MDedge Pediatrics

Your gut microbiome will thank you later

A healthy gut seems like the new catch-all to better overall health these days. Nutrition and diet culture has us drinking kombucha and ginger tea and coffee, but what if we told you that going to happy hour might also help?

In a recent double-blind study published in the Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 19 men were divided into two groups and asked to drink 11 ounces of alcoholic lager (5.2% by volume) or nonalcoholic lager with dinner for 4 weeks.

Beer? Yes. Beer.

Engin Akyurt/Pixabay

We humans have trillions of microorganisms running rampant through our digestive tracts. When they’re happy, we have a lower chance of developing heart disease and diabetes. You know what else has millions of happy microorganisms from fermentation? Beer. It also has polyphenols that can help the body’s tissues fight cancers, as well as heart disease and inflammation. So beer is looking a little more healthy now, isn’t it?

In the study, the researchers found that both the alcoholic- and nonalcoholic-lager groups had a boost in bacterial diversity in the gut and higher fecal alkaline phosphatase levels, which showed improved intestinal health. They acknowledged, however, that the nonalcoholic route would be safer and healthier for overall health.

So add a lager to the list of gut-healthy foods that you should be consuming. It may give the phrase “beer gut” a whole new meaning.
 

We’ve lost our minds, but at least we know how fast they’re going

The phrase “quantum consciousness” sounds like something out of a particularly cheesy episode of Star Trek: “Oh no, Captain, the quantum consciousness has invaded our computer, and the only way to drive it out is to reverse the polarity of a focused tachyon beam.”

Massimiliano De Deo, LNGS-INFN

When it comes to understanding such basic existential issues as the origin of consciousness, however, quantum mechanics wasn’t off the table. The theory of the quantum origin of consciousness dates back to the 1990s (thanks in part to noted physician Roger Penrose), and goes something like this: There are microtubules within neurons in the brain that are small enough and isolated enough from the warm, wet, and chaotic brain environment where quantum effects can briefly come into play. We’re talking miniscule fractions of a second here, but still, long enough for quantum calculations to take place in the form of system wavefunction collapse, courtesy of gravity.

To plunge even deeper into the rabbit hole of quantum mechanics, the reason Schrödinger’s cat doesn’t occur in real life is wavefunction collapse; the more massive a quantum system is, the more likely it is to collapse into one state or another (alive or dead, in the cat’s case). The quantum origin of consciousness, or Orch OR theory, holds that human consciousness arises from electrical oscillations within the neuronal microtubules caused by the computations stemming from the collapse of small quantum systems.

That is an awful lot of overly simplified explanation, especially considering the study that just came out essentially disproved it. Oops. The research, published in Physics of Life Reviews, is pretty simple. The researchers went to a lab deep underground to avoid interference from cosmic rays, and sat around for months, observing a chunk of germanium for signs of spontaneous radiation, attributable to the same sort of wavefunction collapse that is supposedly occurring in our brains. They found nothing out of the ordinary, pretty definitively disproving most of Orch OR theory.

The researchers were unwilling to completely dismiss the idea (this is quantum mechanics, after all, uncertainty kind of goes with the territory), but it does seem like we’ll have to search elsewhere for sources of human consciousness. Personally, we’re big fans of the cymbal-playing monkey.
 

Missing links: A real fish story

Dear LOTME:

Ear’s a question that’s been keeping me up at night. Is the human middle ear the result of top-secret government experiments involving alien technology, Abraham Lincoln, and the Illuminati?

Restless in Roswell

Dear Restless:

The paleoanthropologic community has been sorting through this mystery for decades, and fossils discovered in China over the past 20 years finally provide a much less conspiratorially satisfying answer.

IVPP

For some time now, experts in the field have believed that the bones of the human middle ear evolved from the spiracular gill of a fish. The spiracle is a small hole behind each eye that opens to the mouth in some fishes and was used to breathe air in the earliest, most primitive species. But how did we get from spiracle to ear?

The missing links come in the form of the cranial anatomy of Shuyu, a 438-million-year-old, fingernail-sized skull of a jawless fish, and the 419-million-year-old fossil of a completely preserved fish with gill filaments in the first branchial chamber.

“These fossils provided the first anatomical and fossil evidence for a vertebrate spiracle originating from fish gills,” senior author Gai Zhikun, PhD, of the Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology, Beijing, said in a written statement.

In many ways, it seems, we are fish: “Many important structures of human beings can be traced back to our fish ancestors, such as our teeth, jaws, middle ears, etc,” added Zhu Min, PhD, also of the institute.

So, Restless, the next time you hear the soothing sounds of an angry mob storming the Capitol or you chew on a slab, slice, or chunk of mutant, laboratory-produced chicken in your favorite fast-food restaurant, be sure to thank Shuyu.
 

Can you lend me an ear?

If you thought locusts were only a nuisance, think again. They have their uses. If you take a locust’s ear and put it inside a robot, the robot will be able to hear and receive signals. Who knew?

850977/Pixabay

Researchers from Tel Aviv University in Israel showed the robot’s hearing abilities by giving clap signals that told the robot what to do: One clap means go forward, two claps mean move back. What do you think the robot would do if it heard the clap break from Cha Cha Slide?

“Our task was to replace the robot’s electronic microphone with a dead insect’s ear, use the ear’s ability to detect the electrical signals from the environment, in this case vibrations in the air, and, using a special chip, convert the insect input to that of the robot,” Ben M. Maoz, PhD, said in a statement from the university.

And how does a dead locust ear work in a robot? Well, Dr. Maoz explained: “My laboratory has developed a special device – Ear-on-a-Chip – that allows the ear to be kept alive throughout the experiment by supplying oxygen and food to the organ while allowing the electrical signals to be taken out of the locust’s ear and amplified and transmitted to the robot.”

The research won’t stop at hearing, he said, as the other four senses also will be taken into consideration. This could help us sense dangers in the future, such as earthquakes or diseases. We said it before and we’ll say it again: We’re rooting for you, science!

Your gut microbiome will thank you later

A healthy gut seems like the new catch-all to better overall health these days. Nutrition and diet culture has us drinking kombucha and ginger tea and coffee, but what if we told you that going to happy hour might also help?

In a recent double-blind study published in the Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 19 men were divided into two groups and asked to drink 11 ounces of alcoholic lager (5.2% by volume) or nonalcoholic lager with dinner for 4 weeks.

Beer? Yes. Beer.

Engin Akyurt/Pixabay

We humans have trillions of microorganisms running rampant through our digestive tracts. When they’re happy, we have a lower chance of developing heart disease and diabetes. You know what else has millions of happy microorganisms from fermentation? Beer. It also has polyphenols that can help the body’s tissues fight cancers, as well as heart disease and inflammation. So beer is looking a little more healthy now, isn’t it?

In the study, the researchers found that both the alcoholic- and nonalcoholic-lager groups had a boost in bacterial diversity in the gut and higher fecal alkaline phosphatase levels, which showed improved intestinal health. They acknowledged, however, that the nonalcoholic route would be safer and healthier for overall health.

So add a lager to the list of gut-healthy foods that you should be consuming. It may give the phrase “beer gut” a whole new meaning.
 

We’ve lost our minds, but at least we know how fast they’re going

The phrase “quantum consciousness” sounds like something out of a particularly cheesy episode of Star Trek: “Oh no, Captain, the quantum consciousness has invaded our computer, and the only way to drive it out is to reverse the polarity of a focused tachyon beam.”

Massimiliano De Deo, LNGS-INFN

When it comes to understanding such basic existential issues as the origin of consciousness, however, quantum mechanics wasn’t off the table. The theory of the quantum origin of consciousness dates back to the 1990s (thanks in part to noted physician Roger Penrose), and goes something like this: There are microtubules within neurons in the brain that are small enough and isolated enough from the warm, wet, and chaotic brain environment where quantum effects can briefly come into play. We’re talking miniscule fractions of a second here, but still, long enough for quantum calculations to take place in the form of system wavefunction collapse, courtesy of gravity.

To plunge even deeper into the rabbit hole of quantum mechanics, the reason Schrödinger’s cat doesn’t occur in real life is wavefunction collapse; the more massive a quantum system is, the more likely it is to collapse into one state or another (alive or dead, in the cat’s case). The quantum origin of consciousness, or Orch OR theory, holds that human consciousness arises from electrical oscillations within the neuronal microtubules caused by the computations stemming from the collapse of small quantum systems.

That is an awful lot of overly simplified explanation, especially considering the study that just came out essentially disproved it. Oops. The research, published in Physics of Life Reviews, is pretty simple. The researchers went to a lab deep underground to avoid interference from cosmic rays, and sat around for months, observing a chunk of germanium for signs of spontaneous radiation, attributable to the same sort of wavefunction collapse that is supposedly occurring in our brains. They found nothing out of the ordinary, pretty definitively disproving most of Orch OR theory.

The researchers were unwilling to completely dismiss the idea (this is quantum mechanics, after all, uncertainty kind of goes with the territory), but it does seem like we’ll have to search elsewhere for sources of human consciousness. Personally, we’re big fans of the cymbal-playing monkey.
 

Missing links: A real fish story

Dear LOTME:

Ear’s a question that’s been keeping me up at night. Is the human middle ear the result of top-secret government experiments involving alien technology, Abraham Lincoln, and the Illuminati?

Restless in Roswell

Dear Restless:

The paleoanthropologic community has been sorting through this mystery for decades, and fossils discovered in China over the past 20 years finally provide a much less conspiratorially satisfying answer.

IVPP

For some time now, experts in the field have believed that the bones of the human middle ear evolved from the spiracular gill of a fish. The spiracle is a small hole behind each eye that opens to the mouth in some fishes and was used to breathe air in the earliest, most primitive species. But how did we get from spiracle to ear?

The missing links come in the form of the cranial anatomy of Shuyu, a 438-million-year-old, fingernail-sized skull of a jawless fish, and the 419-million-year-old fossil of a completely preserved fish with gill filaments in the first branchial chamber.

“These fossils provided the first anatomical and fossil evidence for a vertebrate spiracle originating from fish gills,” senior author Gai Zhikun, PhD, of the Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology, Beijing, said in a written statement.

In many ways, it seems, we are fish: “Many important structures of human beings can be traced back to our fish ancestors, such as our teeth, jaws, middle ears, etc,” added Zhu Min, PhD, also of the institute.

So, Restless, the next time you hear the soothing sounds of an angry mob storming the Capitol or you chew on a slab, slice, or chunk of mutant, laboratory-produced chicken in your favorite fast-food restaurant, be sure to thank Shuyu.
 

Can you lend me an ear?

If you thought locusts were only a nuisance, think again. They have their uses. If you take a locust’s ear and put it inside a robot, the robot will be able to hear and receive signals. Who knew?

850977/Pixabay

Researchers from Tel Aviv University in Israel showed the robot’s hearing abilities by giving clap signals that told the robot what to do: One clap means go forward, two claps mean move back. What do you think the robot would do if it heard the clap break from Cha Cha Slide?

“Our task was to replace the robot’s electronic microphone with a dead insect’s ear, use the ear’s ability to detect the electrical signals from the environment, in this case vibrations in the air, and, using a special chip, convert the insect input to that of the robot,” Ben M. Maoz, PhD, said in a statement from the university.

And how does a dead locust ear work in a robot? Well, Dr. Maoz explained: “My laboratory has developed a special device – Ear-on-a-Chip – that allows the ear to be kept alive throughout the experiment by supplying oxygen and food to the organ while allowing the electrical signals to be taken out of the locust’s ear and amplified and transmitted to the robot.”

The research won’t stop at hearing, he said, as the other four senses also will be taken into consideration. This could help us sense dangers in the future, such as earthquakes or diseases. We said it before and we’ll say it again: We’re rooting for you, science!

Your gut microbiome will thank you later

A healthy gut seems like the new catch-all to better overall health these days. Nutrition and diet culture has us drinking kombucha and ginger tea and coffee, but what if we told you that going to happy hour might also help?

In a recent double-blind study published in the Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 19 men were divided into two groups and asked to drink 11 ounces of alcoholic lager (5.2% by volume) or nonalcoholic lager with dinner for 4 weeks.

Beer? Yes. Beer.

Engin Akyurt/Pixabay

We humans have trillions of microorganisms running rampant through our digestive tracts. When they’re happy, we have a lower chance of developing heart disease and diabetes. You know what else has millions of happy microorganisms from fermentation? Beer. It also has polyphenols that can help the body’s tissues fight cancers, as well as heart disease and inflammation. So beer is looking a little more healthy now, isn’t it?

In the study, the researchers found that both the alcoholic- and nonalcoholic-lager groups had a boost in bacterial diversity in the gut and higher fecal alkaline phosphatase levels, which showed improved intestinal health. They acknowledged, however, that the nonalcoholic route would be safer and healthier for overall health.

So add a lager to the list of gut-healthy foods that you should be consuming. It may give the phrase “beer gut” a whole new meaning.
 

We’ve lost our minds, but at least we know how fast they’re going

The phrase “quantum consciousness” sounds like something out of a particularly cheesy episode of Star Trek: “Oh no, Captain, the quantum consciousness has invaded our computer, and the only way to drive it out is to reverse the polarity of a focused tachyon beam.”

Massimiliano De Deo, LNGS-INFN

When it comes to understanding such basic existential issues as the origin of consciousness, however, quantum mechanics wasn’t off the table. The theory of the quantum origin of consciousness dates back to the 1990s (thanks in part to noted physician Roger Penrose), and goes something like this: There are microtubules within neurons in the brain that are small enough and isolated enough from the warm, wet, and chaotic brain environment where quantum effects can briefly come into play. We’re talking miniscule fractions of a second here, but still, long enough for quantum calculations to take place in the form of system wavefunction collapse, courtesy of gravity.

To plunge even deeper into the rabbit hole of quantum mechanics, the reason Schrödinger’s cat doesn’t occur in real life is wavefunction collapse; the more massive a quantum system is, the more likely it is to collapse into one state or another (alive or dead, in the cat’s case). The quantum origin of consciousness, or Orch OR theory, holds that human consciousness arises from electrical oscillations within the neuronal microtubules caused by the computations stemming from the collapse of small quantum systems.

That is an awful lot of overly simplified explanation, especially considering the study that just came out essentially disproved it. Oops. The research, published in Physics of Life Reviews, is pretty simple. The researchers went to a lab deep underground to avoid interference from cosmic rays, and sat around for months, observing a chunk of germanium for signs of spontaneous radiation, attributable to the same sort of wavefunction collapse that is supposedly occurring in our brains. They found nothing out of the ordinary, pretty definitively disproving most of Orch OR theory.

The researchers were unwilling to completely dismiss the idea (this is quantum mechanics, after all, uncertainty kind of goes with the territory), but it does seem like we’ll have to search elsewhere for sources of human consciousness. Personally, we’re big fans of the cymbal-playing monkey.
 

Missing links: A real fish story

Dear LOTME:

Ear’s a question that’s been keeping me up at night. Is the human middle ear the result of top-secret government experiments involving alien technology, Abraham Lincoln, and the Illuminati?

Restless in Roswell

Dear Restless:

The paleoanthropologic community has been sorting through this mystery for decades, and fossils discovered in China over the past 20 years finally provide a much less conspiratorially satisfying answer.

IVPP

For some time now, experts in the field have believed that the bones of the human middle ear evolved from the spiracular gill of a fish. The spiracle is a small hole behind each eye that opens to the mouth in some fishes and was used to breathe air in the earliest, most primitive species. But how did we get from spiracle to ear?

The missing links come in the form of the cranial anatomy of Shuyu, a 438-million-year-old, fingernail-sized skull of a jawless fish, and the 419-million-year-old fossil of a completely preserved fish with gill filaments in the first branchial chamber.

“These fossils provided the first anatomical and fossil evidence for a vertebrate spiracle originating from fish gills,” senior author Gai Zhikun, PhD, of the Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology, Beijing, said in a written statement.

In many ways, it seems, we are fish: “Many important structures of human beings can be traced back to our fish ancestors, such as our teeth, jaws, middle ears, etc,” added Zhu Min, PhD, also of the institute.

So, Restless, the next time you hear the soothing sounds of an angry mob storming the Capitol or you chew on a slab, slice, or chunk of mutant, laboratory-produced chicken in your favorite fast-food restaurant, be sure to thank Shuyu.
 

Can you lend me an ear?

If you thought locusts were only a nuisance, think again. They have their uses. If you take a locust’s ear and put it inside a robot, the robot will be able to hear and receive signals. Who knew?

850977/Pixabay

Researchers from Tel Aviv University in Israel showed the robot’s hearing abilities by giving clap signals that told the robot what to do: One clap means go forward, two claps mean move back. What do you think the robot would do if it heard the clap break from Cha Cha Slide?

“Our task was to replace the robot’s electronic microphone with a dead insect’s ear, use the ear’s ability to detect the electrical signals from the environment, in this case vibrations in the air, and, using a special chip, convert the insect input to that of the robot,” Ben M. Maoz, PhD, said in a statement from the university.

And how does a dead locust ear work in a robot? Well, Dr. Maoz explained: “My laboratory has developed a special device – Ear-on-a-Chip – that allows the ear to be kept alive throughout the experiment by supplying oxygen and food to the organ while allowing the electrical signals to be taken out of the locust’s ear and amplified and transmitted to the robot.”

The research won’t stop at hearing, he said, as the other four senses also will be taken into consideration. This could help us sense dangers in the future, such as earthquakes or diseases. We said it before and we’ll say it again: We’re rooting for you, science!

Federal advisers to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration voted unanimously June 15 to recommend the use of the Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccines in infants and young children.

The Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) of the FDA voted 21-0 to say that benefits of a two-dose series of Moderna’s mRNA vaccine outweigh risk for use in infants and children 6 months through 5 years of age.

The panel then voted 21-0 to say that benefits of a three-dose series of the Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA vaccine outweigh risk for use in infants and children 6 months through 4 years of age.

The FDA is not bound to follow the suggestions of its advisory committees, but it often does. Moderna and Pfizer are seeking to expand emergency use authorization (EUA) for their vaccines. EUAs are special clearances used to allow use of products in connection with public health crises such as the pandemic.

The Pfizer vaccine has standard, nonemergency FDA approval for use in people 16 years of age and older. The FDA also has granted EUA clearance for use of the shot in people ages 5 to 15.

The VRBPAC on June 15 recommended granting EUA clearance for Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine for people ages 6 to 17. The Moderna vaccine already has full approval for use in people 18 years of age and older.

Many parents have been waiting for a clearance of COVID vaccines for their infants and young children, seeking protection for them at a time of continued spread of the virus.

The White House on June 9 outlined plans for making 10 million doses of COVID vaccines available for children under the age of 5 in the coming weeks.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has scheduled a June 18 meeting of its Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, where members of that panel will vote on recommendations about use of the Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines in infants and young children. The last step in the approval process to get shots into arms will be endorsement by the CDC director if the committee votes in favor of the vaccines.

For and against

During the public session during the June 15 FDA meeting, speakers offered varied opinions.

Some urged the panel to vote against the EUA expansion, citing concerns about risks of COVID vaccines in general.

But at the close of the meeting, top FDA vaccine official Peter Marks, MD, PhD, urged the public to be cautious about drawing conclusions from reading incident reports of side effects.

He said he has seen a “Twitter storm” during the day about claims of side effects. but stressed that the FDA has reported to the public on the rare side effects linked to the COVID vaccines, such as myocarditis, with advisories based on a review of reports of side effects. But many of these reports, gathered from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) system, will turn out on further inspection not to be related to vaccination.

Many other speakers urged members of the panel to support expanded use of the vaccines for infants and young children. These speakers emphasized how lack of a vaccine to date has isolated young children who remain unprotected, even with about 83% of those age 5 and older in the United States having received at least one COVID shot.

Dr. Marks noted that there have been 442 deaths from COVID among children under 4 years of age during the pandemic, a number that he compared with the 78 deaths reported in the H1N1 flu. He urged the panel “to be careful that we don’t become numb to the number of pediatric deaths because of the overwhelming number of older deaths here.”

Panelist H. Cody Meissner, MD, a pediatric infectious disease specialist from Tufts University, said the vaccine should be made available -- particularly for children considered to be at high risk for complications from COVID --but health officials need to present a clear picture of the relatively low risks to children of harm from the vaccines-- and from COVID.

“That has to be communicated clearly to parents so that they can participate in the decision about vaccinating a child in this age group,” Dr. Meissner said.

The results presented June 15 from studies of the shots in younger children were less impressive than those from the initial COVID vaccine trials done in adults. This was not a surprise to panelists given the rise of the omicron variant and the evolution of the pandemic, but it still led to comments about the need for further continued study of the vaccines in young children even if they are authorized.

Consider that in 2020, Pfizer won the first EUA for a COVID vaccine of any kind with data that pegged the shot’s efficacy rate at 95%. Statisticians estimated a likely possible range, or 95% confidence interval, for the vaccine efficacy rate at 90.3% to 97.6%.

Those estimates were based on finding eight cases of COVID reported among 18,198 study participants who got the Pfizer-BioNTech shot, compared with 162 cases among the 18,325 people in the placebo group, according to the FDA review of Pifzer’s initial application.

Study data

But on June 15, FDA advisers had to consider an EUA application for which the data did not make as strong a case for the vaccine’s benefit among younger patients.

Pfizer presented what the FDA called a “preliminary descriptive analysis” of vaccine efficacy among participants in Study C4591007 who received three study vaccinations, following accrual of 10 total confirmed COVID-19 cases occurring at least 7 days after the third dose.

Looking at results for study participants ages 6 to 23 months of age, there was one case in the group that got the Pfizer-BioNTech shot and two in the placebo group, pegged as a 75.6% vaccine efficacy rate -- but one with caveats to the small numbers of cases. The 95% confidence interval for this vaccine efficacy rate was reported as-369.1% to 99.6% according to the FDA staff review.

For participants 2-4 years of age with and without evidence of prior SARS-CoV-

2 infection, there were two cases in the group that got the shot and five in the placebo group showing a vaccine efficacy rate of 82.4%, with a 95% confidence interval estimated ranging between -7.6% and 98.3%. For the combined analysis of both age groups, the efficacy rate was estimated at 80.4%, with a 95% confidence interval of 14.1% and 96.7%.

Doran Fink, MD, PhD, a top official in the FDA’s vaccines division, noted that the current EUA application for expanded pediatric use involved “some very preliminary” results that involved “a small number of cases and limited follow up time.”

But he stressed that the evidence gathered to date for the Pifzer application for use of its COVID shot in infants and young children met the threshold for conditional clearance during a crisis.

“We do feel very confident that the evidentiary standard for benefit for an EUA has been met here,” but added that more data would be needed to address questions about the efficacy of the vaccine beyond a third dose and whether an additional dose may be needed.

Pfizer also used a comparison known as “immunobridging” in support of the application. This looked at SARS- CoV-2 50% neutralizing antibody titers for the children in the age group covered by the EUA application and compared them to a randomly selected subset of 16-25-year-old participants in another study,

Key data for the pending Moderna EUA for use of its shot in infants and young children came from study P204. In it, Moderna found 51 cases of COVID among 1,511 children ages 6 months to 23 months who got the vaccines, versus 34 cases among 513 children who received a placebo, according to an FDA staff review.

That resulted in a vaccine efficacy rate pegged at 50.6%, with a 95% confidence interval of 21.4% to 68.6%.

Looking at the children ages 2 to 5 years in the P204 study, there were 119 cases out of 2,594 participants who got the shot, versus 61 cases of 858 in the placebo arm, or 7.1%. That translated to a 36.8% vaccine efficacy rate, with a confidence interval 12.5% to 54.0%.

Panelist Jay Portnoy, MD, of Children’s Mercy Hospital in Kansas City said all of the pediatricians he knows are waiting for the FDA to authorize the new uses of these vaccines in infants and young children.

“The death rate from COVID in young children may not be extremely high, but it’s absolutely terrifying to parents to have their child be sick, have to go to the hospital or even go to the emergency room or their primary care doctor because they’re sick and having trouble breathing,” said Dr. Portnoy, who served as the panel’s consumer representative.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

This article was updated on 6/16/22.

Federal advisers to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration voted unanimously June 15 to recommend the use of the Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccines in infants and young children.

The Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) of the FDA voted 21-0 to say that benefits of a two-dose series of Moderna’s mRNA vaccine outweigh risk for use in infants and children 6 months through 5 years of age.

The panel then voted 21-0 to say that benefits of a three-dose series of the Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA vaccine outweigh risk for use in infants and children 6 months through 4 years of age.

The FDA is not bound to follow the suggestions of its advisory committees, but it often does. Moderna and Pfizer are seeking to expand emergency use authorization (EUA) for their vaccines. EUAs are special clearances used to allow use of products in connection with public health crises such as the pandemic.

The Pfizer vaccine has standard, nonemergency FDA approval for use in people 16 years of age and older. The FDA also has granted EUA clearance for use of the shot in people ages 5 to 15.

The VRBPAC on June 15 recommended granting EUA clearance for Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine for people ages 6 to 17. The Moderna vaccine already has full approval for use in people 18 years of age and older.

Many parents have been waiting for a clearance of COVID vaccines for their infants and young children, seeking protection for them at a time of continued spread of the virus.

The White House on June 9 outlined plans for making 10 million doses of COVID vaccines available for children under the age of 5 in the coming weeks.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has scheduled a June 18 meeting of its Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, where members of that panel will vote on recommendations about use of the Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines in infants and young children. The last step in the approval process to get shots into arms will be endorsement by the CDC director if the committee votes in favor of the vaccines.

For and against

During the public session during the June 15 FDA meeting, speakers offered varied opinions.

Some urged the panel to vote against the EUA expansion, citing concerns about risks of COVID vaccines in general.

But at the close of the meeting, top FDA vaccine official Peter Marks, MD, PhD, urged the public to be cautious about drawing conclusions from reading incident reports of side effects.

He said he has seen a “Twitter storm” during the day about claims of side effects. but stressed that the FDA has reported to the public on the rare side effects linked to the COVID vaccines, such as myocarditis, with advisories based on a review of reports of side effects. But many of these reports, gathered from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) system, will turn out on further inspection not to be related to vaccination.

Many other speakers urged members of the panel to support expanded use of the vaccines for infants and young children. These speakers emphasized how lack of a vaccine to date has isolated young children who remain unprotected, even with about 83% of those age 5 and older in the United States having received at least one COVID shot.

Dr. Marks noted that there have been 442 deaths from COVID among children under 4 years of age during the pandemic, a number that he compared with the 78 deaths reported in the H1N1 flu. He urged the panel “to be careful that we don’t become numb to the number of pediatric deaths because of the overwhelming number of older deaths here.”

Panelist H. Cody Meissner, MD, a pediatric infectious disease specialist from Tufts University, said the vaccine should be made available -- particularly for children considered to be at high risk for complications from COVID --but health officials need to present a clear picture of the relatively low risks to children of harm from the vaccines-- and from COVID.

“That has to be communicated clearly to parents so that they can participate in the decision about vaccinating a child in this age group,” Dr. Meissner said.

The results presented June 15 from studies of the shots in younger children were less impressive than those from the initial COVID vaccine trials done in adults. This was not a surprise to panelists given the rise of the omicron variant and the evolution of the pandemic, but it still led to comments about the need for further continued study of the vaccines in young children even if they are authorized.

Consider that in 2020, Pfizer won the first EUA for a COVID vaccine of any kind with data that pegged the shot’s efficacy rate at 95%. Statisticians estimated a likely possible range, or 95% confidence interval, for the vaccine efficacy rate at 90.3% to 97.6%.

Those estimates were based on finding eight cases of COVID reported among 18,198 study participants who got the Pfizer-BioNTech shot, compared with 162 cases among the 18,325 people in the placebo group, according to the FDA review of Pifzer’s initial application.

Study data

But on June 15, FDA advisers had to consider an EUA application for which the data did not make as strong a case for the vaccine’s benefit among younger patients.

Pfizer presented what the FDA called a “preliminary descriptive analysis” of vaccine efficacy among participants in Study C4591007 who received three study vaccinations, following accrual of 10 total confirmed COVID-19 cases occurring at least 7 days after the third dose.

Looking at results for study participants ages 6 to 23 months of age, there was one case in the group that got the Pfizer-BioNTech shot and two in the placebo group, pegged as a 75.6% vaccine efficacy rate -- but one with caveats to the small numbers of cases. The 95% confidence interval for this vaccine efficacy rate was reported as-369.1% to 99.6% according to the FDA staff review.

For participants 2-4 years of age with and without evidence of prior SARS-CoV-

2 infection, there were two cases in the group that got the shot and five in the placebo group showing a vaccine efficacy rate of 82.4%, with a 95% confidence interval estimated ranging between -7.6% and 98.3%. For the combined analysis of both age groups, the efficacy rate was estimated at 80.4%, with a 95% confidence interval of 14.1% and 96.7%.

Doran Fink, MD, PhD, a top official in the FDA’s vaccines division, noted that the current EUA application for expanded pediatric use involved “some very preliminary” results that involved “a small number of cases and limited follow up time.”

But he stressed that the evidence gathered to date for the Pifzer application for use of its COVID shot in infants and young children met the threshold for conditional clearance during a crisis.

“We do feel very confident that the evidentiary standard for benefit for an EUA has been met here,” but added that more data would be needed to address questions about the efficacy of the vaccine beyond a third dose and whether an additional dose may be needed.

Pfizer also used a comparison known as “immunobridging” in support of the application. This looked at SARS- CoV-2 50% neutralizing antibody titers for the children in the age group covered by the EUA application and compared them to a randomly selected subset of 16-25-year-old participants in another study,

Key data for the pending Moderna EUA for use of its shot in infants and young children came from study P204. In it, Moderna found 51 cases of COVID among 1,511 children ages 6 months to 23 months who got the vaccines, versus 34 cases among 513 children who received a placebo, according to an FDA staff review.

That resulted in a vaccine efficacy rate pegged at 50.6%, with a 95% confidence interval of 21.4% to 68.6%.

Looking at the children ages 2 to 5 years in the P204 study, there were 119 cases out of 2,594 participants who got the shot, versus 61 cases of 858 in the placebo arm, or 7.1%. That translated to a 36.8% vaccine efficacy rate, with a confidence interval 12.5% to 54.0%.

Panelist Jay Portnoy, MD, of Children’s Mercy Hospital in Kansas City said all of the pediatricians he knows are waiting for the FDA to authorize the new uses of these vaccines in infants and young children.

“The death rate from COVID in young children may not be extremely high, but it’s absolutely terrifying to parents to have their child be sick, have to go to the hospital or even go to the emergency room or their primary care doctor because they’re sick and having trouble breathing,” said Dr. Portnoy, who served as the panel’s consumer representative.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

This article was updated on 6/16/22.

Federal advisers to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration voted unanimously June 15 to recommend the use of the Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccines in infants and young children.

The Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) of the FDA voted 21-0 to say that benefits of a two-dose series of Moderna’s mRNA vaccine outweigh risk for use in infants and children 6 months through 5 years of age.

The panel then voted 21-0 to say that benefits of a three-dose series of the Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA vaccine outweigh risk for use in infants and children 6 months through 4 years of age.

The FDA is not bound to follow the suggestions of its advisory committees, but it often does. Moderna and Pfizer are seeking to expand emergency use authorization (EUA) for their vaccines. EUAs are special clearances used to allow use of products in connection with public health crises such as the pandemic.

The Pfizer vaccine has standard, nonemergency FDA approval for use in people 16 years of age and older. The FDA also has granted EUA clearance for use of the shot in people ages 5 to 15.

The VRBPAC on June 15 recommended granting EUA clearance for Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine for people ages 6 to 17. The Moderna vaccine already has full approval for use in people 18 years of age and older.

Many parents have been waiting for a clearance of COVID vaccines for their infants and young children, seeking protection for them at a time of continued spread of the virus.

The White House on June 9 outlined plans for making 10 million doses of COVID vaccines available for children under the age of 5 in the coming weeks.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has scheduled a June 18 meeting of its Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, where members of that panel will vote on recommendations about use of the Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines in infants and young children. The last step in the approval process to get shots into arms will be endorsement by the CDC director if the committee votes in favor of the vaccines.

For and against

During the public session during the June 15 FDA meeting, speakers offered varied opinions.

Some urged the panel to vote against the EUA expansion, citing concerns about risks of COVID vaccines in general.

But at the close of the meeting, top FDA vaccine official Peter Marks, MD, PhD, urged the public to be cautious about drawing conclusions from reading incident reports of side effects.

He said he has seen a “Twitter storm” during the day about claims of side effects. but stressed that the FDA has reported to the public on the rare side effects linked to the COVID vaccines, such as myocarditis, with advisories based on a review of reports of side effects. But many of these reports, gathered from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) system, will turn out on further inspection not to be related to vaccination.

Many other speakers urged members of the panel to support expanded use of the vaccines for infants and young children. These speakers emphasized how lack of a vaccine to date has isolated young children who remain unprotected, even with about 83% of those age 5 and older in the United States having received at least one COVID shot.

Dr. Marks noted that there have been 442 deaths from COVID among children under 4 years of age during the pandemic, a number that he compared with the 78 deaths reported in the H1N1 flu. He urged the panel “to be careful that we don’t become numb to the number of pediatric deaths because of the overwhelming number of older deaths here.”

Panelist H. Cody Meissner, MD, a pediatric infectious disease specialist from Tufts University, said the vaccine should be made available -- particularly for children considered to be at high risk for complications from COVID --but health officials need to present a clear picture of the relatively low risks to children of harm from the vaccines-- and from COVID.

“That has to be communicated clearly to parents so that they can participate in the decision about vaccinating a child in this age group,” Dr. Meissner said.

The results presented June 15 from studies of the shots in younger children were less impressive than those from the initial COVID vaccine trials done in adults. This was not a surprise to panelists given the rise of the omicron variant and the evolution of the pandemic, but it still led to comments about the need for further continued study of the vaccines in young children even if they are authorized.

Consider that in 2020, Pfizer won the first EUA for a COVID vaccine of any kind with data that pegged the shot’s efficacy rate at 95%. Statisticians estimated a likely possible range, or 95% confidence interval, for the vaccine efficacy rate at 90.3% to 97.6%.

Those estimates were based on finding eight cases of COVID reported among 18,198 study participants who got the Pfizer-BioNTech shot, compared with 162 cases among the 18,325 people in the placebo group, according to the FDA review of Pifzer’s initial application.

Study data

But on June 15, FDA advisers had to consider an EUA application for which the data did not make as strong a case for the vaccine’s benefit among younger patients.

Pfizer presented what the FDA called a “preliminary descriptive analysis” of vaccine efficacy among participants in Study C4591007 who received three study vaccinations, following accrual of 10 total confirmed COVID-19 cases occurring at least 7 days after the third dose.

Looking at results for study participants ages 6 to 23 months of age, there was one case in the group that got the Pfizer-BioNTech shot and two in the placebo group, pegged as a 75.6% vaccine efficacy rate -- but one with caveats to the small numbers of cases. The 95% confidence interval for this vaccine efficacy rate was reported as-369.1% to 99.6% according to the FDA staff review.

For participants 2-4 years of age with and without evidence of prior SARS-CoV-

2 infection, there were two cases in the group that got the shot and five in the placebo group showing a vaccine efficacy rate of 82.4%, with a 95% confidence interval estimated ranging between -7.6% and 98.3%. For the combined analysis of both age groups, the efficacy rate was estimated at 80.4%, with a 95% confidence interval of 14.1% and 96.7%.

Doran Fink, MD, PhD, a top official in the FDA’s vaccines division, noted that the current EUA application for expanded pediatric use involved “some very preliminary” results that involved “a small number of cases and limited follow up time.”

But he stressed that the evidence gathered to date for the Pifzer application for use of its COVID shot in infants and young children met the threshold for conditional clearance during a crisis.

“We do feel very confident that the evidentiary standard for benefit for an EUA has been met here,” but added that more data would be needed to address questions about the efficacy of the vaccine beyond a third dose and whether an additional dose may be needed.

Pfizer also used a comparison known as “immunobridging” in support of the application. This looked at SARS- CoV-2 50% neutralizing antibody titers for the children in the age group covered by the EUA application and compared them to a randomly selected subset of 16-25-year-old participants in another study,

Key data for the pending Moderna EUA for use of its shot in infants and young children came from study P204. In it, Moderna found 51 cases of COVID among 1,511 children ages 6 months to 23 months who got the vaccines, versus 34 cases among 513 children who received a placebo, according to an FDA staff review.

That resulted in a vaccine efficacy rate pegged at 50.6%, with a 95% confidence interval of 21.4% to 68.6%.

Looking at the children ages 2 to 5 years in the P204 study, there were 119 cases out of 2,594 participants who got the shot, versus 61 cases of 858 in the placebo arm, or 7.1%. That translated to a 36.8% vaccine efficacy rate, with a confidence interval 12.5% to 54.0%.

Panelist Jay Portnoy, MD, of Children’s Mercy Hospital in Kansas City said all of the pediatricians he knows are waiting for the FDA to authorize the new uses of these vaccines in infants and young children.

“The death rate from COVID in young children may not be extremely high, but it’s absolutely terrifying to parents to have their child be sick, have to go to the hospital or even go to the emergency room or their primary care doctor because they’re sick and having trouble breathing,” said Dr. Portnoy, who served as the panel’s consumer representative.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

This article was updated on 6/16/22.

“No matter who the patient is, whether a child, adolescent, or adult, the key to figuring out hair disease is getting a good history,” Maria Hordinsky, MD, professor and chair of the department of dermatology at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, said at the Medscape Live Women’s and Pediatric Dermatology Seminar.

During her presentation on what’s new in hair disorders, Dr. Hordinsky covered a range of disorders and treatments, with some common denominators, such as the need for a good history. She also urged physicians and other health care providers to use the electronic medical record and to be thorough in documenting information – noting nutrition, hair care habits, supplement use, and other details.

Cunaplus_M.Faba/Getty Images

Lab tests should be selected based on that history, she said. For instance, low iron stores can be associated with hair shedding; and thyroid function studies might be needed.

Other highlights of her presentation included comments on different types of alopecia, and some new treatment approaches:

Androgenetic alopecia. In a meta-analysis and systematic review published in 2017, all treatments tested (2% and 5% minoxidil in men, 1 mg finasteride in men, 2% minoxidil in women, and low-level laser light therapy in men) were superior to placebo. Several photobiomodulation (PBM) devices (also known as low-level laser light) for home use have been cleared for androgenetic alopecia by the Food and Drug Administration; a clinician’s guide, published in 2018, provides information on these devices.

Hair and hormones. Combination therapy for female-pattern hair loss – low-dose minoxidil and spironolactone – is important to know about, she said, adding there are data from an observational pilot study supporting this treatment. Women should not become pregnant while on this treatment, Dr. Hordinsky cautioned.

PRP (platelet rich plasma). This treatment for hair loss can be costly, she cautioned, as it’s viewed as a cosmetic technique, “but it actually can work rather well.”

Hair regrowth measures. Traditionally, measures center on global assessment, the patient’s self-assessment, investigator assessment, and an independent photo review. Enter the dermatoscope. “We can now get pictures as a baseline. Patients can see, and also see the health of their scalp,” and if treatments make it look better or worse, she noted.

Alopecia areata (AA). Patients and families need to be made aware that this is an autoimmune disease that can recur, and if it does recur, the extent of hair loss is not predictable. According to Dr. Hordinsky, the most widely used tool to halt disease activity has been treatment with a corticosteroid (topical, intralesional, oral, or even intravenous corticosteroids).

Clinical trials and publications from 2018 to 2020 have triggered interest in off-label use and further studies of JAK inhibitors for treating AA, which include baricitinib, ruxolitinib, and tofacitinib. At the American Academy of Dermatology meeting in March 2022, results of the ALLEGRO phase 2b/3 trial found that the JAK inhibitor ritlecitinib (50 mg or 20 mg daily, with or without a 200-mg loading dose), was efficacious in adults and adolescents with AA, compared with placebo, with no safety concerns noted. “This looks to be very, very promising,” she said, “and also very safe.” Two phase 3 trials of baricitinib also presented at the same meeting found it was superior to placebo for hair regrowth in adults with severe AA at 36 weeks. (On June 13, shortly after Dr. Hordinsky spoke at the meeting, the FDA approved baricitinib for treating AA in adults, making this the first systemic treatment to be approved for AA).

Research on topical JAK inhibitors for AA has been disappointing, Dr. Hordinsky said.

Alopecia areata and atopic dermatitis. For patients with both AA and AD, dupilumab may provide relief, she said. She referred to a recently published phase 2a trial in patients with AA (including some with both AA and AD), which found that Severity of Alopecia Tool (SALT) scores improved after 48 weeks of treatment, with higher response rates among those with baseline IgE levels of 200 IU/mL or higher. “If your patient has both, and their immunoglobulin-E level is greater than 200, then they may be a good candidate for dupilumab and both diseases may respond,” she said.

Scalp symptoms. It can be challenging when patients complain of itch, pain, or burning on the scalp, but have no obvious skin disease, Dr. Hordinsky said. Her tips: Some of these patients may be experiencing scalp symptoms secondary to a neuropathy; others may have mast cell degranulation, but for others, the basis of the symptoms may be unclear. Special nerve studies may be needed. For relief, a trial of antihistamines or topical or oral gabapentin may be needed, she said.

Frontal fibrosing alopecia (FFA). This condition, first described in postmenopausal women, is now reported in men and in younger women. While sunscreen has been suspected, there are no good data that have proven that link, she said. Cosmetics are also considered a possible culprit. For treatment, “the first thing we try to do is treat the inflammation,” Dr. Hordinsky said. Treatment options include topical high-potency corticosteroids, intralesional steroids, and topical nonsteroid anti-inflammatory creams (tier 1); hydroxychloroquine, low-dose antibiotics, and acitretin (tier 2); and cyclosporin and mycophenolate mofetil (tier 3).

In an observational study of mostly women with FFA, she noted, treatment with dutasteride was more effective than commonly used systemic treatments.

“Don’t forget to address the psychosocial needs of the hair loss patient,” Dr. Hordinsky advised. “Hair loss patients are very distressed, and you have to learn how to be fast and nimble and address those needs.” Working with a behavioral health specialist or therapist can help, she said.

She also recommended directing patients to appropriate organizations such as the National Alopecia Areata Foundation and the Scarring Alopecia Foundation, as well as conferences, such as the upcoming NAAF conference in Washington. “These organizations do give good information that should complement what you are doing.”

Medscape Live and this news organization are owned by the same parent company. Dr. Hordinsky reported no disclosures.

“No matter who the patient is, whether a child, adolescent, or adult, the key to figuring out hair disease is getting a good history,” Maria Hordinsky, MD, professor and chair of the department of dermatology at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, said at the Medscape Live Women’s and Pediatric Dermatology Seminar.

During her presentation on what’s new in hair disorders, Dr. Hordinsky covered a range of disorders and treatments, with some common denominators, such as the need for a good history. She also urged physicians and other health care providers to use the electronic medical record and to be thorough in documenting information – noting nutrition, hair care habits, supplement use, and other details.

Cunaplus_M.Faba/Getty Images

Lab tests should be selected based on that history, she said. For instance, low iron stores can be associated with hair shedding; and thyroid function studies might be needed.

Other highlights of her presentation included comments on different types of alopecia, and some new treatment approaches:

Androgenetic alopecia. In a meta-analysis and systematic review published in 2017, all treatments tested (2% and 5% minoxidil in men, 1 mg finasteride in men, 2% minoxidil in women, and low-level laser light therapy in men) were superior to placebo. Several photobiomodulation (PBM) devices (also known as low-level laser light) for home use have been cleared for androgenetic alopecia by the Food and Drug Administration; a clinician’s guide, published in 2018, provides information on these devices.

Hair and hormones. Combination therapy for female-pattern hair loss – low-dose minoxidil and spironolactone – is important to know about, she said, adding there are data from an observational pilot study supporting this treatment. Women should not become pregnant while on this treatment, Dr. Hordinsky cautioned.

PRP (platelet rich plasma). This treatment for hair loss can be costly, she cautioned, as it’s viewed as a cosmetic technique, “but it actually can work rather well.”

Hair regrowth measures. Traditionally, measures center on global assessment, the patient’s self-assessment, investigator assessment, and an independent photo review. Enter the dermatoscope. “We can now get pictures as a baseline. Patients can see, and also see the health of their scalp,” and if treatments make it look better or worse, she noted.

Alopecia areata (AA). Patients and families need to be made aware that this is an autoimmune disease that can recur, and if it does recur, the extent of hair loss is not predictable. According to Dr. Hordinsky, the most widely used tool to halt disease activity has been treatment with a corticosteroid (topical, intralesional, oral, or even intravenous corticosteroids).

Clinical trials and publications from 2018 to 2020 have triggered interest in off-label use and further studies of JAK inhibitors for treating AA, which include baricitinib, ruxolitinib, and tofacitinib. At the American Academy of Dermatology meeting in March 2022, results of the ALLEGRO phase 2b/3 trial found that the JAK inhibitor ritlecitinib (50 mg or 20 mg daily, with or without a 200-mg loading dose), was efficacious in adults and adolescents with AA, compared with placebo, with no safety concerns noted. “This looks to be very, very promising,” she said, “and also very safe.” Two phase 3 trials of baricitinib also presented at the same meeting found it was superior to placebo for hair regrowth in adults with severe AA at 36 weeks. (On June 13, shortly after Dr. Hordinsky spoke at the meeting, the FDA approved baricitinib for treating AA in adults, making this the first systemic treatment to be approved for AA).

Research on topical JAK inhibitors for AA has been disappointing, Dr. Hordinsky said.

Alopecia areata and atopic dermatitis. For patients with both AA and AD, dupilumab may provide relief, she said. She referred to a recently published phase 2a trial in patients with AA (including some with both AA and AD), which found that Severity of Alopecia Tool (SALT) scores improved after 48 weeks of treatment, with higher response rates among those with baseline IgE levels of 200 IU/mL or higher. “If your patient has both, and their immunoglobulin-E level is greater than 200, then they may be a good candidate for dupilumab and both diseases may respond,” she said.

Scalp symptoms. It can be challenging when patients complain of itch, pain, or burning on the scalp, but have no obvious skin disease, Dr. Hordinsky said. Her tips: Some of these patients may be experiencing scalp symptoms secondary to a neuropathy; others may have mast cell degranulation, but for others, the basis of the symptoms may be unclear. Special nerve studies may be needed. For relief, a trial of antihistamines or topical or oral gabapentin may be needed, she said.

Frontal fibrosing alopecia (FFA). This condition, first described in postmenopausal women, is now reported in men and in younger women. While sunscreen has been suspected, there are no good data that have proven that link, she said. Cosmetics are also considered a possible culprit. For treatment, “the first thing we try to do is treat the inflammation,” Dr. Hordinsky said. Treatment options include topical high-potency corticosteroids, intralesional steroids, and topical nonsteroid anti-inflammatory creams (tier 1); hydroxychloroquine, low-dose antibiotics, and acitretin (tier 2); and cyclosporin and mycophenolate mofetil (tier 3).

In an observational study of mostly women with FFA, she noted, treatment with dutasteride was more effective than commonly used systemic treatments.

“Don’t forget to address the psychosocial needs of the hair loss patient,” Dr. Hordinsky advised. “Hair loss patients are very distressed, and you have to learn how to be fast and nimble and address those needs.” Working with a behavioral health specialist or therapist can help, she said.

She also recommended directing patients to appropriate organizations such as the National Alopecia Areata Foundation and the Scarring Alopecia Foundation, as well as conferences, such as the upcoming NAAF conference in Washington. “These organizations do give good information that should complement what you are doing.”

Medscape Live and this news organization are owned by the same parent company. Dr. Hordinsky reported no disclosures.

“No matter who the patient is, whether a child, adolescent, or adult, the key to figuring out hair disease is getting a good history,” Maria Hordinsky, MD, professor and chair of the department of dermatology at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, said at the Medscape Live Women’s and Pediatric Dermatology Seminar.

During her presentation on what’s new in hair disorders, Dr. Hordinsky covered a range of disorders and treatments, with some common denominators, such as the need for a good history. She also urged physicians and other health care providers to use the electronic medical record and to be thorough in documenting information – noting nutrition, hair care habits, supplement use, and other details.

Cunaplus_M.Faba/Getty Images

Lab tests should be selected based on that history, she said. For instance, low iron stores can be associated with hair shedding; and thyroid function studies might be needed.

Other highlights of her presentation included comments on different types of alopecia, and some new treatment approaches:

Androgenetic alopecia. In a meta-analysis and systematic review published in 2017, all treatments tested (2% and 5% minoxidil in men, 1 mg finasteride in men, 2% minoxidil in women, and low-level laser light therapy in men) were superior to placebo. Several photobiomodulation (PBM) devices (also known as low-level laser light) for home use have been cleared for androgenetic alopecia by the Food and Drug Administration; a clinician’s guide, published in 2018, provides information on these devices.

Hair and hormones. Combination therapy for female-pattern hair loss – low-dose minoxidil and spironolactone – is important to know about, she said, adding there are data from an observational pilot study supporting this treatment. Women should not become pregnant while on this treatment, Dr. Hordinsky cautioned.

PRP (platelet rich plasma). This treatment for hair loss can be costly, she cautioned, as it’s viewed as a cosmetic technique, “but it actually can work rather well.”

Hair regrowth measures. Traditionally, measures center on global assessment, the patient’s self-assessment, investigator assessment, and an independent photo review. Enter the dermatoscope. “We can now get pictures as a baseline. Patients can see, and also see the health of their scalp,” and if treatments make it look better or worse, she noted.

Alopecia areata (AA). Patients and families need to be made aware that this is an autoimmune disease that can recur, and if it does recur, the extent of hair loss is not predictable. According to Dr. Hordinsky, the most widely used tool to halt disease activity has been treatment with a corticosteroid (topical, intralesional, oral, or even intravenous corticosteroids).

Clinical trials and publications from 2018 to 2020 have triggered interest in off-label use and further studies of JAK inhibitors for treating AA, which include baricitinib, ruxolitinib, and tofacitinib. At the American Academy of Dermatology meeting in March 2022, results of the ALLEGRO phase 2b/3 trial found that the JAK inhibitor ritlecitinib (50 mg or 20 mg daily, with or without a 200-mg loading dose), was efficacious in adults and adolescents with AA, compared with placebo, with no safety concerns noted. “This looks to be very, very promising,” she said, “and also very safe.” Two phase 3 trials of baricitinib also presented at the same meeting found it was superior to placebo for hair regrowth in adults with severe AA at 36 weeks. (On June 13, shortly after Dr. Hordinsky spoke at the meeting, the FDA approved baricitinib for treating AA in adults, making this the first systemic treatment to be approved for AA).

Research on topical JAK inhibitors for AA has been disappointing, Dr. Hordinsky said.

Alopecia areata and atopic dermatitis. For patients with both AA and AD, dupilumab may provide relief, she said. She referred to a recently published phase 2a trial in patients with AA (including some with both AA and AD), which found that Severity of Alopecia Tool (SALT) scores improved after 48 weeks of treatment, with higher response rates among those with baseline IgE levels of 200 IU/mL or higher. “If your patient has both, and their immunoglobulin-E level is greater than 200, then they may be a good candidate for dupilumab and both diseases may respond,” she said.

Scalp symptoms. It can be challenging when patients complain of itch, pain, or burning on the scalp, but have no obvious skin disease, Dr. Hordinsky said. Her tips: Some of these patients may be experiencing scalp symptoms secondary to a neuropathy; others may have mast cell degranulation, but for others, the basis of the symptoms may be unclear. Special nerve studies may be needed. For relief, a trial of antihistamines or topical or oral gabapentin may be needed, she said.

Frontal fibrosing alopecia (FFA). This condition, first described in postmenopausal women, is now reported in men and in younger women. While sunscreen has been suspected, there are no good data that have proven that link, she said. Cosmetics are also considered a possible culprit. For treatment, “the first thing we try to do is treat the inflammation,” Dr. Hordinsky said. Treatment options include topical high-potency corticosteroids, intralesional steroids, and topical nonsteroid anti-inflammatory creams (tier 1); hydroxychloroquine, low-dose antibiotics, and acitretin (tier 2); and cyclosporin and mycophenolate mofetil (tier 3).

In an observational study of mostly women with FFA, she noted, treatment with dutasteride was more effective than commonly used systemic treatments.

“Don’t forget to address the psychosocial needs of the hair loss patient,” Dr. Hordinsky advised. “Hair loss patients are very distressed, and you have to learn how to be fast and nimble and address those needs.” Working with a behavioral health specialist or therapist can help, she said.

She also recommended directing patients to appropriate organizations such as the National Alopecia Areata Foundation and the Scarring Alopecia Foundation, as well as conferences, such as the upcoming NAAF conference in Washington. “These organizations do give good information that should complement what you are doing.”

Medscape Live and this news organization are owned by the same parent company. Dr. Hordinsky reported no disclosures.

Children who attend center-based childcare are more likely to maintain a healthier body weight than children who receive nonparental, non–center-based care – especially if they come from lower-income families – a new study finds.

The findings of the prospective Canadian study suggest that professional childcare centers that engage in standard practices are having a positive and lasting impact on children’s health, reported lead author Michaela Kucab, RD, MHSc, of the University of Toronto and colleagues.

“Attending center-based childcare in early childhood may influence important health behaviors including nutrition, physical activity, and routines related to child growth and weight status,” the investigators wrote in their abstract, which Ms. Kucab presented at the virtual conference sponsored by the American Society for Nutrition.

Their study involved 3,503 children who attended childcare in Canada during early childhood (mean age at baseline was 2.7 years) with follow-up from ages 4-10.
 

Overweight/obesity risk reduced

Children who received full-time, center-based care had a 22% lower risk of overweight/obesity and a mean body mass index z score (zBMI) that was 0.11 points lower at age 4 and 7 years than those who received non–center-based care. The benefits of center-based care were even more pronounced among children from lower-income families, who, at age 10, had a 48% lower risk of overweight/obesity and a mean zBMI that was 0.32 points lower with center-based versus non–center-based care.

In a written comment, Ms. Kucab and principal author Jonathon Maguire, MD, MSc, of the University of Toronto, explained that the former difference in zBMI translates to approximately half a pound of bodyweight in an average child, whereas the larger difference in zBMI among children from lower-income families would amount to approximately three pounds. They emphasized that these are rough estimations.

Ms. Kucab and Dr. Maguire noted that body weight differences correlated with the amount of time spent in center-based care.

“There was an observed trend, whereby the estimated mean difference [in zBMI] became slightly larger (or stronger) with a higher intensity of center-based childcare compared to non–center-based childcare,” they said.

To learn more about the earliest impacts of center-based care, the investigators are conducting a clinical trial, The Nutrition Recommendation Intervention Trials in Children’s Health Care (NuRISH), which will involve 600 children aged younger than 2 years.
 

Center-based childcare may reduce disadvantages of low-income children

“Although more research is needed, our findings suggest that center-based childcare may help” reduce disadvantages children from low-income families experience related to their heath,” Ms. Kucab said in a press release.

Laurent Legault, MD, an associate professor specializing in endocrinology in the department of pediatrics at McGill University, Montreal, highlighted the “quite significant” sample size of more than 3,000 participants, noting that “it’s quite tough to have numerous children” involved in a study, especially with several years of follow-up.

Dr. Legault also praised the investigators for considering socioeconomic status, “which is absolutely paramount, because, unfortunately, it’s not necessarily an even playing field for these families.”

He said the findings deserve to be promoted, as they highlight the benefits of center-based care, including ones with room for physical activity, opportunities for social interaction with other children, and a structured routine.

Still, Dr. Legault said it’s “very difficult to pinpoint specifically” what led to healthier body weights. “The problem, of course, is that obesity is very multifactorial in nature,” although “early intervention is more likely to be efficient.”

Center-based care appears to be one such intervention, he said, which should “push people to make centered care more affordable and easy to access for everyone.”The investigators and Dr. Legault reported no conflicts of interest.

Children who attend center-based childcare are more likely to maintain a healthier body weight than children who receive nonparental, non–center-based care – especially if they come from lower-income families – a new study finds.

The findings of the prospective Canadian study suggest that professional childcare centers that engage in standard practices are having a positive and lasting impact on children’s health, reported lead author Michaela Kucab, RD, MHSc, of the University of Toronto and colleagues.

“Attending center-based childcare in early childhood may influence important health behaviors including nutrition, physical activity, and routines related to child growth and weight status,” the investigators wrote in their abstract, which Ms. Kucab presented at the virtual conference sponsored by the American Society for Nutrition.

Their study involved 3,503 children who attended childcare in Canada during early childhood (mean age at baseline was 2.7 years) with follow-up from ages 4-10.
 

Overweight/obesity risk reduced

Children who received full-time, center-based care had a 22% lower risk of overweight/obesity and a mean body mass index z score (zBMI) that was 0.11 points lower at age 4 and 7 years than those who received non–center-based care. The benefits of center-based care were even more pronounced among children from lower-income families, who, at age 10, had a 48% lower risk of overweight/obesity and a mean zBMI that was 0.32 points lower with center-based versus non–center-based care.

In a written comment, Ms. Kucab and principal author Jonathon Maguire, MD, MSc, of the University of Toronto, explained that the former difference in zBMI translates to approximately half a pound of bodyweight in an average child, whereas the larger difference in zBMI among children from lower-income families would amount to approximately three pounds. They emphasized that these are rough estimations.

Ms. Kucab and Dr. Maguire noted that body weight differences correlated with the amount of time spent in center-based care.

“There was an observed trend, whereby the estimated mean difference [in zBMI] became slightly larger (or stronger) with a higher intensity of center-based childcare compared to non–center-based childcare,” they said.

To learn more about the earliest impacts of center-based care, the investigators are conducting a clinical trial, The Nutrition Recommendation Intervention Trials in Children’s Health Care (NuRISH), which will involve 600 children aged younger than 2 years.
 

Center-based childcare may reduce disadvantages of low-income children

“Although more research is needed, our findings suggest that center-based childcare may help” reduce disadvantages children from low-income families experience related to their heath,” Ms. Kucab said in a press release.

Laurent Legault, MD, an associate professor specializing in endocrinology in the department of pediatrics at McGill University, Montreal, highlighted the “quite significant” sample size of more than 3,000 participants, noting that “it’s quite tough to have numerous children” involved in a study, especially with several years of follow-up.

Dr. Legault also praised the investigators for considering socioeconomic status, “which is absolutely paramount, because, unfortunately, it’s not necessarily an even playing field for these families.”

He said the findings deserve to be promoted, as they highlight the benefits of center-based care, including ones with room for physical activity, opportunities for social interaction with other children, and a structured routine.

Still, Dr. Legault said it’s “very difficult to pinpoint specifically” what led to healthier body weights. “The problem, of course, is that obesity is very multifactorial in nature,” although “early intervention is more likely to be efficient.”

Center-based care appears to be one such intervention, he said, which should “push people to make centered care more affordable and easy to access for everyone.”The investigators and Dr. Legault reported no conflicts of interest.

Children who attend center-based childcare are more likely to maintain a healthier body weight than children who receive nonparental, non–center-based care – especially if they come from lower-income families – a new study finds.

The findings of the prospective Canadian study suggest that professional childcare centers that engage in standard practices are having a positive and lasting impact on children’s health, reported lead author Michaela Kucab, RD, MHSc, of the University of Toronto and colleagues.

“Attending center-based childcare in early childhood may influence important health behaviors including nutrition, physical activity, and routines related to child growth and weight status,” the investigators wrote in their abstract, which Ms. Kucab presented at the virtual conference sponsored by the American Society for Nutrition.

Their study involved 3,503 children who attended childcare in Canada during early childhood (mean age at baseline was 2.7 years) with follow-up from ages 4-10.
 

Overweight/obesity risk reduced

Children who received full-time, center-based care had a 22% lower risk of overweight/obesity and a mean body mass index z score (zBMI) that was 0.11 points lower at age 4 and 7 years than those who received non–center-based care. The benefits of center-based care were even more pronounced among children from lower-income families, who, at age 10, had a 48% lower risk of overweight/obesity and a mean zBMI that was 0.32 points lower with center-based versus non–center-based care.

In a written comment, Ms. Kucab and principal author Jonathon Maguire, MD, MSc, of the University of Toronto, explained that the former difference in zBMI translates to approximately half a pound of bodyweight in an average child, whereas the larger difference in zBMI among children from lower-income families would amount to approximately three pounds. They emphasized that these are rough estimations.

Ms. Kucab and Dr. Maguire noted that body weight differences correlated with the amount of time spent in center-based care.

“There was an observed trend, whereby the estimated mean difference [in zBMI] became slightly larger (or stronger) with a higher intensity of center-based childcare compared to non–center-based childcare,” they said.

To learn more about the earliest impacts of center-based care, the investigators are conducting a clinical trial, The Nutrition Recommendation Intervention Trials in Children’s Health Care (NuRISH), which will involve 600 children aged younger than 2 years.
 

Center-based childcare may reduce disadvantages of low-income children

“Although more research is needed, our findings suggest that center-based childcare may help” reduce disadvantages children from low-income families experience related to their heath,” Ms. Kucab said in a press release.

Laurent Legault, MD, an associate professor specializing in endocrinology in the department of pediatrics at McGill University, Montreal, highlighted the “quite significant” sample size of more than 3,000 participants, noting that “it’s quite tough to have numerous children” involved in a study, especially with several years of follow-up.

Dr. Legault also praised the investigators for considering socioeconomic status, “which is absolutely paramount, because, unfortunately, it’s not necessarily an even playing field for these families.”

He said the findings deserve to be promoted, as they highlight the benefits of center-based care, including ones with room for physical activity, opportunities for social interaction with other children, and a structured routine.

Still, Dr. Legault said it’s “very difficult to pinpoint specifically” what led to healthier body weights. “The problem, of course, is that obesity is very multifactorial in nature,” although “early intervention is more likely to be efficient.”

Center-based care appears to be one such intervention, he said, which should “push people to make centered care more affordable and easy to access for everyone.”The investigators and Dr. Legault reported no conflicts of interest.

Boston Children’s Hospital led the list of 10 children’s hospitals across the United States named to the Best Children’s Hospitals Honor Roll for 2022-2023, issued by U.S. News & World Report.

The 16th annual Best Children’s Hospitals rankings were published on June 14.

Rounding out the top 10 on the Honor Roll were Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia; Texas Children’s Hospital, Houston; Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center; Children’s Hospital Los Angeles; Children’s Hospital Colorado, Aurora; Children’s National Hospital, Washington, D.C.; Nationwide Children’s Hospital, Columbus, Ohio; UPMC Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh; and Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital, Palo Alto, Calif.

The Honor Roll hospitals were chosen based on being highly ranked in multiple specialties, such as cancer, cardiology, and orthopedics.

For the second time, the rankings included top hospitals not only in each state, but also in seven multistate regions. The goal of the regional rankings is to help families identify the high-quality pediatric care centers closest to them, according to the U.S. News press release accompanying the rankings.

The top-ranked hospitals for the seven regions were Children’s Hospital Los Angeles (Pacific); Children’s Hospital Colorado, Aurora (Rocky Mountains); Texas Children’s Hospital, Houston (Southwest); Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta and Monroe Carell Jr. Children’s Hospital at Vanderbilt, Nashville, Tenn. (tie for Southeast); Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center (Midwest); Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia (Mid-Atlantic); and Boston Children’s Hospital (New England).

The 2022-2023 U.S. News rankings identify the top 50 centers across the United States in each of 10 pediatric specialties: cancer, cardiology/ heart surgery, diabetes/endocrinology, gastroenterology/gastrointestinal surgery, neonatology, nephrology, neurology/neurosurgery, orthopedics, pulmonology/lung surgery, and urology.

For the 2022-2023 rankings, U.S. News requested medical data and other information from 200 pediatric facilities across the United States; 119 responded and were evaluated in at least one specialty, and 90 were ranked in one or more specialties.

Approximately one-third of each hospital’s score was based on outcomes such as survival, infections, and surgical complications (although outcomes counted for 38.3% of scores for cardiology and heart surgery). Approximately 13% of the score was based on reputation/expert opinion, determined by an annual survey of experts in the 10 specialties (8% of scores for cardiology and heart surgery), and nearly 60% was based on patient safety, excellence, and family centeredness, according to a statement from U.S. News.

“The Best Children’s Hospitals rankings spotlight hospitals that excel in specialized care, offering parents and their pediatricians a helpful starting point in choosing the facility that’s best for their child,” said Ben Harder, chief of health analysis and managing editor at U.S. News, in a press release accompanying the rankings.

Also new to the ranking system this year was a measure to assess hospitals’ efforts to improve equity of care and to promote diversity and inclusion, which accounts for 2% of each hospital’s score in each specialty, according to U.S. News.

Boston Children’s Hospital led the list of 10 children’s hospitals across the United States named to the Best Children’s Hospitals Honor Roll for 2022-2023, issued by U.S. News & World Report.

The 16th annual Best Children’s Hospitals rankings were published on June 14.

Rounding out the top 10 on the Honor Roll were Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia; Texas Children’s Hospital, Houston; Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center; Children’s Hospital Los Angeles; Children’s Hospital Colorado, Aurora; Children’s National Hospital, Washington, D.C.; Nationwide Children’s Hospital, Columbus, Ohio; UPMC Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh; and Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital, Palo Alto, Calif.

The Honor Roll hospitals were chosen based on being highly ranked in multiple specialties, such as cancer, cardiology, and orthopedics.

For the second time, the rankings included top hospitals not only in each state, but also in seven multistate regions. The goal of the regional rankings is to help families identify the high-quality pediatric care centers closest to them, according to the U.S. News press release accompanying the rankings.

The top-ranked hospitals for the seven regions were Children’s Hospital Los Angeles (Pacific); Children’s Hospital Colorado, Aurora (Rocky Mountains); Texas Children’s Hospital, Houston (Southwest); Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta and Monroe Carell Jr. Children’s Hospital at Vanderbilt, Nashville, Tenn. (tie for Southeast); Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center (Midwest); Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia (Mid-Atlantic); and Boston Children’s Hospital (New England).

The 2022-2023 U.S. News rankings identify the top 50 centers across the United States in each of 10 pediatric specialties: cancer, cardiology/ heart surgery, diabetes/endocrinology, gastroenterology/gastrointestinal surgery, neonatology, nephrology, neurology/neurosurgery, orthopedics, pulmonology/lung surgery, and urology.

For the 2022-2023 rankings, U.S. News requested medical data and other information from 200 pediatric facilities across the United States; 119 responded and were evaluated in at least one specialty, and 90 were ranked in one or more specialties.

Approximately one-third of each hospital’s score was based on outcomes such as survival, infections, and surgical complications (although outcomes counted for 38.3% of scores for cardiology and heart surgery). Approximately 13% of the score was based on reputation/expert opinion, determined by an annual survey of experts in the 10 specialties (8% of scores for cardiology and heart surgery), and nearly 60% was based on patient safety, excellence, and family centeredness, according to a statement from U.S. News.

“The Best Children’s Hospitals rankings spotlight hospitals that excel in specialized care, offering parents and their pediatricians a helpful starting point in choosing the facility that’s best for their child,” said Ben Harder, chief of health analysis and managing editor at U.S. News, in a press release accompanying the rankings.

Also new to the ranking system this year was a measure to assess hospitals’ efforts to improve equity of care and to promote diversity and inclusion, which accounts for 2% of each hospital’s score in each specialty, according to U.S. News.

Boston Children’s Hospital led the list of 10 children’s hospitals across the United States named to the Best Children’s Hospitals Honor Roll for 2022-2023, issued by U.S. News & World Report.

The 16th annual Best Children’s Hospitals rankings were published on June 14.

Rounding out the top 10 on the Honor Roll were Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia; Texas Children’s Hospital, Houston; Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center; Children’s Hospital Los Angeles; Children’s Hospital Colorado, Aurora; Children’s National Hospital, Washington, D.C.; Nationwide Children’s Hospital, Columbus, Ohio; UPMC Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh; and Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital, Palo Alto, Calif.

The Honor Roll hospitals were chosen based on being highly ranked in multiple specialties, such as cancer, cardiology, and orthopedics.

For the second time, the rankings included top hospitals not only in each state, but also in seven multistate regions. The goal of the regional rankings is to help families identify the high-quality pediatric care centers closest to them, according to the U.S. News press release accompanying the rankings.

The top-ranked hospitals for the seven regions were Children’s Hospital Los Angeles (Pacific); Children’s Hospital Colorado, Aurora (Rocky Mountains); Texas Children’s Hospital, Houston (Southwest); Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta and Monroe Carell Jr. Children’s Hospital at Vanderbilt, Nashville, Tenn. (tie for Southeast); Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center (Midwest); Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia (Mid-Atlantic); and Boston Children’s Hospital (New England).

The 2022-2023 U.S. News rankings identify the top 50 centers across the United States in each of 10 pediatric specialties: cancer, cardiology/ heart surgery, diabetes/endocrinology, gastroenterology/gastrointestinal surgery, neonatology, nephrology, neurology/neurosurgery, orthopedics, pulmonology/lung surgery, and urology.

For the 2022-2023 rankings, U.S. News requested medical data and other information from 200 pediatric facilities across the United States; 119 responded and were evaluated in at least one specialty, and 90 were ranked in one or more specialties.

Approximately one-third of each hospital’s score was based on outcomes such as survival, infections, and surgical complications (although outcomes counted for 38.3% of scores for cardiology and heart surgery). Approximately 13% of the score was based on reputation/expert opinion, determined by an annual survey of experts in the 10 specialties (8% of scores for cardiology and heart surgery), and nearly 60% was based on patient safety, excellence, and family centeredness, according to a statement from U.S. News.

“The Best Children’s Hospitals rankings spotlight hospitals that excel in specialized care, offering parents and their pediatricians a helpful starting point in choosing the facility that’s best for their child,” said Ben Harder, chief of health analysis and managing editor at U.S. News, in a press release accompanying the rankings.

Also new to the ranking system this year was a measure to assess hospitals’ efforts to improve equity of care and to promote diversity and inclusion, which accounts for 2% of each hospital’s score in each specialty, according to U.S. News.

Schools are intended to be a safe place to acquire knowledge, try out ideas, practice socializing, and build a foundation for adulthood. Many schools fulfill this mission for most children, but for children at both extremes of ability their school experience does not suffice.

When asked, “If you had the choice, would you rather stay home or go to school?” my patients almost universally prefer school. They all know that school is where they should be; they want to be normal, accepted by peers, getting ready for the world’s coming demands, and validation that they will make it as adults. Endorsement otherwise is a warning sign.

When such important tasks of childhood are thwarted children may despair, withdraw, give up, or a small number become furious. These may profoundly resent the children who are experiencing success when they could not. They may hate the teachers and the place where they experienced failure and humiliation. Lack of a positive connection to school characterizes children who are violent toward schools as well as those who drop out.

Schools may fail to support the basic needs of children for many reasons. Schools may avoid physical violence but fail to protect the children’s self-esteem. I have heard stories of teachers calling on children to perform who are clearly struggling or shy, insulting incorrect answers, calling names, putting names on the board, reading out failed grades, posting grades publicly, even allowing peers to mock students. Teachers may deny or disregard parent complaints, or even worsen treatment of the child. Although children may at times falsify complaints, children’s and parents’ reports must be taken seriously and remain anonymous. When we hear of such toxic situations for our patients, we can get details and contact school administrators without naming the child, as often the family feels they can’t. Repeated humiliation may require not only remediation, but consequences. We can advocate for a change in classroom or request a 504 Plan if emotional health is affected.

All children learn best and experience success and even joy when the tasks they face are at or slightly beyond their skill level. But with the wide range of abilities, especially for boys, education may need to be individualized. This is very difficult in larger classrooms with fewer resources, too few adult helpers, inexperienced teachers, or high levels of student misbehavior. Basing teacher promotion mainly on standardized test results makes individualizing instruction even less likely. Smaller class size is better; even the recommended (less than 20) or regulated (less than 30) class sizes are associated with suboptimal achievement, compared with smaller ones. Some ways to attain smaller class size include split days or alternate-day sessions, although these also have disadvantages.

While we can advocate for these changes, we can also encourage parents to promote academic skills by talking to and reading to their children of all ages, trying Reach Out and Read for young children, providing counting games, board games, and math songs! Besides screening for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, we can use standard paragraphs and math problems (for example, WRAT, Einstein) to check skills when performance is low or behavior is a problem the school denies. When concerned, we can write letters for parents to sign requesting testing and an individualized education plan to determine need for tutoring or special education.

While Federal legislation requiring the “least restrictive environment” for education was intended to avoid sidelining differently able children, some can’t learn in a regular class. Conversely, if instruction in a special class is adjusted to the child with the lowest skills, minimal learning may occur for others. Although we can speak with the teacher about “this child’s abilities among those in his class” we can first suggest that the parent visit class to observe. Outside tutoring or home schooling may help a child move up to a regular class.

Sometimes a child’s learning is hampered by classrooms with numerous children misbehaving; this is also a reason for resentment. We can inform school administrators about methods such as The Good Behavior Game (paxis.org) that can improve behavior and connection for the whole class.

While a social “pecking order” is universal, it is unacceptable for children to be allowed to humiliate or hurt a peer, or damage their reputation. While this moral teaching should occur at home, it needs to continue at school where peers are forced into groups they did not choose. Screening for bullying at pediatric visits is now a universal recommendation as 30% report being bullied. We need to ask all children about “mean kids in school” or gang involvement for older children.

Parents can support their children experiencing cyberbullying and switch them to a “dumb phone” with no texting option, limited phone time, or no phone at all. Policies against bullying coming from school administrators are most effective but we can inform schools about the STOPit app for children to report bullying anonymously as well as education for students to stand together against a bully (stopbullying.gov). A Lunch Bunch for younger children or a buddy system for older ones can be requested to help them make friends.

With diverse child aptitudes, schools need to offer students alternative opportunities for self-expression and contribution. We can ask about a child’s strengths and suggest related extracurriculars activities in school or outside, including volunteering. Participation on teams or in clubs must not be blocked for those with poor grades. Perhaps tying participation to tutoring would satisfy the school’s desire to motivate instead. Parents can be encouraged to advocate for music, art, and drama classes – programs that are often victims of budget cuts – that can create the essential school connection.

Students in many areas lack access to classes in trades early enough in their education. The requirements for English or math may be out of reach and result in students dropping out before trade classes are an option. We may identify our patients who may do better with a trade education and advise families to request transfer to a high school offering this.

The best connection a child can have to a school is an adult who values them. The child may identify a preferred teacher to us so that we, or the parent, can call to ask them to provide special attention. Facilitating times for students to get to know teachers may require alteration in bus schedules, lunch times, study halls, or breaks, or keeping the school open longer outside class hours. While more mental health providers are clearly needed, sometimes it is the groundskeeper, the secretary, or the lunch helper who can make the best connection with a child.

As pediatricians, we must listen to struggling youth, acknowledge their pain, and model this empathy for their parents who may be obsessing over grades. Problem-solving about how to get accommodations, informal or formal, can inspire hope. We can coach parents and youth to meet respectfully with the school about issues to avoid labeling the child as a problem.

As pediatricians, our recommendations for school funding and policies may carry extra weight. We may share ideas through talks at PTA meetings, serve on school boards, or endorse leaders planning greater resources for schools to optimize each child’s experience and connection to school.
 

Dr. Howard is assistant professor of pediatrics at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and creator of CHADIS (www.CHADIS.com). She had no other relevant disclosures. Dr. Howard’s contribution to this publication was as a paid expert to MDedge News. E-mail her at [email protected].

Schools are intended to be a safe place to acquire knowledge, try out ideas, practice socializing, and build a foundation for adulthood. Many schools fulfill this mission for most children, but for children at both extremes of ability their school experience does not suffice.

When asked, “If you had the choice, would you rather stay home or go to school?” my patients almost universally prefer school. They all know that school is where they should be; they want to be normal, accepted by peers, getting ready for the world’s coming demands, and validation that they will make it as adults. Endorsement otherwise is a warning sign.

When such important tasks of childhood are thwarted children may despair, withdraw, give up, or a small number become furious. These may profoundly resent the children who are experiencing success when they could not. They may hate the teachers and the place where they experienced failure and humiliation. Lack of a positive connection to school characterizes children who are violent toward schools as well as those who drop out.

Schools may fail to support the basic needs of children for many reasons. Schools may avoid physical violence but fail to protect the children’s self-esteem. I have heard stories of teachers calling on children to perform who are clearly struggling or shy, insulting incorrect answers, calling names, putting names on the board, reading out failed grades, posting grades publicly, even allowing peers to mock students. Teachers may deny or disregard parent complaints, or even worsen treatment of the child. Although children may at times falsify complaints, children’s and parents’ reports must be taken seriously and remain anonymous. When we hear of such toxic situations for our patients, we can get details and contact school administrators without naming the child, as often the family feels they can’t. Repeated humiliation may require not only remediation, but consequences. We can advocate for a change in classroom or request a 504 Plan if emotional health is affected.

All children learn best and experience success and even joy when the tasks they face are at or slightly beyond their skill level. But with the wide range of abilities, especially for boys, education may need to be individualized. This is very difficult in larger classrooms with fewer resources, too few adult helpers, inexperienced teachers, or high levels of student misbehavior. Basing teacher promotion mainly on standardized test results makes individualizing instruction even less likely. Smaller class size is better; even the recommended (less than 20) or regulated (less than 30) class sizes are associated with suboptimal achievement, compared with smaller ones. Some ways to attain smaller class size include split days or alternate-day sessions, although these also have disadvantages.

While we can advocate for these changes, we can also encourage parents to promote academic skills by talking to and reading to their children of all ages, trying Reach Out and Read for young children, providing counting games, board games, and math songs! Besides screening for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, we can use standard paragraphs and math problems (for example, WRAT, Einstein) to check skills when performance is low or behavior is a problem the school denies. When concerned, we can write letters for parents to sign requesting testing and an individualized education plan to determine need for tutoring or special education.

While Federal legislation requiring the “least restrictive environment” for education was intended to avoid sidelining differently able children, some can’t learn in a regular class. Conversely, if instruction in a special class is adjusted to the child with the lowest skills, minimal learning may occur for others. Although we can speak with the teacher about “this child’s abilities among those in his class” we can first suggest that the parent visit class to observe. Outside tutoring or home schooling may help a child move up to a regular class.

Sometimes a child’s learning is hampered by classrooms with numerous children misbehaving; this is also a reason for resentment. We can inform school administrators about methods such as The Good Behavior Game (paxis.org) that can improve behavior and connection for the whole class.

While a social “pecking order” is universal, it is unacceptable for children to be allowed to humiliate or hurt a peer, or damage their reputation. While this moral teaching should occur at home, it needs to continue at school where peers are forced into groups they did not choose. Screening for bullying at pediatric visits is now a universal recommendation as 30% report being bullied. We need to ask all children about “mean kids in school” or gang involvement for older children.

Parents can support their children experiencing cyberbullying and switch them to a “dumb phone” with no texting option, limited phone time, or no phone at all. Policies against bullying coming from school administrators are most effective but we can inform schools about the STOPit app for children to report bullying anonymously as well as education for students to stand together against a bully (stopbullying.gov). A Lunch Bunch for younger children or a buddy system for older ones can be requested to help them make friends.

With diverse child aptitudes, schools need to offer students alternative opportunities for self-expression and contribution. We can ask about a child’s strengths and suggest related extracurriculars activities in school or outside, including volunteering. Participation on teams or in clubs must not be blocked for those with poor grades. Perhaps tying participation to tutoring would satisfy the school’s desire to motivate instead. Parents can be encouraged to advocate for music, art, and drama classes – programs that are often victims of budget cuts – that can create the essential school connection.

Students in many areas lack access to classes in trades early enough in their education. The requirements for English or math may be out of reach and result in students dropping out before trade classes are an option. We may identify our patients who may do better with a trade education and advise families to request transfer to a high school offering this.

The best connection a child can have to a school is an adult who values them. The child may identify a preferred teacher to us so that we, or the parent, can call to ask them to provide special attention. Facilitating times for students to get to know teachers may require alteration in bus schedules, lunch times, study halls, or breaks, or keeping the school open longer outside class hours. While more mental health providers are clearly needed, sometimes it is the groundskeeper, the secretary, or the lunch helper who can make the best connection with a child.

As pediatricians, we must listen to struggling youth, acknowledge their pain, and model this empathy for their parents who may be obsessing over grades. Problem-solving about how to get accommodations, informal or formal, can inspire hope. We can coach parents and youth to meet respectfully with the school about issues to avoid labeling the child as a problem.

As pediatricians, our recommendations for school funding and policies may carry extra weight. We may share ideas through talks at PTA meetings, serve on school boards, or endorse leaders planning greater resources for schools to optimize each child’s experience and connection to school.
 

Dr. Howard is assistant professor of pediatrics at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and creator of CHADIS (www.CHADIS.com). She had no other relevant disclosures. Dr. Howard’s contribution to this publication was as a paid expert to MDedge News. E-mail her at [email protected].

Schools are intended to be a safe place to acquire knowledge, try out ideas, practice socializing, and build a foundation for adulthood. Many schools fulfill this mission for most children, but for children at both extremes of ability their school experience does not suffice.

When asked, “If you had the choice, would you rather stay home or go to school?” my patients almost universally prefer school. They all know that school is where they should be; they want to be normal, accepted by peers, getting ready for the world’s coming demands, and validation that they will make it as adults. Endorsement otherwise is a warning sign.

When such important tasks of childhood are thwarted children may despair, withdraw, give up, or a small number become furious. These may profoundly resent the children who are experiencing success when they could not. They may hate the teachers and the place where they experienced failure and humiliation. Lack of a positive connection to school characterizes children who are violent toward schools as well as those who drop out.

Schools may fail to support the basic needs of children for many reasons. Schools may avoid physical violence but fail to protect the children’s self-esteem. I have heard stories of teachers calling on children to perform who are clearly struggling or shy, insulting incorrect answers, calling names, putting names on the board, reading out failed grades, posting grades publicly, even allowing peers to mock students. Teachers may deny or disregard parent complaints, or even worsen treatment of the child. Although children may at times falsify complaints, children’s and parents’ reports must be taken seriously and remain anonymous. When we hear of such toxic situations for our patients, we can get details and contact school administrators without naming the child, as often the family feels they can’t. Repeated humiliation may require not only remediation, but consequences. We can advocate for a change in classroom or request a 504 Plan if emotional health is affected.

All children learn best and experience success and even joy when the tasks they face are at or slightly beyond their skill level. But with the wide range of abilities, especially for boys, education may need to be individualized. This is very difficult in larger classrooms with fewer resources, too few adult helpers, inexperienced teachers, or high levels of student misbehavior. Basing teacher promotion mainly on standardized test results makes individualizing instruction even less likely. Smaller class size is better; even the recommended (less than 20) or regulated (less than 30) class sizes are associated with suboptimal achievement, compared with smaller ones. Some ways to attain smaller class size include split days or alternate-day sessions, although these also have disadvantages.

While we can advocate for these changes, we can also encourage parents to promote academic skills by talking to and reading to their children of all ages, trying Reach Out and Read for young children, providing counting games, board games, and math songs! Besides screening for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, we can use standard paragraphs and math problems (for example, WRAT, Einstein) to check skills when performance is low or behavior is a problem the school denies. When concerned, we can write letters for parents to sign requesting testing and an individualized education plan to determine need for tutoring or special education.

While Federal legislation requiring the “least restrictive environment” for education was intended to avoid sidelining differently able children, some can’t learn in a regular class. Conversely, if instruction in a special class is adjusted to the child with the lowest skills, minimal learning may occur for others. Although we can speak with the teacher about “this child’s abilities among those in his class” we can first suggest that the parent visit class to observe. Outside tutoring or home schooling may help a child move up to a regular class.

Sometimes a child’s learning is hampered by classrooms with numerous children misbehaving; this is also a reason for resentment. We can inform school administrators about methods such as The Good Behavior Game (paxis.org) that can improve behavior and connection for the whole class.

While a social “pecking order” is universal, it is unacceptable for children to be allowed to humiliate or hurt a peer, or damage their reputation. While this moral teaching should occur at home, it needs to continue at school where peers are forced into groups they did not choose. Screening for bullying at pediatric visits is now a universal recommendation as 30% report being bullied. We need to ask all children about “mean kids in school” or gang involvement for older children.

Parents can support their children experiencing cyberbullying and switch them to a “dumb phone” with no texting option, limited phone time, or no phone at all. Policies against bullying coming from school administrators are most effective but we can inform schools about the STOPit app for children to report bullying anonymously as well as education for students to stand together against a bully (stopbullying.gov). A Lunch Bunch for younger children or a buddy system for older ones can be requested to help them make friends.

With diverse child aptitudes, schools need to offer students alternative opportunities for self-expression and contribution. We can ask about a child’s strengths and suggest related extracurriculars activities in school or outside, including volunteering. Participation on teams or in clubs must not be blocked for those with poor grades. Perhaps tying participation to tutoring would satisfy the school’s desire to motivate instead. Parents can be encouraged to advocate for music, art, and drama classes – programs that are often victims of budget cuts – that can create the essential school connection.

Students in many areas lack access to classes in trades early enough in their education. The requirements for English or math may be out of reach and result in students dropping out before trade classes are an option. We may identify our patients who may do better with a trade education and advise families to request transfer to a high school offering this.

The best connection a child can have to a school is an adult who values them. The child may identify a preferred teacher to us so that we, or the parent, can call to ask them to provide special attention. Facilitating times for students to get to know teachers may require alteration in bus schedules, lunch times, study halls, or breaks, or keeping the school open longer outside class hours. While more mental health providers are clearly needed, sometimes it is the groundskeeper, the secretary, or the lunch helper who can make the best connection with a child.

As pediatricians, we must listen to struggling youth, acknowledge their pain, and model this empathy for their parents who may be obsessing over grades. Problem-solving about how to get accommodations, informal or formal, can inspire hope. We can coach parents and youth to meet respectfully with the school about issues to avoid labeling the child as a problem.

As pediatricians, our recommendations for school funding and policies may carry extra weight. We may share ideas through talks at PTA meetings, serve on school boards, or endorse leaders planning greater resources for schools to optimize each child’s experience and connection to school.
 

Dr. Howard is assistant professor of pediatrics at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and creator of CHADIS (www.CHADIS.com). She had no other relevant disclosures. Dr. Howard’s contribution to this publication was as a paid expert to MDedge News. E-mail her at [email protected].

Does the latest increase in new child COVID-19 cases indicate that the latest surge is on the decline?

The new-case count for the most recent reporting week – 87,644 for June 3-9 – did go up from the previous week, but by only 270 cases, the American Academy of Pediatrics and Children’s Hospital Association said in their weekly COVID report. That’s just 0.31% higher than a week ago and probably is affected by reduced testing and reporting because of Memorial Day, as the AAP and CHA noted earlier.

That hint of a continued decline accompanies the latest trend for new cases for all age groups: They have leveled out over the last month, with the moving 7-day daily average hovering around 100,000-110,000 since mid-May, data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show.

The Food and Drug Administration, meanwhile, is in the news this week as two of its advisory panels take the next steps toward pediatric approvals of vaccines from Pfizer/BioNTtech and Moderna. The panels could advance the approvals of the Pfizer vaccine for children under the age of 5 years and the Moderna vaccine for children aged 6 months to 17 years.

Matthew Harris, MD, medical director of the COVID-19 vaccination program for Northwell Health in New Hyde Park, N.Y., emphasized the importance of vaccinations, as well as the continued challenge of convincing parents to get the shots for eligible children. “We still have a long way to go for primary vaccines and boosters for children 5 years and above,” he said in an interview.

The vaccination effort against COVID-19 has stalled somewhat as interest has waned since the Omicron surge. Weekly initial vaccinations for children aged 5-11 years, which topped 100,000 as recently as mid-March, have been about 43,000 a week for the last 3 weeks, while 12- to 17-year-olds had around 27,000 or 28,000 initial vaccinations per week over that span, the AAP said in a separate report.

The latest data available from the CDC show that overall vaccine coverage levels for the younger group are only about half those of the 12- to 17-year-olds, both in terms of initial doses and completions. The 5- to 11-year-olds are not eligible for boosters yet, but 26.5% of the older children had received one as of June 13, according to the CDC’s COVID Data Tracker.

Does the latest increase in new child COVID-19 cases indicate that the latest surge is on the decline?

The new-case count for the most recent reporting week – 87,644 for June 3-9 – did go up from the previous week, but by only 270 cases, the American Academy of Pediatrics and Children’s Hospital Association said in their weekly COVID report. That’s just 0.31% higher than a week ago and probably is affected by reduced testing and reporting because of Memorial Day, as the AAP and CHA noted earlier.

That hint of a continued decline accompanies the latest trend for new cases for all age groups: They have leveled out over the last month, with the moving 7-day daily average hovering around 100,000-110,000 since mid-May, data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show.

The Food and Drug Administration, meanwhile, is in the news this week as two of its advisory panels take the next steps toward pediatric approvals of vaccines from Pfizer/BioNTtech and Moderna. The panels could advance the approvals of the Pfizer vaccine for children under the age of 5 years and the Moderna vaccine for children aged 6 months to 17 years.

Matthew Harris, MD, medical director of the COVID-19 vaccination program for Northwell Health in New Hyde Park, N.Y., emphasized the importance of vaccinations, as well as the continued challenge of convincing parents to get the shots for eligible children. “We still have a long way to go for primary vaccines and boosters for children 5 years and above,” he said in an interview.

The vaccination effort against COVID-19 has stalled somewhat as interest has waned since the Omicron surge. Weekly initial vaccinations for children aged 5-11 years, which topped 100,000 as recently as mid-March, have been about 43,000 a week for the last 3 weeks, while 12- to 17-year-olds had around 27,000 or 28,000 initial vaccinations per week over that span, the AAP said in a separate report.

The latest data available from the CDC show that overall vaccine coverage levels for the younger group are only about half those of the 12- to 17-year-olds, both in terms of initial doses and completions. The 5- to 11-year-olds are not eligible for boosters yet, but 26.5% of the older children had received one as of June 13, according to the CDC’s COVID Data Tracker.

Does the latest increase in new child COVID-19 cases indicate that the latest surge is on the decline?

The new-case count for the most recent reporting week – 87,644 for June 3-9 – did go up from the previous week, but by only 270 cases, the American Academy of Pediatrics and Children’s Hospital Association said in their weekly COVID report. That’s just 0.31% higher than a week ago and probably is affected by reduced testing and reporting because of Memorial Day, as the AAP and CHA noted earlier.

That hint of a continued decline accompanies the latest trend for new cases for all age groups: They have leveled out over the last month, with the moving 7-day daily average hovering around 100,000-110,000 since mid-May, data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show.

The Food and Drug Administration, meanwhile, is in the news this week as two of its advisory panels take the next steps toward pediatric approvals of vaccines from Pfizer/BioNTtech and Moderna. The panels could advance the approvals of the Pfizer vaccine for children under the age of 5 years and the Moderna vaccine for children aged 6 months to 17 years.

Matthew Harris, MD, medical director of the COVID-19 vaccination program for Northwell Health in New Hyde Park, N.Y., emphasized the importance of vaccinations, as well as the continued challenge of convincing parents to get the shots for eligible children. “We still have a long way to go for primary vaccines and boosters for children 5 years and above,” he said in an interview.

The vaccination effort against COVID-19 has stalled somewhat as interest has waned since the Omicron surge. Weekly initial vaccinations for children aged 5-11 years, which topped 100,000 as recently as mid-March, have been about 43,000 a week for the last 3 weeks, while 12- to 17-year-olds had around 27,000 or 28,000 initial vaccinations per week over that span, the AAP said in a separate report.

The latest data available from the CDC show that overall vaccine coverage levels for the younger group are only about half those of the 12- to 17-year-olds, both in terms of initial doses and completions. The 5- to 11-year-olds are not eligible for boosters yet, but 26.5% of the older children had received one as of June 13, according to the CDC’s COVID Data Tracker.

Transgender youth are significantly more likely to consider suicide and attempt it, compared with their cisgender peers, new research shows.

In a large population-based study, investigators found the increased risk of suicidality is partly because of bullying and cyberbullying experienced by transgender teens.

The findings are “extremely concerning and should be a wake-up call,” Ian Colman, PhD, with the University of Ottawa School of Epidemiology and Public Health, said in an interview.

Young people who are exploring their sexual identities may suffer from depression and anxiety, both about the reactions of their peers and families, as well as their own sense of self.

“These youth are highly marginalized and stigmatized in many corners of our society, and these findings highlight just how distressing these experiences can be,” Dr. Colman said.

The study was published online in the Canadian Medical Association Journal.
 

Sevenfold increased risk of attempted suicide

The risk of suicidal thoughts and actions is not well studied in transgender and nonbinary youth.

To expand the evidence base, the researchers analyzed data for 6,800 adolescents aged 15-17 years from the 2019 Canadian Health Survey on Children and Youth.

The sample included 1,130 (16.5%) adolescents who identified as having some degree of same-gender attraction, 265 (4.3%) who were unsure of their attraction (“questioning”), and 50 (0.6%) who were transgender, meaning they identified as being of a gender different from that assigned at birth.

Overall, 980 (14.0%) adolescents reported having thoughts of suicide in the prior year, and 480 (6.8%) had attempted suicide in their life.

Transgender youth were five times more likely to think about suicide and more than seven times more likely to have ever attempted suicide than cisgender, heterosexual peers.

Among cisgender adolescents, girls who were attracted to girls had 3.6 times the risk of suicidal ideation and 3.3 times the risk of having ever attempted suicide, compared with their heterosexual peers.

Teens attracted to multiple genders had more than twice the risk of suicidal ideation and suicide attempt. Youth who were questioning their sexual orientation had twice the risk of having attempted suicide in their lifetime.

A crisis – with reason for hope

“This is a crisis, and it shows just how much more needs to be done to support transgender young people,” co-author Fae Johnstone, MSW, executive director, Wisdom2Action, who is a trans woman herself, said in the news release.

“Suicide prevention programs specifically targeted to transgender, nonbinary, and sexual minority adolescents, as well as gender-affirming care for transgender adolescents, may help reduce the burden of suicidality among this group,” Ms. Johnstone added.

“The most important thing that parents, teachers, and health care providers can do is to be supportive of these youth,” Dr. Colman told this news organization.

“Providing a safe place where gender and sexual minorities can explore and express themselves is crucial. The first step is to listen and to be compassionate,” Dr. Colman added.

Reached for comment, Jess Ting, MD, director of surgery at the Mount Sinai Center for Transgender Medicine and Surgery, New York, said the data from this study on suicidal thoughts and actions among sexual minority and transgender adolescents “mirror what we see and what we know” about suicidality in trans and nonbinary adults.

“The reasons for this are complex, and it’s hard for someone who doesn’t have a lived experience as a trans or nonbinary person to understand the reasons for suicidality,” he told this news organization.

“But we also know that there are higher rates of anxiety and depression and self-image issues and posttraumatic stress disorder, not to mention outside factors – marginalization, discrimination, violence, abuse. When you add up all these intrinsic and extrinsic factors, it’s not hard to believe that there is a high rate of suicidality,” Dr. Ting said.

“There have been studies that have shown that in children who are supported in their gender identity, the rates of depression and anxiety decreased to almost the same levels as non-trans and nonbinary children, so I think that gives cause for hope,” Dr. Ting added.

The study was funded in part by the Research Council of Norway through its Centres of Excellence funding scheme and by a Frederick Banting and Charles Best Canada Graduate Scholarship Doctoral Award. Ms. Johnstone reports consulting fees from Spectrum Waterloo and volunteer participation with the Youth Suicide Prevention Leadership Committee of Ontario. No other competing interests were declared. Dr. Ting has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Transgender youth are significantly more likely to consider suicide and attempt it, compared with their cisgender peers, new research shows.

In a large population-based study, investigators found the increased risk of suicidality is partly because of bullying and cyberbullying experienced by transgender teens.

The findings are “extremely concerning and should be a wake-up call,” Ian Colman, PhD, with the University of Ottawa School of Epidemiology and Public Health, said in an interview.

Young people who are exploring their sexual identities may suffer from depression and anxiety, both about the reactions of their peers and families, as well as their own sense of self.

“These youth are highly marginalized and stigmatized in many corners of our society, and these findings highlight just how distressing these experiences can be,” Dr. Colman said.

The study was published online in the Canadian Medical Association Journal.
 

Sevenfold increased risk of attempted suicide

The risk of suicidal thoughts and actions is not well studied in transgender and nonbinary youth.

To expand the evidence base, the researchers analyzed data for 6,800 adolescents aged 15-17 years from the 2019 Canadian Health Survey on Children and Youth.

The sample included 1,130 (16.5%) adolescents who identified as having some degree of same-gender attraction, 265 (4.3%) who were unsure of their attraction (“questioning”), and 50 (0.6%) who were transgender, meaning they identified as being of a gender different from that assigned at birth.

Overall, 980 (14.0%) adolescents reported having thoughts of suicide in the prior year, and 480 (6.8%) had attempted suicide in their life.

Transgender youth were five times more likely to think about suicide and more than seven times more likely to have ever attempted suicide than cisgender, heterosexual peers.

Among cisgender adolescents, girls who were attracted to girls had 3.6 times the risk of suicidal ideation and 3.3 times the risk of having ever attempted suicide, compared with their heterosexual peers.

Teens attracted to multiple genders had more than twice the risk of suicidal ideation and suicide attempt. Youth who were questioning their sexual orientation had twice the risk of having attempted suicide in their lifetime.

A crisis – with reason for hope

“This is a crisis, and it shows just how much more needs to be done to support transgender young people,” co-author Fae Johnstone, MSW, executive director, Wisdom2Action, who is a trans woman herself, said in the news release.

“Suicide prevention programs specifically targeted to transgender, nonbinary, and sexual minority adolescents, as well as gender-affirming care for transgender adolescents, may help reduce the burden of suicidality among this group,” Ms. Johnstone added.

“The most important thing that parents, teachers, and health care providers can do is to be supportive of these youth,” Dr. Colman told this news organization.

“Providing a safe place where gender and sexual minorities can explore and express themselves is crucial. The first step is to listen and to be compassionate,” Dr. Colman added.

Reached for comment, Jess Ting, MD, director of surgery at the Mount Sinai Center for Transgender Medicine and Surgery, New York, said the data from this study on suicidal thoughts and actions among sexual minority and transgender adolescents “mirror what we see and what we know” about suicidality in trans and nonbinary adults.

“The reasons for this are complex, and it’s hard for someone who doesn’t have a lived experience as a trans or nonbinary person to understand the reasons for suicidality,” he told this news organization.

“But we also know that there are higher rates of anxiety and depression and self-image issues and posttraumatic stress disorder, not to mention outside factors – marginalization, discrimination, violence, abuse. When you add up all these intrinsic and extrinsic factors, it’s not hard to believe that there is a high rate of suicidality,” Dr. Ting said.

“There have been studies that have shown that in children who are supported in their gender identity, the rates of depression and anxiety decreased to almost the same levels as non-trans and nonbinary children, so I think that gives cause for hope,” Dr. Ting added.

The study was funded in part by the Research Council of Norway through its Centres of Excellence funding scheme and by a Frederick Banting and Charles Best Canada Graduate Scholarship Doctoral Award. Ms. Johnstone reports consulting fees from Spectrum Waterloo and volunteer participation with the Youth Suicide Prevention Leadership Committee of Ontario. No other competing interests were declared. Dr. Ting has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Transgender youth are significantly more likely to consider suicide and attempt it, compared with their cisgender peers, new research shows.

In a large population-based study, investigators found the increased risk of suicidality is partly because of bullying and cyberbullying experienced by transgender teens.

The findings are “extremely concerning and should be a wake-up call,” Ian Colman, PhD, with the University of Ottawa School of Epidemiology and Public Health, said in an interview.

Young people who are exploring their sexual identities may suffer from depression and anxiety, both about the reactions of their peers and families, as well as their own sense of self.

“These youth are highly marginalized and stigmatized in many corners of our society, and these findings highlight just how distressing these experiences can be,” Dr. Colman said.

The study was published online in the Canadian Medical Association Journal.
 

Sevenfold increased risk of attempted suicide

The risk of suicidal thoughts and actions is not well studied in transgender and nonbinary youth.

To expand the evidence base, the researchers analyzed data for 6,800 adolescents aged 15-17 years from the 2019 Canadian Health Survey on Children and Youth.

The sample included 1,130 (16.5%) adolescents who identified as having some degree of same-gender attraction, 265 (4.3%) who were unsure of their attraction (“questioning”), and 50 (0.6%) who were transgender, meaning they identified as being of a gender different from that assigned at birth.

Overall, 980 (14.0%) adolescents reported having thoughts of suicide in the prior year, and 480 (6.8%) had attempted suicide in their life.

Transgender youth were five times more likely to think about suicide and more than seven times more likely to have ever attempted suicide than cisgender, heterosexual peers.

Among cisgender adolescents, girls who were attracted to girls had 3.6 times the risk of suicidal ideation and 3.3 times the risk of having ever attempted suicide, compared with their heterosexual peers.

Teens attracted to multiple genders had more than twice the risk of suicidal ideation and suicide attempt. Youth who were questioning their sexual orientation had twice the risk of having attempted suicide in their lifetime.

A crisis – with reason for hope

“This is a crisis, and it shows just how much more needs to be done to support transgender young people,” co-author Fae Johnstone, MSW, executive director, Wisdom2Action, who is a trans woman herself, said in the news release.

“Suicide prevention programs specifically targeted to transgender, nonbinary, and sexual minority adolescents, as well as gender-affirming care for transgender adolescents, may help reduce the burden of suicidality among this group,” Ms. Johnstone added.

“The most important thing that parents, teachers, and health care providers can do is to be supportive of these youth,” Dr. Colman told this news organization.

“Providing a safe place where gender and sexual minorities can explore and express themselves is crucial. The first step is to listen and to be compassionate,” Dr. Colman added.

Reached for comment, Jess Ting, MD, director of surgery at the Mount Sinai Center for Transgender Medicine and Surgery, New York, said the data from this study on suicidal thoughts and actions among sexual minority and transgender adolescents “mirror what we see and what we know” about suicidality in trans and nonbinary adults.

“The reasons for this are complex, and it’s hard for someone who doesn’t have a lived experience as a trans or nonbinary person to understand the reasons for suicidality,” he told this news organization.

“But we also know that there are higher rates of anxiety and depression and self-image issues and posttraumatic stress disorder, not to mention outside factors – marginalization, discrimination, violence, abuse. When you add up all these intrinsic and extrinsic factors, it’s not hard to believe that there is a high rate of suicidality,” Dr. Ting said.

“There have been studies that have shown that in children who are supported in their gender identity, the rates of depression and anxiety decreased to almost the same levels as non-trans and nonbinary children, so I think that gives cause for hope,” Dr. Ting added.

The study was funded in part by the Research Council of Norway through its Centres of Excellence funding scheme and by a Frederick Banting and Charles Best Canada Graduate Scholarship Doctoral Award. Ms. Johnstone reports consulting fees from Spectrum Waterloo and volunteer participation with the Youth Suicide Prevention Leadership Committee of Ontario. No other competing interests were declared. Dr. Ting has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Two new studies point to an ever-increasing number of young people in the United States who identify as transgender and nonbinary, with the figures doubling among 18- to 24-year-olds in one institute’s research – from 0.66% of the population in 2016 to 1.3% (398,900) in 2022.

In addition, 1.4% (300,100) of 13- to 17-year-olds identify as trans or nonbinary, according to the report from that group, the Williams Institute at the University of California, Los Angeles, School of Law.

Williams, which conducts independent research on sexual orientation and gender identity law and public policy, did not contain data on 13- to 17-year-olds in its 2016 study, so the growth in that group over the past 5+ years is not as well documented.

Overall, some 1.6 million Americans older than age 13 now identify as transgender, reported the Williams researchers.

And in a new Pew Research Center survey, 2% of adults aged 18-29 identify as transgender and 3% identify as nonbinary, a far greater number than in other age cohorts.

These reports are likely underestimates. The Human Rights Campaign estimates that some 2 million Americans of all ages identify as transgender.

The Pew survey is weighted to be representative but still has limitations, said the organization. The Williams analysis, based on responses to two CDC surveys – the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) and Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS) – is incomplete, say researchers, because not every state collects data on gender identity.
 

Transgender identities more predominant among youth

The Williams researchers report that 18.3% of those who identified as trans were 13- to 17-year-olds; that age group makes up 7.6% of the United States population 13 and older.

And despite not having firm figures from earlier reports, they comment: “Youth ages 13-17 comprise a larger share of the transgender-identified population than we previously estimated, currently comprising about 18% of the transgender-identified population in the United State, up from 10% previously.”  

About one-quarter of those who identified as trans in the new 2022 report were aged 18-24; that age cohort accounts for 11% of Americans.

The number of older Americans who identify as trans are more proportionate to their representation in the population, according to Williams. Overall, about half of those who said they were trans were aged 25-64; that group accounts for 62% of the overall American population. Some 10% of trans-identified individuals were over age 65. About 20% of Americans are 65 or older, said the researchers.

The Pew research – based on the responses of 10,188 individuals surveyed in May – also found growing numbers of young people who identify as trans. “The share of U.S. adults who are transgender is particularly high among adults younger than 25,” reported Pew in a blog post.

In the 18- to 25-year-old group, 3.1% identified as a trans man or a trans woman, compared with just 0.5% of those ages 25-29.  

That compares to 0.3% of those aged 30-49 and 0.2% of those older than 50.
 

Racial and state-by-state variation

Similar percentages of youth aged 13-17 of all races and ethnicities in the Williams study report they are transgender, ranging from 1% of those who are Asian, to 1.3% of White youth, 1.4% of Black youth, 1.8% of American Indian or Alaska Native, and 1.8% of Latinx youth. The institute reported that 1.5% of biracial and multiracial youth identified as transgender.

The researchers said, however, that “transgender-identified youth and adults appear more likely to report being Latinx and less likely to report being White, as compared to the United States population.”

Transgender individuals live in every state, with the greatest percentage of both youth and adults in the Northeast and West, and lesser percentages in the Midwest and South, reported the Williams Institute.

Williams estimates as many as 3% of 13- to 17-year-olds in New York identify as trans, while just 0.6% of that age group in Wyoming is transgender. A total of 2%-2.5% of those aged 13-17 are transgender in Hawaii, New Mexico, Maryland, and Washington, D.C.

Among the states with higher percentages of trans-identifying 18- to 24-year-olds: Arizona (1.9%), Arkansas (3.6%), Colorado (2%), Delaware (2.4%), Illinois (1.9%), Maryland (1.9%), North Carolina (2.5%), Oklahoma (2.5%), Massachusetts (2.3%), Rhode Island (2.1%), and Washington (2%).

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Two new studies point to an ever-increasing number of young people in the United States who identify as transgender and nonbinary, with the figures doubling among 18- to 24-year-olds in one institute’s research – from 0.66% of the population in 2016 to 1.3% (398,900) in 2022.

In addition, 1.4% (300,100) of 13- to 17-year-olds identify as trans or nonbinary, according to the report from that group, the Williams Institute at the University of California, Los Angeles, School of Law.

Williams, which conducts independent research on sexual orientation and gender identity law and public policy, did not contain data on 13- to 17-year-olds in its 2016 study, so the growth in that group over the past 5+ years is not as well documented.

Overall, some 1.6 million Americans older than age 13 now identify as transgender, reported the Williams researchers.

And in a new Pew Research Center survey, 2% of adults aged 18-29 identify as transgender and 3% identify as nonbinary, a far greater number than in other age cohorts.

These reports are likely underestimates. The Human Rights Campaign estimates that some 2 million Americans of all ages identify as transgender.

The Pew survey is weighted to be representative but still has limitations, said the organization. The Williams analysis, based on responses to two CDC surveys – the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) and Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS) – is incomplete, say researchers, because not every state collects data on gender identity.
 

Transgender identities more predominant among youth

The Williams researchers report that 18.3% of those who identified as trans were 13- to 17-year-olds; that age group makes up 7.6% of the United States population 13 and older.

And despite not having firm figures from earlier reports, they comment: “Youth ages 13-17 comprise a larger share of the transgender-identified population than we previously estimated, currently comprising about 18% of the transgender-identified population in the United State, up from 10% previously.”  

About one-quarter of those who identified as trans in the new 2022 report were aged 18-24; that age cohort accounts for 11% of Americans.

The number of older Americans who identify as trans are more proportionate to their representation in the population, according to Williams. Overall, about half of those who said they were trans were aged 25-64; that group accounts for 62% of the overall American population. Some 10% of trans-identified individuals were over age 65. About 20% of Americans are 65 or older, said the researchers.

The Pew research – based on the responses of 10,188 individuals surveyed in May – also found growing numbers of young people who identify as trans. “The share of U.S. adults who are transgender is particularly high among adults younger than 25,” reported Pew in a blog post.

In the 18- to 25-year-old group, 3.1% identified as a trans man or a trans woman, compared with just 0.5% of those ages 25-29.  

That compares to 0.3% of those aged 30-49 and 0.2% of those older than 50.
 

Racial and state-by-state variation

Similar percentages of youth aged 13-17 of all races and ethnicities in the Williams study report they are transgender, ranging from 1% of those who are Asian, to 1.3% of White youth, 1.4% of Black youth, 1.8% of American Indian or Alaska Native, and 1.8% of Latinx youth. The institute reported that 1.5% of biracial and multiracial youth identified as transgender.

The researchers said, however, that “transgender-identified youth and adults appear more likely to report being Latinx and less likely to report being White, as compared to the United States population.”

Transgender individuals live in every state, with the greatest percentage of both youth and adults in the Northeast and West, and lesser percentages in the Midwest and South, reported the Williams Institute.

Williams estimates as many as 3% of 13- to 17-year-olds in New York identify as trans, while just 0.6% of that age group in Wyoming is transgender. A total of 2%-2.5% of those aged 13-17 are transgender in Hawaii, New Mexico, Maryland, and Washington, D.C.

Among the states with higher percentages of trans-identifying 18- to 24-year-olds: Arizona (1.9%), Arkansas (3.6%), Colorado (2%), Delaware (2.4%), Illinois (1.9%), Maryland (1.9%), North Carolina (2.5%), Oklahoma (2.5%), Massachusetts (2.3%), Rhode Island (2.1%), and Washington (2%).

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Two new studies point to an ever-increasing number of young people in the United States who identify as transgender and nonbinary, with the figures doubling among 18- to 24-year-olds in one institute’s research – from 0.66% of the population in 2016 to 1.3% (398,900) in 2022.

In addition, 1.4% (300,100) of 13- to 17-year-olds identify as trans or nonbinary, according to the report from that group, the Williams Institute at the University of California, Los Angeles, School of Law.

Williams, which conducts independent research on sexual orientation and gender identity law and public policy, did not contain data on 13- to 17-year-olds in its 2016 study, so the growth in that group over the past 5+ years is not as well documented.

Overall, some 1.6 million Americans older than age 13 now identify as transgender, reported the Williams researchers.

And in a new Pew Research Center survey, 2% of adults aged 18-29 identify as transgender and 3% identify as nonbinary, a far greater number than in other age cohorts.

These reports are likely underestimates. The Human Rights Campaign estimates that some 2 million Americans of all ages identify as transgender.

The Pew survey is weighted to be representative but still has limitations, said the organization. The Williams analysis, based on responses to two CDC surveys – the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) and Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS) – is incomplete, say researchers, because not every state collects data on gender identity.
 

Transgender identities more predominant among youth

The Williams researchers report that 18.3% of those who identified as trans were 13- to 17-year-olds; that age group makes up 7.6% of the United States population 13 and older.

And despite not having firm figures from earlier reports, they comment: “Youth ages 13-17 comprise a larger share of the transgender-identified population than we previously estimated, currently comprising about 18% of the transgender-identified population in the United State, up from 10% previously.”  

About one-quarter of those who identified as trans in the new 2022 report were aged 18-24; that age cohort accounts for 11% of Americans.

The number of older Americans who identify as trans are more proportionate to their representation in the population, according to Williams. Overall, about half of those who said they were trans were aged 25-64; that group accounts for 62% of the overall American population. Some 10% of trans-identified individuals were over age 65. About 20% of Americans are 65 or older, said the researchers.

The Pew research – based on the responses of 10,188 individuals surveyed in May – also found growing numbers of young people who identify as trans. “The share of U.S. adults who are transgender is particularly high among adults younger than 25,” reported Pew in a blog post.

In the 18- to 25-year-old group, 3.1% identified as a trans man or a trans woman, compared with just 0.5% of those ages 25-29.  

That compares to 0.3% of those aged 30-49 and 0.2% of those older than 50.
 

Racial and state-by-state variation

Similar percentages of youth aged 13-17 of all races and ethnicities in the Williams study report they are transgender, ranging from 1% of those who are Asian, to 1.3% of White youth, 1.4% of Black youth, 1.8% of American Indian or Alaska Native, and 1.8% of Latinx youth. The institute reported that 1.5% of biracial and multiracial youth identified as transgender.

The researchers said, however, that “transgender-identified youth and adults appear more likely to report being Latinx and less likely to report being White, as compared to the United States population.”

Transgender individuals live in every state, with the greatest percentage of both youth and adults in the Northeast and West, and lesser percentages in the Midwest and South, reported the Williams Institute.

Williams estimates as many as 3% of 13- to 17-year-olds in New York identify as trans, while just 0.6% of that age group in Wyoming is transgender. A total of 2%-2.5% of those aged 13-17 are transgender in Hawaii, New Mexico, Maryland, and Washington, D.C.

Among the states with higher percentages of trans-identifying 18- to 24-year-olds: Arizona (1.9%), Arkansas (3.6%), Colorado (2%), Delaware (2.4%), Illinois (1.9%), Maryland (1.9%), North Carolina (2.5%), Oklahoma (2.5%), Massachusetts (2.3%), Rhode Island (2.1%), and Washington (2%).

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Infants exposed to SARS-CoV-2 in utero are at increased risk for neurodevelopmental disorders in the first year of life, new research suggests.

But whether it is exposure to the pandemic or maternal exposure to the virus itself that may harm early childhood neurodevelopment is unclear, caution investigators, led by Roy Perlis, MD, MSc, with Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

“In this analysis of 222 offspring of mothers infected with SARS-CoV-2, compared with the offspring of 7,550 mothers in the control group (not infected) delivered during the same period, we observed neurodevelopmental diagnoses to be significantly more common among exposed offspring, particularly those exposed to third-trimester maternal infection,” they write.

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

Speech and language disorders

The study included 7,772 mostly singleton live births across six hospitals in Massachusetts between March and September 2020, including 222 (2.9%) births to mothers with SARS-CoV-2 infection confirmed by polymerase chain reaction testing during pregnancy.

In all, 14 of 222 children born to SARS-CoV-2–infected mothers (6.3%) were diagnosed with a neurodevelopmental disorder in the first year of life versus 227 of 7,550 unexposed offspring (3%) (unadjusted odds ratio, 2.17; 95% confidence interval, 1.24-3.79; P = .006).

In models adjusted for preterm delivery, as well as race, ethnicity, insurance status, child sex, and maternal age, COVID-exposed offspring were significantly more likely to receive a neurodevelopmental diagnosis in the first year of life (adjusted OR, 1.86; 95% CI, 1.03-3.36; P = .04).

The magnitude of the association with neurodevelopmental disorders was greater with third-trimester SARS-CoV-2 infection (aOR, 2.34; 95% CI, 1.23-4.44; P = .01).

The majority of these diagnoses reflected developmental disorders of motor function or speech and language.

The researchers noted that the finding of an association between prenatal SARS-CoV-2 exposure and neurodevelopmental diagnoses at 12 months is in line with a “large body of literature” linking maternal viral infection and maternal immune activation with offspring neurodevelopmental disorders later in life.

They cautioned, however, that whether a definitive connection exists between prenatal SARS-CoV-2 exposure and adverse neurodevelopment in offspring is not yet known, in part because children born to women infected in the first wave of the pandemic haven’t reached their second birthday – a time when neurodevelopment disorders such as autism are typically diagnosed.

There is also the risk for ascertainment bias arising from greater concern for offspring of infected mothers who were ill during pregnancy. These parents may be more inclined to seek evaluation, and clinicians may be more inclined to diagnose or refer for evaluation, the researchers noted.

Nonetheless, as reported by this news organization, the study results support those of research released at the European Psychiatric Association 2022 Congress; those results also showed an association between maternal SARS-CoV-2 infection and impaired neurodevelopment in 6-week-old infants.
 

Hypothesis generating

In an accompanying commentary, Torri D. Metz, MD, MS, with University of Utah Health, Salt Lake City, said the preliminary findings of Dr. Perlis and colleagues are “critically important, yet many questions remain.”

“Essentially all of what we know now about the effects of in utero exposure to maternal SARS-CoV-2 infection is from children who were exposed to the early and Alpha variants of SARS-CoV-2, as those are the only children now old enough to undergo rigorous neurodevelopmental assessments,” Dr. Metz pointed out.

Ultimately, Dr. Metz said it’s not surprising that the pandemic and in utero exposure to maternal SARS-CoV-2 infection may adversely affect neurodevelopmental outcomes in young children.

Yet, as a retrospective cohort study, the study can only demonstrate associations, not causality.

“This type of work is intended to be hypothesis generating, and that goal has been accomplished as these preliminary findings generate numerous additional research questions to explore,” Dr. Metz wrote.

Among them: Are there genetic predispositions to adverse outcomes? Will we observe differential effects by SARS-CoV-2 variant, by severity of infection, and by trimester of infection? Is it the virus itself or all of the societal changes that occurred during this period, including differences in how those changes were experienced among those with and without SARS-CoV-2?

“Perhaps the most important question is how do we intervene to help mitigate the adverse effects of the pandemic on young children,” Dr. Metz noted.

“Prospective studies to validate these findings, tease out some of the nuance, and identify those at highest risk will help health care practitioners appropriately dedicate resources to improve outcomes as we follow the life course of this generation of children born during the COVID-19 pandemic,” she added.

The study was supported by the National Institute of Mental Health and the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. Dr. Perlis is an associate editor for JAMA Network Open but was not involved in the editorial review or decision for the study. Dr. Metz reported receiving personal fees and grants from Pfizer and grants from GestVision.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Infants exposed to SARS-CoV-2 in utero are at increased risk for neurodevelopmental disorders in the first year of life, new research suggests.

But whether it is exposure to the pandemic or maternal exposure to the virus itself that may harm early childhood neurodevelopment is unclear, caution investigators, led by Roy Perlis, MD, MSc, with Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

“In this analysis of 222 offspring of mothers infected with SARS-CoV-2, compared with the offspring of 7,550 mothers in the control group (not infected) delivered during the same period, we observed neurodevelopmental diagnoses to be significantly more common among exposed offspring, particularly those exposed to third-trimester maternal infection,” they write.

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

Speech and language disorders

The study included 7,772 mostly singleton live births across six hospitals in Massachusetts between March and September 2020, including 222 (2.9%) births to mothers with SARS-CoV-2 infection confirmed by polymerase chain reaction testing during pregnancy.

In all, 14 of 222 children born to SARS-CoV-2–infected mothers (6.3%) were diagnosed with a neurodevelopmental disorder in the first year of life versus 227 of 7,550 unexposed offspring (3%) (unadjusted odds ratio, 2.17; 95% confidence interval, 1.24-3.79; P = .006).

In models adjusted for preterm delivery, as well as race, ethnicity, insurance status, child sex, and maternal age, COVID-exposed offspring were significantly more likely to receive a neurodevelopmental diagnosis in the first year of life (adjusted OR, 1.86; 95% CI, 1.03-3.36; P = .04).

The magnitude of the association with neurodevelopmental disorders was greater with third-trimester SARS-CoV-2 infection (aOR, 2.34; 95% CI, 1.23-4.44; P = .01).

The majority of these diagnoses reflected developmental disorders of motor function or speech and language.

The researchers noted that the finding of an association between prenatal SARS-CoV-2 exposure and neurodevelopmental diagnoses at 12 months is in line with a “large body of literature” linking maternal viral infection and maternal immune activation with offspring neurodevelopmental disorders later in life.

They cautioned, however, that whether a definitive connection exists between prenatal SARS-CoV-2 exposure and adverse neurodevelopment in offspring is not yet known, in part because children born to women infected in the first wave of the pandemic haven’t reached their second birthday – a time when neurodevelopment disorders such as autism are typically diagnosed.

There is also the risk for ascertainment bias arising from greater concern for offspring of infected mothers who were ill during pregnancy. These parents may be more inclined to seek evaluation, and clinicians may be more inclined to diagnose or refer for evaluation, the researchers noted.

Nonetheless, as reported by this news organization, the study results support those of research released at the European Psychiatric Association 2022 Congress; those results also showed an association between maternal SARS-CoV-2 infection and impaired neurodevelopment in 6-week-old infants.
 

Hypothesis generating

In an accompanying commentary, Torri D. Metz, MD, MS, with University of Utah Health, Salt Lake City, said the preliminary findings of Dr. Perlis and colleagues are “critically important, yet many questions remain.”

“Essentially all of what we know now about the effects of in utero exposure to maternal SARS-CoV-2 infection is from children who were exposed to the early and Alpha variants of SARS-CoV-2, as those are the only children now old enough to undergo rigorous neurodevelopmental assessments,” Dr. Metz pointed out.

Ultimately, Dr. Metz said it’s not surprising that the pandemic and in utero exposure to maternal SARS-CoV-2 infection may adversely affect neurodevelopmental outcomes in young children.

Yet, as a retrospective cohort study, the study can only demonstrate associations, not causality.

“This type of work is intended to be hypothesis generating, and that goal has been accomplished as these preliminary findings generate numerous additional research questions to explore,” Dr. Metz wrote.

Among them: Are there genetic predispositions to adverse outcomes? Will we observe differential effects by SARS-CoV-2 variant, by severity of infection, and by trimester of infection? Is it the virus itself or all of the societal changes that occurred during this period, including differences in how those changes were experienced among those with and without SARS-CoV-2?

“Perhaps the most important question is how do we intervene to help mitigate the adverse effects of the pandemic on young children,” Dr. Metz noted.

“Prospective studies to validate these findings, tease out some of the nuance, and identify those at highest risk will help health care practitioners appropriately dedicate resources to improve outcomes as we follow the life course of this generation of children born during the COVID-19 pandemic,” she added.

The study was supported by the National Institute of Mental Health and the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. Dr. Perlis is an associate editor for JAMA Network Open but was not involved in the editorial review or decision for the study. Dr. Metz reported receiving personal fees and grants from Pfizer and grants from GestVision.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Infants exposed to SARS-CoV-2 in utero are at increased risk for neurodevelopmental disorders in the first year of life, new research suggests.

But whether it is exposure to the pandemic or maternal exposure to the virus itself that may harm early childhood neurodevelopment is unclear, caution investigators, led by Roy Perlis, MD, MSc, with Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

“In this analysis of 222 offspring of mothers infected with SARS-CoV-2, compared with the offspring of 7,550 mothers in the control group (not infected) delivered during the same period, we observed neurodevelopmental diagnoses to be significantly more common among exposed offspring, particularly those exposed to third-trimester maternal infection,” they write.

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

Speech and language disorders

The study included 7,772 mostly singleton live births across six hospitals in Massachusetts between March and September 2020, including 222 (2.9%) births to mothers with SARS-CoV-2 infection confirmed by polymerase chain reaction testing during pregnancy.

In all, 14 of 222 children born to SARS-CoV-2–infected mothers (6.3%) were diagnosed with a neurodevelopmental disorder in the first year of life versus 227 of 7,550 unexposed offspring (3%) (unadjusted odds ratio, 2.17; 95% confidence interval, 1.24-3.79; P = .006).

In models adjusted for preterm delivery, as well as race, ethnicity, insurance status, child sex, and maternal age, COVID-exposed offspring were significantly more likely to receive a neurodevelopmental diagnosis in the first year of life (adjusted OR, 1.86; 95% CI, 1.03-3.36; P = .04).

The magnitude of the association with neurodevelopmental disorders was greater with third-trimester SARS-CoV-2 infection (aOR, 2.34; 95% CI, 1.23-4.44; P = .01).

The majority of these diagnoses reflected developmental disorders of motor function or speech and language.

The researchers noted that the finding of an association between prenatal SARS-CoV-2 exposure and neurodevelopmental diagnoses at 12 months is in line with a “large body of literature” linking maternal viral infection and maternal immune activation with offspring neurodevelopmental disorders later in life.

They cautioned, however, that whether a definitive connection exists between prenatal SARS-CoV-2 exposure and adverse neurodevelopment in offspring is not yet known, in part because children born to women infected in the first wave of the pandemic haven’t reached their second birthday – a time when neurodevelopment disorders such as autism are typically diagnosed.

There is also the risk for ascertainment bias arising from greater concern for offspring of infected mothers who were ill during pregnancy. These parents may be more inclined to seek evaluation, and clinicians may be more inclined to diagnose or refer for evaluation, the researchers noted.

Nonetheless, as reported by this news organization, the study results support those of research released at the European Psychiatric Association 2022 Congress; those results also showed an association between maternal SARS-CoV-2 infection and impaired neurodevelopment in 6-week-old infants.
 

Hypothesis generating

In an accompanying commentary, Torri D. Metz, MD, MS, with University of Utah Health, Salt Lake City, said the preliminary findings of Dr. Perlis and colleagues are “critically important, yet many questions remain.”

“Essentially all of what we know now about the effects of in utero exposure to maternal SARS-CoV-2 infection is from children who were exposed to the early and Alpha variants of SARS-CoV-2, as those are the only children now old enough to undergo rigorous neurodevelopmental assessments,” Dr. Metz pointed out.

Ultimately, Dr. Metz said it’s not surprising that the pandemic and in utero exposure to maternal SARS-CoV-2 infection may adversely affect neurodevelopmental outcomes in young children.

Yet, as a retrospective cohort study, the study can only demonstrate associations, not causality.

“This type of work is intended to be hypothesis generating, and that goal has been accomplished as these preliminary findings generate numerous additional research questions to explore,” Dr. Metz wrote.

Among them: Are there genetic predispositions to adverse outcomes? Will we observe differential effects by SARS-CoV-2 variant, by severity of infection, and by trimester of infection? Is it the virus itself or all of the societal changes that occurred during this period, including differences in how those changes were experienced among those with and without SARS-CoV-2?

“Perhaps the most important question is how do we intervene to help mitigate the adverse effects of the pandemic on young children,” Dr. Metz noted.

“Prospective studies to validate these findings, tease out some of the nuance, and identify those at highest risk will help health care practitioners appropriately dedicate resources to improve outcomes as we follow the life course of this generation of children born during the COVID-19 pandemic,” she added.

The study was supported by the National Institute of Mental Health and the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. Dr. Perlis is an associate editor for JAMA Network Open but was not involved in the editorial review or decision for the study. Dr. Metz reported receiving personal fees and grants from Pfizer and grants from GestVision.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.