Network


Latest external collaboration on country level. Dive into details by clicking on the dots.

Hotspot


Dive into the research topics where Richard L. Gorman is active.

Publication


Featured researches published by Richard L. Gorman.


Pediatrics | 2014

Updated Guidance for Palivizumab Prophylaxis Among Infants and Young Children at Increased Risk of Hospitalization for Respiratory Syncytial Virus Infection

Michael T. Brady; Carrie L. Byington; H. Dele Davies; Kathryn M. Edwards; Mary Anne Jackson; Yvonne Maldonado; Dennis L. Murray; Walter A. Orenstein; Mobeen H. Rathore; Mark H. Sawyer; Gordon E. Schutze; Rodney E. Willoughby; Theoklis E. Zaoutis; Henry H. Bernstein; David W. Kimberlin; Sarah S. Long; H. Cody Meissner; Marc A. Fischer; Bruce G. Gellin; Richard L. Gorman; Lucia H. Lee; R. Douglas Pratt; Jennifer S. Read; Joan Robinson; Marco Aurelio Palazzi Safadi; Jane F. Seward; Jeffrey R. Starke; Geoffrey R. Simon; Tina Q. Tan; Joseph A. Bocchini

Palivizumab was licensed in June 1998 by the Food and Drug Administration for the reduction of serious lower respiratory tract infection caused by respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) in children at increased risk of severe disease. Since that time, the American Academy of Pediatrics has updated its guidance for the use of palivizumab 4 times as additional data became available to provide a better understanding of infants and young children at greatest risk of hospitalization attributable to RSV infection. The updated recommendations in this policy statement reflect new information regarding the seasonality of RSV circulation, palivizumab pharmacokinetics, the changing incidence of bronchiolitis hospitalizations, the effect of gestational age and other risk factors on RSV hospitalization rates, the mortality of children hospitalized with RSV infection, the effect of prophylaxis on wheezing, and palivizumab-resistant RSV isolates. This policy statement updates and replaces the recommendations found in the 2012 Red Book.


Pediatrics | 2006

The pediatrician and disaster preparedness

Steven E. Krug; Thomas Bojko; Margaret A. Dolan; Karen S. Frush; Patricia J. O'Malley; Robert E. Sapien; Kathy N. Shaw; Joan E. Shook; Paul E. Sirbaugh; Loren G. Yamamato; Jane Ball; Kathleen Brown; Kim Bullock; Dan Kavanaugh; Sharon E. Mace; David W. Tuggle; David Markenson; Susan Tellez; Gary N. McAbee; Steven M. Donn; C. Morrison Farish; David Marcus; Robert A. Mendelson; Sally L. Reynolds; Larry Veltman; Holly Myers; Julie Kersten Ake; Joseph F. Hagan; Marion J. Balsam; Richard L. Gorman

For decades, emergency planning for natural disasters, public health emergencies, workplace accidents, and other calamities has been the responsibility of government agencies on all levels and certain nongovernment organizations such as the American Red Cross. In the case of terrorism, however, entirely new approaches to emergency planning are under development for a variety of reasons. Terrorism preparedness is a highly specific component of general emergency preparedness. In addition to the unique pediatric issues involved in general emergency preparedness, terrorism preparedness must consider several additional issues, including the unique vulnerabilities of children to various agents as well as the limited availability of age- and weight-appropriate antidotes and treatments. Although children may respond more rapidly to therapeutic intervention, they are at the same time more susceptible to various agents and conditions and more likely to deteriorate if they are not monitored carefully. This article is designed to provide an overview of key issues for the pediatrician with respect to disaster, terrorism, and public health emergency preparedness. It is not intended to be a complete compendium of didactic content but rather offers an approach to what pediatricians need to know and how pediatricians must lend their expertise to enhance preparedness in every community. To become fully and optimally prepared, pediatricians need to become familiar with these key areas of emergency preparedness: unique aspects of children related to terrorism and other disasters; terrorism preparedness; mental health vulnerabilities and development of resiliency; managing family concerns about terrorism and disaster preparedness; office-based preparedness; hospital preparedness; community, government, and public health preparedness; and advocating for children and families in preparedness planning.


Pediatrics | 2009

Prevention of rotavirus disease: Updated guidelines for use of rotavirus vaccine

Joseph A. Bocchini; John S. Bradley; Michael T. Brady; Henry H. Bernstein; Carrie L. Byington; Penelope H. Dennehy; Margaret C. Fisher; Robert W. Frenck; Mary P. Glode; Harry L. Keyserling; David W. Kimberlin; Walter A. Orenstein; Lorry G. Rubin; Beth P. Bell; Robert Bortolussi; Richard D. Clover; Marc A. Fischer; Richard L. Gorman; Lucia Lee; Jennifer S. Read; Benjamin Schwartz; Jeffrey R. Starke; Edgar O. Ledbetter; H. Cody Meissner; Larry K. Pickering; Carol J. Baker; Sarah S. Long; Jennifer Frantz

This statement updates and replaces the 2007 American Academy of Pediatrics statement for prevention of rotavirus gastroenteritis. In February 2006, a live oral human-bovine reassortant rotavirus vaccine (RV5 [RotaTeq]) was licensed as a 3-dose series for use in infants in the United States. The American Academy of Pediatrics recommended routine use of RV5 in infants in the United States. In April 2008, a live, oral, human attenuated rotavirus vaccine (RV1 [Rotarix]) was licensed as a 2-dose series for use in infants in the United States. The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends routine immunization of infants in the United States with rotavirus vaccine. The American Academy of Pediatrics does not express a preference for either RV5 or RV1. RV5 is to be administered orally in a 3-dose series with doses administered at 2, 4, and 6 months of age; RV1 is to be administered orally in a 2-dose series with doses administered at 2 and 4 months of age. The first dose of rotavirus vaccine should be administered from 6 weeks through 14 weeks, 6 days of age. The minimum interval between doses of rotavirus vaccine is 4 weeks. All doses should be administered by 8 months, 0 days of age. Recommendations in this statement also address the maximum ages for doses, contraindications, precautions, and special situations for administration of rotavirus vaccine.


Pediatrics | 2007

Prevention of varicella: Recommendations for use of varicella vaccines in children, including a recommendation for a routine 2-dose varicella immunization schedule

Joseph A. Bocchini; Robert S. Baltimore; Henry H. Bernstein; John S. Bradley; Michael T. Brady; Penelope H. Dennehy; Margaret C. Fisher; Robert W. Frenck; David W. Kimberlin; Sarah S. Long; Julia A. McMillan; Lorry G. Rubin; Richard D. Clover; Marc A. Fischer; Richard L. Gorman; Douglas R. Pratt; Anne Schuchat; Benjamin Schwartz; Jeffrey R. Starke; Jack Swanson; Larry K. Pickering; Carol J. Baker; Edgar O. Ledbetter; Alison Siwek

National varicella immunization coverage using the current 1-dose immunization strategy has increased among vaccine-eligible children 19 through 35 months of age from 27% in 1997 to 88% by 2005. These high immunization rates have resulted in a 71% to 84% decrease in the reported number of varicella cases, an 88% decrease in varicella-related hospitalizations, a 59% decrease in varicella-related ambulatory care visits, and a 92% decrease in varicella-related deaths in 1- to 4-year-old children when compared with data from the prevaccine era. Despite this significant decrease, the number of reported cases of varicella has remained relatively constant during the past 5 to 6 years. Since vaccine effectiveness for prevention of disease of any severity has been 80% to 85%, a large number of cases of varicella continue to occur among people who already have received the vaccine (breakthrough varicella), and outbreaks of varicella have been reported among highly immunized populations of schoolchildren. The peak age-specific incidence has shifted from 3- to 6-year-old children in the prevaccine era to 9- to 11-year-old children in the postvaccine era for cases in both immunized and unimmunized children during these outbreaks. Outbreaks of varicella are likely to continue with the current 1-dose immunization strategy. After administration of 2 doses of varicella vaccine in children, the immune response is markedly enhanced, with >99% of children achieving an antibody concentration (determined by glycoprotein enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay) of ≥5 U/mL (an approximate correlate of protection) and a marked increase in geometric mean antibody titers after the second vaccine dose. The estimated vaccine efficacy over a 10-year observation period of 2 doses for prevention of any varicella disease is 98% (compared with 94% for 1 dose), with 100% efficacy for prevention of severe disease. Recipients of 2 doses of varicella vaccine are 3.3-fold less likely to have breakthrough varicella, compared with those who are given 1 dose, during the first 10 years after immunization. To achieve greater levels of immunity with fewer serosusceptible people, greater protection against breakthrough varicella disease, and reduction in the number of outbreaks that occur nationwide among school-aged populations, a 2-dose varicella immunization strategy is now recommended for children ≥12 months of age.


Pediatrics | 2012

Epidemiology and diagnosis of health care-associated infections in the NICU.

Richard A. Polin; Susan Denson; Michael T. Brady; Lu Ann Papile; Jill E. Baley; Waldemar A. Carlo; James J. Cummings; Praveen Kumar; Rosemarie C. Tan; Kristi L. Watterberg; Wanda D. Barfield; Ann L Jefferies; George A. Macones; Rosalie O. Mainous; Tonse N.K. Raju; Kasper S. Wang; Jim Couto; Carrie L. Byington; H. Dele Davies; Kathryn M. Edwards; Mary P. Glode; Mary Anne Jackson; Harry L. Keyserling; Yvonne Maldonado; Dennis L. Murray; Walter A. Orenstein; Gordon E. Schutze; Rodney E. Willoughby; Theoklis E. Zaoutis; Marc A. Fischer

Health care−associated infections in the NICU are a major clinical problem resulting in increased morbidity and mortality, prolonged length of hospital stays, and increased medical costs. Neonates are at high risk for health care−associated infections because of impaired host defense mechanisms, limited amounts of protective endogenous flora on skin and mucosal surfaces at time of birth, reduced barrier function of neonatal skin, the use of invasive procedures and devices, and frequent exposure to broad-spectrum antibiotics. This statement will review the epidemiology and diagnosis of health care−associated infections in newborn infants.


Pediatrics | 2009

Drinking water from private wells and risks to children.

Helen J. Binns; Joel A. Forman; Catherine J. Karr; Kevin C. Osterhoudt; Jerome A. Paulson; James R. Roberts; Megan Sandel; James M. Seltzer; Robert O. Wright; Elizabeth Blackburn; Mark Anderson; Sharon A. Savage; Walter J. Rogan; N. Beth Ragan; Paul Spire; Joseph A. Bocchini; Henry H. Bernstein; John S. Bradley; Michael T. Brady; Carrie L. Byington; Penelope H. Dennehy; Margaret C. Fisher; Robert W. Frenck; Mary P. Glode; Harry L. Keyserling; David W. Kimberlin; Walter A. Orenstein; Lorry G. Rubin; Robert S. Baltimore; Julia A. McMillan

Drinking water for approximately one sixth of US households is obtained from private wells. These wells can become contaminated by pollutant chemicals or pathogenic organisms, leading to significant illness. Although the US Environmental Protection Agency and all states offer guidance for construction, maintenance, and testing of private wells, there is little regulation, and with few exceptions, well owners are responsible for their own wells. Children may also drink well water at child care or when traveling. Illness resulting from childrens ingestion of contaminated water can be severe. This report reviews relevant aspects of groundwater and wells; describes the common chemical and microbiologic contaminants; gives an algorithm with recommendations for inspection, testing, and remediation for wells providing drinking water for children; reviews the definitions and uses of various bottled waters; provides current estimates of costs for well testing; and provides federal, national, state, and, where appropriate, tribal contacts for more information.


Pediatrics | 2011

Meningococcal conjugate vaccines policy update: Booster dose recommendations

Michael T. Brady; Henry H. Bernstein; Carrie L. Byington; Kathryn M. Edwards; Margaret C. Fisher; Mary P. Glode; Mary Anne Jackson; Harry L. Keyserling; David W. Kimberlin; Yvonne Maldonado; Walter A. Orenstein; Gordon E. Schutze; Rodney E. Willoughby; Robert Bortolussi; Marc A. Fischer; Bruce G. Gellin; Richard L. Gorman; Lucia Lee; R. Douglas Pratt; Jane F. Seward; Jeffrey R. Starke; Jack Swanson; Tina Q. Tan

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the American Academy of Pediatrics approved updated recommendations for the use of quadravalent (serogroups A, C, W-135, and Y) meningococcal conjugate vaccines (Menactra [Sanofi Pasteur, Swiftwater, PA] and Menveo [Novartis, Basel, Switzerland]) in adolescents and in people at persistent high risk of meningococcal disease. The recommendations supplement previous Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices and American Academy of Pediatrics recommendations for meningococcal vaccinations. Data were reviewed pertaining to immunogenicity in high-risk groups, bactericidal antibody persistence after immunization, current epidemiology of meningococcal disease, meningococcal conjugate vaccine effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness of different strategies for vaccination of adolescents. This review prompted the following recommendations: (1) adolescents should be routinely immunized at 11 through 12 years of age and given a booster dose at 16 years of age; (2) adolescents who received their first dose at age 13 through 15 years should receive a booster at age 16 through 18 years or up to 5 years after their first dose; (3) adolescents who receive their first dose of meningococcal conjugate vaccine at or after 16 years of age do not need a booster dose; (4) a 2-dose primary series should be administered 2 months apart for those who are at increased risk of invasive meningococcal disease because of persistent complement component (eg, C5–C9, properdin, factor H, or factor D) deficiency (9 months through 54 years of age) or functional or anatomic asplenia (2–54 years of age) and for adolescents with HIV infection; and (5) a booster dose should be given 3 years after the primary series if the primary 2-dose series was given from 2 through 6 years of age and every 5 years for persons whose 2-dose primary series or booster dose was given at 7 years of age or older who are at risk of invasive meningococcal disease because of persistent component (eg, C5–C9, properdin, factor H, or factor D) deficiency or functional or anatomic asplenia.


Pediatrics | 2011

Policy statement - Recommended childhood and adolescent immunization schedules - United States, 2011

Michael T. Brady; Henry H. Bernstein; Carrie L. Byington; Kathryn M. Edwards; Margaret C. Fisher; Mary P. Glode; Mary Anne Jackson; Harry L. Keyserling; David W. Kimberlin; Yvonne Maldonado; Walter A. Orenstein; Gordon E. Schutze; Rodney E. Willoughby; Robert Bortolussi; Marc A. Fischer; Bruce G. Gellin; Richard L. Gorman; Lucia Lee; R. Douglas Pratt; Jennifer S. Read; Jane F. Seward; Jeffrey R. Starke; Jack Swanson; Tina Q. Tan; Carol J. Baker; Sarah S. Long; H. Cody Meissner; Larry K. Pickering; Lorry G. Rubin; Jennifer Frantz

The 2011 recommended childhood and adolescent immunization schedules have been approved by the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the American Academy of Family Physicians (schedules have been provided following this article and online as Supplemental Information). These schedules are revised annually to reflect current recommendations for use of vaccines licensed by the US Food and Drug Administration and include the following changes from last year:


Pediatrics | 2016

Recommendations for serogroup B meningococcal vaccine for persons 10 years and older

Carrie L. Byington; Yvonne Maldonado; Elizabeth D. Barnett; H. Dele Davies; Kathryn M. Edwards; Ruth Lynfield; Flor M. Munoz; Dawn Nolt; Ann Christine Nyquist; Mobeen H. Rathore; Mark H. Sawyer; William J. Steinbach; Tina Q. Tan; Theoklis E. Zaoutis; Henry H. Bernstein; Michael T. Brady; Mary Anne Jackson; David W. Kimberlin; Sarah S. Long; H. Cody Meissner; Douglas Campos-Outcalt; Amanda C. Cohn; Karen M. Farizo; Marc Fischer; Bruce G. Gellin; Richard L. Gorman; Natasha Halasa; Joan L. Robinson; Jamie Deseda-Tous; Geoffrey R. Simon

This policy statement provides recommendations for the prevention of serogroup B meningococcal disease through the use of 2 newly licensed serogroup B meningococcal vaccines: MenB-FHbp (Trumenba; Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, a subsidiary of Pfizer, Philadelphia, PA) and MenB-4C (Bexsero; Novartis Vaccines, Siena, Italy). Both vaccines are approved for use in persons 10 through 25 years of age. MenB-FHbp is licensed as a 2- or 3-dose series, and MenB-4C is licensed as a 2-dose series for all groups. Either vaccine is recommended for routine use in persons 10 years and older who are at increased risk of serogroup B meningococcal disease (category A recommendation). Persons at increased risk of meningococcal serogroup B disease include the following: (1) persons with persistent complement component diseases, including inherited or chronic deficiencies in C3, C5–C9, properdin, factor D, or factor H or persons receiving eculizumab (Soliris; Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Cheshire, CT), a monoclonal antibody that acts as a terminal complement inhibitor by binding C5 and inhibiting cleavage of C5 to C5A; (2) persons with anatomic or functional asplenia, including sickle cell disease; and (3) healthy persons at increased risk because of a serogroup B meningococcal disease outbreak. Both serogroup B meningococcal vaccines have been shown to be safe and immunogenic and are licensed by the US Food and Drug Administration for individuals between the ages of 10 and 25 years. On the basis of epidemiologic and antibody persistence data, the American Academy of Pediatrics agrees with the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that either vaccine may be administered to healthy adolescents and young adults 16 through 23 years of age (preferred ages are 16 through 18 years) to provide short-term protection against most strains of serogroup B meningococcal disease (category B recommendation).


Pediatrics | 2009

Policy statement - Recommendations for the prevention and treatment of influenza in children, 2009-2010

Joseph A. Bocchini; Henry H. Bernstein; John S. Bradley; Michael T. Brady; Carrie L. Byington; Margaret C. Fisher; Mary P. Glode; Mary Anne Jackson; Harry L. Keyserling; David W. Kimberlin; Walter A. Orenstein; Gordon E. Schutze; Rodney E. Willoughby; Penelope H. Dennehy; Robert W. Frenck; Lorry G. Rubin; Beth P. Bell; Robert Bortolussi; Richard D. Clover; Marc A. Fischer; Bruce G. Gellin; Richard L. Gorman; R. Douglas Pratt; Lucia Lee; Jennifer S. Read; Jeffrey R. Starke; Jack Swanson; Carol J. Baker; Sarah S. Long; Larry K. Pickering

The purpose of this statement is to update current recommendations for routine use of trivalent seasonal influenza vaccine and antiviral medications for the prevention and treatment of influenza in children.

Collaboration


Dive into the Richard L. Gorman's collaboration.

Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Michael T. Brady

Nationwide Children's Hospital

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

David W. Kimberlin

University of Alabama at Birmingham

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Marc A. Fischer

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

R. Douglas Pratt

Food and Drug Administration

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Researchain Logo
Decentralizing Knowledge