This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Welcome to Impact Factor, your weekly dose of commentary on a new medical study. I’m Dr. F. Perry Wilson of the Yale School of Medicine.

On March 26, 2022, Hawaii became the last state in the United States to lift its indoor mask mandate. By the time the current school year started, there were essentially no public school mask mandates either.

Whether you viewed the mask as an emblem of stalwart defiance against a rampaging virus, or a scarlet letter emblematic of the overreaches of public policy, you probably aren’t seeing them much anymore.

And yet, the debate about masks still rages. Who was right, who was wrong? Who trusted science, and what does the science even say? If we brought our country into marriage counseling, would we be told it is time to move on?  To look forward, not backward? To plan for our bright future together?

Perhaps. But this question isn’t really moot just because masks have largely disappeared in the United States. Variants may emerge that lead to more infection waves – and other pandemics may occur in the future. And so I think it is important to discuss a study that, with quite rigorous analysis, attempts to answer the following question: Did masking in schools lower students’ and teachers’ risk of COVID?

We are talking about this study, appearing in the New England Journal of Medicine. The short version goes like this.

Researchers had access to two important sources of data. One – an accounting of all the teachers and students (more than 300,000 of them) in 79 public, noncharter school districts in Eastern Massachusetts who tested positive for COVID every week. Two – the date that each of those school districts lifted their mask mandates or (in the case of two districts) didn’t.

Right away, I’m sure you’re thinking of potential issues. Districts that kept masks even when the statewide ban was lifted are likely quite a bit different from districts that dropped masks right away. You’re right, of course – hold on to that thought; we’ll get there.

But first – the big question – would districts that kept their masks on longer do better when it comes to the rate of COVID infection?

When everyone was masking, COVID case rates were pretty similar. Statewide mandates are lifted in late February – and most school districts remove their mandates within a few weeks – the black line are the two districts (Boston and Chelsea) where mask mandates remained in place.

As time marched on, the case rates in the various districts spread out – with districts that kept masks on longer doing better than those that took them off, and districts that kept masks on the whole time doing best of all.

Prior to the mask mandate lifting, you see very similar COVID rates in districts that would eventually remove the mandate and those that would not, with a bit of noise around the initial Omicron wave which saw just a huge amount of people get infected.

And then, after the mandate was lifted, separation. Districts that held on to masks longer had lower rates of COVID infection.

In all, over the 15-weeks of the study, there were roughly 12,000 extra cases of COVID in the mask-free school districts, which corresponds to about 35% of the total COVID burden during that time. And, yes, kids do well with COVID – on average. But 12,000 extra cases is enough to translate into a significant number of important clinical outcomes – think hospitalizations and post-COVID syndromes. And of course, maybe most importantly, missed school days. Positive kids were not allowed in class no matter what district they were in.

Okay – I promised we’d address confounders. This was not a cluster-randomized trial, where some school districts had their mandates removed based on the vicissitudes of a virtual coin flip, as much as many of us would have been interested to see that. The decision to remove masks was up to the various school boards – and they had a lot of pressure on them from many different directions. But all we need to worry about is whether any of those things that pressure a school board to keep masks on would ALSO lead to fewer COVID cases. That’s how confounders work, and how you can get false results in a study like this.

And yes – districts that kept the masks on longer were different than those who took them right off. But check out how they were different.

The districts that kept masks on longer had more low-income students. More Black and Latino students. More students per classroom. These are all risk factors that increase the risk of COVID infection. In other words, the confounding here goes in the opposite direction of the results. If anything, these factors should make you more certain that masking works.

The authors also adjusted for other factors – the community transmission of COVID-19, vaccination rates, school district sizes, and so on. No major change in the results.

One concern I addressed to Dr. Ellie Murray, the biostatistician on the study – could districts that removed masks simply have been testing more to compensate, leading to increased capturing of cases?

If anything, the schools that kept masks on were testing more than the schools that took them off – again that would tend to imply that the results are even stronger than what was reported.

Is this a perfect study? Of course not – it’s one study, it’s from one state. And the relatively large effects from keeping masks on for one or 2 weeks require us to really embrace the concept of exponential growth of infections, but, if COVID has taught us anything, it is that small changes in initial conditions can have pretty big effects.

My daughter, who goes to a public school here in Connecticut, unmasked, was home with COVID this past week. She’s fine. But you know what? She missed a week of school. I worked from home to be with her – though I didn’t test positive. And that is a real cost to both of us that I think we need to consider when we consider the value of masks. Yes, they’re annoying – but if they keep kids in school, might they be worth it? Perhaps not for now, as cases aren’t surging. But in the future, be it a particularly concerning variant, or a whole new pandemic, we should not discount the simple, cheap, and apparently beneficial act of wearing masks to decrease transmission.

Dr. Perry Wilson is an associate professor of medicine and director of the Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. He disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Welcome to Impact Factor, your weekly dose of commentary on a new medical study. I’m Dr. F. Perry Wilson of the Yale School of Medicine.

On March 26, 2022, Hawaii became the last state in the United States to lift its indoor mask mandate. By the time the current school year started, there were essentially no public school mask mandates either.

Whether you viewed the mask as an emblem of stalwart defiance against a rampaging virus, or a scarlet letter emblematic of the overreaches of public policy, you probably aren’t seeing them much anymore.

And yet, the debate about masks still rages. Who was right, who was wrong? Who trusted science, and what does the science even say? If we brought our country into marriage counseling, would we be told it is time to move on?  To look forward, not backward? To plan for our bright future together?

Perhaps. But this question isn’t really moot just because masks have largely disappeared in the United States. Variants may emerge that lead to more infection waves – and other pandemics may occur in the future. And so I think it is important to discuss a study that, with quite rigorous analysis, attempts to answer the following question: Did masking in schools lower students’ and teachers’ risk of COVID?

We are talking about this study, appearing in the New England Journal of Medicine. The short version goes like this.

Researchers had access to two important sources of data. One – an accounting of all the teachers and students (more than 300,000 of them) in 79 public, noncharter school districts in Eastern Massachusetts who tested positive for COVID every week. Two – the date that each of those school districts lifted their mask mandates or (in the case of two districts) didn’t.

Right away, I’m sure you’re thinking of potential issues. Districts that kept masks even when the statewide ban was lifted are likely quite a bit different from districts that dropped masks right away. You’re right, of course – hold on to that thought; we’ll get there.

But first – the big question – would districts that kept their masks on longer do better when it comes to the rate of COVID infection?

When everyone was masking, COVID case rates were pretty similar. Statewide mandates are lifted in late February – and most school districts remove their mandates within a few weeks – the black line are the two districts (Boston and Chelsea) where mask mandates remained in place.

As time marched on, the case rates in the various districts spread out – with districts that kept masks on longer doing better than those that took them off, and districts that kept masks on the whole time doing best of all.

Prior to the mask mandate lifting, you see very similar COVID rates in districts that would eventually remove the mandate and those that would not, with a bit of noise around the initial Omicron wave which saw just a huge amount of people get infected.

And then, after the mandate was lifted, separation. Districts that held on to masks longer had lower rates of COVID infection.

In all, over the 15-weeks of the study, there were roughly 12,000 extra cases of COVID in the mask-free school districts, which corresponds to about 35% of the total COVID burden during that time. And, yes, kids do well with COVID – on average. But 12,000 extra cases is enough to translate into a significant number of important clinical outcomes – think hospitalizations and post-COVID syndromes. And of course, maybe most importantly, missed school days. Positive kids were not allowed in class no matter what district they were in.

Okay – I promised we’d address confounders. This was not a cluster-randomized trial, where some school districts had their mandates removed based on the vicissitudes of a virtual coin flip, as much as many of us would have been interested to see that. The decision to remove masks was up to the various school boards – and they had a lot of pressure on them from many different directions. But all we need to worry about is whether any of those things that pressure a school board to keep masks on would ALSO lead to fewer COVID cases. That’s how confounders work, and how you can get false results in a study like this.

And yes – districts that kept the masks on longer were different than those who took them right off. But check out how they were different.

The districts that kept masks on longer had more low-income students. More Black and Latino students. More students per classroom. These are all risk factors that increase the risk of COVID infection. In other words, the confounding here goes in the opposite direction of the results. If anything, these factors should make you more certain that masking works.

The authors also adjusted for other factors – the community transmission of COVID-19, vaccination rates, school district sizes, and so on. No major change in the results.

One concern I addressed to Dr. Ellie Murray, the biostatistician on the study – could districts that removed masks simply have been testing more to compensate, leading to increased capturing of cases?

If anything, the schools that kept masks on were testing more than the schools that took them off – again that would tend to imply that the results are even stronger than what was reported.

Is this a perfect study? Of course not – it’s one study, it’s from one state. And the relatively large effects from keeping masks on for one or 2 weeks require us to really embrace the concept of exponential growth of infections, but, if COVID has taught us anything, it is that small changes in initial conditions can have pretty big effects.

My daughter, who goes to a public school here in Connecticut, unmasked, was home with COVID this past week. She’s fine. But you know what? She missed a week of school. I worked from home to be with her – though I didn’t test positive. And that is a real cost to both of us that I think we need to consider when we consider the value of masks. Yes, they’re annoying – but if they keep kids in school, might they be worth it? Perhaps not for now, as cases aren’t surging. But in the future, be it a particularly concerning variant, or a whole new pandemic, we should not discount the simple, cheap, and apparently beneficial act of wearing masks to decrease transmission.

Dr. Perry Wilson is an associate professor of medicine and director of the Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. He disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Welcome to Impact Factor, your weekly dose of commentary on a new medical study. I’m Dr. F. Perry Wilson of the Yale School of Medicine.

On March 26, 2022, Hawaii became the last state in the United States to lift its indoor mask mandate. By the time the current school year started, there were essentially no public school mask mandates either.

Whether you viewed the mask as an emblem of stalwart defiance against a rampaging virus, or a scarlet letter emblematic of the overreaches of public policy, you probably aren’t seeing them much anymore.

And yet, the debate about masks still rages. Who was right, who was wrong? Who trusted science, and what does the science even say? If we brought our country into marriage counseling, would we be told it is time to move on?  To look forward, not backward? To plan for our bright future together?

Perhaps. But this question isn’t really moot just because masks have largely disappeared in the United States. Variants may emerge that lead to more infection waves – and other pandemics may occur in the future. And so I think it is important to discuss a study that, with quite rigorous analysis, attempts to answer the following question: Did masking in schools lower students’ and teachers’ risk of COVID?

We are talking about this study, appearing in the New England Journal of Medicine. The short version goes like this.

Researchers had access to two important sources of data. One – an accounting of all the teachers and students (more than 300,000 of them) in 79 public, noncharter school districts in Eastern Massachusetts who tested positive for COVID every week. Two – the date that each of those school districts lifted their mask mandates or (in the case of two districts) didn’t.

Right away, I’m sure you’re thinking of potential issues. Districts that kept masks even when the statewide ban was lifted are likely quite a bit different from districts that dropped masks right away. You’re right, of course – hold on to that thought; we’ll get there.

But first – the big question – would districts that kept their masks on longer do better when it comes to the rate of COVID infection?

When everyone was masking, COVID case rates were pretty similar. Statewide mandates are lifted in late February – and most school districts remove their mandates within a few weeks – the black line are the two districts (Boston and Chelsea) where mask mandates remained in place.

As time marched on, the case rates in the various districts spread out – with districts that kept masks on longer doing better than those that took them off, and districts that kept masks on the whole time doing best of all.

Prior to the mask mandate lifting, you see very similar COVID rates in districts that would eventually remove the mandate and those that would not, with a bit of noise around the initial Omicron wave which saw just a huge amount of people get infected.

And then, after the mandate was lifted, separation. Districts that held on to masks longer had lower rates of COVID infection.

In all, over the 15-weeks of the study, there were roughly 12,000 extra cases of COVID in the mask-free school districts, which corresponds to about 35% of the total COVID burden during that time. And, yes, kids do well with COVID – on average. But 12,000 extra cases is enough to translate into a significant number of important clinical outcomes – think hospitalizations and post-COVID syndromes. And of course, maybe most importantly, missed school days. Positive kids were not allowed in class no matter what district they were in.

Okay – I promised we’d address confounders. This was not a cluster-randomized trial, where some school districts had their mandates removed based on the vicissitudes of a virtual coin flip, as much as many of us would have been interested to see that. The decision to remove masks was up to the various school boards – and they had a lot of pressure on them from many different directions. But all we need to worry about is whether any of those things that pressure a school board to keep masks on would ALSO lead to fewer COVID cases. That’s how confounders work, and how you can get false results in a study like this.

And yes – districts that kept the masks on longer were different than those who took them right off. But check out how they were different.

The districts that kept masks on longer had more low-income students. More Black and Latino students. More students per classroom. These are all risk factors that increase the risk of COVID infection. In other words, the confounding here goes in the opposite direction of the results. If anything, these factors should make you more certain that masking works.

The authors also adjusted for other factors – the community transmission of COVID-19, vaccination rates, school district sizes, and so on. No major change in the results.

One concern I addressed to Dr. Ellie Murray, the biostatistician on the study – could districts that removed masks simply have been testing more to compensate, leading to increased capturing of cases?

If anything, the schools that kept masks on were testing more than the schools that took them off – again that would tend to imply that the results are even stronger than what was reported.

Is this a perfect study? Of course not – it’s one study, it’s from one state. And the relatively large effects from keeping masks on for one or 2 weeks require us to really embrace the concept of exponential growth of infections, but, if COVID has taught us anything, it is that small changes in initial conditions can have pretty big effects.

My daughter, who goes to a public school here in Connecticut, unmasked, was home with COVID this past week. She’s fine. But you know what? She missed a week of school. I worked from home to be with her – though I didn’t test positive. And that is a real cost to both of us that I think we need to consider when we consider the value of masks. Yes, they’re annoying – but if they keep kids in school, might they be worth it? Perhaps not for now, as cases aren’t surging. But in the future, be it a particularly concerning variant, or a whole new pandemic, we should not discount the simple, cheap, and apparently beneficial act of wearing masks to decrease transmission.

Dr. Perry Wilson is an associate professor of medicine and director of the Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. He disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

An epidemiological analysis using genetic data shows that having babies protects women from endometrial cancer.

Compared with having no children, the risk reduction for endometrial cancer was 21% with having one child, 38% with having two, and 51% with having three, Gunn-Helen Moen, MSc, PhD, a research fellow at the University of Queensland Institute for Molecular Bioscience in St. Lucia, Australia, and the senior author of the study, said in an email.

In the United States, the prevalence of endometrial cancer is 25.7 per 100,000 women per year, with a lifetime risk of 2.8%.

Multiple observational studies have linked giving birth to risk of endometrial cancer. For the new study, Dr. Moen and her team assessed various risk factors related to ovulation and reproductive function using Mendelian randomization, an epidemiological technique that deploys genetic variants to detect cause-and-effect relationships between potentially modifiable risk factors and health outcomes in observational data.

The researcher published their findings in BMC Medicine.
 

Leverage genetic data

The study used detailed genetic and health data from the UK Biobank, a databank with more than half a million participants. Genetic variants related to some of the risk factors were used to assess whether the variants make people more likely to develop endometrial cancer.

Genomewide significant single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) related to number of live births, age at menopause and menarche, and body mass index (BMI) had been identified in previous studies, the researchers reported. They conducted genomewide association analyses of the databank to identify SNPs associated with years ovulating, years using the contraceptive pill, and age at last live birth.

The MR analysis showed a potential causal effect for the number of live births (inverse variance–weighted odds ratio, 0.537) and number of years ovulating (IVW OR, 1.051), in addition to known risk factors of BMI, age at menarche, and age at menopause.

A further multivariable MR analysis showed that number of births had a negative causal effect on endometrial cancer risk (OR, 0.783), independent of the causal effect of known risk factors such as BMI, age at menarche and age at menopause.

Reported limitations included being unable to perform MR analyses on some factors, such as oral contraceptive use, because of a lack of valid genetic instruments. The researchers could not perform an age adjustment at diagnosis because of a lack of data.

In addition, the genetic data came exclusively from White women of European ancestry.
 

‘A personal choice’

Other investigators have hypothesized that the protective effect of childbirth may be caused by shedding of malignant and premalignant endometrial cells during and after childbirth and exposure to high levels of progesterone in late stages of pregnancy, the research team noted.

Dr. Moen said, based on the results, physicians might consider number of childbirths in assessing a patient’s risk of endometrial cancer.

However, Britton Trabert, MSPH, MS, PhD, an epidemiologist and assistant professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, said it’s unlikely the findings will affect clinical practice given that they “largely replicate well-characterized endometrial cancer risk associations.”

“Pregnancy and childbirth are a personal choice and is not largely regarded as a modifiable factor for cancer prevention,” said Dr. Trabert, who was not involved in the study.

The study’s investigators reported funding from the governments of Australia, Norway and the United Kingdom and the British Heart Foundation. No financial conflicts of interest were reported. Dr. Trabert reported no relevant financial interests.

An epidemiological analysis using genetic data shows that having babies protects women from endometrial cancer.

Compared with having no children, the risk reduction for endometrial cancer was 21% with having one child, 38% with having two, and 51% with having three, Gunn-Helen Moen, MSc, PhD, a research fellow at the University of Queensland Institute for Molecular Bioscience in St. Lucia, Australia, and the senior author of the study, said in an email.

In the United States, the prevalence of endometrial cancer is 25.7 per 100,000 women per year, with a lifetime risk of 2.8%.

Multiple observational studies have linked giving birth to risk of endometrial cancer. For the new study, Dr. Moen and her team assessed various risk factors related to ovulation and reproductive function using Mendelian randomization, an epidemiological technique that deploys genetic variants to detect cause-and-effect relationships between potentially modifiable risk factors and health outcomes in observational data.

The researcher published their findings in BMC Medicine.
 

Leverage genetic data

The study used detailed genetic and health data from the UK Biobank, a databank with more than half a million participants. Genetic variants related to some of the risk factors were used to assess whether the variants make people more likely to develop endometrial cancer.

Genomewide significant single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) related to number of live births, age at menopause and menarche, and body mass index (BMI) had been identified in previous studies, the researchers reported. They conducted genomewide association analyses of the databank to identify SNPs associated with years ovulating, years using the contraceptive pill, and age at last live birth.

The MR analysis showed a potential causal effect for the number of live births (inverse variance–weighted odds ratio, 0.537) and number of years ovulating (IVW OR, 1.051), in addition to known risk factors of BMI, age at menarche, and age at menopause.

A further multivariable MR analysis showed that number of births had a negative causal effect on endometrial cancer risk (OR, 0.783), independent of the causal effect of known risk factors such as BMI, age at menarche and age at menopause.

Reported limitations included being unable to perform MR analyses on some factors, such as oral contraceptive use, because of a lack of valid genetic instruments. The researchers could not perform an age adjustment at diagnosis because of a lack of data.

In addition, the genetic data came exclusively from White women of European ancestry.
 

‘A personal choice’

Other investigators have hypothesized that the protective effect of childbirth may be caused by shedding of malignant and premalignant endometrial cells during and after childbirth and exposure to high levels of progesterone in late stages of pregnancy, the research team noted.

Dr. Moen said, based on the results, physicians might consider number of childbirths in assessing a patient’s risk of endometrial cancer.

However, Britton Trabert, MSPH, MS, PhD, an epidemiologist and assistant professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, said it’s unlikely the findings will affect clinical practice given that they “largely replicate well-characterized endometrial cancer risk associations.”

“Pregnancy and childbirth are a personal choice and is not largely regarded as a modifiable factor for cancer prevention,” said Dr. Trabert, who was not involved in the study.

The study’s investigators reported funding from the governments of Australia, Norway and the United Kingdom and the British Heart Foundation. No financial conflicts of interest were reported. Dr. Trabert reported no relevant financial interests.

An epidemiological analysis using genetic data shows that having babies protects women from endometrial cancer.

Compared with having no children, the risk reduction for endometrial cancer was 21% with having one child, 38% with having two, and 51% with having three, Gunn-Helen Moen, MSc, PhD, a research fellow at the University of Queensland Institute for Molecular Bioscience in St. Lucia, Australia, and the senior author of the study, said in an email.

In the United States, the prevalence of endometrial cancer is 25.7 per 100,000 women per year, with a lifetime risk of 2.8%.

Multiple observational studies have linked giving birth to risk of endometrial cancer. For the new study, Dr. Moen and her team assessed various risk factors related to ovulation and reproductive function using Mendelian randomization, an epidemiological technique that deploys genetic variants to detect cause-and-effect relationships between potentially modifiable risk factors and health outcomes in observational data.

The researcher published their findings in BMC Medicine.
 

Leverage genetic data

The study used detailed genetic and health data from the UK Biobank, a databank with more than half a million participants. Genetic variants related to some of the risk factors were used to assess whether the variants make people more likely to develop endometrial cancer.

Genomewide significant single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) related to number of live births, age at menopause and menarche, and body mass index (BMI) had been identified in previous studies, the researchers reported. They conducted genomewide association analyses of the databank to identify SNPs associated with years ovulating, years using the contraceptive pill, and age at last live birth.

The MR analysis showed a potential causal effect for the number of live births (inverse variance–weighted odds ratio, 0.537) and number of years ovulating (IVW OR, 1.051), in addition to known risk factors of BMI, age at menarche, and age at menopause.

A further multivariable MR analysis showed that number of births had a negative causal effect on endometrial cancer risk (OR, 0.783), independent of the causal effect of known risk factors such as BMI, age at menarche and age at menopause.

Reported limitations included being unable to perform MR analyses on some factors, such as oral contraceptive use, because of a lack of valid genetic instruments. The researchers could not perform an age adjustment at diagnosis because of a lack of data.

In addition, the genetic data came exclusively from White women of European ancestry.
 

‘A personal choice’

Other investigators have hypothesized that the protective effect of childbirth may be caused by shedding of malignant and premalignant endometrial cells during and after childbirth and exposure to high levels of progesterone in late stages of pregnancy, the research team noted.

Dr. Moen said, based on the results, physicians might consider number of childbirths in assessing a patient’s risk of endometrial cancer.

However, Britton Trabert, MSPH, MS, PhD, an epidemiologist and assistant professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, said it’s unlikely the findings will affect clinical practice given that they “largely replicate well-characterized endometrial cancer risk associations.”

“Pregnancy and childbirth are a personal choice and is not largely regarded as a modifiable factor for cancer prevention,” said Dr. Trabert, who was not involved in the study.

The study’s investigators reported funding from the governments of Australia, Norway and the United Kingdom and the British Heart Foundation. No financial conflicts of interest were reported. Dr. Trabert reported no relevant financial interests.

Understanding of the key mechanisms underlying the progression of type 2 diabetes has been advanced by new research from Oxford (England) University suggesting potential ways to “slow the seemingly inexorable decline in beta-cell function in T2D”.

The study in mice elucidated a “key cause” of T2D by showing that high blood glucose reprograms the metabolism of pancreatic beta-cells, helping to explain the progressive decline in their function in diabetes.

Scientists already knew that chronic hyperglycemia leads to a progressive decline in beta-cell function and, conversely, that the failure of pancreatic beta-cells to produce insulin results in chronically elevated blood glucose. However, the exact cause of beta-cell failure in T2D has remained unclear. T2D typically presents in later adult life, and by the time of diagnosis as much as 50% of beta-cell function has been lost.

In the United Kingdom there are nearly 5 million people diagnosed with T2D, which costs the National Health Service some £10 billion annually.
 

Glucose metabolites, rather than glucose itself, drives failure of cells to release insulin

The new study, published in Nature Communications, used both an animal model of diabetes and in vitro culture of beta-cells in a high glucose medium. In both cases the researchers showed, for the first time, that it is glucose metabolites, rather than glucose itself, that drives the failure of beta-cells to release insulin and is key to the progression of type 2 diabetes. 

Senior researcher Frances Ashcroft, PhD, of the department of physiology, anatomy and genetics at the University of Oxford said: “This suggests a potential way in which the decline in beta-cell function in T2D might be slowed or prevented.”

Blood glucose concentration is controlled within narrow limits, the team explained. When it is too low for more than few minutes, consciousness is rapidly lost because the brain is starved of fuel. However chronic elevation of blood glucose leads to the serious complications found in poorly controlled diabetes, such as retinopathy, nephropathy, peripheral neuropathy, and cardiac disease. Insulin, released from pancreatic beta-cells when blood glucose levels rise, is the only hormone that can lower the blood glucose concentration, and insufficient secretion results in diabetes. In T2D, the beta-cells are still present (unlike in T1D), but they have a reduced insulin content and the coupling between glucose and insulin release is impaired. 
 

Vicious spiral of hyperglycemia and beta-cell damage

Previous work by the same team had shown that chronic hyperglycemia damages the ability of the beta-cell to produce insulin and to release it when blood glucose levels rise. This suggested that “prolonged hyperglycemia sets off a vicious spiral in which an increase in blood glucose leads to beta-cell damage and less insulin secretion - which causes an even greater increase in blood glucose and a further decline in beta-cell function,” the team explained. 

Lead researcher Elizabeth Haythorne, PhD, said: “We realized that we next needed to understand how glucose damages beta-cell function, so we can think about how we might stop it and so slow the seemingly inexorable decline in beta-cell function in T2D.”

In the new study, they showed that altered glycolysis in T2D occurs, in part, through marked up-regulation of mammalian target of rapamycin complex 1 (mTORC1), a protein complex involved in control of cell growth, dysregulation of which underlies a variety of human diseases, including diabetes. Up-regulation of mTORC1 led to changes in metabolic gene expression, oxidative phosphorylation and insulin secretion. Furthermore, they demonstrated that reducing the rate at which glucose is metabolized and at which its metabolites build up could prevent the effects of chronic hyperglycemia and the ensuing beta-cell failure. 

“High blood glucose levels cause an increased rate of glucose metabolism in the beta-cell, which leads to a metabolic bottleneck and the pooling of upstream metabolites,” the team said. “These metabolites switch off the insulin gene, so less insulin is made, as well as switching off numerous genes involved in metabolism and stimulus-secretion coupling. Consequently, the beta-cells become glucose blind and no longer respond to changes in blood glucose with insulin secretion.”
 

Blocking metabolic enzyme could maintain insulin secretion

The team attempted to block the first step in glucose metabolism, and therefore prevent the gene changes from taking place, by blocking the enzyme glucokinase, which regulates the process. They found that this could maintain glucose-stimulated insulin secretion even in the presence of chronic hyperglycemia.

“Our results support the idea that progressive impairment of beta-cell metabolism, induced by increasing hyperglycemia, speeds T2D development, and suggest that reducing glycolysis at the level of glucokinase may slow this progression,” they said.

Dr. Ashcroft said: “This is potentially a useful way to try to prevent beta-cell decline in diabetes. Because glucose metabolism normally stimulates insulin secretion, it was previously hypothesized that increasing glucose metabolism would enhance insulin secretion in T2D and glucokinase activators were trialled, with varying results. 

“Our data suggests that glucokinase activators could have an adverse effect and, somewhat counter-intuitively, that a glucokinase inhibitor might be a better strategy to treat T2D. Of course, it would be important to reduce glucose flux in T2D to that found in people without diabetes – and no further. But there is a very long way to go before we can tell if this approach would be useful for treating beta-cell decline in T2D. 

“In the meantime, the key message from our study if you have type 2 diabetes is that it is important to keep your blood glucose well controlled.”

This study was funded by the UK Medical Research Council, the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council, the John Fell Fund, and the Nuffield Benefaction for Medicine/Wellcome Institutional Strategic Support Fund. The authors declared no competing interests.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape UK.

Understanding of the key mechanisms underlying the progression of type 2 diabetes has been advanced by new research from Oxford (England) University suggesting potential ways to “slow the seemingly inexorable decline in beta-cell function in T2D”.

The study in mice elucidated a “key cause” of T2D by showing that high blood glucose reprograms the metabolism of pancreatic beta-cells, helping to explain the progressive decline in their function in diabetes.

Scientists already knew that chronic hyperglycemia leads to a progressive decline in beta-cell function and, conversely, that the failure of pancreatic beta-cells to produce insulin results in chronically elevated blood glucose. However, the exact cause of beta-cell failure in T2D has remained unclear. T2D typically presents in later adult life, and by the time of diagnosis as much as 50% of beta-cell function has been lost.

In the United Kingdom there are nearly 5 million people diagnosed with T2D, which costs the National Health Service some £10 billion annually.
 

Glucose metabolites, rather than glucose itself, drives failure of cells to release insulin

The new study, published in Nature Communications, used both an animal model of diabetes and in vitro culture of beta-cells in a high glucose medium. In both cases the researchers showed, for the first time, that it is glucose metabolites, rather than glucose itself, that drives the failure of beta-cells to release insulin and is key to the progression of type 2 diabetes. 

Senior researcher Frances Ashcroft, PhD, of the department of physiology, anatomy and genetics at the University of Oxford said: “This suggests a potential way in which the decline in beta-cell function in T2D might be slowed or prevented.”

Blood glucose concentration is controlled within narrow limits, the team explained. When it is too low for more than few minutes, consciousness is rapidly lost because the brain is starved of fuel. However chronic elevation of blood glucose leads to the serious complications found in poorly controlled diabetes, such as retinopathy, nephropathy, peripheral neuropathy, and cardiac disease. Insulin, released from pancreatic beta-cells when blood glucose levels rise, is the only hormone that can lower the blood glucose concentration, and insufficient secretion results in diabetes. In T2D, the beta-cells are still present (unlike in T1D), but they have a reduced insulin content and the coupling between glucose and insulin release is impaired. 
 

Vicious spiral of hyperglycemia and beta-cell damage

Previous work by the same team had shown that chronic hyperglycemia damages the ability of the beta-cell to produce insulin and to release it when blood glucose levels rise. This suggested that “prolonged hyperglycemia sets off a vicious spiral in which an increase in blood glucose leads to beta-cell damage and less insulin secretion - which causes an even greater increase in blood glucose and a further decline in beta-cell function,” the team explained. 

Lead researcher Elizabeth Haythorne, PhD, said: “We realized that we next needed to understand how glucose damages beta-cell function, so we can think about how we might stop it and so slow the seemingly inexorable decline in beta-cell function in T2D.”

In the new study, they showed that altered glycolysis in T2D occurs, in part, through marked up-regulation of mammalian target of rapamycin complex 1 (mTORC1), a protein complex involved in control of cell growth, dysregulation of which underlies a variety of human diseases, including diabetes. Up-regulation of mTORC1 led to changes in metabolic gene expression, oxidative phosphorylation and insulin secretion. Furthermore, they demonstrated that reducing the rate at which glucose is metabolized and at which its metabolites build up could prevent the effects of chronic hyperglycemia and the ensuing beta-cell failure. 

“High blood glucose levels cause an increased rate of glucose metabolism in the beta-cell, which leads to a metabolic bottleneck and the pooling of upstream metabolites,” the team said. “These metabolites switch off the insulin gene, so less insulin is made, as well as switching off numerous genes involved in metabolism and stimulus-secretion coupling. Consequently, the beta-cells become glucose blind and no longer respond to changes in blood glucose with insulin secretion.”
 

Blocking metabolic enzyme could maintain insulin secretion

The team attempted to block the first step in glucose metabolism, and therefore prevent the gene changes from taking place, by blocking the enzyme glucokinase, which regulates the process. They found that this could maintain glucose-stimulated insulin secretion even in the presence of chronic hyperglycemia.

“Our results support the idea that progressive impairment of beta-cell metabolism, induced by increasing hyperglycemia, speeds T2D development, and suggest that reducing glycolysis at the level of glucokinase may slow this progression,” they said.

Dr. Ashcroft said: “This is potentially a useful way to try to prevent beta-cell decline in diabetes. Because glucose metabolism normally stimulates insulin secretion, it was previously hypothesized that increasing glucose metabolism would enhance insulin secretion in T2D and glucokinase activators were trialled, with varying results. 

“Our data suggests that glucokinase activators could have an adverse effect and, somewhat counter-intuitively, that a glucokinase inhibitor might be a better strategy to treat T2D. Of course, it would be important to reduce glucose flux in T2D to that found in people without diabetes – and no further. But there is a very long way to go before we can tell if this approach would be useful for treating beta-cell decline in T2D. 

“In the meantime, the key message from our study if you have type 2 diabetes is that it is important to keep your blood glucose well controlled.”

This study was funded by the UK Medical Research Council, the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council, the John Fell Fund, and the Nuffield Benefaction for Medicine/Wellcome Institutional Strategic Support Fund. The authors declared no competing interests.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape UK.

Understanding of the key mechanisms underlying the progression of type 2 diabetes has been advanced by new research from Oxford (England) University suggesting potential ways to “slow the seemingly inexorable decline in beta-cell function in T2D”.

The study in mice elucidated a “key cause” of T2D by showing that high blood glucose reprograms the metabolism of pancreatic beta-cells, helping to explain the progressive decline in their function in diabetes.

Scientists already knew that chronic hyperglycemia leads to a progressive decline in beta-cell function and, conversely, that the failure of pancreatic beta-cells to produce insulin results in chronically elevated blood glucose. However, the exact cause of beta-cell failure in T2D has remained unclear. T2D typically presents in later adult life, and by the time of diagnosis as much as 50% of beta-cell function has been lost.

In the United Kingdom there are nearly 5 million people diagnosed with T2D, which costs the National Health Service some £10 billion annually.
 

Glucose metabolites, rather than glucose itself, drives failure of cells to release insulin

The new study, published in Nature Communications, used both an animal model of diabetes and in vitro culture of beta-cells in a high glucose medium. In both cases the researchers showed, for the first time, that it is glucose metabolites, rather than glucose itself, that drives the failure of beta-cells to release insulin and is key to the progression of type 2 diabetes. 

Senior researcher Frances Ashcroft, PhD, of the department of physiology, anatomy and genetics at the University of Oxford said: “This suggests a potential way in which the decline in beta-cell function in T2D might be slowed or prevented.”

Blood glucose concentration is controlled within narrow limits, the team explained. When it is too low for more than few minutes, consciousness is rapidly lost because the brain is starved of fuel. However chronic elevation of blood glucose leads to the serious complications found in poorly controlled diabetes, such as retinopathy, nephropathy, peripheral neuropathy, and cardiac disease. Insulin, released from pancreatic beta-cells when blood glucose levels rise, is the only hormone that can lower the blood glucose concentration, and insufficient secretion results in diabetes. In T2D, the beta-cells are still present (unlike in T1D), but they have a reduced insulin content and the coupling between glucose and insulin release is impaired. 
 

Vicious spiral of hyperglycemia and beta-cell damage

Previous work by the same team had shown that chronic hyperglycemia damages the ability of the beta-cell to produce insulin and to release it when blood glucose levels rise. This suggested that “prolonged hyperglycemia sets off a vicious spiral in which an increase in blood glucose leads to beta-cell damage and less insulin secretion - which causes an even greater increase in blood glucose and a further decline in beta-cell function,” the team explained. 

Lead researcher Elizabeth Haythorne, PhD, said: “We realized that we next needed to understand how glucose damages beta-cell function, so we can think about how we might stop it and so slow the seemingly inexorable decline in beta-cell function in T2D.”

In the new study, they showed that altered glycolysis in T2D occurs, in part, through marked up-regulation of mammalian target of rapamycin complex 1 (mTORC1), a protein complex involved in control of cell growth, dysregulation of which underlies a variety of human diseases, including diabetes. Up-regulation of mTORC1 led to changes in metabolic gene expression, oxidative phosphorylation and insulin secretion. Furthermore, they demonstrated that reducing the rate at which glucose is metabolized and at which its metabolites build up could prevent the effects of chronic hyperglycemia and the ensuing beta-cell failure. 

“High blood glucose levels cause an increased rate of glucose metabolism in the beta-cell, which leads to a metabolic bottleneck and the pooling of upstream metabolites,” the team said. “These metabolites switch off the insulin gene, so less insulin is made, as well as switching off numerous genes involved in metabolism and stimulus-secretion coupling. Consequently, the beta-cells become glucose blind and no longer respond to changes in blood glucose with insulin secretion.”
 

Blocking metabolic enzyme could maintain insulin secretion

The team attempted to block the first step in glucose metabolism, and therefore prevent the gene changes from taking place, by blocking the enzyme glucokinase, which regulates the process. They found that this could maintain glucose-stimulated insulin secretion even in the presence of chronic hyperglycemia.

“Our results support the idea that progressive impairment of beta-cell metabolism, induced by increasing hyperglycemia, speeds T2D development, and suggest that reducing glycolysis at the level of glucokinase may slow this progression,” they said.

Dr. Ashcroft said: “This is potentially a useful way to try to prevent beta-cell decline in diabetes. Because glucose metabolism normally stimulates insulin secretion, it was previously hypothesized that increasing glucose metabolism would enhance insulin secretion in T2D and glucokinase activators were trialled, with varying results. 

“Our data suggests that glucokinase activators could have an adverse effect and, somewhat counter-intuitively, that a glucokinase inhibitor might be a better strategy to treat T2D. Of course, it would be important to reduce glucose flux in T2D to that found in people without diabetes – and no further. But there is a very long way to go before we can tell if this approach would be useful for treating beta-cell decline in T2D. 

“In the meantime, the key message from our study if you have type 2 diabetes is that it is important to keep your blood glucose well controlled.”

This study was funded by the UK Medical Research Council, the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council, the John Fell Fund, and the Nuffield Benefaction for Medicine/Wellcome Institutional Strategic Support Fund. The authors declared no competing interests.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape UK.

LOUISVILLE, KY. – A majority of infants who presented to the emergency department with anaphylaxis appropriately received epinephrine, with symptoms typically resolving after a single treatment dose, research findings indicate.

Given that early administration of epinephrine can be potentially lifesaving for infants with anaphylaxis, the study highlighted the real-world successes in increased uptake of treatment in this vulnerable patient population.

Most infants in the study who presented to the ED and received epinephrine were able to be discharged home after just a few hours, with only 1 out of 10 requiring hospitalization.

The study also reported that most symptoms were in the skin/mucosal, gastrointestinal, respiratory, and cardiovascular (CV) systems, providing improved characterization of anaphylaxis symptoms in the infant population.

Nearly “all episodes were triggered by food – especially egg, peanut, milk, and cashew,” commented Colleen Shannon, MD, a pediatrician at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, who presented the research findings at the annual meeting of the American College of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology.

Dr. Shannon noted that despite previous research demonstrating age-based differences in the presentation of anaphylaxis, the symptomatology of anaphylaxis in infants has not been robustly characterized. Better characterization of anaphylaxis in infants with allergies may help ensure earlier and more accurate diagnosis and management, she said.

For the study, the researchers performed a retrospective chart review of 169 patients between 0 and 24 months of age (mean age, 1.0 years) who presented to the emergency department of a pediatric tertiary referral center between 2019 and 2022.

All patients in the study met diagnostic criteria for anaphylaxis. The investigators used the medical records of patients to evaluate for demographics, as well as presenting symptoms and treatment.

More than half (56.2%) of infants in the study were 12 months of age or younger, and 64.5% were male.

Nearly all (96.5%) anaphylaxis episodes presenting to the ED were triggered by food. The most common foods triggering these episodes were egg (26.6%), peanut (25.4%), milk (13.6%), and cashew (10.1%).

Most symptoms involved the skin/mucosal (97.6%) and GI (74.6%) systems, followed by respiratory (56.8%) and CV (34.3%) systems. Isolated tachycardia was recorded in 84.5% of patients with CV-related symptoms.

Epinephrine was administered to 86.4% of infants who presented to the ED with anaphylaxis. Nearly a third (30.1%) of these infants received epinephrine before arriving to the ED, and 9.5% required more than 1 dose.

The researchers also found that 10.1% of patients required hospital admission, but none had symptoms severe enough to require intensive care.

Jennifer Hoffmann, MD, an emergency medicine physician at the Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago, told this news organization that while characterizing anaphylaxis symptoms is relevant for clinicians, it also remains vitally important “to teach parents of infants how to recognize the signs of anaphylaxis, particularly as they begin to introduce new foods,” to ensure timely treatment.

She added that since most infants in the study improved after a single dose of epinephrine, most infants presenting to the ED with anaphylaxis can therefore be safely discharged home after only a brief period of observation. “That is, age alone should not be a reason for admission,” explained Dr. Hoffmann, who wasn’t involved in the research study.

The study was independently supported. Dr. Shannon and Dr. Hoffmann report no relevant financial relationships.

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

LOUISVILLE, KY. – A majority of infants who presented to the emergency department with anaphylaxis appropriately received epinephrine, with symptoms typically resolving after a single treatment dose, research findings indicate.

Given that early administration of epinephrine can be potentially lifesaving for infants with anaphylaxis, the study highlighted the real-world successes in increased uptake of treatment in this vulnerable patient population.

Most infants in the study who presented to the ED and received epinephrine were able to be discharged home after just a few hours, with only 1 out of 10 requiring hospitalization.

The study also reported that most symptoms were in the skin/mucosal, gastrointestinal, respiratory, and cardiovascular (CV) systems, providing improved characterization of anaphylaxis symptoms in the infant population.

Nearly “all episodes were triggered by food – especially egg, peanut, milk, and cashew,” commented Colleen Shannon, MD, a pediatrician at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, who presented the research findings at the annual meeting of the American College of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology.

Dr. Shannon noted that despite previous research demonstrating age-based differences in the presentation of anaphylaxis, the symptomatology of anaphylaxis in infants has not been robustly characterized. Better characterization of anaphylaxis in infants with allergies may help ensure earlier and more accurate diagnosis and management, she said.

For the study, the researchers performed a retrospective chart review of 169 patients between 0 and 24 months of age (mean age, 1.0 years) who presented to the emergency department of a pediatric tertiary referral center between 2019 and 2022.

All patients in the study met diagnostic criteria for anaphylaxis. The investigators used the medical records of patients to evaluate for demographics, as well as presenting symptoms and treatment.

More than half (56.2%) of infants in the study were 12 months of age or younger, and 64.5% were male.

Nearly all (96.5%) anaphylaxis episodes presenting to the ED were triggered by food. The most common foods triggering these episodes were egg (26.6%), peanut (25.4%), milk (13.6%), and cashew (10.1%).

Most symptoms involved the skin/mucosal (97.6%) and GI (74.6%) systems, followed by respiratory (56.8%) and CV (34.3%) systems. Isolated tachycardia was recorded in 84.5% of patients with CV-related symptoms.

Epinephrine was administered to 86.4% of infants who presented to the ED with anaphylaxis. Nearly a third (30.1%) of these infants received epinephrine before arriving to the ED, and 9.5% required more than 1 dose.

The researchers also found that 10.1% of patients required hospital admission, but none had symptoms severe enough to require intensive care.

Jennifer Hoffmann, MD, an emergency medicine physician at the Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago, told this news organization that while characterizing anaphylaxis symptoms is relevant for clinicians, it also remains vitally important “to teach parents of infants how to recognize the signs of anaphylaxis, particularly as they begin to introduce new foods,” to ensure timely treatment.

She added that since most infants in the study improved after a single dose of epinephrine, most infants presenting to the ED with anaphylaxis can therefore be safely discharged home after only a brief period of observation. “That is, age alone should not be a reason for admission,” explained Dr. Hoffmann, who wasn’t involved in the research study.

The study was independently supported. Dr. Shannon and Dr. Hoffmann report no relevant financial relationships.

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

LOUISVILLE, KY. – A majority of infants who presented to the emergency department with anaphylaxis appropriately received epinephrine, with symptoms typically resolving after a single treatment dose, research findings indicate.

Given that early administration of epinephrine can be potentially lifesaving for infants with anaphylaxis, the study highlighted the real-world successes in increased uptake of treatment in this vulnerable patient population.

Most infants in the study who presented to the ED and received epinephrine were able to be discharged home after just a few hours, with only 1 out of 10 requiring hospitalization.

The study also reported that most symptoms were in the skin/mucosal, gastrointestinal, respiratory, and cardiovascular (CV) systems, providing improved characterization of anaphylaxis symptoms in the infant population.

Nearly “all episodes were triggered by food – especially egg, peanut, milk, and cashew,” commented Colleen Shannon, MD, a pediatrician at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, who presented the research findings at the annual meeting of the American College of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology.

Dr. Shannon noted that despite previous research demonstrating age-based differences in the presentation of anaphylaxis, the symptomatology of anaphylaxis in infants has not been robustly characterized. Better characterization of anaphylaxis in infants with allergies may help ensure earlier and more accurate diagnosis and management, she said.

For the study, the researchers performed a retrospective chart review of 169 patients between 0 and 24 months of age (mean age, 1.0 years) who presented to the emergency department of a pediatric tertiary referral center between 2019 and 2022.

All patients in the study met diagnostic criteria for anaphylaxis. The investigators used the medical records of patients to evaluate for demographics, as well as presenting symptoms and treatment.

More than half (56.2%) of infants in the study were 12 months of age or younger, and 64.5% were male.

Nearly all (96.5%) anaphylaxis episodes presenting to the ED were triggered by food. The most common foods triggering these episodes were egg (26.6%), peanut (25.4%), milk (13.6%), and cashew (10.1%).

Most symptoms involved the skin/mucosal (97.6%) and GI (74.6%) systems, followed by respiratory (56.8%) and CV (34.3%) systems. Isolated tachycardia was recorded in 84.5% of patients with CV-related symptoms.

Epinephrine was administered to 86.4% of infants who presented to the ED with anaphylaxis. Nearly a third (30.1%) of these infants received epinephrine before arriving to the ED, and 9.5% required more than 1 dose.

The researchers also found that 10.1% of patients required hospital admission, but none had symptoms severe enough to require intensive care.

Jennifer Hoffmann, MD, an emergency medicine physician at the Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago, told this news organization that while characterizing anaphylaxis symptoms is relevant for clinicians, it also remains vitally important “to teach parents of infants how to recognize the signs of anaphylaxis, particularly as they begin to introduce new foods,” to ensure timely treatment.

She added that since most infants in the study improved after a single dose of epinephrine, most infants presenting to the ED with anaphylaxis can therefore be safely discharged home after only a brief period of observation. “That is, age alone should not be a reason for admission,” explained Dr. Hoffmann, who wasn’t involved in the research study.

The study was independently supported. Dr. Shannon and Dr. Hoffmann report no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new study sheds light on the escalating youth suicide crisis, revealing that emergency room visits for suicidal thoughts among kids and teens steeply increased even before the  start of the  COVID-19 pandemic.

Emergency room visits for “suicidal ideation” (or suicidal thoughts) among 5- to 19-year-olds increased 59% from 2016 to 2021, and hospitalizations rose 57% from fall 2019 to the fall of 2020, according to the study published in Pediatrics.

“A lot of people have talked about mental health problems in youth during the pandemic, but it was happening before the pandemic,” said author Audrey Brewer, MD, MPH, in a news release from the Ann and Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago. “This has been an issue for so long, and it’s getting worse.”

Researchers looked at data for 81,105 emergency room visits across 205 Illinois hospitals from 2016 to 2021 for kids between the ages of 5 and 19. 

The researchers found “there was a very sharp spike in fall 2019, followed by a similar spike during the pandemic fall of 2020, with the highest number of monthly visits during October 2020,” the authors said. “Youth aged 14-17 years had the highest frequency of [suicidal ideation emergency room] monthly visits, with visits in this group greater than the other age groups combined.”

Last year, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announced that suicide is the second leading cause of death among 10- to 19-year-olds. 

The new research is being called a benchmark because it evaluates emergency room data for suicidal thoughts – a critical point of care for serving youths’ mental health needs. The data showed that providers were increasingly likely to list suicidal thoughts as the main diagnosis.

“Suicidal ideation can be thought about as two types: actively thinking about suicide or having thoughts, but not having a plan,” Dr. Brewer said in the news release. “That could be the difference in why someone might get admitted to the hospital.”

The researchers hypothesize that care in 2019 (when the initial spike occurred) was delayed in the early days of the pandemic, and that delay possibly contributed to the increase in providers identifying suicidal ideation as the main diagnosis. 

“The early pandemic period coincided with constrained access to pediatric mental health services through schools, pediatric primary care homes, and mental health clinics for many children and their families,” the authors wrote. “The proportion of child mental health visits increased relative to other types as patients avoided ED visits during the early wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. Thus, the increase in hospitalizations during fall 2020 may reflect patients’ deferring care until symptoms became even more severe.”

Other health care scholars agreed the study spurred questions about whether the pandemic was truly the source of the crisis.

“Was it the pandemic that exacerbated the increase or is this a growing trend?” wrote Lisa M. Horowitz, PhD, MPH, and Jeffrey A. Bridge, PhD, in a commentary published along with the study. “These rising rates underscore the worsening mental health crisis for youth, as noted by the 2022 Surgeon General report and several youth mental health organizations.”

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

A new study sheds light on the escalating youth suicide crisis, revealing that emergency room visits for suicidal thoughts among kids and teens steeply increased even before the  start of the  COVID-19 pandemic.

Emergency room visits for “suicidal ideation” (or suicidal thoughts) among 5- to 19-year-olds increased 59% from 2016 to 2021, and hospitalizations rose 57% from fall 2019 to the fall of 2020, according to the study published in Pediatrics.

“A lot of people have talked about mental health problems in youth during the pandemic, but it was happening before the pandemic,” said author Audrey Brewer, MD, MPH, in a news release from the Ann and Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago. “This has been an issue for so long, and it’s getting worse.”

Researchers looked at data for 81,105 emergency room visits across 205 Illinois hospitals from 2016 to 2021 for kids between the ages of 5 and 19. 

The researchers found “there was a very sharp spike in fall 2019, followed by a similar spike during the pandemic fall of 2020, with the highest number of monthly visits during October 2020,” the authors said. “Youth aged 14-17 years had the highest frequency of [suicidal ideation emergency room] monthly visits, with visits in this group greater than the other age groups combined.”

Last year, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announced that suicide is the second leading cause of death among 10- to 19-year-olds. 

The new research is being called a benchmark because it evaluates emergency room data for suicidal thoughts – a critical point of care for serving youths’ mental health needs. The data showed that providers were increasingly likely to list suicidal thoughts as the main diagnosis.

“Suicidal ideation can be thought about as two types: actively thinking about suicide or having thoughts, but not having a plan,” Dr. Brewer said in the news release. “That could be the difference in why someone might get admitted to the hospital.”

The researchers hypothesize that care in 2019 (when the initial spike occurred) was delayed in the early days of the pandemic, and that delay possibly contributed to the increase in providers identifying suicidal ideation as the main diagnosis. 

“The early pandemic period coincided with constrained access to pediatric mental health services through schools, pediatric primary care homes, and mental health clinics for many children and their families,” the authors wrote. “The proportion of child mental health visits increased relative to other types as patients avoided ED visits during the early wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. Thus, the increase in hospitalizations during fall 2020 may reflect patients’ deferring care until symptoms became even more severe.”

Other health care scholars agreed the study spurred questions about whether the pandemic was truly the source of the crisis.

“Was it the pandemic that exacerbated the increase or is this a growing trend?” wrote Lisa M. Horowitz, PhD, MPH, and Jeffrey A. Bridge, PhD, in a commentary published along with the study. “These rising rates underscore the worsening mental health crisis for youth, as noted by the 2022 Surgeon General report and several youth mental health organizations.”

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

A new study sheds light on the escalating youth suicide crisis, revealing that emergency room visits for suicidal thoughts among kids and teens steeply increased even before the  start of the  COVID-19 pandemic.

Emergency room visits for “suicidal ideation” (or suicidal thoughts) among 5- to 19-year-olds increased 59% from 2016 to 2021, and hospitalizations rose 57% from fall 2019 to the fall of 2020, according to the study published in Pediatrics.

“A lot of people have talked about mental health problems in youth during the pandemic, but it was happening before the pandemic,” said author Audrey Brewer, MD, MPH, in a news release from the Ann and Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago. “This has been an issue for so long, and it’s getting worse.”

Researchers looked at data for 81,105 emergency room visits across 205 Illinois hospitals from 2016 to 2021 for kids between the ages of 5 and 19. 

The researchers found “there was a very sharp spike in fall 2019, followed by a similar spike during the pandemic fall of 2020, with the highest number of monthly visits during October 2020,” the authors said. “Youth aged 14-17 years had the highest frequency of [suicidal ideation emergency room] monthly visits, with visits in this group greater than the other age groups combined.”

Last year, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announced that suicide is the second leading cause of death among 10- to 19-year-olds. 

The new research is being called a benchmark because it evaluates emergency room data for suicidal thoughts – a critical point of care for serving youths’ mental health needs. The data showed that providers were increasingly likely to list suicidal thoughts as the main diagnosis.

“Suicidal ideation can be thought about as two types: actively thinking about suicide or having thoughts, but not having a plan,” Dr. Brewer said in the news release. “That could be the difference in why someone might get admitted to the hospital.”

The researchers hypothesize that care in 2019 (when the initial spike occurred) was delayed in the early days of the pandemic, and that delay possibly contributed to the increase in providers identifying suicidal ideation as the main diagnosis. 

“The early pandemic period coincided with constrained access to pediatric mental health services through schools, pediatric primary care homes, and mental health clinics for many children and their families,” the authors wrote. “The proportion of child mental health visits increased relative to other types as patients avoided ED visits during the early wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. Thus, the increase in hospitalizations during fall 2020 may reflect patients’ deferring care until symptoms became even more severe.”

Other health care scholars agreed the study spurred questions about whether the pandemic was truly the source of the crisis.

“Was it the pandemic that exacerbated the increase or is this a growing trend?” wrote Lisa M. Horowitz, PhD, MPH, and Jeffrey A. Bridge, PhD, in a commentary published along with the study. “These rising rates underscore the worsening mental health crisis for youth, as noted by the 2022 Surgeon General report and several youth mental health organizations.”

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