MDedge Pediatrics

A final report from the multinational placebo-controlled ACTT-1 trial confirms that remdesivir is effective and well tolerated for shortening the time to recovery from COVID-19 infection.

In May 2020, remdesivir received Food and Drug Administration approval for emergency treatment of severe COVID-19 on the basis of a preliminary report on this trial. In August 2020, the FDA expanded the indication to include all hospitalized adult and pediatric patients with suspected or laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 infection irrespective of severity.

“Our findings were consistent with the findings of the preliminary report: a 10-day course of remdesivir was superior to placebo in the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19,” reported a team of investigators led by John H. Beigel, MD, of the Division of Microbiology and Infectious Diseases at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The drug’s broadened indication was not based on the ACTT-1 trial, according to Dr. Beigel. “Other data have demonstrated that remdesivir shortens recovery in patients with lower acuity. In our study, evidence of pneumonia was an enrollment requirement,” he explained in an interview.

In the newly published final ACTT-1 data, the median time to recovery was 10 days for those on active therapy versus 15 days for those randomized to placebo. With a rate ratio of 1.29 (P less than .001), this translated to a recovery that was about one third faster.

In this final report, remdesivir’s significant advantage over placebo regarding the trial’s primary endpoint was reinforced by efficacy on multiple secondary endpoints.

This benefits on multiple secondary endpoints included a 50% greater odds ratio (OR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.2-1.9) of significant clinical improvement by day 15 after adjustment for baseline severity, a shorter initial length of hospital stay (12 vs. 17 days) and fewer days on oxygen supplementation (13 vs. 21 days) for the subgroup of patients on oxygen at enrollment.

Although the numerically lower mortality in the remdesivir arm (6.75 vs. 11.9%) did not reach statistical significance, Dr. Beigel said, “mortality was moving in the same direction as the other key endpoints.”

According to the study investigators, the types of rates of adverse events on remdesivir, which inhibits viral replication, “were generally similar in the remdesivir and placebo groups.”

In ACTT-1, 1,062 patients were randomized to remdesivir (200 mg loading dose followed by 100 mg daily for up to 9 days) or placebo. Patients were enrolled at study sites in North America, Europe, and Asia.

The data of ACTT-1 confirm a benefit from remdesivir in hospitalized COVID-19 patients with severe disease, but Dr. Beigel said he agrees with the current FDA indication that supports treatment in any hospitalized COVID-19 patient.

“We saw bigger benefits in patients with more severe infections. The benefits are not as large in patients with mild disease, but I think remdesivir should be considered in any hospitalized patient,” Dr. Beigel said.

This point of view is shared.

“I would give this drug to anyone in the hospital infected with COVID-19 assuming there was an ample supply and no need for rationing,” said Donna E. Sweet, MD, professor of internal medicine, University of Kansas, Wichita. She noted that this study has implications for hospital and hospital staff, as well as for patients.

“This type of reduction in recovery time means a reduction in potential exposures to hospital staff, a reduced need for PPE [personal protective equipment], and it will free up beds in the ICU [intensive care unit],” said Dr. Sweet, who also serves as an editorial advisory board member for Internal Medicine News.

An infectious disease specialist at the University of Minnesota also considers remdesivir to have an important role for conserving resources that deserves emphasis.

The reduction in time to recovery “is of benefit to the health system by maintaining hospital bed capacity,” said David R. Boulware, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.

According to his reading of the available data, including those from ACTT-1, the benefit appears to be greatest in those with a moderate degree of illness, which he defined as “sick enough to be hospitalized and require oxygen, yet not severely sick [and] requiring a ventilator or [extracorporeal membrane oxygenation].”

This does not preclude a benefit in those with more severe or milder disease, but patients with mild disease “are likely to recover regardless – or despite – whatever therapy they receive,” he said.

Dr. Beigel, the principal investigator of this trial, reports no potential conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Beigel JH et al. N Engl J Med. 2020 Oct 8. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2007764.

A final report from the multinational placebo-controlled ACTT-1 trial confirms that remdesivir is effective and well tolerated for shortening the time to recovery from COVID-19 infection.

In May 2020, remdesivir received Food and Drug Administration approval for emergency treatment of severe COVID-19 on the basis of a preliminary report on this trial. In August 2020, the FDA expanded the indication to include all hospitalized adult and pediatric patients with suspected or laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 infection irrespective of severity.

“Our findings were consistent with the findings of the preliminary report: a 10-day course of remdesivir was superior to placebo in the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19,” reported a team of investigators led by John H. Beigel, MD, of the Division of Microbiology and Infectious Diseases at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The drug’s broadened indication was not based on the ACTT-1 trial, according to Dr. Beigel. “Other data have demonstrated that remdesivir shortens recovery in patients with lower acuity. In our study, evidence of pneumonia was an enrollment requirement,” he explained in an interview.

In the newly published final ACTT-1 data, the median time to recovery was 10 days for those on active therapy versus 15 days for those randomized to placebo. With a rate ratio of 1.29 (P less than .001), this translated to a recovery that was about one third faster.

In this final report, remdesivir’s significant advantage over placebo regarding the trial’s primary endpoint was reinforced by efficacy on multiple secondary endpoints.

This benefits on multiple secondary endpoints included a 50% greater odds ratio (OR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.2-1.9) of significant clinical improvement by day 15 after adjustment for baseline severity, a shorter initial length of hospital stay (12 vs. 17 days) and fewer days on oxygen supplementation (13 vs. 21 days) for the subgroup of patients on oxygen at enrollment.

Although the numerically lower mortality in the remdesivir arm (6.75 vs. 11.9%) did not reach statistical significance, Dr. Beigel said, “mortality was moving in the same direction as the other key endpoints.”

According to the study investigators, the types of rates of adverse events on remdesivir, which inhibits viral replication, “were generally similar in the remdesivir and placebo groups.”

In ACTT-1, 1,062 patients were randomized to remdesivir (200 mg loading dose followed by 100 mg daily for up to 9 days) or placebo. Patients were enrolled at study sites in North America, Europe, and Asia.

The data of ACTT-1 confirm a benefit from remdesivir in hospitalized COVID-19 patients with severe disease, but Dr. Beigel said he agrees with the current FDA indication that supports treatment in any hospitalized COVID-19 patient.

“We saw bigger benefits in patients with more severe infections. The benefits are not as large in patients with mild disease, but I think remdesivir should be considered in any hospitalized patient,” Dr. Beigel said.

This point of view is shared.

“I would give this drug to anyone in the hospital infected with COVID-19 assuming there was an ample supply and no need for rationing,” said Donna E. Sweet, MD, professor of internal medicine, University of Kansas, Wichita. She noted that this study has implications for hospital and hospital staff, as well as for patients.

“This type of reduction in recovery time means a reduction in potential exposures to hospital staff, a reduced need for PPE [personal protective equipment], and it will free up beds in the ICU [intensive care unit],” said Dr. Sweet, who also serves as an editorial advisory board member for Internal Medicine News.

An infectious disease specialist at the University of Minnesota also considers remdesivir to have an important role for conserving resources that deserves emphasis.

The reduction in time to recovery “is of benefit to the health system by maintaining hospital bed capacity,” said David R. Boulware, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.

According to his reading of the available data, including those from ACTT-1, the benefit appears to be greatest in those with a moderate degree of illness, which he defined as “sick enough to be hospitalized and require oxygen, yet not severely sick [and] requiring a ventilator or [extracorporeal membrane oxygenation].”

This does not preclude a benefit in those with more severe or milder disease, but patients with mild disease “are likely to recover regardless – or despite – whatever therapy they receive,” he said.

Dr. Beigel, the principal investigator of this trial, reports no potential conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Beigel JH et al. N Engl J Med. 2020 Oct 8. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2007764.

A final report from the multinational placebo-controlled ACTT-1 trial confirms that remdesivir is effective and well tolerated for shortening the time to recovery from COVID-19 infection.

In May 2020, remdesivir received Food and Drug Administration approval for emergency treatment of severe COVID-19 on the basis of a preliminary report on this trial. In August 2020, the FDA expanded the indication to include all hospitalized adult and pediatric patients with suspected or laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 infection irrespective of severity.

“Our findings were consistent with the findings of the preliminary report: a 10-day course of remdesivir was superior to placebo in the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19,” reported a team of investigators led by John H. Beigel, MD, of the Division of Microbiology and Infectious Diseases at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The drug’s broadened indication was not based on the ACTT-1 trial, according to Dr. Beigel. “Other data have demonstrated that remdesivir shortens recovery in patients with lower acuity. In our study, evidence of pneumonia was an enrollment requirement,” he explained in an interview.

In the newly published final ACTT-1 data, the median time to recovery was 10 days for those on active therapy versus 15 days for those randomized to placebo. With a rate ratio of 1.29 (P less than .001), this translated to a recovery that was about one third faster.

In this final report, remdesivir’s significant advantage over placebo regarding the trial’s primary endpoint was reinforced by efficacy on multiple secondary endpoints.

This benefits on multiple secondary endpoints included a 50% greater odds ratio (OR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.2-1.9) of significant clinical improvement by day 15 after adjustment for baseline severity, a shorter initial length of hospital stay (12 vs. 17 days) and fewer days on oxygen supplementation (13 vs. 21 days) for the subgroup of patients on oxygen at enrollment.

Although the numerically lower mortality in the remdesivir arm (6.75 vs. 11.9%) did not reach statistical significance, Dr. Beigel said, “mortality was moving in the same direction as the other key endpoints.”

According to the study investigators, the types of rates of adverse events on remdesivir, which inhibits viral replication, “were generally similar in the remdesivir and placebo groups.”

In ACTT-1, 1,062 patients were randomized to remdesivir (200 mg loading dose followed by 100 mg daily for up to 9 days) or placebo. Patients were enrolled at study sites in North America, Europe, and Asia.

The data of ACTT-1 confirm a benefit from remdesivir in hospitalized COVID-19 patients with severe disease, but Dr. Beigel said he agrees with the current FDA indication that supports treatment in any hospitalized COVID-19 patient.

“We saw bigger benefits in patients with more severe infections. The benefits are not as large in patients with mild disease, but I think remdesivir should be considered in any hospitalized patient,” Dr. Beigel said.

This point of view is shared.

“I would give this drug to anyone in the hospital infected with COVID-19 assuming there was an ample supply and no need for rationing,” said Donna E. Sweet, MD, professor of internal medicine, University of Kansas, Wichita. She noted that this study has implications for hospital and hospital staff, as well as for patients.

“This type of reduction in recovery time means a reduction in potential exposures to hospital staff, a reduced need for PPE [personal protective equipment], and it will free up beds in the ICU [intensive care unit],” said Dr. Sweet, who also serves as an editorial advisory board member for Internal Medicine News.

An infectious disease specialist at the University of Minnesota also considers remdesivir to have an important role for conserving resources that deserves emphasis.

The reduction in time to recovery “is of benefit to the health system by maintaining hospital bed capacity,” said David R. Boulware, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.

According to his reading of the available data, including those from ACTT-1, the benefit appears to be greatest in those with a moderate degree of illness, which he defined as “sick enough to be hospitalized and require oxygen, yet not severely sick [and] requiring a ventilator or [extracorporeal membrane oxygenation].”

This does not preclude a benefit in those with more severe or milder disease, but patients with mild disease “are likely to recover regardless – or despite – whatever therapy they receive,” he said.

Dr. Beigel, the principal investigator of this trial, reports no potential conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Beigel JH et al. N Engl J Med. 2020 Oct 8. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2007764.

Across the United States, an explosive growth in recreational facilities boasting trampolines coincides with alarming growth in trampoline-related injuries in children, including those to the spine, according to new research.

Among youths, the risk for trampoline park–related fractures is about three times higher than for home-based trampoline fractures, said study author Serena Freiman, MD, of Washington University, St. Louis.

Recreational sports facilities with trampolines “pose a public health hazard,” Dr. Freiman said during a presentation at the virtual American Academy of Pediatrics 2020 National Conference.

“There aren’t any set regulations for these parks, so the American Society for Testing and Materials released a set of standards, but only Michigan and Arizona enforced those,” Dr. Freiman explained.

“Hopefully, since we’re showing a significant increased risk of injuries, the federal government will enforce regulations throughout the United States,” she said in an interview.

The first trampoline park in the United States opened in 2004, Dr. Freiman said. By 2018, there were more than 800 recreational facilities with trampolines across the country. This rapid growth coincided with a 45% increase in ED visits for trampoline-related injuries, from 61,509 in 2014 to more than 89,000 in 2017.

“There’s been exponential growth since their founding,” she said, “and with that we’ve also seen an exponential growth in injuries, whereas home injuries [from trampolines] remained stable during that time period.”

To assess the rates of trampoline-related injuries, Dr. Freiman and colleague analyzed data from the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System (NEISS). They included all patients whose records include a code for trampoline injury and who presented to a hospital ED between 1998 and 2017. They compared home trampoline injuries with those sustained at recreational facilities.

During the study period, more than 1.37 million patients presented to the ED for trampoline-related injuries. Of those, 125,473 occurred at recreational facilities, and 1.22 million occurred at home. Injuries at trampoline parks increased 90-fold between 2004 and 2017 (0.04 per 10,000 ED visits in 2004 to 0.9 per 10,000 in 2017), with 69% of those injuries occurring between 2012 and 2017.

Home-based trampoline injuries dropped during the study period, from 2.8 per 10,000 ED visits in 2014 to 1.6 in 2017.

Patients injured at trampoline facilities tended to present at large hospitals, Dr. Freiman noted, likely because of these parks being located in more populated regions.

The type of injury differed between locations. Severe injuries, such as spine fractures, occurred three times as often at trampoline parks than at home (2.7% vs. 0.9%; P = .016).

Internal organ injuries occurred more frequently on home-based trampolines (20.1% vs. 2.3% ; P < .001), whereas strains and sprains were more common at trampoline parks (32% vs. 51%; P < .001).

“Since home trampolines are often off the ground, I would speculate that you’re more likely to hit the edge of the trampoline or fall from it,” she said, “whereas at recreational sports facilities, there are often multiple jumpers, and you’re not falling off ― you’re falling in general or colliding with other jumpers.”

The authors noted that lower-extremity fractures occurred more often in trampoline parks (35.6% home vs. 51.7% parks; P < .0001), and upper-extremity fractures were more prevalent from home trampolines (60.2% vs. 42.5%; P < .0001). Also, a larger proportion of trampoline park injuries occurred among adolescents and young adults aged 15-34 years in comparison with home-based injuries (28.2% vs. 13.6%). No race or gender differences were noted.

Dr. Freiman noted one possible study limitation. The NEISS data only included patients tagged as being injured on trampolines, so “it may be incomplete,” she said. “Also, anyone presenting to their personal physician or urgent care centers weren’t included, so there’s likely an underestimation of cases.

“We hope people gain a better understanding of risks associated with these facilities and dive further into research and [to] identify areas that can be improved within these facilities,” Dr. Freiman added.

To drive home the importance of caution, physicians should relay data about trampoline injuries to parents and children, said Amber Hardeman, MD, MPH, MBA, of Tulane University, New Orleans.

Because most injuries at trampoline parks occur among people aged 15-34 years, Dr. Hardeman said, babysitters or parents may also “be indulging as well” when they take their young charges there to jump.

“They need to understand how to set a good example and teach kids proper safety precautions, such as not jumping too close together or maybe not doing things like splits,” she said.

Dr. Hardeman said in an interview that “there’s a lot of truth” to the study’s conclusion that recreational sports facilities with trampolines pose a public health hazard. Additional research should focus on what types of safety measures trampoline parks may be taking. Such measures could include increased padding, hiring more staff, or placing firmer limits on how many people can jump in each area at a time.

“Some centers don’t have as much padding around as others, and some allow multiple children to jump in the same area at the same time,” she said. “What exact scenarios are kids encountering more so than being on a trampoline at home?

“Trampoline centers are exciting and fun, but they are a hazard, and the fact that such an aggregate population being impacted by increasing numbers shows it’s definitely an issue right now,” Dr. Hardeman added.

Dr. Freiman and Dr. Hardeman have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Across the United States, an explosive growth in recreational facilities boasting trampolines coincides with alarming growth in trampoline-related injuries in children, including those to the spine, according to new research.

Among youths, the risk for trampoline park–related fractures is about three times higher than for home-based trampoline fractures, said study author Serena Freiman, MD, of Washington University, St. Louis.

Recreational sports facilities with trampolines “pose a public health hazard,” Dr. Freiman said during a presentation at the virtual American Academy of Pediatrics 2020 National Conference.

“There aren’t any set regulations for these parks, so the American Society for Testing and Materials released a set of standards, but only Michigan and Arizona enforced those,” Dr. Freiman explained.

“Hopefully, since we’re showing a significant increased risk of injuries, the federal government will enforce regulations throughout the United States,” she said in an interview.

The first trampoline park in the United States opened in 2004, Dr. Freiman said. By 2018, there were more than 800 recreational facilities with trampolines across the country. This rapid growth coincided with a 45% increase in ED visits for trampoline-related injuries, from 61,509 in 2014 to more than 89,000 in 2017.

“There’s been exponential growth since their founding,” she said, “and with that we’ve also seen an exponential growth in injuries, whereas home injuries [from trampolines] remained stable during that time period.”

To assess the rates of trampoline-related injuries, Dr. Freiman and colleague analyzed data from the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System (NEISS). They included all patients whose records include a code for trampoline injury and who presented to a hospital ED between 1998 and 2017. They compared home trampoline injuries with those sustained at recreational facilities.

During the study period, more than 1.37 million patients presented to the ED for trampoline-related injuries. Of those, 125,473 occurred at recreational facilities, and 1.22 million occurred at home. Injuries at trampoline parks increased 90-fold between 2004 and 2017 (0.04 per 10,000 ED visits in 2004 to 0.9 per 10,000 in 2017), with 69% of those injuries occurring between 2012 and 2017.

Home-based trampoline injuries dropped during the study period, from 2.8 per 10,000 ED visits in 2014 to 1.6 in 2017.

Patients injured at trampoline facilities tended to present at large hospitals, Dr. Freiman noted, likely because of these parks being located in more populated regions.

The type of injury differed between locations. Severe injuries, such as spine fractures, occurred three times as often at trampoline parks than at home (2.7% vs. 0.9%; P = .016).

Internal organ injuries occurred more frequently on home-based trampolines (20.1% vs. 2.3% ; P < .001), whereas strains and sprains were more common at trampoline parks (32% vs. 51%; P < .001).

“Since home trampolines are often off the ground, I would speculate that you’re more likely to hit the edge of the trampoline or fall from it,” she said, “whereas at recreational sports facilities, there are often multiple jumpers, and you’re not falling off ― you’re falling in general or colliding with other jumpers.”

The authors noted that lower-extremity fractures occurred more often in trampoline parks (35.6% home vs. 51.7% parks; P < .0001), and upper-extremity fractures were more prevalent from home trampolines (60.2% vs. 42.5%; P < .0001). Also, a larger proportion of trampoline park injuries occurred among adolescents and young adults aged 15-34 years in comparison with home-based injuries (28.2% vs. 13.6%). No race or gender differences were noted.

Dr. Freiman noted one possible study limitation. The NEISS data only included patients tagged as being injured on trampolines, so “it may be incomplete,” she said. “Also, anyone presenting to their personal physician or urgent care centers weren’t included, so there’s likely an underestimation of cases.

“We hope people gain a better understanding of risks associated with these facilities and dive further into research and [to] identify areas that can be improved within these facilities,” Dr. Freiman added.

To drive home the importance of caution, physicians should relay data about trampoline injuries to parents and children, said Amber Hardeman, MD, MPH, MBA, of Tulane University, New Orleans.

Because most injuries at trampoline parks occur among people aged 15-34 years, Dr. Hardeman said, babysitters or parents may also “be indulging as well” when they take their young charges there to jump.

“They need to understand how to set a good example and teach kids proper safety precautions, such as not jumping too close together or maybe not doing things like splits,” she said.

Dr. Hardeman said in an interview that “there’s a lot of truth” to the study’s conclusion that recreational sports facilities with trampolines pose a public health hazard. Additional research should focus on what types of safety measures trampoline parks may be taking. Such measures could include increased padding, hiring more staff, or placing firmer limits on how many people can jump in each area at a time.

“Some centers don’t have as much padding around as others, and some allow multiple children to jump in the same area at the same time,” she said. “What exact scenarios are kids encountering more so than being on a trampoline at home?

“Trampoline centers are exciting and fun, but they are a hazard, and the fact that such an aggregate population being impacted by increasing numbers shows it’s definitely an issue right now,” Dr. Hardeman added.

Dr. Freiman and Dr. Hardeman have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Across the United States, an explosive growth in recreational facilities boasting trampolines coincides with alarming growth in trampoline-related injuries in children, including those to the spine, according to new research.

Among youths, the risk for trampoline park–related fractures is about three times higher than for home-based trampoline fractures, said study author Serena Freiman, MD, of Washington University, St. Louis.

Recreational sports facilities with trampolines “pose a public health hazard,” Dr. Freiman said during a presentation at the virtual American Academy of Pediatrics 2020 National Conference.

“There aren’t any set regulations for these parks, so the American Society for Testing and Materials released a set of standards, but only Michigan and Arizona enforced those,” Dr. Freiman explained.

“Hopefully, since we’re showing a significant increased risk of injuries, the federal government will enforce regulations throughout the United States,” she said in an interview.

The first trampoline park in the United States opened in 2004, Dr. Freiman said. By 2018, there were more than 800 recreational facilities with trampolines across the country. This rapid growth coincided with a 45% increase in ED visits for trampoline-related injuries, from 61,509 in 2014 to more than 89,000 in 2017.

“There’s been exponential growth since their founding,” she said, “and with that we’ve also seen an exponential growth in injuries, whereas home injuries [from trampolines] remained stable during that time period.”

To assess the rates of trampoline-related injuries, Dr. Freiman and colleague analyzed data from the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System (NEISS). They included all patients whose records include a code for trampoline injury and who presented to a hospital ED between 1998 and 2017. They compared home trampoline injuries with those sustained at recreational facilities.

During the study period, more than 1.37 million patients presented to the ED for trampoline-related injuries. Of those, 125,473 occurred at recreational facilities, and 1.22 million occurred at home. Injuries at trampoline parks increased 90-fold between 2004 and 2017 (0.04 per 10,000 ED visits in 2004 to 0.9 per 10,000 in 2017), with 69% of those injuries occurring between 2012 and 2017.

Home-based trampoline injuries dropped during the study period, from 2.8 per 10,000 ED visits in 2014 to 1.6 in 2017.

Patients injured at trampoline facilities tended to present at large hospitals, Dr. Freiman noted, likely because of these parks being located in more populated regions.

The type of injury differed between locations. Severe injuries, such as spine fractures, occurred three times as often at trampoline parks than at home (2.7% vs. 0.9%; P = .016).

Internal organ injuries occurred more frequently on home-based trampolines (20.1% vs. 2.3% ; P < .001), whereas strains and sprains were more common at trampoline parks (32% vs. 51%; P < .001).

“Since home trampolines are often off the ground, I would speculate that you’re more likely to hit the edge of the trampoline or fall from it,” she said, “whereas at recreational sports facilities, there are often multiple jumpers, and you’re not falling off ― you’re falling in general or colliding with other jumpers.”

The authors noted that lower-extremity fractures occurred more often in trampoline parks (35.6% home vs. 51.7% parks; P < .0001), and upper-extremity fractures were more prevalent from home trampolines (60.2% vs. 42.5%; P < .0001). Also, a larger proportion of trampoline park injuries occurred among adolescents and young adults aged 15-34 years in comparison with home-based injuries (28.2% vs. 13.6%). No race or gender differences were noted.

Dr. Freiman noted one possible study limitation. The NEISS data only included patients tagged as being injured on trampolines, so “it may be incomplete,” she said. “Also, anyone presenting to their personal physician or urgent care centers weren’t included, so there’s likely an underestimation of cases.

“We hope people gain a better understanding of risks associated with these facilities and dive further into research and [to] identify areas that can be improved within these facilities,” Dr. Freiman added.

To drive home the importance of caution, physicians should relay data about trampoline injuries to parents and children, said Amber Hardeman, MD, MPH, MBA, of Tulane University, New Orleans.

Because most injuries at trampoline parks occur among people aged 15-34 years, Dr. Hardeman said, babysitters or parents may also “be indulging as well” when they take their young charges there to jump.

“They need to understand how to set a good example and teach kids proper safety precautions, such as not jumping too close together or maybe not doing things like splits,” she said.

Dr. Hardeman said in an interview that “there’s a lot of truth” to the study’s conclusion that recreational sports facilities with trampolines pose a public health hazard. Additional research should focus on what types of safety measures trampoline parks may be taking. Such measures could include increased padding, hiring more staff, or placing firmer limits on how many people can jump in each area at a time.

“Some centers don’t have as much padding around as others, and some allow multiple children to jump in the same area at the same time,” she said. “What exact scenarios are kids encountering more so than being on a trampoline at home?

“Trampoline centers are exciting and fun, but they are a hazard, and the fact that such an aggregate population being impacted by increasing numbers shows it’s definitely an issue right now,” Dr. Hardeman added.

Dr. Freiman and Dr. Hardeman have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Concussions resulting from assaults and sports may not be entirely similar in children and youth, researchers report. For example, more than twice as many children who experience assault-related concussions report declines in school grades, compared with those with sports-related concussions.

The researchers also saw trends suggesting there are clinically meaningful differences between the groups in terms of longer periods before return to school, symptom resolution, and full physician clearance after injury. Patients with assault-related concussion were also less likely to be referred to specialists and to receive initial visio-vestibular testing.

The research, conducted over a 2-year period with 124 children and adolescents aged 8-18 years, stands out by focusing on lesser-understood outcomes of concussions related to assault, said study author Margaret Means, MD, of Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.

“From my standpoint as a pediatrician and training to be a pediatric neurologist, I want to make sure I come into each patient encounter with as much understanding as I can and to treat all the associated factors adequately,” Dr. Means said.

“It’s so important to recognize that one disease process, as we categorize it, such as concussion, doesn’t mean all your patients are going to have the same needs or outcomes,” Dr. Means said in an interview. “We focus a lot on sports-related concussion, and that’s very important, but unless we recognize [that] a child who presents to the emergency department after assault could have a concussion, they are much less likely to be screened for certain concussion aspects.”

The research was presented at the virtual American Academy of Pediatrics National Conference.

Dr. Means and her colleagues undertook a retrospective chart review comparing 62 patients with assault-related concussions to the same number with sports- and recreation-related concussion between 2012 and 2014.

Patients with assault-related concussion were more likely to be Black, publicly insured, and to initially present to the emergency department. Markedly fewer patients with assault-related concussions received visio-vestibular testing at their first visit, compared with sports concussion patients (25% vs. 75%; P < .001).

Although the total number of reported physical, cognitive, emotional, and sleep symptoms didn’t differ between the groups during their recovery period, patients with assault-related concussions reported drops in school grades more than twice as often as those youths with sports concussion (47% vs. 20%; P = .012).

“The decline in grades in this group suggests it takes longer for children to become asymptomatic from concussion related to an assault,” Dr. Means explained. “We need to investigate that further to hopefully address that difference and help kids to not experience that decline in grades.”

Clinically meaningful but not statistically significant differences were revealed in the rate of specialist referral for those with assault-related vs. sports-related concussions (53% vs. 40%; P = .086). Patients with assault-related concussions also tended to take longer to return to school than patients with sports-related concussions (11 days vs. 8 days; P = .252); to experience symptom resolution (13.5 days vs. 11.5 days; P = .389); and to receive full physician clearance (35 days vs. 24 days; P = .332).

“With a child experiencing interpersonal assault, obviously there are a lot of different factors that need to be addressed in terms of the emotional and physical response to the trauma,” Dr. Means said. “But in terms of to-dos – and I’d love for the medical community to recognize this more readily – maybe we could develop some type of screening tool for the population experiencing assault so we might be more aware they’ve also experienced concussion.

“As a clinician, it’s important to understand research like this so you see some nuances to how each patient experiences this,” she added, “and tailor your approach to them for the best treatment and outcomes.”

Carrie Esopenko, PhD, of Rutgers University in Newark, N.J., agreed with Dr. Means that focusing on youth concussions that are not the result of sports has been largely neglected.

“We haven’t really realized concussion is occurring more on a milder scale of abusive head injuries,” said Dr. Esopenko, who conducts research on intimate partner violence but wasn’t involved in the new study.

“Head injury is the key phrase in sports right now, and I think we’re just starting to realize how prevalent the issue is in interpersonal and intimate partner violence,” Dr. Esopenko said in an interview.

“Clinicians need to do a full concussion battery on kids coming in and be aware these symptoms can be treated similarly even if they’re from a different mechanism,” she added. “It’s still the same organ impacted. These kids are still struggling, even though they’re not injured on a sports field.”

Dr. Means and Dr. Esopenko have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Concussions resulting from assaults and sports may not be entirely similar in children and youth, researchers report. For example, more than twice as many children who experience assault-related concussions report declines in school grades, compared with those with sports-related concussions.

The researchers also saw trends suggesting there are clinically meaningful differences between the groups in terms of longer periods before return to school, symptom resolution, and full physician clearance after injury. Patients with assault-related concussion were also less likely to be referred to specialists and to receive initial visio-vestibular testing.

The research, conducted over a 2-year period with 124 children and adolescents aged 8-18 years, stands out by focusing on lesser-understood outcomes of concussions related to assault, said study author Margaret Means, MD, of Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.

“From my standpoint as a pediatrician and training to be a pediatric neurologist, I want to make sure I come into each patient encounter with as much understanding as I can and to treat all the associated factors adequately,” Dr. Means said.

“It’s so important to recognize that one disease process, as we categorize it, such as concussion, doesn’t mean all your patients are going to have the same needs or outcomes,” Dr. Means said in an interview. “We focus a lot on sports-related concussion, and that’s very important, but unless we recognize [that] a child who presents to the emergency department after assault could have a concussion, they are much less likely to be screened for certain concussion aspects.”

The research was presented at the virtual American Academy of Pediatrics National Conference.

Dr. Means and her colleagues undertook a retrospective chart review comparing 62 patients with assault-related concussions to the same number with sports- and recreation-related concussion between 2012 and 2014.

Patients with assault-related concussion were more likely to be Black, publicly insured, and to initially present to the emergency department. Markedly fewer patients with assault-related concussions received visio-vestibular testing at their first visit, compared with sports concussion patients (25% vs. 75%; P < .001).

Although the total number of reported physical, cognitive, emotional, and sleep symptoms didn’t differ between the groups during their recovery period, patients with assault-related concussions reported drops in school grades more than twice as often as those youths with sports concussion (47% vs. 20%; P = .012).

“The decline in grades in this group suggests it takes longer for children to become asymptomatic from concussion related to an assault,” Dr. Means explained. “We need to investigate that further to hopefully address that difference and help kids to not experience that decline in grades.”

Clinically meaningful but not statistically significant differences were revealed in the rate of specialist referral for those with assault-related vs. sports-related concussions (53% vs. 40%; P = .086). Patients with assault-related concussions also tended to take longer to return to school than patients with sports-related concussions (11 days vs. 8 days; P = .252); to experience symptom resolution (13.5 days vs. 11.5 days; P = .389); and to receive full physician clearance (35 days vs. 24 days; P = .332).

“With a child experiencing interpersonal assault, obviously there are a lot of different factors that need to be addressed in terms of the emotional and physical response to the trauma,” Dr. Means said. “But in terms of to-dos – and I’d love for the medical community to recognize this more readily – maybe we could develop some type of screening tool for the population experiencing assault so we might be more aware they’ve also experienced concussion.

“As a clinician, it’s important to understand research like this so you see some nuances to how each patient experiences this,” she added, “and tailor your approach to them for the best treatment and outcomes.”

Carrie Esopenko, PhD, of Rutgers University in Newark, N.J., agreed with Dr. Means that focusing on youth concussions that are not the result of sports has been largely neglected.

“We haven’t really realized concussion is occurring more on a milder scale of abusive head injuries,” said Dr. Esopenko, who conducts research on intimate partner violence but wasn’t involved in the new study.

“Head injury is the key phrase in sports right now, and I think we’re just starting to realize how prevalent the issue is in interpersonal and intimate partner violence,” Dr. Esopenko said in an interview.

“Clinicians need to do a full concussion battery on kids coming in and be aware these symptoms can be treated similarly even if they’re from a different mechanism,” she added. “It’s still the same organ impacted. These kids are still struggling, even though they’re not injured on a sports field.”

Dr. Means and Dr. Esopenko have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Concussions resulting from assaults and sports may not be entirely similar in children and youth, researchers report. For example, more than twice as many children who experience assault-related concussions report declines in school grades, compared with those with sports-related concussions.

The researchers also saw trends suggesting there are clinically meaningful differences between the groups in terms of longer periods before return to school, symptom resolution, and full physician clearance after injury. Patients with assault-related concussion were also less likely to be referred to specialists and to receive initial visio-vestibular testing.

The research, conducted over a 2-year period with 124 children and adolescents aged 8-18 years, stands out by focusing on lesser-understood outcomes of concussions related to assault, said study author Margaret Means, MD, of Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.

“From my standpoint as a pediatrician and training to be a pediatric neurologist, I want to make sure I come into each patient encounter with as much understanding as I can and to treat all the associated factors adequately,” Dr. Means said.

“It’s so important to recognize that one disease process, as we categorize it, such as concussion, doesn’t mean all your patients are going to have the same needs or outcomes,” Dr. Means said in an interview. “We focus a lot on sports-related concussion, and that’s very important, but unless we recognize [that] a child who presents to the emergency department after assault could have a concussion, they are much less likely to be screened for certain concussion aspects.”

The research was presented at the virtual American Academy of Pediatrics National Conference.

Dr. Means and her colleagues undertook a retrospective chart review comparing 62 patients with assault-related concussions to the same number with sports- and recreation-related concussion between 2012 and 2014.

Patients with assault-related concussion were more likely to be Black, publicly insured, and to initially present to the emergency department. Markedly fewer patients with assault-related concussions received visio-vestibular testing at their first visit, compared with sports concussion patients (25% vs. 75%; P < .001).

Although the total number of reported physical, cognitive, emotional, and sleep symptoms didn’t differ between the groups during their recovery period, patients with assault-related concussions reported drops in school grades more than twice as often as those youths with sports concussion (47% vs. 20%; P = .012).

“The decline in grades in this group suggests it takes longer for children to become asymptomatic from concussion related to an assault,” Dr. Means explained. “We need to investigate that further to hopefully address that difference and help kids to not experience that decline in grades.”

Clinically meaningful but not statistically significant differences were revealed in the rate of specialist referral for those with assault-related vs. sports-related concussions (53% vs. 40%; P = .086). Patients with assault-related concussions also tended to take longer to return to school than patients with sports-related concussions (11 days vs. 8 days; P = .252); to experience symptom resolution (13.5 days vs. 11.5 days; P = .389); and to receive full physician clearance (35 days vs. 24 days; P = .332).

“With a child experiencing interpersonal assault, obviously there are a lot of different factors that need to be addressed in terms of the emotional and physical response to the trauma,” Dr. Means said. “But in terms of to-dos – and I’d love for the medical community to recognize this more readily – maybe we could develop some type of screening tool for the population experiencing assault so we might be more aware they’ve also experienced concussion.

“As a clinician, it’s important to understand research like this so you see some nuances to how each patient experiences this,” she added, “and tailor your approach to them for the best treatment and outcomes.”

Carrie Esopenko, PhD, of Rutgers University in Newark, N.J., agreed with Dr. Means that focusing on youth concussions that are not the result of sports has been largely neglected.

“We haven’t really realized concussion is occurring more on a milder scale of abusive head injuries,” said Dr. Esopenko, who conducts research on intimate partner violence but wasn’t involved in the new study.

“Head injury is the key phrase in sports right now, and I think we’re just starting to realize how prevalent the issue is in interpersonal and intimate partner violence,” Dr. Esopenko said in an interview.

“Clinicians need to do a full concussion battery on kids coming in and be aware these symptoms can be treated similarly even if they’re from a different mechanism,” she added. “It’s still the same organ impacted. These kids are still struggling, even though they’re not injured on a sports field.”

Dr. Means and Dr. Esopenko have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Since joining the Food and Drug Administration in 1986, Janet Woodcock, MD, has built a reputation as a stalwart champion of patients and consumers, from helping to usher the approval of the first treatments for cystic fibrosis and multiple sclerosis during her tenure as director of the Office of Therapeutics Research and Review, to introducing the concept of risk management in the agency’s analysis of drug safety during her role as acting director of the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER).

During an online event on Oct. 9, Dr. Woodcock, who became CDER’s director in 2008, will receive a lifetime achievement award from the National Organization for Rare Disorders*. In this interview, she reflects on the CDER’s accomplishments in the field of rare diseases, from which she draws inspiration, and what it’s like to be overseeing the therapeutics component of Operation Warp Speed amid the COVID-19 pandemic.

Q: In what practical ways can physicians become advocates for patients and their families who are navigating life with a rare disease?

Dr. Woodcock: I advise people to get involved in the association or advocacy group for their rare disease. It’s empowering. They can share stories and information with others who have been suffering from the disease. Also, they would get information about what trials might be available. As for physicians themselves, they have a bewildering variety of jobs they’re supposed to do, so it’s hard to be good in any one of them. People with rare disease often suffer terribly because they don’t get diagnosed for 10 years even though they have classic symptoms of a particular disorder. If physicians have never seen it or never heard of it, they may not know how to treat it. It’s a huge problem.



Q: Who inspires you most in your work today?

Dr. Woodcock: The dedication of the staff at the FDA is unbelievable. When you look at responses to the Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey administered by the Office of Personnel Management, FDA workers consistently express a strong sense of mission and dedication. It’s out of the park, really. They have worked night and day during this pandemic. I’m inspired by everyone who works at the FDA and their incredible dedication to their work.

Q: In what ways do you cope with the pressure that comes with your line of work? Do you have a favorite hobby or that activity that helps keep you grounded?

Dr. Woodcock: I’m an avid gardener, so I have a garden with vegetables, fruits, and flowers, including a large orchid collection. I’m also a hiker and a physical fitness buff, so I feel like there isn’t enough time in the day for all of my hobbies. Formal hiking trails near me are very crowded now, so I’ve been hiking around my neighborhood, taking long walks and going up and down hills quickly. Last November, I went hiking in New Zealand with my daughter. We hiked the Milford Track, which is about 33 miles long. It goes from an inland lake, over a mountain pass, and to the Pacific Ocean. It was fun, with unbelievable scenery.



Q: What novel treatment developments in rare disorders are you most excited about in the next 5 years?

Dr. Woodcock: I think gene therapy will come into its own. I think that could be a game-changer for people with genetic mutations causing rare diseases, and even cancer. We’ll see. It takes the technology a long time to mature. There are also gene-directed therapies such as RNA inhibition. We’ve already approved a couple of products like that for rare diseases, including treatments for the cardiomyopathy and neuropathy associated with ATTR amyloidosis. As our knowledge of biology continues to grow, I think more of these diseases will be amenable to interventions.



Q: In May of 2020 you were asked to temporarily step aside from your post as director of CDER to work on Operation Warp Speed. Please describe what your role is in this effort to accelerate COVID-19 treatments.

Dr. Woodcock: I’m the lead on therapeutics. Operation Warp Speed is mainly focused on developing vaccines for COVID-19. In the meantime, people who don’t respond to vaccines are going to need therapeutics, such as the elderly, or those who refuse to take vaccines, or those who are immunosuppressed and can’t mount a response to a vaccine. If we can develop those therapeutics now, that would be good to get that populous vaccinated. The team identified what we thought were the five highest priority agents to work on, and we’re testing them. We have identified many more in a priority list. We have five master protocols running for different times in the disease, such as when you’re an outpatient, when you’re an inpatient, or when you’re in the ICU. The work is stressful, because we need these treatments as soon as possible, but we have a great team working on this. I feel like I’m making a contribution in this role, because I know people in industry and in the National Institutes of Health. I try to bring everyone together and get things done.

*Correction, 10/22/20: An earlier version of this article misstated the name of the National Organization for Rare Disorders.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

Since joining the Food and Drug Administration in 1986, Janet Woodcock, MD, has built a reputation as a stalwart champion of patients and consumers, from helping to usher the approval of the first treatments for cystic fibrosis and multiple sclerosis during her tenure as director of the Office of Therapeutics Research and Review, to introducing the concept of risk management in the agency’s analysis of drug safety during her role as acting director of the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER).

During an online event on Oct. 9, Dr. Woodcock, who became CDER’s director in 2008, will receive a lifetime achievement award from the National Organization for Rare Disorders*. In this interview, she reflects on the CDER’s accomplishments in the field of rare diseases, from which she draws inspiration, and what it’s like to be overseeing the therapeutics component of Operation Warp Speed amid the COVID-19 pandemic.

Q: In what practical ways can physicians become advocates for patients and their families who are navigating life with a rare disease?

Dr. Woodcock: I advise people to get involved in the association or advocacy group for their rare disease. It’s empowering. They can share stories and information with others who have been suffering from the disease. Also, they would get information about what trials might be available. As for physicians themselves, they have a bewildering variety of jobs they’re supposed to do, so it’s hard to be good in any one of them. People with rare disease often suffer terribly because they don’t get diagnosed for 10 years even though they have classic symptoms of a particular disorder. If physicians have never seen it or never heard of it, they may not know how to treat it. It’s a huge problem.



Q: Who inspires you most in your work today?

Dr. Woodcock: The dedication of the staff at the FDA is unbelievable. When you look at responses to the Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey administered by the Office of Personnel Management, FDA workers consistently express a strong sense of mission and dedication. It’s out of the park, really. They have worked night and day during this pandemic. I’m inspired by everyone who works at the FDA and their incredible dedication to their work.

Q: In what ways do you cope with the pressure that comes with your line of work? Do you have a favorite hobby or that activity that helps keep you grounded?

Dr. Woodcock: I’m an avid gardener, so I have a garden with vegetables, fruits, and flowers, including a large orchid collection. I’m also a hiker and a physical fitness buff, so I feel like there isn’t enough time in the day for all of my hobbies. Formal hiking trails near me are very crowded now, so I’ve been hiking around my neighborhood, taking long walks and going up and down hills quickly. Last November, I went hiking in New Zealand with my daughter. We hiked the Milford Track, which is about 33 miles long. It goes from an inland lake, over a mountain pass, and to the Pacific Ocean. It was fun, with unbelievable scenery.



Q: What novel treatment developments in rare disorders are you most excited about in the next 5 years?

Dr. Woodcock: I think gene therapy will come into its own. I think that could be a game-changer for people with genetic mutations causing rare diseases, and even cancer. We’ll see. It takes the technology a long time to mature. There are also gene-directed therapies such as RNA inhibition. We’ve already approved a couple of products like that for rare diseases, including treatments for the cardiomyopathy and neuropathy associated with ATTR amyloidosis. As our knowledge of biology continues to grow, I think more of these diseases will be amenable to interventions.



Q: In May of 2020 you were asked to temporarily step aside from your post as director of CDER to work on Operation Warp Speed. Please describe what your role is in this effort to accelerate COVID-19 treatments.

Dr. Woodcock: I’m the lead on therapeutics. Operation Warp Speed is mainly focused on developing vaccines for COVID-19. In the meantime, people who don’t respond to vaccines are going to need therapeutics, such as the elderly, or those who refuse to take vaccines, or those who are immunosuppressed and can’t mount a response to a vaccine. If we can develop those therapeutics now, that would be good to get that populous vaccinated. The team identified what we thought were the five highest priority agents to work on, and we’re testing them. We have identified many more in a priority list. We have five master protocols running for different times in the disease, such as when you’re an outpatient, when you’re an inpatient, or when you’re in the ICU. The work is stressful, because we need these treatments as soon as possible, but we have a great team working on this. I feel like I’m making a contribution in this role, because I know people in industry and in the National Institutes of Health. I try to bring everyone together and get things done.

*Correction, 10/22/20: An earlier version of this article misstated the name of the National Organization for Rare Disorders.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

Since joining the Food and Drug Administration in 1986, Janet Woodcock, MD, has built a reputation as a stalwart champion of patients and consumers, from helping to usher the approval of the first treatments for cystic fibrosis and multiple sclerosis during her tenure as director of the Office of Therapeutics Research and Review, to introducing the concept of risk management in the agency’s analysis of drug safety during her role as acting director of the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER).

During an online event on Oct. 9, Dr. Woodcock, who became CDER’s director in 2008, will receive a lifetime achievement award from the National Organization for Rare Disorders*. In this interview, she reflects on the CDER’s accomplishments in the field of rare diseases, from which she draws inspiration, and what it’s like to be overseeing the therapeutics component of Operation Warp Speed amid the COVID-19 pandemic.

Q: In what practical ways can physicians become advocates for patients and their families who are navigating life with a rare disease?

Dr. Woodcock: I advise people to get involved in the association or advocacy group for their rare disease. It’s empowering. They can share stories and information with others who have been suffering from the disease. Also, they would get information about what trials might be available. As for physicians themselves, they have a bewildering variety of jobs they’re supposed to do, so it’s hard to be good in any one of them. People with rare disease often suffer terribly because they don’t get diagnosed for 10 years even though they have classic symptoms of a particular disorder. If physicians have never seen it or never heard of it, they may not know how to treat it. It’s a huge problem.



Q: Who inspires you most in your work today?

Dr. Woodcock: The dedication of the staff at the FDA is unbelievable. When you look at responses to the Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey administered by the Office of Personnel Management, FDA workers consistently express a strong sense of mission and dedication. It’s out of the park, really. They have worked night and day during this pandemic. I’m inspired by everyone who works at the FDA and their incredible dedication to their work.

Q: In what ways do you cope with the pressure that comes with your line of work? Do you have a favorite hobby or that activity that helps keep you grounded?

Dr. Woodcock: I’m an avid gardener, so I have a garden with vegetables, fruits, and flowers, including a large orchid collection. I’m also a hiker and a physical fitness buff, so I feel like there isn’t enough time in the day for all of my hobbies. Formal hiking trails near me are very crowded now, so I’ve been hiking around my neighborhood, taking long walks and going up and down hills quickly. Last November, I went hiking in New Zealand with my daughter. We hiked the Milford Track, which is about 33 miles long. It goes from an inland lake, over a mountain pass, and to the Pacific Ocean. It was fun, with unbelievable scenery.



Q: What novel treatment developments in rare disorders are you most excited about in the next 5 years?

Dr. Woodcock: I think gene therapy will come into its own. I think that could be a game-changer for people with genetic mutations causing rare diseases, and even cancer. We’ll see. It takes the technology a long time to mature. There are also gene-directed therapies such as RNA inhibition. We’ve already approved a couple of products like that for rare diseases, including treatments for the cardiomyopathy and neuropathy associated with ATTR amyloidosis. As our knowledge of biology continues to grow, I think more of these diseases will be amenable to interventions.



Q: In May of 2020 you were asked to temporarily step aside from your post as director of CDER to work on Operation Warp Speed. Please describe what your role is in this effort to accelerate COVID-19 treatments.

Dr. Woodcock: I’m the lead on therapeutics. Operation Warp Speed is mainly focused on developing vaccines for COVID-19. In the meantime, people who don’t respond to vaccines are going to need therapeutics, such as the elderly, or those who refuse to take vaccines, or those who are immunosuppressed and can’t mount a response to a vaccine. If we can develop those therapeutics now, that would be good to get that populous vaccinated. The team identified what we thought were the five highest priority agents to work on, and we’re testing them. We have identified many more in a priority list. We have five master protocols running for different times in the disease, such as when you’re an outpatient, when you’re an inpatient, or when you’re in the ICU. The work is stressful, because we need these treatments as soon as possible, but we have a great team working on this. I feel like I’m making a contribution in this role, because I know people in industry and in the National Institutes of Health. I try to bring everyone together and get things done.

*Correction, 10/22/20: An earlier version of this article misstated the name of the National Organization for Rare Disorders.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

I previously wrote a column in which I discussed the possible relationship between television viewing and the risk of developing depression. In that column I mentioned that, while there is widespread suspicion that depression may have a genetic component, I was unaware of any strong evidence that this is the case. This week I encountered another study in the American Journal of Psychiatry that suggests that the environment in which a child is raised can play a significant role in whether he or she will develop depression.

Imagesbybarbara/E+

All of the children in the study had been born to families in which at least one biological parent had been diagnosed with major depression. There were nearly 700 full sibships and 2,600 half sibships studied. The researchers found that children who had been adopted away and raised in families that had been selected for having high-quality childrearing standards were significantly less likely to develop depression (23% for full siblings, 19% for half siblings) than their siblings who had remained in the home of their biological parents. It is interesting that this protective effect of the adoptive home “disappeared when an adoptive parent or stepsibling had major depression or the adoptive home was disrupted by parental death or divorce.”

It is unlikely that this study ever will be replicated because of the unique manner in which these Swedish adoptions were managed and recorded. However, the results appear to make a strong statement that, at least when it comes to depression, nurture has at least as strong an effect as nature and probably even more of an influence than genetics.

Are you surprised by the results of this study? Or, like me, have you always suspected that a child growing up in a household with a depressed, missing, or divorced parent was at increased risk of becoming depressed, particularly they had a genetic vulnerability? How will you change your approach to families with a depressed parent or ones that are navigating through the stormy waters of even an amicable divorce? Will you be more diligent about screening children in these families for depression? Should the agencies that are responsible for managing adoption and foster home placement include this new information in their screening criteria?

It would be very interesting to see a similar study performed using families in which a biological parent had been diagnosed with anxiety or an attention-deficit disorder. Could it mean that we should be considering depression and these conditions as contagious disorders? The results from such studies might help provide clarity to why we are seeing more children with mental health complaints. They might explain why pediatricians are seeing an increasing frequency of mental health complaints in our offices. It may not be too far-fetched to use epidemiologic terms when we are talking about depression, anxiety, and ADHD. Should we be considering these conditions to be contagious under certain circumstances?

Since the human genome has been sequenced I sense that our attention has become overfocused on using what we are learning about our DNA to explain what makes us sick. It may be time to swing the pendulum back a few degrees and remind ourselves of the power of the family environment.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.

I previously wrote a column in which I discussed the possible relationship between television viewing and the risk of developing depression. In that column I mentioned that, while there is widespread suspicion that depression may have a genetic component, I was unaware of any strong evidence that this is the case. This week I encountered another study in the American Journal of Psychiatry that suggests that the environment in which a child is raised can play a significant role in whether he or she will develop depression.

Imagesbybarbara/E+

All of the children in the study had been born to families in which at least one biological parent had been diagnosed with major depression. There were nearly 700 full sibships and 2,600 half sibships studied. The researchers found that children who had been adopted away and raised in families that had been selected for having high-quality childrearing standards were significantly less likely to develop depression (23% for full siblings, 19% for half siblings) than their siblings who had remained in the home of their biological parents. It is interesting that this protective effect of the adoptive home “disappeared when an adoptive parent or stepsibling had major depression or the adoptive home was disrupted by parental death or divorce.”

It is unlikely that this study ever will be replicated because of the unique manner in which these Swedish adoptions were managed and recorded. However, the results appear to make a strong statement that, at least when it comes to depression, nurture has at least as strong an effect as nature and probably even more of an influence than genetics.

Are you surprised by the results of this study? Or, like me, have you always suspected that a child growing up in a household with a depressed, missing, or divorced parent was at increased risk of becoming depressed, particularly they had a genetic vulnerability? How will you change your approach to families with a depressed parent or ones that are navigating through the stormy waters of even an amicable divorce? Will you be more diligent about screening children in these families for depression? Should the agencies that are responsible for managing adoption and foster home placement include this new information in their screening criteria?

It would be very interesting to see a similar study performed using families in which a biological parent had been diagnosed with anxiety or an attention-deficit disorder. Could it mean that we should be considering depression and these conditions as contagious disorders? The results from such studies might help provide clarity to why we are seeing more children with mental health complaints. They might explain why pediatricians are seeing an increasing frequency of mental health complaints in our offices. It may not be too far-fetched to use epidemiologic terms when we are talking about depression, anxiety, and ADHD. Should we be considering these conditions to be contagious under certain circumstances?

Since the human genome has been sequenced I sense that our attention has become overfocused on using what we are learning about our DNA to explain what makes us sick. It may be time to swing the pendulum back a few degrees and remind ourselves of the power of the family environment.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.

I previously wrote a column in which I discussed the possible relationship between television viewing and the risk of developing depression. In that column I mentioned that, while there is widespread suspicion that depression may have a genetic component, I was unaware of any strong evidence that this is the case. This week I encountered another study in the American Journal of Psychiatry that suggests that the environment in which a child is raised can play a significant role in whether he or she will develop depression.

Imagesbybarbara/E+

All of the children in the study had been born to families in which at least one biological parent had been diagnosed with major depression. There were nearly 700 full sibships and 2,600 half sibships studied. The researchers found that children who had been adopted away and raised in families that had been selected for having high-quality childrearing standards were significantly less likely to develop depression (23% for full siblings, 19% for half siblings) than their siblings who had remained in the home of their biological parents. It is interesting that this protective effect of the adoptive home “disappeared when an adoptive parent or stepsibling had major depression or the adoptive home was disrupted by parental death or divorce.”

It is unlikely that this study ever will be replicated because of the unique manner in which these Swedish adoptions were managed and recorded. However, the results appear to make a strong statement that, at least when it comes to depression, nurture has at least as strong an effect as nature and probably even more of an influence than genetics.

Are you surprised by the results of this study? Or, like me, have you always suspected that a child growing up in a household with a depressed, missing, or divorced parent was at increased risk of becoming depressed, particularly they had a genetic vulnerability? How will you change your approach to families with a depressed parent or ones that are navigating through the stormy waters of even an amicable divorce? Will you be more diligent about screening children in these families for depression? Should the agencies that are responsible for managing adoption and foster home placement include this new information in their screening criteria?

It would be very interesting to see a similar study performed using families in which a biological parent had been diagnosed with anxiety or an attention-deficit disorder. Could it mean that we should be considering depression and these conditions as contagious disorders? The results from such studies might help provide clarity to why we are seeing more children with mental health complaints. They might explain why pediatricians are seeing an increasing frequency of mental health complaints in our offices. It may not be too far-fetched to use epidemiologic terms when we are talking about depression, anxiety, and ADHD. Should we be considering these conditions to be contagious under certain circumstances?

Since the human genome has been sequenced I sense that our attention has become overfocused on using what we are learning about our DNA to explain what makes us sick. It may be time to swing the pendulum back a few degrees and remind ourselves of the power of the family environment.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.

Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) do not protect patients with chronic respiratory conditions against COVID-19-related death, a study of almost 1 million individuals in the United Kingdom has shown.

Patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or asthma who used ICS on a regular basis were more likely to die from COVID-19 than COPD or asthma patients who were prescribed non-ICS therapies, reported co-lead author Anna Schultze, PhD, of London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine and colleagues.

Of note, the increased risk of death among ICS users likely stemmed from greater severity of preexisting chronic respiratory conditions, instead of directly from ICS usage, which has little apparent impact on COVID-19 mortality, the investigators wrote in Lancet Respiratory Medicine.

These findings conflict with a hypothesis proposed early in the pandemic: that ICS may protect individuals from SARS-CoV-2 infection and poor outcomes with COVID-19.

According to Megan Conroy, MD, of the department of internal medicine at the Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, this hypothesis was based on some unexpected epidemiological findings.

“In general, we tend to think people with underlying lung disease – like COPD or asthma – to be at higher risk for severe forms of lower respiratory tract infections,” Dr. Conroy said. “Somewhat surprisingly, early data in the pandemic showed patients with COPD and asthma [were] underrepresented [among patients with COVID] when compared to the prevalence of these diseases in the population.”

This raised the possibility of an incidental protective effect from regular ICS therapy, which “had some strong theoretic pathophysiologic basis,” Dr. Conroy said, referring to research that demonstrated ICS-mediated downregulation of SARS-CoV-2 entry receptors ACE2 and TMPRSS2.

Dr. Schultze and colleagues noted that investigators for two ongoing randomized controlled trials (NCT04331054, NCT04330586) are studying ICS as an intervention for COVID-19; but neither trial includes individuals already taking ICS for chronic respiratory disease.

The present observational study therefore aimed to assess mortality risk within this population. Data were drawn from electronic health records and a U.K. national mortality database, with follow-up ranging from March 1 to May 6, 2020. Eligibility required a relevant prescription within 4 months of first follow-up. In the COPD group, patients were prescribed a long-acting beta agonist plus a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LABA–LAMA), LABA alone, LABA plus ICS, LABA–LAMA plus ICS, or ICS alone (if prescribed LABA within 4 months).

In the asthma group, patients received low/medium-dose ICS, high-dose ICS, or a short-acting beta agonist (SABA) alone. Patients with COPD were at least 35 years of age, while those with asthma were 18 years or older. Hazard ratios were adjusted for a variety of covariates, including respiratory disease–exacerbation history, age, sex, body mass index, hypertension, diabetes, and others.

These eligibility criteria returned 148,557 patients with COPD and 818,490 with asthma.

Patients with COPD who were prescribed ICS plus LABA-LAMA or ICS plus LABA had an increased risk of COVID-19-related death, compared with those who did not receive ICS (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.39; 95% confidence interval, 1.10-1.76). Separate analyses of patients who received a triple combination (LABA–LAMA plus ICS) versus those who took a dual combination (LABA plus ICS) showed that triple-combination therapy was significantly associated with increased COVID-19-related mortality (aHR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.12-1.83), while dual-combination therapy was less so (aHR, 1.29; 95% CI, 0.96-1.74). Non–COVID-19–related mortality was significantly increased for all COPD patients who were prescribed ICS, with or without adjustment for covariates.

Asthma patients prescribed high-dose ICS instead of SABA alone had a slightly greater risk of COVID-19–related death, based on an adjusted hazard ratio of 1.55 (95% CI, 1.10-2.18). Those with asthma who received low/medium–dose ICS demonstrated a slight trend toward increased mortality risk, but this was not significant (aHR, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.85-1.54). ICS usage in the asthma group was not linked with a significant increase in non–COVID-19–related death.

“In summary, we found no evidence of a beneficial effect of regular ICS use among people with COPD and asthma on COVID-19–related mortality,” the investigators concluded.

In agreement with the investigators, Dr. Conroy said that the increased mortality rate among ICS users should not be misconstrued as a medication-related risk.

“While the study found that those with COPD or asthma taking ICS and high-dose ICS were at an increased risk of death, this could easily be explained by the likelihood that those are the patients who are more likely to have more severe underlying lung disease,” Dr. Conroy said. “While this observational study did attempt to control for exacerbation history, the ability to do so by electronic health records data is certainly imperfect.”

With this in mind, patients with chronic respiratory disease should be encouraged to adhere to their usual treatment regimen, Dr. Conroy added.

“There isn’t evidence to increase or decrease medications just because of the pandemic,” she said. “A patient with asthma or COPD should continue to take the medications that are needed to achieve good control of their lung disease.”

The study was funded by the U.K. Medical Research Council. The investigators reported additional relationships with the Wellcome Trust, the Good Thinking Foundation, the Laura and John Arnold Foundation, and others. Dr. Conroy reported no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Schultze A et al. Lancet Respir Med. 2020 Sep 24. doi: 10.1016/ S2213-2600(20)30415-X.

Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) do not protect patients with chronic respiratory conditions against COVID-19-related death, a study of almost 1 million individuals in the United Kingdom has shown.

Patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or asthma who used ICS on a regular basis were more likely to die from COVID-19 than COPD or asthma patients who were prescribed non-ICS therapies, reported co-lead author Anna Schultze, PhD, of London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine and colleagues.

Of note, the increased risk of death among ICS users likely stemmed from greater severity of preexisting chronic respiratory conditions, instead of directly from ICS usage, which has little apparent impact on COVID-19 mortality, the investigators wrote in Lancet Respiratory Medicine.

These findings conflict with a hypothesis proposed early in the pandemic: that ICS may protect individuals from SARS-CoV-2 infection and poor outcomes with COVID-19.

According to Megan Conroy, MD, of the department of internal medicine at the Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, this hypothesis was based on some unexpected epidemiological findings.

“In general, we tend to think people with underlying lung disease – like COPD or asthma – to be at higher risk for severe forms of lower respiratory tract infections,” Dr. Conroy said. “Somewhat surprisingly, early data in the pandemic showed patients with COPD and asthma [were] underrepresented [among patients with COVID] when compared to the prevalence of these diseases in the population.”

This raised the possibility of an incidental protective effect from regular ICS therapy, which “had some strong theoretic pathophysiologic basis,” Dr. Conroy said, referring to research that demonstrated ICS-mediated downregulation of SARS-CoV-2 entry receptors ACE2 and TMPRSS2.

Dr. Schultze and colleagues noted that investigators for two ongoing randomized controlled trials (NCT04331054, NCT04330586) are studying ICS as an intervention for COVID-19; but neither trial includes individuals already taking ICS for chronic respiratory disease.

The present observational study therefore aimed to assess mortality risk within this population. Data were drawn from electronic health records and a U.K. national mortality database, with follow-up ranging from March 1 to May 6, 2020. Eligibility required a relevant prescription within 4 months of first follow-up. In the COPD group, patients were prescribed a long-acting beta agonist plus a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LABA–LAMA), LABA alone, LABA plus ICS, LABA–LAMA plus ICS, or ICS alone (if prescribed LABA within 4 months).

In the asthma group, patients received low/medium-dose ICS, high-dose ICS, or a short-acting beta agonist (SABA) alone. Patients with COPD were at least 35 years of age, while those with asthma were 18 years or older. Hazard ratios were adjusted for a variety of covariates, including respiratory disease–exacerbation history, age, sex, body mass index, hypertension, diabetes, and others.

These eligibility criteria returned 148,557 patients with COPD and 818,490 with asthma.

Patients with COPD who were prescribed ICS plus LABA-LAMA or ICS plus LABA had an increased risk of COVID-19-related death, compared with those who did not receive ICS (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.39; 95% confidence interval, 1.10-1.76). Separate analyses of patients who received a triple combination (LABA–LAMA plus ICS) versus those who took a dual combination (LABA plus ICS) showed that triple-combination therapy was significantly associated with increased COVID-19-related mortality (aHR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.12-1.83), while dual-combination therapy was less so (aHR, 1.29; 95% CI, 0.96-1.74). Non–COVID-19–related mortality was significantly increased for all COPD patients who were prescribed ICS, with or without adjustment for covariates.

Asthma patients prescribed high-dose ICS instead of SABA alone had a slightly greater risk of COVID-19–related death, based on an adjusted hazard ratio of 1.55 (95% CI, 1.10-2.18). Those with asthma who received low/medium–dose ICS demonstrated a slight trend toward increased mortality risk, but this was not significant (aHR, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.85-1.54). ICS usage in the asthma group was not linked with a significant increase in non–COVID-19–related death.

“In summary, we found no evidence of a beneficial effect of regular ICS use among people with COPD and asthma on COVID-19–related mortality,” the investigators concluded.

In agreement with the investigators, Dr. Conroy said that the increased mortality rate among ICS users should not be misconstrued as a medication-related risk.

“While the study found that those with COPD or asthma taking ICS and high-dose ICS were at an increased risk of death, this could easily be explained by the likelihood that those are the patients who are more likely to have more severe underlying lung disease,” Dr. Conroy said. “While this observational study did attempt to control for exacerbation history, the ability to do so by electronic health records data is certainly imperfect.”

With this in mind, patients with chronic respiratory disease should be encouraged to adhere to their usual treatment regimen, Dr. Conroy added.

“There isn’t evidence to increase or decrease medications just because of the pandemic,” she said. “A patient with asthma or COPD should continue to take the medications that are needed to achieve good control of their lung disease.”

The study was funded by the U.K. Medical Research Council. The investigators reported additional relationships with the Wellcome Trust, the Good Thinking Foundation, the Laura and John Arnold Foundation, and others. Dr. Conroy reported no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Schultze A et al. Lancet Respir Med. 2020 Sep 24. doi: 10.1016/ S2213-2600(20)30415-X.

Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) do not protect patients with chronic respiratory conditions against COVID-19-related death, a study of almost 1 million individuals in the United Kingdom has shown.

Patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or asthma who used ICS on a regular basis were more likely to die from COVID-19 than COPD or asthma patients who were prescribed non-ICS therapies, reported co-lead author Anna Schultze, PhD, of London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine and colleagues.

Of note, the increased risk of death among ICS users likely stemmed from greater severity of preexisting chronic respiratory conditions, instead of directly from ICS usage, which has little apparent impact on COVID-19 mortality, the investigators wrote in Lancet Respiratory Medicine.

These findings conflict with a hypothesis proposed early in the pandemic: that ICS may protect individuals from SARS-CoV-2 infection and poor outcomes with COVID-19.

According to Megan Conroy, MD, of the department of internal medicine at the Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, this hypothesis was based on some unexpected epidemiological findings.

“In general, we tend to think people with underlying lung disease – like COPD or asthma – to be at higher risk for severe forms of lower respiratory tract infections,” Dr. Conroy said. “Somewhat surprisingly, early data in the pandemic showed patients with COPD and asthma [were] underrepresented [among patients with COVID] when compared to the prevalence of these diseases in the population.”

This raised the possibility of an incidental protective effect from regular ICS therapy, which “had some strong theoretic pathophysiologic basis,” Dr. Conroy said, referring to research that demonstrated ICS-mediated downregulation of SARS-CoV-2 entry receptors ACE2 and TMPRSS2.

Dr. Schultze and colleagues noted that investigators for two ongoing randomized controlled trials (NCT04331054, NCT04330586) are studying ICS as an intervention for COVID-19; but neither trial includes individuals already taking ICS for chronic respiratory disease.

The present observational study therefore aimed to assess mortality risk within this population. Data were drawn from electronic health records and a U.K. national mortality database, with follow-up ranging from March 1 to May 6, 2020. Eligibility required a relevant prescription within 4 months of first follow-up. In the COPD group, patients were prescribed a long-acting beta agonist plus a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LABA–LAMA), LABA alone, LABA plus ICS, LABA–LAMA plus ICS, or ICS alone (if prescribed LABA within 4 months).

In the asthma group, patients received low/medium-dose ICS, high-dose ICS, or a short-acting beta agonist (SABA) alone. Patients with COPD were at least 35 years of age, while those with asthma were 18 years or older. Hazard ratios were adjusted for a variety of covariates, including respiratory disease–exacerbation history, age, sex, body mass index, hypertension, diabetes, and others.

These eligibility criteria returned 148,557 patients with COPD and 818,490 with asthma.

Patients with COPD who were prescribed ICS plus LABA-LAMA or ICS plus LABA had an increased risk of COVID-19-related death, compared with those who did not receive ICS (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.39; 95% confidence interval, 1.10-1.76). Separate analyses of patients who received a triple combination (LABA–LAMA plus ICS) versus those who took a dual combination (LABA plus ICS) showed that triple-combination therapy was significantly associated with increased COVID-19-related mortality (aHR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.12-1.83), while dual-combination therapy was less so (aHR, 1.29; 95% CI, 0.96-1.74). Non–COVID-19–related mortality was significantly increased for all COPD patients who were prescribed ICS, with or without adjustment for covariates.

Asthma patients prescribed high-dose ICS instead of SABA alone had a slightly greater risk of COVID-19–related death, based on an adjusted hazard ratio of 1.55 (95% CI, 1.10-2.18). Those with asthma who received low/medium–dose ICS demonstrated a slight trend toward increased mortality risk, but this was not significant (aHR, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.85-1.54). ICS usage in the asthma group was not linked with a significant increase in non–COVID-19–related death.

“In summary, we found no evidence of a beneficial effect of regular ICS use among people with COPD and asthma on COVID-19–related mortality,” the investigators concluded.

In agreement with the investigators, Dr. Conroy said that the increased mortality rate among ICS users should not be misconstrued as a medication-related risk.

“While the study found that those with COPD or asthma taking ICS and high-dose ICS were at an increased risk of death, this could easily be explained by the likelihood that those are the patients who are more likely to have more severe underlying lung disease,” Dr. Conroy said. “While this observational study did attempt to control for exacerbation history, the ability to do so by electronic health records data is certainly imperfect.”

With this in mind, patients with chronic respiratory disease should be encouraged to adhere to their usual treatment regimen, Dr. Conroy added.

“There isn’t evidence to increase or decrease medications just because of the pandemic,” she said. “A patient with asthma or COPD should continue to take the medications that are needed to achieve good control of their lung disease.”

The study was funded by the U.K. Medical Research Council. The investigators reported additional relationships with the Wellcome Trust, the Good Thinking Foundation, the Laura and John Arnold Foundation, and others. Dr. Conroy reported no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Schultze A et al. Lancet Respir Med. 2020 Sep 24. doi: 10.1016/ S2213-2600(20)30415-X.

The wholesale shuffling of employees triggered by the COVID-19 pandemic has raised many questions about the differences between full-time, part-time, and full-time equivalent employees, and how employment laws apply to them. While rules vary from state to state, some generalizations can be made.

Even the definitions of full-time and part-time vary. For instance, under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), full time means working at least 30 hours per week. Under the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA), it is 40 hours.

Full-time equivalent (FTE) is a concept designed to document a part-time workforce in terms of full-time employment, by taking the total hours worked by all part-time employees and dividing by the full-time schedule. Of course, the ACA and the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) calculate that number differently: The ACA requires you to total all the hours worked by part-time employees per month, and divide by 120. For the PPP, you divide the total part-time hours per week by 40, and round to the nearest tenth. (You can also use a simplified method that assigns a 1.0 for employees who work 40 hours or more per week and 0.5 for those who work fewer; whichever method you choose, you must apply it consistently on all PPP forms.)

FTEs are important for the purposes of the ACA because employers with 50 or more full-timers plus FTEs must offer health coverage to their full-timers and dependents. But most private practitioners need an accurate FTE total to deal with the PPP: If staffing levels weren’t maintained after you received a PPP loan, your loan forgiveness amount may be reduced. Staffing levels are determined by comparing the average number of full-timers plus FTEs during the “covered period” to either the period from Feb. 15 through June 30, 2019, or Jan. 1 through Feb. 28, 2020.

The PPP aside, FTEs have created confusion over when an employee is entitled to overtime pay. Under federal law, overtime is due whenever an employee works more than 40 hours per week; up to 40 hours, the regular wage is paid. (There are exemptions, and a few states use a daily number.) For example, if a part-timer receiving $900 per week for a 30-hour workweek works more than 30 hours, the hours from 30 to 40 would be compensated at their normal wage of $30 per hour ($900 ÷ 30). If the employee worked more than 40 hours, you would pay overtime (in this case $45 per hour, $30 x 1.5) for the hours in excess of 40.

To address a few other employment questions that I am frequently asked:

Under the FFCRA, you must provide both full- and part-time employees with emergency paid sick leave (EPSL) if they’re unable to work from your office or their home because of illness attributable to COVID-19, quarantine, or caring for a sick family member or child whose school is closed. Full-time employees are entitled to up to 80 hours of EPSL, and part-timers an average of what they work every 2 weeks. Some states have their own laws independent from the FFCRA. Check your state or local laws.

• Some states require you to provide meal and rest breaks to both full- and part-time employees. In California, for example, employers must provide a 30-minute meal break after no more than 5 hours of work, unless the total workday is less than 6 hours and both employers and employees consent to waive breaks. California also requires rest breaks after every 4 hours worked. Check the laws in your state.
• You must include part-time employees in a 401(k) retirement plan if they work at least 1,000 hours in a year, which is about 20 hours per week. That rule is changing in 2021 to 500 hours for employees older than 21. There are state-run retirement programs in California, Connecticut, New Jersey, Washington, and Oregon, among other states. Check your state law for details.
• If you offer paid vacations to full-time employees, you do not have to do the same for part-timers. (In fact, there is no requirement in most states to offer vacation time at all.) My office does offer it to part-time employees on a pro rata basis, as do many others in my area. Again, check your state law.

As always, consult with your attorney if it’s not clear which rules apply in your specific situation.
 

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. He has no relevant disclosures related to the topic of this column. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

The wholesale shuffling of employees triggered by the COVID-19 pandemic has raised many questions about the differences between full-time, part-time, and full-time equivalent employees, and how employment laws apply to them. While rules vary from state to state, some generalizations can be made.

Even the definitions of full-time and part-time vary. For instance, under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), full time means working at least 30 hours per week. Under the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA), it is 40 hours.

Full-time equivalent (FTE) is a concept designed to document a part-time workforce in terms of full-time employment, by taking the total hours worked by all part-time employees and dividing by the full-time schedule. Of course, the ACA and the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) calculate that number differently: The ACA requires you to total all the hours worked by part-time employees per month, and divide by 120. For the PPP, you divide the total part-time hours per week by 40, and round to the nearest tenth. (You can also use a simplified method that assigns a 1.0 for employees who work 40 hours or more per week and 0.5 for those who work fewer; whichever method you choose, you must apply it consistently on all PPP forms.)

FTEs are important for the purposes of the ACA because employers with 50 or more full-timers plus FTEs must offer health coverage to their full-timers and dependents. But most private practitioners need an accurate FTE total to deal with the PPP: If staffing levels weren’t maintained after you received a PPP loan, your loan forgiveness amount may be reduced. Staffing levels are determined by comparing the average number of full-timers plus FTEs during the “covered period” to either the period from Feb. 15 through June 30, 2019, or Jan. 1 through Feb. 28, 2020.

The PPP aside, FTEs have created confusion over when an employee is entitled to overtime pay. Under federal law, overtime is due whenever an employee works more than 40 hours per week; up to 40 hours, the regular wage is paid. (There are exemptions, and a few states use a daily number.) For example, if a part-timer receiving $900 per week for a 30-hour workweek works more than 30 hours, the hours from 30 to 40 would be compensated at their normal wage of $30 per hour ($900 ÷ 30). If the employee worked more than 40 hours, you would pay overtime (in this case $45 per hour, $30 x 1.5) for the hours in excess of 40.

To address a few other employment questions that I am frequently asked:

Under the FFCRA, you must provide both full- and part-time employees with emergency paid sick leave (EPSL) if they’re unable to work from your office or their home because of illness attributable to COVID-19, quarantine, or caring for a sick family member or child whose school is closed. Full-time employees are entitled to up to 80 hours of EPSL, and part-timers an average of what they work every 2 weeks. Some states have their own laws independent from the FFCRA. Check your state or local laws.

• Some states require you to provide meal and rest breaks to both full- and part-time employees. In California, for example, employers must provide a 30-minute meal break after no more than 5 hours of work, unless the total workday is less than 6 hours and both employers and employees consent to waive breaks. California also requires rest breaks after every 4 hours worked. Check the laws in your state.
• You must include part-time employees in a 401(k) retirement plan if they work at least 1,000 hours in a year, which is about 20 hours per week. That rule is changing in 2021 to 500 hours for employees older than 21. There are state-run retirement programs in California, Connecticut, New Jersey, Washington, and Oregon, among other states. Check your state law for details.
• If you offer paid vacations to full-time employees, you do not have to do the same for part-timers. (In fact, there is no requirement in most states to offer vacation time at all.) My office does offer it to part-time employees on a pro rata basis, as do many others in my area. Again, check your state law.

As always, consult with your attorney if it’s not clear which rules apply in your specific situation.
 

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. He has no relevant disclosures related to the topic of this column. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

The wholesale shuffling of employees triggered by the COVID-19 pandemic has raised many questions about the differences between full-time, part-time, and full-time equivalent employees, and how employment laws apply to them. While rules vary from state to state, some generalizations can be made.

Even the definitions of full-time and part-time vary. For instance, under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), full time means working at least 30 hours per week. Under the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA), it is 40 hours.

Full-time equivalent (FTE) is a concept designed to document a part-time workforce in terms of full-time employment, by taking the total hours worked by all part-time employees and dividing by the full-time schedule. Of course, the ACA and the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) calculate that number differently: The ACA requires you to total all the hours worked by part-time employees per month, and divide by 120. For the PPP, you divide the total part-time hours per week by 40, and round to the nearest tenth. (You can also use a simplified method that assigns a 1.0 for employees who work 40 hours or more per week and 0.5 for those who work fewer; whichever method you choose, you must apply it consistently on all PPP forms.)

FTEs are important for the purposes of the ACA because employers with 50 or more full-timers plus FTEs must offer health coverage to their full-timers and dependents. But most private practitioners need an accurate FTE total to deal with the PPP: If staffing levels weren’t maintained after you received a PPP loan, your loan forgiveness amount may be reduced. Staffing levels are determined by comparing the average number of full-timers plus FTEs during the “covered period” to either the period from Feb. 15 through June 30, 2019, or Jan. 1 through Feb. 28, 2020.

The PPP aside, FTEs have created confusion over when an employee is entitled to overtime pay. Under federal law, overtime is due whenever an employee works more than 40 hours per week; up to 40 hours, the regular wage is paid. (There are exemptions, and a few states use a daily number.) For example, if a part-timer receiving $900 per week for a 30-hour workweek works more than 30 hours, the hours from 30 to 40 would be compensated at their normal wage of $30 per hour ($900 ÷ 30). If the employee worked more than 40 hours, you would pay overtime (in this case $45 per hour, $30 x 1.5) for the hours in excess of 40.

To address a few other employment questions that I am frequently asked:

Under the FFCRA, you must provide both full- and part-time employees with emergency paid sick leave (EPSL) if they’re unable to work from your office or their home because of illness attributable to COVID-19, quarantine, or caring for a sick family member or child whose school is closed. Full-time employees are entitled to up to 80 hours of EPSL, and part-timers an average of what they work every 2 weeks. Some states have their own laws independent from the FFCRA. Check your state or local laws.

• Some states require you to provide meal and rest breaks to both full- and part-time employees. In California, for example, employers must provide a 30-minute meal break after no more than 5 hours of work, unless the total workday is less than 6 hours and both employers and employees consent to waive breaks. California also requires rest breaks after every 4 hours worked. Check the laws in your state.
• You must include part-time employees in a 401(k) retirement plan if they work at least 1,000 hours in a year, which is about 20 hours per week. That rule is changing in 2021 to 500 hours for employees older than 21. There are state-run retirement programs in California, Connecticut, New Jersey, Washington, and Oregon, among other states. Check your state law for details.
• If you offer paid vacations to full-time employees, you do not have to do the same for part-timers. (In fact, there is no requirement in most states to offer vacation time at all.) My office does offer it to part-time employees on a pro rata basis, as do many others in my area. Again, check your state law.

As always, consult with your attorney if it’s not clear which rules apply in your specific situation.
 

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. He has no relevant disclosures related to the topic of this column. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

Adolescent alcohol use among boys was prospectively associated with use of legal performance-enhancing substances in young adulthood, based on prospective cohort data from more than 12,000 individuals, wrote Kyle T. Ganson, PhD, MSW, of the University of Toronto, and colleagues.

Nikada/iStockphoto

In addition, legal use of performance-enhancing substances (PES) among young men was associated with increased risk of alcohol use problems.

Although previous studies have shown a range of adverse effects associated with the use of anabolic-androgenic steroid derivatives (defined as illegal PES), the possible adverse effects of legal PES (defined in this report as protein powders, creatine monohydrate, dehydroepiandrostenedione, and amino acids) have not been well studied, the researchers wrote.

In a study published in Pediatrics, the researchers reviewed data from 12,133 young adults aged 18-26 years who were part of the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health from 1994 to 2008.

Overall, 16% of young men and 1% of young women reported using legal PES in the past year. Among men, legal PES use was prospectively associated with increased risk of a range of alcohol-related problem behaviors including binge drinking (adjusted odds ratio, 1.35), injurious and risky behaviors (aOR, 1.78), legal problems (aOR, 1.52), reduced activities and socializing (aOR, 1.91), and problems with emotional or physical health (aOR, 1.44).

Legal PES use among young adult women was associated with an increased risk of emotional or physical health problems (aOR, 3.00).
 

Adolescent impact

Between adolescence and young adulthood (an average of 7 years’ follow-up), alcohol use was prospectively associated with legal PES use in young men (OR, 1.39), but neither cigarette smoking nor marijuana use in adolescence was associated with later use of legal PES. Among young women, no type of adolescent substance use was prospectively associated with later use of legal PES.

“To date, legal PES have not been largely considered as part of the spectrum of substances used among adolescents, have not been subject to the same regulatory scrutiny as other substances known to be linked to subsequent substance use and are freely available over the counter to adolescents,” Dr. Ganson and associates noted.

“Clearly, the robust reciprocal temporal relationship between substance use and legal PES suggests that each may serve as a gateway for the other,” they wrote.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the inability to identify outcomes associated with variable PES components, incomplete data collection on several drinking-related risk behaviors, and inability to analyze prospective use of illegal or other substances associated with use of legal PES, the researchers wrote.

However, “these results provide further evidence in support of the gateway theory and prospective health risk behaviors associated with legal PES and substance use,” they wrote.

The data may inform policy on the additional regulation of legal PES use in minors. In the meantime, “it is important for medical providers and clinicians to assess problematic alcohol use and drinking-related risk behaviors among young adult men who have previously used legal PES,” Dr. Ganson and associates concluded.
 

Challenges to clinicians

An important point to recognize is that PES is a misleading term, Steven Cuff, MD, of the Ohio State University, Columbus, and Michele LaBotz, MD, of Tufts University, Boston, wrote in an accompanying editorial. “Most legal supplements marketed for athletic performance enhancement are ineffective at increasing muscle mass or athletic performance beyond what can be achieved through appropriate nutrition and training,” they emphasized. The current study findings suggest that “legal PES should be integrated into the gateway hypothesis regarding patterns and progression of substance use through adolescence and early adulthood,” and support discouragement of any PES use among adolescents and young adults.

Even legal PES can be dangerous because of the lack of oversight of dietary supplements by the Food and Drug Administration. “There is widespread evidence that many over-the-counter dietary supplements lack stated ingredients, contain unlabeled ingredients (including potential allergens), or are contaminated with impurities or illegal or dangerous substances, such as steroids and stimulants,” the editorialists emphasized.

In addition, the association found in the study between muscle dysphoria and both PES use and substance use disorders, notably alcohol-related morbidity, highlights the need for a proactive approach by pediatricians to minimize the risk, they noted.

“For pediatricians uncomfortable with initiating discussions on PES use with their patients, an American Academy of Pediatrics–supported role-play simulation is available,” they concluded.

The study is important because “PES use is ubiquitous among adolescents and young adults,” Dr. LaBotz said in an interview. “Although it is widely believed that PES use serves as a likely ‘gateway’ to use of anabolic steroids and other substances, this is one of the very few studies that explores this relationship. Their findings that alcohol use appears to correlate with subsequent use of PES, and that PES use appears to correlate with future alcohol-related issues, suggest that this is not a simple linear progression of problematic behavior.”

Dr. LaBotz added that she was not surprised by the study findings, and emphasized that pediatric health care providers should be aware of the association between PES and alcohol use. “PES screening should be incorporated into screening done for alcohol and other substance use. This appears to be particularly true for athletes and other subpopulations who are at higher risk for problematic alcohol use.”

She said much of PES use is driven by the desire by young men for a muscular appearance, but more research is needed on young women. “In the past, this was a goal primarily associated with males, but females have become increasingly interested in achieving muscularity as well, which suggests an increasing risk of PES use among females as compared to earlier reports. We need updated data on patterns, prevalence and consequences of PES use in females.”

In addition, “although preparticipation physical examination forms include screening questions for PES use among athletes, further information is needed on how to incorporate PES into substance use screening that is performed in a general pediatric population, such as including athletes and nonathletes,” Dr. LaBotz said.

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health and by grants to one of the coauthors from the Pediatric Scientist Development Program funded by the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Pediatric Society, as well as the American Heart Association Career Development Award. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Cuff and Dr. LaBotz had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Ganson KT et al. Pediatrics. 2020 Sep. doi: 10.1542/peds.2020-0409.

Adolescent alcohol use among boys was prospectively associated with use of legal performance-enhancing substances in young adulthood, based on prospective cohort data from more than 12,000 individuals, wrote Kyle T. Ganson, PhD, MSW, of the University of Toronto, and colleagues.

Nikada/iStockphoto

In addition, legal use of performance-enhancing substances (PES) among young men was associated with increased risk of alcohol use problems.

Although previous studies have shown a range of adverse effects associated with the use of anabolic-androgenic steroid derivatives (defined as illegal PES), the possible adverse effects of legal PES (defined in this report as protein powders, creatine monohydrate, dehydroepiandrostenedione, and amino acids) have not been well studied, the researchers wrote.

In a study published in Pediatrics, the researchers reviewed data from 12,133 young adults aged 18-26 years who were part of the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health from 1994 to 2008.

Overall, 16% of young men and 1% of young women reported using legal PES in the past year. Among men, legal PES use was prospectively associated with increased risk of a range of alcohol-related problem behaviors including binge drinking (adjusted odds ratio, 1.35), injurious and risky behaviors (aOR, 1.78), legal problems (aOR, 1.52), reduced activities and socializing (aOR, 1.91), and problems with emotional or physical health (aOR, 1.44).

Legal PES use among young adult women was associated with an increased risk of emotional or physical health problems (aOR, 3.00).
 

Adolescent impact

Between adolescence and young adulthood (an average of 7 years’ follow-up), alcohol use was prospectively associated with legal PES use in young men (OR, 1.39), but neither cigarette smoking nor marijuana use in adolescence was associated with later use of legal PES. Among young women, no type of adolescent substance use was prospectively associated with later use of legal PES.

“To date, legal PES have not been largely considered as part of the spectrum of substances used among adolescents, have not been subject to the same regulatory scrutiny as other substances known to be linked to subsequent substance use and are freely available over the counter to adolescents,” Dr. Ganson and associates noted.

“Clearly, the robust reciprocal temporal relationship between substance use and legal PES suggests that each may serve as a gateway for the other,” they wrote.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the inability to identify outcomes associated with variable PES components, incomplete data collection on several drinking-related risk behaviors, and inability to analyze prospective use of illegal or other substances associated with use of legal PES, the researchers wrote.

However, “these results provide further evidence in support of the gateway theory and prospective health risk behaviors associated with legal PES and substance use,” they wrote.

The data may inform policy on the additional regulation of legal PES use in minors. In the meantime, “it is important for medical providers and clinicians to assess problematic alcohol use and drinking-related risk behaviors among young adult men who have previously used legal PES,” Dr. Ganson and associates concluded.
 

Challenges to clinicians

An important point to recognize is that PES is a misleading term, Steven Cuff, MD, of the Ohio State University, Columbus, and Michele LaBotz, MD, of Tufts University, Boston, wrote in an accompanying editorial. “Most legal supplements marketed for athletic performance enhancement are ineffective at increasing muscle mass or athletic performance beyond what can be achieved through appropriate nutrition and training,” they emphasized. The current study findings suggest that “legal PES should be integrated into the gateway hypothesis regarding patterns and progression of substance use through adolescence and early adulthood,” and support discouragement of any PES use among adolescents and young adults.

Even legal PES can be dangerous because of the lack of oversight of dietary supplements by the Food and Drug Administration. “There is widespread evidence that many over-the-counter dietary supplements lack stated ingredients, contain unlabeled ingredients (including potential allergens), or are contaminated with impurities or illegal or dangerous substances, such as steroids and stimulants,” the editorialists emphasized.

In addition, the association found in the study between muscle dysphoria and both PES use and substance use disorders, notably alcohol-related morbidity, highlights the need for a proactive approach by pediatricians to minimize the risk, they noted.

“For pediatricians uncomfortable with initiating discussions on PES use with their patients, an American Academy of Pediatrics–supported role-play simulation is available,” they concluded.

The study is important because “PES use is ubiquitous among adolescents and young adults,” Dr. LaBotz said in an interview. “Although it is widely believed that PES use serves as a likely ‘gateway’ to use of anabolic steroids and other substances, this is one of the very few studies that explores this relationship. Their findings that alcohol use appears to correlate with subsequent use of PES, and that PES use appears to correlate with future alcohol-related issues, suggest that this is not a simple linear progression of problematic behavior.”

Dr. LaBotz added that she was not surprised by the study findings, and emphasized that pediatric health care providers should be aware of the association between PES and alcohol use. “PES screening should be incorporated into screening done for alcohol and other substance use. This appears to be particularly true for athletes and other subpopulations who are at higher risk for problematic alcohol use.”

She said much of PES use is driven by the desire by young men for a muscular appearance, but more research is needed on young women. “In the past, this was a goal primarily associated with males, but females have become increasingly interested in achieving muscularity as well, which suggests an increasing risk of PES use among females as compared to earlier reports. We need updated data on patterns, prevalence and consequences of PES use in females.”

In addition, “although preparticipation physical examination forms include screening questions for PES use among athletes, further information is needed on how to incorporate PES into substance use screening that is performed in a general pediatric population, such as including athletes and nonathletes,” Dr. LaBotz said.

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health and by grants to one of the coauthors from the Pediatric Scientist Development Program funded by the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Pediatric Society, as well as the American Heart Association Career Development Award. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Cuff and Dr. LaBotz had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Ganson KT et al. Pediatrics. 2020 Sep. doi: 10.1542/peds.2020-0409.

Adolescent alcohol use among boys was prospectively associated with use of legal performance-enhancing substances in young adulthood, based on prospective cohort data from more than 12,000 individuals, wrote Kyle T. Ganson, PhD, MSW, of the University of Toronto, and colleagues.

Nikada/iStockphoto

In addition, legal use of performance-enhancing substances (PES) among young men was associated with increased risk of alcohol use problems.

Although previous studies have shown a range of adverse effects associated with the use of anabolic-androgenic steroid derivatives (defined as illegal PES), the possible adverse effects of legal PES (defined in this report as protein powders, creatine monohydrate, dehydroepiandrostenedione, and amino acids) have not been well studied, the researchers wrote.

In a study published in Pediatrics, the researchers reviewed data from 12,133 young adults aged 18-26 years who were part of the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health from 1994 to 2008.

Overall, 16% of young men and 1% of young women reported using legal PES in the past year. Among men, legal PES use was prospectively associated with increased risk of a range of alcohol-related problem behaviors including binge drinking (adjusted odds ratio, 1.35), injurious and risky behaviors (aOR, 1.78), legal problems (aOR, 1.52), reduced activities and socializing (aOR, 1.91), and problems with emotional or physical health (aOR, 1.44).

Legal PES use among young adult women was associated with an increased risk of emotional or physical health problems (aOR, 3.00).
 

Adolescent impact

Between adolescence and young adulthood (an average of 7 years’ follow-up), alcohol use was prospectively associated with legal PES use in young men (OR, 1.39), but neither cigarette smoking nor marijuana use in adolescence was associated with later use of legal PES. Among young women, no type of adolescent substance use was prospectively associated with later use of legal PES.

“To date, legal PES have not been largely considered as part of the spectrum of substances used among adolescents, have not been subject to the same regulatory scrutiny as other substances known to be linked to subsequent substance use and are freely available over the counter to adolescents,” Dr. Ganson and associates noted.

“Clearly, the robust reciprocal temporal relationship between substance use and legal PES suggests that each may serve as a gateway for the other,” they wrote.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the inability to identify outcomes associated with variable PES components, incomplete data collection on several drinking-related risk behaviors, and inability to analyze prospective use of illegal or other substances associated with use of legal PES, the researchers wrote.

However, “these results provide further evidence in support of the gateway theory and prospective health risk behaviors associated with legal PES and substance use,” they wrote.

The data may inform policy on the additional regulation of legal PES use in minors. In the meantime, “it is important for medical providers and clinicians to assess problematic alcohol use and drinking-related risk behaviors among young adult men who have previously used legal PES,” Dr. Ganson and associates concluded.
 

Challenges to clinicians

An important point to recognize is that PES is a misleading term, Steven Cuff, MD, of the Ohio State University, Columbus, and Michele LaBotz, MD, of Tufts University, Boston, wrote in an accompanying editorial. “Most legal supplements marketed for athletic performance enhancement are ineffective at increasing muscle mass or athletic performance beyond what can be achieved through appropriate nutrition and training,” they emphasized. The current study findings suggest that “legal PES should be integrated into the gateway hypothesis regarding patterns and progression of substance use through adolescence and early adulthood,” and support discouragement of any PES use among adolescents and young adults.

Even legal PES can be dangerous because of the lack of oversight of dietary supplements by the Food and Drug Administration. “There is widespread evidence that many over-the-counter dietary supplements lack stated ingredients, contain unlabeled ingredients (including potential allergens), or are contaminated with impurities or illegal or dangerous substances, such as steroids and stimulants,” the editorialists emphasized.

In addition, the association found in the study between muscle dysphoria and both PES use and substance use disorders, notably alcohol-related morbidity, highlights the need for a proactive approach by pediatricians to minimize the risk, they noted.

“For pediatricians uncomfortable with initiating discussions on PES use with their patients, an American Academy of Pediatrics–supported role-play simulation is available,” they concluded.

The study is important because “PES use is ubiquitous among adolescents and young adults,” Dr. LaBotz said in an interview. “Although it is widely believed that PES use serves as a likely ‘gateway’ to use of anabolic steroids and other substances, this is one of the very few studies that explores this relationship. Their findings that alcohol use appears to correlate with subsequent use of PES, and that PES use appears to correlate with future alcohol-related issues, suggest that this is not a simple linear progression of problematic behavior.”

Dr. LaBotz added that she was not surprised by the study findings, and emphasized that pediatric health care providers should be aware of the association between PES and alcohol use. “PES screening should be incorporated into screening done for alcohol and other substance use. This appears to be particularly true for athletes and other subpopulations who are at higher risk for problematic alcohol use.”

She said much of PES use is driven by the desire by young men for a muscular appearance, but more research is needed on young women. “In the past, this was a goal primarily associated with males, but females have become increasingly interested in achieving muscularity as well, which suggests an increasing risk of PES use among females as compared to earlier reports. We need updated data on patterns, prevalence and consequences of PES use in females.”

In addition, “although preparticipation physical examination forms include screening questions for PES use among athletes, further information is needed on how to incorporate PES into substance use screening that is performed in a general pediatric population, such as including athletes and nonathletes,” Dr. LaBotz said.

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health and by grants to one of the coauthors from the Pediatric Scientist Development Program funded by the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Pediatric Society, as well as the American Heart Association Career Development Award. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Cuff and Dr. LaBotz had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Ganson KT et al. Pediatrics. 2020 Sep. doi: 10.1542/peds.2020-0409.

• Reduce mental illness stigma
• Ready for school? Not many preschoolers with ADHD are
• Suicide screening is key
• Alcohol, opioid misuse tied to risky behaviors
• Identify runaway risk

• Reduce mental illness stigma
• Ready for school? Not many preschoolers with ADHD are
• Suicide screening is key
• Alcohol, opioid misuse tied to risky behaviors
• Identify runaway risk

• Reduce mental illness stigma
• Ready for school? Not many preschoolers with ADHD are
• Suicide screening is key
• Alcohol, opioid misuse tied to risky behaviors
• Identify runaway risk

“I worry that vaccines are going to be sold like magic powder that we sprinkle across the land and make the virus go away,” Paul Offit, MD, said at the virtual American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) 2020 National Conference. “That’s not true.”

Even after effective vaccines for SARS-CoV-2 are in widespread use, wearing masks will still be advisable to prevent COVID-19, according to Dr. Offit, director of the Vaccine Education Center and an attending physician in the Division of Infectious Diseases at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.

“I think we can get a vaccine that’s 75%-80% effective at preventing mild to moderate disease, but that means one of every four people can still get moderate to severe disease,” Dr. Offit continued.

And that’s if there is high uptake of the vaccine, which may not be the case. Recent polls have suggested there is considerable concern about the pending vaccines.

“It’s somewhat understandable,” Dr. Offitt acknowledged, especially given the “frightening” language used to describe vaccine development. Terms such as “warp speed” may suggest that haste might trump safety considerations. Before COVID-19, the fastest vaccine ever developed was for mumps, he said, with the virus isolated in 1963 and a commercial product available in 1967.
 

Addressing hesitancy in clinics

In a wide-ranging livestream plenary presentation, Dr. Offit, coinventor of a rotavirus vaccine, shed light on SARS-CoV-2 vaccine development and his impressions of vaccine hesitancy among patients and families. He also offered advice for how to reassure those skeptical of the safety and efficacy of any SARS-COV-2 vaccine, given the accelerated development process.

With more than 180 different vaccines in various stages of investigation, Dr. Offit called the effort to develop COVID-19 vaccines “unprecedented.” Part of that is a result of governments relieving pharmaceutical companies of much of the typical financial risk – which often climbs to hundreds of millions of dollars – by underwriting the costs of vaccine development to battle the pandemic-inducing virus, he said.

But this very swiftness is also stoking antivaccine sentiment. Dr. Offit, part of vaccine advisory groups for the National Institutes of Health and U.S. Food and Drug Administration, cited recent research reporting nearly half of American adults definitely or probably would not get a COVID-19 vaccine if it were available today.

“One way you convince skeptics is with data presented in a clear, compassionate, and compelling way,” he said.

“The other group is vaccine cynics, who are basically conspiracy theorists who believe pharmaceutical companies control the world, the government, the medical establishment. I think there’s no talking them down from this.”

Numerous strategies are being used in COVID-19 vaccine development, he noted, including messenger RNA, DNA, viral vectors, purified protein, and whole killed virus. Dr. Offit believes any candidates approved for distribution will likely be in the range of 75% effective at preventing mild to moderate symptoms.

But clinicians should be ready to face immediate questions of safety. “Even if this vaccination is given to 20,000 [trial participants] safely, that’s not 20 million,” Dr. Offit said. “Anyone could reasonably ask questions about if it causes rare, serious side effects.

“The good news is, there are systems in place,” such as adverse event reporting systems, to identify rare events, even those that occur in one in a million vaccine recipients. Reminding patients of that continued surveillance can be reassuring.

Another reassuring point is that COVID-19 vaccine trial participants have included people from many diverse populations, he said. But children, notably absent so far, should be added to trials immediately, Dr. Offit contends.

“This is going to be important when you consider strategies to get children universally back into school,” he said, which is a “critical issue” from both learning and wellness standpoints. “It breaks my heart that we’ve been unable to do this when other countries have.”
 

Transparency will be paramount

While presenting data transparently to patients is key in helping them accept COVID-19 vaccination, Dr. Offit said, he also believes “telling stories” can be just as effective, if not more so. When the varicella vaccine was approved in 1995, he said, the “uptake the first few years was pretty miserable” until public service messaging emphasized that some children die from chickenpox.

“Fear works,” he said. “You always worry about pushback of something being oversold, but hopefully we’re scared enough about this virus” to convince people that vaccination is wise. “I do think personal stories carry weight on both sides,” Dr. Offit said.

Mark Sawyer, MD, of University of California San Diego School of Medicine and Rady Children’s Hospital in San Diego, California, said Offit’s presentation offered important takeaways for clinicians about how to broach the topic of COVID-19 vaccination with patients and families.

“We need to communicate clearly and transparently to patients about what we do and don’t know” about the vaccines, Dr. Sawyer said in an interview. “We will know if they have common side effects, but we will not know about very rare side effects until we have used the vaccines for a while.

“We will know how well the vaccine works over the short-term, but we won’t know over the long term,” added Dr. Sawyer, a member of the AAP Committee on Infectious Diseases.

“We can reassure the community that SARS-CoV-2 vaccines are being evaluated in trials in the same way and with the same thoroughness as other vaccines have been,” he said. “That should give people confidence that shortcuts are not being taken with regard to safety and effectiveness evaluations.”

Dr. Offit and Dr. Sawyer have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

“I worry that vaccines are going to be sold like magic powder that we sprinkle across the land and make the virus go away,” Paul Offit, MD, said at the virtual American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) 2020 National Conference. “That’s not true.”

Even after effective vaccines for SARS-CoV-2 are in widespread use, wearing masks will still be advisable to prevent COVID-19, according to Dr. Offit, director of the Vaccine Education Center and an attending physician in the Division of Infectious Diseases at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.

“I think we can get a vaccine that’s 75%-80% effective at preventing mild to moderate disease, but that means one of every four people can still get moderate to severe disease,” Dr. Offit continued.

And that’s if there is high uptake of the vaccine, which may not be the case. Recent polls have suggested there is considerable concern about the pending vaccines.

“It’s somewhat understandable,” Dr. Offitt acknowledged, especially given the “frightening” language used to describe vaccine development. Terms such as “warp speed” may suggest that haste might trump safety considerations. Before COVID-19, the fastest vaccine ever developed was for mumps, he said, with the virus isolated in 1963 and a commercial product available in 1967.
 

Addressing hesitancy in clinics

In a wide-ranging livestream plenary presentation, Dr. Offit, coinventor of a rotavirus vaccine, shed light on SARS-CoV-2 vaccine development and his impressions of vaccine hesitancy among patients and families. He also offered advice for how to reassure those skeptical of the safety and efficacy of any SARS-COV-2 vaccine, given the accelerated development process.

With more than 180 different vaccines in various stages of investigation, Dr. Offit called the effort to develop COVID-19 vaccines “unprecedented.” Part of that is a result of governments relieving pharmaceutical companies of much of the typical financial risk – which often climbs to hundreds of millions of dollars – by underwriting the costs of vaccine development to battle the pandemic-inducing virus, he said.

But this very swiftness is also stoking antivaccine sentiment. Dr. Offit, part of vaccine advisory groups for the National Institutes of Health and U.S. Food and Drug Administration, cited recent research reporting nearly half of American adults definitely or probably would not get a COVID-19 vaccine if it were available today.

“One way you convince skeptics is with data presented in a clear, compassionate, and compelling way,” he said.

“The other group is vaccine cynics, who are basically conspiracy theorists who believe pharmaceutical companies control the world, the government, the medical establishment. I think there’s no talking them down from this.”

Numerous strategies are being used in COVID-19 vaccine development, he noted, including messenger RNA, DNA, viral vectors, purified protein, and whole killed virus. Dr. Offit believes any candidates approved for distribution will likely be in the range of 75% effective at preventing mild to moderate symptoms.

But clinicians should be ready to face immediate questions of safety. “Even if this vaccination is given to 20,000 [trial participants] safely, that’s not 20 million,” Dr. Offit said. “Anyone could reasonably ask questions about if it causes rare, serious side effects.

“The good news is, there are systems in place,” such as adverse event reporting systems, to identify rare events, even those that occur in one in a million vaccine recipients. Reminding patients of that continued surveillance can be reassuring.

Another reassuring point is that COVID-19 vaccine trial participants have included people from many diverse populations, he said. But children, notably absent so far, should be added to trials immediately, Dr. Offit contends.

“This is going to be important when you consider strategies to get children universally back into school,” he said, which is a “critical issue” from both learning and wellness standpoints. “It breaks my heart that we’ve been unable to do this when other countries have.”
 

Transparency will be paramount

While presenting data transparently to patients is key in helping them accept COVID-19 vaccination, Dr. Offit said, he also believes “telling stories” can be just as effective, if not more so. When the varicella vaccine was approved in 1995, he said, the “uptake the first few years was pretty miserable” until public service messaging emphasized that some children die from chickenpox.

“Fear works,” he said. “You always worry about pushback of something being oversold, but hopefully we’re scared enough about this virus” to convince people that vaccination is wise. “I do think personal stories carry weight on both sides,” Dr. Offit said.

Mark Sawyer, MD, of University of California San Diego School of Medicine and Rady Children’s Hospital in San Diego, California, said Offit’s presentation offered important takeaways for clinicians about how to broach the topic of COVID-19 vaccination with patients and families.

“We need to communicate clearly and transparently to patients about what we do and don’t know” about the vaccines, Dr. Sawyer said in an interview. “We will know if they have common side effects, but we will not know about very rare side effects until we have used the vaccines for a while.

“We will know how well the vaccine works over the short-term, but we won’t know over the long term,” added Dr. Sawyer, a member of the AAP Committee on Infectious Diseases.

“We can reassure the community that SARS-CoV-2 vaccines are being evaluated in trials in the same way and with the same thoroughness as other vaccines have been,” he said. “That should give people confidence that shortcuts are not being taken with regard to safety and effectiveness evaluations.”

Dr. Offit and Dr. Sawyer have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

“I worry that vaccines are going to be sold like magic powder that we sprinkle across the land and make the virus go away,” Paul Offit, MD, said at the virtual American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) 2020 National Conference. “That’s not true.”

Even after effective vaccines for SARS-CoV-2 are in widespread use, wearing masks will still be advisable to prevent COVID-19, according to Dr. Offit, director of the Vaccine Education Center and an attending physician in the Division of Infectious Diseases at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.

“I think we can get a vaccine that’s 75%-80% effective at preventing mild to moderate disease, but that means one of every four people can still get moderate to severe disease,” Dr. Offit continued.

And that’s if there is high uptake of the vaccine, which may not be the case. Recent polls have suggested there is considerable concern about the pending vaccines.

“It’s somewhat understandable,” Dr. Offitt acknowledged, especially given the “frightening” language used to describe vaccine development. Terms such as “warp speed” may suggest that haste might trump safety considerations. Before COVID-19, the fastest vaccine ever developed was for mumps, he said, with the virus isolated in 1963 and a commercial product available in 1967.
 

Addressing hesitancy in clinics

In a wide-ranging livestream plenary presentation, Dr. Offit, coinventor of a rotavirus vaccine, shed light on SARS-CoV-2 vaccine development and his impressions of vaccine hesitancy among patients and families. He also offered advice for how to reassure those skeptical of the safety and efficacy of any SARS-COV-2 vaccine, given the accelerated development process.

With more than 180 different vaccines in various stages of investigation, Dr. Offit called the effort to develop COVID-19 vaccines “unprecedented.” Part of that is a result of governments relieving pharmaceutical companies of much of the typical financial risk – which often climbs to hundreds of millions of dollars – by underwriting the costs of vaccine development to battle the pandemic-inducing virus, he said.

But this very swiftness is also stoking antivaccine sentiment. Dr. Offit, part of vaccine advisory groups for the National Institutes of Health and U.S. Food and Drug Administration, cited recent research reporting nearly half of American adults definitely or probably would not get a COVID-19 vaccine if it were available today.

“One way you convince skeptics is with data presented in a clear, compassionate, and compelling way,” he said.

“The other group is vaccine cynics, who are basically conspiracy theorists who believe pharmaceutical companies control the world, the government, the medical establishment. I think there’s no talking them down from this.”

Numerous strategies are being used in COVID-19 vaccine development, he noted, including messenger RNA, DNA, viral vectors, purified protein, and whole killed virus. Dr. Offit believes any candidates approved for distribution will likely be in the range of 75% effective at preventing mild to moderate symptoms.

But clinicians should be ready to face immediate questions of safety. “Even if this vaccination is given to 20,000 [trial participants] safely, that’s not 20 million,” Dr. Offit said. “Anyone could reasonably ask questions about if it causes rare, serious side effects.

“The good news is, there are systems in place,” such as adverse event reporting systems, to identify rare events, even those that occur in one in a million vaccine recipients. Reminding patients of that continued surveillance can be reassuring.

Another reassuring point is that COVID-19 vaccine trial participants have included people from many diverse populations, he said. But children, notably absent so far, should be added to trials immediately, Dr. Offit contends.

“This is going to be important when you consider strategies to get children universally back into school,” he said, which is a “critical issue” from both learning and wellness standpoints. “It breaks my heart that we’ve been unable to do this when other countries have.”
 

Transparency will be paramount

While presenting data transparently to patients is key in helping them accept COVID-19 vaccination, Dr. Offit said, he also believes “telling stories” can be just as effective, if not more so. When the varicella vaccine was approved in 1995, he said, the “uptake the first few years was pretty miserable” until public service messaging emphasized that some children die from chickenpox.

“Fear works,” he said. “You always worry about pushback of something being oversold, but hopefully we’re scared enough about this virus” to convince people that vaccination is wise. “I do think personal stories carry weight on both sides,” Dr. Offit said.

Mark Sawyer, MD, of University of California San Diego School of Medicine and Rady Children’s Hospital in San Diego, California, said Offit’s presentation offered important takeaways for clinicians about how to broach the topic of COVID-19 vaccination with patients and families.

“We need to communicate clearly and transparently to patients about what we do and don’t know” about the vaccines, Dr. Sawyer said in an interview. “We will know if they have common side effects, but we will not know about very rare side effects until we have used the vaccines for a while.

“We will know how well the vaccine works over the short-term, but we won’t know over the long term,” added Dr. Sawyer, a member of the AAP Committee on Infectious Diseases.

“We can reassure the community that SARS-CoV-2 vaccines are being evaluated in trials in the same way and with the same thoroughness as other vaccines have been,” he said. “That should give people confidence that shortcuts are not being taken with regard to safety and effectiveness evaluations.”

Dr. Offit and Dr. Sawyer have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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