User login
Stop using Neutrogena and Aveeno spray sunscreen, J&J warns
Benzene is not an ingredient of sunscreen, and should not be present in these products. The levels detected were low and would not be expected to have an adverse effect on health, but the company says it is recalling the products anyway “out of an abundance of caution.”
The sunscreen products that have been recalled are:
- NEUTROGENA® Beach Defense® aerosol sunscreen.
- NEUTROGENA® Cool Dry Sport aerosol sunscreen.
- NEUTROGENA® Invisible Daily™ defense aerosol sunscreen.
- NEUTROGENA® Ultra Sheer® aerosol sunscreen.
- AVEENO® Protect + Refresh aerosol sunscreen.
These products were distributed nationwide through a variety of retail stores. Consumers should stop using these products and throw them away, the company said.
At the same time, it emphasized the importance of using alternative sunscreen products to protect the skin from excessive sun exposure, which can lead to skin cancer including melanoma.
Johnson & Johnson has launched an investigation into how benzene got into these products.
One of the company’s other spray sunscreen products, Neutrogena Wet Skin, was not included in the recall.
Recently, benzene was found in 78 widely-used sunscreen products in tests conducted by the online pharmacy and laboratory Valisure. Most of the products were aerosol sprays, and the company called on the Food and Drug Administration to recall them all.
That petition suggested that the finding of benzene was the result of contamination somewhere in the manufacturing process.
“This isn’t a sunscreen issue, it’s a manufacturing issue,” said Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chief of dermatology at George Washington University. “We don’t want those things to be blurred.”
There is a risk that people take away the wrong message from these findings.
“People already have ambivalence about sunscreen, and this is just going to make that worse,” Dr. Friedman said in an interview.
He pointed out that benzene is present in car exhaust, second-hand smoke, and elsewhere. Inhalation exposure has been the primary focus of toxicology investigations, as has exposure from things such as contaminated drinking water – not via topical application. “We don’t know how effectively [benzene] gets through the skin, if it gets absorbed systemically, and how that then behaves downstream,” he noted.
On the other hand, ultraviolet radiation is a well-established carcinogen. Avoiding an effective preventive measure such as sunscreen could prove more harmful than exposure to trace amounts of benzene, he said.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Benzene is not an ingredient of sunscreen, and should not be present in these products. The levels detected were low and would not be expected to have an adverse effect on health, but the company says it is recalling the products anyway “out of an abundance of caution.”
The sunscreen products that have been recalled are:
- NEUTROGENA® Beach Defense® aerosol sunscreen.
- NEUTROGENA® Cool Dry Sport aerosol sunscreen.
- NEUTROGENA® Invisible Daily™ defense aerosol sunscreen.
- NEUTROGENA® Ultra Sheer® aerosol sunscreen.
- AVEENO® Protect + Refresh aerosol sunscreen.
These products were distributed nationwide through a variety of retail stores. Consumers should stop using these products and throw them away, the company said.
At the same time, it emphasized the importance of using alternative sunscreen products to protect the skin from excessive sun exposure, which can lead to skin cancer including melanoma.
Johnson & Johnson has launched an investigation into how benzene got into these products.
One of the company’s other spray sunscreen products, Neutrogena Wet Skin, was not included in the recall.
Recently, benzene was found in 78 widely-used sunscreen products in tests conducted by the online pharmacy and laboratory Valisure. Most of the products were aerosol sprays, and the company called on the Food and Drug Administration to recall them all.
That petition suggested that the finding of benzene was the result of contamination somewhere in the manufacturing process.
“This isn’t a sunscreen issue, it’s a manufacturing issue,” said Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chief of dermatology at George Washington University. “We don’t want those things to be blurred.”
There is a risk that people take away the wrong message from these findings.
“People already have ambivalence about sunscreen, and this is just going to make that worse,” Dr. Friedman said in an interview.
He pointed out that benzene is present in car exhaust, second-hand smoke, and elsewhere. Inhalation exposure has been the primary focus of toxicology investigations, as has exposure from things such as contaminated drinking water – not via topical application. “We don’t know how effectively [benzene] gets through the skin, if it gets absorbed systemically, and how that then behaves downstream,” he noted.
On the other hand, ultraviolet radiation is a well-established carcinogen. Avoiding an effective preventive measure such as sunscreen could prove more harmful than exposure to trace amounts of benzene, he said.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Benzene is not an ingredient of sunscreen, and should not be present in these products. The levels detected were low and would not be expected to have an adverse effect on health, but the company says it is recalling the products anyway “out of an abundance of caution.”
The sunscreen products that have been recalled are:
- NEUTROGENA® Beach Defense® aerosol sunscreen.
- NEUTROGENA® Cool Dry Sport aerosol sunscreen.
- NEUTROGENA® Invisible Daily™ defense aerosol sunscreen.
- NEUTROGENA® Ultra Sheer® aerosol sunscreen.
- AVEENO® Protect + Refresh aerosol sunscreen.
These products were distributed nationwide through a variety of retail stores. Consumers should stop using these products and throw them away, the company said.
At the same time, it emphasized the importance of using alternative sunscreen products to protect the skin from excessive sun exposure, which can lead to skin cancer including melanoma.
Johnson & Johnson has launched an investigation into how benzene got into these products.
One of the company’s other spray sunscreen products, Neutrogena Wet Skin, was not included in the recall.
Recently, benzene was found in 78 widely-used sunscreen products in tests conducted by the online pharmacy and laboratory Valisure. Most of the products were aerosol sprays, and the company called on the Food and Drug Administration to recall them all.
That petition suggested that the finding of benzene was the result of contamination somewhere in the manufacturing process.
“This isn’t a sunscreen issue, it’s a manufacturing issue,” said Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chief of dermatology at George Washington University. “We don’t want those things to be blurred.”
There is a risk that people take away the wrong message from these findings.
“People already have ambivalence about sunscreen, and this is just going to make that worse,” Dr. Friedman said in an interview.
He pointed out that benzene is present in car exhaust, second-hand smoke, and elsewhere. Inhalation exposure has been the primary focus of toxicology investigations, as has exposure from things such as contaminated drinking water – not via topical application. “We don’t know how effectively [benzene] gets through the skin, if it gets absorbed systemically, and how that then behaves downstream,” he noted.
On the other hand, ultraviolet radiation is a well-established carcinogen. Avoiding an effective preventive measure such as sunscreen could prove more harmful than exposure to trace amounts of benzene, he said.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Dupilumab safe, effective in kids 6-11 with moderate-to-severe asthma
Dupilumab (Dupixent, Sanofi and Regeneron) significantly reduced exacerbations compared with placebo in children ages 6-11 years who had moderate-to-severe asthma in a phase 3 trial.
A fully human monoclonal antibody, dupilumab also improved lung function versus placebo by week 12, an improvement that lasted the length of the 52-week trial.
Dupilumab previously had been shown to be safe and effective in adolescents and adults with moderate-to-severe asthma, patients 6 years and older with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis, and adults with chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis, but its safety and effectiveness for moderate-to-severe asthma in the 6-11 years age group was not known.
Results from the randomized, double-blind VOYAGE study conducted across several countries were presented Saturday, July 10, at the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) Hybrid Congress 2021.
Leonard B. Bacharier, MD, professor of pediatrics, allergy/immunology/pulmonary medicine at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tennessee, presented the results from the trial, which was funded by Sanofi/Regeneron.
Researchers enrolled 408 children ages 6-11 years with uncontrolled moderate-to-severe asthma. Children on high-dose inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) alone or medium-to-high–dose ICS with a second controller were randomly assigned either to add-on subcutaneous dupilumab 100 mg or 200 mg, based on body weight at study start, or to placebo every 2 weeks for 52 weeks.
Analyses were done in two populations: 350 patients with markers of type 2 inflammation (baseline blood eosinophils ≥150 cells/μl or fractional exhaled nitric oxide [FeNO] ≥20 ppb) and 259 patients with baseline blood eosinophils ≥300 cells/µl.
“The primary endpoint was the annualized rate of severe asthma exacerbations,” Dr. Bacharier said. “The key secondary endpoint was change in percent predicted prebronchodilator FEV1 [forced expiratory volume at 1 second] from baseline to week 12.”
At week 12, the annualized severe asthma exacerbation rate was reduced by 59% (P < .0001) in children with blood eosinophils ≥300 cells/µL and results were similar in those with the type 2 inflammatory phenotype compared with placebo.
Results also indicate a favorable safety profile for dupilumab.
James M. Tracy, DO, an expert with the American College of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology, told this news organization that adding the dupilumab option for children in the 6-11 age group is “huge.”
Dr. Tracy, who was not involved with the study, said although omalizumab (Xolair, Genentech) is also available for these children, dupilumab stands out because of the range of comorbidities it can treat.
“[Children] don’t have the same rhinosinusitis and polyposis that adults would have, but a lot of them have eczema, and this drug with multiple prongs is incredibly useful and addresses a broad array of allergic conditions,” Dr. Tracy said.
More than 90% of children in the study had at least one concurrent type 2 inflammatory condition, including atopic dermatitis and eosinophilic esophagitis. Dupilumab blocks the shared receptor for interleukin (IL)-4/IL-13, which are key drivers of type 2 inflammation in multiple diseases.
Dr. Tracy said that while dupilumab is not the only drug available to treat children 6-11 years with moderate-to-severe asthma, it is “a significant and unique addition to the armamentarium of the individual practitioner taking care of these very severe asthmatics in the 6-11 age group.”
Dupilumab also led to rapid and sustained improvement in lung function. At 12 weeks, children assigned dupilumab improved their lung function as measured by FEV1 by 5.21% (P = .0009), and that continued through the 52-week study period.
“What we know is the [improved lung function] effect is sustained. What we don’t know is how long you have to keep on the drug for a more permanent effect, which is an issue for all these biologics,” Tracy said.
Dr. Bacharier reported speaker fees and research support from Sanofi/Regeneron. Dr. Tracy has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Dupilumab (Dupixent, Sanofi and Regeneron) significantly reduced exacerbations compared with placebo in children ages 6-11 years who had moderate-to-severe asthma in a phase 3 trial.
A fully human monoclonal antibody, dupilumab also improved lung function versus placebo by week 12, an improvement that lasted the length of the 52-week trial.
Dupilumab previously had been shown to be safe and effective in adolescents and adults with moderate-to-severe asthma, patients 6 years and older with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis, and adults with chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis, but its safety and effectiveness for moderate-to-severe asthma in the 6-11 years age group was not known.
Results from the randomized, double-blind VOYAGE study conducted across several countries were presented Saturday, July 10, at the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) Hybrid Congress 2021.
Leonard B. Bacharier, MD, professor of pediatrics, allergy/immunology/pulmonary medicine at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tennessee, presented the results from the trial, which was funded by Sanofi/Regeneron.
Researchers enrolled 408 children ages 6-11 years with uncontrolled moderate-to-severe asthma. Children on high-dose inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) alone or medium-to-high–dose ICS with a second controller were randomly assigned either to add-on subcutaneous dupilumab 100 mg or 200 mg, based on body weight at study start, or to placebo every 2 weeks for 52 weeks.
Analyses were done in two populations: 350 patients with markers of type 2 inflammation (baseline blood eosinophils ≥150 cells/μl or fractional exhaled nitric oxide [FeNO] ≥20 ppb) and 259 patients with baseline blood eosinophils ≥300 cells/µl.
“The primary endpoint was the annualized rate of severe asthma exacerbations,” Dr. Bacharier said. “The key secondary endpoint was change in percent predicted prebronchodilator FEV1 [forced expiratory volume at 1 second] from baseline to week 12.”
At week 12, the annualized severe asthma exacerbation rate was reduced by 59% (P < .0001) in children with blood eosinophils ≥300 cells/µL and results were similar in those with the type 2 inflammatory phenotype compared with placebo.
Results also indicate a favorable safety profile for dupilumab.
James M. Tracy, DO, an expert with the American College of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology, told this news organization that adding the dupilumab option for children in the 6-11 age group is “huge.”
Dr. Tracy, who was not involved with the study, said although omalizumab (Xolair, Genentech) is also available for these children, dupilumab stands out because of the range of comorbidities it can treat.
“[Children] don’t have the same rhinosinusitis and polyposis that adults would have, but a lot of them have eczema, and this drug with multiple prongs is incredibly useful and addresses a broad array of allergic conditions,” Dr. Tracy said.
More than 90% of children in the study had at least one concurrent type 2 inflammatory condition, including atopic dermatitis and eosinophilic esophagitis. Dupilumab blocks the shared receptor for interleukin (IL)-4/IL-13, which are key drivers of type 2 inflammation in multiple diseases.
Dr. Tracy said that while dupilumab is not the only drug available to treat children 6-11 years with moderate-to-severe asthma, it is “a significant and unique addition to the armamentarium of the individual practitioner taking care of these very severe asthmatics in the 6-11 age group.”
Dupilumab also led to rapid and sustained improvement in lung function. At 12 weeks, children assigned dupilumab improved their lung function as measured by FEV1 by 5.21% (P = .0009), and that continued through the 52-week study period.
“What we know is the [improved lung function] effect is sustained. What we don’t know is how long you have to keep on the drug for a more permanent effect, which is an issue for all these biologics,” Tracy said.
Dr. Bacharier reported speaker fees and research support from Sanofi/Regeneron. Dr. Tracy has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Dupilumab (Dupixent, Sanofi and Regeneron) significantly reduced exacerbations compared with placebo in children ages 6-11 years who had moderate-to-severe asthma in a phase 3 trial.
A fully human monoclonal antibody, dupilumab also improved lung function versus placebo by week 12, an improvement that lasted the length of the 52-week trial.
Dupilumab previously had been shown to be safe and effective in adolescents and adults with moderate-to-severe asthma, patients 6 years and older with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis, and adults with chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis, but its safety and effectiveness for moderate-to-severe asthma in the 6-11 years age group was not known.
Results from the randomized, double-blind VOYAGE study conducted across several countries were presented Saturday, July 10, at the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) Hybrid Congress 2021.
Leonard B. Bacharier, MD, professor of pediatrics, allergy/immunology/pulmonary medicine at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tennessee, presented the results from the trial, which was funded by Sanofi/Regeneron.
Researchers enrolled 408 children ages 6-11 years with uncontrolled moderate-to-severe asthma. Children on high-dose inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) alone or medium-to-high–dose ICS with a second controller were randomly assigned either to add-on subcutaneous dupilumab 100 mg or 200 mg, based on body weight at study start, or to placebo every 2 weeks for 52 weeks.
Analyses were done in two populations: 350 patients with markers of type 2 inflammation (baseline blood eosinophils ≥150 cells/μl or fractional exhaled nitric oxide [FeNO] ≥20 ppb) and 259 patients with baseline blood eosinophils ≥300 cells/µl.
“The primary endpoint was the annualized rate of severe asthma exacerbations,” Dr. Bacharier said. “The key secondary endpoint was change in percent predicted prebronchodilator FEV1 [forced expiratory volume at 1 second] from baseline to week 12.”
At week 12, the annualized severe asthma exacerbation rate was reduced by 59% (P < .0001) in children with blood eosinophils ≥300 cells/µL and results were similar in those with the type 2 inflammatory phenotype compared with placebo.
Results also indicate a favorable safety profile for dupilumab.
James M. Tracy, DO, an expert with the American College of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology, told this news organization that adding the dupilumab option for children in the 6-11 age group is “huge.”
Dr. Tracy, who was not involved with the study, said although omalizumab (Xolair, Genentech) is also available for these children, dupilumab stands out because of the range of comorbidities it can treat.
“[Children] don’t have the same rhinosinusitis and polyposis that adults would have, but a lot of them have eczema, and this drug with multiple prongs is incredibly useful and addresses a broad array of allergic conditions,” Dr. Tracy said.
More than 90% of children in the study had at least one concurrent type 2 inflammatory condition, including atopic dermatitis and eosinophilic esophagitis. Dupilumab blocks the shared receptor for interleukin (IL)-4/IL-13, which are key drivers of type 2 inflammation in multiple diseases.
Dr. Tracy said that while dupilumab is not the only drug available to treat children 6-11 years with moderate-to-severe asthma, it is “a significant and unique addition to the armamentarium of the individual practitioner taking care of these very severe asthmatics in the 6-11 age group.”
Dupilumab also led to rapid and sustained improvement in lung function. At 12 weeks, children assigned dupilumab improved their lung function as measured by FEV1 by 5.21% (P = .0009), and that continued through the 52-week study period.
“What we know is the [improved lung function] effect is sustained. What we don’t know is how long you have to keep on the drug for a more permanent effect, which is an issue for all these biologics,” Tracy said.
Dr. Bacharier reported speaker fees and research support from Sanofi/Regeneron. Dr. Tracy has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Pediatric alopecia areata in the U.S. has increased twofold since 2009, study finds
according to results from the largest study to date on the topic.
“Alopecia areata is a relatively common cause of nonscarring hair loss in children,” Paige McKenzie said during the annual meeting of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology. “The only two epidemiologic studies that have been performed in children have been based on registry or survey data which is inherently at risk for bias,” she added, referring to studies published in 2017 and 2018. “Additionally, epidemiologic descriptions of alopecia areata in adults are limited and overall estimates have varied from 0.2% to 2%. Current understanding is also largely based on population studies in Olmsted County, Minnesota, an area with mostly White racial demographics, so it’s not representative of the U.S. population as a whole.”
To identify the incidence and prevalence of pediatric AA over time, and across age, race/ethnicity, and sex, Ms. McKenzie and colleagues conducted a retrospective cohort study from 2009 to 2020 using PEDSnet, a network of seven U.S. pediatric health institutions with a database of more than 6.5 million children. “PEDSnet is unique because it uses a common data model to standardize EHR data across different health systems and uses SNOMED [Systematized Nomenclature of Medicine]–Clinical Terms to identify specific patient populations,” said Ms. McKenzie, who was a clinical research fellow in the section of dermatology at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia during the 2020-2021 academic year.
She and her coauthors limited their analysis to children younger than age 18 who were assigned a SNOMED code for AA during at least one dermatology physician visit or at least two nondermatology physician visits. They also identified an incidence cohort that was a subset of the study cohort who had at least 12 months of follow-up. “To determine the accuracy of AA patient identification, we also reviewed 100 cases at random from one institution with a threshold of greater than 95% accuracy,” said Ms. McKenzie, who is now a fourth-year medical student at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.
Of 5,409,919 children included in the study, 5,801 had AA, for an overall prevalence of 0.11%. The prevalence doubled from 0.04% in 2009 to 0.08% in 2019. “It fell in 2020, which we believe is a result of the COVID-19 pandemic’s effects on health care utilization,” she said. AA prevalence peaked at 9 years of age and was higher among females, compared with males (0.12% vs. 0.09%, respectively). The prevalence was highest among Hispanic children (0.23%), followed by Asian children (0.17%), Black children (0.12%), and White children (0.08%).
The incidence cohort consisted of 2,896,241 children. Of these, 2,398 had AA between 2009-2020, for an overall incidence of 13.6 cases per 100,000 patient-years. The incidence rate of AA by age was normally distributed and peaked at 6 years of age. Rates were 22.8% higher in female patients than in male patients. In addition, incidence rates were highest among Hispanics (31.5/100,000 person-years), followed by Asians (23.1/100,000 person-years), Blacks (17.0/100,000 person-years), and Whites (8.8/100,000).
Logistic regression analysis showed general agreement with the unadjusted incidence data. Males were less likely to be diagnosed with AA, compared with females (adjusted odds ratio, 0.80; P < .001). Analysis across race/ethnicity revealed significantly increased rates among children from minority backgrounds when compared with white children. Hispanic children had the greatest risk of developing AA (aOR, 3.07), followed by Asian children (aOR, 2.02), and Black children (aOR, 1.73) (P < .001 for all associations). Patients with atopic dermatitis, thyroid disease, psoriasis, vitiligo, and trisomy 21 prior to AA diagnosis all had a significantly higher risk of developing AA, compared with those without those diagnoses.
“This is the largest description of pediatric AA to date,” Ms. McKenzie said. “The prevalence has increased steadily, with a twofold increase over the last 10 years, which mirrors other autoimmune disorders. Children who identify as Hispanic, Asian, and Black have significantly higher incidence rates of alopecia areata compared to those who identify as White.”
Moving forward, she added, “efforts should focus on increasing education and awareness of AA in diverse communities and in community pediatricians so that patients can be diagnosed correctly early on. We can also use this data to ensure that representative populations are included in clinical trials for patients with AA.”
Asked to comment on the results Maria Hordinsky, MD, professor and chair of the department of dermatology at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, said that the study “is a great contribution to our understanding of the epidemiology of pediatric alopecia areata and also highlights how common alopecia areata is in children.” In an interview, she said that it would be interesting to see if this is a worldwide phenomenon or unique to the United States.
Lawrence J. Green, MD, clinical professor of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, who was asked to comment on the study, characterized the work as being “very informative. Looking at a large cohort of pediatric patients with alopecia areata diagnosed by a dermatologist or two or more nondermatologists, the authors found a higher incidence and prevalence in nonwhite children here in the United States. I am worried in fact, the true incidence could be even higher than noted in the searched database because nonwhite children can often come from underserved and undercared for areas.”
The other authors were Christopher B. Forrest, MD, PhD, Mitchell Maltenfort, PhD, and Leslie Castelo-Soccio, MD, PhD, of Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. Dr. Castelo-Soccio is a consultant for Pfizer; the other authors reported having no financial disclosures. Dr. Hordinsky disclosed receiving grant support for clinical research work on hair diseases from Pfizer, Eli Lilly, Concert Pharmaceuticals, and Target Derm and grant support from the National Alopecia Areata Foundation; and is on an advisory panel for Cassiopea. Dr. Green disclosed that he is a speaker, consultant, or investigator for numerous pharmaceutical companies.
*This story was updated on 7/19/21.
according to results from the largest study to date on the topic.
“Alopecia areata is a relatively common cause of nonscarring hair loss in children,” Paige McKenzie said during the annual meeting of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology. “The only two epidemiologic studies that have been performed in children have been based on registry or survey data which is inherently at risk for bias,” she added, referring to studies published in 2017 and 2018. “Additionally, epidemiologic descriptions of alopecia areata in adults are limited and overall estimates have varied from 0.2% to 2%. Current understanding is also largely based on population studies in Olmsted County, Minnesota, an area with mostly White racial demographics, so it’s not representative of the U.S. population as a whole.”
To identify the incidence and prevalence of pediatric AA over time, and across age, race/ethnicity, and sex, Ms. McKenzie and colleagues conducted a retrospective cohort study from 2009 to 2020 using PEDSnet, a network of seven U.S. pediatric health institutions with a database of more than 6.5 million children. “PEDSnet is unique because it uses a common data model to standardize EHR data across different health systems and uses SNOMED [Systematized Nomenclature of Medicine]–Clinical Terms to identify specific patient populations,” said Ms. McKenzie, who was a clinical research fellow in the section of dermatology at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia during the 2020-2021 academic year.
She and her coauthors limited their analysis to children younger than age 18 who were assigned a SNOMED code for AA during at least one dermatology physician visit or at least two nondermatology physician visits. They also identified an incidence cohort that was a subset of the study cohort who had at least 12 months of follow-up. “To determine the accuracy of AA patient identification, we also reviewed 100 cases at random from one institution with a threshold of greater than 95% accuracy,” said Ms. McKenzie, who is now a fourth-year medical student at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.
Of 5,409,919 children included in the study, 5,801 had AA, for an overall prevalence of 0.11%. The prevalence doubled from 0.04% in 2009 to 0.08% in 2019. “It fell in 2020, which we believe is a result of the COVID-19 pandemic’s effects on health care utilization,” she said. AA prevalence peaked at 9 years of age and was higher among females, compared with males (0.12% vs. 0.09%, respectively). The prevalence was highest among Hispanic children (0.23%), followed by Asian children (0.17%), Black children (0.12%), and White children (0.08%).
The incidence cohort consisted of 2,896,241 children. Of these, 2,398 had AA between 2009-2020, for an overall incidence of 13.6 cases per 100,000 patient-years. The incidence rate of AA by age was normally distributed and peaked at 6 years of age. Rates were 22.8% higher in female patients than in male patients. In addition, incidence rates were highest among Hispanics (31.5/100,000 person-years), followed by Asians (23.1/100,000 person-years), Blacks (17.0/100,000 person-years), and Whites (8.8/100,000).
Logistic regression analysis showed general agreement with the unadjusted incidence data. Males were less likely to be diagnosed with AA, compared with females (adjusted odds ratio, 0.80; P < .001). Analysis across race/ethnicity revealed significantly increased rates among children from minority backgrounds when compared with white children. Hispanic children had the greatest risk of developing AA (aOR, 3.07), followed by Asian children (aOR, 2.02), and Black children (aOR, 1.73) (P < .001 for all associations). Patients with atopic dermatitis, thyroid disease, psoriasis, vitiligo, and trisomy 21 prior to AA diagnosis all had a significantly higher risk of developing AA, compared with those without those diagnoses.
“This is the largest description of pediatric AA to date,” Ms. McKenzie said. “The prevalence has increased steadily, with a twofold increase over the last 10 years, which mirrors other autoimmune disorders. Children who identify as Hispanic, Asian, and Black have significantly higher incidence rates of alopecia areata compared to those who identify as White.”
Moving forward, she added, “efforts should focus on increasing education and awareness of AA in diverse communities and in community pediatricians so that patients can be diagnosed correctly early on. We can also use this data to ensure that representative populations are included in clinical trials for patients with AA.”
Asked to comment on the results Maria Hordinsky, MD, professor and chair of the department of dermatology at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, said that the study “is a great contribution to our understanding of the epidemiology of pediatric alopecia areata and also highlights how common alopecia areata is in children.” In an interview, she said that it would be interesting to see if this is a worldwide phenomenon or unique to the United States.
Lawrence J. Green, MD, clinical professor of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, who was asked to comment on the study, characterized the work as being “very informative. Looking at a large cohort of pediatric patients with alopecia areata diagnosed by a dermatologist or two or more nondermatologists, the authors found a higher incidence and prevalence in nonwhite children here in the United States. I am worried in fact, the true incidence could be even higher than noted in the searched database because nonwhite children can often come from underserved and undercared for areas.”
The other authors were Christopher B. Forrest, MD, PhD, Mitchell Maltenfort, PhD, and Leslie Castelo-Soccio, MD, PhD, of Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. Dr. Castelo-Soccio is a consultant for Pfizer; the other authors reported having no financial disclosures. Dr. Hordinsky disclosed receiving grant support for clinical research work on hair diseases from Pfizer, Eli Lilly, Concert Pharmaceuticals, and Target Derm and grant support from the National Alopecia Areata Foundation; and is on an advisory panel for Cassiopea. Dr. Green disclosed that he is a speaker, consultant, or investigator for numerous pharmaceutical companies.
*This story was updated on 7/19/21.
according to results from the largest study to date on the topic.
“Alopecia areata is a relatively common cause of nonscarring hair loss in children,” Paige McKenzie said during the annual meeting of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology. “The only two epidemiologic studies that have been performed in children have been based on registry or survey data which is inherently at risk for bias,” she added, referring to studies published in 2017 and 2018. “Additionally, epidemiologic descriptions of alopecia areata in adults are limited and overall estimates have varied from 0.2% to 2%. Current understanding is also largely based on population studies in Olmsted County, Minnesota, an area with mostly White racial demographics, so it’s not representative of the U.S. population as a whole.”
To identify the incidence and prevalence of pediatric AA over time, and across age, race/ethnicity, and sex, Ms. McKenzie and colleagues conducted a retrospective cohort study from 2009 to 2020 using PEDSnet, a network of seven U.S. pediatric health institutions with a database of more than 6.5 million children. “PEDSnet is unique because it uses a common data model to standardize EHR data across different health systems and uses SNOMED [Systematized Nomenclature of Medicine]–Clinical Terms to identify specific patient populations,” said Ms. McKenzie, who was a clinical research fellow in the section of dermatology at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia during the 2020-2021 academic year.
She and her coauthors limited their analysis to children younger than age 18 who were assigned a SNOMED code for AA during at least one dermatology physician visit or at least two nondermatology physician visits. They also identified an incidence cohort that was a subset of the study cohort who had at least 12 months of follow-up. “To determine the accuracy of AA patient identification, we also reviewed 100 cases at random from one institution with a threshold of greater than 95% accuracy,” said Ms. McKenzie, who is now a fourth-year medical student at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.
Of 5,409,919 children included in the study, 5,801 had AA, for an overall prevalence of 0.11%. The prevalence doubled from 0.04% in 2009 to 0.08% in 2019. “It fell in 2020, which we believe is a result of the COVID-19 pandemic’s effects on health care utilization,” she said. AA prevalence peaked at 9 years of age and was higher among females, compared with males (0.12% vs. 0.09%, respectively). The prevalence was highest among Hispanic children (0.23%), followed by Asian children (0.17%), Black children (0.12%), and White children (0.08%).
The incidence cohort consisted of 2,896,241 children. Of these, 2,398 had AA between 2009-2020, for an overall incidence of 13.6 cases per 100,000 patient-years. The incidence rate of AA by age was normally distributed and peaked at 6 years of age. Rates were 22.8% higher in female patients than in male patients. In addition, incidence rates were highest among Hispanics (31.5/100,000 person-years), followed by Asians (23.1/100,000 person-years), Blacks (17.0/100,000 person-years), and Whites (8.8/100,000).
Logistic regression analysis showed general agreement with the unadjusted incidence data. Males were less likely to be diagnosed with AA, compared with females (adjusted odds ratio, 0.80; P < .001). Analysis across race/ethnicity revealed significantly increased rates among children from minority backgrounds when compared with white children. Hispanic children had the greatest risk of developing AA (aOR, 3.07), followed by Asian children (aOR, 2.02), and Black children (aOR, 1.73) (P < .001 for all associations). Patients with atopic dermatitis, thyroid disease, psoriasis, vitiligo, and trisomy 21 prior to AA diagnosis all had a significantly higher risk of developing AA, compared with those without those diagnoses.
“This is the largest description of pediatric AA to date,” Ms. McKenzie said. “The prevalence has increased steadily, with a twofold increase over the last 10 years, which mirrors other autoimmune disorders. Children who identify as Hispanic, Asian, and Black have significantly higher incidence rates of alopecia areata compared to those who identify as White.”
Moving forward, she added, “efforts should focus on increasing education and awareness of AA in diverse communities and in community pediatricians so that patients can be diagnosed correctly early on. We can also use this data to ensure that representative populations are included in clinical trials for patients with AA.”
Asked to comment on the results Maria Hordinsky, MD, professor and chair of the department of dermatology at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, said that the study “is a great contribution to our understanding of the epidemiology of pediatric alopecia areata and also highlights how common alopecia areata is in children.” In an interview, she said that it would be interesting to see if this is a worldwide phenomenon or unique to the United States.
Lawrence J. Green, MD, clinical professor of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, who was asked to comment on the study, characterized the work as being “very informative. Looking at a large cohort of pediatric patients with alopecia areata diagnosed by a dermatologist or two or more nondermatologists, the authors found a higher incidence and prevalence in nonwhite children here in the United States. I am worried in fact, the true incidence could be even higher than noted in the searched database because nonwhite children can often come from underserved and undercared for areas.”
The other authors were Christopher B. Forrest, MD, PhD, Mitchell Maltenfort, PhD, and Leslie Castelo-Soccio, MD, PhD, of Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. Dr. Castelo-Soccio is a consultant for Pfizer; the other authors reported having no financial disclosures. Dr. Hordinsky disclosed receiving grant support for clinical research work on hair diseases from Pfizer, Eli Lilly, Concert Pharmaceuticals, and Target Derm and grant support from the National Alopecia Areata Foundation; and is on an advisory panel for Cassiopea. Dr. Green disclosed that he is a speaker, consultant, or investigator for numerous pharmaceutical companies.
*This story was updated on 7/19/21.
FROM SPD 2021
UV light linked to prevention of allergic disease in infants
Higher direct ultraviolet light exposure in the first 3 months of life was linked to lower incidence of proinflammatory immune markers and lower incidence of eczema in an early-stage double-blind, randomized controlled trial.
Kristina Rueter, MD, with the University of Western Australia, Perth, who presented her team’s findings on Sunday at the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) Hybrid Congress 2021, said their study is the first to demonstrate the association.
“There has been a significant rise in allergic diseases, particularly within the last 20-30 years,” Dr. Rueter noted.
“Changes to the genetic pool take thousands of years to have an impact,” she said, “so the question is why do we have the significant, very recent rise of allergic diseases?”
Suboptimal vitamin D levels during infancy, lifestyle changes, nutritional changes, and living at higher latitudes have emerged as explanations.
In this study, 195 high-risk newborns were randomized to receive oral vitamin D supplements (400 IU/day) or placebo until 6 months of age.
Researchers found that UV light exposure appears more beneficial than vitamin D supplements as an allergy prevention strategy in the critical early years of immune system development.
The researchers used a novel approach of attaching a personal UV dosimeter to the infants’ clothing to measure direct UV light exposure (290-380 nm). Vitamin D levels were measured at 3, 6, 12, and 30 months of age. Immune function was assessed at 6 months of age, and food allergy, eczema, and wheeze were assessed at 6, 12, and 30 months of age.
At 3 (P < .01) and 6 (P = .02) months of age, vitamin D levels were greater in the children who received vitamin D supplements than those who received placebo, but there was no difference in eczema incidence between groups. The finding matched those of previous studies that compared the supplements with placebo, Dr. Rueter said.
However, infants with eczema were found to have had less UV light exposure compared to those without eczema (median interquartile range [IQR], 555 J/m2 vs. 998 J/m2; P = .023).
“We also found an inverse correlation between total UV light exposure and toll-like receptor cytokine production,” Dr. Rueter said.
“The more direct UV light exposure a child got, the less the chance to develop eczema,” she said.
Researchers then extended their analysis to see whether the effect of direct UV light exposure on reduced eczema would be maintained in the first 2.5 years of life, “and we could see again a significant difference, that the children who received higher UV light exposure had less eczema,” Dr. Rueter said.
Barbara Rogala, MD, PhD, professor at the Medical University of Silesia, Katowice, Poland, told this news organization that, just as in studies on vitamin D in adult populations, there must be a balance in infant studies between potential benefit of a therapeutic strategy of vitamin D and sunlight and risk of side effects. (Dr. Rogala was not involved in Dr. Rueter’s study.)
Although vitamin D supplements are a standard part of infant care, exposure to sunlight can come with cancer risk, she noted.
Dr. Rueter agreed caution is necessary.
“You have to follow the cancer guidelines,” she said. “Sunlight may play a role in causing skin cancer, and lots of research needs to be done to find the right balance between what is a good amount which may influence the immune system in a positive way and what, on the other hand, might be too much.”
As for vitamin D supplements, Dr. Rueter said, toxic levels require “extremely high doses,” so with 400 IU/day used in the study, children are likely not being overtreated by combining sunlight and vitamin D supplements.
The study was supported by grants from Telethon–New Children’s Hospital Research Fund, Australia; Asthma Foundation of Western Australia; and the Princess Margaret Hospital Foundation, Australia. Dr. Rueter and Dr. Rogala have reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Higher direct ultraviolet light exposure in the first 3 months of life was linked to lower incidence of proinflammatory immune markers and lower incidence of eczema in an early-stage double-blind, randomized controlled trial.
Kristina Rueter, MD, with the University of Western Australia, Perth, who presented her team’s findings on Sunday at the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) Hybrid Congress 2021, said their study is the first to demonstrate the association.
“There has been a significant rise in allergic diseases, particularly within the last 20-30 years,” Dr. Rueter noted.
“Changes to the genetic pool take thousands of years to have an impact,” she said, “so the question is why do we have the significant, very recent rise of allergic diseases?”
Suboptimal vitamin D levels during infancy, lifestyle changes, nutritional changes, and living at higher latitudes have emerged as explanations.
In this study, 195 high-risk newborns were randomized to receive oral vitamin D supplements (400 IU/day) or placebo until 6 months of age.
Researchers found that UV light exposure appears more beneficial than vitamin D supplements as an allergy prevention strategy in the critical early years of immune system development.
The researchers used a novel approach of attaching a personal UV dosimeter to the infants’ clothing to measure direct UV light exposure (290-380 nm). Vitamin D levels were measured at 3, 6, 12, and 30 months of age. Immune function was assessed at 6 months of age, and food allergy, eczema, and wheeze were assessed at 6, 12, and 30 months of age.
At 3 (P < .01) and 6 (P = .02) months of age, vitamin D levels were greater in the children who received vitamin D supplements than those who received placebo, but there was no difference in eczema incidence between groups. The finding matched those of previous studies that compared the supplements with placebo, Dr. Rueter said.
However, infants with eczema were found to have had less UV light exposure compared to those without eczema (median interquartile range [IQR], 555 J/m2 vs. 998 J/m2; P = .023).
“We also found an inverse correlation between total UV light exposure and toll-like receptor cytokine production,” Dr. Rueter said.
“The more direct UV light exposure a child got, the less the chance to develop eczema,” she said.
Researchers then extended their analysis to see whether the effect of direct UV light exposure on reduced eczema would be maintained in the first 2.5 years of life, “and we could see again a significant difference, that the children who received higher UV light exposure had less eczema,” Dr. Rueter said.
Barbara Rogala, MD, PhD, professor at the Medical University of Silesia, Katowice, Poland, told this news organization that, just as in studies on vitamin D in adult populations, there must be a balance in infant studies between potential benefit of a therapeutic strategy of vitamin D and sunlight and risk of side effects. (Dr. Rogala was not involved in Dr. Rueter’s study.)
Although vitamin D supplements are a standard part of infant care, exposure to sunlight can come with cancer risk, she noted.
Dr. Rueter agreed caution is necessary.
“You have to follow the cancer guidelines,” she said. “Sunlight may play a role in causing skin cancer, and lots of research needs to be done to find the right balance between what is a good amount which may influence the immune system in a positive way and what, on the other hand, might be too much.”
As for vitamin D supplements, Dr. Rueter said, toxic levels require “extremely high doses,” so with 400 IU/day used in the study, children are likely not being overtreated by combining sunlight and vitamin D supplements.
The study was supported by grants from Telethon–New Children’s Hospital Research Fund, Australia; Asthma Foundation of Western Australia; and the Princess Margaret Hospital Foundation, Australia. Dr. Rueter and Dr. Rogala have reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Higher direct ultraviolet light exposure in the first 3 months of life was linked to lower incidence of proinflammatory immune markers and lower incidence of eczema in an early-stage double-blind, randomized controlled trial.
Kristina Rueter, MD, with the University of Western Australia, Perth, who presented her team’s findings on Sunday at the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) Hybrid Congress 2021, said their study is the first to demonstrate the association.
“There has been a significant rise in allergic diseases, particularly within the last 20-30 years,” Dr. Rueter noted.
“Changes to the genetic pool take thousands of years to have an impact,” she said, “so the question is why do we have the significant, very recent rise of allergic diseases?”
Suboptimal vitamin D levels during infancy, lifestyle changes, nutritional changes, and living at higher latitudes have emerged as explanations.
In this study, 195 high-risk newborns were randomized to receive oral vitamin D supplements (400 IU/day) or placebo until 6 months of age.
Researchers found that UV light exposure appears more beneficial than vitamin D supplements as an allergy prevention strategy in the critical early years of immune system development.
The researchers used a novel approach of attaching a personal UV dosimeter to the infants’ clothing to measure direct UV light exposure (290-380 nm). Vitamin D levels were measured at 3, 6, 12, and 30 months of age. Immune function was assessed at 6 months of age, and food allergy, eczema, and wheeze were assessed at 6, 12, and 30 months of age.
At 3 (P < .01) and 6 (P = .02) months of age, vitamin D levels were greater in the children who received vitamin D supplements than those who received placebo, but there was no difference in eczema incidence between groups. The finding matched those of previous studies that compared the supplements with placebo, Dr. Rueter said.
However, infants with eczema were found to have had less UV light exposure compared to those without eczema (median interquartile range [IQR], 555 J/m2 vs. 998 J/m2; P = .023).
“We also found an inverse correlation between total UV light exposure and toll-like receptor cytokine production,” Dr. Rueter said.
“The more direct UV light exposure a child got, the less the chance to develop eczema,” she said.
Researchers then extended their analysis to see whether the effect of direct UV light exposure on reduced eczema would be maintained in the first 2.5 years of life, “and we could see again a significant difference, that the children who received higher UV light exposure had less eczema,” Dr. Rueter said.
Barbara Rogala, MD, PhD, professor at the Medical University of Silesia, Katowice, Poland, told this news organization that, just as in studies on vitamin D in adult populations, there must be a balance in infant studies between potential benefit of a therapeutic strategy of vitamin D and sunlight and risk of side effects. (Dr. Rogala was not involved in Dr. Rueter’s study.)
Although vitamin D supplements are a standard part of infant care, exposure to sunlight can come with cancer risk, she noted.
Dr. Rueter agreed caution is necessary.
“You have to follow the cancer guidelines,” she said. “Sunlight may play a role in causing skin cancer, and lots of research needs to be done to find the right balance between what is a good amount which may influence the immune system in a positive way and what, on the other hand, might be too much.”
As for vitamin D supplements, Dr. Rueter said, toxic levels require “extremely high doses,” so with 400 IU/day used in the study, children are likely not being overtreated by combining sunlight and vitamin D supplements.
The study was supported by grants from Telethon–New Children’s Hospital Research Fund, Australia; Asthma Foundation of Western Australia; and the Princess Margaret Hospital Foundation, Australia. Dr. Rueter and Dr. Rogala have reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Trans youth in sports
Over the last several years, the United States has seen a substantial increase in proposed legislation directed toward transgender individuals, particularly youth.1 One type of this legislation aims to prevent participation of transgender girls on female sports teams. While at first glance these bills may seem like common sense protections, in reality they are based on little evidence and serve to further marginalize an already-vulnerable population.
The majority of the population, and thus the majority of athletes, are cisgender.2 According a limited data set from the 2017 Youth Risk Behavior Survey, only 1.8% of high school students identify as transgender.3,4 Overall, this is a very small percentage and it is unlikely that all of them, or even a majority, participate in athletics. In fact, many transgender individuals avoid athletics as it worsens their dysphoria. Winners are no more likely to be transgender than cisgender.
While proponents of this legislation say that trans women have an unfair advantage because of elevated testosterone levels (and thus theoretically increased muscle mass), there is no clear relationship between higher testosterone levels in athletes and improved athletic performance.2 In fact, there are plenty of sports in which a smaller physique may be beneficial, such as gymnastics. A systematic review showed “no direct or consistent research suggesting transgender female individuals ... have an athletic advantage at any stage of their transition.”5 Furthermore, trans women are not the only women with elevated testosterone levels. Many cisgender women who have polycystic ovary syndrome or a disorder of sexual differentiation can have higher levels of testosterone and theoretically may have higher muscle mass. Who is to decide which team would be most appropriate for them? Is the plan to require a karyotype, other genetic testing, or an invasive physical exam for every young athlete? Even if the concern is with regards to testosterone levels and muscle mass, this ignores that fact that appropriate medical intervention for transgender adolescents will alter these attributes. If a transgender girl began gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists early in puberty, she is unlikely to have increased muscle mass or a higher testosterone level than a cisgender girl. Those trans girls who take estradiol also experience a decrease in muscle mass. Additionally, adolescents grow and develop at different rates – surely there is already significant variability among hormone levels, muscle mass, sexual maturity ratings, and ability among individual athletes, regardless of gender identity? The argument that trans women should be excluded based on a theoretical genetic advantage is reminiscent of the argument that Black athletes should be excluded because of genetic advantage. Just as with cisgender athletes, transgender athletes will naturally vary in ability.6
In addition, there are many places and organizations that already have trans-inclusive policies in place for sports, yet we have not seen transgender individuals dominate their peers. In the 8 years since implementation of a trans-inclusive sports policy in California, a trans woman has never dominated a sport.7 The same is true for Canada since the institution of their policy 2 years ago. While transgender people can participate in the Olympics, this year marks the first time a trans woman has ever qualified (Laurel Hubbard, New Zealand, women’s weightlifting). The lack of transgender Olympians may be in part because of problematic requirements (such as duration of hormone therapy and surgery requirements) for transgender individuals, which may be so onerous that they are functionally excluded.2,5
In reality, athletes are improving over time and the performance gap between genders is shrinking. For example, in 1970 Mark Spitz swam the 100-meter freestyle in 51.94 seconds, a time that has now been surpassed by both men and women, such as Sarah Sjöström (women’s world record holder at 51.71 seconds). Athletes’ physical attributes are often less important than their training and dedication to their sport.
More importantly, this discussion raises the philosophical question of the purpose of athletics for youth and young adults. Winning and good performance can – though rarely – lead to college scholarships and professional careers, the biggest benefit of athletics comes from participation. We encourage youth to play sports not to win, but to learn about leadership, dedication, and collegiality, as well as for the health benefits of exercise. Inclusion in sports and other extracurricular activities improves depression, anxiety, and suicide rates. In fact, participation in sports has been associated with improved grades, greater homework completion, higher educational and occupational aspirations, and improved self-esteem.8-12 Excluding a population that already experiences such drastic marginalization will cause more damage. Values of nondiscrimination and inclusion should be promoted among all student athletes, rather than “other-ism.”
Forcing trans women to compete with men will worsen their dysphoria and further ostracize the most vulnerable, giving credence to those that believe they are not “real women.” Allowing transgender individuals to play on the team consistent with their gender identity is appropriate, not only for scientific reasons but also for humanitarian ones. Such laws are based not on evidence, but on discrimination. Not only do trans women not do better than cisgender women in sports, but such proposed legislation also ignores the normal variability among individuals as well as the intense training and dedication involved in becoming a top athlete. Limiting trans women’s participation in sports does not raise up cisgender women, but rather brings us all down. Please advocate for your patients to participate in athletics in accordance with their gender identity to promote both their physical and emotional well-being.
Dr. Lawlis is assistant professor of pediatrics at the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, and an adolescent medicine specialist at OU Children’s. She has no relevant financial disclosures.
References
1. Cooper MB. Pediatric News. 2020 Dec 11, 2020.
2. Turban J. Scientific American. 2021 May 21.
3. Redfield RR et al. Morbid Mortal Wkly Rep. 2018;67(8):1-11.
4. Johns MM et al. Morbid Mortal Wkly Rep. 2019;68(3):67-71.
5. Jones BA et al. Sports Med (Auckland, New Zealand). 2017;47(4):701-16.
6. Strangio C et al. ACLU News. 2020 Apr 30.
7. Strauss L. USA Today. 2021 Apr 9.
8. Darling N et al. J Leisure Res. 2005;37(1):51-76.
9. Fredricks JA et al. Dev Psych. 2006;42(4):698-713.
10. Marsh HW et al. J Sport Exerc Psychol. 2003;25(2):205.
11. Nelson MC et al. Pediatrics. 2006;117(4):1281-90.
12. Ortega FB et al. Int J Obes. 2008;32(1):1-11.
Over the last several years, the United States has seen a substantial increase in proposed legislation directed toward transgender individuals, particularly youth.1 One type of this legislation aims to prevent participation of transgender girls on female sports teams. While at first glance these bills may seem like common sense protections, in reality they are based on little evidence and serve to further marginalize an already-vulnerable population.
The majority of the population, and thus the majority of athletes, are cisgender.2 According a limited data set from the 2017 Youth Risk Behavior Survey, only 1.8% of high school students identify as transgender.3,4 Overall, this is a very small percentage and it is unlikely that all of them, or even a majority, participate in athletics. In fact, many transgender individuals avoid athletics as it worsens their dysphoria. Winners are no more likely to be transgender than cisgender.
While proponents of this legislation say that trans women have an unfair advantage because of elevated testosterone levels (and thus theoretically increased muscle mass), there is no clear relationship between higher testosterone levels in athletes and improved athletic performance.2 In fact, there are plenty of sports in which a smaller physique may be beneficial, such as gymnastics. A systematic review showed “no direct or consistent research suggesting transgender female individuals ... have an athletic advantage at any stage of their transition.”5 Furthermore, trans women are not the only women with elevated testosterone levels. Many cisgender women who have polycystic ovary syndrome or a disorder of sexual differentiation can have higher levels of testosterone and theoretically may have higher muscle mass. Who is to decide which team would be most appropriate for them? Is the plan to require a karyotype, other genetic testing, or an invasive physical exam for every young athlete? Even if the concern is with regards to testosterone levels and muscle mass, this ignores that fact that appropriate medical intervention for transgender adolescents will alter these attributes. If a transgender girl began gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists early in puberty, she is unlikely to have increased muscle mass or a higher testosterone level than a cisgender girl. Those trans girls who take estradiol also experience a decrease in muscle mass. Additionally, adolescents grow and develop at different rates – surely there is already significant variability among hormone levels, muscle mass, sexual maturity ratings, and ability among individual athletes, regardless of gender identity? The argument that trans women should be excluded based on a theoretical genetic advantage is reminiscent of the argument that Black athletes should be excluded because of genetic advantage. Just as with cisgender athletes, transgender athletes will naturally vary in ability.6
In addition, there are many places and organizations that already have trans-inclusive policies in place for sports, yet we have not seen transgender individuals dominate their peers. In the 8 years since implementation of a trans-inclusive sports policy in California, a trans woman has never dominated a sport.7 The same is true for Canada since the institution of their policy 2 years ago. While transgender people can participate in the Olympics, this year marks the first time a trans woman has ever qualified (Laurel Hubbard, New Zealand, women’s weightlifting). The lack of transgender Olympians may be in part because of problematic requirements (such as duration of hormone therapy and surgery requirements) for transgender individuals, which may be so onerous that they are functionally excluded.2,5
In reality, athletes are improving over time and the performance gap between genders is shrinking. For example, in 1970 Mark Spitz swam the 100-meter freestyle in 51.94 seconds, a time that has now been surpassed by both men and women, such as Sarah Sjöström (women’s world record holder at 51.71 seconds). Athletes’ physical attributes are often less important than their training and dedication to their sport.
More importantly, this discussion raises the philosophical question of the purpose of athletics for youth and young adults. Winning and good performance can – though rarely – lead to college scholarships and professional careers, the biggest benefit of athletics comes from participation. We encourage youth to play sports not to win, but to learn about leadership, dedication, and collegiality, as well as for the health benefits of exercise. Inclusion in sports and other extracurricular activities improves depression, anxiety, and suicide rates. In fact, participation in sports has been associated with improved grades, greater homework completion, higher educational and occupational aspirations, and improved self-esteem.8-12 Excluding a population that already experiences such drastic marginalization will cause more damage. Values of nondiscrimination and inclusion should be promoted among all student athletes, rather than “other-ism.”
Forcing trans women to compete with men will worsen their dysphoria and further ostracize the most vulnerable, giving credence to those that believe they are not “real women.” Allowing transgender individuals to play on the team consistent with their gender identity is appropriate, not only for scientific reasons but also for humanitarian ones. Such laws are based not on evidence, but on discrimination. Not only do trans women not do better than cisgender women in sports, but such proposed legislation also ignores the normal variability among individuals as well as the intense training and dedication involved in becoming a top athlete. Limiting trans women’s participation in sports does not raise up cisgender women, but rather brings us all down. Please advocate for your patients to participate in athletics in accordance with their gender identity to promote both their physical and emotional well-being.
Dr. Lawlis is assistant professor of pediatrics at the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, and an adolescent medicine specialist at OU Children’s. She has no relevant financial disclosures.
References
1. Cooper MB. Pediatric News. 2020 Dec 11, 2020.
2. Turban J. Scientific American. 2021 May 21.
3. Redfield RR et al. Morbid Mortal Wkly Rep. 2018;67(8):1-11.
4. Johns MM et al. Morbid Mortal Wkly Rep. 2019;68(3):67-71.
5. Jones BA et al. Sports Med (Auckland, New Zealand). 2017;47(4):701-16.
6. Strangio C et al. ACLU News. 2020 Apr 30.
7. Strauss L. USA Today. 2021 Apr 9.
8. Darling N et al. J Leisure Res. 2005;37(1):51-76.
9. Fredricks JA et al. Dev Psych. 2006;42(4):698-713.
10. Marsh HW et al. J Sport Exerc Psychol. 2003;25(2):205.
11. Nelson MC et al. Pediatrics. 2006;117(4):1281-90.
12. Ortega FB et al. Int J Obes. 2008;32(1):1-11.
Over the last several years, the United States has seen a substantial increase in proposed legislation directed toward transgender individuals, particularly youth.1 One type of this legislation aims to prevent participation of transgender girls on female sports teams. While at first glance these bills may seem like common sense protections, in reality they are based on little evidence and serve to further marginalize an already-vulnerable population.
The majority of the population, and thus the majority of athletes, are cisgender.2 According a limited data set from the 2017 Youth Risk Behavior Survey, only 1.8% of high school students identify as transgender.3,4 Overall, this is a very small percentage and it is unlikely that all of them, or even a majority, participate in athletics. In fact, many transgender individuals avoid athletics as it worsens their dysphoria. Winners are no more likely to be transgender than cisgender.
While proponents of this legislation say that trans women have an unfair advantage because of elevated testosterone levels (and thus theoretically increased muscle mass), there is no clear relationship between higher testosterone levels in athletes and improved athletic performance.2 In fact, there are plenty of sports in which a smaller physique may be beneficial, such as gymnastics. A systematic review showed “no direct or consistent research suggesting transgender female individuals ... have an athletic advantage at any stage of their transition.”5 Furthermore, trans women are not the only women with elevated testosterone levels. Many cisgender women who have polycystic ovary syndrome or a disorder of sexual differentiation can have higher levels of testosterone and theoretically may have higher muscle mass. Who is to decide which team would be most appropriate for them? Is the plan to require a karyotype, other genetic testing, or an invasive physical exam for every young athlete? Even if the concern is with regards to testosterone levels and muscle mass, this ignores that fact that appropriate medical intervention for transgender adolescents will alter these attributes. If a transgender girl began gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists early in puberty, she is unlikely to have increased muscle mass or a higher testosterone level than a cisgender girl. Those trans girls who take estradiol also experience a decrease in muscle mass. Additionally, adolescents grow and develop at different rates – surely there is already significant variability among hormone levels, muscle mass, sexual maturity ratings, and ability among individual athletes, regardless of gender identity? The argument that trans women should be excluded based on a theoretical genetic advantage is reminiscent of the argument that Black athletes should be excluded because of genetic advantage. Just as with cisgender athletes, transgender athletes will naturally vary in ability.6
In addition, there are many places and organizations that already have trans-inclusive policies in place for sports, yet we have not seen transgender individuals dominate their peers. In the 8 years since implementation of a trans-inclusive sports policy in California, a trans woman has never dominated a sport.7 The same is true for Canada since the institution of their policy 2 years ago. While transgender people can participate in the Olympics, this year marks the first time a trans woman has ever qualified (Laurel Hubbard, New Zealand, women’s weightlifting). The lack of transgender Olympians may be in part because of problematic requirements (such as duration of hormone therapy and surgery requirements) for transgender individuals, which may be so onerous that they are functionally excluded.2,5
In reality, athletes are improving over time and the performance gap between genders is shrinking. For example, in 1970 Mark Spitz swam the 100-meter freestyle in 51.94 seconds, a time that has now been surpassed by both men and women, such as Sarah Sjöström (women’s world record holder at 51.71 seconds). Athletes’ physical attributes are often less important than their training and dedication to their sport.
More importantly, this discussion raises the philosophical question of the purpose of athletics for youth and young adults. Winning and good performance can – though rarely – lead to college scholarships and professional careers, the biggest benefit of athletics comes from participation. We encourage youth to play sports not to win, but to learn about leadership, dedication, and collegiality, as well as for the health benefits of exercise. Inclusion in sports and other extracurricular activities improves depression, anxiety, and suicide rates. In fact, participation in sports has been associated with improved grades, greater homework completion, higher educational and occupational aspirations, and improved self-esteem.8-12 Excluding a population that already experiences such drastic marginalization will cause more damage. Values of nondiscrimination and inclusion should be promoted among all student athletes, rather than “other-ism.”
Forcing trans women to compete with men will worsen their dysphoria and further ostracize the most vulnerable, giving credence to those that believe they are not “real women.” Allowing transgender individuals to play on the team consistent with their gender identity is appropriate, not only for scientific reasons but also for humanitarian ones. Such laws are based not on evidence, but on discrimination. Not only do trans women not do better than cisgender women in sports, but such proposed legislation also ignores the normal variability among individuals as well as the intense training and dedication involved in becoming a top athlete. Limiting trans women’s participation in sports does not raise up cisgender women, but rather brings us all down. Please advocate for your patients to participate in athletics in accordance with their gender identity to promote both their physical and emotional well-being.
Dr. Lawlis is assistant professor of pediatrics at the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, and an adolescent medicine specialist at OU Children’s. She has no relevant financial disclosures.
References
1. Cooper MB. Pediatric News. 2020 Dec 11, 2020.
2. Turban J. Scientific American. 2021 May 21.
3. Redfield RR et al. Morbid Mortal Wkly Rep. 2018;67(8):1-11.
4. Johns MM et al. Morbid Mortal Wkly Rep. 2019;68(3):67-71.
5. Jones BA et al. Sports Med (Auckland, New Zealand). 2017;47(4):701-16.
6. Strangio C et al. ACLU News. 2020 Apr 30.
7. Strauss L. USA Today. 2021 Apr 9.
8. Darling N et al. J Leisure Res. 2005;37(1):51-76.
9. Fredricks JA et al. Dev Psych. 2006;42(4):698-713.
10. Marsh HW et al. J Sport Exerc Psychol. 2003;25(2):205.
11. Nelson MC et al. Pediatrics. 2006;117(4):1281-90.
12. Ortega FB et al. Int J Obes. 2008;32(1):1-11.
Long COVID symptoms reported by 6% of pediatric patients
The prevalence of long COVID in children has been unclear, and is complicated by the lack of a consistent definition, said Anna Funk, PhD, an epidemiologist at the University of Calgary (Alba.), during her online presentation of the findings at the 31st European Congress of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases.
In the several small studies conducted to date, rates range from 0% to 67% 2-4 months after infection, Dr. Funk reported.
To examine prevalence, she and her colleagues, as part of the Pediatric Emergency Research Network (PERN) global research consortium, assessed more than 10,500 children who were screened for SARS-CoV-2 when they presented to the ED at 1 of 41 study sites in 10 countries – Australia, Canada, Indonesia, the United States, plus three countries in Latin America and three in Western Europe – from March 2020 to June 15, 2021.
PERN researchers are following up with the more than 3,100 children who tested positive 14, 30, and 90 days after testing, tracking respiratory, neurologic, and psychobehavioral sequelae.
Dr. Funk presented data on the 1,884 children who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 before Jan. 20, 2021, and who had completed 90-day follow-up; 447 of those children were hospitalized and 1,437 were not.
Symptoms were reported more often by children admitted to the hospital than not admitted (9.8% vs. 4.6%). Common persistent symptoms were respiratory in 2% of cases, systemic (such as fatigue and fever) in 2%, neurologic (such as headache, seizures, and continued loss of taste or smell) in 1%, and psychological (such as new-onset depression and anxiety) in 1%.
“This study provides the first good epidemiological data on persistent symptoms among SARS-CoV-2–infected children, regardless of severity,” said Kevin Messacar, MD, a pediatric infectious disease clinician and researcher at Children’s Hospital Colorado in Aurora, who was not involved in the study.
And the findings show that, although severe COVID and chronic symptoms are less common in children than in adults, they are “not nonexistent and need to be taken seriously,” he said in an interview.
After adjustment for country of enrollment, children aged 10-17 years were more likely to experience persistent symptoms than children younger than 1 year (odds ratio, 2.4; P = .002).
Hospitalized children were more than twice as likely to experience persistent symptoms as nonhospitalized children (OR, 2.5; P < .001). And children who presented to the ED with at least seven symptoms were four times more likely to have long-term symptoms than those who presented with fewer symptoms (OR, 4.02; P = .01).
‘Some reassurance’
“Given that COVID is new and is known to have acute cardiac and neurologic effects, particularly in children with [multisystem inflammatory syndrome], there were initially concerns about persistent cardiovascular and neurologic effects in any infected child,” Dr. Messacar explained. “These data provide some reassurance that this is uncommon among children with mild or moderate infections who are not hospitalized.”
But “the risk is not zero,” he added. “Getting children vaccinated when it is available to them and taking precautions to prevent unvaccinated children getting COVID is the best way to reduce the risk of severe disease or persistent symptoms.”
The study was limited by its lack of data on variants, reliance on self-reported symptoms, and a population drawn solely from EDs, Dr. Funk acknowledged.
No external funding source was noted. Dr. Messacar and Dr. Funk disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The prevalence of long COVID in children has been unclear, and is complicated by the lack of a consistent definition, said Anna Funk, PhD, an epidemiologist at the University of Calgary (Alba.), during her online presentation of the findings at the 31st European Congress of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases.
In the several small studies conducted to date, rates range from 0% to 67% 2-4 months after infection, Dr. Funk reported.
To examine prevalence, she and her colleagues, as part of the Pediatric Emergency Research Network (PERN) global research consortium, assessed more than 10,500 children who were screened for SARS-CoV-2 when they presented to the ED at 1 of 41 study sites in 10 countries – Australia, Canada, Indonesia, the United States, plus three countries in Latin America and three in Western Europe – from March 2020 to June 15, 2021.
PERN researchers are following up with the more than 3,100 children who tested positive 14, 30, and 90 days after testing, tracking respiratory, neurologic, and psychobehavioral sequelae.
Dr. Funk presented data on the 1,884 children who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 before Jan. 20, 2021, and who had completed 90-day follow-up; 447 of those children were hospitalized and 1,437 were not.
Symptoms were reported more often by children admitted to the hospital than not admitted (9.8% vs. 4.6%). Common persistent symptoms were respiratory in 2% of cases, systemic (such as fatigue and fever) in 2%, neurologic (such as headache, seizures, and continued loss of taste or smell) in 1%, and psychological (such as new-onset depression and anxiety) in 1%.
“This study provides the first good epidemiological data on persistent symptoms among SARS-CoV-2–infected children, regardless of severity,” said Kevin Messacar, MD, a pediatric infectious disease clinician and researcher at Children’s Hospital Colorado in Aurora, who was not involved in the study.
And the findings show that, although severe COVID and chronic symptoms are less common in children than in adults, they are “not nonexistent and need to be taken seriously,” he said in an interview.
After adjustment for country of enrollment, children aged 10-17 years were more likely to experience persistent symptoms than children younger than 1 year (odds ratio, 2.4; P = .002).
Hospitalized children were more than twice as likely to experience persistent symptoms as nonhospitalized children (OR, 2.5; P < .001). And children who presented to the ED with at least seven symptoms were four times more likely to have long-term symptoms than those who presented with fewer symptoms (OR, 4.02; P = .01).
‘Some reassurance’
“Given that COVID is new and is known to have acute cardiac and neurologic effects, particularly in children with [multisystem inflammatory syndrome], there were initially concerns about persistent cardiovascular and neurologic effects in any infected child,” Dr. Messacar explained. “These data provide some reassurance that this is uncommon among children with mild or moderate infections who are not hospitalized.”
But “the risk is not zero,” he added. “Getting children vaccinated when it is available to them and taking precautions to prevent unvaccinated children getting COVID is the best way to reduce the risk of severe disease or persistent symptoms.”
The study was limited by its lack of data on variants, reliance on self-reported symptoms, and a population drawn solely from EDs, Dr. Funk acknowledged.
No external funding source was noted. Dr. Messacar and Dr. Funk disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The prevalence of long COVID in children has been unclear, and is complicated by the lack of a consistent definition, said Anna Funk, PhD, an epidemiologist at the University of Calgary (Alba.), during her online presentation of the findings at the 31st European Congress of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases.
In the several small studies conducted to date, rates range from 0% to 67% 2-4 months after infection, Dr. Funk reported.
To examine prevalence, she and her colleagues, as part of the Pediatric Emergency Research Network (PERN) global research consortium, assessed more than 10,500 children who were screened for SARS-CoV-2 when they presented to the ED at 1 of 41 study sites in 10 countries – Australia, Canada, Indonesia, the United States, plus three countries in Latin America and three in Western Europe – from March 2020 to June 15, 2021.
PERN researchers are following up with the more than 3,100 children who tested positive 14, 30, and 90 days after testing, tracking respiratory, neurologic, and psychobehavioral sequelae.
Dr. Funk presented data on the 1,884 children who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 before Jan. 20, 2021, and who had completed 90-day follow-up; 447 of those children were hospitalized and 1,437 were not.
Symptoms were reported more often by children admitted to the hospital than not admitted (9.8% vs. 4.6%). Common persistent symptoms were respiratory in 2% of cases, systemic (such as fatigue and fever) in 2%, neurologic (such as headache, seizures, and continued loss of taste or smell) in 1%, and psychological (such as new-onset depression and anxiety) in 1%.
“This study provides the first good epidemiological data on persistent symptoms among SARS-CoV-2–infected children, regardless of severity,” said Kevin Messacar, MD, a pediatric infectious disease clinician and researcher at Children’s Hospital Colorado in Aurora, who was not involved in the study.
And the findings show that, although severe COVID and chronic symptoms are less common in children than in adults, they are “not nonexistent and need to be taken seriously,” he said in an interview.
After adjustment for country of enrollment, children aged 10-17 years were more likely to experience persistent symptoms than children younger than 1 year (odds ratio, 2.4; P = .002).
Hospitalized children were more than twice as likely to experience persistent symptoms as nonhospitalized children (OR, 2.5; P < .001). And children who presented to the ED with at least seven symptoms were four times more likely to have long-term symptoms than those who presented with fewer symptoms (OR, 4.02; P = .01).
‘Some reassurance’
“Given that COVID is new and is known to have acute cardiac and neurologic effects, particularly in children with [multisystem inflammatory syndrome], there were initially concerns about persistent cardiovascular and neurologic effects in any infected child,” Dr. Messacar explained. “These data provide some reassurance that this is uncommon among children with mild or moderate infections who are not hospitalized.”
But “the risk is not zero,” he added. “Getting children vaccinated when it is available to them and taking precautions to prevent unvaccinated children getting COVID is the best way to reduce the risk of severe disease or persistent symptoms.”
The study was limited by its lack of data on variants, reliance on self-reported symptoms, and a population drawn solely from EDs, Dr. Funk acknowledged.
No external funding source was noted. Dr. Messacar and Dr. Funk disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
New agents for youth-onset type 2 diabetes ‘finally in sight’
There are limited treatment options for children and youth with type 2 diabetes, but a few novel therapies beyond metformin are on the horizon, experts said at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.
“Type 2 diabetes in youth only emerged as a well-recognized pediatric medical problem in the 1990s and the first decade of the 21st century,” session chair Kenneth C. Copeland, MD, said in an interview.
“Fortunately, a number of clinical trials of antidiabetic pharmacologic agents in diabetic youth have now been completed, demonstrating both safety and efficacy, and at long last, a ... variety of agents are finally in sight,” he noted.
Type 2 diabetes in youth is profoundly different from type 2 diabetes in adults, added Dr. Copeland, pediatrics professor emeritus, University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City. In youth, its course is typically aggressive and refractive to treatment.
Concerted efforts at lifestyle intervention are important but insufficient, and a response to metformin, even when initiated at diagnosis, is often short lived, he added.
Because of the rapid glycemic deterioration that is typical of type 2 diabetes in youth and leads to the full array of diabetic complications, early aggressive pharmacologic treatment is indicated.
“We all look forward to this next decade ushering in new treatment options, spanning the spectrum from obesity prevention to complex pharmacologic intervention,” Dr. Copeland summarized.
Increasing prevalence of T2D in youth, limited therapies
Rates of type 2 diabetes in youth continue to increase, especially among non-White groups, and most of these individuals have less than optimal diabetes control, Elvira Isganaitis, MD, MPH, a pediatric endocrinologist at the Joslin Diabetes Center and assistant professor of pediatrics at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, told the meeting.
Although the Food and Drug Administration has approved more than 25 drugs to treat type 2 diabetes in adults, “unfortunately,” metformin is the only oral medication approved to treat the disease in a pediatric population, “and a majority of youth either do not respond to it or do not tolerate it,” she said in an interview.
Dr. Copeland observed that “the TODAY study demonstrated conclusively that, despite an often dramatic initial improvement in glycemic control upon initiation of pharmacologic and lifestyle intervention, this initial response was followed by a rapid deterioration of beta-cell function and glycemic failure, indicating that additional pharmacologic agents were sorely needed for this population.”
The RISE study also showed that, compared with adults, youth had more rapid beta-cell deterioration despite treatment.
Until the June 2019 FDA approval of the injectable glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor agonist liraglutide (Victoza, Novo Nordisk) for children 10 years or older, “except for insulin, metformin was the only antidiabetic medication available for use in youth, severely limiting treatment options,” he added.
Liraglutide ‘a huge breakthrough,’ other options on the horizon
The FDA approval of liraglutide was “a huge breakthrough” as the first noninsulin drug for pediatric type 2 diabetes since metformin was approved for pediatric use in 2000, Dr. Isganaitis said.
The ELLIPSE study, on which the approval was based, showed liraglutide was effective at lowering hemoglobin A1c and was generally well tolerated, although it was associated with a higher incidence of gastrointestinal symptoms.
In December 2020, the FDA also approved liraglutide (Saxenda) for the treatment of obesity in youth age 12 and older (at a dose of 3 mg as opposed to the 1.8-mg dose of liraglutide [Victoza]), “which is wonderful news considering that the majority of pediatric patients with type 2 diabetes also have obesity,” Dr. Isganaitis added.
“The results of studies of liraglutide on glycemia in diabetic youth are impressive, with both an additional benefit of weight loss and without unacceptable identified risks or side effects,” Dr. Copeland concurred.
Waiting in the wings
Dr. Isganaitis reported that a few phase 3 clinical trials of other therapies for pediatric patients with type 2 diabetes are in the wings.
The 24-week phase 3 T2GO clinical trial of the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor dapagliflozin (AstraZeneca) versus placebo in 72 patients with type 2 diabetes aged 10-24 years was completed in April 2020, and the data are being analyzed.
An AstraZeneca-sponsored phase 3 trial of the safety and efficacy of a weekly injection of the GLP-1 receptor agonist exenatide in 10- to 17-year-olds with type 2 diabetes (n = 82) has also been completed and data are being analyzed.
A Takeda-sponsored phase 3 pediatric study of the dipeptidyl peptidase–4 inhibitor alogliptin in 10- to 17-year-olds with type 2 diabetes (n = 150) is estimated to be completed by February 2022.
And the phase 3 DINAMO trial, sponsored by Boehringer Ingelheim, which is evaluating the efficacy and safety of the SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin (10 mg/25 mg) versus the DPP-4 inhibitor linagliptin (5 mg) versus placebo over 26 weeks in 10- to 17-year-olds with type 2 diabetes (estimated 186 participants), is expected to be completed in May 2023.
“I hope that these medications will demonstrate efficacy and allow pediatric patients with type 2 diabetes to have more treatment options,” Dr. Isganaitis concluded.
Type 2 diabetes more aggressive than type 1 diabetes in kids
According to Dr. Isganaitis, “there is a widely held misconception among the general public and even among some physicians that type 2 diabetes is somehow less worrisome or ‘milder’ than a diagnosis of type 1 diabetes.”
However, the risk of complications and severe morbidity is higher with a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes versus type 1 diabetes in a child, so “this condition needs to be managed intensively with a multidisciplinary team including pediatric endocrinology, nutrition [support], diabetes educators, and mental health support,” she emphasized.
Many people also believe that “type 2 diabetes in kids is a ‘lifestyle disease,’ ” she continued, “but in fact, there is a strong role for genetics.”
The ADA Presidents’ Select Abstract “paints a picture of youth-onset type 2 diabetes as a disease intermediate in extremity between monogenic diabetes [caused by mutations in a single gene] and type 2 diabetes [caused by multiple genes and lifestyle factors such as obesity], in which genetic variants in both insulin secretion and insulin response pathways are implicated.”
Along the same lines, Dr. Isganaitis presented an oral abstract at the meeting that showed that, among youth with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes, those whose mothers had diabetes had faster disease progression and earlier onset of diabetes complications.
Dr. Isganaitis has reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Copeland has reported serving on data monitoring committees for Boehringer Ingelheim and Novo Nordisk, and on an advisory committee for a research study for Daiichi Sankyo.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
There are limited treatment options for children and youth with type 2 diabetes, but a few novel therapies beyond metformin are on the horizon, experts said at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.
“Type 2 diabetes in youth only emerged as a well-recognized pediatric medical problem in the 1990s and the first decade of the 21st century,” session chair Kenneth C. Copeland, MD, said in an interview.
“Fortunately, a number of clinical trials of antidiabetic pharmacologic agents in diabetic youth have now been completed, demonstrating both safety and efficacy, and at long last, a ... variety of agents are finally in sight,” he noted.
Type 2 diabetes in youth is profoundly different from type 2 diabetes in adults, added Dr. Copeland, pediatrics professor emeritus, University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City. In youth, its course is typically aggressive and refractive to treatment.
Concerted efforts at lifestyle intervention are important but insufficient, and a response to metformin, even when initiated at diagnosis, is often short lived, he added.
Because of the rapid glycemic deterioration that is typical of type 2 diabetes in youth and leads to the full array of diabetic complications, early aggressive pharmacologic treatment is indicated.
“We all look forward to this next decade ushering in new treatment options, spanning the spectrum from obesity prevention to complex pharmacologic intervention,” Dr. Copeland summarized.
Increasing prevalence of T2D in youth, limited therapies
Rates of type 2 diabetes in youth continue to increase, especially among non-White groups, and most of these individuals have less than optimal diabetes control, Elvira Isganaitis, MD, MPH, a pediatric endocrinologist at the Joslin Diabetes Center and assistant professor of pediatrics at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, told the meeting.
Although the Food and Drug Administration has approved more than 25 drugs to treat type 2 diabetes in adults, “unfortunately,” metformin is the only oral medication approved to treat the disease in a pediatric population, “and a majority of youth either do not respond to it or do not tolerate it,” she said in an interview.
Dr. Copeland observed that “the TODAY study demonstrated conclusively that, despite an often dramatic initial improvement in glycemic control upon initiation of pharmacologic and lifestyle intervention, this initial response was followed by a rapid deterioration of beta-cell function and glycemic failure, indicating that additional pharmacologic agents were sorely needed for this population.”
The RISE study also showed that, compared with adults, youth had more rapid beta-cell deterioration despite treatment.
Until the June 2019 FDA approval of the injectable glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor agonist liraglutide (Victoza, Novo Nordisk) for children 10 years or older, “except for insulin, metformin was the only antidiabetic medication available for use in youth, severely limiting treatment options,” he added.
Liraglutide ‘a huge breakthrough,’ other options on the horizon
The FDA approval of liraglutide was “a huge breakthrough” as the first noninsulin drug for pediatric type 2 diabetes since metformin was approved for pediatric use in 2000, Dr. Isganaitis said.
The ELLIPSE study, on which the approval was based, showed liraglutide was effective at lowering hemoglobin A1c and was generally well tolerated, although it was associated with a higher incidence of gastrointestinal symptoms.
In December 2020, the FDA also approved liraglutide (Saxenda) for the treatment of obesity in youth age 12 and older (at a dose of 3 mg as opposed to the 1.8-mg dose of liraglutide [Victoza]), “which is wonderful news considering that the majority of pediatric patients with type 2 diabetes also have obesity,” Dr. Isganaitis added.
“The results of studies of liraglutide on glycemia in diabetic youth are impressive, with both an additional benefit of weight loss and without unacceptable identified risks or side effects,” Dr. Copeland concurred.
Waiting in the wings
Dr. Isganaitis reported that a few phase 3 clinical trials of other therapies for pediatric patients with type 2 diabetes are in the wings.
The 24-week phase 3 T2GO clinical trial of the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor dapagliflozin (AstraZeneca) versus placebo in 72 patients with type 2 diabetes aged 10-24 years was completed in April 2020, and the data are being analyzed.
An AstraZeneca-sponsored phase 3 trial of the safety and efficacy of a weekly injection of the GLP-1 receptor agonist exenatide in 10- to 17-year-olds with type 2 diabetes (n = 82) has also been completed and data are being analyzed.
A Takeda-sponsored phase 3 pediatric study of the dipeptidyl peptidase–4 inhibitor alogliptin in 10- to 17-year-olds with type 2 diabetes (n = 150) is estimated to be completed by February 2022.
And the phase 3 DINAMO trial, sponsored by Boehringer Ingelheim, which is evaluating the efficacy and safety of the SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin (10 mg/25 mg) versus the DPP-4 inhibitor linagliptin (5 mg) versus placebo over 26 weeks in 10- to 17-year-olds with type 2 diabetes (estimated 186 participants), is expected to be completed in May 2023.
“I hope that these medications will demonstrate efficacy and allow pediatric patients with type 2 diabetes to have more treatment options,” Dr. Isganaitis concluded.
Type 2 diabetes more aggressive than type 1 diabetes in kids
According to Dr. Isganaitis, “there is a widely held misconception among the general public and even among some physicians that type 2 diabetes is somehow less worrisome or ‘milder’ than a diagnosis of type 1 diabetes.”
However, the risk of complications and severe morbidity is higher with a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes versus type 1 diabetes in a child, so “this condition needs to be managed intensively with a multidisciplinary team including pediatric endocrinology, nutrition [support], diabetes educators, and mental health support,” she emphasized.
Many people also believe that “type 2 diabetes in kids is a ‘lifestyle disease,’ ” she continued, “but in fact, there is a strong role for genetics.”
The ADA Presidents’ Select Abstract “paints a picture of youth-onset type 2 diabetes as a disease intermediate in extremity between monogenic diabetes [caused by mutations in a single gene] and type 2 diabetes [caused by multiple genes and lifestyle factors such as obesity], in which genetic variants in both insulin secretion and insulin response pathways are implicated.”
Along the same lines, Dr. Isganaitis presented an oral abstract at the meeting that showed that, among youth with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes, those whose mothers had diabetes had faster disease progression and earlier onset of diabetes complications.
Dr. Isganaitis has reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Copeland has reported serving on data monitoring committees for Boehringer Ingelheim and Novo Nordisk, and on an advisory committee for a research study for Daiichi Sankyo.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
There are limited treatment options for children and youth with type 2 diabetes, but a few novel therapies beyond metformin are on the horizon, experts said at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.
“Type 2 diabetes in youth only emerged as a well-recognized pediatric medical problem in the 1990s and the first decade of the 21st century,” session chair Kenneth C. Copeland, MD, said in an interview.
“Fortunately, a number of clinical trials of antidiabetic pharmacologic agents in diabetic youth have now been completed, demonstrating both safety and efficacy, and at long last, a ... variety of agents are finally in sight,” he noted.
Type 2 diabetes in youth is profoundly different from type 2 diabetes in adults, added Dr. Copeland, pediatrics professor emeritus, University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City. In youth, its course is typically aggressive and refractive to treatment.
Concerted efforts at lifestyle intervention are important but insufficient, and a response to metformin, even when initiated at diagnosis, is often short lived, he added.
Because of the rapid glycemic deterioration that is typical of type 2 diabetes in youth and leads to the full array of diabetic complications, early aggressive pharmacologic treatment is indicated.
“We all look forward to this next decade ushering in new treatment options, spanning the spectrum from obesity prevention to complex pharmacologic intervention,” Dr. Copeland summarized.
Increasing prevalence of T2D in youth, limited therapies
Rates of type 2 diabetes in youth continue to increase, especially among non-White groups, and most of these individuals have less than optimal diabetes control, Elvira Isganaitis, MD, MPH, a pediatric endocrinologist at the Joslin Diabetes Center and assistant professor of pediatrics at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, told the meeting.
Although the Food and Drug Administration has approved more than 25 drugs to treat type 2 diabetes in adults, “unfortunately,” metformin is the only oral medication approved to treat the disease in a pediatric population, “and a majority of youth either do not respond to it or do not tolerate it,” she said in an interview.
Dr. Copeland observed that “the TODAY study demonstrated conclusively that, despite an often dramatic initial improvement in glycemic control upon initiation of pharmacologic and lifestyle intervention, this initial response was followed by a rapid deterioration of beta-cell function and glycemic failure, indicating that additional pharmacologic agents were sorely needed for this population.”
The RISE study also showed that, compared with adults, youth had more rapid beta-cell deterioration despite treatment.
Until the June 2019 FDA approval of the injectable glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor agonist liraglutide (Victoza, Novo Nordisk) for children 10 years or older, “except for insulin, metformin was the only antidiabetic medication available for use in youth, severely limiting treatment options,” he added.
Liraglutide ‘a huge breakthrough,’ other options on the horizon
The FDA approval of liraglutide was “a huge breakthrough” as the first noninsulin drug for pediatric type 2 diabetes since metformin was approved for pediatric use in 2000, Dr. Isganaitis said.
The ELLIPSE study, on which the approval was based, showed liraglutide was effective at lowering hemoglobin A1c and was generally well tolerated, although it was associated with a higher incidence of gastrointestinal symptoms.
In December 2020, the FDA also approved liraglutide (Saxenda) for the treatment of obesity in youth age 12 and older (at a dose of 3 mg as opposed to the 1.8-mg dose of liraglutide [Victoza]), “which is wonderful news considering that the majority of pediatric patients with type 2 diabetes also have obesity,” Dr. Isganaitis added.
“The results of studies of liraglutide on glycemia in diabetic youth are impressive, with both an additional benefit of weight loss and without unacceptable identified risks or side effects,” Dr. Copeland concurred.
Waiting in the wings
Dr. Isganaitis reported that a few phase 3 clinical trials of other therapies for pediatric patients with type 2 diabetes are in the wings.
The 24-week phase 3 T2GO clinical trial of the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor dapagliflozin (AstraZeneca) versus placebo in 72 patients with type 2 diabetes aged 10-24 years was completed in April 2020, and the data are being analyzed.
An AstraZeneca-sponsored phase 3 trial of the safety and efficacy of a weekly injection of the GLP-1 receptor agonist exenatide in 10- to 17-year-olds with type 2 diabetes (n = 82) has also been completed and data are being analyzed.
A Takeda-sponsored phase 3 pediatric study of the dipeptidyl peptidase–4 inhibitor alogliptin in 10- to 17-year-olds with type 2 diabetes (n = 150) is estimated to be completed by February 2022.
And the phase 3 DINAMO trial, sponsored by Boehringer Ingelheim, which is evaluating the efficacy and safety of the SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin (10 mg/25 mg) versus the DPP-4 inhibitor linagliptin (5 mg) versus placebo over 26 weeks in 10- to 17-year-olds with type 2 diabetes (estimated 186 participants), is expected to be completed in May 2023.
“I hope that these medications will demonstrate efficacy and allow pediatric patients with type 2 diabetes to have more treatment options,” Dr. Isganaitis concluded.
Type 2 diabetes more aggressive than type 1 diabetes in kids
According to Dr. Isganaitis, “there is a widely held misconception among the general public and even among some physicians that type 2 diabetes is somehow less worrisome or ‘milder’ than a diagnosis of type 1 diabetes.”
However, the risk of complications and severe morbidity is higher with a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes versus type 1 diabetes in a child, so “this condition needs to be managed intensively with a multidisciplinary team including pediatric endocrinology, nutrition [support], diabetes educators, and mental health support,” she emphasized.
Many people also believe that “type 2 diabetes in kids is a ‘lifestyle disease,’ ” she continued, “but in fact, there is a strong role for genetics.”
The ADA Presidents’ Select Abstract “paints a picture of youth-onset type 2 diabetes as a disease intermediate in extremity between monogenic diabetes [caused by mutations in a single gene] and type 2 diabetes [caused by multiple genes and lifestyle factors such as obesity], in which genetic variants in both insulin secretion and insulin response pathways are implicated.”
Along the same lines, Dr. Isganaitis presented an oral abstract at the meeting that showed that, among youth with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes, those whose mothers had diabetes had faster disease progression and earlier onset of diabetes complications.
Dr. Isganaitis has reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Copeland has reported serving on data monitoring committees for Boehringer Ingelheim and Novo Nordisk, and on an advisory committee for a research study for Daiichi Sankyo.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Rising rates of T1D in children: Is COVID to blame?
In early 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic changed everything about life as we know it, with widespread shutdowns across the globe. The U.S. health care system quickly adapted, pivoting to telehealth visits when able and proactively managing outpatient conditions to prevent overwhelming hospital resources and utilization. Meanwhile, at my practice, the typical rate of about one new-onset pediatric type 1 diabetes (T1D) case per week increased to about two per week.
However, the new diabetes cases continued to accumulate, and I saw more patients being diagnosed who did not have a known family history of autoimmunity. I began to ask friends at other centers whether they were noticing the same trend.
One colleague documented a 36% increase in her large center compared with the previous year. Another noted a 40% rise at his children’s hospital. We observed that there was often a respiratory illness reported several weeks before presenting with T1D. Sometimes the child was known to be COVID-positive. Sometimes the child had not been tested. Sometimes we suspected that COVID had been a preceding illness and then found negative SARS-CoV-2 antibodies – but we were not certain whether the result was meaningful given the time lapsed since infection.
Soon, reports emerged of large increases in severe diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) and hyperglycemic hyperosmolar state at initial presentation, a trend reported in other countries.
Is COVID-19 a trigger for T1D?
There is known precedent for increased risk for T1D after viral infections in patients who are already genetically susceptible. Mechanisms of immune-mediated islet cell failure would make sense following SARS-CoV-2 infection; direct islet toxicity was noted with SARS-CoV-1 and has been suspected with SARS-CoV-2 but not proven. Some have suggested that hypercoagulability with COVID-19 may lead to ischemic damage to the pancreas.
With multiple potential pathways for islet damage, increases in insulin-dependent diabetes would logically follow. Still, whether this is the case remains unclear. There is not yet definitive evidence that there is uptake of SARS-CoV-2 via receptors in the pancreatic beta cells.
Our current understanding of T1D pathogenesis is that susceptible individuals develop autoimmunity in response to an environmental trigger, with beta-cell failure developing over months to years. Perhaps vulnerable patients with genetic risk for pancreatic autoimmunity were stressed by SARS-CoV-2 infection and were diagnosed earlier than they might have been, showing some lead-time bias. Adult patients with COVID-19 demonstrated hyperglycemia that has been reversible in some cases, like the stress hyperglycemia seen with other infections and surgery in response to proinflammatory states.
The true question seems to be whether there is a unique type of diabetes related to direct viral toxicity. Do newly diagnosed patients have measurable traditional antibodies, like anti-glutamic acid decarboxylase or anti-islet cell antibodies? Is there proof of preceding SARS-CoV-2 infection? In the new cases that I thought were unusual at first glance, I found typical pancreatic autoimmunity and negative SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. The small cohorts reported thus far have had similar findings.
A stronger case can be made for the risk of developing diabetes (types 1 and 2) with rapid weight gain. Another marked pattern that pediatric endocrinologists have observed has been increased weight gain in children with closed schools, decreased activity, and more social isolation. I have seen weight change as great as 100 lb in a teen over the past year; 30- to 50-lb weight increases over the course of the pandemic have been common. Considering the “accelerator hypothesis” of faster onset of type 2 diabetes with rapid weight gain, implications for hastening of T1D with weight gain have also been considered. The full impact of these dramatic weight changes will take time to understand.
The true story may not emerge for years
Anecdotes and theoretical concerns may give us pause, but they are far from scientific truth. Efforts are underway to explore this perceived trend with international registries, including the CoviDIAB Registry as well as T1D Exchange. The true story may not emerge until years have passed to see the cumulative fallout of COVID-19. Regardless, these troubling observations should be considered as pandemic safeguards continue to loosen.
While pediatric mortality from COVID-19 has been relatively low (though sadly not zero), some have placed too little focus on possible morbidity. Long-term effects like long COVID and neuropsychiatric sequelae are becoming evident in all populations, including children. If a lifelong illness like diabetes can be directly linked to COVID-19, protecting children from infection with measures like masks becomes all the more crucial until vaccines are more readily available. Despite our rapid progress with understanding COVID-19 disease, there is still much left to learn.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
In early 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic changed everything about life as we know it, with widespread shutdowns across the globe. The U.S. health care system quickly adapted, pivoting to telehealth visits when able and proactively managing outpatient conditions to prevent overwhelming hospital resources and utilization. Meanwhile, at my practice, the typical rate of about one new-onset pediatric type 1 diabetes (T1D) case per week increased to about two per week.
However, the new diabetes cases continued to accumulate, and I saw more patients being diagnosed who did not have a known family history of autoimmunity. I began to ask friends at other centers whether they were noticing the same trend.
One colleague documented a 36% increase in her large center compared with the previous year. Another noted a 40% rise at his children’s hospital. We observed that there was often a respiratory illness reported several weeks before presenting with T1D. Sometimes the child was known to be COVID-positive. Sometimes the child had not been tested. Sometimes we suspected that COVID had been a preceding illness and then found negative SARS-CoV-2 antibodies – but we were not certain whether the result was meaningful given the time lapsed since infection.
Soon, reports emerged of large increases in severe diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) and hyperglycemic hyperosmolar state at initial presentation, a trend reported in other countries.
Is COVID-19 a trigger for T1D?
There is known precedent for increased risk for T1D after viral infections in patients who are already genetically susceptible. Mechanisms of immune-mediated islet cell failure would make sense following SARS-CoV-2 infection; direct islet toxicity was noted with SARS-CoV-1 and has been suspected with SARS-CoV-2 but not proven. Some have suggested that hypercoagulability with COVID-19 may lead to ischemic damage to the pancreas.
With multiple potential pathways for islet damage, increases in insulin-dependent diabetes would logically follow. Still, whether this is the case remains unclear. There is not yet definitive evidence that there is uptake of SARS-CoV-2 via receptors in the pancreatic beta cells.
Our current understanding of T1D pathogenesis is that susceptible individuals develop autoimmunity in response to an environmental trigger, with beta-cell failure developing over months to years. Perhaps vulnerable patients with genetic risk for pancreatic autoimmunity were stressed by SARS-CoV-2 infection and were diagnosed earlier than they might have been, showing some lead-time bias. Adult patients with COVID-19 demonstrated hyperglycemia that has been reversible in some cases, like the stress hyperglycemia seen with other infections and surgery in response to proinflammatory states.
The true question seems to be whether there is a unique type of diabetes related to direct viral toxicity. Do newly diagnosed patients have measurable traditional antibodies, like anti-glutamic acid decarboxylase or anti-islet cell antibodies? Is there proof of preceding SARS-CoV-2 infection? In the new cases that I thought were unusual at first glance, I found typical pancreatic autoimmunity and negative SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. The small cohorts reported thus far have had similar findings.
A stronger case can be made for the risk of developing diabetes (types 1 and 2) with rapid weight gain. Another marked pattern that pediatric endocrinologists have observed has been increased weight gain in children with closed schools, decreased activity, and more social isolation. I have seen weight change as great as 100 lb in a teen over the past year; 30- to 50-lb weight increases over the course of the pandemic have been common. Considering the “accelerator hypothesis” of faster onset of type 2 diabetes with rapid weight gain, implications for hastening of T1D with weight gain have also been considered. The full impact of these dramatic weight changes will take time to understand.
The true story may not emerge for years
Anecdotes and theoretical concerns may give us pause, but they are far from scientific truth. Efforts are underway to explore this perceived trend with international registries, including the CoviDIAB Registry as well as T1D Exchange. The true story may not emerge until years have passed to see the cumulative fallout of COVID-19. Regardless, these troubling observations should be considered as pandemic safeguards continue to loosen.
While pediatric mortality from COVID-19 has been relatively low (though sadly not zero), some have placed too little focus on possible morbidity. Long-term effects like long COVID and neuropsychiatric sequelae are becoming evident in all populations, including children. If a lifelong illness like diabetes can be directly linked to COVID-19, protecting children from infection with measures like masks becomes all the more crucial until vaccines are more readily available. Despite our rapid progress with understanding COVID-19 disease, there is still much left to learn.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
In early 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic changed everything about life as we know it, with widespread shutdowns across the globe. The U.S. health care system quickly adapted, pivoting to telehealth visits when able and proactively managing outpatient conditions to prevent overwhelming hospital resources and utilization. Meanwhile, at my practice, the typical rate of about one new-onset pediatric type 1 diabetes (T1D) case per week increased to about two per week.
However, the new diabetes cases continued to accumulate, and I saw more patients being diagnosed who did not have a known family history of autoimmunity. I began to ask friends at other centers whether they were noticing the same trend.
One colleague documented a 36% increase in her large center compared with the previous year. Another noted a 40% rise at his children’s hospital. We observed that there was often a respiratory illness reported several weeks before presenting with T1D. Sometimes the child was known to be COVID-positive. Sometimes the child had not been tested. Sometimes we suspected that COVID had been a preceding illness and then found negative SARS-CoV-2 antibodies – but we were not certain whether the result was meaningful given the time lapsed since infection.
Soon, reports emerged of large increases in severe diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) and hyperglycemic hyperosmolar state at initial presentation, a trend reported in other countries.
Is COVID-19 a trigger for T1D?
There is known precedent for increased risk for T1D after viral infections in patients who are already genetically susceptible. Mechanisms of immune-mediated islet cell failure would make sense following SARS-CoV-2 infection; direct islet toxicity was noted with SARS-CoV-1 and has been suspected with SARS-CoV-2 but not proven. Some have suggested that hypercoagulability with COVID-19 may lead to ischemic damage to the pancreas.
With multiple potential pathways for islet damage, increases in insulin-dependent diabetes would logically follow. Still, whether this is the case remains unclear. There is not yet definitive evidence that there is uptake of SARS-CoV-2 via receptors in the pancreatic beta cells.
Our current understanding of T1D pathogenesis is that susceptible individuals develop autoimmunity in response to an environmental trigger, with beta-cell failure developing over months to years. Perhaps vulnerable patients with genetic risk for pancreatic autoimmunity were stressed by SARS-CoV-2 infection and were diagnosed earlier than they might have been, showing some lead-time bias. Adult patients with COVID-19 demonstrated hyperglycemia that has been reversible in some cases, like the stress hyperglycemia seen with other infections and surgery in response to proinflammatory states.
The true question seems to be whether there is a unique type of diabetes related to direct viral toxicity. Do newly diagnosed patients have measurable traditional antibodies, like anti-glutamic acid decarboxylase or anti-islet cell antibodies? Is there proof of preceding SARS-CoV-2 infection? In the new cases that I thought were unusual at first glance, I found typical pancreatic autoimmunity and negative SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. The small cohorts reported thus far have had similar findings.
A stronger case can be made for the risk of developing diabetes (types 1 and 2) with rapid weight gain. Another marked pattern that pediatric endocrinologists have observed has been increased weight gain in children with closed schools, decreased activity, and more social isolation. I have seen weight change as great as 100 lb in a teen over the past year; 30- to 50-lb weight increases over the course of the pandemic have been common. Considering the “accelerator hypothesis” of faster onset of type 2 diabetes with rapid weight gain, implications for hastening of T1D with weight gain have also been considered. The full impact of these dramatic weight changes will take time to understand.
The true story may not emerge for years
Anecdotes and theoretical concerns may give us pause, but they are far from scientific truth. Efforts are underway to explore this perceived trend with international registries, including the CoviDIAB Registry as well as T1D Exchange. The true story may not emerge until years have passed to see the cumulative fallout of COVID-19. Regardless, these troubling observations should be considered as pandemic safeguards continue to loosen.
While pediatric mortality from COVID-19 has been relatively low (though sadly not zero), some have placed too little focus on possible morbidity. Long-term effects like long COVID and neuropsychiatric sequelae are becoming evident in all populations, including children. If a lifelong illness like diabetes can be directly linked to COVID-19, protecting children from infection with measures like masks becomes all the more crucial until vaccines are more readily available. Despite our rapid progress with understanding COVID-19 disease, there is still much left to learn.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Children and COVID: New vaccinations drop as the case count rises
With only a quarter of all children aged 12-15 years fully vaccinated against COVID-19, first vaccinations continued to drop and new cases for all children rose for the second consecutive week.
Just under 25% of children aged 12-15 had completed the vaccine regimen as of July 12, and just over one-third (33.5%) had received at least one dose. Meanwhile, that age group represented 11.5% of people who initiated vaccination during the 2 weeks ending July 12, down from 12.1% a week earlier, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said. The total number of new vaccinations for the week ending July 12 was just over 201,000, compared with 307,000 for the previous week.
New cases of COVID-19, however, were on the rise in children. The 19,000 new cases reported for the week ending July 8 were up from 12,000 a week earlier and 8,000 the week before that, according to a report from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.
That report also shows that children made up 22.3% of all new cases during the week of July 2-8, compared with 16.8% the previous week, and that there were nine deaths in children that same week, the most since March. COVID-related deaths among children total 344 in the 46 jurisdictions (43 states, New York City, Puerto Rico, and Guam) that are reporting such data by age. “It is not possible to standardize more detailed age ranges for children based on what is publicly available from the states,” the two groups noted.
Such data are available from the CDC’s COVID Data Tracker, however, and they show that children aged 16-17 years, who became eligible for COVID vaccination before the younger age group, are further ahead in the process. Among the older children, almost 46% had gotten at least one dose and 37% were fully vaccinated by July 12.
With only a quarter of all children aged 12-15 years fully vaccinated against COVID-19, first vaccinations continued to drop and new cases for all children rose for the second consecutive week.
Just under 25% of children aged 12-15 had completed the vaccine regimen as of July 12, and just over one-third (33.5%) had received at least one dose. Meanwhile, that age group represented 11.5% of people who initiated vaccination during the 2 weeks ending July 12, down from 12.1% a week earlier, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said. The total number of new vaccinations for the week ending July 12 was just over 201,000, compared with 307,000 for the previous week.
New cases of COVID-19, however, were on the rise in children. The 19,000 new cases reported for the week ending July 8 were up from 12,000 a week earlier and 8,000 the week before that, according to a report from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.
That report also shows that children made up 22.3% of all new cases during the week of July 2-8, compared with 16.8% the previous week, and that there were nine deaths in children that same week, the most since March. COVID-related deaths among children total 344 in the 46 jurisdictions (43 states, New York City, Puerto Rico, and Guam) that are reporting such data by age. “It is not possible to standardize more detailed age ranges for children based on what is publicly available from the states,” the two groups noted.
Such data are available from the CDC’s COVID Data Tracker, however, and they show that children aged 16-17 years, who became eligible for COVID vaccination before the younger age group, are further ahead in the process. Among the older children, almost 46% had gotten at least one dose and 37% were fully vaccinated by July 12.
With only a quarter of all children aged 12-15 years fully vaccinated against COVID-19, first vaccinations continued to drop and new cases for all children rose for the second consecutive week.
Just under 25% of children aged 12-15 had completed the vaccine regimen as of July 12, and just over one-third (33.5%) had received at least one dose. Meanwhile, that age group represented 11.5% of people who initiated vaccination during the 2 weeks ending July 12, down from 12.1% a week earlier, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said. The total number of new vaccinations for the week ending July 12 was just over 201,000, compared with 307,000 for the previous week.
New cases of COVID-19, however, were on the rise in children. The 19,000 new cases reported for the week ending July 8 were up from 12,000 a week earlier and 8,000 the week before that, according to a report from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.
That report also shows that children made up 22.3% of all new cases during the week of July 2-8, compared with 16.8% the previous week, and that there were nine deaths in children that same week, the most since March. COVID-related deaths among children total 344 in the 46 jurisdictions (43 states, New York City, Puerto Rico, and Guam) that are reporting such data by age. “It is not possible to standardize more detailed age ranges for children based on what is publicly available from the states,” the two groups noted.
Such data are available from the CDC’s COVID Data Tracker, however, and they show that children aged 16-17 years, who became eligible for COVID vaccination before the younger age group, are further ahead in the process. Among the older children, almost 46% had gotten at least one dose and 37% were fully vaccinated by July 12.
Respiratory infection– and asthma-prone children
Some children are more susceptible to viral and bacterial respiratory infections in the first few years of life than others. However, the factors contributing to this susceptibility are incompletely understood. The pathogenesis, development, severity, and clinical outcomes of respiratory infections are largely dependent on the resident composition of the nasopharyngeal microbiome and immune defense.1
Respiratory infections caused by bacteria and/or viruses are a leading cause of death in children in the United States and worldwide. The well-recognized, predominant causative bacteria are Streptococcus pneumoniae (pneumococcus), nontypeable Haemophilus influenzae (Hflu), and Moraxella catarrhalis (Mcat). Respiratory infections caused by these pathogens result in considerable morbidity, mortality, and account for high health care costs. The clinical and laboratory group that I lead in Rochester, N.Y., has been studying acute otitis media (AOM) etiology, epidemiology, pathogenesis, prevention, and treatment for over 3 decades. Our research findings are likely applicable and generalizable to understanding the pathogenesis and immune response to other infectious diseases induced by pneumococcus, Hflu, and Mcat since they are also key pathogens causing sinusitis and lung infections.
Previous immunologic analysis of children with AOM by our group provided clarity in differences between infection-prone children manifest as otitis prone (OP; often referred to in our publications as stringently defined OP because of the stringent diagnostic requirement of tympanocentesis-proven etiology of infection) and non-OP children. We showed that about 90% of OP children have deficient immune responses following nasopharyngeal colonization and AOM, demonstrated by inadequate innate responses and adaptive immune responses.2 Many of these children also showed an increased propensity to viral upper respiratory infection and 30% fail to produce protective antibody responses after injection of routine pediatric vaccines.3,4
In this column, I want to share new information regarding differences in the nasopharyngeal microbiome of children who are respiratory infection prone versus those who are non–respiratory infection prone and children with asthma versus those who do not exhibit that clinical phenotype. We performed a retrospective analysis of clinical samples collected from 358 children, aged 6 months to 5 years, from our prospectively enrolled cohort in Rochester, N.Y., to determine associations between AOM and other childhood respiratory illnesses and nasopharyngeal microbiota. In order to define subgroups of children within the cohort, we used a statistical method called unsupervised clustering analysis to see if relatively unique groups of children could be discerned. The overall cohort successfully clustered into two groups, showing marked differences in the prevalence of respiratory infections and asthma.5 We termed the two clinical phenotypes infection and asthma prone (n = 99, 28% of the children) and non–infection and asthma prone (n = 259, 72% of the children). Infection- and asthma-prone children were significantly more likely to experience recurrent AOM, influenza, sinusitis, pneumonia, asthma, and allergic rhinitis, compared with non–infection- and asthma-prone children (Figure).
The two groups did not experience significantly different rates of eczema, food allergy, skin infections, urinary tract infections, or acute gastroenteritis, suggesting a common thread involving the respiratory tract that did not cross over to the gastrointestinal, skin, or urinary tract. We found that age at first nasopharyngeal colonization with any of the three bacterial respiratory pathogens (pneumococcus, Hflu, or Mcat) was significantly associated with the respiratory infection– and asthma-prone clinical phenotype. Specifically, respiratory infection– and asthma-prone children experienced colonization at a significantly earlier age than nonprone children did for all three bacteria. In an analysis of individual conditions, early Mcat colonization significantly associated with pneumonia, sinusitis, and asthma susceptibility; Hflu with pneumonia, sinusitis, influenza, and allergic rhinitis; and pneumococcus with sinusitis.
Since early colonization with the three bacterial respiratory pathogens was strongly associated with respiratory illnesses and asthma, nasopharyngeal microbiome analysis was performed on an available subset of samples. Bacterial diversity trended lower in infection- and asthma-prone children, consistent with dysbiosis in the respiratory infection– and asthma-prone clinical phenotype. Nine different bacteria genera were found to be differentially abundant when comparing respiratory infection– and asthma-prone and nonprone children, pointing the way to possible interventions to make the respiratory infection– and asthma-prone child nasopharyngeal microbiome more like the nonprone child.
As I have written previously in this column, recent accumulating data have shed light on the importance of the human microbiome in modulating immune homeostasis and disease susceptibility.6 My group is working toward generating new knowledge for the long-term goal of identifying new therapeutic strategies to facilitate a protective, diverse nasopharyngeal microbiome (with appropriately tuned intranasal probiotics) to prevent respiratory pathogen colonization and/or subsequent progression to respiratory infection and asthma. Also, vaccines directed against colonization-enhancing members of the microbiome may provide a means to indirectly control respiratory pathogen nasopharyngeal colonization.
Dr. Pichichero is a specialist in pediatric infectious diseases and director of the Research Institute at Rochester (N.Y.) General Hospital. He has no conflicts to declare. Contact him at [email protected]
References
1. Man WH et al. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2017;15(5):259-70.
2. Pichichero ME. J Infect. 2020;80(6):614-22.
3. Ren D et al. Clin Infect Dis. 2019;68(9):1566-74.
4. Pichichero ME et al. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2013;32(11):1163-8.
5. Chapman T et al. PLoS One. 2020 Dec 11;15(12).
6. Blaser MJ. The microbiome revolution. J Clin Invest. 2014;124:4162-5.
Some children are more susceptible to viral and bacterial respiratory infections in the first few years of life than others. However, the factors contributing to this susceptibility are incompletely understood. The pathogenesis, development, severity, and clinical outcomes of respiratory infections are largely dependent on the resident composition of the nasopharyngeal microbiome and immune defense.1
Respiratory infections caused by bacteria and/or viruses are a leading cause of death in children in the United States and worldwide. The well-recognized, predominant causative bacteria are Streptococcus pneumoniae (pneumococcus), nontypeable Haemophilus influenzae (Hflu), and Moraxella catarrhalis (Mcat). Respiratory infections caused by these pathogens result in considerable morbidity, mortality, and account for high health care costs. The clinical and laboratory group that I lead in Rochester, N.Y., has been studying acute otitis media (AOM) etiology, epidemiology, pathogenesis, prevention, and treatment for over 3 decades. Our research findings are likely applicable and generalizable to understanding the pathogenesis and immune response to other infectious diseases induced by pneumococcus, Hflu, and Mcat since they are also key pathogens causing sinusitis and lung infections.
Previous immunologic analysis of children with AOM by our group provided clarity in differences between infection-prone children manifest as otitis prone (OP; often referred to in our publications as stringently defined OP because of the stringent diagnostic requirement of tympanocentesis-proven etiology of infection) and non-OP children. We showed that about 90% of OP children have deficient immune responses following nasopharyngeal colonization and AOM, demonstrated by inadequate innate responses and adaptive immune responses.2 Many of these children also showed an increased propensity to viral upper respiratory infection and 30% fail to produce protective antibody responses after injection of routine pediatric vaccines.3,4
In this column, I want to share new information regarding differences in the nasopharyngeal microbiome of children who are respiratory infection prone versus those who are non–respiratory infection prone and children with asthma versus those who do not exhibit that clinical phenotype. We performed a retrospective analysis of clinical samples collected from 358 children, aged 6 months to 5 years, from our prospectively enrolled cohort in Rochester, N.Y., to determine associations between AOM and other childhood respiratory illnesses and nasopharyngeal microbiota. In order to define subgroups of children within the cohort, we used a statistical method called unsupervised clustering analysis to see if relatively unique groups of children could be discerned. The overall cohort successfully clustered into two groups, showing marked differences in the prevalence of respiratory infections and asthma.5 We termed the two clinical phenotypes infection and asthma prone (n = 99, 28% of the children) and non–infection and asthma prone (n = 259, 72% of the children). Infection- and asthma-prone children were significantly more likely to experience recurrent AOM, influenza, sinusitis, pneumonia, asthma, and allergic rhinitis, compared with non–infection- and asthma-prone children (Figure).
The two groups did not experience significantly different rates of eczema, food allergy, skin infections, urinary tract infections, or acute gastroenteritis, suggesting a common thread involving the respiratory tract that did not cross over to the gastrointestinal, skin, or urinary tract. We found that age at first nasopharyngeal colonization with any of the three bacterial respiratory pathogens (pneumococcus, Hflu, or Mcat) was significantly associated with the respiratory infection– and asthma-prone clinical phenotype. Specifically, respiratory infection– and asthma-prone children experienced colonization at a significantly earlier age than nonprone children did for all three bacteria. In an analysis of individual conditions, early Mcat colonization significantly associated with pneumonia, sinusitis, and asthma susceptibility; Hflu with pneumonia, sinusitis, influenza, and allergic rhinitis; and pneumococcus with sinusitis.
Since early colonization with the three bacterial respiratory pathogens was strongly associated with respiratory illnesses and asthma, nasopharyngeal microbiome analysis was performed on an available subset of samples. Bacterial diversity trended lower in infection- and asthma-prone children, consistent with dysbiosis in the respiratory infection– and asthma-prone clinical phenotype. Nine different bacteria genera were found to be differentially abundant when comparing respiratory infection– and asthma-prone and nonprone children, pointing the way to possible interventions to make the respiratory infection– and asthma-prone child nasopharyngeal microbiome more like the nonprone child.
As I have written previously in this column, recent accumulating data have shed light on the importance of the human microbiome in modulating immune homeostasis and disease susceptibility.6 My group is working toward generating new knowledge for the long-term goal of identifying new therapeutic strategies to facilitate a protective, diverse nasopharyngeal microbiome (with appropriately tuned intranasal probiotics) to prevent respiratory pathogen colonization and/or subsequent progression to respiratory infection and asthma. Also, vaccines directed against colonization-enhancing members of the microbiome may provide a means to indirectly control respiratory pathogen nasopharyngeal colonization.
Dr. Pichichero is a specialist in pediatric infectious diseases and director of the Research Institute at Rochester (N.Y.) General Hospital. He has no conflicts to declare. Contact him at [email protected]
References
1. Man WH et al. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2017;15(5):259-70.
2. Pichichero ME. J Infect. 2020;80(6):614-22.
3. Ren D et al. Clin Infect Dis. 2019;68(9):1566-74.
4. Pichichero ME et al. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2013;32(11):1163-8.
5. Chapman T et al. PLoS One. 2020 Dec 11;15(12).
6. Blaser MJ. The microbiome revolution. J Clin Invest. 2014;124:4162-5.
Some children are more susceptible to viral and bacterial respiratory infections in the first few years of life than others. However, the factors contributing to this susceptibility are incompletely understood. The pathogenesis, development, severity, and clinical outcomes of respiratory infections are largely dependent on the resident composition of the nasopharyngeal microbiome and immune defense.1
Respiratory infections caused by bacteria and/or viruses are a leading cause of death in children in the United States and worldwide. The well-recognized, predominant causative bacteria are Streptococcus pneumoniae (pneumococcus), nontypeable Haemophilus influenzae (Hflu), and Moraxella catarrhalis (Mcat). Respiratory infections caused by these pathogens result in considerable morbidity, mortality, and account for high health care costs. The clinical and laboratory group that I lead in Rochester, N.Y., has been studying acute otitis media (AOM) etiology, epidemiology, pathogenesis, prevention, and treatment for over 3 decades. Our research findings are likely applicable and generalizable to understanding the pathogenesis and immune response to other infectious diseases induced by pneumococcus, Hflu, and Mcat since they are also key pathogens causing sinusitis and lung infections.
Previous immunologic analysis of children with AOM by our group provided clarity in differences between infection-prone children manifest as otitis prone (OP; often referred to in our publications as stringently defined OP because of the stringent diagnostic requirement of tympanocentesis-proven etiology of infection) and non-OP children. We showed that about 90% of OP children have deficient immune responses following nasopharyngeal colonization and AOM, demonstrated by inadequate innate responses and adaptive immune responses.2 Many of these children also showed an increased propensity to viral upper respiratory infection and 30% fail to produce protective antibody responses after injection of routine pediatric vaccines.3,4
In this column, I want to share new information regarding differences in the nasopharyngeal microbiome of children who are respiratory infection prone versus those who are non–respiratory infection prone and children with asthma versus those who do not exhibit that clinical phenotype. We performed a retrospective analysis of clinical samples collected from 358 children, aged 6 months to 5 years, from our prospectively enrolled cohort in Rochester, N.Y., to determine associations between AOM and other childhood respiratory illnesses and nasopharyngeal microbiota. In order to define subgroups of children within the cohort, we used a statistical method called unsupervised clustering analysis to see if relatively unique groups of children could be discerned. The overall cohort successfully clustered into two groups, showing marked differences in the prevalence of respiratory infections and asthma.5 We termed the two clinical phenotypes infection and asthma prone (n = 99, 28% of the children) and non–infection and asthma prone (n = 259, 72% of the children). Infection- and asthma-prone children were significantly more likely to experience recurrent AOM, influenza, sinusitis, pneumonia, asthma, and allergic rhinitis, compared with non–infection- and asthma-prone children (Figure).
The two groups did not experience significantly different rates of eczema, food allergy, skin infections, urinary tract infections, or acute gastroenteritis, suggesting a common thread involving the respiratory tract that did not cross over to the gastrointestinal, skin, or urinary tract. We found that age at first nasopharyngeal colonization with any of the three bacterial respiratory pathogens (pneumococcus, Hflu, or Mcat) was significantly associated with the respiratory infection– and asthma-prone clinical phenotype. Specifically, respiratory infection– and asthma-prone children experienced colonization at a significantly earlier age than nonprone children did for all three bacteria. In an analysis of individual conditions, early Mcat colonization significantly associated with pneumonia, sinusitis, and asthma susceptibility; Hflu with pneumonia, sinusitis, influenza, and allergic rhinitis; and pneumococcus with sinusitis.
Since early colonization with the three bacterial respiratory pathogens was strongly associated with respiratory illnesses and asthma, nasopharyngeal microbiome analysis was performed on an available subset of samples. Bacterial diversity trended lower in infection- and asthma-prone children, consistent with dysbiosis in the respiratory infection– and asthma-prone clinical phenotype. Nine different bacteria genera were found to be differentially abundant when comparing respiratory infection– and asthma-prone and nonprone children, pointing the way to possible interventions to make the respiratory infection– and asthma-prone child nasopharyngeal microbiome more like the nonprone child.
As I have written previously in this column, recent accumulating data have shed light on the importance of the human microbiome in modulating immune homeostasis and disease susceptibility.6 My group is working toward generating new knowledge for the long-term goal of identifying new therapeutic strategies to facilitate a protective, diverse nasopharyngeal microbiome (with appropriately tuned intranasal probiotics) to prevent respiratory pathogen colonization and/or subsequent progression to respiratory infection and asthma. Also, vaccines directed against colonization-enhancing members of the microbiome may provide a means to indirectly control respiratory pathogen nasopharyngeal colonization.
Dr. Pichichero is a specialist in pediatric infectious diseases and director of the Research Institute at Rochester (N.Y.) General Hospital. He has no conflicts to declare. Contact him at [email protected]
References
1. Man WH et al. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2017;15(5):259-70.
2. Pichichero ME. J Infect. 2020;80(6):614-22.
3. Ren D et al. Clin Infect Dis. 2019;68(9):1566-74.
4. Pichichero ME et al. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2013;32(11):1163-8.
5. Chapman T et al. PLoS One. 2020 Dec 11;15(12).
6. Blaser MJ. The microbiome revolution. J Clin Invest. 2014;124:4162-5.