Pediatrics

The day before doctors had scheduled Amanda Duffy to give birth, the baby jolted her awake with a kick.

A few hours later, on that bright Sunday in November 2014, she leaned back on a park bench to watch her 19-month-old son Rogen enjoy his final day of being an only child. In that moment of calm, she realized that the kick that morning was the last time she had felt the baby move.

She told herself not to worry. She had heard that babies can slow down toward the end of a pregnancy and remembered reading that sugary snacks and cold fluids can stimulate a baby’s movement. When she got back to the family’s home in suburban Minneapolis, she drank a large glass of ice water and grabbed a few Tootsie Rolls off the kitchen counter.

But something about seeing her husband, Chris, lace up his shoes to leave for a run prompted her to blurt out, “I haven’t felt the baby kick.”

Chris called Amanda’s doctor, and they headed to the hospital to be checked. Once there, a nurse maneuvered a fetal monitor around Amanda’s belly. When she had trouble locating a heartbeat, she remarked that the baby must be tucked in tight. The doctor walked into the room, turned the screen away from Amanda and Chris and began searching. She was sorry, Amanda remembers her telling them, but she could not find a heartbeat.

Amanda let out a guttural scream. She said the doctor quickly performed an internal exam, which detected faint heart activity, then rushed Amanda into an emergency cesarean section.

She woke up to the sound of doctors talking to Chris. She listened but couldn’t bring herself to face the news. Her doctor told her she needed to open her eyes.

Amanda, then 31, couldn’t fathom that her daughter had died. She said her doctors had never discussed stillbirth with her. It was not mentioned in any of the pregnancy materials she had read. She didn’t even know that stillbirth was a possibility.

But every year more than 20,000 pregnancies in the United States end in stillbirth, the death of an expected child at 20 weeks or more. That number has exceeded infant mortality every year for the last 10 years. It’s 15 times the number of babies who, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, died of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome, or SIDS, in 2020.

The deaths are not inevitable. One study found that nearly one in four U.S. stillbirths may be preventable. For pregnancies that last 37 weeks or more, that research shows, the figure jumps to nearly half. Thousands more babies could potentially be delivered safely every year.

But federal agencies have not prioritized critical stillbirth-focused studies that could lead to fewer deaths. Nearly two decades ago, both the CDC and the National Institutes of Health launched key stillbirth tracking and research studies, but the agencies ended those projects within about a decade. The CDC never analyzed some of the data that was collected.

Unlike with SIDS, a leading cause of infant death, federal officials have failed to launch a national campaign to reduce the risk of stillbirth or adequately raise awareness about it. Placental exams and autopsies, which can sometimes explain why stillbirths happened, are underutilized, in part because parents are not counseled on their benefits.

Federal agencies, state health departments, hospitals and doctors have also done a poor job of educating expectant parents about stillbirth or diligently counseling on fetal movement, despite research showing that patients who have had a stillbirth are more likely to have experienced abnormal fetal movements, including decreased activity. Neither the CDC nor the NIH have consistently promoted guidance telling those who are pregnant to be aware of their babies’ movement in the womb as a way to possibly reduce their risk of stillbirth.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the nation’s leading obstetrics organization, has been slow to update its own guidance to doctors on managing a stillbirth. In 2009, ACOG issued a set of guidelines that included a single paragraph regarding fetal movement. Those guidelines weren’t significantly updated for another 11 years.

Perhaps it’s no surprise that federal goals for reducing stillbirths keep moving in the wrong direction. In 2005, the U.S. stillbirth rate was 6.2 per 1,000 live births. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, in an effort to eliminate health disparities and establish a target that was “better than the best racial or ethnic group rate,” set a goal of reducing it to 4.1 for 2010. When that wasn’t met, federal officials changed their approach and set what they called more “science-based” and “realistic” goals, raising the 2020 target to 5.6. The U.S. still fell short. The 2030 goal of 5.7 was so attainable that it was met before the decade started. The 2020 rate, the most current according to the CDC, is 5.74.

By comparison, other wealthy countries have implemented national action plans to prevent stillbirth through awareness, research and care. Among other approaches, those countries have focused on increasing education around stillbirth and the importance of a baby’s movements, reducing rates of smoking and identifying fetuses that grow too slowly in the womb.

The efforts have paid off. The Netherlands, for instance, has reduced its rate of stillbirths at 28 weeks or later by more than half, from 5.2 in 2000 to 2.3 in 2019, according to a study published last year in The Lancet.

Dr. Bob Silver, chair of the obstetrics/gynecology department at University of Utah Health and a leading stillbirth expert, coauthored the study that estimated nearly one in four stillbirths are potentially preventable, a figure he referred to as conservative. He called on federal agencies to declare stillbirth reduction a priority the same way they have done for premature birth and maternal mortality.

“I’d like to see us say we really want to reduce the rate of stillbirth and raise awareness and try to do all of the reasonable things that may contribute to reducing stillbirths that other countries have done,” Silver said.

The lack of comprehensive attention and action has contributed to a stillbirth crisis, shrouded in an acceptance that some babies just die. Compounding the tragedy is a stigma and guilt so crushing that the first words some mothers utter when their lifeless babies are placed in their arms are “I’m sorry.”

In the hospital room, Amanda Duffy finally opened her eyes. She named her daughter Reese Christine, the name she had picked out for her before they found out she had died. She was 8 pounds, 3 ounces and 20 1/2 inches long and was born with her umbilical cord wrapped tightly around her neck twice. The baby was still warm when the nurse placed her in Amanda’s arms. Amanda was struck by how lovely her daughter was. Rosy skin. Chris’ red hair. Rogen’s chubby cheeks.

As Amanda held Reese, Chris hunched over the toilet, vomiting. Later that night, as he lay next to Amanda on the hospital bed, he held his daughter. He hadn’t initially wanted to see her. He worried she would be disfigured or, worse, that she would be beautiful and he would fall apart when he couldn’t take her home.

The nurses taught Amanda and Chris how to grieve and love simultaneously. One nurse told Amanda how cute Reese was and asked if she could hold her. Another placed ice packs in Reese’s swaddle to preserve her body so Amanda could keep holding her. Amanda asked the nurses to tuck cotton balls soaked in an orange scent into Reese’s blanket so the smell would trigger the memory of her daughter. And just as if Reese had been born alive, the nurses took pictures and made prints of her hands and feet.

“I felt such a deep, abiding love for her,” Amanda said. “And I was so proud to be her mom.”

On the way home from the hospital, Amanda broke down at the sight of Reese’s empty car seat. The next few weeks passed in a sleep-filled fog punctuated by intense periods of crying. The smell of oranges wrecked her. Her breast milk coming in was agonizing, physically and emotionally. She wore sports bras stuffed with ice packs to ease the pain and dry up her milk supply. While Rogen was at day care, she sobbed in his bed.

In the months that followed, Amanda and Chris searched for answers and wondered whether their medical team had missed warning signs. Late at night, Amanda turned to Google to find information about stillbirths. She mailed her medical records to a doctor who studies stillbirths, who she said told her that Reese’s death could have been prevented. They briefly discussed legal action against her doctors, but she said a lawyer told her it would be difficult to sue.

Amanda and Chris pinpointed her last two months of pregnancy as the time things started to go wrong. She had been diagnosed with polyhydramnios, meaning there was excess amniotic fluid in the womb. Her doctor had scheduled additional weekly testing.

One of those ultrasounds revealed problems with the blood flow in the umbilical cord. Reese’s cord also appeared to be wrapped around her neck, Amanda said later, but was told that was less of a concern, since it occurs in about 20% of normal deliveries. At another appointment, Amanda’s medical records show, Reese failed the portion of a test that measures fetal breathing movements.

At 37 weeks, Amanda told one of the midwives the baby’s movements felt different, but, she said, the midwife told her that it was common for movements to feel weaker with polyhydramnios. At that point, Amanda felt her baby was safer outside than inside and, her medical records show, she asked to schedule a C-section.

Despite voicing concerns about a change in the baby’s movement and asking to deliver earlier, Amanda said she and her husband were told by her midwife she couldn’t deliver for another two weeks. The doctor “continues to advise 39wks,” her medical records show. Waiting until 39 weeks is usually based on a guideline that deliveries should not happen before then unless a medical condition specifically warrants it, because early delivery can lead to complications.

Amanda would have to wait until 39 weeks and one day because, she said, her doctors didn’t typically do elective deliveries on weekends. Amanda was disappointed but said she trusted her team of doctors and midwives.

“I’m not a pushy person,” she said. “My husband is not a pushy person. That was out of our comfort zone to be, like, ‘What are we waiting for?’ But really what we wanted them to say was ‘We should deliver you.’”

Amanda’s final appointment was a maximum 30-minute-long ultrasound that combined a number of assessments to check amniotic fluid, fetal muscle tone, breathing and body movement. After 29 minutes of inactivity, Amanda said, the baby moved a hand. In the parking lot, Amanda called her mother, crying in relief. Four more days, she told her.

Less than 24 hours before the scheduled C-section, Reese was stillborn.

Four months after her death, Amanda, then a career advisor at the University of Minnesota, and Chris, a public relations specialist, wrote a letter to the University of Minnesota Medical Center, where Amanda had given birth to her dead daughter. They said they had “no ill feelings” toward anyone, but “it pains us to know that her death could’ve been prevented if we would have been sent to labor and delivery following that ultrasound.”

They noted that though they were told that Reese had passed the final ultrasound where she took 29 minutes to move, they had since come to believe that she had failed because, according to national standards, at least three movements were required. They also blamed a strict adherence to the 39-week guideline. And they encouraged the hospital staff to read more on umbilical cord accidents and acute polyhydramnios, which they later learned carries an increased stillbirth risk.

The positive feelings they had from speaking up were replaced by dismay when the hospital responded with a three-paragraph letter, signed by seven doctors and eight nurses. They said they had reexamined each medical decision in her case and concluded they had made “the best decisions medically possible.” They expressed their sympathy and said it was “so very heartwarming that you are trying to turn your tragic loss into something that will benefit others.”

Amanda felt dismissed by the medical team all over again. She didn’t expect them to admit fault, but she said she hoped that they would at least learn from Reese’s death to do things differently in the future. She was angry, and hurt, and knew that she would need to find a new doctor.

A spokesperson for the University of Minnesota Medical School told ProPublica she could not comment on individual patient cases and did not respond to questions about general protocols. “We share the physicians’ condolences,” she wrote, adding that the doctors and the university “are dedicated to delivering high quality, accessible and inclusive health care.”

For many expectant parents, it’s hard to muster the courage to call a doctor about something they’re not even sure is a problem.

“Moms self-censor a lot. No one wants to be that mom that all the doctors are rolling their eyes at because she’s freaking out over nothing,” said Samantha Banerjee, executive director of PUSH for Empowered Pregnancy, a nonprofit based in New York state that works to prevent stillbirths. Banerjee’s daughter, Alana, was stillborn two days before her due date.

In addition to raising awareness that stillbirths can happen even in low-risk pregnancies, PUSH teaches pregnant people how to advocate for themselves. The volunteers advise them to put their requests in writing and not to spend time drinking juice or lying on their side if they are worried about their baby’s lack of movement. In the majority of cases, a call or visit to the hospital reassures them.

But, the group tells parents, if their baby is in distress, calling their doctor can save their life.

Debbie Haine Vijayvergiya is fighting another narrative: that stillbirths are a rare fluke that “just happen.” When her daughter Autumn Joy was born without a heartbeat in 2011, Haine Vijayvergiya said, her doctor told her having a stillborn baby was as rare as being struck by lightning.

She believed him, but then she looked up the odds of a lightning strike and found they are less than one in a million – and most people survive. In 2020, according to the CDC, there was one stillbirth for about every 175 births.

“I’ve spoken to more women than I can count that said, ‘I raised the red flag, and I was sent home. I was told to eat a piece of cake and have some orange juice and lay on my left side,’ only to wake up the next day and their baby is not alive,” said Haine Vijayvergiya, a New Jersey mother and maternal health advocate.

She has fought for more than a decade to pass stillbirth legislation as her daughter’s legacy. Her current undertaking is her most ambitious. The federal Stillbirth Health Improvement and Education (SHINE) for Autumn Act, named after her daughter, would authorize $9 million a year for five years in federal funding for research, better data collection and training for fetal autopsies. But it is currently sitting in the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.

Not all stillbirths are preventable, and medical experts agree more research is needed to determine who is most at risk and which babies can potentially be saved. Complicating matters is the wide range of risk factors, including hypertension and diabetes, smoking, obesity, being pregnant with multiples, being 35 or older and having had a previous stillbirth.

ProPublica reported this summer on how the U.S. botched the rollout of COVID-19 vaccines for pregnant people, who faced an increased risk for stillbirth if they were unvaccinated and contracted the virus, especially during the Delta wave.

Doctors often work to balance the risk of stillbirth with other dangers, particularly an increased chance of being admitted to neonatal intensive care units or even death of the baby if it is born too early. ACOG and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine have issued guidance to try to slow a rise in elective deliveries before 39 weeks and the potential harm that can result. The Joint Commission, a national accrediting organization, began evaluating hospitals in 2010 based on that standard.

A 2019 study found that the risks of stillbirth slightly increased after the rule went into effect, but fewer infants died after birth. Other studies have not found an effect on stillbirths.

Last year, the obstetric groups updated their guidance to allow doctors to consider an early delivery if a woman has anxiety and a history of stillbirth, writing that a previous stillbirth “may” warrant an early delivery for patients who understand and accept the risks. For those who have previously had a stillbirth, one modeling analysis found that 38 weeks is the optimal timing of delivery, considering the increased risk of another stillbirth.

“A woman who has had a previous stillbirth at 37 weeks – one could argue that it’s cruel and unusual punishment to make her go to 39 weeks with her next pregnancy, although that is the current recommendation,” said Dr. Neil Mandsager, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist in Iowa and a medical advisor to a stillbirth prevention nonprofit.

At or after 40 weeks, the risk of stillbirth increases, especially for women 35 or older. Their risk, research shows, is doubled from 39 weeks to 40 and is more than six times as high at 42 weeks. In 2019 and 2020, a combined 1,200 stillbirths occurred between 40 and 42 weeks, according to the most recent CDC data.

Deciding when a patient should deliver entails weighing the risks to the mother and the infant against a possible stillbirth as the pregnancy continues, said Dr. Mark Turrentine, chair of ACOG’s Clinical Consensus Committee-Obstetrics, which helped create the guidance on managing a stillbirth. He said ACOG has addressed stillbirth in other documents and extensively in its 2021 guidance on fetal surveillance and testing, which is done to reduce the risk of stillbirth.

ACOG said it routinely reviewed its guidance on management of stillbirth but was unable to make significant updates “due to the lack of new, evidence-based research.” While prevention is a great concern to ACOG, Turrentine said it’s difficult to know how many stillbirths are preventable.

He said it’s standard practice for doctors to ask about fetal movement, and ACOG updated its guidance after new research became available. Doctors also need to include patients in decision-making and tailor care to them, he said, whether that›s using aspirin in patients at high risk of preeclampsia – a serious high blood pressure condition during pregnancy – or ordering additional tests.

After Reese’s death, Amanda and Chris Duffy wanted to get pregnant again. They sought out an obstetrician-gynecologist who would educate and listen to them. They set up several consultations until they found Dr. Emily Hawes-Van Pelt, who was recommended by another family who had had a stillbirth.

Hawes-Van Pelt cried with Amanda and Chris at their first meeting.

“I told her I was scared to be involved,” Hawes-Van Pelt said. “It’s such a tricky subsequent pregnancy because there’s so much worry and anxiety about the horrible, awful thing happening again.”

Amanda’s fear of delivering another dead baby led to an all-consuming anxiety, but Hawes-Van Pelt supported her when she asked for additional monitoring, testing and an early delivery.

When Hawes-Van Pelt switched practices midway through Amanda’s pregnancy, Amanda followed her. But the new hospital pushed back on the early delivery.

“We intervene early for poorly controlled diabetes,” Hawes-Van Pelt said. “We intervene early for all sorts of medical issues. Anxiety and prior stillbirth are two medical issues that we can intervene earlier for.”

Hawes-Van Pelt said she learned a lot from caring for Amanda, who made her reevaluate some of her own assumptions around stillbirths.

“I had a horrible fear of scaring women unnecessarily, and then realized that I was just not preparing women or educating them because of my own fears around it,” she said. “If you can carry a human being in your body and birth that human being and take care of it, you can hear those words.”

The hospital eventually agreed to let Hawes-Van Pelt schedule Amanda for a 37-week C-section. But after Amanda was again diagnosed with polyhydramnios, she went in for a C-section even earlier. She gave birth in 2015 to a healthy boy she and Chris named Rhett. Two years later, Amanda and Hawes-Van Pelt followed the same pregnancy plan, and she delivered a girl named Maeda Reese. Amanda chose the name because, when said quickly, it sounds like “made of Reese.”

Federal agencies, national organizations and state and city officials have mobilized in recent years to address maternal mortality, when mothers die during pregnancy, at delivery or soon after childbirth. They have focused on improving data collection, passing legislation and creating awareness campaigns that encourage medical professionals and others to listen when women say something doesn›t feel right.

In 2017, ProPublica and NPR documented the U.S. maternal mortality crisis, including alarming racial disparities.

According to CDC data, Black women face nearly three times the risk of maternal mortality. They also are more than twice – and in some states close to three times – as likely to have a stillbirth than white women, meaning not only are Black mothers dying at a disproportionate rate, so are their babies.

Janet Petersen, a state senator from Iowa, said it gives her hope to see how the country has turned its attention to maternal mortality and disparities in health care. She simply cannot understand why stillbirth isn’t being met with the same urgency.

In 2020, the CDC reported 861 mothers died either while pregnant or within six weeks of giving birth. That same year, 20,854 babies were stillborn.

Stillbirth, Petersen said, is a missing piece of the puzzle. Research shows the likelihood of severe maternal complications was more than four times higher for pregnancies that ended in stillbirths, and mothers who died within six weeks of delivery were more likely to have had a stillbirth.

“We see it over and over again that stillbirth is one of the maternal health care issues that continuously gets ignored,” said Petersen, a Democrat.

Petersen was a young legislator in 2003 when her daughter Grace was born still. Devastated, she thought of her grandmother, who lost a baby to stillbirth in 1920, just a few weeks before women got the right to vote.

“I was laying in my hospital bed thinking, ‘How could this still be happening in our country?’” Petersen recalled. “And it seemed, from the medical perspective, that, well, stillbirth happens. We can’t do anything to prevent them.”

Over the next few months, Petersen heard from other mothers who had lost their babies and wanted to spark change. As an elected official, Petersen was in a position to do that. In 2004, she introduced legislation that required the Iowa Department of Public Health to create a stillbirths work group, later securing funding through the CDC to create a stillbirth registry.

But the CDC didn’t renew the funding and never analyzed the data from the registry, though a CDC spokesperson said the Iowa Department of Public Health examined the data. Officials from the department did not respond to requests for comment.

Petersen and her fellow mothers pivoted. After hearing how researchers in Norway were able to increase awareness around fetal movement, they co-founded a nonprofit aimed at doing the same in the U.S.

The group, Healthy Birth Day, created colorful “Count the Kicks” pamphlets – and later an app – teaching pregnant people how to track a baby’s movements and establish what is normal for them. Monitoring a baby’s movements is the earliest and sometimes only indication that something may be wrong, said Emily Price, chief executive officer of Healthy Birth Day. One of the organization’s main messages is for pregnant people to speak up and clinicians to listen.

“Unfortunately, there are still doctors who brush women off or send them home when they come in with a complaint of a change in their baby’s movements,” Price said. “And babies are dying because of it.”

One Indiana county, which recorded 65 stillbirths from 2017 through 2019, reported that 74% had either some chance or a good chance of prevention, according to St. Joseph County Department of Health’s Fetal Infant Mortality Review program. For mothers who experienced decreased fetal movement in the few hours or days before the stillbirth, that estimate jumped to 90%.

Although there is not a scientific consensus that kick counting can prevent stillbirths, national groups, including ACOG, recommend that medical professionals encourage their patients to be aware of fetal movement patterns. ACOG also advises medical professionals to be attentive to a mother’s concerns about reduced movement and address them “in a systematic way.”

One complaint the CDC hears too often, an agency spokesperson said, is that pregnant people and those who gave birth recently find that their concerns are dismissed or ignored. “Listening and taking the concerns of pregnant and recently pregnant people seriously,” she said, “is a simple, yet powerful action to prevent serious health complications and even death.”

The CDC, she said, is “very interested” in expanding its research on stillbirth, which is “a crucial part of the development of any awareness or prevention campaigns.” In addition to working to improve its stillbirth data quality, the agency has funded some pilot programs at the city and state level to better track stillbirths, survey people who have had a stillbirth and research risk factors and causes. The Iowa registry, she said, led the CDC to fund different research projects in Arkansas and Massachusetts, which are ongoing.

In 2009, the CDC acknowledged that fetal mortality remained a “major, but often overlooked, public health problem.” Officials wrote that much of the public health concern had been focused on infant mortality “in part due to lesser awareness of the magnitude of fetal mortality, its causes, and prevention strategies.”

But little has changed over the past 13 years. Echoing its earlier message, the CDC this year declared that “much work remains” and that “stillbirth is not often viewed as a public health issue, so increased awareness is key.”

A spokesperson for the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, which is part of the NIH, said the agency has continually funded research on stillbirths, even after one of its key studies ended. The agency, she said, also supports research on conditions that increase the risk of stillbirth.

As a scientific research institute, it does not issue clinical guidelines or recommendations, she said, though it did launch the Safe to Sleep campaign in 1994, two decades after Congress put it in charge of SIDS federal research efforts. That campaign, which educates parents and caregivers on ways to reduce the risk of SIDS, highlights recommendations issued by the American Academy of Pediatrics. She said the agency will continue to collaborate with organizations that raise awareness about stillbirth and other pregnancy complications “to amplify their messages and efforts.”

“NICHD continues to support research on the prevention, causes, frequency, and risk factors of stillbirth,” the spokesperson said in an email. “Our commitment to enhancing understanding of stillbirth and improving outcomes focuses on building the scientific knowledge base.”

But getting laws on the books that could raise awareness around stillbirth – even when they don’t require additional funding – has been a struggle. Petersen and Price are pushing Congress to pass legislation that would add stillbirth research and prevention to the list of activities approved for federal maternal health dollars.

Though the bill doesn’t ask for any additional funding, it has not yet passed.

In addition, the SHINE for Autumn Act breezed through the House of Representatives in December 2021. After Haine Vijayvergiya, the New Jersey mother who has championed it, secured bipartisan support from U.S. Sens. Cory Booker, D-N.J., and Marco Rubio, R-Fla., she thought the most comprehensive stillbirth legislation in U.S. history would finally become law.

Neither bill has sparked controversy.

But months after press releases announced the SHINE legislation and referred to the U.S. stillbirth rate as “unacceptable,” lawmakers and the families they represent are running out of time as this session of Congress prepares to adjourn.

“From the day that the bill was introduced into the Senate,” Haine Vijayvergiya said, “approximately 13,000 babies have been born still.”

Last month, on a brilliant fall day much like the one when Reese was stillborn, Amanda Duffy bent down to kiss her son Rogen’s head before they walked on stage.

She wore a soft blue T-shirt tucked into her jeans that read “Be courageous.” The message was as much for her as it was for the crowd on the National Mall in Washington, D.C., many of them like her, mothers who didn’t know stillbirth happened until it happened to them. Since Reese’s death, she has coached doctors and nurses on improving care for patients who have suffered pregnancy loss. Among her many suggestions, she tells them their first words when a concerned patient reaches out should be “I’m so glad you called.”

A few hundred people had gathered for The Big PUSH to End Preventable Stillbirth, billed as the first-ever march on the issue. As part of an art installation, Amanda wrote a note to Reese: “You’re pretty magical & for that I’m grateful. You’re a change maker and you are so very loved. Love, Mama.” Before she slipped the folded paper into a sea of more than 20,000 baby hats, Rogen added his own message: “Hope you are having a good time – Rogen.”

Reese would have turned 8 this month.

Before Amanda spoke, she took a deep breath and silenced her nerves. She walked onto the stage and called on Congress to pass the stillbirth legislation before it. She didn’t ask. She demanded.

“It’s time to empower pregnant people and their care providers with information that leads to prevention,” she insisted.

With the afternoon sun bearing down, Amanda and Rogen disappeared into the crowd of families marching toward the Capitol. Many carried signs. Some pushed empty strollers. Amanda was still wearing the orange-scented oil she had rubbed on her wrists that morning.

This story was originally published on ProPublica. ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up to receive their biggest stories as soon as they’re published

The day before doctors had scheduled Amanda Duffy to give birth, the baby jolted her awake with a kick.

A few hours later, on that bright Sunday in November 2014, she leaned back on a park bench to watch her 19-month-old son Rogen enjoy his final day of being an only child. In that moment of calm, she realized that the kick that morning was the last time she had felt the baby move.

She told herself not to worry. She had heard that babies can slow down toward the end of a pregnancy and remembered reading that sugary snacks and cold fluids can stimulate a baby’s movement. When she got back to the family’s home in suburban Minneapolis, she drank a large glass of ice water and grabbed a few Tootsie Rolls off the kitchen counter.

But something about seeing her husband, Chris, lace up his shoes to leave for a run prompted her to blurt out, “I haven’t felt the baby kick.”

Chris called Amanda’s doctor, and they headed to the hospital to be checked. Once there, a nurse maneuvered a fetal monitor around Amanda’s belly. When she had trouble locating a heartbeat, she remarked that the baby must be tucked in tight. The doctor walked into the room, turned the screen away from Amanda and Chris and began searching. She was sorry, Amanda remembers her telling them, but she could not find a heartbeat.

Amanda let out a guttural scream. She said the doctor quickly performed an internal exam, which detected faint heart activity, then rushed Amanda into an emergency cesarean section.

She woke up to the sound of doctors talking to Chris. She listened but couldn’t bring herself to face the news. Her doctor told her she needed to open her eyes.

Amanda, then 31, couldn’t fathom that her daughter had died. She said her doctors had never discussed stillbirth with her. It was not mentioned in any of the pregnancy materials she had read. She didn’t even know that stillbirth was a possibility.

But every year more than 20,000 pregnancies in the United States end in stillbirth, the death of an expected child at 20 weeks or more. That number has exceeded infant mortality every year for the last 10 years. It’s 15 times the number of babies who, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, died of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome, or SIDS, in 2020.

The deaths are not inevitable. One study found that nearly one in four U.S. stillbirths may be preventable. For pregnancies that last 37 weeks or more, that research shows, the figure jumps to nearly half. Thousands more babies could potentially be delivered safely every year.

But federal agencies have not prioritized critical stillbirth-focused studies that could lead to fewer deaths. Nearly two decades ago, both the CDC and the National Institutes of Health launched key stillbirth tracking and research studies, but the agencies ended those projects within about a decade. The CDC never analyzed some of the data that was collected.

Unlike with SIDS, a leading cause of infant death, federal officials have failed to launch a national campaign to reduce the risk of stillbirth or adequately raise awareness about it. Placental exams and autopsies, which can sometimes explain why stillbirths happened, are underutilized, in part because parents are not counseled on their benefits.

Federal agencies, state health departments, hospitals and doctors have also done a poor job of educating expectant parents about stillbirth or diligently counseling on fetal movement, despite research showing that patients who have had a stillbirth are more likely to have experienced abnormal fetal movements, including decreased activity. Neither the CDC nor the NIH have consistently promoted guidance telling those who are pregnant to be aware of their babies’ movement in the womb as a way to possibly reduce their risk of stillbirth.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the nation’s leading obstetrics organization, has been slow to update its own guidance to doctors on managing a stillbirth. In 2009, ACOG issued a set of guidelines that included a single paragraph regarding fetal movement. Those guidelines weren’t significantly updated for another 11 years.

Perhaps it’s no surprise that federal goals for reducing stillbirths keep moving in the wrong direction. In 2005, the U.S. stillbirth rate was 6.2 per 1,000 live births. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, in an effort to eliminate health disparities and establish a target that was “better than the best racial or ethnic group rate,” set a goal of reducing it to 4.1 for 2010. When that wasn’t met, federal officials changed their approach and set what they called more “science-based” and “realistic” goals, raising the 2020 target to 5.6. The U.S. still fell short. The 2030 goal of 5.7 was so attainable that it was met before the decade started. The 2020 rate, the most current according to the CDC, is 5.74.

By comparison, other wealthy countries have implemented national action plans to prevent stillbirth through awareness, research and care. Among other approaches, those countries have focused on increasing education around stillbirth and the importance of a baby’s movements, reducing rates of smoking and identifying fetuses that grow too slowly in the womb.

The efforts have paid off. The Netherlands, for instance, has reduced its rate of stillbirths at 28 weeks or later by more than half, from 5.2 in 2000 to 2.3 in 2019, according to a study published last year in The Lancet.

Dr. Bob Silver, chair of the obstetrics/gynecology department at University of Utah Health and a leading stillbirth expert, coauthored the study that estimated nearly one in four stillbirths are potentially preventable, a figure he referred to as conservative. He called on federal agencies to declare stillbirth reduction a priority the same way they have done for premature birth and maternal mortality.

“I’d like to see us say we really want to reduce the rate of stillbirth and raise awareness and try to do all of the reasonable things that may contribute to reducing stillbirths that other countries have done,” Silver said.

The lack of comprehensive attention and action has contributed to a stillbirth crisis, shrouded in an acceptance that some babies just die. Compounding the tragedy is a stigma and guilt so crushing that the first words some mothers utter when their lifeless babies are placed in their arms are “I’m sorry.”

In the hospital room, Amanda Duffy finally opened her eyes. She named her daughter Reese Christine, the name she had picked out for her before they found out she had died. She was 8 pounds, 3 ounces and 20 1/2 inches long and was born with her umbilical cord wrapped tightly around her neck twice. The baby was still warm when the nurse placed her in Amanda’s arms. Amanda was struck by how lovely her daughter was. Rosy skin. Chris’ red hair. Rogen’s chubby cheeks.

As Amanda held Reese, Chris hunched over the toilet, vomiting. Later that night, as he lay next to Amanda on the hospital bed, he held his daughter. He hadn’t initially wanted to see her. He worried she would be disfigured or, worse, that she would be beautiful and he would fall apart when he couldn’t take her home.

The nurses taught Amanda and Chris how to grieve and love simultaneously. One nurse told Amanda how cute Reese was and asked if she could hold her. Another placed ice packs in Reese’s swaddle to preserve her body so Amanda could keep holding her. Amanda asked the nurses to tuck cotton balls soaked in an orange scent into Reese’s blanket so the smell would trigger the memory of her daughter. And just as if Reese had been born alive, the nurses took pictures and made prints of her hands and feet.

“I felt such a deep, abiding love for her,” Amanda said. “And I was so proud to be her mom.”

On the way home from the hospital, Amanda broke down at the sight of Reese’s empty car seat. The next few weeks passed in a sleep-filled fog punctuated by intense periods of crying. The smell of oranges wrecked her. Her breast milk coming in was agonizing, physically and emotionally. She wore sports bras stuffed with ice packs to ease the pain and dry up her milk supply. While Rogen was at day care, she sobbed in his bed.

In the months that followed, Amanda and Chris searched for answers and wondered whether their medical team had missed warning signs. Late at night, Amanda turned to Google to find information about stillbirths. She mailed her medical records to a doctor who studies stillbirths, who she said told her that Reese’s death could have been prevented. They briefly discussed legal action against her doctors, but she said a lawyer told her it would be difficult to sue.

Amanda and Chris pinpointed her last two months of pregnancy as the time things started to go wrong. She had been diagnosed with polyhydramnios, meaning there was excess amniotic fluid in the womb. Her doctor had scheduled additional weekly testing.

One of those ultrasounds revealed problems with the blood flow in the umbilical cord. Reese’s cord also appeared to be wrapped around her neck, Amanda said later, but was told that was less of a concern, since it occurs in about 20% of normal deliveries. At another appointment, Amanda’s medical records show, Reese failed the portion of a test that measures fetal breathing movements.

At 37 weeks, Amanda told one of the midwives the baby’s movements felt different, but, she said, the midwife told her that it was common for movements to feel weaker with polyhydramnios. At that point, Amanda felt her baby was safer outside than inside and, her medical records show, she asked to schedule a C-section.

Despite voicing concerns about a change in the baby’s movement and asking to deliver earlier, Amanda said she and her husband were told by her midwife she couldn’t deliver for another two weeks. The doctor “continues to advise 39wks,” her medical records show. Waiting until 39 weeks is usually based on a guideline that deliveries should not happen before then unless a medical condition specifically warrants it, because early delivery can lead to complications.

Amanda would have to wait until 39 weeks and one day because, she said, her doctors didn’t typically do elective deliveries on weekends. Amanda was disappointed but said she trusted her team of doctors and midwives.

“I’m not a pushy person,” she said. “My husband is not a pushy person. That was out of our comfort zone to be, like, ‘What are we waiting for?’ But really what we wanted them to say was ‘We should deliver you.’”

Amanda’s final appointment was a maximum 30-minute-long ultrasound that combined a number of assessments to check amniotic fluid, fetal muscle tone, breathing and body movement. After 29 minutes of inactivity, Amanda said, the baby moved a hand. In the parking lot, Amanda called her mother, crying in relief. Four more days, she told her.

Less than 24 hours before the scheduled C-section, Reese was stillborn.

Four months after her death, Amanda, then a career advisor at the University of Minnesota, and Chris, a public relations specialist, wrote a letter to the University of Minnesota Medical Center, where Amanda had given birth to her dead daughter. They said they had “no ill feelings” toward anyone, but “it pains us to know that her death could’ve been prevented if we would have been sent to labor and delivery following that ultrasound.”

They noted that though they were told that Reese had passed the final ultrasound where she took 29 minutes to move, they had since come to believe that she had failed because, according to national standards, at least three movements were required. They also blamed a strict adherence to the 39-week guideline. And they encouraged the hospital staff to read more on umbilical cord accidents and acute polyhydramnios, which they later learned carries an increased stillbirth risk.

The positive feelings they had from speaking up were replaced by dismay when the hospital responded with a three-paragraph letter, signed by seven doctors and eight nurses. They said they had reexamined each medical decision in her case and concluded they had made “the best decisions medically possible.” They expressed their sympathy and said it was “so very heartwarming that you are trying to turn your tragic loss into something that will benefit others.”

Amanda felt dismissed by the medical team all over again. She didn’t expect them to admit fault, but she said she hoped that they would at least learn from Reese’s death to do things differently in the future. She was angry, and hurt, and knew that she would need to find a new doctor.

A spokesperson for the University of Minnesota Medical School told ProPublica she could not comment on individual patient cases and did not respond to questions about general protocols. “We share the physicians’ condolences,” she wrote, adding that the doctors and the university “are dedicated to delivering high quality, accessible and inclusive health care.”

For many expectant parents, it’s hard to muster the courage to call a doctor about something they’re not even sure is a problem.

“Moms self-censor a lot. No one wants to be that mom that all the doctors are rolling their eyes at because she’s freaking out over nothing,” said Samantha Banerjee, executive director of PUSH for Empowered Pregnancy, a nonprofit based in New York state that works to prevent stillbirths. Banerjee’s daughter, Alana, was stillborn two days before her due date.

In addition to raising awareness that stillbirths can happen even in low-risk pregnancies, PUSH teaches pregnant people how to advocate for themselves. The volunteers advise them to put their requests in writing and not to spend time drinking juice or lying on their side if they are worried about their baby’s lack of movement. In the majority of cases, a call or visit to the hospital reassures them.

But, the group tells parents, if their baby is in distress, calling their doctor can save their life.

Debbie Haine Vijayvergiya is fighting another narrative: that stillbirths are a rare fluke that “just happen.” When her daughter Autumn Joy was born without a heartbeat in 2011, Haine Vijayvergiya said, her doctor told her having a stillborn baby was as rare as being struck by lightning.

She believed him, but then she looked up the odds of a lightning strike and found they are less than one in a million – and most people survive. In 2020, according to the CDC, there was one stillbirth for about every 175 births.

“I’ve spoken to more women than I can count that said, ‘I raised the red flag, and I was sent home. I was told to eat a piece of cake and have some orange juice and lay on my left side,’ only to wake up the next day and their baby is not alive,” said Haine Vijayvergiya, a New Jersey mother and maternal health advocate.

She has fought for more than a decade to pass stillbirth legislation as her daughter’s legacy. Her current undertaking is her most ambitious. The federal Stillbirth Health Improvement and Education (SHINE) for Autumn Act, named after her daughter, would authorize $9 million a year for five years in federal funding for research, better data collection and training for fetal autopsies. But it is currently sitting in the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.

Not all stillbirths are preventable, and medical experts agree more research is needed to determine who is most at risk and which babies can potentially be saved. Complicating matters is the wide range of risk factors, including hypertension and diabetes, smoking, obesity, being pregnant with multiples, being 35 or older and having had a previous stillbirth.

ProPublica reported this summer on how the U.S. botched the rollout of COVID-19 vaccines for pregnant people, who faced an increased risk for stillbirth if they were unvaccinated and contracted the virus, especially during the Delta wave.

Doctors often work to balance the risk of stillbirth with other dangers, particularly an increased chance of being admitted to neonatal intensive care units or even death of the baby if it is born too early. ACOG and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine have issued guidance to try to slow a rise in elective deliveries before 39 weeks and the potential harm that can result. The Joint Commission, a national accrediting organization, began evaluating hospitals in 2010 based on that standard.

A 2019 study found that the risks of stillbirth slightly increased after the rule went into effect, but fewer infants died after birth. Other studies have not found an effect on stillbirths.

Last year, the obstetric groups updated their guidance to allow doctors to consider an early delivery if a woman has anxiety and a history of stillbirth, writing that a previous stillbirth “may” warrant an early delivery for patients who understand and accept the risks. For those who have previously had a stillbirth, one modeling analysis found that 38 weeks is the optimal timing of delivery, considering the increased risk of another stillbirth.

“A woman who has had a previous stillbirth at 37 weeks – one could argue that it’s cruel and unusual punishment to make her go to 39 weeks with her next pregnancy, although that is the current recommendation,” said Dr. Neil Mandsager, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist in Iowa and a medical advisor to a stillbirth prevention nonprofit.

At or after 40 weeks, the risk of stillbirth increases, especially for women 35 or older. Their risk, research shows, is doubled from 39 weeks to 40 and is more than six times as high at 42 weeks. In 2019 and 2020, a combined 1,200 stillbirths occurred between 40 and 42 weeks, according to the most recent CDC data.

Deciding when a patient should deliver entails weighing the risks to the mother and the infant against a possible stillbirth as the pregnancy continues, said Dr. Mark Turrentine, chair of ACOG’s Clinical Consensus Committee-Obstetrics, which helped create the guidance on managing a stillbirth. He said ACOG has addressed stillbirth in other documents and extensively in its 2021 guidance on fetal surveillance and testing, which is done to reduce the risk of stillbirth.

ACOG said it routinely reviewed its guidance on management of stillbirth but was unable to make significant updates “due to the lack of new, evidence-based research.” While prevention is a great concern to ACOG, Turrentine said it’s difficult to know how many stillbirths are preventable.

He said it’s standard practice for doctors to ask about fetal movement, and ACOG updated its guidance after new research became available. Doctors also need to include patients in decision-making and tailor care to them, he said, whether that›s using aspirin in patients at high risk of preeclampsia – a serious high blood pressure condition during pregnancy – or ordering additional tests.

After Reese’s death, Amanda and Chris Duffy wanted to get pregnant again. They sought out an obstetrician-gynecologist who would educate and listen to them. They set up several consultations until they found Dr. Emily Hawes-Van Pelt, who was recommended by another family who had had a stillbirth.

Hawes-Van Pelt cried with Amanda and Chris at their first meeting.

“I told her I was scared to be involved,” Hawes-Van Pelt said. “It’s such a tricky subsequent pregnancy because there’s so much worry and anxiety about the horrible, awful thing happening again.”

Amanda’s fear of delivering another dead baby led to an all-consuming anxiety, but Hawes-Van Pelt supported her when she asked for additional monitoring, testing and an early delivery.

When Hawes-Van Pelt switched practices midway through Amanda’s pregnancy, Amanda followed her. But the new hospital pushed back on the early delivery.

“We intervene early for poorly controlled diabetes,” Hawes-Van Pelt said. “We intervene early for all sorts of medical issues. Anxiety and prior stillbirth are two medical issues that we can intervene earlier for.”

Hawes-Van Pelt said she learned a lot from caring for Amanda, who made her reevaluate some of her own assumptions around stillbirths.

“I had a horrible fear of scaring women unnecessarily, and then realized that I was just not preparing women or educating them because of my own fears around it,” she said. “If you can carry a human being in your body and birth that human being and take care of it, you can hear those words.”

The hospital eventually agreed to let Hawes-Van Pelt schedule Amanda for a 37-week C-section. But after Amanda was again diagnosed with polyhydramnios, she went in for a C-section even earlier. She gave birth in 2015 to a healthy boy she and Chris named Rhett. Two years later, Amanda and Hawes-Van Pelt followed the same pregnancy plan, and she delivered a girl named Maeda Reese. Amanda chose the name because, when said quickly, it sounds like “made of Reese.”

Federal agencies, national organizations and state and city officials have mobilized in recent years to address maternal mortality, when mothers die during pregnancy, at delivery or soon after childbirth. They have focused on improving data collection, passing legislation and creating awareness campaigns that encourage medical professionals and others to listen when women say something doesn›t feel right.

In 2017, ProPublica and NPR documented the U.S. maternal mortality crisis, including alarming racial disparities.

According to CDC data, Black women face nearly three times the risk of maternal mortality. They also are more than twice – and in some states close to three times – as likely to have a stillbirth than white women, meaning not only are Black mothers dying at a disproportionate rate, so are their babies.

Janet Petersen, a state senator from Iowa, said it gives her hope to see how the country has turned its attention to maternal mortality and disparities in health care. She simply cannot understand why stillbirth isn’t being met with the same urgency.

In 2020, the CDC reported 861 mothers died either while pregnant or within six weeks of giving birth. That same year, 20,854 babies were stillborn.

Stillbirth, Petersen said, is a missing piece of the puzzle. Research shows the likelihood of severe maternal complications was more than four times higher for pregnancies that ended in stillbirths, and mothers who died within six weeks of delivery were more likely to have had a stillbirth.

“We see it over and over again that stillbirth is one of the maternal health care issues that continuously gets ignored,” said Petersen, a Democrat.

Petersen was a young legislator in 2003 when her daughter Grace was born still. Devastated, she thought of her grandmother, who lost a baby to stillbirth in 1920, just a few weeks before women got the right to vote.

“I was laying in my hospital bed thinking, ‘How could this still be happening in our country?’” Petersen recalled. “And it seemed, from the medical perspective, that, well, stillbirth happens. We can’t do anything to prevent them.”

Over the next few months, Petersen heard from other mothers who had lost their babies and wanted to spark change. As an elected official, Petersen was in a position to do that. In 2004, she introduced legislation that required the Iowa Department of Public Health to create a stillbirths work group, later securing funding through the CDC to create a stillbirth registry.

But the CDC didn’t renew the funding and never analyzed the data from the registry, though a CDC spokesperson said the Iowa Department of Public Health examined the data. Officials from the department did not respond to requests for comment.

Petersen and her fellow mothers pivoted. After hearing how researchers in Norway were able to increase awareness around fetal movement, they co-founded a nonprofit aimed at doing the same in the U.S.

The group, Healthy Birth Day, created colorful “Count the Kicks” pamphlets – and later an app – teaching pregnant people how to track a baby’s movements and establish what is normal for them. Monitoring a baby’s movements is the earliest and sometimes only indication that something may be wrong, said Emily Price, chief executive officer of Healthy Birth Day. One of the organization’s main messages is for pregnant people to speak up and clinicians to listen.

“Unfortunately, there are still doctors who brush women off or send them home when they come in with a complaint of a change in their baby’s movements,” Price said. “And babies are dying because of it.”

One Indiana county, which recorded 65 stillbirths from 2017 through 2019, reported that 74% had either some chance or a good chance of prevention, according to St. Joseph County Department of Health’s Fetal Infant Mortality Review program. For mothers who experienced decreased fetal movement in the few hours or days before the stillbirth, that estimate jumped to 90%.

Although there is not a scientific consensus that kick counting can prevent stillbirths, national groups, including ACOG, recommend that medical professionals encourage their patients to be aware of fetal movement patterns. ACOG also advises medical professionals to be attentive to a mother’s concerns about reduced movement and address them “in a systematic way.”

One complaint the CDC hears too often, an agency spokesperson said, is that pregnant people and those who gave birth recently find that their concerns are dismissed or ignored. “Listening and taking the concerns of pregnant and recently pregnant people seriously,” she said, “is a simple, yet powerful action to prevent serious health complications and even death.”

The CDC, she said, is “very interested” in expanding its research on stillbirth, which is “a crucial part of the development of any awareness or prevention campaigns.” In addition to working to improve its stillbirth data quality, the agency has funded some pilot programs at the city and state level to better track stillbirths, survey people who have had a stillbirth and research risk factors and causes. The Iowa registry, she said, led the CDC to fund different research projects in Arkansas and Massachusetts, which are ongoing.

In 2009, the CDC acknowledged that fetal mortality remained a “major, but often overlooked, public health problem.” Officials wrote that much of the public health concern had been focused on infant mortality “in part due to lesser awareness of the magnitude of fetal mortality, its causes, and prevention strategies.”

But little has changed over the past 13 years. Echoing its earlier message, the CDC this year declared that “much work remains” and that “stillbirth is not often viewed as a public health issue, so increased awareness is key.”

A spokesperson for the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, which is part of the NIH, said the agency has continually funded research on stillbirths, even after one of its key studies ended. The agency, she said, also supports research on conditions that increase the risk of stillbirth.

As a scientific research institute, it does not issue clinical guidelines or recommendations, she said, though it did launch the Safe to Sleep campaign in 1994, two decades after Congress put it in charge of SIDS federal research efforts. That campaign, which educates parents and caregivers on ways to reduce the risk of SIDS, highlights recommendations issued by the American Academy of Pediatrics. She said the agency will continue to collaborate with organizations that raise awareness about stillbirth and other pregnancy complications “to amplify their messages and efforts.”

“NICHD continues to support research on the prevention, causes, frequency, and risk factors of stillbirth,” the spokesperson said in an email. “Our commitment to enhancing understanding of stillbirth and improving outcomes focuses on building the scientific knowledge base.”

But getting laws on the books that could raise awareness around stillbirth – even when they don’t require additional funding – has been a struggle. Petersen and Price are pushing Congress to pass legislation that would add stillbirth research and prevention to the list of activities approved for federal maternal health dollars.

Though the bill doesn’t ask for any additional funding, it has not yet passed.

In addition, the SHINE for Autumn Act breezed through the House of Representatives in December 2021. After Haine Vijayvergiya, the New Jersey mother who has championed it, secured bipartisan support from U.S. Sens. Cory Booker, D-N.J., and Marco Rubio, R-Fla., she thought the most comprehensive stillbirth legislation in U.S. history would finally become law.

Neither bill has sparked controversy.

But months after press releases announced the SHINE legislation and referred to the U.S. stillbirth rate as “unacceptable,” lawmakers and the families they represent are running out of time as this session of Congress prepares to adjourn.

“From the day that the bill was introduced into the Senate,” Haine Vijayvergiya said, “approximately 13,000 babies have been born still.”

Last month, on a brilliant fall day much like the one when Reese was stillborn, Amanda Duffy bent down to kiss her son Rogen’s head before they walked on stage.

She wore a soft blue T-shirt tucked into her jeans that read “Be courageous.” The message was as much for her as it was for the crowd on the National Mall in Washington, D.C., many of them like her, mothers who didn’t know stillbirth happened until it happened to them. Since Reese’s death, she has coached doctors and nurses on improving care for patients who have suffered pregnancy loss. Among her many suggestions, she tells them their first words when a concerned patient reaches out should be “I’m so glad you called.”

A few hundred people had gathered for The Big PUSH to End Preventable Stillbirth, billed as the first-ever march on the issue. As part of an art installation, Amanda wrote a note to Reese: “You’re pretty magical & for that I’m grateful. You’re a change maker and you are so very loved. Love, Mama.” Before she slipped the folded paper into a sea of more than 20,000 baby hats, Rogen added his own message: “Hope you are having a good time – Rogen.”

Reese would have turned 8 this month.

Before Amanda spoke, she took a deep breath and silenced her nerves. She walked onto the stage and called on Congress to pass the stillbirth legislation before it. She didn’t ask. She demanded.

“It’s time to empower pregnant people and their care providers with information that leads to prevention,” she insisted.

With the afternoon sun bearing down, Amanda and Rogen disappeared into the crowd of families marching toward the Capitol. Many carried signs. Some pushed empty strollers. Amanda was still wearing the orange-scented oil she had rubbed on her wrists that morning.

This story was originally published on ProPublica. ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up to receive their biggest stories as soon as they’re published

The day before doctors had scheduled Amanda Duffy to give birth, the baby jolted her awake with a kick.

A few hours later, on that bright Sunday in November 2014, she leaned back on a park bench to watch her 19-month-old son Rogen enjoy his final day of being an only child. In that moment of calm, she realized that the kick that morning was the last time she had felt the baby move.

She told herself not to worry. She had heard that babies can slow down toward the end of a pregnancy and remembered reading that sugary snacks and cold fluids can stimulate a baby’s movement. When she got back to the family’s home in suburban Minneapolis, she drank a large glass of ice water and grabbed a few Tootsie Rolls off the kitchen counter.

But something about seeing her husband, Chris, lace up his shoes to leave for a run prompted her to blurt out, “I haven’t felt the baby kick.”

Chris called Amanda’s doctor, and they headed to the hospital to be checked. Once there, a nurse maneuvered a fetal monitor around Amanda’s belly. When she had trouble locating a heartbeat, she remarked that the baby must be tucked in tight. The doctor walked into the room, turned the screen away from Amanda and Chris and began searching. She was sorry, Amanda remembers her telling them, but she could not find a heartbeat.

Amanda let out a guttural scream. She said the doctor quickly performed an internal exam, which detected faint heart activity, then rushed Amanda into an emergency cesarean section.

She woke up to the sound of doctors talking to Chris. She listened but couldn’t bring herself to face the news. Her doctor told her she needed to open her eyes.

Amanda, then 31, couldn’t fathom that her daughter had died. She said her doctors had never discussed stillbirth with her. It was not mentioned in any of the pregnancy materials she had read. She didn’t even know that stillbirth was a possibility.

But every year more than 20,000 pregnancies in the United States end in stillbirth, the death of an expected child at 20 weeks or more. That number has exceeded infant mortality every year for the last 10 years. It’s 15 times the number of babies who, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, died of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome, or SIDS, in 2020.

The deaths are not inevitable. One study found that nearly one in four U.S. stillbirths may be preventable. For pregnancies that last 37 weeks or more, that research shows, the figure jumps to nearly half. Thousands more babies could potentially be delivered safely every year.

But federal agencies have not prioritized critical stillbirth-focused studies that could lead to fewer deaths. Nearly two decades ago, both the CDC and the National Institutes of Health launched key stillbirth tracking and research studies, but the agencies ended those projects within about a decade. The CDC never analyzed some of the data that was collected.

Unlike with SIDS, a leading cause of infant death, federal officials have failed to launch a national campaign to reduce the risk of stillbirth or adequately raise awareness about it. Placental exams and autopsies, which can sometimes explain why stillbirths happened, are underutilized, in part because parents are not counseled on their benefits.

Federal agencies, state health departments, hospitals and doctors have also done a poor job of educating expectant parents about stillbirth or diligently counseling on fetal movement, despite research showing that patients who have had a stillbirth are more likely to have experienced abnormal fetal movements, including decreased activity. Neither the CDC nor the NIH have consistently promoted guidance telling those who are pregnant to be aware of their babies’ movement in the womb as a way to possibly reduce their risk of stillbirth.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the nation’s leading obstetrics organization, has been slow to update its own guidance to doctors on managing a stillbirth. In 2009, ACOG issued a set of guidelines that included a single paragraph regarding fetal movement. Those guidelines weren’t significantly updated for another 11 years.

Perhaps it’s no surprise that federal goals for reducing stillbirths keep moving in the wrong direction. In 2005, the U.S. stillbirth rate was 6.2 per 1,000 live births. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, in an effort to eliminate health disparities and establish a target that was “better than the best racial or ethnic group rate,” set a goal of reducing it to 4.1 for 2010. When that wasn’t met, federal officials changed their approach and set what they called more “science-based” and “realistic” goals, raising the 2020 target to 5.6. The U.S. still fell short. The 2030 goal of 5.7 was so attainable that it was met before the decade started. The 2020 rate, the most current according to the CDC, is 5.74.

By comparison, other wealthy countries have implemented national action plans to prevent stillbirth through awareness, research and care. Among other approaches, those countries have focused on increasing education around stillbirth and the importance of a baby’s movements, reducing rates of smoking and identifying fetuses that grow too slowly in the womb.

The efforts have paid off. The Netherlands, for instance, has reduced its rate of stillbirths at 28 weeks or later by more than half, from 5.2 in 2000 to 2.3 in 2019, according to a study published last year in The Lancet.

Dr. Bob Silver, chair of the obstetrics/gynecology department at University of Utah Health and a leading stillbirth expert, coauthored the study that estimated nearly one in four stillbirths are potentially preventable, a figure he referred to as conservative. He called on federal agencies to declare stillbirth reduction a priority the same way they have done for premature birth and maternal mortality.

“I’d like to see us say we really want to reduce the rate of stillbirth and raise awareness and try to do all of the reasonable things that may contribute to reducing stillbirths that other countries have done,” Silver said.

The lack of comprehensive attention and action has contributed to a stillbirth crisis, shrouded in an acceptance that some babies just die. Compounding the tragedy is a stigma and guilt so crushing that the first words some mothers utter when their lifeless babies are placed in their arms are “I’m sorry.”

In the hospital room, Amanda Duffy finally opened her eyes. She named her daughter Reese Christine, the name she had picked out for her before they found out she had died. She was 8 pounds, 3 ounces and 20 1/2 inches long and was born with her umbilical cord wrapped tightly around her neck twice. The baby was still warm when the nurse placed her in Amanda’s arms. Amanda was struck by how lovely her daughter was. Rosy skin. Chris’ red hair. Rogen’s chubby cheeks.

As Amanda held Reese, Chris hunched over the toilet, vomiting. Later that night, as he lay next to Amanda on the hospital bed, he held his daughter. He hadn’t initially wanted to see her. He worried she would be disfigured or, worse, that she would be beautiful and he would fall apart when he couldn’t take her home.

The nurses taught Amanda and Chris how to grieve and love simultaneously. One nurse told Amanda how cute Reese was and asked if she could hold her. Another placed ice packs in Reese’s swaddle to preserve her body so Amanda could keep holding her. Amanda asked the nurses to tuck cotton balls soaked in an orange scent into Reese’s blanket so the smell would trigger the memory of her daughter. And just as if Reese had been born alive, the nurses took pictures and made prints of her hands and feet.

“I felt such a deep, abiding love for her,” Amanda said. “And I was so proud to be her mom.”

On the way home from the hospital, Amanda broke down at the sight of Reese’s empty car seat. The next few weeks passed in a sleep-filled fog punctuated by intense periods of crying. The smell of oranges wrecked her. Her breast milk coming in was agonizing, physically and emotionally. She wore sports bras stuffed with ice packs to ease the pain and dry up her milk supply. While Rogen was at day care, she sobbed in his bed.

In the months that followed, Amanda and Chris searched for answers and wondered whether their medical team had missed warning signs. Late at night, Amanda turned to Google to find information about stillbirths. She mailed her medical records to a doctor who studies stillbirths, who she said told her that Reese’s death could have been prevented. They briefly discussed legal action against her doctors, but she said a lawyer told her it would be difficult to sue.

Amanda and Chris pinpointed her last two months of pregnancy as the time things started to go wrong. She had been diagnosed with polyhydramnios, meaning there was excess amniotic fluid in the womb. Her doctor had scheduled additional weekly testing.

One of those ultrasounds revealed problems with the blood flow in the umbilical cord. Reese’s cord also appeared to be wrapped around her neck, Amanda said later, but was told that was less of a concern, since it occurs in about 20% of normal deliveries. At another appointment, Amanda’s medical records show, Reese failed the portion of a test that measures fetal breathing movements.

At 37 weeks, Amanda told one of the midwives the baby’s movements felt different, but, she said, the midwife told her that it was common for movements to feel weaker with polyhydramnios. At that point, Amanda felt her baby was safer outside than inside and, her medical records show, she asked to schedule a C-section.

Despite voicing concerns about a change in the baby’s movement and asking to deliver earlier, Amanda said she and her husband were told by her midwife she couldn’t deliver for another two weeks. The doctor “continues to advise 39wks,” her medical records show. Waiting until 39 weeks is usually based on a guideline that deliveries should not happen before then unless a medical condition specifically warrants it, because early delivery can lead to complications.

Amanda would have to wait until 39 weeks and one day because, she said, her doctors didn’t typically do elective deliveries on weekends. Amanda was disappointed but said she trusted her team of doctors and midwives.

“I’m not a pushy person,” she said. “My husband is not a pushy person. That was out of our comfort zone to be, like, ‘What are we waiting for?’ But really what we wanted them to say was ‘We should deliver you.’”

Amanda’s final appointment was a maximum 30-minute-long ultrasound that combined a number of assessments to check amniotic fluid, fetal muscle tone, breathing and body movement. After 29 minutes of inactivity, Amanda said, the baby moved a hand. In the parking lot, Amanda called her mother, crying in relief. Four more days, she told her.

Less than 24 hours before the scheduled C-section, Reese was stillborn.

Four months after her death, Amanda, then a career advisor at the University of Minnesota, and Chris, a public relations specialist, wrote a letter to the University of Minnesota Medical Center, where Amanda had given birth to her dead daughter. They said they had “no ill feelings” toward anyone, but “it pains us to know that her death could’ve been prevented if we would have been sent to labor and delivery following that ultrasound.”

They noted that though they were told that Reese had passed the final ultrasound where she took 29 minutes to move, they had since come to believe that she had failed because, according to national standards, at least three movements were required. They also blamed a strict adherence to the 39-week guideline. And they encouraged the hospital staff to read more on umbilical cord accidents and acute polyhydramnios, which they later learned carries an increased stillbirth risk.

The positive feelings they had from speaking up were replaced by dismay when the hospital responded with a three-paragraph letter, signed by seven doctors and eight nurses. They said they had reexamined each medical decision in her case and concluded they had made “the best decisions medically possible.” They expressed their sympathy and said it was “so very heartwarming that you are trying to turn your tragic loss into something that will benefit others.”

Amanda felt dismissed by the medical team all over again. She didn’t expect them to admit fault, but she said she hoped that they would at least learn from Reese’s death to do things differently in the future. She was angry, and hurt, and knew that she would need to find a new doctor.

A spokesperson for the University of Minnesota Medical School told ProPublica she could not comment on individual patient cases and did not respond to questions about general protocols. “We share the physicians’ condolences,” she wrote, adding that the doctors and the university “are dedicated to delivering high quality, accessible and inclusive health care.”

For many expectant parents, it’s hard to muster the courage to call a doctor about something they’re not even sure is a problem.

“Moms self-censor a lot. No one wants to be that mom that all the doctors are rolling their eyes at because she’s freaking out over nothing,” said Samantha Banerjee, executive director of PUSH for Empowered Pregnancy, a nonprofit based in New York state that works to prevent stillbirths. Banerjee’s daughter, Alana, was stillborn two days before her due date.

In addition to raising awareness that stillbirths can happen even in low-risk pregnancies, PUSH teaches pregnant people how to advocate for themselves. The volunteers advise them to put their requests in writing and not to spend time drinking juice or lying on their side if they are worried about their baby’s lack of movement. In the majority of cases, a call or visit to the hospital reassures them.

But, the group tells parents, if their baby is in distress, calling their doctor can save their life.

Debbie Haine Vijayvergiya is fighting another narrative: that stillbirths are a rare fluke that “just happen.” When her daughter Autumn Joy was born without a heartbeat in 2011, Haine Vijayvergiya said, her doctor told her having a stillborn baby was as rare as being struck by lightning.

She believed him, but then she looked up the odds of a lightning strike and found they are less than one in a million – and most people survive. In 2020, according to the CDC, there was one stillbirth for about every 175 births.

“I’ve spoken to more women than I can count that said, ‘I raised the red flag, and I was sent home. I was told to eat a piece of cake and have some orange juice and lay on my left side,’ only to wake up the next day and their baby is not alive,” said Haine Vijayvergiya, a New Jersey mother and maternal health advocate.

She has fought for more than a decade to pass stillbirth legislation as her daughter’s legacy. Her current undertaking is her most ambitious. The federal Stillbirth Health Improvement and Education (SHINE) for Autumn Act, named after her daughter, would authorize $9 million a year for five years in federal funding for research, better data collection and training for fetal autopsies. But it is currently sitting in the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.

Not all stillbirths are preventable, and medical experts agree more research is needed to determine who is most at risk and which babies can potentially be saved. Complicating matters is the wide range of risk factors, including hypertension and diabetes, smoking, obesity, being pregnant with multiples, being 35 or older and having had a previous stillbirth.

ProPublica reported this summer on how the U.S. botched the rollout of COVID-19 vaccines for pregnant people, who faced an increased risk for stillbirth if they were unvaccinated and contracted the virus, especially during the Delta wave.

Doctors often work to balance the risk of stillbirth with other dangers, particularly an increased chance of being admitted to neonatal intensive care units or even death of the baby if it is born too early. ACOG and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine have issued guidance to try to slow a rise in elective deliveries before 39 weeks and the potential harm that can result. The Joint Commission, a national accrediting organization, began evaluating hospitals in 2010 based on that standard.

A 2019 study found that the risks of stillbirth slightly increased after the rule went into effect, but fewer infants died after birth. Other studies have not found an effect on stillbirths.

Last year, the obstetric groups updated their guidance to allow doctors to consider an early delivery if a woman has anxiety and a history of stillbirth, writing that a previous stillbirth “may” warrant an early delivery for patients who understand and accept the risks. For those who have previously had a stillbirth, one modeling analysis found that 38 weeks is the optimal timing of delivery, considering the increased risk of another stillbirth.

“A woman who has had a previous stillbirth at 37 weeks – one could argue that it’s cruel and unusual punishment to make her go to 39 weeks with her next pregnancy, although that is the current recommendation,” said Dr. Neil Mandsager, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist in Iowa and a medical advisor to a stillbirth prevention nonprofit.

At or after 40 weeks, the risk of stillbirth increases, especially for women 35 or older. Their risk, research shows, is doubled from 39 weeks to 40 and is more than six times as high at 42 weeks. In 2019 and 2020, a combined 1,200 stillbirths occurred between 40 and 42 weeks, according to the most recent CDC data.

Deciding when a patient should deliver entails weighing the risks to the mother and the infant against a possible stillbirth as the pregnancy continues, said Dr. Mark Turrentine, chair of ACOG’s Clinical Consensus Committee-Obstetrics, which helped create the guidance on managing a stillbirth. He said ACOG has addressed stillbirth in other documents and extensively in its 2021 guidance on fetal surveillance and testing, which is done to reduce the risk of stillbirth.

ACOG said it routinely reviewed its guidance on management of stillbirth but was unable to make significant updates “due to the lack of new, evidence-based research.” While prevention is a great concern to ACOG, Turrentine said it’s difficult to know how many stillbirths are preventable.

He said it’s standard practice for doctors to ask about fetal movement, and ACOG updated its guidance after new research became available. Doctors also need to include patients in decision-making and tailor care to them, he said, whether that›s using aspirin in patients at high risk of preeclampsia – a serious high blood pressure condition during pregnancy – or ordering additional tests.

After Reese’s death, Amanda and Chris Duffy wanted to get pregnant again. They sought out an obstetrician-gynecologist who would educate and listen to them. They set up several consultations until they found Dr. Emily Hawes-Van Pelt, who was recommended by another family who had had a stillbirth.

Hawes-Van Pelt cried with Amanda and Chris at their first meeting.

“I told her I was scared to be involved,” Hawes-Van Pelt said. “It’s such a tricky subsequent pregnancy because there’s so much worry and anxiety about the horrible, awful thing happening again.”

Amanda’s fear of delivering another dead baby led to an all-consuming anxiety, but Hawes-Van Pelt supported her when she asked for additional monitoring, testing and an early delivery.

When Hawes-Van Pelt switched practices midway through Amanda’s pregnancy, Amanda followed her. But the new hospital pushed back on the early delivery.

“We intervene early for poorly controlled diabetes,” Hawes-Van Pelt said. “We intervene early for all sorts of medical issues. Anxiety and prior stillbirth are two medical issues that we can intervene earlier for.”

Hawes-Van Pelt said she learned a lot from caring for Amanda, who made her reevaluate some of her own assumptions around stillbirths.

“I had a horrible fear of scaring women unnecessarily, and then realized that I was just not preparing women or educating them because of my own fears around it,” she said. “If you can carry a human being in your body and birth that human being and take care of it, you can hear those words.”

The hospital eventually agreed to let Hawes-Van Pelt schedule Amanda for a 37-week C-section. But after Amanda was again diagnosed with polyhydramnios, she went in for a C-section even earlier. She gave birth in 2015 to a healthy boy she and Chris named Rhett. Two years later, Amanda and Hawes-Van Pelt followed the same pregnancy plan, and she delivered a girl named Maeda Reese. Amanda chose the name because, when said quickly, it sounds like “made of Reese.”

Federal agencies, national organizations and state and city officials have mobilized in recent years to address maternal mortality, when mothers die during pregnancy, at delivery or soon after childbirth. They have focused on improving data collection, passing legislation and creating awareness campaigns that encourage medical professionals and others to listen when women say something doesn›t feel right.

In 2017, ProPublica and NPR documented the U.S. maternal mortality crisis, including alarming racial disparities.

According to CDC data, Black women face nearly three times the risk of maternal mortality. They also are more than twice – and in some states close to three times – as likely to have a stillbirth than white women, meaning not only are Black mothers dying at a disproportionate rate, so are their babies.

Janet Petersen, a state senator from Iowa, said it gives her hope to see how the country has turned its attention to maternal mortality and disparities in health care. She simply cannot understand why stillbirth isn’t being met with the same urgency.

In 2020, the CDC reported 861 mothers died either while pregnant or within six weeks of giving birth. That same year, 20,854 babies were stillborn.

Stillbirth, Petersen said, is a missing piece of the puzzle. Research shows the likelihood of severe maternal complications was more than four times higher for pregnancies that ended in stillbirths, and mothers who died within six weeks of delivery were more likely to have had a stillbirth.

“We see it over and over again that stillbirth is one of the maternal health care issues that continuously gets ignored,” said Petersen, a Democrat.

Petersen was a young legislator in 2003 when her daughter Grace was born still. Devastated, she thought of her grandmother, who lost a baby to stillbirth in 1920, just a few weeks before women got the right to vote.

“I was laying in my hospital bed thinking, ‘How could this still be happening in our country?’” Petersen recalled. “And it seemed, from the medical perspective, that, well, stillbirth happens. We can’t do anything to prevent them.”

Over the next few months, Petersen heard from other mothers who had lost their babies and wanted to spark change. As an elected official, Petersen was in a position to do that. In 2004, she introduced legislation that required the Iowa Department of Public Health to create a stillbirths work group, later securing funding through the CDC to create a stillbirth registry.

But the CDC didn’t renew the funding and never analyzed the data from the registry, though a CDC spokesperson said the Iowa Department of Public Health examined the data. Officials from the department did not respond to requests for comment.

Petersen and her fellow mothers pivoted. After hearing how researchers in Norway were able to increase awareness around fetal movement, they co-founded a nonprofit aimed at doing the same in the U.S.

The group, Healthy Birth Day, created colorful “Count the Kicks” pamphlets – and later an app – teaching pregnant people how to track a baby’s movements and establish what is normal for them. Monitoring a baby’s movements is the earliest and sometimes only indication that something may be wrong, said Emily Price, chief executive officer of Healthy Birth Day. One of the organization’s main messages is for pregnant people to speak up and clinicians to listen.

“Unfortunately, there are still doctors who brush women off or send them home when they come in with a complaint of a change in their baby’s movements,” Price said. “And babies are dying because of it.”

One Indiana county, which recorded 65 stillbirths from 2017 through 2019, reported that 74% had either some chance or a good chance of prevention, according to St. Joseph County Department of Health’s Fetal Infant Mortality Review program. For mothers who experienced decreased fetal movement in the few hours or days before the stillbirth, that estimate jumped to 90%.

Although there is not a scientific consensus that kick counting can prevent stillbirths, national groups, including ACOG, recommend that medical professionals encourage their patients to be aware of fetal movement patterns. ACOG also advises medical professionals to be attentive to a mother’s concerns about reduced movement and address them “in a systematic way.”

One complaint the CDC hears too often, an agency spokesperson said, is that pregnant people and those who gave birth recently find that their concerns are dismissed or ignored. “Listening and taking the concerns of pregnant and recently pregnant people seriously,” she said, “is a simple, yet powerful action to prevent serious health complications and even death.”

The CDC, she said, is “very interested” in expanding its research on stillbirth, which is “a crucial part of the development of any awareness or prevention campaigns.” In addition to working to improve its stillbirth data quality, the agency has funded some pilot programs at the city and state level to better track stillbirths, survey people who have had a stillbirth and research risk factors and causes. The Iowa registry, she said, led the CDC to fund different research projects in Arkansas and Massachusetts, which are ongoing.

In 2009, the CDC acknowledged that fetal mortality remained a “major, but often overlooked, public health problem.” Officials wrote that much of the public health concern had been focused on infant mortality “in part due to lesser awareness of the magnitude of fetal mortality, its causes, and prevention strategies.”

But little has changed over the past 13 years. Echoing its earlier message, the CDC this year declared that “much work remains” and that “stillbirth is not often viewed as a public health issue, so increased awareness is key.”

A spokesperson for the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, which is part of the NIH, said the agency has continually funded research on stillbirths, even after one of its key studies ended. The agency, she said, also supports research on conditions that increase the risk of stillbirth.

As a scientific research institute, it does not issue clinical guidelines or recommendations, she said, though it did launch the Safe to Sleep campaign in 1994, two decades after Congress put it in charge of SIDS federal research efforts. That campaign, which educates parents and caregivers on ways to reduce the risk of SIDS, highlights recommendations issued by the American Academy of Pediatrics. She said the agency will continue to collaborate with organizations that raise awareness about stillbirth and other pregnancy complications “to amplify their messages and efforts.”

“NICHD continues to support research on the prevention, causes, frequency, and risk factors of stillbirth,” the spokesperson said in an email. “Our commitment to enhancing understanding of stillbirth and improving outcomes focuses on building the scientific knowledge base.”

But getting laws on the books that could raise awareness around stillbirth – even when they don’t require additional funding – has been a struggle. Petersen and Price are pushing Congress to pass legislation that would add stillbirth research and prevention to the list of activities approved for federal maternal health dollars.

Though the bill doesn’t ask for any additional funding, it has not yet passed.

In addition, the SHINE for Autumn Act breezed through the House of Representatives in December 2021. After Haine Vijayvergiya, the New Jersey mother who has championed it, secured bipartisan support from U.S. Sens. Cory Booker, D-N.J., and Marco Rubio, R-Fla., she thought the most comprehensive stillbirth legislation in U.S. history would finally become law.

Neither bill has sparked controversy.

But months after press releases announced the SHINE legislation and referred to the U.S. stillbirth rate as “unacceptable,” lawmakers and the families they represent are running out of time as this session of Congress prepares to adjourn.

“From the day that the bill was introduced into the Senate,” Haine Vijayvergiya said, “approximately 13,000 babies have been born still.”

Last month, on a brilliant fall day much like the one when Reese was stillborn, Amanda Duffy bent down to kiss her son Rogen’s head before they walked on stage.

She wore a soft blue T-shirt tucked into her jeans that read “Be courageous.” The message was as much for her as it was for the crowd on the National Mall in Washington, D.C., many of them like her, mothers who didn’t know stillbirth happened until it happened to them. Since Reese’s death, she has coached doctors and nurses on improving care for patients who have suffered pregnancy loss. Among her many suggestions, she tells them their first words when a concerned patient reaches out should be “I’m so glad you called.”

A few hundred people had gathered for The Big PUSH to End Preventable Stillbirth, billed as the first-ever march on the issue. As part of an art installation, Amanda wrote a note to Reese: “You’re pretty magical & for that I’m grateful. You’re a change maker and you are so very loved. Love, Mama.” Before she slipped the folded paper into a sea of more than 20,000 baby hats, Rogen added his own message: “Hope you are having a good time – Rogen.”

Reese would have turned 8 this month.

Before Amanda spoke, she took a deep breath and silenced her nerves. She walked onto the stage and called on Congress to pass the stillbirth legislation before it. She didn’t ask. She demanded.

“It’s time to empower pregnant people and their care providers with information that leads to prevention,” she insisted.

With the afternoon sun bearing down, Amanda and Rogen disappeared into the crowd of families marching toward the Capitol. Many carried signs. Some pushed empty strollers. Amanda was still wearing the orange-scented oil she had rubbed on her wrists that morning.

This story was originally published on ProPublica. ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up to receive their biggest stories as soon as they’re published

PHILADELPHIA – An international group of researchers has proposed the first classification criteria for chronic nonbacterial osteomyelitis (CNO) and a severe form of it, chronic recurrent multifocal osteomyelitis (CRMO).

CNO/CRMO most frequently affect children and adolescents and can significantly affect quality of life.

Yongdong (Dan) Zhao, MD, PhD, a pediatric rheumatologist at Seattle Children’s Hospital, Seattle, Washington, and Seza Ozen, MD, MSc, medical faculty head at Hacettepe University in Ankara, Turkey – members of the expert panel for criteria development – explained the proposed criteria, developed over 6 years, at the American College of Rheumatology 2022 Annual Meeting.

They gave examples of the point system that will help researchers correctly classify CNO/CRMO if the criteria are approved by ACR and the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR).

Melissa S. Oliver, MD, a pediatric rheumatologist at Riley Children’s Hospital and Indiana University, Indianapolis, told this news organization: “This proposal is important because CNO/CRMO has primarily been a diagnosis of exclusion. There are no specific tests or biomarkers for this disease. It can mimic malignancy and infectious osteomyelitis in its presentation, and these must be ruled out thoroughly first.”

However, she noted, this can be challenging and can delay diagnosis and treatment.

The classification criteria are novel, she said, because an international collaborative group used a consensus process involving physicians managing CNO and patients or caregivers of children with CNO.
 

Findings for and against CNO

Dr. Ozen summarized some examples of findings for and against a CNO/CRMO classification.

Statistically significant findings in favor of CNO/CRMO, she said, include intermittent bone pain; bone pain in upper torso; swelling of upper torso; presence of symmetric lesions; and presence of adaptive immune cell and/or fibrosis in biopsy.

Conversely, findings against CNO/CRMO include fever; signs of infection by labs; signs of cancer by biopsy; specific abnormal x-ray/CT scan; specific abnormal MRI; or pain resolved with antibiotics alone.

Dr. Zhao described a point system with a threshold of 55 points for classification of CNO/CRMO.

He gave actual examples from the registry to demonstrate high and low probability of CNO/CRMO.
 

Pro-CNO example

The first was a boy, aged 7 years 10 months, who had a year and a half of pain in his back and legs, but no fever. Pain was constant, waxing and waning. He had a personal and family history of psoriasis and was tender to palpation at multiple sites. Labs were normal and bone biopsy and vitamin C tests were not done; imaging findings showed multiple bones were affected. There was no antibiotic treatment.

That patient was scored 81, much higher than the threshold of 55, and would be classified as having CNO.
 

Non-CNO example

Conversely, the following example of a patient would score 47 – under the threshold – and would not be classified as having CNO.

That patient was an 11-year-old boy who had 2 months of pain in his right thigh with no fever. The pain was constantly waxing and waning. He was tender to palpation at only his right thigh without swelling. Labs were normal. He had no coexisting conditions. Erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) and C-reactive protein (CRP) were not measured, and no vitamin C test was performed. Imaging showed one right femur lesion on a PET-CT scan. There was no antibiotic treatment, and a bone biopsy culture showed malignancy but no inflammation or fibrosis.

Dr. Zhao said the mimickers most likely to be misclassified are vitamin C deficiency; hypophosphatasia; benign bone tumor, such as osteogenic osteoma; and a malignancy with normal labs and multifocal pattern of bone lesions.

The classification criteria will be “extremely helpful to diagnose patients with CNO/CRMO earlier,” said Dr. Oliver, who helped develop the criteria.

“The goal is that the proposed classification criteria will be used by all physicians to diagnose suspected CNO patients earlier and refer to a rheumatologist earlier so that appropriate therapies will not be delayed.”

The group will seek ACR and EULAR endorsement, and if granted, work toward widespread implementation. The criteria will allow researchers to have a more homogeneous study population for future clinical trials, Dr. Zhao said.

Dr. Zhao, Dr. Ozen, and Dr. Oliver declared no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Oliver helped develop the proposed guidelines.

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

PHILADELPHIA – An international group of researchers has proposed the first classification criteria for chronic nonbacterial osteomyelitis (CNO) and a severe form of it, chronic recurrent multifocal osteomyelitis (CRMO).

CNO/CRMO most frequently affect children and adolescents and can significantly affect quality of life.

Yongdong (Dan) Zhao, MD, PhD, a pediatric rheumatologist at Seattle Children’s Hospital, Seattle, Washington, and Seza Ozen, MD, MSc, medical faculty head at Hacettepe University in Ankara, Turkey – members of the expert panel for criteria development – explained the proposed criteria, developed over 6 years, at the American College of Rheumatology 2022 Annual Meeting.

They gave examples of the point system that will help researchers correctly classify CNO/CRMO if the criteria are approved by ACR and the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR).

Melissa S. Oliver, MD, a pediatric rheumatologist at Riley Children’s Hospital and Indiana University, Indianapolis, told this news organization: “This proposal is important because CNO/CRMO has primarily been a diagnosis of exclusion. There are no specific tests or biomarkers for this disease. It can mimic malignancy and infectious osteomyelitis in its presentation, and these must be ruled out thoroughly first.”

However, she noted, this can be challenging and can delay diagnosis and treatment.

The classification criteria are novel, she said, because an international collaborative group used a consensus process involving physicians managing CNO and patients or caregivers of children with CNO.
 

Findings for and against CNO

Dr. Ozen summarized some examples of findings for and against a CNO/CRMO classification.

Statistically significant findings in favor of CNO/CRMO, she said, include intermittent bone pain; bone pain in upper torso; swelling of upper torso; presence of symmetric lesions; and presence of adaptive immune cell and/or fibrosis in biopsy.

Conversely, findings against CNO/CRMO include fever; signs of infection by labs; signs of cancer by biopsy; specific abnormal x-ray/CT scan; specific abnormal MRI; or pain resolved with antibiotics alone.

Dr. Zhao described a point system with a threshold of 55 points for classification of CNO/CRMO.

He gave actual examples from the registry to demonstrate high and low probability of CNO/CRMO.
 

Pro-CNO example

The first was a boy, aged 7 years 10 months, who had a year and a half of pain in his back and legs, but no fever. Pain was constant, waxing and waning. He had a personal and family history of psoriasis and was tender to palpation at multiple sites. Labs were normal and bone biopsy and vitamin C tests were not done; imaging findings showed multiple bones were affected. There was no antibiotic treatment.

That patient was scored 81, much higher than the threshold of 55, and would be classified as having CNO.
 

Non-CNO example

Conversely, the following example of a patient would score 47 – under the threshold – and would not be classified as having CNO.

That patient was an 11-year-old boy who had 2 months of pain in his right thigh with no fever. The pain was constantly waxing and waning. He was tender to palpation at only his right thigh without swelling. Labs were normal. He had no coexisting conditions. Erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) and C-reactive protein (CRP) were not measured, and no vitamin C test was performed. Imaging showed one right femur lesion on a PET-CT scan. There was no antibiotic treatment, and a bone biopsy culture showed malignancy but no inflammation or fibrosis.

Dr. Zhao said the mimickers most likely to be misclassified are vitamin C deficiency; hypophosphatasia; benign bone tumor, such as osteogenic osteoma; and a malignancy with normal labs and multifocal pattern of bone lesions.

The classification criteria will be “extremely helpful to diagnose patients with CNO/CRMO earlier,” said Dr. Oliver, who helped develop the criteria.

“The goal is that the proposed classification criteria will be used by all physicians to diagnose suspected CNO patients earlier and refer to a rheumatologist earlier so that appropriate therapies will not be delayed.”

The group will seek ACR and EULAR endorsement, and if granted, work toward widespread implementation. The criteria will allow researchers to have a more homogeneous study population for future clinical trials, Dr. Zhao said.

Dr. Zhao, Dr. Ozen, and Dr. Oliver declared no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Oliver helped develop the proposed guidelines.

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

PHILADELPHIA – An international group of researchers has proposed the first classification criteria for chronic nonbacterial osteomyelitis (CNO) and a severe form of it, chronic recurrent multifocal osteomyelitis (CRMO).

CNO/CRMO most frequently affect children and adolescents and can significantly affect quality of life.

Yongdong (Dan) Zhao, MD, PhD, a pediatric rheumatologist at Seattle Children’s Hospital, Seattle, Washington, and Seza Ozen, MD, MSc, medical faculty head at Hacettepe University in Ankara, Turkey – members of the expert panel for criteria development – explained the proposed criteria, developed over 6 years, at the American College of Rheumatology 2022 Annual Meeting.

They gave examples of the point system that will help researchers correctly classify CNO/CRMO if the criteria are approved by ACR and the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR).

Melissa S. Oliver, MD, a pediatric rheumatologist at Riley Children’s Hospital and Indiana University, Indianapolis, told this news organization: “This proposal is important because CNO/CRMO has primarily been a diagnosis of exclusion. There are no specific tests or biomarkers for this disease. It can mimic malignancy and infectious osteomyelitis in its presentation, and these must be ruled out thoroughly first.”

However, she noted, this can be challenging and can delay diagnosis and treatment.

The classification criteria are novel, she said, because an international collaborative group used a consensus process involving physicians managing CNO and patients or caregivers of children with CNO.
 

Findings for and against CNO

Dr. Ozen summarized some examples of findings for and against a CNO/CRMO classification.

Statistically significant findings in favor of CNO/CRMO, she said, include intermittent bone pain; bone pain in upper torso; swelling of upper torso; presence of symmetric lesions; and presence of adaptive immune cell and/or fibrosis in biopsy.

Conversely, findings against CNO/CRMO include fever; signs of infection by labs; signs of cancer by biopsy; specific abnormal x-ray/CT scan; specific abnormal MRI; or pain resolved with antibiotics alone.

Dr. Zhao described a point system with a threshold of 55 points for classification of CNO/CRMO.

He gave actual examples from the registry to demonstrate high and low probability of CNO/CRMO.
 

Pro-CNO example

The first was a boy, aged 7 years 10 months, who had a year and a half of pain in his back and legs, but no fever. Pain was constant, waxing and waning. He had a personal and family history of psoriasis and was tender to palpation at multiple sites. Labs were normal and bone biopsy and vitamin C tests were not done; imaging findings showed multiple bones were affected. There was no antibiotic treatment.

That patient was scored 81, much higher than the threshold of 55, and would be classified as having CNO.
 

Non-CNO example

Conversely, the following example of a patient would score 47 – under the threshold – and would not be classified as having CNO.

That patient was an 11-year-old boy who had 2 months of pain in his right thigh with no fever. The pain was constantly waxing and waning. He was tender to palpation at only his right thigh without swelling. Labs were normal. He had no coexisting conditions. Erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) and C-reactive protein (CRP) were not measured, and no vitamin C test was performed. Imaging showed one right femur lesion on a PET-CT scan. There was no antibiotic treatment, and a bone biopsy culture showed malignancy but no inflammation or fibrosis.

Dr. Zhao said the mimickers most likely to be misclassified are vitamin C deficiency; hypophosphatasia; benign bone tumor, such as osteogenic osteoma; and a malignancy with normal labs and multifocal pattern of bone lesions.

The classification criteria will be “extremely helpful to diagnose patients with CNO/CRMO earlier,” said Dr. Oliver, who helped develop the criteria.

“The goal is that the proposed classification criteria will be used by all physicians to diagnose suspected CNO patients earlier and refer to a rheumatologist earlier so that appropriate therapies will not be delayed.”

The group will seek ACR and EULAR endorsement, and if granted, work toward widespread implementation. The criteria will allow researchers to have a more homogeneous study population for future clinical trials, Dr. Zhao said.

Dr. Zhao, Dr. Ozen, and Dr. Oliver declared no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Oliver helped develop the proposed guidelines.

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

PHILADELPHIA – The new American College of Rheumatology Guideline for Vaccinations in Patients with Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Diseases (RMDs) emphasizes that both adult and pediatric patients should receive recommended vaccinations whenever possible.

But the guideline, currently in press, also offers recommendations about whether and when to withhold vaccines from patients with RMDs, such as avoiding the use of live attenuated virus vaccines in patients who are on immunosuppressive drug regimens, such as conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), biologic DMARDs, or targeted synthetic DMARDs.

The new consensus guideline was formulated with the understanding that patients with RMDs are at increased risk for vaccine-preventable infections and more serious complications from infections, compared with the general population.

However, the guideline also acknowledges that the immunogenicity and safety of vaccines may differ among patients with RMDs, and that, depending on the patient age and disease state, individuals may benefit from modified vaccine indications, schedules, or modified medication schedules, said guideline panel member Anne Bass, MD, a rheumatologist at Hospital for Special Surgery and a professor of clinical medicine at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York, who presented the guideline with other panel members in a session outlining the recommendations at the annual meeting of the ACR.

“In addition, vaccination recommendations – since much of it relates to medications – really applies across diseases, and so the ACR felt that, rather than having vaccine recommendations tacked onto the end of treatment guidelines for each individual disease, that the topic should be discussed or tackled as a whole,” she said.

The guideline does not cover vaccinations in patients taking nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs because this class of agents has minimal or no impact on antibody responses to vaccines. The guideline also does not address vaccinations against COVID-19 infections since the rapidly changing formulations would make the recommendations obsolete before they were even published, and because the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention provides up-to-date guidance on COVID-19 vaccinations in patients with compromised immunity, she said.
 

Guiding principles

The overarching principles of the guideline are to give indicated vaccines to patients with RMD whenever possible and that any decision to hold medications before or after vaccination consider the dosage used, RMD disease activity, and the patient’s risk for vaccine-preventable infection.

The guideline also states that “shared decision-making with patients is a key component of any vaccination strategy.”

Panel member Clifton O. Bingham III, MD, professor of medicine at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, outlined expanded indications for vaccinations against influenza, pneumococcal infections, varicella zoster virus (VZV) and human papillomavirus (HPV).
 

Influenza

The guideline conditionally recommends that patients with RMD aged 65 years and older and adults older than age 18 years who are on immunosuppressive medications should receive either high-dose or adjuvanted influenza vaccination rather than regular-dose vaccines.

“It’s recognized that the high-dose or adjuvanted vaccinations may be unavailable for patients when they’re seen in your practice,” Dr. Bingham said,” and we came out with two additional statements within the guidelines that said that any flu vaccine is recommended over no flu vaccinations, because we do know that responses are elicited, and a flu vaccination today is preferred over a flu vaccination delay.”
 

Pneumococcal vaccination

The panelists strongly recommended that patients with RMD younger than age 65 years who are on immunosuppressive medication receive pneumococcal vaccinations.

The ACR guideline is in sync with those issued by the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, Dr. Bingham said. He urged audience members to visit a CDC-ACIP web page for more information on who should receive pneumococcal vaccination and when.
 

Recombinant varicella zoster

The recommendations strongly support that patients aged 18 years and over who are on immunosuppressive therapies should receive the recombinant VZV vaccine (Shingrix).

HPV

A less robust, conditional recommendation is for patients with RMDs who are between the ages of 26 and 45 years and on immunosuppressive medications to receive the HPV vaccine (if they have not already received the vaccine).

Non-live attenuated vaccines

Kevin Winthrop, MD, MPH, professor of infectious diseases and public health at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, summarized the recommendations for managing immunosuppressive therapies in patients scheduled to receive vaccinations using killed or nonactive antigens.

“In influenza season, don’t pass up the opportunity to vaccinate,” he said, adding, “if you can wait on rituximab dosing, do it, and if you can’t, go ahead and vaccinate.”

The guidelines also recommend a 2-week methotrexate hold at the time of influenza vaccination; other DMARD dosing changes are likely not necessary at the time of vaccination, “but this is an area of fervent study, and I think in a year or two we’ll have more experimental hold data with regard to other DMARDs,” Dr. Winthrop said.

For other nonlive attenuated vaccinations, recommendations are similar to those for influenza, except with more flexible timing because these vaccinations are not seasonal. When and how to hold methotrexate is still up in the air, he said.

Additionally, it’s recommended that vaccinations be delayed in patients on high-dose prednisone until the drug is tapered to below 20 mg per day, and ideally to less than 10 mg per day, he said.
 

Live-attenuated vaccines

The guideline conditionally recommends deferring live-attenuated vaccines in patients on immunosuppressive drugs. It also recommends holding these medications “for an appropriate period before” vaccination and for 4 weeks afterward.

“Although the evidence around conventional synthetic DMARDs and TNF inhibitors is reassuring in terms of their safety at the time of live attenuated vaccines, as you can see the number of studies is quite small, and so the voting panel conditionally recommend against administering live-attenuated virus vaccines to patients who are on conventional synthetics, biologic, or targeted DMARDs,” Dr. Bass said.
 

In utero exposures

Most women with RMD who have recently given birth will consult their general pediatricians rather than rheumatologists for infant vaccinations, but pediatricians may not be aware of the affect that in utero exposures to biologic DMARDs can have on vaccine safety and immunogenicity in infants, Dr, Bass said.

“It’s important that you, as a provider, give your recommendations regarding infant rotavirus vaccination after in utero exposure to the pregnant rheumatic disease patient prior to delivery, and let that patient know that this is something that they should share with their pediatrician to be,” she advised audience members.
 

Getting the message out

In an interview, session moderator and guidelines panelist Lisa F. Imundo, MD, director of the center for adolescent rheumatology at Columbia University in New York, noted that rheumatologists don’t usually have the full schedule of pediatric vaccinations in stock and often leave the decisions about what to give – and when – to general practitioners.

“Pediatric rheumatologists sometimes will give patients flu vaccinations because they’re a high-risk population of patients, and we want to make sure that they’re getting it in a timely manner,” she said.

In addition, because pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccines are not indicated in the general pediatric population, children on biologic DMARDs who have completed their standard series of pneumococcal conjugate vaccines (PCV13 or PVC15) are recommended to get a 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine, Dr. Imundo said.

She also noted that communication between pediatric rheumatologists and general practitioners about vaccine recommendations can be challenging.

“It’s a huge issue, figuring out how we’re going to communicate all of this information to our pediatric colleagues,” she said. “With individual patients, we may sometimes remind doctors, especially with our younger patients who haven’t gotten their live vaccines, that they really shouldn’t get live vaccines until they’re off medication or until we arrange holding medication for some period of time.”

She said that ACR vaccine committee members are working with infectious disease specialists and guideline developers for the American Academy of Pediatrics to ensure guidelines include the most important vaccination recommendations for pediatric patients with RMDs.

The development process for the guidelines was supported by the ACR. Dr. Bass reported no relevant disclosures, Dr. Bingham disclosed consulting activities, grant/research support, and royalties from various corporate entities. Dr. Winthrop disclosed consulting activities for and research funding from various companies. Dr. Imundo reported no relevant financial relationships.

PHILADELPHIA – The new American College of Rheumatology Guideline for Vaccinations in Patients with Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Diseases (RMDs) emphasizes that both adult and pediatric patients should receive recommended vaccinations whenever possible.

But the guideline, currently in press, also offers recommendations about whether and when to withhold vaccines from patients with RMDs, such as avoiding the use of live attenuated virus vaccines in patients who are on immunosuppressive drug regimens, such as conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), biologic DMARDs, or targeted synthetic DMARDs.

The new consensus guideline was formulated with the understanding that patients with RMDs are at increased risk for vaccine-preventable infections and more serious complications from infections, compared with the general population.

However, the guideline also acknowledges that the immunogenicity and safety of vaccines may differ among patients with RMDs, and that, depending on the patient age and disease state, individuals may benefit from modified vaccine indications, schedules, or modified medication schedules, said guideline panel member Anne Bass, MD, a rheumatologist at Hospital for Special Surgery and a professor of clinical medicine at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York, who presented the guideline with other panel members in a session outlining the recommendations at the annual meeting of the ACR.

“In addition, vaccination recommendations – since much of it relates to medications – really applies across diseases, and so the ACR felt that, rather than having vaccine recommendations tacked onto the end of treatment guidelines for each individual disease, that the topic should be discussed or tackled as a whole,” she said.

The guideline does not cover vaccinations in patients taking nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs because this class of agents has minimal or no impact on antibody responses to vaccines. The guideline also does not address vaccinations against COVID-19 infections since the rapidly changing formulations would make the recommendations obsolete before they were even published, and because the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention provides up-to-date guidance on COVID-19 vaccinations in patients with compromised immunity, she said.
 

Guiding principles

The overarching principles of the guideline are to give indicated vaccines to patients with RMD whenever possible and that any decision to hold medications before or after vaccination consider the dosage used, RMD disease activity, and the patient’s risk for vaccine-preventable infection.

The guideline also states that “shared decision-making with patients is a key component of any vaccination strategy.”

Panel member Clifton O. Bingham III, MD, professor of medicine at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, outlined expanded indications for vaccinations against influenza, pneumococcal infections, varicella zoster virus (VZV) and human papillomavirus (HPV).
 

Influenza

The guideline conditionally recommends that patients with RMD aged 65 years and older and adults older than age 18 years who are on immunosuppressive medications should receive either high-dose or adjuvanted influenza vaccination rather than regular-dose vaccines.

“It’s recognized that the high-dose or adjuvanted vaccinations may be unavailable for patients when they’re seen in your practice,” Dr. Bingham said,” and we came out with two additional statements within the guidelines that said that any flu vaccine is recommended over no flu vaccinations, because we do know that responses are elicited, and a flu vaccination today is preferred over a flu vaccination delay.”
 

Pneumococcal vaccination

The panelists strongly recommended that patients with RMD younger than age 65 years who are on immunosuppressive medication receive pneumococcal vaccinations.

The ACR guideline is in sync with those issued by the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, Dr. Bingham said. He urged audience members to visit a CDC-ACIP web page for more information on who should receive pneumococcal vaccination and when.
 

Recombinant varicella zoster

The recommendations strongly support that patients aged 18 years and over who are on immunosuppressive therapies should receive the recombinant VZV vaccine (Shingrix).

HPV

A less robust, conditional recommendation is for patients with RMDs who are between the ages of 26 and 45 years and on immunosuppressive medications to receive the HPV vaccine (if they have not already received the vaccine).

Non-live attenuated vaccines

Kevin Winthrop, MD, MPH, professor of infectious diseases and public health at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, summarized the recommendations for managing immunosuppressive therapies in patients scheduled to receive vaccinations using killed or nonactive antigens.

“In influenza season, don’t pass up the opportunity to vaccinate,” he said, adding, “if you can wait on rituximab dosing, do it, and if you can’t, go ahead and vaccinate.”

The guidelines also recommend a 2-week methotrexate hold at the time of influenza vaccination; other DMARD dosing changes are likely not necessary at the time of vaccination, “but this is an area of fervent study, and I think in a year or two we’ll have more experimental hold data with regard to other DMARDs,” Dr. Winthrop said.

For other nonlive attenuated vaccinations, recommendations are similar to those for influenza, except with more flexible timing because these vaccinations are not seasonal. When and how to hold methotrexate is still up in the air, he said.

Additionally, it’s recommended that vaccinations be delayed in patients on high-dose prednisone until the drug is tapered to below 20 mg per day, and ideally to less than 10 mg per day, he said.
 

Live-attenuated vaccines

The guideline conditionally recommends deferring live-attenuated vaccines in patients on immunosuppressive drugs. It also recommends holding these medications “for an appropriate period before” vaccination and for 4 weeks afterward.

“Although the evidence around conventional synthetic DMARDs and TNF inhibitors is reassuring in terms of their safety at the time of live attenuated vaccines, as you can see the number of studies is quite small, and so the voting panel conditionally recommend against administering live-attenuated virus vaccines to patients who are on conventional synthetics, biologic, or targeted DMARDs,” Dr. Bass said.
 

In utero exposures

Most women with RMD who have recently given birth will consult their general pediatricians rather than rheumatologists for infant vaccinations, but pediatricians may not be aware of the affect that in utero exposures to biologic DMARDs can have on vaccine safety and immunogenicity in infants, Dr, Bass said.

“It’s important that you, as a provider, give your recommendations regarding infant rotavirus vaccination after in utero exposure to the pregnant rheumatic disease patient prior to delivery, and let that patient know that this is something that they should share with their pediatrician to be,” she advised audience members.
 

Getting the message out

In an interview, session moderator and guidelines panelist Lisa F. Imundo, MD, director of the center for adolescent rheumatology at Columbia University in New York, noted that rheumatologists don’t usually have the full schedule of pediatric vaccinations in stock and often leave the decisions about what to give – and when – to general practitioners.

“Pediatric rheumatologists sometimes will give patients flu vaccinations because they’re a high-risk population of patients, and we want to make sure that they’re getting it in a timely manner,” she said.

In addition, because pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccines are not indicated in the general pediatric population, children on biologic DMARDs who have completed their standard series of pneumococcal conjugate vaccines (PCV13 or PVC15) are recommended to get a 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine, Dr. Imundo said.

She also noted that communication between pediatric rheumatologists and general practitioners about vaccine recommendations can be challenging.

“It’s a huge issue, figuring out how we’re going to communicate all of this information to our pediatric colleagues,” she said. “With individual patients, we may sometimes remind doctors, especially with our younger patients who haven’t gotten their live vaccines, that they really shouldn’t get live vaccines until they’re off medication or until we arrange holding medication for some period of time.”

She said that ACR vaccine committee members are working with infectious disease specialists and guideline developers for the American Academy of Pediatrics to ensure guidelines include the most important vaccination recommendations for pediatric patients with RMDs.

The development process for the guidelines was supported by the ACR. Dr. Bass reported no relevant disclosures, Dr. Bingham disclosed consulting activities, grant/research support, and royalties from various corporate entities. Dr. Winthrop disclosed consulting activities for and research funding from various companies. Dr. Imundo reported no relevant financial relationships.

PHILADELPHIA – The new American College of Rheumatology Guideline for Vaccinations in Patients with Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Diseases (RMDs) emphasizes that both adult and pediatric patients should receive recommended vaccinations whenever possible.

But the guideline, currently in press, also offers recommendations about whether and when to withhold vaccines from patients with RMDs, such as avoiding the use of live attenuated virus vaccines in patients who are on immunosuppressive drug regimens, such as conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), biologic DMARDs, or targeted synthetic DMARDs.

The new consensus guideline was formulated with the understanding that patients with RMDs are at increased risk for vaccine-preventable infections and more serious complications from infections, compared with the general population.

However, the guideline also acknowledges that the immunogenicity and safety of vaccines may differ among patients with RMDs, and that, depending on the patient age and disease state, individuals may benefit from modified vaccine indications, schedules, or modified medication schedules, said guideline panel member Anne Bass, MD, a rheumatologist at Hospital for Special Surgery and a professor of clinical medicine at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York, who presented the guideline with other panel members in a session outlining the recommendations at the annual meeting of the ACR.

“In addition, vaccination recommendations – since much of it relates to medications – really applies across diseases, and so the ACR felt that, rather than having vaccine recommendations tacked onto the end of treatment guidelines for each individual disease, that the topic should be discussed or tackled as a whole,” she said.

The guideline does not cover vaccinations in patients taking nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs because this class of agents has minimal or no impact on antibody responses to vaccines. The guideline also does not address vaccinations against COVID-19 infections since the rapidly changing formulations would make the recommendations obsolete before they were even published, and because the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention provides up-to-date guidance on COVID-19 vaccinations in patients with compromised immunity, she said.
 

Guiding principles

The overarching principles of the guideline are to give indicated vaccines to patients with RMD whenever possible and that any decision to hold medications before or after vaccination consider the dosage used, RMD disease activity, and the patient’s risk for vaccine-preventable infection.

The guideline also states that “shared decision-making with patients is a key component of any vaccination strategy.”

Panel member Clifton O. Bingham III, MD, professor of medicine at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, outlined expanded indications for vaccinations against influenza, pneumococcal infections, varicella zoster virus (VZV) and human papillomavirus (HPV).
 

Influenza

The guideline conditionally recommends that patients with RMD aged 65 years and older and adults older than age 18 years who are on immunosuppressive medications should receive either high-dose or adjuvanted influenza vaccination rather than regular-dose vaccines.

“It’s recognized that the high-dose or adjuvanted vaccinations may be unavailable for patients when they’re seen in your practice,” Dr. Bingham said,” and we came out with two additional statements within the guidelines that said that any flu vaccine is recommended over no flu vaccinations, because we do know that responses are elicited, and a flu vaccination today is preferred over a flu vaccination delay.”
 

Pneumococcal vaccination

The panelists strongly recommended that patients with RMD younger than age 65 years who are on immunosuppressive medication receive pneumococcal vaccinations.

The ACR guideline is in sync with those issued by the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, Dr. Bingham said. He urged audience members to visit a CDC-ACIP web page for more information on who should receive pneumococcal vaccination and when.
 

Recombinant varicella zoster

The recommendations strongly support that patients aged 18 years and over who are on immunosuppressive therapies should receive the recombinant VZV vaccine (Shingrix).

HPV

A less robust, conditional recommendation is for patients with RMDs who are between the ages of 26 and 45 years and on immunosuppressive medications to receive the HPV vaccine (if they have not already received the vaccine).

Non-live attenuated vaccines

Kevin Winthrop, MD, MPH, professor of infectious diseases and public health at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, summarized the recommendations for managing immunosuppressive therapies in patients scheduled to receive vaccinations using killed or nonactive antigens.

“In influenza season, don’t pass up the opportunity to vaccinate,” he said, adding, “if you can wait on rituximab dosing, do it, and if you can’t, go ahead and vaccinate.”

The guidelines also recommend a 2-week methotrexate hold at the time of influenza vaccination; other DMARD dosing changes are likely not necessary at the time of vaccination, “but this is an area of fervent study, and I think in a year or two we’ll have more experimental hold data with regard to other DMARDs,” Dr. Winthrop said.

For other nonlive attenuated vaccinations, recommendations are similar to those for influenza, except with more flexible timing because these vaccinations are not seasonal. When and how to hold methotrexate is still up in the air, he said.

Additionally, it’s recommended that vaccinations be delayed in patients on high-dose prednisone until the drug is tapered to below 20 mg per day, and ideally to less than 10 mg per day, he said.
 

Live-attenuated vaccines

The guideline conditionally recommends deferring live-attenuated vaccines in patients on immunosuppressive drugs. It also recommends holding these medications “for an appropriate period before” vaccination and for 4 weeks afterward.

“Although the evidence around conventional synthetic DMARDs and TNF inhibitors is reassuring in terms of their safety at the time of live attenuated vaccines, as you can see the number of studies is quite small, and so the voting panel conditionally recommend against administering live-attenuated virus vaccines to patients who are on conventional synthetics, biologic, or targeted DMARDs,” Dr. Bass said.
 

In utero exposures

Most women with RMD who have recently given birth will consult their general pediatricians rather than rheumatologists for infant vaccinations, but pediatricians may not be aware of the affect that in utero exposures to biologic DMARDs can have on vaccine safety and immunogenicity in infants, Dr, Bass said.

“It’s important that you, as a provider, give your recommendations regarding infant rotavirus vaccination after in utero exposure to the pregnant rheumatic disease patient prior to delivery, and let that patient know that this is something that they should share with their pediatrician to be,” she advised audience members.
 

Getting the message out

In an interview, session moderator and guidelines panelist Lisa F. Imundo, MD, director of the center for adolescent rheumatology at Columbia University in New York, noted that rheumatologists don’t usually have the full schedule of pediatric vaccinations in stock and often leave the decisions about what to give – and when – to general practitioners.

“Pediatric rheumatologists sometimes will give patients flu vaccinations because they’re a high-risk population of patients, and we want to make sure that they’re getting it in a timely manner,” she said.

In addition, because pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccines are not indicated in the general pediatric population, children on biologic DMARDs who have completed their standard series of pneumococcal conjugate vaccines (PCV13 or PVC15) are recommended to get a 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine, Dr. Imundo said.

She also noted that communication between pediatric rheumatologists and general practitioners about vaccine recommendations can be challenging.

“It’s a huge issue, figuring out how we’re going to communicate all of this information to our pediatric colleagues,” she said. “With individual patients, we may sometimes remind doctors, especially with our younger patients who haven’t gotten their live vaccines, that they really shouldn’t get live vaccines until they’re off medication or until we arrange holding medication for some period of time.”

She said that ACR vaccine committee members are working with infectious disease specialists and guideline developers for the American Academy of Pediatrics to ensure guidelines include the most important vaccination recommendations for pediatric patients with RMDs.

The development process for the guidelines was supported by the ACR. Dr. Bass reported no relevant disclosures, Dr. Bingham disclosed consulting activities, grant/research support, and royalties from various corporate entities. Dr. Winthrop disclosed consulting activities for and research funding from various companies. Dr. Imundo reported no relevant financial relationships.

Experts recommend that children and adolescents who have had a concussion rest for a day or 2 before returning to light physical activity. Slowly getting back to normal helps young patients recover faster than strict rest, research shows.

Now a study suggests that getting back on TikTok and Snapchat may help, too.

After surveying 700 patients ages 8-16 following an injury, researchers for the Pediatric Emergency Research Canada A-CAP study team found that children and adolescents who had a concussion recovered faster if they engaged in a moderate amount of screen time.

A “moderate” amount was between 2 and 7 hours per day on various screens. “That includes their phones, computers, and televisions,” says lead author Molly Cairncross, PhD, of Simon Fraser University, Vancouver.

People in the study who reported either less or more screen time than that in the 7-10 days after injury also reported more symptoms, such as headaches and fatigue, during the first month. After that month, all the participants reported similar symptoms, regardless of their early screen use – suggesting that screen time makes little difference long term in pediatric concussion recovery.

The findings differ from a 2021 study by researchers at the University of Massachusetts, Boston, that found screen time slowed recovery. Why the clashing results? “I think what it comes down to are differences in study design,” says Dr. Cairncross. While the earlier study measured screen use in the first 48 hours, and recovery over 10 days, “we focused on screen time use over the first 7-10 days, and tracked recovery over 6 months,” she says.

“Taken together, the studies suggest a need to find balance – not too little and not too much time on screens for kids and teens following a concussion,” Dr. Cairncross says.

Ultimately, the findings support moderation rather than blanket restrictions on screen time as the best way to manage pediatric concussion, especially after the first 48 hours.

“It’s actually unsurprising,” says Sarah Brittain, MS, a speech-language pathologist and founder of Colorado Brain Recovery in Wheat Ridge, who was not involved in the study. “An early return to both cognitive and physical activity in a controlled fashion is really important. Sitting in a dark room and resting is not the answer and has been disproven in the literature.”

Old advice involved lying in a quiet, dark room for days, but recent evidence reveals that such “cocoon therapy” may actually prolong symptoms.

“With time, we have found this can negatively impact quality of life and depression scores, especially in teenagers,” says Katherine Labiner, MD, a child neurologist at Pediatrix Child Neurology Consultants of Austin, Tex., who was not involved in the study.

So, how might screens help? Dr. Labiner, Ms. Brittain, and Dr. Cairncross all point to the importance of connection – not the Internet kind, but the social kind. Children and teens use smartphones and computers to stay connected with peers, so banning screen time could have a negative impact on mental health by leading to loneliness, separation, and lack of social support.

“Depression can prolong the course of recovery,” says Ms. Brittain.

It’s worth noting that screen time could trigger visual symptoms in some patients, she says. “If someone feels worse within 2 minutes of being on a screen, that’s a good indicator that screens aren’t working for them,” Ms. Brittain says. “If being on a screen makes them dizzy or wiped out, or the words on the screen look like they’re moving when they’re not, that means it’s time to back off.”

She advises parents to watch for behavior changes like increased crankiness, impatience, and/or fatigue, which could mean that the child has returned to screen time – or any activity – too soon and should scale back until symptoms subside.

“The most important thing to stress with concussion is full recovery before complete return to activity,” Dr. Labiner says.

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

Experts recommend that children and adolescents who have had a concussion rest for a day or 2 before returning to light physical activity. Slowly getting back to normal helps young patients recover faster than strict rest, research shows.

Now a study suggests that getting back on TikTok and Snapchat may help, too.

After surveying 700 patients ages 8-16 following an injury, researchers for the Pediatric Emergency Research Canada A-CAP study team found that children and adolescents who had a concussion recovered faster if they engaged in a moderate amount of screen time.

A “moderate” amount was between 2 and 7 hours per day on various screens. “That includes their phones, computers, and televisions,” says lead author Molly Cairncross, PhD, of Simon Fraser University, Vancouver.

People in the study who reported either less or more screen time than that in the 7-10 days after injury also reported more symptoms, such as headaches and fatigue, during the first month. After that month, all the participants reported similar symptoms, regardless of their early screen use – suggesting that screen time makes little difference long term in pediatric concussion recovery.

The findings differ from a 2021 study by researchers at the University of Massachusetts, Boston, that found screen time slowed recovery. Why the clashing results? “I think what it comes down to are differences in study design,” says Dr. Cairncross. While the earlier study measured screen use in the first 48 hours, and recovery over 10 days, “we focused on screen time use over the first 7-10 days, and tracked recovery over 6 months,” she says.

“Taken together, the studies suggest a need to find balance – not too little and not too much time on screens for kids and teens following a concussion,” Dr. Cairncross says.

Ultimately, the findings support moderation rather than blanket restrictions on screen time as the best way to manage pediatric concussion, especially after the first 48 hours.

“It’s actually unsurprising,” says Sarah Brittain, MS, a speech-language pathologist and founder of Colorado Brain Recovery in Wheat Ridge, who was not involved in the study. “An early return to both cognitive and physical activity in a controlled fashion is really important. Sitting in a dark room and resting is not the answer and has been disproven in the literature.”

Old advice involved lying in a quiet, dark room for days, but recent evidence reveals that such “cocoon therapy” may actually prolong symptoms.

“With time, we have found this can negatively impact quality of life and depression scores, especially in teenagers,” says Katherine Labiner, MD, a child neurologist at Pediatrix Child Neurology Consultants of Austin, Tex., who was not involved in the study.

So, how might screens help? Dr. Labiner, Ms. Brittain, and Dr. Cairncross all point to the importance of connection – not the Internet kind, but the social kind. Children and teens use smartphones and computers to stay connected with peers, so banning screen time could have a negative impact on mental health by leading to loneliness, separation, and lack of social support.

“Depression can prolong the course of recovery,” says Ms. Brittain.

It’s worth noting that screen time could trigger visual symptoms in some patients, she says. “If someone feels worse within 2 minutes of being on a screen, that’s a good indicator that screens aren’t working for them,” Ms. Brittain says. “If being on a screen makes them dizzy or wiped out, or the words on the screen look like they’re moving when they’re not, that means it’s time to back off.”

She advises parents to watch for behavior changes like increased crankiness, impatience, and/or fatigue, which could mean that the child has returned to screen time – or any activity – too soon and should scale back until symptoms subside.

“The most important thing to stress with concussion is full recovery before complete return to activity,” Dr. Labiner says.

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

Experts recommend that children and adolescents who have had a concussion rest for a day or 2 before returning to light physical activity. Slowly getting back to normal helps young patients recover faster than strict rest, research shows.

Now a study suggests that getting back on TikTok and Snapchat may help, too.

After surveying 700 patients ages 8-16 following an injury, researchers for the Pediatric Emergency Research Canada A-CAP study team found that children and adolescents who had a concussion recovered faster if they engaged in a moderate amount of screen time.

A “moderate” amount was between 2 and 7 hours per day on various screens. “That includes their phones, computers, and televisions,” says lead author Molly Cairncross, PhD, of Simon Fraser University, Vancouver.

People in the study who reported either less or more screen time than that in the 7-10 days after injury also reported more symptoms, such as headaches and fatigue, during the first month. After that month, all the participants reported similar symptoms, regardless of their early screen use – suggesting that screen time makes little difference long term in pediatric concussion recovery.

The findings differ from a 2021 study by researchers at the University of Massachusetts, Boston, that found screen time slowed recovery. Why the clashing results? “I think what it comes down to are differences in study design,” says Dr. Cairncross. While the earlier study measured screen use in the first 48 hours, and recovery over 10 days, “we focused on screen time use over the first 7-10 days, and tracked recovery over 6 months,” she says.

“Taken together, the studies suggest a need to find balance – not too little and not too much time on screens for kids and teens following a concussion,” Dr. Cairncross says.

Ultimately, the findings support moderation rather than blanket restrictions on screen time as the best way to manage pediatric concussion, especially after the first 48 hours.

“It’s actually unsurprising,” says Sarah Brittain, MS, a speech-language pathologist and founder of Colorado Brain Recovery in Wheat Ridge, who was not involved in the study. “An early return to both cognitive and physical activity in a controlled fashion is really important. Sitting in a dark room and resting is not the answer and has been disproven in the literature.”

Old advice involved lying in a quiet, dark room for days, but recent evidence reveals that such “cocoon therapy” may actually prolong symptoms.

“With time, we have found this can negatively impact quality of life and depression scores, especially in teenagers,” says Katherine Labiner, MD, a child neurologist at Pediatrix Child Neurology Consultants of Austin, Tex., who was not involved in the study.

So, how might screens help? Dr. Labiner, Ms. Brittain, and Dr. Cairncross all point to the importance of connection – not the Internet kind, but the social kind. Children and teens use smartphones and computers to stay connected with peers, so banning screen time could have a negative impact on mental health by leading to loneliness, separation, and lack of social support.

“Depression can prolong the course of recovery,” says Ms. Brittain.

It’s worth noting that screen time could trigger visual symptoms in some patients, she says. “If someone feels worse within 2 minutes of being on a screen, that’s a good indicator that screens aren’t working for them,” Ms. Brittain says. “If being on a screen makes them dizzy or wiped out, or the words on the screen look like they’re moving when they’re not, that means it’s time to back off.”

She advises parents to watch for behavior changes like increased crankiness, impatience, and/or fatigue, which could mean that the child has returned to screen time – or any activity – too soon and should scale back until symptoms subside.

“The most important thing to stress with concussion is full recovery before complete return to activity,” Dr. Labiner says.

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

Reminder messages sent through electronic health records (EHRs) to patient portals increased rates of scheduling and completion of well-child visits for those overdue for well care, as well as vaccination rates, according to data published today in JAMA Network Open.

Anne E. Berset, BA, with general and community pediatrics at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital, led a randomized clinical trial conducted at three academic primary care practices from July 30 to Oct. 4, 2021.

The practices serve a mostly non-Hispanic Black, low-income population and provide more than 60,000 visits a year to 30,000 patients.

The study population included 945 patients, 62.4% of them non-Hispanic Black and 807 (85.4%) covered by public insurance.
 

Standard message and tailored message compared

The study population was randomized to get either a standard reminder message, a tailored message, or no message (control group).

The standard messages referenced the patient’s first name and reminded parents their child was due for a well-child visit, and asked them to schedule it using the portal or by calling the number provided.

The tailored message added the date of the last well-child check-up “to address distortions of time perception experienced during the pandemic,” the authors write.

The primary outcome was whether the well-child visit was completed within 8 weeks. Other outcomes included whether a well-child visit was scheduled within 2 weeks of the first reminder message and whether the patient received a COVID-19 vaccine within 8 weeks of the reminder.
 

Reminders outperform control group

There was a significant increase in scheduling and completion of appointments after parents received the standard and tailored messages compared with controls.

The results with the COVID reminders were particularly striking. While only 3.7% of the eligible patients got a vaccine when they got no message, 17.3% got the vaccine in that time frame when they got the standard message. Interestingly, only 2.7% received the shot after the tailored message.

J. Howard Smart, MD, with Sharp HealthCare in San Diego, told this publication he was not surprised that a patient portal reminder would increase the rate of scheduling overdue well-child visits. “Parents may indeed have lost track of when their children need to have check-ups” during the pandemic, he said.

Reminders without tailored information more effective

He said he was surprised, just as the investigators were, that the reminders without the tailored information seemed to be more effective for some outcomes.

The authors explained that a focus group found “that families with patient portal accounts prefer straightforward, brief, and user-friendly messages.”

That may help explain why the standard message outperformed the tailored message, the authors write.

“Families may have been distracted by the additional information related to the child’s age and date of last WCC [well-child check-up] in the tailored message,” they write.

Dr. Smart said, “Their discussion of why this might be the case sounds reasonable. Simple, short messages may be better received.”

“Evidence like this should stimulate portal software vendors to make this kind of outgoing messaging easy to set up for providers,” he said.

Simple measure, large effect

Tim Joos, MD, a pediatrician in Seattle, told this publication he “was impressed by how such a simple measure increased rates of well-child care completion.”

Minority and low-income patients have traditionally had more access challenges to completing health care visits and vaccinations on schedule, he noted, so he was glad to see positive results from the intervention in this study population.

The authors note that research on portal messages have largely looked at use in non-Hispanic Whites and the privately insured.

Dr. Joos said the intervention also offers convenience in that once patients get into the portal, they can schedule an appointment there without having to wait on the phone or leave a message.

Funding/support was received from the Center for Clinical and Translational Science and Training at the University of Cincinnati, which is funded by the National Institutes of Health. William B. Brinkman, MD, MEd, MSc, one of the study authors, holds common stock in Pfizer, Merck, Abbott Laboratories, Viatris, and Johnson & Johnson outside the submitted work. No other author disclosures were reported. Dr. Smart and Dr. Joos declared no relevant financial relationships.

Reminder messages sent through electronic health records (EHRs) to patient portals increased rates of scheduling and completion of well-child visits for those overdue for well care, as well as vaccination rates, according to data published today in JAMA Network Open.

Anne E. Berset, BA, with general and community pediatrics at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital, led a randomized clinical trial conducted at three academic primary care practices from July 30 to Oct. 4, 2021.

The practices serve a mostly non-Hispanic Black, low-income population and provide more than 60,000 visits a year to 30,000 patients.

The study population included 945 patients, 62.4% of them non-Hispanic Black and 807 (85.4%) covered by public insurance.
 

Standard message and tailored message compared

The study population was randomized to get either a standard reminder message, a tailored message, or no message (control group).

The standard messages referenced the patient’s first name and reminded parents their child was due for a well-child visit, and asked them to schedule it using the portal or by calling the number provided.

The tailored message added the date of the last well-child check-up “to address distortions of time perception experienced during the pandemic,” the authors write.

The primary outcome was whether the well-child visit was completed within 8 weeks. Other outcomes included whether a well-child visit was scheduled within 2 weeks of the first reminder message and whether the patient received a COVID-19 vaccine within 8 weeks of the reminder.
 

Reminders outperform control group

There was a significant increase in scheduling and completion of appointments after parents received the standard and tailored messages compared with controls.

The results with the COVID reminders were particularly striking. While only 3.7% of the eligible patients got a vaccine when they got no message, 17.3% got the vaccine in that time frame when they got the standard message. Interestingly, only 2.7% received the shot after the tailored message.

J. Howard Smart, MD, with Sharp HealthCare in San Diego, told this publication he was not surprised that a patient portal reminder would increase the rate of scheduling overdue well-child visits. “Parents may indeed have lost track of when their children need to have check-ups” during the pandemic, he said.

Reminders without tailored information more effective

He said he was surprised, just as the investigators were, that the reminders without the tailored information seemed to be more effective for some outcomes.

The authors explained that a focus group found “that families with patient portal accounts prefer straightforward, brief, and user-friendly messages.”

That may help explain why the standard message outperformed the tailored message, the authors write.

“Families may have been distracted by the additional information related to the child’s age and date of last WCC [well-child check-up] in the tailored message,” they write.

Dr. Smart said, “Their discussion of why this might be the case sounds reasonable. Simple, short messages may be better received.”

“Evidence like this should stimulate portal software vendors to make this kind of outgoing messaging easy to set up for providers,” he said.

Simple measure, large effect

Tim Joos, MD, a pediatrician in Seattle, told this publication he “was impressed by how such a simple measure increased rates of well-child care completion.”

Minority and low-income patients have traditionally had more access challenges to completing health care visits and vaccinations on schedule, he noted, so he was glad to see positive results from the intervention in this study population.

The authors note that research on portal messages have largely looked at use in non-Hispanic Whites and the privately insured.

Dr. Joos said the intervention also offers convenience in that once patients get into the portal, they can schedule an appointment there without having to wait on the phone or leave a message.

Funding/support was received from the Center for Clinical and Translational Science and Training at the University of Cincinnati, which is funded by the National Institutes of Health. William B. Brinkman, MD, MEd, MSc, one of the study authors, holds common stock in Pfizer, Merck, Abbott Laboratories, Viatris, and Johnson & Johnson outside the submitted work. No other author disclosures were reported. Dr. Smart and Dr. Joos declared no relevant financial relationships.

Reminder messages sent through electronic health records (EHRs) to patient portals increased rates of scheduling and completion of well-child visits for those overdue for well care, as well as vaccination rates, according to data published today in JAMA Network Open.

Anne E. Berset, BA, with general and community pediatrics at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital, led a randomized clinical trial conducted at three academic primary care practices from July 30 to Oct. 4, 2021.

The practices serve a mostly non-Hispanic Black, low-income population and provide more than 60,000 visits a year to 30,000 patients.

The study population included 945 patients, 62.4% of them non-Hispanic Black and 807 (85.4%) covered by public insurance.
 

Standard message and tailored message compared

The study population was randomized to get either a standard reminder message, a tailored message, or no message (control group).

The standard messages referenced the patient’s first name and reminded parents their child was due for a well-child visit, and asked them to schedule it using the portal or by calling the number provided.

The tailored message added the date of the last well-child check-up “to address distortions of time perception experienced during the pandemic,” the authors write.

The primary outcome was whether the well-child visit was completed within 8 weeks. Other outcomes included whether a well-child visit was scheduled within 2 weeks of the first reminder message and whether the patient received a COVID-19 vaccine within 8 weeks of the reminder.
 

Reminders outperform control group

There was a significant increase in scheduling and completion of appointments after parents received the standard and tailored messages compared with controls.

The results with the COVID reminders were particularly striking. While only 3.7% of the eligible patients got a vaccine when they got no message, 17.3% got the vaccine in that time frame when they got the standard message. Interestingly, only 2.7% received the shot after the tailored message.

J. Howard Smart, MD, with Sharp HealthCare in San Diego, told this publication he was not surprised that a patient portal reminder would increase the rate of scheduling overdue well-child visits. “Parents may indeed have lost track of when their children need to have check-ups” during the pandemic, he said.

Reminders without tailored information more effective

He said he was surprised, just as the investigators were, that the reminders without the tailored information seemed to be more effective for some outcomes.

The authors explained that a focus group found “that families with patient portal accounts prefer straightforward, brief, and user-friendly messages.”

That may help explain why the standard message outperformed the tailored message, the authors write.

“Families may have been distracted by the additional information related to the child’s age and date of last WCC [well-child check-up] in the tailored message,” they write.

Dr. Smart said, “Their discussion of why this might be the case sounds reasonable. Simple, short messages may be better received.”

“Evidence like this should stimulate portal software vendors to make this kind of outgoing messaging easy to set up for providers,” he said.

Simple measure, large effect

Tim Joos, MD, a pediatrician in Seattle, told this publication he “was impressed by how such a simple measure increased rates of well-child care completion.”

Minority and low-income patients have traditionally had more access challenges to completing health care visits and vaccinations on schedule, he noted, so he was glad to see positive results from the intervention in this study population.

The authors note that research on portal messages have largely looked at use in non-Hispanic Whites and the privately insured.

Dr. Joos said the intervention also offers convenience in that once patients get into the portal, they can schedule an appointment there without having to wait on the phone or leave a message.

Funding/support was received from the Center for Clinical and Translational Science and Training at the University of Cincinnati, which is funded by the National Institutes of Health. William B. Brinkman, MD, MEd, MSc, one of the study authors, holds common stock in Pfizer, Merck, Abbott Laboratories, Viatris, and Johnson & Johnson outside the submitted work. No other author disclosures were reported. Dr. Smart and Dr. Joos declared no relevant financial relationships.

Babies born vaginally have a different microbiome to those born by Caesarean section and have heightened responses to childhood vaccinations, according to a new study heralded as “interesting and important” by experts.

The microbiome is known to play a role in immune responses to vaccination. However, the relationship between early-life effects on intestinal microbiota composition and subsequent childhood vaccine responses had remained poorly understood. In the new study, “the findings suggest that vaginal birthing resulted in a microbiota composition associated with an increase in a specific type of antibody response to two routine childhood vaccines in healthy babies, compared with Caesarean section,” the authors said.

Researchers from the University of Edinburgh, with colleagues at Spaarne Hospital and University Medical Centre in Utrecht, and the National Institute for Public Health and the Environment in The Netherlands, tracked the development of the gut microbiome in a cohort of 120 healthy, full-term infants and assessed their antibody levels following two common childhood vaccinations.

The study, published in Nature Communications, found “a clear relationship between microbes in the gut of those babies and levels of antibodies.” Not only was vaginal birth associated with increased levels of Bifidobacterium and Escherichia coli in the gut microbiome in the first months of life but also with higher IgG antibody responses against both pneumococcal and meningococcal vaccines.
 

Antibody responses doubled after vaginal birth

The babies were given pneumococcal and meningococcal vaccinations at 8 and 12 weeks, and saliva was collected at follow-up visits at ages 12 and 18 months for antibody measurement. In the 101 babies tested for pneumococcal antibodies, the researchers found that antibody levels were twice as high among babies delivered naturally, compared with those delivered by C-section. High levels of two gut bacteria in particular – Bifidobacterium and E. coli – were associated with high antibody responses to the pneumococcal vaccine, showing that the microbiome mediated the link between mode of delivery and pneumococcal vaccine responses.

In 66 babies tested for anti-meningococcal antibodies, antibodies were 1.7 times higher for vaginally-born babies than those delivered via C-section, and high antibody levels were particularly associated with high levels of E. coli in the babies’ microbiome.

The results were also influenced by breast-feeding, which even among children born vaginally was linked with 3.5 times higher pneumococcal antibody levels, compared with those of formula-fed children. In contrast, levels of antibodies against meningococcus were unaffected by breast-feeding status.
 

Microbiome ‘sets level of infection protection’

The team said: “The baby acquires Bifidobacterium and E. coli bacteria through natural birth, and human milk is needed to provide the sugars for these bacteria to thrive on.” They explained: “The gut microbiome is seeded at birth, developing rapidly over the first few months of life, and is influenced mostly by delivery mode, breast-feeding, and antibiotic use.” The babies’ microbiome in early life contributes the immune system’s response to vaccines, they said, “and sets the level of protection against certain infections in childhood.”

Study lead Professor Debby Bogaert, chair of pediatric medicine at the University of Edinburgh, said: “I think it is especially interesting that we identified several beneficial microbes to be the link between mode of delivery and vaccine responses. In the future, we may be able to supplement those bacteria to children born by C-section shortly after birth through – for example, mother-to-baby ‘fecal transplants’ or the use of specifically designed probiotics.”

First author Dr. Emma de Koff, a microbiology trainee at the Amsterdam University Medical Center, said: “We expected to find a link between the gut microbiome and the babies’ vaccine responses, however we never thought to find the strongest effects in the first weeks of life.”

The findings “could help to inform conversations about C-sections between expectant mothers and their doctors,” commented the researchers, who said that they could also “shape the design of more tailored vaccination programs.” For example, in the future, vaccination schedules could be adjusted based on the method of delivery or analysis of the baby’s microbiome.
 

Potential to rectify immune system after Caesarean

Responding to the study, Professor Neil Mabbott, personal chair in immunopathology at the Roslin Institute of the University of Edinburgh, told the Science Media Centre: “This is a very interesting and important study. The authors show that infants delivered by a vaginal birth had higher responses to the two different types of vaccines against bacterial diseases, and this was associated with higher abundances of the potentially beneficial bacteria known as Bifidobacterium and E. coli in their intestines.”

He added: “This study raises the possibility that it may be possible to treat infants, especially Caesarean-delivered infants, with a bacterial supplement, or even a product produced by these beneficial bacteria, to help improve their immune systems, enhance their responses to certain vaccines and reduce their susceptibility to infections.”

The study raises important questions, he said, including whether the increased antibody levels from pneumococcal and meningococcal vaccinations following vaginal birth also leads to increased protection of the infants against infection or serious disease. 

Sheena Cruickshank, immunologist and professor in biomedical sciences at the University of Manchester, England, commented: “It is now well established that the microbiome is important in immune development. In turn the mode of delivery and initial method of feeding is important in how the microbiome is first seeded in the baby.”

“However, other factors such as exposure to antibiotics and subsequent diet also play a role in how it then develops, making understanding the way the microbiome develops and changes quite complex. Microbes works as communities, and it can be difficult to determine whether changes in single species are important functionally. Breast milk also plays an important role in protecting the baby via transfer of maternal immunoglobulins, which will wane over a period of 6-12 months in the baby – thus ascertaining whether it’s the baby’s Ig is challenging.

“Given the complexity of the multitude of interactions, it is important that this is accounted for, and group sizes are large enough to ensure data is robust. Whilst this is an interesting study that adds to our knowledge of how the microbiome develops and the possible implications for immune development, it is still very preliminary, and the small group sizes warrant a need for further studies to verify this in larger groups.”

She added: “We will need to understand whether possible impacts of maternal delivery and feeding on immune development or vaccine responses can be restored by, for example, manipulating the microbiome.”

Professor Kim Barrett, vice dean for research at the University of California, Davis School of Medicine, said that, while further research was needed to uncover if and how manipulation of the human microbiome following C-section births might improve vaccine efficacy, “the work should at least lead to prompt additional consideration about an unintended consequence of the ever-increasing use of C-sections that may not be medically-necessary.”

Dr. Marie Lewis, researcher in gut microbiota at the University of Reading, England, said: “We have known for quite some time that the mode of delivery is incredibly important when it comes to the type of bacteria which colonize our guts. We also know that our gut bacteria in early life drive the development of our immune system, and natural births are linked with reduced risks of developing inflammatory conditions, such as asthma. It is therefore perhaps not really surprising that mode of delivery is also linked to responses to vaccinations.”

“The really interesting part here is the extent to which our gut microbiotas are accessible and changeable, and this important work could pave the way for administration of probiotics and prebiotics to improve vaccine responses in Caesarean-born children.”
 

‘Tantalizing data’

Dr. Chrissie Jones, associate professor of pediatric infectious diseases at the University of Southampton, and Southampton UK and education lead for the British Paediatric Allergy, Immunity, and Infection Group, said: “The link between method of delivery of the infant and the bacteria that live in the gut of the young infant has previously been shown. What is really interesting about this study is that, for the first time, the link between method of delivery (vaginal delivery vs. C-section), differences in bacterial communities of the gut, and differences in responses to vaccines is shown.”

“This study may give us fresh insights into the differences that we see in the amount of protective antibodies made after infant vaccination. It also gives us clues as to ways that we might be able to level the playing field for infants in the future – for instance, giving babies a safe cocktail of ‘friendly bacteria’ as a probiotic, or an additional dose of vaccine.”

“This study is the first step – it shows us a link or association but does not prove cause and effect that differences in the way babies are born alters how the immune system responds to vaccines. To prove this link we will need larger studies, but it is tantalizing data.”

The research was funded by Scotland’s Chief Scientist Office and the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research. DB received funding from OM pharma and Sanofi. All of the authors declared no other conflicts of interest.

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

Babies born vaginally have a different microbiome to those born by Caesarean section and have heightened responses to childhood vaccinations, according to a new study heralded as “interesting and important” by experts.

The microbiome is known to play a role in immune responses to vaccination. However, the relationship between early-life effects on intestinal microbiota composition and subsequent childhood vaccine responses had remained poorly understood. In the new study, “the findings suggest that vaginal birthing resulted in a microbiota composition associated with an increase in a specific type of antibody response to two routine childhood vaccines in healthy babies, compared with Caesarean section,” the authors said.

Researchers from the University of Edinburgh, with colleagues at Spaarne Hospital and University Medical Centre in Utrecht, and the National Institute for Public Health and the Environment in The Netherlands, tracked the development of the gut microbiome in a cohort of 120 healthy, full-term infants and assessed their antibody levels following two common childhood vaccinations.

The study, published in Nature Communications, found “a clear relationship between microbes in the gut of those babies and levels of antibodies.” Not only was vaginal birth associated with increased levels of Bifidobacterium and Escherichia coli in the gut microbiome in the first months of life but also with higher IgG antibody responses against both pneumococcal and meningococcal vaccines.
 

Antibody responses doubled after vaginal birth

The babies were given pneumococcal and meningococcal vaccinations at 8 and 12 weeks, and saliva was collected at follow-up visits at ages 12 and 18 months for antibody measurement. In the 101 babies tested for pneumococcal antibodies, the researchers found that antibody levels were twice as high among babies delivered naturally, compared with those delivered by C-section. High levels of two gut bacteria in particular – Bifidobacterium and E. coli – were associated with high antibody responses to the pneumococcal vaccine, showing that the microbiome mediated the link between mode of delivery and pneumococcal vaccine responses.

In 66 babies tested for anti-meningococcal antibodies, antibodies were 1.7 times higher for vaginally-born babies than those delivered via C-section, and high antibody levels were particularly associated with high levels of E. coli in the babies’ microbiome.

The results were also influenced by breast-feeding, which even among children born vaginally was linked with 3.5 times higher pneumococcal antibody levels, compared with those of formula-fed children. In contrast, levels of antibodies against meningococcus were unaffected by breast-feeding status.
 

Microbiome ‘sets level of infection protection’

The team said: “The baby acquires Bifidobacterium and E. coli bacteria through natural birth, and human milk is needed to provide the sugars for these bacteria to thrive on.” They explained: “The gut microbiome is seeded at birth, developing rapidly over the first few months of life, and is influenced mostly by delivery mode, breast-feeding, and antibiotic use.” The babies’ microbiome in early life contributes the immune system’s response to vaccines, they said, “and sets the level of protection against certain infections in childhood.”

Study lead Professor Debby Bogaert, chair of pediatric medicine at the University of Edinburgh, said: “I think it is especially interesting that we identified several beneficial microbes to be the link between mode of delivery and vaccine responses. In the future, we may be able to supplement those bacteria to children born by C-section shortly after birth through – for example, mother-to-baby ‘fecal transplants’ or the use of specifically designed probiotics.”

First author Dr. Emma de Koff, a microbiology trainee at the Amsterdam University Medical Center, said: “We expected to find a link between the gut microbiome and the babies’ vaccine responses, however we never thought to find the strongest effects in the first weeks of life.”

The findings “could help to inform conversations about C-sections between expectant mothers and their doctors,” commented the researchers, who said that they could also “shape the design of more tailored vaccination programs.” For example, in the future, vaccination schedules could be adjusted based on the method of delivery or analysis of the baby’s microbiome.
 

Potential to rectify immune system after Caesarean

Responding to the study, Professor Neil Mabbott, personal chair in immunopathology at the Roslin Institute of the University of Edinburgh, told the Science Media Centre: “This is a very interesting and important study. The authors show that infants delivered by a vaginal birth had higher responses to the two different types of vaccines against bacterial diseases, and this was associated with higher abundances of the potentially beneficial bacteria known as Bifidobacterium and E. coli in their intestines.”

He added: “This study raises the possibility that it may be possible to treat infants, especially Caesarean-delivered infants, with a bacterial supplement, or even a product produced by these beneficial bacteria, to help improve their immune systems, enhance their responses to certain vaccines and reduce their susceptibility to infections.”

The study raises important questions, he said, including whether the increased antibody levels from pneumococcal and meningococcal vaccinations following vaginal birth also leads to increased protection of the infants against infection or serious disease. 

Sheena Cruickshank, immunologist and professor in biomedical sciences at the University of Manchester, England, commented: “It is now well established that the microbiome is important in immune development. In turn the mode of delivery and initial method of feeding is important in how the microbiome is first seeded in the baby.”

“However, other factors such as exposure to antibiotics and subsequent diet also play a role in how it then develops, making understanding the way the microbiome develops and changes quite complex. Microbes works as communities, and it can be difficult to determine whether changes in single species are important functionally. Breast milk also plays an important role in protecting the baby via transfer of maternal immunoglobulins, which will wane over a period of 6-12 months in the baby – thus ascertaining whether it’s the baby’s Ig is challenging.

“Given the complexity of the multitude of interactions, it is important that this is accounted for, and group sizes are large enough to ensure data is robust. Whilst this is an interesting study that adds to our knowledge of how the microbiome develops and the possible implications for immune development, it is still very preliminary, and the small group sizes warrant a need for further studies to verify this in larger groups.”

She added: “We will need to understand whether possible impacts of maternal delivery and feeding on immune development or vaccine responses can be restored by, for example, manipulating the microbiome.”

Professor Kim Barrett, vice dean for research at the University of California, Davis School of Medicine, said that, while further research was needed to uncover if and how manipulation of the human microbiome following C-section births might improve vaccine efficacy, “the work should at least lead to prompt additional consideration about an unintended consequence of the ever-increasing use of C-sections that may not be medically-necessary.”

Dr. Marie Lewis, researcher in gut microbiota at the University of Reading, England, said: “We have known for quite some time that the mode of delivery is incredibly important when it comes to the type of bacteria which colonize our guts. We also know that our gut bacteria in early life drive the development of our immune system, and natural births are linked with reduced risks of developing inflammatory conditions, such as asthma. It is therefore perhaps not really surprising that mode of delivery is also linked to responses to vaccinations.”

“The really interesting part here is the extent to which our gut microbiotas are accessible and changeable, and this important work could pave the way for administration of probiotics and prebiotics to improve vaccine responses in Caesarean-born children.”
 

‘Tantalizing data’

Dr. Chrissie Jones, associate professor of pediatric infectious diseases at the University of Southampton, and Southampton UK and education lead for the British Paediatric Allergy, Immunity, and Infection Group, said: “The link between method of delivery of the infant and the bacteria that live in the gut of the young infant has previously been shown. What is really interesting about this study is that, for the first time, the link between method of delivery (vaginal delivery vs. C-section), differences in bacterial communities of the gut, and differences in responses to vaccines is shown.”

“This study may give us fresh insights into the differences that we see in the amount of protective antibodies made after infant vaccination. It also gives us clues as to ways that we might be able to level the playing field for infants in the future – for instance, giving babies a safe cocktail of ‘friendly bacteria’ as a probiotic, or an additional dose of vaccine.”

“This study is the first step – it shows us a link or association but does not prove cause and effect that differences in the way babies are born alters how the immune system responds to vaccines. To prove this link we will need larger studies, but it is tantalizing data.”

The research was funded by Scotland’s Chief Scientist Office and the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research. DB received funding from OM pharma and Sanofi. All of the authors declared no other conflicts of interest.

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

Babies born vaginally have a different microbiome to those born by Caesarean section and have heightened responses to childhood vaccinations, according to a new study heralded as “interesting and important” by experts.

The microbiome is known to play a role in immune responses to vaccination. However, the relationship between early-life effects on intestinal microbiota composition and subsequent childhood vaccine responses had remained poorly understood. In the new study, “the findings suggest that vaginal birthing resulted in a microbiota composition associated with an increase in a specific type of antibody response to two routine childhood vaccines in healthy babies, compared with Caesarean section,” the authors said.

Researchers from the University of Edinburgh, with colleagues at Spaarne Hospital and University Medical Centre in Utrecht, and the National Institute for Public Health and the Environment in The Netherlands, tracked the development of the gut microbiome in a cohort of 120 healthy, full-term infants and assessed their antibody levels following two common childhood vaccinations.

The study, published in Nature Communications, found “a clear relationship between microbes in the gut of those babies and levels of antibodies.” Not only was vaginal birth associated with increased levels of Bifidobacterium and Escherichia coli in the gut microbiome in the first months of life but also with higher IgG antibody responses against both pneumococcal and meningococcal vaccines.
 

Antibody responses doubled after vaginal birth

The babies were given pneumococcal and meningococcal vaccinations at 8 and 12 weeks, and saliva was collected at follow-up visits at ages 12 and 18 months for antibody measurement. In the 101 babies tested for pneumococcal antibodies, the researchers found that antibody levels were twice as high among babies delivered naturally, compared with those delivered by C-section. High levels of two gut bacteria in particular – Bifidobacterium and E. coli – were associated with high antibody responses to the pneumococcal vaccine, showing that the microbiome mediated the link between mode of delivery and pneumococcal vaccine responses.

In 66 babies tested for anti-meningococcal antibodies, antibodies were 1.7 times higher for vaginally-born babies than those delivered via C-section, and high antibody levels were particularly associated with high levels of E. coli in the babies’ microbiome.

The results were also influenced by breast-feeding, which even among children born vaginally was linked with 3.5 times higher pneumococcal antibody levels, compared with those of formula-fed children. In contrast, levels of antibodies against meningococcus were unaffected by breast-feeding status.
 

Microbiome ‘sets level of infection protection’

The team said: “The baby acquires Bifidobacterium and E. coli bacteria through natural birth, and human milk is needed to provide the sugars for these bacteria to thrive on.” They explained: “The gut microbiome is seeded at birth, developing rapidly over the first few months of life, and is influenced mostly by delivery mode, breast-feeding, and antibiotic use.” The babies’ microbiome in early life contributes the immune system’s response to vaccines, they said, “and sets the level of protection against certain infections in childhood.”

Study lead Professor Debby Bogaert, chair of pediatric medicine at the University of Edinburgh, said: “I think it is especially interesting that we identified several beneficial microbes to be the link between mode of delivery and vaccine responses. In the future, we may be able to supplement those bacteria to children born by C-section shortly after birth through – for example, mother-to-baby ‘fecal transplants’ or the use of specifically designed probiotics.”

First author Dr. Emma de Koff, a microbiology trainee at the Amsterdam University Medical Center, said: “We expected to find a link between the gut microbiome and the babies’ vaccine responses, however we never thought to find the strongest effects in the first weeks of life.”

The findings “could help to inform conversations about C-sections between expectant mothers and their doctors,” commented the researchers, who said that they could also “shape the design of more tailored vaccination programs.” For example, in the future, vaccination schedules could be adjusted based on the method of delivery or analysis of the baby’s microbiome.
 

Potential to rectify immune system after Caesarean

Responding to the study, Professor Neil Mabbott, personal chair in immunopathology at the Roslin Institute of the University of Edinburgh, told the Science Media Centre: “This is a very interesting and important study. The authors show that infants delivered by a vaginal birth had higher responses to the two different types of vaccines against bacterial diseases, and this was associated with higher abundances of the potentially beneficial bacteria known as Bifidobacterium and E. coli in their intestines.”

He added: “This study raises the possibility that it may be possible to treat infants, especially Caesarean-delivered infants, with a bacterial supplement, or even a product produced by these beneficial bacteria, to help improve their immune systems, enhance their responses to certain vaccines and reduce their susceptibility to infections.”

The study raises important questions, he said, including whether the increased antibody levels from pneumococcal and meningococcal vaccinations following vaginal birth also leads to increased protection of the infants against infection or serious disease. 

Sheena Cruickshank, immunologist and professor in biomedical sciences at the University of Manchester, England, commented: “It is now well established that the microbiome is important in immune development. In turn the mode of delivery and initial method of feeding is important in how the microbiome is first seeded in the baby.”

“However, other factors such as exposure to antibiotics and subsequent diet also play a role in how it then develops, making understanding the way the microbiome develops and changes quite complex. Microbes works as communities, and it can be difficult to determine whether changes in single species are important functionally. Breast milk also plays an important role in protecting the baby via transfer of maternal immunoglobulins, which will wane over a period of 6-12 months in the baby – thus ascertaining whether it’s the baby’s Ig is challenging.

“Given the complexity of the multitude of interactions, it is important that this is accounted for, and group sizes are large enough to ensure data is robust. Whilst this is an interesting study that adds to our knowledge of how the microbiome develops and the possible implications for immune development, it is still very preliminary, and the small group sizes warrant a need for further studies to verify this in larger groups.”

She added: “We will need to understand whether possible impacts of maternal delivery and feeding on immune development or vaccine responses can be restored by, for example, manipulating the microbiome.”

Professor Kim Barrett, vice dean for research at the University of California, Davis School of Medicine, said that, while further research was needed to uncover if and how manipulation of the human microbiome following C-section births might improve vaccine efficacy, “the work should at least lead to prompt additional consideration about an unintended consequence of the ever-increasing use of C-sections that may not be medically-necessary.”

Dr. Marie Lewis, researcher in gut microbiota at the University of Reading, England, said: “We have known for quite some time that the mode of delivery is incredibly important when it comes to the type of bacteria which colonize our guts. We also know that our gut bacteria in early life drive the development of our immune system, and natural births are linked with reduced risks of developing inflammatory conditions, such as asthma. It is therefore perhaps not really surprising that mode of delivery is also linked to responses to vaccinations.”

“The really interesting part here is the extent to which our gut microbiotas are accessible and changeable, and this important work could pave the way for administration of probiotics and prebiotics to improve vaccine responses in Caesarean-born children.”
 

‘Tantalizing data’

Dr. Chrissie Jones, associate professor of pediatric infectious diseases at the University of Southampton, and Southampton UK and education lead for the British Paediatric Allergy, Immunity, and Infection Group, said: “The link between method of delivery of the infant and the bacteria that live in the gut of the young infant has previously been shown. What is really interesting about this study is that, for the first time, the link between method of delivery (vaginal delivery vs. C-section), differences in bacterial communities of the gut, and differences in responses to vaccines is shown.”

“This study may give us fresh insights into the differences that we see in the amount of protective antibodies made after infant vaccination. It also gives us clues as to ways that we might be able to level the playing field for infants in the future – for instance, giving babies a safe cocktail of ‘friendly bacteria’ as a probiotic, or an additional dose of vaccine.”

“This study is the first step – it shows us a link or association but does not prove cause and effect that differences in the way babies are born alters how the immune system responds to vaccines. To prove this link we will need larger studies, but it is tantalizing data.”

The research was funded by Scotland’s Chief Scientist Office and the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research. DB received funding from OM pharma and Sanofi. All of the authors declared no other conflicts of interest.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved the anti-CD3 monoclonal antibody teplizumab-mzwv (Tzield, Provention Bio) to delay the onset of clinical type 1 diabetes in people aged 8 years and older who are at high risk for developing the condition.

“Today’s approval of a first-in-class therapy adds an important new treatment option for certain at-risk patients,” said John Sharretts, MD, director of the Division of Diabetes, Lipid Disorders, and Obesity in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. “The drug’s potential to delay clinical diagnosis of type 1 diabetes may provide patients with months to years without the burdens of disease.”

The agent, which interferes with T-cell-mediated autoimmune destruction of pancreatic beta cells, is the first disease-modifying therapy for impeding progression of type 1 diabetes. It is administered by intravenous infusion once daily for 14 consecutive days.

The specific indication is “to delay the onset of stage 3 type 1 diabetes in adults and pediatric patients 8 years and older who currently have stage 2 type 1 diabetes.” In type 1 diabetes staging, adopted in 2015, stage 1 is defined as the presence of beta cell autoimmunity with two or more islet autoantibodies with normoglycemia, stage 2 is beta-cell autoimmunity with dysglycemia yet asymptomatic, and stage 3 is the onset of symptomatic type 1 diabetes.

Stage 2 type 1 diabetes is associated with a nearly 100% lifetime risk of progression to clinical (stage 3) type 1 diabetes and a 75% risk of developing the condition within 5 years.

The FDA had previously rejected teplizumab for this indication in July 2021, despite a prior endorsement from an advisory panel in May 2021.

Now, with the FDA approval, Provention Bio cofounder and CEO Ashleigh Palmer said in a statement, “This is a historic occasion for the T1D community and a paradigm shifting breakthrough ... It cannot be emphasized enough how precious a delay in the onset of stage 3 T1D can be from a patient and family perspective; more time to live without and, when necessary, prepare for the burdens, complications, and risks associated with stage 3 disease.”
 

T1D onset delayed by 2 years

In 2019, a pivotal phase 2, randomized, placebo-controlled trial involving 76 at-risk children and adults aged 8 years and older showed that a single 14-day treatment of daily intravenous infusions of teplizumab in 44 patients resulted in a significant median 2-year delay to onset of clinical type 1 diabetes compared with 32 who received placebo.

Those “game changer” data were presented at the American Diabetes Association (ADA) annual meeting in June 2019 and simultaneously published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Three-year data were presented at the June 2020 ADA meeting and published in March 2021 in Science Translational Medicine, by Emily K. Sims, MD, department of pediatrics, Indiana University, Indianapolis, and colleagues.

At a median follow-up of 923 days, 50% of those randomly assigned to teplizumab remained diabetes free, compared with 22% of those who received placebo infusions (hazard ratio, 0.457; P = .01). The teplizumab group had a greater average C-peptide area under the curve compared with placebo, reflecting improved beta-cell function (1.96 vs. 1.68 pmol/mL; P = .006).

C-peptide levels declined over time in the placebo group but stabilized in those receiving teplizumab (P = .0015). 

“The mid-range time from randomization to stage 3 type 1 diabetes diagnosis was 50 months for the patients who received Tzield and 25 months for those who received a placebo. This represents a statistically significant delay in the development of stage 3 type 1 diabetes,” according to the FDA statement.

The most common side effects of Tzield include lymphopenia (73% teplizumab vs. 6% placebo), rash (36% vs. 0%), leukopenia (221% vs. 0%), and headache (11% vs. 6%). Label warnings and precautions include monitoring for cytokine release syndrome, risk for serious infections, and avoidance of live, inactivated, and mRNA vaccines.

This approval is likely to accelerate discussion about universal autoantibody screening. Currently, most individuals identified as having preclinical type 1 diabetes are first-degree relatives of people with type 1 diabetes identified through the federally funded TrialNet program. In December 2020, the type 1 diabetes research and advocacy organization JDRF began offering a $55 home blood test to screen for the antibodies, and other screening programs have been launched in the United States and Europe.  

Previous studies have examined cost-effectiveness of universal screening in children and the optimal ages that such screening should take place.  

In October, Provention Bio announced a co-promotion agreement with Sanofi for the U.S. launch of Tzield for delay in onset of clinical T1D in at-risk individuals. Provention Bio offers financial assistance options (e.g., copay assistance) to eligible patients for out-of-pocket costs.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved the anti-CD3 monoclonal antibody teplizumab-mzwv (Tzield, Provention Bio) to delay the onset of clinical type 1 diabetes in people aged 8 years and older who are at high risk for developing the condition.

“Today’s approval of a first-in-class therapy adds an important new treatment option for certain at-risk patients,” said John Sharretts, MD, director of the Division of Diabetes, Lipid Disorders, and Obesity in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. “The drug’s potential to delay clinical diagnosis of type 1 diabetes may provide patients with months to years without the burdens of disease.”

The agent, which interferes with T-cell-mediated autoimmune destruction of pancreatic beta cells, is the first disease-modifying therapy for impeding progression of type 1 diabetes. It is administered by intravenous infusion once daily for 14 consecutive days.

The specific indication is “to delay the onset of stage 3 type 1 diabetes in adults and pediatric patients 8 years and older who currently have stage 2 type 1 diabetes.” In type 1 diabetes staging, adopted in 2015, stage 1 is defined as the presence of beta cell autoimmunity with two or more islet autoantibodies with normoglycemia, stage 2 is beta-cell autoimmunity with dysglycemia yet asymptomatic, and stage 3 is the onset of symptomatic type 1 diabetes.

Stage 2 type 1 diabetes is associated with a nearly 100% lifetime risk of progression to clinical (stage 3) type 1 diabetes and a 75% risk of developing the condition within 5 years.

The FDA had previously rejected teplizumab for this indication in July 2021, despite a prior endorsement from an advisory panel in May 2021.

Now, with the FDA approval, Provention Bio cofounder and CEO Ashleigh Palmer said in a statement, “This is a historic occasion for the T1D community and a paradigm shifting breakthrough ... It cannot be emphasized enough how precious a delay in the onset of stage 3 T1D can be from a patient and family perspective; more time to live without and, when necessary, prepare for the burdens, complications, and risks associated with stage 3 disease.”
 

T1D onset delayed by 2 years

In 2019, a pivotal phase 2, randomized, placebo-controlled trial involving 76 at-risk children and adults aged 8 years and older showed that a single 14-day treatment of daily intravenous infusions of teplizumab in 44 patients resulted in a significant median 2-year delay to onset of clinical type 1 diabetes compared with 32 who received placebo.

Those “game changer” data were presented at the American Diabetes Association (ADA) annual meeting in June 2019 and simultaneously published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Three-year data were presented at the June 2020 ADA meeting and published in March 2021 in Science Translational Medicine, by Emily K. Sims, MD, department of pediatrics, Indiana University, Indianapolis, and colleagues.

At a median follow-up of 923 days, 50% of those randomly assigned to teplizumab remained diabetes free, compared with 22% of those who received placebo infusions (hazard ratio, 0.457; P = .01). The teplizumab group had a greater average C-peptide area under the curve compared with placebo, reflecting improved beta-cell function (1.96 vs. 1.68 pmol/mL; P = .006).

C-peptide levels declined over time in the placebo group but stabilized in those receiving teplizumab (P = .0015). 

“The mid-range time from randomization to stage 3 type 1 diabetes diagnosis was 50 months for the patients who received Tzield and 25 months for those who received a placebo. This represents a statistically significant delay in the development of stage 3 type 1 diabetes,” according to the FDA statement.

The most common side effects of Tzield include lymphopenia (73% teplizumab vs. 6% placebo), rash (36% vs. 0%), leukopenia (221% vs. 0%), and headache (11% vs. 6%). Label warnings and precautions include monitoring for cytokine release syndrome, risk for serious infections, and avoidance of live, inactivated, and mRNA vaccines.

This approval is likely to accelerate discussion about universal autoantibody screening. Currently, most individuals identified as having preclinical type 1 diabetes are first-degree relatives of people with type 1 diabetes identified through the federally funded TrialNet program. In December 2020, the type 1 diabetes research and advocacy organization JDRF began offering a $55 home blood test to screen for the antibodies, and other screening programs have been launched in the United States and Europe.  

Previous studies have examined cost-effectiveness of universal screening in children and the optimal ages that such screening should take place.  

In October, Provention Bio announced a co-promotion agreement with Sanofi for the U.S. launch of Tzield for delay in onset of clinical T1D in at-risk individuals. Provention Bio offers financial assistance options (e.g., copay assistance) to eligible patients for out-of-pocket costs.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved the anti-CD3 monoclonal antibody teplizumab-mzwv (Tzield, Provention Bio) to delay the onset of clinical type 1 diabetes in people aged 8 years and older who are at high risk for developing the condition.

“Today’s approval of a first-in-class therapy adds an important new treatment option for certain at-risk patients,” said John Sharretts, MD, director of the Division of Diabetes, Lipid Disorders, and Obesity in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. “The drug’s potential to delay clinical diagnosis of type 1 diabetes may provide patients with months to years without the burdens of disease.”

The agent, which interferes with T-cell-mediated autoimmune destruction of pancreatic beta cells, is the first disease-modifying therapy for impeding progression of type 1 diabetes. It is administered by intravenous infusion once daily for 14 consecutive days.

The specific indication is “to delay the onset of stage 3 type 1 diabetes in adults and pediatric patients 8 years and older who currently have stage 2 type 1 diabetes.” In type 1 diabetes staging, adopted in 2015, stage 1 is defined as the presence of beta cell autoimmunity with two or more islet autoantibodies with normoglycemia, stage 2 is beta-cell autoimmunity with dysglycemia yet asymptomatic, and stage 3 is the onset of symptomatic type 1 diabetes.

Stage 2 type 1 diabetes is associated with a nearly 100% lifetime risk of progression to clinical (stage 3) type 1 diabetes and a 75% risk of developing the condition within 5 years.

The FDA had previously rejected teplizumab for this indication in July 2021, despite a prior endorsement from an advisory panel in May 2021.

Now, with the FDA approval, Provention Bio cofounder and CEO Ashleigh Palmer said in a statement, “This is a historic occasion for the T1D community and a paradigm shifting breakthrough ... It cannot be emphasized enough how precious a delay in the onset of stage 3 T1D can be from a patient and family perspective; more time to live without and, when necessary, prepare for the burdens, complications, and risks associated with stage 3 disease.”
 

T1D onset delayed by 2 years

In 2019, a pivotal phase 2, randomized, placebo-controlled trial involving 76 at-risk children and adults aged 8 years and older showed that a single 14-day treatment of daily intravenous infusions of teplizumab in 44 patients resulted in a significant median 2-year delay to onset of clinical type 1 diabetes compared with 32 who received placebo.

Those “game changer” data were presented at the American Diabetes Association (ADA) annual meeting in June 2019 and simultaneously published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Three-year data were presented at the June 2020 ADA meeting and published in March 2021 in Science Translational Medicine, by Emily K. Sims, MD, department of pediatrics, Indiana University, Indianapolis, and colleagues.

At a median follow-up of 923 days, 50% of those randomly assigned to teplizumab remained diabetes free, compared with 22% of those who received placebo infusions (hazard ratio, 0.457; P = .01). The teplizumab group had a greater average C-peptide area under the curve compared with placebo, reflecting improved beta-cell function (1.96 vs. 1.68 pmol/mL; P = .006).

C-peptide levels declined over time in the placebo group but stabilized in those receiving teplizumab (P = .0015). 

“The mid-range time from randomization to stage 3 type 1 diabetes diagnosis was 50 months for the patients who received Tzield and 25 months for those who received a placebo. This represents a statistically significant delay in the development of stage 3 type 1 diabetes,” according to the FDA statement.

The most common side effects of Tzield include lymphopenia (73% teplizumab vs. 6% placebo), rash (36% vs. 0%), leukopenia (221% vs. 0%), and headache (11% vs. 6%). Label warnings and precautions include monitoring for cytokine release syndrome, risk for serious infections, and avoidance of live, inactivated, and mRNA vaccines.

This approval is likely to accelerate discussion about universal autoantibody screening. Currently, most individuals identified as having preclinical type 1 diabetes are first-degree relatives of people with type 1 diabetes identified through the federally funded TrialNet program. In December 2020, the type 1 diabetes research and advocacy organization JDRF began offering a $55 home blood test to screen for the antibodies, and other screening programs have been launched in the United States and Europe.  

Previous studies have examined cost-effectiveness of universal screening in children and the optimal ages that such screening should take place.  

In October, Provention Bio announced a co-promotion agreement with Sanofi for the U.S. launch of Tzield for delay in onset of clinical T1D in at-risk individuals. Provention Bio offers financial assistance options (e.g., copay assistance) to eligible patients for out-of-pocket costs.

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

“Take it from me, parents just don’t understand.”

Fresh Prince and D.J. Jazzy Jeff penned this lyric roughly 35 years ago, and coincidentally the HIV/AIDS epidemic has also been with us just as long. But the connection between the two may be highly relevant – that is, if you consider how infrequently parents appear (or have the proper tools) to engage with their gay or bisexual sons to prevent and curb HIV infections.

The glaring disparities in new and undiagnosed cases in young men who have sex with men (YMSM) help highlight why novel strategies (such as greater parental involvement) are needed.

Currently, YMSM between the ages of 13 and 24 are among the most affected by the ongoing HIV epidemic, with CDC estimates suggesting that, in 2020, this group alone represented about 35% of new diagnoses. At the same time, about half of these HIV infections go undiagnosed. Recent data also suggest that care linkage in this group is similar to adults, but only a third of YMSM start antiretroviral therapy and are retained in care, leading to viral suppression rates as low as 12%.

With a goal to change these discouraging numbers, researchers from George Washington University, Washington, and other institutions conducted a randomized controlled pilot study targeting parents of YMSM to improve both the frequency and quality of communication around sexual health and HIV risk, prevention, and testing.

The findings, which were published online in the journal AIDS and Behavior, highlight the observation that parents could be an essential resource for combating the HIV epidemic, but they’re a resource that’s often underutilized. In fact, after participating in an online offering – PATHS (Parents and Adolescents Talking about Healthy Sexuality) – parents reported significantly greater engagement with their sons, especially around discussions focusing on HIV information and condom use.

“From what we know from the research, parents are uncomfortable talking about sex; they’re not great at talking about it. But when they do and do it effectively, those kids seem to have better health outcomes,” lead author David Huebner, PhD, MPH, associate professor of prevention and community health at George Washington University, said in an interview.

“The goal was to get parents to deliver more messages and engage in more behaviors with their sons that we think are likely to help their sons stay healthy,” he said.

For the pilot study, Huebner and his team recruited 61 parents (95% of whom were mothers) with predominantly high school-aged cisgender sons (median, 16.7-17 years) who had come out as gay or bisexual at least a month prior, whose HIV status was negative or unknown, and who were living at home.

The interventions were strictly parent focused, Dr. Huebner said, noting that the only interaction with the kids involved independent surveys at the start and end of the study that explored parental behavior and engagement.

For the study, parental participants were stratified by son’s age (13-17 or 18-22 years) and then randomly assigned to participate in a web-accessible PATHS intervention (intervention group) or view a 35-minute, documentary-style film that encouraged acceptance of lesbian, gay, or bisexual children (control group),

Parents assigned to the intervention group were asked to engage in their own time with six modules that explored the importance of communication, HIV information, using and acquiring condoms, HIV testing, and as follow-up, a “to-do” list encouraging selection of how they would follow up with their sons about the content. They were also offered the option to participate in supplemental modules on pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP), anal intercourse, and what to do if a child tested positive for HIV.

“The intervention ... showed strong evidence of being effective at changing the parent behaviors that we hoped to change,” Dr. Huebner explained.

“We got independent reports from parents and kids that showed the same thing: parents were more likely to communicate with their sons about HIV in the 3 months after the intervention and were more likely to help their sons get access to condoms,” he said.

Both of these findings were significant, with parents in the experimental group being almost 10 times more likely to share HIV information with their sons (odds ratio, 9.50; 95% confidence interval, 1.02-39.99; P < .05) and five times more likely to teach proper condom use (OR, 5.04; 95% CI 1.56-12.46; P < .05), compared with parents receiving the placebo.

“It’s very promising that the initial signals from their intervention do show that parents facilitating the acquisition of information for young men who have sex with men really works,” said Dalmacio Dennis Flores, PhD, ACRN, an assistant professor of nursing in family and community health at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. He was not directly involved in the study.

“On the outcomes that matter for us, such as HIV prevention or getting tested, they were able to document that parents receiving guidance on how to have these conversations does result in youth outcomes – something that has been lacking in the literature specifically for this population up until today,” Dr. Flores told this news organization.

Overall, parents engaging in the PATHS intervention showed improvements in skills, attitudes, and behavioral intention toward engagement with their sons, including assisting with HIV testing. However, what about parental involvement in these types of dialogues with children who have not yet come out to their parents?

Dr. Flores said that, although Dr. Huebner’s work is pivotal for families where the child’s sexual orientation is known to parents, there is value in inclusive sex communication for all youth, regardless of how they identify (that is, out of the closet, closeted, straight, or those who are questioning their identity), especially since younger generations of LGBTQ youth are coming out at earlier ages, compared with previous generations.

It’s not just parents. Clinicians also have critical roles to play in helping bridge the sex-talk communication gaps between parents and adolescents and young adult children.

“In my work, I’ve found that more clinicians are willing to broach this within the discussion with dyads, with parents and adolescents in the room,” said Dr. Flores.

And he added: “If clinicians signal that there’s no such thing as too early to have these conversations or that issues such as consent, safety, and sexting are all okay to talk about because these are the current realities of young people, then parents can feel that they’re empowered to broach or sustain these conversations.”

Importantly, Dr. Huebner and associates are currently recruiting larger numbers of families for a new, yearlong trial that will not only examine parental behavior changes but also whether these changes translate into improvements in their child’s sexual health and/or competency. Interested families can learn more about the study and sign up to receive updates at www.parentwithlove.org.

Dr. Huebner and Dr. Flores reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

“Take it from me, parents just don’t understand.”

Fresh Prince and D.J. Jazzy Jeff penned this lyric roughly 35 years ago, and coincidentally the HIV/AIDS epidemic has also been with us just as long. But the connection between the two may be highly relevant – that is, if you consider how infrequently parents appear (or have the proper tools) to engage with their gay or bisexual sons to prevent and curb HIV infections.

The glaring disparities in new and undiagnosed cases in young men who have sex with men (YMSM) help highlight why novel strategies (such as greater parental involvement) are needed.

Currently, YMSM between the ages of 13 and 24 are among the most affected by the ongoing HIV epidemic, with CDC estimates suggesting that, in 2020, this group alone represented about 35% of new diagnoses. At the same time, about half of these HIV infections go undiagnosed. Recent data also suggest that care linkage in this group is similar to adults, but only a third of YMSM start antiretroviral therapy and are retained in care, leading to viral suppression rates as low as 12%.

With a goal to change these discouraging numbers, researchers from George Washington University, Washington, and other institutions conducted a randomized controlled pilot study targeting parents of YMSM to improve both the frequency and quality of communication around sexual health and HIV risk, prevention, and testing.

The findings, which were published online in the journal AIDS and Behavior, highlight the observation that parents could be an essential resource for combating the HIV epidemic, but they’re a resource that’s often underutilized. In fact, after participating in an online offering – PATHS (Parents and Adolescents Talking about Healthy Sexuality) – parents reported significantly greater engagement with their sons, especially around discussions focusing on HIV information and condom use.

“From what we know from the research, parents are uncomfortable talking about sex; they’re not great at talking about it. But when they do and do it effectively, those kids seem to have better health outcomes,” lead author David Huebner, PhD, MPH, associate professor of prevention and community health at George Washington University, said in an interview.

“The goal was to get parents to deliver more messages and engage in more behaviors with their sons that we think are likely to help their sons stay healthy,” he said.

For the pilot study, Huebner and his team recruited 61 parents (95% of whom were mothers) with predominantly high school-aged cisgender sons (median, 16.7-17 years) who had come out as gay or bisexual at least a month prior, whose HIV status was negative or unknown, and who were living at home.

The interventions were strictly parent focused, Dr. Huebner said, noting that the only interaction with the kids involved independent surveys at the start and end of the study that explored parental behavior and engagement.

For the study, parental participants were stratified by son’s age (13-17 or 18-22 years) and then randomly assigned to participate in a web-accessible PATHS intervention (intervention group) or view a 35-minute, documentary-style film that encouraged acceptance of lesbian, gay, or bisexual children (control group),

Parents assigned to the intervention group were asked to engage in their own time with six modules that explored the importance of communication, HIV information, using and acquiring condoms, HIV testing, and as follow-up, a “to-do” list encouraging selection of how they would follow up with their sons about the content. They were also offered the option to participate in supplemental modules on pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP), anal intercourse, and what to do if a child tested positive for HIV.

“The intervention ... showed strong evidence of being effective at changing the parent behaviors that we hoped to change,” Dr. Huebner explained.

“We got independent reports from parents and kids that showed the same thing: parents were more likely to communicate with their sons about HIV in the 3 months after the intervention and were more likely to help their sons get access to condoms,” he said.

Both of these findings were significant, with parents in the experimental group being almost 10 times more likely to share HIV information with their sons (odds ratio, 9.50; 95% confidence interval, 1.02-39.99; P < .05) and five times more likely to teach proper condom use (OR, 5.04; 95% CI 1.56-12.46; P < .05), compared with parents receiving the placebo.

“It’s very promising that the initial signals from their intervention do show that parents facilitating the acquisition of information for young men who have sex with men really works,” said Dalmacio Dennis Flores, PhD, ACRN, an assistant professor of nursing in family and community health at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. He was not directly involved in the study.

“On the outcomes that matter for us, such as HIV prevention or getting tested, they were able to document that parents receiving guidance on how to have these conversations does result in youth outcomes – something that has been lacking in the literature specifically for this population up until today,” Dr. Flores told this news organization.

Overall, parents engaging in the PATHS intervention showed improvements in skills, attitudes, and behavioral intention toward engagement with their sons, including assisting with HIV testing. However, what about parental involvement in these types of dialogues with children who have not yet come out to their parents?

Dr. Flores said that, although Dr. Huebner’s work is pivotal for families where the child’s sexual orientation is known to parents, there is value in inclusive sex communication for all youth, regardless of how they identify (that is, out of the closet, closeted, straight, or those who are questioning their identity), especially since younger generations of LGBTQ youth are coming out at earlier ages, compared with previous generations.

It’s not just parents. Clinicians also have critical roles to play in helping bridge the sex-talk communication gaps between parents and adolescents and young adult children.

“In my work, I’ve found that more clinicians are willing to broach this within the discussion with dyads, with parents and adolescents in the room,” said Dr. Flores.

And he added: “If clinicians signal that there’s no such thing as too early to have these conversations or that issues such as consent, safety, and sexting are all okay to talk about because these are the current realities of young people, then parents can feel that they’re empowered to broach or sustain these conversations.”

Importantly, Dr. Huebner and associates are currently recruiting larger numbers of families for a new, yearlong trial that will not only examine parental behavior changes but also whether these changes translate into improvements in their child’s sexual health and/or competency. Interested families can learn more about the study and sign up to receive updates at www.parentwithlove.org.

Dr. Huebner and Dr. Flores reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

“Take it from me, parents just don’t understand.”

Fresh Prince and D.J. Jazzy Jeff penned this lyric roughly 35 years ago, and coincidentally the HIV/AIDS epidemic has also been with us just as long. But the connection between the two may be highly relevant – that is, if you consider how infrequently parents appear (or have the proper tools) to engage with their gay or bisexual sons to prevent and curb HIV infections.

The glaring disparities in new and undiagnosed cases in young men who have sex with men (YMSM) help highlight why novel strategies (such as greater parental involvement) are needed.

Currently, YMSM between the ages of 13 and 24 are among the most affected by the ongoing HIV epidemic, with CDC estimates suggesting that, in 2020, this group alone represented about 35% of new diagnoses. At the same time, about half of these HIV infections go undiagnosed. Recent data also suggest that care linkage in this group is similar to adults, but only a third of YMSM start antiretroviral therapy and are retained in care, leading to viral suppression rates as low as 12%.

With a goal to change these discouraging numbers, researchers from George Washington University, Washington, and other institutions conducted a randomized controlled pilot study targeting parents of YMSM to improve both the frequency and quality of communication around sexual health and HIV risk, prevention, and testing.

The findings, which were published online in the journal AIDS and Behavior, highlight the observation that parents could be an essential resource for combating the HIV epidemic, but they’re a resource that’s often underutilized. In fact, after participating in an online offering – PATHS (Parents and Adolescents Talking about Healthy Sexuality) – parents reported significantly greater engagement with their sons, especially around discussions focusing on HIV information and condom use.

“From what we know from the research, parents are uncomfortable talking about sex; they’re not great at talking about it. But when they do and do it effectively, those kids seem to have better health outcomes,” lead author David Huebner, PhD, MPH, associate professor of prevention and community health at George Washington University, said in an interview.

“The goal was to get parents to deliver more messages and engage in more behaviors with their sons that we think are likely to help their sons stay healthy,” he said.

For the pilot study, Huebner and his team recruited 61 parents (95% of whom were mothers) with predominantly high school-aged cisgender sons (median, 16.7-17 years) who had come out as gay or bisexual at least a month prior, whose HIV status was negative or unknown, and who were living at home.

The interventions were strictly parent focused, Dr. Huebner said, noting that the only interaction with the kids involved independent surveys at the start and end of the study that explored parental behavior and engagement.

For the study, parental participants were stratified by son’s age (13-17 or 18-22 years) and then randomly assigned to participate in a web-accessible PATHS intervention (intervention group) or view a 35-minute, documentary-style film that encouraged acceptance of lesbian, gay, or bisexual children (control group),

Parents assigned to the intervention group were asked to engage in their own time with six modules that explored the importance of communication, HIV information, using and acquiring condoms, HIV testing, and as follow-up, a “to-do” list encouraging selection of how they would follow up with their sons about the content. They were also offered the option to participate in supplemental modules on pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP), anal intercourse, and what to do if a child tested positive for HIV.

“The intervention ... showed strong evidence of being effective at changing the parent behaviors that we hoped to change,” Dr. Huebner explained.

“We got independent reports from parents and kids that showed the same thing: parents were more likely to communicate with their sons about HIV in the 3 months after the intervention and were more likely to help their sons get access to condoms,” he said.

Both of these findings were significant, with parents in the experimental group being almost 10 times more likely to share HIV information with their sons (odds ratio, 9.50; 95% confidence interval, 1.02-39.99; P < .05) and five times more likely to teach proper condom use (OR, 5.04; 95% CI 1.56-12.46; P < .05), compared with parents receiving the placebo.

“It’s very promising that the initial signals from their intervention do show that parents facilitating the acquisition of information for young men who have sex with men really works,” said Dalmacio Dennis Flores, PhD, ACRN, an assistant professor of nursing in family and community health at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. He was not directly involved in the study.

“On the outcomes that matter for us, such as HIV prevention or getting tested, they were able to document that parents receiving guidance on how to have these conversations does result in youth outcomes – something that has been lacking in the literature specifically for this population up until today,” Dr. Flores told this news organization.

Overall, parents engaging in the PATHS intervention showed improvements in skills, attitudes, and behavioral intention toward engagement with their sons, including assisting with HIV testing. However, what about parental involvement in these types of dialogues with children who have not yet come out to their parents?

Dr. Flores said that, although Dr. Huebner’s work is pivotal for families where the child’s sexual orientation is known to parents, there is value in inclusive sex communication for all youth, regardless of how they identify (that is, out of the closet, closeted, straight, or those who are questioning their identity), especially since younger generations of LGBTQ youth are coming out at earlier ages, compared with previous generations.

It’s not just parents. Clinicians also have critical roles to play in helping bridge the sex-talk communication gaps between parents and adolescents and young adult children.

“In my work, I’ve found that more clinicians are willing to broach this within the discussion with dyads, with parents and adolescents in the room,” said Dr. Flores.

And he added: “If clinicians signal that there’s no such thing as too early to have these conversations or that issues such as consent, safety, and sexting are all okay to talk about because these are the current realities of young people, then parents can feel that they’re empowered to broach or sustain these conversations.”

Importantly, Dr. Huebner and associates are currently recruiting larger numbers of families for a new, yearlong trial that will not only examine parental behavior changes but also whether these changes translate into improvements in their child’s sexual health and/or competency. Interested families can learn more about the study and sign up to receive updates at www.parentwithlove.org.

Dr. Huebner and Dr. Flores reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Emergencies happen anywhere, anytime – and sometimes physicians find themselves in situations where they are the only ones who can help. “Is There a Doctor in the House?” is a new series telling these stories.

When the plane crashed, I was asleep. I had arrived the evening before with my wife and three sons at a house on Kezar Lake on the Maine–New Hampshire border. We were going to spend a week there with my wife’s four brothers and their families. I was woken by people screaming my name. I jumped out of bed and ran downstairs. My kids had been watching a float plane circling and gliding along the lake. It had crashed into the water and flipped upside down. My oldest brother-in-law jumped into his ski boat and we sped out to the scene.

All we can see are the plane’s pontoons. The rest is underwater. A woman has already surfaced, screaming. I dive in.

I find the woman’s husband and 3-year-old son struggling to get free from the plane through the smashed windshield. They manage to get to the surface. The pilot is dead, impaled through the chest by the left wing strut.

The big problem: A little girl, whom I would learn later is named Lauren, remained trapped. The water is murky but I can see her, a 5- or 6-year-old girl with this long hair, strapped in upside down and unconscious.

The mom and I dive down over and over, pulling and ripping at the door. We cannot get it open. Finally, I’m able to bend the door open enough where I can reach in, but I can’t undo the seatbelt. In my mind, I’m debating, should I try and go through the front windshield? I’m getting really tired, I can tell there’s fuel in the water, and I don’t want to drown in the plane. So I pop up to the surface and yell, “Does anyone have a knife?”

My brother-in-law shoots back to shore in the boat, screaming, “Get a knife!” My niece gets in the boat with one. I’m standing on the pontoon, and my niece is in the front of the boat calling, “Uncle Todd! Uncle Todd!” and she throws the knife. It goes way over my head. I can’t even jump for it, it’s so high.

I have to get the knife. So, I dive into the water to try and find it. Somehow, the black knife has landed on the white wing, 4 or 5 feet under the water. Pure luck. It could have sunk down a hundred feet into the lake. I grab the knife and hand it to the mom, Beth. She’s able to cut the seatbelt, and we both pull Lauren to the surface.

I lay her out on the pontoon. She has no pulse and her pupils are fixed and dilated. Her mom is yelling, “She’s dead, isn’t she?” I start CPR. My skin and eyes are burning from the airplane fuel in the water. I get her breathing, and her heart comes back very quickly. Lauren starts to vomit and I’m trying to keep her airway clear. She’s breathing spontaneously and she has a pulse, so I decide it’s time to move her to shore.

We pull the boat up to the dock and Lauren’s now having anoxic seizures. Her brain has been without oxygen, and now she’s getting perfused again. We get her to shore and lay her on the lawn. I’m still doing mouth-to-mouth, but she’s seizing like crazy, and I don’t have any way to control that. Beth is crying and wants to hold her daughter gently while I’m working.

Someone had called 911, and finally this dude shows up with an ambulance, and it’s like something out of World War II. All he has is an oxygen tank, but the mask is old and cracked. It’s too big for Lauren, but it sort of fits me, so I’m sucking in oxygen and blowing it into the girl’s mouth. I’m doing whatever I can, but I don’t have an IV to start. I have no fluids. I got nothing.

As it happens, I’d done my emergency medicine training at Maine Medical Center, so I tell someone to call them and get a Life Flight chopper. We have to drive somewhere where the chopper can land, so we take the ambulance to the parking lot of the closest store called the Wicked Good Store. That’s a common thing in Maine. Everything is “wicked good.”

The whole town is there by that point. The chopper arrives. The ambulance doors pop open and a woman says, “Todd?” And I say, “Heather?”

Heather is an emergency flight nurse whom I’d trained with many years ago. There’s immediate trust. She has all the right equipment. We put in breathing tubes and IVs. We stop Lauren from seizing. The kid is soon stable.

There is only one extra seat in the chopper, so I tell Beth to go. They take off.

Suddenly, I begin to doubt my decision. Lauren had been underwater for 15 minutes at minimum. I know how long that is. Did I do the right thing? Did I resuscitate a brain-dead child? I didn’t think about it at the time, but if that patient had come to me in the emergency department, I’m honestly not sure what I would have done.

So, I go home. And I don’t get a call. The FAA and sheriff arrive to take statements from us. I don’t hear from anyone.

The next day I start calling. No one will tell me anything, so I finally get to one of the pediatric ICU attendings who had trained me. He says Lauren literally woke up and said, “I have to go pee.” And that was it. She was 100% normal. I couldn’t believe it.

Here’s a theory: In kids, there’s something called the glottic reflex. I think her glottic reflex went off as soon as she hit the water, which basically closed her airway. So when she passed out, she could never get enough water in her lungs and still had enough air in there to keep her alive. Later, I got a call from her uncle. He could barely get the words out because he was in tears. He said Lauren was doing beautifully.  

Three days later, I drove to Lauren’s house with my wife and kids. I had her read to me. I watched her play on the jungle gym for motor function. All sorts of stuff. She was totally normal.

Beth told us that the night before the accident, her mother had given the women in her family what she called a “miracle bracelet,” a bracelet that is supposed to give you one miracle in your life. Beth said she had the bracelet on her wrist the day of the accident, and now it’s gone. “Saving Lauren’s life was my miracle,” she said.

Funny thing: For 20 years, I ran all the EMS, police, fire, ambulance, in Boulder, Colo., where I live. I wrote all the protocols, and I would never advise any of my paramedics to dive into jet fuel to save someone. That was risky. But at the time, it was totally automatic. I think it taught me not to give up in certain situations, because you really don’t know.

Dr. Dorfman is an emergency medicine physician in Boulder, Colo., and medical director at Cedalion Health.
 

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

Emergencies happen anywhere, anytime – and sometimes physicians find themselves in situations where they are the only ones who can help. “Is There a Doctor in the House?” is a new series telling these stories.

When the plane crashed, I was asleep. I had arrived the evening before with my wife and three sons at a house on Kezar Lake on the Maine–New Hampshire border. We were going to spend a week there with my wife’s four brothers and their families. I was woken by people screaming my name. I jumped out of bed and ran downstairs. My kids had been watching a float plane circling and gliding along the lake. It had crashed into the water and flipped upside down. My oldest brother-in-law jumped into his ski boat and we sped out to the scene.

All we can see are the plane’s pontoons. The rest is underwater. A woman has already surfaced, screaming. I dive in.

I find the woman’s husband and 3-year-old son struggling to get free from the plane through the smashed windshield. They manage to get to the surface. The pilot is dead, impaled through the chest by the left wing strut.

The big problem: A little girl, whom I would learn later is named Lauren, remained trapped. The water is murky but I can see her, a 5- or 6-year-old girl with this long hair, strapped in upside down and unconscious.

The mom and I dive down over and over, pulling and ripping at the door. We cannot get it open. Finally, I’m able to bend the door open enough where I can reach in, but I can’t undo the seatbelt. In my mind, I’m debating, should I try and go through the front windshield? I’m getting really tired, I can tell there’s fuel in the water, and I don’t want to drown in the plane. So I pop up to the surface and yell, “Does anyone have a knife?”

My brother-in-law shoots back to shore in the boat, screaming, “Get a knife!” My niece gets in the boat with one. I’m standing on the pontoon, and my niece is in the front of the boat calling, “Uncle Todd! Uncle Todd!” and she throws the knife. It goes way over my head. I can’t even jump for it, it’s so high.

I have to get the knife. So, I dive into the water to try and find it. Somehow, the black knife has landed on the white wing, 4 or 5 feet under the water. Pure luck. It could have sunk down a hundred feet into the lake. I grab the knife and hand it to the mom, Beth. She’s able to cut the seatbelt, and we both pull Lauren to the surface.

I lay her out on the pontoon. She has no pulse and her pupils are fixed and dilated. Her mom is yelling, “She’s dead, isn’t she?” I start CPR. My skin and eyes are burning from the airplane fuel in the water. I get her breathing, and her heart comes back very quickly. Lauren starts to vomit and I’m trying to keep her airway clear. She’s breathing spontaneously and she has a pulse, so I decide it’s time to move her to shore.

We pull the boat up to the dock and Lauren’s now having anoxic seizures. Her brain has been without oxygen, and now she’s getting perfused again. We get her to shore and lay her on the lawn. I’m still doing mouth-to-mouth, but she’s seizing like crazy, and I don’t have any way to control that. Beth is crying and wants to hold her daughter gently while I’m working.

Someone had called 911, and finally this dude shows up with an ambulance, and it’s like something out of World War II. All he has is an oxygen tank, but the mask is old and cracked. It’s too big for Lauren, but it sort of fits me, so I’m sucking in oxygen and blowing it into the girl’s mouth. I’m doing whatever I can, but I don’t have an IV to start. I have no fluids. I got nothing.

As it happens, I’d done my emergency medicine training at Maine Medical Center, so I tell someone to call them and get a Life Flight chopper. We have to drive somewhere where the chopper can land, so we take the ambulance to the parking lot of the closest store called the Wicked Good Store. That’s a common thing in Maine. Everything is “wicked good.”

The whole town is there by that point. The chopper arrives. The ambulance doors pop open and a woman says, “Todd?” And I say, “Heather?”

Heather is an emergency flight nurse whom I’d trained with many years ago. There’s immediate trust. She has all the right equipment. We put in breathing tubes and IVs. We stop Lauren from seizing. The kid is soon stable.

There is only one extra seat in the chopper, so I tell Beth to go. They take off.

Suddenly, I begin to doubt my decision. Lauren had been underwater for 15 minutes at minimum. I know how long that is. Did I do the right thing? Did I resuscitate a brain-dead child? I didn’t think about it at the time, but if that patient had come to me in the emergency department, I’m honestly not sure what I would have done.

So, I go home. And I don’t get a call. The FAA and sheriff arrive to take statements from us. I don’t hear from anyone.

The next day I start calling. No one will tell me anything, so I finally get to one of the pediatric ICU attendings who had trained me. He says Lauren literally woke up and said, “I have to go pee.” And that was it. She was 100% normal. I couldn’t believe it.

Here’s a theory: In kids, there’s something called the glottic reflex. I think her glottic reflex went off as soon as she hit the water, which basically closed her airway. So when she passed out, she could never get enough water in her lungs and still had enough air in there to keep her alive. Later, I got a call from her uncle. He could barely get the words out because he was in tears. He said Lauren was doing beautifully.  

Three days later, I drove to Lauren’s house with my wife and kids. I had her read to me. I watched her play on the jungle gym for motor function. All sorts of stuff. She was totally normal.

Beth told us that the night before the accident, her mother had given the women in her family what she called a “miracle bracelet,” a bracelet that is supposed to give you one miracle in your life. Beth said she had the bracelet on her wrist the day of the accident, and now it’s gone. “Saving Lauren’s life was my miracle,” she said.

Funny thing: For 20 years, I ran all the EMS, police, fire, ambulance, in Boulder, Colo., where I live. I wrote all the protocols, and I would never advise any of my paramedics to dive into jet fuel to save someone. That was risky. But at the time, it was totally automatic. I think it taught me not to give up in certain situations, because you really don’t know.

Dr. Dorfman is an emergency medicine physician in Boulder, Colo., and medical director at Cedalion Health.
 

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

Emergencies happen anywhere, anytime – and sometimes physicians find themselves in situations where they are the only ones who can help. “Is There a Doctor in the House?” is a new series telling these stories.

When the plane crashed, I was asleep. I had arrived the evening before with my wife and three sons at a house on Kezar Lake on the Maine–New Hampshire border. We were going to spend a week there with my wife’s four brothers and their families. I was woken by people screaming my name. I jumped out of bed and ran downstairs. My kids had been watching a float plane circling and gliding along the lake. It had crashed into the water and flipped upside down. My oldest brother-in-law jumped into his ski boat and we sped out to the scene.

All we can see are the plane’s pontoons. The rest is underwater. A woman has already surfaced, screaming. I dive in.

I find the woman’s husband and 3-year-old son struggling to get free from the plane through the smashed windshield. They manage to get to the surface. The pilot is dead, impaled through the chest by the left wing strut.

The big problem: A little girl, whom I would learn later is named Lauren, remained trapped. The water is murky but I can see her, a 5- or 6-year-old girl with this long hair, strapped in upside down and unconscious.

The mom and I dive down over and over, pulling and ripping at the door. We cannot get it open. Finally, I’m able to bend the door open enough where I can reach in, but I can’t undo the seatbelt. In my mind, I’m debating, should I try and go through the front windshield? I’m getting really tired, I can tell there’s fuel in the water, and I don’t want to drown in the plane. So I pop up to the surface and yell, “Does anyone have a knife?”

My brother-in-law shoots back to shore in the boat, screaming, “Get a knife!” My niece gets in the boat with one. I’m standing on the pontoon, and my niece is in the front of the boat calling, “Uncle Todd! Uncle Todd!” and she throws the knife. It goes way over my head. I can’t even jump for it, it’s so high.

I have to get the knife. So, I dive into the water to try and find it. Somehow, the black knife has landed on the white wing, 4 or 5 feet under the water. Pure luck. It could have sunk down a hundred feet into the lake. I grab the knife and hand it to the mom, Beth. She’s able to cut the seatbelt, and we both pull Lauren to the surface.

I lay her out on the pontoon. She has no pulse and her pupils are fixed and dilated. Her mom is yelling, “She’s dead, isn’t she?” I start CPR. My skin and eyes are burning from the airplane fuel in the water. I get her breathing, and her heart comes back very quickly. Lauren starts to vomit and I’m trying to keep her airway clear. She’s breathing spontaneously and she has a pulse, so I decide it’s time to move her to shore.

We pull the boat up to the dock and Lauren’s now having anoxic seizures. Her brain has been without oxygen, and now she’s getting perfused again. We get her to shore and lay her on the lawn. I’m still doing mouth-to-mouth, but she’s seizing like crazy, and I don’t have any way to control that. Beth is crying and wants to hold her daughter gently while I’m working.

Someone had called 911, and finally this dude shows up with an ambulance, and it’s like something out of World War II. All he has is an oxygen tank, but the mask is old and cracked. It’s too big for Lauren, but it sort of fits me, so I’m sucking in oxygen and blowing it into the girl’s mouth. I’m doing whatever I can, but I don’t have an IV to start. I have no fluids. I got nothing.

As it happens, I’d done my emergency medicine training at Maine Medical Center, so I tell someone to call them and get a Life Flight chopper. We have to drive somewhere where the chopper can land, so we take the ambulance to the parking lot of the closest store called the Wicked Good Store. That’s a common thing in Maine. Everything is “wicked good.”

The whole town is there by that point. The chopper arrives. The ambulance doors pop open and a woman says, “Todd?” And I say, “Heather?”

Heather is an emergency flight nurse whom I’d trained with many years ago. There’s immediate trust. She has all the right equipment. We put in breathing tubes and IVs. We stop Lauren from seizing. The kid is soon stable.

There is only one extra seat in the chopper, so I tell Beth to go. They take off.

Suddenly, I begin to doubt my decision. Lauren had been underwater for 15 minutes at minimum. I know how long that is. Did I do the right thing? Did I resuscitate a brain-dead child? I didn’t think about it at the time, but if that patient had come to me in the emergency department, I’m honestly not sure what I would have done.

So, I go home. And I don’t get a call. The FAA and sheriff arrive to take statements from us. I don’t hear from anyone.

The next day I start calling. No one will tell me anything, so I finally get to one of the pediatric ICU attendings who had trained me. He says Lauren literally woke up and said, “I have to go pee.” And that was it. She was 100% normal. I couldn’t believe it.

Here’s a theory: In kids, there’s something called the glottic reflex. I think her glottic reflex went off as soon as she hit the water, which basically closed her airway. So when she passed out, she could never get enough water in her lungs and still had enough air in there to keep her alive. Later, I got a call from her uncle. He could barely get the words out because he was in tears. He said Lauren was doing beautifully.  

Three days later, I drove to Lauren’s house with my wife and kids. I had her read to me. I watched her play on the jungle gym for motor function. All sorts of stuff. She was totally normal.

Beth told us that the night before the accident, her mother had given the women in her family what she called a “miracle bracelet,” a bracelet that is supposed to give you one miracle in your life. Beth said she had the bracelet on her wrist the day of the accident, and now it’s gone. “Saving Lauren’s life was my miracle,” she said.

Funny thing: For 20 years, I ran all the EMS, police, fire, ambulance, in Boulder, Colo., where I live. I wrote all the protocols, and I would never advise any of my paramedics to dive into jet fuel to save someone. That was risky. But at the time, it was totally automatic. I think it taught me not to give up in certain situations, because you really don’t know.

Dr. Dorfman is an emergency medicine physician in Boulder, Colo., and medical director at Cedalion Health.
 

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

In a recent column, I cautiously discussed what has been called gender-affirming or transgender care.

In the days following the appearance of that Letters From Maine column on this topic, I received an unusual number of responses from readers suggesting I had touched on a topic that was on the minds of many pediatricians.

Since then, the Florida Board of Medicine and Osteopathic Medicine voted to forbid physicians from prescribing puberty blockers and hormones and/or performing surgeries in patients under age 18 who were seeking transgender care. Children already receiving treatments were exempt from the ruling. The osteopathic board added a second exception in cases where the child was a participant in a research protocol. The board of medicine inexplicably did not include this exception.

Regardless of how one feels about the ethics and the appropriateness of transgender care, it is not an issue to be decided by a politically appointed entity.

As I look back over what I have learned by watching this tragic drama play out, I am struck by a distinction that has yet to receive enough attention. When we are discussing gender dysphoria we are really talking about two different pediatric populations and scenarios. There is the child who from a very young age has consistently preferred to dress and behave in a manner that is different from the gender he or she was assigned at birth. The management of this child is a challenge that requires a careful balance of support and protection from the harsh realities of the gender-regimented world.

The second scenario stars the adolescent who has no prior history of gender dysphoria, or at least no outward manifestations. Then, faced by the challenges of puberty and adolescence, something or things happen that erupt into a full-blown gender-dysphoric storm. We currently have very little understanding of what those “things” are.

Each population can probably be further divided into subgroups – and that’s just the point. Every gender-dysphoric child, whether their dysphoria began at age 2 or 12, is an individual with a unique family dynamic and socioeconomic background. They may share some as yet unknown genetic signature, but in our current state of ignorance they deserve, as do all of our patients, to be treated as individuals by their primary care physicians and consultants who must at first do no harm. One size does not fit all and certainly their care should not be dictated by a politically influenced entity.
 

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].

In a recent column, I cautiously discussed what has been called gender-affirming or transgender care.

In the days following the appearance of that Letters From Maine column on this topic, I received an unusual number of responses from readers suggesting I had touched on a topic that was on the minds of many pediatricians.

Since then, the Florida Board of Medicine and Osteopathic Medicine voted to forbid physicians from prescribing puberty blockers and hormones and/or performing surgeries in patients under age 18 who were seeking transgender care. Children already receiving treatments were exempt from the ruling. The osteopathic board added a second exception in cases where the child was a participant in a research protocol. The board of medicine inexplicably did not include this exception.

Regardless of how one feels about the ethics and the appropriateness of transgender care, it is not an issue to be decided by a politically appointed entity.

As I look back over what I have learned by watching this tragic drama play out, I am struck by a distinction that has yet to receive enough attention. When we are discussing gender dysphoria we are really talking about two different pediatric populations and scenarios. There is the child who from a very young age has consistently preferred to dress and behave in a manner that is different from the gender he or she was assigned at birth. The management of this child is a challenge that requires a careful balance of support and protection from the harsh realities of the gender-regimented world.

The second scenario stars the adolescent who has no prior history of gender dysphoria, or at least no outward manifestations. Then, faced by the challenges of puberty and adolescence, something or things happen that erupt into a full-blown gender-dysphoric storm. We currently have very little understanding of what those “things” are.

Each population can probably be further divided into subgroups – and that’s just the point. Every gender-dysphoric child, whether their dysphoria began at age 2 or 12, is an individual with a unique family dynamic and socioeconomic background. They may share some as yet unknown genetic signature, but in our current state of ignorance they deserve, as do all of our patients, to be treated as individuals by their primary care physicians and consultants who must at first do no harm. One size does not fit all and certainly their care should not be dictated by a politically influenced entity.
 

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].

In a recent column, I cautiously discussed what has been called gender-affirming or transgender care.

In the days following the appearance of that Letters From Maine column on this topic, I received an unusual number of responses from readers suggesting I had touched on a topic that was on the minds of many pediatricians.

Since then, the Florida Board of Medicine and Osteopathic Medicine voted to forbid physicians from prescribing puberty blockers and hormones and/or performing surgeries in patients under age 18 who were seeking transgender care. Children already receiving treatments were exempt from the ruling. The osteopathic board added a second exception in cases where the child was a participant in a research protocol. The board of medicine inexplicably did not include this exception.

Regardless of how one feels about the ethics and the appropriateness of transgender care, it is not an issue to be decided by a politically appointed entity.

As I look back over what I have learned by watching this tragic drama play out, I am struck by a distinction that has yet to receive enough attention. When we are discussing gender dysphoria we are really talking about two different pediatric populations and scenarios. There is the child who from a very young age has consistently preferred to dress and behave in a manner that is different from the gender he or she was assigned at birth. The management of this child is a challenge that requires a careful balance of support and protection from the harsh realities of the gender-regimented world.

The second scenario stars the adolescent who has no prior history of gender dysphoria, or at least no outward manifestations. Then, faced by the challenges of puberty and adolescence, something or things happen that erupt into a full-blown gender-dysphoric storm. We currently have very little understanding of what those “things” are.

Each population can probably be further divided into subgroups – and that’s just the point. Every gender-dysphoric child, whether their dysphoria began at age 2 or 12, is an individual with a unique family dynamic and socioeconomic background. They may share some as yet unknown genetic signature, but in our current state of ignorance they deserve, as do all of our patients, to be treated as individuals by their primary care physicians and consultants who must at first do no harm. One size does not fit all and certainly their care should not be dictated by a politically influenced entity.
 

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].