Pediatrics

The prevalence of autism spectrum disorder in 4-year-olds rose from 2014 to 2016, indicating more early identification of ASD among the children born in 2012, compared with 2008, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Data from individual surveillance sites in the CDC’s Early Autism and Developmental Disabilities Monitoring (Early ADDM) Network, however, show “wide variability in estimates [that] could reflect variable success in improving community identification,” Kelly A. Shaw, PhD, and associates wrote in MMWR Surveillance Summaries.

In 2016, the overall prevalence of ASD was 15.6 per 1,000 children aged 4 years at the six sites in the Early ADDM Network, compared with 14.1 per 1,000 in 2014, they reported.

“In addition, the cumulative incidence of ASD diagnoses at age 48 months was higher for children born in 2012 than for children born in 2008, which indicates a higher rate of diagnosis for the younger cohort,” wrote Dr. Shaw of the CDC’s National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, Atlanta, and associates.

A closer look at the six Early ADDM Network sites shows considerable variation in prevalence. The New Jersey site, consisting of one full county and part of another that includes metropolitan Newark, reported a rate of 25.3 per 1,000 – 38.7 for males and 11.0 for females – while the rates for Missouri – one county in metropolitan St. Louis – were 13.4 (male), 3.9 (female), and 8.8 (combined), the investigators wrote.

ASD prevalence across the six sites was 3.5 times higher among males (23.9 per 1,000) than females (6.8). “Cumulative incidence patterns also differed by sex, with a steady increase in diagnoses with age for boys but an apparent plateau for girls at approximately age 36 months,” they noted.

The median age at earliest diagnosis was 33 months for all sites, with North Carolina lowest at 29 months and Wisconsin highest at 36 months.

The overall median, Dr. Shaw and associates pointed out, is “well above the youngest age at which ASD can be identified, [so] work remains to improve early diagnosis so children can receive timely services.”

[email protected]

SOURCE: Shaw KA et al. MMWR Surveill Summ. 2020;69(SS-3):1-11. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.ss6903a1.

The prevalence of autism spectrum disorder in 4-year-olds rose from 2014 to 2016, indicating more early identification of ASD among the children born in 2012, compared with 2008, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Data from individual surveillance sites in the CDC’s Early Autism and Developmental Disabilities Monitoring (Early ADDM) Network, however, show “wide variability in estimates [that] could reflect variable success in improving community identification,” Kelly A. Shaw, PhD, and associates wrote in MMWR Surveillance Summaries.

In 2016, the overall prevalence of ASD was 15.6 per 1,000 children aged 4 years at the six sites in the Early ADDM Network, compared with 14.1 per 1,000 in 2014, they reported.

“In addition, the cumulative incidence of ASD diagnoses at age 48 months was higher for children born in 2012 than for children born in 2008, which indicates a higher rate of diagnosis for the younger cohort,” wrote Dr. Shaw of the CDC’s National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, Atlanta, and associates.

A closer look at the six Early ADDM Network sites shows considerable variation in prevalence. The New Jersey site, consisting of one full county and part of another that includes metropolitan Newark, reported a rate of 25.3 per 1,000 – 38.7 for males and 11.0 for females – while the rates for Missouri – one county in metropolitan St. Louis – were 13.4 (male), 3.9 (female), and 8.8 (combined), the investigators wrote.

ASD prevalence across the six sites was 3.5 times higher among males (23.9 per 1,000) than females (6.8). “Cumulative incidence patterns also differed by sex, with a steady increase in diagnoses with age for boys but an apparent plateau for girls at approximately age 36 months,” they noted.

The median age at earliest diagnosis was 33 months for all sites, with North Carolina lowest at 29 months and Wisconsin highest at 36 months.

The overall median, Dr. Shaw and associates pointed out, is “well above the youngest age at which ASD can be identified, [so] work remains to improve early diagnosis so children can receive timely services.”

[email protected]

SOURCE: Shaw KA et al. MMWR Surveill Summ. 2020;69(SS-3):1-11. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.ss6903a1.

The prevalence of autism spectrum disorder in 4-year-olds rose from 2014 to 2016, indicating more early identification of ASD among the children born in 2012, compared with 2008, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Data from individual surveillance sites in the CDC’s Early Autism and Developmental Disabilities Monitoring (Early ADDM) Network, however, show “wide variability in estimates [that] could reflect variable success in improving community identification,” Kelly A. Shaw, PhD, and associates wrote in MMWR Surveillance Summaries.

In 2016, the overall prevalence of ASD was 15.6 per 1,000 children aged 4 years at the six sites in the Early ADDM Network, compared with 14.1 per 1,000 in 2014, they reported.

“In addition, the cumulative incidence of ASD diagnoses at age 48 months was higher for children born in 2012 than for children born in 2008, which indicates a higher rate of diagnosis for the younger cohort,” wrote Dr. Shaw of the CDC’s National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, Atlanta, and associates.

A closer look at the six Early ADDM Network sites shows considerable variation in prevalence. The New Jersey site, consisting of one full county and part of another that includes metropolitan Newark, reported a rate of 25.3 per 1,000 – 38.7 for males and 11.0 for females – while the rates for Missouri – one county in metropolitan St. Louis – were 13.4 (male), 3.9 (female), and 8.8 (combined), the investigators wrote.

ASD prevalence across the six sites was 3.5 times higher among males (23.9 per 1,000) than females (6.8). “Cumulative incidence patterns also differed by sex, with a steady increase in diagnoses with age for boys but an apparent plateau for girls at approximately age 36 months,” they noted.

The median age at earliest diagnosis was 33 months for all sites, with North Carolina lowest at 29 months and Wisconsin highest at 36 months.

The overall median, Dr. Shaw and associates pointed out, is “well above the youngest age at which ASD can be identified, [so] work remains to improve early diagnosis so children can receive timely services.”

[email protected]

SOURCE: Shaw KA et al. MMWR Surveill Summ. 2020;69(SS-3):1-11. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.ss6903a1.

Being targeted by bullies as children and adolescents appears to be influenced in part by early childhood externalizing behavior and family vulnerability, according to data from a large, cohort study of 1,760 children in Canada.

BananaStock

“Peer victimization is characterized by substantial individual variability in its timing, duration, and intensity,” but the specific variations in victimization patterns have not been well studied, wrote Sinziana I. Oncioiu, MPH, of the University of Bordeaux (France) and colleagues.

To better describe the trajectories of peer victimization and identify factors associated with them, the researchers used data from the Quebec Longitudinal Study of Child Development of children born in Quebec in 1997-1998 and followed from 5 months to 17 years of age. Participants reported being the target of a bully at least once in ages 6-17 years. The study included 862 boys and 898 girls; 59% provided data on being bullied seven or eight times out of a possible eight assessments in the study published in Pediatrics.

The researchers identified four trajectories of peer victimization for ages 6-17 years: low (33%), moderate emerging (30%), childhood limited (26%), and high chronic (11%). Low victimization was defined as low victimization throughout the follow-up period. Moderate-emerging victimization was defined as steady levels from 6-12 years, followed by adolescent victimization. Childhood-limited peer victimization was defined as a high level of bullying at 6 years of age, followed by a sharp decline from 6 to 17 years. High-chronic victimization was defined as persistently high victimization compared, with the other groups, although levels declined from 6 to 17 years.

Overall, in a multivariate analysis, children in the moderate-emerging, childhood-limited, and high-chronic groups were more likely than those in the low victimization group to demonstrate externalizing behavior problems in early childhood. In addition, children with a paternal history of antisocial behavior were significantly more likely to be in moderate-emerging and high-chronic groups, compared with the low group (odds ratios 1.54 and 1.93, respectively). Children living in a nonintact family in early childhood were significantly more likely to fall into the childhood-limited and high-chronic groups, compared with the low group.

The study findings were limited by several factors including lack of assessment of power imbalances between bullies and victims and a lack of differentiation between children who were both bullies and victims and those who were victims only, the researchers noted. The use of self-reports and some attrition of the study population also limited the results, they said.

However, the study’s large size and long-term follow-up strengthen the results, which support the need for targeted interventions to address individual and family vulnerabilities and prevent persistent victimization during children’s school years, the researchers concluded.

Pediatricians have an important role to play in reducing potential vulnerability to being bullied among their patients, Stephen S. Leff, PhD; Brooke S. Paskewich, PsyD; and Nathan J. Blum, MD, of Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

“Given that nearly two-thirds of school-aged youth in the current study report peer victimization during elementary and/or middle school, this is an important period in which pediatricians can screen for victimization during well-child visits,” they said. It also is important to have resources and referral information available, whether it is in the practice, the community, or online. Anticipatory guidance also is valuable by defining bullying (“aggressive or mean behavior that happens repeatedly in the context of a power imbalance,”) forms of bullying (physical, verbal, using gossip, and social exclusion in real time or online), and the impact of bullying on children and families.

In addition, pediatricians should “recognize externalizing behaviors as risk factors for adverse outcomes and assist families in accessing evidence-based interventions such as family behavioral counseling or parent training,” the editorialists said. “There may also be value in pediatricians being more attuned to indicators of parental psychopathology so that they can make recommendations to address the parents’ mental health needs and better prepare parents to support their child’s social-emotional development.”

The study was supported by the Quebec Government Ministry of Health, Canadian Institute of Health Research, Quebec’s Health Research Fund, and other Canadian organizations and universities. The editorial was supported in part by the National Institutes of Health and the Department of Health and Human Services. The researchers and editorialists had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCEs: Oncioiu SI et al. Pediatrics. 2020. doi: 10.1542/peds.2019-2654.

Being targeted by bullies as children and adolescents appears to be influenced in part by early childhood externalizing behavior and family vulnerability, according to data from a large, cohort study of 1,760 children in Canada.

BananaStock

“Peer victimization is characterized by substantial individual variability in its timing, duration, and intensity,” but the specific variations in victimization patterns have not been well studied, wrote Sinziana I. Oncioiu, MPH, of the University of Bordeaux (France) and colleagues.

To better describe the trajectories of peer victimization and identify factors associated with them, the researchers used data from the Quebec Longitudinal Study of Child Development of children born in Quebec in 1997-1998 and followed from 5 months to 17 years of age. Participants reported being the target of a bully at least once in ages 6-17 years. The study included 862 boys and 898 girls; 59% provided data on being bullied seven or eight times out of a possible eight assessments in the study published in Pediatrics.

The researchers identified four trajectories of peer victimization for ages 6-17 years: low (33%), moderate emerging (30%), childhood limited (26%), and high chronic (11%). Low victimization was defined as low victimization throughout the follow-up period. Moderate-emerging victimization was defined as steady levels from 6-12 years, followed by adolescent victimization. Childhood-limited peer victimization was defined as a high level of bullying at 6 years of age, followed by a sharp decline from 6 to 17 years. High-chronic victimization was defined as persistently high victimization compared, with the other groups, although levels declined from 6 to 17 years.

Overall, in a multivariate analysis, children in the moderate-emerging, childhood-limited, and high-chronic groups were more likely than those in the low victimization group to demonstrate externalizing behavior problems in early childhood. In addition, children with a paternal history of antisocial behavior were significantly more likely to be in moderate-emerging and high-chronic groups, compared with the low group (odds ratios 1.54 and 1.93, respectively). Children living in a nonintact family in early childhood were significantly more likely to fall into the childhood-limited and high-chronic groups, compared with the low group.

The study findings were limited by several factors including lack of assessment of power imbalances between bullies and victims and a lack of differentiation between children who were both bullies and victims and those who were victims only, the researchers noted. The use of self-reports and some attrition of the study population also limited the results, they said.

However, the study’s large size and long-term follow-up strengthen the results, which support the need for targeted interventions to address individual and family vulnerabilities and prevent persistent victimization during children’s school years, the researchers concluded.

Pediatricians have an important role to play in reducing potential vulnerability to being bullied among their patients, Stephen S. Leff, PhD; Brooke S. Paskewich, PsyD; and Nathan J. Blum, MD, of Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

“Given that nearly two-thirds of school-aged youth in the current study report peer victimization during elementary and/or middle school, this is an important period in which pediatricians can screen for victimization during well-child visits,” they said. It also is important to have resources and referral information available, whether it is in the practice, the community, or online. Anticipatory guidance also is valuable by defining bullying (“aggressive or mean behavior that happens repeatedly in the context of a power imbalance,”) forms of bullying (physical, verbal, using gossip, and social exclusion in real time or online), and the impact of bullying on children and families.

In addition, pediatricians should “recognize externalizing behaviors as risk factors for adverse outcomes and assist families in accessing evidence-based interventions such as family behavioral counseling or parent training,” the editorialists said. “There may also be value in pediatricians being more attuned to indicators of parental psychopathology so that they can make recommendations to address the parents’ mental health needs and better prepare parents to support their child’s social-emotional development.”

The study was supported by the Quebec Government Ministry of Health, Canadian Institute of Health Research, Quebec’s Health Research Fund, and other Canadian organizations and universities. The editorial was supported in part by the National Institutes of Health and the Department of Health and Human Services. The researchers and editorialists had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCEs: Oncioiu SI et al. Pediatrics. 2020. doi: 10.1542/peds.2019-2654.

Being targeted by bullies as children and adolescents appears to be influenced in part by early childhood externalizing behavior and family vulnerability, according to data from a large, cohort study of 1,760 children in Canada.

BananaStock

“Peer victimization is characterized by substantial individual variability in its timing, duration, and intensity,” but the specific variations in victimization patterns have not been well studied, wrote Sinziana I. Oncioiu, MPH, of the University of Bordeaux (France) and colleagues.

To better describe the trajectories of peer victimization and identify factors associated with them, the researchers used data from the Quebec Longitudinal Study of Child Development of children born in Quebec in 1997-1998 and followed from 5 months to 17 years of age. Participants reported being the target of a bully at least once in ages 6-17 years. The study included 862 boys and 898 girls; 59% provided data on being bullied seven or eight times out of a possible eight assessments in the study published in Pediatrics.

The researchers identified four trajectories of peer victimization for ages 6-17 years: low (33%), moderate emerging (30%), childhood limited (26%), and high chronic (11%). Low victimization was defined as low victimization throughout the follow-up period. Moderate-emerging victimization was defined as steady levels from 6-12 years, followed by adolescent victimization. Childhood-limited peer victimization was defined as a high level of bullying at 6 years of age, followed by a sharp decline from 6 to 17 years. High-chronic victimization was defined as persistently high victimization compared, with the other groups, although levels declined from 6 to 17 years.

Overall, in a multivariate analysis, children in the moderate-emerging, childhood-limited, and high-chronic groups were more likely than those in the low victimization group to demonstrate externalizing behavior problems in early childhood. In addition, children with a paternal history of antisocial behavior were significantly more likely to be in moderate-emerging and high-chronic groups, compared with the low group (odds ratios 1.54 and 1.93, respectively). Children living in a nonintact family in early childhood were significantly more likely to fall into the childhood-limited and high-chronic groups, compared with the low group.

The study findings were limited by several factors including lack of assessment of power imbalances between bullies and victims and a lack of differentiation between children who were both bullies and victims and those who were victims only, the researchers noted. The use of self-reports and some attrition of the study population also limited the results, they said.

However, the study’s large size and long-term follow-up strengthen the results, which support the need for targeted interventions to address individual and family vulnerabilities and prevent persistent victimization during children’s school years, the researchers concluded.

Pediatricians have an important role to play in reducing potential vulnerability to being bullied among their patients, Stephen S. Leff, PhD; Brooke S. Paskewich, PsyD; and Nathan J. Blum, MD, of Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

“Given that nearly two-thirds of school-aged youth in the current study report peer victimization during elementary and/or middle school, this is an important period in which pediatricians can screen for victimization during well-child visits,” they said. It also is important to have resources and referral information available, whether it is in the practice, the community, or online. Anticipatory guidance also is valuable by defining bullying (“aggressive or mean behavior that happens repeatedly in the context of a power imbalance,”) forms of bullying (physical, verbal, using gossip, and social exclusion in real time or online), and the impact of bullying on children and families.

In addition, pediatricians should “recognize externalizing behaviors as risk factors for adverse outcomes and assist families in accessing evidence-based interventions such as family behavioral counseling or parent training,” the editorialists said. “There may also be value in pediatricians being more attuned to indicators of parental psychopathology so that they can make recommendations to address the parents’ mental health needs and better prepare parents to support their child’s social-emotional development.”

The study was supported by the Quebec Government Ministry of Health, Canadian Institute of Health Research, Quebec’s Health Research Fund, and other Canadian organizations and universities. The editorial was supported in part by the National Institutes of Health and the Department of Health and Human Services. The researchers and editorialists had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCEs: Oncioiu SI et al. Pediatrics. 2020. doi: 10.1542/peds.2019-2654.

Adalimumab biosimilars are years away from entering the marketplace in the United States because of patent disputes, but they already have led to substantial discounts in Denmark, researchers wrote in JAMA Internal Medicine.

The Danish health care system switched almost entirely to adalimumab biosimilars after the patent on the original adalimumab product, Humira, expired there in October 2018. The switch to biosimilars led to an 82% decrease in costs for the medication, wrote Thomas Bo Jensen, MD, and colleagues in a research letter.

Denmark did not automatically substitute biosimilars, but the Danish Medicines Council recommended adalimumab biosimilars for all indications following Humira’s patent expiration. The recommendations “included switching patients to a biosimilar who were already well treated with the originator,” the researchers wrote.

To study the shift to adalimumab biosimilars across all indications in Denmark and calculate cost reductions, Dr. Jensen, of the department of clinical pharmacology at Copenhagen University Hospital Bispebjerg, and coinvestigators examined monthly data on drug sales from Amgros, which purchases all hospital drugs in the country.

“The proportion of adalimumab biosimilars increased from 71.6% (7,040 of 9,829 pens) in November 2018 to 95.1% (8,974 of 9,438 pens) in December 2018,” the researchers wrote. “Costs of adalimumab decreased by 82.8% from September 2018 to December 2018 (September: 8,197 pens at $5.13 million; December: 9,438 pens at $1.01 million).” The results were similar in rheumatology, dermatology, and gastroenterology.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved five adalimumab biosimilars in the United States, but “they will not enter the market until 2023 owing to patent disputes with AbbVie, the manufacturer of Humira,” wrote Jennifer D. Claytor, MD, of the department of internal medicine at University of California, San Francisco, and Walid Gellad, MD, of the division of general internal medicine at University of Pittsburgh, in an accompanying editorial.

The annual postrebate price of Humira doubled between 2013 and 2018, from $19,000 to $38,000, and these price increases may influence the price of biosimilars, “which will be priced using Humira’s price as an anchor,” Dr. Claytor and Dr. Gellad wrote.

A rapid shift to adalimumab biosimilars across the United States when they become available is “unlikely,” they wrote. Nonetheless, “some health care systems of comparable size to Denmark (e.g., the Veterans Affairs system) and others that are larger (e.g., Kaiser Permanente) ... have the ability to switch products quickly through use of formularies and a prescriber workforce. For example, Kaiser Permanente has successfully replaced Remicade (infliximab) with biosimilars in 80% of patients.”

Given the many biologics in development and increasing health care spending, “we need to take seriously the substantial savings offered by biosimilars and the feasibility, as evidenced by Denmark, of switching to biosimilars quickly once they are available on the market,” Dr. Claytor and Dr. Gellad concluded.

The research was supported by an unrestricted grant from Helsefonden. One author disclosed receiving grants from Pfizer, AbbVie, Roche, and Bristol-Myers Squibb outside the current study. The editorial authors had no disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Jensen TB et al. JAMA Intern Med. 2020 Mar 30. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.0338.

Adalimumab biosimilars are years away from entering the marketplace in the United States because of patent disputes, but they already have led to substantial discounts in Denmark, researchers wrote in JAMA Internal Medicine.

The Danish health care system switched almost entirely to adalimumab biosimilars after the patent on the original adalimumab product, Humira, expired there in October 2018. The switch to biosimilars led to an 82% decrease in costs for the medication, wrote Thomas Bo Jensen, MD, and colleagues in a research letter.

Denmark did not automatically substitute biosimilars, but the Danish Medicines Council recommended adalimumab biosimilars for all indications following Humira’s patent expiration. The recommendations “included switching patients to a biosimilar who were already well treated with the originator,” the researchers wrote.

To study the shift to adalimumab biosimilars across all indications in Denmark and calculate cost reductions, Dr. Jensen, of the department of clinical pharmacology at Copenhagen University Hospital Bispebjerg, and coinvestigators examined monthly data on drug sales from Amgros, which purchases all hospital drugs in the country.

“The proportion of adalimumab biosimilars increased from 71.6% (7,040 of 9,829 pens) in November 2018 to 95.1% (8,974 of 9,438 pens) in December 2018,” the researchers wrote. “Costs of adalimumab decreased by 82.8% from September 2018 to December 2018 (September: 8,197 pens at $5.13 million; December: 9,438 pens at $1.01 million).” The results were similar in rheumatology, dermatology, and gastroenterology.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved five adalimumab biosimilars in the United States, but “they will not enter the market until 2023 owing to patent disputes with AbbVie, the manufacturer of Humira,” wrote Jennifer D. Claytor, MD, of the department of internal medicine at University of California, San Francisco, and Walid Gellad, MD, of the division of general internal medicine at University of Pittsburgh, in an accompanying editorial.

The annual postrebate price of Humira doubled between 2013 and 2018, from $19,000 to $38,000, and these price increases may influence the price of biosimilars, “which will be priced using Humira’s price as an anchor,” Dr. Claytor and Dr. Gellad wrote.

A rapid shift to adalimumab biosimilars across the United States when they become available is “unlikely,” they wrote. Nonetheless, “some health care systems of comparable size to Denmark (e.g., the Veterans Affairs system) and others that are larger (e.g., Kaiser Permanente) ... have the ability to switch products quickly through use of formularies and a prescriber workforce. For example, Kaiser Permanente has successfully replaced Remicade (infliximab) with biosimilars in 80% of patients.”

Given the many biologics in development and increasing health care spending, “we need to take seriously the substantial savings offered by biosimilars and the feasibility, as evidenced by Denmark, of switching to biosimilars quickly once they are available on the market,” Dr. Claytor and Dr. Gellad concluded.

The research was supported by an unrestricted grant from Helsefonden. One author disclosed receiving grants from Pfizer, AbbVie, Roche, and Bristol-Myers Squibb outside the current study. The editorial authors had no disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Jensen TB et al. JAMA Intern Med. 2020 Mar 30. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.0338.

Adalimumab biosimilars are years away from entering the marketplace in the United States because of patent disputes, but they already have led to substantial discounts in Denmark, researchers wrote in JAMA Internal Medicine.

The Danish health care system switched almost entirely to adalimumab biosimilars after the patent on the original adalimumab product, Humira, expired there in October 2018. The switch to biosimilars led to an 82% decrease in costs for the medication, wrote Thomas Bo Jensen, MD, and colleagues in a research letter.

Denmark did not automatically substitute biosimilars, but the Danish Medicines Council recommended adalimumab biosimilars for all indications following Humira’s patent expiration. The recommendations “included switching patients to a biosimilar who were already well treated with the originator,” the researchers wrote.

To study the shift to adalimumab biosimilars across all indications in Denmark and calculate cost reductions, Dr. Jensen, of the department of clinical pharmacology at Copenhagen University Hospital Bispebjerg, and coinvestigators examined monthly data on drug sales from Amgros, which purchases all hospital drugs in the country.

“The proportion of adalimumab biosimilars increased from 71.6% (7,040 of 9,829 pens) in November 2018 to 95.1% (8,974 of 9,438 pens) in December 2018,” the researchers wrote. “Costs of adalimumab decreased by 82.8% from September 2018 to December 2018 (September: 8,197 pens at $5.13 million; December: 9,438 pens at $1.01 million).” The results were similar in rheumatology, dermatology, and gastroenterology.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved five adalimumab biosimilars in the United States, but “they will not enter the market until 2023 owing to patent disputes with AbbVie, the manufacturer of Humira,” wrote Jennifer D. Claytor, MD, of the department of internal medicine at University of California, San Francisco, and Walid Gellad, MD, of the division of general internal medicine at University of Pittsburgh, in an accompanying editorial.

The annual postrebate price of Humira doubled between 2013 and 2018, from $19,000 to $38,000, and these price increases may influence the price of biosimilars, “which will be priced using Humira’s price as an anchor,” Dr. Claytor and Dr. Gellad wrote.

A rapid shift to adalimumab biosimilars across the United States when they become available is “unlikely,” they wrote. Nonetheless, “some health care systems of comparable size to Denmark (e.g., the Veterans Affairs system) and others that are larger (e.g., Kaiser Permanente) ... have the ability to switch products quickly through use of formularies and a prescriber workforce. For example, Kaiser Permanente has successfully replaced Remicade (infliximab) with biosimilars in 80% of patients.”

Given the many biologics in development and increasing health care spending, “we need to take seriously the substantial savings offered by biosimilars and the feasibility, as evidenced by Denmark, of switching to biosimilars quickly once they are available on the market,” Dr. Claytor and Dr. Gellad concluded.

The research was supported by an unrestricted grant from Helsefonden. One author disclosed receiving grants from Pfizer, AbbVie, Roche, and Bristol-Myers Squibb outside the current study. The editorial authors had no disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Jensen TB et al. JAMA Intern Med. 2020 Mar 30. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.0338.

Infants who are hospitalized for severe bronchiolitis and receive acid-suppressant medications may be at risk of developing allergic disease by age 3 years, according to recent research released as an abstract for the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology (AAAAI) Annual Meeting.

The AAAAI canceled their annual meeting and provided abstracts and access to presenters for press coverage

“Among children with a history of severe bronchiolitis during infancy, exposure to acid-suppressant medications during infancy further increases the risk of developing recurrent wheeze by age 3 years,” Lacey B. Robinson, MD, of the division of rheumatology, allergy, and immunology in the department of medicine at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, said in an interview.

Bronchiolitis is a risk factor in infants for developing conditions such as recurrent wheeze and childhood asthma in early childhood. Acid-suppressant medications like proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) and histamine-2 receptor antagonists (H2RAs) may further increase the risk of allergic disease. One study by Mitre et al. published in JAMA Pediatrics showed use of acid-suppressant medications in infants up to 6 months raised the risk of allergic disease (JAMA Pediatr. 2018;172[6]:e180315). Some studies suggest between 30% and 50% of infants diagnosed with bronchiolitis requiring hospitalization will develop asthma by age 5 years (J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2017 Jan - Feb;5[1]:92-6).

“Children with severe bronchiolitis during infancy are at a high risk of developing recurrent wheeze and subsequent asthma. There is limited evidence to suggest that exposure to acid suppressant medications [such as proton pump inhibitors and histamine-2 receptor antagonists] prenatally and during early childhood increases the risk of childhood asthma,” Dr. Robinson said. “It is not known if exposure to acid suppressant medications during infancy further increases the risk of developing recurrent wheeze among high-risk children, such as in those with a history of severe bronchiolitis during infancy.”

Dr. Robinson and colleagues performed a multicenter, prospective cohort study of 921 infants who were hospitalized for severe bronchiolitis between 2011 and 2014. The investigators reviewed the medical records of the infants for acid suppressant medication use, as well as parent report of acid suppressant medication use, during an infant’s first 12 months. Overall, 879 children were analyzed after excluding for patients who developed recurrent wheeze prior to receiving acid suppressant medications, as well as patients with incomplete data. The investigators used the National Institutes of Health Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Management of Asthma (EPR-3) to define recurrent wheeze. A Cox-proportional hazard model was used to analyze the time to event, which was stratified by age and adjusted for confounders.

Infants with a history of severe bronchiolitis were at greater risk of developing recurrent wheeze by age 3 years after being exposed to acid-suppressant medications, compared with infants who were not exposed, Dr. Robinson said. Of the 879 infants in the final analysis, 159 (18%) received acid-suppressant medications, and 68 of 159 patients (43%) went on to develop recurrent wheeze, compared with 206 of 720 infants (29%) who were not exposed (unadjusted hazard ratio, 1.63; 95% confidence interval, 1.24-2.14).

After adjustment for confounders such as gender, race and ethnicity; gestational age; delivery type; severity of bronchiolitis; respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) infection status; maternal atopy; use of acid-suppressant medications during pregnancy; median household income; and insurance status, the association between recurrent wheeze and acid-suppressant medication use during infancy remained (adjusted HR, 1.54; 95% CI, 1.15-2.07).

“More research is needed on this important topic including studies in other populations,” such as in healthy children, Dr. Robinson said. “We encourage future research on this important and understudied topic, including further research on the potential underlying mechanisms of this association.”

Dr. Robinson reported no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Robinson L. AAAAI 2020, Abstract L1

Infants who are hospitalized for severe bronchiolitis and receive acid-suppressant medications may be at risk of developing allergic disease by age 3 years, according to recent research released as an abstract for the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology (AAAAI) Annual Meeting.

The AAAAI canceled their annual meeting and provided abstracts and access to presenters for press coverage

“Among children with a history of severe bronchiolitis during infancy, exposure to acid-suppressant medications during infancy further increases the risk of developing recurrent wheeze by age 3 years,” Lacey B. Robinson, MD, of the division of rheumatology, allergy, and immunology in the department of medicine at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, said in an interview.

Bronchiolitis is a risk factor in infants for developing conditions such as recurrent wheeze and childhood asthma in early childhood. Acid-suppressant medications like proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) and histamine-2 receptor antagonists (H2RAs) may further increase the risk of allergic disease. One study by Mitre et al. published in JAMA Pediatrics showed use of acid-suppressant medications in infants up to 6 months raised the risk of allergic disease (JAMA Pediatr. 2018;172[6]:e180315). Some studies suggest between 30% and 50% of infants diagnosed with bronchiolitis requiring hospitalization will develop asthma by age 5 years (J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2017 Jan - Feb;5[1]:92-6).

“Children with severe bronchiolitis during infancy are at a high risk of developing recurrent wheeze and subsequent asthma. There is limited evidence to suggest that exposure to acid suppressant medications [such as proton pump inhibitors and histamine-2 receptor antagonists] prenatally and during early childhood increases the risk of childhood asthma,” Dr. Robinson said. “It is not known if exposure to acid suppressant medications during infancy further increases the risk of developing recurrent wheeze among high-risk children, such as in those with a history of severe bronchiolitis during infancy.”

Dr. Robinson and colleagues performed a multicenter, prospective cohort study of 921 infants who were hospitalized for severe bronchiolitis between 2011 and 2014. The investigators reviewed the medical records of the infants for acid suppressant medication use, as well as parent report of acid suppressant medication use, during an infant’s first 12 months. Overall, 879 children were analyzed after excluding for patients who developed recurrent wheeze prior to receiving acid suppressant medications, as well as patients with incomplete data. The investigators used the National Institutes of Health Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Management of Asthma (EPR-3) to define recurrent wheeze. A Cox-proportional hazard model was used to analyze the time to event, which was stratified by age and adjusted for confounders.

Infants with a history of severe bronchiolitis were at greater risk of developing recurrent wheeze by age 3 years after being exposed to acid-suppressant medications, compared with infants who were not exposed, Dr. Robinson said. Of the 879 infants in the final analysis, 159 (18%) received acid-suppressant medications, and 68 of 159 patients (43%) went on to develop recurrent wheeze, compared with 206 of 720 infants (29%) who were not exposed (unadjusted hazard ratio, 1.63; 95% confidence interval, 1.24-2.14).

After adjustment for confounders such as gender, race and ethnicity; gestational age; delivery type; severity of bronchiolitis; respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) infection status; maternal atopy; use of acid-suppressant medications during pregnancy; median household income; and insurance status, the association between recurrent wheeze and acid-suppressant medication use during infancy remained (adjusted HR, 1.54; 95% CI, 1.15-2.07).

“More research is needed on this important topic including studies in other populations,” such as in healthy children, Dr. Robinson said. “We encourage future research on this important and understudied topic, including further research on the potential underlying mechanisms of this association.”

Dr. Robinson reported no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Robinson L. AAAAI 2020, Abstract L1

Infants who are hospitalized for severe bronchiolitis and receive acid-suppressant medications may be at risk of developing allergic disease by age 3 years, according to recent research released as an abstract for the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology (AAAAI) Annual Meeting.

The AAAAI canceled their annual meeting and provided abstracts and access to presenters for press coverage

“Among children with a history of severe bronchiolitis during infancy, exposure to acid-suppressant medications during infancy further increases the risk of developing recurrent wheeze by age 3 years,” Lacey B. Robinson, MD, of the division of rheumatology, allergy, and immunology in the department of medicine at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, said in an interview.

Bronchiolitis is a risk factor in infants for developing conditions such as recurrent wheeze and childhood asthma in early childhood. Acid-suppressant medications like proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) and histamine-2 receptor antagonists (H2RAs) may further increase the risk of allergic disease. One study by Mitre et al. published in JAMA Pediatrics showed use of acid-suppressant medications in infants up to 6 months raised the risk of allergic disease (JAMA Pediatr. 2018;172[6]:e180315). Some studies suggest between 30% and 50% of infants diagnosed with bronchiolitis requiring hospitalization will develop asthma by age 5 years (J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2017 Jan - Feb;5[1]:92-6).

“Children with severe bronchiolitis during infancy are at a high risk of developing recurrent wheeze and subsequent asthma. There is limited evidence to suggest that exposure to acid suppressant medications [such as proton pump inhibitors and histamine-2 receptor antagonists] prenatally and during early childhood increases the risk of childhood asthma,” Dr. Robinson said. “It is not known if exposure to acid suppressant medications during infancy further increases the risk of developing recurrent wheeze among high-risk children, such as in those with a history of severe bronchiolitis during infancy.”

Dr. Robinson and colleagues performed a multicenter, prospective cohort study of 921 infants who were hospitalized for severe bronchiolitis between 2011 and 2014. The investigators reviewed the medical records of the infants for acid suppressant medication use, as well as parent report of acid suppressant medication use, during an infant’s first 12 months. Overall, 879 children were analyzed after excluding for patients who developed recurrent wheeze prior to receiving acid suppressant medications, as well as patients with incomplete data. The investigators used the National Institutes of Health Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Management of Asthma (EPR-3) to define recurrent wheeze. A Cox-proportional hazard model was used to analyze the time to event, which was stratified by age and adjusted for confounders.

Infants with a history of severe bronchiolitis were at greater risk of developing recurrent wheeze by age 3 years after being exposed to acid-suppressant medications, compared with infants who were not exposed, Dr. Robinson said. Of the 879 infants in the final analysis, 159 (18%) received acid-suppressant medications, and 68 of 159 patients (43%) went on to develop recurrent wheeze, compared with 206 of 720 infants (29%) who were not exposed (unadjusted hazard ratio, 1.63; 95% confidence interval, 1.24-2.14).

After adjustment for confounders such as gender, race and ethnicity; gestational age; delivery type; severity of bronchiolitis; respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) infection status; maternal atopy; use of acid-suppressant medications during pregnancy; median household income; and insurance status, the association between recurrent wheeze and acid-suppressant medication use during infancy remained (adjusted HR, 1.54; 95% CI, 1.15-2.07).

“More research is needed on this important topic including studies in other populations,” such as in healthy children, Dr. Robinson said. “We encourage future research on this important and understudied topic, including further research on the potential underlying mechanisms of this association.”

Dr. Robinson reported no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Robinson L. AAAAI 2020, Abstract L1

The Food and Drug Administration has approved ixekizumab for treatment of moderate to severe plaque psoriasis in patients aged 6-17 years, according to an announcement from Lilly.

Patients need to be candidates for systemic therapy or phototherapy and have no known hypersensitivity to the biologic.

The safety, tolerability, and efficacy of the interleukin-17a antagonist were demonstrated in a phase 3 study that included 171 patients aged 6-17 years with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. At 12 weeks, 89% those on ixekizumab achieved a 75% improvement on Psoriasis Area and Severity Index score, compared with 25% of those on placebo, and 81% achieved a static Physician’s Global Assessment of clear or almost clear, compared with 11% of those on placebo, according to the Lilly statement.

The safety profile seen with ixekizumab (Taltz) among the pediatric patients with plaque psoriasis is consistent with what has been observed among adult patients, although there were higher rates of conjunctivitis, influenza, and urticaria among the pediatric patients, the statement noted. The biologic may increase the risk of infection, and patients should be evaluated for tuberculosis, hypersensitivity, and inflammatory bowel disease. It is also recommended that routine immunizations be completed before initiating treatment.

Ixekizumab was initially approved for treating adults with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis in 2016, followed by approvals for treatment of adults with active psoriatic arthritis in 2017, and for adults with ankylosing spondylitis in August 2019.

The biologic therapies – etanercept, a tumor necrosis factor blocker, and ustekinumab (Stelara), an IL-12/23 antagonist – were previously approved by the FDA for pediatric psoriasis, in children ages 4 years and older and 12 years and older, respectively.

Updated prescribing information for ixekizumab can be found on the Lilly website.

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration has approved ixekizumab for treatment of moderate to severe plaque psoriasis in patients aged 6-17 years, according to an announcement from Lilly.

Patients need to be candidates for systemic therapy or phototherapy and have no known hypersensitivity to the biologic.

The safety, tolerability, and efficacy of the interleukin-17a antagonist were demonstrated in a phase 3 study that included 171 patients aged 6-17 years with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. At 12 weeks, 89% those on ixekizumab achieved a 75% improvement on Psoriasis Area and Severity Index score, compared with 25% of those on placebo, and 81% achieved a static Physician’s Global Assessment of clear or almost clear, compared with 11% of those on placebo, according to the Lilly statement.

The safety profile seen with ixekizumab (Taltz) among the pediatric patients with plaque psoriasis is consistent with what has been observed among adult patients, although there were higher rates of conjunctivitis, influenza, and urticaria among the pediatric patients, the statement noted. The biologic may increase the risk of infection, and patients should be evaluated for tuberculosis, hypersensitivity, and inflammatory bowel disease. It is also recommended that routine immunizations be completed before initiating treatment.

Ixekizumab was initially approved for treating adults with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis in 2016, followed by approvals for treatment of adults with active psoriatic arthritis in 2017, and for adults with ankylosing spondylitis in August 2019.

The biologic therapies – etanercept, a tumor necrosis factor blocker, and ustekinumab (Stelara), an IL-12/23 antagonist – were previously approved by the FDA for pediatric psoriasis, in children ages 4 years and older and 12 years and older, respectively.

Updated prescribing information for ixekizumab can be found on the Lilly website.

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration has approved ixekizumab for treatment of moderate to severe plaque psoriasis in patients aged 6-17 years, according to an announcement from Lilly.

Patients need to be candidates for systemic therapy or phototherapy and have no known hypersensitivity to the biologic.

The safety, tolerability, and efficacy of the interleukin-17a antagonist were demonstrated in a phase 3 study that included 171 patients aged 6-17 years with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. At 12 weeks, 89% those on ixekizumab achieved a 75% improvement on Psoriasis Area and Severity Index score, compared with 25% of those on placebo, and 81% achieved a static Physician’s Global Assessment of clear or almost clear, compared with 11% of those on placebo, according to the Lilly statement.

The safety profile seen with ixekizumab (Taltz) among the pediatric patients with plaque psoriasis is consistent with what has been observed among adult patients, although there were higher rates of conjunctivitis, influenza, and urticaria among the pediatric patients, the statement noted. The biologic may increase the risk of infection, and patients should be evaluated for tuberculosis, hypersensitivity, and inflammatory bowel disease. It is also recommended that routine immunizations be completed before initiating treatment.

Ixekizumab was initially approved for treating adults with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis in 2016, followed by approvals for treatment of adults with active psoriatic arthritis in 2017, and for adults with ankylosing spondylitis in August 2019.

The biologic therapies – etanercept, a tumor necrosis factor blocker, and ustekinumab (Stelara), an IL-12/23 antagonist – were previously approved by the FDA for pediatric psoriasis, in children ages 4 years and older and 12 years and older, respectively.

Updated prescribing information for ixekizumab can be found on the Lilly website.

[email protected]

The 2019-2020 flu paradox continues in the United States: Fewer respiratory samples are testing positive for influenza, but more people are seeking care for respiratory symptoms because of COVID-19, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Positive tests of respiratory samples in clinical laboratories were down to 6.9% for the week ending March 21, compared with 14.9% the week before, but outpatient visits for influenza-like illness (ILI) rose from 5.6% of all visits to 6.2% for third week of March, the CDC’s influenza division reported.

The CDC defines ILI as “fever (temperature of 100°F [37.8°C] or greater) and a cough and/or a sore throat without a known cause other than influenza.” The outpatient ILI visit rate needs to get below the national baseline of 2.4% for the CDC to call the end of the 2019-2020 flu season.

This week’s map shows that fewer states are at the highest level of ILI activity on the CDC’s 1-10 scale: 33 states plus Puerto Rico for the week ending March 21, compared with 35 and Puerto Rico the previous week. The number of states at level 10 had risen the two previous weeks, CDC data show.

“Influenza severity indicators remain moderate to low overall, but hospitalization rates differ by age group, with high rates among children and young adults,” the influenza division said.

Overall mortality also has not been high, but 155 children have died from the flu so far in 2019-2020, which is more than any season since the 2009 pandemic, the CDC noted.

[email protected]

The 2019-2020 flu paradox continues in the United States: Fewer respiratory samples are testing positive for influenza, but more people are seeking care for respiratory symptoms because of COVID-19, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Positive tests of respiratory samples in clinical laboratories were down to 6.9% for the week ending March 21, compared with 14.9% the week before, but outpatient visits for influenza-like illness (ILI) rose from 5.6% of all visits to 6.2% for third week of March, the CDC’s influenza division reported.

The CDC defines ILI as “fever (temperature of 100°F [37.8°C] or greater) and a cough and/or a sore throat without a known cause other than influenza.” The outpatient ILI visit rate needs to get below the national baseline of 2.4% for the CDC to call the end of the 2019-2020 flu season.

This week’s map shows that fewer states are at the highest level of ILI activity on the CDC’s 1-10 scale: 33 states plus Puerto Rico for the week ending March 21, compared with 35 and Puerto Rico the previous week. The number of states at level 10 had risen the two previous weeks, CDC data show.

“Influenza severity indicators remain moderate to low overall, but hospitalization rates differ by age group, with high rates among children and young adults,” the influenza division said.

Overall mortality also has not been high, but 155 children have died from the flu so far in 2019-2020, which is more than any season since the 2009 pandemic, the CDC noted.

[email protected]

The 2019-2020 flu paradox continues in the United States: Fewer respiratory samples are testing positive for influenza, but more people are seeking care for respiratory symptoms because of COVID-19, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Positive tests of respiratory samples in clinical laboratories were down to 6.9% for the week ending March 21, compared with 14.9% the week before, but outpatient visits for influenza-like illness (ILI) rose from 5.6% of all visits to 6.2% for third week of March, the CDC’s influenza division reported.

The CDC defines ILI as “fever (temperature of 100°F [37.8°C] or greater) and a cough and/or a sore throat without a known cause other than influenza.” The outpatient ILI visit rate needs to get below the national baseline of 2.4% for the CDC to call the end of the 2019-2020 flu season.

This week’s map shows that fewer states are at the highest level of ILI activity on the CDC’s 1-10 scale: 33 states plus Puerto Rico for the week ending March 21, compared with 35 and Puerto Rico the previous week. The number of states at level 10 had risen the two previous weeks, CDC data show.

“Influenza severity indicators remain moderate to low overall, but hospitalization rates differ by age group, with high rates among children and young adults,” the influenza division said.

Overall mortality also has not been high, but 155 children have died from the flu so far in 2019-2020, which is more than any season since the 2009 pandemic, the CDC noted.

[email protected]

If you haven’t already found out that activity is a critical component in the physical and mental health of your patients, or if you’re trying to convince an influential person or group it deserves their attention and investment, I suggest you chase down this clinical report from the American Academy of Pediatrics. Representing the AAP’s Council on Sports Medicine and Fitness and Section on Obesity, the authors quite thoroughly make the case that anyone concerned about the health of this nation and its children should make promotion of physical activity a top priority.

I suspect that, like many of the position papers that come from the AAP, this clinical report is another example of preaching to the choir. However, I understand that the academy also hopes to convince a broader audience of nonphysician decision makers by laying out all of the evidence they can muster.

With their voluminous supporting evidence on the table, the authors move on to getting those of us in clinical practice to make our approach to this more systematic – including the addition of a Physical Activity Vital Sign (PAVS) in our patients’ health records. And here is where the authors begin to drift into the hazy dream world of unreality. They admit that “pediatricians will need efficient workflows to incorporate physical activity assessment, counseling and referral in the clinical visit.” Although there is no pediatrician more convinced of the importance of physical activity, I would find it very difficult to include a detailed assessment of my patients’ daily activity in their charts in the manner that the council members envision. Clunky EHRs, limited support staff, and a crowd of advocates already clamoring for my attention on their favorite health issue (nutrition, gun safety, parental depression, dental health to name just a few) all make creating an “efficient workflow” difficult on a good day and impossible on many days.

But, as I have said, I am a strong advocate of physical activity. So here’s a more nuanced suggestion based on a combination of my practical experience and the council’s recommendations.

If you provide good continuity of care to the families in your practice and have been asking good “getting to know you” questions at each visit, you probably already know which of your patients are sufficiently active. You don’t need to ask them how many hours a week they are doing something active. You should be able to just check a box that says “active.”

For patients that you haven’t seen before or suspect are too sedentary from looking at their biometrics and listening to their complaints you need only ask “What do you and your family like to do for fun?” The simple follow-up question of how many hours are spent watching TV, looking at smart phones or tablets, and playing video games in each day completes the survey. You don’t need to chart the depressing details because, as we know, relying on patient or parental recall is unlikely to provide the actual numbers. Just simply check the box that says “not active enough.” What you do with this crude assessment activity is another story and will be the topic for the next Letters from Maine.

This clinical report from the AAP is an excellent and exhaustive discussion of the importance of physical activity, but I hope that it doesn’t spark further cluttering of our already challenged EHR systems. Most of us don’t have the time to be data collectors and quantifiers. Let’s leave that to the clinical researchers. We already know activity is important and that most of our sedentary families aren’t going to be impressed by more science. Our challenge is to get them moving.
 

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Email him at [email protected].

If you haven’t already found out that activity is a critical component in the physical and mental health of your patients, or if you’re trying to convince an influential person or group it deserves their attention and investment, I suggest you chase down this clinical report from the American Academy of Pediatrics. Representing the AAP’s Council on Sports Medicine and Fitness and Section on Obesity, the authors quite thoroughly make the case that anyone concerned about the health of this nation and its children should make promotion of physical activity a top priority.

I suspect that, like many of the position papers that come from the AAP, this clinical report is another example of preaching to the choir. However, I understand that the academy also hopes to convince a broader audience of nonphysician decision makers by laying out all of the evidence they can muster.

With their voluminous supporting evidence on the table, the authors move on to getting those of us in clinical practice to make our approach to this more systematic – including the addition of a Physical Activity Vital Sign (PAVS) in our patients’ health records. And here is where the authors begin to drift into the hazy dream world of unreality. They admit that “pediatricians will need efficient workflows to incorporate physical activity assessment, counseling and referral in the clinical visit.” Although there is no pediatrician more convinced of the importance of physical activity, I would find it very difficult to include a detailed assessment of my patients’ daily activity in their charts in the manner that the council members envision. Clunky EHRs, limited support staff, and a crowd of advocates already clamoring for my attention on their favorite health issue (nutrition, gun safety, parental depression, dental health to name just a few) all make creating an “efficient workflow” difficult on a good day and impossible on many days.

But, as I have said, I am a strong advocate of physical activity. So here’s a more nuanced suggestion based on a combination of my practical experience and the council’s recommendations.

If you provide good continuity of care to the families in your practice and have been asking good “getting to know you” questions at each visit, you probably already know which of your patients are sufficiently active. You don’t need to ask them how many hours a week they are doing something active. You should be able to just check a box that says “active.”

For patients that you haven’t seen before or suspect are too sedentary from looking at their biometrics and listening to their complaints you need only ask “What do you and your family like to do for fun?” The simple follow-up question of how many hours are spent watching TV, looking at smart phones or tablets, and playing video games in each day completes the survey. You don’t need to chart the depressing details because, as we know, relying on patient or parental recall is unlikely to provide the actual numbers. Just simply check the box that says “not active enough.” What you do with this crude assessment activity is another story and will be the topic for the next Letters from Maine.

This clinical report from the AAP is an excellent and exhaustive discussion of the importance of physical activity, but I hope that it doesn’t spark further cluttering of our already challenged EHR systems. Most of us don’t have the time to be data collectors and quantifiers. Let’s leave that to the clinical researchers. We already know activity is important and that most of our sedentary families aren’t going to be impressed by more science. Our challenge is to get them moving.
 

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Email him at [email protected].

If you haven’t already found out that activity is a critical component in the physical and mental health of your patients, or if you’re trying to convince an influential person or group it deserves their attention and investment, I suggest you chase down this clinical report from the American Academy of Pediatrics. Representing the AAP’s Council on Sports Medicine and Fitness and Section on Obesity, the authors quite thoroughly make the case that anyone concerned about the health of this nation and its children should make promotion of physical activity a top priority.

I suspect that, like many of the position papers that come from the AAP, this clinical report is another example of preaching to the choir. However, I understand that the academy also hopes to convince a broader audience of nonphysician decision makers by laying out all of the evidence they can muster.

With their voluminous supporting evidence on the table, the authors move on to getting those of us in clinical practice to make our approach to this more systematic – including the addition of a Physical Activity Vital Sign (PAVS) in our patients’ health records. And here is where the authors begin to drift into the hazy dream world of unreality. They admit that “pediatricians will need efficient workflows to incorporate physical activity assessment, counseling and referral in the clinical visit.” Although there is no pediatrician more convinced of the importance of physical activity, I would find it very difficult to include a detailed assessment of my patients’ daily activity in their charts in the manner that the council members envision. Clunky EHRs, limited support staff, and a crowd of advocates already clamoring for my attention on their favorite health issue (nutrition, gun safety, parental depression, dental health to name just a few) all make creating an “efficient workflow” difficult on a good day and impossible on many days.

But, as I have said, I am a strong advocate of physical activity. So here’s a more nuanced suggestion based on a combination of my practical experience and the council’s recommendations.

If you provide good continuity of care to the families in your practice and have been asking good “getting to know you” questions at each visit, you probably already know which of your patients are sufficiently active. You don’t need to ask them how many hours a week they are doing something active. You should be able to just check a box that says “active.”

For patients that you haven’t seen before or suspect are too sedentary from looking at their biometrics and listening to their complaints you need only ask “What do you and your family like to do for fun?” The simple follow-up question of how many hours are spent watching TV, looking at smart phones or tablets, and playing video games in each day completes the survey. You don’t need to chart the depressing details because, as we know, relying on patient or parental recall is unlikely to provide the actual numbers. Just simply check the box that says “not active enough.” What you do with this crude assessment activity is another story and will be the topic for the next Letters from Maine.

This clinical report from the AAP is an excellent and exhaustive discussion of the importance of physical activity, but I hope that it doesn’t spark further cluttering of our already challenged EHR systems. Most of us don’t have the time to be data collectors and quantifiers. Let’s leave that to the clinical researchers. We already know activity is important and that most of our sedentary families aren’t going to be impressed by more science. Our challenge is to get them moving.
 

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Email him at [email protected].

Reports of three neonates with elevated IgM antibody concentrations whose mothers had COVID-19 in two articles raise questions about whether the infants may have been infected with the virus in utero.

Courtesy CDC

The data, while provocative, “are not conclusive and do not prove in utero transmission” of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), editorialists cautioned.

“The suggestion of in utero transmission rests on IgM detection in these 3 neonates, and IgM is a challenging way to diagnose many congenital infections,” David W. Kimberlin, MD, and Sergio Stagno, MD, of the division of pediatric infectious diseases at University of Alabama at Birmingham, wrote in their editorial. “IgM antibodies are too large to cross the placenta and so detection in a newborn reasonably could be assumed to reflect fetal production following in utero infection. However, most congenital infections are not diagnosed based on IgM detection because IgM assays can be prone to false-positive and false-negative results, along with cross-reactivity and testing challenges.”

None of the three infants had a positive reverse transcriptase–polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test result, “so there is not virologic evidence for congenital infection in these cases to support the serologic suggestion of in utero transmission,” the editorialists noted.
 

Examining the possibility of vertical transmission

A prior case series of nine pregnant women found no transmission of the virus from mother to child, but the question of in utero transmission is not settled, said Lan Dong, MD, of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University in China and colleagues. In their research letter, the investigators described a newborn with elevated IgM antibodies to novel coronavirus 2019 born to a mother with COVID-19. The infant was delivered by cesarean section February 22, 2020, at Renmin Hospital in a negative-pressure isolation room.

“The mother wore an N95 mask and did not hold the infant,” the researchers said. “The neonate had no symptoms and was immediately quarantined in the neonatal intensive care unit. At 2 hours of age, the SARS-CoV-2 IgG level was 140.32 AU/mL and the IgM level was 45.83 AU/mL.” Although the infant may have been infected at delivery, IgM antibodies usually take days to appear, Dr. Dong and colleagues wrote. “The infant’s repeatedly negative RT-PCR test results on nasopharyngeal swabs are difficult to explain, although these tests are not always positive with infection. ... Additional examination of maternal and newborn samples should be done to confirm this preliminary observation.”
 

A review of infants’ serologic characteristics

Hui Zeng, MD, of the department of laboratory medicine at Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University in China and colleagues retrospectively reviewed clinical records and laboratory results for six pregnant women with COVID-19, according to a study in JAMA. The women had mild clinical manifestations and were admitted to Zhongnan Hospital between February 16 and March 6. “All had cesarean deliveries in their third trimester in negative pressure isolation rooms,” the investigators said. “All mothers wore masks, and all medical staff wore protective suits and double masks. The infants were isolated from their mothers immediately after delivery.”

Two of the infants had elevated IgG and IgM concentrations. IgM “is not usually transferred from mother to fetus because of its larger macromolecular structure. ... Whether the placentas of women in this study were damaged and abnormal is unknown,” Dr. Zeng and colleagues said. “Alternatively, IgM could have been produced by the infant if the virus crossed the placenta.”

“Although these 2 studies deserve careful evaluation, more definitive evidence is needed” before physicians can “counsel pregnant women that their fetuses are at risk from congenital infection with SARS-CoV-2,” Dr. Kimberlin and Dr. Stagno concluded.

Dr. Dong and associates had no conflicts of interest. Their work was supported by the National Key Research and Development Project and others. Dr. Zeng and colleagues had no relevant financial disclosures. Their study was supported by grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of China and Zhongnan Hospital. Dr. Kimberlin and Dr. Stagno had no conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Dong L et al. JAMA. 2020 Mar 26. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.4621; Zeng H et al. JAMA. 2020 Mar 26. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.4861.

Reports of three neonates with elevated IgM antibody concentrations whose mothers had COVID-19 in two articles raise questions about whether the infants may have been infected with the virus in utero.

Courtesy CDC

The data, while provocative, “are not conclusive and do not prove in utero transmission” of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), editorialists cautioned.

“The suggestion of in utero transmission rests on IgM detection in these 3 neonates, and IgM is a challenging way to diagnose many congenital infections,” David W. Kimberlin, MD, and Sergio Stagno, MD, of the division of pediatric infectious diseases at University of Alabama at Birmingham, wrote in their editorial. “IgM antibodies are too large to cross the placenta and so detection in a newborn reasonably could be assumed to reflect fetal production following in utero infection. However, most congenital infections are not diagnosed based on IgM detection because IgM assays can be prone to false-positive and false-negative results, along with cross-reactivity and testing challenges.”

None of the three infants had a positive reverse transcriptase–polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test result, “so there is not virologic evidence for congenital infection in these cases to support the serologic suggestion of in utero transmission,” the editorialists noted.
 

Examining the possibility of vertical transmission

A prior case series of nine pregnant women found no transmission of the virus from mother to child, but the question of in utero transmission is not settled, said Lan Dong, MD, of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University in China and colleagues. In their research letter, the investigators described a newborn with elevated IgM antibodies to novel coronavirus 2019 born to a mother with COVID-19. The infant was delivered by cesarean section February 22, 2020, at Renmin Hospital in a negative-pressure isolation room.

“The mother wore an N95 mask and did not hold the infant,” the researchers said. “The neonate had no symptoms and was immediately quarantined in the neonatal intensive care unit. At 2 hours of age, the SARS-CoV-2 IgG level was 140.32 AU/mL and the IgM level was 45.83 AU/mL.” Although the infant may have been infected at delivery, IgM antibodies usually take days to appear, Dr. Dong and colleagues wrote. “The infant’s repeatedly negative RT-PCR test results on nasopharyngeal swabs are difficult to explain, although these tests are not always positive with infection. ... Additional examination of maternal and newborn samples should be done to confirm this preliminary observation.”
 

A review of infants’ serologic characteristics

Hui Zeng, MD, of the department of laboratory medicine at Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University in China and colleagues retrospectively reviewed clinical records and laboratory results for six pregnant women with COVID-19, according to a study in JAMA. The women had mild clinical manifestations and were admitted to Zhongnan Hospital between February 16 and March 6. “All had cesarean deliveries in their third trimester in negative pressure isolation rooms,” the investigators said. “All mothers wore masks, and all medical staff wore protective suits and double masks. The infants were isolated from their mothers immediately after delivery.”

Two of the infants had elevated IgG and IgM concentrations. IgM “is not usually transferred from mother to fetus because of its larger macromolecular structure. ... Whether the placentas of women in this study were damaged and abnormal is unknown,” Dr. Zeng and colleagues said. “Alternatively, IgM could have been produced by the infant if the virus crossed the placenta.”

“Although these 2 studies deserve careful evaluation, more definitive evidence is needed” before physicians can “counsel pregnant women that their fetuses are at risk from congenital infection with SARS-CoV-2,” Dr. Kimberlin and Dr. Stagno concluded.

Dr. Dong and associates had no conflicts of interest. Their work was supported by the National Key Research and Development Project and others. Dr. Zeng and colleagues had no relevant financial disclosures. Their study was supported by grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of China and Zhongnan Hospital. Dr. Kimberlin and Dr. Stagno had no conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Dong L et al. JAMA. 2020 Mar 26. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.4621; Zeng H et al. JAMA. 2020 Mar 26. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.4861.

Reports of three neonates with elevated IgM antibody concentrations whose mothers had COVID-19 in two articles raise questions about whether the infants may have been infected with the virus in utero.

Courtesy CDC

The data, while provocative, “are not conclusive and do not prove in utero transmission” of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), editorialists cautioned.

“The suggestion of in utero transmission rests on IgM detection in these 3 neonates, and IgM is a challenging way to diagnose many congenital infections,” David W. Kimberlin, MD, and Sergio Stagno, MD, of the division of pediatric infectious diseases at University of Alabama at Birmingham, wrote in their editorial. “IgM antibodies are too large to cross the placenta and so detection in a newborn reasonably could be assumed to reflect fetal production following in utero infection. However, most congenital infections are not diagnosed based on IgM detection because IgM assays can be prone to false-positive and false-negative results, along with cross-reactivity and testing challenges.”

None of the three infants had a positive reverse transcriptase–polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test result, “so there is not virologic evidence for congenital infection in these cases to support the serologic suggestion of in utero transmission,” the editorialists noted.
 

Examining the possibility of vertical transmission

A prior case series of nine pregnant women found no transmission of the virus from mother to child, but the question of in utero transmission is not settled, said Lan Dong, MD, of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University in China and colleagues. In their research letter, the investigators described a newborn with elevated IgM antibodies to novel coronavirus 2019 born to a mother with COVID-19. The infant was delivered by cesarean section February 22, 2020, at Renmin Hospital in a negative-pressure isolation room.

“The mother wore an N95 mask and did not hold the infant,” the researchers said. “The neonate had no symptoms and was immediately quarantined in the neonatal intensive care unit. At 2 hours of age, the SARS-CoV-2 IgG level was 140.32 AU/mL and the IgM level was 45.83 AU/mL.” Although the infant may have been infected at delivery, IgM antibodies usually take days to appear, Dr. Dong and colleagues wrote. “The infant’s repeatedly negative RT-PCR test results on nasopharyngeal swabs are difficult to explain, although these tests are not always positive with infection. ... Additional examination of maternal and newborn samples should be done to confirm this preliminary observation.”
 

A review of infants’ serologic characteristics

Hui Zeng, MD, of the department of laboratory medicine at Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University in China and colleagues retrospectively reviewed clinical records and laboratory results for six pregnant women with COVID-19, according to a study in JAMA. The women had mild clinical manifestations and were admitted to Zhongnan Hospital between February 16 and March 6. “All had cesarean deliveries in their third trimester in negative pressure isolation rooms,” the investigators said. “All mothers wore masks, and all medical staff wore protective suits and double masks. The infants were isolated from their mothers immediately after delivery.”

Two of the infants had elevated IgG and IgM concentrations. IgM “is not usually transferred from mother to fetus because of its larger macromolecular structure. ... Whether the placentas of women in this study were damaged and abnormal is unknown,” Dr. Zeng and colleagues said. “Alternatively, IgM could have been produced by the infant if the virus crossed the placenta.”

“Although these 2 studies deserve careful evaluation, more definitive evidence is needed” before physicians can “counsel pregnant women that their fetuses are at risk from congenital infection with SARS-CoV-2,” Dr. Kimberlin and Dr. Stagno concluded.

Dr. Dong and associates had no conflicts of interest. Their work was supported by the National Key Research and Development Project and others. Dr. Zeng and colleagues had no relevant financial disclosures. Their study was supported by grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of China and Zhongnan Hospital. Dr. Kimberlin and Dr. Stagno had no conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Dong L et al. JAMA. 2020 Mar 26. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.4621; Zeng H et al. JAMA. 2020 Mar 26. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.4861.

After a year of gender-affirming hormone therapy, transgender youth showed significant improvement in body image dissatisfaction from baseline, based on data from 148 individuals.

“Understanding the impact of gender-affirming hormone therapy on the mental health of transgender youth is critical given the health disparities documented in this population,” wrote Laura E. Kuper, PhD, of Children’s Health Systems of Texas, Dallas, and colleagues.

In a study published in Pediatrics, the researchers reviewed data from 148 youth aged 9-18 years who underwent gender-affirming hormone therapy in a multidisciplinary program. The average age of the patients was 15 years; 25 were receiving puberty suppression hormones only, 93 were receiving just feminizing or masculinizing hormones, and 30 were receiving both treatments.

At baseline and at approximately 1 year follow-up, all patients completed the Body Image Scale, Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptoms, and Screen for Child Anxiety Related Emotional Disorders. In addition, clinicians collected information on patients’ suicidal ideation, suicide attempts, and nonsuicidal self-injury.

Overall, the average scores on the Body Image Scale on body dissatisfaction decreased from 70 to 52, and average scores on the Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptoms decreased from 9 to 7; both were statistically significant (P less than .001), as were changes from baseline on the anxiety subscale of the Screen for Child Anxiety Related Emotional Disorders, which decreased from 32 to 29 (P less than .01). No change occurred in the average overall clinician-reported depressive symptoms.

During the follow-up period, the rates of suicidal ideation, suicide attempts, and nonsuicidal self-injury were 38%, 5%, and 17%, respectively. Of patients who reported these experiences, the lifetime histories of suicidal ideation, suicide attempts, and nonsuicidal self-injury were 81%, 15%, and 52%, respectively.

The findings were limited by several factors including some missing data and the relatively small sample size, the researchers noted.

Nonetheless, the results suggest “that youth receiving gender-affirming hormone therapy experience meaningful short-term improvements in body dissatisfaction, and no participants discontinued feminizing or masculinizing hormone therapy.” These results support the use of such therapy, Dr. Kuper and associates wrote.

The study is important because of the need for evidence that hormones actually improve patient outcomes, said Shauna M. Lawlis, MD, of the University of Oklahoma Medical Center, Oklahoma City.

“Especially given the rash of legislation across the country aimed at blocking care for transgender youth, it is helpful to show that these treatments really do decrease patients’ anxiety and depressive symptoms,” she said in an interview. “In addition, previous research has been focused on those who have undergone puberty suppression followed by gender-affirming hormone therapy, but many patients are too far along in puberty for puberty suppression to be effective and providers often go straight to gender-affirming hormones in those cases.”

Dr. Lawlis said she was not at all surprised by the study findings. “In my own practice, I have seen patients improve greatly on gender-affirming hormones with overall improvement in anxiety and depression. As a patient’s outward appearance more closely matches their gender identity, they feel more comfortable in their own bodies and their interactions with the world around them, thus improving these symptoms.”

Dr. Lawlis added that the message for pediatricians who treat transgender youth is simple: Gender-affirming hormones improve patient outcomes. “They are essential for the mental health of this vulnerable population.”

She noted that long-term follow-up studies would be useful. “There is still a lot of concern about regret and detransitioning among health care providers and the general population – showing that patients maintain satisfaction in the long-term would be helpful.

“In addition, long-term studies about other health outcomes (cardiovascular disease, cancer risk, etc.) would also be helpful,” said Dr. Lawlis, who was asked to comment on this study, with which she had no involvement.

The study was supported in part by Children’s Health. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Lawlis had no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Kuper LE et al. Pediatrics. 2020 Mar 27. doi: 10.1542/peds.2019-3006.

After a year of gender-affirming hormone therapy, transgender youth showed significant improvement in body image dissatisfaction from baseline, based on data from 148 individuals.

“Understanding the impact of gender-affirming hormone therapy on the mental health of transgender youth is critical given the health disparities documented in this population,” wrote Laura E. Kuper, PhD, of Children’s Health Systems of Texas, Dallas, and colleagues.

In a study published in Pediatrics, the researchers reviewed data from 148 youth aged 9-18 years who underwent gender-affirming hormone therapy in a multidisciplinary program. The average age of the patients was 15 years; 25 were receiving puberty suppression hormones only, 93 were receiving just feminizing or masculinizing hormones, and 30 were receiving both treatments.

At baseline and at approximately 1 year follow-up, all patients completed the Body Image Scale, Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptoms, and Screen for Child Anxiety Related Emotional Disorders. In addition, clinicians collected information on patients’ suicidal ideation, suicide attempts, and nonsuicidal self-injury.

Overall, the average scores on the Body Image Scale on body dissatisfaction decreased from 70 to 52, and average scores on the Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptoms decreased from 9 to 7; both were statistically significant (P less than .001), as were changes from baseline on the anxiety subscale of the Screen for Child Anxiety Related Emotional Disorders, which decreased from 32 to 29 (P less than .01). No change occurred in the average overall clinician-reported depressive symptoms.

During the follow-up period, the rates of suicidal ideation, suicide attempts, and nonsuicidal self-injury were 38%, 5%, and 17%, respectively. Of patients who reported these experiences, the lifetime histories of suicidal ideation, suicide attempts, and nonsuicidal self-injury were 81%, 15%, and 52%, respectively.

The findings were limited by several factors including some missing data and the relatively small sample size, the researchers noted.

Nonetheless, the results suggest “that youth receiving gender-affirming hormone therapy experience meaningful short-term improvements in body dissatisfaction, and no participants discontinued feminizing or masculinizing hormone therapy.” These results support the use of such therapy, Dr. Kuper and associates wrote.

The study is important because of the need for evidence that hormones actually improve patient outcomes, said Shauna M. Lawlis, MD, of the University of Oklahoma Medical Center, Oklahoma City.

“Especially given the rash of legislation across the country aimed at blocking care for transgender youth, it is helpful to show that these treatments really do decrease patients’ anxiety and depressive symptoms,” she said in an interview. “In addition, previous research has been focused on those who have undergone puberty suppression followed by gender-affirming hormone therapy, but many patients are too far along in puberty for puberty suppression to be effective and providers often go straight to gender-affirming hormones in those cases.”

Dr. Lawlis said she was not at all surprised by the study findings. “In my own practice, I have seen patients improve greatly on gender-affirming hormones with overall improvement in anxiety and depression. As a patient’s outward appearance more closely matches their gender identity, they feel more comfortable in their own bodies and their interactions with the world around them, thus improving these symptoms.”

Dr. Lawlis added that the message for pediatricians who treat transgender youth is simple: Gender-affirming hormones improve patient outcomes. “They are essential for the mental health of this vulnerable population.”

She noted that long-term follow-up studies would be useful. “There is still a lot of concern about regret and detransitioning among health care providers and the general population – showing that patients maintain satisfaction in the long-term would be helpful.

“In addition, long-term studies about other health outcomes (cardiovascular disease, cancer risk, etc.) would also be helpful,” said Dr. Lawlis, who was asked to comment on this study, with which she had no involvement.

The study was supported in part by Children’s Health. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Lawlis had no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Kuper LE et al. Pediatrics. 2020 Mar 27. doi: 10.1542/peds.2019-3006.

After a year of gender-affirming hormone therapy, transgender youth showed significant improvement in body image dissatisfaction from baseline, based on data from 148 individuals.

“Understanding the impact of gender-affirming hormone therapy on the mental health of transgender youth is critical given the health disparities documented in this population,” wrote Laura E. Kuper, PhD, of Children’s Health Systems of Texas, Dallas, and colleagues.

In a study published in Pediatrics, the researchers reviewed data from 148 youth aged 9-18 years who underwent gender-affirming hormone therapy in a multidisciplinary program. The average age of the patients was 15 years; 25 were receiving puberty suppression hormones only, 93 were receiving just feminizing or masculinizing hormones, and 30 were receiving both treatments.

At baseline and at approximately 1 year follow-up, all patients completed the Body Image Scale, Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptoms, and Screen for Child Anxiety Related Emotional Disorders. In addition, clinicians collected information on patients’ suicidal ideation, suicide attempts, and nonsuicidal self-injury.

Overall, the average scores on the Body Image Scale on body dissatisfaction decreased from 70 to 52, and average scores on the Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptoms decreased from 9 to 7; both were statistically significant (P less than .001), as were changes from baseline on the anxiety subscale of the Screen for Child Anxiety Related Emotional Disorders, which decreased from 32 to 29 (P less than .01). No change occurred in the average overall clinician-reported depressive symptoms.

During the follow-up period, the rates of suicidal ideation, suicide attempts, and nonsuicidal self-injury were 38%, 5%, and 17%, respectively. Of patients who reported these experiences, the lifetime histories of suicidal ideation, suicide attempts, and nonsuicidal self-injury were 81%, 15%, and 52%, respectively.

The findings were limited by several factors including some missing data and the relatively small sample size, the researchers noted.

Nonetheless, the results suggest “that youth receiving gender-affirming hormone therapy experience meaningful short-term improvements in body dissatisfaction, and no participants discontinued feminizing or masculinizing hormone therapy.” These results support the use of such therapy, Dr. Kuper and associates wrote.

The study is important because of the need for evidence that hormones actually improve patient outcomes, said Shauna M. Lawlis, MD, of the University of Oklahoma Medical Center, Oklahoma City.

“Especially given the rash of legislation across the country aimed at blocking care for transgender youth, it is helpful to show that these treatments really do decrease patients’ anxiety and depressive symptoms,” she said in an interview. “In addition, previous research has been focused on those who have undergone puberty suppression followed by gender-affirming hormone therapy, but many patients are too far along in puberty for puberty suppression to be effective and providers often go straight to gender-affirming hormones in those cases.”

Dr. Lawlis said she was not at all surprised by the study findings. “In my own practice, I have seen patients improve greatly on gender-affirming hormones with overall improvement in anxiety and depression. As a patient’s outward appearance more closely matches their gender identity, they feel more comfortable in their own bodies and their interactions with the world around them, thus improving these symptoms.”

Dr. Lawlis added that the message for pediatricians who treat transgender youth is simple: Gender-affirming hormones improve patient outcomes. “They are essential for the mental health of this vulnerable population.”

She noted that long-term follow-up studies would be useful. “There is still a lot of concern about regret and detransitioning among health care providers and the general population – showing that patients maintain satisfaction in the long-term would be helpful.

“In addition, long-term studies about other health outcomes (cardiovascular disease, cancer risk, etc.) would also be helpful,” said Dr. Lawlis, who was asked to comment on this study, with which she had no involvement.

The study was supported in part by Children’s Health. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Lawlis had no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Kuper LE et al. Pediatrics. 2020 Mar 27. doi: 10.1542/peds.2019-3006.

Despite implementation of strict infection control and prevention procedures in a hospital in Wuhan, China, a minority of neonates born to mothers with COVID-19 tested positive with novel coronavirus 2019 shortly after birth, according to Lingkong Zeng, MD, of the department of neonatology at Wuhan Children’s Hospital, and associates.

CDC/ Dr. Fred Murphy; Sylvia Whitfield

Thirty-three neonates born to mothers with COVID-19 were included in the study, published as a research letter in JAMA Pediatrics. Of this group, three neonates (9%) were confirmed to be infected with the novel coronavirus 2019 at 2 and 4 days of life through nasopharyngeal and anal swabs.

Of the three infected neonates, two were born at 40 weeks’ gestation and the third was born at 31 weeks. The two full-term infants had mild symptoms such as lethargy and fever and were negative for the virus at 6 days of life. The preterm infant had somewhat worse symptoms, but the investigators acknowledged that “the most seriously ill neonate may have been symptomatic from prematurity, asphyxia, and sepsis, rather than [the novel coronavirus 2019] infection.” They added that outcomes for all three neonates were favorable, consistent with past research.

“Because strict infection control and prevention procedures were implemented during the delivery, it is likely that the sources of [novel coronavirus 2019] in the neonates’ upper respiratory tracts or anuses were maternal in origin,” Dr. Zeng and associates surmised.

While previous studies have shown no evidence of COVID-19 transmission between mothers and neonates, and all samples, including amniotic fluid, cord blood, and breast milk, were negative for the novel coronavirus 2019, “vertical maternal-fetal transmission cannot be ruled out in the current cohort. Therefore, it is crucial to screen pregnant women and implement strict infection control measures, quarantine of infected mothers, and close monitoring of neonates at risk of COVID-19,” the investigators concluded.

The study authors reported that they had no conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Zeng L et al. JAMA Pediatrics. 2020 Mar 26. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2020.0878.

Despite implementation of strict infection control and prevention procedures in a hospital in Wuhan, China, a minority of neonates born to mothers with COVID-19 tested positive with novel coronavirus 2019 shortly after birth, according to Lingkong Zeng, MD, of the department of neonatology at Wuhan Children’s Hospital, and associates.

CDC/ Dr. Fred Murphy; Sylvia Whitfield

Thirty-three neonates born to mothers with COVID-19 were included in the study, published as a research letter in JAMA Pediatrics. Of this group, three neonates (9%) were confirmed to be infected with the novel coronavirus 2019 at 2 and 4 days of life through nasopharyngeal and anal swabs.

Of the three infected neonates, two were born at 40 weeks’ gestation and the third was born at 31 weeks. The two full-term infants had mild symptoms such as lethargy and fever and were negative for the virus at 6 days of life. The preterm infant had somewhat worse symptoms, but the investigators acknowledged that “the most seriously ill neonate may have been symptomatic from prematurity, asphyxia, and sepsis, rather than [the novel coronavirus 2019] infection.” They added that outcomes for all three neonates were favorable, consistent with past research.

“Because strict infection control and prevention procedures were implemented during the delivery, it is likely that the sources of [novel coronavirus 2019] in the neonates’ upper respiratory tracts or anuses were maternal in origin,” Dr. Zeng and associates surmised.

While previous studies have shown no evidence of COVID-19 transmission between mothers and neonates, and all samples, including amniotic fluid, cord blood, and breast milk, were negative for the novel coronavirus 2019, “vertical maternal-fetal transmission cannot be ruled out in the current cohort. Therefore, it is crucial to screen pregnant women and implement strict infection control measures, quarantine of infected mothers, and close monitoring of neonates at risk of COVID-19,” the investigators concluded.

The study authors reported that they had no conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Zeng L et al. JAMA Pediatrics. 2020 Mar 26. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2020.0878.

Despite implementation of strict infection control and prevention procedures in a hospital in Wuhan, China, a minority of neonates born to mothers with COVID-19 tested positive with novel coronavirus 2019 shortly after birth, according to Lingkong Zeng, MD, of the department of neonatology at Wuhan Children’s Hospital, and associates.

CDC/ Dr. Fred Murphy; Sylvia Whitfield

Thirty-three neonates born to mothers with COVID-19 were included in the study, published as a research letter in JAMA Pediatrics. Of this group, three neonates (9%) were confirmed to be infected with the novel coronavirus 2019 at 2 and 4 days of life through nasopharyngeal and anal swabs.

Of the three infected neonates, two were born at 40 weeks’ gestation and the third was born at 31 weeks. The two full-term infants had mild symptoms such as lethargy and fever and were negative for the virus at 6 days of life. The preterm infant had somewhat worse symptoms, but the investigators acknowledged that “the most seriously ill neonate may have been symptomatic from prematurity, asphyxia, and sepsis, rather than [the novel coronavirus 2019] infection.” They added that outcomes for all three neonates were favorable, consistent with past research.

“Because strict infection control and prevention procedures were implemented during the delivery, it is likely that the sources of [novel coronavirus 2019] in the neonates’ upper respiratory tracts or anuses were maternal in origin,” Dr. Zeng and associates surmised.

While previous studies have shown no evidence of COVID-19 transmission between mothers and neonates, and all samples, including amniotic fluid, cord blood, and breast milk, were negative for the novel coronavirus 2019, “vertical maternal-fetal transmission cannot be ruled out in the current cohort. Therefore, it is crucial to screen pregnant women and implement strict infection control measures, quarantine of infected mothers, and close monitoring of neonates at risk of COVID-19,” the investigators concluded.

The study authors reported that they had no conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Zeng L et al. JAMA Pediatrics. 2020 Mar 26. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2020.0878.