None available
Summary
What is already known about this topic?
Vaccination against human papillomavirus (HPV) is routinely recommended at age 11 or 12 years. Catch-up recommendations apply to persons not vaccinated at age 11 or 12 years.
What is added by this report?
After reviewing new evidence, CDC updated HPV vaccination recommendations for U.S. adults.
What are the implications for public health practice?
Routine recommendations for HPV vaccination of adolescents have not changed. Catch-up HPV vaccination is now recommended for all persons through age 26 years. For adults aged 27 through 45 years, public health benefit of HPV vaccination in this age range is minimal; shared clinical decision-making is recommended because some persons who are not adequately vaccinated might benefit.
OBJECTIVE:
To review current evidence on the relationship between obsessive-compulsive disorder and feeding difficulties.
METHODS:
Review the Science Direct and PubMed databases between 2007 and 2017 in English, Portuguese and Spanish. The search terms, used in association, were "obsessive compulsive disorder" and "picky eating/feeding difficulty". Cohort, case control and cross sectional studies were included that analyzed children, adolescents and/or adults of any sample size from any country in the world. Opinion articles were excluded.
RESULTS:
Around 245 articles were selected, and only 4 were included in this review, according to previous criteria. Results from the studies essentially described that there is indeed a difference in "picky" behaviors between subjects with and without obsessive-compulsive disorder. Patients with obsessive-compulsive disorder tend to have exacerbated symptoms of disgust, anxiety and a higher eating behavior inflexibility score.
CONCLUSIONS:
Obsessive-compulsive disorder and feeding difficulties patients share common symptoms. The present study alerts health professionals who follow patients with feeding difficulties as to the importance of investigating possible psychiatric comorbidities.
Two pneumococcal vaccines are currently licensed for use in adults in the United States: a 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV13 [Prevnar 13, Pfizer, Inc.]) and a 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (PPSV23 [Pneumovax 23, Merck and Co., Inc.]). In 2014, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP)* recommended routine use of PCV13 in series with PPSV23 for all adults aged ≥65 years based on demonstrated PCV13 safety and efficacy against PCV13-type pneumonia among adults aged ≥65 years (1). At that time, ACIP recognized that there would be a need to reevaluate this recommendation because it was anticipated that PCV13 use in children would continue to reduce disease burden among adults through reduced carriage and transmission of vaccine serotypes from vaccinated children (i.e., PCV13 indirect effects). On June 26, 2019, after having reviewed the evidence accrued during the preceding 3 years (https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/recs/grade/PCV13.html), ACIP voted to remove the recommendation for routine PCV13 use among adults aged ≥65 years and to recommend administration of PCV13 based on shared clinical decision-making for adults aged ≥65 years who do not have an immunocompromising condition,† cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) leak, or cochlear implant, and who have not previously received PCV13. ACIP recognized that some adults aged ≥65 years are potentially at increased risk for exposure to PCV13 serotypes, such as persons residing in nursing homes or other long-term care facilities and persons residing in settings with low pediatric PCV13 uptake or traveling to settings with no pediatric PCV13 program, and might attain higher than average benefit from PCV13 vaccination. When patients and vaccine providers§ engage in shared clinical decision-making for PCV13 use to determine whether PCV13 is right for a particular person, considerations might include both the person's risk for exposure to PCV13 serotypes and their risk for developing pneumococcal disease as a result of underlying medical conditions. All adults aged ≥65 years should continue to receive 1 dose of PPSV23. If the decision is made to administer PCV13, it should be given at least 1 year before PPSV23. ACIP continues to recommend PCV13 in series with PPSV23 for adults aged ≥19 years with an immunocompromising condition, CSF leak, or cochlear implant (2).
The pretravel management of the international traveler should be based on risk management principles. Prevention strategies and medical interventions should be based on the itinerary, preexisting health factors, and behaviors that are unique to the traveler. A structured approach to the patient interaction provides a general framework for an efficient consultation. Vaccine-preventable diseases play an important role in travel-related illnesses, and their impact is not restricted to exotic diseases in developing countries. Therefore, an immunization encounter before travel is an ideal time to update all age-appropriate immunizations as well as providing protection against diseases that pose additional risk to travelers that may be delineated by their destinations or activities. This review focuses on indications for each travel-related vaccine together with a structured synthesis and graphics that show the geographic distribution of major travel-related diseases and highlight particularly high-risk destinations and behaviors. Dosing, route of administration, need for boosters, and possible accelerated regimens for vaccines administered prior to travel are presented. Different underlying illnesses and medications produce different levels of immunocompromise, and there is much unknown in this discipline. Recommendations regarding vaccination of immunocompromised travelers have less of an evidence base than for other categories of travelers. The review presents a structured synthesis of issues pertinent to considerations for 5 special populations of traveler: child traveler, pregnant traveler, severely immunocompromised traveler, HIV-infected traveler, and traveler with other chronic underlying disease including asplenia, diabetes, and chronic liver disease.
Abstract
This report updates the 2018-19 recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) regarding the use of seasonal influenza vaccines in the United States (MMWR Recomm Rep 2018;67[No. RR-3]). Routine annual influenza vaccination is recommended for all persons aged ≥6 months who do not have contraindications. A licensed, recommended, and age-appropriate vaccine should be used. Inactivated influenza vaccines (IIVs), recombinant influenza vaccine (RIV), and live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV) are expected to be available for the 2019-20 season. Standard-dose, unadjuvanted, inactivated influenza vaccines will be available in quadrivalent formulations (IIV4s). High-dose (HD-IIV3) and adjuvanted (aIIV3) inactivated influenza vaccines will be available in trivalent formulations. Recombinant (RIV4) and live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV4) will be available in quadrivalent formulations.Updates to the recommendations described in this report reflect discussions during public meetings of ACIP held on October 25, 2018; February 27, 2019; and June 27, 2019. Primary updates in this report include the following two items. First, 2019-20 U.S. trivalent influenza vaccines will contain hemagglutinin (HA) derived from an A/Brisbane/02/2018 (H1N1)pdm09-like virus, an A/Kansas/14/2017 (H3N2)-like virus, and a B/Colorado/06/2017-like virus (Victoria lineage). Quadrivalent influenza vaccines will contain HA derived from these three viruses, and a B/Phuket/3073/2013-like virus (Yamagata lineage). Second, recent labeling changes for two IIV4s, Afluria Quadrivalent and Fluzone Quadrivalent, are discussed. The age indication for Afluria Quadrivalent has been expanded from ≥5 years to ≥6 months. The dose volume for Afluria Quadrivalent is 0.25 mL for children aged 6 through 35 months and 0.5 mL for all persons aged ≥36 months (≥3 years). The dose volume for Fluzone Quadrivalent for children aged 6 through 35 months, which was previously 0.25 mL, is now either 0.25 mL or 0.5 mL. The dose volume for Fluzone Quadrivalent is 0.5 mL for all persons aged ≥36 months (≥3 years).This report focuses on the recommendations for use of vaccines for the prevention and control of influenza during the 2019-20 season in the United States. A brief summary of these recommendations and a Background Document containing additional information are available at https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/acip-recs/vacc-specific/flu.html. These recommendations apply to U.S.-licensed influenza vaccines used within Food and Drug Administration-licensed indications. Updates and other information are available from CDC's influenza website (https://www.cdc.gov/flu). Vaccination and health care providers should check this site periodically for additional information.
BACKGROUND:
Morbidity from asthma is disproportionately higher among black patients than among white patients, and black patients constitute the minority of participants in trials informing treatment. Data indicate that patients with inadequately controlled asthma benefit more from addition of a long-acting beta-agonist (LABA) than from increased glucocorticoids; however, these data may not be informative for treatment in black patients.
METHODS:
We conducted two prospective, randomized, double-blind trials: one involving children and the other involving adolescents and adults. In both trials, the patients had at least one grandparent who identified as black and had asthma that was inadequately controlled with low-dose inhaled glucocorticoids. We compared combinations of therapy, which included the addition of a LABA (salmeterol) to an inhaled glucocorticoid (fluticasone propionate), a step-up to double to quintuple the dose of fluticasone, or both. The treatments were compared with the use of a composite measure that evaluated asthma exacerbations, asthma-control days, and lung function; data were stratified according to genotypic African ancestry.
RESULTS:
When quintupling the dose of fluticasone (to 250 μg twice a day) was compared with adding salmeterol (50 μg twice a day) and doubling the fluticasone (to 100 μg twice a day), a superior response occurred in 46% of the children with quintupling the fluticasone and in 46% of the children with doubling the fluticasone and adding salmeterol (P = 0.99). In contrast, more adolescents and adults had a superior response to added salmeterol than to an increase in fluticasone (salmeterol-low-dose fluticasone vs. medium-dose fluticasone, 49% vs. 28% [P = 0.003]; salmeterol-medium-dose fluticasone vs. high-dose fluticasone, 49% vs. 31% [P = 0.02]). Neither the degree of African ancestry nor baseline biomarkers predicted a superior response to specific treatments. The increased dose of inhaled glucocorticoids was associated with a decrease in the ratio of urinary cortisol to creatinine in children younger than 8 years of age.
CONCLUSIONS:
In contrast to black adolescents and adults, almost half the black children with poorly controlled asthma had a superior response to an increase in the dose of an inhaled glucocorticoid and almost half had a superior response to the addition of a LABA. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; BARD ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01967173.).
OBJECTIVES:
To evaluate a smartphone-based application's (Peek Acuity) ability to assess visual acuity and screen for ocular conditions in children, we compared visual acuity assessment between Peek Acuity and the pediatric ophthalmology examination and evaluated Peek Acuity's ability to identify children with referable ocular conditions.
STUDY DESIGN:
We prospectively recruited 111 children age 3-17 years, presenting to a pediatric ophthalmology clinic, who could follow instructions. Monocular visual acuity assessments by Peek Acuity and standard clinical methods were performed in randomized order. We compared visual acuity assessments between methods using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and evaluated Peek Acuity's ability to identify children with referable ocular conditions.
RESULTS:
ICC comparing visual acuity assessed between methods was 0.88 (95% CI 0.83-0.92) for first and 0.85 (95% CI 0.78-0.89) for second eyes examined. ICC among 3 to 5-year-olds (preschool-age children) was 0.88 (95% CI 0.77-0.94) for first and 0.45 (95% CI 0.13-0.68) for second eyes examined. Peek Acuity had a sensitivity of 83%-86% for decreased vision and 69%-83% for referable ocular disease. Sensitivity was highest among 3 to 5-year-olds with decreased vision, 93%-100%.
CONCLUSIONS:
Overall, Peek Acuity visual acuity assessment correlated well with visual acuity assessed by standard clinical methods, though preschool-age children appeared more susceptible to examination fatigue. Peek Acuity performed adequately as a screening tool and had the greatest sensitivity among those with decreased vision and preschool-age children.
TRIAL REGISTRATION:
ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03212222.
BACKGROUND:
Glucocorticoids are commonly used for croup in children. This is an update of a Cochrane Review published in 1999 and previously updated in 2004 and 2011.
OBJECTIVES:
To examine the effects of glucocorticoids for the treatment of croup in children aged 0 to 18 years.
SEARCH METHODS:
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library, Issue 2, 2018), which includes the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group's Specialised Register, Ovid MEDLINE Epub Ahead of Print, In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations and Ovid MEDLINE (1946 to 3 April 2018), and Embase (Ovid) (1996 to 3 April 2018, week 14), and the trials registers ClinicalTrials.gov (3 April 2018) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP, 3 April 2018). We scanned the reference lists of relevant systematic reviews and of the included studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA:
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that investigated children aged 0 to 18 years with croup and measured the effects of glucocorticoids, alone or in combination, compared to placebo or another pharmacologic treatment. The studies needed to report at least one of our primary or secondary outcomes: change in croup score; return visits, (re)admissions or both; length of stay; patient improvement; use of additional treatments; and adverse events.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS:
One author extracted data from each study and another verified the extraction. We entered the data into Review Manager 5 for meta-analysis. Two review authors independently assessed risk of bias for each study using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool and the certainty of the body of evidence for the primary outcomes using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS:
We added five new RCTs with 330 children. This review now includes 43 RCTs with a total of 4565 children. We assessed most (98%) studies as at high or unclear risk of bias. Compared to placebo, glucocorticoids improved symptoms of croup at two hours (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.65, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.13 to -0.18; 7 RCTs; 426 children; moderate-certainty evidence), and the effect lasted for at least 24 hours (SMD -0.86, 95% CI -1.40 to -0.31; 8 RCTs; 351 children; low-certainty evidence). Compared to placebo, glucocorticoids reduced the rate of return visits or (re)admissions or both (risk ratio 0.52, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.75; 10 RCTs; 1679 children; moderate-certainty evidence). Glucocorticoid treatment reduced the length of stay in hospital by about 15 hours (mean difference -14.90, 95% CI -23.58 to -6.22; 8 RCTs; 476 children). Serious adverse events were infrequent. Publication bias was not evident. Uncertainty remains with regard to the optimal type, dose, and mode of administration of glucocorticoids for reducing croup symptoms in children.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS:
Glucocorticoids reduced symptoms of croup at two hours, shortened hospital stays, and reduced the rate of return visits to care. Our conclusions have changed, as the previous version of this review reported that glucocorticoids reduced symptoms of croup within six hours.
If you work with children, then you are seeing children who have been sexually abused. Many presentations in a health setting go unrecognised.
It is a field of paediatric practice that has changed rapidly over the last fifteen years. The evidence base is now set out by the RCPCH, giving a much clearer steer on the interpretation of physical signs. There has been a shift from examinations being provided within a child protection rota, to being carried out by specialists in a Sexual Assault Referral Centre (SARC). In many places, this has meant regionalisation of the service, and in some places, provision outside the NHS. There has been a seismic cultural change in recognition of, and response to, sexual abuse in society as a whole.
Alongside this, the internet has created new ways of grooming and exploitation, and linked together those who seek to normalise CSA offending. The challenge to paediatrics (and to safeguarding and criminal justice systems), is to meet the need that these developments have exposed.
