infant

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.

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.

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.

Lactose intolerance refers to the clinical syndrome in which symptoms of bloating, flatulence, abdominal discomfort, and diarrhea arise following the consumption of lactose-containing foods. Lactose malabsorption results from congenital lactase deficiency, secondary lactose intolerance, and, most commonly, from acquired primary lactase deficiency, a highly prevalent condition affecting 65% to 74% of the worldwide population, with wide regional and ethnic variations. Symptoms arising from lactose malabsorption result from fluid shifts into the intestinal lumen driven by an osmotic gradient and subsequent fermentation of lactose by bacteria residing in the gastrointestinal tract. In this article we review the development of clinical lactose intolerance, diagnostic testing, and treatment of individuals presenting with symptoms of lactose intolerance.