Pediatrics

Reports of long waiting times at mental health clinics and anecdotal observations by health care providers suggest the pandemic has generated a dramatic increase in the incidence of eating disorders among the pediatric population. Of course this should come as no surprise to pediatricians.

Eating disorders come in many different forms and a triggering event is sometimes difficult to define. Often the adolescent or preadolescent is searching for some sense of stability in a life tossed on a stormy sea roiled by hormonal and physical change. Wresting control of their bodies during a period of uncertainty may result in a downward spiral into dangerously unhealthy weight loss. If nothing else, the pandemic has been a period of dramatic uncertainty unlike what most children and few adults in this country have ever experienced.

With the unprecedented increase in eating disorder cases, providers in several disciplines are searching for novel strategies to ease the burden on their patients and their practices. I recently learned of a pediatric practice in California that is considering blinding all patients aged 12 and older to the body mass measurements obtained at their health maintenance visits.

Blind weight checks for children with eating disorders, particularly those who seem to be nearing recovery, has been a common and often helpful practice. However, I am unaware of any practice that has made it a universal office policy. I’m unsure of the rationale behind this practice’s policy, but on several fronts, suppressing body mass measurements in the age group most vulnerable to eating disorders makes some sense.

Universal blind weight checks could minimize the risk of in-office shaming. However, careful training of support staff and thoughtful placement of the scales could serve the same purpose. This new policy acknowledges not only the ubiquity of the problem but also that many, maybe even most, children with eating disorders appear normal. And of course, there is the unfortunate fact that body mass is a poor screening test for eating disorders.

As I thought more about this novel approach I came to see its educational value for patients, parents, and even physicians. I can envision how a 13-year-old’s first health maintenance visit would go after the roll-out of the new policy. “Dr. Smith, aren’t you going to tell us how much I (or my daughter Jenny) weigh(s)?” This could, or more likely, should launch a discussion about weight and body image. It might continue with questions like, “How much do you think you weigh?” Or, “Do you think you are too heavy or too thin?”

Or, the conversation could include the provider’s observations that weight is just one measure of health and in fact not a very good one. Other ingredients in a healthy life style, such as sleep and physical activity, are not as easy to measure as weight but in many cases are more important.

As my mind struggled to restructure a health maintenance schedule that included blind weight checks, I wondered why we should wait until age 12. Of course, it is unreasonable to expect parents to stick with a pediatric practice that seems to ignore their infant’s weight. I’m sure that, like me, you have always discouraged new parents from having a baby scale at home because in the first few months too-frequent weighings can usually cause more angst than good.

It might make sense to remove a within-earshot discussion of a child’s weight from the health maintenance visit as soon as the child can absorb and digest the discussion; say, around age 3 years. In a perfect world, the provider should have already elicited a history that suggested a young child’s vulnerability to obesity before the scale and the growth chart told the unfortunate story. But, neither you nor I are perfect providers and so we will always need the scale to document our concerns. However, when and how we report that one vital sign to the patient and his or her parents is a topic ripe for discussion and improvement.

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].

Reports of long waiting times at mental health clinics and anecdotal observations by health care providers suggest the pandemic has generated a dramatic increase in the incidence of eating disorders among the pediatric population. Of course this should come as no surprise to pediatricians.

Eating disorders come in many different forms and a triggering event is sometimes difficult to define. Often the adolescent or preadolescent is searching for some sense of stability in a life tossed on a stormy sea roiled by hormonal and physical change. Wresting control of their bodies during a period of uncertainty may result in a downward spiral into dangerously unhealthy weight loss. If nothing else, the pandemic has been a period of dramatic uncertainty unlike what most children and few adults in this country have ever experienced.

With the unprecedented increase in eating disorder cases, providers in several disciplines are searching for novel strategies to ease the burden on their patients and their practices. I recently learned of a pediatric practice in California that is considering blinding all patients aged 12 and older to the body mass measurements obtained at their health maintenance visits.

Blind weight checks for children with eating disorders, particularly those who seem to be nearing recovery, has been a common and often helpful practice. However, I am unaware of any practice that has made it a universal office policy. I’m unsure of the rationale behind this practice’s policy, but on several fronts, suppressing body mass measurements in the age group most vulnerable to eating disorders makes some sense.

Universal blind weight checks could minimize the risk of in-office shaming. However, careful training of support staff and thoughtful placement of the scales could serve the same purpose. This new policy acknowledges not only the ubiquity of the problem but also that many, maybe even most, children with eating disorders appear normal. And of course, there is the unfortunate fact that body mass is a poor screening test for eating disorders.

As I thought more about this novel approach I came to see its educational value for patients, parents, and even physicians. I can envision how a 13-year-old’s first health maintenance visit would go after the roll-out of the new policy. “Dr. Smith, aren’t you going to tell us how much I (or my daughter Jenny) weigh(s)?” This could, or more likely, should launch a discussion about weight and body image. It might continue with questions like, “How much do you think you weigh?” Or, “Do you think you are too heavy or too thin?”

Or, the conversation could include the provider’s observations that weight is just one measure of health and in fact not a very good one. Other ingredients in a healthy life style, such as sleep and physical activity, are not as easy to measure as weight but in many cases are more important.

As my mind struggled to restructure a health maintenance schedule that included blind weight checks, I wondered why we should wait until age 12. Of course, it is unreasonable to expect parents to stick with a pediatric practice that seems to ignore their infant’s weight. I’m sure that, like me, you have always discouraged new parents from having a baby scale at home because in the first few months too-frequent weighings can usually cause more angst than good.

It might make sense to remove a within-earshot discussion of a child’s weight from the health maintenance visit as soon as the child can absorb and digest the discussion; say, around age 3 years. In a perfect world, the provider should have already elicited a history that suggested a young child’s vulnerability to obesity before the scale and the growth chart told the unfortunate story. But, neither you nor I are perfect providers and so we will always need the scale to document our concerns. However, when and how we report that one vital sign to the patient and his or her parents is a topic ripe for discussion and improvement.

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].

Reports of long waiting times at mental health clinics and anecdotal observations by health care providers suggest the pandemic has generated a dramatic increase in the incidence of eating disorders among the pediatric population. Of course this should come as no surprise to pediatricians.

Eating disorders come in many different forms and a triggering event is sometimes difficult to define. Often the adolescent or preadolescent is searching for some sense of stability in a life tossed on a stormy sea roiled by hormonal and physical change. Wresting control of their bodies during a period of uncertainty may result in a downward spiral into dangerously unhealthy weight loss. If nothing else, the pandemic has been a period of dramatic uncertainty unlike what most children and few adults in this country have ever experienced.

With the unprecedented increase in eating disorder cases, providers in several disciplines are searching for novel strategies to ease the burden on their patients and their practices. I recently learned of a pediatric practice in California that is considering blinding all patients aged 12 and older to the body mass measurements obtained at their health maintenance visits.

Blind weight checks for children with eating disorders, particularly those who seem to be nearing recovery, has been a common and often helpful practice. However, I am unaware of any practice that has made it a universal office policy. I’m unsure of the rationale behind this practice’s policy, but on several fronts, suppressing body mass measurements in the age group most vulnerable to eating disorders makes some sense.

Universal blind weight checks could minimize the risk of in-office shaming. However, careful training of support staff and thoughtful placement of the scales could serve the same purpose. This new policy acknowledges not only the ubiquity of the problem but also that many, maybe even most, children with eating disorders appear normal. And of course, there is the unfortunate fact that body mass is a poor screening test for eating disorders.

As I thought more about this novel approach I came to see its educational value for patients, parents, and even physicians. I can envision how a 13-year-old’s first health maintenance visit would go after the roll-out of the new policy. “Dr. Smith, aren’t you going to tell us how much I (or my daughter Jenny) weigh(s)?” This could, or more likely, should launch a discussion about weight and body image. It might continue with questions like, “How much do you think you weigh?” Or, “Do you think you are too heavy or too thin?”

Or, the conversation could include the provider’s observations that weight is just one measure of health and in fact not a very good one. Other ingredients in a healthy life style, such as sleep and physical activity, are not as easy to measure as weight but in many cases are more important.

As my mind struggled to restructure a health maintenance schedule that included blind weight checks, I wondered why we should wait until age 12. Of course, it is unreasonable to expect parents to stick with a pediatric practice that seems to ignore their infant’s weight. I’m sure that, like me, you have always discouraged new parents from having a baby scale at home because in the first few months too-frequent weighings can usually cause more angst than good.

It might make sense to remove a within-earshot discussion of a child’s weight from the health maintenance visit as soon as the child can absorb and digest the discussion; say, around age 3 years. In a perfect world, the provider should have already elicited a history that suggested a young child’s vulnerability to obesity before the scale and the growth chart told the unfortunate story. But, neither you nor I are perfect providers and so we will always need the scale to document our concerns. However, when and how we report that one vital sign to the patient and his or her parents is a topic ripe for discussion and improvement.

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].

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force on Apr. 12 posted draft recommendations on screening for depression and anxiety in children and adolescents.

For the first time, the USPSTF is recommending screening children ages 8 and older for anxiety.

It also recommended screening children ages 12 and older for depression, which was consistent with the USPSTF’s prior recommendations on the topic.

These B-grade draft recommendations are for children and teens who are not showing signs or symptoms of these conditions. The task force emphasized that anyone who has concerns about or shows signs of these conditions should be connected to care.

Task force member Martha Kubik, PhD, RN, a professor with George Mason University, Fairfax, Va, said in a statement: “Fortunately, we found that screening older children for anxiety and depression is effective in identifying these conditions so children and teens can be connected to the support they need.”

The group cited in its recommendation on anxiety the 2018-2019 National Survey of Children’s Health, which found that 7.8% of children and adolescents ages 3-17 years had a current anxiety disorder. It also noted that the National Survey on LGBTQ Youth Mental Health found that 72% of LGBTQ youth and 77% of transgender and nonbinary youth described general anxiety disorder symptoms.

“Anxiety disorders in childhood and adolescence are associated with an increased likelihood of a future anxiety disorder or depression,” the task force authors wrote.

They highlighted that “the prevalence of anxiety in Black youth may be evolving.” Previously, studies had suggested that young Black people may have had lower rates of mental health disorders, compared with their White counterparts.

“However, recent cohorts of Black children or adolescents have reported a higher prevalence of anxiety disorders than in the past,” the authors wrote.

Joanna Quigley, MD, clinical associate professor and associate medical director for child & adolescent services at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said in an interview she was not surprised the USPSTF recommended screening for anxiety starting at age 8.

That’s when parents and providers see anxiety disorders begin to present or become more problematic, she said.

“It’s also acknowledging the importance of prevention,” she said. “The sooner we can identify these challenges for kids, the sooner we can intervene and have better outcomes for that child across their lifespan.”

Screening gets providers and families in the habit of thinking about these concerns when a child or adolescent comes in for another kind of visit, Dr. Quigley said. Chest pains in a well-child check, for example, may trigger thoughts to consider anxiety later if the child is brought in for a cardiac check for chest pains.

“It creates a culture of awareness that is important as well,” Dr. Quigley said. “I think part of what the task force is trying to do is saying that identifying anxiety can be a precursor to what could turn out to be related to depression or related to ADHD and factors we think about when we think about suicide risk as well.

“We’re seeing an increase in suicide in the younger age group as well, which is a huge concern, “ she noted.

Dr. Quigley said, if these recommendations are adopted after the comment period, pediatricians and family practice providers will likely be doing most of the screening for anxiety, but there may also be a role for the screening in pediatric subspecialty care, such as those treating children with chronic illness and in specialized mental health care.

She added: “This builds on the national conversation going on about the mental health crisis, declared a national emergency in the fall. This deserves attention in continuing the momentum.”
 

Factors that may signal higher risk for depression

While the USPSTF recommends screening for major depressive disorder in all adolescents aged 12 years and older, the USPSTF notes that several risk factors might help identify those at higher risk.

Markers for higher risk include a combination of factors such as a family history of depression, prior episode of depression, and other mental health or behavioral problems.

“Other psychosocial risk factors include childhood abuse or neglect, exposure to traumatic events, bullying (either as perpetrators or as victims), adverse life events, early exposure to stress, maltreatment, and an insecure parental relationship,” the task force authors wrote.

There was limited evidence, however, on the benefits and harms of screening children younger than 8 for anxiety and screening kids younger than 12 for depression.
 

Not enough evidence for suicide risk screening

The authors of the recommendations acknowledged that, while suicide is a leading cause of death for older children and teens, evidence is still too sparse to make recommendations regarding screening for suicide risk in those without signs or symptoms at any age.

They also explained that evidence is lacking and inconsistent on the effectiveness of treatment (psychotherapy, pharmacotherapy, or collaborative care) for suicide risk in improving outcomes in children and adolescents.

Comments on the USPSTF recommendations may be submitted until May 9, 2022. The USPSTF topic leads review all comments, revise the draft recommendations, put them to a vote by the full task force, and then post the final versions to the website.

The task force authors and Dr. Quigley reported no financial disclosures.

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force on Apr. 12 posted draft recommendations on screening for depression and anxiety in children and adolescents.

For the first time, the USPSTF is recommending screening children ages 8 and older for anxiety.

It also recommended screening children ages 12 and older for depression, which was consistent with the USPSTF’s prior recommendations on the topic.

These B-grade draft recommendations are for children and teens who are not showing signs or symptoms of these conditions. The task force emphasized that anyone who has concerns about or shows signs of these conditions should be connected to care.

Task force member Martha Kubik, PhD, RN, a professor with George Mason University, Fairfax, Va, said in a statement: “Fortunately, we found that screening older children for anxiety and depression is effective in identifying these conditions so children and teens can be connected to the support they need.”

The group cited in its recommendation on anxiety the 2018-2019 National Survey of Children’s Health, which found that 7.8% of children and adolescents ages 3-17 years had a current anxiety disorder. It also noted that the National Survey on LGBTQ Youth Mental Health found that 72% of LGBTQ youth and 77% of transgender and nonbinary youth described general anxiety disorder symptoms.

“Anxiety disorders in childhood and adolescence are associated with an increased likelihood of a future anxiety disorder or depression,” the task force authors wrote.

They highlighted that “the prevalence of anxiety in Black youth may be evolving.” Previously, studies had suggested that young Black people may have had lower rates of mental health disorders, compared with their White counterparts.

“However, recent cohorts of Black children or adolescents have reported a higher prevalence of anxiety disorders than in the past,” the authors wrote.

Joanna Quigley, MD, clinical associate professor and associate medical director for child & adolescent services at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said in an interview she was not surprised the USPSTF recommended screening for anxiety starting at age 8.

That’s when parents and providers see anxiety disorders begin to present or become more problematic, she said.

“It’s also acknowledging the importance of prevention,” she said. “The sooner we can identify these challenges for kids, the sooner we can intervene and have better outcomes for that child across their lifespan.”

Screening gets providers and families in the habit of thinking about these concerns when a child or adolescent comes in for another kind of visit, Dr. Quigley said. Chest pains in a well-child check, for example, may trigger thoughts to consider anxiety later if the child is brought in for a cardiac check for chest pains.

“It creates a culture of awareness that is important as well,” Dr. Quigley said. “I think part of what the task force is trying to do is saying that identifying anxiety can be a precursor to what could turn out to be related to depression or related to ADHD and factors we think about when we think about suicide risk as well.

“We’re seeing an increase in suicide in the younger age group as well, which is a huge concern, “ she noted.

Dr. Quigley said, if these recommendations are adopted after the comment period, pediatricians and family practice providers will likely be doing most of the screening for anxiety, but there may also be a role for the screening in pediatric subspecialty care, such as those treating children with chronic illness and in specialized mental health care.

She added: “This builds on the national conversation going on about the mental health crisis, declared a national emergency in the fall. This deserves attention in continuing the momentum.”
 

Factors that may signal higher risk for depression

While the USPSTF recommends screening for major depressive disorder in all adolescents aged 12 years and older, the USPSTF notes that several risk factors might help identify those at higher risk.

Markers for higher risk include a combination of factors such as a family history of depression, prior episode of depression, and other mental health or behavioral problems.

“Other psychosocial risk factors include childhood abuse or neglect, exposure to traumatic events, bullying (either as perpetrators or as victims), adverse life events, early exposure to stress, maltreatment, and an insecure parental relationship,” the task force authors wrote.

There was limited evidence, however, on the benefits and harms of screening children younger than 8 for anxiety and screening kids younger than 12 for depression.
 

Not enough evidence for suicide risk screening

The authors of the recommendations acknowledged that, while suicide is a leading cause of death for older children and teens, evidence is still too sparse to make recommendations regarding screening for suicide risk in those without signs or symptoms at any age.

They also explained that evidence is lacking and inconsistent on the effectiveness of treatment (psychotherapy, pharmacotherapy, or collaborative care) for suicide risk in improving outcomes in children and adolescents.

Comments on the USPSTF recommendations may be submitted until May 9, 2022. The USPSTF topic leads review all comments, revise the draft recommendations, put them to a vote by the full task force, and then post the final versions to the website.

The task force authors and Dr. Quigley reported no financial disclosures.

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force on Apr. 12 posted draft recommendations on screening for depression and anxiety in children and adolescents.

For the first time, the USPSTF is recommending screening children ages 8 and older for anxiety.

It also recommended screening children ages 12 and older for depression, which was consistent with the USPSTF’s prior recommendations on the topic.

These B-grade draft recommendations are for children and teens who are not showing signs or symptoms of these conditions. The task force emphasized that anyone who has concerns about or shows signs of these conditions should be connected to care.

Task force member Martha Kubik, PhD, RN, a professor with George Mason University, Fairfax, Va, said in a statement: “Fortunately, we found that screening older children for anxiety and depression is effective in identifying these conditions so children and teens can be connected to the support they need.”

The group cited in its recommendation on anxiety the 2018-2019 National Survey of Children’s Health, which found that 7.8% of children and adolescents ages 3-17 years had a current anxiety disorder. It also noted that the National Survey on LGBTQ Youth Mental Health found that 72% of LGBTQ youth and 77% of transgender and nonbinary youth described general anxiety disorder symptoms.

“Anxiety disorders in childhood and adolescence are associated with an increased likelihood of a future anxiety disorder or depression,” the task force authors wrote.

They highlighted that “the prevalence of anxiety in Black youth may be evolving.” Previously, studies had suggested that young Black people may have had lower rates of mental health disorders, compared with their White counterparts.

“However, recent cohorts of Black children or adolescents have reported a higher prevalence of anxiety disorders than in the past,” the authors wrote.

Joanna Quigley, MD, clinical associate professor and associate medical director for child & adolescent services at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said in an interview she was not surprised the USPSTF recommended screening for anxiety starting at age 8.

That’s when parents and providers see anxiety disorders begin to present or become more problematic, she said.

“It’s also acknowledging the importance of prevention,” she said. “The sooner we can identify these challenges for kids, the sooner we can intervene and have better outcomes for that child across their lifespan.”

Screening gets providers and families in the habit of thinking about these concerns when a child or adolescent comes in for another kind of visit, Dr. Quigley said. Chest pains in a well-child check, for example, may trigger thoughts to consider anxiety later if the child is brought in for a cardiac check for chest pains.

“It creates a culture of awareness that is important as well,” Dr. Quigley said. “I think part of what the task force is trying to do is saying that identifying anxiety can be a precursor to what could turn out to be related to depression or related to ADHD and factors we think about when we think about suicide risk as well.

“We’re seeing an increase in suicide in the younger age group as well, which is a huge concern, “ she noted.

Dr. Quigley said, if these recommendations are adopted after the comment period, pediatricians and family practice providers will likely be doing most of the screening for anxiety, but there may also be a role for the screening in pediatric subspecialty care, such as those treating children with chronic illness and in specialized mental health care.

She added: “This builds on the national conversation going on about the mental health crisis, declared a national emergency in the fall. This deserves attention in continuing the momentum.”
 

Factors that may signal higher risk for depression

While the USPSTF recommends screening for major depressive disorder in all adolescents aged 12 years and older, the USPSTF notes that several risk factors might help identify those at higher risk.

Markers for higher risk include a combination of factors such as a family history of depression, prior episode of depression, and other mental health or behavioral problems.

“Other psychosocial risk factors include childhood abuse or neglect, exposure to traumatic events, bullying (either as perpetrators or as victims), adverse life events, early exposure to stress, maltreatment, and an insecure parental relationship,” the task force authors wrote.

There was limited evidence, however, on the benefits and harms of screening children younger than 8 for anxiety and screening kids younger than 12 for depression.
 

Not enough evidence for suicide risk screening

The authors of the recommendations acknowledged that, while suicide is a leading cause of death for older children and teens, evidence is still too sparse to make recommendations regarding screening for suicide risk in those without signs or symptoms at any age.

They also explained that evidence is lacking and inconsistent on the effectiveness of treatment (psychotherapy, pharmacotherapy, or collaborative care) for suicide risk in improving outcomes in children and adolescents.

Comments on the USPSTF recommendations may be submitted until May 9, 2022. The USPSTF topic leads review all comments, revise the draft recommendations, put them to a vote by the full task force, and then post the final versions to the website.

The task force authors and Dr. Quigley reported no financial disclosures.

Cardiovascular complications are uncommon for children and young adults after COVID-19 disease or SARS-CoV-2 infection, according to a new scientific statement from the American Heart Association.

However, the infection can cause some children and young people to experience arrhythmias, myocarditis, pericarditis, or multisystem inflammatory syndrome (MIS-C), a new condition identified during the pandemic, it notes.

The statement details what has been learned about how to treat, manage, and prevent cardiovascular complications associated with COVID-19 in children and young adults and calls for more research, including studies following the short- and long-term cardiovascular effects.

It also reports that COVID-19 vaccines have been found to prevent severe COVID-19 disease and decrease the risk of developing MIS-C by 91% among children ages 12-18 years.

On returning to sports, it says data suggest it is safe for young people with mild or asymptomatic COVID-19 to resume exercise after recovery from symptoms. For those with more serious infections, it recommends additional tests, including cardiac enzyme levels, electrocardiogram, and echocardiogram, before returning to sports or strenuous physical exercise.

The scientific statement was published online on in Circulation.

“Two years into the pandemic and with vast amounts of research conducted in children with COVID-19, this statement summarizes what we know so far related to COVID-19 in children,” said chair of the statement writing group Pei-Ni Jone, MD, from the Children’s Hospital Colorado, Aurora.

Analysis of the latest research indicates children generally have mild symptoms from SARS-CoV-2 infection. In the U.S., as of Feb. 24, 2022, children under 18 years of age have accounted for 17.6% of total COVID-19 cases and about 0.1% of deaths from the virus, the report states.  

In addition, young adults, ages 18-29 years, have accounted for 21.3% of cases and 0.8% of deaths from COVID-19.

Like adults, children with underlying medical conditions such as chronic lung disease or obesity and those who are immunocompromised are more likely to be hospitalized, to be admitted to an intensive care unit, and to die of COVID-19, the statement notes. There are conflicting reports on the risk of severe COVID-19 in children and young adults with congenital heart disease, with some reports suggesting a slightly increased risk of severe COVID-19.

In terms of cardiovascular complications of COVID-19 in children, arrhythmias have included ventricular tachycardia and atrial tachycardia, as well as first-degree atrioventricular block. Although arrhythmias generally self-resolve without the need for treatment, prophylactic antiarrhythmics have been administered in some cases, and death caused by recurrent ventricular tachycardia in an adolescent with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy has been described.

Elevations of troponin, electrocardiographic abnormalities, including ST-segment changes, and delayed gadolinium enhancement on cardiac magnetic resonance imaging have been seen in those with myocardial involvement. Although death is rare, both sudden cardiac death and death after intensive medical and supportive therapies have occurred in children with severe myocardial involvement.

In a large retrospective pediatric case series of SARS-CoV-2–associated deaths in individuals under 21 years of age, the median age at death was 17 years, 63% were male, 28% were Black, and 46% were Hispanic. Of those who died, 86% had a comorbid condition, with obesity (42%) and asthma (29%) being the most common.

But the report concludes that: “Although children with comorbidities are at increased risk for symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection, compared with healthy children, cardiovascular complications, severe illness, and death are uncommon.”
 

MIS-C: Rare but severe

The authors of the statement explain that children and some young adults may develop MIS-C, a relatively rare but severe inflammatory syndrome generally occurring 2-6 weeks after infection with SARS-CoV-2 that can affect the heart and multiple organ systems.

In the first year of the pandemic, more than 2,600 cases of MIS-C were reported to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, at an estimated rate of 1 case per 3,164 cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection in children, with MIS-C disproportionately affecting Hispanic and Black children.

As many as 50% of children with MIS-C have myocardial involvement, including decreased left ventricular function, coronary artery dilation or aneurysms, myocarditis, elevated troponin and BNP or NT-proBNP, or pericardial effusion. Acute-phase reactants, including C-reactive protein, D-dimer, ferritin, and fibrinogen, can be significantly elevated in MIS-C, neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio may be higher, and platelet counts lower than those with non–MIS-C febrile illnesses.

Fortunately, the outcome of MIS-C is generally very good, with resolution of inflammation and cardiovascular abnormalities within 1-4 weeks of diagnosis, the report says.

However, there have been reports of progression of coronary artery aneurysms after discharge, highlighting the potential for long-term complications. Death resulting from MIS-C is rare, with a mortality rate of 1.4%-1.9%.

Compared with children and young adults who died of acute SARS-CoV-2 infection, most of the fatalities from MIS-C were in previously healthy individuals without comorbidities.

The authors recommend structured follow-up of patients with MIS-C because of concern about progression of cardiac complications and an unclear long-term prognosis.

The statement notes that the first-line treatment for MIS-C is typically intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) and patients with poor ventricular function may need to have IVIG in divided doses to tolerate the fluid load.  

Supportive treatment for heart failure and vasoplegic shock often requires aggressive management in an ICU for administration of inotropes and vasoactive medications. Antiplatelet therapy with low-dose aspirin is considered in patients with coronary artery involvement, and anticoagulation is added, depending on the degree of coronary artery dilation.
 

COVID-19 vaccination

The statement notes that vaccines can prevent patients from getting COVID-19 and decrease the risk of MIS-C by 91% among children 12-18 years of age.

On vaccine-associated myocarditis, it concludes the benefits of getting the vaccines outweigh the risks.  

For example, for every 1 million doses of the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines in males ages 12-29 years (the highest risk group for vaccine-associated myocarditis), it is estimated that 11,000 COVID-19 cases, 560 hospitalizations, and six deaths would be prevented, whereas 39-47 cases of myocarditis would be expected.

But it adds that the CDC is continuing to follow myocarditis in children and young adults closely, particularly a possible connection to the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines.

The statement says that more research is needed to better understand the mechanisms and optimal treatment approaches for SARS-CoV-2 infection, vaccine-associated myocarditis, the long-term outcomes of both COVID-19 and MIS-C, and the impact of these various conditions on the heart in children and young adults. In addition, any new antiviral therapies need to be tested in clinical trials focused on children.

“Although much has been learned about how the virus impacts children’s and young adult’s hearts, how to best treat cardiovascular complications, and prevent severe illness, continued clinical research trials are needed to better understand the long-term cardiovascular impacts,” Dr. Jone said. “It is also important to address health disparities that have become more apparent during the pandemic. We must work to ensure all children receive equal access to vaccination and high-quality care.”

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

Cardiovascular complications are uncommon for children and young adults after COVID-19 disease or SARS-CoV-2 infection, according to a new scientific statement from the American Heart Association.

However, the infection can cause some children and young people to experience arrhythmias, myocarditis, pericarditis, or multisystem inflammatory syndrome (MIS-C), a new condition identified during the pandemic, it notes.

The statement details what has been learned about how to treat, manage, and prevent cardiovascular complications associated with COVID-19 in children and young adults and calls for more research, including studies following the short- and long-term cardiovascular effects.

It also reports that COVID-19 vaccines have been found to prevent severe COVID-19 disease and decrease the risk of developing MIS-C by 91% among children ages 12-18 years.

On returning to sports, it says data suggest it is safe for young people with mild or asymptomatic COVID-19 to resume exercise after recovery from symptoms. For those with more serious infections, it recommends additional tests, including cardiac enzyme levels, electrocardiogram, and echocardiogram, before returning to sports or strenuous physical exercise.

The scientific statement was published online on in Circulation.

“Two years into the pandemic and with vast amounts of research conducted in children with COVID-19, this statement summarizes what we know so far related to COVID-19 in children,” said chair of the statement writing group Pei-Ni Jone, MD, from the Children’s Hospital Colorado, Aurora.

Analysis of the latest research indicates children generally have mild symptoms from SARS-CoV-2 infection. In the U.S., as of Feb. 24, 2022, children under 18 years of age have accounted for 17.6% of total COVID-19 cases and about 0.1% of deaths from the virus, the report states.  

In addition, young adults, ages 18-29 years, have accounted for 21.3% of cases and 0.8% of deaths from COVID-19.

Like adults, children with underlying medical conditions such as chronic lung disease or obesity and those who are immunocompromised are more likely to be hospitalized, to be admitted to an intensive care unit, and to die of COVID-19, the statement notes. There are conflicting reports on the risk of severe COVID-19 in children and young adults with congenital heart disease, with some reports suggesting a slightly increased risk of severe COVID-19.

In terms of cardiovascular complications of COVID-19 in children, arrhythmias have included ventricular tachycardia and atrial tachycardia, as well as first-degree atrioventricular block. Although arrhythmias generally self-resolve without the need for treatment, prophylactic antiarrhythmics have been administered in some cases, and death caused by recurrent ventricular tachycardia in an adolescent with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy has been described.

Elevations of troponin, electrocardiographic abnormalities, including ST-segment changes, and delayed gadolinium enhancement on cardiac magnetic resonance imaging have been seen in those with myocardial involvement. Although death is rare, both sudden cardiac death and death after intensive medical and supportive therapies have occurred in children with severe myocardial involvement.

In a large retrospective pediatric case series of SARS-CoV-2–associated deaths in individuals under 21 years of age, the median age at death was 17 years, 63% were male, 28% were Black, and 46% were Hispanic. Of those who died, 86% had a comorbid condition, with obesity (42%) and asthma (29%) being the most common.

But the report concludes that: “Although children with comorbidities are at increased risk for symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection, compared with healthy children, cardiovascular complications, severe illness, and death are uncommon.”
 

MIS-C: Rare but severe

The authors of the statement explain that children and some young adults may develop MIS-C, a relatively rare but severe inflammatory syndrome generally occurring 2-6 weeks after infection with SARS-CoV-2 that can affect the heart and multiple organ systems.

In the first year of the pandemic, more than 2,600 cases of MIS-C were reported to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, at an estimated rate of 1 case per 3,164 cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection in children, with MIS-C disproportionately affecting Hispanic and Black children.

As many as 50% of children with MIS-C have myocardial involvement, including decreased left ventricular function, coronary artery dilation or aneurysms, myocarditis, elevated troponin and BNP or NT-proBNP, or pericardial effusion. Acute-phase reactants, including C-reactive protein, D-dimer, ferritin, and fibrinogen, can be significantly elevated in MIS-C, neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio may be higher, and platelet counts lower than those with non–MIS-C febrile illnesses.

Fortunately, the outcome of MIS-C is generally very good, with resolution of inflammation and cardiovascular abnormalities within 1-4 weeks of diagnosis, the report says.

However, there have been reports of progression of coronary artery aneurysms after discharge, highlighting the potential for long-term complications. Death resulting from MIS-C is rare, with a mortality rate of 1.4%-1.9%.

Compared with children and young adults who died of acute SARS-CoV-2 infection, most of the fatalities from MIS-C were in previously healthy individuals without comorbidities.

The authors recommend structured follow-up of patients with MIS-C because of concern about progression of cardiac complications and an unclear long-term prognosis.

The statement notes that the first-line treatment for MIS-C is typically intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) and patients with poor ventricular function may need to have IVIG in divided doses to tolerate the fluid load.  

Supportive treatment for heart failure and vasoplegic shock often requires aggressive management in an ICU for administration of inotropes and vasoactive medications. Antiplatelet therapy with low-dose aspirin is considered in patients with coronary artery involvement, and anticoagulation is added, depending on the degree of coronary artery dilation.
 

COVID-19 vaccination

The statement notes that vaccines can prevent patients from getting COVID-19 and decrease the risk of MIS-C by 91% among children 12-18 years of age.

On vaccine-associated myocarditis, it concludes the benefits of getting the vaccines outweigh the risks.  

For example, for every 1 million doses of the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines in males ages 12-29 years (the highest risk group for vaccine-associated myocarditis), it is estimated that 11,000 COVID-19 cases, 560 hospitalizations, and six deaths would be prevented, whereas 39-47 cases of myocarditis would be expected.

But it adds that the CDC is continuing to follow myocarditis in children and young adults closely, particularly a possible connection to the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines.

The statement says that more research is needed to better understand the mechanisms and optimal treatment approaches for SARS-CoV-2 infection, vaccine-associated myocarditis, the long-term outcomes of both COVID-19 and MIS-C, and the impact of these various conditions on the heart in children and young adults. In addition, any new antiviral therapies need to be tested in clinical trials focused on children.

“Although much has been learned about how the virus impacts children’s and young adult’s hearts, how to best treat cardiovascular complications, and prevent severe illness, continued clinical research trials are needed to better understand the long-term cardiovascular impacts,” Dr. Jone said. “It is also important to address health disparities that have become more apparent during the pandemic. We must work to ensure all children receive equal access to vaccination and high-quality care.”

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

Cardiovascular complications are uncommon for children and young adults after COVID-19 disease or SARS-CoV-2 infection, according to a new scientific statement from the American Heart Association.

However, the infection can cause some children and young people to experience arrhythmias, myocarditis, pericarditis, or multisystem inflammatory syndrome (MIS-C), a new condition identified during the pandemic, it notes.

The statement details what has been learned about how to treat, manage, and prevent cardiovascular complications associated with COVID-19 in children and young adults and calls for more research, including studies following the short- and long-term cardiovascular effects.

It also reports that COVID-19 vaccines have been found to prevent severe COVID-19 disease and decrease the risk of developing MIS-C by 91% among children ages 12-18 years.

On returning to sports, it says data suggest it is safe for young people with mild or asymptomatic COVID-19 to resume exercise after recovery from symptoms. For those with more serious infections, it recommends additional tests, including cardiac enzyme levels, electrocardiogram, and echocardiogram, before returning to sports or strenuous physical exercise.

The scientific statement was published online on in Circulation.

“Two years into the pandemic and with vast amounts of research conducted in children with COVID-19, this statement summarizes what we know so far related to COVID-19 in children,” said chair of the statement writing group Pei-Ni Jone, MD, from the Children’s Hospital Colorado, Aurora.

Analysis of the latest research indicates children generally have mild symptoms from SARS-CoV-2 infection. In the U.S., as of Feb. 24, 2022, children under 18 years of age have accounted for 17.6% of total COVID-19 cases and about 0.1% of deaths from the virus, the report states.  

In addition, young adults, ages 18-29 years, have accounted for 21.3% of cases and 0.8% of deaths from COVID-19.

Like adults, children with underlying medical conditions such as chronic lung disease or obesity and those who are immunocompromised are more likely to be hospitalized, to be admitted to an intensive care unit, and to die of COVID-19, the statement notes. There are conflicting reports on the risk of severe COVID-19 in children and young adults with congenital heart disease, with some reports suggesting a slightly increased risk of severe COVID-19.

In terms of cardiovascular complications of COVID-19 in children, arrhythmias have included ventricular tachycardia and atrial tachycardia, as well as first-degree atrioventricular block. Although arrhythmias generally self-resolve without the need for treatment, prophylactic antiarrhythmics have been administered in some cases, and death caused by recurrent ventricular tachycardia in an adolescent with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy has been described.

Elevations of troponin, electrocardiographic abnormalities, including ST-segment changes, and delayed gadolinium enhancement on cardiac magnetic resonance imaging have been seen in those with myocardial involvement. Although death is rare, both sudden cardiac death and death after intensive medical and supportive therapies have occurred in children with severe myocardial involvement.

In a large retrospective pediatric case series of SARS-CoV-2–associated deaths in individuals under 21 years of age, the median age at death was 17 years, 63% were male, 28% were Black, and 46% were Hispanic. Of those who died, 86% had a comorbid condition, with obesity (42%) and asthma (29%) being the most common.

But the report concludes that: “Although children with comorbidities are at increased risk for symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection, compared with healthy children, cardiovascular complications, severe illness, and death are uncommon.”
 

MIS-C: Rare but severe

The authors of the statement explain that children and some young adults may develop MIS-C, a relatively rare but severe inflammatory syndrome generally occurring 2-6 weeks after infection with SARS-CoV-2 that can affect the heart and multiple organ systems.

In the first year of the pandemic, more than 2,600 cases of MIS-C were reported to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, at an estimated rate of 1 case per 3,164 cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection in children, with MIS-C disproportionately affecting Hispanic and Black children.

As many as 50% of children with MIS-C have myocardial involvement, including decreased left ventricular function, coronary artery dilation or aneurysms, myocarditis, elevated troponin and BNP or NT-proBNP, or pericardial effusion. Acute-phase reactants, including C-reactive protein, D-dimer, ferritin, and fibrinogen, can be significantly elevated in MIS-C, neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio may be higher, and platelet counts lower than those with non–MIS-C febrile illnesses.

Fortunately, the outcome of MIS-C is generally very good, with resolution of inflammation and cardiovascular abnormalities within 1-4 weeks of diagnosis, the report says.

However, there have been reports of progression of coronary artery aneurysms after discharge, highlighting the potential for long-term complications. Death resulting from MIS-C is rare, with a mortality rate of 1.4%-1.9%.

Compared with children and young adults who died of acute SARS-CoV-2 infection, most of the fatalities from MIS-C were in previously healthy individuals without comorbidities.

The authors recommend structured follow-up of patients with MIS-C because of concern about progression of cardiac complications and an unclear long-term prognosis.

The statement notes that the first-line treatment for MIS-C is typically intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) and patients with poor ventricular function may need to have IVIG in divided doses to tolerate the fluid load.  

Supportive treatment for heart failure and vasoplegic shock often requires aggressive management in an ICU for administration of inotropes and vasoactive medications. Antiplatelet therapy with low-dose aspirin is considered in patients with coronary artery involvement, and anticoagulation is added, depending on the degree of coronary artery dilation.
 

COVID-19 vaccination

The statement notes that vaccines can prevent patients from getting COVID-19 and decrease the risk of MIS-C by 91% among children 12-18 years of age.

On vaccine-associated myocarditis, it concludes the benefits of getting the vaccines outweigh the risks.  

For example, for every 1 million doses of the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines in males ages 12-29 years (the highest risk group for vaccine-associated myocarditis), it is estimated that 11,000 COVID-19 cases, 560 hospitalizations, and six deaths would be prevented, whereas 39-47 cases of myocarditis would be expected.

But it adds that the CDC is continuing to follow myocarditis in children and young adults closely, particularly a possible connection to the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines.

The statement says that more research is needed to better understand the mechanisms and optimal treatment approaches for SARS-CoV-2 infection, vaccine-associated myocarditis, the long-term outcomes of both COVID-19 and MIS-C, and the impact of these various conditions on the heart in children and young adults. In addition, any new antiviral therapies need to be tested in clinical trials focused on children.

“Although much has been learned about how the virus impacts children’s and young adult’s hearts, how to best treat cardiovascular complications, and prevent severe illness, continued clinical research trials are needed to better understand the long-term cardiovascular impacts,” Dr. Jone said. “It is also important to address health disparities that have become more apparent during the pandemic. We must work to ensure all children receive equal access to vaccination and high-quality care.”

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

Jo Ward’s twin boys have been to the emergency department for respiratory problems about as many times as the dozen years they’ve been alive. Both have asthma and bronchopulmonary dysplasia, a form of chronic airway damage that can occur in children born premature, as the twins were. But each time Ms. Ward took them in for treatment during an acute bout of breathing distress, the staff told her to schedule a follow-up visit for the children with their physician only if they didn’t get better, not regardless of the outcome – as medical guidelines recommend.

“They asked questions, they did the exams, but they really didn’t give you a lot of information to help you at home,” Ms. Ward told this news organization. If they had, she doesn’t think she’d have needed to take them in for emergency care so often.

A new study, published in Academic Pediatrics, suggests she’s right.

Current clinical guidelines for asthma recommend that patients who visit the ED for an asthma-related problem should have a follow-up appointment within a month after the visit, independent of how well they have recovered once home, according to Naomi S. Bardach, MD, a professor of pediatrics and health policy at the University of California, San Francisco, who led the new study.

Her research found that children who have a follow-up appointment within 2 weeks of such a visit are less likely to come back again the next year. Yet the study also found that only about one in five youth had a follow-up visit within that 2-week window.

“The emergency department visit is probably a sign that they need some additional attention for their asthma,” Dr. Bardach said. “We know we can prevent emergency department visits if they get the right kind of medication or if they figure out how to avoid the things that are going to cause an asthma exacerbation or flare.”

For the study, Dr. Bardach and colleagues analyzed data from California, Vermont, and Massachusetts for all asthma-related emergency visits for patients aged 3-21 years between 2013 and 2016.

Out of the 90,267 such visits they identified, 22.6% of patients had a follow-up within 2 weeks, more often by patients who were younger, had commercial insurance, had evidence of prior asthma, or had complex chronic conditions.

Whereas 5.7% of patients who had follow-up visits returned to the ED within 60 days, 6.4% of those who didn’t came back – a 12% difference (P < .001). The gap was larger a year out, with 25% of those with follow-ups returning to the ED, compared with 28.3% of those without follow-ups returning (P < .001), according to the researchers.

Overall, Dr. Bardach’s group estimates that for every 30 children who have follow-up visits with a physician, one would avoid a return trip to the emergency department for asthma within a year.

But given the sheer number of asthma-related trips to the ED each year – 164,145 for kids age 1-17 years in the United States in 2016 alone – that translates into big numbers of kids not going back to the hospital: approximately 72,000 such trips avoided at a savings to the health care system of at least $8.6 million annually.
 

Missed opportunities

Had Ms. Ward’s boys been among the one in five to receive follow-up care earlier in their lives, she might have saved a significant amount of time, money, anxiety, and heartache. When the twins were 9 years old, she took them to a new pediatric pulmonologist. That changed everything. In that first visit, “they gave me way more information than I ever had in the first 9 years,” she said.

The doctor told Ms. Ward to keep steroids on hand, gave her a prescription for extra doses of the powerful medication, and explained that they needed to be used within 24 hours of the first sign of a breathing problem.

“She said if you give them the steroids right away, it keeps them out of the emergency room, and that’s actually worked,” Ms. Ward said. “She made sure we had care plans every visit and asked me each time if I still had it or we needed to rewrite it. They gave me signs to look for, for when to go to hospital visits. I think that when you go to the doctor, they should be telling you stuff like that.”

Dr. Bardach said visits with a primary care doctor or asthma specialist offer families a chance to receive information to keep the condition from becoming critical.

“Going to that follow-up visit, they can get access to education from the provider about how to avoid things that trigger asthma, and there’s medication that kids can take that keeps the lungs calm and less likely to have a big asthma reaction, so getting access to that medication can be really helpful,” she said.

That was the case for Amy Davenport, of Chapel Hill, N.C., whose 6-year-old son has been to the ED twice for his asthma.

The first time, when he was 3, he was having trouble breathing with a respiratory tract infection and received nebulizer treatment – although he received it in the ED since no beds were available in the ICU. The staff did tell Ms. Davenport to follow up with her primary care provider, but her son’s pediatrician was reluctant to diagnose him with asthma at such a young age and didn’t prescribe any maintenance medications.

A few months later, Ms. Davenport and her son found themselves back in the hospital, and an ICU bed was open this time. The critical care staff referred Davenport to a pediatric pulmonary specialist, and they haven’t been back to the hospital since. Ms. Davenport said she believes if they’d received a maintenance medication after the first visit, it likely would have prevented the second one.

“I’ve definitely seen now that, after the second admission, we got an asthma action plan and it said exactly what to do,” she said. “I felt like we had really good follow-up. We had that action plan on our refrigerator for a long time, and it helped us as parents with three small children to manage.”

Of course, follow-up care takes time – time away from work and school that not all families can spare, the researchers acknowledged. Telehealth may be an option, especially after its use expanded during the COVID-19 pandemic.

“We know that health systems have a hard time being flexible enough to actually have a kid be able to make an appointment within a short period of time, and we also know it’s hard for families sometimes to go back into a clinical setting within a certain period of time,” Dr. Bardach said. The urgency for the appointment may wane for those whose children seem to be doing better.

When the researchers adjusted their calculations for socioeconomic status, the results didn’t change much. But the study did find that patients with private insurance were about twice as likely to have follow-up visits as those on Medicaid (43.7% vs. 21.7%). And “the content and conduct” of the follow-up visit makes a difference as well.

Ms. Ward, whose boys are insured through Medicaid, recalled several visits to the ED where she had to push the staff to get the care her children needed. In one case, when one of her boys was a year old and struggling to breathe, the emergency doctor handed her a prescription and recommended she fill it at a neighborhood drugstore that would be cheaper than the hospital’s pharmacy. Then a nurse came in to begin the discharge process.

“I said no, ‘we’re not ready yet. Look at him,’” Ms. Ward said. The nurse took a pulse oximeter reading that showed the boy’s oxygen levels were at 84%, dangerously low. “If I wasn’t so knowledgeable and paid attention when they were born, since they were preemies, if it would have been somebody else, they probably would’ve went home and he’d have died.”

With the pediatric pulmonologist the boys have now, Ms. Ward said she feels more capable of managing their asthma and knowing how to reduce the likelihood that they’ll need to visit the ED.

“Part of what we’re seeing here is that having an existing and trusting relationship with a clinician can be helpful to kids with asthma,” Dr. Bardach said. “If we help establish and maintain those connections, and explain how important that connection can be, that can also help somebody with asthma overall.”

The research was funded by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Jo Ward’s twin boys have been to the emergency department for respiratory problems about as many times as the dozen years they’ve been alive. Both have asthma and bronchopulmonary dysplasia, a form of chronic airway damage that can occur in children born premature, as the twins were. But each time Ms. Ward took them in for treatment during an acute bout of breathing distress, the staff told her to schedule a follow-up visit for the children with their physician only if they didn’t get better, not regardless of the outcome – as medical guidelines recommend.

“They asked questions, they did the exams, but they really didn’t give you a lot of information to help you at home,” Ms. Ward told this news organization. If they had, she doesn’t think she’d have needed to take them in for emergency care so often.

A new study, published in Academic Pediatrics, suggests she’s right.

Current clinical guidelines for asthma recommend that patients who visit the ED for an asthma-related problem should have a follow-up appointment within a month after the visit, independent of how well they have recovered once home, according to Naomi S. Bardach, MD, a professor of pediatrics and health policy at the University of California, San Francisco, who led the new study.

Her research found that children who have a follow-up appointment within 2 weeks of such a visit are less likely to come back again the next year. Yet the study also found that only about one in five youth had a follow-up visit within that 2-week window.

“The emergency department visit is probably a sign that they need some additional attention for their asthma,” Dr. Bardach said. “We know we can prevent emergency department visits if they get the right kind of medication or if they figure out how to avoid the things that are going to cause an asthma exacerbation or flare.”

For the study, Dr. Bardach and colleagues analyzed data from California, Vermont, and Massachusetts for all asthma-related emergency visits for patients aged 3-21 years between 2013 and 2016.

Out of the 90,267 such visits they identified, 22.6% of patients had a follow-up within 2 weeks, more often by patients who were younger, had commercial insurance, had evidence of prior asthma, or had complex chronic conditions.

Whereas 5.7% of patients who had follow-up visits returned to the ED within 60 days, 6.4% of those who didn’t came back – a 12% difference (P < .001). The gap was larger a year out, with 25% of those with follow-ups returning to the ED, compared with 28.3% of those without follow-ups returning (P < .001), according to the researchers.

Overall, Dr. Bardach’s group estimates that for every 30 children who have follow-up visits with a physician, one would avoid a return trip to the emergency department for asthma within a year.

But given the sheer number of asthma-related trips to the ED each year – 164,145 for kids age 1-17 years in the United States in 2016 alone – that translates into big numbers of kids not going back to the hospital: approximately 72,000 such trips avoided at a savings to the health care system of at least $8.6 million annually.
 

Missed opportunities

Had Ms. Ward’s boys been among the one in five to receive follow-up care earlier in their lives, she might have saved a significant amount of time, money, anxiety, and heartache. When the twins were 9 years old, she took them to a new pediatric pulmonologist. That changed everything. In that first visit, “they gave me way more information than I ever had in the first 9 years,” she said.

The doctor told Ms. Ward to keep steroids on hand, gave her a prescription for extra doses of the powerful medication, and explained that they needed to be used within 24 hours of the first sign of a breathing problem.

“She said if you give them the steroids right away, it keeps them out of the emergency room, and that’s actually worked,” Ms. Ward said. “She made sure we had care plans every visit and asked me each time if I still had it or we needed to rewrite it. They gave me signs to look for, for when to go to hospital visits. I think that when you go to the doctor, they should be telling you stuff like that.”

Dr. Bardach said visits with a primary care doctor or asthma specialist offer families a chance to receive information to keep the condition from becoming critical.

“Going to that follow-up visit, they can get access to education from the provider about how to avoid things that trigger asthma, and there’s medication that kids can take that keeps the lungs calm and less likely to have a big asthma reaction, so getting access to that medication can be really helpful,” she said.

That was the case for Amy Davenport, of Chapel Hill, N.C., whose 6-year-old son has been to the ED twice for his asthma.

The first time, when he was 3, he was having trouble breathing with a respiratory tract infection and received nebulizer treatment – although he received it in the ED since no beds were available in the ICU. The staff did tell Ms. Davenport to follow up with her primary care provider, but her son’s pediatrician was reluctant to diagnose him with asthma at such a young age and didn’t prescribe any maintenance medications.

A few months later, Ms. Davenport and her son found themselves back in the hospital, and an ICU bed was open this time. The critical care staff referred Davenport to a pediatric pulmonary specialist, and they haven’t been back to the hospital since. Ms. Davenport said she believes if they’d received a maintenance medication after the first visit, it likely would have prevented the second one.

“I’ve definitely seen now that, after the second admission, we got an asthma action plan and it said exactly what to do,” she said. “I felt like we had really good follow-up. We had that action plan on our refrigerator for a long time, and it helped us as parents with three small children to manage.”

Of course, follow-up care takes time – time away from work and school that not all families can spare, the researchers acknowledged. Telehealth may be an option, especially after its use expanded during the COVID-19 pandemic.

“We know that health systems have a hard time being flexible enough to actually have a kid be able to make an appointment within a short period of time, and we also know it’s hard for families sometimes to go back into a clinical setting within a certain period of time,” Dr. Bardach said. The urgency for the appointment may wane for those whose children seem to be doing better.

When the researchers adjusted their calculations for socioeconomic status, the results didn’t change much. But the study did find that patients with private insurance were about twice as likely to have follow-up visits as those on Medicaid (43.7% vs. 21.7%). And “the content and conduct” of the follow-up visit makes a difference as well.

Ms. Ward, whose boys are insured through Medicaid, recalled several visits to the ED where she had to push the staff to get the care her children needed. In one case, when one of her boys was a year old and struggling to breathe, the emergency doctor handed her a prescription and recommended she fill it at a neighborhood drugstore that would be cheaper than the hospital’s pharmacy. Then a nurse came in to begin the discharge process.

“I said no, ‘we’re not ready yet. Look at him,’” Ms. Ward said. The nurse took a pulse oximeter reading that showed the boy’s oxygen levels were at 84%, dangerously low. “If I wasn’t so knowledgeable and paid attention when they were born, since they were preemies, if it would have been somebody else, they probably would’ve went home and he’d have died.”

With the pediatric pulmonologist the boys have now, Ms. Ward said she feels more capable of managing their asthma and knowing how to reduce the likelihood that they’ll need to visit the ED.

“Part of what we’re seeing here is that having an existing and trusting relationship with a clinician can be helpful to kids with asthma,” Dr. Bardach said. “If we help establish and maintain those connections, and explain how important that connection can be, that can also help somebody with asthma overall.”

The research was funded by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Jo Ward’s twin boys have been to the emergency department for respiratory problems about as many times as the dozen years they’ve been alive. Both have asthma and bronchopulmonary dysplasia, a form of chronic airway damage that can occur in children born premature, as the twins were. But each time Ms. Ward took them in for treatment during an acute bout of breathing distress, the staff told her to schedule a follow-up visit for the children with their physician only if they didn’t get better, not regardless of the outcome – as medical guidelines recommend.

“They asked questions, they did the exams, but they really didn’t give you a lot of information to help you at home,” Ms. Ward told this news organization. If they had, she doesn’t think she’d have needed to take them in for emergency care so often.

A new study, published in Academic Pediatrics, suggests she’s right.

Current clinical guidelines for asthma recommend that patients who visit the ED for an asthma-related problem should have a follow-up appointment within a month after the visit, independent of how well they have recovered once home, according to Naomi S. Bardach, MD, a professor of pediatrics and health policy at the University of California, San Francisco, who led the new study.

Her research found that children who have a follow-up appointment within 2 weeks of such a visit are less likely to come back again the next year. Yet the study also found that only about one in five youth had a follow-up visit within that 2-week window.

“The emergency department visit is probably a sign that they need some additional attention for their asthma,” Dr. Bardach said. “We know we can prevent emergency department visits if they get the right kind of medication or if they figure out how to avoid the things that are going to cause an asthma exacerbation or flare.”

For the study, Dr. Bardach and colleagues analyzed data from California, Vermont, and Massachusetts for all asthma-related emergency visits for patients aged 3-21 years between 2013 and 2016.

Out of the 90,267 such visits they identified, 22.6% of patients had a follow-up within 2 weeks, more often by patients who were younger, had commercial insurance, had evidence of prior asthma, or had complex chronic conditions.

Whereas 5.7% of patients who had follow-up visits returned to the ED within 60 days, 6.4% of those who didn’t came back – a 12% difference (P < .001). The gap was larger a year out, with 25% of those with follow-ups returning to the ED, compared with 28.3% of those without follow-ups returning (P < .001), according to the researchers.

Overall, Dr. Bardach’s group estimates that for every 30 children who have follow-up visits with a physician, one would avoid a return trip to the emergency department for asthma within a year.

But given the sheer number of asthma-related trips to the ED each year – 164,145 for kids age 1-17 years in the United States in 2016 alone – that translates into big numbers of kids not going back to the hospital: approximately 72,000 such trips avoided at a savings to the health care system of at least $8.6 million annually.
 

Missed opportunities

Had Ms. Ward’s boys been among the one in five to receive follow-up care earlier in their lives, she might have saved a significant amount of time, money, anxiety, and heartache. When the twins were 9 years old, she took them to a new pediatric pulmonologist. That changed everything. In that first visit, “they gave me way more information than I ever had in the first 9 years,” she said.

The doctor told Ms. Ward to keep steroids on hand, gave her a prescription for extra doses of the powerful medication, and explained that they needed to be used within 24 hours of the first sign of a breathing problem.

“She said if you give them the steroids right away, it keeps them out of the emergency room, and that’s actually worked,” Ms. Ward said. “She made sure we had care plans every visit and asked me each time if I still had it or we needed to rewrite it. They gave me signs to look for, for when to go to hospital visits. I think that when you go to the doctor, they should be telling you stuff like that.”

Dr. Bardach said visits with a primary care doctor or asthma specialist offer families a chance to receive information to keep the condition from becoming critical.

“Going to that follow-up visit, they can get access to education from the provider about how to avoid things that trigger asthma, and there’s medication that kids can take that keeps the lungs calm and less likely to have a big asthma reaction, so getting access to that medication can be really helpful,” she said.

That was the case for Amy Davenport, of Chapel Hill, N.C., whose 6-year-old son has been to the ED twice for his asthma.

The first time, when he was 3, he was having trouble breathing with a respiratory tract infection and received nebulizer treatment – although he received it in the ED since no beds were available in the ICU. The staff did tell Ms. Davenport to follow up with her primary care provider, but her son’s pediatrician was reluctant to diagnose him with asthma at such a young age and didn’t prescribe any maintenance medications.

A few months later, Ms. Davenport and her son found themselves back in the hospital, and an ICU bed was open this time. The critical care staff referred Davenport to a pediatric pulmonary specialist, and they haven’t been back to the hospital since. Ms. Davenport said she believes if they’d received a maintenance medication after the first visit, it likely would have prevented the second one.

“I’ve definitely seen now that, after the second admission, we got an asthma action plan and it said exactly what to do,” she said. “I felt like we had really good follow-up. We had that action plan on our refrigerator for a long time, and it helped us as parents with three small children to manage.”

Of course, follow-up care takes time – time away from work and school that not all families can spare, the researchers acknowledged. Telehealth may be an option, especially after its use expanded during the COVID-19 pandemic.

“We know that health systems have a hard time being flexible enough to actually have a kid be able to make an appointment within a short period of time, and we also know it’s hard for families sometimes to go back into a clinical setting within a certain period of time,” Dr. Bardach said. The urgency for the appointment may wane for those whose children seem to be doing better.

When the researchers adjusted their calculations for socioeconomic status, the results didn’t change much. But the study did find that patients with private insurance were about twice as likely to have follow-up visits as those on Medicaid (43.7% vs. 21.7%). And “the content and conduct” of the follow-up visit makes a difference as well.

Ms. Ward, whose boys are insured through Medicaid, recalled several visits to the ED where she had to push the staff to get the care her children needed. In one case, when one of her boys was a year old and struggling to breathe, the emergency doctor handed her a prescription and recommended she fill it at a neighborhood drugstore that would be cheaper than the hospital’s pharmacy. Then a nurse came in to begin the discharge process.

“I said no, ‘we’re not ready yet. Look at him,’” Ms. Ward said. The nurse took a pulse oximeter reading that showed the boy’s oxygen levels were at 84%, dangerously low. “If I wasn’t so knowledgeable and paid attention when they were born, since they were preemies, if it would have been somebody else, they probably would’ve went home and he’d have died.”

With the pediatric pulmonologist the boys have now, Ms. Ward said she feels more capable of managing their asthma and knowing how to reduce the likelihood that they’ll need to visit the ED.

“Part of what we’re seeing here is that having an existing and trusting relationship with a clinician can be helpful to kids with asthma,” Dr. Bardach said. “If we help establish and maintain those connections, and explain how important that connection can be, that can also help somebody with asthma overall.”

The research was funded by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The vast majority of children and young people with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) and COVID-19 are not hospitalized, according to the most significant global investigation of short-term COVID-19 outcomes in this patient group to date.

In the study, only 1 in 15 (7%) children and young people (younger than 19 years) with RMDs and COVID-19 were hospitalized, and even then, they experienced only mild symptoms; 4 of 5 of those hospitalized did not require supplemental oxygen or ventilatory support.

The study also found that those with severe systemic RMDs and obesity were more likely to be hospitalized than children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA).

Treatment with biologics, such as tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, did not appear to be associated with more severe COVID-19; however, the study found that children and young people with obesity (body mass index ≥ 30) were more likely to be hospitalized, although only 6% of patients in this study had a BMI in this category. Three patients died – two from areas of lower resources who were diagnosed with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) at approximately the same time they were diagnosed with COVID-19, and one with a preexisting autoinflammatory syndrome who was being treated with low-dose glucocorticoids and methotrexate.

Published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, the study was led by Kimme L. Hyrich, MD, PhD, and Lianne Kearsley-Fleet, PhD, both from the University of Manchester (England). Dr. Hyrich is also a consultant rheumatologist at Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust.

In an interview, Dr. Hyrich explained that overall these data are reassuring and show that the majority of children and young people with RMDs are not at high risk of severe COVID-19.

“Many parents and families with children who have RMDs have lived with great fear over the pandemic about whether or not their children are at an increased risk of severe COVID-19,” said Dr. Hyrich. “Many are immunosuppressed or take other immunomodulatory medications. This has also had a great impact on schooling and children’s well-being.”

In the study, children with SLE, mixed connective tissue disease (MCTD), or vasculitis were more likely to have severe COVID-19. “[This] is not surprising given the typically greater systemic involvement and need for more aggressive immunosuppressive therapy than the majority of individuals with JIA,” the researchers wrote.

Dr. Hyrich added: “There may be times when children are on particularly high doses of immunosuppression or their disease is particularly active, when they may need more protection, and rheumatology teams can advise parents and young people about this.”

Studies such as those by Zimmerman and Curtis and Viner and colleagues have found that generally, children with no underlying disease are less susceptible to symptomatic COVID-19 and that reports of death are rare. Findings show that the younger the child, the less likely they will be symptomatic.

Adult data suggest a higher risk of COVID-related death among patients with arthritis, lupus, or psoriasis. A recent systematic review of the literature suggested that increased risk of COVID-related death only applies to subgroups of people with RMDs.

However, whether children and young people with RMDs are likely to have more severe COVID-19 and whether there is additional risk attributable to either their underlying disease or its therapy remain unknown. The goal of the study by Dr. Hyrich and colleagues was to address these questions.

The global analysis aimed to describe characteristics of those children and young people (younger than 19 years) with preexisting RMDs who also had COVID-19; to describe outcomes following COVID-19; and to identify characteristics associated with more severe COVID-19 outcomes.

Data were drawn from the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology COVID-19 Registry, the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance Registry, and the CARRA-sponsored COVID-19 Global Paediatric Rheumatology Database.

Demographic information included primary RMD diagnosis; RMD disease activity (remission, low, moderate, high, or unknown); RMD treatments, including glucocorticoid use and which disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) the patient was taking at the time of COVID-19; and comorbidities (none, ocular inflammation, interstitial lung disease, asthma, diabetes, obesity, hypertension, cerebrovascular accident, renal disease, inflammatory bowel disease, and heart disease).

With respect to COVID-19, information collected included diagnosis date, whether the case was presumptive or confirmed, clinical symptoms, hospitalization and/or death because of COVID-19, and whether the patient stopped receiving rheumatic therapies.

Rheumatology diagnoses were categorized into four groups: JIA; SLE, MCTD, vasculitis, or other RMD; autoinflammatory syndromes; and “other,” including chronic recurrent multifocal osteomyelitis, sarcoidosis, or ocular inflammation.

Of the 607 children and young people with reported SARS-CoV-2 infection from 25 different countries (464 from the EULAR COVID-19 Registry), 499 (82%) cases were polymerase chain reaction confirmed, and 399 (66%) patients were female (median age, 14 years). Most (62%) had JIA: 37%, polyarticular JIA; 30%, oligoarticular JIA; 12%, enthesitis-related JIA; 9%, systemic JIA; 4%, psoriatic JIA; and 9%, JIA of unknown subcategory. Furthermore, 13% of patients had autoinflammatory syndromes, 8% with SLE or MCTD, 3% with vasculitis, and 2% with inflammatory myopathy.

No associations were seen between DMARD treatment (conventional-synthetic, biologic/targeted-synthetic, or combination therapy), compared with no DMARD treatment, glucocorticoid use, and hospitalization.

Owing to substantial differences in reporting of race and ethnicity between data sources, the researchers were unable to analyze whether Black, Asian, and minority ethnic groups with pediatric RMDs are at higher risk of COVID-19–related death, compared with those of White ethnicity, as has been reported for the general population.

The study also did not account for variants of SARS-CoV-2 other than to note that data were collected prior to the spread of the Omicron variant. Also, the registries did not capture vaccination status (though very few children had received vaccines at the time of data collection) or information on long COVID or multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children.

Dr. Hyrich and Dr. Kearsley-Fleet have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The vast majority of children and young people with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) and COVID-19 are not hospitalized, according to the most significant global investigation of short-term COVID-19 outcomes in this patient group to date.

In the study, only 1 in 15 (7%) children and young people (younger than 19 years) with RMDs and COVID-19 were hospitalized, and even then, they experienced only mild symptoms; 4 of 5 of those hospitalized did not require supplemental oxygen or ventilatory support.

The study also found that those with severe systemic RMDs and obesity were more likely to be hospitalized than children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA).

Treatment with biologics, such as tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, did not appear to be associated with more severe COVID-19; however, the study found that children and young people with obesity (body mass index ≥ 30) were more likely to be hospitalized, although only 6% of patients in this study had a BMI in this category. Three patients died – two from areas of lower resources who were diagnosed with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) at approximately the same time they were diagnosed with COVID-19, and one with a preexisting autoinflammatory syndrome who was being treated with low-dose glucocorticoids and methotrexate.

Published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, the study was led by Kimme L. Hyrich, MD, PhD, and Lianne Kearsley-Fleet, PhD, both from the University of Manchester (England). Dr. Hyrich is also a consultant rheumatologist at Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust.

In an interview, Dr. Hyrich explained that overall these data are reassuring and show that the majority of children and young people with RMDs are not at high risk of severe COVID-19.

“Many parents and families with children who have RMDs have lived with great fear over the pandemic about whether or not their children are at an increased risk of severe COVID-19,” said Dr. Hyrich. “Many are immunosuppressed or take other immunomodulatory medications. This has also had a great impact on schooling and children’s well-being.”

In the study, children with SLE, mixed connective tissue disease (MCTD), or vasculitis were more likely to have severe COVID-19. “[This] is not surprising given the typically greater systemic involvement and need for more aggressive immunosuppressive therapy than the majority of individuals with JIA,” the researchers wrote.

Dr. Hyrich added: “There may be times when children are on particularly high doses of immunosuppression or their disease is particularly active, when they may need more protection, and rheumatology teams can advise parents and young people about this.”

Studies such as those by Zimmerman and Curtis and Viner and colleagues have found that generally, children with no underlying disease are less susceptible to symptomatic COVID-19 and that reports of death are rare. Findings show that the younger the child, the less likely they will be symptomatic.

Adult data suggest a higher risk of COVID-related death among patients with arthritis, lupus, or psoriasis. A recent systematic review of the literature suggested that increased risk of COVID-related death only applies to subgroups of people with RMDs.

However, whether children and young people with RMDs are likely to have more severe COVID-19 and whether there is additional risk attributable to either their underlying disease or its therapy remain unknown. The goal of the study by Dr. Hyrich and colleagues was to address these questions.

The global analysis aimed to describe characteristics of those children and young people (younger than 19 years) with preexisting RMDs who also had COVID-19; to describe outcomes following COVID-19; and to identify characteristics associated with more severe COVID-19 outcomes.

Data were drawn from the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology COVID-19 Registry, the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance Registry, and the CARRA-sponsored COVID-19 Global Paediatric Rheumatology Database.

Demographic information included primary RMD diagnosis; RMD disease activity (remission, low, moderate, high, or unknown); RMD treatments, including glucocorticoid use and which disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) the patient was taking at the time of COVID-19; and comorbidities (none, ocular inflammation, interstitial lung disease, asthma, diabetes, obesity, hypertension, cerebrovascular accident, renal disease, inflammatory bowel disease, and heart disease).

With respect to COVID-19, information collected included diagnosis date, whether the case was presumptive or confirmed, clinical symptoms, hospitalization and/or death because of COVID-19, and whether the patient stopped receiving rheumatic therapies.

Rheumatology diagnoses were categorized into four groups: JIA; SLE, MCTD, vasculitis, or other RMD; autoinflammatory syndromes; and “other,” including chronic recurrent multifocal osteomyelitis, sarcoidosis, or ocular inflammation.

Of the 607 children and young people with reported SARS-CoV-2 infection from 25 different countries (464 from the EULAR COVID-19 Registry), 499 (82%) cases were polymerase chain reaction confirmed, and 399 (66%) patients were female (median age, 14 years). Most (62%) had JIA: 37%, polyarticular JIA; 30%, oligoarticular JIA; 12%, enthesitis-related JIA; 9%, systemic JIA; 4%, psoriatic JIA; and 9%, JIA of unknown subcategory. Furthermore, 13% of patients had autoinflammatory syndromes, 8% with SLE or MCTD, 3% with vasculitis, and 2% with inflammatory myopathy.

No associations were seen between DMARD treatment (conventional-synthetic, biologic/targeted-synthetic, or combination therapy), compared with no DMARD treatment, glucocorticoid use, and hospitalization.

Owing to substantial differences in reporting of race and ethnicity between data sources, the researchers were unable to analyze whether Black, Asian, and minority ethnic groups with pediatric RMDs are at higher risk of COVID-19–related death, compared with those of White ethnicity, as has been reported for the general population.

The study also did not account for variants of SARS-CoV-2 other than to note that data were collected prior to the spread of the Omicron variant. Also, the registries did not capture vaccination status (though very few children had received vaccines at the time of data collection) or information on long COVID or multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children.

Dr. Hyrich and Dr. Kearsley-Fleet have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The vast majority of children and young people with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) and COVID-19 are not hospitalized, according to the most significant global investigation of short-term COVID-19 outcomes in this patient group to date.

In the study, only 1 in 15 (7%) children and young people (younger than 19 years) with RMDs and COVID-19 were hospitalized, and even then, they experienced only mild symptoms; 4 of 5 of those hospitalized did not require supplemental oxygen or ventilatory support.

The study also found that those with severe systemic RMDs and obesity were more likely to be hospitalized than children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA).

Treatment with biologics, such as tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, did not appear to be associated with more severe COVID-19; however, the study found that children and young people with obesity (body mass index ≥ 30) were more likely to be hospitalized, although only 6% of patients in this study had a BMI in this category. Three patients died – two from areas of lower resources who were diagnosed with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) at approximately the same time they were diagnosed with COVID-19, and one with a preexisting autoinflammatory syndrome who was being treated with low-dose glucocorticoids and methotrexate.

Published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, the study was led by Kimme L. Hyrich, MD, PhD, and Lianne Kearsley-Fleet, PhD, both from the University of Manchester (England). Dr. Hyrich is also a consultant rheumatologist at Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust.

In an interview, Dr. Hyrich explained that overall these data are reassuring and show that the majority of children and young people with RMDs are not at high risk of severe COVID-19.

“Many parents and families with children who have RMDs have lived with great fear over the pandemic about whether or not their children are at an increased risk of severe COVID-19,” said Dr. Hyrich. “Many are immunosuppressed or take other immunomodulatory medications. This has also had a great impact on schooling and children’s well-being.”

In the study, children with SLE, mixed connective tissue disease (MCTD), or vasculitis were more likely to have severe COVID-19. “[This] is not surprising given the typically greater systemic involvement and need for more aggressive immunosuppressive therapy than the majority of individuals with JIA,” the researchers wrote.

Dr. Hyrich added: “There may be times when children are on particularly high doses of immunosuppression or their disease is particularly active, when they may need more protection, and rheumatology teams can advise parents and young people about this.”

Studies such as those by Zimmerman and Curtis and Viner and colleagues have found that generally, children with no underlying disease are less susceptible to symptomatic COVID-19 and that reports of death are rare. Findings show that the younger the child, the less likely they will be symptomatic.

Adult data suggest a higher risk of COVID-related death among patients with arthritis, lupus, or psoriasis. A recent systematic review of the literature suggested that increased risk of COVID-related death only applies to subgroups of people with RMDs.

However, whether children and young people with RMDs are likely to have more severe COVID-19 and whether there is additional risk attributable to either their underlying disease or its therapy remain unknown. The goal of the study by Dr. Hyrich and colleagues was to address these questions.

The global analysis aimed to describe characteristics of those children and young people (younger than 19 years) with preexisting RMDs who also had COVID-19; to describe outcomes following COVID-19; and to identify characteristics associated with more severe COVID-19 outcomes.

Data were drawn from the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology COVID-19 Registry, the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance Registry, and the CARRA-sponsored COVID-19 Global Paediatric Rheumatology Database.

Demographic information included primary RMD diagnosis; RMD disease activity (remission, low, moderate, high, or unknown); RMD treatments, including glucocorticoid use and which disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) the patient was taking at the time of COVID-19; and comorbidities (none, ocular inflammation, interstitial lung disease, asthma, diabetes, obesity, hypertension, cerebrovascular accident, renal disease, inflammatory bowel disease, and heart disease).

With respect to COVID-19, information collected included diagnosis date, whether the case was presumptive or confirmed, clinical symptoms, hospitalization and/or death because of COVID-19, and whether the patient stopped receiving rheumatic therapies.

Rheumatology diagnoses were categorized into four groups: JIA; SLE, MCTD, vasculitis, or other RMD; autoinflammatory syndromes; and “other,” including chronic recurrent multifocal osteomyelitis, sarcoidosis, or ocular inflammation.

Of the 607 children and young people with reported SARS-CoV-2 infection from 25 different countries (464 from the EULAR COVID-19 Registry), 499 (82%) cases were polymerase chain reaction confirmed, and 399 (66%) patients were female (median age, 14 years). Most (62%) had JIA: 37%, polyarticular JIA; 30%, oligoarticular JIA; 12%, enthesitis-related JIA; 9%, systemic JIA; 4%, psoriatic JIA; and 9%, JIA of unknown subcategory. Furthermore, 13% of patients had autoinflammatory syndromes, 8% with SLE or MCTD, 3% with vasculitis, and 2% with inflammatory myopathy.

No associations were seen between DMARD treatment (conventional-synthetic, biologic/targeted-synthetic, or combination therapy), compared with no DMARD treatment, glucocorticoid use, and hospitalization.

Owing to substantial differences in reporting of race and ethnicity between data sources, the researchers were unable to analyze whether Black, Asian, and minority ethnic groups with pediatric RMDs are at higher risk of COVID-19–related death, compared with those of White ethnicity, as has been reported for the general population.

The study also did not account for variants of SARS-CoV-2 other than to note that data were collected prior to the spread of the Omicron variant. Also, the registries did not capture vaccination status (though very few children had received vaccines at the time of data collection) or information on long COVID or multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children.

Dr. Hyrich and Dr. Kearsley-Fleet have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE

A 16-year-old girl with no chronic medical illness presents to your office with her parents after sustaining a head injury at a soccer game over the weekend. She collided with another player while attempting to head the ball. Immediately afterward, she was taken off the field and assessed. She was confused but had a normal level of consciousness and denied vision changes, weakness or tingling in her arms or legs, severe headache, or neck pain. Further testing revealed dizziness and abnormal balance. Her confusion and abnormal balance resolved after 1 day. She has had a mild headache and light sensitivity since the event. She otherwise feels well at rest in the office. She wants to recover quickly but safely and has heard conflicting statements about whether she should completely rest or start back to light activity now.

Sports-related concussions (SRCs) are highly prevalent in the United States, with as many as 3.8 million cases annually. Of those, 1.1 to 1.9 million cases are in children 18 years old or younger.^2,3 SRCs are defined by the Concussion in Sport Group (CISG) 2017 consensus statement as involving the following criteria: (1) direct or indirect trauma anywhere on the body with force transmitted to the head; (2) rapid or delayed symptom presentation, typically with spontaneous resolution; (3) functional rather than structural injury; and (4) occurrence with or without loss of consciousness with stepwise symptom resolution.⁴

SRCs do not have a proven, effective treatment and can have short- or long-term consequences. Initial treatment includes removing athletes from play immediately after an event. The American Academy of Neurology recommends that athletes not return to play until the concussion is resolved, as judged by a health care provider, and the athlete is asymptomatic when off medication.²

The CISG recommends a 6-step approach, with each step taking at least 24 hours.⁴ The final step is a return to normal activity.⁴ This working group recommended extensive study of rehabilitation programs involving subsymptom threshold exercise (ie, exercise performed at a level that does not exacerbate symptoms) before implementation as routine practice. Evidence from a 2015 study suggests that following strict rest for 5 days until complete symptom resolution may prolong recovery compared with rest for only 1 to 2 days.⁵ Additionally, strict rest did not show a difference in neurocognitive or balance outcomes in that study, and the authors noted it may also negatively impact academic, sports, and social function in adolescents.⁵ This study looked at the potential benefit of subsymptom threshold exercise during recovery from SRC.¹

STUDY SUMMARY

Light aerobic exercise may help speed recovery

This multicenter, prospective, parallel, randomized clinical trial compared subsymptom threshold aerobic exercise to ­placebo-like stretching. Patients were included if they were ages 13 to 18 years and presented within 10 days of an SRC, as diagnosed using the CISG criteria. Exclusion criteria included focal neurologic deficits; history of moderate or severe traumatic brain injury; inability to exercise due to orthopedic injury, cervical spine injury, diabetes, or heart disease; increased cardiac risk; or low postconcussion symptom severity. Patients with a diagnosis of and treatment with medication for ­attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), depression, anxiety, or learning disorder were excluded, as were patients with a history of more than 3 previous concussions.

It’s unclear whether subsymptom threshold exercise is safe and effective in adolescents with a history of multiple concussions, as those with > 3 concussions were excluded from this study.

Patients in the aerobic exercise group were instructed to use a stationary bike or treadmill (or equivalent walking or jogging if they did not have access to this equipment) at a prescribed heart rate. The target heart rate was 80% of the heart rate achieved during initial assessment with the Buffalo Concussion Treadmill Test (BCTT).⁶ Patients in this group were instructed to exercise for 20 minutes or to the point at which their symptoms increased by 2 points (on a 10-point scale) from pre-exercise levels, whichever came first, with rest prescribed at all other times.

For the placebo-like group, a stretching instruction booklet was provided, with the goal of achieving a heart rate that was not significantly elevated. Participants in this group were told to perform the stretches for 20 minutes daily. Of note, researchers ensured the level of physician and research staff attention was similar for each patient, regardless of treatment group, to prevent intervention bias. Additionally, interventions were not initiated prior to 48 hours from the time of injury.

Continue to: The primary outcome...

The primary outcome was number of days to recovery since the date of injury. This was defined as symptom resolution to normal (as evaluated by a physician blinded to the study group) and by the patient’s ability to exercise to exhaustion without symptom exacerbation on the BCTT. Secondary outcomes measured the proportion of patients with delayed recovery (defined as recovery requiring > 30 days) and daily symptom scores.

Of 165 patients meeting the inclusion criteria, 52 patients were excluded prior to randomization (12 patients chose not to participate, 39 were excluded for lack of symptoms, and 1 withdrew due to severe symptoms on the BCTT). A total of 113 were randomized to either group, and 103 patients completed the study (10 patients did not complete the study or had another illness during the intervention). The study analysis included 52 patients in the aerobic exercise group and 51 in the placebo-like stretching group. The study was powered to detect a significant difference in recovery time.

Patients were about equally divided by sex, with a mean age of 15 years. Patients who had no previous concussion made up 50% of the aerobic group and 57% of the stretching group. The average time since injury was similar in the aerobic and stretching groups (4.9 days and 4.8 days, respectively). The aerobic exercise group recovered in a median of 13 days (interquartile range [IQR] = 10-18.5 days) compared with a median of 17 days (IQR = 13-23 days) for the stretching group (P = .009). The incidence of delayed recovery (> 30 days) was higher in the stretching group (n = 7) compared with the aerobic exercise group (n = 2) but was not statistically significant. Daily symptom reporting occurred at a high rate in both groups, with patients stating that they performed their prescribed exercise 89% of the time. No adverse events were reported.

WHAT’S NEW

First high-quality study to support evidence for early light activity

This is the first high-quality study of subsymptom threshold exercise for SRC. Its findings add to the growing body of evidence that early engagement in light aerobic activity that does not provoke symptoms (but not fully returning to sports activity) can aid in recovery from an SRC.

CAVEATS

Narrow study population limits application of findings

It is unclear if subsymptom threshold exercise is safe and effective in adolescents with a history of multiple concussions, as those with more than 3 concussions were excluded from this study. Additionally, patients with comorbidities such as ADHD, depression, anxiety, or learning disorders were not included in this study, which limits the application of these findings. The generalizability of this study is limited in younger children, adults, those with increased cardiovascular risk, and in patients with concussions that are not sports related.

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

More real-world studies needed to confirm benefit

The majority of adolescent athletes in this study completed the subsymptom threshold exercise in a monitored environment with trainers, heart rate monitors, and access to equipment, limiting the study’s generalizability. Additionally, physicians need to be familiar with the BCTT to assign heart rate goals and assess improvement. The study environment may be feasible for some but not others. Studies evaluating real-world settings with athletes self-monitoring for symptom threshold with stepwise evaluations are needed and may be more broadly applicable.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The PURLs Surveillance System was supported in part by Grant Number UL1RR024999 from the National Center for Research Resources, a Clinical Translational Science Award to the University of Chicago. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Center for Research Resources or the National Institutes of Health.

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE

A 16-year-old girl with no chronic medical illness presents to your office with her parents after sustaining a head injury at a soccer game over the weekend. She collided with another player while attempting to head the ball. Immediately afterward, she was taken off the field and assessed. She was confused but had a normal level of consciousness and denied vision changes, weakness or tingling in her arms or legs, severe headache, or neck pain. Further testing revealed dizziness and abnormal balance. Her confusion and abnormal balance resolved after 1 day. She has had a mild headache and light sensitivity since the event. She otherwise feels well at rest in the office. She wants to recover quickly but safely and has heard conflicting statements about whether she should completely rest or start back to light activity now.

Sports-related concussions (SRCs) are highly prevalent in the United States, with as many as 3.8 million cases annually. Of those, 1.1 to 1.9 million cases are in children 18 years old or younger.^2,3 SRCs are defined by the Concussion in Sport Group (CISG) 2017 consensus statement as involving the following criteria: (1) direct or indirect trauma anywhere on the body with force transmitted to the head; (2) rapid or delayed symptom presentation, typically with spontaneous resolution; (3) functional rather than structural injury; and (4) occurrence with or without loss of consciousness with stepwise symptom resolution.⁴

SRCs do not have a proven, effective treatment and can have short- or long-term consequences. Initial treatment includes removing athletes from play immediately after an event. The American Academy of Neurology recommends that athletes not return to play until the concussion is resolved, as judged by a health care provider, and the athlete is asymptomatic when off medication.²

The CISG recommends a 6-step approach, with each step taking at least 24 hours.⁴ The final step is a return to normal activity.⁴ This working group recommended extensive study of rehabilitation programs involving subsymptom threshold exercise (ie, exercise performed at a level that does not exacerbate symptoms) before implementation as routine practice. Evidence from a 2015 study suggests that following strict rest for 5 days until complete symptom resolution may prolong recovery compared with rest for only 1 to 2 days.⁵ Additionally, strict rest did not show a difference in neurocognitive or balance outcomes in that study, and the authors noted it may also negatively impact academic, sports, and social function in adolescents.⁵ This study looked at the potential benefit of subsymptom threshold exercise during recovery from SRC.¹

STUDY SUMMARY

Light aerobic exercise may help speed recovery

This multicenter, prospective, parallel, randomized clinical trial compared subsymptom threshold aerobic exercise to ­placebo-like stretching. Patients were included if they were ages 13 to 18 years and presented within 10 days of an SRC, as diagnosed using the CISG criteria. Exclusion criteria included focal neurologic deficits; history of moderate or severe traumatic brain injury; inability to exercise due to orthopedic injury, cervical spine injury, diabetes, or heart disease; increased cardiac risk; or low postconcussion symptom severity. Patients with a diagnosis of and treatment with medication for ­attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), depression, anxiety, or learning disorder were excluded, as were patients with a history of more than 3 previous concussions.

It’s unclear whether subsymptom threshold exercise is safe and effective in adolescents with a history of multiple concussions, as those with > 3 concussions were excluded from this study.

Patients in the aerobic exercise group were instructed to use a stationary bike or treadmill (or equivalent walking or jogging if they did not have access to this equipment) at a prescribed heart rate. The target heart rate was 80% of the heart rate achieved during initial assessment with the Buffalo Concussion Treadmill Test (BCTT).⁶ Patients in this group were instructed to exercise for 20 minutes or to the point at which their symptoms increased by 2 points (on a 10-point scale) from pre-exercise levels, whichever came first, with rest prescribed at all other times.

For the placebo-like group, a stretching instruction booklet was provided, with the goal of achieving a heart rate that was not significantly elevated. Participants in this group were told to perform the stretches for 20 minutes daily. Of note, researchers ensured the level of physician and research staff attention was similar for each patient, regardless of treatment group, to prevent intervention bias. Additionally, interventions were not initiated prior to 48 hours from the time of injury.

Continue to: The primary outcome...

The primary outcome was number of days to recovery since the date of injury. This was defined as symptom resolution to normal (as evaluated by a physician blinded to the study group) and by the patient’s ability to exercise to exhaustion without symptom exacerbation on the BCTT. Secondary outcomes measured the proportion of patients with delayed recovery (defined as recovery requiring > 30 days) and daily symptom scores.

Of 165 patients meeting the inclusion criteria, 52 patients were excluded prior to randomization (12 patients chose not to participate, 39 were excluded for lack of symptoms, and 1 withdrew due to severe symptoms on the BCTT). A total of 113 were randomized to either group, and 103 patients completed the study (10 patients did not complete the study or had another illness during the intervention). The study analysis included 52 patients in the aerobic exercise group and 51 in the placebo-like stretching group. The study was powered to detect a significant difference in recovery time.

Patients were about equally divided by sex, with a mean age of 15 years. Patients who had no previous concussion made up 50% of the aerobic group and 57% of the stretching group. The average time since injury was similar in the aerobic and stretching groups (4.9 days and 4.8 days, respectively). The aerobic exercise group recovered in a median of 13 days (interquartile range [IQR] = 10-18.5 days) compared with a median of 17 days (IQR = 13-23 days) for the stretching group (P = .009). The incidence of delayed recovery (> 30 days) was higher in the stretching group (n = 7) compared with the aerobic exercise group (n = 2) but was not statistically significant. Daily symptom reporting occurred at a high rate in both groups, with patients stating that they performed their prescribed exercise 89% of the time. No adverse events were reported.

WHAT’S NEW

First high-quality study to support evidence for early light activity

This is the first high-quality study of subsymptom threshold exercise for SRC. Its findings add to the growing body of evidence that early engagement in light aerobic activity that does not provoke symptoms (but not fully returning to sports activity) can aid in recovery from an SRC.

CAVEATS

Narrow study population limits application of findings

It is unclear if subsymptom threshold exercise is safe and effective in adolescents with a history of multiple concussions, as those with more than 3 concussions were excluded from this study. Additionally, patients with comorbidities such as ADHD, depression, anxiety, or learning disorders were not included in this study, which limits the application of these findings. The generalizability of this study is limited in younger children, adults, those with increased cardiovascular risk, and in patients with concussions that are not sports related.

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

More real-world studies needed to confirm benefit

The majority of adolescent athletes in this study completed the subsymptom threshold exercise in a monitored environment with trainers, heart rate monitors, and access to equipment, limiting the study’s generalizability. Additionally, physicians need to be familiar with the BCTT to assign heart rate goals and assess improvement. The study environment may be feasible for some but not others. Studies evaluating real-world settings with athletes self-monitoring for symptom threshold with stepwise evaluations are needed and may be more broadly applicable.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The PURLs Surveillance System was supported in part by Grant Number UL1RR024999 from the National Center for Research Resources, a Clinical Translational Science Award to the University of Chicago. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Center for Research Resources or the National Institutes of Health.

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE

A 16-year-old girl with no chronic medical illness presents to your office with her parents after sustaining a head injury at a soccer game over the weekend. She collided with another player while attempting to head the ball. Immediately afterward, she was taken off the field and assessed. She was confused but had a normal level of consciousness and denied vision changes, weakness or tingling in her arms or legs, severe headache, or neck pain. Further testing revealed dizziness and abnormal balance. Her confusion and abnormal balance resolved after 1 day. She has had a mild headache and light sensitivity since the event. She otherwise feels well at rest in the office. She wants to recover quickly but safely and has heard conflicting statements about whether she should completely rest or start back to light activity now.

Sports-related concussions (SRCs) are highly prevalent in the United States, with as many as 3.8 million cases annually. Of those, 1.1 to 1.9 million cases are in children 18 years old or younger.^2,3 SRCs are defined by the Concussion in Sport Group (CISG) 2017 consensus statement as involving the following criteria: (1) direct or indirect trauma anywhere on the body with force transmitted to the head; (2) rapid or delayed symptom presentation, typically with spontaneous resolution; (3) functional rather than structural injury; and (4) occurrence with or without loss of consciousness with stepwise symptom resolution.⁴

SRCs do not have a proven, effective treatment and can have short- or long-term consequences. Initial treatment includes removing athletes from play immediately after an event. The American Academy of Neurology recommends that athletes not return to play until the concussion is resolved, as judged by a health care provider, and the athlete is asymptomatic when off medication.²

The CISG recommends a 6-step approach, with each step taking at least 24 hours.⁴ The final step is a return to normal activity.⁴ This working group recommended extensive study of rehabilitation programs involving subsymptom threshold exercise (ie, exercise performed at a level that does not exacerbate symptoms) before implementation as routine practice. Evidence from a 2015 study suggests that following strict rest for 5 days until complete symptom resolution may prolong recovery compared with rest for only 1 to 2 days.⁵ Additionally, strict rest did not show a difference in neurocognitive or balance outcomes in that study, and the authors noted it may also negatively impact academic, sports, and social function in adolescents.⁵ This study looked at the potential benefit of subsymptom threshold exercise during recovery from SRC.¹

STUDY SUMMARY

Light aerobic exercise may help speed recovery

This multicenter, prospective, parallel, randomized clinical trial compared subsymptom threshold aerobic exercise to ­placebo-like stretching. Patients were included if they were ages 13 to 18 years and presented within 10 days of an SRC, as diagnosed using the CISG criteria. Exclusion criteria included focal neurologic deficits; history of moderate or severe traumatic brain injury; inability to exercise due to orthopedic injury, cervical spine injury, diabetes, or heart disease; increased cardiac risk; or low postconcussion symptom severity. Patients with a diagnosis of and treatment with medication for ­attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), depression, anxiety, or learning disorder were excluded, as were patients with a history of more than 3 previous concussions.

It’s unclear whether subsymptom threshold exercise is safe and effective in adolescents with a history of multiple concussions, as those with > 3 concussions were excluded from this study.

Patients in the aerobic exercise group were instructed to use a stationary bike or treadmill (or equivalent walking or jogging if they did not have access to this equipment) at a prescribed heart rate. The target heart rate was 80% of the heart rate achieved during initial assessment with the Buffalo Concussion Treadmill Test (BCTT).⁶ Patients in this group were instructed to exercise for 20 minutes or to the point at which their symptoms increased by 2 points (on a 10-point scale) from pre-exercise levels, whichever came first, with rest prescribed at all other times.

For the placebo-like group, a stretching instruction booklet was provided, with the goal of achieving a heart rate that was not significantly elevated. Participants in this group were told to perform the stretches for 20 minutes daily. Of note, researchers ensured the level of physician and research staff attention was similar for each patient, regardless of treatment group, to prevent intervention bias. Additionally, interventions were not initiated prior to 48 hours from the time of injury.

Continue to: The primary outcome...

The primary outcome was number of days to recovery since the date of injury. This was defined as symptom resolution to normal (as evaluated by a physician blinded to the study group) and by the patient’s ability to exercise to exhaustion without symptom exacerbation on the BCTT. Secondary outcomes measured the proportion of patients with delayed recovery (defined as recovery requiring > 30 days) and daily symptom scores.

Of 165 patients meeting the inclusion criteria, 52 patients were excluded prior to randomization (12 patients chose not to participate, 39 were excluded for lack of symptoms, and 1 withdrew due to severe symptoms on the BCTT). A total of 113 were randomized to either group, and 103 patients completed the study (10 patients did not complete the study or had another illness during the intervention). The study analysis included 52 patients in the aerobic exercise group and 51 in the placebo-like stretching group. The study was powered to detect a significant difference in recovery time.

Patients were about equally divided by sex, with a mean age of 15 years. Patients who had no previous concussion made up 50% of the aerobic group and 57% of the stretching group. The average time since injury was similar in the aerobic and stretching groups (4.9 days and 4.8 days, respectively). The aerobic exercise group recovered in a median of 13 days (interquartile range [IQR] = 10-18.5 days) compared with a median of 17 days (IQR = 13-23 days) for the stretching group (P = .009). The incidence of delayed recovery (> 30 days) was higher in the stretching group (n = 7) compared with the aerobic exercise group (n = 2) but was not statistically significant. Daily symptom reporting occurred at a high rate in both groups, with patients stating that they performed their prescribed exercise 89% of the time. No adverse events were reported.

WHAT’S NEW

First high-quality study to support evidence for early light activity

This is the first high-quality study of subsymptom threshold exercise for SRC. Its findings add to the growing body of evidence that early engagement in light aerobic activity that does not provoke symptoms (but not fully returning to sports activity) can aid in recovery from an SRC.

CAVEATS

Narrow study population limits application of findings

It is unclear if subsymptom threshold exercise is safe and effective in adolescents with a history of multiple concussions, as those with more than 3 concussions were excluded from this study. Additionally, patients with comorbidities such as ADHD, depression, anxiety, or learning disorders were not included in this study, which limits the application of these findings. The generalizability of this study is limited in younger children, adults, those with increased cardiovascular risk, and in patients with concussions that are not sports related.

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

More real-world studies needed to confirm benefit

The majority of adolescent athletes in this study completed the subsymptom threshold exercise in a monitored environment with trainers, heart rate monitors, and access to equipment, limiting the study’s generalizability. Additionally, physicians need to be familiar with the BCTT to assign heart rate goals and assess improvement. The study environment may be feasible for some but not others. Studies evaluating real-world settings with athletes self-monitoring for symptom threshold with stepwise evaluations are needed and may be more broadly applicable.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The PURLs Surveillance System was supported in part by Grant Number UL1RR024999 from the National Center for Research Resources, a Clinical Translational Science Award to the University of Chicago. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Center for Research Resources or the National Institutes of Health.

The number of overdose deaths in adolescents nearly doubled in 2020 from the year before and increased substantially again in 2021 after nearly a decade of fairly stable rates, according to data published in a JAMA research letter.

Most of the deaths involved fentanyl, the researchers found.

Joseph Friedman, MPH, of the Center for Social Medicine and Humanities at the University of California, Los Angeles, led the study, which analyzed adolescent (14-18 years old) overdose deaths in the United States from 2010 to June 2021 in light of increasing contamination in the supply of illicit drugs.

The researchers found there were 518 deaths among adolescents (2.40 per 100,000 population) in 2010, and the rates remained stable through 2019 with 492 deaths (2.36 per 100,000).

In 2020, however, deaths spiked to 954 (4.57 per 100 000), increasing by 94.3%, compared with 2019. In 2021, they increased another 20%.

The rise in fentanyl-involved deaths was particularly striking. Fentanyl-involved deaths increased from 253 (1.21 per 100,000) in 2019 to 680 (3.26 per 100,000) in 2020. The numbers through June 2021 were annualized for 2021 and calculations predicted 884 deaths (4.23 per 100,000) for the year.
 

Numbers point to fentanyl potency

In 2021, more than three-fourths (77.14%) of adolescent overdose deaths involved fentanyl, compared with 13.26% for benzodiazepines, 9.77% for methamphetamine, 7.33% for cocaine, 5.76% for prescription opioids, and 2.27% for heroin.

American Indian and Alaska Native adolescents had the highest overdose rate in 2021 (n = 24; 11.79 per 100,000), followed by Latinx adolescents (n = 354; 6.98 per 100,000).

“These adolescent trends fit a wider pattern of increasing racial and ethnic inequalities in overdose that deserve further investigation and intervention efforts,” the authors wrote.
 

Pandemic’s role unclear

The spikes in adolescent overdoses overlap the COVID-19 pandemic, but Dr. Friedman said in an interview the pandemic “may or may not have been a big factor. “

The authors wrote that drug use had generally been stable among adolescents between 2010 and 2020. The number of 10th graders reporting any illicit drug use was 30.2% in 2010 and 30.4% in 2020.

“So it’s not that more teens are using drugs. It’s just that drug use is becoming more dangerous due to the spread of counterfeit pills containing fentanyls,” Dr. Friedman said.

The authors noted that “the illicit drug supply has increasingly become contaminated with illicitly manufactured fentanyls and other synthetic opioid and benzodiazepine analogues.”

Mr. Friedman said the pandemic may have accelerated the spread of more dangerous forms of drugs as supply chains were disrupted.

Benjamin Brady, DrPH, an assistant professor at the University of Arizona, Tucson, who also has an appointment in the university’s Comprehensive Pain and Addiction Center, said in an interview the numbers that Dr. Friedman and colleagues present represent “worst fears coming true.”

He said he and his colleagues in the field “were anticipating a rise in overdose deaths for the next 5-10 years because of the way the supply-and-demand environment exists in the U.S.”

Dr. Brady explained that restricting access to prescription opioids has had an unfortunate side effect in decreasing access to a safer supply of drugs.

“Without having solutions that would reduce demand at the same rate, supply of the safer form of the drug has been reduced; that has pushed people toward heroin and street drugs and from 2016 on those have been adulterated with fentanyl,” he said.

He said the United States, compared with other developed nations, has been slower to embrace longer-term harm-reduction strategies and to improve access to treatment and care.

COVID likely also has exacerbated the problem in terms of isolation and reduction in quality of life that has adolescents seeking to fill that void with drugs, Dr. Brady said. They may be completely unaware that the drugs they are seeking are commonly cut with counterfeit fentanyl.

“Fentanyl can be up to 50 times stronger than heroin,” he noted. “Even just a little bit of fentanyl dramatically changes the risk profile on an overdose.”

Increasing rates of mental health concerns among adolescents over decades also contribute to drug-seeking trends, Dr. Brady noted.
 

Overdose increases in the overall population were smaller

In the overall population, the percentage increases were not nearly as large in 2020 and 2021 as they were for adolescents.

Rates of overdose deaths in the overall population increased steadily from 2010 and reached 70,630 in 2019. In 2020, the deaths increased to 91,799 (an increase of 29.48% from 2019) and increased 11.48% in 2021.

The researchers analyzed numbers from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention WONDER (Wide-Ranging Online Data for Epidemiologic Research) database, which has records of all U.S. deaths for which drug overdose was listed as the underlying cause.

The authors and Dr. Brady report no relevant financial relationships.

The number of overdose deaths in adolescents nearly doubled in 2020 from the year before and increased substantially again in 2021 after nearly a decade of fairly stable rates, according to data published in a JAMA research letter.

Most of the deaths involved fentanyl, the researchers found.

Joseph Friedman, MPH, of the Center for Social Medicine and Humanities at the University of California, Los Angeles, led the study, which analyzed adolescent (14-18 years old) overdose deaths in the United States from 2010 to June 2021 in light of increasing contamination in the supply of illicit drugs.

The researchers found there were 518 deaths among adolescents (2.40 per 100,000 population) in 2010, and the rates remained stable through 2019 with 492 deaths (2.36 per 100,000).

In 2020, however, deaths spiked to 954 (4.57 per 100 000), increasing by 94.3%, compared with 2019. In 2021, they increased another 20%.

The rise in fentanyl-involved deaths was particularly striking. Fentanyl-involved deaths increased from 253 (1.21 per 100,000) in 2019 to 680 (3.26 per 100,000) in 2020. The numbers through June 2021 were annualized for 2021 and calculations predicted 884 deaths (4.23 per 100,000) for the year.
 

Numbers point to fentanyl potency

In 2021, more than three-fourths (77.14%) of adolescent overdose deaths involved fentanyl, compared with 13.26% for benzodiazepines, 9.77% for methamphetamine, 7.33% for cocaine, 5.76% for prescription opioids, and 2.27% for heroin.

American Indian and Alaska Native adolescents had the highest overdose rate in 2021 (n = 24; 11.79 per 100,000), followed by Latinx adolescents (n = 354; 6.98 per 100,000).

“These adolescent trends fit a wider pattern of increasing racial and ethnic inequalities in overdose that deserve further investigation and intervention efforts,” the authors wrote.
 

Pandemic’s role unclear

The spikes in adolescent overdoses overlap the COVID-19 pandemic, but Dr. Friedman said in an interview the pandemic “may or may not have been a big factor. “

The authors wrote that drug use had generally been stable among adolescents between 2010 and 2020. The number of 10th graders reporting any illicit drug use was 30.2% in 2010 and 30.4% in 2020.

“So it’s not that more teens are using drugs. It’s just that drug use is becoming more dangerous due to the spread of counterfeit pills containing fentanyls,” Dr. Friedman said.

The authors noted that “the illicit drug supply has increasingly become contaminated with illicitly manufactured fentanyls and other synthetic opioid and benzodiazepine analogues.”

Mr. Friedman said the pandemic may have accelerated the spread of more dangerous forms of drugs as supply chains were disrupted.

Benjamin Brady, DrPH, an assistant professor at the University of Arizona, Tucson, who also has an appointment in the university’s Comprehensive Pain and Addiction Center, said in an interview the numbers that Dr. Friedman and colleagues present represent “worst fears coming true.”

He said he and his colleagues in the field “were anticipating a rise in overdose deaths for the next 5-10 years because of the way the supply-and-demand environment exists in the U.S.”

Dr. Brady explained that restricting access to prescription opioids has had an unfortunate side effect in decreasing access to a safer supply of drugs.

“Without having solutions that would reduce demand at the same rate, supply of the safer form of the drug has been reduced; that has pushed people toward heroin and street drugs and from 2016 on those have been adulterated with fentanyl,” he said.

He said the United States, compared with other developed nations, has been slower to embrace longer-term harm-reduction strategies and to improve access to treatment and care.

COVID likely also has exacerbated the problem in terms of isolation and reduction in quality of life that has adolescents seeking to fill that void with drugs, Dr. Brady said. They may be completely unaware that the drugs they are seeking are commonly cut with counterfeit fentanyl.

“Fentanyl can be up to 50 times stronger than heroin,” he noted. “Even just a little bit of fentanyl dramatically changes the risk profile on an overdose.”

Increasing rates of mental health concerns among adolescents over decades also contribute to drug-seeking trends, Dr. Brady noted.
 

Overdose increases in the overall population were smaller

In the overall population, the percentage increases were not nearly as large in 2020 and 2021 as they were for adolescents.

Rates of overdose deaths in the overall population increased steadily from 2010 and reached 70,630 in 2019. In 2020, the deaths increased to 91,799 (an increase of 29.48% from 2019) and increased 11.48% in 2021.

The researchers analyzed numbers from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention WONDER (Wide-Ranging Online Data for Epidemiologic Research) database, which has records of all U.S. deaths for which drug overdose was listed as the underlying cause.

The authors and Dr. Brady report no relevant financial relationships.

The number of overdose deaths in adolescents nearly doubled in 2020 from the year before and increased substantially again in 2021 after nearly a decade of fairly stable rates, according to data published in a JAMA research letter.

Most of the deaths involved fentanyl, the researchers found.

Joseph Friedman, MPH, of the Center for Social Medicine and Humanities at the University of California, Los Angeles, led the study, which analyzed adolescent (14-18 years old) overdose deaths in the United States from 2010 to June 2021 in light of increasing contamination in the supply of illicit drugs.

The researchers found there were 518 deaths among adolescents (2.40 per 100,000 population) in 2010, and the rates remained stable through 2019 with 492 deaths (2.36 per 100,000).

In 2020, however, deaths spiked to 954 (4.57 per 100 000), increasing by 94.3%, compared with 2019. In 2021, they increased another 20%.

The rise in fentanyl-involved deaths was particularly striking. Fentanyl-involved deaths increased from 253 (1.21 per 100,000) in 2019 to 680 (3.26 per 100,000) in 2020. The numbers through June 2021 were annualized for 2021 and calculations predicted 884 deaths (4.23 per 100,000) for the year.
 

Numbers point to fentanyl potency

In 2021, more than three-fourths (77.14%) of adolescent overdose deaths involved fentanyl, compared with 13.26% for benzodiazepines, 9.77% for methamphetamine, 7.33% for cocaine, 5.76% for prescription opioids, and 2.27% for heroin.

American Indian and Alaska Native adolescents had the highest overdose rate in 2021 (n = 24; 11.79 per 100,000), followed by Latinx adolescents (n = 354; 6.98 per 100,000).

“These adolescent trends fit a wider pattern of increasing racial and ethnic inequalities in overdose that deserve further investigation and intervention efforts,” the authors wrote.
 

Pandemic’s role unclear

The spikes in adolescent overdoses overlap the COVID-19 pandemic, but Dr. Friedman said in an interview the pandemic “may or may not have been a big factor. “

The authors wrote that drug use had generally been stable among adolescents between 2010 and 2020. The number of 10th graders reporting any illicit drug use was 30.2% in 2010 and 30.4% in 2020.

“So it’s not that more teens are using drugs. It’s just that drug use is becoming more dangerous due to the spread of counterfeit pills containing fentanyls,” Dr. Friedman said.

The authors noted that “the illicit drug supply has increasingly become contaminated with illicitly manufactured fentanyls and other synthetic opioid and benzodiazepine analogues.”

Mr. Friedman said the pandemic may have accelerated the spread of more dangerous forms of drugs as supply chains were disrupted.

Benjamin Brady, DrPH, an assistant professor at the University of Arizona, Tucson, who also has an appointment in the university’s Comprehensive Pain and Addiction Center, said in an interview the numbers that Dr. Friedman and colleagues present represent “worst fears coming true.”

He said he and his colleagues in the field “were anticipating a rise in overdose deaths for the next 5-10 years because of the way the supply-and-demand environment exists in the U.S.”

Dr. Brady explained that restricting access to prescription opioids has had an unfortunate side effect in decreasing access to a safer supply of drugs.

“Without having solutions that would reduce demand at the same rate, supply of the safer form of the drug has been reduced; that has pushed people toward heroin and street drugs and from 2016 on those have been adulterated with fentanyl,” he said.

He said the United States, compared with other developed nations, has been slower to embrace longer-term harm-reduction strategies and to improve access to treatment and care.

COVID likely also has exacerbated the problem in terms of isolation and reduction in quality of life that has adolescents seeking to fill that void with drugs, Dr. Brady said. They may be completely unaware that the drugs they are seeking are commonly cut with counterfeit fentanyl.

“Fentanyl can be up to 50 times stronger than heroin,” he noted. “Even just a little bit of fentanyl dramatically changes the risk profile on an overdose.”

Increasing rates of mental health concerns among adolescents over decades also contribute to drug-seeking trends, Dr. Brady noted.
 

Overdose increases in the overall population were smaller

In the overall population, the percentage increases were not nearly as large in 2020 and 2021 as they were for adolescents.

Rates of overdose deaths in the overall population increased steadily from 2010 and reached 70,630 in 2019. In 2020, the deaths increased to 91,799 (an increase of 29.48% from 2019) and increased 11.48% in 2021.

The researchers analyzed numbers from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention WONDER (Wide-Ranging Online Data for Epidemiologic Research) database, which has records of all U.S. deaths for which drug overdose was listed as the underlying cause.

The authors and Dr. Brady report no relevant financial relationships.

The American Academy of Pediatrics, with funding from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, studied the CDC’s “Learn the Signs. Act Early” developmental surveillance milestones for children 0-5 years to update the milestones based on published studies. The goal was to improve this tool for developmental surveillance and use by the public. Developmental surveillance is not just observing a child at a check-up but rather “is a longitudinal process that involves eliciting concerns, taking a developmental history based on milestone attainment, observing milestones and other behaviors, examining the child, and applying clinical judgment during health supervision visits (HSVs).”¹

While the milestones we were trained on were a good start and highlighted the developmental progression central to pediatrics, they were not based on norms or cut scores indicating significant developmental risk unless taught from a validated tool. The CDC was concerned that their public handouts and apps were based on median ages (middle number of the entire range) of attainment not the mode (most common) or even average ages. That means that about half of all typically developing children would “not have attained” that skill at the age noted, potentially evoking unnecessary concern for parents and a “wait-and-see” message from a knowledgeable provider who realized the statistical meaning and the broad range of normal. Another potential problem with using milestones set at the median age is that parents, especially those with several children or experienced friends, may see the provider as an alarmist when they have seen great variation in children who later were normal. This reaction can dampen provider willingness to discuss development or even to screen with validated tools. We have learned the hard way from COVID-19 that it is difficult to convey concepts of risk effectively both balancing fear and stimulating action.

The AAP experts reviewed the English literature for data-based milestones, finding 34 articles, 10 of which had an opinion for at least one milestone. If this sounds like a very small number, you are correct. You may not realize that almost all screening and diagnostic tools have been based on data collected by Gesell in 1928!² While most of health care has changed since then, which milestones are measured in infants has not.

The biggest change from this review was deciding to use as milestones skills reported for 75% of children at each age of typical HSVs, adding ones for 15 and 30 months. The implication is that children not attaining these milestones are all at risk and deserving of more careful history, examination, and administration of a validated screening tool; not true when based on median data. Of the 94 existing CDC milestones retained after the review, one-third were moved to a different age with 21 of 31 assigned to an older age. Domains of functioning for the milestones were consolidated into social emotional, cognitive, language/communication, and motor, to help parents learn to distinguish these areas, and, although many milestones reflect several domains, each was included only once to reduce confusion.

Psychosocial assessment is recommended by the AAP and Bright Futures at every HSV but the fewest milestones with normative data were identified for this domain, often self-help rather than social engagement or emotion regulation skills. The cross-cultural study cited for many of the new milestones was reassuring overall in that the median ages for 67%-88% of milestones in most domains were equivalent across the four countries sampled, but only 22% of self-help skills were equivalent.³ This should remind us that parenting has more influence over psychosocial skills than other domains. Psychosocial and behavioral functioning, especially emotional regulation, also deserve “surveillance” as they have enormous impact on life outcomes but need to be measured and supported differently. Routine use of validated tools such as the Early Childhood Screening Assessment or the Ages & Stages Questionnaires: Social-Emotional for these domains are also needed.

Normal variations in temperament and patterns of attachment can affect many milestones including courage for walking, exploration, social engagement, and prosocial behaviors or self-control for social situations, attention, range of affect, and cooperation. All of these skills are among the 42 total (14 new) social-emotional milestones for 0- to 5-year-olds. Variations in these functions are at the root of the most common “challenging behaviors” in our studies in primary care. They are also the most vulnerable to suboptimal parent-child relationships, adverse childhood experiences, and social determinants of health.

As primary care providers, we not only need to detect children at risk for developmental problems but also promote and celebrate developmental progress. I hope that changing the threshold for concern to 75% will allow for a more positive review with the family (as fewer will be flagged as at risk) and chance to congratulate parents on all that is going well. But I also hope the change will not make us overlook parenting challenges, often from the psychosocial milestones most amenable to our guidance and support.

Early identification is mainly important to obtain the early intervention shown to improve outcomes. However, less than 25% of children with delays or disabilities receive early intervention before age 3 and most with emotional, behavioral, and developmental conditions, other than autism spectrum disorder, not before age 5. Since early intervention services are freely available in all states, we also need to do better at getting children to this care.

Let’s reconsider the process of developmental surveillance in this light of delayed referral: “Eliciting concerns” is key as parents have been shown to be usually correct in their worries. Listening to how they express the concerns can help you connect their specific issues when discussing reasons for referral. While most parent “recall of past milestones” is not accurate, current milestones reported are; thus, the need to have the new more accurate norms for all ages for comparison. When we make observations of a child’s abilities and behaviors ourselves we may not only pick up on issues missed by the parent, but will be more convincing in conveying the need for referral when indicated. When we “examine” the child we can use our professional skills to determine the very important risk factor of the quality of how a skill is performed, not just that it is. The recommended “use of validated screening tools” when the new milestones are not met give us an objective tool to share with parents, more confidence in when referral is warranted, which we will convey to parents (and perhaps skeptical relatives), and baseline documentation from which we can “track” referrals, progress, and, hopefully, better outcomes.

Dr. Howard is assistant professor of pediatrics at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and creator of CHADIS. She had no other relevant disclosures. Dr. Howard’s contribution to this publication was as a paid expert to MDedge News. Email her at [email protected].

References

1. Zubler JM et al. Pediatrics. 2022;149(3):e2021052138.

2. Gessell A et al. Macmillan: New York, 1928.

3. Ertem IO et al. Lancet Glob Health. 2018 Mar;6(3):e279-91.

The American Academy of Pediatrics, with funding from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, studied the CDC’s “Learn the Signs. Act Early” developmental surveillance milestones for children 0-5 years to update the milestones based on published studies. The goal was to improve this tool for developmental surveillance and use by the public. Developmental surveillance is not just observing a child at a check-up but rather “is a longitudinal process that involves eliciting concerns, taking a developmental history based on milestone attainment, observing milestones and other behaviors, examining the child, and applying clinical judgment during health supervision visits (HSVs).”¹

While the milestones we were trained on were a good start and highlighted the developmental progression central to pediatrics, they were not based on norms or cut scores indicating significant developmental risk unless taught from a validated tool. The CDC was concerned that their public handouts and apps were based on median ages (middle number of the entire range) of attainment not the mode (most common) or even average ages. That means that about half of all typically developing children would “not have attained” that skill at the age noted, potentially evoking unnecessary concern for parents and a “wait-and-see” message from a knowledgeable provider who realized the statistical meaning and the broad range of normal. Another potential problem with using milestones set at the median age is that parents, especially those with several children or experienced friends, may see the provider as an alarmist when they have seen great variation in children who later were normal. This reaction can dampen provider willingness to discuss development or even to screen with validated tools. We have learned the hard way from COVID-19 that it is difficult to convey concepts of risk effectively both balancing fear and stimulating action.

The AAP experts reviewed the English literature for data-based milestones, finding 34 articles, 10 of which had an opinion for at least one milestone. If this sounds like a very small number, you are correct. You may not realize that almost all screening and diagnostic tools have been based on data collected by Gesell in 1928!² While most of health care has changed since then, which milestones are measured in infants has not.

The biggest change from this review was deciding to use as milestones skills reported for 75% of children at each age of typical HSVs, adding ones for 15 and 30 months. The implication is that children not attaining these milestones are all at risk and deserving of more careful history, examination, and administration of a validated screening tool; not true when based on median data. Of the 94 existing CDC milestones retained after the review, one-third were moved to a different age with 21 of 31 assigned to an older age. Domains of functioning for the milestones were consolidated into social emotional, cognitive, language/communication, and motor, to help parents learn to distinguish these areas, and, although many milestones reflect several domains, each was included only once to reduce confusion.

Psychosocial assessment is recommended by the AAP and Bright Futures at every HSV but the fewest milestones with normative data were identified for this domain, often self-help rather than social engagement or emotion regulation skills. The cross-cultural study cited for many of the new milestones was reassuring overall in that the median ages for 67%-88% of milestones in most domains were equivalent across the four countries sampled, but only 22% of self-help skills were equivalent.³ This should remind us that parenting has more influence over psychosocial skills than other domains. Psychosocial and behavioral functioning, especially emotional regulation, also deserve “surveillance” as they have enormous impact on life outcomes but need to be measured and supported differently. Routine use of validated tools such as the Early Childhood Screening Assessment or the Ages & Stages Questionnaires: Social-Emotional for these domains are also needed.

Normal variations in temperament and patterns of attachment can affect many milestones including courage for walking, exploration, social engagement, and prosocial behaviors or self-control for social situations, attention, range of affect, and cooperation. All of these skills are among the 42 total (14 new) social-emotional milestones for 0- to 5-year-olds. Variations in these functions are at the root of the most common “challenging behaviors” in our studies in primary care. They are also the most vulnerable to suboptimal parent-child relationships, adverse childhood experiences, and social determinants of health.

As primary care providers, we not only need to detect children at risk for developmental problems but also promote and celebrate developmental progress. I hope that changing the threshold for concern to 75% will allow for a more positive review with the family (as fewer will be flagged as at risk) and chance to congratulate parents on all that is going well. But I also hope the change will not make us overlook parenting challenges, often from the psychosocial milestones most amenable to our guidance and support.

Early identification is mainly important to obtain the early intervention shown to improve outcomes. However, less than 25% of children with delays or disabilities receive early intervention before age 3 and most with emotional, behavioral, and developmental conditions, other than autism spectrum disorder, not before age 5. Since early intervention services are freely available in all states, we also need to do better at getting children to this care.

Let’s reconsider the process of developmental surveillance in this light of delayed referral: “Eliciting concerns” is key as parents have been shown to be usually correct in their worries. Listening to how they express the concerns can help you connect their specific issues when discussing reasons for referral. While most parent “recall of past milestones” is not accurate, current milestones reported are; thus, the need to have the new more accurate norms for all ages for comparison. When we make observations of a child’s abilities and behaviors ourselves we may not only pick up on issues missed by the parent, but will be more convincing in conveying the need for referral when indicated. When we “examine” the child we can use our professional skills to determine the very important risk factor of the quality of how a skill is performed, not just that it is. The recommended “use of validated screening tools” when the new milestones are not met give us an objective tool to share with parents, more confidence in when referral is warranted, which we will convey to parents (and perhaps skeptical relatives), and baseline documentation from which we can “track” referrals, progress, and, hopefully, better outcomes.

Dr. Howard is assistant professor of pediatrics at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and creator of CHADIS. She had no other relevant disclosures. Dr. Howard’s contribution to this publication was as a paid expert to MDedge News. Email her at [email protected].

References

1. Zubler JM et al. Pediatrics. 2022;149(3):e2021052138.

2. Gessell A et al. Macmillan: New York, 1928.

3. Ertem IO et al. Lancet Glob Health. 2018 Mar;6(3):e279-91.

The American Academy of Pediatrics, with funding from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, studied the CDC’s “Learn the Signs. Act Early” developmental surveillance milestones for children 0-5 years to update the milestones based on published studies. The goal was to improve this tool for developmental surveillance and use by the public. Developmental surveillance is not just observing a child at a check-up but rather “is a longitudinal process that involves eliciting concerns, taking a developmental history based on milestone attainment, observing milestones and other behaviors, examining the child, and applying clinical judgment during health supervision visits (HSVs).”¹

While the milestones we were trained on were a good start and highlighted the developmental progression central to pediatrics, they were not based on norms or cut scores indicating significant developmental risk unless taught from a validated tool. The CDC was concerned that their public handouts and apps were based on median ages (middle number of the entire range) of attainment not the mode (most common) or even average ages. That means that about half of all typically developing children would “not have attained” that skill at the age noted, potentially evoking unnecessary concern for parents and a “wait-and-see” message from a knowledgeable provider who realized the statistical meaning and the broad range of normal. Another potential problem with using milestones set at the median age is that parents, especially those with several children or experienced friends, may see the provider as an alarmist when they have seen great variation in children who later were normal. This reaction can dampen provider willingness to discuss development or even to screen with validated tools. We have learned the hard way from COVID-19 that it is difficult to convey concepts of risk effectively both balancing fear and stimulating action.

The AAP experts reviewed the English literature for data-based milestones, finding 34 articles, 10 of which had an opinion for at least one milestone. If this sounds like a very small number, you are correct. You may not realize that almost all screening and diagnostic tools have been based on data collected by Gesell in 1928!² While most of health care has changed since then, which milestones are measured in infants has not.

The biggest change from this review was deciding to use as milestones skills reported for 75% of children at each age of typical HSVs, adding ones for 15 and 30 months. The implication is that children not attaining these milestones are all at risk and deserving of more careful history, examination, and administration of a validated screening tool; not true when based on median data. Of the 94 existing CDC milestones retained after the review, one-third were moved to a different age with 21 of 31 assigned to an older age. Domains of functioning for the milestones were consolidated into social emotional, cognitive, language/communication, and motor, to help parents learn to distinguish these areas, and, although many milestones reflect several domains, each was included only once to reduce confusion.

Psychosocial assessment is recommended by the AAP and Bright Futures at every HSV but the fewest milestones with normative data were identified for this domain, often self-help rather than social engagement or emotion regulation skills. The cross-cultural study cited for many of the new milestones was reassuring overall in that the median ages for 67%-88% of milestones in most domains were equivalent across the four countries sampled, but only 22% of self-help skills were equivalent.³ This should remind us that parenting has more influence over psychosocial skills than other domains. Psychosocial and behavioral functioning, especially emotional regulation, also deserve “surveillance” as they have enormous impact on life outcomes but need to be measured and supported differently. Routine use of validated tools such as the Early Childhood Screening Assessment or the Ages & Stages Questionnaires: Social-Emotional for these domains are also needed.

Normal variations in temperament and patterns of attachment can affect many milestones including courage for walking, exploration, social engagement, and prosocial behaviors or self-control for social situations, attention, range of affect, and cooperation. All of these skills are among the 42 total (14 new) social-emotional milestones for 0- to 5-year-olds. Variations in these functions are at the root of the most common “challenging behaviors” in our studies in primary care. They are also the most vulnerable to suboptimal parent-child relationships, adverse childhood experiences, and social determinants of health.

As primary care providers, we not only need to detect children at risk for developmental problems but also promote and celebrate developmental progress. I hope that changing the threshold for concern to 75% will allow for a more positive review with the family (as fewer will be flagged as at risk) and chance to congratulate parents on all that is going well. But I also hope the change will not make us overlook parenting challenges, often from the psychosocial milestones most amenable to our guidance and support.

Early identification is mainly important to obtain the early intervention shown to improve outcomes. However, less than 25% of children with delays or disabilities receive early intervention before age 3 and most with emotional, behavioral, and developmental conditions, other than autism spectrum disorder, not before age 5. Since early intervention services are freely available in all states, we also need to do better at getting children to this care.

Let’s reconsider the process of developmental surveillance in this light of delayed referral: “Eliciting concerns” is key as parents have been shown to be usually correct in their worries. Listening to how they express the concerns can help you connect their specific issues when discussing reasons for referral. While most parent “recall of past milestones” is not accurate, current milestones reported are; thus, the need to have the new more accurate norms for all ages for comparison. When we make observations of a child’s abilities and behaviors ourselves we may not only pick up on issues missed by the parent, but will be more convincing in conveying the need for referral when indicated. When we “examine” the child we can use our professional skills to determine the very important risk factor of the quality of how a skill is performed, not just that it is. The recommended “use of validated screening tools” when the new milestones are not met give us an objective tool to share with parents, more confidence in when referral is warranted, which we will convey to parents (and perhaps skeptical relatives), and baseline documentation from which we can “track” referrals, progress, and, hopefully, better outcomes.

Dr. Howard is assistant professor of pediatrics at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and creator of CHADIS. She had no other relevant disclosures. Dr. Howard’s contribution to this publication was as a paid expert to MDedge News. Email her at [email protected].

References

1. Zubler JM et al. Pediatrics. 2022;149(3):e2021052138.

2. Gessell A et al. Macmillan: New York, 1928.

3. Ertem IO et al. Lancet Glob Health. 2018 Mar;6(3):e279-91.

Approximately 20% of sexually active high schoolers reported testing for a sexually transmitted infection in the previous year, based on data from 2,501 respondents to the 2019 national Youth Risk Behavior Survey.

Data suggest that half of all new STIs in the United States occur in youth aged 15-24 years, and that 25% of sexually active young women in the United States have an STI, wrote Nicole Liddon, PhD, of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, and colleagues.

Although organizations including the American Academy of Pediatrics and the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommend varying degrees of routine STI screening for adolescents, data on the prevalence of testing in this population are limited, the researchers said.

However, the addition in 2019 of a question on STI testing to the national Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS) provided an opportunity to assess prevalence of STI testing, identify potential barriers, and increase screening rates, they wrote.

In a study published in Pediatrics, the researchers reviewed data from the 2019 national YRBS, an anonymous survey administered biannually to public and private high school students across the United States.

The study population included 2,501 individuals who reported sexual activity with at least one person during the 3 months prior to the survey.

Overall, 20.4% of the respondents reported being tested for an STI in the previous year, including significantly more females than males (26.1% vs. 13.7%).

The prevalence of testing among females was not significantly different according to race/ethnicity, sexual identity, or the sex of sexual contacts, but the prevalence increased with age; 12.6%, 22.8%, 28.5%, and 36.9% for females aged 15 years and younger, 16 years, 17 years, and 18 years, respectively.

Among males, no significant differences in STI testing were noted according to race/ethnicity, age, sexual identity, or sex of sexual contacts.

The researchers also analyzed prevalence of STI tested based on sexual behaviors. Among female students, the prevalence of STI testing was higher among those who reported the following behaviors, compared with those who did not: nonuse of condoms at last sexual intercourse (34.1% vs. 18.2%), substance use at last sexual intercourse (32.0% vs. 24.7%), and having four or more lifetime sex partners (31.9% vs. 24.7%).

Among male students, the prevalence of STI testing was higher among those who reported the following behaviors, compared with those who did not: sex before age 13 years (27.1% vs. 12.1%), having two or more recent sex partners (22.4% vs. 10.4%), having four or more lifetime sex partners (22.3% vs. 9.5%), and substance use at last sexual intercourse (19.2% vs. 12.1%).

The low prevalence of STI testing in teens has become more urgent in the wake of the coronavirus pandemic, the researchers wrote. “These prevalence estimates were derived before the possible profound impacts of the pandemic on adolescent sexual behavior and access to and use of health care services.”

Current guidelines allow health care providers the options for opt-out STI screening as a strategy to improve screening rates and testing; however, this option does not eliminate the need for conversations with adolescent patients about sexual activity, they emphasized.

The study findings were limited by several other factors including the inability to directly assess adherence to screening recommendations specifically, the inability to determine whether low testing rates resulted from limited access to health care or missed screening opportunities at visits, and the inclusion only of high school students but not out-of-school youth who may have more limited access to testing.

However, the results highlight the need to improve STI testing services for adolescents, and to address barriers at the individual and clinic level, they said. The addition of a question about past-year STI testing to the 2019 and future YRBS survey will promote ongoing monitoring of efforts to increase testing rates.

Teen sexual health goes beyond testing

The current study shows that routine testing for STIs according to published guidelines is low, Cynthia Holland-Hall, MD, and Andrea E. Bonny, MD, of Nationwide Children’s Hospital and Ohio State University, both in Columbus, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

Notably, sexually active females and males who had sex with male partners, two groups for whom annual testing is specifically recommended by multiple organizations, had testing rates of less than 30%, they said. The authors highlighted the study’s lack of information on which specific barriers, such as lack of access to the health care system, lack of knowledge, and fear of disclosure, contributed to overall low rates of testing.

However, STI testing is only one element of sexual and reproductive health care. Although opt-out testing may improve detection rates, the editorialists emphasized the need for patient-provider conversations about sex, citing recent studies showing that adolescents who spent some time alone with providers were more likely to receive sexual and reproductive health (SRH) services in the past year.

“Resources such as confidentiality policies, checklists, and written screening tools may facilitate SRH discussions,” Dr. Holland-Hall and Dr. Bonny said. “With a little practice, respect, and intention, a caring provider can take the awkward out of discussing sexual health but must not opt out of the conversation.”
 

Privacy and time issues exacerbate low testing rates

The current study is especially important at this time because many adolescents have likely missed well visits, and therefore important STI screens, because of disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, Karalyn Kinsella, MD, a pediatrician in private practice in Cheshire, Conn., said in an interview.

“I was surprised that the rate of screening was only one in five,” said Dr. Kinsella. “I knew it would be suboptimal, but not that low.”

According to Dr. Kinsella, there are two major barriers to increasing STI testing in adolescents in primary care. One barrier is that insurance companies will often state on the bill what the testing was for, which will lead to an uncomfortable conversation at a later date for the adolescent and parent when the bill arrives in the mail. A second barrier is when to test during a visit,. “If we obtain urine samples on all adolescents and many of them are not sexually active, we are wasting a lot of time in the short visit to obtain urine,” she explained. “If testing is scheduled for the end of the visit, they often leave without providing a urine sample.”

Overall, the study is an important reminder to general pediatricians about STI testing for sexually active teens, she emphasized. 

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. The editorialists had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Kinsella had no financial conflicts to disclose and serves on the editorial advisory board of Pediatric News.

Approximately 20% of sexually active high schoolers reported testing for a sexually transmitted infection in the previous year, based on data from 2,501 respondents to the 2019 national Youth Risk Behavior Survey.

Data suggest that half of all new STIs in the United States occur in youth aged 15-24 years, and that 25% of sexually active young women in the United States have an STI, wrote Nicole Liddon, PhD, of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, and colleagues.

Although organizations including the American Academy of Pediatrics and the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommend varying degrees of routine STI screening for adolescents, data on the prevalence of testing in this population are limited, the researchers said.

However, the addition in 2019 of a question on STI testing to the national Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS) provided an opportunity to assess prevalence of STI testing, identify potential barriers, and increase screening rates, they wrote.

In a study published in Pediatrics, the researchers reviewed data from the 2019 national YRBS, an anonymous survey administered biannually to public and private high school students across the United States.

The study population included 2,501 individuals who reported sexual activity with at least one person during the 3 months prior to the survey.

Overall, 20.4% of the respondents reported being tested for an STI in the previous year, including significantly more females than males (26.1% vs. 13.7%).

The prevalence of testing among females was not significantly different according to race/ethnicity, sexual identity, or the sex of sexual contacts, but the prevalence increased with age; 12.6%, 22.8%, 28.5%, and 36.9% for females aged 15 years and younger, 16 years, 17 years, and 18 years, respectively.

Among males, no significant differences in STI testing were noted according to race/ethnicity, age, sexual identity, or sex of sexual contacts.

The researchers also analyzed prevalence of STI tested based on sexual behaviors. Among female students, the prevalence of STI testing was higher among those who reported the following behaviors, compared with those who did not: nonuse of condoms at last sexual intercourse (34.1% vs. 18.2%), substance use at last sexual intercourse (32.0% vs. 24.7%), and having four or more lifetime sex partners (31.9% vs. 24.7%).

Among male students, the prevalence of STI testing was higher among those who reported the following behaviors, compared with those who did not: sex before age 13 years (27.1% vs. 12.1%), having two or more recent sex partners (22.4% vs. 10.4%), having four or more lifetime sex partners (22.3% vs. 9.5%), and substance use at last sexual intercourse (19.2% vs. 12.1%).

The low prevalence of STI testing in teens has become more urgent in the wake of the coronavirus pandemic, the researchers wrote. “These prevalence estimates were derived before the possible profound impacts of the pandemic on adolescent sexual behavior and access to and use of health care services.”

Current guidelines allow health care providers the options for opt-out STI screening as a strategy to improve screening rates and testing; however, this option does not eliminate the need for conversations with adolescent patients about sexual activity, they emphasized.

The study findings were limited by several other factors including the inability to directly assess adherence to screening recommendations specifically, the inability to determine whether low testing rates resulted from limited access to health care or missed screening opportunities at visits, and the inclusion only of high school students but not out-of-school youth who may have more limited access to testing.

However, the results highlight the need to improve STI testing services for adolescents, and to address barriers at the individual and clinic level, they said. The addition of a question about past-year STI testing to the 2019 and future YRBS survey will promote ongoing monitoring of efforts to increase testing rates.

Teen sexual health goes beyond testing

The current study shows that routine testing for STIs according to published guidelines is low, Cynthia Holland-Hall, MD, and Andrea E. Bonny, MD, of Nationwide Children’s Hospital and Ohio State University, both in Columbus, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

Notably, sexually active females and males who had sex with male partners, two groups for whom annual testing is specifically recommended by multiple organizations, had testing rates of less than 30%, they said. The authors highlighted the study’s lack of information on which specific barriers, such as lack of access to the health care system, lack of knowledge, and fear of disclosure, contributed to overall low rates of testing.

However, STI testing is only one element of sexual and reproductive health care. Although opt-out testing may improve detection rates, the editorialists emphasized the need for patient-provider conversations about sex, citing recent studies showing that adolescents who spent some time alone with providers were more likely to receive sexual and reproductive health (SRH) services in the past year.

“Resources such as confidentiality policies, checklists, and written screening tools may facilitate SRH discussions,” Dr. Holland-Hall and Dr. Bonny said. “With a little practice, respect, and intention, a caring provider can take the awkward out of discussing sexual health but must not opt out of the conversation.”
 

Privacy and time issues exacerbate low testing rates

The current study is especially important at this time because many adolescents have likely missed well visits, and therefore important STI screens, because of disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, Karalyn Kinsella, MD, a pediatrician in private practice in Cheshire, Conn., said in an interview.

“I was surprised that the rate of screening was only one in five,” said Dr. Kinsella. “I knew it would be suboptimal, but not that low.”

According to Dr. Kinsella, there are two major barriers to increasing STI testing in adolescents in primary care. One barrier is that insurance companies will often state on the bill what the testing was for, which will lead to an uncomfortable conversation at a later date for the adolescent and parent when the bill arrives in the mail. A second barrier is when to test during a visit,. “If we obtain urine samples on all adolescents and many of them are not sexually active, we are wasting a lot of time in the short visit to obtain urine,” she explained. “If testing is scheduled for the end of the visit, they often leave without providing a urine sample.”

Overall, the study is an important reminder to general pediatricians about STI testing for sexually active teens, she emphasized. 

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. The editorialists had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Kinsella had no financial conflicts to disclose and serves on the editorial advisory board of Pediatric News.

Approximately 20% of sexually active high schoolers reported testing for a sexually transmitted infection in the previous year, based on data from 2,501 respondents to the 2019 national Youth Risk Behavior Survey.

Data suggest that half of all new STIs in the United States occur in youth aged 15-24 years, and that 25% of sexually active young women in the United States have an STI, wrote Nicole Liddon, PhD, of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, and colleagues.

Although organizations including the American Academy of Pediatrics and the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommend varying degrees of routine STI screening for adolescents, data on the prevalence of testing in this population are limited, the researchers said.

However, the addition in 2019 of a question on STI testing to the national Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS) provided an opportunity to assess prevalence of STI testing, identify potential barriers, and increase screening rates, they wrote.

In a study published in Pediatrics, the researchers reviewed data from the 2019 national YRBS, an anonymous survey administered biannually to public and private high school students across the United States.

The study population included 2,501 individuals who reported sexual activity with at least one person during the 3 months prior to the survey.

Overall, 20.4% of the respondents reported being tested for an STI in the previous year, including significantly more females than males (26.1% vs. 13.7%).

The prevalence of testing among females was not significantly different according to race/ethnicity, sexual identity, or the sex of sexual contacts, but the prevalence increased with age; 12.6%, 22.8%, 28.5%, and 36.9% for females aged 15 years and younger, 16 years, 17 years, and 18 years, respectively.

Among males, no significant differences in STI testing were noted according to race/ethnicity, age, sexual identity, or sex of sexual contacts.

The researchers also analyzed prevalence of STI tested based on sexual behaviors. Among female students, the prevalence of STI testing was higher among those who reported the following behaviors, compared with those who did not: nonuse of condoms at last sexual intercourse (34.1% vs. 18.2%), substance use at last sexual intercourse (32.0% vs. 24.7%), and having four or more lifetime sex partners (31.9% vs. 24.7%).

Among male students, the prevalence of STI testing was higher among those who reported the following behaviors, compared with those who did not: sex before age 13 years (27.1% vs. 12.1%), having two or more recent sex partners (22.4% vs. 10.4%), having four or more lifetime sex partners (22.3% vs. 9.5%), and substance use at last sexual intercourse (19.2% vs. 12.1%).

The low prevalence of STI testing in teens has become more urgent in the wake of the coronavirus pandemic, the researchers wrote. “These prevalence estimates were derived before the possible profound impacts of the pandemic on adolescent sexual behavior and access to and use of health care services.”

Current guidelines allow health care providers the options for opt-out STI screening as a strategy to improve screening rates and testing; however, this option does not eliminate the need for conversations with adolescent patients about sexual activity, they emphasized.

The study findings were limited by several other factors including the inability to directly assess adherence to screening recommendations specifically, the inability to determine whether low testing rates resulted from limited access to health care or missed screening opportunities at visits, and the inclusion only of high school students but not out-of-school youth who may have more limited access to testing.

However, the results highlight the need to improve STI testing services for adolescents, and to address barriers at the individual and clinic level, they said. The addition of a question about past-year STI testing to the 2019 and future YRBS survey will promote ongoing monitoring of efforts to increase testing rates.

Teen sexual health goes beyond testing

The current study shows that routine testing for STIs according to published guidelines is low, Cynthia Holland-Hall, MD, and Andrea E. Bonny, MD, of Nationwide Children’s Hospital and Ohio State University, both in Columbus, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

Notably, sexually active females and males who had sex with male partners, two groups for whom annual testing is specifically recommended by multiple organizations, had testing rates of less than 30%, they said. The authors highlighted the study’s lack of information on which specific barriers, such as lack of access to the health care system, lack of knowledge, and fear of disclosure, contributed to overall low rates of testing.

However, STI testing is only one element of sexual and reproductive health care. Although opt-out testing may improve detection rates, the editorialists emphasized the need for patient-provider conversations about sex, citing recent studies showing that adolescents who spent some time alone with providers were more likely to receive sexual and reproductive health (SRH) services in the past year.

“Resources such as confidentiality policies, checklists, and written screening tools may facilitate SRH discussions,” Dr. Holland-Hall and Dr. Bonny said. “With a little practice, respect, and intention, a caring provider can take the awkward out of discussing sexual health but must not opt out of the conversation.”
 

Privacy and time issues exacerbate low testing rates

The current study is especially important at this time because many adolescents have likely missed well visits, and therefore important STI screens, because of disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, Karalyn Kinsella, MD, a pediatrician in private practice in Cheshire, Conn., said in an interview.

“I was surprised that the rate of screening was only one in five,” said Dr. Kinsella. “I knew it would be suboptimal, but not that low.”

According to Dr. Kinsella, there are two major barriers to increasing STI testing in adolescents in primary care. One barrier is that insurance companies will often state on the bill what the testing was for, which will lead to an uncomfortable conversation at a later date for the adolescent and parent when the bill arrives in the mail. A second barrier is when to test during a visit,. “If we obtain urine samples on all adolescents and many of them are not sexually active, we are wasting a lot of time in the short visit to obtain urine,” she explained. “If testing is scheduled for the end of the visit, they often leave without providing a urine sample.”

Overall, the study is an important reminder to general pediatricians about STI testing for sexually active teens, she emphasized. 

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. The editorialists had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Kinsella had no financial conflicts to disclose and serves on the editorial advisory board of Pediatric News.

In 2021, state lawmakers introduced a record number of bills that would affect transgender and gender-diverse people. The vast majority were focused on transgender and gender-diverse youth in particular. We’ve seen bills that would take away gender-affirming medical care for minors, ones that would force trans kids to play on sports teams that don’t match their gender identity, and others that would ban trans kids from public facilities like bathrooms that match their gender identities.

These bills aren’t particularly new, but state lawmakers are putting more energy into them than ever. In response, some public figures have started pushing back. Ariana Grande just pledged to match up to 1.5 million dollars in donations to combat anti–trans youth legislative initiatives. However, doctors have been underrepresented in the political discourse.

Sadly, much of the discussion in this area has been driven by wild speculation and emotional rhetoric. It’s rare that we see actual data brought to the table. As clinicians and scientists, we have a responsibility to highlight the data relevant to these legislative debates, and to share them with our representatives. I’m going to break down what we know quantitatively about each of these issues, so that you’ll feel empowered to bring that information to these debates. My hope is that we can move toward evidence-based public policy instead of rhetoric-based public policy, so that we can ensure the best health possible for young people around the country.
 

Bathroom bills

Though they’ve been less of a focus recently, politicians for years have argued that trans people should be forced to use bathrooms and other public facilities that match their sex assigned at birth, not their gender identity. Their central argument is that trans-inclusive public facility policies will result in higher rates of assault. Published peer-review data show this isn’t true. A 2019 study in Sexuality Research and Social Policy examined the impacts of trans-inclusive public facility policies and found they resulted in no increase in assaults among the general (mostly cisgender) population. Another 2019 study in Pediatrics found that trans-inclusive facility policies were associated with lower odds of sexual assault victimization against transgender youth. The myth that trans-inclusive public facilities increase assault risk is simply that: a myth. All existing data indicate that trans-inclusive policies will improve public safety.

Sports bills

One of the hottest debates recently involves whether transgender girls should be allowed to participate in girls’ sports teams. Those in favor of these bills argue that transgender girls have an innate biological sports advantage over cisgender girls, and if allowed to compete in girls’ sports leagues, they will dominate the events, and cisgender girls will no longer win sports titles. The bills feed into longstanding assumptions – those who were assigned male at birth are strong, and those who were assigned female at birth are weak.

But evidence doesn’t show that trans women dominate female sports leagues. It turns out, there are shockingly few transgender athletes competing in sports leagues around the United States, and even fewer winning major titles. When the Associated Press conducted an investigation asking lawmakers introducing such sports bills to name trans athletes in their states, most couldn’t point to a single one. After Utah state legislators passed a trans sports ban, Governor Spencer Cox vetoed it, pointing out that, of 75,000 high school kids participating in sports in Utah, there was only a single transgender girl (the state legislature overrode the veto anyway).

California has explicitly protected the rights of trans athletes to compete on sports teams that match their gender identity since 2013. There’s still an underrepresentation of trans athletes in sports participation and titles. This is likely because the deck is stacked against these young people in so many other ways that are unrelated to testosterone levels. Trans youth suffer from high rates of harassment, discrimination, and subsequent anxiety and depression that make it difficult to compete in and excel in sports.
 

Medical bills

State legislators have introduced bills around the country that would criminalize the provision of gender-affirming medical care for transgender youth. Though such bills are opposed by all major medical organizations (including the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, and the American Psychiatric Association), misinformation continues to spread, and in some instances the bills have become law (though none are currently active due to legal challenges).

Clinicians should be aware that there have been sixteen studies to date, each with unique study designs, that have overall linked gender-affirming medical care for transgender youth to better mental health outcomes. While these interventions do (as with all medications) carry some risks (like delayed bone mineralization with pubertal suppression), the risks must be weighed against potential benefits. Unfortunately, these risks and benefits have not been accurately portrayed in state legislative debates. Politicians have spread a great deal of misinformation about gender-affirming medical care for transgender youth, including false assertions that puberty blockers cause infertility and that most transgender adolescents will grow up to identify as cisgender and regret gender-affirming medical interventions.
 

Minority stress

These bills have direct consequences for pediatric patients. For example, trans-inclusive bathroom policies are associated with lower rates of sexual assault. However, there are also important indirect effects to consider. The gender minority stress framework explains the ways in which stigmatizing national discourse drives higher rates of anxiety, depression, and suicidality among transgender youth. Under this model, so-called “distal factors” like the recent conversations at the national level that marginalize trans young people, are expected to drive higher rates of adverse mental health outcomes. As transgender youth hear high-profile politicians argue that they’re dangerous to their peers in bathrooms and on sports teams, it’s difficult to imagine their mental health would not worsen. Over time, such “distal factors” also lead to “proximal factors” like internalized transphobia in which youth begin to believe the negative things that are said about them. These dangerous processes can have dramatic negative impacts on self-esteem and emotional development. There is strong precedence that public policies have strong indirect mental health effects on LGBTQ youth.

We’ve entered a dangerous era in which politicians are legislating medical care and other aspects of public policy with the potential to hurt the mental health of our young patients. It’s imperative that clinicians and scientists contact their legislators to make sure they are voting for public policy based on data and fact, not misinformation and political rhetoric. The health of American children depends on it.

Dr. Turban (twitter.com/jack_turban) is a chief fellow in child and adolescent psychiatry at Stanford (Calif.) University.

In 2021, state lawmakers introduced a record number of bills that would affect transgender and gender-diverse people. The vast majority were focused on transgender and gender-diverse youth in particular. We’ve seen bills that would take away gender-affirming medical care for minors, ones that would force trans kids to play on sports teams that don’t match their gender identity, and others that would ban trans kids from public facilities like bathrooms that match their gender identities.

These bills aren’t particularly new, but state lawmakers are putting more energy into them than ever. In response, some public figures have started pushing back. Ariana Grande just pledged to match up to 1.5 million dollars in donations to combat anti–trans youth legislative initiatives. However, doctors have been underrepresented in the political discourse.

Sadly, much of the discussion in this area has been driven by wild speculation and emotional rhetoric. It’s rare that we see actual data brought to the table. As clinicians and scientists, we have a responsibility to highlight the data relevant to these legislative debates, and to share them with our representatives. I’m going to break down what we know quantitatively about each of these issues, so that you’ll feel empowered to bring that information to these debates. My hope is that we can move toward evidence-based public policy instead of rhetoric-based public policy, so that we can ensure the best health possible for young people around the country.
 

Bathroom bills

Though they’ve been less of a focus recently, politicians for years have argued that trans people should be forced to use bathrooms and other public facilities that match their sex assigned at birth, not their gender identity. Their central argument is that trans-inclusive public facility policies will result in higher rates of assault. Published peer-review data show this isn’t true. A 2019 study in Sexuality Research and Social Policy examined the impacts of trans-inclusive public facility policies and found they resulted in no increase in assaults among the general (mostly cisgender) population. Another 2019 study in Pediatrics found that trans-inclusive facility policies were associated with lower odds of sexual assault victimization against transgender youth. The myth that trans-inclusive public facilities increase assault risk is simply that: a myth. All existing data indicate that trans-inclusive policies will improve public safety.

Sports bills

One of the hottest debates recently involves whether transgender girls should be allowed to participate in girls’ sports teams. Those in favor of these bills argue that transgender girls have an innate biological sports advantage over cisgender girls, and if allowed to compete in girls’ sports leagues, they will dominate the events, and cisgender girls will no longer win sports titles. The bills feed into longstanding assumptions – those who were assigned male at birth are strong, and those who were assigned female at birth are weak.

But evidence doesn’t show that trans women dominate female sports leagues. It turns out, there are shockingly few transgender athletes competing in sports leagues around the United States, and even fewer winning major titles. When the Associated Press conducted an investigation asking lawmakers introducing such sports bills to name trans athletes in their states, most couldn’t point to a single one. After Utah state legislators passed a trans sports ban, Governor Spencer Cox vetoed it, pointing out that, of 75,000 high school kids participating in sports in Utah, there was only a single transgender girl (the state legislature overrode the veto anyway).

California has explicitly protected the rights of trans athletes to compete on sports teams that match their gender identity since 2013. There’s still an underrepresentation of trans athletes in sports participation and titles. This is likely because the deck is stacked against these young people in so many other ways that are unrelated to testosterone levels. Trans youth suffer from high rates of harassment, discrimination, and subsequent anxiety and depression that make it difficult to compete in and excel in sports.
 

Medical bills

State legislators have introduced bills around the country that would criminalize the provision of gender-affirming medical care for transgender youth. Though such bills are opposed by all major medical organizations (including the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, and the American Psychiatric Association), misinformation continues to spread, and in some instances the bills have become law (though none are currently active due to legal challenges).

Clinicians should be aware that there have been sixteen studies to date, each with unique study designs, that have overall linked gender-affirming medical care for transgender youth to better mental health outcomes. While these interventions do (as with all medications) carry some risks (like delayed bone mineralization with pubertal suppression), the risks must be weighed against potential benefits. Unfortunately, these risks and benefits have not been accurately portrayed in state legislative debates. Politicians have spread a great deal of misinformation about gender-affirming medical care for transgender youth, including false assertions that puberty blockers cause infertility and that most transgender adolescents will grow up to identify as cisgender and regret gender-affirming medical interventions.
 

Minority stress

These bills have direct consequences for pediatric patients. For example, trans-inclusive bathroom policies are associated with lower rates of sexual assault. However, there are also important indirect effects to consider. The gender minority stress framework explains the ways in which stigmatizing national discourse drives higher rates of anxiety, depression, and suicidality among transgender youth. Under this model, so-called “distal factors” like the recent conversations at the national level that marginalize trans young people, are expected to drive higher rates of adverse mental health outcomes. As transgender youth hear high-profile politicians argue that they’re dangerous to their peers in bathrooms and on sports teams, it’s difficult to imagine their mental health would not worsen. Over time, such “distal factors” also lead to “proximal factors” like internalized transphobia in which youth begin to believe the negative things that are said about them. These dangerous processes can have dramatic negative impacts on self-esteem and emotional development. There is strong precedence that public policies have strong indirect mental health effects on LGBTQ youth.

We’ve entered a dangerous era in which politicians are legislating medical care and other aspects of public policy with the potential to hurt the mental health of our young patients. It’s imperative that clinicians and scientists contact their legislators to make sure they are voting for public policy based on data and fact, not misinformation and political rhetoric. The health of American children depends on it.

Dr. Turban (twitter.com/jack_turban) is a chief fellow in child and adolescent psychiatry at Stanford (Calif.) University.

In 2021, state lawmakers introduced a record number of bills that would affect transgender and gender-diverse people. The vast majority were focused on transgender and gender-diverse youth in particular. We’ve seen bills that would take away gender-affirming medical care for minors, ones that would force trans kids to play on sports teams that don’t match their gender identity, and others that would ban trans kids from public facilities like bathrooms that match their gender identities.

These bills aren’t particularly new, but state lawmakers are putting more energy into them than ever. In response, some public figures have started pushing back. Ariana Grande just pledged to match up to 1.5 million dollars in donations to combat anti–trans youth legislative initiatives. However, doctors have been underrepresented in the political discourse.

Sadly, much of the discussion in this area has been driven by wild speculation and emotional rhetoric. It’s rare that we see actual data brought to the table. As clinicians and scientists, we have a responsibility to highlight the data relevant to these legislative debates, and to share them with our representatives. I’m going to break down what we know quantitatively about each of these issues, so that you’ll feel empowered to bring that information to these debates. My hope is that we can move toward evidence-based public policy instead of rhetoric-based public policy, so that we can ensure the best health possible for young people around the country.
 

Bathroom bills

Though they’ve been less of a focus recently, politicians for years have argued that trans people should be forced to use bathrooms and other public facilities that match their sex assigned at birth, not their gender identity. Their central argument is that trans-inclusive public facility policies will result in higher rates of assault. Published peer-review data show this isn’t true. A 2019 study in Sexuality Research and Social Policy examined the impacts of trans-inclusive public facility policies and found they resulted in no increase in assaults among the general (mostly cisgender) population. Another 2019 study in Pediatrics found that trans-inclusive facility policies were associated with lower odds of sexual assault victimization against transgender youth. The myth that trans-inclusive public facilities increase assault risk is simply that: a myth. All existing data indicate that trans-inclusive policies will improve public safety.

Sports bills

One of the hottest debates recently involves whether transgender girls should be allowed to participate in girls’ sports teams. Those in favor of these bills argue that transgender girls have an innate biological sports advantage over cisgender girls, and if allowed to compete in girls’ sports leagues, they will dominate the events, and cisgender girls will no longer win sports titles. The bills feed into longstanding assumptions – those who were assigned male at birth are strong, and those who were assigned female at birth are weak.

But evidence doesn’t show that trans women dominate female sports leagues. It turns out, there are shockingly few transgender athletes competing in sports leagues around the United States, and even fewer winning major titles. When the Associated Press conducted an investigation asking lawmakers introducing such sports bills to name trans athletes in their states, most couldn’t point to a single one. After Utah state legislators passed a trans sports ban, Governor Spencer Cox vetoed it, pointing out that, of 75,000 high school kids participating in sports in Utah, there was only a single transgender girl (the state legislature overrode the veto anyway).

California has explicitly protected the rights of trans athletes to compete on sports teams that match their gender identity since 2013. There’s still an underrepresentation of trans athletes in sports participation and titles. This is likely because the deck is stacked against these young people in so many other ways that are unrelated to testosterone levels. Trans youth suffer from high rates of harassment, discrimination, and subsequent anxiety and depression that make it difficult to compete in and excel in sports.
 

Medical bills

State legislators have introduced bills around the country that would criminalize the provision of gender-affirming medical care for transgender youth. Though such bills are opposed by all major medical organizations (including the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, and the American Psychiatric Association), misinformation continues to spread, and in some instances the bills have become law (though none are currently active due to legal challenges).

Clinicians should be aware that there have been sixteen studies to date, each with unique study designs, that have overall linked gender-affirming medical care for transgender youth to better mental health outcomes. While these interventions do (as with all medications) carry some risks (like delayed bone mineralization with pubertal suppression), the risks must be weighed against potential benefits. Unfortunately, these risks and benefits have not been accurately portrayed in state legislative debates. Politicians have spread a great deal of misinformation about gender-affirming medical care for transgender youth, including false assertions that puberty blockers cause infertility and that most transgender adolescents will grow up to identify as cisgender and regret gender-affirming medical interventions.
 

Minority stress

These bills have direct consequences for pediatric patients. For example, trans-inclusive bathroom policies are associated with lower rates of sexual assault. However, there are also important indirect effects to consider. The gender minority stress framework explains the ways in which stigmatizing national discourse drives higher rates of anxiety, depression, and suicidality among transgender youth. Under this model, so-called “distal factors” like the recent conversations at the national level that marginalize trans young people, are expected to drive higher rates of adverse mental health outcomes. As transgender youth hear high-profile politicians argue that they’re dangerous to their peers in bathrooms and on sports teams, it’s difficult to imagine their mental health would not worsen. Over time, such “distal factors” also lead to “proximal factors” like internalized transphobia in which youth begin to believe the negative things that are said about them. These dangerous processes can have dramatic negative impacts on self-esteem and emotional development. There is strong precedence that public policies have strong indirect mental health effects on LGBTQ youth.

We’ve entered a dangerous era in which politicians are legislating medical care and other aspects of public policy with the potential to hurt the mental health of our young patients. It’s imperative that clinicians and scientists contact their legislators to make sure they are voting for public policy based on data and fact, not misinformation and political rhetoric. The health of American children depends on it.

Dr. Turban (twitter.com/jack_turban) is a chief fellow in child and adolescent psychiatry at Stanford (Calif.) University.