Child health

About two in three of participating urban Aboriginal infants had mild or moderate hearing loss at twelve months of age

Tamara Veselinović · Sharon A Weeks · Valerie M Swift · Deborah Lehmann · Christopher G Brennan‐Jones

To the Editor: Fraile Navarro and colleagues1 recently published 20 recommendations for the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) in children and adolescents from the National COVID‐19 Clinical Evidence Taskforce. For the paediatric inflammatory multisystem syndrome (PIMS‐TS) recommendations, the Taskforce convened an expert advisory group.1 In the absence of clinical trials, the panel considered peer‐reviewed guidelines and cohort studies to formulate consensus recommendations.1 However, they deferred providing any guidance to help clinicians prevent thromboembolism. We suggest the Taskforce consider the same approach for paediatric anticoagulation guidance. COVID‐19 is associated with marked coagulation activation and hypercoagulability in children.2,3 Life‐threatening pulmonary embolus requiring thrombolysis has been encountered in Australian adolescents hospitalised with COVID‐19. A retrospective cohort study published in 2021 found that 2.1% of children hospitalised with symptomatic COVID‐19 infection and 6.5% of those with PIMS‐TS developed thrombosis.4 Thrombosis occurred more frequently in children aged 12years and over who had central lines, PIMS‐TS, or an underlying oncological diagnosis. A D‐dimer of more than five times the upper limit of normal was significantly associated with thrombosis.4 The authors refer to “paediatric guidelines published in the US”, which are published on behalf of the Pediatric/Neonatal Hemostasis and Thrombosis Subcommittee of the International Society of Thrombosis and Haemostasis; these adapt current consensus prophylaxis guidelines to include COVID‐19‐specific features.5 In deferring making specific recommendations, the authors suggested using existing local thromboprophylaxis guidelines. The Royal Children’s Hospital, Melbourne and the Sydney Children’s Hospital, Randwick have both independently developed COVID‐19‐specific thromboprophylaxis guidelines (that are very closely aligned),6,7 as have many other centres globally because previous local thromboprophylaxis guidelines are inadequate for COVID‐19‐associated thrombotic coagulopathy. The Melbourne/Sydney guidelines advise baseline coagulation testing in hospitalised children with COVID‐19, incorporating D‐dimer to assist risk assessment, twice‐daily enoxaparin and anti‐Xa monitoring/dose titration.6,7 These could be provided as supplemental material in these living guidelines. The COVID‐19 anticoagulation in Children–Thromboprophylaxis (COVAC‐TP) trial — a phase 2 single‐arm study looking at 40 children who will receive monitored, low dose, twice‐daily enoxaparin (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT04354155) — will not change the level of evidence, so waiting for completion of this trial does not seem appropriate.

Gemma L Crighton · Anthea Greenway · Susan Russell

Recommendations are based on evidence-based knowledge of safety, immunogenicity and efficacy of the vaccines in the general population, plus emerging data regarding COVID-19 vaccination in immunocompromised individuals

Eliska Furlong · Rishi S Kotecha · Rachel Conyers · Tracey A O'Brien · Jordan R Hansford · Leanne Super · Peter Downie · David D Eisenstat · Gabrielle Haeusler · Brendan McMullan · Marianne B Phillips · Bhavna Padhye · Luciano Dalla‐Pozza · Frank Alvaro · Christopher J Fraser · Wayne Nicholls · Julia E Clark · Matthew O'Connor · Benjamin R Saxon · Heather Tapp · John Heath · Sarah E Hunter · Karen Tsui · Mark Winstanley · Amanda Lyver · Emma J Best · Ushma Wadia · Daniel Yeoh · Christopher C Blyth · Nicholas G Gottardo

Recent legal changes are negatively affecting provision of timely medical care to Australian transgender youth

Fiona Kelly · Simona Giordano · Michelle M Telfer · Ken C Pang

To the Editor: We must clarify that the findings of Iorfino and colleagues1 do not apply to headspace clients. This understandable misperception comes from the article’s title, “early intervention mental health services”, and participants coming from “clinics” that “provide both primary care services (headspace) and more specialised services”. Quotes from an InSight+ article2 and the accompanying editorial3 infer that the findings generalise to headspace, but they do not. Although some participants in the Iorfino study came from two headspace‐branded centres, they also included young people accessing specialised services. This is evident in the limitations: “our sample was restricted to young people who remained in contact with the service for at least two years … biasing our sample towards people who required ongoing care and were accordingly more likely to have poorer outcomes”. Generally, headspace does not provide care over a period of two years or more; centres typically provide brief episodes of care, befitting young people with mild to moderate presentations for common mental health problems. The average number of sessions is 4.4 (standard deviation [SD], 6.2); 98% of clients receive 20 sessions or fewer. A negligible 0.4% of clients are still receiving care at two years. Average time between the first and last session is 73.7 days (SD, 120), about 2.5 months (headspace 2015–2021, national unpublished data). Clarification that the findings are not representative of, nor generalisable to, headspace clients is essential; the headspace initiative is not targeted at young people who need more sustained mental health care. The results are inconsistent with reported outcomes for 24 034 headspace clients from 55 fully established centres.4 Significant improvement in the Social and Occupational Functioning Assessment Scale (SOFAS) scores was evident for 37.1% of headspace clients, 43.4% had no significant change, and 19.5% significantly deteriorated. Updated outcomes are forthcoming. Importantly, multiple outcomes must be considered for headspace clients; these are young people with diverse early intervention needs — the single‐item, clinician‐rated SOFAS is insufficient to ascertain meaningful outcomes. Despite the inability to generalise from Iorfino’s study to the national headspace centre network, we agree that young people with complex and persisting mental health conditions require more resource‐intensive responses than headspace primary care services were designed for.

Debra J Rickwood · Jason Trethowan · Annette Carruthers

Australia lacks a comprehensive approach to CMV screening, and most infected infants go undiagnosed

Allison Reid · Asha C Bowen · Christopher G Brennan‐Jones · Jafri B Kuthubutheen

COVID-19 vaccination seems to be precisely the sort of decision that young people should be able to make along the road to becoming independent decision makers as adults

John Massie · Georgia A Paxton · Nigel Crawford · Margie H Danchin

We suggest five potential strategy areas that could begin to address nequities

Sharon Goldfeld · Elodie O'Connor · Valerie Sung · Gehan Roberts · Melissa Wake · Sue West · Harriet Hiscock

To the Editor: Undescended testis affects 2–4% of term male newborns.1 Clinical examination by an experienced clinician remains the most accurate method of assessing the position of the testis. It allows for the clear distinction between a retractile testis and palpable and impalpable undescended testes. In 2013, an evidence‐based statement on undescended testes was released jointly by Choosing Wisely and the American Urological Association which advocated against performing ultrasounds to investigate undescended testes due to their poor ability to localise non‐palpable testes.2 Unfortunately, this recommendation is not listed in the Australian Choosing Wisely website. Our study intended to improve awareness of the American Urological Association Choosing Wisely guidelines among Australian general practitioners and draw attention to the resources misspent due to lack of awareness. A retrospective audit was undertaken of 50 children referred in 2017 for an undescended testis to a single paediatric urologist in a private clinic. De‐identified data were extracted from the practitioner’s medical record system. The research ethics committee at the Sydney Adventist Hospital approved the publication of the audit. Of the patients referred with a diagnosis of an undescended testis, 35 testes (70%) were palpable in the scrotum on the day of consultation. However, 32 of 50 children (64%) already had an ultrasound by the time they were seen, with 51 testes (79%) labelled as undescended testis. Thus, more than two‐thirds of children had an ultrasound that was not needed, and the specificity was low at 27% (95% CI, 15–42%) (Box). About 159 379 boys were born in Australia in the study period.3 The cost of an ultrasound of the scrotum as per the Medicare Benefits Schedule was $109.50 (item 55048). Assuming an incidence of undescended testis of 2% and assuming ultrasounds were ordered in three times as many children, as happened in our study (15 undescended testes and 35 descended testes), the cost of unnecessary studies is calculated to be $1 047 120 (3 × 0.02 × birth cohort of 159 379 × $109.50). The numbers of Medicare claims for item 55048 have increased by 5% each year since 2010.4 Health budgets are finite, and expenditure should be linked to quality metrics. GPs and paediatricians are undoubtedly trying to be helpful by organising an ultrasound before the referral, but it is unnecessary. This letter is an attempt to continue the discussion with referring doctors to let them know that ultrasound is not required before referral for an undescended testis. This is a single clinic audit. We hope it will inspire larger population‐based audits to facilitate systemic change. Box – Ultrasound and examination findings Position of the testicle On examination inguinal On examination scrotal Total Inguinal ultrasound 16 35 51* Scrotal ultrasound 0 13 13 Total 16 48 64 * One testicle reported in the inguinal region on ultrasound was impalpable on examination.

Dharshini Selvarajah · Dermot McDowell · Susan Jehangir · Grahame Smith

Screening by GPs for six major risk factors and brief interventions in primary care or schools may help

the Heath4Life team †

We must acknowledge the magnitude of the problem and show some urgency in implementing reform

Patrick D McGorry

Young people need dynamic service models that emphasise multidisciplinary interventions and measurement-based care

Frank Iorfino · Joanne S Carpenter · Shane PM Cross · Jacob Crouse · Tracey A Davenport · Daniel F Hermens · Hannah Yee · Alissa Nichles · Natalia Zmicerevska · Adam Guastella · Elizabeth M Scott · Ian B Hickie

Clinical guidelines must be continually updated and tailored to specific populations, including children and adolescents.

Clinical care of children and adolescents with COVID-19: recommendations from the National COVID-19 Clinical Evidence Taskforce

Evidence supports the establishment of a national TP-IAT program, delivered at sites with a concentration of expertise and experience

Jessica Eldredge · Michael R Couper · David J Moore · Sanjeev Khurana · John WC Chen · Jennifer J Couper · Christopher J Drogemuller · Toni Radford · Thomas W Kay · Tom Loudovaris · Michael Wilks · Patrick T Coates · Richard TL Couper

Saliva may be suitable as a stand-alone test specimen for people aged 10 years or more

Jane Oliver · Shidan Tosif · Lai‐yang Lee · Anna‐Maria Costa · Chelsea Bartel · Katherine Last · Vanessa Clifford · Andrew Daley · Nicole Allard · Catherine Orr · Ashley Nind · Karyn Alexander · Niamh Meagher · Michelle Sait · Susan A Ballard · Eloise Williams · Katherine Bond · Deborah A Williamson · Nigel W Crawford · Katherine B Gibney

We need to consider offering vaccination to adolescents and young adults

Mary‐Louise McLaws