Background Although coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is mild in nearly all children, a small proportion of pediatric patients develop severe or critical illness. Guidance is therefore needed regarding use of agents with potential activity against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 in pediatrics. Methods A panel of pediatric infectious diseases physicians and pharmacists from 18 geographically diverse North American institutions was convened. Through a series of teleconferences and web-based surveys, a set of guidance statements was developed and refined based on review of best available evidence and expert opinion. Results Given the typically mild course of pediatric COVID-19, supportive care alone is suggested for the overwhelming majority of cases. The panel suggests a decision-making framework for antiviral therapy that weighs risks and benefits based on disease severity as indicated by respiratory support needs, with consideration on a case-by-case basis of potential pediatric risk factors for disease progression. If an antiviral is used, the panel suggests remdesivir as the preferred agent. Hydroxychloroquine could be considered for patients who are not candidates for remdesivir or when remdesivir is not available. Antivirals should preferably be used as part of a clinical trial if available. Conclusions Antiviral therapy for COVID-19 is not necessary for the great majority of pediatric patients. For those rare cases of severe or critical disease, this guidance offers an approach for decision-making regarding antivirals, informed by available data. As evidence continues to evolve rapidly, the need for updates to the guidance is anticipated.

Background Although Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a mild infection in most children, a small proportion develop severe or critical illness. Data evaluating agents with potential antiviral activity continue to expand, such that updated guidance is needed regarding use of these agents in children. Methods A panel of pediatric infectious diseases physicians and pharmacists from 20 geographically diverse North American institutions was convened. Through a series of teleconferences and web-based surveys, a set of guidance statements was developed and refined based on review of the best available evidence and expert opinion. Results Given the typically mild course of COVID-19 in children, supportive care alone is suggested for most cases. For children with severe illness, defined as a supplemental oxygen requirement without need for non-invasive or invasive mechanical ventilation or extra-corporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), remdesivir is suggested, preferably as part of a clinical trial if available. Remdesivir should also be considered for critically ill children requiring invasive or non-invasive mechanical ventilation or ECMO. A duration of 5 days is appropriate for most patients. The panel recommends against the use of hydroxychloroquine or lopinavir-ritonavir (or other protease inhibitors) for COVID-19 in children. Conclusions Antiviral therapy for COVID-19 is not necessary for the great majority of pediatric patients. For children with severe or critical disease, this guidance offers an approach for decision-making regarding use of remdesivir.

Although there is growing recognition of the problem of dating violence, little is known about how it unfolds among young adolescents who are just beginning to date. This study examined classes (subgroups) and transitions between classes over three time points based on dating violence, bullying, and sexual harassment perpetration and victimization experienced by youth. The sample was ethnically diverse, consisting of 795 seventh-grade students from schools that were part of a multi-site, longitudinal evaluation of a dating violence initiative (50 % female; 27 % White, 32 % African American, 25 % Latino, 16 % other or multiple races). Results from latent transition analyses revealed five classes of students with distinct behavioral profiles: multi-problem (victimization and perpetration), bullying and sexual harassment (victimization and perpetration), bullying (victimization and perpetration) and sexual harassment (victimization only), bullying (victimization and perpetration), and a least problem group. The majority of classes were characterized by reports of both perpetration and victimization for at least one behavior. Girls were more likely to be in the less problematic classes. Class membership was fairly stable across the three time points. When students transitioned to a different class, the shift was most often from a more problematic to a less problematic class, particularly for girls. The findings support understanding dating violence within a dynamic, developmental process that recognizes related behaviors within and across individuals. Overall, the findings highlight the utility of person-oriented approaches to enhance our understanding of longitudinal profiles and transitions over time for dating violence and related behaviors.

Three systematic reviews were conducted on: (i) the history of mouthguard use in sports; (ii) mouthguard material and construction; and (iii) the effectiveness of mouthguards in preventing orofacial injuries and concussions. Retrieval databases and bibliographies were explored to find studies using specific key words for each topic. The first recorded use of mouthguards was by boxers, and in the 1920s professional boxing became the first sport to require mouthguards. Advocacy by the American Dental Association led to the mandating of mouthguards for US high school football in the 1962 season. Currently, the US National Collegiate Athletic Association requires mouthguards for four sports (ice hockey, lacrosse, field hockey and football). However, the American Dental Association recommends the use of mouthguards in 29 sports/exercise activities. Mouthguard properties measured in various studies included shock-absorbing capability, hardness, stiffness (indicative of protective capability), tensile strength, tear strength (indicative of durability) and water absorption. Materials used for mouthguards included: (i) polyvinylacetate-polyethylene or ethylene vinyl acetate (EVA) copolymer; (ii) polyvinylchloride; (iii) latex rubber; (iv) acrylic resin; and (v) polyurethane. Latex rubber was a popular material used in early mouthguards but it has lower shock absorbency, lower hardness and less tear and tensile strength than EVA or polyurethane. Among the more modern materials, none seems to stand out as superior to another since the characteristics of all the modern materials can be manipulated to provide a range of favourable characteristics. Impact studies have shown that compared with no mouthguard, mouthguards composed of many types of materials reduce the number of fractured teeth and head acceleration. In mouthguard design, consideration must be given to the nature of the collision (hard or soft objects) and characteristics of the mouth (e.g. brittle incisors, more rugged occusal surfaces of molars, soft gingiva). Laminates with different shock absorbing and stress distributing (stiffness) capability may be one way to accommodate these factors.Studies comparing mouthguard users with nonusers have examined different sports, employed a variety of study designs and used widely-varying injury case definitions. Prior to the 1980s, most studies exhibited relatively low methodological quality. Despite these issues, meta-analyses indicated that the risk of an orofacial sports injury was 1.6-1.9 times higher when a mouthguard was not worn. However, the evidence that mouthguards protect against concussion was inconsistent, and no conclusion regarding the effectiveness of mouthguards in preventing concussion can be drawn at present. Mouthguards should continue to be used in sport activities where there is significant risk of orofacial injury.

No abstract