MDedge Pediatrics

Many pediatric patients with headache experienced increased headache frequency, increased anxiety, and worsening mood through the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, a newly released survey finds. But some actually found the pandemic era to be less stressful since they were tightly wound and could more easily control their home environments, a researcher said.

“We need to be very mindful of the connections between school and home environments – and social situations – and how they impact headache frequency,” said Marc DiSabella, DO, a pediatric neurologist at Children’s National Hospital/George Washington University, Washington. He is coauthor of a poster presented at the 50th annual meeting of the Child Neurology Society.

Dr. DiSabella and colleagues launched the survey to understand what headache patients were experiencing during the pandemic. They expected that “things were going to go really terrible in terms of headaches – or things would go great, and then things would crash when we had to reintegrate into society,” he said in an interview.

The team surveyed 113 pediatric patients who were evaluated at the hospital’s headache clinic between summer 2020 and winter 2021. Most of the patients were female (60%) and were aged 12-17 years (63%). Twenty-one percent were younger than 12 and 16% were older than 17. Chronic migraine (37%) was the most common diagnosis, followed by migraine with aura (22%), migraine without aura (19%), and new daily persistent headache (15%).

Nearly half (46%) of patients said their headaches had worsened during the pandemic. Many also reported more anxiety (55%), worsened mood (48%) and more stress (55%).

Dr. DiSabella said it’s especially notable that nearly two-thirds of those surveyed reported they were exercising less during the pandemic. Research has suggested that exercise and proper diet/sleep are crucial to improving headaches in kids, he said, and the survey findings suggest that exercise may be especially important. “Engaging in physical activity changes their pain threshold,” he said.

The researchers also reported that 60% of those surveyed said they looked at screens more than 6 hours per day. According to Dr. DiSabella, high screen use may not be worrisome from a headache perspective. “We have another study in publication that shows there’s not a clear association between frequency of screen use and headache intensity,” he said.

The survey doesn’t examine what has happened in recent weeks as schools have reopened. Anecdotally, Dr. DiSabella said some patients with migraine are feeling the stress of returning to normal routines. “They tend to be type A perfectionists and do well when they’re in control of their environment,” he said. “Now they’ve lost the control they had at home and are being put back into a stressful environment.”
 

Pandemic effects mixed

Commenting on the study, child neurologist Andrew D. Hershey, MD, PhD, of Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, questioned the finding that many children suffered from more headaches during the pandemic. In his experience, “headaches were overall better when [children] were doing virtual learning,” he said in an interview. “We had fewer admissions, ED visits declined, and patients were maintaining better healthy habits. Some did express anxiety about not seeing friends, but were accommodating by doing this remotely.”

He added: “Since their return, kids are back to the same sleep deprivation issue since schools start too early, and they have more difficulty treating headaches acutely since they have to go to the nurse’s office [to do so]. They self-report a higher degree of stress and anxiety.”

On the other hand, Jack Gladstein, MD, a child neurologist at the University of Maryland, Baltimore, said in an interview that most of his patients suffered more headaches during the pandemic, although a small number with social anxiety thrived because they got to stay at home.

He agreed with Dr. DiSabella about the value of exercise. “At every visit we remind our youngsters with migraine to eat breakfast, exercise, get regular sleep, and drink fluids,” he said.

No study funding was reported. The study authors, Dr. Hershey, and Dr. Gladstein reported no disclosures.

Many pediatric patients with headache experienced increased headache frequency, increased anxiety, and worsening mood through the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, a newly released survey finds. But some actually found the pandemic era to be less stressful since they were tightly wound and could more easily control their home environments, a researcher said.

“We need to be very mindful of the connections between school and home environments – and social situations – and how they impact headache frequency,” said Marc DiSabella, DO, a pediatric neurologist at Children’s National Hospital/George Washington University, Washington. He is coauthor of a poster presented at the 50th annual meeting of the Child Neurology Society.

Dr. DiSabella and colleagues launched the survey to understand what headache patients were experiencing during the pandemic. They expected that “things were going to go really terrible in terms of headaches – or things would go great, and then things would crash when we had to reintegrate into society,” he said in an interview.

The team surveyed 113 pediatric patients who were evaluated at the hospital’s headache clinic between summer 2020 and winter 2021. Most of the patients were female (60%) and were aged 12-17 years (63%). Twenty-one percent were younger than 12 and 16% were older than 17. Chronic migraine (37%) was the most common diagnosis, followed by migraine with aura (22%), migraine without aura (19%), and new daily persistent headache (15%).

Nearly half (46%) of patients said their headaches had worsened during the pandemic. Many also reported more anxiety (55%), worsened mood (48%) and more stress (55%).

Dr. DiSabella said it’s especially notable that nearly two-thirds of those surveyed reported they were exercising less during the pandemic. Research has suggested that exercise and proper diet/sleep are crucial to improving headaches in kids, he said, and the survey findings suggest that exercise may be especially important. “Engaging in physical activity changes their pain threshold,” he said.

The researchers also reported that 60% of those surveyed said they looked at screens more than 6 hours per day. According to Dr. DiSabella, high screen use may not be worrisome from a headache perspective. “We have another study in publication that shows there’s not a clear association between frequency of screen use and headache intensity,” he said.

The survey doesn’t examine what has happened in recent weeks as schools have reopened. Anecdotally, Dr. DiSabella said some patients with migraine are feeling the stress of returning to normal routines. “They tend to be type A perfectionists and do well when they’re in control of their environment,” he said. “Now they’ve lost the control they had at home and are being put back into a stressful environment.”
 

Pandemic effects mixed

Commenting on the study, child neurologist Andrew D. Hershey, MD, PhD, of Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, questioned the finding that many children suffered from more headaches during the pandemic. In his experience, “headaches were overall better when [children] were doing virtual learning,” he said in an interview. “We had fewer admissions, ED visits declined, and patients were maintaining better healthy habits. Some did express anxiety about not seeing friends, but were accommodating by doing this remotely.”

He added: “Since their return, kids are back to the same sleep deprivation issue since schools start too early, and they have more difficulty treating headaches acutely since they have to go to the nurse’s office [to do so]. They self-report a higher degree of stress and anxiety.”

On the other hand, Jack Gladstein, MD, a child neurologist at the University of Maryland, Baltimore, said in an interview that most of his patients suffered more headaches during the pandemic, although a small number with social anxiety thrived because they got to stay at home.

He agreed with Dr. DiSabella about the value of exercise. “At every visit we remind our youngsters with migraine to eat breakfast, exercise, get regular sleep, and drink fluids,” he said.

No study funding was reported. The study authors, Dr. Hershey, and Dr. Gladstein reported no disclosures.

Many pediatric patients with headache experienced increased headache frequency, increased anxiety, and worsening mood through the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, a newly released survey finds. But some actually found the pandemic era to be less stressful since they were tightly wound and could more easily control their home environments, a researcher said.

“We need to be very mindful of the connections between school and home environments – and social situations – and how they impact headache frequency,” said Marc DiSabella, DO, a pediatric neurologist at Children’s National Hospital/George Washington University, Washington. He is coauthor of a poster presented at the 50th annual meeting of the Child Neurology Society.

Dr. DiSabella and colleagues launched the survey to understand what headache patients were experiencing during the pandemic. They expected that “things were going to go really terrible in terms of headaches – or things would go great, and then things would crash when we had to reintegrate into society,” he said in an interview.

The team surveyed 113 pediatric patients who were evaluated at the hospital’s headache clinic between summer 2020 and winter 2021. Most of the patients were female (60%) and were aged 12-17 years (63%). Twenty-one percent were younger than 12 and 16% were older than 17. Chronic migraine (37%) was the most common diagnosis, followed by migraine with aura (22%), migraine without aura (19%), and new daily persistent headache (15%).

Nearly half (46%) of patients said their headaches had worsened during the pandemic. Many also reported more anxiety (55%), worsened mood (48%) and more stress (55%).

Dr. DiSabella said it’s especially notable that nearly two-thirds of those surveyed reported they were exercising less during the pandemic. Research has suggested that exercise and proper diet/sleep are crucial to improving headaches in kids, he said, and the survey findings suggest that exercise may be especially important. “Engaging in physical activity changes their pain threshold,” he said.

The researchers also reported that 60% of those surveyed said they looked at screens more than 6 hours per day. According to Dr. DiSabella, high screen use may not be worrisome from a headache perspective. “We have another study in publication that shows there’s not a clear association between frequency of screen use and headache intensity,” he said.

The survey doesn’t examine what has happened in recent weeks as schools have reopened. Anecdotally, Dr. DiSabella said some patients with migraine are feeling the stress of returning to normal routines. “They tend to be type A perfectionists and do well when they’re in control of their environment,” he said. “Now they’ve lost the control they had at home and are being put back into a stressful environment.”
 

Pandemic effects mixed

Commenting on the study, child neurologist Andrew D. Hershey, MD, PhD, of Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, questioned the finding that many children suffered from more headaches during the pandemic. In his experience, “headaches were overall better when [children] were doing virtual learning,” he said in an interview. “We had fewer admissions, ED visits declined, and patients were maintaining better healthy habits. Some did express anxiety about not seeing friends, but were accommodating by doing this remotely.”

He added: “Since their return, kids are back to the same sleep deprivation issue since schools start too early, and they have more difficulty treating headaches acutely since they have to go to the nurse’s office [to do so]. They self-report a higher degree of stress and anxiety.”

On the other hand, Jack Gladstein, MD, a child neurologist at the University of Maryland, Baltimore, said in an interview that most of his patients suffered more headaches during the pandemic, although a small number with social anxiety thrived because they got to stay at home.

He agreed with Dr. DiSabella about the value of exercise. “At every visit we remind our youngsters with migraine to eat breakfast, exercise, get regular sleep, and drink fluids,” he said.

No study funding was reported. The study authors, Dr. Hershey, and Dr. Gladstein reported no disclosures.

The proportion of children caught up on vaccinations is lower than 2019 levels, despite an increase in weekly vaccine administration among children from summer to fall 2020.

The finding, published in JAMA Pediatrics, joins a growing collection of studies examining the COVID-19 pandemic’s effect on routine pediatric vaccine delivery. A 2021 survey from the Urban Institute that found that nearly one in five parents delayed or did not get care for their children in the past 12 months because of fear of exposure to the virus.

“We need to think about what additional interventions are needed to promote catch-up vaccination, especially for those at-risk populations that we saw were undervaccinated even prior to the pandemic,” study author Malini B. DeSilva, MD, MPH, said in an interview. “[That means] working creatively to ensure that all children would have the opportunity to receive these recommended vaccines.”

While examining data on pediatric vaccination of 1.4 million children between Jan. 5, 2020, and Oct. 3, 2020, across eight health systems in California, Oregon, Washington, Colorado, Minnesota, and Wisconsin, Dr. DeSilva and colleagues saw vaccination administration rates return to near prepandemic levels after an initial decline, particularly after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and American Academy of Pediatrics guidelines specified that in-person visits for children younger than 2 years should be prioritized.

“I think we’ve all been concerned and aware that people just weren’t bringing their children to their pediatricians as frequently [caused by] the fear of being in medical settings during the heat of the pandemic,” said James Schneider, MD, who was not involved with the study. “So it’s not surprising that we saw lower rates of overall vaccinations in all age groups.”

The current study found that lower vaccination rates persisted among most age groups from March to September 2020. However, during the period of expanded primary care, which took place between May and October 2020, vaccination administration rates in infants younger than 2 years old and children aged 4-6 years approached or were equal to 2019 rates. However, these rebounds were not enough to make up for the missed vaccines.

Still, only 74% of infants reaching 7 months old in September 2020 were caught up on their vaccinations, compared with 81% of infants turning the same age in 2019. Researchers also found that, compared with 61% of infants reaching 18 months in September 2019, only 57% of 18-month-olds were up to date with vaccinations in September 2020. However, the proportion of 6-, 13-, and 18-year-olds up to date on vaccinations were about the same in 2020 and 2019.

Racial disparities also persisted during this time, with Black children having the lowest proportion of up-to-date vaccinations for most ages from January to September 2020. Although these disparities were evident prior to the pandemic, these differences became more pronounced for the 18-month-old age group, where just 41% of Black infants were up to date in vaccinations, compared with 76% of Asian infants, 54% of Hispanics infants, and 56% of White infants.

Dr. Schneider believes Dr. DeSilva’s study is a “robust” one and paints an accurate picture of the pandemic’s effect on pediatric vaccinations, despite examining data from just eight health systems.

“I think it’s a fairly reasonable representation of what we already have been recognizing during the pandemic,” he explained. “Which is that people are really reluctant to go to their physicians’ offices for routine care because of the fear of getting sick. I think the study emphasized the importance of catching these children up to keep them safe in the future.”

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommends a childhood immunization schedule that protects children against 14 infectious diseases before their second birthday. Since the on-time administration of these vaccines is essential for preventing communicable diseases, many pediatric offices are trying to ensure a safe environment for patients and families, said Dr. Schneider, chief of pediatric critical care at Cohen Children’s Medical Center, New York.

There’s also some concern that COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy my spillover into routine childhood vaccinations, especially for families who were already hesitant toward the routine well-established vaccine schedule for children.

The CDC and AAP recommend that children continue to receive recommended vaccinations during the COVID-19 pandemic.

To boost the number of children caught up on vaccinations, health system and community-level interventions are needed, especially in underserved communities, the researchers wrote. Additionally, enforcing mandates that require vaccination prior to school entry could also increase vaccine administration across populations and reduce disparities.

The study emphasizes the “immediate and lagging” disruptions in the delivery of pediatric health care caused by the pandemic, which will likely have long-term consequences for pediatric health, Brian P. Jenssen, MD, MSHP, who was not involved in the study, wrote in a solicited commentary.

However, interventions tailored to specific age groups could help remedy this. These include increasing the frequency of well-child care during the next year of life for infants younger than 24 months and prioritizing visits with 13-year-old adolescents who are behind on vaccinations.

“Although there is no evidence base for this approach, such a change could create not only catch-up opportunities for vaccination for children delayed at age 7 and 18 months, but also provide opportunities to attend to developmental concerns and social needs that have emerged during COVID-19,” wrote Dr. Jenssen, a researcher and primary care pediatrician at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.

Other practices such as reaching out to patients and families directly via text message, email, or phone to “notify them of needed vaccinations,” vaccine mandates, and having pediatric health systems partner with alternative settings to promote vaccination could also get kids back on track, health wise. Furthermore, financial incentives from insurers or primary care practices also may help.

“The COVID-19 pandemic’s lost care may have long-term consequences unless pediatric health care systems and child health advocates are proactive in engaging families to take advantage of every opportunity to catch up,” Dr. Jenssen wrote.

The proportion of children caught up on vaccinations is lower than 2019 levels, despite an increase in weekly vaccine administration among children from summer to fall 2020.

The finding, published in JAMA Pediatrics, joins a growing collection of studies examining the COVID-19 pandemic’s effect on routine pediatric vaccine delivery. A 2021 survey from the Urban Institute that found that nearly one in five parents delayed or did not get care for their children in the past 12 months because of fear of exposure to the virus.

“We need to think about what additional interventions are needed to promote catch-up vaccination, especially for those at-risk populations that we saw were undervaccinated even prior to the pandemic,” study author Malini B. DeSilva, MD, MPH, said in an interview. “[That means] working creatively to ensure that all children would have the opportunity to receive these recommended vaccines.”

While examining data on pediatric vaccination of 1.4 million children between Jan. 5, 2020, and Oct. 3, 2020, across eight health systems in California, Oregon, Washington, Colorado, Minnesota, and Wisconsin, Dr. DeSilva and colleagues saw vaccination administration rates return to near prepandemic levels after an initial decline, particularly after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and American Academy of Pediatrics guidelines specified that in-person visits for children younger than 2 years should be prioritized.

“I think we’ve all been concerned and aware that people just weren’t bringing their children to their pediatricians as frequently [caused by] the fear of being in medical settings during the heat of the pandemic,” said James Schneider, MD, who was not involved with the study. “So it’s not surprising that we saw lower rates of overall vaccinations in all age groups.”

The current study found that lower vaccination rates persisted among most age groups from March to September 2020. However, during the period of expanded primary care, which took place between May and October 2020, vaccination administration rates in infants younger than 2 years old and children aged 4-6 years approached or were equal to 2019 rates. However, these rebounds were not enough to make up for the missed vaccines.

Still, only 74% of infants reaching 7 months old in September 2020 were caught up on their vaccinations, compared with 81% of infants turning the same age in 2019. Researchers also found that, compared with 61% of infants reaching 18 months in September 2019, only 57% of 18-month-olds were up to date with vaccinations in September 2020. However, the proportion of 6-, 13-, and 18-year-olds up to date on vaccinations were about the same in 2020 and 2019.

Racial disparities also persisted during this time, with Black children having the lowest proportion of up-to-date vaccinations for most ages from January to September 2020. Although these disparities were evident prior to the pandemic, these differences became more pronounced for the 18-month-old age group, where just 41% of Black infants were up to date in vaccinations, compared with 76% of Asian infants, 54% of Hispanics infants, and 56% of White infants.

Dr. Schneider believes Dr. DeSilva’s study is a “robust” one and paints an accurate picture of the pandemic’s effect on pediatric vaccinations, despite examining data from just eight health systems.

“I think it’s a fairly reasonable representation of what we already have been recognizing during the pandemic,” he explained. “Which is that people are really reluctant to go to their physicians’ offices for routine care because of the fear of getting sick. I think the study emphasized the importance of catching these children up to keep them safe in the future.”

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommends a childhood immunization schedule that protects children against 14 infectious diseases before their second birthday. Since the on-time administration of these vaccines is essential for preventing communicable diseases, many pediatric offices are trying to ensure a safe environment for patients and families, said Dr. Schneider, chief of pediatric critical care at Cohen Children’s Medical Center, New York.

There’s also some concern that COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy my spillover into routine childhood vaccinations, especially for families who were already hesitant toward the routine well-established vaccine schedule for children.

The CDC and AAP recommend that children continue to receive recommended vaccinations during the COVID-19 pandemic.

To boost the number of children caught up on vaccinations, health system and community-level interventions are needed, especially in underserved communities, the researchers wrote. Additionally, enforcing mandates that require vaccination prior to school entry could also increase vaccine administration across populations and reduce disparities.

The study emphasizes the “immediate and lagging” disruptions in the delivery of pediatric health care caused by the pandemic, which will likely have long-term consequences for pediatric health, Brian P. Jenssen, MD, MSHP, who was not involved in the study, wrote in a solicited commentary.

However, interventions tailored to specific age groups could help remedy this. These include increasing the frequency of well-child care during the next year of life for infants younger than 24 months and prioritizing visits with 13-year-old adolescents who are behind on vaccinations.

“Although there is no evidence base for this approach, such a change could create not only catch-up opportunities for vaccination for children delayed at age 7 and 18 months, but also provide opportunities to attend to developmental concerns and social needs that have emerged during COVID-19,” wrote Dr. Jenssen, a researcher and primary care pediatrician at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.

Other practices such as reaching out to patients and families directly via text message, email, or phone to “notify them of needed vaccinations,” vaccine mandates, and having pediatric health systems partner with alternative settings to promote vaccination could also get kids back on track, health wise. Furthermore, financial incentives from insurers or primary care practices also may help.

“The COVID-19 pandemic’s lost care may have long-term consequences unless pediatric health care systems and child health advocates are proactive in engaging families to take advantage of every opportunity to catch up,” Dr. Jenssen wrote.

The proportion of children caught up on vaccinations is lower than 2019 levels, despite an increase in weekly vaccine administration among children from summer to fall 2020.

The finding, published in JAMA Pediatrics, joins a growing collection of studies examining the COVID-19 pandemic’s effect on routine pediatric vaccine delivery. A 2021 survey from the Urban Institute that found that nearly one in five parents delayed or did not get care for their children in the past 12 months because of fear of exposure to the virus.

“We need to think about what additional interventions are needed to promote catch-up vaccination, especially for those at-risk populations that we saw were undervaccinated even prior to the pandemic,” study author Malini B. DeSilva, MD, MPH, said in an interview. “[That means] working creatively to ensure that all children would have the opportunity to receive these recommended vaccines.”

While examining data on pediatric vaccination of 1.4 million children between Jan. 5, 2020, and Oct. 3, 2020, across eight health systems in California, Oregon, Washington, Colorado, Minnesota, and Wisconsin, Dr. DeSilva and colleagues saw vaccination administration rates return to near prepandemic levels after an initial decline, particularly after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and American Academy of Pediatrics guidelines specified that in-person visits for children younger than 2 years should be prioritized.

“I think we’ve all been concerned and aware that people just weren’t bringing their children to their pediatricians as frequently [caused by] the fear of being in medical settings during the heat of the pandemic,” said James Schneider, MD, who was not involved with the study. “So it’s not surprising that we saw lower rates of overall vaccinations in all age groups.”

The current study found that lower vaccination rates persisted among most age groups from March to September 2020. However, during the period of expanded primary care, which took place between May and October 2020, vaccination administration rates in infants younger than 2 years old and children aged 4-6 years approached or were equal to 2019 rates. However, these rebounds were not enough to make up for the missed vaccines.

Still, only 74% of infants reaching 7 months old in September 2020 were caught up on their vaccinations, compared with 81% of infants turning the same age in 2019. Researchers also found that, compared with 61% of infants reaching 18 months in September 2019, only 57% of 18-month-olds were up to date with vaccinations in September 2020. However, the proportion of 6-, 13-, and 18-year-olds up to date on vaccinations were about the same in 2020 and 2019.

Racial disparities also persisted during this time, with Black children having the lowest proportion of up-to-date vaccinations for most ages from January to September 2020. Although these disparities were evident prior to the pandemic, these differences became more pronounced for the 18-month-old age group, where just 41% of Black infants were up to date in vaccinations, compared with 76% of Asian infants, 54% of Hispanics infants, and 56% of White infants.

Dr. Schneider believes Dr. DeSilva’s study is a “robust” one and paints an accurate picture of the pandemic’s effect on pediatric vaccinations, despite examining data from just eight health systems.

“I think it’s a fairly reasonable representation of what we already have been recognizing during the pandemic,” he explained. “Which is that people are really reluctant to go to their physicians’ offices for routine care because of the fear of getting sick. I think the study emphasized the importance of catching these children up to keep them safe in the future.”

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommends a childhood immunization schedule that protects children against 14 infectious diseases before their second birthday. Since the on-time administration of these vaccines is essential for preventing communicable diseases, many pediatric offices are trying to ensure a safe environment for patients and families, said Dr. Schneider, chief of pediatric critical care at Cohen Children’s Medical Center, New York.

There’s also some concern that COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy my spillover into routine childhood vaccinations, especially for families who were already hesitant toward the routine well-established vaccine schedule for children.

The CDC and AAP recommend that children continue to receive recommended vaccinations during the COVID-19 pandemic.

To boost the number of children caught up on vaccinations, health system and community-level interventions are needed, especially in underserved communities, the researchers wrote. Additionally, enforcing mandates that require vaccination prior to school entry could also increase vaccine administration across populations and reduce disparities.

The study emphasizes the “immediate and lagging” disruptions in the delivery of pediatric health care caused by the pandemic, which will likely have long-term consequences for pediatric health, Brian P. Jenssen, MD, MSHP, who was not involved in the study, wrote in a solicited commentary.

However, interventions tailored to specific age groups could help remedy this. These include increasing the frequency of well-child care during the next year of life for infants younger than 24 months and prioritizing visits with 13-year-old adolescents who are behind on vaccinations.

“Although there is no evidence base for this approach, such a change could create not only catch-up opportunities for vaccination for children delayed at age 7 and 18 months, but also provide opportunities to attend to developmental concerns and social needs that have emerged during COVID-19,” wrote Dr. Jenssen, a researcher and primary care pediatrician at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.

Other practices such as reaching out to patients and families directly via text message, email, or phone to “notify them of needed vaccinations,” vaccine mandates, and having pediatric health systems partner with alternative settings to promote vaccination could also get kids back on track, health wise. Furthermore, financial incentives from insurers or primary care practices also may help.

“The COVID-19 pandemic’s lost care may have long-term consequences unless pediatric health care systems and child health advocates are proactive in engaging families to take advantage of every opportunity to catch up,” Dr. Jenssen wrote.

A panel of experts that advises the Food and Drug Administration on vaccine decisions voted unanimously Oct. 14 to approve booster doses of Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine.

The 19 members of the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee voted to authorize a 50-milligram dose -- half the dose used in the primary series of shots -- to boost immunity against COVID-19 at least 6 months after the second dose. Those who might need a booster are the same groups who’ve gotten a green light for third Pfizer doses. They include people:

• Over age 65
• Ages 18 to 64 who are at higher risk for severe COVID
• Who are at higher risk of catching COVID because they live in group settings like nursing homes or prisons, or because they are frequently exposed at work, as health care workers are

The agency is not bound by the committee’s vote but usually follows its recommendations.

Some members of the committee said they weren’t satisfied with the data Moderna submitted to support its application but, for practical reasons, said it wouldn’t be fair to take booster doses off the table for Moderna recipients when Pfizer’s boosters were already available.

“The data are not perfect, but these are extraordinary times and we have to work with data that are not perfect,” said Eric Rubin, MD, editor-in-chief of TheNew England Journal of Medicine and a temporary voting member on the committee.

Patrick Moore, MD, a professor at the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute who is also a temporary voting member, said he voted to approve the Moderna boosters based “more on a gut feeling than on truly serious data.”

“I’ve got some real issues with this vote,” he said.

“We need to see good solid data, and it needs to be explained well,” Dr. Moore said, challenging companies making future applications to do better.

Next, the FDA will have to formally sign off on the emergency use authorization, which it is expected to do. Then, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices will meet to make formal recommendations on use of the Moderna boosters. That group is scheduled to meet Oct. 21 to take up questions of exactly how these boosters should be used.

Peter Marks, MD, head of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, cautioned that the CDC is more constrained in making recommendations under an emergency use authorization than it would be if the boosters had gotten full approval. So it will likely align its vote with the conditions of the emergency use authorization from the FDA.

After the advisory committee votes, the director of the CDC has to approve its recommendation.

Overall, data show that two doses of the Moderna vaccine remains highly effective at preventing hospitalization and death. But over time, levels of the body’s first line of defense against a virus -- its neutralizing antibodies -- fall somewhat. This drop seems to correspond with an increased risk for breakthrough cases of COVID-19.

Data presented by Moderna Oct. 14 showed the risk of breakthrough infections increased by 36% in study participants who received the vaccine in their clinical trials, compared to people in the same study who received a placebo first, and got the vaccine later, when the trial was unblended. Their protection was more recent, and they had fewer breakthrough infections.

In considering booster doses, the FDA has asked drugmakers to do studies that look at the immune responses of small groups of study participants and compare them to the immune responses seen in study participants after their first two vaccine doses.

To be considered effective, boosters have to clear two bars. The first looks at the concentration of antibodies generated in the blood of boosted study volunteers. The second looks at how many boosted study participants saw a four-fold increase in their blood antibody levels a month after the booster minus the number of people who saw the same increase after their original two doses.

Moderna presented data that its boosters met the first criteria, but failed to meet the second, perhaps because so many people in the study had good responses after their first two doses of the vaccines.

The FDA’s advisory committee will reconvene Oct. 15 to hear evidence supporting the emergency use authorization of a booster dose of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine.

This article was updated Oct. 15 and first appeared on WebMD.com.

A panel of experts that advises the Food and Drug Administration on vaccine decisions voted unanimously Oct. 14 to approve booster doses of Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine.

The 19 members of the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee voted to authorize a 50-milligram dose -- half the dose used in the primary series of shots -- to boost immunity against COVID-19 at least 6 months after the second dose. Those who might need a booster are the same groups who’ve gotten a green light for third Pfizer doses. They include people:

• Over age 65
• Ages 18 to 64 who are at higher risk for severe COVID
• Who are at higher risk of catching COVID because they live in group settings like nursing homes or prisons, or because they are frequently exposed at work, as health care workers are

The agency is not bound by the committee’s vote but usually follows its recommendations.

Some members of the committee said they weren’t satisfied with the data Moderna submitted to support its application but, for practical reasons, said it wouldn’t be fair to take booster doses off the table for Moderna recipients when Pfizer’s boosters were already available.

“The data are not perfect, but these are extraordinary times and we have to work with data that are not perfect,” said Eric Rubin, MD, editor-in-chief of TheNew England Journal of Medicine and a temporary voting member on the committee.

Patrick Moore, MD, a professor at the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute who is also a temporary voting member, said he voted to approve the Moderna boosters based “more on a gut feeling than on truly serious data.”

“I’ve got some real issues with this vote,” he said.

“We need to see good solid data, and it needs to be explained well,” Dr. Moore said, challenging companies making future applications to do better.

Next, the FDA will have to formally sign off on the emergency use authorization, which it is expected to do. Then, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices will meet to make formal recommendations on use of the Moderna boosters. That group is scheduled to meet Oct. 21 to take up questions of exactly how these boosters should be used.

Peter Marks, MD, head of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, cautioned that the CDC is more constrained in making recommendations under an emergency use authorization than it would be if the boosters had gotten full approval. So it will likely align its vote with the conditions of the emergency use authorization from the FDA.

After the advisory committee votes, the director of the CDC has to approve its recommendation.

Overall, data show that two doses of the Moderna vaccine remains highly effective at preventing hospitalization and death. But over time, levels of the body’s first line of defense against a virus -- its neutralizing antibodies -- fall somewhat. This drop seems to correspond with an increased risk for breakthrough cases of COVID-19.

Data presented by Moderna Oct. 14 showed the risk of breakthrough infections increased by 36% in study participants who received the vaccine in their clinical trials, compared to people in the same study who received a placebo first, and got the vaccine later, when the trial was unblended. Their protection was more recent, and they had fewer breakthrough infections.

In considering booster doses, the FDA has asked drugmakers to do studies that look at the immune responses of small groups of study participants and compare them to the immune responses seen in study participants after their first two vaccine doses.

To be considered effective, boosters have to clear two bars. The first looks at the concentration of antibodies generated in the blood of boosted study volunteers. The second looks at how many boosted study participants saw a four-fold increase in their blood antibody levels a month after the booster minus the number of people who saw the same increase after their original two doses.

Moderna presented data that its boosters met the first criteria, but failed to meet the second, perhaps because so many people in the study had good responses after their first two doses of the vaccines.

The FDA’s advisory committee will reconvene Oct. 15 to hear evidence supporting the emergency use authorization of a booster dose of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine.

This article was updated Oct. 15 and first appeared on WebMD.com.

A panel of experts that advises the Food and Drug Administration on vaccine decisions voted unanimously Oct. 14 to approve booster doses of Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine.

The 19 members of the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee voted to authorize a 50-milligram dose -- half the dose used in the primary series of shots -- to boost immunity against COVID-19 at least 6 months after the second dose. Those who might need a booster are the same groups who’ve gotten a green light for third Pfizer doses. They include people:

• Over age 65
• Ages 18 to 64 who are at higher risk for severe COVID
• Who are at higher risk of catching COVID because they live in group settings like nursing homes or prisons, or because they are frequently exposed at work, as health care workers are

The agency is not bound by the committee’s vote but usually follows its recommendations.

Some members of the committee said they weren’t satisfied with the data Moderna submitted to support its application but, for practical reasons, said it wouldn’t be fair to take booster doses off the table for Moderna recipients when Pfizer’s boosters were already available.

“The data are not perfect, but these are extraordinary times and we have to work with data that are not perfect,” said Eric Rubin, MD, editor-in-chief of TheNew England Journal of Medicine and a temporary voting member on the committee.

Patrick Moore, MD, a professor at the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute who is also a temporary voting member, said he voted to approve the Moderna boosters based “more on a gut feeling than on truly serious data.”

“I’ve got some real issues with this vote,” he said.

“We need to see good solid data, and it needs to be explained well,” Dr. Moore said, challenging companies making future applications to do better.

Next, the FDA will have to formally sign off on the emergency use authorization, which it is expected to do. Then, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices will meet to make formal recommendations on use of the Moderna boosters. That group is scheduled to meet Oct. 21 to take up questions of exactly how these boosters should be used.

Peter Marks, MD, head of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, cautioned that the CDC is more constrained in making recommendations under an emergency use authorization than it would be if the boosters had gotten full approval. So it will likely align its vote with the conditions of the emergency use authorization from the FDA.

After the advisory committee votes, the director of the CDC has to approve its recommendation.

Overall, data show that two doses of the Moderna vaccine remains highly effective at preventing hospitalization and death. But over time, levels of the body’s first line of defense against a virus -- its neutralizing antibodies -- fall somewhat. This drop seems to correspond with an increased risk for breakthrough cases of COVID-19.

Data presented by Moderna Oct. 14 showed the risk of breakthrough infections increased by 36% in study participants who received the vaccine in their clinical trials, compared to people in the same study who received a placebo first, and got the vaccine later, when the trial was unblended. Their protection was more recent, and they had fewer breakthrough infections.

In considering booster doses, the FDA has asked drugmakers to do studies that look at the immune responses of small groups of study participants and compare them to the immune responses seen in study participants after their first two vaccine doses.

To be considered effective, boosters have to clear two bars. The first looks at the concentration of antibodies generated in the blood of boosted study volunteers. The second looks at how many boosted study participants saw a four-fold increase in their blood antibody levels a month after the booster minus the number of people who saw the same increase after their original two doses.

Moderna presented data that its boosters met the first criteria, but failed to meet the second, perhaps because so many people in the study had good responses after their first two doses of the vaccines.

The FDA’s advisory committee will reconvene Oct. 15 to hear evidence supporting the emergency use authorization of a booster dose of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine.

This article was updated Oct. 15 and first appeared on WebMD.com.

Transgender and nonbinary young people experienced less depression and fewer suicidal thoughts after a year of gender-affirming care with hormones or puberty blockers, according to new research.

“Given the high rates of adverse mental health comorbidities, these data provide critical evidence that expansion of gender-affirming care can save lives,” said David J. Inwards-Breland, MD, MPH, chief of adolescent and young adult medicine and codirector of the Center for Gender-Affirming Care at Rady Children’s Hospital in San Diego, during his presentation.

The findings, presented October 11 at the American Academy of Pediatrics 2021 National Conference, were not at all surprising to Cora Breuner, MD, MPH, professor of pediatrics at Seattle Children’s Hospital.

“The younger we can provide gender-affirming care, the less likely they’re going to have depression, and then the negative outcomes from untreated depression, which includes suicide intent or even suicide completion,” Dr. Breuner told this news organization. “It’s so obvious that we are saving lives by providing gender-affirming care.”

For their study, Dr. Inwards-Breland and his colleagues tracked depression, anxiety, and suicidality in 104 trans and nonbinary people 13 to 21 years of age who received care at the Seattle Children’s gender clinic between August 2017 and June 2018.

The study population consisted of 63 transgender male or male participants, 27 transgender female or female participants, 10 nonbinary participants, and four participants who had not defined their gender identity. Of this cohort, 62.5% were receiving mental health therapy, and 34.7% reported some substance use.

Participants completed the nine-item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) and the seven-item Generalized Anxiety Disorder scale (GAD-7) at baseline and then at 3, 6, and 12 months. The researchers defined severe depression and severe anxiety as a score of 10 or greater on either scale.

At baseline, 56.7% of the participants had moderate to severe depression, 43.3% reported thoughts of self-harm or suicidal in the previous 2 weeks, and 50.0% had moderate to severe anxiety.

After 12 months of care, participants experienced a 60% decrease in depression (adjusted odds ratio, 0.4) and a 73% decrease in suicidality (aOR, 0.27), after adjustment for temporal trends and sex assigned at birth, race/ethnicity, level of parental support, ongoing mental health therapy, substance use, and victimization, including bullying, interpersonal violence, neglect, and abuse.

Although the decline in depression and suicidality after gender-affirming treatment was not a surprise, “those drops are huge,” Dr. Inwards-Breland said in an interview.

He said he attributes the improvement to a health care system that “affirms who these young people are” and enables changes that allow their outward appearance to reflect “who they know they are inside.”

There were no significant changes in anxiety during the study period. “Anxiety, I think, is just a little harder to treat, and it takes a little longer to treat,” he explained. And a lot of factors can trigger anxiety, and those can continue during treatment.

The slow pace of changes to gender identity can have an effect on people’s moods. “Since they’re not happening quickly, these young people are still being misgendered, they’re still seeing the body that they don’t feel like they should have, and they have to go to school and go out in public. I think that continues to fuel anxiety with a lot of these young people.”

Family support is important in reducing depression and suicidal thoughts in this population. Parents will often see positive changes after their child receives gender-affirming care, which can help contribute to positive changes in parents’ attitudes, Dr. Inwards-Breland said.

Such changes reinforce “that protective factor of connectedness with family,” he noted. “Families are crucial for any health care, and if there’s that connectedness with families, we know that, clinically, patients do better.”
 

Balancing risks

Although there are risks associated with gender-affirming hormones and puberty blockers, the risks of not receiving treatment must also be considered.

“Our young people are killing themselves,” he said. “Our young people are developing severe eating disorders that are killing them. Our young people are increasing their substance abuse, homelessness, depression. The list just goes on.”

For trans-masculine and nonbinary masculine patients, the potential permanent changes of hormone therapy include a deeper voice, hair growth, enlargement of the clitoris, and, in some patients, the development of male pattern baldness. In trans and nonbinary feminine patients, potential long-term effects include breast development and an increased risk for fertility issues.

The consent forms required for young people who want gender-affirming hormones or puberty blockers are extensive, with every possible reversible and irreversible effect described in detail, Dr. Breuner said.

“Parents sign them because they want their child to stay alive,” she explained. “When you compare the cost of someone who has severe debilitating depression and dying by suicide with some of the risks associated with gender-affirming hormone therapy, that’s a no-brainer to me.”

This study is limited by the fact that screening tests, not diagnostic tests, were used to identify depression, anxiety, and suicidality, and the fact that the use of antidepression or antianxiety medications was not taken into account, Dr. Inwards-Breland acknowledged.

“I think future studies should look at a mental health evaluation and diagnosis by a mental health provider,” he added. And mental health, gender dysphoria, suicidality, and self-harm should be tracked over the course of treatment.

He also acknowledged the study’s selection bias. All participants sought care at a multidisciplinary gender clinic, so were likely to be privileged and to have supportive families. “There’s a good chance that if we had more trans and nonbinary youth of color, we may have different findings,” he said.

More qualitative research is needed to assess the effect of gender-affirming therapy on the mental health of these patients, Dr. Breuner said.

“Being able to finally come into who you think you are and enjoy expressing who you are in a gender-affirming way has to be positive in such a way that you’re not depressed anymore,” she added. “It has to be tragic for people who cannot stand the body they’re in and cannot talk about it to anybody or express themselves without fear of recourse, to the point that they would be so devastated that they’d want to die by suicide.”

This research was funded by the Seattle Children’s Center for Diversity and Health Equity and the Pacific Hospital Development and Port Authority. Dr. Inwards-Breland and Dr. Breuner have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Transgender and nonbinary young people experienced less depression and fewer suicidal thoughts after a year of gender-affirming care with hormones or puberty blockers, according to new research.

“Given the high rates of adverse mental health comorbidities, these data provide critical evidence that expansion of gender-affirming care can save lives,” said David J. Inwards-Breland, MD, MPH, chief of adolescent and young adult medicine and codirector of the Center for Gender-Affirming Care at Rady Children’s Hospital in San Diego, during his presentation.

The findings, presented October 11 at the American Academy of Pediatrics 2021 National Conference, were not at all surprising to Cora Breuner, MD, MPH, professor of pediatrics at Seattle Children’s Hospital.

“The younger we can provide gender-affirming care, the less likely they’re going to have depression, and then the negative outcomes from untreated depression, which includes suicide intent or even suicide completion,” Dr. Breuner told this news organization. “It’s so obvious that we are saving lives by providing gender-affirming care.”

For their study, Dr. Inwards-Breland and his colleagues tracked depression, anxiety, and suicidality in 104 trans and nonbinary people 13 to 21 years of age who received care at the Seattle Children’s gender clinic between August 2017 and June 2018.

The study population consisted of 63 transgender male or male participants, 27 transgender female or female participants, 10 nonbinary participants, and four participants who had not defined their gender identity. Of this cohort, 62.5% were receiving mental health therapy, and 34.7% reported some substance use.

Participants completed the nine-item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) and the seven-item Generalized Anxiety Disorder scale (GAD-7) at baseline and then at 3, 6, and 12 months. The researchers defined severe depression and severe anxiety as a score of 10 or greater on either scale.

At baseline, 56.7% of the participants had moderate to severe depression, 43.3% reported thoughts of self-harm or suicidal in the previous 2 weeks, and 50.0% had moderate to severe anxiety.

After 12 months of care, participants experienced a 60% decrease in depression (adjusted odds ratio, 0.4) and a 73% decrease in suicidality (aOR, 0.27), after adjustment for temporal trends and sex assigned at birth, race/ethnicity, level of parental support, ongoing mental health therapy, substance use, and victimization, including bullying, interpersonal violence, neglect, and abuse.

Although the decline in depression and suicidality after gender-affirming treatment was not a surprise, “those drops are huge,” Dr. Inwards-Breland said in an interview.

He said he attributes the improvement to a health care system that “affirms who these young people are” and enables changes that allow their outward appearance to reflect “who they know they are inside.”

There were no significant changes in anxiety during the study period. “Anxiety, I think, is just a little harder to treat, and it takes a little longer to treat,” he explained. And a lot of factors can trigger anxiety, and those can continue during treatment.

The slow pace of changes to gender identity can have an effect on people’s moods. “Since they’re not happening quickly, these young people are still being misgendered, they’re still seeing the body that they don’t feel like they should have, and they have to go to school and go out in public. I think that continues to fuel anxiety with a lot of these young people.”

Family support is important in reducing depression and suicidal thoughts in this population. Parents will often see positive changes after their child receives gender-affirming care, which can help contribute to positive changes in parents’ attitudes, Dr. Inwards-Breland said.

Such changes reinforce “that protective factor of connectedness with family,” he noted. “Families are crucial for any health care, and if there’s that connectedness with families, we know that, clinically, patients do better.”
 

Balancing risks

Although there are risks associated with gender-affirming hormones and puberty blockers, the risks of not receiving treatment must also be considered.

“Our young people are killing themselves,” he said. “Our young people are developing severe eating disorders that are killing them. Our young people are increasing their substance abuse, homelessness, depression. The list just goes on.”

For trans-masculine and nonbinary masculine patients, the potential permanent changes of hormone therapy include a deeper voice, hair growth, enlargement of the clitoris, and, in some patients, the development of male pattern baldness. In trans and nonbinary feminine patients, potential long-term effects include breast development and an increased risk for fertility issues.

The consent forms required for young people who want gender-affirming hormones or puberty blockers are extensive, with every possible reversible and irreversible effect described in detail, Dr. Breuner said.

“Parents sign them because they want their child to stay alive,” she explained. “When you compare the cost of someone who has severe debilitating depression and dying by suicide with some of the risks associated with gender-affirming hormone therapy, that’s a no-brainer to me.”

This study is limited by the fact that screening tests, not diagnostic tests, were used to identify depression, anxiety, and suicidality, and the fact that the use of antidepression or antianxiety medications was not taken into account, Dr. Inwards-Breland acknowledged.

“I think future studies should look at a mental health evaluation and diagnosis by a mental health provider,” he added. And mental health, gender dysphoria, suicidality, and self-harm should be tracked over the course of treatment.

He also acknowledged the study’s selection bias. All participants sought care at a multidisciplinary gender clinic, so were likely to be privileged and to have supportive families. “There’s a good chance that if we had more trans and nonbinary youth of color, we may have different findings,” he said.

More qualitative research is needed to assess the effect of gender-affirming therapy on the mental health of these patients, Dr. Breuner said.

“Being able to finally come into who you think you are and enjoy expressing who you are in a gender-affirming way has to be positive in such a way that you’re not depressed anymore,” she added. “It has to be tragic for people who cannot stand the body they’re in and cannot talk about it to anybody or express themselves without fear of recourse, to the point that they would be so devastated that they’d want to die by suicide.”

This research was funded by the Seattle Children’s Center for Diversity and Health Equity and the Pacific Hospital Development and Port Authority. Dr. Inwards-Breland and Dr. Breuner have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Transgender and nonbinary young people experienced less depression and fewer suicidal thoughts after a year of gender-affirming care with hormones or puberty blockers, according to new research.

“Given the high rates of adverse mental health comorbidities, these data provide critical evidence that expansion of gender-affirming care can save lives,” said David J. Inwards-Breland, MD, MPH, chief of adolescent and young adult medicine and codirector of the Center for Gender-Affirming Care at Rady Children’s Hospital in San Diego, during his presentation.

The findings, presented October 11 at the American Academy of Pediatrics 2021 National Conference, were not at all surprising to Cora Breuner, MD, MPH, professor of pediatrics at Seattle Children’s Hospital.

“The younger we can provide gender-affirming care, the less likely they’re going to have depression, and then the negative outcomes from untreated depression, which includes suicide intent or even suicide completion,” Dr. Breuner told this news organization. “It’s so obvious that we are saving lives by providing gender-affirming care.”

For their study, Dr. Inwards-Breland and his colleagues tracked depression, anxiety, and suicidality in 104 trans and nonbinary people 13 to 21 years of age who received care at the Seattle Children’s gender clinic between August 2017 and June 2018.

The study population consisted of 63 transgender male or male participants, 27 transgender female or female participants, 10 nonbinary participants, and four participants who had not defined their gender identity. Of this cohort, 62.5% were receiving mental health therapy, and 34.7% reported some substance use.

Participants completed the nine-item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) and the seven-item Generalized Anxiety Disorder scale (GAD-7) at baseline and then at 3, 6, and 12 months. The researchers defined severe depression and severe anxiety as a score of 10 or greater on either scale.

At baseline, 56.7% of the participants had moderate to severe depression, 43.3% reported thoughts of self-harm or suicidal in the previous 2 weeks, and 50.0% had moderate to severe anxiety.

After 12 months of care, participants experienced a 60% decrease in depression (adjusted odds ratio, 0.4) and a 73% decrease in suicidality (aOR, 0.27), after adjustment for temporal trends and sex assigned at birth, race/ethnicity, level of parental support, ongoing mental health therapy, substance use, and victimization, including bullying, interpersonal violence, neglect, and abuse.

Although the decline in depression and suicidality after gender-affirming treatment was not a surprise, “those drops are huge,” Dr. Inwards-Breland said in an interview.

He said he attributes the improvement to a health care system that “affirms who these young people are” and enables changes that allow their outward appearance to reflect “who they know they are inside.”

There were no significant changes in anxiety during the study period. “Anxiety, I think, is just a little harder to treat, and it takes a little longer to treat,” he explained. And a lot of factors can trigger anxiety, and those can continue during treatment.

The slow pace of changes to gender identity can have an effect on people’s moods. “Since they’re not happening quickly, these young people are still being misgendered, they’re still seeing the body that they don’t feel like they should have, and they have to go to school and go out in public. I think that continues to fuel anxiety with a lot of these young people.”

Family support is important in reducing depression and suicidal thoughts in this population. Parents will often see positive changes after their child receives gender-affirming care, which can help contribute to positive changes in parents’ attitudes, Dr. Inwards-Breland said.

Such changes reinforce “that protective factor of connectedness with family,” he noted. “Families are crucial for any health care, and if there’s that connectedness with families, we know that, clinically, patients do better.”
 

Balancing risks

Although there are risks associated with gender-affirming hormones and puberty blockers, the risks of not receiving treatment must also be considered.

“Our young people are killing themselves,” he said. “Our young people are developing severe eating disorders that are killing them. Our young people are increasing their substance abuse, homelessness, depression. The list just goes on.”

For trans-masculine and nonbinary masculine patients, the potential permanent changes of hormone therapy include a deeper voice, hair growth, enlargement of the clitoris, and, in some patients, the development of male pattern baldness. In trans and nonbinary feminine patients, potential long-term effects include breast development and an increased risk for fertility issues.

The consent forms required for young people who want gender-affirming hormones or puberty blockers are extensive, with every possible reversible and irreversible effect described in detail, Dr. Breuner said.

“Parents sign them because they want their child to stay alive,” she explained. “When you compare the cost of someone who has severe debilitating depression and dying by suicide with some of the risks associated with gender-affirming hormone therapy, that’s a no-brainer to me.”

This study is limited by the fact that screening tests, not diagnostic tests, were used to identify depression, anxiety, and suicidality, and the fact that the use of antidepression or antianxiety medications was not taken into account, Dr. Inwards-Breland acknowledged.

“I think future studies should look at a mental health evaluation and diagnosis by a mental health provider,” he added. And mental health, gender dysphoria, suicidality, and self-harm should be tracked over the course of treatment.

He also acknowledged the study’s selection bias. All participants sought care at a multidisciplinary gender clinic, so were likely to be privileged and to have supportive families. “There’s a good chance that if we had more trans and nonbinary youth of color, we may have different findings,” he said.

More qualitative research is needed to assess the effect of gender-affirming therapy on the mental health of these patients, Dr. Breuner said.

“Being able to finally come into who you think you are and enjoy expressing who you are in a gender-affirming way has to be positive in such a way that you’re not depressed anymore,” she added. “It has to be tragic for people who cannot stand the body they’re in and cannot talk about it to anybody or express themselves without fear of recourse, to the point that they would be so devastated that they’d want to die by suicide.”

This research was funded by the Seattle Children’s Center for Diversity and Health Equity and the Pacific Hospital Development and Port Authority. Dr. Inwards-Breland and Dr. Breuner have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Given that approximately 9.5% of youth aged 13-17 in the United States identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or queer (LGBTQ),¹ it is likely that a general pediatrician or pediatric subspecialist is going to encounter at least one LGBTQ patient during the course of the average workweek. By having an easy way to identify these patients and store this data in a user-friendly manner, you can ensure that your practice is LGBTQ friendly and an affirming environment for all sexual- and gender-minority youth.

One way to do this is to look over any paper or electronic forms your practice uses and make sure that they provide patients and families a range of options to identify themselves. For example, you could provide more options for gender, other than male or female, including a nonbinary or “other” (with a free text line) option. This allows your patients to give you an accurate description of what their affirmed gender is. Instead of having a space for mother’s name and father’s name, you could list these fields as “parent/guardian #1” and “parent/guardian #2.” These labels allow for more inclusivity and to reflect the diverse makeup of modern families. Providing a space for a patient to put the name and pronouns that they use allows your staff to make sure that you are calling a patient by the correct name and using the correct pronouns.

Within your EMR, there may be editable fields that allow for you or your staff to list the patient’s affirmed name and pronouns. Making this small change allows any staff member who accesses the chart to have that information displayed correctly for them and reduces the chances of staff misgendering or dead-naming a patient. Underscoring the importance of this, Sequeira et al. found that in a sample of youth from a gender clinic, only 9% of those adolescents reported that they were asked their name/pronouns outside of the gender clinic.² If those fields are not there, you may check with your IT staff or your EMR vendor to see if these fields may be added in. However, staff needs to make sure that they check with the child/adolescent first to discern with whom the patient has discussed their gender identity. If you were to put a patient’s affirmed name into the chart and then call the patient by that name in front of the parent/guardian, the parent/guardian may look at you quizzically about why you are calling their child by that name. This could then cause an uncomfortable conversation in the exam room or result in harm to the patient after the visit.

It is not just good clinical practice to ensure that you use a patient’s affirmed name and pronouns. Russell et al. looked at the relationship between depressive symptoms and suicidal ideation and whether an adolescent’s name/pronouns were used in the context of their home, school, work, and/or friend group. They found that use of an adolescent’s affirmed name in at least one of these contexts was associated with a decrease in depressive symptoms and a 29% decrease in suicidal ideation.³ Therefore, the use of an adolescent’s affirmed name and pronouns in your office contributes to the overall mental well-being of your patients.

Fortunately, there are many guides to help you and your practice be successful at implementing some of these changes. The Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Health Access Project put together its “Community Standards of Practice for the Provision of Quality Health Care Services to Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Clients” to aid practices in developing environments that are LGBTQ affirming. The National LGBTQIA+ Health Education Center, a part of the Fenway Institute, has a series of learning modules that you and your staff can view for interactive training and tips for best practices. These resources offer pediatricians and their practices free resources to improve their policies and procedures. By instituting these small changes, you can ensure that your practice continues to be an affirming environment for your LGBTQ children and adolescents.
 

Dr. Cooper is assistant professor of pediatrics at University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, and an adolescent medicine specialist at Children’s Medical Center Dallas.

References

1. Conran KJ. LGBT youth population in the United States, UCLA School of Law, Williams Institute, 2020 Sep.

2. Sequeira GM et al. Affirming transgender youths’ names and pronouns in the electronic medical record. JAMA Pediatr. 2020;174(5):501-3.

3. Russell ST et al. Chosen name use is linked to reduced depressive symptoms, suicidal ideation, and suicidal behavior among transgender youth. J Adolesc Health. 2018;63(4):503-5.

Given that approximately 9.5% of youth aged 13-17 in the United States identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or queer (LGBTQ),¹ it is likely that a general pediatrician or pediatric subspecialist is going to encounter at least one LGBTQ patient during the course of the average workweek. By having an easy way to identify these patients and store this data in a user-friendly manner, you can ensure that your practice is LGBTQ friendly and an affirming environment for all sexual- and gender-minority youth.

One way to do this is to look over any paper or electronic forms your practice uses and make sure that they provide patients and families a range of options to identify themselves. For example, you could provide more options for gender, other than male or female, including a nonbinary or “other” (with a free text line) option. This allows your patients to give you an accurate description of what their affirmed gender is. Instead of having a space for mother’s name and father’s name, you could list these fields as “parent/guardian #1” and “parent/guardian #2.” These labels allow for more inclusivity and to reflect the diverse makeup of modern families. Providing a space for a patient to put the name and pronouns that they use allows your staff to make sure that you are calling a patient by the correct name and using the correct pronouns.

Within your EMR, there may be editable fields that allow for you or your staff to list the patient’s affirmed name and pronouns. Making this small change allows any staff member who accesses the chart to have that information displayed correctly for them and reduces the chances of staff misgendering or dead-naming a patient. Underscoring the importance of this, Sequeira et al. found that in a sample of youth from a gender clinic, only 9% of those adolescents reported that they were asked their name/pronouns outside of the gender clinic.² If those fields are not there, you may check with your IT staff or your EMR vendor to see if these fields may be added in. However, staff needs to make sure that they check with the child/adolescent first to discern with whom the patient has discussed their gender identity. If you were to put a patient’s affirmed name into the chart and then call the patient by that name in front of the parent/guardian, the parent/guardian may look at you quizzically about why you are calling their child by that name. This could then cause an uncomfortable conversation in the exam room or result in harm to the patient after the visit.

It is not just good clinical practice to ensure that you use a patient’s affirmed name and pronouns. Russell et al. looked at the relationship between depressive symptoms and suicidal ideation and whether an adolescent’s name/pronouns were used in the context of their home, school, work, and/or friend group. They found that use of an adolescent’s affirmed name in at least one of these contexts was associated with a decrease in depressive symptoms and a 29% decrease in suicidal ideation.³ Therefore, the use of an adolescent’s affirmed name and pronouns in your office contributes to the overall mental well-being of your patients.

Fortunately, there are many guides to help you and your practice be successful at implementing some of these changes. The Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Health Access Project put together its “Community Standards of Practice for the Provision of Quality Health Care Services to Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Clients” to aid practices in developing environments that are LGBTQ affirming. The National LGBTQIA+ Health Education Center, a part of the Fenway Institute, has a series of learning modules that you and your staff can view for interactive training and tips for best practices. These resources offer pediatricians and their practices free resources to improve their policies and procedures. By instituting these small changes, you can ensure that your practice continues to be an affirming environment for your LGBTQ children and adolescents.
 

Dr. Cooper is assistant professor of pediatrics at University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, and an adolescent medicine specialist at Children’s Medical Center Dallas.

References

1. Conran KJ. LGBT youth population in the United States, UCLA School of Law, Williams Institute, 2020 Sep.

2. Sequeira GM et al. Affirming transgender youths’ names and pronouns in the electronic medical record. JAMA Pediatr. 2020;174(5):501-3.

3. Russell ST et al. Chosen name use is linked to reduced depressive symptoms, suicidal ideation, and suicidal behavior among transgender youth. J Adolesc Health. 2018;63(4):503-5.

Given that approximately 9.5% of youth aged 13-17 in the United States identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or queer (LGBTQ),¹ it is likely that a general pediatrician or pediatric subspecialist is going to encounter at least one LGBTQ patient during the course of the average workweek. By having an easy way to identify these patients and store this data in a user-friendly manner, you can ensure that your practice is LGBTQ friendly and an affirming environment for all sexual- and gender-minority youth.

One way to do this is to look over any paper or electronic forms your practice uses and make sure that they provide patients and families a range of options to identify themselves. For example, you could provide more options for gender, other than male or female, including a nonbinary or “other” (with a free text line) option. This allows your patients to give you an accurate description of what their affirmed gender is. Instead of having a space for mother’s name and father’s name, you could list these fields as “parent/guardian #1” and “parent/guardian #2.” These labels allow for more inclusivity and to reflect the diverse makeup of modern families. Providing a space for a patient to put the name and pronouns that they use allows your staff to make sure that you are calling a patient by the correct name and using the correct pronouns.

Within your EMR, there may be editable fields that allow for you or your staff to list the patient’s affirmed name and pronouns. Making this small change allows any staff member who accesses the chart to have that information displayed correctly for them and reduces the chances of staff misgendering or dead-naming a patient. Underscoring the importance of this, Sequeira et al. found that in a sample of youth from a gender clinic, only 9% of those adolescents reported that they were asked their name/pronouns outside of the gender clinic.² If those fields are not there, you may check with your IT staff or your EMR vendor to see if these fields may be added in. However, staff needs to make sure that they check with the child/adolescent first to discern with whom the patient has discussed their gender identity. If you were to put a patient’s affirmed name into the chart and then call the patient by that name in front of the parent/guardian, the parent/guardian may look at you quizzically about why you are calling their child by that name. This could then cause an uncomfortable conversation in the exam room or result in harm to the patient after the visit.

It is not just good clinical practice to ensure that you use a patient’s affirmed name and pronouns. Russell et al. looked at the relationship between depressive symptoms and suicidal ideation and whether an adolescent’s name/pronouns were used in the context of their home, school, work, and/or friend group. They found that use of an adolescent’s affirmed name in at least one of these contexts was associated with a decrease in depressive symptoms and a 29% decrease in suicidal ideation.³ Therefore, the use of an adolescent’s affirmed name and pronouns in your office contributes to the overall mental well-being of your patients.

Fortunately, there are many guides to help you and your practice be successful at implementing some of these changes. The Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Health Access Project put together its “Community Standards of Practice for the Provision of Quality Health Care Services to Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Clients” to aid practices in developing environments that are LGBTQ affirming. The National LGBTQIA+ Health Education Center, a part of the Fenway Institute, has a series of learning modules that you and your staff can view for interactive training and tips for best practices. These resources offer pediatricians and their practices free resources to improve their policies and procedures. By instituting these small changes, you can ensure that your practice continues to be an affirming environment for your LGBTQ children and adolescents.
 

Dr. Cooper is assistant professor of pediatrics at University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, and an adolescent medicine specialist at Children’s Medical Center Dallas.

References

1. Conran KJ. LGBT youth population in the United States, UCLA School of Law, Williams Institute, 2020 Sep.

2. Sequeira GM et al. Affirming transgender youths’ names and pronouns in the electronic medical record. JAMA Pediatr. 2020;174(5):501-3.

3. Russell ST et al. Chosen name use is linked to reduced depressive symptoms, suicidal ideation, and suicidal behavior among transgender youth. J Adolesc Health. 2018;63(4):503-5.

It’s well known that levels of anxiety and depression in youth are on the rise. While some of this increase may be because of other things, such as a lowering of the threshold for what counts as clinically relevant symptoms and decreased stigma when it comes to seeking out mental health services, there seems little debate that the number of children and adolescents who are actually struggling with their mental health is taking a sharp turn for the worse.

What is much less certain are the causes behind this surge. The answer to this important question will likely defy a clear answer from a definitive study. In its place then are a number of different theories that have been circulated and discussed. Each comes with some evidence to support the hypothesis, but none seems able to make a truly compelling argument as the single driving force behind this trend. This column briefly describes and examines some of the factors that may be contributing to the rise in anxiety and depression while providing some explanation for why each factor is unlikely to be the sole culprit.

Some of the biggest suggested causes for the rise in child and adolescent mental health problems include the following:

• COVID. Multiple studies have documented increases in mood and anxiety associated with the pandemic, which in turn, may be because of a number of factors such as social isolation, loss of family members, family financial stressors, and many other contributors.¹ Yet, while it certainly makes sense that COVID is a powerful instigator of mood and anxiety problems, there is good evidence that the upward tic in emotional-behavioral problems began well before the COVID pandemic.²
• Smartphones. In 2017, psychologist Jean Twenge penned a provocative essay in the Atlantic with the title “Have Smartphones Destroyed a Generation?” and the basic answer was yes.³ The foundation for this conclusion was the tracking between the rise in mood and anxiety problems and the meteoric rise of smartphone use in youth. None of these associations, however, can be proven as casual, and more experimental data on the link between smartphone usage and mental health have been inconsistent.
• Bullying. The toxic effect of bullying and, in particular, online or “cyberbullying” has frequently been brought up as a potential cause. Yet while the negative effects of bullying have been well documented, there is evidence that overall bullying has actually decreased over recent years.⁴

These three factors have arguably been the most discussed, but a few others also probably deserve mention.

• Helicopter parenting. Critics of this common and increasingly popular approach to parenting are concerned that all the parental hovering and stepping in convey the message that the world is a very dangerous place while depriving children of opportunities to gain the exposure and competence they need to succeed. The critique is certainly logical and even has been supported in some studies but lacks the needed evidence for a more definitive conclusion.⁵
• Medications. Of course there will be stories blaming the mental health treatment itself, rather than the reasons people seek treatment, for this disturbing trend. And while it is always important to consider that medications can be part of the problem rather than the solution, the majority of evidence points overall to a lack of treatment rather than too much. A recent important study, for example, found that the peak of suicidal thoughts and behaviors occurred a month before medications were started, rather than after.⁶
• Cannabis. While there seems to be a lot of geographic variability with regard to whether or not the number of youth using cannabis is increasing or not, it’s clear that the product now being consumed is considerably stronger than what was used in decades past. This high-potency cannabis now being used has been shown to increase the risk for later mental health problems including psychosis and suicidal behavior.⁷ Unfortunately, these risks are not being heard as a powerful industry fights to increase their market share.

Putting all this together, it seems likely that a tidy and simple explanation for the alarming increase in youth mental health problems will be hard to pin down. It’s also worth pointing out that many of the above factors could work in a synergistic manner. For example, helicopter parenting may be keeping kids more confined to their rooms where they interact more and more on their phones and are exposed to higher amounts of online bullying, all of which has been magnified recently with the COVID pandemic. Obviously, understanding the causes behind this surge is much more than an academic exercise as the amount of stress and suffering rises and treatment resources get overwhelmed. In the meantime, addressing all of the above factors in both primary and specialty care is worthwhile in an effort to reverse this worrying and wide-ranging pattern.

Dr. Rettew is a child and adolescent psychiatrist and medical director of Lane County Behavioral Health in Eugene, Ore. He is the author of the 2021 book, “Parenting Made Complicated: What Science Really Knows about the Greatest Debates of Early Childhood.” You can follow him on Twitter and Facebook @PediPsych.

References

1. Hawes MT et al. Psychol Med. 2021;13:1-9.

2. Twenge JM et al. J Abnorm Psych. 2019;128(3):185-99.

3. Twenge JM. Have Smartphones Destroyed a Generation? The Atlantic. 2017:September.

4. Rettew DC. Bullying: An update. Child Psych Clin North Am. 2021; in press.

5. Van Der Bruggen CO et al. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2008;49(12):1257-69.

6. Lagerberg T et al. Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and suicidal behaviour: A population-based cohort study. Neuropsychopharmacology 2021 Sep 24.

7. Gobbi G et al. JAMA Psychiatry. 2019;76(4):426-34.

It’s well known that levels of anxiety and depression in youth are on the rise. While some of this increase may be because of other things, such as a lowering of the threshold for what counts as clinically relevant symptoms and decreased stigma when it comes to seeking out mental health services, there seems little debate that the number of children and adolescents who are actually struggling with their mental health is taking a sharp turn for the worse.

What is much less certain are the causes behind this surge. The answer to this important question will likely defy a clear answer from a definitive study. In its place then are a number of different theories that have been circulated and discussed. Each comes with some evidence to support the hypothesis, but none seems able to make a truly compelling argument as the single driving force behind this trend. This column briefly describes and examines some of the factors that may be contributing to the rise in anxiety and depression while providing some explanation for why each factor is unlikely to be the sole culprit.

Some of the biggest suggested causes for the rise in child and adolescent mental health problems include the following:

• COVID. Multiple studies have documented increases in mood and anxiety associated with the pandemic, which in turn, may be because of a number of factors such as social isolation, loss of family members, family financial stressors, and many other contributors.¹ Yet, while it certainly makes sense that COVID is a powerful instigator of mood and anxiety problems, there is good evidence that the upward tic in emotional-behavioral problems began well before the COVID pandemic.²
• Smartphones. In 2017, psychologist Jean Twenge penned a provocative essay in the Atlantic with the title “Have Smartphones Destroyed a Generation?” and the basic answer was yes.³ The foundation for this conclusion was the tracking between the rise in mood and anxiety problems and the meteoric rise of smartphone use in youth. None of these associations, however, can be proven as casual, and more experimental data on the link between smartphone usage and mental health have been inconsistent.
• Bullying. The toxic effect of bullying and, in particular, online or “cyberbullying” has frequently been brought up as a potential cause. Yet while the negative effects of bullying have been well documented, there is evidence that overall bullying has actually decreased over recent years.⁴

These three factors have arguably been the most discussed, but a few others also probably deserve mention.

• Helicopter parenting. Critics of this common and increasingly popular approach to parenting are concerned that all the parental hovering and stepping in convey the message that the world is a very dangerous place while depriving children of opportunities to gain the exposure and competence they need to succeed. The critique is certainly logical and even has been supported in some studies but lacks the needed evidence for a more definitive conclusion.⁵
• Medications. Of course there will be stories blaming the mental health treatment itself, rather than the reasons people seek treatment, for this disturbing trend. And while it is always important to consider that medications can be part of the problem rather than the solution, the majority of evidence points overall to a lack of treatment rather than too much. A recent important study, for example, found that the peak of suicidal thoughts and behaviors occurred a month before medications were started, rather than after.⁶
• Cannabis. While there seems to be a lot of geographic variability with regard to whether or not the number of youth using cannabis is increasing or not, it’s clear that the product now being consumed is considerably stronger than what was used in decades past. This high-potency cannabis now being used has been shown to increase the risk for later mental health problems including psychosis and suicidal behavior.⁷ Unfortunately, these risks are not being heard as a powerful industry fights to increase their market share.

Putting all this together, it seems likely that a tidy and simple explanation for the alarming increase in youth mental health problems will be hard to pin down. It’s also worth pointing out that many of the above factors could work in a synergistic manner. For example, helicopter parenting may be keeping kids more confined to their rooms where they interact more and more on their phones and are exposed to higher amounts of online bullying, all of which has been magnified recently with the COVID pandemic. Obviously, understanding the causes behind this surge is much more than an academic exercise as the amount of stress and suffering rises and treatment resources get overwhelmed. In the meantime, addressing all of the above factors in both primary and specialty care is worthwhile in an effort to reverse this worrying and wide-ranging pattern.

Dr. Rettew is a child and adolescent psychiatrist and medical director of Lane County Behavioral Health in Eugene, Ore. He is the author of the 2021 book, “Parenting Made Complicated: What Science Really Knows about the Greatest Debates of Early Childhood.” You can follow him on Twitter and Facebook @PediPsych.

References

1. Hawes MT et al. Psychol Med. 2021;13:1-9.

2. Twenge JM et al. J Abnorm Psych. 2019;128(3):185-99.

3. Twenge JM. Have Smartphones Destroyed a Generation? The Atlantic. 2017:September.

4. Rettew DC. Bullying: An update. Child Psych Clin North Am. 2021; in press.

5. Van Der Bruggen CO et al. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2008;49(12):1257-69.

6. Lagerberg T et al. Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and suicidal behaviour: A population-based cohort study. Neuropsychopharmacology 2021 Sep 24.

7. Gobbi G et al. JAMA Psychiatry. 2019;76(4):426-34.

It’s well known that levels of anxiety and depression in youth are on the rise. While some of this increase may be because of other things, such as a lowering of the threshold for what counts as clinically relevant symptoms and decreased stigma when it comes to seeking out mental health services, there seems little debate that the number of children and adolescents who are actually struggling with their mental health is taking a sharp turn for the worse.

What is much less certain are the causes behind this surge. The answer to this important question will likely defy a clear answer from a definitive study. In its place then are a number of different theories that have been circulated and discussed. Each comes with some evidence to support the hypothesis, but none seems able to make a truly compelling argument as the single driving force behind this trend. This column briefly describes and examines some of the factors that may be contributing to the rise in anxiety and depression while providing some explanation for why each factor is unlikely to be the sole culprit.

Some of the biggest suggested causes for the rise in child and adolescent mental health problems include the following:

• COVID. Multiple studies have documented increases in mood and anxiety associated with the pandemic, which in turn, may be because of a number of factors such as social isolation, loss of family members, family financial stressors, and many other contributors.¹ Yet, while it certainly makes sense that COVID is a powerful instigator of mood and anxiety problems, there is good evidence that the upward tic in emotional-behavioral problems began well before the COVID pandemic.²
• Smartphones. In 2017, psychologist Jean Twenge penned a provocative essay in the Atlantic with the title “Have Smartphones Destroyed a Generation?” and the basic answer was yes.³ The foundation for this conclusion was the tracking between the rise in mood and anxiety problems and the meteoric rise of smartphone use in youth. None of these associations, however, can be proven as casual, and more experimental data on the link between smartphone usage and mental health have been inconsistent.
• Bullying. The toxic effect of bullying and, in particular, online or “cyberbullying” has frequently been brought up as a potential cause. Yet while the negative effects of bullying have been well documented, there is evidence that overall bullying has actually decreased over recent years.⁴

These three factors have arguably been the most discussed, but a few others also probably deserve mention.

• Helicopter parenting. Critics of this common and increasingly popular approach to parenting are concerned that all the parental hovering and stepping in convey the message that the world is a very dangerous place while depriving children of opportunities to gain the exposure and competence they need to succeed. The critique is certainly logical and even has been supported in some studies but lacks the needed evidence for a more definitive conclusion.⁵
• Medications. Of course there will be stories blaming the mental health treatment itself, rather than the reasons people seek treatment, for this disturbing trend. And while it is always important to consider that medications can be part of the problem rather than the solution, the majority of evidence points overall to a lack of treatment rather than too much. A recent important study, for example, found that the peak of suicidal thoughts and behaviors occurred a month before medications were started, rather than after.⁶
• Cannabis. While there seems to be a lot of geographic variability with regard to whether or not the number of youth using cannabis is increasing or not, it’s clear that the product now being consumed is considerably stronger than what was used in decades past. This high-potency cannabis now being used has been shown to increase the risk for later mental health problems including psychosis and suicidal behavior.⁷ Unfortunately, these risks are not being heard as a powerful industry fights to increase their market share.

Putting all this together, it seems likely that a tidy and simple explanation for the alarming increase in youth mental health problems will be hard to pin down. It’s also worth pointing out that many of the above factors could work in a synergistic manner. For example, helicopter parenting may be keeping kids more confined to their rooms where they interact more and more on their phones and are exposed to higher amounts of online bullying, all of which has been magnified recently with the COVID pandemic. Obviously, understanding the causes behind this surge is much more than an academic exercise as the amount of stress and suffering rises and treatment resources get overwhelmed. In the meantime, addressing all of the above factors in both primary and specialty care is worthwhile in an effort to reverse this worrying and wide-ranging pattern.

Dr. Rettew is a child and adolescent psychiatrist and medical director of Lane County Behavioral Health in Eugene, Ore. He is the author of the 2021 book, “Parenting Made Complicated: What Science Really Knows about the Greatest Debates of Early Childhood.” You can follow him on Twitter and Facebook @PediPsych.

References

1. Hawes MT et al. Psychol Med. 2021;13:1-9.

2. Twenge JM et al. J Abnorm Psych. 2019;128(3):185-99.

3. Twenge JM. Have Smartphones Destroyed a Generation? The Atlantic. 2017:September.

4. Rettew DC. Bullying: An update. Child Psych Clin North Am. 2021; in press.

5. Van Der Bruggen CO et al. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2008;49(12):1257-69.

6. Lagerberg T et al. Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and suicidal behaviour: A population-based cohort study. Neuropsychopharmacology 2021 Sep 24.

7. Gobbi G et al. JAMA Psychiatry. 2019;76(4):426-34.

Parsonage-Turner syndrome has been highlighted as a potential adverse effect of mRNA COVID vaccines in a recent pharmacovigilance monitoring report from the French National Agency for the Safety of Medicines and Health Products (ANSM).

The rare condition — more common in men than in women — is characterized by the sudden onset of severe pain in the shoulder, followed by arm paralysis. Its etiopathogenesis is not well understood, but vaccines, in particular the flu vaccine, have been implicated in some cases, the report states.

Six serious cases of the syndrome related to the Comirnaty (Pfizer) vaccine were reported by healthcare professionals and vaccinated individuals or their family and friends since the start of the monitoring program. Four of these cases occurred from September 3 to 16.

All six cases involved patients 19 to 69 years of age — two women and four men — who developed symptoms in the 50 days after vaccination. Half were reported after the first dose and half after the second dose. Four of the patients are currently recovering; the outcomes of the other two are unknown.

In the case of the Spikevax vaccine (Moderna), two cases of Parsonage-Turner syndrome were reported after vaccination (plus one that occurred after 50 days, which is currently being managed). The onset of symptoms in these two men — one in his early 30s and one in his early 60s — occurred less than 18 days after vaccination. One occurred after the first dose and one after the second dose. This timing indicates a possible link between the syndrome and the vaccine. Both men are currently in recovery.

This signal of mRNA vaccines is now “officially recognized,” according to the Pfizer and Moderna reports.

It is also considered a “potential signal” in the Vaxzevria (AstraZeneca) pharmacovigilance report, released October 8, which describes eight cases of Parsonage-Turner syndrome after vaccination.
 

Safety profile of mRNA COVID vaccines in youth

Between June 15, when children 12 years and older became eligible for vaccination, and August 26, there were 591 reports of potential adverse events — out of 6 million Pfizer doses administered — in 12- to 18-year-old children.

Of the 591 cases, 35.2% were deemed serious. The majority of these were cases of reactogenicity, malaise, or postvaccine discomfort (25%), followed by instances of myocarditis and pericarditis (15.9% and 7.2%, respectively). In eight of 10 cases, one of the first symptom reported was chest pain.

Myocarditis occurred in 39.4% of people after the first injection (mean time to onset, 13 days) and 54.5% after the second (mean time to onset, 4 days). Recorded progress was favorable in nearly nine of 10 cases.

Pericarditis occurred in 53.3% of people after the first injection (mean time to onset, 13 days), and 40.0% after the second (mean time to onset, 4 days).

Three cases of multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MISC) were reported after monitoring ended.

For this age group, “all reported events will continue to be monitored, especially serious events and multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children,” report authors conclude.

Data for adverse events after the Moderna vaccine remain limited, but the report stipulates that “the adverse events reported in 12- to 18-year-olds who received an injection do not display any particular pattern, compared with those reported in older subjects, with the exception of a roughly 100-fold lower incidence of reported adverse effects in the 12- to 17-year age group.”
 

No safety warnings for pregnant women

The pharmacovigilance report — which covered the period from December 27, 2020 to September 9, 2021 — “raises no safety warnings for pregnant or nursing women with any of the COVID-19 vaccines.” In addition, two recent studies — one published in JAMA and one in the New England Journal of Medicine — have shown no link between spontaneous miscarriage and mRNA vaccines.

“Moreover, it should be stressed that current data from the international literature consistently show that maternal SARS COV-2 infection increases the risk for fetal, maternal, and neonatal complications, and that this risk may increase with the arrival of the Alpha and Delta variants,” they write. “It is therefore important to reiterate the current recommendations to vaccinate all pregnant women, regardless of the stage of pregnancy.”

Some adverse effects, such as thromboembolic effects, in utero death, HELLP (hemolysis, elevated liver enzymes, and low platelets) syndrome, and uterine contractions, will continue to be monitored.
 

Questions regarding menstrual disorders

As for gynecological disorders reported after vaccination, questions still remain. “In most of the reported cases, it is difficult to accurately determine whether the vaccine played a role in the occurrence of menstrual/genital bleeding,” the authors of the pharmacovigilance monitoring report state.

“Nonetheless, these cases warrant attention,” they add, and further discussions with the French National Association of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the French Society of Endocrinology are needed in regard to these potential safety signals.

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

Parsonage-Turner syndrome has been highlighted as a potential adverse effect of mRNA COVID vaccines in a recent pharmacovigilance monitoring report from the French National Agency for the Safety of Medicines and Health Products (ANSM).

The rare condition — more common in men than in women — is characterized by the sudden onset of severe pain in the shoulder, followed by arm paralysis. Its etiopathogenesis is not well understood, but vaccines, in particular the flu vaccine, have been implicated in some cases, the report states.

Six serious cases of the syndrome related to the Comirnaty (Pfizer) vaccine were reported by healthcare professionals and vaccinated individuals or their family and friends since the start of the monitoring program. Four of these cases occurred from September 3 to 16.

All six cases involved patients 19 to 69 years of age — two women and four men — who developed symptoms in the 50 days after vaccination. Half were reported after the first dose and half after the second dose. Four of the patients are currently recovering; the outcomes of the other two are unknown.

In the case of the Spikevax vaccine (Moderna), two cases of Parsonage-Turner syndrome were reported after vaccination (plus one that occurred after 50 days, which is currently being managed). The onset of symptoms in these two men — one in his early 30s and one in his early 60s — occurred less than 18 days after vaccination. One occurred after the first dose and one after the second dose. This timing indicates a possible link between the syndrome and the vaccine. Both men are currently in recovery.

This signal of mRNA vaccines is now “officially recognized,” according to the Pfizer and Moderna reports.

It is also considered a “potential signal” in the Vaxzevria (AstraZeneca) pharmacovigilance report, released October 8, which describes eight cases of Parsonage-Turner syndrome after vaccination.
 

Safety profile of mRNA COVID vaccines in youth

Between June 15, when children 12 years and older became eligible for vaccination, and August 26, there were 591 reports of potential adverse events — out of 6 million Pfizer doses administered — in 12- to 18-year-old children.

Of the 591 cases, 35.2% were deemed serious. The majority of these were cases of reactogenicity, malaise, or postvaccine discomfort (25%), followed by instances of myocarditis and pericarditis (15.9% and 7.2%, respectively). In eight of 10 cases, one of the first symptom reported was chest pain.

Myocarditis occurred in 39.4% of people after the first injection (mean time to onset, 13 days) and 54.5% after the second (mean time to onset, 4 days). Recorded progress was favorable in nearly nine of 10 cases.

Pericarditis occurred in 53.3% of people after the first injection (mean time to onset, 13 days), and 40.0% after the second (mean time to onset, 4 days).

Three cases of multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MISC) were reported after monitoring ended.

For this age group, “all reported events will continue to be monitored, especially serious events and multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children,” report authors conclude.

Data for adverse events after the Moderna vaccine remain limited, but the report stipulates that “the adverse events reported in 12- to 18-year-olds who received an injection do not display any particular pattern, compared with those reported in older subjects, with the exception of a roughly 100-fold lower incidence of reported adverse effects in the 12- to 17-year age group.”
 

No safety warnings for pregnant women

The pharmacovigilance report — which covered the period from December 27, 2020 to September 9, 2021 — “raises no safety warnings for pregnant or nursing women with any of the COVID-19 vaccines.” In addition, two recent studies — one published in JAMA and one in the New England Journal of Medicine — have shown no link between spontaneous miscarriage and mRNA vaccines.

“Moreover, it should be stressed that current data from the international literature consistently show that maternal SARS COV-2 infection increases the risk for fetal, maternal, and neonatal complications, and that this risk may increase with the arrival of the Alpha and Delta variants,” they write. “It is therefore important to reiterate the current recommendations to vaccinate all pregnant women, regardless of the stage of pregnancy.”

Some adverse effects, such as thromboembolic effects, in utero death, HELLP (hemolysis, elevated liver enzymes, and low platelets) syndrome, and uterine contractions, will continue to be monitored.
 

Questions regarding menstrual disorders

As for gynecological disorders reported after vaccination, questions still remain. “In most of the reported cases, it is difficult to accurately determine whether the vaccine played a role in the occurrence of menstrual/genital bleeding,” the authors of the pharmacovigilance monitoring report state.

“Nonetheless, these cases warrant attention,” they add, and further discussions with the French National Association of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the French Society of Endocrinology are needed in regard to these potential safety signals.

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

Parsonage-Turner syndrome has been highlighted as a potential adverse effect of mRNA COVID vaccines in a recent pharmacovigilance monitoring report from the French National Agency for the Safety of Medicines and Health Products (ANSM).

The rare condition — more common in men than in women — is characterized by the sudden onset of severe pain in the shoulder, followed by arm paralysis. Its etiopathogenesis is not well understood, but vaccines, in particular the flu vaccine, have been implicated in some cases, the report states.

Six serious cases of the syndrome related to the Comirnaty (Pfizer) vaccine were reported by healthcare professionals and vaccinated individuals or their family and friends since the start of the monitoring program. Four of these cases occurred from September 3 to 16.

All six cases involved patients 19 to 69 years of age — two women and four men — who developed symptoms in the 50 days after vaccination. Half were reported after the first dose and half after the second dose. Four of the patients are currently recovering; the outcomes of the other two are unknown.

In the case of the Spikevax vaccine (Moderna), two cases of Parsonage-Turner syndrome were reported after vaccination (plus one that occurred after 50 days, which is currently being managed). The onset of symptoms in these two men — one in his early 30s and one in his early 60s — occurred less than 18 days after vaccination. One occurred after the first dose and one after the second dose. This timing indicates a possible link between the syndrome and the vaccine. Both men are currently in recovery.

This signal of mRNA vaccines is now “officially recognized,” according to the Pfizer and Moderna reports.

It is also considered a “potential signal” in the Vaxzevria (AstraZeneca) pharmacovigilance report, released October 8, which describes eight cases of Parsonage-Turner syndrome after vaccination.
 

Safety profile of mRNA COVID vaccines in youth

Between June 15, when children 12 years and older became eligible for vaccination, and August 26, there were 591 reports of potential adverse events — out of 6 million Pfizer doses administered — in 12- to 18-year-old children.

Of the 591 cases, 35.2% were deemed serious. The majority of these were cases of reactogenicity, malaise, or postvaccine discomfort (25%), followed by instances of myocarditis and pericarditis (15.9% and 7.2%, respectively). In eight of 10 cases, one of the first symptom reported was chest pain.

Myocarditis occurred in 39.4% of people after the first injection (mean time to onset, 13 days) and 54.5% after the second (mean time to onset, 4 days). Recorded progress was favorable in nearly nine of 10 cases.

Pericarditis occurred in 53.3% of people after the first injection (mean time to onset, 13 days), and 40.0% after the second (mean time to onset, 4 days).

Three cases of multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MISC) were reported after monitoring ended.

For this age group, “all reported events will continue to be monitored, especially serious events and multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children,” report authors conclude.

Data for adverse events after the Moderna vaccine remain limited, but the report stipulates that “the adverse events reported in 12- to 18-year-olds who received an injection do not display any particular pattern, compared with those reported in older subjects, with the exception of a roughly 100-fold lower incidence of reported adverse effects in the 12- to 17-year age group.”
 

No safety warnings for pregnant women

The pharmacovigilance report — which covered the period from December 27, 2020 to September 9, 2021 — “raises no safety warnings for pregnant or nursing women with any of the COVID-19 vaccines.” In addition, two recent studies — one published in JAMA and one in the New England Journal of Medicine — have shown no link between spontaneous miscarriage and mRNA vaccines.

“Moreover, it should be stressed that current data from the international literature consistently show that maternal SARS COV-2 infection increases the risk for fetal, maternal, and neonatal complications, and that this risk may increase with the arrival of the Alpha and Delta variants,” they write. “It is therefore important to reiterate the current recommendations to vaccinate all pregnant women, regardless of the stage of pregnancy.”

Some adverse effects, such as thromboembolic effects, in utero death, HELLP (hemolysis, elevated liver enzymes, and low platelets) syndrome, and uterine contractions, will continue to be monitored.
 

Questions regarding menstrual disorders

As for gynecological disorders reported after vaccination, questions still remain. “In most of the reported cases, it is difficult to accurately determine whether the vaccine played a role in the occurrence of menstrual/genital bleeding,” the authors of the pharmacovigilance monitoring report state.

“Nonetheless, these cases warrant attention,” they add, and further discussions with the French National Association of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the French Society of Endocrinology are needed in regard to these potential safety signals.

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

The chances that unvaccinated family members will be infected or hospitalized with COVID-19 drop sharply if even one family member is vaccinated. The chances are reduced even further with each additional vaccinated or otherwise immune family member, according to new data.

Lead author Peter Nordström, MD, PhD, with the unit of geriatric medicine, Umeå (Sweden) University, said in an interview the message is important for public health: “When you vaccinate, you do not just protect yourself but also your relatives.”

The findings were published online on Oct. 11, 2021, in JAMA Internal Medicine.

Researchers analyzed data from 1,789,728 individuals from 814,806 families from nationwide registries in Sweden. All individuals had acquired immunity either from previously being infected with SARS-CoV-2 or by being fully vaccinated (that is, having received two doses of the Moderna, Pfizer, or Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccines). Persons were considered for inclusion until May 26, 2021.

Each person with immunity was matched in a 1:1 ratio to a person without immunity from a cohort of individuals with families that had from two to five members. Families with more than five members were excluded because of small sample sizes.

Primarily nonimmune families in which there was one immune family member had a 45%-61% lower risk of contracting COVID-19 (hazard ratio, 0.39-0.55; 95% confidence interval, 0.37-0.61; P < .001).

The risk reduction increased to 75%-86% when two family members were immune (HR, 0.14-0.25; 95% CI, 0.11-0.27; P < .001).

It increased to 91%-94% when three family members were immune (HR, 0.06-0.09; 95% CI, 0.04-0.10; P < .001) and to 97% with four immune family members (HR, 0.03; 95% CI, 0.02-0.05; P < .001).

“The results were similar for the outcome of COVID-19 infection that was severe enough to warrant a hospital stay,” the authors wrote. They listed as an example that, in three-member families in which two members were immune, the remaining nonimmune family member had an 80% lower risk for hospitalization (HR, 0.20; 95% CI, 0.10-0.43; P < .001).
 

Global implications

Dr. Nordström said the team used the family setting because it was more easily identifiable as a cohort with the national registries and because COVID-19 is spread among people in close contact with each other. The findings have implications for other groups that spend large amounts of time together and for herd immunity, he added.

The findings may be particularly welcome in regions of the world where vaccination rates are very low. The authors noted that most of the global population has not yet been vaccinated and that “it is anticipated that most of the population in low-income countries will be unable to receive a vaccine in 2021, with current vaccination rates suggesting that completely inoculating 70%-85% of the global population may take up to 5 years.”

Jill Foster, MD, a pediatric infectious disease specialist at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, said in an interview she agrees that the news could encourage countries that have very low vaccination rates.

This study may help motivate areas with few resources to start small, she said: “Even one is better than zero.”

She added that this news could also help ease the minds of families that have immunocompromised members or in which there are children who are too young to be vaccinated.

With these data, she said, people can see there’s something they can do to help protect a family member.

Dr. Foster said that although it’s intuitive to think that the more vaccinated people there are in a family, the safer people are, “it’s really nice to see the data coming out of such a large dataset.”

The authors acknowledged that a limitation of the study is that, at the time the study was conducted, the Delta variant was uncommon in Sweden. It is therefore unclear whether the findings regarding immunity are still relevant in Sweden and elsewhere now that the Delta strain is dominant.

The authors reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Foster has received grant support from Moderna.

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

The chances that unvaccinated family members will be infected or hospitalized with COVID-19 drop sharply if even one family member is vaccinated. The chances are reduced even further with each additional vaccinated or otherwise immune family member, according to new data.

Lead author Peter Nordström, MD, PhD, with the unit of geriatric medicine, Umeå (Sweden) University, said in an interview the message is important for public health: “When you vaccinate, you do not just protect yourself but also your relatives.”

The findings were published online on Oct. 11, 2021, in JAMA Internal Medicine.

Researchers analyzed data from 1,789,728 individuals from 814,806 families from nationwide registries in Sweden. All individuals had acquired immunity either from previously being infected with SARS-CoV-2 or by being fully vaccinated (that is, having received two doses of the Moderna, Pfizer, or Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccines). Persons were considered for inclusion until May 26, 2021.

Each person with immunity was matched in a 1:1 ratio to a person without immunity from a cohort of individuals with families that had from two to five members. Families with more than five members were excluded because of small sample sizes.

Primarily nonimmune families in which there was one immune family member had a 45%-61% lower risk of contracting COVID-19 (hazard ratio, 0.39-0.55; 95% confidence interval, 0.37-0.61; P < .001).

The risk reduction increased to 75%-86% when two family members were immune (HR, 0.14-0.25; 95% CI, 0.11-0.27; P < .001).

It increased to 91%-94% when three family members were immune (HR, 0.06-0.09; 95% CI, 0.04-0.10; P < .001) and to 97% with four immune family members (HR, 0.03; 95% CI, 0.02-0.05; P < .001).

“The results were similar for the outcome of COVID-19 infection that was severe enough to warrant a hospital stay,” the authors wrote. They listed as an example that, in three-member families in which two members were immune, the remaining nonimmune family member had an 80% lower risk for hospitalization (HR, 0.20; 95% CI, 0.10-0.43; P < .001).
 

Global implications

Dr. Nordström said the team used the family setting because it was more easily identifiable as a cohort with the national registries and because COVID-19 is spread among people in close contact with each other. The findings have implications for other groups that spend large amounts of time together and for herd immunity, he added.

The findings may be particularly welcome in regions of the world where vaccination rates are very low. The authors noted that most of the global population has not yet been vaccinated and that “it is anticipated that most of the population in low-income countries will be unable to receive a vaccine in 2021, with current vaccination rates suggesting that completely inoculating 70%-85% of the global population may take up to 5 years.”

Jill Foster, MD, a pediatric infectious disease specialist at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, said in an interview she agrees that the news could encourage countries that have very low vaccination rates.

This study may help motivate areas with few resources to start small, she said: “Even one is better than zero.”

She added that this news could also help ease the minds of families that have immunocompromised members or in which there are children who are too young to be vaccinated.

With these data, she said, people can see there’s something they can do to help protect a family member.

Dr. Foster said that although it’s intuitive to think that the more vaccinated people there are in a family, the safer people are, “it’s really nice to see the data coming out of such a large dataset.”

The authors acknowledged that a limitation of the study is that, at the time the study was conducted, the Delta variant was uncommon in Sweden. It is therefore unclear whether the findings regarding immunity are still relevant in Sweden and elsewhere now that the Delta strain is dominant.

The authors reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Foster has received grant support from Moderna.

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

The chances that unvaccinated family members will be infected or hospitalized with COVID-19 drop sharply if even one family member is vaccinated. The chances are reduced even further with each additional vaccinated or otherwise immune family member, according to new data.

Lead author Peter Nordström, MD, PhD, with the unit of geriatric medicine, Umeå (Sweden) University, said in an interview the message is important for public health: “When you vaccinate, you do not just protect yourself but also your relatives.”

The findings were published online on Oct. 11, 2021, in JAMA Internal Medicine.

Researchers analyzed data from 1,789,728 individuals from 814,806 families from nationwide registries in Sweden. All individuals had acquired immunity either from previously being infected with SARS-CoV-2 or by being fully vaccinated (that is, having received two doses of the Moderna, Pfizer, or Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccines). Persons were considered for inclusion until May 26, 2021.

Each person with immunity was matched in a 1:1 ratio to a person without immunity from a cohort of individuals with families that had from two to five members. Families with more than five members were excluded because of small sample sizes.

Primarily nonimmune families in which there was one immune family member had a 45%-61% lower risk of contracting COVID-19 (hazard ratio, 0.39-0.55; 95% confidence interval, 0.37-0.61; P < .001).

The risk reduction increased to 75%-86% when two family members were immune (HR, 0.14-0.25; 95% CI, 0.11-0.27; P < .001).

It increased to 91%-94% when three family members were immune (HR, 0.06-0.09; 95% CI, 0.04-0.10; P < .001) and to 97% with four immune family members (HR, 0.03; 95% CI, 0.02-0.05; P < .001).

“The results were similar for the outcome of COVID-19 infection that was severe enough to warrant a hospital stay,” the authors wrote. They listed as an example that, in three-member families in which two members were immune, the remaining nonimmune family member had an 80% lower risk for hospitalization (HR, 0.20; 95% CI, 0.10-0.43; P < .001).
 

Global implications

Dr. Nordström said the team used the family setting because it was more easily identifiable as a cohort with the national registries and because COVID-19 is spread among people in close contact with each other. The findings have implications for other groups that spend large amounts of time together and for herd immunity, he added.

The findings may be particularly welcome in regions of the world where vaccination rates are very low. The authors noted that most of the global population has not yet been vaccinated and that “it is anticipated that most of the population in low-income countries will be unable to receive a vaccine in 2021, with current vaccination rates suggesting that completely inoculating 70%-85% of the global population may take up to 5 years.”

Jill Foster, MD, a pediatric infectious disease specialist at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, said in an interview she agrees that the news could encourage countries that have very low vaccination rates.

This study may help motivate areas with few resources to start small, she said: “Even one is better than zero.”

She added that this news could also help ease the minds of families that have immunocompromised members or in which there are children who are too young to be vaccinated.

With these data, she said, people can see there’s something they can do to help protect a family member.

Dr. Foster said that although it’s intuitive to think that the more vaccinated people there are in a family, the safer people are, “it’s really nice to see the data coming out of such a large dataset.”

The authors acknowledged that a limitation of the study is that, at the time the study was conducted, the Delta variant was uncommon in Sweden. It is therefore unclear whether the findings regarding immunity are still relevant in Sweden and elsewhere now that the Delta strain is dominant.

The authors reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Foster has received grant support from Moderna.

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

Schools without mask requirements were three-and-a-half times more likely to have COVID-19 outbreaks than those enforcing mask mandates, according to new Centers for Disease Control and Prevention research.

The study, which focused on 1,000 schools in Arizona’s Maricopa and Pima counties, found that there were 113 COVID-19 outbreaks in schools without mask requirements in the first month of in-person learning. There were 16 outbreaks in schools with mask requirements.

“Masks in schools work to protect our children, to keep them and their school communities safe, and to keep them in school for in-person learning,” CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, said at an Oct. 13 White House briefing.

But, she said, more than 95% of schools across the country had remained open through the end of September, despite 1,800 school closures affecting nearly 1 million students.

Protection for children in school is just one piece of the puzzle, Dr. Walensky said – there must also be COVID-safe practices at home to limit transmission. A CDC study published in October found that children had similar infection rates, compared with adults, confirming there is risk to people of all ages.

“For those children not yet eligible for vaccination, the best protection we can provide them is to make sure everyone around them in the household is vaccinated and to make sure they’re wearing a mask in school and during indoor extracurricular activities,” Dr. Walensky said.

Meanwhile, Pfizer’s vaccine for children ages 5-11 may be approved by early November. The Food and Drug Administration’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee will meet Oct. 26 to discuss available data, and the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices will meet Nov. 2. A decision is expected soon after.

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

Schools without mask requirements were three-and-a-half times more likely to have COVID-19 outbreaks than those enforcing mask mandates, according to new Centers for Disease Control and Prevention research.

The study, which focused on 1,000 schools in Arizona’s Maricopa and Pima counties, found that there were 113 COVID-19 outbreaks in schools without mask requirements in the first month of in-person learning. There were 16 outbreaks in schools with mask requirements.

“Masks in schools work to protect our children, to keep them and their school communities safe, and to keep them in school for in-person learning,” CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, said at an Oct. 13 White House briefing.

But, she said, more than 95% of schools across the country had remained open through the end of September, despite 1,800 school closures affecting nearly 1 million students.

Protection for children in school is just one piece of the puzzle, Dr. Walensky said – there must also be COVID-safe practices at home to limit transmission. A CDC study published in October found that children had similar infection rates, compared with adults, confirming there is risk to people of all ages.

“For those children not yet eligible for vaccination, the best protection we can provide them is to make sure everyone around them in the household is vaccinated and to make sure they’re wearing a mask in school and during indoor extracurricular activities,” Dr. Walensky said.

Meanwhile, Pfizer’s vaccine for children ages 5-11 may be approved by early November. The Food and Drug Administration’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee will meet Oct. 26 to discuss available data, and the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices will meet Nov. 2. A decision is expected soon after.

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

Schools without mask requirements were three-and-a-half times more likely to have COVID-19 outbreaks than those enforcing mask mandates, according to new Centers for Disease Control and Prevention research.

The study, which focused on 1,000 schools in Arizona’s Maricopa and Pima counties, found that there were 113 COVID-19 outbreaks in schools without mask requirements in the first month of in-person learning. There were 16 outbreaks in schools with mask requirements.

“Masks in schools work to protect our children, to keep them and their school communities safe, and to keep them in school for in-person learning,” CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, said at an Oct. 13 White House briefing.

But, she said, more than 95% of schools across the country had remained open through the end of September, despite 1,800 school closures affecting nearly 1 million students.

Protection for children in school is just one piece of the puzzle, Dr. Walensky said – there must also be COVID-safe practices at home to limit transmission. A CDC study published in October found that children had similar infection rates, compared with adults, confirming there is risk to people of all ages.

“For those children not yet eligible for vaccination, the best protection we can provide them is to make sure everyone around them in the household is vaccinated and to make sure they’re wearing a mask in school and during indoor extracurricular activities,” Dr. Walensky said.

Meanwhile, Pfizer’s vaccine for children ages 5-11 may be approved by early November. The Food and Drug Administration’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee will meet Oct. 26 to discuss available data, and the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices will meet Nov. 2. A decision is expected soon after.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has issued voluntary, short-term sodium reduction targets for food manufacturers, chain restaurants, and food service operators for processed, packaged, and prepared foods, with an eye toward reducing diet-related conditions such as heart disease and obesity.

According to the FDA, more than 70% of total sodium intake is from sodium added during food manufacturing and commercial food preparation.

The new targets seek to decrease average sodium intake from approximately 3,400 mg/day to 3,000 mg/day, about a 12% reduction, over the next 2.5 years, acting FDA Commissioner Janet Woodcock, MD, and Susan Mayne, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, said in joint statement.

Although this reduction keeps the average intake above the recommended limit of 2,300 mg/day for individuals 14 years and older as per the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, “we know that even these modest reductions made slowly over the next few years will substantially decrease diet-related diseases,” they added.

The FDA first proposed recommendations for reducing sodium content in draft guidance released in 2016.

Since, then a number of companies in the food industry have already made changes to sodium content in their products, “which is encouraging, but additional support across all types of foods to help consumers meet recommended sodium limits is needed,” Dr. Woodcock and Dr. Mayne said.

They emphasized that the new guidance represents short-term goals that the food industry should work to meet as soon as possible to help optimize public health.

“We will continue our discussions with the food industry as we monitor the sodium content of the food supply to evaluate progress. In the future, we plan to issue revised, subsequent targets to further lower the sodium content incrementally and continue to help reduce sodium intake,” Dr. Woodcock and Dr. Mayne said.
 

AHA: A good first step that does not go far enough

In a statement, the American Heart Association said the new targets will play “a critical role in helping people across the country achieve healthier levels of sodium and improved well-being overall. These targets will be an important driver to reduce sodium consumption, which can have significant health benefits and lead to lower medical costs.”

“Lowering sodium levels in the food supply would reduce risk of hypertension, heart disease, stroke, heart attack, and death in addition to saving billions of dollars in health care costs over the next decade,” the AHA said.

But the AHA also said lowering sodium intake to 3,000 mg/day is not enough.

“Lowering sodium further to 2,300 mg could prevent an estimated 450,000 cases of cardiovascular disease, gain 2 million quality-adjusted life-years, and save approximately $40 billion in health care costs over a 20-year period,” the AHA said.

The AHA is urging the FDA to “follow [this] action with additional targets to further lower the amount of sodium in the food supply and help people in America attain an appropriate sodium intake.”

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

The Food and Drug Administration has issued voluntary, short-term sodium reduction targets for food manufacturers, chain restaurants, and food service operators for processed, packaged, and prepared foods, with an eye toward reducing diet-related conditions such as heart disease and obesity.

According to the FDA, more than 70% of total sodium intake is from sodium added during food manufacturing and commercial food preparation.

The new targets seek to decrease average sodium intake from approximately 3,400 mg/day to 3,000 mg/day, about a 12% reduction, over the next 2.5 years, acting FDA Commissioner Janet Woodcock, MD, and Susan Mayne, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, said in joint statement.

Although this reduction keeps the average intake above the recommended limit of 2,300 mg/day for individuals 14 years and older as per the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, “we know that even these modest reductions made slowly over the next few years will substantially decrease diet-related diseases,” they added.

The FDA first proposed recommendations for reducing sodium content in draft guidance released in 2016.

Since, then a number of companies in the food industry have already made changes to sodium content in their products, “which is encouraging, but additional support across all types of foods to help consumers meet recommended sodium limits is needed,” Dr. Woodcock and Dr. Mayne said.

They emphasized that the new guidance represents short-term goals that the food industry should work to meet as soon as possible to help optimize public health.

“We will continue our discussions with the food industry as we monitor the sodium content of the food supply to evaluate progress. In the future, we plan to issue revised, subsequent targets to further lower the sodium content incrementally and continue to help reduce sodium intake,” Dr. Woodcock and Dr. Mayne said.
 

AHA: A good first step that does not go far enough

In a statement, the American Heart Association said the new targets will play “a critical role in helping people across the country achieve healthier levels of sodium and improved well-being overall. These targets will be an important driver to reduce sodium consumption, which can have significant health benefits and lead to lower medical costs.”

“Lowering sodium levels in the food supply would reduce risk of hypertension, heart disease, stroke, heart attack, and death in addition to saving billions of dollars in health care costs over the next decade,” the AHA said.

But the AHA also said lowering sodium intake to 3,000 mg/day is not enough.

“Lowering sodium further to 2,300 mg could prevent an estimated 450,000 cases of cardiovascular disease, gain 2 million quality-adjusted life-years, and save approximately $40 billion in health care costs over a 20-year period,” the AHA said.

The AHA is urging the FDA to “follow [this] action with additional targets to further lower the amount of sodium in the food supply and help people in America attain an appropriate sodium intake.”

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

The Food and Drug Administration has issued voluntary, short-term sodium reduction targets for food manufacturers, chain restaurants, and food service operators for processed, packaged, and prepared foods, with an eye toward reducing diet-related conditions such as heart disease and obesity.

According to the FDA, more than 70% of total sodium intake is from sodium added during food manufacturing and commercial food preparation.

The new targets seek to decrease average sodium intake from approximately 3,400 mg/day to 3,000 mg/day, about a 12% reduction, over the next 2.5 years, acting FDA Commissioner Janet Woodcock, MD, and Susan Mayne, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, said in joint statement.

Although this reduction keeps the average intake above the recommended limit of 2,300 mg/day for individuals 14 years and older as per the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, “we know that even these modest reductions made slowly over the next few years will substantially decrease diet-related diseases,” they added.

The FDA first proposed recommendations for reducing sodium content in draft guidance released in 2016.

Since, then a number of companies in the food industry have already made changes to sodium content in their products, “which is encouraging, but additional support across all types of foods to help consumers meet recommended sodium limits is needed,” Dr. Woodcock and Dr. Mayne said.

They emphasized that the new guidance represents short-term goals that the food industry should work to meet as soon as possible to help optimize public health.

“We will continue our discussions with the food industry as we monitor the sodium content of the food supply to evaluate progress. In the future, we plan to issue revised, subsequent targets to further lower the sodium content incrementally and continue to help reduce sodium intake,” Dr. Woodcock and Dr. Mayne said.
 

AHA: A good first step that does not go far enough

In a statement, the American Heart Association said the new targets will play “a critical role in helping people across the country achieve healthier levels of sodium and improved well-being overall. These targets will be an important driver to reduce sodium consumption, which can have significant health benefits and lead to lower medical costs.”

“Lowering sodium levels in the food supply would reduce risk of hypertension, heart disease, stroke, heart attack, and death in addition to saving billions of dollars in health care costs over the next decade,” the AHA said.

But the AHA also said lowering sodium intake to 3,000 mg/day is not enough.

“Lowering sodium further to 2,300 mg could prevent an estimated 450,000 cases of cardiovascular disease, gain 2 million quality-adjusted life-years, and save approximately $40 billion in health care costs over a 20-year period,” the AHA said.

The AHA is urging the FDA to “follow [this] action with additional targets to further lower the amount of sodium in the food supply and help people in America attain an appropriate sodium intake.”

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