Antibiotic Eardrops Cost-Effective in Kids With Acute Tympanostomy-Tube Otorrhea

NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - For acute otorrhea in children with tympanostomy tubes, antibiotic-glucocorticoid eardrops are not only clinically superior to oral antibiotics and initial observation, they also cost less, according to a study published this week.

Last year in the New England Journal of Medicine, Dr. Thijs van Dongen of the University Medical Center Utrecht in the Netherlands and colleagues reported an open-label trial on the clinical effectiveness of these three treatment strategies in 230 children.

As reported by Reuters Health, one week after the end of treatment, only 5% of the 76 children who received the eardrops -- which contained hydrocortisone, bacitracin and colistin -- had otorrhea compared to 44% of the 77 youngsters given an oral amoxicillin-clavulanate suspension. The rate among the 77 children initially put in an observation group was 55%, which was not significantly different from the cure rate with the oral therapy.

In a study online April 20 in Pediatrics, the researchers report a cost-effectiveness analysis of the treatment strategies, which also favors eardrops.

At two weeks, the total cost in US dollars per patient on average was $42 for antibiotic-glucocorticoid eardrops, $71 for oral antibiotics and $82 for initial observation. At six months, these costs were $368, $421, and $640, respectively, the authors report.

Otorrhea is common in children with tympanostomy tubes; each year, two of every three children develop one or more episodes.

In an email to Reuters Health, Dr. van Dongen noted that the original clinical effectiveness data were "widely covered in the media. At that time, all three treatment strategies were commonly used and with our results we recommended to only use antibiotic-steroid eardrops as the first-line treatment strategy in children with acute tympanostomy-tube otorrhea. In the Netherlands, the guidelines have been adapted based on our results. We hope that through the wide coverage, many physicians now do prescribe eardrops and that clinical practice has already changed."

"With this new publication in Pediatrics, we have an extra argument in favor of starting with ear drops instead of with initial observation, i.e., it is not only clinically superior, it is also has lowest costs," Dr. van Dongen noted.

Dr. Charles Bower, chair of the American Academy of Pediatrics Section on Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, told Reuters Health there is not a guideline specific to post-tube otorrhea. "The guidelines from AAP deal more with acute otitis media," he noted.

In clinical practice, otolaryngologists "typically have the ability to clean ears, make sure tubes are open, make sure tubes are clean and they are fine, and we would virtually 100% of the time use drops alone," Dr. Bower said. "Pediatricians, if they are very confident from a recent visit that a tube is open and fine, will also frequently use drops alone, which has increased effectiveness as well as some cost savings. If a pediatrician has uncertainty, then we still see a fairly high addition of an oral antibiotic."

The study had no commercial funding and the authors have no relevant disclosures. Microbiological analyses of samples taken as part of the trial were supported by GlaxoSmithKline through the University Medical Center Utrecht.

SOURCE: http://bit.ly/1JqVcZm

Pediatrics 2015.

MMR Vaccine Not Linked to Autism, Even in High-Risk Kids

Receipt of the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine was not linked to an increased risk for autism spectrum disorder (ASD), even when older siblings had ASD, a new study shows.

"These findings indicate no harmful association between MMR vaccine receipt and ASD even among children already at higher risk for ASD," Anjali Jain, MD, from the Lewin Group, Falls Church, Virginia, and colleagues write. The researchers present their findings in an article published in the April 21 issue of JAMA.

The investigators used an administrative claims database (the Optum Research Database) connected with a large commercial health plan to conduct a retrospective cohort study. They included children who had been continuously enrolled in the health plan from birth until they were at least aged 5 years during 2001 to 2012. The children also must have had an older sibling who had been continuously enrolled in the health plan for 6 months or longer between 1997 and 2012.

The researchers categorized MMR vaccine exposure according to the number of doses (0, 1, or 2) received between birth and age 5 years.

The study's main outcomes and measures were ASD status, which the researchers defined as two medical claims with a diagnosis code at any point along the autistic disorder or other specified pervasive developmental disorder, including Asperger syndrome, or unspecified pervasive developmental disorder (International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification, 299.0x, 299.8x, 299.9x).

The researchers included 95,727 children with older siblings. Overall, 994 (1.04%) of those children were diagnosed with ASD and 1929 (2.01%) had an older sibling with ASD. Among the children who had older siblings with ASD, 134 (6.9%) were diagnosed with ASD compared with 860 (0.9%) who were diagnosed with ASD and did not have an affected sibling (P < .001).

The MMR vaccination rate (≥1 dose) for those with siblings without ASD was 84% (n = 78,564) at age 2 years and 92% (n = 86,063) at age 5 years.

MMR vaccination rates were lower for those with older siblings with ASD at age 2 years (73% [n = 1409]) and 5 years (86% [n = 1660]).

The researchers adjusted for potential confounders, including sex of the index child, mother's and father's age at index child's birth, geographic location defined by the four US Census regions, mental health benefits, and index child birth year, which the researchers included to adjust for varying opportunities for ASD to develop or be diagnosed.

Receipt of MMR vaccination was not linked to a higher risk for ASD at any age.

For those with older siblings with ASD, at age 2 years, the adjusted relative risk (RR) for ASD for a single dose of MMR vaccine compared with no vaccine was 0.76 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.49 - 1.18; P = .22), and at age 5 years, the RR of ASD for 2 doses compared with no vaccine was 0.56 (95% CI, 0.31-1.01; P = .052).

For those with older siblings without ASD, at age 2 years, the adjusted RR for ASD for a single MMR vaccine dose was 0.91 (95% CI, 0.67 - 1.20; P = .50), and at age 5 years, the adjusted RR for ASD for two vaccine doses was 1.12 (95% CI, 0.78 - 1.59; P = .55).

The cause or causes of autism have been difficult to identify, writes Bryan H. King, MD, MBA, from the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, and Seattle Children's Hospital, Washington, in an accompanying editorial.

"More recently, controversy continues and is reflected in changes in diagnostic criteria and the increasing recognition of heterogeneity that incorporates the word 'spectrum' into the diagnosis," Dr King writes. "With each new prevalence estimate that suggests inexplicable and substantial increases in the number of children diagnosed with the disorder, the urgency to better understand causation is amplified."

Some parents of children with ASD have chosen to put off immunization of later children until they were sure the risk for ASD had passed, Dr King writes.

"Such behavior, which arguably could enrich the immunization rate in the nonautism subgroup relative to the group that may have been showing early atypical development, might create the impression that MMR vaccine is actually reducing risk for ASD. Indeed, Jain et al report relative risks of less than 1.0." Dr King explains. "Even so, short of arguing that MMR vaccine actually reduces the risk of ASD in those who were immunized by age 2 years, the only conclusion that can be drawn from the study is that there is no signal to suggest a relationship between MMR and the development of autism in children with or without a sibling who has autism."

This study was funded by the National Institute of Mental Health, National Institutes of Health, and the US Department of Health and Human Services. Dr Jain and two coauthors report being employees of the Lewin Group. Two coauthors are employees of Optum, which a wholly owned subsidiary of UnitedHealth Group. The Lewin Group is an Optum company. The Lewin Group operates with editorial independence. The other authors and Dr King have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

JAMA. 2015;313:1518-1519, 1534-1540.

Care Needed to Reduce Pet-to-Human Infection Risk

By Kathryn Doyle

(Reuters Health) - Pets can be a source of infection, and newborns, the elderly, children with leukemia and adults with cancer are especially vulnerable, according to a new review of data from previous research.

Selecting the right pets and using safe strategies to care for them can reduce the risk, the authors write.

"Pets have a number of really important health benefits," including emotional and social support, said lead author Dr. Jason Stull of the Department of Veterinary Preventive Medicine at Ohio State University in Columbus.

And actually contracting an infection from a pet is relatively uncommon, he and his colleagues say.

"The biggest issue comes down to really recognizing when individuals are at greater risk," Stull said.

People with compromised immune systems are at increased risk for these infections and may have more severe disease, the authors write. Also at increased risk are kids under age five, adults over age 65, and pregnant women.

Pet-sourced infections have also been reported in organ donors and recipients, according to Bruno Chomel, who researches veterinary public health and zoonoses at University of California, Davis School of Veterinary Medicine. Chomel was not part of the new review.

More than half of households in the U.S. have pets, Chomel noted.

"We are not saying that you should get rid of the pet," he told Reuters Health by phone. But if your immune system is compromised, he added, "don't take in a stray pet or a kitten with fleas, and if you have young toddlers, don't take an iguana as a pet."

Many people don't realize their pets can be a source of infection, Stull told Reuters Health by phone.

Reptiles, amphibians, hedgehogs, chinchillas, rodents and young chickens are some of the "highest risk" animals, he said.

There aren't good data on actual rates of so-called zoonotic infections, because governments don't generally track diseases transmitted by companion animals, other than rabies.

But pets can theoretically transmit more than 70 human diseases via bites, scratches and contact with body fluids (such as saliva, urine, or feces, or infectious aerosols or droplets), the authors write online April 20 in CMAJ.

The new review covered more than 300 articles on infections originating in companion animals. Most of the studies were small, the authors note. The review also included guidelines developed by other experts.

Cats are the definitive host for the parasite Toxoplasma gondii, which can lead to congenital defects, encephalitis or meningitis when a pregnant woman is exposed.

"Your risk of toxoplasma is much higher from gardening or eating undercooked meat," Stull noted.

But in any case, it seems that neither doctors nor veterinarians are asking their human clients about pets or about young children, elderly people, or other vulnerable family members in the home.

"Most patients do not ever recall being asked if they have pets," Stull said.

When a child is diagnosed with cancer, the family may go out and get a new pet to help cope.

"In most situations there are options for finding a pet for that household, but it requires having a conversation with physicians and veterinarians," Stull said.

"It really requires strong integration and communication between all of these different groups," he said.

The most frequent mode of transmission is fecal-oral, Stull said, and care strategies can minimize that risk.

He and his coauthors recommend wearing protective gloves to clean aquariums and cages and remove feces, proper handwashing after pet contact, discouraging pets from face licking, covering playground boxes when not in use, avoiding contact with exotic animals, regular cleaning and disinfection of animal cages, feeding areas and bedding, locating litter boxes away from areas where eating and food preparation occur and regularly scheduling veterinary visits for all pets.

Households with immunocompromised people or very young children (under a few months of age) should avoid contact with puppies and kittens that are younger than six months, and avoid adopting a cat younger than a year old, the authors suggest. These people should also avoid young farm animals at petting zoos.

"Other practices will be important for all children under five years, such as strict hand washing and ensuring pets are healthy and receive preventive veterinary care," Stull said.

"There isn't necessarily one 'safest' animal, but mature dogs and cats who are well cared for are a lower risk," he said.

It is also important to teach children how to interact with pets to minimize the risk of bites, Stull added.

Many people today treat pets as children, and allow the pets to lick them and sleep in their beds, Chomel said.

"If pets are healthy, the risk is low, but your dog and cats walk outside and they bring things back," he said.

SOURCE: http://bit.ly/1zDd8KW

CMAJ 2015.

Preventing Celiac Disease in Infants: The Known and Unknown

Ritu Verma, MD

|April 13, 2015

Hi, I'm Ritu Verma. I'm one of the pediatric gastroenterologists at the Children's Hospital in Philadelphia, and I'm the director of the Celiac Center.

Today, I would like to provide some updates about celiac disease. As you know, celiac disease is an autoimmune condition, and it's the result of certain genetic factors and eating gluten. However, we do know that there are some people who have these specific genes, eat gluten-containing foods, and do not get the disease. There has been a lot of discussion about what these other factors are that actually cause the disease to be manifested.

One of the big concerns and questions in the past has been about actual nutritional input for these babies, in terms of when do we introduce gluten. Does it really make a difference in onset of the disease or the severity of the disease?

In the past, studies have found that introducing gluten between 4 and 6 months of age—not too early in life, and not too late in life—and breastfeeding at the same time seems to have been protective. We've recommended in the past that children who are genetically susceptible to celiac disease be fed cereal between those 4 to 6 months of age.

Recently, however, there were two large studies^[1,2] from Europe that followed genetically susceptible babies and their eating patterns over time. It seemed that it did not make a difference whether these babies were given cereal early or late in the first year of life. It did not seem to make a difference whether they were being breastfed or not. This is definitely contrary to what we've been discussing so far with our patients.

What was also found as part of the studies was that the genetic types seem to be the more important factor. Babies who were HLA DQ2 homozygous-positive had earlier onset of the disease. Once again, it did not seem to make a difference when the cereal or gluten were introduced.

Currently, what we are recommending is to have babies and moms and dads follow the guidelines^[3] by the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) in terms of when to introduce cereals and foods. We totally agree that breastfeeding is important for the babies. This has been confusing. However, this is what we have currently.

These questions are just like, for example, those raised by the Learning Early About Peanut Allergy (LEAP) study,^[4] whose results were published earlier this year. Initially, we were always taught that peanuts should be introduced later in life to cut down on peanut allergies. The recent study indicates that introducing peanuts early in the diet seems to cut down on peanut allergies in life.

A lot of confusion; however, this is the update, currently, for celiac disease. As we have more research and more long-term studies being done, we will bring those back to you as well. Thank you.

References

1. Aronsson CA, Lee HS, Liu E, et al; TEDDY Study Group. Age at gluten introduction and risk of celiac disease. Pediatrics. 2015;135:239-245. http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2015/01/13/peds.2014-1787.full.pdf+html Accessed April 1, 2015.