MDedge Pediatrics

Two new cases of a mysterious virus have been reported by the Alaska Department of Health and Social Services. Both people were diagnosed after receiving urgent care in a Fairbanks-area clinic. One was a child with a sore on the left elbow, along with fever and swollen lymph nodes. And the other was an unrelated middle-aged woman with a pox mark on her leg, swollen lymph nodes, and joint pain. In both cases, symptoms improved within 3 weeks.

This isn’t the first time the so-called Alaskapox virus has been detected in the region. In 2015, a woman living near Fairbanks turned up at her doctor’s office with a single reddened pox-like mark on her upper arm and a feeling of fatigue.

Sampling of the pox mark showed that it was caused by a previously unidentified virus of the same family as smallpox and cowpox.

Five years later, another woman showed up with similar signs and symptoms, and her pox also proved to be the result of what public health experts started calling the Alaskapox virus.

In both cases, the women recovered completely.
 

Smallpox-like illness

Public health sleuths figured out that in three of the four cases, the patients lived in a home with a cat or cats, and one of these cats was known to hunt small animals.

Experts already knew that cats mingling in cow pastures and sickened by cattle virus had helped cowpox make the leap from bovines to humans. And just as in the case of cowpox, they suspected that cats might again be spreading this new virus to people, too.

All four of the infected people lived in sparsely populated areas amid forests. Officials laid animal traps where some of the affected people lived and identified the virus in several species of small wild animals.

The animals that turned up most often with Alaskapox were small mouse-like voles. The rodents with rounded muzzles are known for burrowing in the region. And scientists suspect the Alaskapox virus makes its way from these wild animals to humans through their pet cats or possibly by direct exposure outdoors.

None of the four people identified so far with Alaskapox knew each other or interacted, so officials also suspect that there are more cases going unrecognized, possibly because the symptoms are mild or nonexistent.

There are no documented cases of person-to-person transmission of Alaskapox, according to public health officials monitoring the small number of cases. But other pox viruses can spread by direct contact with skin lesions, so clinicians are recommending that people cover wounds with bandages. Three of the people with Alaskapox mistook their lesions at first for a bite from a spider or insect.

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

Two new cases of a mysterious virus have been reported by the Alaska Department of Health and Social Services. Both people were diagnosed after receiving urgent care in a Fairbanks-area clinic. One was a child with a sore on the left elbow, along with fever and swollen lymph nodes. And the other was an unrelated middle-aged woman with a pox mark on her leg, swollen lymph nodes, and joint pain. In both cases, symptoms improved within 3 weeks.

This isn’t the first time the so-called Alaskapox virus has been detected in the region. In 2015, a woman living near Fairbanks turned up at her doctor’s office with a single reddened pox-like mark on her upper arm and a feeling of fatigue.

Sampling of the pox mark showed that it was caused by a previously unidentified virus of the same family as smallpox and cowpox.

Five years later, another woman showed up with similar signs and symptoms, and her pox also proved to be the result of what public health experts started calling the Alaskapox virus.

In both cases, the women recovered completely.
 

Smallpox-like illness

Public health sleuths figured out that in three of the four cases, the patients lived in a home with a cat or cats, and one of these cats was known to hunt small animals.

Experts already knew that cats mingling in cow pastures and sickened by cattle virus had helped cowpox make the leap from bovines to humans. And just as in the case of cowpox, they suspected that cats might again be spreading this new virus to people, too.

All four of the infected people lived in sparsely populated areas amid forests. Officials laid animal traps where some of the affected people lived and identified the virus in several species of small wild animals.

The animals that turned up most often with Alaskapox were small mouse-like voles. The rodents with rounded muzzles are known for burrowing in the region. And scientists suspect the Alaskapox virus makes its way from these wild animals to humans through their pet cats or possibly by direct exposure outdoors.

None of the four people identified so far with Alaskapox knew each other or interacted, so officials also suspect that there are more cases going unrecognized, possibly because the symptoms are mild or nonexistent.

There are no documented cases of person-to-person transmission of Alaskapox, according to public health officials monitoring the small number of cases. But other pox viruses can spread by direct contact with skin lesions, so clinicians are recommending that people cover wounds with bandages. Three of the people with Alaskapox mistook their lesions at first for a bite from a spider or insect.

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

Two new cases of a mysterious virus have been reported by the Alaska Department of Health and Social Services. Both people were diagnosed after receiving urgent care in a Fairbanks-area clinic. One was a child with a sore on the left elbow, along with fever and swollen lymph nodes. And the other was an unrelated middle-aged woman with a pox mark on her leg, swollen lymph nodes, and joint pain. In both cases, symptoms improved within 3 weeks.

This isn’t the first time the so-called Alaskapox virus has been detected in the region. In 2015, a woman living near Fairbanks turned up at her doctor’s office with a single reddened pox-like mark on her upper arm and a feeling of fatigue.

Sampling of the pox mark showed that it was caused by a previously unidentified virus of the same family as smallpox and cowpox.

Five years later, another woman showed up with similar signs and symptoms, and her pox also proved to be the result of what public health experts started calling the Alaskapox virus.

In both cases, the women recovered completely.
 

Smallpox-like illness

Public health sleuths figured out that in three of the four cases, the patients lived in a home with a cat or cats, and one of these cats was known to hunt small animals.

Experts already knew that cats mingling in cow pastures and sickened by cattle virus had helped cowpox make the leap from bovines to humans. And just as in the case of cowpox, they suspected that cats might again be spreading this new virus to people, too.

All four of the infected people lived in sparsely populated areas amid forests. Officials laid animal traps where some of the affected people lived and identified the virus in several species of small wild animals.

The animals that turned up most often with Alaskapox were small mouse-like voles. The rodents with rounded muzzles are known for burrowing in the region. And scientists suspect the Alaskapox virus makes its way from these wild animals to humans through their pet cats or possibly by direct exposure outdoors.

None of the four people identified so far with Alaskapox knew each other or interacted, so officials also suspect that there are more cases going unrecognized, possibly because the symptoms are mild or nonexistent.

There are no documented cases of person-to-person transmission of Alaskapox, according to public health officials monitoring the small number of cases. But other pox viruses can spread by direct contact with skin lesions, so clinicians are recommending that people cover wounds with bandages. Three of the people with Alaskapox mistook their lesions at first for a bite from a spider or insect.

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

The director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention late Thursday overruled the recommendation of the agency’s advisory panel to broaden the number of Americans who are now eligible for a third dose of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine.

The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices earlier Thursday voted to allow several groups of Americans to get a booster shot, but voted not to recommend it for adults age 18 to 64 who live or work in a place where the risk of COVID-19 is high. That would have included health care workers and other frontline employees.

But CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, decided to reverse that recommendation and include the 18-to-64-year-olds in her final decision.

“As CDC Director, it is my job to recognize where our actions can have the greatest impact,” Dr. Walensky said in a statement late Thursday night, according to published reports. “At CDC, we are tasked with analyzing complex, often imperfect data to make concrete recommendations that optimize health. In a pandemic, even with uncertainty, we must take actions that we anticipate will do the greatest good.”

Dr. Walensky agreed with the rest of the advisory committee's decisions, which included recommendations that the following groups also be eligible for a booster shot:

• Adults ages 65 and up and residents of long-term care facilities
• Adults ages 50 to 64 who have an underlying medical condition that may increase their risk from a COVID infection
• Adults ages 18 to 49 who may be at increased risk from a COVID-19 infection because of an underlying medical condition, if a person feels like they need one based on a consideration of their individual benefit and risks.

About 26 million Americans are at least 6 months past the last dose of the Pfizer vaccines, making them eligible to receive a third dose.  About 13.6 million of them are over the age of 65.  Another 5.3 million are ages 50 to 64.

In making the recommendations, the committee left out healthcare workers. This was a departure from the Food and Drug Administration’s authorization which included boosters for those 65 and over, and for people 18 through 64 years of age who are at high risk for severe illness from the coronavirus, including essential workers – such as those in healthcare -- whose jobs increase their risk for infection.

This is the group Dr. Walensky added to the eligible list on her own.

Committee members “did not buy the need in occupational or institutional settings,” said William Schaffner, MD, an infectious disease specialist at Vanderbilt University in Nashville.  Dr. Schaffner sits on the ACIP workgroup that considered the evidence behind boosters. He said that he would have voted yes to offer boosters to healthcare and other essential workers.

“There was a real split in the committee,” he said.

The vote on boosters for healthcare and other high-risk workers was rejected 9 to 6.

“I think that there is ample evidence that people such as healthcare workers do not have repeated exposure in the workplace,” said Beth Bell, MD, a clinical professor at the University of Washington. “They’re using PPE as they should and they’re following the other policies within the healthcare setting. There’s lots of evidence that suggest that health care workers who become infected become infected because of exposures in the community.”

She was not alone in feeling cautious.

“I think this is an extremely slippery slope,” said Sarah Long, MD, a pediatric infectious disease specialist at Drexel University in Philadelphia, before her vote to reject boosters for healthcare and other high-risk workers.

“We might as well just say, ‘Give it to everybody 18 and over.’ We have an extremely effective vaccine. It’s like saying it’s not working, and it is working.”

The committee saw data showing that all of the vaccines remain highly protective against hospitalization and death for all age groups, though protection against getting sick with COVID has waned slightly over time and with the dominance of the more contagious Delta variant. Those at highest risk for a severe breakthrough infection — those that cause hospitalization or death — are older adults.
 

How much will the U.S. benefit from boosters?

Some felt squeamish about broadly recommending boosters at all.

“We have too much hope on the line with these boosters,” said James Loehr, MD, who is a family physician in Ithaca, N.Y. Dr. Loehr said he felt the goal of giving boosters in the United States should be to decrease hospitalizations, and he felt they would, but that the impact would likely be smaller than appreciated.

Based on his calculations of the benefits of boosters for each age group, Dr. Loehr said if boosters were given to all 13 million seniors previously vaccinated with the Pfizer vaccine, we might prevent 200 hospitalizations a day, “which would be a lot,” he noted. But, he said, “considering that we have 10,000 hospitalizations a day now, it’s probably not that much.”

Others agreed.

“I really think this is a solution looking for a problem,” said Jason Goldman, MD, an associate professor at Florida Atlantic University who was representing the American College of Physicians. “You know, I don’t think it’s going to address the issue of the pandemic. I really think it’s just going to create more confusion on the provider from the position of implementation, and I really think it’s going really far afield of the data.”

ACIP Chair Grace Lee, MD, a pediatric infectious disease specialist at Stanford, said she had cared for children who had died of COVID.

“I can tell you that their family members really wished they had extra protection for their kids, because they weren’t symptomatic. Nobody else was sick at home,” she said.

Dr. Lee said for her, access was paramount, and she was in favor of expanding access to boosters for as many people as possible.
 

Next steps

People who were initially vaccinated with either Moderna or Johnson & Johnson vaccines are excluded from booster recommendations, something many on the committee were uncomfortable with.

The FDA is still considering Moderna’s application to market booster doses. Johnson & Johnson hasn’t yet applied to the FDA for permission to offer second doses in the United States.

While the ACIP’s recommendations are important, in this case, they may not have a huge practical effect, said Schaffner. The CDC has already approved third shots for people who are immunocompromised, and no proof of a medical condition is required to get one.

More than 2 million people have already gotten a third dose, he noted, and not all of them are immunocompromised.

“They have heard the president say that, you know, everybody should get a booster, and they’ve taken that at face value,” he said.

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

The director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention late Thursday overruled the recommendation of the agency’s advisory panel to broaden the number of Americans who are now eligible for a third dose of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine.

The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices earlier Thursday voted to allow several groups of Americans to get a booster shot, but voted not to recommend it for adults age 18 to 64 who live or work in a place where the risk of COVID-19 is high. That would have included health care workers and other frontline employees.

But CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, decided to reverse that recommendation and include the 18-to-64-year-olds in her final decision.

“As CDC Director, it is my job to recognize where our actions can have the greatest impact,” Dr. Walensky said in a statement late Thursday night, according to published reports. “At CDC, we are tasked with analyzing complex, often imperfect data to make concrete recommendations that optimize health. In a pandemic, even with uncertainty, we must take actions that we anticipate will do the greatest good.”

Dr. Walensky agreed with the rest of the advisory committee's decisions, which included recommendations that the following groups also be eligible for a booster shot:

• Adults ages 65 and up and residents of long-term care facilities
• Adults ages 50 to 64 who have an underlying medical condition that may increase their risk from a COVID infection
• Adults ages 18 to 49 who may be at increased risk from a COVID-19 infection because of an underlying medical condition, if a person feels like they need one based on a consideration of their individual benefit and risks.

About 26 million Americans are at least 6 months past the last dose of the Pfizer vaccines, making them eligible to receive a third dose.  About 13.6 million of them are over the age of 65.  Another 5.3 million are ages 50 to 64.

In making the recommendations, the committee left out healthcare workers. This was a departure from the Food and Drug Administration’s authorization which included boosters for those 65 and over, and for people 18 through 64 years of age who are at high risk for severe illness from the coronavirus, including essential workers – such as those in healthcare -- whose jobs increase their risk for infection.

This is the group Dr. Walensky added to the eligible list on her own.

Committee members “did not buy the need in occupational or institutional settings,” said William Schaffner, MD, an infectious disease specialist at Vanderbilt University in Nashville.  Dr. Schaffner sits on the ACIP workgroup that considered the evidence behind boosters. He said that he would have voted yes to offer boosters to healthcare and other essential workers.

“There was a real split in the committee,” he said.

The vote on boosters for healthcare and other high-risk workers was rejected 9 to 6.

“I think that there is ample evidence that people such as healthcare workers do not have repeated exposure in the workplace,” said Beth Bell, MD, a clinical professor at the University of Washington. “They’re using PPE as they should and they’re following the other policies within the healthcare setting. There’s lots of evidence that suggest that health care workers who become infected become infected because of exposures in the community.”

She was not alone in feeling cautious.

“I think this is an extremely slippery slope,” said Sarah Long, MD, a pediatric infectious disease specialist at Drexel University in Philadelphia, before her vote to reject boosters for healthcare and other high-risk workers.

“We might as well just say, ‘Give it to everybody 18 and over.’ We have an extremely effective vaccine. It’s like saying it’s not working, and it is working.”

The committee saw data showing that all of the vaccines remain highly protective against hospitalization and death for all age groups, though protection against getting sick with COVID has waned slightly over time and with the dominance of the more contagious Delta variant. Those at highest risk for a severe breakthrough infection — those that cause hospitalization or death — are older adults.
 

How much will the U.S. benefit from boosters?

Some felt squeamish about broadly recommending boosters at all.

“We have too much hope on the line with these boosters,” said James Loehr, MD, who is a family physician in Ithaca, N.Y. Dr. Loehr said he felt the goal of giving boosters in the United States should be to decrease hospitalizations, and he felt they would, but that the impact would likely be smaller than appreciated.

Based on his calculations of the benefits of boosters for each age group, Dr. Loehr said if boosters were given to all 13 million seniors previously vaccinated with the Pfizer vaccine, we might prevent 200 hospitalizations a day, “which would be a lot,” he noted. But, he said, “considering that we have 10,000 hospitalizations a day now, it’s probably not that much.”

Others agreed.

“I really think this is a solution looking for a problem,” said Jason Goldman, MD, an associate professor at Florida Atlantic University who was representing the American College of Physicians. “You know, I don’t think it’s going to address the issue of the pandemic. I really think it’s just going to create more confusion on the provider from the position of implementation, and I really think it’s going really far afield of the data.”

ACIP Chair Grace Lee, MD, a pediatric infectious disease specialist at Stanford, said she had cared for children who had died of COVID.

“I can tell you that their family members really wished they had extra protection for their kids, because they weren’t symptomatic. Nobody else was sick at home,” she said.

Dr. Lee said for her, access was paramount, and she was in favor of expanding access to boosters for as many people as possible.
 

Next steps

People who were initially vaccinated with either Moderna or Johnson & Johnson vaccines are excluded from booster recommendations, something many on the committee were uncomfortable with.

The FDA is still considering Moderna’s application to market booster doses. Johnson & Johnson hasn’t yet applied to the FDA for permission to offer second doses in the United States.

While the ACIP’s recommendations are important, in this case, they may not have a huge practical effect, said Schaffner. The CDC has already approved third shots for people who are immunocompromised, and no proof of a medical condition is required to get one.

More than 2 million people have already gotten a third dose, he noted, and not all of them are immunocompromised.

“They have heard the president say that, you know, everybody should get a booster, and they’ve taken that at face value,” he said.

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

The director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention late Thursday overruled the recommendation of the agency’s advisory panel to broaden the number of Americans who are now eligible for a third dose of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine.

The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices earlier Thursday voted to allow several groups of Americans to get a booster shot, but voted not to recommend it for adults age 18 to 64 who live or work in a place where the risk of COVID-19 is high. That would have included health care workers and other frontline employees.

But CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, decided to reverse that recommendation and include the 18-to-64-year-olds in her final decision.

“As CDC Director, it is my job to recognize where our actions can have the greatest impact,” Dr. Walensky said in a statement late Thursday night, according to published reports. “At CDC, we are tasked with analyzing complex, often imperfect data to make concrete recommendations that optimize health. In a pandemic, even with uncertainty, we must take actions that we anticipate will do the greatest good.”

Dr. Walensky agreed with the rest of the advisory committee's decisions, which included recommendations that the following groups also be eligible for a booster shot:

• Adults ages 65 and up and residents of long-term care facilities
• Adults ages 50 to 64 who have an underlying medical condition that may increase their risk from a COVID infection
• Adults ages 18 to 49 who may be at increased risk from a COVID-19 infection because of an underlying medical condition, if a person feels like they need one based on a consideration of their individual benefit and risks.

About 26 million Americans are at least 6 months past the last dose of the Pfizer vaccines, making them eligible to receive a third dose.  About 13.6 million of them are over the age of 65.  Another 5.3 million are ages 50 to 64.

In making the recommendations, the committee left out healthcare workers. This was a departure from the Food and Drug Administration’s authorization which included boosters for those 65 and over, and for people 18 through 64 years of age who are at high risk for severe illness from the coronavirus, including essential workers – such as those in healthcare -- whose jobs increase their risk for infection.

This is the group Dr. Walensky added to the eligible list on her own.

Committee members “did not buy the need in occupational or institutional settings,” said William Schaffner, MD, an infectious disease specialist at Vanderbilt University in Nashville.  Dr. Schaffner sits on the ACIP workgroup that considered the evidence behind boosters. He said that he would have voted yes to offer boosters to healthcare and other essential workers.

“There was a real split in the committee,” he said.

The vote on boosters for healthcare and other high-risk workers was rejected 9 to 6.

“I think that there is ample evidence that people such as healthcare workers do not have repeated exposure in the workplace,” said Beth Bell, MD, a clinical professor at the University of Washington. “They’re using PPE as they should and they’re following the other policies within the healthcare setting. There’s lots of evidence that suggest that health care workers who become infected become infected because of exposures in the community.”

She was not alone in feeling cautious.

“I think this is an extremely slippery slope,” said Sarah Long, MD, a pediatric infectious disease specialist at Drexel University in Philadelphia, before her vote to reject boosters for healthcare and other high-risk workers.

“We might as well just say, ‘Give it to everybody 18 and over.’ We have an extremely effective vaccine. It’s like saying it’s not working, and it is working.”

The committee saw data showing that all of the vaccines remain highly protective against hospitalization and death for all age groups, though protection against getting sick with COVID has waned slightly over time and with the dominance of the more contagious Delta variant. Those at highest risk for a severe breakthrough infection — those that cause hospitalization or death — are older adults.
 

How much will the U.S. benefit from boosters?

Some felt squeamish about broadly recommending boosters at all.

“We have too much hope on the line with these boosters,” said James Loehr, MD, who is a family physician in Ithaca, N.Y. Dr. Loehr said he felt the goal of giving boosters in the United States should be to decrease hospitalizations, and he felt they would, but that the impact would likely be smaller than appreciated.

Based on his calculations of the benefits of boosters for each age group, Dr. Loehr said if boosters were given to all 13 million seniors previously vaccinated with the Pfizer vaccine, we might prevent 200 hospitalizations a day, “which would be a lot,” he noted. But, he said, “considering that we have 10,000 hospitalizations a day now, it’s probably not that much.”

Others agreed.

“I really think this is a solution looking for a problem,” said Jason Goldman, MD, an associate professor at Florida Atlantic University who was representing the American College of Physicians. “You know, I don’t think it’s going to address the issue of the pandemic. I really think it’s just going to create more confusion on the provider from the position of implementation, and I really think it’s going really far afield of the data.”

ACIP Chair Grace Lee, MD, a pediatric infectious disease specialist at Stanford, said she had cared for children who had died of COVID.

“I can tell you that their family members really wished they had extra protection for their kids, because they weren’t symptomatic. Nobody else was sick at home,” she said.

Dr. Lee said for her, access was paramount, and she was in favor of expanding access to boosters for as many people as possible.
 

Next steps

People who were initially vaccinated with either Moderna or Johnson & Johnson vaccines are excluded from booster recommendations, something many on the committee were uncomfortable with.

The FDA is still considering Moderna’s application to market booster doses. Johnson & Johnson hasn’t yet applied to the FDA for permission to offer second doses in the United States.

While the ACIP’s recommendations are important, in this case, they may not have a huge practical effect, said Schaffner. The CDC has already approved third shots for people who are immunocompromised, and no proof of a medical condition is required to get one.

More than 2 million people have already gotten a third dose, he noted, and not all of them are immunocompromised.

“They have heard the president say that, you know, everybody should get a booster, and they’ve taken that at face value,” he said.

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

How often do you find yourself on social media? The first thing I do when I wake up is check my email and text messages, as well as my Facebook, Snapchat, and Instagram notifications.

Some 150,000 messages are shared on Facebook each minute; 293 million daily active users worldwide were recorded on Snapchat during the second quarter of 2021; 127.2 million monthly active users in the United States are projected to be on Instagram by 2023.

Social media has gained the hearts and wonder of many around the world. It’s absolutely incredible how ingrained it has become in our lives as a medium for creativity, outlet for communication, and platform for information. In fact, these online network tools have now become essential during COVID-19 to ensure productive workflow, keep in touch with our loved ones, and, overall, maintain social capital. Social media has truly emerged as a powerful form of living beyond our physical selves.

Yet, increased (and addictive) social media use is associated with negative health outcomes, especially among adolescents. For example, in a study reporting parent and adolescent accounts of social media use, it was reported that social media use was associated with hyperactivity/impulsivity, depression, anxiety, loneliness, and a fear of missing out. Furthermore, a meta-analysis investigating the relationship between social media use and depressive symptoms among adolescents found a small but significant and positive relationship between the two. However, additional research is required to elucidate this association.

Notwithstanding, the addictive nature of social media has previously been called out as analogous to the addictive nature of gambling. Let’s think about it. Whether you’re on Instagram, TikTok, or a similar platform, you can’t help but scroll from one video to the next. It’s one 5- to 10-second video after the next, and before you know it, you’ve spent the past hour going through random videos – but you can’t stop. Why is that so?

Social media actually “rewires” our brain such that we expect instant gratification. In other words, when we get a notification, message, like, or share, we expect fast and short-term pleasure/reward because the brain will produce a “hit of dopamine.” However, it is important to note that the reward system is not delimited to the dopaminergic pathway and, in fact, should be understood as a complex network system (i.e., governed by changes in brain morphology through addiction and excessive behavior). Given the quick pace of the social media world, the reward pathways in our brain change and there’s an increasing demand for attention, perpetuating an addictive mindset.

Maskot/Getty Images

When we refresh our page, we expect instant gratification. But what happens when we don’t get a like, or a message, or some sort of “reward”? Recounts of social media use by adolescents have likened online attention to popularity. Accordingly, a lack of constant attention on social media has created a vicious cycle of anxiety, loneliness, and depression because of a failure to receive “virtual” reward. Taken together, social media may be harmful because it distorts our self-image, and while social media platforms help connect us, they can also ironically make us feel isolated, lower our self-confidence, and diminish our overall sense of well-being.

As the platforms for communication and information have evolved so rapidly over the past decade, there is a need to establish boundaries between what is beneficial and what is potentially detrimental to our mental health. While social media companies should play a role in mitigating addictive social network behavior, it would also seem counterintuitive to the general business model. In that case, who takes charge? Perhaps teachers, guardians, health care providers, and the government need to play a role in teaching and training individuals how to manage their social media consumption. This multifaceted problem requires a multidisciplinary approach.

Leanna M.W. Lui is an MSc candidate at the University of Toronto.

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

How often do you find yourself on social media? The first thing I do when I wake up is check my email and text messages, as well as my Facebook, Snapchat, and Instagram notifications.

Some 150,000 messages are shared on Facebook each minute; 293 million daily active users worldwide were recorded on Snapchat during the second quarter of 2021; 127.2 million monthly active users in the United States are projected to be on Instagram by 2023.

Social media has gained the hearts and wonder of many around the world. It’s absolutely incredible how ingrained it has become in our lives as a medium for creativity, outlet for communication, and platform for information. In fact, these online network tools have now become essential during COVID-19 to ensure productive workflow, keep in touch with our loved ones, and, overall, maintain social capital. Social media has truly emerged as a powerful form of living beyond our physical selves.

Yet, increased (and addictive) social media use is associated with negative health outcomes, especially among adolescents. For example, in a study reporting parent and adolescent accounts of social media use, it was reported that social media use was associated with hyperactivity/impulsivity, depression, anxiety, loneliness, and a fear of missing out. Furthermore, a meta-analysis investigating the relationship between social media use and depressive symptoms among adolescents found a small but significant and positive relationship between the two. However, additional research is required to elucidate this association.

Notwithstanding, the addictive nature of social media has previously been called out as analogous to the addictive nature of gambling. Let’s think about it. Whether you’re on Instagram, TikTok, or a similar platform, you can’t help but scroll from one video to the next. It’s one 5- to 10-second video after the next, and before you know it, you’ve spent the past hour going through random videos – but you can’t stop. Why is that so?

Social media actually “rewires” our brain such that we expect instant gratification. In other words, when we get a notification, message, like, or share, we expect fast and short-term pleasure/reward because the brain will produce a “hit of dopamine.” However, it is important to note that the reward system is not delimited to the dopaminergic pathway and, in fact, should be understood as a complex network system (i.e., governed by changes in brain morphology through addiction and excessive behavior). Given the quick pace of the social media world, the reward pathways in our brain change and there’s an increasing demand for attention, perpetuating an addictive mindset.

Maskot/Getty Images

When we refresh our page, we expect instant gratification. But what happens when we don’t get a like, or a message, or some sort of “reward”? Recounts of social media use by adolescents have likened online attention to popularity. Accordingly, a lack of constant attention on social media has created a vicious cycle of anxiety, loneliness, and depression because of a failure to receive “virtual” reward. Taken together, social media may be harmful because it distorts our self-image, and while social media platforms help connect us, they can also ironically make us feel isolated, lower our self-confidence, and diminish our overall sense of well-being.

As the platforms for communication and information have evolved so rapidly over the past decade, there is a need to establish boundaries between what is beneficial and what is potentially detrimental to our mental health. While social media companies should play a role in mitigating addictive social network behavior, it would also seem counterintuitive to the general business model. In that case, who takes charge? Perhaps teachers, guardians, health care providers, and the government need to play a role in teaching and training individuals how to manage their social media consumption. This multifaceted problem requires a multidisciplinary approach.

Leanna M.W. Lui is an MSc candidate at the University of Toronto.

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

How often do you find yourself on social media? The first thing I do when I wake up is check my email and text messages, as well as my Facebook, Snapchat, and Instagram notifications.

Some 150,000 messages are shared on Facebook each minute; 293 million daily active users worldwide were recorded on Snapchat during the second quarter of 2021; 127.2 million monthly active users in the United States are projected to be on Instagram by 2023.

Social media has gained the hearts and wonder of many around the world. It’s absolutely incredible how ingrained it has become in our lives as a medium for creativity, outlet for communication, and platform for information. In fact, these online network tools have now become essential during COVID-19 to ensure productive workflow, keep in touch with our loved ones, and, overall, maintain social capital. Social media has truly emerged as a powerful form of living beyond our physical selves.

Yet, increased (and addictive) social media use is associated with negative health outcomes, especially among adolescents. For example, in a study reporting parent and adolescent accounts of social media use, it was reported that social media use was associated with hyperactivity/impulsivity, depression, anxiety, loneliness, and a fear of missing out. Furthermore, a meta-analysis investigating the relationship between social media use and depressive symptoms among adolescents found a small but significant and positive relationship between the two. However, additional research is required to elucidate this association.

Notwithstanding, the addictive nature of social media has previously been called out as analogous to the addictive nature of gambling. Let’s think about it. Whether you’re on Instagram, TikTok, or a similar platform, you can’t help but scroll from one video to the next. It’s one 5- to 10-second video after the next, and before you know it, you’ve spent the past hour going through random videos – but you can’t stop. Why is that so?

Social media actually “rewires” our brain such that we expect instant gratification. In other words, when we get a notification, message, like, or share, we expect fast and short-term pleasure/reward because the brain will produce a “hit of dopamine.” However, it is important to note that the reward system is not delimited to the dopaminergic pathway and, in fact, should be understood as a complex network system (i.e., governed by changes in brain morphology through addiction and excessive behavior). Given the quick pace of the social media world, the reward pathways in our brain change and there’s an increasing demand for attention, perpetuating an addictive mindset.

Maskot/Getty Images

When we refresh our page, we expect instant gratification. But what happens when we don’t get a like, or a message, or some sort of “reward”? Recounts of social media use by adolescents have likened online attention to popularity. Accordingly, a lack of constant attention on social media has created a vicious cycle of anxiety, loneliness, and depression because of a failure to receive “virtual” reward. Taken together, social media may be harmful because it distorts our self-image, and while social media platforms help connect us, they can also ironically make us feel isolated, lower our self-confidence, and diminish our overall sense of well-being.

As the platforms for communication and information have evolved so rapidly over the past decade, there is a need to establish boundaries between what is beneficial and what is potentially detrimental to our mental health. While social media companies should play a role in mitigating addictive social network behavior, it would also seem counterintuitive to the general business model. In that case, who takes charge? Perhaps teachers, guardians, health care providers, and the government need to play a role in teaching and training individuals how to manage their social media consumption. This multifaceted problem requires a multidisciplinary approach.

Leanna M.W. Lui is an MSc candidate at the University of Toronto.

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

A strain of COVID-19 first reported in Japan surfaced at a Kentucky nursing home in the spring.

Deadline, citing a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report, said 26 residents and 20 workers tested positive for COVID-19 at a skilled care nursing home. The facility has 83 residents and 116 employees.

On March 1, 28 specimens that had been subjected to whole genome sequencing were found to have “mutations aligning with the R.1 lineage,” Deadline said.

About 90% of the facility’s residents and 52% of the staff had received two COVID vaccine doses, the CDC said. Because of the high vaccination rate, the finding raises concerns about “reduced protective immunity” in relation to the R.1 variant, the CDC said.

However, the nursing home case appears to show that the vaccine keeps most people from getting extremely sick, the CDC said. The vaccine was 86.5% protective against symptomatic illness among residents and 87.1% protective for employees.

“Compared with unvaccinated persons, vaccinated persons had reduced risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection and symptomatic COVID-19,” the CDC said. The vaccination of nursing home residents and health care workers “is essential to reduce the risk for symptomatic COVID-19, as is continued focus on infection prevention and control practices,” the CDC said.

Since being reported in Kentucky, R.1 has been detected more than 10,000 times in the United States, Forbes reported, basing that number on entries in the GISAID SARS-CoV-2 database.

Overall, more than 42 million cases of COVID have been reported since the start of the pandemic.

Deadline reported that the R.1 strain was first detected in Japan in January among three members of one family. The family members had no history of traveling abroad, Deadline said, citing an National Institutes of Health report.

The CDC has not classified R.1 as a variant of concern yet but noted it has “several mutations of importance” and “demonstrates evidence of increasing virus transmissibility.”

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

A strain of COVID-19 first reported in Japan surfaced at a Kentucky nursing home in the spring.

Deadline, citing a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report, said 26 residents and 20 workers tested positive for COVID-19 at a skilled care nursing home. The facility has 83 residents and 116 employees.

On March 1, 28 specimens that had been subjected to whole genome sequencing were found to have “mutations aligning with the R.1 lineage,” Deadline said.

About 90% of the facility’s residents and 52% of the staff had received two COVID vaccine doses, the CDC said. Because of the high vaccination rate, the finding raises concerns about “reduced protective immunity” in relation to the R.1 variant, the CDC said.

However, the nursing home case appears to show that the vaccine keeps most people from getting extremely sick, the CDC said. The vaccine was 86.5% protective against symptomatic illness among residents and 87.1% protective for employees.

“Compared with unvaccinated persons, vaccinated persons had reduced risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection and symptomatic COVID-19,” the CDC said. The vaccination of nursing home residents and health care workers “is essential to reduce the risk for symptomatic COVID-19, as is continued focus on infection prevention and control practices,” the CDC said.

Since being reported in Kentucky, R.1 has been detected more than 10,000 times in the United States, Forbes reported, basing that number on entries in the GISAID SARS-CoV-2 database.

Overall, more than 42 million cases of COVID have been reported since the start of the pandemic.

Deadline reported that the R.1 strain was first detected in Japan in January among three members of one family. The family members had no history of traveling abroad, Deadline said, citing an National Institutes of Health report.

The CDC has not classified R.1 as a variant of concern yet but noted it has “several mutations of importance” and “demonstrates evidence of increasing virus transmissibility.”

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

A strain of COVID-19 first reported in Japan surfaced at a Kentucky nursing home in the spring.

Deadline, citing a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report, said 26 residents and 20 workers tested positive for COVID-19 at a skilled care nursing home. The facility has 83 residents and 116 employees.

On March 1, 28 specimens that had been subjected to whole genome sequencing were found to have “mutations aligning with the R.1 lineage,” Deadline said.

About 90% of the facility’s residents and 52% of the staff had received two COVID vaccine doses, the CDC said. Because of the high vaccination rate, the finding raises concerns about “reduced protective immunity” in relation to the R.1 variant, the CDC said.

However, the nursing home case appears to show that the vaccine keeps most people from getting extremely sick, the CDC said. The vaccine was 86.5% protective against symptomatic illness among residents and 87.1% protective for employees.

“Compared with unvaccinated persons, vaccinated persons had reduced risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection and symptomatic COVID-19,” the CDC said. The vaccination of nursing home residents and health care workers “is essential to reduce the risk for symptomatic COVID-19, as is continued focus on infection prevention and control practices,” the CDC said.

Since being reported in Kentucky, R.1 has been detected more than 10,000 times in the United States, Forbes reported, basing that number on entries in the GISAID SARS-CoV-2 database.

Overall, more than 42 million cases of COVID have been reported since the start of the pandemic.

Deadline reported that the R.1 strain was first detected in Japan in January among three members of one family. The family members had no history of traveling abroad, Deadline said, citing an National Institutes of Health report.

The CDC has not classified R.1 as a variant of concern yet but noted it has “several mutations of importance” and “demonstrates evidence of increasing virus transmissibility.”

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

Women who receive COVID-19 vaccines during pregnancy pass antibodies to their babies, which could protect newborns from the disease, research has shown.

In a new study that examines umbilical cord blood from 36 deliveries, researchers provide additional evidence that vaccines – and not COVID-19 infections – elicited the antibodies detected in this cohort.

Researchers with New York University Langone Health conducted a study that included pregnant women who had received at least one dose of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine (Pfizer/BioNTech or Moderna) by June 4.

All neonates had antibodies to the spike protein at high titers, the researchers found.

Unlike similar prior studies, the researchers also looked for antibodies to the nucleocapsid protein, which would have indicated the presence of antibodies from natural COVID-19 infection. They did not detect antibodies to the nucleocapsid protein, and the lack of these antibodies suggests that the antibodies to the spike protein resulted from vaccination and not from prior infection, the researchers said.

The participants had a median time from completion of the vaccine series to delivery of 13 weeks. The study was published online in the American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology MFM.

“The presence of these anti-spike antibodies in the cord blood should, at least in theory, offer these newborns some degree of protection,” said study investigator Ashley S. Roman, MD, director of the division of maternal-fetal medicine at NYU Langone Health. “While the primary rationale for vaccination during pregnancy is to keep moms healthy and keep moms out of the hospital, the outstanding question to us was whether there is any fetal or neonatal benefit conferred by receiving the vaccine during pregnancy.”

Questions remain about the degree and durability of protection for newborns from these antibodies. An ongoing study, MOMI-VAX, aims to systematically measure antibody levels in mothers who receive COVID-19 vaccines during pregnancy and in their babies over time.

The present study contributes welcome preliminary evidence suggesting a benefit to infants, said Emily Adhikari, MD, of the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas, who was not involved in the study.

Still, “the main concern and our priority as obstetricians is to vaccinate pregnant women to protect them from severe or critical illness,” she said.

Although most individuals infected with SARS-CoV-2 recover, a significant portion of pregnant women get seriously sick, Dr. Adhikari said. “With this recent Delta surge, we are seeing more pregnant patients who are sicker,” said Dr. Adhikari, who has published research from one hospital describing this trend.

When weighing whether patients should receive COVID-19 vaccines in pregnancy, the risks from infection have outweighed any risk from vaccination to such an extent that there is “not a comparison to make,” Dr. Adhikari said. “The risks of the infection are so much higher.

“For me, it is a matter of making sure that my patient understands that we have really good safety data on these vaccines and there is no reason to think that a pregnant person would be harmed by them. On the contrary, the benefit is to protect and maybe even save your life,” Dr. Adhikari said. “And now we have more evidence that the fetus may also benefit.”

The rationale for vaccinations during pregnancy can vary, Dr. Roman said. Flu shots in pregnancy mainly are intended to protect the mother, though they confer protection for newborns as well. With the whooping cough vaccine given in the third trimester, however, the primary aim is to protect the baby from whooping cough in the first months of life, Dr. Roman said.

“I think it is really important for pregnant women to understand that antibodies crossing the placenta is a good thing,” she added.

As patients who already have received COVID-19 vaccines become pregnant and may become eligible for a booster dose, Dr. Adhikari will offer it, she said, though she has confidence in the protection provided by the initial immune response.

Dr. Roman and Dr. Adhikari had no disclosures.

[email protected]

Women who receive COVID-19 vaccines during pregnancy pass antibodies to their babies, which could protect newborns from the disease, research has shown.

In a new study that examines umbilical cord blood from 36 deliveries, researchers provide additional evidence that vaccines – and not COVID-19 infections – elicited the antibodies detected in this cohort.

Researchers with New York University Langone Health conducted a study that included pregnant women who had received at least one dose of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine (Pfizer/BioNTech or Moderna) by June 4.

All neonates had antibodies to the spike protein at high titers, the researchers found.

Unlike similar prior studies, the researchers also looked for antibodies to the nucleocapsid protein, which would have indicated the presence of antibodies from natural COVID-19 infection. They did not detect antibodies to the nucleocapsid protein, and the lack of these antibodies suggests that the antibodies to the spike protein resulted from vaccination and not from prior infection, the researchers said.

The participants had a median time from completion of the vaccine series to delivery of 13 weeks. The study was published online in the American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology MFM.

“The presence of these anti-spike antibodies in the cord blood should, at least in theory, offer these newborns some degree of protection,” said study investigator Ashley S. Roman, MD, director of the division of maternal-fetal medicine at NYU Langone Health. “While the primary rationale for vaccination during pregnancy is to keep moms healthy and keep moms out of the hospital, the outstanding question to us was whether there is any fetal or neonatal benefit conferred by receiving the vaccine during pregnancy.”

Questions remain about the degree and durability of protection for newborns from these antibodies. An ongoing study, MOMI-VAX, aims to systematically measure antibody levels in mothers who receive COVID-19 vaccines during pregnancy and in their babies over time.

The present study contributes welcome preliminary evidence suggesting a benefit to infants, said Emily Adhikari, MD, of the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas, who was not involved in the study.

Still, “the main concern and our priority as obstetricians is to vaccinate pregnant women to protect them from severe or critical illness,” she said.

Although most individuals infected with SARS-CoV-2 recover, a significant portion of pregnant women get seriously sick, Dr. Adhikari said. “With this recent Delta surge, we are seeing more pregnant patients who are sicker,” said Dr. Adhikari, who has published research from one hospital describing this trend.

When weighing whether patients should receive COVID-19 vaccines in pregnancy, the risks from infection have outweighed any risk from vaccination to such an extent that there is “not a comparison to make,” Dr. Adhikari said. “The risks of the infection are so much higher.

“For me, it is a matter of making sure that my patient understands that we have really good safety data on these vaccines and there is no reason to think that a pregnant person would be harmed by them. On the contrary, the benefit is to protect and maybe even save your life,” Dr. Adhikari said. “And now we have more evidence that the fetus may also benefit.”

The rationale for vaccinations during pregnancy can vary, Dr. Roman said. Flu shots in pregnancy mainly are intended to protect the mother, though they confer protection for newborns as well. With the whooping cough vaccine given in the third trimester, however, the primary aim is to protect the baby from whooping cough in the first months of life, Dr. Roman said.

“I think it is really important for pregnant women to understand that antibodies crossing the placenta is a good thing,” she added.

As patients who already have received COVID-19 vaccines become pregnant and may become eligible for a booster dose, Dr. Adhikari will offer it, she said, though she has confidence in the protection provided by the initial immune response.

Dr. Roman and Dr. Adhikari had no disclosures.

[email protected]

Women who receive COVID-19 vaccines during pregnancy pass antibodies to their babies, which could protect newborns from the disease, research has shown.

In a new study that examines umbilical cord blood from 36 deliveries, researchers provide additional evidence that vaccines – and not COVID-19 infections – elicited the antibodies detected in this cohort.

Researchers with New York University Langone Health conducted a study that included pregnant women who had received at least one dose of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine (Pfizer/BioNTech or Moderna) by June 4.

All neonates had antibodies to the spike protein at high titers, the researchers found.

Unlike similar prior studies, the researchers also looked for antibodies to the nucleocapsid protein, which would have indicated the presence of antibodies from natural COVID-19 infection. They did not detect antibodies to the nucleocapsid protein, and the lack of these antibodies suggests that the antibodies to the spike protein resulted from vaccination and not from prior infection, the researchers said.

The participants had a median time from completion of the vaccine series to delivery of 13 weeks. The study was published online in the American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology MFM.

“The presence of these anti-spike antibodies in the cord blood should, at least in theory, offer these newborns some degree of protection,” said study investigator Ashley S. Roman, MD, director of the division of maternal-fetal medicine at NYU Langone Health. “While the primary rationale for vaccination during pregnancy is to keep moms healthy and keep moms out of the hospital, the outstanding question to us was whether there is any fetal or neonatal benefit conferred by receiving the vaccine during pregnancy.”

Questions remain about the degree and durability of protection for newborns from these antibodies. An ongoing study, MOMI-VAX, aims to systematically measure antibody levels in mothers who receive COVID-19 vaccines during pregnancy and in their babies over time.

The present study contributes welcome preliminary evidence suggesting a benefit to infants, said Emily Adhikari, MD, of the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas, who was not involved in the study.

Still, “the main concern and our priority as obstetricians is to vaccinate pregnant women to protect them from severe or critical illness,” she said.

Although most individuals infected with SARS-CoV-2 recover, a significant portion of pregnant women get seriously sick, Dr. Adhikari said. “With this recent Delta surge, we are seeing more pregnant patients who are sicker,” said Dr. Adhikari, who has published research from one hospital describing this trend.

When weighing whether patients should receive COVID-19 vaccines in pregnancy, the risks from infection have outweighed any risk from vaccination to such an extent that there is “not a comparison to make,” Dr. Adhikari said. “The risks of the infection are so much higher.

“For me, it is a matter of making sure that my patient understands that we have really good safety data on these vaccines and there is no reason to think that a pregnant person would be harmed by them. On the contrary, the benefit is to protect and maybe even save your life,” Dr. Adhikari said. “And now we have more evidence that the fetus may also benefit.”

The rationale for vaccinations during pregnancy can vary, Dr. Roman said. Flu shots in pregnancy mainly are intended to protect the mother, though they confer protection for newborns as well. With the whooping cough vaccine given in the third trimester, however, the primary aim is to protect the baby from whooping cough in the first months of life, Dr. Roman said.

“I think it is really important for pregnant women to understand that antibodies crossing the placenta is a good thing,” she added.

As patients who already have received COVID-19 vaccines become pregnant and may become eligible for a booster dose, Dr. Adhikari will offer it, she said, though she has confidence in the protection provided by the initial immune response.

Dr. Roman and Dr. Adhikari had no disclosures.

[email protected]

Teens are identifying as transgender in record numbers. In 2017, 3-4 in 100 teens in the United States reported that they are or may be transgender. A more recent 2021 study suggests that the rate of transgender identification among America’s youth may be as high as 9 in 100. All of the major gender centers in the world have reported a several-thousand-percent increase in youth presenting with gender distress.

Origovisualis/Getty Images

How do we reconcile these numbers with 2013 data reporting the prevalence of adult gender dysphoria to be a rare 2-14 in 100,000? Reflection is warranted because many U.S. medical societies support providing youth who have transgender identification (over 1 million children and adolescents, using the latest estimates) with access to powerful endocrine interventions.

GnRH analogues (colloquially known as “puberty blockers”) are now available at Tanner stage 2 of puberty – a threshold crossed by females as young as 8-9 years old. Cross-sex hormones and surgeries follow, and mastectomies are now available to children as young as 13. Genital-altering surgeries, as well as the removal of the ovaries, uterus, and testes, can be obtained as soon as a patient turns 18.

What’s driving this massive increase in trans-identified youth? What are the risks, benefits, and uncertainties associated with hormonal and surgical interventions? Do such interventions improve the long-term psychological health of gender-dysphoric youth? How many will regret the irreversible changes made to their bodies during what may have been a temporary phase in their development?

We don’t know the answers to these questions, but we need to figure them out before offering such interventions. Frontline clinicians – especially those working with youth – will not be able to remain on the sidelines of this issue for much longer. Each clinician considering writing a prescription for puberty blockers or cross-sex hormones, or generating a referral for surgery, will need to answer for themselves: Just because I can, does it mean I should?

What’s contributing to the rapid rise of gender-dysphoric youth?

The etiology of the rapid rise of transgender identifications in young people is vigorously debated. Proponents of hormonal and surgical interventions for youth argue that the several-thousand-percent increase in the numbers of youth seeking gender reassignment is a reflection of more social acceptance of transgender identities, allowing more young people to “come out.” But closer examination of this claim reveals several inconsistencies.

Because adolescent and young adult females now account for 6-8 in 10 of the presenting cases (previously, prepubertal males were more common), one would expect a commensurate increase in the rate of transgender identification in older females. This has not occurred. In addition, more than three-quarters of currently presenting cases have significant mental health problems or suffer from neurocognitive comorbidities such as autism spectrum disorder or attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder – a much higher burden of mental health comorbidities than the historical cohort with gender dysphoria.

There is legitimate concern that these comorbid mental health conditions, as well as the influence of social groups and online immersion into transgender topics, may be playing a role in the rapidly growing rate of transgender identification among these particularly vulnerable youth.

The initial study positing the theory that social influence is playing a role in the increased incidence of “late” or adolescent-onset (vs. childhood-onset) transgender-identified youth was harshly attacked by proponents of medical transitioning of youth, despite the fact that the study utilized methods similar to those used in other areas of health research. The study underwent an unprecedented second peer review and emerged with largely unchanged conclusions.

Since the study’s publication, a number of mental health clinicians working directly with gender-distressed youth have corroborated a rapid onset of transgender identification among teens with previously gender-normative childhoods.

Pioneers in gender dysphoria treatment are changing course

Several European countries that were pioneers in pediatric medical transition are now reversing course toward far more caution after their own evidence evaluations failed to show that medically transitioning gender-distressed youth improves mental health outcomes. In Sweden, following Karolinska Hospital’s announcement that it will no longer transition people under 18 outside of strictly regulated clinical trials, a number of other pediatric gender clinics followed suit and made the same decision.

In the United Kingdom, Keira Bell – a young woman who was treated with “affirmative” hormonal and surgical interventions before detransitioning – brought a challenge against the national gender clinic. Her landmark case and the UK High Court’s original judgement against the clinic have highlighted the urgency to reassess treatment approaches for the increasingly varied presentations of gender dysphoria in young people. As this article went to press, the UK’s national gender clinic won its appeal against Keira Bell, meaning that doctors there will once again be able to decide whether their patients under 16 can properly consent to puberty blockers. Keira Bell said she is disappointed with this decision and will be seeking permission to appeal to the Supreme Court. She said the medical service had become “politicized,” and added: “A global conversation has begun and has been shaped by this case. It has shone a light into the dark corners of a medical scandal that is harming children and harmed me. There is more to be done.”

And the UK National Health Service (NHS) has already commissioned an independent systematic review of data, which concluded that the evidence of benefit of hormonal interventions in gender dysphoric youth is of very low certainty and must be carefully weighed against the risks. An independent taskforce has also been convened to reassess the country’s approach to treating gender dysphoric youth.

Finland has arguably undertaken the biggest change of all. An early adopter of pediatric medical transition, researchers there noticed that adolescents who had mental health struggles at baseline failed to improve after transition. The Finnish national Gender Identity Development services issued new treatment guidelines in 2020 stating that psychotherapy, rather than gender reassignment, should be the first line of treatment for gender-dysphoric youth.

Leaders of America’s medical societies have been slower to respond. Recently, the Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine applied to share information about youth gender transitions at the yearly meeting of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP). The application was denied without explanation, despite the fact that 80% of rank-and-file pediatricians who voted on AAP resolutions days earlier endorsed a resolution calling for a reassessment of the evidence and more caution regarding gender transitions of minors.

The AAP leadership apparently ignored the resounding support for this resolution, but the clear message from that vote is that frontline pediatricians do not agree with the “one size fits all” approach of automatically affirming gender-distressed youth as transgender and proceeding to gender reassignment.

What we know and don’t know


There is now growing evidence that the “gender-affirming” model, based on the unproven assumption that gender reassignment is the best way to help gender-distressed youth, is not living up to its promise. This should not be surprising. Despite more than 50 years of experience with mature adult gender transitions, there is a lack of convincing evidence that transitions improve the psychological functioning of those with gender dysphoria, and studies on regret have been plagued by high dropout rates that prevent meaningful conclusions for practitioners and patients alike. Pediatric transitions are a much more recent phenomenon, with little to no quality data to guide decision-making.

We are witnessing a growing number of vocal regretters who underwent gender reassignment as teens and young adults under “gender-affirming” care protocols in recent years. A review of stories on the subreddit r/detrans, which counts over 20,000 members (not all are detransitioners, as the forum is open to those fully detransitioned, partially detransitioned, desisted [those who identified as transgender for a period of time in their youth but no longer do], and questioning their transition) is flush with first-hand accounts of regret and should be mandatory reading for any clinician who is considering becoming a prescriber of gender-affirmative care.  

Here is a brief outline of what we know – and more importantly, what we don’t know – about the practice of medically transitioning minors.

Most cases of early childhood-onset gender dysphoria self-resolve. Eleven out of 11 studies that followed the trajectory of gender-variant youth show that the most common outcome is natural resolution of gender dysphoria around or after puberty. Among those diagnosed as having gender identity disorder, 67% no longer met the diagnostic criteria as adults; among those subthreshold for diagnosis, 93% were not gender dysphoric as adults. Gender dysphoria in childhood is a far better predictor of future homosexuality than of future trans identity.

The future trajectory of people whose transgender identity emerged during or after puberty is entirely unknown. No one has studied future trajectories of patients whose transgender identity emerged for the first time after the onset of puberty – a previously rare but now increasingly common presentation. Growing numbers of young detransitioners and desisters are precisely from this demographic, suggesting that a transgender identity that emerges in adolescence may not be durable.

Social transition does not improve mental health outcomes. Recent studies show that while socially transitioned children can thrive in the short term, they do not fare any better than their non–socially transitioned dysphoric peers. It appears that peer relations, not the social transition status, predict mental health in gender-dysphoric children. We don’t yet know the long-term trajectories of socially transitioned minors, but emerging evidence suggests that they may be more likely to persist with gender-related distress rather than outgrow it, as previously observed. This in turn necessitates decades of invasive and risky medical interventions. In fact, the Dutch researchers who pioneered the protocol used to medically transition minors explicitly and strongly discouraged social transition of children and early adolescents.

Nearly 100% of children who begin puberty blockers will proceed to cross-sex hormones and surgeries. The two main studies that have evaluated the effects of puberty blockers on mental health found no improvements or improvements of marginal clinical significance. Both studies are also at critical risk of bias due to the absence of control groups.

Four additional studies looking at the mental health effects of puberty blockers were plagued by design limitations and also failed to show any convincing positive effects on psychological health. However, one effect of puberty blockers has been consistently replicated: At least four studies show that virtually all of the children who start puberty blockers proceed to cross-sex hormones. This suggests that rather than being a pause button, puberty blockers may serve as the “gas pedal” for gender transition.

Most of the long-term health risks are largely unknown. No long-term studies exist of patients who underwent medical transition as teens or young adults. Therefore, our ability to assess risks vs. benefits is limited. Puberty blockers have been demonstrated to significantly impair bone health, and it is not clear whether this will result in future osteoporosis. Cross-sex hormones are associated with roughly 3-5 times the risk for heart attacks and strokes, though long-term studies are of insufficient quality for accurate risk assessments. Other risks associated with these endocrine interventions will come to light as the practice continues to scale and as young people spend years and decades on these interventions. The risks to fertility are largely unknown, but it is almost certain that if puberty blockers are given at the early stages of puberty and followed by cross-sex hormones, sterility will result.

The medical pathway of “affirmative care” rests on a single Dutch study that is not applicable to the current populations of gender-dysphoric youth. Most of the youth presenting for care today would have been explicitly disqualified by the original Dutch protocol, as most have significant mental health comorbidities and post-puberty onset of trans identities. This fact has been recognized by the principal investigators of the Dutch protocol itself, who have recently begun to sound the alarm about the potential misapplication of their protocol and who suggest that psychotherapy – rather than gender reassignment – is more appropriate for many of the currently presenting cases.

On suicidality

The urgency to put gender-dysphoric youth through gender reassignment despite the dearth of evidence appears to stem from the notion that if we don’t intervene medically and in short order, these youth will commit suicide. However, studies using quality data reveal a markedly different reality.

While gender-dysphoric youth do have elevated rates of suicidality, it’s not uniquely high. In fact, it’s roughly similar to the rate of suicidality found in populations of youth referred for other mental health conditions. Quality long-term studies that explored whether transition leads to reduced suicidality have not been able to demonstrate a reduction.

Medicine has a pattern of enthusiastically embracing unproven medical interventions, only to find out years or decades later that the harms from those interventions outweigh the benefits. We owe it to our patients to be transparent about the limits of our knowledge and the fact that the “affirmative care” pathway is largely irreversible.

When the benefits of an intervention have not been shown to outweigh the risks, medical ethics dictate that such interventions should not occur outside of clinical trials. We must not conflate medical care for gender-dysphoric youth with experimental and risky interventions that are based on low-quality evidence. It’s time to hit pause on gender transitions for youth.

A brief history of the Dutch protocol

Before the mid-1990s, medical transition was primarily reserved for mature adults. However, noting the “never-disappearing masculine appearance” of many adult male transitioners, a team of Dutch researchers hypothesized that it might be appropriate to provide early intervention to a carefully selected group of adolescents before the irreversible physical changes of puberty occur.

To differentiate the majority of gender-dysphoric children who would outgrow their cross-sex identification by adulthood from the few who would probably not have resolution and would wish to transition later in life, the Dutch gender clinic designed a rigorous screening protocol, with multidisciplinary teams closely following prospective candidates for several years.

To qualify for early intervention, the adolescents had to have had persistent and severe cross-sex identification from early childhood (cases of adolescent-onset trans identity were disqualified); the distress had to worsen during puberty; and the adolescents had to be free from any other significant mental health conditions. For qualifying adolescents, puberty blockers were initiated no earlier than 12 years of age, cross-sex hormones at 16, and surgeries upon turning 18. Ongoing psychotherapy was provided through the entire assessment and intervention period.

The Dutch team published the final results of their research in 2014. The authors reported that at the average age of 21 (approximately 1.5 years post surgery), the young people were free from gender dysphoria and functioning well. Despite a postsurgical death from infection, several new diagnoses of metabolic illness, and multiple dropouts, the Western world enthusiastically embraced the early-intervention model. Concerningly, the only attempt to replicate the Dutch protocol outside of the Netherlands failed to show any psychological improvements, and to date, no long-term outcome data are available for the cohort of the 55 treated Dutch adolescents.

These progressively irreversible interventions form the basis of the “Dutch Protocol.” Currently, this protocol is being scaled in ways it was never designed for. For example, it strongly discouraged childhood social transition and did not transition adolescents with postpubertal onset of transgender identity or those with significant mental health comorbidities. Yet, treating such cases with the interventions outlined in the Dutch protocol is now common, and the age of eligibility for hormonal and surgical interventions has progressively lowered, with children as young as 8 now eligible to begin puberty blockers.

William Malone, MD, is an assistant professor of endocrinology practicing in Southern Idaho and an adviser to the Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Teens are identifying as transgender in record numbers. In 2017, 3-4 in 100 teens in the United States reported that they are or may be transgender. A more recent 2021 study suggests that the rate of transgender identification among America’s youth may be as high as 9 in 100. All of the major gender centers in the world have reported a several-thousand-percent increase in youth presenting with gender distress.

Origovisualis/Getty Images

How do we reconcile these numbers with 2013 data reporting the prevalence of adult gender dysphoria to be a rare 2-14 in 100,000? Reflection is warranted because many U.S. medical societies support providing youth who have transgender identification (over 1 million children and adolescents, using the latest estimates) with access to powerful endocrine interventions.

GnRH analogues (colloquially known as “puberty blockers”) are now available at Tanner stage 2 of puberty – a threshold crossed by females as young as 8-9 years old. Cross-sex hormones and surgeries follow, and mastectomies are now available to children as young as 13. Genital-altering surgeries, as well as the removal of the ovaries, uterus, and testes, can be obtained as soon as a patient turns 18.

What’s driving this massive increase in trans-identified youth? What are the risks, benefits, and uncertainties associated with hormonal and surgical interventions? Do such interventions improve the long-term psychological health of gender-dysphoric youth? How many will regret the irreversible changes made to their bodies during what may have been a temporary phase in their development?

We don’t know the answers to these questions, but we need to figure them out before offering such interventions. Frontline clinicians – especially those working with youth – will not be able to remain on the sidelines of this issue for much longer. Each clinician considering writing a prescription for puberty blockers or cross-sex hormones, or generating a referral for surgery, will need to answer for themselves: Just because I can, does it mean I should?

What’s contributing to the rapid rise of gender-dysphoric youth?

The etiology of the rapid rise of transgender identifications in young people is vigorously debated. Proponents of hormonal and surgical interventions for youth argue that the several-thousand-percent increase in the numbers of youth seeking gender reassignment is a reflection of more social acceptance of transgender identities, allowing more young people to “come out.” But closer examination of this claim reveals several inconsistencies.

Because adolescent and young adult females now account for 6-8 in 10 of the presenting cases (previously, prepubertal males were more common), one would expect a commensurate increase in the rate of transgender identification in older females. This has not occurred. In addition, more than three-quarters of currently presenting cases have significant mental health problems or suffer from neurocognitive comorbidities such as autism spectrum disorder or attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder – a much higher burden of mental health comorbidities than the historical cohort with gender dysphoria.

There is legitimate concern that these comorbid mental health conditions, as well as the influence of social groups and online immersion into transgender topics, may be playing a role in the rapidly growing rate of transgender identification among these particularly vulnerable youth.

The initial study positing the theory that social influence is playing a role in the increased incidence of “late” or adolescent-onset (vs. childhood-onset) transgender-identified youth was harshly attacked by proponents of medical transitioning of youth, despite the fact that the study utilized methods similar to those used in other areas of health research. The study underwent an unprecedented second peer review and emerged with largely unchanged conclusions.

Since the study’s publication, a number of mental health clinicians working directly with gender-distressed youth have corroborated a rapid onset of transgender identification among teens with previously gender-normative childhoods.

Pioneers in gender dysphoria treatment are changing course

Several European countries that were pioneers in pediatric medical transition are now reversing course toward far more caution after their own evidence evaluations failed to show that medically transitioning gender-distressed youth improves mental health outcomes. In Sweden, following Karolinska Hospital’s announcement that it will no longer transition people under 18 outside of strictly regulated clinical trials, a number of other pediatric gender clinics followed suit and made the same decision.

In the United Kingdom, Keira Bell – a young woman who was treated with “affirmative” hormonal and surgical interventions before detransitioning – brought a challenge against the national gender clinic. Her landmark case and the UK High Court’s original judgement against the clinic have highlighted the urgency to reassess treatment approaches for the increasingly varied presentations of gender dysphoria in young people. As this article went to press, the UK’s national gender clinic won its appeal against Keira Bell, meaning that doctors there will once again be able to decide whether their patients under 16 can properly consent to puberty blockers. Keira Bell said she is disappointed with this decision and will be seeking permission to appeal to the Supreme Court. She said the medical service had become “politicized,” and added: “A global conversation has begun and has been shaped by this case. It has shone a light into the dark corners of a medical scandal that is harming children and harmed me. There is more to be done.”

And the UK National Health Service (NHS) has already commissioned an independent systematic review of data, which concluded that the evidence of benefit of hormonal interventions in gender dysphoric youth is of very low certainty and must be carefully weighed against the risks. An independent taskforce has also been convened to reassess the country’s approach to treating gender dysphoric youth.

Finland has arguably undertaken the biggest change of all. An early adopter of pediatric medical transition, researchers there noticed that adolescents who had mental health struggles at baseline failed to improve after transition. The Finnish national Gender Identity Development services issued new treatment guidelines in 2020 stating that psychotherapy, rather than gender reassignment, should be the first line of treatment for gender-dysphoric youth.

Leaders of America’s medical societies have been slower to respond. Recently, the Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine applied to share information about youth gender transitions at the yearly meeting of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP). The application was denied without explanation, despite the fact that 80% of rank-and-file pediatricians who voted on AAP resolutions days earlier endorsed a resolution calling for a reassessment of the evidence and more caution regarding gender transitions of minors.

The AAP leadership apparently ignored the resounding support for this resolution, but the clear message from that vote is that frontline pediatricians do not agree with the “one size fits all” approach of automatically affirming gender-distressed youth as transgender and proceeding to gender reassignment.

What we know and don’t know


There is now growing evidence that the “gender-affirming” model, based on the unproven assumption that gender reassignment is the best way to help gender-distressed youth, is not living up to its promise. This should not be surprising. Despite more than 50 years of experience with mature adult gender transitions, there is a lack of convincing evidence that transitions improve the psychological functioning of those with gender dysphoria, and studies on regret have been plagued by high dropout rates that prevent meaningful conclusions for practitioners and patients alike. Pediatric transitions are a much more recent phenomenon, with little to no quality data to guide decision-making.

We are witnessing a growing number of vocal regretters who underwent gender reassignment as teens and young adults under “gender-affirming” care protocols in recent years. A review of stories on the subreddit r/detrans, which counts over 20,000 members (not all are detransitioners, as the forum is open to those fully detransitioned, partially detransitioned, desisted [those who identified as transgender for a period of time in their youth but no longer do], and questioning their transition) is flush with first-hand accounts of regret and should be mandatory reading for any clinician who is considering becoming a prescriber of gender-affirmative care.  

Here is a brief outline of what we know – and more importantly, what we don’t know – about the practice of medically transitioning minors.

Most cases of early childhood-onset gender dysphoria self-resolve. Eleven out of 11 studies that followed the trajectory of gender-variant youth show that the most common outcome is natural resolution of gender dysphoria around or after puberty. Among those diagnosed as having gender identity disorder, 67% no longer met the diagnostic criteria as adults; among those subthreshold for diagnosis, 93% were not gender dysphoric as adults. Gender dysphoria in childhood is a far better predictor of future homosexuality than of future trans identity.

The future trajectory of people whose transgender identity emerged during or after puberty is entirely unknown. No one has studied future trajectories of patients whose transgender identity emerged for the first time after the onset of puberty – a previously rare but now increasingly common presentation. Growing numbers of young detransitioners and desisters are precisely from this demographic, suggesting that a transgender identity that emerges in adolescence may not be durable.

Social transition does not improve mental health outcomes. Recent studies show that while socially transitioned children can thrive in the short term, they do not fare any better than their non–socially transitioned dysphoric peers. It appears that peer relations, not the social transition status, predict mental health in gender-dysphoric children. We don’t yet know the long-term trajectories of socially transitioned minors, but emerging evidence suggests that they may be more likely to persist with gender-related distress rather than outgrow it, as previously observed. This in turn necessitates decades of invasive and risky medical interventions. In fact, the Dutch researchers who pioneered the protocol used to medically transition minors explicitly and strongly discouraged social transition of children and early adolescents.

Nearly 100% of children who begin puberty blockers will proceed to cross-sex hormones and surgeries. The two main studies that have evaluated the effects of puberty blockers on mental health found no improvements or improvements of marginal clinical significance. Both studies are also at critical risk of bias due to the absence of control groups.

Four additional studies looking at the mental health effects of puberty blockers were plagued by design limitations and also failed to show any convincing positive effects on psychological health. However, one effect of puberty blockers has been consistently replicated: At least four studies show that virtually all of the children who start puberty blockers proceed to cross-sex hormones. This suggests that rather than being a pause button, puberty blockers may serve as the “gas pedal” for gender transition.

Most of the long-term health risks are largely unknown. No long-term studies exist of patients who underwent medical transition as teens or young adults. Therefore, our ability to assess risks vs. benefits is limited. Puberty blockers have been demonstrated to significantly impair bone health, and it is not clear whether this will result in future osteoporosis. Cross-sex hormones are associated with roughly 3-5 times the risk for heart attacks and strokes, though long-term studies are of insufficient quality for accurate risk assessments. Other risks associated with these endocrine interventions will come to light as the practice continues to scale and as young people spend years and decades on these interventions. The risks to fertility are largely unknown, but it is almost certain that if puberty blockers are given at the early stages of puberty and followed by cross-sex hormones, sterility will result.

The medical pathway of “affirmative care” rests on a single Dutch study that is not applicable to the current populations of gender-dysphoric youth. Most of the youth presenting for care today would have been explicitly disqualified by the original Dutch protocol, as most have significant mental health comorbidities and post-puberty onset of trans identities. This fact has been recognized by the principal investigators of the Dutch protocol itself, who have recently begun to sound the alarm about the potential misapplication of their protocol and who suggest that psychotherapy – rather than gender reassignment – is more appropriate for many of the currently presenting cases.

On suicidality

The urgency to put gender-dysphoric youth through gender reassignment despite the dearth of evidence appears to stem from the notion that if we don’t intervene medically and in short order, these youth will commit suicide. However, studies using quality data reveal a markedly different reality.

While gender-dysphoric youth do have elevated rates of suicidality, it’s not uniquely high. In fact, it’s roughly similar to the rate of suicidality found in populations of youth referred for other mental health conditions. Quality long-term studies that explored whether transition leads to reduced suicidality have not been able to demonstrate a reduction.

Medicine has a pattern of enthusiastically embracing unproven medical interventions, only to find out years or decades later that the harms from those interventions outweigh the benefits. We owe it to our patients to be transparent about the limits of our knowledge and the fact that the “affirmative care” pathway is largely irreversible.

When the benefits of an intervention have not been shown to outweigh the risks, medical ethics dictate that such interventions should not occur outside of clinical trials. We must not conflate medical care for gender-dysphoric youth with experimental and risky interventions that are based on low-quality evidence. It’s time to hit pause on gender transitions for youth.

A brief history of the Dutch protocol

Before the mid-1990s, medical transition was primarily reserved for mature adults. However, noting the “never-disappearing masculine appearance” of many adult male transitioners, a team of Dutch researchers hypothesized that it might be appropriate to provide early intervention to a carefully selected group of adolescents before the irreversible physical changes of puberty occur.

To differentiate the majority of gender-dysphoric children who would outgrow their cross-sex identification by adulthood from the few who would probably not have resolution and would wish to transition later in life, the Dutch gender clinic designed a rigorous screening protocol, with multidisciplinary teams closely following prospective candidates for several years.

To qualify for early intervention, the adolescents had to have had persistent and severe cross-sex identification from early childhood (cases of adolescent-onset trans identity were disqualified); the distress had to worsen during puberty; and the adolescents had to be free from any other significant mental health conditions. For qualifying adolescents, puberty blockers were initiated no earlier than 12 years of age, cross-sex hormones at 16, and surgeries upon turning 18. Ongoing psychotherapy was provided through the entire assessment and intervention period.

The Dutch team published the final results of their research in 2014. The authors reported that at the average age of 21 (approximately 1.5 years post surgery), the young people were free from gender dysphoria and functioning well. Despite a postsurgical death from infection, several new diagnoses of metabolic illness, and multiple dropouts, the Western world enthusiastically embraced the early-intervention model. Concerningly, the only attempt to replicate the Dutch protocol outside of the Netherlands failed to show any psychological improvements, and to date, no long-term outcome data are available for the cohort of the 55 treated Dutch adolescents.

These progressively irreversible interventions form the basis of the “Dutch Protocol.” Currently, this protocol is being scaled in ways it was never designed for. For example, it strongly discouraged childhood social transition and did not transition adolescents with postpubertal onset of transgender identity or those with significant mental health comorbidities. Yet, treating such cases with the interventions outlined in the Dutch protocol is now common, and the age of eligibility for hormonal and surgical interventions has progressively lowered, with children as young as 8 now eligible to begin puberty blockers.

William Malone, MD, is an assistant professor of endocrinology practicing in Southern Idaho and an adviser to the Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Teens are identifying as transgender in record numbers. In 2017, 3-4 in 100 teens in the United States reported that they are or may be transgender. A more recent 2021 study suggests that the rate of transgender identification among America’s youth may be as high as 9 in 100. All of the major gender centers in the world have reported a several-thousand-percent increase in youth presenting with gender distress.

Origovisualis/Getty Images

How do we reconcile these numbers with 2013 data reporting the prevalence of adult gender dysphoria to be a rare 2-14 in 100,000? Reflection is warranted because many U.S. medical societies support providing youth who have transgender identification (over 1 million children and adolescents, using the latest estimates) with access to powerful endocrine interventions.

GnRH analogues (colloquially known as “puberty blockers”) are now available at Tanner stage 2 of puberty – a threshold crossed by females as young as 8-9 years old. Cross-sex hormones and surgeries follow, and mastectomies are now available to children as young as 13. Genital-altering surgeries, as well as the removal of the ovaries, uterus, and testes, can be obtained as soon as a patient turns 18.

What’s driving this massive increase in trans-identified youth? What are the risks, benefits, and uncertainties associated with hormonal and surgical interventions? Do such interventions improve the long-term psychological health of gender-dysphoric youth? How many will regret the irreversible changes made to their bodies during what may have been a temporary phase in their development?

We don’t know the answers to these questions, but we need to figure them out before offering such interventions. Frontline clinicians – especially those working with youth – will not be able to remain on the sidelines of this issue for much longer. Each clinician considering writing a prescription for puberty blockers or cross-sex hormones, or generating a referral for surgery, will need to answer for themselves: Just because I can, does it mean I should?

What’s contributing to the rapid rise of gender-dysphoric youth?

The etiology of the rapid rise of transgender identifications in young people is vigorously debated. Proponents of hormonal and surgical interventions for youth argue that the several-thousand-percent increase in the numbers of youth seeking gender reassignment is a reflection of more social acceptance of transgender identities, allowing more young people to “come out.” But closer examination of this claim reveals several inconsistencies.

Because adolescent and young adult females now account for 6-8 in 10 of the presenting cases (previously, prepubertal males were more common), one would expect a commensurate increase in the rate of transgender identification in older females. This has not occurred. In addition, more than three-quarters of currently presenting cases have significant mental health problems or suffer from neurocognitive comorbidities such as autism spectrum disorder or attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder – a much higher burden of mental health comorbidities than the historical cohort with gender dysphoria.

There is legitimate concern that these comorbid mental health conditions, as well as the influence of social groups and online immersion into transgender topics, may be playing a role in the rapidly growing rate of transgender identification among these particularly vulnerable youth.

The initial study positing the theory that social influence is playing a role in the increased incidence of “late” or adolescent-onset (vs. childhood-onset) transgender-identified youth was harshly attacked by proponents of medical transitioning of youth, despite the fact that the study utilized methods similar to those used in other areas of health research. The study underwent an unprecedented second peer review and emerged with largely unchanged conclusions.

Since the study’s publication, a number of mental health clinicians working directly with gender-distressed youth have corroborated a rapid onset of transgender identification among teens with previously gender-normative childhoods.

Pioneers in gender dysphoria treatment are changing course

Several European countries that were pioneers in pediatric medical transition are now reversing course toward far more caution after their own evidence evaluations failed to show that medically transitioning gender-distressed youth improves mental health outcomes. In Sweden, following Karolinska Hospital’s announcement that it will no longer transition people under 18 outside of strictly regulated clinical trials, a number of other pediatric gender clinics followed suit and made the same decision.

In the United Kingdom, Keira Bell – a young woman who was treated with “affirmative” hormonal and surgical interventions before detransitioning – brought a challenge against the national gender clinic. Her landmark case and the UK High Court’s original judgement against the clinic have highlighted the urgency to reassess treatment approaches for the increasingly varied presentations of gender dysphoria in young people. As this article went to press, the UK’s national gender clinic won its appeal against Keira Bell, meaning that doctors there will once again be able to decide whether their patients under 16 can properly consent to puberty blockers. Keira Bell said she is disappointed with this decision and will be seeking permission to appeal to the Supreme Court. She said the medical service had become “politicized,” and added: “A global conversation has begun and has been shaped by this case. It has shone a light into the dark corners of a medical scandal that is harming children and harmed me. There is more to be done.”

And the UK National Health Service (NHS) has already commissioned an independent systematic review of data, which concluded that the evidence of benefit of hormonal interventions in gender dysphoric youth is of very low certainty and must be carefully weighed against the risks. An independent taskforce has also been convened to reassess the country’s approach to treating gender dysphoric youth.

Finland has arguably undertaken the biggest change of all. An early adopter of pediatric medical transition, researchers there noticed that adolescents who had mental health struggles at baseline failed to improve after transition. The Finnish national Gender Identity Development services issued new treatment guidelines in 2020 stating that psychotherapy, rather than gender reassignment, should be the first line of treatment for gender-dysphoric youth.

Leaders of America’s medical societies have been slower to respond. Recently, the Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine applied to share information about youth gender transitions at the yearly meeting of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP). The application was denied without explanation, despite the fact that 80% of rank-and-file pediatricians who voted on AAP resolutions days earlier endorsed a resolution calling for a reassessment of the evidence and more caution regarding gender transitions of minors.

The AAP leadership apparently ignored the resounding support for this resolution, but the clear message from that vote is that frontline pediatricians do not agree with the “one size fits all” approach of automatically affirming gender-distressed youth as transgender and proceeding to gender reassignment.

What we know and don’t know


There is now growing evidence that the “gender-affirming” model, based on the unproven assumption that gender reassignment is the best way to help gender-distressed youth, is not living up to its promise. This should not be surprising. Despite more than 50 years of experience with mature adult gender transitions, there is a lack of convincing evidence that transitions improve the psychological functioning of those with gender dysphoria, and studies on regret have been plagued by high dropout rates that prevent meaningful conclusions for practitioners and patients alike. Pediatric transitions are a much more recent phenomenon, with little to no quality data to guide decision-making.

We are witnessing a growing number of vocal regretters who underwent gender reassignment as teens and young adults under “gender-affirming” care protocols in recent years. A review of stories on the subreddit r/detrans, which counts over 20,000 members (not all are detransitioners, as the forum is open to those fully detransitioned, partially detransitioned, desisted [those who identified as transgender for a period of time in their youth but no longer do], and questioning their transition) is flush with first-hand accounts of regret and should be mandatory reading for any clinician who is considering becoming a prescriber of gender-affirmative care.  

Here is a brief outline of what we know – and more importantly, what we don’t know – about the practice of medically transitioning minors.

Most cases of early childhood-onset gender dysphoria self-resolve. Eleven out of 11 studies that followed the trajectory of gender-variant youth show that the most common outcome is natural resolution of gender dysphoria around or after puberty. Among those diagnosed as having gender identity disorder, 67% no longer met the diagnostic criteria as adults; among those subthreshold for diagnosis, 93% were not gender dysphoric as adults. Gender dysphoria in childhood is a far better predictor of future homosexuality than of future trans identity.

The future trajectory of people whose transgender identity emerged during or after puberty is entirely unknown. No one has studied future trajectories of patients whose transgender identity emerged for the first time after the onset of puberty – a previously rare but now increasingly common presentation. Growing numbers of young detransitioners and desisters are precisely from this demographic, suggesting that a transgender identity that emerges in adolescence may not be durable.

Social transition does not improve mental health outcomes. Recent studies show that while socially transitioned children can thrive in the short term, they do not fare any better than their non–socially transitioned dysphoric peers. It appears that peer relations, not the social transition status, predict mental health in gender-dysphoric children. We don’t yet know the long-term trajectories of socially transitioned minors, but emerging evidence suggests that they may be more likely to persist with gender-related distress rather than outgrow it, as previously observed. This in turn necessitates decades of invasive and risky medical interventions. In fact, the Dutch researchers who pioneered the protocol used to medically transition minors explicitly and strongly discouraged social transition of children and early adolescents.

Nearly 100% of children who begin puberty blockers will proceed to cross-sex hormones and surgeries. The two main studies that have evaluated the effects of puberty blockers on mental health found no improvements or improvements of marginal clinical significance. Both studies are also at critical risk of bias due to the absence of control groups.

Four additional studies looking at the mental health effects of puberty blockers were plagued by design limitations and also failed to show any convincing positive effects on psychological health. However, one effect of puberty blockers has been consistently replicated: At least four studies show that virtually all of the children who start puberty blockers proceed to cross-sex hormones. This suggests that rather than being a pause button, puberty blockers may serve as the “gas pedal” for gender transition.

Most of the long-term health risks are largely unknown. No long-term studies exist of patients who underwent medical transition as teens or young adults. Therefore, our ability to assess risks vs. benefits is limited. Puberty blockers have been demonstrated to significantly impair bone health, and it is not clear whether this will result in future osteoporosis. Cross-sex hormones are associated with roughly 3-5 times the risk for heart attacks and strokes, though long-term studies are of insufficient quality for accurate risk assessments. Other risks associated with these endocrine interventions will come to light as the practice continues to scale and as young people spend years and decades on these interventions. The risks to fertility are largely unknown, but it is almost certain that if puberty blockers are given at the early stages of puberty and followed by cross-sex hormones, sterility will result.

The medical pathway of “affirmative care” rests on a single Dutch study that is not applicable to the current populations of gender-dysphoric youth. Most of the youth presenting for care today would have been explicitly disqualified by the original Dutch protocol, as most have significant mental health comorbidities and post-puberty onset of trans identities. This fact has been recognized by the principal investigators of the Dutch protocol itself, who have recently begun to sound the alarm about the potential misapplication of their protocol and who suggest that psychotherapy – rather than gender reassignment – is more appropriate for many of the currently presenting cases.

On suicidality

The urgency to put gender-dysphoric youth through gender reassignment despite the dearth of evidence appears to stem from the notion that if we don’t intervene medically and in short order, these youth will commit suicide. However, studies using quality data reveal a markedly different reality.

While gender-dysphoric youth do have elevated rates of suicidality, it’s not uniquely high. In fact, it’s roughly similar to the rate of suicidality found in populations of youth referred for other mental health conditions. Quality long-term studies that explored whether transition leads to reduced suicidality have not been able to demonstrate a reduction.

Medicine has a pattern of enthusiastically embracing unproven medical interventions, only to find out years or decades later that the harms from those interventions outweigh the benefits. We owe it to our patients to be transparent about the limits of our knowledge and the fact that the “affirmative care” pathway is largely irreversible.

When the benefits of an intervention have not been shown to outweigh the risks, medical ethics dictate that such interventions should not occur outside of clinical trials. We must not conflate medical care for gender-dysphoric youth with experimental and risky interventions that are based on low-quality evidence. It’s time to hit pause on gender transitions for youth.

A brief history of the Dutch protocol

Before the mid-1990s, medical transition was primarily reserved for mature adults. However, noting the “never-disappearing masculine appearance” of many adult male transitioners, a team of Dutch researchers hypothesized that it might be appropriate to provide early intervention to a carefully selected group of adolescents before the irreversible physical changes of puberty occur.

To differentiate the majority of gender-dysphoric children who would outgrow their cross-sex identification by adulthood from the few who would probably not have resolution and would wish to transition later in life, the Dutch gender clinic designed a rigorous screening protocol, with multidisciplinary teams closely following prospective candidates for several years.

To qualify for early intervention, the adolescents had to have had persistent and severe cross-sex identification from early childhood (cases of adolescent-onset trans identity were disqualified); the distress had to worsen during puberty; and the adolescents had to be free from any other significant mental health conditions. For qualifying adolescents, puberty blockers were initiated no earlier than 12 years of age, cross-sex hormones at 16, and surgeries upon turning 18. Ongoing psychotherapy was provided through the entire assessment and intervention period.

The Dutch team published the final results of their research in 2014. The authors reported that at the average age of 21 (approximately 1.5 years post surgery), the young people were free from gender dysphoria and functioning well. Despite a postsurgical death from infection, several new diagnoses of metabolic illness, and multiple dropouts, the Western world enthusiastically embraced the early-intervention model. Concerningly, the only attempt to replicate the Dutch protocol outside of the Netherlands failed to show any psychological improvements, and to date, no long-term outcome data are available for the cohort of the 55 treated Dutch adolescents.

These progressively irreversible interventions form the basis of the “Dutch Protocol.” Currently, this protocol is being scaled in ways it was never designed for. For example, it strongly discouraged childhood social transition and did not transition adolescents with postpubertal onset of transgender identity or those with significant mental health comorbidities. Yet, treating such cases with the interventions outlined in the Dutch protocol is now common, and the age of eligibility for hormonal and surgical interventions has progressively lowered, with children as young as 8 now eligible to begin puberty blockers.

William Malone, MD, is an assistant professor of endocrinology practicing in Southern Idaho and an adviser to the Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Pregnant women should use paracetamol/acetaminophen only with a medical indication and at the lowest effective dose for the shortest possible time, according to an international consensus statement published online Sept. 23 in Nature Reviews Endocrinology.

With global rates of use high and risks considered negligible, the expert panel of 13 U.S. and European authors call for focused research into how this analgesic and febrifuge may impair fetal development and lead to adverse outcomes in children. They outline several precautionary measures to be taken in the meantime.

According to first author and epidemiologist Ann Z. Bauer, ScD, a postdoctoral research fellow at the University of Massachusetts in Lowell, and colleagues, this drug is used by an estimated 65% of pregnant women in the United States, and more than 50% worldwide. It is currently the active ingredient in more than 600 prescription and nonprescription medications, including Tylenol, which historically has been deemed safe in all trimesters of pregnancy.

But a growing body of experimental and epidemiological evidence suggests prenatal exposure to paracetamol (N-acetyl-p-aminophenol, or APAP) might alter fetal development and elevate the risks of neurodevelopmental, reproductive and urogenital disorders in both sexes. Exposure in utero has been linked, for example, to potential behavioral problems in children.

The new recommendations are based on a review of experimental animal and cell-based research as well as human epidemiological data published from January 1995 to October 2020. The authors include clinicians, epidemiologists, and scientists specializing in toxicology, endocrinology, reproductive medicine and neurodevelopment.
 

Recommendations

Although the new guidance does not differ markedly from current advice, the authors believe stronger communication and greater awareness of risks are needed. In addition to restricting use of this medication to low doses for short periods when medically necessary, expectant mothers should receive counseling before conception or early in pregnancy. If uncertain about its use, they should consult their physicians or pharmacists.

In other recommendations, the panel said:

• The 2015 FDA Drug Safety Communication recommendations should be updated based on evaluation of all available scientific evidence.
• The European Medicines Agency Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee should review the most recent epidemiologic and experimental research and issue an updated Drug Safety Communication.
• Obstetric and gynecological associations should update their guidance after reviewing all available research.
• The Acetaminophen Awareness Coalition (“Know Your Dose” Campaign) should add standardized warnings and specifically advise pregnant women to forgo APAP unless it’s medically indicated.
• All sales of APAP-containing medications should be accompanied by recommendations specifically for use in pregnancy. This information should include warning labels on packaging, and if possible, APAP should be sold only in pharmacies (as in France).

Mechanism of action

APAP is an endocrine disruptor (Neuroscientist. 2020 Sep 11. doi: 10.1177/1073858420952046). “Chemicals that disrupt the endocrine system are concerning because they can interfere with the activity of endogenous hormones that are essential for healthy neurological, urogenital, and reproductive development,” researchers wrote.

“The precise mechanism is not clear but its toxicity is thought to be due mainly to hormone disruption,” Dr. Bauer said in an interview.

Moreover, APAP readily crosses the placenta and blood–brain barrier, and changes in APAP metabolism during pregnancy might make women and their fetuses more vulnerable to its toxic effects. For instance, the molar dose fraction of APAP converted to the oxidative metabolite N-acetyl-p-benzoquinone imine increases during pregnancy. In addition to its hepatotoxicity, this poisonous byproduct is thought to be a genotoxin that increases DNA cleavage by acting on the enzyme topoisomerase II.

Asked for her perspective on the statement, Kjersti Aagaard, MD, PhD, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Baylor College of Medicine and Texas Children’s Hospital in Houston, called the expert panel’s statement thoughtful and comprehensive, but she urged caution in interpreting the role of acetaminophen.

The challenge in linking any commonly used medication to adverse effects and congenital defects, she said, is “teasing out an association from causation. Given the commonality of the use of acetaminophen with the relative rarity of the outcomes, it is clear that not all cases of exposure result in adverse outcomes.”

As for judicious use, she said, one would be to reduce a high fever, which can cause miscarriage, neural tube defects, and potential heart disease in adulthood. Acetaminophen is the drug of choice in this case since nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs such as ibuprofen are not recommended owing to their known risks to the fetal heart.

Dr. Aagaard emphasized that while acetaminophen use is temporally associated with learning and behavioral problems, and urogenital disorders at birth in male infants such as like hypospadias, so is exposure to multiple environmental chemicals and pollutants, as well as climate change. “It would be a real mistake with real life implications if we associated any congenital disease or disorder with a commonly used medication with known benefits if the true causal link lies elsewhere.”

She said the precautionary statements fall into the time-honored therapeutic principle of first do no harm. “However, the call for research action must be undertaken earnestly and sincerely.”

According to Dr. Bauer, the statement’s essential take-home message is that “physicians should educate themselves and educate women about what we’re learning about the risks of acetaminophen in pregnancy.” Risk can be minimized by using the lowest effective dose for the shortest time and only when medically indicated. “Pregnant women should speak to their physicians about acetaminophen. It’s about empowerment and making smart decisions,” she said.

This study received no specific funding. Coauthor Dr. R.T. Mitchell is supported by a UK Research Institute fellowship.

Pregnant women should use paracetamol/acetaminophen only with a medical indication and at the lowest effective dose for the shortest possible time, according to an international consensus statement published online Sept. 23 in Nature Reviews Endocrinology.

With global rates of use high and risks considered negligible, the expert panel of 13 U.S. and European authors call for focused research into how this analgesic and febrifuge may impair fetal development and lead to adverse outcomes in children. They outline several precautionary measures to be taken in the meantime.

According to first author and epidemiologist Ann Z. Bauer, ScD, a postdoctoral research fellow at the University of Massachusetts in Lowell, and colleagues, this drug is used by an estimated 65% of pregnant women in the United States, and more than 50% worldwide. It is currently the active ingredient in more than 600 prescription and nonprescription medications, including Tylenol, which historically has been deemed safe in all trimesters of pregnancy.

But a growing body of experimental and epidemiological evidence suggests prenatal exposure to paracetamol (N-acetyl-p-aminophenol, or APAP) might alter fetal development and elevate the risks of neurodevelopmental, reproductive and urogenital disorders in both sexes. Exposure in utero has been linked, for example, to potential behavioral problems in children.

The new recommendations are based on a review of experimental animal and cell-based research as well as human epidemiological data published from January 1995 to October 2020. The authors include clinicians, epidemiologists, and scientists specializing in toxicology, endocrinology, reproductive medicine and neurodevelopment.
 

Recommendations

Although the new guidance does not differ markedly from current advice, the authors believe stronger communication and greater awareness of risks are needed. In addition to restricting use of this medication to low doses for short periods when medically necessary, expectant mothers should receive counseling before conception or early in pregnancy. If uncertain about its use, they should consult their physicians or pharmacists.

In other recommendations, the panel said:

• The 2015 FDA Drug Safety Communication recommendations should be updated based on evaluation of all available scientific evidence.
• The European Medicines Agency Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee should review the most recent epidemiologic and experimental research and issue an updated Drug Safety Communication.
• Obstetric and gynecological associations should update their guidance after reviewing all available research.
• The Acetaminophen Awareness Coalition (“Know Your Dose” Campaign) should add standardized warnings and specifically advise pregnant women to forgo APAP unless it’s medically indicated.
• All sales of APAP-containing medications should be accompanied by recommendations specifically for use in pregnancy. This information should include warning labels on packaging, and if possible, APAP should be sold only in pharmacies (as in France).

Mechanism of action

APAP is an endocrine disruptor (Neuroscientist. 2020 Sep 11. doi: 10.1177/1073858420952046). “Chemicals that disrupt the endocrine system are concerning because they can interfere with the activity of endogenous hormones that are essential for healthy neurological, urogenital, and reproductive development,” researchers wrote.

“The precise mechanism is not clear but its toxicity is thought to be due mainly to hormone disruption,” Dr. Bauer said in an interview.

Moreover, APAP readily crosses the placenta and blood–brain barrier, and changes in APAP metabolism during pregnancy might make women and their fetuses more vulnerable to its toxic effects. For instance, the molar dose fraction of APAP converted to the oxidative metabolite N-acetyl-p-benzoquinone imine increases during pregnancy. In addition to its hepatotoxicity, this poisonous byproduct is thought to be a genotoxin that increases DNA cleavage by acting on the enzyme topoisomerase II.

Asked for her perspective on the statement, Kjersti Aagaard, MD, PhD, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Baylor College of Medicine and Texas Children’s Hospital in Houston, called the expert panel’s statement thoughtful and comprehensive, but she urged caution in interpreting the role of acetaminophen.

The challenge in linking any commonly used medication to adverse effects and congenital defects, she said, is “teasing out an association from causation. Given the commonality of the use of acetaminophen with the relative rarity of the outcomes, it is clear that not all cases of exposure result in adverse outcomes.”

As for judicious use, she said, one would be to reduce a high fever, which can cause miscarriage, neural tube defects, and potential heart disease in adulthood. Acetaminophen is the drug of choice in this case since nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs such as ibuprofen are not recommended owing to their known risks to the fetal heart.

Dr. Aagaard emphasized that while acetaminophen use is temporally associated with learning and behavioral problems, and urogenital disorders at birth in male infants such as like hypospadias, so is exposure to multiple environmental chemicals and pollutants, as well as climate change. “It would be a real mistake with real life implications if we associated any congenital disease or disorder with a commonly used medication with known benefits if the true causal link lies elsewhere.”

She said the precautionary statements fall into the time-honored therapeutic principle of first do no harm. “However, the call for research action must be undertaken earnestly and sincerely.”

According to Dr. Bauer, the statement’s essential take-home message is that “physicians should educate themselves and educate women about what we’re learning about the risks of acetaminophen in pregnancy.” Risk can be minimized by using the lowest effective dose for the shortest time and only when medically indicated. “Pregnant women should speak to their physicians about acetaminophen. It’s about empowerment and making smart decisions,” she said.

This study received no specific funding. Coauthor Dr. R.T. Mitchell is supported by a UK Research Institute fellowship.

Pregnant women should use paracetamol/acetaminophen only with a medical indication and at the lowest effective dose for the shortest possible time, according to an international consensus statement published online Sept. 23 in Nature Reviews Endocrinology.

With global rates of use high and risks considered negligible, the expert panel of 13 U.S. and European authors call for focused research into how this analgesic and febrifuge may impair fetal development and lead to adverse outcomes in children. They outline several precautionary measures to be taken in the meantime.

According to first author and epidemiologist Ann Z. Bauer, ScD, a postdoctoral research fellow at the University of Massachusetts in Lowell, and colleagues, this drug is used by an estimated 65% of pregnant women in the United States, and more than 50% worldwide. It is currently the active ingredient in more than 600 prescription and nonprescription medications, including Tylenol, which historically has been deemed safe in all trimesters of pregnancy.

But a growing body of experimental and epidemiological evidence suggests prenatal exposure to paracetamol (N-acetyl-p-aminophenol, or APAP) might alter fetal development and elevate the risks of neurodevelopmental, reproductive and urogenital disorders in both sexes. Exposure in utero has been linked, for example, to potential behavioral problems in children.

The new recommendations are based on a review of experimental animal and cell-based research as well as human epidemiological data published from January 1995 to October 2020. The authors include clinicians, epidemiologists, and scientists specializing in toxicology, endocrinology, reproductive medicine and neurodevelopment.
 

Recommendations

Although the new guidance does not differ markedly from current advice, the authors believe stronger communication and greater awareness of risks are needed. In addition to restricting use of this medication to low doses for short periods when medically necessary, expectant mothers should receive counseling before conception or early in pregnancy. If uncertain about its use, they should consult their physicians or pharmacists.

In other recommendations, the panel said:

• The 2015 FDA Drug Safety Communication recommendations should be updated based on evaluation of all available scientific evidence.
• The European Medicines Agency Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee should review the most recent epidemiologic and experimental research and issue an updated Drug Safety Communication.
• Obstetric and gynecological associations should update their guidance after reviewing all available research.
• The Acetaminophen Awareness Coalition (“Know Your Dose” Campaign) should add standardized warnings and specifically advise pregnant women to forgo APAP unless it’s medically indicated.
• All sales of APAP-containing medications should be accompanied by recommendations specifically for use in pregnancy. This information should include warning labels on packaging, and if possible, APAP should be sold only in pharmacies (as in France).

Mechanism of action

APAP is an endocrine disruptor (Neuroscientist. 2020 Sep 11. doi: 10.1177/1073858420952046). “Chemicals that disrupt the endocrine system are concerning because they can interfere with the activity of endogenous hormones that are essential for healthy neurological, urogenital, and reproductive development,” researchers wrote.

“The precise mechanism is not clear but its toxicity is thought to be due mainly to hormone disruption,” Dr. Bauer said in an interview.

Moreover, APAP readily crosses the placenta and blood–brain barrier, and changes in APAP metabolism during pregnancy might make women and their fetuses more vulnerable to its toxic effects. For instance, the molar dose fraction of APAP converted to the oxidative metabolite N-acetyl-p-benzoquinone imine increases during pregnancy. In addition to its hepatotoxicity, this poisonous byproduct is thought to be a genotoxin that increases DNA cleavage by acting on the enzyme topoisomerase II.

Asked for her perspective on the statement, Kjersti Aagaard, MD, PhD, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Baylor College of Medicine and Texas Children’s Hospital in Houston, called the expert panel’s statement thoughtful and comprehensive, but she urged caution in interpreting the role of acetaminophen.

The challenge in linking any commonly used medication to adverse effects and congenital defects, she said, is “teasing out an association from causation. Given the commonality of the use of acetaminophen with the relative rarity of the outcomes, it is clear that not all cases of exposure result in adverse outcomes.”

As for judicious use, she said, one would be to reduce a high fever, which can cause miscarriage, neural tube defects, and potential heart disease in adulthood. Acetaminophen is the drug of choice in this case since nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs such as ibuprofen are not recommended owing to their known risks to the fetal heart.

Dr. Aagaard emphasized that while acetaminophen use is temporally associated with learning and behavioral problems, and urogenital disorders at birth in male infants such as like hypospadias, so is exposure to multiple environmental chemicals and pollutants, as well as climate change. “It would be a real mistake with real life implications if we associated any congenital disease or disorder with a commonly used medication with known benefits if the true causal link lies elsewhere.”

She said the precautionary statements fall into the time-honored therapeutic principle of first do no harm. “However, the call for research action must be undertaken earnestly and sincerely.”

According to Dr. Bauer, the statement’s essential take-home message is that “physicians should educate themselves and educate women about what we’re learning about the risks of acetaminophen in pregnancy.” Risk can be minimized by using the lowest effective dose for the shortest time and only when medically indicated. “Pregnant women should speak to their physicians about acetaminophen. It’s about empowerment and making smart decisions,” she said.

This study received no specific funding. Coauthor Dr. R.T. Mitchell is supported by a UK Research Institute fellowship.

Bacteria get the rack ... the towel rack

Obviously, bathrooms have germs. Some people are cleaner about their bathrooms than others, but in general most people just try not to think about the microscopic critters crawling about.

Now you would probably think that the toilet is the dirtiest part of the bathroom because that’s where ... you know, most of the business takes place. Or maybe you’d guess the floor. Truth be told, though, the dirtiest part of the bathroom is where the towels are hung.

pxfuel

Anti-vaxxers would like to be called ‘purebloods’

COVID-19 anti-vaxxers are an interesting bunch, to be kind. And TikTok is a wacky place. So you can just imagine that anti-vaxxer TikTok is a very strange place. The citizens of anti-vax TikTok have decided that the real reason so many people dislike them is branding. They consider anti-vaccination to be a negative word (duh), so they now want to be referred to as “purebloods.”

peterschreiber_media/iStock/Getty Images

Harry Potter doesn’t quite occupy the zeitgeist as it once did, so let’s give you a reminder: In the books, purebloods came from old wizarding families and claimed not to have any Muggle, or nonmagic, blood. While having pure wizard blood was no guarantee of being a villain, most of them were. In addition, it is made quite clear throughout the novels that having supposedly pure blood had no relevance on one’s wizarding ability. Pureblood was a meaningless title, and only the characters with small, cruel minds concerned themselves over it.

Perhaps the anti-vaxxers have decided that they want to be called the same thing. Maybe they just like the name. It does sound impressive and vaguely regal: Pureblood. Like something the nobles of medieval Europe might have used.

Critical-thinking skills may be in short supply here, or maybe the anti-vaxxers know exactly what they’re doing.
 

Hated broccoli? Blame your DNA

Were you that kid who would rather sit at the table for hours than eat your broccoli? Well, as much as your parents might have pushed you, new research suggests that it might be their fault you didn’t like it to begin with.

Hans Braxmeier/Pixabay

Investigators at Australia’s national science agency, CSIRO, recently reported that distaste for Brassica vegetables – broccoli, Brussels sprouts, cabbage, and cauliflower – can be traced to the oral microbiome.

These vegetables have a compound called S-methyl-L-cysteine sulfoxide that gives off sulfurous odors ... mmm, sulfurous ... when mixed with an enzyme in the plant, and that enzyme is also produced by bacteria in some people’s oral microbiomes. So why do adults tolerate these Brassica veggies more than children? It’s all about levels.

The researchers tested the idea by asking 98 child/parent pairs to rate the odors and by using gas chromatography-olfactometry-mass spectrometry to identify the odor-active compounds in both raw and steamed cauliflower and broccoli. The children whose saliva produced high levels of sulfur volatiles disliked Brassica vegetables the most, they reported, and the children with high levels of sulfur volatiles usually had parents who produced high levels.

Despite that connection, however, the distaste for raw Brassica seen in children wasn’t seen in adults.

Maybe it’s not that taste buds change as we age, maybe we just learn to tolerate the sulfurousness.

Bacteria get the rack ... the towel rack

Obviously, bathrooms have germs. Some people are cleaner about their bathrooms than others, but in general most people just try not to think about the microscopic critters crawling about.

Now you would probably think that the toilet is the dirtiest part of the bathroom because that’s where ... you know, most of the business takes place. Or maybe you’d guess the floor. Truth be told, though, the dirtiest part of the bathroom is where the towels are hung.

pxfuel

Anti-vaxxers would like to be called ‘purebloods’

COVID-19 anti-vaxxers are an interesting bunch, to be kind. And TikTok is a wacky place. So you can just imagine that anti-vaxxer TikTok is a very strange place. The citizens of anti-vax TikTok have decided that the real reason so many people dislike them is branding. They consider anti-vaccination to be a negative word (duh), so they now want to be referred to as “purebloods.”

peterschreiber_media/iStock/Getty Images

Harry Potter doesn’t quite occupy the zeitgeist as it once did, so let’s give you a reminder: In the books, purebloods came from old wizarding families and claimed not to have any Muggle, or nonmagic, blood. While having pure wizard blood was no guarantee of being a villain, most of them were. In addition, it is made quite clear throughout the novels that having supposedly pure blood had no relevance on one’s wizarding ability. Pureblood was a meaningless title, and only the characters with small, cruel minds concerned themselves over it.

Perhaps the anti-vaxxers have decided that they want to be called the same thing. Maybe they just like the name. It does sound impressive and vaguely regal: Pureblood. Like something the nobles of medieval Europe might have used.

Critical-thinking skills may be in short supply here, or maybe the anti-vaxxers know exactly what they’re doing.
 

Hated broccoli? Blame your DNA

Were you that kid who would rather sit at the table for hours than eat your broccoli? Well, as much as your parents might have pushed you, new research suggests that it might be their fault you didn’t like it to begin with.

Hans Braxmeier/Pixabay

Investigators at Australia’s national science agency, CSIRO, recently reported that distaste for Brassica vegetables – broccoli, Brussels sprouts, cabbage, and cauliflower – can be traced to the oral microbiome.

These vegetables have a compound called S-methyl-L-cysteine sulfoxide that gives off sulfurous odors ... mmm, sulfurous ... when mixed with an enzyme in the plant, and that enzyme is also produced by bacteria in some people’s oral microbiomes. So why do adults tolerate these Brassica veggies more than children? It’s all about levels.

The researchers tested the idea by asking 98 child/parent pairs to rate the odors and by using gas chromatography-olfactometry-mass spectrometry to identify the odor-active compounds in both raw and steamed cauliflower and broccoli. The children whose saliva produced high levels of sulfur volatiles disliked Brassica vegetables the most, they reported, and the children with high levels of sulfur volatiles usually had parents who produced high levels.

Despite that connection, however, the distaste for raw Brassica seen in children wasn’t seen in adults.

Maybe it’s not that taste buds change as we age, maybe we just learn to tolerate the sulfurousness.

Bacteria get the rack ... the towel rack

Obviously, bathrooms have germs. Some people are cleaner about their bathrooms than others, but in general most people just try not to think about the microscopic critters crawling about.

Now you would probably think that the toilet is the dirtiest part of the bathroom because that’s where ... you know, most of the business takes place. Or maybe you’d guess the floor. Truth be told, though, the dirtiest part of the bathroom is where the towels are hung.

pxfuel

Anti-vaxxers would like to be called ‘purebloods’

COVID-19 anti-vaxxers are an interesting bunch, to be kind. And TikTok is a wacky place. So you can just imagine that anti-vaxxer TikTok is a very strange place. The citizens of anti-vax TikTok have decided that the real reason so many people dislike them is branding. They consider anti-vaccination to be a negative word (duh), so they now want to be referred to as “purebloods.”

peterschreiber_media/iStock/Getty Images

Harry Potter doesn’t quite occupy the zeitgeist as it once did, so let’s give you a reminder: In the books, purebloods came from old wizarding families and claimed not to have any Muggle, or nonmagic, blood. While having pure wizard blood was no guarantee of being a villain, most of them were. In addition, it is made quite clear throughout the novels that having supposedly pure blood had no relevance on one’s wizarding ability. Pureblood was a meaningless title, and only the characters with small, cruel minds concerned themselves over it.

Perhaps the anti-vaxxers have decided that they want to be called the same thing. Maybe they just like the name. It does sound impressive and vaguely regal: Pureblood. Like something the nobles of medieval Europe might have used.

Critical-thinking skills may be in short supply here, or maybe the anti-vaxxers know exactly what they’re doing.
 

Hated broccoli? Blame your DNA

Were you that kid who would rather sit at the table for hours than eat your broccoli? Well, as much as your parents might have pushed you, new research suggests that it might be their fault you didn’t like it to begin with.

Hans Braxmeier/Pixabay

Investigators at Australia’s national science agency, CSIRO, recently reported that distaste for Brassica vegetables – broccoli, Brussels sprouts, cabbage, and cauliflower – can be traced to the oral microbiome.

These vegetables have a compound called S-methyl-L-cysteine sulfoxide that gives off sulfurous odors ... mmm, sulfurous ... when mixed with an enzyme in the plant, and that enzyme is also produced by bacteria in some people’s oral microbiomes. So why do adults tolerate these Brassica veggies more than children? It’s all about levels.

The researchers tested the idea by asking 98 child/parent pairs to rate the odors and by using gas chromatography-olfactometry-mass spectrometry to identify the odor-active compounds in both raw and steamed cauliflower and broccoli. The children whose saliva produced high levels of sulfur volatiles disliked Brassica vegetables the most, they reported, and the children with high levels of sulfur volatiles usually had parents who produced high levels.

Despite that connection, however, the distaste for raw Brassica seen in children wasn’t seen in adults.

Maybe it’s not that taste buds change as we age, maybe we just learn to tolerate the sulfurousness.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) late Sept. 22 granted emergency use authorization (EUA) for a third dose of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine for those over the age of 65 and a wide swath of Americans at higher risk for infection.

The agency’s move comes as a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) panel ended the first day of a 2-day meeting. That panel, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), is expected to vote Sept. 23 to instruct doctors on how to administer the boosters.

The FDA officially authorized the vaccine not only for individuals 65 and older, but also for people 18 through 64 years of age who are at high risk for severe illness from the coronavirus, including essential workers whose jobs increase their risk for infection.

“After considering the totality of the available scientific evidence and the deliberations of our advisory committee of independent, external experts, the FDA amended the EUA for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine to allow for a booster dose in certain populations such as health care workers, teachers and daycare staff, grocery workers and those in homeless shelters or prisons, among others,” Acting FDA Commissioner Janet Woodcock, MD, said in a news release.

The recommendations align with those from an FDA advisory panel Sept. 17.

The agency determined that the benefits of a booster dose outweigh the risks for people now authorized to receive it, according to the news release.
 

Other questions remain

So, how will this work? That was the main question weighing on the minds of the CDC’s ACIP during their first day of a 2-day meeting where they are expected to make recommendations on booster doses for Americans.

The panel discussed situations the FDA will still need to consider, such as what should be done for Americans who were originally vaccinated with a Moderna or Johnson and Johnson vaccine, but are not covered under the revised EUA, which is only for those people who received Pfizer’s two-dose vaccine regimen.

“That’s going to leave half of the people immunized in this age group having received the vaccine and being told that they’re at risk now for waning immunity and hospitalization unable to get a booster dose,” said committee member Sarah S. Long, MD, a professor of pediatrics at Drexel University College of Medicine in Philadelphia. “So that’s a big public health panic that we would like to avoid.”

Johnson and Johnson recently reported that second doses of its vaccine boosted its efficacy to almost 94% against COVID-19. A new study, published ahead of peer review, suggests that the efficacy of the single-dose Johnson and Johnson shot has fallen to about 78% against symptomatic infection during the Delta surge.

Moderna has applied for permission to market third doses of its vaccine in the United States, but the FDA has given no timeline on when it might make a decision. 

Doran Fink, MD, PhD, deputy director of the FDA’s Division of Vaccines and Related Products Applications, a representative advising the committee Sept. 22, said the agency was working as rapidly as possible on Moderna’s submission.

Regarding the question of whether it was OK to mix vaccines, rather than match them, Dr. Fink said there are currently not enough data available to inform that decision.

Those answers are coming, though. John Beigel, MD, associate director of clinical research at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, revealed that the federal government has a study underway to see what happens when the vaccines are mixed with each other. 

He said that data from the study would be available later this fall, and would certainly help physicians and other healthcare providers know whether it’s effective or safe to use them interchangeably.
 

Correlates of immunity

The ACIP left much of its schedule open Sept. 23 to discuss extra Pfizer doses and vote on how they should be used.

Pfizer had originally applied to the FDA for an amendment to its FDA approval, which would have given doctors a freer hand to prescribe third doses as they saw fit, in patients as young as 16.

But the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee voted Sept. 17 against granting the amendment. The committee was particularly concerned about the lack of data in teens ages 16 and 17, who have the highest risk for a rare side effect that causes heart inflammation that requires hospital care.

Instead, they recommended — and the FDA agreed per their decision Sept. 22 — that third doses should be given to people at higher risk for severe breakthrough infections because of advanced age or because they work in an occupation that puts them at high risk for exposure. 

The CDC panel heard important presentations on new science that is helping to identify the correlates of immunity. 

The correlates of immunity are biomarkers that can be measured in blood that help doctors understand how protected a person may be against COVID-19. These markers of immunity are not yet known for the COVID-19 vaccines.

Emerging evidence shows that booster doses of the Pfizer vaccine cause front-line immune defenders — called binding antibodies — to roughly triple soon after a person gets the third shot. 

Neutralizing antibodies also jump soon after two vaccine doses, but they fall over time, which is natural. The body doesn’t need these foot soldiers to be on guard all the time, so they go away. 

The body retains its memory of how to make them, however, so they can quickly be marshaled again, if needed.

Early studies suggest that antibodies account for about two thirds of a person’s protection against COVID, while the longer-lasting T-cells and B-cells account for about one third.

After the antibody levels fall, it may take a few days to recreate this army. In the meantime, the virus can try to break in. This can cause symptoms, which can make a person feel terrible, but for the most part, vaccinated individuals don’t need hospital care and are nearly always protected from dying — even against the Delta variant.

Those most likely to be at risk for a breakthrough infection are older, because immune function wanes with age.
 

Essential workers

Essential workers, such as those who work in healthcare, may also benefit from high antibody levels, which can minimize symptoms and help them get back to work more quickly.

Helen Talbot, MD, MPH, an associate professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, said that in her area staffing levels are critical right now.

“I’m actually sitting in one of the deepest red [states] with high rates of COVID. We don’t have enough health care workers currently to take care of the unvaccinated,” she said. 

“When we have beds, we are often missing staff, and so the idea of vaccinating health care workers is to be a little bit different than our idea of using vaccines in the general population,” Dr. Talbot said.

Oliver Brooks, MD, chief medical officer of the Watts Healthcare Corporation in Los Angeles, said he was in favor of making a public statement about the temporary nature of the potential recommendations Sept. 23, because they probably won’t cover all who might need a third shot.

“We may want to go on record stating what it is that would allow us to broaden our recommendation or restrict our recommendation,” Dr. Brooks said.

The considerations of who should get an extra dose are not always straightforward.

New modeling by the Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health and the CDC to assist the government’s decisions on boosters had a surprise finding: in nursing homes, it’s more effective to vaccinate healthcare workers than it is to give booster doses to these residents. Nursing homes are at the mercy of community transmission. 

In regions with high transmission, it’s easy for a caregiver to bring the virus into a facility — so the models found that the transmission from these workers is a more effective strategy than giving third doses to the already highly vaccinated group of seniors who live in them.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) late Sept. 22 granted emergency use authorization (EUA) for a third dose of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine for those over the age of 65 and a wide swath of Americans at higher risk for infection.

The agency’s move comes as a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) panel ended the first day of a 2-day meeting. That panel, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), is expected to vote Sept. 23 to instruct doctors on how to administer the boosters.

The FDA officially authorized the vaccine not only for individuals 65 and older, but also for people 18 through 64 years of age who are at high risk for severe illness from the coronavirus, including essential workers whose jobs increase their risk for infection.

“After considering the totality of the available scientific evidence and the deliberations of our advisory committee of independent, external experts, the FDA amended the EUA for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine to allow for a booster dose in certain populations such as health care workers, teachers and daycare staff, grocery workers and those in homeless shelters or prisons, among others,” Acting FDA Commissioner Janet Woodcock, MD, said in a news release.

The recommendations align with those from an FDA advisory panel Sept. 17.

The agency determined that the benefits of a booster dose outweigh the risks for people now authorized to receive it, according to the news release.
 

Other questions remain

So, how will this work? That was the main question weighing on the minds of the CDC’s ACIP during their first day of a 2-day meeting where they are expected to make recommendations on booster doses for Americans.

The panel discussed situations the FDA will still need to consider, such as what should be done for Americans who were originally vaccinated with a Moderna or Johnson and Johnson vaccine, but are not covered under the revised EUA, which is only for those people who received Pfizer’s two-dose vaccine regimen.

“That’s going to leave half of the people immunized in this age group having received the vaccine and being told that they’re at risk now for waning immunity and hospitalization unable to get a booster dose,” said committee member Sarah S. Long, MD, a professor of pediatrics at Drexel University College of Medicine in Philadelphia. “So that’s a big public health panic that we would like to avoid.”

Johnson and Johnson recently reported that second doses of its vaccine boosted its efficacy to almost 94% against COVID-19. A new study, published ahead of peer review, suggests that the efficacy of the single-dose Johnson and Johnson shot has fallen to about 78% against symptomatic infection during the Delta surge.

Moderna has applied for permission to market third doses of its vaccine in the United States, but the FDA has given no timeline on when it might make a decision. 

Doran Fink, MD, PhD, deputy director of the FDA’s Division of Vaccines and Related Products Applications, a representative advising the committee Sept. 22, said the agency was working as rapidly as possible on Moderna’s submission.

Regarding the question of whether it was OK to mix vaccines, rather than match them, Dr. Fink said there are currently not enough data available to inform that decision.

Those answers are coming, though. John Beigel, MD, associate director of clinical research at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, revealed that the federal government has a study underway to see what happens when the vaccines are mixed with each other. 

He said that data from the study would be available later this fall, and would certainly help physicians and other healthcare providers know whether it’s effective or safe to use them interchangeably.
 

Correlates of immunity

The ACIP left much of its schedule open Sept. 23 to discuss extra Pfizer doses and vote on how they should be used.

Pfizer had originally applied to the FDA for an amendment to its FDA approval, which would have given doctors a freer hand to prescribe third doses as they saw fit, in patients as young as 16.

But the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee voted Sept. 17 against granting the amendment. The committee was particularly concerned about the lack of data in teens ages 16 and 17, who have the highest risk for a rare side effect that causes heart inflammation that requires hospital care.

Instead, they recommended — and the FDA agreed per their decision Sept. 22 — that third doses should be given to people at higher risk for severe breakthrough infections because of advanced age or because they work in an occupation that puts them at high risk for exposure. 

The CDC panel heard important presentations on new science that is helping to identify the correlates of immunity. 

The correlates of immunity are biomarkers that can be measured in blood that help doctors understand how protected a person may be against COVID-19. These markers of immunity are not yet known for the COVID-19 vaccines.

Emerging evidence shows that booster doses of the Pfizer vaccine cause front-line immune defenders — called binding antibodies — to roughly triple soon after a person gets the third shot. 

Neutralizing antibodies also jump soon after two vaccine doses, but they fall over time, which is natural. The body doesn’t need these foot soldiers to be on guard all the time, so they go away. 

The body retains its memory of how to make them, however, so they can quickly be marshaled again, if needed.

Early studies suggest that antibodies account for about two thirds of a person’s protection against COVID, while the longer-lasting T-cells and B-cells account for about one third.

After the antibody levels fall, it may take a few days to recreate this army. In the meantime, the virus can try to break in. This can cause symptoms, which can make a person feel terrible, but for the most part, vaccinated individuals don’t need hospital care and are nearly always protected from dying — even against the Delta variant.

Those most likely to be at risk for a breakthrough infection are older, because immune function wanes with age.
 

Essential workers

Essential workers, such as those who work in healthcare, may also benefit from high antibody levels, which can minimize symptoms and help them get back to work more quickly.

Helen Talbot, MD, MPH, an associate professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, said that in her area staffing levels are critical right now.

“I’m actually sitting in one of the deepest red [states] with high rates of COVID. We don’t have enough health care workers currently to take care of the unvaccinated,” she said. 

“When we have beds, we are often missing staff, and so the idea of vaccinating health care workers is to be a little bit different than our idea of using vaccines in the general population,” Dr. Talbot said.

Oliver Brooks, MD, chief medical officer of the Watts Healthcare Corporation in Los Angeles, said he was in favor of making a public statement about the temporary nature of the potential recommendations Sept. 23, because they probably won’t cover all who might need a third shot.

“We may want to go on record stating what it is that would allow us to broaden our recommendation or restrict our recommendation,” Dr. Brooks said.

The considerations of who should get an extra dose are not always straightforward.

New modeling by the Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health and the CDC to assist the government’s decisions on boosters had a surprise finding: in nursing homes, it’s more effective to vaccinate healthcare workers than it is to give booster doses to these residents. Nursing homes are at the mercy of community transmission. 

In regions with high transmission, it’s easy for a caregiver to bring the virus into a facility — so the models found that the transmission from these workers is a more effective strategy than giving third doses to the already highly vaccinated group of seniors who live in them.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) late Sept. 22 granted emergency use authorization (EUA) for a third dose of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine for those over the age of 65 and a wide swath of Americans at higher risk for infection.

The agency’s move comes as a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) panel ended the first day of a 2-day meeting. That panel, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), is expected to vote Sept. 23 to instruct doctors on how to administer the boosters.

The FDA officially authorized the vaccine not only for individuals 65 and older, but also for people 18 through 64 years of age who are at high risk for severe illness from the coronavirus, including essential workers whose jobs increase their risk for infection.

“After considering the totality of the available scientific evidence and the deliberations of our advisory committee of independent, external experts, the FDA amended the EUA for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine to allow for a booster dose in certain populations such as health care workers, teachers and daycare staff, grocery workers and those in homeless shelters or prisons, among others,” Acting FDA Commissioner Janet Woodcock, MD, said in a news release.

The recommendations align with those from an FDA advisory panel Sept. 17.

The agency determined that the benefits of a booster dose outweigh the risks for people now authorized to receive it, according to the news release.
 

Other questions remain

So, how will this work? That was the main question weighing on the minds of the CDC’s ACIP during their first day of a 2-day meeting where they are expected to make recommendations on booster doses for Americans.

The panel discussed situations the FDA will still need to consider, such as what should be done for Americans who were originally vaccinated with a Moderna or Johnson and Johnson vaccine, but are not covered under the revised EUA, which is only for those people who received Pfizer’s two-dose vaccine regimen.

“That’s going to leave half of the people immunized in this age group having received the vaccine and being told that they’re at risk now for waning immunity and hospitalization unable to get a booster dose,” said committee member Sarah S. Long, MD, a professor of pediatrics at Drexel University College of Medicine in Philadelphia. “So that’s a big public health panic that we would like to avoid.”

Johnson and Johnson recently reported that second doses of its vaccine boosted its efficacy to almost 94% against COVID-19. A new study, published ahead of peer review, suggests that the efficacy of the single-dose Johnson and Johnson shot has fallen to about 78% against symptomatic infection during the Delta surge.

Moderna has applied for permission to market third doses of its vaccine in the United States, but the FDA has given no timeline on when it might make a decision. 

Doran Fink, MD, PhD, deputy director of the FDA’s Division of Vaccines and Related Products Applications, a representative advising the committee Sept. 22, said the agency was working as rapidly as possible on Moderna’s submission.

Regarding the question of whether it was OK to mix vaccines, rather than match them, Dr. Fink said there are currently not enough data available to inform that decision.

Those answers are coming, though. John Beigel, MD, associate director of clinical research at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, revealed that the federal government has a study underway to see what happens when the vaccines are mixed with each other. 

He said that data from the study would be available later this fall, and would certainly help physicians and other healthcare providers know whether it’s effective or safe to use them interchangeably.
 

Correlates of immunity

The ACIP left much of its schedule open Sept. 23 to discuss extra Pfizer doses and vote on how they should be used.

Pfizer had originally applied to the FDA for an amendment to its FDA approval, which would have given doctors a freer hand to prescribe third doses as they saw fit, in patients as young as 16.

But the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee voted Sept. 17 against granting the amendment. The committee was particularly concerned about the lack of data in teens ages 16 and 17, who have the highest risk for a rare side effect that causes heart inflammation that requires hospital care.

Instead, they recommended — and the FDA agreed per their decision Sept. 22 — that third doses should be given to people at higher risk for severe breakthrough infections because of advanced age or because they work in an occupation that puts them at high risk for exposure. 

The CDC panel heard important presentations on new science that is helping to identify the correlates of immunity. 

The correlates of immunity are biomarkers that can be measured in blood that help doctors understand how protected a person may be against COVID-19. These markers of immunity are not yet known for the COVID-19 vaccines.

Emerging evidence shows that booster doses of the Pfizer vaccine cause front-line immune defenders — called binding antibodies — to roughly triple soon after a person gets the third shot. 

Neutralizing antibodies also jump soon after two vaccine doses, but they fall over time, which is natural. The body doesn’t need these foot soldiers to be on guard all the time, so they go away. 

The body retains its memory of how to make them, however, so they can quickly be marshaled again, if needed.

Early studies suggest that antibodies account for about two thirds of a person’s protection against COVID, while the longer-lasting T-cells and B-cells account for about one third.

After the antibody levels fall, it may take a few days to recreate this army. In the meantime, the virus can try to break in. This can cause symptoms, which can make a person feel terrible, but for the most part, vaccinated individuals don’t need hospital care and are nearly always protected from dying — even against the Delta variant.

Those most likely to be at risk for a breakthrough infection are older, because immune function wanes with age.
 

Essential workers

Essential workers, such as those who work in healthcare, may also benefit from high antibody levels, which can minimize symptoms and help them get back to work more quickly.

Helen Talbot, MD, MPH, an associate professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, said that in her area staffing levels are critical right now.

“I’m actually sitting in one of the deepest red [states] with high rates of COVID. We don’t have enough health care workers currently to take care of the unvaccinated,” she said. 

“When we have beds, we are often missing staff, and so the idea of vaccinating health care workers is to be a little bit different than our idea of using vaccines in the general population,” Dr. Talbot said.

Oliver Brooks, MD, chief medical officer of the Watts Healthcare Corporation in Los Angeles, said he was in favor of making a public statement about the temporary nature of the potential recommendations Sept. 23, because they probably won’t cover all who might need a third shot.

“We may want to go on record stating what it is that would allow us to broaden our recommendation or restrict our recommendation,” Dr. Brooks said.

The considerations of who should get an extra dose are not always straightforward.

New modeling by the Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health and the CDC to assist the government’s decisions on boosters had a surprise finding: in nursing homes, it’s more effective to vaccinate healthcare workers than it is to give booster doses to these residents. Nursing homes are at the mercy of community transmission. 

In regions with high transmission, it’s easy for a caregiver to bring the virus into a facility — so the models found that the transmission from these workers is a more effective strategy than giving third doses to the already highly vaccinated group of seniors who live in them.

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

Cobra the dog has been hard at work at the Miami International Airport, sniffing masks proffered by American Airlines employees making their way through a security checkpoint. If she identifies a specific scent, she’ll let her handler know simply by sitting down. When this good girl sits, that means Cobra has detected an olfactory signal of the coronavirus, the virus that causes COVID-19.

Cobra, a Belgian Malinois, is one of two canines – her partner is One Betta, a Dutch shepherd – working this checkpoint at Miami International. They are part of a pilot program with the Global Forensic and Justice Center at Florida International University, using the detection dogs as a quick screen for people who have COVID-19.

Their detection rate is high, at more than 98%, and the program has been such a success that it’s being extended for another month at the airport.

If these two dogs continue to accurately detect COVID-19, they and other canines with similar training could be deployed to other places with lots of people coming and going at once, including other airports or even schools. In fact, COVID-sniffing dogs are in use in some university classrooms already.

But building up a big brigade of live animals as disease detectors involves some thorny issues, including where the animals retire once their careers are complete.

“When COVID first arose, we said let’s see if we can train these two dogs on either the virus or the odor of COVID-19,” says Kenneth Furton, PhD, a professor of chemistry and biochemistry, provost, and executive vice president at Florida International University.

His team had completed a study with what he calls “medical detector dogs,” animals that might be able to detect the odor of someone having a seizure. That led them to see how well the animals could detect other kinds of disorders.

Training a dog to sniff out specific odors starts with getting them to understand the task in general. Dr. Furton says that the animals first are trained to grasp that their job is to detect one odor among many. Once the dogs grasp that, they can be trained on just about any specific odor.

In fact, in addition to detecting seizures, dogs reportedly have been able to identify diabetes and even some cancers, such as ovarian cancer.

Dr. Furton says he’s not aware of any previous use of dogs to screen for infectious disease. That may simply be because nothing recently has struck with the global ferocity of COVID, driving humans to turn to their best friends for help.

Cobra and One Betta got their start learning to identify the presence of laurel wilt, a fungus that attacks avocado trees and kills them, costing Florida growers millions. With that expertise under their collars, the two dogs need only a few weeks to get good at detecting other smells assigned to them.
 

Training the dogs, safely

To train Cobra and One Betta on COVID-19 odors, Dr. Furton’s team first acquired mask samples from people hospitalized with COVID and people who did not have the disease. In battling the viruses, people produce certain chemicals that they exhale every time they breathe. When Dr. Furton and his colleagues compared the exhaled components trapped in the masks, they found differences between masks from people with COVID and those without.

Having confirmed that exhalations can be COVID-specific, the research team trained four dogs – Cobra, One Betta, Hubble, and Max – to detect masks from people with COVID among an assortment of mask choices. Before this step, though, the researchers made sure that any trace of active virus was destroyed by ultraviolet light so that the dogs would not be infected.

Each time the dogs accurately selected a mask from a COVID patient, their reward was access to a favorite toy: A red ball to chew on. Although all four dogs performed very well, yes, they did, Cobra and One Betta showed the most accuracy, outperforming their training colleagues. From their training scores, Cobra ranked first, with 99.45% accuracy. Despite her name, says Dr. Furton, One Betta was “not one better,” coming in second at 98.1%, which is still quite high.

Both dogs are good at their airport screening duties. If one of them sits after sniffing a mask at the checkpoint, the next step is for the mask owner to be tested.

From Aug. 23 to Sept. 8, the two canines screened 1,093 people during 8 working days, alerting on only one case, according to Greg Chin, communications director for the Miami-Dade Aviation Department. That person had tested positive for COVID 2 weeks earlier and was returning to work after quarantine, and their rapid test after the dog alerted was negative.

Dr. Furton says that there are some reports of dogs also alerting before tests can show a positive result, suggesting the dogs’ odor detection can be more precise. They hope to expand their study to see how tight the window of dog-based detection is.

For now, the detector dogs are doing so well that the program has been extended for 30 more days, Mr. Chin says.

As promising as this seems, using dogs for screening carries some logistical and ethical tangles. Training a canine army to deploy for high-volume detection points means that once the work is done, a whole lot of dogs will need a safe place to retire. In addition, the initial training takes several months, says Dr. Furton, whereas if a device were developed for screening, manufacturing could likely be ramped up quickly to meet demand.

The dogs might not need to retire right away, though.

“We envision that they could be redeployed to another type of detection for another infectious disease” if the need arises, Dr. Furton says. But in the end, when working with dogs, he says, there is “a moral connection that you don’t have to deal with using instruments.”

Although the pilot screening at Miami International is the first airport test, the dogs have also done this work in other venues, including at a state emergency operations center in Florida and in some university classrooms, says Dr. Furton.

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

Cobra the dog has been hard at work at the Miami International Airport, sniffing masks proffered by American Airlines employees making their way through a security checkpoint. If she identifies a specific scent, she’ll let her handler know simply by sitting down. When this good girl sits, that means Cobra has detected an olfactory signal of the coronavirus, the virus that causes COVID-19.

Cobra, a Belgian Malinois, is one of two canines – her partner is One Betta, a Dutch shepherd – working this checkpoint at Miami International. They are part of a pilot program with the Global Forensic and Justice Center at Florida International University, using the detection dogs as a quick screen for people who have COVID-19.

Their detection rate is high, at more than 98%, and the program has been such a success that it’s being extended for another month at the airport.

If these two dogs continue to accurately detect COVID-19, they and other canines with similar training could be deployed to other places with lots of people coming and going at once, including other airports or even schools. In fact, COVID-sniffing dogs are in use in some university classrooms already.

But building up a big brigade of live animals as disease detectors involves some thorny issues, including where the animals retire once their careers are complete.

“When COVID first arose, we said let’s see if we can train these two dogs on either the virus or the odor of COVID-19,” says Kenneth Furton, PhD, a professor of chemistry and biochemistry, provost, and executive vice president at Florida International University.

His team had completed a study with what he calls “medical detector dogs,” animals that might be able to detect the odor of someone having a seizure. That led them to see how well the animals could detect other kinds of disorders.

Training a dog to sniff out specific odors starts with getting them to understand the task in general. Dr. Furton says that the animals first are trained to grasp that their job is to detect one odor among many. Once the dogs grasp that, they can be trained on just about any specific odor.

In fact, in addition to detecting seizures, dogs reportedly have been able to identify diabetes and even some cancers, such as ovarian cancer.

Dr. Furton says he’s not aware of any previous use of dogs to screen for infectious disease. That may simply be because nothing recently has struck with the global ferocity of COVID, driving humans to turn to their best friends for help.

Cobra and One Betta got their start learning to identify the presence of laurel wilt, a fungus that attacks avocado trees and kills them, costing Florida growers millions. With that expertise under their collars, the two dogs need only a few weeks to get good at detecting other smells assigned to them.
 

Training the dogs, safely

To train Cobra and One Betta on COVID-19 odors, Dr. Furton’s team first acquired mask samples from people hospitalized with COVID and people who did not have the disease. In battling the viruses, people produce certain chemicals that they exhale every time they breathe. When Dr. Furton and his colleagues compared the exhaled components trapped in the masks, they found differences between masks from people with COVID and those without.

Having confirmed that exhalations can be COVID-specific, the research team trained four dogs – Cobra, One Betta, Hubble, and Max – to detect masks from people with COVID among an assortment of mask choices. Before this step, though, the researchers made sure that any trace of active virus was destroyed by ultraviolet light so that the dogs would not be infected.

Each time the dogs accurately selected a mask from a COVID patient, their reward was access to a favorite toy: A red ball to chew on. Although all four dogs performed very well, yes, they did, Cobra and One Betta showed the most accuracy, outperforming their training colleagues. From their training scores, Cobra ranked first, with 99.45% accuracy. Despite her name, says Dr. Furton, One Betta was “not one better,” coming in second at 98.1%, which is still quite high.

Both dogs are good at their airport screening duties. If one of them sits after sniffing a mask at the checkpoint, the next step is for the mask owner to be tested.

From Aug. 23 to Sept. 8, the two canines screened 1,093 people during 8 working days, alerting on only one case, according to Greg Chin, communications director for the Miami-Dade Aviation Department. That person had tested positive for COVID 2 weeks earlier and was returning to work after quarantine, and their rapid test after the dog alerted was negative.

Dr. Furton says that there are some reports of dogs also alerting before tests can show a positive result, suggesting the dogs’ odor detection can be more precise. They hope to expand their study to see how tight the window of dog-based detection is.

For now, the detector dogs are doing so well that the program has been extended for 30 more days, Mr. Chin says.

As promising as this seems, using dogs for screening carries some logistical and ethical tangles. Training a canine army to deploy for high-volume detection points means that once the work is done, a whole lot of dogs will need a safe place to retire. In addition, the initial training takes several months, says Dr. Furton, whereas if a device were developed for screening, manufacturing could likely be ramped up quickly to meet demand.

The dogs might not need to retire right away, though.

“We envision that they could be redeployed to another type of detection for another infectious disease” if the need arises, Dr. Furton says. But in the end, when working with dogs, he says, there is “a moral connection that you don’t have to deal with using instruments.”

Although the pilot screening at Miami International is the first airport test, the dogs have also done this work in other venues, including at a state emergency operations center in Florida and in some university classrooms, says Dr. Furton.

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

Cobra the dog has been hard at work at the Miami International Airport, sniffing masks proffered by American Airlines employees making their way through a security checkpoint. If she identifies a specific scent, she’ll let her handler know simply by sitting down. When this good girl sits, that means Cobra has detected an olfactory signal of the coronavirus, the virus that causes COVID-19.

Cobra, a Belgian Malinois, is one of two canines – her partner is One Betta, a Dutch shepherd – working this checkpoint at Miami International. They are part of a pilot program with the Global Forensic and Justice Center at Florida International University, using the detection dogs as a quick screen for people who have COVID-19.

Their detection rate is high, at more than 98%, and the program has been such a success that it’s being extended for another month at the airport.

If these two dogs continue to accurately detect COVID-19, they and other canines with similar training could be deployed to other places with lots of people coming and going at once, including other airports or even schools. In fact, COVID-sniffing dogs are in use in some university classrooms already.

But building up a big brigade of live animals as disease detectors involves some thorny issues, including where the animals retire once their careers are complete.

“When COVID first arose, we said let’s see if we can train these two dogs on either the virus or the odor of COVID-19,” says Kenneth Furton, PhD, a professor of chemistry and biochemistry, provost, and executive vice president at Florida International University.

His team had completed a study with what he calls “medical detector dogs,” animals that might be able to detect the odor of someone having a seizure. That led them to see how well the animals could detect other kinds of disorders.

Training a dog to sniff out specific odors starts with getting them to understand the task in general. Dr. Furton says that the animals first are trained to grasp that their job is to detect one odor among many. Once the dogs grasp that, they can be trained on just about any specific odor.

In fact, in addition to detecting seizures, dogs reportedly have been able to identify diabetes and even some cancers, such as ovarian cancer.

Dr. Furton says he’s not aware of any previous use of dogs to screen for infectious disease. That may simply be because nothing recently has struck with the global ferocity of COVID, driving humans to turn to their best friends for help.

Cobra and One Betta got their start learning to identify the presence of laurel wilt, a fungus that attacks avocado trees and kills them, costing Florida growers millions. With that expertise under their collars, the two dogs need only a few weeks to get good at detecting other smells assigned to them.
 

Training the dogs, safely

To train Cobra and One Betta on COVID-19 odors, Dr. Furton’s team first acquired mask samples from people hospitalized with COVID and people who did not have the disease. In battling the viruses, people produce certain chemicals that they exhale every time they breathe. When Dr. Furton and his colleagues compared the exhaled components trapped in the masks, they found differences between masks from people with COVID and those without.

Having confirmed that exhalations can be COVID-specific, the research team trained four dogs – Cobra, One Betta, Hubble, and Max – to detect masks from people with COVID among an assortment of mask choices. Before this step, though, the researchers made sure that any trace of active virus was destroyed by ultraviolet light so that the dogs would not be infected.

Each time the dogs accurately selected a mask from a COVID patient, their reward was access to a favorite toy: A red ball to chew on. Although all four dogs performed very well, yes, they did, Cobra and One Betta showed the most accuracy, outperforming their training colleagues. From their training scores, Cobra ranked first, with 99.45% accuracy. Despite her name, says Dr. Furton, One Betta was “not one better,” coming in second at 98.1%, which is still quite high.

Both dogs are good at their airport screening duties. If one of them sits after sniffing a mask at the checkpoint, the next step is for the mask owner to be tested.

From Aug. 23 to Sept. 8, the two canines screened 1,093 people during 8 working days, alerting on only one case, according to Greg Chin, communications director for the Miami-Dade Aviation Department. That person had tested positive for COVID 2 weeks earlier and was returning to work after quarantine, and their rapid test after the dog alerted was negative.

Dr. Furton says that there are some reports of dogs also alerting before tests can show a positive result, suggesting the dogs’ odor detection can be more precise. They hope to expand their study to see how tight the window of dog-based detection is.

For now, the detector dogs are doing so well that the program has been extended for 30 more days, Mr. Chin says.

As promising as this seems, using dogs for screening carries some logistical and ethical tangles. Training a canine army to deploy for high-volume detection points means that once the work is done, a whole lot of dogs will need a safe place to retire. In addition, the initial training takes several months, says Dr. Furton, whereas if a device were developed for screening, manufacturing could likely be ramped up quickly to meet demand.

The dogs might not need to retire right away, though.

“We envision that they could be redeployed to another type of detection for another infectious disease” if the need arises, Dr. Furton says. But in the end, when working with dogs, he says, there is “a moral connection that you don’t have to deal with using instruments.”

Although the pilot screening at Miami International is the first airport test, the dogs have also done this work in other venues, including at a state emergency operations center in Florida and in some university classrooms, says Dr. Furton.

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