Introduction:The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the incidence of pediatric type 1 (T1D) and type 2 diabetes (T2D) and severity of presentation at diagnosis is unclear. Methods: A retrospective comparison of 737 youth diagnosed with T1D and T2D during the initial 12 months of the CO-VID-19 pandemic and in the preceding 2 years was conducted at a pediatric tertiary care center. Results: Incident cases of T1D rose from 152 to 158 in the 2 years before the pandemic (3.9% increase) to 182 cases during the pandemic (15.2% increase). The prevalence of diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) at T1D diagnosis increased over 3 years (41.4%, 51.9%, and 57.7%, p = 0.003); severe DKA increased during the pandemic as compared to the 2 years before (16.8% vs. 28%, p = 0.004). Although there was no difference in the mean hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) between racial and ethnic groups at T1D diagnosis in the 2-years pre-pandemic (p = 0.31), during the pandemic HbA1c at T1D diagnosis was higher in non-Hispanic Black (NHB) youth (11.3 ± 1.4%, non-Hispanic White 10.5 ± 1.6%, Latinx 10.8 ± 1.5%, p = 0.01). Incident cases of T2D decreased from 54 to 50 cases (7.4% decrease) over the 2-years pre-pandemic and increased 182% during the pandemic (n = 141, 1.45 cases/month, p < 0.001). As compared to the 2-years pre-pandemic, cases increased most among NHB youth (56.7% vs. 76.6%, p = 0.001) and males (40.4% vs. 58.9%, p = 0.005). Cases of DKA (5.8% vs. 23.4%, p < 0.001) and hyperosmolar DKA (0 vs. 9.2%, p = 0.001) increased among youth with T2D during the pandemic. Conclusions: During the pandemic, the incidence and severity of presentation of T1D increased modestly, while incident cases of T2D increased 182%, with a nearly 6-fold increase in DKA and nearly a 10% incidence of hyperosmolar DKA. NHB youth were disproportionately impacted, raising concern about worsening of pre-existing health disparities during and after the pandemic.

Background: Pharmacogenetic (PGx) testing, a component of personalized medicine, aims to ensure treatment efficacy while reducing side effects and symptoms. Before this testing becomes routine in the pediatric oncology population, nurses need to understand the knowledge and concerns of providers, patients, and family members with regard to the timing, extent, interpretation, and incorporation of PGx testing. Methods: As part of a comprehensive PGx study (larger study) for children diagnosed with cancer, we surveyed providers and caregivers of children with cancer about their knowledge of and comfort with PGx testing. Caregivers who declined to participate in the larger PGx study were also asked to participate in the survey. Chi-square tests and a two-sample t-test were used to compare variables. Results: One hundred and two participants from the larger PGx study and 12 families who refused (response rate of 77% and 54%, respectively) as well as 29 providers (88%) completed surveys. Families not on the study were less interested in and comfortable with PGx results. Both groups were concerned about health or life insurance discrimination and payment. Providers would like support in ordering PGx testing and interpreting PGx. Discussion: Providers remain wary of most PGx testing, uncomfortable with interpreting and applying the results. Families are interested in the possibilities of personalized prescribing while worried about who has access to their child's genetic information. Further education on relevant tests for providers, including nurses, and the testing process for families, including details on privacy and sharing of genetic information, appear necessary.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS:Two hundred sixty-five parents of 188 children were enrolled. Of the 195 parents who completed the 3-9-month assessments, 29 (14.8%) met posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) qualification on the PTSD Symptom Scale Interview for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition. Multivariable analysis showed parents who met acute stress disorder (ASD) qualification (odds ratio [OR] 8.01; 95% CI 2.64-24.3), parents of children with Pediatric Overall Performance Category score of severe or coma at discharge (OR 5.21; 95% CI 1.65-16.4), parents who had concerns for their child's permanent injury (OR 1.82; 95% CI 1.36-2.43), and parents who reported increased knowledge of child illness during admission (OR 1.82; 95% CI 1.13-2.93) had increased odds of developing parental PTSD. Of the 175 parents (66%) who completed the 18-30month assessments, 22 (12.5%) met PTSD qualification. Multivariable analysis showed parents who met ASD qualification (OR 4.19; 95% CI 1.12-15.7), parents who had a history of a family member or themselves being admitted to ICU (OR 6.51; 95% CI 1.43-29.6), and parents who had concerns of child's susceptibility to death post discharge (OR 1.58; 95% CI 1.19-2.09) had increased odds of developing parental PTSD. At 18-30 months post discharge, parents who met the PTSD qualification were more likely to report a decrease in household income following discharge (OR 9.23; 95% CI 1.71-49.9). CONCLUSIONS:Parental PTSD remains a significant morbidity of PICU admission for a subgroup of parents greater than 18 months post admission. Identifiable risk factors will inform the development of targeted interventions.

In vivo coronary lesion remodelling is positively correlated with lipid plaque content assessed by NIRS rather than simply PB. Thus, the use of NIRS can potentially aid in further stratifying vulnerable lesions.

No abstract