MDedge Pediatrics

If everything goes as planned, the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA COVID-19 vaccines could be granted emergency use authorization (EUA) for children aged 12 years and older by the fall of 2021.

Courtesy Dr. Maldonado

According to Yvonne Maldonado, MD, Pfizer has fully enrolled adolescent trials and Moderna is currently enrolling 3,000 adolescents in a safety and reactogenicity trial known as TeenCOVE, in which participants will receive an intramuscular injection of 100 mcg mRNA-1273 on day 1 and on day 29. Meanwhile, Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca will be starting to enroll older children and adolescents into studies within the next several weeks.

The companies are also planning to enroll younger children, Dr. Maldonado, the Taube professor of global health and infectious diseases at Stanford (Calif.) University, said during the Society for Pediatric Dermatology pre-AAD meeting. “At least two of the vaccine companies have indicated that they would like to start enrolling children as young as 2-5 years of age and eventually getting down to infants and toddlers if the vaccines prove to be safe and effective in the older children. Eventually, we hope to get to the level where we can have several vaccine candidates for all children 6 months of age and older.”

In the future, she said, infectious disease experts hope to see antiviral, immunomodulatory, anti-inflammatory, and monoclonal therapies for all populations including children, although trials in this population have not begun. “Clinical trials must be flexible and adaptive to deal with children and adolescents,” added Dr. Maldonado, who is also senior associate dean for faculty development and diversity at Stanford.

“We would ideally like to have new correlates of protection, as well as biomarkers to follow for evidence of effectiveness. We also would love to see vaccines in the pediatric population as soon as possible, because herd immunity is the ultimate goal for protection against this disease and prevention of additional transmission over time.” However, she said, the degree and durability of immunity has yet to be determined, and vaccine-associated immune effects are unknown. In the meantime, infectious disease researchers expect nonpharmacologic interventions, such as wearing face masks and social distancing to continue for an undefined period.

(Less than 2 weeks after Dr. Maldonado spoke at the SPD meeting, Pfizer announced in a press release that, in phase 3 clinical trials, the company’s coronavirus vaccine was 100% effective in protecting children aged 12-15 years from infection, with a “robust” antibody responses and side effects similar to those experienced by those aged 16-25 years. The company also announced that it plans to seek Food and Drug Administration EUA for this age group. Asked to comment on this update, Dr. Maldonado said the results released by Pfizer “suggest that their COVID-19 vaccine is very safe and highly effective in preventing COVID-19 among children 12-15 years of age.” She added that additional data from the Pfizer trials as well as from Moderna and Johnson & Johnson vaccine trials “will hopefully lead to FDA EUA review in the coming weeks,” and that COVID-19 vaccinations for children “may be possible by this summer.”)
 

_{Children with underlying diseases or on immune suppressants}

At the SPD meeting, an attendee asked if there were any pediatric patients for whom she would not recommend receiving a COVID-19 vaccine because of an underlying disease or concurrent therapy with immune suppressants. “We don’t have those data yet,” Dr. Maldonado said. “Based on what we’re seeing with adults, it does appear that those with underlying conditions are at somewhat higher risk of developing severe infection and may therefore most likely to need vaccination. Most of those risks are cardiovascular, obesity, and other factors, but not necessarily immunocompromising conditions. More likely what we’re seeing is that people with underlying immunocompromising conditions may not mount a good response to the vaccines at this time. It doesn’t mean we shouldn’t give the vaccines, but we need to learn more about that.”

Dr. Maldonado went on to note that, as vaccine manufacturers commence pediatric trials, healthy children will be tested first, followed in due time with children who have immunocompromised conditions. “The question will be whether or not we should give monoclonal antibodies to those particular children to help boost their immunity to SARS-CoV-2, because they might not have a good response to the vaccines,” she said. “Those things need to be sorted out, but there’s no safety signal or concerns at this point for vaccine to be given to immunocompromised individuals.”

Another meeting attendee asked Dr. Maldonado if she thinks there is a practical role for assessing markers of T-cell immunity when evaluating suspected COVID-19 patients who may test negative on serology, Dr. Maldonado said that she and her colleagues are seeking pediatric patients who were treated for COVID-19 at Stanford, in an effort to sort this out.

They are checking peripheral blood mononuclear cells in these patients “to try and tease out what the immune response is in kids who have serious disease, versus those who came in with acute disease, versus those who are asymptomatic,” and comparing them with children who don’t have infection, she explained. “The question is, what is the role of T cells and how much do they contribute? One of the biggest questions we have is, do we have an immune correlate? Can we detect a particular level of neutralizing antibody that seems to be protective? If so, how long is it protective, and can we look for T- and B-cell memory cells and effector vector cells and see how long those effector vector cells can be active in protection? Those are studies that are ongoing now.”

Dr. Maldonado disclosed that she is a member of the data safety monitoring board for a non–COVID-19 vaccine being developed by Pfizer.

[email protected]

If everything goes as planned, the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA COVID-19 vaccines could be granted emergency use authorization (EUA) for children aged 12 years and older by the fall of 2021.

Courtesy Dr. Maldonado

According to Yvonne Maldonado, MD, Pfizer has fully enrolled adolescent trials and Moderna is currently enrolling 3,000 adolescents in a safety and reactogenicity trial known as TeenCOVE, in which participants will receive an intramuscular injection of 100 mcg mRNA-1273 on day 1 and on day 29. Meanwhile, Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca will be starting to enroll older children and adolescents into studies within the next several weeks.

The companies are also planning to enroll younger children, Dr. Maldonado, the Taube professor of global health and infectious diseases at Stanford (Calif.) University, said during the Society for Pediatric Dermatology pre-AAD meeting. “At least two of the vaccine companies have indicated that they would like to start enrolling children as young as 2-5 years of age and eventually getting down to infants and toddlers if the vaccines prove to be safe and effective in the older children. Eventually, we hope to get to the level where we can have several vaccine candidates for all children 6 months of age and older.”

In the future, she said, infectious disease experts hope to see antiviral, immunomodulatory, anti-inflammatory, and monoclonal therapies for all populations including children, although trials in this population have not begun. “Clinical trials must be flexible and adaptive to deal with children and adolescents,” added Dr. Maldonado, who is also senior associate dean for faculty development and diversity at Stanford.

“We would ideally like to have new correlates of protection, as well as biomarkers to follow for evidence of effectiveness. We also would love to see vaccines in the pediatric population as soon as possible, because herd immunity is the ultimate goal for protection against this disease and prevention of additional transmission over time.” However, she said, the degree and durability of immunity has yet to be determined, and vaccine-associated immune effects are unknown. In the meantime, infectious disease researchers expect nonpharmacologic interventions, such as wearing face masks and social distancing to continue for an undefined period.

(Less than 2 weeks after Dr. Maldonado spoke at the SPD meeting, Pfizer announced in a press release that, in phase 3 clinical trials, the company’s coronavirus vaccine was 100% effective in protecting children aged 12-15 years from infection, with a “robust” antibody responses and side effects similar to those experienced by those aged 16-25 years. The company also announced that it plans to seek Food and Drug Administration EUA for this age group. Asked to comment on this update, Dr. Maldonado said the results released by Pfizer “suggest that their COVID-19 vaccine is very safe and highly effective in preventing COVID-19 among children 12-15 years of age.” She added that additional data from the Pfizer trials as well as from Moderna and Johnson & Johnson vaccine trials “will hopefully lead to FDA EUA review in the coming weeks,” and that COVID-19 vaccinations for children “may be possible by this summer.”)
 

_{Children with underlying diseases or on immune suppressants}

At the SPD meeting, an attendee asked if there were any pediatric patients for whom she would not recommend receiving a COVID-19 vaccine because of an underlying disease or concurrent therapy with immune suppressants. “We don’t have those data yet,” Dr. Maldonado said. “Based on what we’re seeing with adults, it does appear that those with underlying conditions are at somewhat higher risk of developing severe infection and may therefore most likely to need vaccination. Most of those risks are cardiovascular, obesity, and other factors, but not necessarily immunocompromising conditions. More likely what we’re seeing is that people with underlying immunocompromising conditions may not mount a good response to the vaccines at this time. It doesn’t mean we shouldn’t give the vaccines, but we need to learn more about that.”

Dr. Maldonado went on to note that, as vaccine manufacturers commence pediatric trials, healthy children will be tested first, followed in due time with children who have immunocompromised conditions. “The question will be whether or not we should give monoclonal antibodies to those particular children to help boost their immunity to SARS-CoV-2, because they might not have a good response to the vaccines,” she said. “Those things need to be sorted out, but there’s no safety signal or concerns at this point for vaccine to be given to immunocompromised individuals.”

Another meeting attendee asked Dr. Maldonado if she thinks there is a practical role for assessing markers of T-cell immunity when evaluating suspected COVID-19 patients who may test negative on serology, Dr. Maldonado said that she and her colleagues are seeking pediatric patients who were treated for COVID-19 at Stanford, in an effort to sort this out.

They are checking peripheral blood mononuclear cells in these patients “to try and tease out what the immune response is in kids who have serious disease, versus those who came in with acute disease, versus those who are asymptomatic,” and comparing them with children who don’t have infection, she explained. “The question is, what is the role of T cells and how much do they contribute? One of the biggest questions we have is, do we have an immune correlate? Can we detect a particular level of neutralizing antibody that seems to be protective? If so, how long is it protective, and can we look for T- and B-cell memory cells and effector vector cells and see how long those effector vector cells can be active in protection? Those are studies that are ongoing now.”

Dr. Maldonado disclosed that she is a member of the data safety monitoring board for a non–COVID-19 vaccine being developed by Pfizer.

[email protected]

If everything goes as planned, the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA COVID-19 vaccines could be granted emergency use authorization (EUA) for children aged 12 years and older by the fall of 2021.

Courtesy Dr. Maldonado

According to Yvonne Maldonado, MD, Pfizer has fully enrolled adolescent trials and Moderna is currently enrolling 3,000 adolescents in a safety and reactogenicity trial known as TeenCOVE, in which participants will receive an intramuscular injection of 100 mcg mRNA-1273 on day 1 and on day 29. Meanwhile, Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca will be starting to enroll older children and adolescents into studies within the next several weeks.

The companies are also planning to enroll younger children, Dr. Maldonado, the Taube professor of global health and infectious diseases at Stanford (Calif.) University, said during the Society for Pediatric Dermatology pre-AAD meeting. “At least two of the vaccine companies have indicated that they would like to start enrolling children as young as 2-5 years of age and eventually getting down to infants and toddlers if the vaccines prove to be safe and effective in the older children. Eventually, we hope to get to the level where we can have several vaccine candidates for all children 6 months of age and older.”

In the future, she said, infectious disease experts hope to see antiviral, immunomodulatory, anti-inflammatory, and monoclonal therapies for all populations including children, although trials in this population have not begun. “Clinical trials must be flexible and adaptive to deal with children and adolescents,” added Dr. Maldonado, who is also senior associate dean for faculty development and diversity at Stanford.

“We would ideally like to have new correlates of protection, as well as biomarkers to follow for evidence of effectiveness. We also would love to see vaccines in the pediatric population as soon as possible, because herd immunity is the ultimate goal for protection against this disease and prevention of additional transmission over time.” However, she said, the degree and durability of immunity has yet to be determined, and vaccine-associated immune effects are unknown. In the meantime, infectious disease researchers expect nonpharmacologic interventions, such as wearing face masks and social distancing to continue for an undefined period.

(Less than 2 weeks after Dr. Maldonado spoke at the SPD meeting, Pfizer announced in a press release that, in phase 3 clinical trials, the company’s coronavirus vaccine was 100% effective in protecting children aged 12-15 years from infection, with a “robust” antibody responses and side effects similar to those experienced by those aged 16-25 years. The company also announced that it plans to seek Food and Drug Administration EUA for this age group. Asked to comment on this update, Dr. Maldonado said the results released by Pfizer “suggest that their COVID-19 vaccine is very safe and highly effective in preventing COVID-19 among children 12-15 years of age.” She added that additional data from the Pfizer trials as well as from Moderna and Johnson & Johnson vaccine trials “will hopefully lead to FDA EUA review in the coming weeks,” and that COVID-19 vaccinations for children “may be possible by this summer.”)
 

_{Children with underlying diseases or on immune suppressants}

At the SPD meeting, an attendee asked if there were any pediatric patients for whom she would not recommend receiving a COVID-19 vaccine because of an underlying disease or concurrent therapy with immune suppressants. “We don’t have those data yet,” Dr. Maldonado said. “Based on what we’re seeing with adults, it does appear that those with underlying conditions are at somewhat higher risk of developing severe infection and may therefore most likely to need vaccination. Most of those risks are cardiovascular, obesity, and other factors, but not necessarily immunocompromising conditions. More likely what we’re seeing is that people with underlying immunocompromising conditions may not mount a good response to the vaccines at this time. It doesn’t mean we shouldn’t give the vaccines, but we need to learn more about that.”

Dr. Maldonado went on to note that, as vaccine manufacturers commence pediatric trials, healthy children will be tested first, followed in due time with children who have immunocompromised conditions. “The question will be whether or not we should give monoclonal antibodies to those particular children to help boost their immunity to SARS-CoV-2, because they might not have a good response to the vaccines,” she said. “Those things need to be sorted out, but there’s no safety signal or concerns at this point for vaccine to be given to immunocompromised individuals.”

Another meeting attendee asked Dr. Maldonado if she thinks there is a practical role for assessing markers of T-cell immunity when evaluating suspected COVID-19 patients who may test negative on serology, Dr. Maldonado said that she and her colleagues are seeking pediatric patients who were treated for COVID-19 at Stanford, in an effort to sort this out.

They are checking peripheral blood mononuclear cells in these patients “to try and tease out what the immune response is in kids who have serious disease, versus those who came in with acute disease, versus those who are asymptomatic,” and comparing them with children who don’t have infection, she explained. “The question is, what is the role of T cells and how much do they contribute? One of the biggest questions we have is, do we have an immune correlate? Can we detect a particular level of neutralizing antibody that seems to be protective? If so, how long is it protective, and can we look for T- and B-cell memory cells and effector vector cells and see how long those effector vector cells can be active in protection? Those are studies that are ongoing now.”

Dr. Maldonado disclosed that she is a member of the data safety monitoring board for a non–COVID-19 vaccine being developed by Pfizer.

[email protected]

More adolescent girls than boys experienced nonfatal opioid overdose and reported baseline levels of anxiety, depression, and self-harm, according to data from a retrospective cohort study of more than 20,000 youth in the United States.

Previous studies have identified sex-based differences in opioid overdose such as a higher prevalence of co-occurring psychiatric disorders in women compared with men, wrote Sarah M. Bagley, MD, of Boston University, and colleagues. “However, few studies have examined whether such sex-based differences in opioid overdose risk extend to the population of adolescents and young adults,” they said.

In a retrospective cohort study published in JAMA Network Open, the researchers identified 20,312 commercially insured youth aged 11-24 years who experienced a nonfatal opioid overdose between Jan. 1, 2006, and Dec. 31, 2017, and reviewed data using the IBM MarketScan Commercial Database. The average age of the study population was 20 years and approximately 42% were female.

Females aged 11-16 years had a significantly higher incidence of nonfatal opioid overdose (60%) compared with males, but this trend reversed at age 17 years, after which the incidence of nonfatal opioid overdose became significantly higher in males. “Our finding that females younger than 17 years had a higher incidence of NFOD is consistent with epidemiologic data that have indicated changes in alcohol and drug prevalence among female youths,” the researchers wrote.

Overall, 57.8% of the cohort had mood and anxiety disorders, 12.8% had trauma- or stress-related disorders, and 11.7% had attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder.

When analyzed by sex, females had a significantly higher prevalence than that of males of mood or anxiety disorders (65.5% vs. 51.9%) trauma or stress-related disorders (16.4% vs. 10.1%) and attempts at suicide or self-harm (14.6% vs. 9.9%). Males had significantly higher prevalence than that of females of opioid use disorder (44.7% vs. 29.2%), cannabis use disorder (18.3% vs. 11.3%), and alcohol use disorder (20.3% vs. 14.4%).

“Although in our study, female youths had a lower prevalence of all substance use disorders, including OUD [opioid use disorder], and a higher prevalence of mood and trauma-associated disorders, both male and female youths had a higher prevalence of psychiatric illness and substance use disorder than youths in the general population,” the researchers noted.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the inclusion only of youth with commercial insurance, with no uninsured or publicly insured youth, and only those youth who sought health care after a nonfatal opioid overdose, the researchers noted. The prevalence of substance use and mental health disorders may be over- or underdiagnosed, and race was not included as a variable because of unreliable data, they added. The database also did not allow for gender identity beyond sex as listed by the insurance carrier, they said.

However, the results indicate significant differences in the incidence of nonfatal opioid overdose and accompanying mental health and substance use disorders based on age and sex, they said.

“These differences may have important implications for developing effective interventions to prevent first-time NFOD and to engage youths in care after an NFOD,” they concluded.

The study was supported by grants to several researchers from the National Institute on Drug Abuse, National Institutes of Health, and the Charles A. King Trust. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. 

More adolescent girls than boys experienced nonfatal opioid overdose and reported baseline levels of anxiety, depression, and self-harm, according to data from a retrospective cohort study of more than 20,000 youth in the United States.

Previous studies have identified sex-based differences in opioid overdose such as a higher prevalence of co-occurring psychiatric disorders in women compared with men, wrote Sarah M. Bagley, MD, of Boston University, and colleagues. “However, few studies have examined whether such sex-based differences in opioid overdose risk extend to the population of adolescents and young adults,” they said.

In a retrospective cohort study published in JAMA Network Open, the researchers identified 20,312 commercially insured youth aged 11-24 years who experienced a nonfatal opioid overdose between Jan. 1, 2006, and Dec. 31, 2017, and reviewed data using the IBM MarketScan Commercial Database. The average age of the study population was 20 years and approximately 42% were female.

Females aged 11-16 years had a significantly higher incidence of nonfatal opioid overdose (60%) compared with males, but this trend reversed at age 17 years, after which the incidence of nonfatal opioid overdose became significantly higher in males. “Our finding that females younger than 17 years had a higher incidence of NFOD is consistent with epidemiologic data that have indicated changes in alcohol and drug prevalence among female youths,” the researchers wrote.

Overall, 57.8% of the cohort had mood and anxiety disorders, 12.8% had trauma- or stress-related disorders, and 11.7% had attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder.

When analyzed by sex, females had a significantly higher prevalence than that of males of mood or anxiety disorders (65.5% vs. 51.9%) trauma or stress-related disorders (16.4% vs. 10.1%) and attempts at suicide or self-harm (14.6% vs. 9.9%). Males had significantly higher prevalence than that of females of opioid use disorder (44.7% vs. 29.2%), cannabis use disorder (18.3% vs. 11.3%), and alcohol use disorder (20.3% vs. 14.4%).

“Although in our study, female youths had a lower prevalence of all substance use disorders, including OUD [opioid use disorder], and a higher prevalence of mood and trauma-associated disorders, both male and female youths had a higher prevalence of psychiatric illness and substance use disorder than youths in the general population,” the researchers noted.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the inclusion only of youth with commercial insurance, with no uninsured or publicly insured youth, and only those youth who sought health care after a nonfatal opioid overdose, the researchers noted. The prevalence of substance use and mental health disorders may be over- or underdiagnosed, and race was not included as a variable because of unreliable data, they added. The database also did not allow for gender identity beyond sex as listed by the insurance carrier, they said.

However, the results indicate significant differences in the incidence of nonfatal opioid overdose and accompanying mental health and substance use disorders based on age and sex, they said.

“These differences may have important implications for developing effective interventions to prevent first-time NFOD and to engage youths in care after an NFOD,” they concluded.

The study was supported by grants to several researchers from the National Institute on Drug Abuse, National Institutes of Health, and the Charles A. King Trust. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. 

More adolescent girls than boys experienced nonfatal opioid overdose and reported baseline levels of anxiety, depression, and self-harm, according to data from a retrospective cohort study of more than 20,000 youth in the United States.

Previous studies have identified sex-based differences in opioid overdose such as a higher prevalence of co-occurring psychiatric disorders in women compared with men, wrote Sarah M. Bagley, MD, of Boston University, and colleagues. “However, few studies have examined whether such sex-based differences in opioid overdose risk extend to the population of adolescents and young adults,” they said.

In a retrospective cohort study published in JAMA Network Open, the researchers identified 20,312 commercially insured youth aged 11-24 years who experienced a nonfatal opioid overdose between Jan. 1, 2006, and Dec. 31, 2017, and reviewed data using the IBM MarketScan Commercial Database. The average age of the study population was 20 years and approximately 42% were female.

Females aged 11-16 years had a significantly higher incidence of nonfatal opioid overdose (60%) compared with males, but this trend reversed at age 17 years, after which the incidence of nonfatal opioid overdose became significantly higher in males. “Our finding that females younger than 17 years had a higher incidence of NFOD is consistent with epidemiologic data that have indicated changes in alcohol and drug prevalence among female youths,” the researchers wrote.

Overall, 57.8% of the cohort had mood and anxiety disorders, 12.8% had trauma- or stress-related disorders, and 11.7% had attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder.

When analyzed by sex, females had a significantly higher prevalence than that of males of mood or anxiety disorders (65.5% vs. 51.9%) trauma or stress-related disorders (16.4% vs. 10.1%) and attempts at suicide or self-harm (14.6% vs. 9.9%). Males had significantly higher prevalence than that of females of opioid use disorder (44.7% vs. 29.2%), cannabis use disorder (18.3% vs. 11.3%), and alcohol use disorder (20.3% vs. 14.4%).

“Although in our study, female youths had a lower prevalence of all substance use disorders, including OUD [opioid use disorder], and a higher prevalence of mood and trauma-associated disorders, both male and female youths had a higher prevalence of psychiatric illness and substance use disorder than youths in the general population,” the researchers noted.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the inclusion only of youth with commercial insurance, with no uninsured or publicly insured youth, and only those youth who sought health care after a nonfatal opioid overdose, the researchers noted. The prevalence of substance use and mental health disorders may be over- or underdiagnosed, and race was not included as a variable because of unreliable data, they added. The database also did not allow for gender identity beyond sex as listed by the insurance carrier, they said.

However, the results indicate significant differences in the incidence of nonfatal opioid overdose and accompanying mental health and substance use disorders based on age and sex, they said.

“These differences may have important implications for developing effective interventions to prevent first-time NFOD and to engage youths in care after an NFOD,” they concluded.

The study was supported by grants to several researchers from the National Institute on Drug Abuse, National Institutes of Health, and the Charles A. King Trust. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. 

April is National Autism Awareness Month, and April 2 is World Autism Awareness Day. In the United States, there appears to be a heightened level of awareness of this condition over the past 10-15 years that has helped reduced its stigma, improve early identification, and (most importantly) increase access to early interventions for children and families.

The most recent prevalence estimates of autism in children in the United States is 1 in 54. This is a 10% increase since 2014 (1 in 59). Those most recent Centers for Disease Control and Prevention surveillance reports also point to a reduction in the racial gap between Black and White children when it comes to diagnosis.¹ Across the globe, there are more than 100 autism societies, and research designed to improve prevalence data in lower- to middle-income countries has also increased.²

Even with these recent encouraging numbers regarding identification of autism in historically underrepresented groups in the United States, there are still differences among those groups, compared with children who are socioeconomically well-off, White, or live in large urban areas.³ Specifically, Latinx children were documented to be identified with autism at lower rates, compared with Whites and Blacks. In addition, Black and Latinx children are still diagnosed at a later age, compared with White children. This is important to note because historically, Black and Latinx children have been diagnosed with severe forms of autism or co-occurring intellectual disability at a higher rate, compared with their White counterparts.⁴ Thus, it would not be inappropriate to infer that Black and Latinx children with “milder” presenting autism symptoms or without co-occurring ID are not identified at the same rates, compared with their White peers. Furthermore, when peering into the international data, epidemiologic studies regarding prevalence, clinical course, and outcomes is skewed heavily toward a few Western industrialized nations, Japan, and South Korea.⁵

In all, when observing Autism Awareness Month, we should continue to recognize that these aforementioned epidemiologic disparities still exist – both locally and globally. The global COVID-19 pandemic has almost certainly worsened these disparities because both clinical and research work have consequences that are not yet fully known. As long as these trends remain, racial and socioeconomic differences in access to treatment in the United States will remain. From an international perspective, we may never appreciate the true extent of the cultural variability within autism symptoms and so may never appreciate the full spectrum of ways the condition can present.
 

References

1. MMWR Surveill Summ. 2020 Mar 27;69(4):1-12. Erratum in: MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2020 Apr 24;69(16):503.

2. Lancet Glob Health. 2018 Oct;6(10):e1100-21.

3. Am J Public Health. 2009;99(3):493-8.

4. J Dev Behav Pediatr. 2011 Apr;32(3):179-87 and MMWR Surveill Summ. 2019;68(2):1-19.

5. Brain Sci. 2020;10(5):274. doi: 10.3390/brainsci10050274.
 

Dr. Emejuru is a child and adolescent psychiatrist with Community Hospital of Monterey Peninsula (CHOMP) and its Ohana Center for Child and Adolescent Behavioral Health in Monterey, Calif. His expertise is specific to conducting evaluations for autism spectrum disorder and evaluating, diagnosing, and treating co-occurring psychiatric disorders after training at the Johns Hopkins Hospital/Kennedy Krieger Institute’s Center for Autism and Related Disorders in Baltimore. He has no conflicts of interest.

April is National Autism Awareness Month, and April 2 is World Autism Awareness Day. In the United States, there appears to be a heightened level of awareness of this condition over the past 10-15 years that has helped reduced its stigma, improve early identification, and (most importantly) increase access to early interventions for children and families.

The most recent prevalence estimates of autism in children in the United States is 1 in 54. This is a 10% increase since 2014 (1 in 59). Those most recent Centers for Disease Control and Prevention surveillance reports also point to a reduction in the racial gap between Black and White children when it comes to diagnosis.¹ Across the globe, there are more than 100 autism societies, and research designed to improve prevalence data in lower- to middle-income countries has also increased.²

Even with these recent encouraging numbers regarding identification of autism in historically underrepresented groups in the United States, there are still differences among those groups, compared with children who are socioeconomically well-off, White, or live in large urban areas.³ Specifically, Latinx children were documented to be identified with autism at lower rates, compared with Whites and Blacks. In addition, Black and Latinx children are still diagnosed at a later age, compared with White children. This is important to note because historically, Black and Latinx children have been diagnosed with severe forms of autism or co-occurring intellectual disability at a higher rate, compared with their White counterparts.⁴ Thus, it would not be inappropriate to infer that Black and Latinx children with “milder” presenting autism symptoms or without co-occurring ID are not identified at the same rates, compared with their White peers. Furthermore, when peering into the international data, epidemiologic studies regarding prevalence, clinical course, and outcomes is skewed heavily toward a few Western industrialized nations, Japan, and South Korea.⁵

In all, when observing Autism Awareness Month, we should continue to recognize that these aforementioned epidemiologic disparities still exist – both locally and globally. The global COVID-19 pandemic has almost certainly worsened these disparities because both clinical and research work have consequences that are not yet fully known. As long as these trends remain, racial and socioeconomic differences in access to treatment in the United States will remain. From an international perspective, we may never appreciate the true extent of the cultural variability within autism symptoms and so may never appreciate the full spectrum of ways the condition can present.
 

References

1. MMWR Surveill Summ. 2020 Mar 27;69(4):1-12. Erratum in: MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2020 Apr 24;69(16):503.

2. Lancet Glob Health. 2018 Oct;6(10):e1100-21.

3. Am J Public Health. 2009;99(3):493-8.

4. J Dev Behav Pediatr. 2011 Apr;32(3):179-87 and MMWR Surveill Summ. 2019;68(2):1-19.

5. Brain Sci. 2020;10(5):274. doi: 10.3390/brainsci10050274.
 

Dr. Emejuru is a child and adolescent psychiatrist with Community Hospital of Monterey Peninsula (CHOMP) and its Ohana Center for Child and Adolescent Behavioral Health in Monterey, Calif. His expertise is specific to conducting evaluations for autism spectrum disorder and evaluating, diagnosing, and treating co-occurring psychiatric disorders after training at the Johns Hopkins Hospital/Kennedy Krieger Institute’s Center for Autism and Related Disorders in Baltimore. He has no conflicts of interest.

April is National Autism Awareness Month, and April 2 is World Autism Awareness Day. In the United States, there appears to be a heightened level of awareness of this condition over the past 10-15 years that has helped reduced its stigma, improve early identification, and (most importantly) increase access to early interventions for children and families.

The most recent prevalence estimates of autism in children in the United States is 1 in 54. This is a 10% increase since 2014 (1 in 59). Those most recent Centers for Disease Control and Prevention surveillance reports also point to a reduction in the racial gap between Black and White children when it comes to diagnosis.¹ Across the globe, there are more than 100 autism societies, and research designed to improve prevalence data in lower- to middle-income countries has also increased.²

Even with these recent encouraging numbers regarding identification of autism in historically underrepresented groups in the United States, there are still differences among those groups, compared with children who are socioeconomically well-off, White, or live in large urban areas.³ Specifically, Latinx children were documented to be identified with autism at lower rates, compared with Whites and Blacks. In addition, Black and Latinx children are still diagnosed at a later age, compared with White children. This is important to note because historically, Black and Latinx children have been diagnosed with severe forms of autism or co-occurring intellectual disability at a higher rate, compared with their White counterparts.⁴ Thus, it would not be inappropriate to infer that Black and Latinx children with “milder” presenting autism symptoms or without co-occurring ID are not identified at the same rates, compared with their White peers. Furthermore, when peering into the international data, epidemiologic studies regarding prevalence, clinical course, and outcomes is skewed heavily toward a few Western industrialized nations, Japan, and South Korea.⁵

In all, when observing Autism Awareness Month, we should continue to recognize that these aforementioned epidemiologic disparities still exist – both locally and globally. The global COVID-19 pandemic has almost certainly worsened these disparities because both clinical and research work have consequences that are not yet fully known. As long as these trends remain, racial and socioeconomic differences in access to treatment in the United States will remain. From an international perspective, we may never appreciate the true extent of the cultural variability within autism symptoms and so may never appreciate the full spectrum of ways the condition can present.
 

References

1. MMWR Surveill Summ. 2020 Mar 27;69(4):1-12. Erratum in: MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2020 Apr 24;69(16):503.

2. Lancet Glob Health. 2018 Oct;6(10):e1100-21.

3. Am J Public Health. 2009;99(3):493-8.

4. J Dev Behav Pediatr. 2011 Apr;32(3):179-87 and MMWR Surveill Summ. 2019;68(2):1-19.

5. Brain Sci. 2020;10(5):274. doi: 10.3390/brainsci10050274.
 

Dr. Emejuru is a child and adolescent psychiatrist with Community Hospital of Monterey Peninsula (CHOMP) and its Ohana Center for Child and Adolescent Behavioral Health in Monterey, Calif. His expertise is specific to conducting evaluations for autism spectrum disorder and evaluating, diagnosing, and treating co-occurring psychiatric disorders after training at the Johns Hopkins Hospital/Kennedy Krieger Institute’s Center for Autism and Related Disorders in Baltimore. He has no conflicts of interest.

Phase III clinical trials show that Pfizer’s coronavirus vaccine is 100% effective in protecting children aged 12-15 years from infection, the company said in a news release.

The study enrolled 2,260 adolescents aged 12-15. No infections were reported in the group given the vaccine produced by Pfizer and its European partner, BioNTech, the release said. The placebo group reported 18 cases of COVID-19.

The vaccinated children showed a strong antibody response with no serious side effects.

Albert Bourla, PhD, chairman and CEO of Pfizer, said the company plans to seek Food and Drug Administration emergency use authorization, which could allow this age group to be vaccinated before the start of the next school year. Pfizer will also seek authorization from the European Medicines Agency.

“We share the urgency to expand the authorization of our vaccine to use in younger populations and are encouraged by the clinical trial data from adolescents between the ages of 12 and 15,” Dr. Bourla said in the release.

The clinical trials showed a stronger response in children aged 12-15 than the 95% effectiveness reported in clinical trials in adults. The Pfizer vaccine is now authorized to be given to people aged 16 and up in the United States.

Health experts said the clinical trials – while not peer-reviewed – amounted to very good news.

“The sooner that we can get vaccines into as many people as possible, regardless of their age, the sooner we will be able to really feel like we’re ending this pandemic for good,” Angela Rasmussen, PhD, a virologist affiliated with Georgetown University in Washington, told The New York Times.

Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, recently said that getting children vaccinated is an important step toward achieving herd immunity.

“We don’t really know what that magical point of herd immunity is, but we do know that if we get the overwhelming population vaccinated, we’re going to be in good shape,” he said earlier in March during a hearing of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. “We ultimately would like to get and have to get children into that mix.”

Pfizer said it started clinical trials during the week of March 23 with children aged 5-11 and will next start trials with children aged 2-5, followed by children aged 6 months to 2 years. Vaccine makers Moderna and AstraZeneca also have started clinical trials in younger children.

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

Phase III clinical trials show that Pfizer’s coronavirus vaccine is 100% effective in protecting children aged 12-15 years from infection, the company said in a news release.

The study enrolled 2,260 adolescents aged 12-15. No infections were reported in the group given the vaccine produced by Pfizer and its European partner, BioNTech, the release said. The placebo group reported 18 cases of COVID-19.

The vaccinated children showed a strong antibody response with no serious side effects.

Albert Bourla, PhD, chairman and CEO of Pfizer, said the company plans to seek Food and Drug Administration emergency use authorization, which could allow this age group to be vaccinated before the start of the next school year. Pfizer will also seek authorization from the European Medicines Agency.

“We share the urgency to expand the authorization of our vaccine to use in younger populations and are encouraged by the clinical trial data from adolescents between the ages of 12 and 15,” Dr. Bourla said in the release.

The clinical trials showed a stronger response in children aged 12-15 than the 95% effectiveness reported in clinical trials in adults. The Pfizer vaccine is now authorized to be given to people aged 16 and up in the United States.

Health experts said the clinical trials – while not peer-reviewed – amounted to very good news.

“The sooner that we can get vaccines into as many people as possible, regardless of their age, the sooner we will be able to really feel like we’re ending this pandemic for good,” Angela Rasmussen, PhD, a virologist affiliated with Georgetown University in Washington, told The New York Times.

Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, recently said that getting children vaccinated is an important step toward achieving herd immunity.

“We don’t really know what that magical point of herd immunity is, but we do know that if we get the overwhelming population vaccinated, we’re going to be in good shape,” he said earlier in March during a hearing of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. “We ultimately would like to get and have to get children into that mix.”

Pfizer said it started clinical trials during the week of March 23 with children aged 5-11 and will next start trials with children aged 2-5, followed by children aged 6 months to 2 years. Vaccine makers Moderna and AstraZeneca also have started clinical trials in younger children.

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

Phase III clinical trials show that Pfizer’s coronavirus vaccine is 100% effective in protecting children aged 12-15 years from infection, the company said in a news release.

The study enrolled 2,260 adolescents aged 12-15. No infections were reported in the group given the vaccine produced by Pfizer and its European partner, BioNTech, the release said. The placebo group reported 18 cases of COVID-19.

The vaccinated children showed a strong antibody response with no serious side effects.

Albert Bourla, PhD, chairman and CEO of Pfizer, said the company plans to seek Food and Drug Administration emergency use authorization, which could allow this age group to be vaccinated before the start of the next school year. Pfizer will also seek authorization from the European Medicines Agency.

“We share the urgency to expand the authorization of our vaccine to use in younger populations and are encouraged by the clinical trial data from adolescents between the ages of 12 and 15,” Dr. Bourla said in the release.

The clinical trials showed a stronger response in children aged 12-15 than the 95% effectiveness reported in clinical trials in adults. The Pfizer vaccine is now authorized to be given to people aged 16 and up in the United States.

Health experts said the clinical trials – while not peer-reviewed – amounted to very good news.

“The sooner that we can get vaccines into as many people as possible, regardless of their age, the sooner we will be able to really feel like we’re ending this pandemic for good,” Angela Rasmussen, PhD, a virologist affiliated with Georgetown University in Washington, told The New York Times.

Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, recently said that getting children vaccinated is an important step toward achieving herd immunity.

“We don’t really know what that magical point of herd immunity is, but we do know that if we get the overwhelming population vaccinated, we’re going to be in good shape,” he said earlier in March during a hearing of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. “We ultimately would like to get and have to get children into that mix.”

Pfizer said it started clinical trials during the week of March 23 with children aged 5-11 and will next start trials with children aged 2-5, followed by children aged 6 months to 2 years. Vaccine makers Moderna and AstraZeneca also have started clinical trials in younger children.

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

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has added several new medical conditions to its list of those that predispose adults to more severe COVID-19 illness.

Conditions that had previously been categorized as “might be” placing individuals at increased risk – but now are listed as high risk – include type 1 diabetes (in addition to type 2), moderate-to-severe asthma, liver disease, dementia or other neurologic conditions, stroke/cerebrovascular disease, HIV infection, cystic fibrosis, and overweight (in addition to obesity).

Substance use disorders, which hadn’t been previously listed, are now also considered high risk.  

The new list groups together certain categories, such as chronic lung diseases (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, asthma, cystic fibrosis, etc) and heart conditions (heart failure, coronary artery disease, hypertension, etc).

Both diabetes types are now grouped under “diabetes.”  

The added medical conditions were posted on the CDC website’s COVID-19 page on March 29.
 

Type 1 diabetes and other conditions now priority for vaccination

The CDC refers to the medical conditions list as phase 1c in regard to COVID-19 vaccine prioritization, which means that anyone with any of these conditions can now be prioritized for vaccination, following those in groups 1a (frontline essential workers and those in long-term care facilities) and 1b (people aged 65-74 years; other essential workers; and people aged 16-64 years with underlying conditions that increase the risk of serious, life-threatening complications from COVID-19).

But in many cases, multiple states have already either fully opened up vaccine eligibility to all adults or have created their own lists of underlying high-risk medical conditions, CDC spokeswoman Kristen Nordlund told this news organization.  

No conditions have been removed from the list.

In January, the American Diabetes Association and 18 other organizations sent a letter to the CDC requesting that type 1 diabetes be prioritized along with type 2, based on data from studies showing people with both types to be at high risk for severe COVID-19 illness.

Now, ADA says, “this updated guidance will help to address the fact that in many states, millions of people with type 1 diabetes have not been prioritized equally, slowing their access to critical vaccines.”

While awaiting this latest CDC move, ADA had been urging state governors to prioritize type 1 and type 2 diabetes equally. As of now, 38 states and the District of Columbia had either done so or announced that they would.

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

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has added several new medical conditions to its list of those that predispose adults to more severe COVID-19 illness.

Conditions that had previously been categorized as “might be” placing individuals at increased risk – but now are listed as high risk – include type 1 diabetes (in addition to type 2), moderate-to-severe asthma, liver disease, dementia or other neurologic conditions, stroke/cerebrovascular disease, HIV infection, cystic fibrosis, and overweight (in addition to obesity).

Substance use disorders, which hadn’t been previously listed, are now also considered high risk.  

The new list groups together certain categories, such as chronic lung diseases (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, asthma, cystic fibrosis, etc) and heart conditions (heart failure, coronary artery disease, hypertension, etc).

Both diabetes types are now grouped under “diabetes.”  

The added medical conditions were posted on the CDC website’s COVID-19 page on March 29.
 

Type 1 diabetes and other conditions now priority for vaccination

The CDC refers to the medical conditions list as phase 1c in regard to COVID-19 vaccine prioritization, which means that anyone with any of these conditions can now be prioritized for vaccination, following those in groups 1a (frontline essential workers and those in long-term care facilities) and 1b (people aged 65-74 years; other essential workers; and people aged 16-64 years with underlying conditions that increase the risk of serious, life-threatening complications from COVID-19).

But in many cases, multiple states have already either fully opened up vaccine eligibility to all adults or have created their own lists of underlying high-risk medical conditions, CDC spokeswoman Kristen Nordlund told this news organization.  

No conditions have been removed from the list.

In January, the American Diabetes Association and 18 other organizations sent a letter to the CDC requesting that type 1 diabetes be prioritized along with type 2, based on data from studies showing people with both types to be at high risk for severe COVID-19 illness.

Now, ADA says, “this updated guidance will help to address the fact that in many states, millions of people with type 1 diabetes have not been prioritized equally, slowing their access to critical vaccines.”

While awaiting this latest CDC move, ADA had been urging state governors to prioritize type 1 and type 2 diabetes equally. As of now, 38 states and the District of Columbia had either done so or announced that they would.

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

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has added several new medical conditions to its list of those that predispose adults to more severe COVID-19 illness.

Conditions that had previously been categorized as “might be” placing individuals at increased risk – but now are listed as high risk – include type 1 diabetes (in addition to type 2), moderate-to-severe asthma, liver disease, dementia or other neurologic conditions, stroke/cerebrovascular disease, HIV infection, cystic fibrosis, and overweight (in addition to obesity).

Substance use disorders, which hadn’t been previously listed, are now also considered high risk.  

The new list groups together certain categories, such as chronic lung diseases (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, asthma, cystic fibrosis, etc) and heart conditions (heart failure, coronary artery disease, hypertension, etc).

Both diabetes types are now grouped under “diabetes.”  

The added medical conditions were posted on the CDC website’s COVID-19 page on March 29.
 

Type 1 diabetes and other conditions now priority for vaccination

The CDC refers to the medical conditions list as phase 1c in regard to COVID-19 vaccine prioritization, which means that anyone with any of these conditions can now be prioritized for vaccination, following those in groups 1a (frontline essential workers and those in long-term care facilities) and 1b (people aged 65-74 years; other essential workers; and people aged 16-64 years with underlying conditions that increase the risk of serious, life-threatening complications from COVID-19).

But in many cases, multiple states have already either fully opened up vaccine eligibility to all adults or have created their own lists of underlying high-risk medical conditions, CDC spokeswoman Kristen Nordlund told this news organization.  

No conditions have been removed from the list.

In January, the American Diabetes Association and 18 other organizations sent a letter to the CDC requesting that type 1 diabetes be prioritized along with type 2, based on data from studies showing people with both types to be at high risk for severe COVID-19 illness.

Now, ADA says, “this updated guidance will help to address the fact that in many states, millions of people with type 1 diabetes have not been prioritized equally, slowing their access to critical vaccines.”

While awaiting this latest CDC move, ADA had been urging state governors to prioritize type 1 and type 2 diabetes equally. As of now, 38 states and the District of Columbia had either done so or announced that they would.

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

Ideally, Americans receiving their Pfizer/BioNTech or Moderna COVID-19 vaccines will get both doses from the same manufacturer, said Gregory Poland, MD, a vaccinologist at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.

After all, that’s how they were tested for efficacy and safety, and it was results from those studies that led to emergency use authorization (EUA) being granted by the Food and Drug Administration.

But states and countries have struggled to keep up with the demand for vaccine, and more flexible vaccination schedules could help.

So researchers are exploring whether it is safe and effective to get the first and second doses from different manufacturers. And they are even wondering whether mixing doses from different manufacturers could increase effectiveness, particularly in light of emerging variants.

It’s called the “interchangeability issue,” said Dr. Poland, who has gotten a steady stream of questions about it.

For example, a patient recently asked about options for his father, who had gotten his first dose of the AstraZeneca vaccine in Ecuador, but had since moved to the United States, where that product has not been approved for use.

Dr. Poland said in an interview that he prefaces each answer with: “I’ve got no science for what I’m about to tell you.”

In this particular case, he recommended that the man’s father talk with his doctor about his level of COVID-19 risk and consider whether he should gamble on the AstraZeneca vaccine getting approved in the United States soon, or whether he should ask for a second dose from one of the three vaccines currently approved.

On March 22, 2021, AstraZeneca released positive results from its phase 3 trial, which will likely speed its path toward use in the United States.

Although clinical trials have started to test combinations and boosters, there’s currently no definitive evidence from human trials on mixing COVID vaccines, Dr. Poland pointed out.

But a study of a mixed-vaccine regimen is currently underway in the United Kingdom.

Participants in that 13-month trial will be given the Oxford/AstraZeneca and Pfizer/BioNTech vaccines in different combinations and at different intervals. The first results from that trial are expected this summer.

And interim results from a trial combining Russia’s Sputnik V and the AstraZeneca vaccines are expected in 2 months, according to a Reuters report.
 

Mix only in ‘exceptional situations’

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has been hesitant to open the door to mixing Pfizer and Moderna vaccinations, noting that the two “are not interchangeable.” But CDC guidance has changed slightly. Now, instead of saying the two vaccines should not be mixed, CDC guidance says they can be mixed in “exceptional situations,” and that the second dose can be administered up to 6 weeks after the first dose.

It is reasonable to assume that mixing COVID-19 vaccines that use the same platform – such as the mRNA platform used by both the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines – will be acceptable, Dr. Poland said, although human trials have not proven that.

However, it is unclear whether vaccines that use different platforms can be mixed. Can the first dose of an mRNA vaccine be followed by an adenovirus-based vaccine, like the Johnson & Johnson product or Novavax, if that vaccine is granted an EUA?

Ross Kedl, PhD, a vaccine researcher and professor of immunology at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, said matching vaccine platforms might not be the preferred vaccination strategy.

He disagreed that there’s a lack of science surrounding the issue, and said all signs point to mixing as not only a good option, but probably a better one.
 

Researcher says science backs mixing

A mix of two different vaccine platforms likely enhances immunity, Dr. Kedl said. The heterologous prime-boost strategy has been used in animal studies for decades, “and it is well known that this promotes a much better immune response than when immunizing with the same vaccine twice.

“If you think about it in a Venn diagram sort of way, it makes sense,” he said in an interview. “Each vaccine has a number of components in it that influence immunity in various ways, but between the two of them, they only have one component that is similar. In the case of the coronavirus vaccines, the one thing both have in common is the spike protein from SARS-CoV-2. In essence, this gives you two shots at generating immunity against the one thing in each vaccine you care most about, but only one shot for the other vaccine components in each platform, resulting in an amplified response against the common target.”

In fact, the heterologous prime-boost vaccination strategy has proven to be effective in humans in early studies.

For example, an Ebola regimen that consisted of an adenovirus vector, similar to the AstraZeneca COVID vaccine, and a modified vaccinia virus vector showed promise in a phase 1 study. And an HIV regimen that consisted of the combination of a DNA vaccine, similar to the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines, and another viral vector showed encouraging results in a proof-of-concept study.

In both these cases, the heterologous prime-boost strategy was far better than single-vaccine prime-boost regimens, Dr. Kedl pointed out. And neither study reported any safety issues with the combinations.

For now, it’s best to stick with the same manufacturer for both shots, as the CDC guidance suggests, he said, agreeing with Dr. Poland.

But “I would be very surprised if we didn’t move to a mixing of vaccine platforms for the population,” Dr. Kedl said.

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

Ideally, Americans receiving their Pfizer/BioNTech or Moderna COVID-19 vaccines will get both doses from the same manufacturer, said Gregory Poland, MD, a vaccinologist at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.

After all, that’s how they were tested for efficacy and safety, and it was results from those studies that led to emergency use authorization (EUA) being granted by the Food and Drug Administration.

But states and countries have struggled to keep up with the demand for vaccine, and more flexible vaccination schedules could help.

So researchers are exploring whether it is safe and effective to get the first and second doses from different manufacturers. And they are even wondering whether mixing doses from different manufacturers could increase effectiveness, particularly in light of emerging variants.

It’s called the “interchangeability issue,” said Dr. Poland, who has gotten a steady stream of questions about it.

For example, a patient recently asked about options for his father, who had gotten his first dose of the AstraZeneca vaccine in Ecuador, but had since moved to the United States, where that product has not been approved for use.

Dr. Poland said in an interview that he prefaces each answer with: “I’ve got no science for what I’m about to tell you.”

In this particular case, he recommended that the man’s father talk with his doctor about his level of COVID-19 risk and consider whether he should gamble on the AstraZeneca vaccine getting approved in the United States soon, or whether he should ask for a second dose from one of the three vaccines currently approved.

On March 22, 2021, AstraZeneca released positive results from its phase 3 trial, which will likely speed its path toward use in the United States.

Although clinical trials have started to test combinations and boosters, there’s currently no definitive evidence from human trials on mixing COVID vaccines, Dr. Poland pointed out.

But a study of a mixed-vaccine regimen is currently underway in the United Kingdom.

Participants in that 13-month trial will be given the Oxford/AstraZeneca and Pfizer/BioNTech vaccines in different combinations and at different intervals. The first results from that trial are expected this summer.

And interim results from a trial combining Russia’s Sputnik V and the AstraZeneca vaccines are expected in 2 months, according to a Reuters report.
 

Mix only in ‘exceptional situations’

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has been hesitant to open the door to mixing Pfizer and Moderna vaccinations, noting that the two “are not interchangeable.” But CDC guidance has changed slightly. Now, instead of saying the two vaccines should not be mixed, CDC guidance says they can be mixed in “exceptional situations,” and that the second dose can be administered up to 6 weeks after the first dose.

It is reasonable to assume that mixing COVID-19 vaccines that use the same platform – such as the mRNA platform used by both the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines – will be acceptable, Dr. Poland said, although human trials have not proven that.

However, it is unclear whether vaccines that use different platforms can be mixed. Can the first dose of an mRNA vaccine be followed by an adenovirus-based vaccine, like the Johnson & Johnson product or Novavax, if that vaccine is granted an EUA?

Ross Kedl, PhD, a vaccine researcher and professor of immunology at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, said matching vaccine platforms might not be the preferred vaccination strategy.

He disagreed that there’s a lack of science surrounding the issue, and said all signs point to mixing as not only a good option, but probably a better one.
 

Researcher says science backs mixing

A mix of two different vaccine platforms likely enhances immunity, Dr. Kedl said. The heterologous prime-boost strategy has been used in animal studies for decades, “and it is well known that this promotes a much better immune response than when immunizing with the same vaccine twice.

“If you think about it in a Venn diagram sort of way, it makes sense,” he said in an interview. “Each vaccine has a number of components in it that influence immunity in various ways, but between the two of them, they only have one component that is similar. In the case of the coronavirus vaccines, the one thing both have in common is the spike protein from SARS-CoV-2. In essence, this gives you two shots at generating immunity against the one thing in each vaccine you care most about, but only one shot for the other vaccine components in each platform, resulting in an amplified response against the common target.”

In fact, the heterologous prime-boost vaccination strategy has proven to be effective in humans in early studies.

For example, an Ebola regimen that consisted of an adenovirus vector, similar to the AstraZeneca COVID vaccine, and a modified vaccinia virus vector showed promise in a phase 1 study. And an HIV regimen that consisted of the combination of a DNA vaccine, similar to the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines, and another viral vector showed encouraging results in a proof-of-concept study.

In both these cases, the heterologous prime-boost strategy was far better than single-vaccine prime-boost regimens, Dr. Kedl pointed out. And neither study reported any safety issues with the combinations.

For now, it’s best to stick with the same manufacturer for both shots, as the CDC guidance suggests, he said, agreeing with Dr. Poland.

But “I would be very surprised if we didn’t move to a mixing of vaccine platforms for the population,” Dr. Kedl said.

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

Ideally, Americans receiving their Pfizer/BioNTech or Moderna COVID-19 vaccines will get both doses from the same manufacturer, said Gregory Poland, MD, a vaccinologist at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.

After all, that’s how they were tested for efficacy and safety, and it was results from those studies that led to emergency use authorization (EUA) being granted by the Food and Drug Administration.

But states and countries have struggled to keep up with the demand for vaccine, and more flexible vaccination schedules could help.

So researchers are exploring whether it is safe and effective to get the first and second doses from different manufacturers. And they are even wondering whether mixing doses from different manufacturers could increase effectiveness, particularly in light of emerging variants.

It’s called the “interchangeability issue,” said Dr. Poland, who has gotten a steady stream of questions about it.

For example, a patient recently asked about options for his father, who had gotten his first dose of the AstraZeneca vaccine in Ecuador, but had since moved to the United States, where that product has not been approved for use.

Dr. Poland said in an interview that he prefaces each answer with: “I’ve got no science for what I’m about to tell you.”

In this particular case, he recommended that the man’s father talk with his doctor about his level of COVID-19 risk and consider whether he should gamble on the AstraZeneca vaccine getting approved in the United States soon, or whether he should ask for a second dose from one of the three vaccines currently approved.

On March 22, 2021, AstraZeneca released positive results from its phase 3 trial, which will likely speed its path toward use in the United States.

Although clinical trials have started to test combinations and boosters, there’s currently no definitive evidence from human trials on mixing COVID vaccines, Dr. Poland pointed out.

But a study of a mixed-vaccine regimen is currently underway in the United Kingdom.

Participants in that 13-month trial will be given the Oxford/AstraZeneca and Pfizer/BioNTech vaccines in different combinations and at different intervals. The first results from that trial are expected this summer.

And interim results from a trial combining Russia’s Sputnik V and the AstraZeneca vaccines are expected in 2 months, according to a Reuters report.
 

Mix only in ‘exceptional situations’

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has been hesitant to open the door to mixing Pfizer and Moderna vaccinations, noting that the two “are not interchangeable.” But CDC guidance has changed slightly. Now, instead of saying the two vaccines should not be mixed, CDC guidance says they can be mixed in “exceptional situations,” and that the second dose can be administered up to 6 weeks after the first dose.

It is reasonable to assume that mixing COVID-19 vaccines that use the same platform – such as the mRNA platform used by both the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines – will be acceptable, Dr. Poland said, although human trials have not proven that.

However, it is unclear whether vaccines that use different platforms can be mixed. Can the first dose of an mRNA vaccine be followed by an adenovirus-based vaccine, like the Johnson & Johnson product or Novavax, if that vaccine is granted an EUA?

Ross Kedl, PhD, a vaccine researcher and professor of immunology at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, said matching vaccine platforms might not be the preferred vaccination strategy.

He disagreed that there’s a lack of science surrounding the issue, and said all signs point to mixing as not only a good option, but probably a better one.
 

Researcher says science backs mixing

A mix of two different vaccine platforms likely enhances immunity, Dr. Kedl said. The heterologous prime-boost strategy has been used in animal studies for decades, “and it is well known that this promotes a much better immune response than when immunizing with the same vaccine twice.

“If you think about it in a Venn diagram sort of way, it makes sense,” he said in an interview. “Each vaccine has a number of components in it that influence immunity in various ways, but between the two of them, they only have one component that is similar. In the case of the coronavirus vaccines, the one thing both have in common is the spike protein from SARS-CoV-2. In essence, this gives you two shots at generating immunity against the one thing in each vaccine you care most about, but only one shot for the other vaccine components in each platform, resulting in an amplified response against the common target.”

In fact, the heterologous prime-boost vaccination strategy has proven to be effective in humans in early studies.

For example, an Ebola regimen that consisted of an adenovirus vector, similar to the AstraZeneca COVID vaccine, and a modified vaccinia virus vector showed promise in a phase 1 study. And an HIV regimen that consisted of the combination of a DNA vaccine, similar to the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines, and another viral vector showed encouraging results in a proof-of-concept study.

In both these cases, the heterologous prime-boost strategy was far better than single-vaccine prime-boost regimens, Dr. Kedl pointed out. And neither study reported any safety issues with the combinations.

For now, it’s best to stick with the same manufacturer for both shots, as the CDC guidance suggests, he said, agreeing with Dr. Poland.

But “I would be very surprised if we didn’t move to a mixing of vaccine platforms for the population,” Dr. Kedl said.

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

Two-thirds of epidemiologists from leading academic institutions say the world will need new or modified vaccines for COVID-19 within a year, new research shows.

South_agency/Getty Images

In a survey of 77 epidemiologists from 28 countries by the People’s Vaccine Alliance, 66.2% predicted that the world has a year or less before variants make current vaccines ineffective. The People’s Vaccine Alliance is a coalition of more than 50 organizations, including the African Alliance, Oxfam, Public Citizen, and UNAIDS (the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS).

Almost a third (32.5%) of those surveyed said ineffectiveness would happen in 9 months or less; 18.2% said 6 months or less.

Paul A. Offit, MD, director of the Vaccine Education Center at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, said in an interview that, while it’s hard to say whether vaccines could become ineffective in that time frame, “It’s perfectly reasonable to think it could happen.”

The good news, said Dr. Offit, who was not involved with the survey, is that SARS-CoV-2 mutates slowly, compared with other viruses such as influenza.

“To date,” he said, “the mutations that have occurred are not far enough away from the immunity induced by your natural infection or immunization such that one isn’t protected at least against severe and critical disease.”

That’s the goal of vaccines, he noted: “to keep people from suffering mightily.”
 

A line may be crossed

“And so far that’s happening, even with the variants,” Dr. Offit said. “That line has not been crossed. But I think we should assume that it might be.”

Dr. Offit said it will be critical to monitor anyone who gets hospitalized who is known to have been infected or fully vaccinated. Then countries need to get really good at sequencing those viruses.

The great majority of those surveyed (88%) said that persistently low vaccine coverage in many countries would make it more likely that vaccine-resistant mutations will appear.

Coverage comparisons between countries are stark.
 

Many countries haven’t given a single vaccine dose

While rich countries are giving COVID-19 vaccinations at the rate of a person a second, many of the poorest countries have given hardly any vaccines, the People’s Vaccine Alliance says.

Additionally, according to researchers at the Global Health Innovation Center at Duke University, Durham, N.C., high- and upper-middle–income countries, which represent one-fifth of the world’s population, have bought about 6 billion doses. But low- and lower-middle–income countries, which make up four-fifths of the population, have bought only about 2.6 billion, an article in Nature reports.

“You’re only as strong as your weakest country,” Dr. Offit said. “If we haven’t learned that what happens in other countries can [affect the global population], we haven’t been paying attention.”

Gregg Gonsalves, PhD, associate professor of epidemiology at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., one of the academic centers surveyed, didn’t specify a timeline for when vaccines would become ineffective, but said in a press release that the urgency for widespread global vaccination is real.

“Unless we vaccinate the world,” he said, “we leave the playing field open to more and more mutations, which could churn out variants that could evade our current vaccines and require booster shots to deal with them.”
 

“Dire, but not surprising”

Panagis Galiatsatos, MD, MHS, a pulmonologist at John Hopkins University, Baltimore, whose research focuses on health care disparities, said the survey findings were “dire, but not surprising.”

Johns Hopkins was another of the centers surveyed, but Dr. Galiatsatos wasn’t personally involved with the survey.

COVID-19, Dr. Galiatsatos pointed out, has laid bare disparities, both in who gets the vaccine and who’s involved in trials to develop the vaccines.

“It’s morally concerning and an ethical reckoning,” he said in an interview.

Recognition of the borderless swath of destruction the virus is exacting is critical, he said.

The United States “has to realize this can’t be a U.S.-centric issue,” he said. “We’re going to be back to the beginning if we don’t make sure that every country is doing well. We haven’t seen that level of uniform approach.”

He noted that scientists have always known that viruses mutate, but now the race is on to find the parts of SARS-CoV-2 that don’t mutate as much.

“My suspicion is we’ll probably need boosters instead of a whole different vaccine,” Dr. Galiatsatos said.

Among the strategies sought by the People’s Vaccine Alliance is for all pharmaceutical companies working on COVID-19 vaccines to openly share technology and intellectual property through the World Health Organization COVID-19 Technology Access Pool, to speed production and rollout of vaccines to all countries.

In the survey, 74% said that open sharing of technology and intellectual property could boost global vaccine coverage; 23% said maybe and 3% said it wouldn’t help.

The survey was carried out between Feb. 17 and March 25, 2021. Respondents included epidemiologists, virologists, and infection disease specialists from the following countries: Algeria, Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Bolivia, Canada, Denmark, Ethiopia, France, Guatemala, India, Italy, Kenya, Lebanon, Norway, Philippines, Senegal, Somalia, South Africa, South Sudan, Spain, United Arab Emirates, Uganda, United Kingdom, United States, Vietnam, Zambia, and Zimbabwe.

Dr. Offit and Dr. Galiatsatos reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Two-thirds of epidemiologists from leading academic institutions say the world will need new or modified vaccines for COVID-19 within a year, new research shows.

South_agency/Getty Images

In a survey of 77 epidemiologists from 28 countries by the People’s Vaccine Alliance, 66.2% predicted that the world has a year or less before variants make current vaccines ineffective. The People’s Vaccine Alliance is a coalition of more than 50 organizations, including the African Alliance, Oxfam, Public Citizen, and UNAIDS (the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS).

Almost a third (32.5%) of those surveyed said ineffectiveness would happen in 9 months or less; 18.2% said 6 months or less.

Paul A. Offit, MD, director of the Vaccine Education Center at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, said in an interview that, while it’s hard to say whether vaccines could become ineffective in that time frame, “It’s perfectly reasonable to think it could happen.”

The good news, said Dr. Offit, who was not involved with the survey, is that SARS-CoV-2 mutates slowly, compared with other viruses such as influenza.

“To date,” he said, “the mutations that have occurred are not far enough away from the immunity induced by your natural infection or immunization such that one isn’t protected at least against severe and critical disease.”

That’s the goal of vaccines, he noted: “to keep people from suffering mightily.”
 

A line may be crossed

“And so far that’s happening, even with the variants,” Dr. Offit said. “That line has not been crossed. But I think we should assume that it might be.”

Dr. Offit said it will be critical to monitor anyone who gets hospitalized who is known to have been infected or fully vaccinated. Then countries need to get really good at sequencing those viruses.

The great majority of those surveyed (88%) said that persistently low vaccine coverage in many countries would make it more likely that vaccine-resistant mutations will appear.

Coverage comparisons between countries are stark.
 

Many countries haven’t given a single vaccine dose

While rich countries are giving COVID-19 vaccinations at the rate of a person a second, many of the poorest countries have given hardly any vaccines, the People’s Vaccine Alliance says.

Additionally, according to researchers at the Global Health Innovation Center at Duke University, Durham, N.C., high- and upper-middle–income countries, which represent one-fifth of the world’s population, have bought about 6 billion doses. But low- and lower-middle–income countries, which make up four-fifths of the population, have bought only about 2.6 billion, an article in Nature reports.

“You’re only as strong as your weakest country,” Dr. Offit said. “If we haven’t learned that what happens in other countries can [affect the global population], we haven’t been paying attention.”

Gregg Gonsalves, PhD, associate professor of epidemiology at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., one of the academic centers surveyed, didn’t specify a timeline for when vaccines would become ineffective, but said in a press release that the urgency for widespread global vaccination is real.

“Unless we vaccinate the world,” he said, “we leave the playing field open to more and more mutations, which could churn out variants that could evade our current vaccines and require booster shots to deal with them.”
 

“Dire, but not surprising”

Panagis Galiatsatos, MD, MHS, a pulmonologist at John Hopkins University, Baltimore, whose research focuses on health care disparities, said the survey findings were “dire, but not surprising.”

Johns Hopkins was another of the centers surveyed, but Dr. Galiatsatos wasn’t personally involved with the survey.

COVID-19, Dr. Galiatsatos pointed out, has laid bare disparities, both in who gets the vaccine and who’s involved in trials to develop the vaccines.

“It’s morally concerning and an ethical reckoning,” he said in an interview.

Recognition of the borderless swath of destruction the virus is exacting is critical, he said.

The United States “has to realize this can’t be a U.S.-centric issue,” he said. “We’re going to be back to the beginning if we don’t make sure that every country is doing well. We haven’t seen that level of uniform approach.”

He noted that scientists have always known that viruses mutate, but now the race is on to find the parts of SARS-CoV-2 that don’t mutate as much.

“My suspicion is we’ll probably need boosters instead of a whole different vaccine,” Dr. Galiatsatos said.

Among the strategies sought by the People’s Vaccine Alliance is for all pharmaceutical companies working on COVID-19 vaccines to openly share technology and intellectual property through the World Health Organization COVID-19 Technology Access Pool, to speed production and rollout of vaccines to all countries.

In the survey, 74% said that open sharing of technology and intellectual property could boost global vaccine coverage; 23% said maybe and 3% said it wouldn’t help.

The survey was carried out between Feb. 17 and March 25, 2021. Respondents included epidemiologists, virologists, and infection disease specialists from the following countries: Algeria, Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Bolivia, Canada, Denmark, Ethiopia, France, Guatemala, India, Italy, Kenya, Lebanon, Norway, Philippines, Senegal, Somalia, South Africa, South Sudan, Spain, United Arab Emirates, Uganda, United Kingdom, United States, Vietnam, Zambia, and Zimbabwe.

Dr. Offit and Dr. Galiatsatos reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Two-thirds of epidemiologists from leading academic institutions say the world will need new or modified vaccines for COVID-19 within a year, new research shows.

South_agency/Getty Images

In a survey of 77 epidemiologists from 28 countries by the People’s Vaccine Alliance, 66.2% predicted that the world has a year or less before variants make current vaccines ineffective. The People’s Vaccine Alliance is a coalition of more than 50 organizations, including the African Alliance, Oxfam, Public Citizen, and UNAIDS (the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS).

Almost a third (32.5%) of those surveyed said ineffectiveness would happen in 9 months or less; 18.2% said 6 months or less.

Paul A. Offit, MD, director of the Vaccine Education Center at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, said in an interview that, while it’s hard to say whether vaccines could become ineffective in that time frame, “It’s perfectly reasonable to think it could happen.”

The good news, said Dr. Offit, who was not involved with the survey, is that SARS-CoV-2 mutates slowly, compared with other viruses such as influenza.

“To date,” he said, “the mutations that have occurred are not far enough away from the immunity induced by your natural infection or immunization such that one isn’t protected at least against severe and critical disease.”

That’s the goal of vaccines, he noted: “to keep people from suffering mightily.”
 

A line may be crossed

“And so far that’s happening, even with the variants,” Dr. Offit said. “That line has not been crossed. But I think we should assume that it might be.”

Dr. Offit said it will be critical to monitor anyone who gets hospitalized who is known to have been infected or fully vaccinated. Then countries need to get really good at sequencing those viruses.

The great majority of those surveyed (88%) said that persistently low vaccine coverage in many countries would make it more likely that vaccine-resistant mutations will appear.

Coverage comparisons between countries are stark.
 

Many countries haven’t given a single vaccine dose

While rich countries are giving COVID-19 vaccinations at the rate of a person a second, many of the poorest countries have given hardly any vaccines, the People’s Vaccine Alliance says.

Additionally, according to researchers at the Global Health Innovation Center at Duke University, Durham, N.C., high- and upper-middle–income countries, which represent one-fifth of the world’s population, have bought about 6 billion doses. But low- and lower-middle–income countries, which make up four-fifths of the population, have bought only about 2.6 billion, an article in Nature reports.

“You’re only as strong as your weakest country,” Dr. Offit said. “If we haven’t learned that what happens in other countries can [affect the global population], we haven’t been paying attention.”

Gregg Gonsalves, PhD, associate professor of epidemiology at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., one of the academic centers surveyed, didn’t specify a timeline for when vaccines would become ineffective, but said in a press release that the urgency for widespread global vaccination is real.

“Unless we vaccinate the world,” he said, “we leave the playing field open to more and more mutations, which could churn out variants that could evade our current vaccines and require booster shots to deal with them.”
 

“Dire, but not surprising”

Panagis Galiatsatos, MD, MHS, a pulmonologist at John Hopkins University, Baltimore, whose research focuses on health care disparities, said the survey findings were “dire, but not surprising.”

Johns Hopkins was another of the centers surveyed, but Dr. Galiatsatos wasn’t personally involved with the survey.

COVID-19, Dr. Galiatsatos pointed out, has laid bare disparities, both in who gets the vaccine and who’s involved in trials to develop the vaccines.

“It’s morally concerning and an ethical reckoning,” he said in an interview.

Recognition of the borderless swath of destruction the virus is exacting is critical, he said.

The United States “has to realize this can’t be a U.S.-centric issue,” he said. “We’re going to be back to the beginning if we don’t make sure that every country is doing well. We haven’t seen that level of uniform approach.”

He noted that scientists have always known that viruses mutate, but now the race is on to find the parts of SARS-CoV-2 that don’t mutate as much.

“My suspicion is we’ll probably need boosters instead of a whole different vaccine,” Dr. Galiatsatos said.

Among the strategies sought by the People’s Vaccine Alliance is for all pharmaceutical companies working on COVID-19 vaccines to openly share technology and intellectual property through the World Health Organization COVID-19 Technology Access Pool, to speed production and rollout of vaccines to all countries.

In the survey, 74% said that open sharing of technology and intellectual property could boost global vaccine coverage; 23% said maybe and 3% said it wouldn’t help.

The survey was carried out between Feb. 17 and March 25, 2021. Respondents included epidemiologists, virologists, and infection disease specialists from the following countries: Algeria, Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Bolivia, Canada, Denmark, Ethiopia, France, Guatemala, India, Italy, Kenya, Lebanon, Norway, Philippines, Senegal, Somalia, South Africa, South Sudan, Spain, United Arab Emirates, Uganda, United Kingdom, United States, Vietnam, Zambia, and Zimbabwe.

Dr. Offit and Dr. Galiatsatos reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The National Psoriasis Foundation COVID-19 Task Force now recommends that certain patients on methotrexate consider stopping the drug for 2 weeks after receiving the Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine, Joel M. Gelfand, MD, said at Innovations in Dermatology: Virtual Spring Conference 2021.

Courtesy Dr. Joel M. Gelfand

The new guidance states: “Patients 60 or older who have at least one comorbidity associated with an increased risk for poor COVID-19 outcomes, and who are taking methotrexate with well-controlled psoriatic disease, may, in consultation with their prescriber, consider holding it for 2 weeks after receiving the Ad26.COV2.S [Johnson & Johnson] vaccine in order to potentially improve vaccine response.”

The key word here is “potentially.” There is no hard evidence that a 2-week hold on methotrexate after receiving the killed adenovirus vaccine will actually provide a clinically meaningful benefit. But it’s a hypothetical possibility. The rationale stems from a small randomized trial conducted in South Korea several years ago in which patients with rheumatoid arthritis were assigned to hold or continue their methotrexate for the first 2 weeks after receiving an inactivated-virus influenza vaccine. The antibody response to the vaccine was better in those who temporarily halted their methotrexate, explained Dr. Gelfand, cochair of the NPF COVID-19 Task Force and professor of dermatology and of epidemiology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

“If you have a patient on methotrexate who’s 60 or older and whose psoriasis is completely controlled and quiescent and the patient is concerned about how well the vaccine is going to work, this is a reasonable thing to consider in someone who’s at higher risk for poor outcomes if they get infected,” he said.

If the informed patient wants to continue on methotrexate without interruption, that’s fine, too, in light of the lack of compelling evidence on this issue, the dermatologist added at the conference, sponsored by MedscapeLIVE! and the producers of the Hawaii Dermatology Seminar and Caribbean Dermatology Symposium.

The NPF task force does not extend the recommendation to consider holding methotrexate in recipients of the mRNA-based Moderna and Pfizer vaccines because of their very different mechanisms of action. Nor is it recommended to hold biologic agents after receiving any of the available COVID-19 vaccines. Studies have shown no altered immunologic response to influenza or pneumococcal vaccines in patients who continued on tumor necrosis factor inhibitors or interleukin-17 inhibitors. The interleukin-23 inhibitors haven’t been studied in this regard.

The task force recommends that most psoriasis patients should continue on treatment throughout the pandemic, and newly diagnosed patients should commence appropriate therapy as if there was no pandemic.

“We’ve learned that many patients who stopped their treatment for psoriatic disease early in the pandemic came to regret that decision because their psoriasis flared and got worse and required reinstitution of therapy,” Dr. Gelfand said. “The current data is largely reassuring that if there is an effect of our therapies on the risk of COVID, it must be rather small and therefore unlikely to be clinically meaningful for our patients.”

Dr. Gelfand reported serving as a consultant to and recipient of institutional research grants from Pfizer and numerous other pharmaceutical companies.

MedscapeLIVE and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

[email protected]

The National Psoriasis Foundation COVID-19 Task Force now recommends that certain patients on methotrexate consider stopping the drug for 2 weeks after receiving the Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine, Joel M. Gelfand, MD, said at Innovations in Dermatology: Virtual Spring Conference 2021.

Courtesy Dr. Joel M. Gelfand

The new guidance states: “Patients 60 or older who have at least one comorbidity associated with an increased risk for poor COVID-19 outcomes, and who are taking methotrexate with well-controlled psoriatic disease, may, in consultation with their prescriber, consider holding it for 2 weeks after receiving the Ad26.COV2.S [Johnson & Johnson] vaccine in order to potentially improve vaccine response.”

The key word here is “potentially.” There is no hard evidence that a 2-week hold on methotrexate after receiving the killed adenovirus vaccine will actually provide a clinically meaningful benefit. But it’s a hypothetical possibility. The rationale stems from a small randomized trial conducted in South Korea several years ago in which patients with rheumatoid arthritis were assigned to hold or continue their methotrexate for the first 2 weeks after receiving an inactivated-virus influenza vaccine. The antibody response to the vaccine was better in those who temporarily halted their methotrexate, explained Dr. Gelfand, cochair of the NPF COVID-19 Task Force and professor of dermatology and of epidemiology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

“If you have a patient on methotrexate who’s 60 or older and whose psoriasis is completely controlled and quiescent and the patient is concerned about how well the vaccine is going to work, this is a reasonable thing to consider in someone who’s at higher risk for poor outcomes if they get infected,” he said.

If the informed patient wants to continue on methotrexate without interruption, that’s fine, too, in light of the lack of compelling evidence on this issue, the dermatologist added at the conference, sponsored by MedscapeLIVE! and the producers of the Hawaii Dermatology Seminar and Caribbean Dermatology Symposium.

The NPF task force does not extend the recommendation to consider holding methotrexate in recipients of the mRNA-based Moderna and Pfizer vaccines because of their very different mechanisms of action. Nor is it recommended to hold biologic agents after receiving any of the available COVID-19 vaccines. Studies have shown no altered immunologic response to influenza or pneumococcal vaccines in patients who continued on tumor necrosis factor inhibitors or interleukin-17 inhibitors. The interleukin-23 inhibitors haven’t been studied in this regard.

The task force recommends that most psoriasis patients should continue on treatment throughout the pandemic, and newly diagnosed patients should commence appropriate therapy as if there was no pandemic.

“We’ve learned that many patients who stopped their treatment for psoriatic disease early in the pandemic came to regret that decision because their psoriasis flared and got worse and required reinstitution of therapy,” Dr. Gelfand said. “The current data is largely reassuring that if there is an effect of our therapies on the risk of COVID, it must be rather small and therefore unlikely to be clinically meaningful for our patients.”

Dr. Gelfand reported serving as a consultant to and recipient of institutional research grants from Pfizer and numerous other pharmaceutical companies.

MedscapeLIVE and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

[email protected]

The National Psoriasis Foundation COVID-19 Task Force now recommends that certain patients on methotrexate consider stopping the drug for 2 weeks after receiving the Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine, Joel M. Gelfand, MD, said at Innovations in Dermatology: Virtual Spring Conference 2021.

Courtesy Dr. Joel M. Gelfand

The new guidance states: “Patients 60 or older who have at least one comorbidity associated with an increased risk for poor COVID-19 outcomes, and who are taking methotrexate with well-controlled psoriatic disease, may, in consultation with their prescriber, consider holding it for 2 weeks after receiving the Ad26.COV2.S [Johnson & Johnson] vaccine in order to potentially improve vaccine response.”

The key word here is “potentially.” There is no hard evidence that a 2-week hold on methotrexate after receiving the killed adenovirus vaccine will actually provide a clinically meaningful benefit. But it’s a hypothetical possibility. The rationale stems from a small randomized trial conducted in South Korea several years ago in which patients with rheumatoid arthritis were assigned to hold or continue their methotrexate for the first 2 weeks after receiving an inactivated-virus influenza vaccine. The antibody response to the vaccine was better in those who temporarily halted their methotrexate, explained Dr. Gelfand, cochair of the NPF COVID-19 Task Force and professor of dermatology and of epidemiology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

“If you have a patient on methotrexate who’s 60 or older and whose psoriasis is completely controlled and quiescent and the patient is concerned about how well the vaccine is going to work, this is a reasonable thing to consider in someone who’s at higher risk for poor outcomes if they get infected,” he said.

If the informed patient wants to continue on methotrexate without interruption, that’s fine, too, in light of the lack of compelling evidence on this issue, the dermatologist added at the conference, sponsored by MedscapeLIVE! and the producers of the Hawaii Dermatology Seminar and Caribbean Dermatology Symposium.

The NPF task force does not extend the recommendation to consider holding methotrexate in recipients of the mRNA-based Moderna and Pfizer vaccines because of their very different mechanisms of action. Nor is it recommended to hold biologic agents after receiving any of the available COVID-19 vaccines. Studies have shown no altered immunologic response to influenza or pneumococcal vaccines in patients who continued on tumor necrosis factor inhibitors or interleukin-17 inhibitors. The interleukin-23 inhibitors haven’t been studied in this regard.

The task force recommends that most psoriasis patients should continue on treatment throughout the pandemic, and newly diagnosed patients should commence appropriate therapy as if there was no pandemic.

“We’ve learned that many patients who stopped their treatment for psoriatic disease early in the pandemic came to regret that decision because their psoriasis flared and got worse and required reinstitution of therapy,” Dr. Gelfand said. “The current data is largely reassuring that if there is an effect of our therapies on the risk of COVID, it must be rather small and therefore unlikely to be clinically meaningful for our patients.”

Dr. Gelfand reported serving as a consultant to and recipient of institutional research grants from Pfizer and numerous other pharmaceutical companies.

MedscapeLIVE and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

[email protected]

Unknowns around the long-term effects of gender-affirming hormonal treatment on fertility in transgender individuals, especially adolescents, and what this means for fertility preservation, should be red flags for clinicians, according to one expert addressing the issue at the recent virtual ENDO 2021 meeting.

“One of the main concerns regarding fertility preservation in this population is that the decision to seek gender-affirming therapy is often made early in the reproductive lifespan, and for many patients this is well before the consideration of … child-bearing,” remarked Marie Menke, MD, an ob/gyn from University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, presenting in a session dedicated to state-of-the-art approaches to gamete preservation.

“These patients need to consider simultaneously their desire for gender-affirming therapy and their desire for child-bearing,” she added, explaining that gender-affirming therapy typically requires suppression of the hormonal axis that supports reproduction.

“This level of shared decision-making requires time and multidisciplinary involvement in the face of … limited data, and even with the best of counseling it can be quite overwhelming,” Dr. Menke stressed.

Specifically, the effects of gender-affirming therapy on both fertility and fertility preservation options in transgender individuals in comparison to the general population are areas that require much more research, she emphasized.

On the topic of adolescents specifically, she said they are “a special population,” as many seeking medical therapy for gender dysphoria have never considered long-term fertility goals or desires. Reports of such discussions during pediatric gender care vary greatly depending on the age of the patient and their geographic location.

And where such conversations have happened, “often there is no recollection by patients of such discussion prior to referral to endocrinology,” she emphasized.

Session co-moderator Irene Su, MD, a reproductive endocrinologist at the University of California, San Diego, said shared decisions with patients have to be made every day, even though data are limited.

“Little is known about both the adverse medical impact of gender-affirming hormonal therapy on fertility potential, as well as the psychosocial impact of interrupting/reversing gender-affirming hormonal therapy in the future to attempt fertility,” she told this news organization.

However, “because there are reasons to be concerned about an adverse impact on fertility, transgender individuals need access to fertility risk and preservation counseling,” she stressed.

Dr. Su has a special interest in improving reproductive health in young cancer survivors, and this involves similar discussions around fertility preservation – a medical subspecialty known as “oncofertility.”

There is a greater pool of knowledge in this field compared with fertility preservation and family planning in transgender patients, Dr. Su noted.

“While we need similar data in transgender individuals, what we’ve learned from the cancer survivor population is that they and their families want to know about known and unknown fertility risks and options, even if they ultimately do not choose to undertake fertility preservation procedures,” she explains.
 

Desire for future kids, but <10% currently preserve fertility

Dr. Menke said the estimated prevalence of individuals who identify as transgender is around 0.7% of the U.S. population, and she observed that, “by and large, fertility management involves tissue cryopreservation.”

She presented survey data showing that between 33%-54% of transgender and nonbinary individuals report a desire to have biological children currently, or in the future, and 94.6% are also strongly in support of transgender people having access to fertility preservation procedures.

Likewise, an online cross-sectional survey of over 1,100 people in the general population found that 76.2% agree that transgender individuals should be offered fertility preservation, and 60% support fertility preservation in minors.

Multiple professional societies support counseling in regard to options for fertility preservation and recommend that it should be offered to transgender individuals.

The American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM), the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH), and the Endocrine Society all advocate that individuals seeking gender-affirming medical treatment should receive multidisciplinary counseling regarding fertility preservation prior to puberty suppression in adolescents, and prior to cross-sex hormone treatment in both adolescents and adults.

But despite all of these recommendations and the survey findings, fertility preservation rates in transgender patients are low, “at less than 10%,” reported Dr. Menke.

Fertility preservation counseling and management ideally needs to begin prior to initiation of hormone therapy, stressed Dr. Menke.

Given the limited data on the long-term effects of gender-affirming therapy on fertility and its preservation, such counseling often leads to a myriad of questions, she further explained.

“Patients ask ‘What are the chances of having biological children if I don’t pursue fertility preservation?’, and ‘How likely am I to have a biological child if I do pursue fertility preservation?’, as well as issues around access to care, with patients asking, ‘Will I be able to pursue this option [of fertility preservation]?’”

“The chance of having a biological child if fertility preservation is pursued is similar to those [patients with cancer] who receive ‘oncofertility’ care, which has a good prognosis,” she explained.

However, issues around access to care, and the cost of it, can be barriers.
 

What does a transgender male, born female, need to do?

For transgender males, options for fertility preservation include the recommended option of cryopreservation of the eggs (oocytes), although freezing of embryos and/or ovarian tissue are also possible.

The latter would be required in a prepubertal individual if they wanted to start puberty blockers and then go straight onto cross-sex hormones, Dr. Menke noted, although she said it’s not definitively known if prepubertal ovarian tissue is capable of being stimulated in the future to produce viable mature oocytes.

In someone who has gone through puberty, the ideal time to freeze eggs is before beginning gender-affirming hormone therapy, Dr. Menke explained. This is because it is not known whether testosterone has any adverse impact on oocyte development.

“We just don’t have definitive data that long-term testosterone isn’t gonadotoxic,” she said in response to a question about this after her talk.

Assessment of the reproductive consequences of gender-affirming therapy in transgender males can also be complicated by coexisting conditions, Dr. Menke explained.

For example, up to 58% of transgender males have polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) prior to transitioning, she noted. PCOS itself, and/or the gender-affirming therapy, may cause histologic changes of the ovarian tissue – for example, hyperplasia of ovarian stroma – and it’s not yet known to what extent this may impact future fertility, if present, she noted.

For oocyte preservation in female-to-male transgender individuals, stimulation with gonadotropins for 2-3 weeks is needed, and the procedure is invasive, requiring repeated vaginal ultrasounds. During this period, estradiol levels are supraphysiologic, and there is potential for breast development and vaginal bleeding post-retrieval, which individuals will need to be counseled about, Dr. Menke noted.

The cost of this also needs to be factored into the equation. Depending on insurance coverage, costs may be covered – and where there is no precedent, individuals can try referring their insurance companies to the ‘oncofertility consortium access-to-care model’, Dr. Menke advised.

If there is no coverage, the average cost for one egg-freezing cycle ranges from $10,000-$17,000 in the U.S., and often two to three cycles are needed to generate sufficient oocytes to be sure of a pregnancy. In addition, there are storage costs. Plus, there will be the cost of any future intervention to achieve a pregnancy, she stressed.

How long frozen oocytes remain viable is also still a matter of scientific debate, although “as the technology changes from slow-freeze to vitrification,” this time period should lengthen, Dr. Menke said.

In transgender males who have not preserved oocytes or embryos prior to transitioning, it’s necessary to stop testosterone to have the best chance of harvesting viable gametes, Dr. Menke said. Furthermore, individuals undertaking this procedure need to take into account all of the above-mentioned side effects of egg harvesting.

Although there have been reports of successful pregnancies with eggs retrieved from transgender males who have temporarily stopped testosterone, fertilization and embryo development following discontinuation of testosterone still require “additional investigation,” she observed.

Furthermore, “there are case reports of oocyte stimulation and retrieval of mature oocytes while patients continue testosterone therapy, and this may be an option in the future,” she noted, again stressing that it’s not known if excess testosterone is gonadotoxic.

Other options for fertility preservation in the transgender male include embryo cryopreservation, but this still involves hormonal stimulation and invasive procedures and would require the use of a sperm donor in a person who doesn’t currently have a partner (or who has one, but not necessarily one with whom they want to create a child).

For transgender males there is also the possibility of using a surrogate mother for the pregnancy, she noted.
 

What about transgender women, assigned male at birth?

For those assigned male at birth who wish to take puberty blockers, fertility preservation would require cryopreservation of testicular tissue, although Dr. Menke stressed that this is still considered “experimental.”

In the postpubertal period, the simplest option is to cryopreserve semen, with this ideally being performed prior to the individual commencing gender-affirming hormone therapy, Dr. Menke said.

If this is not done prior to beginning hormonal treatment, estrogen will need to be discontinued for fertility preservation, she noted.

Return of sperm function following cessation of estrogen may be limited – “expect at least 3 months before return of reproductive function,” Dr. Menke said. And even this may not be sufficient to restore normal spermatogenesis, she cautioned. “Absent or reduced spermatogenesis or morphological changes to Sertoli cells [have been reported in transgender women].”

Also, “there are needs for multiple attempts at ejaculation and storage requirements” for this approach. Cost for freezing sperm in the U.S., if not covered by insurance, is around $400, she noted, with storage costs ranging from $100 to up to $800 a year.

“Case reports using cryopreserved sperm [in transgender individuals] are promising overall … with clinical pregnancy rates following [in vitro fertilization] (IVF) with cryopreserved sperm … equivalent to patients without evidence of male factor fertility,” Dr. Menke reported.

However, she emphasized the fact that IVF, or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI), will still be necessary for conception, with potential additional costs.

Some individuals may also need to undergo surgical removal of sperm postpuberty; this is typically performed where there is evidence of male factor infertility, for example.

Embryo cryopreservation requires a partner or use of donor oocytes and, again, will have cost implications.

In conclusion, Dr. Menke reiterated that the use of fertility preservation techniques among transgender people is low, and it is more frequently accessed by transgender females. Among the identified barriers to fertility preservation are cost, lack of information, invasiveness of procedures, and desire not to delay medical transition.

Dr. Menke has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Su has received a speaker honorarium from Ferring Pharmaceuticals. 

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

Unknowns around the long-term effects of gender-affirming hormonal treatment on fertility in transgender individuals, especially adolescents, and what this means for fertility preservation, should be red flags for clinicians, according to one expert addressing the issue at the recent virtual ENDO 2021 meeting.

“One of the main concerns regarding fertility preservation in this population is that the decision to seek gender-affirming therapy is often made early in the reproductive lifespan, and for many patients this is well before the consideration of … child-bearing,” remarked Marie Menke, MD, an ob/gyn from University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, presenting in a session dedicated to state-of-the-art approaches to gamete preservation.

“These patients need to consider simultaneously their desire for gender-affirming therapy and their desire for child-bearing,” she added, explaining that gender-affirming therapy typically requires suppression of the hormonal axis that supports reproduction.

“This level of shared decision-making requires time and multidisciplinary involvement in the face of … limited data, and even with the best of counseling it can be quite overwhelming,” Dr. Menke stressed.

Specifically, the effects of gender-affirming therapy on both fertility and fertility preservation options in transgender individuals in comparison to the general population are areas that require much more research, she emphasized.

On the topic of adolescents specifically, she said they are “a special population,” as many seeking medical therapy for gender dysphoria have never considered long-term fertility goals or desires. Reports of such discussions during pediatric gender care vary greatly depending on the age of the patient and their geographic location.

And where such conversations have happened, “often there is no recollection by patients of such discussion prior to referral to endocrinology,” she emphasized.

Session co-moderator Irene Su, MD, a reproductive endocrinologist at the University of California, San Diego, said shared decisions with patients have to be made every day, even though data are limited.

“Little is known about both the adverse medical impact of gender-affirming hormonal therapy on fertility potential, as well as the psychosocial impact of interrupting/reversing gender-affirming hormonal therapy in the future to attempt fertility,” she told this news organization.

However, “because there are reasons to be concerned about an adverse impact on fertility, transgender individuals need access to fertility risk and preservation counseling,” she stressed.

Dr. Su has a special interest in improving reproductive health in young cancer survivors, and this involves similar discussions around fertility preservation – a medical subspecialty known as “oncofertility.”

There is a greater pool of knowledge in this field compared with fertility preservation and family planning in transgender patients, Dr. Su noted.

“While we need similar data in transgender individuals, what we’ve learned from the cancer survivor population is that they and their families want to know about known and unknown fertility risks and options, even if they ultimately do not choose to undertake fertility preservation procedures,” she explains.
 

Desire for future kids, but <10% currently preserve fertility

Dr. Menke said the estimated prevalence of individuals who identify as transgender is around 0.7% of the U.S. population, and she observed that, “by and large, fertility management involves tissue cryopreservation.”

She presented survey data showing that between 33%-54% of transgender and nonbinary individuals report a desire to have biological children currently, or in the future, and 94.6% are also strongly in support of transgender people having access to fertility preservation procedures.

Likewise, an online cross-sectional survey of over 1,100 people in the general population found that 76.2% agree that transgender individuals should be offered fertility preservation, and 60% support fertility preservation in minors.

Multiple professional societies support counseling in regard to options for fertility preservation and recommend that it should be offered to transgender individuals.

The American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM), the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH), and the Endocrine Society all advocate that individuals seeking gender-affirming medical treatment should receive multidisciplinary counseling regarding fertility preservation prior to puberty suppression in adolescents, and prior to cross-sex hormone treatment in both adolescents and adults.

But despite all of these recommendations and the survey findings, fertility preservation rates in transgender patients are low, “at less than 10%,” reported Dr. Menke.

Fertility preservation counseling and management ideally needs to begin prior to initiation of hormone therapy, stressed Dr. Menke.

Given the limited data on the long-term effects of gender-affirming therapy on fertility and its preservation, such counseling often leads to a myriad of questions, she further explained.

“Patients ask ‘What are the chances of having biological children if I don’t pursue fertility preservation?’, and ‘How likely am I to have a biological child if I do pursue fertility preservation?’, as well as issues around access to care, with patients asking, ‘Will I be able to pursue this option [of fertility preservation]?’”

“The chance of having a biological child if fertility preservation is pursued is similar to those [patients with cancer] who receive ‘oncofertility’ care, which has a good prognosis,” she explained.

However, issues around access to care, and the cost of it, can be barriers.
 

What does a transgender male, born female, need to do?

For transgender males, options for fertility preservation include the recommended option of cryopreservation of the eggs (oocytes), although freezing of embryos and/or ovarian tissue are also possible.

The latter would be required in a prepubertal individual if they wanted to start puberty blockers and then go straight onto cross-sex hormones, Dr. Menke noted, although she said it’s not definitively known if prepubertal ovarian tissue is capable of being stimulated in the future to produce viable mature oocytes.

In someone who has gone through puberty, the ideal time to freeze eggs is before beginning gender-affirming hormone therapy, Dr. Menke explained. This is because it is not known whether testosterone has any adverse impact on oocyte development.

“We just don’t have definitive data that long-term testosterone isn’t gonadotoxic,” she said in response to a question about this after her talk.

Assessment of the reproductive consequences of gender-affirming therapy in transgender males can also be complicated by coexisting conditions, Dr. Menke explained.

For example, up to 58% of transgender males have polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) prior to transitioning, she noted. PCOS itself, and/or the gender-affirming therapy, may cause histologic changes of the ovarian tissue – for example, hyperplasia of ovarian stroma – and it’s not yet known to what extent this may impact future fertility, if present, she noted.

For oocyte preservation in female-to-male transgender individuals, stimulation with gonadotropins for 2-3 weeks is needed, and the procedure is invasive, requiring repeated vaginal ultrasounds. During this period, estradiol levels are supraphysiologic, and there is potential for breast development and vaginal bleeding post-retrieval, which individuals will need to be counseled about, Dr. Menke noted.

The cost of this also needs to be factored into the equation. Depending on insurance coverage, costs may be covered – and where there is no precedent, individuals can try referring their insurance companies to the ‘oncofertility consortium access-to-care model’, Dr. Menke advised.

If there is no coverage, the average cost for one egg-freezing cycle ranges from $10,000-$17,000 in the U.S., and often two to three cycles are needed to generate sufficient oocytes to be sure of a pregnancy. In addition, there are storage costs. Plus, there will be the cost of any future intervention to achieve a pregnancy, she stressed.

How long frozen oocytes remain viable is also still a matter of scientific debate, although “as the technology changes from slow-freeze to vitrification,” this time period should lengthen, Dr. Menke said.

In transgender males who have not preserved oocytes or embryos prior to transitioning, it’s necessary to stop testosterone to have the best chance of harvesting viable gametes, Dr. Menke said. Furthermore, individuals undertaking this procedure need to take into account all of the above-mentioned side effects of egg harvesting.

Although there have been reports of successful pregnancies with eggs retrieved from transgender males who have temporarily stopped testosterone, fertilization and embryo development following discontinuation of testosterone still require “additional investigation,” she observed.

Furthermore, “there are case reports of oocyte stimulation and retrieval of mature oocytes while patients continue testosterone therapy, and this may be an option in the future,” she noted, again stressing that it’s not known if excess testosterone is gonadotoxic.

Other options for fertility preservation in the transgender male include embryo cryopreservation, but this still involves hormonal stimulation and invasive procedures and would require the use of a sperm donor in a person who doesn’t currently have a partner (or who has one, but not necessarily one with whom they want to create a child).

For transgender males there is also the possibility of using a surrogate mother for the pregnancy, she noted.
 

What about transgender women, assigned male at birth?

For those assigned male at birth who wish to take puberty blockers, fertility preservation would require cryopreservation of testicular tissue, although Dr. Menke stressed that this is still considered “experimental.”

In the postpubertal period, the simplest option is to cryopreserve semen, with this ideally being performed prior to the individual commencing gender-affirming hormone therapy, Dr. Menke said.

If this is not done prior to beginning hormonal treatment, estrogen will need to be discontinued for fertility preservation, she noted.

Return of sperm function following cessation of estrogen may be limited – “expect at least 3 months before return of reproductive function,” Dr. Menke said. And even this may not be sufficient to restore normal spermatogenesis, she cautioned. “Absent or reduced spermatogenesis or morphological changes to Sertoli cells [have been reported in transgender women].”

Also, “there are needs for multiple attempts at ejaculation and storage requirements” for this approach. Cost for freezing sperm in the U.S., if not covered by insurance, is around $400, she noted, with storage costs ranging from $100 to up to $800 a year.

“Case reports using cryopreserved sperm [in transgender individuals] are promising overall … with clinical pregnancy rates following [in vitro fertilization] (IVF) with cryopreserved sperm … equivalent to patients without evidence of male factor fertility,” Dr. Menke reported.

However, she emphasized the fact that IVF, or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI), will still be necessary for conception, with potential additional costs.

Some individuals may also need to undergo surgical removal of sperm postpuberty; this is typically performed where there is evidence of male factor infertility, for example.

Embryo cryopreservation requires a partner or use of donor oocytes and, again, will have cost implications.

In conclusion, Dr. Menke reiterated that the use of fertility preservation techniques among transgender people is low, and it is more frequently accessed by transgender females. Among the identified barriers to fertility preservation are cost, lack of information, invasiveness of procedures, and desire not to delay medical transition.

Dr. Menke has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Su has received a speaker honorarium from Ferring Pharmaceuticals. 

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

Unknowns around the long-term effects of gender-affirming hormonal treatment on fertility in transgender individuals, especially adolescents, and what this means for fertility preservation, should be red flags for clinicians, according to one expert addressing the issue at the recent virtual ENDO 2021 meeting.

“One of the main concerns regarding fertility preservation in this population is that the decision to seek gender-affirming therapy is often made early in the reproductive lifespan, and for many patients this is well before the consideration of … child-bearing,” remarked Marie Menke, MD, an ob/gyn from University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, presenting in a session dedicated to state-of-the-art approaches to gamete preservation.

“These patients need to consider simultaneously their desire for gender-affirming therapy and their desire for child-bearing,” she added, explaining that gender-affirming therapy typically requires suppression of the hormonal axis that supports reproduction.

“This level of shared decision-making requires time and multidisciplinary involvement in the face of … limited data, and even with the best of counseling it can be quite overwhelming,” Dr. Menke stressed.

Specifically, the effects of gender-affirming therapy on both fertility and fertility preservation options in transgender individuals in comparison to the general population are areas that require much more research, she emphasized.

On the topic of adolescents specifically, she said they are “a special population,” as many seeking medical therapy for gender dysphoria have never considered long-term fertility goals or desires. Reports of such discussions during pediatric gender care vary greatly depending on the age of the patient and their geographic location.

And where such conversations have happened, “often there is no recollection by patients of such discussion prior to referral to endocrinology,” she emphasized.

Session co-moderator Irene Su, MD, a reproductive endocrinologist at the University of California, San Diego, said shared decisions with patients have to be made every day, even though data are limited.

“Little is known about both the adverse medical impact of gender-affirming hormonal therapy on fertility potential, as well as the psychosocial impact of interrupting/reversing gender-affirming hormonal therapy in the future to attempt fertility,” she told this news organization.

However, “because there are reasons to be concerned about an adverse impact on fertility, transgender individuals need access to fertility risk and preservation counseling,” she stressed.

Dr. Su has a special interest in improving reproductive health in young cancer survivors, and this involves similar discussions around fertility preservation – a medical subspecialty known as “oncofertility.”

There is a greater pool of knowledge in this field compared with fertility preservation and family planning in transgender patients, Dr. Su noted.

“While we need similar data in transgender individuals, what we’ve learned from the cancer survivor population is that they and their families want to know about known and unknown fertility risks and options, even if they ultimately do not choose to undertake fertility preservation procedures,” she explains.
 

Desire for future kids, but <10% currently preserve fertility

Dr. Menke said the estimated prevalence of individuals who identify as transgender is around 0.7% of the U.S. population, and she observed that, “by and large, fertility management involves tissue cryopreservation.”

She presented survey data showing that between 33%-54% of transgender and nonbinary individuals report a desire to have biological children currently, or in the future, and 94.6% are also strongly in support of transgender people having access to fertility preservation procedures.

Likewise, an online cross-sectional survey of over 1,100 people in the general population found that 76.2% agree that transgender individuals should be offered fertility preservation, and 60% support fertility preservation in minors.

Multiple professional societies support counseling in regard to options for fertility preservation and recommend that it should be offered to transgender individuals.

The American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM), the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH), and the Endocrine Society all advocate that individuals seeking gender-affirming medical treatment should receive multidisciplinary counseling regarding fertility preservation prior to puberty suppression in adolescents, and prior to cross-sex hormone treatment in both adolescents and adults.

But despite all of these recommendations and the survey findings, fertility preservation rates in transgender patients are low, “at less than 10%,” reported Dr. Menke.

Fertility preservation counseling and management ideally needs to begin prior to initiation of hormone therapy, stressed Dr. Menke.

Given the limited data on the long-term effects of gender-affirming therapy on fertility and its preservation, such counseling often leads to a myriad of questions, she further explained.

“Patients ask ‘What are the chances of having biological children if I don’t pursue fertility preservation?’, and ‘How likely am I to have a biological child if I do pursue fertility preservation?’, as well as issues around access to care, with patients asking, ‘Will I be able to pursue this option [of fertility preservation]?’”

“The chance of having a biological child if fertility preservation is pursued is similar to those [patients with cancer] who receive ‘oncofertility’ care, which has a good prognosis,” she explained.

However, issues around access to care, and the cost of it, can be barriers.
 

What does a transgender male, born female, need to do?

For transgender males, options for fertility preservation include the recommended option of cryopreservation of the eggs (oocytes), although freezing of embryos and/or ovarian tissue are also possible.

The latter would be required in a prepubertal individual if they wanted to start puberty blockers and then go straight onto cross-sex hormones, Dr. Menke noted, although she said it’s not definitively known if prepubertal ovarian tissue is capable of being stimulated in the future to produce viable mature oocytes.

In someone who has gone through puberty, the ideal time to freeze eggs is before beginning gender-affirming hormone therapy, Dr. Menke explained. This is because it is not known whether testosterone has any adverse impact on oocyte development.

“We just don’t have definitive data that long-term testosterone isn’t gonadotoxic,” she said in response to a question about this after her talk.

Assessment of the reproductive consequences of gender-affirming therapy in transgender males can also be complicated by coexisting conditions, Dr. Menke explained.

For example, up to 58% of transgender males have polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) prior to transitioning, she noted. PCOS itself, and/or the gender-affirming therapy, may cause histologic changes of the ovarian tissue – for example, hyperplasia of ovarian stroma – and it’s not yet known to what extent this may impact future fertility, if present, she noted.

For oocyte preservation in female-to-male transgender individuals, stimulation with gonadotropins for 2-3 weeks is needed, and the procedure is invasive, requiring repeated vaginal ultrasounds. During this period, estradiol levels are supraphysiologic, and there is potential for breast development and vaginal bleeding post-retrieval, which individuals will need to be counseled about, Dr. Menke noted.

The cost of this also needs to be factored into the equation. Depending on insurance coverage, costs may be covered – and where there is no precedent, individuals can try referring their insurance companies to the ‘oncofertility consortium access-to-care model’, Dr. Menke advised.

If there is no coverage, the average cost for one egg-freezing cycle ranges from $10,000-$17,000 in the U.S., and often two to three cycles are needed to generate sufficient oocytes to be sure of a pregnancy. In addition, there are storage costs. Plus, there will be the cost of any future intervention to achieve a pregnancy, she stressed.

How long frozen oocytes remain viable is also still a matter of scientific debate, although “as the technology changes from slow-freeze to vitrification,” this time period should lengthen, Dr. Menke said.

In transgender males who have not preserved oocytes or embryos prior to transitioning, it’s necessary to stop testosterone to have the best chance of harvesting viable gametes, Dr. Menke said. Furthermore, individuals undertaking this procedure need to take into account all of the above-mentioned side effects of egg harvesting.

Although there have been reports of successful pregnancies with eggs retrieved from transgender males who have temporarily stopped testosterone, fertilization and embryo development following discontinuation of testosterone still require “additional investigation,” she observed.

Furthermore, “there are case reports of oocyte stimulation and retrieval of mature oocytes while patients continue testosterone therapy, and this may be an option in the future,” she noted, again stressing that it’s not known if excess testosterone is gonadotoxic.

Other options for fertility preservation in the transgender male include embryo cryopreservation, but this still involves hormonal stimulation and invasive procedures and would require the use of a sperm donor in a person who doesn’t currently have a partner (or who has one, but not necessarily one with whom they want to create a child).

For transgender males there is also the possibility of using a surrogate mother for the pregnancy, she noted.
 

What about transgender women, assigned male at birth?

For those assigned male at birth who wish to take puberty blockers, fertility preservation would require cryopreservation of testicular tissue, although Dr. Menke stressed that this is still considered “experimental.”

In the postpubertal period, the simplest option is to cryopreserve semen, with this ideally being performed prior to the individual commencing gender-affirming hormone therapy, Dr. Menke said.

If this is not done prior to beginning hormonal treatment, estrogen will need to be discontinued for fertility preservation, she noted.

Return of sperm function following cessation of estrogen may be limited – “expect at least 3 months before return of reproductive function,” Dr. Menke said. And even this may not be sufficient to restore normal spermatogenesis, she cautioned. “Absent or reduced spermatogenesis or morphological changes to Sertoli cells [have been reported in transgender women].”

Also, “there are needs for multiple attempts at ejaculation and storage requirements” for this approach. Cost for freezing sperm in the U.S., if not covered by insurance, is around $400, she noted, with storage costs ranging from $100 to up to $800 a year.

“Case reports using cryopreserved sperm [in transgender individuals] are promising overall … with clinical pregnancy rates following [in vitro fertilization] (IVF) with cryopreserved sperm … equivalent to patients without evidence of male factor fertility,” Dr. Menke reported.

However, she emphasized the fact that IVF, or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI), will still be necessary for conception, with potential additional costs.

Some individuals may also need to undergo surgical removal of sperm postpuberty; this is typically performed where there is evidence of male factor infertility, for example.

Embryo cryopreservation requires a partner or use of donor oocytes and, again, will have cost implications.

In conclusion, Dr. Menke reiterated that the use of fertility preservation techniques among transgender people is low, and it is more frequently accessed by transgender females. Among the identified barriers to fertility preservation are cost, lack of information, invasiveness of procedures, and desire not to delay medical transition.

Dr. Menke has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Su has received a speaker honorarium from Ferring Pharmaceuticals. 

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

Obesity rates among children jumped substantially in the first months of the COVID-19 pandemic, according to a study published online in Pediatrics. Experts worry the excess weight will be a continuing problem for these children.

“Across the board in the span of a year, there has been a 2% increase in obesity, which is really striking,” lead author Brian P. Jenssen, MD, said in an interview.

The prevalence of obesity in a large pediatric primary care network increased from 13.7% to 15.4%.

Preexisting disparities by race or ethnicity and socioeconomic status worsened, noted Dr. Jenssen, a primary care pediatrician affiliated with Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP) and the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

Dr. Jenssen and colleagues compared the average obesity rate from June to December 2020 with the rate from June to December 2019 among patients in the CHOP Care Network, which includes 29 urban, suburban, and semirural clinics in the Philadelphia region. In June 2020, the volume of patient visits “returned to near-normal” after a dramatic decline in March 2020, the study authors wrote.

The investigators examined body mass index at all visits for patients aged 2-17 years for whom height and weight were documented. Patients with a BMI at or above the 95th percentile were classified as obese. The analysis included approximately 169,000 visits in 2019 and about 145,000 in 2020.

The average age of the patients was 9.2 years, and 48.9% were girls. In all, 21.4% were non-Hispanic Black, and about 30% were publicly insured.

Increases in obesity rates were more pronounced among patients aged 5-9 years and among patients who were Hispanic/Latino, non-Hispanic Black, publicly insured, or from lower-income neighborhoods.

Whereas the obesity rate increased 1% for patients aged 13-17 years, the rate increased 2.6% for patients aged 5-9 years.

Nearly 25% of Hispanic/Latino or non-Hispanic Black patients seen during the pandemic were obese, compared with 11.3% of non-Hispanic White patients. Before the pandemic, differences by race or ethnicity had been about 10%-11%.

Limiting the analysis to preventive visits did not meaningfully change the results, wrote Dr. Jenssen and colleagues.

“Having any increase in the obesity rates is alarming,” said Sandra Hassink, MD, medical director for the American Academy of Pediatrics’ (AAP’s) Institute for Healthy Childhood Weight. “I think what we’re seeing is what we feared.”

Before the pandemic, children received appropriately portioned breakfasts and lunches at school, but during the pandemic, they had less access to such meals, the academy noted. Disruptions to schooling, easier access to unhealthy snacks, increased screen time, and economic issues such as parents’ job losses were further factors, Hassink said.
 

Tackling the weight gain

In December 2020, the AAP issued two clinical guidance documents to highlight the importance of addressing obesity during the pandemic. Recommendations included physician counseling of families about maintaining healthy nutrition, minimizing sedentary time, and getting enough sleep and physical activity, as well as the assessment of all patients for onset of obesity and the maintenance of obesity treatment for patients with obesity.

In addition to clinical assessments and guidance, Dr. Jenssen emphasized that a return to routines may be crucial. Prepandemic studies have shown that many children, especially those insured by Medicaid, gain more weight during the summer when they are out of school, he noted. Many of the same factors are present during the pandemic, he said.

“One solution, and probably the most important solution, is getting kids back in school,” Dr. Jenssen said. School disruptions also have affected children’s learning and mental health, but those effects may be harder to quantify than BMI, he said.

Dr. Jenssen suggests that parents do their best to model good routines and habits. For example, they might decide that they and their children will stop drinking soda as a family, or opt for an apple instead of a bag of chips. They can walk around the house or up and down stairs when talking. “Those sorts of little things can make a big difference in the long run,” Dr. Jenssen said.

Clinicians should address obesity in a compassionate and caring way, be aware of community resources to help families adopt healthy lifestyles, and “look for the comorbidities of obesity,” such as type 2 diabetes, liver disease, sleep apnea, knee problems, and hypertension, Dr. Hassink said.

Policies that address other factors, such as the cost of healthy foods and the marketing of unhealthy foods, may also be needed, Dr. Hassink said.

“I’ve always thought of obesity as kind of the canary in the coal mine,” Dr. Hassink said. “It is important to keep our minds on the fact that it is a chronic disease. But it also indicates a lot of things about how we are able to support a healthy population.”
 

Potato chips, red meat, and sugary drinks

Other researchers have assessed how healthy behaviors tended to take a turn for the worse when routines were disrupted during the pandemic. Steven B. Heymsfield, MD, a professor in the metabolism and body composition laboratory at Pennington Biomedical Research Center, Louisiana State University System, Baton Rouge, and collaborators documented how diet and activity changed for children during the pandemic.

Dr. Heymsfield worked with researchers in Italy to examine changes in behavior among 41 children and adolescents with obesity in Verona, Italy, during an early lockdown.

As part of a longitudinal observational study, they had baseline data about diet and physical activity from interviews conducted from May to July 2019. They repeated the interviews 3 weeks after a mandatory quarantine.

Intake of potato chips, red meat, and sugary drinks had increased, time spent in sports activities had decreased by more than 2 hours per week, and screen time had increased by more than 4 hours per day, the researchers found. Their study was published in Obesity.

Unpublished follow-up data indicate that “there was further deterioration in the diets and activity patterns” for some but not all of the participants, Dr. Heymsfield said.

He said he was hopeful that children who experienced the onset of obesity during the pandemic may lose weight when routines return to normal, but added that it is unclear whether that will happen.

“My impression from the limited written literature on this question is that for some kids who gain weight during the lockdown or, by analogy, the summer months, the weight doesn’t go back down again. It is not universal, but it is a known phenomenon that it is a bit of a ratchet,” he said. “They just sort of slowly ratchet their weights up, up to adulthood.”

Recognizing weight gain during the pandemic may be an important first step.

“The first thing is not to ignore it,” Dr. Heymsfield said. “Anything that can be done to prevent excess weight gain during childhood – not to promote anorexia or anything like that, but just being careful – is very important, because these behaviors are formed early in life, and they persist.”

CHOP supported the research. Dr. Jenssen and Dr. Hassink have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Heymsfield is a medical adviser for Medifast, a weight loss company.

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

Obesity rates among children jumped substantially in the first months of the COVID-19 pandemic, according to a study published online in Pediatrics. Experts worry the excess weight will be a continuing problem for these children.

“Across the board in the span of a year, there has been a 2% increase in obesity, which is really striking,” lead author Brian P. Jenssen, MD, said in an interview.

The prevalence of obesity in a large pediatric primary care network increased from 13.7% to 15.4%.

Preexisting disparities by race or ethnicity and socioeconomic status worsened, noted Dr. Jenssen, a primary care pediatrician affiliated with Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP) and the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

Dr. Jenssen and colleagues compared the average obesity rate from June to December 2020 with the rate from June to December 2019 among patients in the CHOP Care Network, which includes 29 urban, suburban, and semirural clinics in the Philadelphia region. In June 2020, the volume of patient visits “returned to near-normal” after a dramatic decline in March 2020, the study authors wrote.

The investigators examined body mass index at all visits for patients aged 2-17 years for whom height and weight were documented. Patients with a BMI at or above the 95th percentile were classified as obese. The analysis included approximately 169,000 visits in 2019 and about 145,000 in 2020.

The average age of the patients was 9.2 years, and 48.9% were girls. In all, 21.4% were non-Hispanic Black, and about 30% were publicly insured.

Increases in obesity rates were more pronounced among patients aged 5-9 years and among patients who were Hispanic/Latino, non-Hispanic Black, publicly insured, or from lower-income neighborhoods.

Whereas the obesity rate increased 1% for patients aged 13-17 years, the rate increased 2.6% for patients aged 5-9 years.

Nearly 25% of Hispanic/Latino or non-Hispanic Black patients seen during the pandemic were obese, compared with 11.3% of non-Hispanic White patients. Before the pandemic, differences by race or ethnicity had been about 10%-11%.

Limiting the analysis to preventive visits did not meaningfully change the results, wrote Dr. Jenssen and colleagues.

“Having any increase in the obesity rates is alarming,” said Sandra Hassink, MD, medical director for the American Academy of Pediatrics’ (AAP’s) Institute for Healthy Childhood Weight. “I think what we’re seeing is what we feared.”

Before the pandemic, children received appropriately portioned breakfasts and lunches at school, but during the pandemic, they had less access to such meals, the academy noted. Disruptions to schooling, easier access to unhealthy snacks, increased screen time, and economic issues such as parents’ job losses were further factors, Hassink said.
 

Tackling the weight gain

In December 2020, the AAP issued two clinical guidance documents to highlight the importance of addressing obesity during the pandemic. Recommendations included physician counseling of families about maintaining healthy nutrition, minimizing sedentary time, and getting enough sleep and physical activity, as well as the assessment of all patients for onset of obesity and the maintenance of obesity treatment for patients with obesity.

In addition to clinical assessments and guidance, Dr. Jenssen emphasized that a return to routines may be crucial. Prepandemic studies have shown that many children, especially those insured by Medicaid, gain more weight during the summer when they are out of school, he noted. Many of the same factors are present during the pandemic, he said.

“One solution, and probably the most important solution, is getting kids back in school,” Dr. Jenssen said. School disruptions also have affected children’s learning and mental health, but those effects may be harder to quantify than BMI, he said.

Dr. Jenssen suggests that parents do their best to model good routines and habits. For example, they might decide that they and their children will stop drinking soda as a family, or opt for an apple instead of a bag of chips. They can walk around the house or up and down stairs when talking. “Those sorts of little things can make a big difference in the long run,” Dr. Jenssen said.

Clinicians should address obesity in a compassionate and caring way, be aware of community resources to help families adopt healthy lifestyles, and “look for the comorbidities of obesity,” such as type 2 diabetes, liver disease, sleep apnea, knee problems, and hypertension, Dr. Hassink said.

Policies that address other factors, such as the cost of healthy foods and the marketing of unhealthy foods, may also be needed, Dr. Hassink said.

“I’ve always thought of obesity as kind of the canary in the coal mine,” Dr. Hassink said. “It is important to keep our minds on the fact that it is a chronic disease. But it also indicates a lot of things about how we are able to support a healthy population.”
 

Potato chips, red meat, and sugary drinks

Other researchers have assessed how healthy behaviors tended to take a turn for the worse when routines were disrupted during the pandemic. Steven B. Heymsfield, MD, a professor in the metabolism and body composition laboratory at Pennington Biomedical Research Center, Louisiana State University System, Baton Rouge, and collaborators documented how diet and activity changed for children during the pandemic.

Dr. Heymsfield worked with researchers in Italy to examine changes in behavior among 41 children and adolescents with obesity in Verona, Italy, during an early lockdown.

As part of a longitudinal observational study, they had baseline data about diet and physical activity from interviews conducted from May to July 2019. They repeated the interviews 3 weeks after a mandatory quarantine.

Intake of potato chips, red meat, and sugary drinks had increased, time spent in sports activities had decreased by more than 2 hours per week, and screen time had increased by more than 4 hours per day, the researchers found. Their study was published in Obesity.

Unpublished follow-up data indicate that “there was further deterioration in the diets and activity patterns” for some but not all of the participants, Dr. Heymsfield said.

He said he was hopeful that children who experienced the onset of obesity during the pandemic may lose weight when routines return to normal, but added that it is unclear whether that will happen.

“My impression from the limited written literature on this question is that for some kids who gain weight during the lockdown or, by analogy, the summer months, the weight doesn’t go back down again. It is not universal, but it is a known phenomenon that it is a bit of a ratchet,” he said. “They just sort of slowly ratchet their weights up, up to adulthood.”

Recognizing weight gain during the pandemic may be an important first step.

“The first thing is not to ignore it,” Dr. Heymsfield said. “Anything that can be done to prevent excess weight gain during childhood – not to promote anorexia or anything like that, but just being careful – is very important, because these behaviors are formed early in life, and they persist.”

CHOP supported the research. Dr. Jenssen and Dr. Hassink have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Heymsfield is a medical adviser for Medifast, a weight loss company.

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

Obesity rates among children jumped substantially in the first months of the COVID-19 pandemic, according to a study published online in Pediatrics. Experts worry the excess weight will be a continuing problem for these children.

“Across the board in the span of a year, there has been a 2% increase in obesity, which is really striking,” lead author Brian P. Jenssen, MD, said in an interview.

The prevalence of obesity in a large pediatric primary care network increased from 13.7% to 15.4%.

Preexisting disparities by race or ethnicity and socioeconomic status worsened, noted Dr. Jenssen, a primary care pediatrician affiliated with Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP) and the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

Dr. Jenssen and colleagues compared the average obesity rate from June to December 2020 with the rate from June to December 2019 among patients in the CHOP Care Network, which includes 29 urban, suburban, and semirural clinics in the Philadelphia region. In June 2020, the volume of patient visits “returned to near-normal” after a dramatic decline in March 2020, the study authors wrote.

The investigators examined body mass index at all visits for patients aged 2-17 years for whom height and weight were documented. Patients with a BMI at or above the 95th percentile were classified as obese. The analysis included approximately 169,000 visits in 2019 and about 145,000 in 2020.

The average age of the patients was 9.2 years, and 48.9% were girls. In all, 21.4% were non-Hispanic Black, and about 30% were publicly insured.

Increases in obesity rates were more pronounced among patients aged 5-9 years and among patients who were Hispanic/Latino, non-Hispanic Black, publicly insured, or from lower-income neighborhoods.

Whereas the obesity rate increased 1% for patients aged 13-17 years, the rate increased 2.6% for patients aged 5-9 years.

Nearly 25% of Hispanic/Latino or non-Hispanic Black patients seen during the pandemic were obese, compared with 11.3% of non-Hispanic White patients. Before the pandemic, differences by race or ethnicity had been about 10%-11%.

Limiting the analysis to preventive visits did not meaningfully change the results, wrote Dr. Jenssen and colleagues.

“Having any increase in the obesity rates is alarming,” said Sandra Hassink, MD, medical director for the American Academy of Pediatrics’ (AAP’s) Institute for Healthy Childhood Weight. “I think what we’re seeing is what we feared.”

Before the pandemic, children received appropriately portioned breakfasts and lunches at school, but during the pandemic, they had less access to such meals, the academy noted. Disruptions to schooling, easier access to unhealthy snacks, increased screen time, and economic issues such as parents’ job losses were further factors, Hassink said.
 

Tackling the weight gain

In December 2020, the AAP issued two clinical guidance documents to highlight the importance of addressing obesity during the pandemic. Recommendations included physician counseling of families about maintaining healthy nutrition, minimizing sedentary time, and getting enough sleep and physical activity, as well as the assessment of all patients for onset of obesity and the maintenance of obesity treatment for patients with obesity.

In addition to clinical assessments and guidance, Dr. Jenssen emphasized that a return to routines may be crucial. Prepandemic studies have shown that many children, especially those insured by Medicaid, gain more weight during the summer when they are out of school, he noted. Many of the same factors are present during the pandemic, he said.

“One solution, and probably the most important solution, is getting kids back in school,” Dr. Jenssen said. School disruptions also have affected children’s learning and mental health, but those effects may be harder to quantify than BMI, he said.

Dr. Jenssen suggests that parents do their best to model good routines and habits. For example, they might decide that they and their children will stop drinking soda as a family, or opt for an apple instead of a bag of chips. They can walk around the house or up and down stairs when talking. “Those sorts of little things can make a big difference in the long run,” Dr. Jenssen said.

Clinicians should address obesity in a compassionate and caring way, be aware of community resources to help families adopt healthy lifestyles, and “look for the comorbidities of obesity,” such as type 2 diabetes, liver disease, sleep apnea, knee problems, and hypertension, Dr. Hassink said.

Policies that address other factors, such as the cost of healthy foods and the marketing of unhealthy foods, may also be needed, Dr. Hassink said.

“I’ve always thought of obesity as kind of the canary in the coal mine,” Dr. Hassink said. “It is important to keep our minds on the fact that it is a chronic disease. But it also indicates a lot of things about how we are able to support a healthy population.”
 

Potato chips, red meat, and sugary drinks

Other researchers have assessed how healthy behaviors tended to take a turn for the worse when routines were disrupted during the pandemic. Steven B. Heymsfield, MD, a professor in the metabolism and body composition laboratory at Pennington Biomedical Research Center, Louisiana State University System, Baton Rouge, and collaborators documented how diet and activity changed for children during the pandemic.

Dr. Heymsfield worked with researchers in Italy to examine changes in behavior among 41 children and adolescents with obesity in Verona, Italy, during an early lockdown.

As part of a longitudinal observational study, they had baseline data about diet and physical activity from interviews conducted from May to July 2019. They repeated the interviews 3 weeks after a mandatory quarantine.

Intake of potato chips, red meat, and sugary drinks had increased, time spent in sports activities had decreased by more than 2 hours per week, and screen time had increased by more than 4 hours per day, the researchers found. Their study was published in Obesity.

Unpublished follow-up data indicate that “there was further deterioration in the diets and activity patterns” for some but not all of the participants, Dr. Heymsfield said.

He said he was hopeful that children who experienced the onset of obesity during the pandemic may lose weight when routines return to normal, but added that it is unclear whether that will happen.

“My impression from the limited written literature on this question is that for some kids who gain weight during the lockdown or, by analogy, the summer months, the weight doesn’t go back down again. It is not universal, but it is a known phenomenon that it is a bit of a ratchet,” he said. “They just sort of slowly ratchet their weights up, up to adulthood.”

Recognizing weight gain during the pandemic may be an important first step.

“The first thing is not to ignore it,” Dr. Heymsfield said. “Anything that can be done to prevent excess weight gain during childhood – not to promote anorexia or anything like that, but just being careful – is very important, because these behaviors are formed early in life, and they persist.”

CHOP supported the research. Dr. Jenssen and Dr. Hassink have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Heymsfield is a medical adviser for Medifast, a weight loss company.

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