infant

Screening and Interventions to Prevent Dental Caries in Children Younger Than 5 Years US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement

Author/s: 
US Preventative Services task Force

IMPORTANCE Dental caries is the most common chronic disease in children in the US.
According to the 2011-2016 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, approximately
23% of children aged 2 to 5 years had dental caries in their primary teeth. Prevalence is higher
in Mexican American children (33%) and non-Hispanic Black children (28%) than in
non-Hispanic White children (18%). Dental caries in early childhood is associated with pain,
loss of teeth, impaired growth, decreased weight gain, negative effects on quality of life, poor
school performance, and future dental caries.
OBJECTIVE To update its 2014 recommendation, the US Preventive Services Task Force
(USPSTF) commissioned a systematic review on screening and interventions to prevent
dental caries in children younger than 5 years.
POPULATION Asymptomatic children younger than 5 years.
EVIDENCE ASSESSMENT The USPSTF concludes with moderate certainty that there is a
moderate net benefit of preventing future dental caries with oral fluoride supplementation at
recommended doses in children 6 months or older whose water supply is deficient in
fluoride. The USPSTF concludes with moderate certainty that there is a moderate net benefit
of preventing future dental caries with fluoride varnish application in all children younger
than 5 years. The USPSTF concludes that the evidence is insufficient on performing routine
oral screening examinations for dental caries by primary care clinicians in children younger
than 5 years and that the balance of benefits and harms of screening cannot be determined.
RECOMMENDATION The USPSTF recommends that primary care clinicians prescribe oral fluoride
supplementation starting at age 6 months for children whose water supply is deficient in
fluoride. (B recommendation) The USPSTF recommends that primary care clinicians apply
fluoride varnish to the primary teeth of all infants and children starting at the age of primary
tooth eruption. (B recommendation) The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is
insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of routine screening examinations for
dental caries performed by primary care clinicians in children younger than 5 years. (I statement)

Evidence-Based Guideline: Treatment of Convulsive Status Epilepticus in Children and Adults: Report of the Guideline Committee of the American Epilepsy Society

Author/s: 
Glauser, T., Shinnar, S., Gloss, D., Alldredge, B., Arya, R., Bainbridge, J., Bare, M., Bleck, T., Dodson, W. E., Garrity, L., Jagoda, A., Lowenstein, D., Pellock, J., Riviello, J., Sloan, E., Treiman, D. M.

CONTEXT: The optimal pharmacologic treatment for early convulsive status epilepticus is unclear. OBJECTIVE: To analyze efficacy, tolerability and safety data for anticonvulsant treatment of children and adults with convulsive status epilepticus and use this analysis to develop an evidence-based treatment algorithm. DATA SOURCES: Structured literature review using MEDLINE, Embase, Current Contents, and Cochrane library supplemented with article reference lists. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized controlled trials of anticonvulsant treatment for seizures lasting longer than 5 minutes. DATA EXTRACTION: Individual studies were rated using predefined criteria and these results were used to form recommendations, conclusions, and an evidence-based treatment algorithm. RESULTS: A total of 38 randomized controlled trials were identified, rated and contributed to the assessment. Only four trials were considered to have class I evidence of efficacy. Two studies were rated as class II and the remaining 32 were judged to have class III evidence. In adults with convulsive status epilepticus, intramuscular midazolam, intravenous lorazepam, intravenous diazepam and intravenous phenobarbital are established as efficacious as initial therapy (Level A). Intramuscular midazolam has superior effectiveness compared to intravenous lorazepam in adults with convulsive status epilepticus without established intravenous access (Level A). In children, intravenous lorazepam and intravenous diazepam are established as efficacious at stopping seizures lasting at least 5 minutes (Level A) while rectal diazepam, intramuscular midazolam, intranasal midazolam, and buccal midazolam are probably effective (Level B). No significant difference in effectiveness has been demonstrated between intravenous lorazepam and intravenous diazepam in adults or children with convulsive status epilepticus (Level A). Respiratory and cardiac symptoms are the most commonly encountered treatment-emergent adverse events associated with intravenous anticonvulsant drug administration in adults with convulsive status epilepticus (Level A). The rate of respiratory depression in patients with convulsive status epilepticus treated with benzodiazepines is lower than in patients with convulsive status epilepticus treated with placebo indicating that respiratory problems are an important consequence of untreated convulsive status epilepticus (Level A). When both are available, fosphenytoin is preferred over phenytoin based on tolerability but phenytoin is an acceptable alternative (Level A). In adults, compared to the first therapy, the second therapy is less effective while the third therapy is substantially less effective (Level A). In children, the second therapy appears less effective and there are no data about third therapy efficacy (Level C). The evidence was synthesized into a treatment algorithm. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the paucity of well-designed randomized controlled trials, practical conclusions and an integrated treatment algorithm for the treatment of convulsive status epilepticus across the age spectrum (infants through adults) can be constructed. Multicenter, multinational efforts are needed to design, conduct and analyze additional randomized controlled trials that can answer the many outstanding clinically relevant questions identified in this guideline.

The effect of high-dose vitamin D supplementation on serum vitamin D levels and milk calcium concentration in lactating women and their infants

Author/s: 
Basile, L. A., Taylor, S. N., Wagner, C. L., Horst, R. L., Hollis, B. W.

Objective: Improve vitamin D status in lactating women and their recipient infants, and measure breast milk calcium concentration [Ca] as a function of vitamin D regimen.

Design/methods: Fully breastfeeding mothers were randomized at 1 month postpartum to 2000 (n = 12) or 4000 (n = 13) IU/day vitamin D for 3 months to achieve optimal vitamin D status [serum 25(OH)D > or =32 ng/mL (80 nmol/L)]. Breast milk [Ca], maternal and infant serum 25(OH)D and serum Ca, and maternal urinary Ca/Cr ratio were measured monthly.

Results: Mothers were similar between groups for age, race, gestation, and birth weight. 25(OH)D increased from 1 to 4 months in both groups (mean +/- SD): +11.5 +/- 2.3 ng/mL for group 2000 (p = 0.002) and +14.4 +/- 3.0 ng/mL for group 4000 (p = 0.0008). The 4000 IU/day regimen was more effective in raising both maternal and infant serum levels and breast milk antirachitic activity than the 2000 IU/day regimen. Breast milk [Ca] fell with continued lactation through 4 months in the 2000 and 4000 IU groups. Decline in breast milk [Ca] was not associated with vitamin D dose (p = 0.73) or maternal 25(OH)D (p = 0.94). No mother or infant experienced vitamin D-related adverse events, and all laboratory parameters remained in the normal range.

Conclusion: High-dose vitamin D was effective in increasing 25(OH)D levels in fully breastfeeding mothers to optimal levels without evidence of toxicity. Breast milk [Ca] and its decline in both groups during 1 to 4 months were independent of maternal vitamin D status and regimen. Both the mother and her infant attained improved vitamin D status and maintained normal [Ca].

Prevention and Control of Seasonal Influenza with Vaccines: Recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, United States, 2021-22 Influenza Season

Author/s: 
Grohskopf, L. A., Alyanak, E., Ferdinands, J. M., Broder, K. R., Blanton, L. H., Talbot, H. K., Fry, A. M.

This report updates the 2020–21 recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) regarding the use of seasonal influenza vaccines in the United States (MMWR Recomm Rep 2020;69[No. RR-8]). Routine annual influenza vaccination is recommended for all persons aged ≥6 months who do not have contraindications. For each recipient, a licensed and age-appropriate vaccine should be used. ACIP makes no preferential recommendation for a specific vaccine when more than one licensed, recommended, and age-appropriate vaccine is available. During the 2021–22 influenza season, the following types of vaccines are expected to be available: inactivated influenza vaccines (IIV4s), recombinant influenza vaccine (RIV4), and live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV4).

The 2021–22 influenza season is expected to coincide with continued circulation of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. Influenza vaccination of persons aged ≥6 months to reduce prevalence of illness caused by influenza will reduce symptoms that might be confused with those of COVID-19. Prevention of and reduction in the severity of influenza illness and reduction of outpatient visits, hospitalizations, and intensive care unit admissions through influenza vaccination also could alleviate stress on the U.S. health care system. Guidance for vaccine planning during the pandemic is available at https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pandemic-guidance/index.html. Recommendations for the use of COVID-19 vaccines are available at https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/acip-recs/vacc-specific/covid-19.html, and additional clinical guidance is available at https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/clinical-considerations/covid-19-v....

Updates described in this report reflect discussions during public meetings of ACIP that were held on October 28, 2020; February 25, 2021; and June 24, 2021. Primary updates to this report include the following six items. First, all seasonal influenza vaccines available in the United States for the 2021–22 season are expected to be quadrivalent. Second, the composition of 2021–22 U.S. influenza vaccines includes updates to the influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 and influenza A(H3N2) components. U.S.-licensed influenza vaccines will contain hemagglutinin derived from an influenza A/Victoria/2570/2019 (H1N1)pdm09-like virus (for egg-based vaccines) or an influenza A/Wisconsin/588/2019 (H1N1)pdm09-like virus (for cell culture–based and recombinant vaccines), an influenza A/Cambodia/e0826360/2020 (H3N2)-like virus, an influenza B/Washington/02/2019 (Victoria lineage)-like virus, and an influenza B/Phuket/3073/2013 (Yamagata lineage)-like virus. Third, the approved age indication for the cell culture–based inactivated influenza vaccine, Flucelvax Quadrivalent (ccIIV4), has been expanded from ages ≥4 years to ages ≥2 years. Fourth, discussion of administration of influenza vaccines with other vaccines includes considerations for coadministration of influenza vaccines and COVID-19 vaccines. Providers should also consult current ACIP COVID-19 vaccine recommendations and CDC guidance concerning coadministration of these vaccines with influenza vaccines. Vaccines that are given at the same time should be administered in separate anatomic sites. Fifth, guidance concerning timing of influenza vaccination now states that vaccination soon after vaccine becomes available can be considered for pregnant women in the third trimester. As previously recommended, children who need 2 doses (children aged 6 months through 8 years who have never received influenza vaccine or who have not previously received a lifetime total of ≥2 doses) should receive their first dose as soon as possible after vaccine becomes available to allow the second dose (which must be administered ≥4 weeks later) to be received by the end of October. For nonpregnant adults, vaccination in July and August should be avoided unless there is concern that later vaccination might not be possible. Sixth, contraindications and precautions to the use of ccIIV4 and RIV4 have been modified, specifically with regard to persons with a history of severe allergic reaction (e.g., anaphylaxis) to an influenza vaccine. A history of a severe allergic reaction to a previous dose of any egg-based IIV, LAIV, or RIV of any valency is a precaution to use of ccIIV4. A history of a severe allergic reaction to a previous dose of any egg-based IIV, ccIIV, or LAIV of any valency is a precaution to use of RIV4. Use of ccIIV4 and RIV4 in such instances should occur in an inpatient or outpatient medical setting under supervision of a provider who can recognize and manage a severe allergic reaction; providers can also consider consulting with an allergist to help identify the vaccine component responsible for the reaction. For ccIIV4, history of a severe allergic reaction (e.g., anaphylaxis) to any ccIIV of any valency or any component of ccIIV4 is a contraindication to future use of ccIIV4. For RIV4, history of a severe allergic reaction (e.g., anaphylaxis) to any RIV of any valency or any component of RIV4 is a contraindication to future use of RIV4.

This report focuses on recommendations for the use of vaccines for the prevention and control of seasonal influenza during the 2021–22 influenza season in the United States. A brief summary of the recommendations and a link to the most recent 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 according to 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.

Get SET Early to Identify and Treatment Refer Autism Spectrum Disorder at 1 Year and Discover Factors That Influence Early Diagnosis

Author/s: 
Pierce, K., Gazestani, V., Bacon, E., Gyurjyan, G., Cook-Clark, T., Karins, K., Courchesne, E., Cheng, A., Barnes, C.C., Nalabolu, S., Cha, D., Arias, S., Lopez, L., Pham, C.

Objectives

To examine the impact of a new approach, Get SET Early, on the rates of early autism spectrum disorder (ASD) detection and factors that influence the screen-evaluate-treat chain.

Study design

Following Get SET Early training, 203 pediatricians administered 57,603 total screens using the Communication and Symbolic Behavior Scales Infant-Toddler Checklist at 12, 18, and 24-month well-baby examinations, and parents designated presence or absence of concern. For screen-positive toddlers, pediatricians specified if the child was being referred for evaluation, and if not, why not.

Results

Collapsed across ages, toddlers were evaluated and referred for treatment at a median age of 19 months, and those screened at 12 months (59.4% of sample) by 15 months. Pediatricians referred one-third of screen-positive toddlers for evaluation, citing lack of confidence in the accuracy of screen-positive results as the primary reason for non-referral. If a parent expressed concerns, referral probability doubled, and the rate of an ASD diagnosis increased 37%. Of 897 toddlers evaluated, almost half were diagnosed as ASD, translating into an ASD prevalence of 1%.

Conclusions

The Get SET Early model was effective at detecting ASD and initiating very early treatment. Results also underscored the need for change in early identification approaches to formally operationalize and incorporate pediatrician judgement and level of parent concern into the process.

Infant pacifier sanitization and risk of challenge-proven food allergy: A cohort study

Author/s: 
Soriano, V.X., Koplin, J.J., Forrester, M., Peters, R.L., O'Hely, M., Dharmage, S.C., Wright, R., Ranaganathan, S., Burgner, D., Thompson, K., Dwyer, T., Vuilerman, P., Ponsonby, A.

Background: Environmental microbial exposure plays a role in immune system development and susceptibility to food allergy.

Objective: We sought to investigate whether infant pacifier use during the first postnatal year, with further consideration of sanitization, alters the risk of food allergy by age 1 year.

Methods: The birth cohort recruited pregnant mothers at under 28 weeks' gestation in southeast Australia, with 894 families followed up when infants turned 1 year. Infants were excluded if born under 32 weeks, with a serious illness, major congenital malformation, or genetic disease. Questionnaire data, collected at recruitment and infant ages 1, 6, and 12 months, included pacifier use and pacifier sanitization (defined as the joint exposure of a pacifier and cleaning methods). Challenge-proven food allergy was assessed at 12 months.

Results: Any pacifier use at 6 months was associated with food allergy (adjusted odds ratio, 1.94; 95% CI, 1.04-3.61), but not pacifier use at other ages. This overall association was driven by the joint exposure of pacifier-antiseptic use (adjusted odds ratio, 4.83; 95% CI, 1.10-21.18) compared with no pacifier use. Using pacifiers without antiseptic at 6 months was not associated with food allergy. Among pacifier users, antiseptic cleaning was still associated with food allergy (adjusted odds ratio, 3.56; 95% CI, 1.18-10.77) compared with no antiseptic use. Furthermore, persistent and repeated antiseptic use over the first 6 months was associated with higher food allergy risk (P = .029).

Conclusions: This is the first report of a pacifier-antiseptic combination being associated with a higher risk of subsequent food allergy. Future work should investigate underlying biological pathways.

Keywords: Pacifier; antiseptic; birth cohort; dummy; food allergy; microbial exposure; sanitization.

Tummy Time and Infant Health Outcomes: A Systematic Review

Author/s: 
Hewitt, Lyndel, Kerr, Erin, Stanley, Rebecca, Okley, A.D.

Context: The World Health Organization recommends tummy time for infants because of the benefits of improved motor development and reduced likelihood of plagiocephaly. Because of poor uptake of these recommendations, the association of tummy time with other health outcomes requires further investigation.

Objective: To review existing evidence regarding the association of tummy time with a broad and specific range of infant health outcomes.

Data sources: Electronic databases were searched between June 2018 and April 2019.

Study selection: Peer-reviewed English-language articles were included if they investigated a population of healthy infants (0 to 12 months), using an observational or experimental study design containing an objective or subjective measure of tummy time which examined the association with a health outcome (adiposity, motor development, psychosocial health, cognitive development, fitness, cardiometabolic health, or risks/harms).

Data extraction: Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed their quality.

Results: Sixteen articles representing 4237 participants from 8 countries were included. Tummy time was positively associated with gross motor and total development, a reduction in the BMI-zscore, prevention of brachycephaly, and the ability to move while prone, supine, crawling, and rolling. An indeterminate association was found for social and cognitive domains, plagiocephaly, walking, standing, and sitting. No association was found for fine motor development and communication.

Limitations: Most studies were observational in design and lacked the robustness of a randomized controlled trial. High selection and performance bias were also present.

Conclusions: These findings guide the prioritization of interventions aimed at assisting parents meet the global and national physical activity guidelines.

Routine Childhood Vaccines Given in the First 11 Months After Birth

Author/s: 
Jacobson, RM

The US Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommends that infants beginning at birth receive several vaccines directed against a variety of infectious diseases that currently pose threats of morbidity and mortality to infants and those around them, including the 3-dose hepatitis B (HepB) series. The first dose is due at birth. This series protects against maternal-infant transmission of the HepB virus and against exposure the rest of the infant's life. At age 2 months infants are to receive not only their second dose of HepB vaccine but also a series of vaccines directed against diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, pneumococcus, rotavirus, poliovirus, and Haemophilus influenzae type b. At 4 months, infants are to repeat those vaccines except for the HepB vaccine. At age 6 months infants are to finish the HepB series and receive the third doses of the other vaccines received at 2 and 4 months except for the rotavirus vaccine, depending on the brand used. Also, starting at 6 months, depending on the time of year, infants are to begin a 2-dose series against influenza separated by 28 days. Each of these vaccines is due at a time when the vaccine works to protect against an immediate risk and to provide long-term protection. These vaccine-preventable diseases vary in terms of the nature of exposure, the form of the morbidity, the risk of mortality, and the ability of routine vaccination to prevent or ameliorate harm.

Subscribe to infant