistry steps to produce, the new hydrogels are ready after mixing two solutions, Dr. Usta explained. This makes them easy to prepare at bedside, ideal for treating large wounds in the ER or even on battlefields.

When tested in vitro, using skin cells, and in vivo, on mice, the new hydrogels were shown to be safe to use on wounds. Additional studies on mice, as well as large animals, will focus on safety and efficacy, and may be followed by human clinical trials, said Dr. Usta.

“The next phase of the project will be to look at whether these dressings will help wound healing by creating a moist environment,” said Dr. Usta.

The researchers are also exploring how to manufacture individual prewrapped hydrogels that could be applied in a clinical setting – or even in people’s homes. The consumer market is “another possibility,” said Dr. Usta, particularly among patients with “smaller, more superficial burns” or patients whose large burn wounds are still healing once they leave the hospital.

This research was supported by the National Institutes of Health, National Science Foundation, Massachusetts General Hospital Executive Committee on Research Interim Support Fund, and Shriners Hospitals.

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

A new type of wound dressing might change burn care for the better with one amazing property: dissolvability. Surgically debriding burn wounds can be tedious for doctors and excruciating for patients. To change that, bioengineers have created a new hydrogel formula that dissolves rapidly from wound sites, melting off in 6 minutes or less.

“The removal of dressings, with the current standard of care, is very hard and time-consuming. It becomes very painful for the patient. People are screaming, or they’re given a lot of opioids,” said senior author O. Berk Usta, PhD, of the Center for Engineering in Medicine and Surgery at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston. “Those are the things we wanted to minimize: the pain and the time.”

Although beneficial for all patients, a short, painless bandage change would be a particular boon for younger patients. At the pediatric burns care center at Shriners Hospitals for Children (an MGH partner), researchers “observe a lot of children who go through therapy or treatment after burns,” said Dr. Usta. The team at MGH collaborated with scientists at Tufts University, Boston, with those patients in mind, setting out to create a new hydrogel that would transform burn wound care.
 

A better bandage

Hydrogels provide cooling relief to burn wounds and maintain a moist environment that can speed healing. There are currently hydrogel sheets and hydrogel-infused dressings, as well as gel that is applied directly to burn wounds before being covered with protective material. These dressings must be replaced frequently to prevent infections, but that can be unbearably painful and drawn out, as dressings often stick to wounds.

Mechanical debridement can be especially difficult for second-degree burn patients, whose wounds may still retain nerve endings. Debridement tends to also remove some healthy tissue and can damage newly formed tissue, slowing down healing.

“It can take up to 2, 3 hours, and it requires multiple people working on it,” said Dr. Usta.

The new hydrogel treatment can be applied directly to a wound and it forms a protective barrier around the site in 15 seconds. The hydrogel is then covered by a protective dressing until it needs to be changed.

“After you take off the protective covering, you add another solution, which dissolves the [hydrogel] dressing, so that it can be easily removed from the burn site,” Dr. Usta said.

The solution dissolves the hydrogel in 4-6 minutes.
 

Hybrid gels

Many hydrogels currently used for burn wounds feature physically cross-linked molecules. This makes them strong and capable of retaining moisture, but also difficult to dissolve. The researchers used a different approach.

“This is not physical cross-linking like the traditional approaches, but rather, softer covalent bonds between the different molecules. And that’s why, when you bring in another solution, the hydrogel dissolves away,” Dr. Usta said.

The new hydrogels rely on a supramolecular assembly: a network of synthetic polymers whose connections can be reversed more easily, meaning they can be dissolved quickly. Another standout feature of the new hydrogels is their hybrid composition, displaying characteristics of both liquids and solids. The polymers are knitted together into a mesh-like network that enables water retention, with the goal of maintaining the moist environment needed for wound healing.

The supramolecular assembly is also greener, Dr. Usta explained; traditional cross-linking approaches produce a lot of toxic by-products that could harm the environment.

And whereas traditional hydrogels can require a dozen chemistry steps to produce, the new hydrogels are ready after mixing two solutions, Dr. Usta explained. This makes them easy to prepare at bedside, ideal for treating large wounds in the ER or even on battlefields.

When tested in vitro, using skin cells, and in vivo, on mice, the new hydrogels were shown to be safe to use on wounds. Additional studies on mice, as well as large animals, will focus on safety and efficacy, and may be followed by human clinical trials, said Dr. Usta.

“The next phase of the project will be to look at whether these dressings will help wound healing by creating a moist environment,” said Dr. Usta.

The researchers are also exploring how to manufacture individual prewrapped hydrogels that could be applied in a clinical setting – or even in people’s homes. The consumer market is “another possibility,” said Dr. Usta, particularly among patients with “smaller, more superficial burns” or patients whose large burn wounds are still healing once they leave the hospital.

This research was supported by the National Institutes of Health, National Science Foundation, Massachusetts General Hospital Executive Committee on Research Interim Support Fund, and Shriners Hospitals.

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

A new type of wound dressing might change burn care for the better with one amazing property: dissolvability. Surgically debriding burn wounds can be tedious for doctors and excruciating for patients. To change that, bioengineers have created a new hydrogel formula that dissolves rapidly from wound sites, melting off in 6 minutes or less.

“The removal of dressings, with the current standard of care, is very hard and time-consuming. It becomes very painful for the patient. People are screaming, or they’re given a lot of opioids,” said senior author O. Berk Usta, PhD, of the Center for Engineering in Medicine and Surgery at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston. “Those are the things we wanted to minimize: the pain and the time.”

Although beneficial for all patients, a short, painless bandage change would be a particular boon for younger patients. At the pediatric burns care center at Shriners Hospitals for Children (an MGH partner), researchers “observe a lot of children who go through therapy or treatment after burns,” said Dr. Usta. The team at MGH collaborated with scientists at Tufts University, Boston, with those patients in mind, setting out to create a new hydrogel that would transform burn wound care.
 

A better bandage

Hydrogels provide cooling relief to burn wounds and maintain a moist environment that can speed healing. There are currently hydrogel sheets and hydrogel-infused dressings, as well as gel that is applied directly to burn wounds before being covered with protective material. These dressings must be replaced frequently to prevent infections, but that can be unbearably painful and drawn out, as dressings often stick to wounds.

Mechanical debridement can be especially difficult for second-degree burn patients, whose wounds may still retain nerve endings. Debridement tends to also remove some healthy tissue and can damage newly formed tissue, slowing down healing.

“It can take up to 2, 3 hours, and it requires multiple people working on it,” said Dr. Usta.

The new hydrogel treatment can be applied directly to a wound and it forms a protective barrier around the site in 15 seconds. The hydrogel is then covered by a protective dressing until it needs to be changed.

“After you take off the protective covering, you add another solution, which dissolves the [hydrogel] dressing, so that it can be easily removed from the burn site,” Dr. Usta said.

The solution dissolves the hydrogel in 4-6 minutes.
 

Hybrid gels

Many hydrogels currently used for burn wounds feature physically cross-linked molecules. This makes them strong and capable of retaining moisture, but also difficult to dissolve. The researchers used a different approach.

“This is not physical cross-linking like the traditional approaches, but rather, softer covalent bonds between the different molecules. And that’s why, when you bring in another solution, the hydrogel dissolves away,” Dr. Usta said.

The new hydrogels rely on a supramolecular assembly: a network of synthetic polymers whose connections can be reversed more easily, meaning they can be dissolved quickly. Another standout feature of the new hydrogels is their hybrid composition, displaying characteristics of both liquids and solids. The polymers are knitted together into a mesh-like network that enables water retention, with the goal of maintaining the moist environment needed for wound healing.

The supramolecular assembly is also greener, Dr. Usta explained; traditional cross-linking approaches produce a lot of toxic by-products that could harm the environment.

And whereas traditional hydrogels can require a dozen chemistry steps to produce, the new hydrogels are ready after mixing two solutions, Dr. Usta explained. This makes them easy to prepare at bedside, ideal for treating large wounds in the ER or even on battlefields.

When tested in vitro, using skin cells, and in vivo, on mice, the new hydrogels were shown to be safe to use on wounds. Additional studies on mice, as well as large animals, will focus on safety and efficacy, and may be followed by human clinical trials, said Dr. Usta.

“The next phase of the project will be to look at whether these dressings will help wound healing by creating a moist environment,” said Dr. Usta.

The researchers are also exploring how to manufacture individual prewrapped hydrogels that could be applied in a clinical setting – or even in people’s homes. The consumer market is “another possibility,” said Dr. Usta, particularly among patients with “smaller, more superficial burns” or patients whose large burn wounds are still healing once they leave the hospital.

This research was supported by the National Institutes of Health, National Science Foundation, Massachusetts General Hospital Executive Committee on Research Interim Support Fund, and Shriners Hospitals.

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

Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) and influenza cases are surging to record numbers this winter in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic when children were sheltering in the home, receiving virtual education, masking, and hand sanitizing, and when other precautionary health measures were in place.

RSV and flu illness in children now have hospital emergency rooms and pediatric ICUs and wards over capacity. As these respiratory infections increase and variants of SARS-CoV-2 come to dominate, we may expect the full impact of a tripledemic (RSV + flu + SARS-CoV-2).

It has been estimated that RSV causes 33 million lower respiratory infections and 3.6 million hospitalizations annually worldwide in children younger than 5 years old (Lancet. 2022 May 19. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(22)00478-0). RSV is typically a seasonal respiratory infection occurring in late fall through early winter, when it gives way to dominance by flu. Thus, we have experienced an out-of-season surge in RSV since it began in early fall 2022, and it persists. A likely explanation for the early and persisting surge in RSV is immunity debt (Infect Dis Now. 2021 Aug. doi: 10.1016/j.idnow.2021.05.004).

Immunity debt is an unintended consequence of prevention of infections that occurred because of public health measures to prevent spread of SARS-CoV-2 infections. The COVID-19 lockdown undoubtedly saved many lives. However, while we were sheltering from SARS-CoV-2 infections, we also were avoiding other infections, especially other respiratory infections such as RSV and flu.

Our group studied this in community-based pediatric practices in Rochester, N.Y. Physician-diagnosed, medically attended infectious disease illness visits were assessed in two child cohorts, age 6-36 months from March 15 to Dec. 31, 2020 (the pandemic period), compared with the same months in 2019 (prepandemic). One hundred forty-four children were included in the pandemic cohort and 215 in the prepandemic cohort. Visits for bronchiolitis were 7.4-fold lower (P = .04), acute otitis media 3.7-fold lower (P < .0001), viral upper respiratory infections (URI) 3.8-fold lower (P < .0001), and croup 27.5-fold lower (P < .0001) in the pandemic than the prepandemic cohort (Front Pediatr. 2021 Sep 13. doi: 10.3389/fped.2021.72248).

The significant reduction in respiratory illness during the COVID-19 epidemic we and others observed resulted in a large pool of children who did not experience RSV or flu infections for an entire year or more. Herd immunity dropped. The susceptible child population increased, including children older than typically seen. We had an immunity debt that had to be repaid, and the repayment is occurring now.

As a consequence of the surge in RSV, interest in prevention has gained more attention. In 1966, tragically, two infant deaths and hospitalization of 80% of the participating infants occurred during a clinical trial of an experimental candidate RSV vaccine, which contained an inactivated version of the entire virus. The severe side effect was later found to be caused by both an antibody and a T-cell problem. The antibody produced in response to the inactivated whole virus didn’t have very good functional activity at blocking or neutralizing the virus. That led to deposition of immune complexes and activation of complement that damaged the airways. The vaccine also triggered a T-cell response with inflammatory cytokine release that added to airway obstruction and lack of clearance of the virus. RSV vaccine development was halted and the bar for further studies was raised very high to ensure safety of any future RSV vaccines. Now, 55 years later, two RSV vaccines and a new preventive monoclonal antibody are nearing licensure.

GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) and Pfizer are in phase 3 clinical trials of a safer RSV vaccine that contains only the RSV surface protein known as protein F. Protein F changes its structure when the virus infects and fuses with human respiratory epithelial cells. The GSK and Pfizer vaccines use a molecular strategy developed at the National Institutes of Health to lock protein F into its original, prefusion configuration. A similar strategy was used by Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna in their design of mRNA vaccines to the SARS-CoV-2 spike surface protein.

A vaccine with the F protein in its prefusion form takes care of the antibody problem that caused the severe side-effects from the 1966 version of inactivated whole virus vaccine because it induces very high-efficiency, high-potency antibodies that neutralize the RSV. The T-cell response is not as well understood and that is why studies are being done in adults first and then moving to young infants.

The new RSV vaccines are being developed for use in adults over age 60, adults with comorbidities, maternal immunization, and infants. Encouraging results were recently reported by GSK and Pfizer from adult trials. In an interim analysis, Pfizer also recently reported that maternal immunization in the late second or third trimester with their vaccine had an efficacy of 82% within a newborn’s first 90 days of life against severe lower respiratory tract illness. At age 6 months, the efficacy was sustained at 69%. So far, both the GSK and Pfizer RSV vaccines have shown a favorable safety profile.

Another strategy in the RSV prevention field has been a monoclonal antibody. Palivizumab (Synagis, AstraZeneca) is used to prevent severe RSV infections in prematurely born and other infants who are at higher risk of mortality and severe morbidity. Soon there will likely be another monoclonal antibody, called nirsevimab (Beyfortus, AstraZeneca and Sanofi). It is approved in Europe but not yet approved in the United States as I prepare this column. Nirsevimab may be even better than palivizumab – based on phase 3 trial data – and a single injection lasts through an entire normal RSV season while palivizumab requires monthly injections.

Similar to the situation with RSV, the flu season started earlier than usual in fall 2022 and has been picking up steam, likely also because of immunity debt. The WHO estimates that annual epidemics of influenza cause 1 billion infections, 3 million to 5 million severe cases, and 300,000-500,000 deaths. Seasonal flu vaccines provide modest protection. Current flu vaccine formulations consist of the hemagglutinin (H) and neuraminidase (N) proteins but those proteins change sufficiently (called antigenic drift) such that production of the vaccines based on a best guess each year often is not correct for the influenza A or influenza B strains that circulate in a given year (antigenic mismatch).

Public health authorities have long worried about a major change in the composition of the H and N proteins of the influenza virus (called antigenic shift). Preparedness and response to the COVID-19 pandemic was based on preparedness and response to an anticipated influenza pandemic similar to the 1918 flu pandemic. For flu, new “universal” vaccines are in development. Among the candidate vaccines are mRNA vaccines, building on the success of the SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines (Science. 2022 Nov 24. doi: 10.1126/science.abm0271).
 

Dr. Pichichero is a specialist in pediatric infectious diseases, Center for Infectious Diseases and Immunology, and director of the Research Institute, at Rochester (N.Y.) General Hospital. He has no conflicts of interest to declare.

Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) and influenza cases are surging to record numbers this winter in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic when children were sheltering in the home, receiving virtual education, masking, and hand sanitizing, and when other precautionary health measures were in place.

RSV and flu illness in children now have hospital emergency rooms and pediatric ICUs and wards over capacity. As these respiratory infections increase and variants of SARS-CoV-2 come to dominate, we may expect the full impact of a tripledemic (RSV + flu + SARS-CoV-2).

It has been estimated that RSV causes 33 million lower respiratory infections and 3.6 million hospitalizations annually worldwide in children younger than 5 years old (Lancet. 2022 May 19. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(22)00478-0). RSV is typically a seasonal respiratory infection occurring in late fall through early winter, when it gives way to dominance by flu. Thus, we have experienced an out-of-season surge in RSV since it began in early fall 2022, and it persists. A likely explanation for the early and persisting surge in RSV is immunity debt (Infect Dis Now. 2021 Aug. doi: 10.1016/j.idnow.2021.05.004).

Immunity debt is an unintended consequence of prevention of infections that occurred because of public health measures to prevent spread of SARS-CoV-2 infections. The COVID-19 lockdown undoubtedly saved many lives. However, while we were sheltering from SARS-CoV-2 infections, we also were avoiding other infections, especially other respiratory infections such as RSV and flu.

Our group studied this in community-based pediatric practices in Rochester, N.Y. Physician-diagnosed, medically attended infectious disease illness visits were assessed in two child cohorts, age 6-36 months from March 15 to Dec. 31, 2020 (the pandemic period), compared with the same months in 2019 (prepandemic). One hundred forty-four children were included in the pandemic cohort and 215 in the prepandemic cohort. Visits for bronchiolitis were 7.4-fold lower (P = .04), acute otitis media 3.7-fold lower (P < .0001), viral upper respiratory infections (URI) 3.8-fold lower (P < .0001), and croup 27.5-fold lower (P < .0001) in the pandemic than the prepandemic cohort (Front Pediatr. 2021 Sep 13. doi: 10.3389/fped.2021.72248).

The significant reduction in respiratory illness during the COVID-19 epidemic we and others observed resulted in a large pool of children who did not experience RSV or flu infections for an entire year or more. Herd immunity dropped. The susceptible child population increased, including children older than typically seen. We had an immunity debt that had to be repaid, and the repayment is occurring now.

As a consequence of the surge in RSV, interest in prevention has gained more attention. In 1966, tragically, two infant deaths and hospitalization of 80% of the participating infants occurred during a clinical trial of an experimental candidate RSV vaccine, which contained an inactivated version of the entire virus. The severe side effect was later found to be caused by both an antibody and a T-cell problem. The antibody produced in response to the inactivated whole virus didn’t have very good functional activity at blocking or neutralizing the virus. That led to deposition of immune complexes and activation of complement that damaged the airways. The vaccine also triggered a T-cell response with inflammatory cytokine release that added to airway obstruction and lack of clearance of the virus. RSV vaccine development was halted and the bar for further studies was raised very high to ensure safety of any future RSV vaccines. Now, 55 years later, two RSV vaccines and a new preventive monoclonal antibody are nearing licensure.

GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) and Pfizer are in phase 3 clinical trials of a safer RSV vaccine that contains only the RSV surface protein known as protein F. Protein F changes its structure when the virus infects and fuses with human respiratory epithelial cells. The GSK and Pfizer vaccines use a molecular strategy developed at the National Institutes of Health to lock protein F into its original, prefusion configuration. A similar strategy was used by Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna in their design of mRNA vaccines to the SARS-CoV-2 spike surface protein.

A vaccine with the F protein in its prefusion form takes care of the antibody problem that caused the severe side-effects from the 1966 version of inactivated whole virus vaccine because it induces very high-efficiency, high-potency antibodies that neutralize the RSV. The T-cell response is not as well understood and that is why studies are being done in adults first and then moving to young infants.

The new RSV vaccines are being developed for use in adults over age 60, adults with comorbidities, maternal immunization, and infants. Encouraging results were recently reported by GSK and Pfizer from adult trials. In an interim analysis, Pfizer also recently reported that maternal immunization in the late second or third trimester with their vaccine had an efficacy of 82% within a newborn’s first 90 days of life against severe lower respiratory tract illness. At age 6 months, the efficacy was sustained at 69%. So far, both the GSK and Pfizer RSV vaccines have shown a favorable safety profile.

Another strategy in the RSV prevention field has been a monoclonal antibody. Palivizumab (Synagis, AstraZeneca) is used to prevent severe RSV infections in prematurely born and other infants who are at higher risk of mortality and severe morbidity. Soon there will likely be another monoclonal antibody, called nirsevimab (Beyfortus, AstraZeneca and Sanofi). It is approved in Europe but not yet approved in the United States as I prepare this column. Nirsevimab may be even better than palivizumab – based on phase 3 trial data – and a single injection lasts through an entire normal RSV season while palivizumab requires monthly injections.

Similar to the situation with RSV, the flu season started earlier than usual in fall 2022 and has been picking up steam, likely also because of immunity debt. The WHO estimates that annual epidemics of influenza cause 1 billion infections, 3 million to 5 million severe cases, and 300,000-500,000 deaths. Seasonal flu vaccines provide modest protection. Current flu vaccine formulations consist of the hemagglutinin (H) and neuraminidase (N) proteins but those proteins change sufficiently (called antigenic drift) such that production of the vaccines based on a best guess each year often is not correct for the influenza A or influenza B strains that circulate in a given year (antigenic mismatch).

Public health authorities have long worried about a major change in the composition of the H and N proteins of the influenza virus (called antigenic shift). Preparedness and response to the COVID-19 pandemic was based on preparedness and response to an anticipated influenza pandemic similar to the 1918 flu pandemic. For flu, new “universal” vaccines are in development. Among the candidate vaccines are mRNA vaccines, building on the success of the SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines (Science. 2022 Nov 24. doi: 10.1126/science.abm0271).
 

Dr. Pichichero is a specialist in pediatric infectious diseases, Center for Infectious Diseases and Immunology, and director of the Research Institute, at Rochester (N.Y.) General Hospital. He has no conflicts of interest to declare.

Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) and influenza cases are surging to record numbers this winter in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic when children were sheltering in the home, receiving virtual education, masking, and hand sanitizing, and when other precautionary health measures were in place.

RSV and flu illness in children now have hospital emergency rooms and pediatric ICUs and wards over capacity. As these respiratory infections increase and variants of SARS-CoV-2 come to dominate, we may expect the full impact of a tripledemic (RSV + flu + SARS-CoV-2).

It has been estimated that RSV causes 33 million lower respiratory infections and 3.6 million hospitalizations annually worldwide in children younger than 5 years old (Lancet. 2022 May 19. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(22)00478-0). RSV is typically a seasonal respiratory infection occurring in late fall through early winter, when it gives way to dominance by flu. Thus, we have experienced an out-of-season surge in RSV since it began in early fall 2022, and it persists. A likely explanation for the early and persisting surge in RSV is immunity debt (Infect Dis Now. 2021 Aug. doi: 10.1016/j.idnow.2021.05.004).

Immunity debt is an unintended consequence of prevention of infections that occurred because of public health measures to prevent spread of SARS-CoV-2 infections. The COVID-19 lockdown undoubtedly saved many lives. However, while we were sheltering from SARS-CoV-2 infections, we also were avoiding other infections, especially other respiratory infections such as RSV and flu.

Our group studied this in community-based pediatric practices in Rochester, N.Y. Physician-diagnosed, medically attended infectious disease illness visits were assessed in two child cohorts, age 6-36 months from March 15 to Dec. 31, 2020 (the pandemic period), compared with the same months in 2019 (prepandemic). One hundred forty-four children were included in the pandemic cohort and 215 in the prepandemic cohort. Visits for bronchiolitis were 7.4-fold lower (P = .04), acute otitis media 3.7-fold lower (P < .0001), viral upper respiratory infections (URI) 3.8-fold lower (P < .0001), and croup 27.5-fold lower (P < .0001) in the pandemic than the prepandemic cohort (Front Pediatr. 2021 Sep 13. doi: 10.3389/fped.2021.72248).

The significant reduction in respiratory illness during the COVID-19 epidemic we and others observed resulted in a large pool of children who did not experience RSV or flu infections for an entire year or more. Herd immunity dropped. The susceptible child population increased, including children older than typically seen. We had an immunity debt that had to be repaid, and the repayment is occurring now.

As a consequence of the surge in RSV, interest in prevention has gained more attention. In 1966, tragically, two infant deaths and hospitalization of 80% of the participating infants occurred during a clinical trial of an experimental candidate RSV vaccine, which contained an inactivated version of the entire virus. The severe side effect was later found to be caused by both an antibody and a T-cell problem. The antibody produced in response to the inactivated whole virus didn’t have very good functional activity at blocking or neutralizing the virus. That led to deposition of immune complexes and activation of complement that damaged the airways. The vaccine also triggered a T-cell response with inflammatory cytokine release that added to airway obstruction and lack of clearance of the virus. RSV vaccine development was halted and the bar for further studies was raised very high to ensure safety of any future RSV vaccines. Now, 55 years later, two RSV vaccines and a new preventive monoclonal antibody are nearing licensure.

GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) and Pfizer are in phase 3 clinical trials of a safer RSV vaccine that contains only the RSV surface protein known as protein F. Protein F changes its structure when the virus infects and fuses with human respiratory epithelial cells. The GSK and Pfizer vaccines use a molecular strategy developed at the National Institutes of Health to lock protein F into its original, prefusion configuration. A similar strategy was used by Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna in their design of mRNA vaccines to the SARS-CoV-2 spike surface protein.

A vaccine with the F protein in its prefusion form takes care of the antibody problem that caused the severe side-effects from the 1966 version of inactivated whole virus vaccine because it induces very high-efficiency, high-potency antibodies that neutralize the RSV. The T-cell response is not as well understood and that is why studies are being done in adults first and then moving to young infants.

The new RSV vaccines are being developed for use in adults over age 60, adults with comorbidities, maternal immunization, and infants. Encouraging results were recently reported by GSK and Pfizer from adult trials. In an interim analysis, Pfizer also recently reported that maternal immunization in the late second or third trimester with their vaccine had an efficacy of 82% within a newborn’s first 90 days of life against severe lower respiratory tract illness. At age 6 months, the efficacy was sustained at 69%. So far, both the GSK and Pfizer RSV vaccines have shown a favorable safety profile.

Another strategy in the RSV prevention field has been a monoclonal antibody. Palivizumab (Synagis, AstraZeneca) is used to prevent severe RSV infections in prematurely born and other infants who are at higher risk of mortality and severe morbidity. Soon there will likely be another monoclonal antibody, called nirsevimab (Beyfortus, AstraZeneca and Sanofi). It is approved in Europe but not yet approved in the United States as I prepare this column. Nirsevimab may be even better than palivizumab – based on phase 3 trial data – and a single injection lasts through an entire normal RSV season while palivizumab requires monthly injections.

Similar to the situation with RSV, the flu season started earlier than usual in fall 2022 and has been picking up steam, likely also because of immunity debt. The WHO estimates that annual epidemics of influenza cause 1 billion infections, 3 million to 5 million severe cases, and 300,000-500,000 deaths. Seasonal flu vaccines provide modest protection. Current flu vaccine formulations consist of the hemagglutinin (H) and neuraminidase (N) proteins but those proteins change sufficiently (called antigenic drift) such that production of the vaccines based on a best guess each year often is not correct for the influenza A or influenza B strains that circulate in a given year (antigenic mismatch).

Public health authorities have long worried about a major change in the composition of the H and N proteins of the influenza virus (called antigenic shift). Preparedness and response to the COVID-19 pandemic was based on preparedness and response to an anticipated influenza pandemic similar to the 1918 flu pandemic. For flu, new “universal” vaccines are in development. Among the candidate vaccines are mRNA vaccines, building on the success of the SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines (Science. 2022 Nov 24. doi: 10.1126/science.abm0271).
 

Dr. Pichichero is a specialist in pediatric infectious diseases, Center for Infectious Diseases and Immunology, and director of the Research Institute, at Rochester (N.Y.) General Hospital. He has no conflicts of interest to declare.

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.

Adding a clinical decision support system (CDSS) to team-based diabetes care only modestly improved patients’ cardiovascular risk factors over team-based care alone, a randomized trial in China showed.

The tool required clinicians to enter patient data into a computer in order to generate individualized treatment recommendations, adding to their administrative burdens. It also couldn’t tackle patients’ problems with access and affordability of medications.

Nevertheless, the model could curtail physician burnout and improve the quality of care in primary care clinics with limited resources, the researchers said in a paper published in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

They concluded that the findings support “widespread adoption” of the model in China and other low- or middle-income countries where diabetes is on the rise.

Co–principal investigator Jiang He, MD, PhD, chair of epidemiology at Tulane University, New Orleans, said the findings could apply to federally qualified health care (FQHC) clinics that treat underserved patients in the United States.

“At many FQHC clinics, nurse practitioners have to take care of patients with multiple chronic disease conditions. Team-based care with a computerized clinical decision support system will help them and improve patient care,” Dr. He said.
 

Small improvements

To conduct the trial, called Diabetes Complication Control in Community Clinics (D4C), Dr. He and colleagues randomly assigned 19 out of the 38 community health centers in Xiamen, China, to have a clinical decision support tool installed on the computers of primary care physicians and health coaches.

Starting in October 2016 the researchers recruited 11,132 patients aged 50 and older with uncontrolled diabetes and at least one comorbid condition, with 5,475 patients receiving team-based care with the CDSS and the remainder receiving team-based care alone.

The CDSS generated individualized risk factor summaries and treatment recommendations, including prescriptions based on Chinese and U.S. clinical guidelines. It incorporated data on patients’ insurance plans and local availability of drugs.

At all centers, primary care physicians received training in managing glycemia, blood pressure, and lipids. Nurses were certified as health coaches after receiving training on nutrition, lifestyle changes, and medication adherence. Patients met with their coaches for half an hour every 3 months, and diabetes specialists visited each clinic monthly for team meetings and consultations.

After 18 months, patients undergoing team-based care alone lowered their hemoglobin A1c by 0.6 percentage points (95% confidence interval, –0.7 to –0.5 percentage points), LDL cholesterol by 12.5 mg/dL (95% CI, –13.6 to –11.3 mg/dL), and systolic blood pressure by 7.5 mm Hg (95% CI, –8.4 to –6.6 mm Hg).

The group whose care teams used the CDSS further reduced A1c by 0.2 percentage points (95% CI, –0.3 to –0.1 percentage points), LDL cholesterol by 6.5 mg/dL (95% CI, –8.3 to -4.6 mg/dL), and blood pressure by 1.5 mm Hg (95% CI, –2.8 to –0.3 mm Hg).

All-cause mortality did not differ between the groups. Serious adverse events occurred in 9.1% of the CDSS group, compared with 10.9% of the group whose care team did not use the CDSS.
 

Addressing social needs

Experts who were not involved in the trial said the marginal impact of the CDSS was no surprise given the mixed results of such tools in previous studies.

However, the lackluster result “might be a shock to people investing a lot in clinical decision support,” said Elbert Huang, MD, MPH, director of the Center for Chronic Disease Research and Policy at the University of Chicago.

Anne Peters, MD, a professor of medicine at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said the administrative burden of entering each patient’s data into the system would slow down care and frustrate clinicians. “The system has to be smarter than this.”

On the other hand, the findings of the D4C trial align with other research showing that team-based care strategies are effective for diabetes management.

Dr. Huang noted that there is a “well-established history” of diabetes quality improvement programs, health coaches, buddy programs, and community health worker programs. He added that the new findings “might help to remind everyone of the importance of these programs, which are not always well supported.”

“The bottom line of the paper might be that investing in patient engagement programs might get us 90% of the way to our goal of improving diabetes care,” Dr. Huang said.

Still, Dr. Peters said the portion of patients in the trial who benefited from team-based care seemed “disturbingly low.” Just 16.9% of patients who received team-based care and CDSS and 13% of those who received team-based care alone improved in all three measures. “This system doesn’t get you to where you want to be by a long shot.”

She added that a team-based approach, particularly the use of health coaches, would be a “huge improvement” over fragmented care provided in much of the U.S. safety-net system.
 

Another team approach

Many systems are striving to improve diabetes management in response to payment incentives, Dr. Huang said.

In a separate retrospective analysis, published in Annals of Family Medicine, researchers at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., reported quality improvement gains among primary care practices that adopted a team-based model called Enhanced Primary Care Diabetes (EPCD). The model deployed a range of strategies, such as empowering nurses to engage with patients outside of scheduled office visits and including pharmacists on care teams.

Mayo’s approach did not specifically target underserved populations. Rather, researchers evaluated the model’s impact on about 17,000 patients treated at 32 Mayo internal medicine and family medicine practices of varying sizes, resources, and community settings.

Among staff clinician practices using the EPCD model improved patients’ scores on a composite quality measure called D5, which incorporates glycemic control, blood pressure control, low-density lipoprotein control, tobacco abstinence, and aspirin use.

Following implementation, the portion of patients in those practices meeting the D5 indicator increased from 42.9% to 45.0% (incident rate ratio, 1.005; P = .001).

Meanwhile, the portion of patients meeting the indicator increased from 38.9% to 42.0% (IRR, 1.011; P = .003) at resident physician practices that used the EPCD model and decreased from 36.2% to 35.5% (IRR, 0.994; P < .001) at staff clinician practices that did not use the model.

In contrast to the team-based approach used in China, the EPCD protocol “is very complex, and it will be difficult to implement in low-resource settings,” Dr. He said.

The D4C trial was funded by the Xiamen Municipal Health Commission. The Mayo study was funded by a National Institutes of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases grant. Dr. He, Dr. Peters, and Dr. Huang reported no relevant financial interests.

Adding a clinical decision support system (CDSS) to team-based diabetes care only modestly improved patients’ cardiovascular risk factors over team-based care alone, a randomized trial in China showed.

The tool required clinicians to enter patient data into a computer in order to generate individualized treatment recommendations, adding to their administrative burdens. It also couldn’t tackle patients’ problems with access and affordability of medications.

Nevertheless, the model could curtail physician burnout and improve the quality of care in primary care clinics with limited resources, the researchers said in a paper published in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

They concluded that the findings support “widespread adoption” of the model in China and other low- or middle-income countries where diabetes is on the rise.

Co–principal investigator Jiang He, MD, PhD, chair of epidemiology at Tulane University, New Orleans, said the findings could apply to federally qualified health care (FQHC) clinics that treat underserved patients in the United States.

“At many FQHC clinics, nurse practitioners have to take care of patients with multiple chronic disease conditions. Team-based care with a computerized clinical decision support system will help them and improve patient care,” Dr. He said.
 

Small improvements

To conduct the trial, called Diabetes Complication Control in Community Clinics (D4C), Dr. He and colleagues randomly assigned 19 out of the 38 community health centers in Xiamen, China, to have a clinical decision support tool installed on the computers of primary care physicians and health coaches.

Starting in October 2016 the researchers recruited 11,132 patients aged 50 and older with uncontrolled diabetes and at least one comorbid condition, with 5,475 patients receiving team-based care with the CDSS and the remainder receiving team-based care alone.

The CDSS generated individualized risk factor summaries and treatment recommendations, including prescriptions based on Chinese and U.S. clinical guidelines. It incorporated data on patients’ insurance plans and local availability of drugs.

At all centers, primary care physicians received training in managing glycemia, blood pressure, and lipids. Nurses were certified as health coaches after receiving training on nutrition, lifestyle changes, and medication adherence. Patients met with their coaches for half an hour every 3 months, and diabetes specialists visited each clinic monthly for team meetings and consultations.

After 18 months, patients undergoing team-based care alone lowered their hemoglobin A1c by 0.6 percentage points (95% confidence interval, –0.7 to –0.5 percentage points), LDL cholesterol by 12.5 mg/dL (95% CI, –13.6 to –11.3 mg/dL), and systolic blood pressure by 7.5 mm Hg (95% CI, –8.4 to –6.6 mm Hg).

The group whose care teams used the CDSS further reduced A1c by 0.2 percentage points (95% CI, –0.3 to –0.1 percentage points), LDL cholesterol by 6.5 mg/dL (95% CI, –8.3 to -4.6 mg/dL), and blood pressure by 1.5 mm Hg (95% CI, –2.8 to –0.3 mm Hg).

All-cause mortality did not differ between the groups. Serious adverse events occurred in 9.1% of the CDSS group, compared with 10.9% of the group whose care team did not use the CDSS.
 

Addressing social needs

Experts who were not involved in the trial said the marginal impact of the CDSS was no surprise given the mixed results of such tools in previous studies.

However, the lackluster result “might be a shock to people investing a lot in clinical decision support,” said Elbert Huang, MD, MPH, director of the Center for Chronic Disease Research and Policy at the University of Chicago.

Anne Peters, MD, a professor of medicine at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said the administrative burden of entering each patient’s data into the system would slow down care and frustrate clinicians. “The system has to be smarter than this.”

On the other hand, the findings of the D4C trial align with other research showing that team-based care strategies are effective for diabetes management.

Dr. Huang noted that there is a “well-established history” of diabetes quality improvement programs, health coaches, buddy programs, and community health worker programs. He added that the new findings “might help to remind everyone of the importance of these programs, which are not always well supported.”

“The bottom line of the paper might be that investing in patient engagement programs might get us 90% of the way to our goal of improving diabetes care,” Dr. Huang said.

Still, Dr. Peters said the portion of patients in the trial who benefited from team-based care seemed “disturbingly low.” Just 16.9% of patients who received team-based care and CDSS and 13% of those who received team-based care alone improved in all three measures. “This system doesn’t get you to where you want to be by a long shot.”

She added that a team-based approach, particularly the use of health coaches, would be a “huge improvement” over fragmented care provided in much of the U.S. safety-net system.
 

Another team approach

Many systems are striving to improve diabetes management in response to payment incentives, Dr. Huang said.

In a separate retrospective analysis, published in Annals of Family Medicine, researchers at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., reported quality improvement gains among primary care practices that adopted a team-based model called Enhanced Primary Care Diabetes (EPCD). The model deployed a range of strategies, such as empowering nurses to engage with patients outside of scheduled office visits and including pharmacists on care teams.

Mayo’s approach did not specifically target underserved populations. Rather, researchers evaluated the model’s impact on about 17,000 patients treated at 32 Mayo internal medicine and family medicine practices of varying sizes, resources, and community settings.

Among staff clinician practices using the EPCD model improved patients’ scores on a composite quality measure called D5, which incorporates glycemic control, blood pressure control, low-density lipoprotein control, tobacco abstinence, and aspirin use.

Following implementation, the portion of patients in those practices meeting the D5 indicator increased from 42.9% to 45.0% (incident rate ratio, 1.005; P = .001).

Meanwhile, the portion of patients meeting the indicator increased from 38.9% to 42.0% (IRR, 1.011; P = .003) at resident physician practices that used the EPCD model and decreased from 36.2% to 35.5% (IRR, 0.994; P < .001) at staff clinician practices that did not use the model.

In contrast to the team-based approach used in China, the EPCD protocol “is very complex, and it will be difficult to implement in low-resource settings,” Dr. He said.

The D4C trial was funded by the Xiamen Municipal Health Commission. The Mayo study was funded by a National Institutes of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases grant. Dr. He, Dr. Peters, and Dr. Huang reported no relevant financial interests.

Adding a clinical decision support system (CDSS) to team-based diabetes care only modestly improved patients’ cardiovascular risk factors over team-based care alone, a randomized trial in China showed.

The tool required clinicians to enter patient data into a computer in order to generate individualized treatment recommendations, adding to their administrative burdens. It also couldn’t tackle patients’ problems with access and affordability of medications.

Nevertheless, the model could curtail physician burnout and improve the quality of care in primary care clinics with limited resources, the researchers said in a paper published in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

They concluded that the findings support “widespread adoption” of the model in China and other low- or middle-income countries where diabetes is on the rise.

Co–principal investigator Jiang He, MD, PhD, chair of epidemiology at Tulane University, New Orleans, said the findings could apply to federally qualified health care (FQHC) clinics that treat underserved patients in the United States.

“At many FQHC clinics, nurse practitioners have to take care of patients with multiple chronic disease conditions. Team-based care with a computerized clinical decision support system will help them and improve patient care,” Dr. He said.
 

Small improvements

To conduct the trial, called Diabetes Complication Control in Community Clinics (D4C), Dr. He and colleagues randomly assigned 19 out of the 38 community health centers in Xiamen, China, to have a clinical decision support tool installed on the computers of primary care physicians and health coaches.

Starting in October 2016 the researchers recruited 11,132 patients aged 50 and older with uncontrolled diabetes and at least one comorbid condition, with 5,475 patients receiving team-based care with the CDSS and the remainder receiving team-based care alone.

The CDSS generated individualized risk factor summaries and treatment recommendations, including prescriptions based on Chinese and U.S. clinical guidelines. It incorporated data on patients’ insurance plans and local availability of drugs.

At all centers, primary care physicians received training in managing glycemia, blood pressure, and lipids. Nurses were certified as health coaches after receiving training on nutrition, lifestyle changes, and medication adherence. Patients met with their coaches for half an hour every 3 months, and diabetes specialists visited each clinic monthly for team meetings and consultations.

After 18 months, patients undergoing team-based care alone lowered their hemoglobin A1c by 0.6 percentage points (95% confidence interval, –0.7 to –0.5 percentage points), LDL cholesterol by 12.5 mg/dL (95% CI, –13.6 to –11.3 mg/dL), and systolic blood pressure by 7.5 mm Hg (95% CI, –8.4 to –6.6 mm Hg).

The group whose care teams used the CDSS further reduced A1c by 0.2 percentage points (95% CI, –0.3 to –0.1 percentage points), LDL cholesterol by 6.5 mg/dL (95% CI, –8.3 to -4.6 mg/dL), and blood pressure by 1.5 mm Hg (95% CI, –2.8 to –0.3 mm Hg).

All-cause mortality did not differ between the groups. Serious adverse events occurred in 9.1% of the CDSS group, compared with 10.9% of the group whose care team did not use the CDSS.
 

Addressing social needs

Experts who were not involved in the trial said the marginal impact of the CDSS was no surprise given the mixed results of such tools in previous studies.

However, the lackluster result “might be a shock to people investing a lot in clinical decision support,” said Elbert Huang, MD, MPH, director of the Center for Chronic Disease Research and Policy at the University of Chicago.

Anne Peters, MD, a professor of medicine at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said the administrative burden of entering each patient’s data into the system would slow down care and frustrate clinicians. “The system has to be smarter than this.”

On the other hand, the findings of the D4C trial align with other research showing that team-based care strategies are effective for diabetes management.

Dr. Huang noted that there is a “well-established history” of diabetes quality improvement programs, health coaches, buddy programs, and community health worker programs. He added that the new findings “might help to remind everyone of the importance of these programs, which are not always well supported.”

“The bottom line of the paper might be that investing in patient engagement programs might get us 90% of the way to our goal of improving diabetes care,” Dr. Huang said.

Still, Dr. Peters said the portion of patients in the trial who benefited from team-based care seemed “disturbingly low.” Just 16.9% of patients who received team-based care and CDSS and 13% of those who received team-based care alone improved in all three measures. “This system doesn’t get you to where you want to be by a long shot.”

She added that a team-based approach, particularly the use of health coaches, would be a “huge improvement” over fragmented care provided in much of the U.S. safety-net system.
 

Another team approach

Many systems are striving to improve diabetes management in response to payment incentives, Dr. Huang said.

In a separate retrospective analysis, published in Annals of Family Medicine, researchers at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., reported quality improvement gains among primary care practices that adopted a team-based model called Enhanced Primary Care Diabetes (EPCD). The model deployed a range of strategies, such as empowering nurses to engage with patients outside of scheduled office visits and including pharmacists on care teams.

Mayo’s approach did not specifically target underserved populations. Rather, researchers evaluated the model’s impact on about 17,000 patients treated at 32 Mayo internal medicine and family medicine practices of varying sizes, resources, and community settings.

Among staff clinician practices using the EPCD model improved patients’ scores on a composite quality measure called D5, which incorporates glycemic control, blood pressure control, low-density lipoprotein control, tobacco abstinence, and aspirin use.

Following implementation, the portion of patients in those practices meeting the D5 indicator increased from 42.9% to 45.0% (incident rate ratio, 1.005; P = .001).

Meanwhile, the portion of patients meeting the indicator increased from 38.9% to 42.0% (IRR, 1.011; P = .003) at resident physician practices that used the EPCD model and decreased from 36.2% to 35.5% (IRR, 0.994; P < .001) at staff clinician practices that did not use the model.

In contrast to the team-based approach used in China, the EPCD protocol “is very complex, and it will be difficult to implement in low-resource settings,” Dr. He said.

The D4C trial was funded by the Xiamen Municipal Health Commission. The Mayo study was funded by a National Institutes of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases grant. Dr. He, Dr. Peters, and Dr. Huang reported no relevant financial interests.

A randomized trial indicating that surgical masks are not inferior to N95 masks in protecting health care workers against COVID-19 has sparked international criticism.

The study’s senior author is John Conly, MD, an infectious disease specialist and professor at the University of Calgary (Alta.), and Alberta Health Services. The findings are not consistent with those of many other studies on this topic.

Commenting about Dr. Conly’s study, Eric Topol, MD, editor-in-chief of Medscape, wrote: “It’s woefully underpowered but ruled out a doubling of hazard for use of medical masks.”

The study, which was partially funded by the World Health Organization, was published online in Annals of Internal Medicine.

This is not the first time that Dr. Conly, who also advises the WHO, has been the subject of controversy. He previously denied that COVID-19 is airborne – a position that is contradicted by strong evidence. In 2021, Dr. Conly made headlines with his controversial claim that N95 respirators can cause harms, including oxygen depletion and carbon dioxide retention.

A detailed examination by the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy (CIDRAP) at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, pointed out numerous scientific flaws in the study, including inconsistent use of both types of masks. The study also examined health care workers in four very different countries (Canada, Israel, Egypt, and Pakistan) during different periods of the pandemic, which may have affected the results. Furthermore, the study did not account for vaccination status and lacked a control group. CIDRAP receives funding from 3M, which makes N95 respirators.

In a commentary published alongside the study, Roger Chou, MD, professor of medicine at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, said that the results were “not definitive,” with “a generous noninferiority threshold” that is actually “consistent with up to a relative 70% increased risk ... which may be unacceptable to many health workers.”

Lead study author Mark Loeb, MD, professor of infectious diseases at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., defended the findings. “The confidence intervals around this, that is, what the possible results could be if the trial was repeated many times, range from −2.5% to 4.9%,” he told this news organization. “This means that the risk of a COVID-19 infection in those using the medical masks could have ranged from anywhere from 2.5% reduction in risk to a 4.9% increase in risk. Readers and policy makers can decide for themselves about this.”

“There is no point continuing to run underpowered, poorly designed studies that are designed to confirm existing biases,” Raina MacIntyre, PhD, professor of global biosecurity and head of the Biosecurity Program at the Kirby Institute, Sydney, said in an interview. “The new study in Annals of Internal Medicine is entirely consistent with our finding that to prevent infection, you need an N95, and it needs to be worn throughout the whole shift. A surgical mask and intermittent use of N95 are equally ineffective. This should not surprise anyone, given a surgical mask is not designed as respiratory protection but is designed to prevent splash or spray of liquid on the face. Only a respirator is designed as respiratory protection through both the seal around the face and the filter of the face piece to prevent inhalation of virus laden aerosols, but you need to wear it continually in a high-risk environment like a hospital.”

“It makes zero sense to do a randomized trial on something you can measure directly,” said Kimberly Prather, PhD, an atmospheric chemist, professor, and director of the NSF Center for Aerosol Impacts on Chemistry of the Environment at the University of California, San Diego. “In fact, many studies have shown aerosols leaking out of surgical masks. Surgical masks are designed to block large spray droplets. Aerosols (0.5-3 mcm), which have been shown to contain infectious SARS-CoV-2 virus, travel with the air flow, and escape.”

“This study ... will be used to justify policies of supplying health care workers, and perhaps patients and visitors, too, with inadequate protection,” Trish Greenhalgh, MD, professor of primary care health sciences at the University of Oxford (England), told this news organization.

“These authors have been pushing back against treating COVID as airborne for 3 years,” David Fisman, MD, an epidemiologist and infectious disease specialist at the University of Toronto, said in an interview. “So, you’ll see these folks brandishing this very flawed trial to justify continuing the infection control practices that have been so disastrous throughout the pandemic.”

The study was funded by the World Health Organization, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, and the Juravinski Research Institute. Dr. Conly reported receiving grants from the Canadian Institutes for Health Research, Pfizer, and the WHO. Dr. Chou disclosed being a methodologist for WHO guidelines on infection prevention and control measures for COVID-19. Dr. Loeb disclosed payment for expert testimony on personal protective equipment from the government of Manitoba and the Peel District School Board. Dr. MacIntyre has led a large body of research on masks and respirators in health workers, including four randomized clinical trials. She is the author of a book, “Dark Winter: An insider’s guide to pandemics and biosecurity” (Syndey: NewSouth Publishing, 2022), which covers the history and politics of the controversies around N95 and masks. Dr. Prather reported no disclosures. Dr. Greenhalgh is a member of Independent SAGE and an unpaid adviser to the philanthropic fund Balvi. Dr. Fisman has served as a paid legal expert for the Ontario Nurses’ Association in their challenge to Directive 5, which restricted access to N95 masks in health care. He also served as a paid legal expert for the Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario in its efforts to make schools safer in Ontario.

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

A randomized trial indicating that surgical masks are not inferior to N95 masks in protecting health care workers against COVID-19 has sparked international criticism.

The study’s senior author is John Conly, MD, an infectious disease specialist and professor at the University of Calgary (Alta.), and Alberta Health Services. The findings are not consistent with those of many other studies on this topic.

Commenting about Dr. Conly’s study, Eric Topol, MD, editor-in-chief of Medscape, wrote: “It’s woefully underpowered but ruled out a doubling of hazard for use of medical masks.”

The study, which was partially funded by the World Health Organization, was published online in Annals of Internal Medicine.

This is not the first time that Dr. Conly, who also advises the WHO, has been the subject of controversy. He previously denied that COVID-19 is airborne – a position that is contradicted by strong evidence. In 2021, Dr. Conly made headlines with his controversial claim that N95 respirators can cause harms, including oxygen depletion and carbon dioxide retention.

A detailed examination by the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy (CIDRAP) at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, pointed out numerous scientific flaws in the study, including inconsistent use of both types of masks. The study also examined health care workers in four very different countries (Canada, Israel, Egypt, and Pakistan) during different periods of the pandemic, which may have affected the results. Furthermore, the study did not account for vaccination status and lacked a control group. CIDRAP receives funding from 3M, which makes N95 respirators.

In a commentary published alongside the study, Roger Chou, MD, professor of medicine at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, said that the results were “not definitive,” with “a generous noninferiority threshold” that is actually “consistent with up to a relative 70% increased risk ... which may be unacceptable to many health workers.”

Lead study author Mark Loeb, MD, professor of infectious diseases at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., defended the findings. “The confidence intervals around this, that is, what the possible results could be if the trial was repeated many times, range from −2.5% to 4.9%,” he told this news organization. “This means that the risk of a COVID-19 infection in those using the medical masks could have ranged from anywhere from 2.5% reduction in risk to a 4.9% increase in risk. Readers and policy makers can decide for themselves about this.”

“There is no point continuing to run underpowered, poorly designed studies that are designed to confirm existing biases,” Raina MacIntyre, PhD, professor of global biosecurity and head of the Biosecurity Program at the Kirby Institute, Sydney, said in an interview. “The new study in Annals of Internal Medicine is entirely consistent with our finding that to prevent infection, you need an N95, and it needs to be worn throughout the whole shift. A surgical mask and intermittent use of N95 are equally ineffective. This should not surprise anyone, given a surgical mask is not designed as respiratory protection but is designed to prevent splash or spray of liquid on the face. Only a respirator is designed as respiratory protection through both the seal around the face and the filter of the face piece to prevent inhalation of virus laden aerosols, but you need to wear it continually in a high-risk environment like a hospital.”

“It makes zero sense to do a randomized trial on something you can measure directly,” said Kimberly Prather, PhD, an atmospheric chemist, professor, and director of the NSF Center for Aerosol Impacts on Chemistry of the Environment at the University of California, San Diego. “In fact, many studies have shown aerosols leaking out of surgical masks. Surgical masks are designed to block large spray droplets. Aerosols (0.5-3 mcm), which have been shown to contain infectious SARS-CoV-2 virus, travel with the air flow, and escape.”

“This study ... will be used to justify policies of supplying health care workers, and perhaps patients and visitors, too, with inadequate protection,” Trish Greenhalgh, MD, professor of primary care health sciences at the University of Oxford (England), told this news organization.

“These authors have been pushing back against treating COVID as airborne for 3 years,” David Fisman, MD, an epidemiologist and infectious disease specialist at the University of Toronto, said in an interview. “So, you’ll see these folks brandishing this very flawed trial to justify continuing the infection control practices that have been so disastrous throughout the pandemic.”

The study was funded by the World Health Organization, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, and the Juravinski Research Institute. Dr. Conly reported receiving grants from the Canadian Institutes for Health Research, Pfizer, and the WHO. Dr. Chou disclosed being a methodologist for WHO guidelines on infection prevention and control measures for COVID-19. Dr. Loeb disclosed payment for expert testimony on personal protective equipment from the government of Manitoba and the Peel District School Board. Dr. MacIntyre has led a large body of research on masks and respirators in health workers, including four randomized clinical trials. She is the author of a book, “Dark Winter: An insider’s guide to pandemics and biosecurity” (Syndey: NewSouth Publishing, 2022), which covers the history and politics of the controversies around N95 and masks. Dr. Prather reported no disclosures. Dr. Greenhalgh is a member of Independent SAGE and an unpaid adviser to the philanthropic fund Balvi. Dr. Fisman has served as a paid legal expert for the Ontario Nurses’ Association in their challenge to Directive 5, which restricted access to N95 masks in health care. He also served as a paid legal expert for the Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario in its efforts to make schools safer in Ontario.

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

A randomized trial indicating that surgical masks are not inferior to N95 masks in protecting health care workers against COVID-19 has sparked international criticism.

The study’s senior author is John Conly, MD, an infectious disease specialist and professor at the University of Calgary (Alta.), and Alberta Health Services. The findings are not consistent with those of many other studies on this topic.

Commenting about Dr. Conly’s study, Eric Topol, MD, editor-in-chief of Medscape, wrote: “It’s woefully underpowered but ruled out a doubling of hazard for use of medical masks.”

The study, which was partially funded by the World Health Organization, was published online in Annals of Internal Medicine.

This is not the first time that Dr. Conly, who also advises the WHO, has been the subject of controversy. He previously denied that COVID-19 is airborne – a position that is contradicted by strong evidence. In 2021, Dr. Conly made headlines with his controversial claim that N95 respirators can cause harms, including oxygen depletion and carbon dioxide retention.

A detailed examination by the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy (CIDRAP) at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, pointed out numerous scientific flaws in the study, including inconsistent use of both types of masks. The study also examined health care workers in four very different countries (Canada, Israel, Egypt, and Pakistan) during different periods of the pandemic, which may have affected the results. Furthermore, the study did not account for vaccination status and lacked a control group. CIDRAP receives funding from 3M, which makes N95 respirators.

In a commentary published alongside the study, Roger Chou, MD, professor of medicine at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, said that the results were “not definitive,” with “a generous noninferiority threshold” that is actually “consistent with up to a relative 70% increased risk ... which may be unacceptable to many health workers.”

Lead study author Mark Loeb, MD, professor of infectious diseases at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., defended the findings. “The confidence intervals around this, that is, what the possible results could be if the trial was repeated many times, range from −2.5% to 4.9%,” he told this news organization. “This means that the risk of a COVID-19 infection in those using the medical masks could have ranged from anywhere from 2.5% reduction in risk to a 4.9% increase in risk. Readers and policy makers can decide for themselves about this.”

“There is no point continuing to run underpowered, poorly designed studies that are designed to confirm existing biases,” Raina MacIntyre, PhD, professor of global biosecurity and head of the Biosecurity Program at the Kirby Institute, Sydney, said in an interview. “The new study in Annals of Internal Medicine is entirely consistent with our finding that to prevent infection, you need an N95, and it needs to be worn throughout the whole shift. A surgical mask and intermittent use of N95 are equally ineffective. This should not surprise anyone, given a surgical mask is not designed as respiratory protection but is designed to prevent splash or spray of liquid on the face. Only a respirator is designed as respiratory protection through both the seal around the face and the filter of the face piece to prevent inhalation of virus laden aerosols, but you need to wear it continually in a high-risk environment like a hospital.”

“It makes zero sense to do a randomized trial on something you can measure directly,” said Kimberly Prather, PhD, an atmospheric chemist, professor, and director of the NSF Center for Aerosol Impacts on Chemistry of the Environment at the University of California, San Diego. “In fact, many studies have shown aerosols leaking out of surgical masks. Surgical masks are designed to block large spray droplets. Aerosols (0.5-3 mcm), which have been shown to contain infectious SARS-CoV-2 virus, travel with the air flow, and escape.”

“This study ... will be used to justify policies of supplying health care workers, and perhaps patients and visitors, too, with inadequate protection,” Trish Greenhalgh, MD, professor of primary care health sciences at the University of Oxford (England), told this news organization.

“These authors have been pushing back against treating COVID as airborne for 3 years,” David Fisman, MD, an epidemiologist and infectious disease specialist at the University of Toronto, said in an interview. “So, you’ll see these folks brandishing this very flawed trial to justify continuing the infection control practices that have been so disastrous throughout the pandemic.”

The study was funded by the World Health Organization, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, and the Juravinski Research Institute. Dr. Conly reported receiving grants from the Canadian Institutes for Health Research, Pfizer, and the WHO. Dr. Chou disclosed being a methodologist for WHO guidelines on infection prevention and control measures for COVID-19. Dr. Loeb disclosed payment for expert testimony on personal protective equipment from the government of Manitoba and the Peel District School Board. Dr. MacIntyre has led a large body of research on masks and respirators in health workers, including four randomized clinical trials. She is the author of a book, “Dark Winter: An insider’s guide to pandemics and biosecurity” (Syndey: NewSouth Publishing, 2022), which covers the history and politics of the controversies around N95 and masks. Dr. Prather reported no disclosures. Dr. Greenhalgh is a member of Independent SAGE and an unpaid adviser to the philanthropic fund Balvi. Dr. Fisman has served as a paid legal expert for the Ontario Nurses’ Association in their challenge to Directive 5, which restricted access to N95 masks in health care. He also served as a paid legal expert for the Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario in its efforts to make schools safer in Ontario.

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

Jackie Dishner hasn’t been the same since June 2020, when COVID-19 robbed her of her energy level, ability to think clearly, and sense of taste and smell. Yet at 58, the Arizona writer is in no hurry to get the latest vaccine booster. “I just don’t want to risk getting any sicker,” she said.

Ms. Dishner has had two doses of vaccine plus two boosters. Each time, she had what regulators consider to be mild reactions, including a sore arm, slight fever, nausea, and body aches. Still, there’s some evidence that the newest booster, which protects against some of the later variants, could help people like Ms. Dishner in several ways, said Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, a clinical epidemiologist and prolific long COVID researcher at Washington University in St. Louis.

“A bivalent booster might actually [help with] your long COVID,” he said.

There may be other benefits. “What vaccines or current vaccine boosters do is reduce your risk of progression to severe COVID-19 illness,” Dr. Al-Aly said. “You are avoiding hospital stays or even worse; you’re avoiding potentially fatal outcomes after infection. And that’s really worth it. Who wants to be in the hospital this Christmas holiday?”

Each time people are infected with SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, they have a fresh risk of not only getting severely ill or dying, but of developing long COVID, Dr. Al-Aly and colleagues found in a study published in Nature Medicine. “If you dodged the bullet the first time and did not get long COVID after the first infection, if you get reinfected, you’re trying your luck again,” Dr. Al-Aly said. “I would advise people not to get reinfected, which is another reason to get the booster.” 

In a recent review in The Lancet eClinicalMedicine, an international team of researchers looked at 11 studies that sought to find out if vaccines affected long COVID symptoms. Seven of those studies found that people’s symptoms improved after they were vaccinated, and four found that symptoms mostly remained the same. One found symptoms got worse in some patients. 

A study of 28,000 people published in the British Medical Journal found more evidence that vaccination may help ease symptoms. “Vaccination may contribute to a reduction in the population health burden of long COVID,” the team at the United Kingdom’s Office for National Statistics concluded. Most studies found vaccination reduced the risk of getting long COVID in the first place.

Vaccines prompt the body to produce antibodies, which stop a microbe from infecting cells. They also prompt the production of immune cells called T cells, which continue to hunt down and attack a pathogen even after infection.

A booster dose could help rev up that immune response in a patient with long COVID, said Stephen J. Thomas, MD, an infectious disease specialist at Upstate Medical Center in Syracuse, N.Y., and the center’s lead principal investigator for Pfizer/BioNTech’s COVID-19 2020 vaccine trial.

Some scientists believe long COVID might be caused when the virus persists in parts of the body where the immune system isn’t particularly active. Although they don’t fully understand the workings of the many and varied long COVID symptoms, they have a good idea about why people with long COVID often do better after receiving a vaccine or booster.

“The theory is that by boosting, the immune system may be able to ‘mop up’ those virus stragglers that have remained behind after your first cleanup attempt,” Dr. Thomas said.

“The vaccine is almost lending a hand or helping your immune response to clear that virus,” Dr. Al-Aly said.

It could be difficult for long COVID patients to make an informed decision about boosters, given the lack of studies that focus exclusively on the relationship between long COVID and boosters, according to Scott Roberts, MD, associate medical director for infection prevention at Yale New Haven (Conn.) Hospital. 

Dr. Roberts recommended that patients speak with their health care providers and read about the bivalent booster on trusted sites such as those sponsored by the Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Long COVID patients should get the latest boosters, especially as there’s no evidence they are unsafe for them. “The antibody response is appropriately boosted, and there is a decent chance this will help reduce the impact of long COVID as well,” he said. “Waiting will only increase the risk of getting infected and increase the chances of long COVID.”

Only 12% of Americans 5 years and older have received the updated booster, according to the CDC, although it’s recommended for everyone. Just over 80% of Americans have gotten at least one vaccine dose. Dr. Thomas understands why the uptake has been so low: Along with people like Ms. Dishner, who fear more side effects or worse symptoms, there are those who believe that hybrid immunity – vaccination immunity plus natural infection – is superior to vaccination alone and that they don’t need a booster.

Studies show that the bivalent boosters, which protect against older and newer variants, can target even the new, predominant COVID-19 strains. Whether that is enough to convince people in the no-booster camp who lost faith when their vaccinated peers started getting COVID-19 is unclear, although, as Dr. Al-Aly has pointed out, vaccinations help keep people from getting so sick that they wind up in the hospital. And, with most of the population having received at least one dose of vaccine, most of those getting infected will naturally come from among the vaccinated.

Thomas describes the expectation that vaccines would prevent everyone from getting sick as “one of the major fails” of the pandemic.

Counting on a vaccine to confer 100% immunity is “a very high bar,” he said. “I think that’s what people expected, and when they weren’t seeing it, they kind of said: ‘Well, what’s the point? You know, things are getting better. I’d rather take my chances than keep going and getting boosted.’ ”

One point – and it’s a critical one – is that vaccination immunity wanes. Plus new variants arise that can evade at least some of the immunity provided by vaccination. That’s why boosters are built into the COVID vaccination program.

While it’s not clear why some long COVID patients see improvements in their symptoms after being vaccinated or boosted and others do not, Dr. Al-Aly said there’s little evidence vaccines can make long COVID worse. “There are some reports out there that some people with long COVID, when they got a vaccine or booster, their symptoms got worse. You’ll read anecdotes on this side,” he said, adding that efforts to see if this is really happening have been inconclusive.

“The general consensus is that vaccines really save lives,” Dr. Al-Aly said. “Getting vaccinated, even if you are a long COVID patient, is better than not getting vaccinated.”

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

Jackie Dishner hasn’t been the same since June 2020, when COVID-19 robbed her of her energy level, ability to think clearly, and sense of taste and smell. Yet at 58, the Arizona writer is in no hurry to get the latest vaccine booster. “I just don’t want to risk getting any sicker,” she said.

Ms. Dishner has had two doses of vaccine plus two boosters. Each time, she had what regulators consider to be mild reactions, including a sore arm, slight fever, nausea, and body aches. Still, there’s some evidence that the newest booster, which protects against some of the later variants, could help people like Ms. Dishner in several ways, said Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, a clinical epidemiologist and prolific long COVID researcher at Washington University in St. Louis.

“A bivalent booster might actually [help with] your long COVID,” he said.

There may be other benefits. “What vaccines or current vaccine boosters do is reduce your risk of progression to severe COVID-19 illness,” Dr. Al-Aly said. “You are avoiding hospital stays or even worse; you’re avoiding potentially fatal outcomes after infection. And that’s really worth it. Who wants to be in the hospital this Christmas holiday?”

Each time people are infected with SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, they have a fresh risk of not only getting severely ill or dying, but of developing long COVID, Dr. Al-Aly and colleagues found in a study published in Nature Medicine. “If you dodged the bullet the first time and did not get long COVID after the first infection, if you get reinfected, you’re trying your luck again,” Dr. Al-Aly said. “I would advise people not to get reinfected, which is another reason to get the booster.” 

In a recent review in The Lancet eClinicalMedicine, an international team of researchers looked at 11 studies that sought to find out if vaccines affected long COVID symptoms. Seven of those studies found that people’s symptoms improved after they were vaccinated, and four found that symptoms mostly remained the same. One found symptoms got worse in some patients. 

A study of 28,000 people published in the British Medical Journal found more evidence that vaccination may help ease symptoms. “Vaccination may contribute to a reduction in the population health burden of long COVID,” the team at the United Kingdom’s Office for National Statistics concluded. Most studies found vaccination reduced the risk of getting long COVID in the first place.

Vaccines prompt the body to produce antibodies, which stop a microbe from infecting cells. They also prompt the production of immune cells called T cells, which continue to hunt down and attack a pathogen even after infection.

A booster dose could help rev up that immune response in a patient with long COVID, said Stephen J. Thomas, MD, an infectious disease specialist at Upstate Medical Center in Syracuse, N.Y., and the center’s lead principal investigator for Pfizer/BioNTech’s COVID-19 2020 vaccine trial.

Some scientists believe long COVID might be caused when the virus persists in parts of the body where the immune system isn’t particularly active. Although they don’t fully understand the workings of the many and varied long COVID symptoms, they have a good idea about why people with long COVID often do better after receiving a vaccine or booster.

“The theory is that by boosting, the immune system may be able to ‘mop up’ those virus stragglers that have remained behind after your first cleanup attempt,” Dr. Thomas said.

“The vaccine is almost lending a hand or helping your immune response to clear that virus,” Dr. Al-Aly said.

It could be difficult for long COVID patients to make an informed decision about boosters, given the lack of studies that focus exclusively on the relationship between long COVID and boosters, according to Scott Roberts, MD, associate medical director for infection prevention at Yale New Haven (Conn.) Hospital. 

Dr. Roberts recommended that patients speak with their health care providers and read about the bivalent booster on trusted sites such as those sponsored by the Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Long COVID patients should get the latest boosters, especially as there’s no evidence they are unsafe for them. “The antibody response is appropriately boosted, and there is a decent chance this will help reduce the impact of long COVID as well,” he said. “Waiting will only increase the risk of getting infected and increase the chances of long COVID.”

Only 12% of Americans 5 years and older have received the updated booster, according to the CDC, although it’s recommended for everyone. Just over 80% of Americans have gotten at least one vaccine dose. Dr. Thomas understands why the uptake has been so low: Along with people like Ms. Dishner, who fear more side effects or worse symptoms, there are those who believe that hybrid immunity – vaccination immunity plus natural infection – is superior to vaccination alone and that they don’t need a booster.

Studies show that the bivalent boosters, which protect against older and newer variants, can target even the new, predominant COVID-19 strains. Whether that is enough to convince people in the no-booster camp who lost faith when their vaccinated peers started getting COVID-19 is unclear, although, as Dr. Al-Aly has pointed out, vaccinations help keep people from getting so sick that they wind up in the hospital. And, with most of the population having received at least one dose of vaccine, most of those getting infected will naturally come from among the vaccinated.

Thomas describes the expectation that vaccines would prevent everyone from getting sick as “one of the major fails” of the pandemic.

Counting on a vaccine to confer 100% immunity is “a very high bar,” he said. “I think that’s what people expected, and when they weren’t seeing it, they kind of said: ‘Well, what’s the point? You know, things are getting better. I’d rather take my chances than keep going and getting boosted.’ ”

One point – and it’s a critical one – is that vaccination immunity wanes. Plus new variants arise that can evade at least some of the immunity provided by vaccination. That’s why boosters are built into the COVID vaccination program.

While it’s not clear why some long COVID patients see improvements in their symptoms after being vaccinated or boosted and others do not, Dr. Al-Aly said there’s little evidence vaccines can make long COVID worse. “There are some reports out there that some people with long COVID, when they got a vaccine or booster, their symptoms got worse. You’ll read anecdotes on this side,” he said, adding that efforts to see if this is really happening have been inconclusive.

“The general consensus is that vaccines really save lives,” Dr. Al-Aly said. “Getting vaccinated, even if you are a long COVID patient, is better than not getting vaccinated.”

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

Jackie Dishner hasn’t been the same since June 2020, when COVID-19 robbed her of her energy level, ability to think clearly, and sense of taste and smell. Yet at 58, the Arizona writer is in no hurry to get the latest vaccine booster. “I just don’t want to risk getting any sicker,” she said.

Ms. Dishner has had two doses of vaccine plus two boosters. Each time, she had what regulators consider to be mild reactions, including a sore arm, slight fever, nausea, and body aches. Still, there’s some evidence that the newest booster, which protects against some of the later variants, could help people like Ms. Dishner in several ways, said Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, a clinical epidemiologist and prolific long COVID researcher at Washington University in St. Louis.

“A bivalent booster might actually [help with] your long COVID,” he said.

There may be other benefits. “What vaccines or current vaccine boosters do is reduce your risk of progression to severe COVID-19 illness,” Dr. Al-Aly said. “You are avoiding hospital stays or even worse; you’re avoiding potentially fatal outcomes after infection. And that’s really worth it. Who wants to be in the hospital this Christmas holiday?”

Each time people are infected with SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, they have a fresh risk of not only getting severely ill or dying, but of developing long COVID, Dr. Al-Aly and colleagues found in a study published in Nature Medicine. “If you dodged the bullet the first time and did not get long COVID after the first infection, if you get reinfected, you’re trying your luck again,” Dr. Al-Aly said. “I would advise people not to get reinfected, which is another reason to get the booster.” 

In a recent review in The Lancet eClinicalMedicine, an international team of researchers looked at 11 studies that sought to find out if vaccines affected long COVID symptoms. Seven of those studies found that people’s symptoms improved after they were vaccinated, and four found that symptoms mostly remained the same. One found symptoms got worse in some patients. 

A study of 28,000 people published in the British Medical Journal found more evidence that vaccination may help ease symptoms. “Vaccination may contribute to a reduction in the population health burden of long COVID,” the team at the United Kingdom’s Office for National Statistics concluded. Most studies found vaccination reduced the risk of getting long COVID in the first place.

Vaccines prompt the body to produce antibodies, which stop a microbe from infecting cells. They also prompt the production of immune cells called T cells, which continue to hunt down and attack a pathogen even after infection.

A booster dose could help rev up that immune response in a patient with long COVID, said Stephen J. Thomas, MD, an infectious disease specialist at Upstate Medical Center in Syracuse, N.Y., and the center’s lead principal investigator for Pfizer/BioNTech’s COVID-19 2020 vaccine trial.

Some scientists believe long COVID might be caused when the virus persists in parts of the body where the immune system isn’t particularly active. Although they don’t fully understand the workings of the many and varied long COVID symptoms, they have a good idea about why people with long COVID often do better after receiving a vaccine or booster.

“The theory is that by boosting, the immune system may be able to ‘mop up’ those virus stragglers that have remained behind after your first cleanup attempt,” Dr. Thomas said.

“The vaccine is almost lending a hand or helping your immune response to clear that virus,” Dr. Al-Aly said.

It could be difficult for long COVID patients to make an informed decision about boosters, given the lack of studies that focus exclusively on the relationship between long COVID and boosters, according to Scott Roberts, MD, associate medical director for infection prevention at Yale New Haven (Conn.) Hospital. 

Dr. Roberts recommended that patients speak with their health care providers and read about the bivalent booster on trusted sites such as those sponsored by the Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Long COVID patients should get the latest boosters, especially as there’s no evidence they are unsafe for them. “The antibody response is appropriately boosted, and there is a decent chance this will help reduce the impact of long COVID as well,” he said. “Waiting will only increase the risk of getting infected and increase the chances of long COVID.”

Only 12% of Americans 5 years and older have received the updated booster, according to the CDC, although it’s recommended for everyone. Just over 80% of Americans have gotten at least one vaccine dose. Dr. Thomas understands why the uptake has been so low: Along with people like Ms. Dishner, who fear more side effects or worse symptoms, there are those who believe that hybrid immunity – vaccination immunity plus natural infection – is superior to vaccination alone and that they don’t need a booster.

Studies show that the bivalent boosters, which protect against older and newer variants, can target even the new, predominant COVID-19 strains. Whether that is enough to convince people in the no-booster camp who lost faith when their vaccinated peers started getting COVID-19 is unclear, although, as Dr. Al-Aly has pointed out, vaccinations help keep people from getting so sick that they wind up in the hospital. And, with most of the population having received at least one dose of vaccine, most of those getting infected will naturally come from among the vaccinated.

Thomas describes the expectation that vaccines would prevent everyone from getting sick as “one of the major fails” of the pandemic.

Counting on a vaccine to confer 100% immunity is “a very high bar,” he said. “I think that’s what people expected, and when they weren’t seeing it, they kind of said: ‘Well, what’s the point? You know, things are getting better. I’d rather take my chances than keep going and getting boosted.’ ”

One point – and it’s a critical one – is that vaccination immunity wanes. Plus new variants arise that can evade at least some of the immunity provided by vaccination. That’s why boosters are built into the COVID vaccination program.

While it’s not clear why some long COVID patients see improvements in their symptoms after being vaccinated or boosted and others do not, Dr. Al-Aly said there’s little evidence vaccines can make long COVID worse. “There are some reports out there that some people with long COVID, when they got a vaccine or booster, their symptoms got worse. You’ll read anecdotes on this side,” he said, adding that efforts to see if this is really happening have been inconclusive.

“The general consensus is that vaccines really save lives,” Dr. Al-Aly said. “Getting vaccinated, even if you are a long COVID patient, is better than not getting vaccinated.”

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

Eric Andrew Salata, MD, a 54-year-old internist based in Naples, Florida, made headlines 2 weeks ago when he was arrested by local police and charged with sexual battery on two of his patients, according to a police statement.

A week later, a Collier County Sheriff’s deputy found Dr. Salata’s body near his Naples home with a gunshot wound to the head, according to police. The medical examiner later ruled it a suicide.

Dr. Salata co-owned Pura Vida Medical Spa in Naples with his wife Jill Salata, a certified family nurse practitioner. They specialized in cosmetic treatment and surgery.

Naples police said that they arrested Dr. Salata after two female patients accused the doctor of allegedly drugging and raping them while they were still unconscious.

Both victims described being given nitrous oxide, also called laughing gas, for sedation and pain from the cosmetic procedure. The first victim, age 51, said Dr. Salata prescribed alprazolam (Xanax) to take before the procedure and then also gave her nitrous oxide and tequila, causing her to black out, according to NBC2 News.

The second victim, age 72, told police that as the nitrous oxide was wearing off, she found Dr. Salata performing sexual intercourse. The victim felt shocked after the sedation subsided about what had taken place, contacted police, and submitted to a sexual assault examination, according to the police statement.

At Dr. Salata’s November 22 hearing before Judge Michael Provost, a prosecutor asked the judge whether Dr. Salata should surrender his firearms; Provost reportedly dismissed the idea.

“It is disappointing and frustrating that Dr. Salata has escaped justice,” said one victim’s attorney, Adam Horowitz, in a blog post. “Yet, we are relieved that no other women will be assaulted by Dr. Salata again. It took tremendous courage for my client to tell her truth. She was ready to hold him accountable in court.”

Horowitz says he plans to file a civil lawsuit on behalf of his client against Dr. Salata’s estate. The Naples police are continuing their investigation into the victims’ cases, which now includes a third woman, said spokesman Lt. Bryan McGinn.

Meanwhile, the Pura Vida Medical Spa has closed permanently and its website has been deleted. One reviewer named Soul F. wrote on the spa’s Yelp page: “And now may God have mercy on this rapist’s soul. Amen.”

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

Eric Andrew Salata, MD, a 54-year-old internist based in Naples, Florida, made headlines 2 weeks ago when he was arrested by local police and charged with sexual battery on two of his patients, according to a police statement.

A week later, a Collier County Sheriff’s deputy found Dr. Salata’s body near his Naples home with a gunshot wound to the head, according to police. The medical examiner later ruled it a suicide.

Dr. Salata co-owned Pura Vida Medical Spa in Naples with his wife Jill Salata, a certified family nurse practitioner. They specialized in cosmetic treatment and surgery.

Naples police said that they arrested Dr. Salata after two female patients accused the doctor of allegedly drugging and raping them while they were still unconscious.

Both victims described being given nitrous oxide, also called laughing gas, for sedation and pain from the cosmetic procedure. The first victim, age 51, said Dr. Salata prescribed alprazolam (Xanax) to take before the procedure and then also gave her nitrous oxide and tequila, causing her to black out, according to NBC2 News.

The second victim, age 72, told police that as the nitrous oxide was wearing off, she found Dr. Salata performing sexual intercourse. The victim felt shocked after the sedation subsided about what had taken place, contacted police, and submitted to a sexual assault examination, according to the police statement.

At Dr. Salata’s November 22 hearing before Judge Michael Provost, a prosecutor asked the judge whether Dr. Salata should surrender his firearms; Provost reportedly dismissed the idea.

“It is disappointing and frustrating that Dr. Salata has escaped justice,” said one victim’s attorney, Adam Horowitz, in a blog post. “Yet, we are relieved that no other women will be assaulted by Dr. Salata again. It took tremendous courage for my client to tell her truth. She was ready to hold him accountable in court.”

Horowitz says he plans to file a civil lawsuit on behalf of his client against Dr. Salata’s estate. The Naples police are continuing their investigation into the victims’ cases, which now includes a third woman, said spokesman Lt. Bryan McGinn.

Meanwhile, the Pura Vida Medical Spa has closed permanently and its website has been deleted. One reviewer named Soul F. wrote on the spa’s Yelp page: “And now may God have mercy on this rapist’s soul. Amen.”

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

Eric Andrew Salata, MD, a 54-year-old internist based in Naples, Florida, made headlines 2 weeks ago when he was arrested by local police and charged with sexual battery on two of his patients, according to a police statement.

A week later, a Collier County Sheriff’s deputy found Dr. Salata’s body near his Naples home with a gunshot wound to the head, according to police. The medical examiner later ruled it a suicide.

Dr. Salata co-owned Pura Vida Medical Spa in Naples with his wife Jill Salata, a certified family nurse practitioner. They specialized in cosmetic treatment and surgery.

Naples police said that they arrested Dr. Salata after two female patients accused the doctor of allegedly drugging and raping them while they were still unconscious.

Both victims described being given nitrous oxide, also called laughing gas, for sedation and pain from the cosmetic procedure. The first victim, age 51, said Dr. Salata prescribed alprazolam (Xanax) to take before the procedure and then also gave her nitrous oxide and tequila, causing her to black out, according to NBC2 News.

The second victim, age 72, told police that as the nitrous oxide was wearing off, she found Dr. Salata performing sexual intercourse. The victim felt shocked after the sedation subsided about what had taken place, contacted police, and submitted to a sexual assault examination, according to the police statement.

At Dr. Salata’s November 22 hearing before Judge Michael Provost, a prosecutor asked the judge whether Dr. Salata should surrender his firearms; Provost reportedly dismissed the idea.

“It is disappointing and frustrating that Dr. Salata has escaped justice,” said one victim’s attorney, Adam Horowitz, in a blog post. “Yet, we are relieved that no other women will be assaulted by Dr. Salata again. It took tremendous courage for my client to tell her truth. She was ready to hold him accountable in court.”

Horowitz says he plans to file a civil lawsuit on behalf of his client against Dr. Salata’s estate. The Naples police are continuing their investigation into the victims’ cases, which now includes a third woman, said spokesman Lt. Bryan McGinn.

Meanwhile, the Pura Vida Medical Spa has closed permanently and its website has been deleted. One reviewer named Soul F. wrote on the spa’s Yelp page: “And now may God have mercy on this rapist’s soul. Amen.”

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.