Commentary

My co-authors and I appreciate the excellent comments regarding our Photo Rounds column, “Foot rash and joint pain,” and would like to provide some additional detail.

After our patient’s 27-day hospital stay, he was admitted to a rehabilitation center for continued inpatient physical therapy for 14 days due to weakness and deconditioning. Following his discharge from the rehabilitation center, the patient was still confined to a wheelchair. He was prescribed an oral prednisone taper (as mentioned in our article) and celecoxib 200 mg bid and referred for outpatient physical therapy. At a follow-up appointment with the rheumatologist, he received adalimumab 80 mg followed by 40 mg every other week, which led to improvement in his range of motion and pain. Two months after outpatient physical therapy, the patient was lost to follow-up.

We agree with Dr. Hahn et al that many of these patients with chlamydia-associated ReA become “long-haulers.” In medicine—especially when rare diseases are considered—we must often make decisions without perfect science. The studies referenced by Dr. Hahn et al suggest that combinations of doxycycline and rifampin or azithromycin and rifampin may treat not only chlamydial infection, but ReA and associated cutaneous disease, as well.^1,2 While these studies are small in size, larger studies may never be funded. We agree that combination therapy should be considered in this population of patients.

Hannah R. Badon, MD
Ross L. Pearlman, MD
Robert T. Brodell, MD
Jackson, MS

My co-authors and I appreciate the excellent comments regarding our Photo Rounds column, “Foot rash and joint pain,” and would like to provide some additional detail.

After our patient’s 27-day hospital stay, he was admitted to a rehabilitation center for continued inpatient physical therapy for 14 days due to weakness and deconditioning. Following his discharge from the rehabilitation center, the patient was still confined to a wheelchair. He was prescribed an oral prednisone taper (as mentioned in our article) and celecoxib 200 mg bid and referred for outpatient physical therapy. At a follow-up appointment with the rheumatologist, he received adalimumab 80 mg followed by 40 mg every other week, which led to improvement in his range of motion and pain. Two months after outpatient physical therapy, the patient was lost to follow-up.

We agree with Dr. Hahn et al that many of these patients with chlamydia-associated ReA become “long-haulers.” In medicine—especially when rare diseases are considered—we must often make decisions without perfect science. The studies referenced by Dr. Hahn et al suggest that combinations of doxycycline and rifampin or azithromycin and rifampin may treat not only chlamydial infection, but ReA and associated cutaneous disease, as well.^1,2 While these studies are small in size, larger studies may never be funded. We agree that combination therapy should be considered in this population of patients.

Hannah R. Badon, MD
Ross L. Pearlman, MD
Robert T. Brodell, MD
Jackson, MS

My co-authors and I appreciate the excellent comments regarding our Photo Rounds column, “Foot rash and joint pain,” and would like to provide some additional detail.

After our patient’s 27-day hospital stay, he was admitted to a rehabilitation center for continued inpatient physical therapy for 14 days due to weakness and deconditioning. Following his discharge from the rehabilitation center, the patient was still confined to a wheelchair. He was prescribed an oral prednisone taper (as mentioned in our article) and celecoxib 200 mg bid and referred for outpatient physical therapy. At a follow-up appointment with the rheumatologist, he received adalimumab 80 mg followed by 40 mg every other week, which led to improvement in his range of motion and pain. Two months after outpatient physical therapy, the patient was lost to follow-up.

We agree with Dr. Hahn et al that many of these patients with chlamydia-associated ReA become “long-haulers.” In medicine—especially when rare diseases are considered—we must often make decisions without perfect science. The studies referenced by Dr. Hahn et al suggest that combinations of doxycycline and rifampin or azithromycin and rifampin may treat not only chlamydial infection, but ReA and associated cutaneous disease, as well.^1,2 While these studies are small in size, larger studies may never be funded. We agree that combination therapy should be considered in this population of patients.

Hannah R. Badon, MD
Ross L. Pearlman, MD
Robert T. Brodell, MD
Jackson, MS

In medicine—especially when rare diseases are considered—we must often make decisions without perfect science.

In the June Photo Rounds column, “Foot rash and joint pain” (J Fam Pract. 2021;70:249-251), Badon et al presented a case of ­chlamydia-associated reactive arthritis (ReA), formerly called Reiter syndrome, in a 21-year-old man following Chlamydia trachomatis urethritis. We would like to point out that, contrary to the conventional definition of ReA, in which the causative pathogen can’t be cultured from the affected joints,¹ chlamydia-associated ReA is associated with evidence of chronic joint infection that, while not cultivable, can be confirmed by real-time polymerase chain reaction testing of metabolically active pathogens in synovial tissue and/or fluid.²

C trachomatis and C pneumoniae are the most frequent causative pathogens to elicit ReA.³ Short-course antibiotics and anti-­inflammatory treatments can palliate ReA, but these treatments often do not provide a cure.³ Two controlled clinical trials demonstrated that chlamydia-associated ReA can be treated successfully with longer-term combination antibiotic therapy.^4,5 ReA is usually diagnosed in the acute stage (first 6 months) and can become chronic in 30% of cases.⁶ It would be interesting to know the long-term treatment and outcome data for the case patient.

David L. Hahn, MD, MS
Alan P. Hudson, PhD
Charles Stratton, MD
Wilmore Webley, PhD
Judith Whittum-Hudson, PhD

In medicine—especially when rare diseases are considered—we must often make decisions without perfect science.

In the June Photo Rounds column, “Foot rash and joint pain” (J Fam Pract. 2021;70:249-251), Badon et al presented a case of ­chlamydia-associated reactive arthritis (ReA), formerly called Reiter syndrome, in a 21-year-old man following Chlamydia trachomatis urethritis. We would like to point out that, contrary to the conventional definition of ReA, in which the causative pathogen can’t be cultured from the affected joints,¹ chlamydia-associated ReA is associated with evidence of chronic joint infection that, while not cultivable, can be confirmed by real-time polymerase chain reaction testing of metabolically active pathogens in synovial tissue and/or fluid.²

C trachomatis and C pneumoniae are the most frequent causative pathogens to elicit ReA.³ Short-course antibiotics and anti-­inflammatory treatments can palliate ReA, but these treatments often do not provide a cure.³ Two controlled clinical trials demonstrated that chlamydia-associated ReA can be treated successfully with longer-term combination antibiotic therapy.^4,5 ReA is usually diagnosed in the acute stage (first 6 months) and can become chronic in 30% of cases.⁶ It would be interesting to know the long-term treatment and outcome data for the case patient.

David L. Hahn, MD, MS
Alan P. Hudson, PhD
Charles Stratton, MD
Wilmore Webley, PhD
Judith Whittum-Hudson, PhD

In medicine—especially when rare diseases are considered—we must often make decisions without perfect science.

In the June Photo Rounds column, “Foot rash and joint pain” (J Fam Pract. 2021;70:249-251), Badon et al presented a case of ­chlamydia-associated reactive arthritis (ReA), formerly called Reiter syndrome, in a 21-year-old man following Chlamydia trachomatis urethritis. We would like to point out that, contrary to the conventional definition of ReA, in which the causative pathogen can’t be cultured from the affected joints,¹ chlamydia-associated ReA is associated with evidence of chronic joint infection that, while not cultivable, can be confirmed by real-time polymerase chain reaction testing of metabolically active pathogens in synovial tissue and/or fluid.²

C trachomatis and C pneumoniae are the most frequent causative pathogens to elicit ReA.³ Short-course antibiotics and anti-­inflammatory treatments can palliate ReA, but these treatments often do not provide a cure.³ Two controlled clinical trials demonstrated that chlamydia-associated ReA can be treated successfully with longer-term combination antibiotic therapy.^4,5 ReA is usually diagnosed in the acute stage (first 6 months) and can become chronic in 30% of cases.⁶ It would be interesting to know the long-term treatment and outcome data for the case patient.

David L. Hahn, MD, MS
Alan P. Hudson, PhD
Charles Stratton, MD
Wilmore Webley, PhD
Judith Whittum-Hudson, PhD

One of the most rewarding aspects of being a physician is having a direct impact on alleviating patient suffering. On the other hand, one of the more difficult elements is a confrontational patient with unreasonable expectations or inappropriate demands. I have experienced both ends of the spectrum while engaging with patients who have opioid use disorder (OUD).

An untreated patient with OUD might provide an untruthful history, attempt to falsify exam findings, or even become threatening or abusive in an attempt to secure opiate pain medication. Managing a patient with OUD by providing buprenorphine treatment, however, is a completely different experience.

Personally, I’ve found offering buprenorphine treatment to be one of the most rewarding aspects of practicing medicine.

There is no controversy about the effectiveness of buprenorphine treatment for OUD. Patients seeking it are not looking for inappropriate care but rather a treatment that is established as an unequivocal standard with proven results for better treatment outcomes^1-3 and reduced mortality.⁴ Personally, I’ve found offering buprenorphine treatment to be one of the most rewarding aspects of practicing medicine. It is a real joy to witness people turn their lives around with meaningful outcomes such as gainful employment, eradication of hepatitis C, reconciliation of broken relationships, resolution of legal troubles, and long-term sobriety. Being a part of lives that are practically resurrected from the ashes of addiction by prescribing medicine is indeed an exceptional experience.

On April 28, 2021, the Department of Health and Human Services provided notice for immediate action allowing for any DEA-­licensed provider to obtain an X-waiver to treat 30 active patients without educational prerequisite or certification of behavioral health referral capacity.⁵ The X-waiver requirements were reduced, as outlined by SAMSHA,⁶ to a simple online notice of intent⁷ that can be completed in less than 5 minutes.

I encourage my colleagues to obtain the X-waiver by the simplified process, start prescribing buprenorphine, and be a part of the solution to the opioid epidemic. Of course, there will be struggles and lessons learned, but these can most certainly be eclipsed by a focus on the rewarding experience of restoring wholeness to the lives of many patients.

Aaron Newcomb, DO
Carbondale, IL

One of the most rewarding aspects of being a physician is having a direct impact on alleviating patient suffering. On the other hand, one of the more difficult elements is a confrontational patient with unreasonable expectations or inappropriate demands. I have experienced both ends of the spectrum while engaging with patients who have opioid use disorder (OUD).

An untreated patient with OUD might provide an untruthful history, attempt to falsify exam findings, or even become threatening or abusive in an attempt to secure opiate pain medication. Managing a patient with OUD by providing buprenorphine treatment, however, is a completely different experience.

Personally, I’ve found offering buprenorphine treatment to be one of the most rewarding aspects of practicing medicine.

There is no controversy about the effectiveness of buprenorphine treatment for OUD. Patients seeking it are not looking for inappropriate care but rather a treatment that is established as an unequivocal standard with proven results for better treatment outcomes^1-3 and reduced mortality.⁴ Personally, I’ve found offering buprenorphine treatment to be one of the most rewarding aspects of practicing medicine. It is a real joy to witness people turn their lives around with meaningful outcomes such as gainful employment, eradication of hepatitis C, reconciliation of broken relationships, resolution of legal troubles, and long-term sobriety. Being a part of lives that are practically resurrected from the ashes of addiction by prescribing medicine is indeed an exceptional experience.

On April 28, 2021, the Department of Health and Human Services provided notice for immediate action allowing for any DEA-­licensed provider to obtain an X-waiver to treat 30 active patients without educational prerequisite or certification of behavioral health referral capacity.⁵ The X-waiver requirements were reduced, as outlined by SAMSHA,⁶ to a simple online notice of intent⁷ that can be completed in less than 5 minutes.

I encourage my colleagues to obtain the X-waiver by the simplified process, start prescribing buprenorphine, and be a part of the solution to the opioid epidemic. Of course, there will be struggles and lessons learned, but these can most certainly be eclipsed by a focus on the rewarding experience of restoring wholeness to the lives of many patients.

Aaron Newcomb, DO
Carbondale, IL

One of the most rewarding aspects of being a physician is having a direct impact on alleviating patient suffering. On the other hand, one of the more difficult elements is a confrontational patient with unreasonable expectations or inappropriate demands. I have experienced both ends of the spectrum while engaging with patients who have opioid use disorder (OUD).

An untreated patient with OUD might provide an untruthful history, attempt to falsify exam findings, or even become threatening or abusive in an attempt to secure opiate pain medication. Managing a patient with OUD by providing buprenorphine treatment, however, is a completely different experience.

Personally, I’ve found offering buprenorphine treatment to be one of the most rewarding aspects of practicing medicine.

There is no controversy about the effectiveness of buprenorphine treatment for OUD. Patients seeking it are not looking for inappropriate care but rather a treatment that is established as an unequivocal standard with proven results for better treatment outcomes^1-3 and reduced mortality.⁴ Personally, I’ve found offering buprenorphine treatment to be one of the most rewarding aspects of practicing medicine. It is a real joy to witness people turn their lives around with meaningful outcomes such as gainful employment, eradication of hepatitis C, reconciliation of broken relationships, resolution of legal troubles, and long-term sobriety. Being a part of lives that are practically resurrected from the ashes of addiction by prescribing medicine is indeed an exceptional experience.

On April 28, 2021, the Department of Health and Human Services provided notice for immediate action allowing for any DEA-­licensed provider to obtain an X-waiver to treat 30 active patients without educational prerequisite or certification of behavioral health referral capacity.⁵ The X-waiver requirements were reduced, as outlined by SAMSHA,⁶ to a simple online notice of intent⁷ that can be completed in less than 5 minutes.

I encourage my colleagues to obtain the X-waiver by the simplified process, start prescribing buprenorphine, and be a part of the solution to the opioid epidemic. Of course, there will be struggles and lessons learned, but these can most certainly be eclipsed by a focus on the rewarding experience of restoring wholeness to the lives of many patients.

Aaron Newcomb, DO
Carbondale, IL

Watch-based monitoring of blood glucose is clearly in the works, and, in the near future, we expect it to change the way we manage diabetes.

Earlier this year, technology news sites reported that the Apple Watch Series 7 and the Samsung Galaxy Watch 4 were going to have integrated optical sensors for checking interstitial fluid glucose levels with no blood sampling needed. By the summer, new articles indicated that the glucose sensing watches would not be released this year for either Apple or Samsung.

For now, the newest technology available for monitoring glucose is continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), which involves a tiny sensor being inserted under the skin. The sensor tests glucose every few minutes, and a transmitter wirelessly sends the information to a monitor, which may be part of an insulin pump or a separate device. Some CGMs send information directly to a smartphone or tablet, according to the National Institutes of Health.

In 1999 the Food and Drug Administration approved the first CGM, which was only approved for downloading 3 days of data at a doctor’s office. Interestingly, the first real-time CGM device for patients to use on their own was a watch, the Glucowatch Biographer. Because of irritation and other issues, that watch never caught on. In 2006 and 2008, Dexcom and then Abbott released the first real-time CGMs that allowed patients to frequently check their own blood sugars.^1,2
 

How CGM has advanced diabetes management

The advent of CGM has advanced the field of diabetes management in many ways.

It has allowed patients to get real time feedback on how their behavior affects their blood sugar. The use of CGM along with the ensuing behavioral changes actually leads to a decrease in hemoglobin A1c, along with a lower risk of hypoglycemia. CGM has also resulted in patients having a better understanding of several aspects of glucose control, including glucose variability and nocturnal hypoglycemia.

Affordable, readily accessible CGM monitors that allow patients to intermittently use CGM have become available over the last 3 years.

In the United States alone, 34.2 million people have diabetes – nearly 1 in every 10 people. Many do not do self-monitoring of blood glucose and most do not use CGM. The current alternative to CGM – self monitoring of blood glucose – is cumbersome, and, since it requires regular finger sticks, is painful. Also, there is significant cost to each test strip that is used to self-monitor, and most insurance limits the number of times a day a patient can check their blood sugar. CGM used to be reserved only for patients who use multiple doses of insulin daily, and only began being approved for use for patients on basal insulin alone in June 2021.³

Most primary care doctors are just beginning to learn how to interpret CGM data.
 

Smart watch glucose monitoring predictions

When smart watch glucose monitoring arrives, it will suddenly change the playing field for patients with diabetes and their doctors alike.

We expect it to bring down the price of CGM and make it readily available to any patient who owns a smart watch with that function.

For doctors, the new technology will result in them suddenly being asked to advise their patients on how to use the data generated by watch-based CGM.

Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, and associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington (Pa.) Hospital–Jefferson Health. They have no conflicts related to the content of this piece. Dr. Persampiere is a second-year resident in the family medicine residency program at Abington Jefferson Health. You can contact them at fpnews@mdedge.com.

References

1. Hirsh I. Introduction: History of Glucose Monitoring, in “Role of Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Diabetes Treatment.” American Diabetes Association. 2018.

2. Peters A. The Evidence Base for Continuous Glucose Monitoring, in “Role of Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Diabetes Treatment.” American Diabetes Association 2018.

3. “Medicare Loosening Restrictions for Continuous Glucose Monitor (CGM) Coverage,” Healthline. 2021 Jul 13.

Watch-based monitoring of blood glucose is clearly in the works, and, in the near future, we expect it to change the way we manage diabetes.

Earlier this year, technology news sites reported that the Apple Watch Series 7 and the Samsung Galaxy Watch 4 were going to have integrated optical sensors for checking interstitial fluid glucose levels with no blood sampling needed. By the summer, new articles indicated that the glucose sensing watches would not be released this year for either Apple or Samsung.

For now, the newest technology available for monitoring glucose is continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), which involves a tiny sensor being inserted under the skin. The sensor tests glucose every few minutes, and a transmitter wirelessly sends the information to a monitor, which may be part of an insulin pump or a separate device. Some CGMs send information directly to a smartphone or tablet, according to the National Institutes of Health.

In 1999 the Food and Drug Administration approved the first CGM, which was only approved for downloading 3 days of data at a doctor’s office. Interestingly, the first real-time CGM device for patients to use on their own was a watch, the Glucowatch Biographer. Because of irritation and other issues, that watch never caught on. In 2006 and 2008, Dexcom and then Abbott released the first real-time CGMs that allowed patients to frequently check their own blood sugars.^1,2
 

How CGM has advanced diabetes management

The advent of CGM has advanced the field of diabetes management in many ways.

It has allowed patients to get real time feedback on how their behavior affects their blood sugar. The use of CGM along with the ensuing behavioral changes actually leads to a decrease in hemoglobin A1c, along with a lower risk of hypoglycemia. CGM has also resulted in patients having a better understanding of several aspects of glucose control, including glucose variability and nocturnal hypoglycemia.

Affordable, readily accessible CGM monitors that allow patients to intermittently use CGM have become available over the last 3 years.

In the United States alone, 34.2 million people have diabetes – nearly 1 in every 10 people. Many do not do self-monitoring of blood glucose and most do not use CGM. The current alternative to CGM – self monitoring of blood glucose – is cumbersome, and, since it requires regular finger sticks, is painful. Also, there is significant cost to each test strip that is used to self-monitor, and most insurance limits the number of times a day a patient can check their blood sugar. CGM used to be reserved only for patients who use multiple doses of insulin daily, and only began being approved for use for patients on basal insulin alone in June 2021.³

Most primary care doctors are just beginning to learn how to interpret CGM data.
 

Smart watch glucose monitoring predictions

When smart watch glucose monitoring arrives, it will suddenly change the playing field for patients with diabetes and their doctors alike.

We expect it to bring down the price of CGM and make it readily available to any patient who owns a smart watch with that function.

For doctors, the new technology will result in them suddenly being asked to advise their patients on how to use the data generated by watch-based CGM.

Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, and associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington (Pa.) Hospital–Jefferson Health. They have no conflicts related to the content of this piece. Dr. Persampiere is a second-year resident in the family medicine residency program at Abington Jefferson Health. You can contact them at fpnews@mdedge.com.

References

1. Hirsh I. Introduction: History of Glucose Monitoring, in “Role of Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Diabetes Treatment.” American Diabetes Association. 2018.

2. Peters A. The Evidence Base for Continuous Glucose Monitoring, in “Role of Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Diabetes Treatment.” American Diabetes Association 2018.

3. “Medicare Loosening Restrictions for Continuous Glucose Monitor (CGM) Coverage,” Healthline. 2021 Jul 13.

Watch-based monitoring of blood glucose is clearly in the works, and, in the near future, we expect it to change the way we manage diabetes.

Earlier this year, technology news sites reported that the Apple Watch Series 7 and the Samsung Galaxy Watch 4 were going to have integrated optical sensors for checking interstitial fluid glucose levels with no blood sampling needed. By the summer, new articles indicated that the glucose sensing watches would not be released this year for either Apple or Samsung.

For now, the newest technology available for monitoring glucose is continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), which involves a tiny sensor being inserted under the skin. The sensor tests glucose every few minutes, and a transmitter wirelessly sends the information to a monitor, which may be part of an insulin pump or a separate device. Some CGMs send information directly to a smartphone or tablet, according to the National Institutes of Health.

In 1999 the Food and Drug Administration approved the first CGM, which was only approved for downloading 3 days of data at a doctor’s office. Interestingly, the first real-time CGM device for patients to use on their own was a watch, the Glucowatch Biographer. Because of irritation and other issues, that watch never caught on. In 2006 and 2008, Dexcom and then Abbott released the first real-time CGMs that allowed patients to frequently check their own blood sugars.^1,2
 

How CGM has advanced diabetes management

The advent of CGM has advanced the field of diabetes management in many ways.

It has allowed patients to get real time feedback on how their behavior affects their blood sugar. The use of CGM along with the ensuing behavioral changes actually leads to a decrease in hemoglobin A1c, along with a lower risk of hypoglycemia. CGM has also resulted in patients having a better understanding of several aspects of glucose control, including glucose variability and nocturnal hypoglycemia.

Affordable, readily accessible CGM monitors that allow patients to intermittently use CGM have become available over the last 3 years.

In the United States alone, 34.2 million people have diabetes – nearly 1 in every 10 people. Many do not do self-monitoring of blood glucose and most do not use CGM. The current alternative to CGM – self monitoring of blood glucose – is cumbersome, and, since it requires regular finger sticks, is painful. Also, there is significant cost to each test strip that is used to self-monitor, and most insurance limits the number of times a day a patient can check their blood sugar. CGM used to be reserved only for patients who use multiple doses of insulin daily, and only began being approved for use for patients on basal insulin alone in June 2021.³

Most primary care doctors are just beginning to learn how to interpret CGM data.
 

Smart watch glucose monitoring predictions

When smart watch glucose monitoring arrives, it will suddenly change the playing field for patients with diabetes and their doctors alike.

We expect it to bring down the price of CGM and make it readily available to any patient who owns a smart watch with that function.

For doctors, the new technology will result in them suddenly being asked to advise their patients on how to use the data generated by watch-based CGM.

Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, and associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington (Pa.) Hospital–Jefferson Health. They have no conflicts related to the content of this piece. Dr. Persampiere is a second-year resident in the family medicine residency program at Abington Jefferson Health. You can contact them at fpnews@mdedge.com.

References

1. Hirsh I. Introduction: History of Glucose Monitoring, in “Role of Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Diabetes Treatment.” American Diabetes Association. 2018.

2. Peters A. The Evidence Base for Continuous Glucose Monitoring, in “Role of Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Diabetes Treatment.” American Diabetes Association 2018.

3. “Medicare Loosening Restrictions for Continuous Glucose Monitor (CGM) Coverage,” Healthline. 2021 Jul 13.

Teens are identifying as transgender in record numbers. In 2017, 3-4 in 100 teens in the United States reported that they are or may be transgender. A more recent 2021 study suggests that the rate of transgender identification among America’s youth may be as high as 9 in 100. All of the major gender centers in the world have reported a several-thousand-percent increase in youth presenting with gender distress.

Origovisualis/Getty Images

How do we reconcile these numbers with 2013 data reporting the prevalence of adult gender dysphoria to be a rare 2-14 in 100,000? Reflection is warranted because many U.S. medical societies support providing youth who have transgender identification (over 1 million children and adolescents, using the latest estimates) with access to powerful endocrine interventions.

GnRH analogues (colloquially known as “puberty blockers”) are now available at Tanner stage 2 of puberty – a threshold crossed by females as young as 8-9 years old. Cross-sex hormones and surgeries follow, and mastectomies are now available to children as young as 13. Genital-altering surgeries, as well as the removal of the ovaries, uterus, and testes, can be obtained as soon as a patient turns 18.

What’s driving this massive increase in trans-identified youth? What are the risks, benefits, and uncertainties associated with hormonal and surgical interventions? Do such interventions improve the long-term psychological health of gender-dysphoric youth? How many will regret the irreversible changes made to their bodies during what may have been a temporary phase in their development?

We don’t know the answers to these questions, but we need to figure them out before offering such interventions. Frontline clinicians – especially those working with youth – will not be able to remain on the sidelines of this issue for much longer. Each clinician considering writing a prescription for puberty blockers or cross-sex hormones, or generating a referral for surgery, will need to answer for themselves: Just because I can, does it mean I should?

What’s contributing to the rapid rise of gender-dysphoric youth?

The etiology of the rapid rise of transgender identifications in young people is vigorously debated. Proponents of hormonal and surgical interventions for youth argue that the several-thousand-percent increase in the numbers of youth seeking gender reassignment is a reflection of more social acceptance of transgender identities, allowing more young people to “come out.” But closer examination of this claim reveals several inconsistencies.

Because adolescent and young adult females now account for 6-8 in 10 of the presenting cases (previously, prepubertal males were more common), one would expect a commensurate increase in the rate of transgender identification in older females. This has not occurred. In addition, more than three-quarters of currently presenting cases have significant mental health problems or suffer from neurocognitive comorbidities such as autism spectrum disorder or attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder – a much higher burden of mental health comorbidities than the historical cohort with gender dysphoria.

There is legitimate concern that these comorbid mental health conditions, as well as the influence of social groups and online immersion into transgender topics, may be playing a role in the rapidly growing rate of transgender identification among these particularly vulnerable youth.

The initial study positing the theory that social influence is playing a role in the increased incidence of “late” or adolescent-onset (vs. childhood-onset) transgender-identified youth was harshly attacked by proponents of medical transitioning of youth, despite the fact that the study utilized methods similar to those used in other areas of health research. The study underwent an unprecedented second peer review and emerged with largely unchanged conclusions.

Since the study’s publication, a number of mental health clinicians working directly with gender-distressed youth have corroborated a rapid onset of transgender identification among teens with previously gender-normative childhoods.

Pioneers in gender dysphoria treatment are changing course

Several European countries that were pioneers in pediatric medical transition are now reversing course toward far more caution after their own evidence evaluations failed to show that medically transitioning gender-distressed youth improves mental health outcomes. In Sweden, following Karolinska Hospital’s announcement that it will no longer transition people under 18 outside of strictly regulated clinical trials, a number of other pediatric gender clinics followed suit and made the same decision.

In the United Kingdom, Keira Bell – a young woman who was treated with “affirmative” hormonal and surgical interventions before detransitioning – brought a challenge against the national gender clinic. Her landmark case and the UK High Court’s original judgement against the clinic have highlighted the urgency to reassess treatment approaches for the increasingly varied presentations of gender dysphoria in young people. As this article went to press, the UK’s national gender clinic won its appeal against Keira Bell, meaning that doctors there will once again be able to decide whether their patients under 16 can properly consent to puberty blockers. Keira Bell said she is disappointed with this decision and will be seeking permission to appeal to the Supreme Court. She said the medical service had become “politicized,” and added: “A global conversation has begun and has been shaped by this case. It has shone a light into the dark corners of a medical scandal that is harming children and harmed me. There is more to be done.”

And the UK National Health Service (NHS) has already commissioned an independent systematic review of data, which concluded that the evidence of benefit of hormonal interventions in gender dysphoric youth is of very low certainty and must be carefully weighed against the risks. An independent taskforce has also been convened to reassess the country’s approach to treating gender dysphoric youth.

Finland has arguably undertaken the biggest change of all. An early adopter of pediatric medical transition, researchers there noticed that adolescents who had mental health struggles at baseline failed to improve after transition. The Finnish national Gender Identity Development services issued new treatment guidelines in 2020 stating that psychotherapy, rather than gender reassignment, should be the first line of treatment for gender-dysphoric youth.

Leaders of America’s medical societies have been slower to respond. Recently, the Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine applied to share information about youth gender transitions at the yearly meeting of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP). The application was denied without explanation, despite the fact that 80% of rank-and-file pediatricians who voted on AAP resolutions days earlier endorsed a resolution calling for a reassessment of the evidence and more caution regarding gender transitions of minors.

The AAP leadership apparently ignored the resounding support for this resolution, but the clear message from that vote is that frontline pediatricians do not agree with the “one size fits all” approach of automatically affirming gender-distressed youth as transgender and proceeding to gender reassignment.

What we know and don’t know


There is now growing evidence that the “gender-affirming” model, based on the unproven assumption that gender reassignment is the best way to help gender-distressed youth, is not living up to its promise. This should not be surprising. Despite more than 50 years of experience with mature adult gender transitions, there is a lack of convincing evidence that transitions improve the psychological functioning of those with gender dysphoria, and studies on regret have been plagued by high dropout rates that prevent meaningful conclusions for practitioners and patients alike. Pediatric transitions are a much more recent phenomenon, with little to no quality data to guide decision-making.

We are witnessing a growing number of vocal regretters who underwent gender reassignment as teens and young adults under “gender-affirming” care protocols in recent years. A review of stories on the subreddit r/detrans, which counts over 20,000 members (not all are detransitioners, as the forum is open to those fully detransitioned, partially detransitioned, desisted [those who identified as transgender for a period of time in their youth but no longer do], and questioning their transition) is flush with first-hand accounts of regret and should be mandatory reading for any clinician who is considering becoming a prescriber of gender-affirmative care.  

Here is a brief outline of what we know – and more importantly, what we don’t know – about the practice of medically transitioning minors.

Most cases of early childhood-onset gender dysphoria self-resolve. Eleven out of 11 studies that followed the trajectory of gender-variant youth show that the most common outcome is natural resolution of gender dysphoria around or after puberty. Among those diagnosed as having gender identity disorder, 67% no longer met the diagnostic criteria as adults; among those subthreshold for diagnosis, 93% were not gender dysphoric as adults. Gender dysphoria in childhood is a far better predictor of future homosexuality than of future trans identity.

The future trajectory of people whose transgender identity emerged during or after puberty is entirely unknown. No one has studied future trajectories of patients whose transgender identity emerged for the first time after the onset of puberty – a previously rare but now increasingly common presentation. Growing numbers of young detransitioners and desisters are precisely from this demographic, suggesting that a transgender identity that emerges in adolescence may not be durable.

Social transition does not improve mental health outcomes. Recent studies show that while socially transitioned children can thrive in the short term, they do not fare any better than their non–socially transitioned dysphoric peers. It appears that peer relations, not the social transition status, predict mental health in gender-dysphoric children. We don’t yet know the long-term trajectories of socially transitioned minors, but emerging evidence suggests that they may be more likely to persist with gender-related distress rather than outgrow it, as previously observed. This in turn necessitates decades of invasive and risky medical interventions. In fact, the Dutch researchers who pioneered the protocol used to medically transition minors explicitly and strongly discouraged social transition of children and early adolescents.

Nearly 100% of children who begin puberty blockers will proceed to cross-sex hormones and surgeries. The two main studies that have evaluated the effects of puberty blockers on mental health found no improvements or improvements of marginal clinical significance. Both studies are also at critical risk of bias due to the absence of control groups.

Four additional studies looking at the mental health effects of puberty blockers were plagued by design limitations and also failed to show any convincing positive effects on psychological health. However, one effect of puberty blockers has been consistently replicated: At least four studies show that virtually all of the children who start puberty blockers proceed to cross-sex hormones. This suggests that rather than being a pause button, puberty blockers may serve as the “gas pedal” for gender transition.

Most of the long-term health risks are largely unknown. No long-term studies exist of patients who underwent medical transition as teens or young adults. Therefore, our ability to assess risks vs. benefits is limited. Puberty blockers have been demonstrated to significantly impair bone health, and it is not clear whether this will result in future osteoporosis. Cross-sex hormones are associated with roughly 3-5 times the risk for heart attacks and strokes, though long-term studies are of insufficient quality for accurate risk assessments. Other risks associated with these endocrine interventions will come to light as the practice continues to scale and as young people spend years and decades on these interventions. The risks to fertility are largely unknown, but it is almost certain that if puberty blockers are given at the early stages of puberty and followed by cross-sex hormones, sterility will result.

The medical pathway of “affirmative care” rests on a single Dutch study that is not applicable to the current populations of gender-dysphoric youth. Most of the youth presenting for care today would have been explicitly disqualified by the original Dutch protocol, as most have significant mental health comorbidities and post-puberty onset of trans identities. This fact has been recognized by the principal investigators of the Dutch protocol itself, who have recently begun to sound the alarm about the potential misapplication of their protocol and who suggest that psychotherapy – rather than gender reassignment – is more appropriate for many of the currently presenting cases.

On suicidality

The urgency to put gender-dysphoric youth through gender reassignment despite the dearth of evidence appears to stem from the notion that if we don’t intervene medically and in short order, these youth will commit suicide. However, studies using quality data reveal a markedly different reality.

While gender-dysphoric youth do have elevated rates of suicidality, it’s not uniquely high. In fact, it’s roughly similar to the rate of suicidality found in populations of youth referred for other mental health conditions. Quality long-term studies that explored whether transition leads to reduced suicidality have not been able to demonstrate a reduction.

Medicine has a pattern of enthusiastically embracing unproven medical interventions, only to find out years or decades later that the harms from those interventions outweigh the benefits. We owe it to our patients to be transparent about the limits of our knowledge and the fact that the “affirmative care” pathway is largely irreversible.

When the benefits of an intervention have not been shown to outweigh the risks, medical ethics dictate that such interventions should not occur outside of clinical trials. We must not conflate medical care for gender-dysphoric youth with experimental and risky interventions that are based on low-quality evidence. It’s time to hit pause on gender transitions for youth.

A brief history of the Dutch protocol

Before the mid-1990s, medical transition was primarily reserved for mature adults. However, noting the “never-disappearing masculine appearance” of many adult male transitioners, a team of Dutch researchers hypothesized that it might be appropriate to provide early intervention to a carefully selected group of adolescents before the irreversible physical changes of puberty occur.

To differentiate the majority of gender-dysphoric children who would outgrow their cross-sex identification by adulthood from the few who would probably not have resolution and would wish to transition later in life, the Dutch gender clinic designed a rigorous screening protocol, with multidisciplinary teams closely following prospective candidates for several years.

To qualify for early intervention, the adolescents had to have had persistent and severe cross-sex identification from early childhood (cases of adolescent-onset trans identity were disqualified); the distress had to worsen during puberty; and the adolescents had to be free from any other significant mental health conditions. For qualifying adolescents, puberty blockers were initiated no earlier than 12 years of age, cross-sex hormones at 16, and surgeries upon turning 18. Ongoing psychotherapy was provided through the entire assessment and intervention period.

The Dutch team published the final results of their research in 2014. The authors reported that at the average age of 21 (approximately 1.5 years post surgery), the young people were free from gender dysphoria and functioning well. Despite a postsurgical death from infection, several new diagnoses of metabolic illness, and multiple dropouts, the Western world enthusiastically embraced the early-intervention model. Concerningly, the only attempt to replicate the Dutch protocol outside of the Netherlands failed to show any psychological improvements, and to date, no long-term outcome data are available for the cohort of the 55 treated Dutch adolescents.

These progressively irreversible interventions form the basis of the “Dutch Protocol.” Currently, this protocol is being scaled in ways it was never designed for. For example, it strongly discouraged childhood social transition and did not transition adolescents with postpubertal onset of transgender identity or those with significant mental health comorbidities. Yet, treating such cases with the interventions outlined in the Dutch protocol is now common, and the age of eligibility for hormonal and surgical interventions has progressively lowered, with children as young as 8 now eligible to begin puberty blockers.

William Malone, MD, is an assistant professor of endocrinology practicing in Southern Idaho and an adviser to the Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Teens are identifying as transgender in record numbers. In 2017, 3-4 in 100 teens in the United States reported that they are or may be transgender. A more recent 2021 study suggests that the rate of transgender identification among America’s youth may be as high as 9 in 100. All of the major gender centers in the world have reported a several-thousand-percent increase in youth presenting with gender distress.

Origovisualis/Getty Images

How do we reconcile these numbers with 2013 data reporting the prevalence of adult gender dysphoria to be a rare 2-14 in 100,000? Reflection is warranted because many U.S. medical societies support providing youth who have transgender identification (over 1 million children and adolescents, using the latest estimates) with access to powerful endocrine interventions.

GnRH analogues (colloquially known as “puberty blockers”) are now available at Tanner stage 2 of puberty – a threshold crossed by females as young as 8-9 years old. Cross-sex hormones and surgeries follow, and mastectomies are now available to children as young as 13. Genital-altering surgeries, as well as the removal of the ovaries, uterus, and testes, can be obtained as soon as a patient turns 18.

What’s driving this massive increase in trans-identified youth? What are the risks, benefits, and uncertainties associated with hormonal and surgical interventions? Do such interventions improve the long-term psychological health of gender-dysphoric youth? How many will regret the irreversible changes made to their bodies during what may have been a temporary phase in their development?

We don’t know the answers to these questions, but we need to figure them out before offering such interventions. Frontline clinicians – especially those working with youth – will not be able to remain on the sidelines of this issue for much longer. Each clinician considering writing a prescription for puberty blockers or cross-sex hormones, or generating a referral for surgery, will need to answer for themselves: Just because I can, does it mean I should?

What’s contributing to the rapid rise of gender-dysphoric youth?

The etiology of the rapid rise of transgender identifications in young people is vigorously debated. Proponents of hormonal and surgical interventions for youth argue that the several-thousand-percent increase in the numbers of youth seeking gender reassignment is a reflection of more social acceptance of transgender identities, allowing more young people to “come out.” But closer examination of this claim reveals several inconsistencies.

Because adolescent and young adult females now account for 6-8 in 10 of the presenting cases (previously, prepubertal males were more common), one would expect a commensurate increase in the rate of transgender identification in older females. This has not occurred. In addition, more than three-quarters of currently presenting cases have significant mental health problems or suffer from neurocognitive comorbidities such as autism spectrum disorder or attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder – a much higher burden of mental health comorbidities than the historical cohort with gender dysphoria.

There is legitimate concern that these comorbid mental health conditions, as well as the influence of social groups and online immersion into transgender topics, may be playing a role in the rapidly growing rate of transgender identification among these particularly vulnerable youth.

The initial study positing the theory that social influence is playing a role in the increased incidence of “late” or adolescent-onset (vs. childhood-onset) transgender-identified youth was harshly attacked by proponents of medical transitioning of youth, despite the fact that the study utilized methods similar to those used in other areas of health research. The study underwent an unprecedented second peer review and emerged with largely unchanged conclusions.

Since the study’s publication, a number of mental health clinicians working directly with gender-distressed youth have corroborated a rapid onset of transgender identification among teens with previously gender-normative childhoods.

Pioneers in gender dysphoria treatment are changing course

Several European countries that were pioneers in pediatric medical transition are now reversing course toward far more caution after their own evidence evaluations failed to show that medically transitioning gender-distressed youth improves mental health outcomes. In Sweden, following Karolinska Hospital’s announcement that it will no longer transition people under 18 outside of strictly regulated clinical trials, a number of other pediatric gender clinics followed suit and made the same decision.

In the United Kingdom, Keira Bell – a young woman who was treated with “affirmative” hormonal and surgical interventions before detransitioning – brought a challenge against the national gender clinic. Her landmark case and the UK High Court’s original judgement against the clinic have highlighted the urgency to reassess treatment approaches for the increasingly varied presentations of gender dysphoria in young people. As this article went to press, the UK’s national gender clinic won its appeal against Keira Bell, meaning that doctors there will once again be able to decide whether their patients under 16 can properly consent to puberty blockers. Keira Bell said she is disappointed with this decision and will be seeking permission to appeal to the Supreme Court. She said the medical service had become “politicized,” and added: “A global conversation has begun and has been shaped by this case. It has shone a light into the dark corners of a medical scandal that is harming children and harmed me. There is more to be done.”

And the UK National Health Service (NHS) has already commissioned an independent systematic review of data, which concluded that the evidence of benefit of hormonal interventions in gender dysphoric youth is of very low certainty and must be carefully weighed against the risks. An independent taskforce has also been convened to reassess the country’s approach to treating gender dysphoric youth.

Finland has arguably undertaken the biggest change of all. An early adopter of pediatric medical transition, researchers there noticed that adolescents who had mental health struggles at baseline failed to improve after transition. The Finnish national Gender Identity Development services issued new treatment guidelines in 2020 stating that psychotherapy, rather than gender reassignment, should be the first line of treatment for gender-dysphoric youth.

Leaders of America’s medical societies have been slower to respond. Recently, the Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine applied to share information about youth gender transitions at the yearly meeting of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP). The application was denied without explanation, despite the fact that 80% of rank-and-file pediatricians who voted on AAP resolutions days earlier endorsed a resolution calling for a reassessment of the evidence and more caution regarding gender transitions of minors.

The AAP leadership apparently ignored the resounding support for this resolution, but the clear message from that vote is that frontline pediatricians do not agree with the “one size fits all” approach of automatically affirming gender-distressed youth as transgender and proceeding to gender reassignment.

What we know and don’t know


There is now growing evidence that the “gender-affirming” model, based on the unproven assumption that gender reassignment is the best way to help gender-distressed youth, is not living up to its promise. This should not be surprising. Despite more than 50 years of experience with mature adult gender transitions, there is a lack of convincing evidence that transitions improve the psychological functioning of those with gender dysphoria, and studies on regret have been plagued by high dropout rates that prevent meaningful conclusions for practitioners and patients alike. Pediatric transitions are a much more recent phenomenon, with little to no quality data to guide decision-making.

We are witnessing a growing number of vocal regretters who underwent gender reassignment as teens and young adults under “gender-affirming” care protocols in recent years. A review of stories on the subreddit r/detrans, which counts over 20,000 members (not all are detransitioners, as the forum is open to those fully detransitioned, partially detransitioned, desisted [those who identified as transgender for a period of time in their youth but no longer do], and questioning their transition) is flush with first-hand accounts of regret and should be mandatory reading for any clinician who is considering becoming a prescriber of gender-affirmative care.  

Here is a brief outline of what we know – and more importantly, what we don’t know – about the practice of medically transitioning minors.

Most cases of early childhood-onset gender dysphoria self-resolve. Eleven out of 11 studies that followed the trajectory of gender-variant youth show that the most common outcome is natural resolution of gender dysphoria around or after puberty. Among those diagnosed as having gender identity disorder, 67% no longer met the diagnostic criteria as adults; among those subthreshold for diagnosis, 93% were not gender dysphoric as adults. Gender dysphoria in childhood is a far better predictor of future homosexuality than of future trans identity.

The future trajectory of people whose transgender identity emerged during or after puberty is entirely unknown. No one has studied future trajectories of patients whose transgender identity emerged for the first time after the onset of puberty – a previously rare but now increasingly common presentation. Growing numbers of young detransitioners and desisters are precisely from this demographic, suggesting that a transgender identity that emerges in adolescence may not be durable.

Social transition does not improve mental health outcomes. Recent studies show that while socially transitioned children can thrive in the short term, they do not fare any better than their non–socially transitioned dysphoric peers. It appears that peer relations, not the social transition status, predict mental health in gender-dysphoric children. We don’t yet know the long-term trajectories of socially transitioned minors, but emerging evidence suggests that they may be more likely to persist with gender-related distress rather than outgrow it, as previously observed. This in turn necessitates decades of invasive and risky medical interventions. In fact, the Dutch researchers who pioneered the protocol used to medically transition minors explicitly and strongly discouraged social transition of children and early adolescents.

Nearly 100% of children who begin puberty blockers will proceed to cross-sex hormones and surgeries. The two main studies that have evaluated the effects of puberty blockers on mental health found no improvements or improvements of marginal clinical significance. Both studies are also at critical risk of bias due to the absence of control groups.

Four additional studies looking at the mental health effects of puberty blockers were plagued by design limitations and also failed to show any convincing positive effects on psychological health. However, one effect of puberty blockers has been consistently replicated: At least four studies show that virtually all of the children who start puberty blockers proceed to cross-sex hormones. This suggests that rather than being a pause button, puberty blockers may serve as the “gas pedal” for gender transition.

Most of the long-term health risks are largely unknown. No long-term studies exist of patients who underwent medical transition as teens or young adults. Therefore, our ability to assess risks vs. benefits is limited. Puberty blockers have been demonstrated to significantly impair bone health, and it is not clear whether this will result in future osteoporosis. Cross-sex hormones are associated with roughly 3-5 times the risk for heart attacks and strokes, though long-term studies are of insufficient quality for accurate risk assessments. Other risks associated with these endocrine interventions will come to light as the practice continues to scale and as young people spend years and decades on these interventions. The risks to fertility are largely unknown, but it is almost certain that if puberty blockers are given at the early stages of puberty and followed by cross-sex hormones, sterility will result.

The medical pathway of “affirmative care” rests on a single Dutch study that is not applicable to the current populations of gender-dysphoric youth. Most of the youth presenting for care today would have been explicitly disqualified by the original Dutch protocol, as most have significant mental health comorbidities and post-puberty onset of trans identities. This fact has been recognized by the principal investigators of the Dutch protocol itself, who have recently begun to sound the alarm about the potential misapplication of their protocol and who suggest that psychotherapy – rather than gender reassignment – is more appropriate for many of the currently presenting cases.

On suicidality

The urgency to put gender-dysphoric youth through gender reassignment despite the dearth of evidence appears to stem from the notion that if we don’t intervene medically and in short order, these youth will commit suicide. However, studies using quality data reveal a markedly different reality.

While gender-dysphoric youth do have elevated rates of suicidality, it’s not uniquely high. In fact, it’s roughly similar to the rate of suicidality found in populations of youth referred for other mental health conditions. Quality long-term studies that explored whether transition leads to reduced suicidality have not been able to demonstrate a reduction.

Medicine has a pattern of enthusiastically embracing unproven medical interventions, only to find out years or decades later that the harms from those interventions outweigh the benefits. We owe it to our patients to be transparent about the limits of our knowledge and the fact that the “affirmative care” pathway is largely irreversible.

When the benefits of an intervention have not been shown to outweigh the risks, medical ethics dictate that such interventions should not occur outside of clinical trials. We must not conflate medical care for gender-dysphoric youth with experimental and risky interventions that are based on low-quality evidence. It’s time to hit pause on gender transitions for youth.

A brief history of the Dutch protocol

Before the mid-1990s, medical transition was primarily reserved for mature adults. However, noting the “never-disappearing masculine appearance” of many adult male transitioners, a team of Dutch researchers hypothesized that it might be appropriate to provide early intervention to a carefully selected group of adolescents before the irreversible physical changes of puberty occur.

To differentiate the majority of gender-dysphoric children who would outgrow their cross-sex identification by adulthood from the few who would probably not have resolution and would wish to transition later in life, the Dutch gender clinic designed a rigorous screening protocol, with multidisciplinary teams closely following prospective candidates for several years.

To qualify for early intervention, the adolescents had to have had persistent and severe cross-sex identification from early childhood (cases of adolescent-onset trans identity were disqualified); the distress had to worsen during puberty; and the adolescents had to be free from any other significant mental health conditions. For qualifying adolescents, puberty blockers were initiated no earlier than 12 years of age, cross-sex hormones at 16, and surgeries upon turning 18. Ongoing psychotherapy was provided through the entire assessment and intervention period.

The Dutch team published the final results of their research in 2014. The authors reported that at the average age of 21 (approximately 1.5 years post surgery), the young people were free from gender dysphoria and functioning well. Despite a postsurgical death from infection, several new diagnoses of metabolic illness, and multiple dropouts, the Western world enthusiastically embraced the early-intervention model. Concerningly, the only attempt to replicate the Dutch protocol outside of the Netherlands failed to show any psychological improvements, and to date, no long-term outcome data are available for the cohort of the 55 treated Dutch adolescents.

These progressively irreversible interventions form the basis of the “Dutch Protocol.” Currently, this protocol is being scaled in ways it was never designed for. For example, it strongly discouraged childhood social transition and did not transition adolescents with postpubertal onset of transgender identity or those with significant mental health comorbidities. Yet, treating such cases with the interventions outlined in the Dutch protocol is now common, and the age of eligibility for hormonal and surgical interventions has progressively lowered, with children as young as 8 now eligible to begin puberty blockers.

William Malone, MD, is an assistant professor of endocrinology practicing in Southern Idaho and an adviser to the Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Teens are identifying as transgender in record numbers. In 2017, 3-4 in 100 teens in the United States reported that they are or may be transgender. A more recent 2021 study suggests that the rate of transgender identification among America’s youth may be as high as 9 in 100. All of the major gender centers in the world have reported a several-thousand-percent increase in youth presenting with gender distress.

Origovisualis/Getty Images

How do we reconcile these numbers with 2013 data reporting the prevalence of adult gender dysphoria to be a rare 2-14 in 100,000? Reflection is warranted because many U.S. medical societies support providing youth who have transgender identification (over 1 million children and adolescents, using the latest estimates) with access to powerful endocrine interventions.

GnRH analogues (colloquially known as “puberty blockers”) are now available at Tanner stage 2 of puberty – a threshold crossed by females as young as 8-9 years old. Cross-sex hormones and surgeries follow, and mastectomies are now available to children as young as 13. Genital-altering surgeries, as well as the removal of the ovaries, uterus, and testes, can be obtained as soon as a patient turns 18.

What’s driving this massive increase in trans-identified youth? What are the risks, benefits, and uncertainties associated with hormonal and surgical interventions? Do such interventions improve the long-term psychological health of gender-dysphoric youth? How many will regret the irreversible changes made to their bodies during what may have been a temporary phase in their development?

We don’t know the answers to these questions, but we need to figure them out before offering such interventions. Frontline clinicians – especially those working with youth – will not be able to remain on the sidelines of this issue for much longer. Each clinician considering writing a prescription for puberty blockers or cross-sex hormones, or generating a referral for surgery, will need to answer for themselves: Just because I can, does it mean I should?

What’s contributing to the rapid rise of gender-dysphoric youth?

The etiology of the rapid rise of transgender identifications in young people is vigorously debated. Proponents of hormonal and surgical interventions for youth argue that the several-thousand-percent increase in the numbers of youth seeking gender reassignment is a reflection of more social acceptance of transgender identities, allowing more young people to “come out.” But closer examination of this claim reveals several inconsistencies.

Because adolescent and young adult females now account for 6-8 in 10 of the presenting cases (previously, prepubertal males were more common), one would expect a commensurate increase in the rate of transgender identification in older females. This has not occurred. In addition, more than three-quarters of currently presenting cases have significant mental health problems or suffer from neurocognitive comorbidities such as autism spectrum disorder or attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder – a much higher burden of mental health comorbidities than the historical cohort with gender dysphoria.

There is legitimate concern that these comorbid mental health conditions, as well as the influence of social groups and online immersion into transgender topics, may be playing a role in the rapidly growing rate of transgender identification among these particularly vulnerable youth.

The initial study positing the theory that social influence is playing a role in the increased incidence of “late” or adolescent-onset (vs. childhood-onset) transgender-identified youth was harshly attacked by proponents of medical transitioning of youth, despite the fact that the study utilized methods similar to those used in other areas of health research. The study underwent an unprecedented second peer review and emerged with largely unchanged conclusions.

Since the study’s publication, a number of mental health clinicians working directly with gender-distressed youth have corroborated a rapid onset of transgender identification among teens with previously gender-normative childhoods.

Pioneers in gender dysphoria treatment are changing course

Several European countries that were pioneers in pediatric medical transition are now reversing course toward far more caution after their own evidence evaluations failed to show that medically transitioning gender-distressed youth improves mental health outcomes. In Sweden, following Karolinska Hospital’s announcement that it will no longer transition people under 18 outside of strictly regulated clinical trials, a number of other pediatric gender clinics followed suit and made the same decision.

In the United Kingdom, Keira Bell – a young woman who was treated with “affirmative” hormonal and surgical interventions before detransitioning – brought a challenge against the national gender clinic. Her landmark case and the UK High Court’s original judgement against the clinic have highlighted the urgency to reassess treatment approaches for the increasingly varied presentations of gender dysphoria in young people. As this article went to press, the UK’s national gender clinic won its appeal against Keira Bell, meaning that doctors there will once again be able to decide whether their patients under 16 can properly consent to puberty blockers. Keira Bell said she is disappointed with this decision and will be seeking permission to appeal to the Supreme Court. She said the medical service had become “politicized,” and added: “A global conversation has begun and has been shaped by this case. It has shone a light into the dark corners of a medical scandal that is harming children and harmed me. There is more to be done.”

And the UK National Health Service (NHS) has already commissioned an independent systematic review of data, which concluded that the evidence of benefit of hormonal interventions in gender dysphoric youth is of very low certainty and must be carefully weighed against the risks. An independent taskforce has also been convened to reassess the country’s approach to treating gender dysphoric youth.

Finland has arguably undertaken the biggest change of all. An early adopter of pediatric medical transition, researchers there noticed that adolescents who had mental health struggles at baseline failed to improve after transition. The Finnish national Gender Identity Development services issued new treatment guidelines in 2020 stating that psychotherapy, rather than gender reassignment, should be the first line of treatment for gender-dysphoric youth.

Leaders of America’s medical societies have been slower to respond. Recently, the Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine applied to share information about youth gender transitions at the yearly meeting of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP). The application was denied without explanation, despite the fact that 80% of rank-and-file pediatricians who voted on AAP resolutions days earlier endorsed a resolution calling for a reassessment of the evidence and more caution regarding gender transitions of minors.

The AAP leadership apparently ignored the resounding support for this resolution, but the clear message from that vote is that frontline pediatricians do not agree with the “one size fits all” approach of automatically affirming gender-distressed youth as transgender and proceeding to gender reassignment.

What we know and don’t know


There is now growing evidence that the “gender-affirming” model, based on the unproven assumption that gender reassignment is the best way to help gender-distressed youth, is not living up to its promise. This should not be surprising. Despite more than 50 years of experience with mature adult gender transitions, there is a lack of convincing evidence that transitions improve the psychological functioning of those with gender dysphoria, and studies on regret have been plagued by high dropout rates that prevent meaningful conclusions for practitioners and patients alike. Pediatric transitions are a much more recent phenomenon, with little to no quality data to guide decision-making.

We are witnessing a growing number of vocal regretters who underwent gender reassignment as teens and young adults under “gender-affirming” care protocols in recent years. A review of stories on the subreddit r/detrans, which counts over 20,000 members (not all are detransitioners, as the forum is open to those fully detransitioned, partially detransitioned, desisted [those who identified as transgender for a period of time in their youth but no longer do], and questioning their transition) is flush with first-hand accounts of regret and should be mandatory reading for any clinician who is considering becoming a prescriber of gender-affirmative care.  

Here is a brief outline of what we know – and more importantly, what we don’t know – about the practice of medically transitioning minors.

Most cases of early childhood-onset gender dysphoria self-resolve. Eleven out of 11 studies that followed the trajectory of gender-variant youth show that the most common outcome is natural resolution of gender dysphoria around or after puberty. Among those diagnosed as having gender identity disorder, 67% no longer met the diagnostic criteria as adults; among those subthreshold for diagnosis, 93% were not gender dysphoric as adults. Gender dysphoria in childhood is a far better predictor of future homosexuality than of future trans identity.

The future trajectory of people whose transgender identity emerged during or after puberty is entirely unknown. No one has studied future trajectories of patients whose transgender identity emerged for the first time after the onset of puberty – a previously rare but now increasingly common presentation. Growing numbers of young detransitioners and desisters are precisely from this demographic, suggesting that a transgender identity that emerges in adolescence may not be durable.

Social transition does not improve mental health outcomes. Recent studies show that while socially transitioned children can thrive in the short term, they do not fare any better than their non–socially transitioned dysphoric peers. It appears that peer relations, not the social transition status, predict mental health in gender-dysphoric children. We don’t yet know the long-term trajectories of socially transitioned minors, but emerging evidence suggests that they may be more likely to persist with gender-related distress rather than outgrow it, as previously observed. This in turn necessitates decades of invasive and risky medical interventions. In fact, the Dutch researchers who pioneered the protocol used to medically transition minors explicitly and strongly discouraged social transition of children and early adolescents.

Nearly 100% of children who begin puberty blockers will proceed to cross-sex hormones and surgeries. The two main studies that have evaluated the effects of puberty blockers on mental health found no improvements or improvements of marginal clinical significance. Both studies are also at critical risk of bias due to the absence of control groups.

Four additional studies looking at the mental health effects of puberty blockers were plagued by design limitations and also failed to show any convincing positive effects on psychological health. However, one effect of puberty blockers has been consistently replicated: At least four studies show that virtually all of the children who start puberty blockers proceed to cross-sex hormones. This suggests that rather than being a pause button, puberty blockers may serve as the “gas pedal” for gender transition.

Most of the long-term health risks are largely unknown. No long-term studies exist of patients who underwent medical transition as teens or young adults. Therefore, our ability to assess risks vs. benefits is limited. Puberty blockers have been demonstrated to significantly impair bone health, and it is not clear whether this will result in future osteoporosis. Cross-sex hormones are associated with roughly 3-5 times the risk for heart attacks and strokes, though long-term studies are of insufficient quality for accurate risk assessments. Other risks associated with these endocrine interventions will come to light as the practice continues to scale and as young people spend years and decades on these interventions. The risks to fertility are largely unknown, but it is almost certain that if puberty blockers are given at the early stages of puberty and followed by cross-sex hormones, sterility will result.

The medical pathway of “affirmative care” rests on a single Dutch study that is not applicable to the current populations of gender-dysphoric youth. Most of the youth presenting for care today would have been explicitly disqualified by the original Dutch protocol, as most have significant mental health comorbidities and post-puberty onset of trans identities. This fact has been recognized by the principal investigators of the Dutch protocol itself, who have recently begun to sound the alarm about the potential misapplication of their protocol and who suggest that psychotherapy – rather than gender reassignment – is more appropriate for many of the currently presenting cases.

On suicidality

The urgency to put gender-dysphoric youth through gender reassignment despite the dearth of evidence appears to stem from the notion that if we don’t intervene medically and in short order, these youth will commit suicide. However, studies using quality data reveal a markedly different reality.

While gender-dysphoric youth do have elevated rates of suicidality, it’s not uniquely high. In fact, it’s roughly similar to the rate of suicidality found in populations of youth referred for other mental health conditions. Quality long-term studies that explored whether transition leads to reduced suicidality have not been able to demonstrate a reduction.

Medicine has a pattern of enthusiastically embracing unproven medical interventions, only to find out years or decades later that the harms from those interventions outweigh the benefits. We owe it to our patients to be transparent about the limits of our knowledge and the fact that the “affirmative care” pathway is largely irreversible.

When the benefits of an intervention have not been shown to outweigh the risks, medical ethics dictate that such interventions should not occur outside of clinical trials. We must not conflate medical care for gender-dysphoric youth with experimental and risky interventions that are based on low-quality evidence. It’s time to hit pause on gender transitions for youth.

A brief history of the Dutch protocol

Before the mid-1990s, medical transition was primarily reserved for mature adults. However, noting the “never-disappearing masculine appearance” of many adult male transitioners, a team of Dutch researchers hypothesized that it might be appropriate to provide early intervention to a carefully selected group of adolescents before the irreversible physical changes of puberty occur.

To differentiate the majority of gender-dysphoric children who would outgrow their cross-sex identification by adulthood from the few who would probably not have resolution and would wish to transition later in life, the Dutch gender clinic designed a rigorous screening protocol, with multidisciplinary teams closely following prospective candidates for several years.

To qualify for early intervention, the adolescents had to have had persistent and severe cross-sex identification from early childhood (cases of adolescent-onset trans identity were disqualified); the distress had to worsen during puberty; and the adolescents had to be free from any other significant mental health conditions. For qualifying adolescents, puberty blockers were initiated no earlier than 12 years of age, cross-sex hormones at 16, and surgeries upon turning 18. Ongoing psychotherapy was provided through the entire assessment and intervention period.

The Dutch team published the final results of their research in 2014. The authors reported that at the average age of 21 (approximately 1.5 years post surgery), the young people were free from gender dysphoria and functioning well. Despite a postsurgical death from infection, several new diagnoses of metabolic illness, and multiple dropouts, the Western world enthusiastically embraced the early-intervention model. Concerningly, the only attempt to replicate the Dutch protocol outside of the Netherlands failed to show any psychological improvements, and to date, no long-term outcome data are available for the cohort of the 55 treated Dutch adolescents.

These progressively irreversible interventions form the basis of the “Dutch Protocol.” Currently, this protocol is being scaled in ways it was never designed for. For example, it strongly discouraged childhood social transition and did not transition adolescents with postpubertal onset of transgender identity or those with significant mental health comorbidities. Yet, treating such cases with the interventions outlined in the Dutch protocol is now common, and the age of eligibility for hormonal and surgical interventions has progressively lowered, with children as young as 8 now eligible to begin puberty blockers.

William Malone, MD, is an assistant professor of endocrinology practicing in Southern Idaho and an adviser to the Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

As medical school faculty members – and our students – know well, the COVID-19 pandemic forced us to become creative and shift much of our curricula online. Many hospitals chose to limit medical student rotations because of safety concerns. Students fell victim to canceled psychiatry rotations and electives during the pandemic’s early days. Privacy issues, combined with stigma tied to mental illness, made this shift to virtual instruction particularly challenging. But as a field, we persevered! And, as we learned during our shift toward telemedicine, many of the changes we made in medical education are probably here to stay.

Our team at the New York Institute of Technology College of Osteopathic Medicine (NYITCOM) was able to implement a novel curriculum that allowed our students to learn psychiatry and maintain high-quality medical school education.

We developed an online course for third-year students’ rotation in psychiatry, with several modules that focused on a variety of psychiatric topics and disorders, including the basic classifications and categories of depression, anxiety, personality disorders, and psychotic disorders. There were also video encounters available showing actual patient encounters. On completion of the online module, a faculty session was held to discuss topics of concern/confusion to the students, areas of interest, and a variety of related topics, such as professionalism in psychiatry, essentials of the mental status exam, management of diverse populations, and COVID repercussions in psychiatry.

For fourth-year students, we developed a telemedicine psychiatry elective, which allowed the students to observe psychiatric evaluations, psychiatric medication review visits, and even follow-up psychotherapy sessions, with the school’s clinical psychologists. The new method was minimally invasive, and it was accepted by patients and welcomed by the students.

During a time when hospitals were limiting onsite student rotations and discouraging patient contact, medical students still needed to experience patient interactions. As the director of the school’s Center for Behavioral Health, I designed an additional program that allowed students to participate in observing patients who presented with psychiatric complaints and symptoms. It had to be confidential in nature, accessible, and safe.

I recalled my own training in a hospital setting, where students and residents were allowed to observe a patient being evaluated by an attending, through a one-way mirror. It was a method that was acceptable at the time in a hospital, but unfortunately, not in a private office setting. As such, students and residents experienced such an interaction in acute inpatient and/or outpatient clinics of a hospital. The experience was invaluable.

I started to envision a one-way mirror, 2.0, so to speak, for the current times. The concept was simple, yet very efficient. The clinicians in the Center for Behavioral Health were seeing all patients with psychiatric needs via a HIPAA-compliant telemedicine platform. Access was granted for students – with the patient’s consent – and they “entered the session” without being seen or heard. This presented little to no distraction to the patient, and the student was able to observe a range of clinical sessions.

The course also provided online supplemental modules, including essential psychiatric topics, psychopharmacology, and a psychotherapeutic module that discussed a myriad of therapeutic interventions. In addition, the student was supervised weekly by the course director, the psychopharmacologist, and the clinical psychologist. The course director provided daily wrap-up reviews as well.

Originally, this new approach was envisioned as a temporary solution for use during the pandemic. But it has become clear that this approach would be beneficial post pandemic as well. Most of the students who participated in the course were actually interested in pursuing psychiatry as their future specialty. It allowed them to observe a population of patients firsthand that they might encounter in private practice, as opposed to only hospital settings.

Being present in a session with a patient with psychiatric symptoms and diagnoses has always been a challenge. Many patients refuse to have another medical professional in the room because of the intimate details being discussed and their associated stigma. The patients’ inability to see or hear the student during the sessions allows them to ignore the students’ presence – or at least not be intimidated by it. This, therefore, allows the students access and affords them a unique and memorable educational experience.

The pandemic curtailed and altered medical students’ traditional exposure to patients, but we found innovative ways to redefine it. As difficult as COVID-19 has been for the health care community, we have been able to use the restrictions forced by the pandemic to identify innovative ways to improve the education of our medical students.
 

In addition to serving as director of the Center for Behavioral Health at NYITCOM in Old Westbury, N.Y., Dr. Jarkon is assistant professor in the department of family medicine. She has no disclosures.

As medical school faculty members – and our students – know well, the COVID-19 pandemic forced us to become creative and shift much of our curricula online. Many hospitals chose to limit medical student rotations because of safety concerns. Students fell victim to canceled psychiatry rotations and electives during the pandemic’s early days. Privacy issues, combined with stigma tied to mental illness, made this shift to virtual instruction particularly challenging. But as a field, we persevered! And, as we learned during our shift toward telemedicine, many of the changes we made in medical education are probably here to stay.

Our team at the New York Institute of Technology College of Osteopathic Medicine (NYITCOM) was able to implement a novel curriculum that allowed our students to learn psychiatry and maintain high-quality medical school education.

We developed an online course for third-year students’ rotation in psychiatry, with several modules that focused on a variety of psychiatric topics and disorders, including the basic classifications and categories of depression, anxiety, personality disorders, and psychotic disorders. There were also video encounters available showing actual patient encounters. On completion of the online module, a faculty session was held to discuss topics of concern/confusion to the students, areas of interest, and a variety of related topics, such as professionalism in psychiatry, essentials of the mental status exam, management of diverse populations, and COVID repercussions in psychiatry.

For fourth-year students, we developed a telemedicine psychiatry elective, which allowed the students to observe psychiatric evaluations, psychiatric medication review visits, and even follow-up psychotherapy sessions, with the school’s clinical psychologists. The new method was minimally invasive, and it was accepted by patients and welcomed by the students.

During a time when hospitals were limiting onsite student rotations and discouraging patient contact, medical students still needed to experience patient interactions. As the director of the school’s Center for Behavioral Health, I designed an additional program that allowed students to participate in observing patients who presented with psychiatric complaints and symptoms. It had to be confidential in nature, accessible, and safe.

I recalled my own training in a hospital setting, where students and residents were allowed to observe a patient being evaluated by an attending, through a one-way mirror. It was a method that was acceptable at the time in a hospital, but unfortunately, not in a private office setting. As such, students and residents experienced such an interaction in acute inpatient and/or outpatient clinics of a hospital. The experience was invaluable.

I started to envision a one-way mirror, 2.0, so to speak, for the current times. The concept was simple, yet very efficient. The clinicians in the Center for Behavioral Health were seeing all patients with psychiatric needs via a HIPAA-compliant telemedicine platform. Access was granted for students – with the patient’s consent – and they “entered the session” without being seen or heard. This presented little to no distraction to the patient, and the student was able to observe a range of clinical sessions.

The course also provided online supplemental modules, including essential psychiatric topics, psychopharmacology, and a psychotherapeutic module that discussed a myriad of therapeutic interventions. In addition, the student was supervised weekly by the course director, the psychopharmacologist, and the clinical psychologist. The course director provided daily wrap-up reviews as well.

Originally, this new approach was envisioned as a temporary solution for use during the pandemic. But it has become clear that this approach would be beneficial post pandemic as well. Most of the students who participated in the course were actually interested in pursuing psychiatry as their future specialty. It allowed them to observe a population of patients firsthand that they might encounter in private practice, as opposed to only hospital settings.

Being present in a session with a patient with psychiatric symptoms and diagnoses has always been a challenge. Many patients refuse to have another medical professional in the room because of the intimate details being discussed and their associated stigma. The patients’ inability to see or hear the student during the sessions allows them to ignore the students’ presence – or at least not be intimidated by it. This, therefore, allows the students access and affords them a unique and memorable educational experience.

The pandemic curtailed and altered medical students’ traditional exposure to patients, but we found innovative ways to redefine it. As difficult as COVID-19 has been for the health care community, we have been able to use the restrictions forced by the pandemic to identify innovative ways to improve the education of our medical students.
 

In addition to serving as director of the Center for Behavioral Health at NYITCOM in Old Westbury, N.Y., Dr. Jarkon is assistant professor in the department of family medicine. She has no disclosures.

As medical school faculty members – and our students – know well, the COVID-19 pandemic forced us to become creative and shift much of our curricula online. Many hospitals chose to limit medical student rotations because of safety concerns. Students fell victim to canceled psychiatry rotations and electives during the pandemic’s early days. Privacy issues, combined with stigma tied to mental illness, made this shift to virtual instruction particularly challenging. But as a field, we persevered! And, as we learned during our shift toward telemedicine, many of the changes we made in medical education are probably here to stay.

Our team at the New York Institute of Technology College of Osteopathic Medicine (NYITCOM) was able to implement a novel curriculum that allowed our students to learn psychiatry and maintain high-quality medical school education.

We developed an online course for third-year students’ rotation in psychiatry, with several modules that focused on a variety of psychiatric topics and disorders, including the basic classifications and categories of depression, anxiety, personality disorders, and psychotic disorders. There were also video encounters available showing actual patient encounters. On completion of the online module, a faculty session was held to discuss topics of concern/confusion to the students, areas of interest, and a variety of related topics, such as professionalism in psychiatry, essentials of the mental status exam, management of diverse populations, and COVID repercussions in psychiatry.

For fourth-year students, we developed a telemedicine psychiatry elective, which allowed the students to observe psychiatric evaluations, psychiatric medication review visits, and even follow-up psychotherapy sessions, with the school’s clinical psychologists. The new method was minimally invasive, and it was accepted by patients and welcomed by the students.

During a time when hospitals were limiting onsite student rotations and discouraging patient contact, medical students still needed to experience patient interactions. As the director of the school’s Center for Behavioral Health, I designed an additional program that allowed students to participate in observing patients who presented with psychiatric complaints and symptoms. It had to be confidential in nature, accessible, and safe.

I recalled my own training in a hospital setting, where students and residents were allowed to observe a patient being evaluated by an attending, through a one-way mirror. It was a method that was acceptable at the time in a hospital, but unfortunately, not in a private office setting. As such, students and residents experienced such an interaction in acute inpatient and/or outpatient clinics of a hospital. The experience was invaluable.

I started to envision a one-way mirror, 2.0, so to speak, for the current times. The concept was simple, yet very efficient. The clinicians in the Center for Behavioral Health were seeing all patients with psychiatric needs via a HIPAA-compliant telemedicine platform. Access was granted for students – with the patient’s consent – and they “entered the session” without being seen or heard. This presented little to no distraction to the patient, and the student was able to observe a range of clinical sessions.

The course also provided online supplemental modules, including essential psychiatric topics, psychopharmacology, and a psychotherapeutic module that discussed a myriad of therapeutic interventions. In addition, the student was supervised weekly by the course director, the psychopharmacologist, and the clinical psychologist. The course director provided daily wrap-up reviews as well.

Originally, this new approach was envisioned as a temporary solution for use during the pandemic. But it has become clear that this approach would be beneficial post pandemic as well. Most of the students who participated in the course were actually interested in pursuing psychiatry as their future specialty. It allowed them to observe a population of patients firsthand that they might encounter in private practice, as opposed to only hospital settings.

Being present in a session with a patient with psychiatric symptoms and diagnoses has always been a challenge. Many patients refuse to have another medical professional in the room because of the intimate details being discussed and their associated stigma. The patients’ inability to see or hear the student during the sessions allows them to ignore the students’ presence – or at least not be intimidated by it. This, therefore, allows the students access and affords them a unique and memorable educational experience.

The pandemic curtailed and altered medical students’ traditional exposure to patients, but we found innovative ways to redefine it. As difficult as COVID-19 has been for the health care community, we have been able to use the restrictions forced by the pandemic to identify innovative ways to improve the education of our medical students.
 

In addition to serving as director of the Center for Behavioral Health at NYITCOM in Old Westbury, N.Y., Dr. Jarkon is assistant professor in the department of family medicine. She has no disclosures.

When I was in Florida a few weeks ago, I met a friend outside who approached me wearing an N-95 mask. He said he was wearing it because the Delta variant was running wild in Florida, and several of his younger unvaccinated employees had contracted it, and he encouraged me to get a COVID booster shot. In the late summer, although the federal government recommended booster shots for anyone 8 months after their original vaccination series, national confusion still reigns, with an Food and Drug Administration advisory panel more recently recommending against a Pfizer booster for all adults, but supporting a booster for those ages 65 and older or at a high risk for severe COVID-19.

At the end of December, I was excited when the local hospital whose staff I am on made the Moderna vaccine available. I had to wait several hours but it was worth it, and I did not care about the low-grade fever and malaise I experienced after the second dose. Astoundingly, I still have patients who have not been vaccinated, although many of them are elderly, frail, or immunocompromised. I think people who publicly argue against vaccination need to visit their local intensive care unit.

While less so than some other physicians, dermatologists are also vulnerable to COVID exposure. You can’t look in someone’s throat, or examine facial skin if they are wearing a mask – and you must lean in to see anything. We take all reasonable precautions, wearing masks, wiping down exam rooms and door handles, keeping the waiting room as empty as possible, using HEPA filters, and keeping exhaust fans going in the rooms continuously. My staff have all been vaccinated (I’m lucky there).

Still, if you are seeing 30 or 40 patients a day of all age groups and working in small unventilated rooms, you could be exposed to the Delta variant. While breakthrough infections among fully vaccinated immunocompetent individuals may be rare, if you do develop a breakthrough case, even if mild or asymptomatic, CDC recommendations include quarantining for at least 10 days. Obviously, this can be disastrous to your practice as a COVID infection works through your office.

This brings us to back to booster shots. Personally, I think all health care workers should be eager to get a booster shot. I also think individuals who have wide public exposure, particularly indoors, such as teachers and retail sales workers, should be eager to get one too. Here are some of the pros, as well as some cons for boosters.
 

Arguments for booster shots

• Booster shots should elevate your antibody levels and make you more resistant to breakthrough infections, but this is still theoretical. Antibody levels decline over time – more rapidly in those over 56 years of age.
• Vaccine doses go to waste every month in the United States, although specific numbers are lacking.
• Vaccinated individuals almost never get hospitalized and die from COVID, presumably even fewer do so after receiving a booster.
• You could unwittingly become a vector. Many of the breakthrough infections are mild and without symptoms. If you do test positive, it could be devastating to your patients, and your medical practice.

Arguments against booster shots

• These vaccine doses should be going to other countries that have low vaccination levels where many of the nasty variants are developing.
• You may have side effects from the vaccine, though thrombosis has only been seen with the Astra-Zeneca and Johnson and Johnson vaccines. Myocarditis is usually seen in younger patients and is almost always self limited.
• Breakthrough infections are rare.

This COVID pandemic is moving and changing so fast, it is bewildering. But with a little luck, COVID could eventually become an annual nuisance like the flu, and the COVID vaccine will become an annual shot based on the newest mutations. For now, my opinion is, get your booster shot.

Dr. Coldiron is in private practice but maintains a clinical assistant professorship at the University of Cincinnati. He cares for patients, teaches medical students and residents, and has several active clinical research projects. Dr. Coldiron is the author of more than 80 scientific letters, papers, and several book chapters, and he speaks frequently on a variety of topics. He is a past president of the American Academy of Dermatology. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

When I was in Florida a few weeks ago, I met a friend outside who approached me wearing an N-95 mask. He said he was wearing it because the Delta variant was running wild in Florida, and several of his younger unvaccinated employees had contracted it, and he encouraged me to get a COVID booster shot. In the late summer, although the federal government recommended booster shots for anyone 8 months after their original vaccination series, national confusion still reigns, with an Food and Drug Administration advisory panel more recently recommending against a Pfizer booster for all adults, but supporting a booster for those ages 65 and older or at a high risk for severe COVID-19.

At the end of December, I was excited when the local hospital whose staff I am on made the Moderna vaccine available. I had to wait several hours but it was worth it, and I did not care about the low-grade fever and malaise I experienced after the second dose. Astoundingly, I still have patients who have not been vaccinated, although many of them are elderly, frail, or immunocompromised. I think people who publicly argue against vaccination need to visit their local intensive care unit.

While less so than some other physicians, dermatologists are also vulnerable to COVID exposure. You can’t look in someone’s throat, or examine facial skin if they are wearing a mask – and you must lean in to see anything. We take all reasonable precautions, wearing masks, wiping down exam rooms and door handles, keeping the waiting room as empty as possible, using HEPA filters, and keeping exhaust fans going in the rooms continuously. My staff have all been vaccinated (I’m lucky there).

Still, if you are seeing 30 or 40 patients a day of all age groups and working in small unventilated rooms, you could be exposed to the Delta variant. While breakthrough infections among fully vaccinated immunocompetent individuals may be rare, if you do develop a breakthrough case, even if mild or asymptomatic, CDC recommendations include quarantining for at least 10 days. Obviously, this can be disastrous to your practice as a COVID infection works through your office.

This brings us to back to booster shots. Personally, I think all health care workers should be eager to get a booster shot. I also think individuals who have wide public exposure, particularly indoors, such as teachers and retail sales workers, should be eager to get one too. Here are some of the pros, as well as some cons for boosters.
 

Arguments for booster shots

• Booster shots should elevate your antibody levels and make you more resistant to breakthrough infections, but this is still theoretical. Antibody levels decline over time – more rapidly in those over 56 years of age.
• Vaccine doses go to waste every month in the United States, although specific numbers are lacking.
• Vaccinated individuals almost never get hospitalized and die from COVID, presumably even fewer do so after receiving a booster.
• You could unwittingly become a vector. Many of the breakthrough infections are mild and without symptoms. If you do test positive, it could be devastating to your patients, and your medical practice.

Arguments against booster shots

• These vaccine doses should be going to other countries that have low vaccination levels where many of the nasty variants are developing.
• You may have side effects from the vaccine, though thrombosis has only been seen with the Astra-Zeneca and Johnson and Johnson vaccines. Myocarditis is usually seen in younger patients and is almost always self limited.
• Breakthrough infections are rare.

This COVID pandemic is moving and changing so fast, it is bewildering. But with a little luck, COVID could eventually become an annual nuisance like the flu, and the COVID vaccine will become an annual shot based on the newest mutations. For now, my opinion is, get your booster shot.

Dr. Coldiron is in private practice but maintains a clinical assistant professorship at the University of Cincinnati. He cares for patients, teaches medical students and residents, and has several active clinical research projects. Dr. Coldiron is the author of more than 80 scientific letters, papers, and several book chapters, and he speaks frequently on a variety of topics. He is a past president of the American Academy of Dermatology. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

When I was in Florida a few weeks ago, I met a friend outside who approached me wearing an N-95 mask. He said he was wearing it because the Delta variant was running wild in Florida, and several of his younger unvaccinated employees had contracted it, and he encouraged me to get a COVID booster shot. In the late summer, although the federal government recommended booster shots for anyone 8 months after their original vaccination series, national confusion still reigns, with an Food and Drug Administration advisory panel more recently recommending against a Pfizer booster for all adults, but supporting a booster for those ages 65 and older or at a high risk for severe COVID-19.

At the end of December, I was excited when the local hospital whose staff I am on made the Moderna vaccine available. I had to wait several hours but it was worth it, and I did not care about the low-grade fever and malaise I experienced after the second dose. Astoundingly, I still have patients who have not been vaccinated, although many of them are elderly, frail, or immunocompromised. I think people who publicly argue against vaccination need to visit their local intensive care unit.

While less so than some other physicians, dermatologists are also vulnerable to COVID exposure. You can’t look in someone’s throat, or examine facial skin if they are wearing a mask – and you must lean in to see anything. We take all reasonable precautions, wearing masks, wiping down exam rooms and door handles, keeping the waiting room as empty as possible, using HEPA filters, and keeping exhaust fans going in the rooms continuously. My staff have all been vaccinated (I’m lucky there).

Still, if you are seeing 30 or 40 patients a day of all age groups and working in small unventilated rooms, you could be exposed to the Delta variant. While breakthrough infections among fully vaccinated immunocompetent individuals may be rare, if you do develop a breakthrough case, even if mild or asymptomatic, CDC recommendations include quarantining for at least 10 days. Obviously, this can be disastrous to your practice as a COVID infection works through your office.

This brings us to back to booster shots. Personally, I think all health care workers should be eager to get a booster shot. I also think individuals who have wide public exposure, particularly indoors, such as teachers and retail sales workers, should be eager to get one too. Here are some of the pros, as well as some cons for boosters.
 

Arguments for booster shots

• Booster shots should elevate your antibody levels and make you more resistant to breakthrough infections, but this is still theoretical. Antibody levels decline over time – more rapidly in those over 56 years of age.
• Vaccine doses go to waste every month in the United States, although specific numbers are lacking.
• Vaccinated individuals almost never get hospitalized and die from COVID, presumably even fewer do so after receiving a booster.
• You could unwittingly become a vector. Many of the breakthrough infections are mild and without symptoms. If you do test positive, it could be devastating to your patients, and your medical practice.

Arguments against booster shots

• These vaccine doses should be going to other countries that have low vaccination levels where many of the nasty variants are developing.
• You may have side effects from the vaccine, though thrombosis has only been seen with the Astra-Zeneca and Johnson and Johnson vaccines. Myocarditis is usually seen in younger patients and is almost always self limited.
• Breakthrough infections are rare.

This COVID pandemic is moving and changing so fast, it is bewildering. But with a little luck, COVID could eventually become an annual nuisance like the flu, and the COVID vaccine will become an annual shot based on the newest mutations. For now, my opinion is, get your booster shot.

Dr. Coldiron is in private practice but maintains a clinical assistant professorship at the University of Cincinnati. He cares for patients, teaches medical students and residents, and has several active clinical research projects. Dr. Coldiron is the author of more than 80 scientific letters, papers, and several book chapters, and he speaks frequently on a variety of topics. He is a past president of the American Academy of Dermatology. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

A 26-year-old woman who reports a history of acyclovir-resistant herpes complains of a recurring, stinging rash around her mouth. Topical tacrolimus made it worse, she said. On exam, she has somewhat grouped pustules on her cutaneous lip. I mentioned her to colleagues, saying: “I’ve a patient with acyclovir-resistant herpes who isn’t improving on high-dose Valtrex.” They proffered a few alternative diagnoses and treatment recommendations. I tried several to no avail.

This case illustrates a common problem in medicine: Noise, the chance variability in judgments that should all be identical (it is after all only one condition). Nobel Prize–winning economist Daniel Kahneman, PhD, with two other authors, has written a brilliant book about this cognitive unreliability called “Noise: A Flaw in Human Judgment” (New York: Hachette Book Group, 2021).

Both bias and noise create trouble for us. Although biases get more attention, noise is both more prevalent and insidious. In a 2016 article, Dr. Kahneman and coauthors use a bathroom scale as an analogy to explain the difference. “We would say that the scale is biased if its readings are generally either too high or too low. A scale that consistently underestimates true weight by exactly 4 pounds is seriously biased but free of noise. A scale that gives two different readings when you step on it twice is noisy.” In the case presented, “measurements” by me and my colleagues were returning different “readings.” There is one true diagnosis and best treatment, yet because of noise, we waste time and resources by not getting it right the first time.

There is also evidence of bias in this case. For example, there’s probably some confirmation bias: The patient said she has a history of antiviral-resistant herpes; therefore, her rash might appear to be herpes. Also there might be salience bias: it’s easy to see how prominent pustules might be herpes simplex virus. Noise is an issue in many misdiagnoses, but trickier to see. In most instances, we don’t have the opportunity to get multiple assessments of the same case. When examined though, interrater reliability in medicine is often found to be shockingly low, an indication of how much noise there is in our clinical judgments. This leads to waste, frustration – and can even be dangerous when we’re trying to diagnose cancers such as melanoma, lung, or breast cancer.

Dr. Kahneman and colleagues have excellent recommendations on how to reduce noise, such as tips for good decision hygiene (e.g., using differential diagnoses) and using algorithms (e.g., calculating Apgar or LACE scores). I also liked their strategy of aggregating expert opinions. Fascinatingly, averaging multiple independent assessments is mathematically guaranteed to reduce noise. (God, I love economists). This is true of measurements and opinions: If you use 100 judgments for a case, you reduce noise by 90% (the noise is divided by the square root of the number of judgments averaged). So 20 colleagues’ opinions would reduce noise by almost 80%. However, those 20 opinions must be independent to avoid spurious agreement. (Again, math for the win.)

I showed photos of my patient to a few other dermatologists. They independently returned the same result: perioral dermatitis. This was the correct diagnosis and reminded me why grand rounds and tumor boards are such a great help. Multiple, independent assessments are more likely to get it right than just one opinion because we are canceling out the noise. But remember, grand rounds has to be old-school style – no looking at your coresident answers before giving yours!

Our patient cleared after restarting her topical tacrolimus and a bit of doxycycline. Credit the wisdom of the crowd. Reassuringly though, Dr. Kahneman also shows that expertise does matter in minimizing error. So that fellowship you did was still a great idea.

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. He reports having no conflicts of interest. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

A 26-year-old woman who reports a history of acyclovir-resistant herpes complains of a recurring, stinging rash around her mouth. Topical tacrolimus made it worse, she said. On exam, she has somewhat grouped pustules on her cutaneous lip. I mentioned her to colleagues, saying: “I’ve a patient with acyclovir-resistant herpes who isn’t improving on high-dose Valtrex.” They proffered a few alternative diagnoses and treatment recommendations. I tried several to no avail.

This case illustrates a common problem in medicine: Noise, the chance variability in judgments that should all be identical (it is after all only one condition). Nobel Prize–winning economist Daniel Kahneman, PhD, with two other authors, has written a brilliant book about this cognitive unreliability called “Noise: A Flaw in Human Judgment” (New York: Hachette Book Group, 2021).

Both bias and noise create trouble for us. Although biases get more attention, noise is both more prevalent and insidious. In a 2016 article, Dr. Kahneman and coauthors use a bathroom scale as an analogy to explain the difference. “We would say that the scale is biased if its readings are generally either too high or too low. A scale that consistently underestimates true weight by exactly 4 pounds is seriously biased but free of noise. A scale that gives two different readings when you step on it twice is noisy.” In the case presented, “measurements” by me and my colleagues were returning different “readings.” There is one true diagnosis and best treatment, yet because of noise, we waste time and resources by not getting it right the first time.

There is also evidence of bias in this case. For example, there’s probably some confirmation bias: The patient said she has a history of antiviral-resistant herpes; therefore, her rash might appear to be herpes. Also there might be salience bias: it’s easy to see how prominent pustules might be herpes simplex virus. Noise is an issue in many misdiagnoses, but trickier to see. In most instances, we don’t have the opportunity to get multiple assessments of the same case. When examined though, interrater reliability in medicine is often found to be shockingly low, an indication of how much noise there is in our clinical judgments. This leads to waste, frustration – and can even be dangerous when we’re trying to diagnose cancers such as melanoma, lung, or breast cancer.

Dr. Kahneman and colleagues have excellent recommendations on how to reduce noise, such as tips for good decision hygiene (e.g., using differential diagnoses) and using algorithms (e.g., calculating Apgar or LACE scores). I also liked their strategy of aggregating expert opinions. Fascinatingly, averaging multiple independent assessments is mathematically guaranteed to reduce noise. (God, I love economists). This is true of measurements and opinions: If you use 100 judgments for a case, you reduce noise by 90% (the noise is divided by the square root of the number of judgments averaged). So 20 colleagues’ opinions would reduce noise by almost 80%. However, those 20 opinions must be independent to avoid spurious agreement. (Again, math for the win.)

I showed photos of my patient to a few other dermatologists. They independently returned the same result: perioral dermatitis. This was the correct diagnosis and reminded me why grand rounds and tumor boards are such a great help. Multiple, independent assessments are more likely to get it right than just one opinion because we are canceling out the noise. But remember, grand rounds has to be old-school style – no looking at your coresident answers before giving yours!

Our patient cleared after restarting her topical tacrolimus and a bit of doxycycline. Credit the wisdom of the crowd. Reassuringly though, Dr. Kahneman also shows that expertise does matter in minimizing error. So that fellowship you did was still a great idea.

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. He reports having no conflicts of interest. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

A 26-year-old woman who reports a history of acyclovir-resistant herpes complains of a recurring, stinging rash around her mouth. Topical tacrolimus made it worse, she said. On exam, she has somewhat grouped pustules on her cutaneous lip. I mentioned her to colleagues, saying: “I’ve a patient with acyclovir-resistant herpes who isn’t improving on high-dose Valtrex.” They proffered a few alternative diagnoses and treatment recommendations. I tried several to no avail.

This case illustrates a common problem in medicine: Noise, the chance variability in judgments that should all be identical (it is after all only one condition). Nobel Prize–winning economist Daniel Kahneman, PhD, with two other authors, has written a brilliant book about this cognitive unreliability called “Noise: A Flaw in Human Judgment” (New York: Hachette Book Group, 2021).

Both bias and noise create trouble for us. Although biases get more attention, noise is both more prevalent and insidious. In a 2016 article, Dr. Kahneman and coauthors use a bathroom scale as an analogy to explain the difference. “We would say that the scale is biased if its readings are generally either too high or too low. A scale that consistently underestimates true weight by exactly 4 pounds is seriously biased but free of noise. A scale that gives two different readings when you step on it twice is noisy.” In the case presented, “measurements” by me and my colleagues were returning different “readings.” There is one true diagnosis and best treatment, yet because of noise, we waste time and resources by not getting it right the first time.

There is also evidence of bias in this case. For example, there’s probably some confirmation bias: The patient said she has a history of antiviral-resistant herpes; therefore, her rash might appear to be herpes. Also there might be salience bias: it’s easy to see how prominent pustules might be herpes simplex virus. Noise is an issue in many misdiagnoses, but trickier to see. In most instances, we don’t have the opportunity to get multiple assessments of the same case. When examined though, interrater reliability in medicine is often found to be shockingly low, an indication of how much noise there is in our clinical judgments. This leads to waste, frustration – and can even be dangerous when we’re trying to diagnose cancers such as melanoma, lung, or breast cancer.

Dr. Kahneman and colleagues have excellent recommendations on how to reduce noise, such as tips for good decision hygiene (e.g., using differential diagnoses) and using algorithms (e.g., calculating Apgar or LACE scores). I also liked their strategy of aggregating expert opinions. Fascinatingly, averaging multiple independent assessments is mathematically guaranteed to reduce noise. (God, I love economists). This is true of measurements and opinions: If you use 100 judgments for a case, you reduce noise by 90% (the noise is divided by the square root of the number of judgments averaged). So 20 colleagues’ opinions would reduce noise by almost 80%. However, those 20 opinions must be independent to avoid spurious agreement. (Again, math for the win.)

I showed photos of my patient to a few other dermatologists. They independently returned the same result: perioral dermatitis. This was the correct diagnosis and reminded me why grand rounds and tumor boards are such a great help. Multiple, independent assessments are more likely to get it right than just one opinion because we are canceling out the noise. But remember, grand rounds has to be old-school style – no looking at your coresident answers before giving yours!

Our patient cleared after restarting her topical tacrolimus and a bit of doxycycline. Credit the wisdom of the crowd. Reassuringly though, Dr. Kahneman also shows that expertise does matter in minimizing error. So that fellowship you did was still a great idea.

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. He reports having no conflicts of interest. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

I began thinking of a topic for this column weeks ago determined to discuss anything except COVID-19. Yet, news reports from all sources blasted daily reminders of rising COVID-19 cases overall and specifically in children.

In August, school resumed for many of our patients and the battle over mandating masks for school attendance was in full swing. The fact that it is a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommendation supported by both the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Pediatric Infectious Disease Society fell on deaf ears. One day, I heard a report that over 25,000 students attending Texas public schools were diagnosed with COVID-19 between Aug. 23 and Aug. 29. This peak in activity occurred just 2 weeks after the start of school and led to the closure of 45 school districts. Texas does not have a monopoly on these rising cases. Delta, a more contagious variant, began circulating in June 2021 and by July it was the most predominant. Emergency department visits and hospitalizations have increased nationwide. During the latter 2 weeks of August 2021, COVID-19–related ED visits and hospitalizations for persons aged 0-17 years were 3.4 and 3.7 times higher in states with the lowest vaccination coverage, compared with states with high vaccination coverage (MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2021;70:1249-54). Specifically, the rates of hospitalization the week ending Aug. 14, 2021, were nearly 5 times the rates for the week ending June 26, 2021, for 0- to 17-year-olds and nearly 10 times the rates for children 0-4 years of age. Hospitalization rates were 10.1 times higher for unimmunized adolescents than for fully vaccinated ones (MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2021;70:1255-60).

Multiple elected state leaders have opposed interventions such as mandating masks in school, and our children are paying for it. These leaders have relinquished their responsibility to local school boards. Several have reinforced the no-mask mandate while others have had the courage and insight to ignore state government leaders and have established mask mandates.

How is this lack of enforcement of national recommendations affecting our patients? Let’s look at two neighboring school districts in Texas. School districts have COVID-19 dashboards that are updated daily and accessible to the general public. School District A requires masks for school entry. It serves 196,171 students and has 27,195 teachers and staff. Since school opened in August, 1,606 cumulative cases of COVID-19 in students (0.8%) and 282 in staff (1%) have been reported. Fifty-five percent of the student cases occurred in elementary schools. In contrast, School District B located in the adjacent county serves 64,517 students and has 3,906 teachers and staff with no mask mandate. Since August, there have been 4,506 cumulative COVID-19 cases in students (6.9%) and 578 (14.7%) in staff. Information regarding the specific school type was not provided; however, the dashboard indicates that 2,924 cases (64.8%) occurred in children younger than 11 years of age. County data indicate 62% of those older than 12 years of age were fully vaccinated in District A, compared with 54% of persons older than 12 years in District B. The county COVID-19 positivity rate in District A is 17.6% and in District B it is 20%. Both counties are experiencing increased COVID-19 activity yet have had strikingly different outcomes in the student/staff population. While supporting the case for wearing masks to prevent disease transmission, one can’t ignore the adolescents who were infected and vaccine eligible (District A: 706; District B: 1,582). Their vaccination status could not be determined.

As pediatricians we have played an integral part in the elimination of diseases through educating and administering vaccinations. Adolescents are relatively healthy, thus limiting the number of encounters with them. The majority complete the 11-year visit; however, many fail to return for the 16- to 18-year visit.

So how are we doing? CDC data from 10 U.S. jurisdictions demonstrated a substantial decrease in vaccine administration between March and May of 2020, compared with the same period in 2018 and 2019. A decline was anticipated because of the nationwide lockdown. Doses of HPV administered declined almost 64% and 71% for 9- to 12-year-olds and 13- to 17-year-olds, respectively. Tdap administration declined 66% and 61% for the same respective age groups. Although administered doses increased between June and September of 2020, it was not sufficient to achieve catch-up coverage. Compared to the same period in 2018-2019, administration of the HPV vaccine declined 12.8% and 28% (ages 9-12 and ages 13-17) and for Tdap it was 21% and 30% lower (ages 9-12 and ages 13-17) (MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2021;70:840-5).

Now, we have another adolescent vaccine to discuss and encourage our patients to receive. We also need to address their concerns and/or to at least direct them to a reliable source to obtain accurate information. For the first time, a recommended vaccine may not be available at their medical home. Many don’t know where to go to receive it (http://www.vaccines.gov). Results of a Kaiser Family Foundation COVID-19 survey (August 2021) indicated that parents trusted their pediatricians most often (78%) for vaccine advice. The respondents voiced concern about trusting the location where the child would be immunized and long-term effects especially related to fertility. Parents who received communications regarding the benefits of vaccination were twice as likely to have their adolescents immunized. Finally, remember: Like parent, like child. An immunized parent is more likely to immunize the adolescent. (See Fig. 1.)

Dr. Word is a pediatric infectious disease specialist and director of the Houston Travel Medicine Clinic. She said she had no relevant financial disclosures.

I began thinking of a topic for this column weeks ago determined to discuss anything except COVID-19. Yet, news reports from all sources blasted daily reminders of rising COVID-19 cases overall and specifically in children.

In August, school resumed for many of our patients and the battle over mandating masks for school attendance was in full swing. The fact that it is a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommendation supported by both the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Pediatric Infectious Disease Society fell on deaf ears. One day, I heard a report that over 25,000 students attending Texas public schools were diagnosed with COVID-19 between Aug. 23 and Aug. 29. This peak in activity occurred just 2 weeks after the start of school and led to the closure of 45 school districts. Texas does not have a monopoly on these rising cases. Delta, a more contagious variant, began circulating in June 2021 and by July it was the most predominant. Emergency department visits and hospitalizations have increased nationwide. During the latter 2 weeks of August 2021, COVID-19–related ED visits and hospitalizations for persons aged 0-17 years were 3.4 and 3.7 times higher in states with the lowest vaccination coverage, compared with states with high vaccination coverage (MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2021;70:1249-54). Specifically, the rates of hospitalization the week ending Aug. 14, 2021, were nearly 5 times the rates for the week ending June 26, 2021, for 0- to 17-year-olds and nearly 10 times the rates for children 0-4 years of age. Hospitalization rates were 10.1 times higher for unimmunized adolescents than for fully vaccinated ones (MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2021;70:1255-60).

Multiple elected state leaders have opposed interventions such as mandating masks in school, and our children are paying for it. These leaders have relinquished their responsibility to local school boards. Several have reinforced the no-mask mandate while others have had the courage and insight to ignore state government leaders and have established mask mandates.

How is this lack of enforcement of national recommendations affecting our patients? Let’s look at two neighboring school districts in Texas. School districts have COVID-19 dashboards that are updated daily and accessible to the general public. School District A requires masks for school entry. It serves 196,171 students and has 27,195 teachers and staff. Since school opened in August, 1,606 cumulative cases of COVID-19 in students (0.8%) and 282 in staff (1%) have been reported. Fifty-five percent of the student cases occurred in elementary schools. In contrast, School District B located in the adjacent county serves 64,517 students and has 3,906 teachers and staff with no mask mandate. Since August, there have been 4,506 cumulative COVID-19 cases in students (6.9%) and 578 (14.7%) in staff. Information regarding the specific school type was not provided; however, the dashboard indicates that 2,924 cases (64.8%) occurred in children younger than 11 years of age. County data indicate 62% of those older than 12 years of age were fully vaccinated in District A, compared with 54% of persons older than 12 years in District B. The county COVID-19 positivity rate in District A is 17.6% and in District B it is 20%. Both counties are experiencing increased COVID-19 activity yet have had strikingly different outcomes in the student/staff population. While supporting the case for wearing masks to prevent disease transmission, one can’t ignore the adolescents who were infected and vaccine eligible (District A: 706; District B: 1,582). Their vaccination status could not be determined.

As pediatricians we have played an integral part in the elimination of diseases through educating and administering vaccinations. Adolescents are relatively healthy, thus limiting the number of encounters with them. The majority complete the 11-year visit; however, many fail to return for the 16- to 18-year visit.

So how are we doing? CDC data from 10 U.S. jurisdictions demonstrated a substantial decrease in vaccine administration between March and May of 2020, compared with the same period in 2018 and 2019. A decline was anticipated because of the nationwide lockdown. Doses of HPV administered declined almost 64% and 71% for 9- to 12-year-olds and 13- to 17-year-olds, respectively. Tdap administration declined 66% and 61% for the same respective age groups. Although administered doses increased between June and September of 2020, it was not sufficient to achieve catch-up coverage. Compared to the same period in 2018-2019, administration of the HPV vaccine declined 12.8% and 28% (ages 9-12 and ages 13-17) and for Tdap it was 21% and 30% lower (ages 9-12 and ages 13-17) (MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2021;70:840-5).

Now, we have another adolescent vaccine to discuss and encourage our patients to receive. We also need to address their concerns and/or to at least direct them to a reliable source to obtain accurate information. For the first time, a recommended vaccine may not be available at their medical home. Many don’t know where to go to receive it (http://www.vaccines.gov). Results of a Kaiser Family Foundation COVID-19 survey (August 2021) indicated that parents trusted their pediatricians most often (78%) for vaccine advice. The respondents voiced concern about trusting the location where the child would be immunized and long-term effects especially related to fertility. Parents who received communications regarding the benefits of vaccination were twice as likely to have their adolescents immunized. Finally, remember: Like parent, like child. An immunized parent is more likely to immunize the adolescent. (See Fig. 1.)

Dr. Word is a pediatric infectious disease specialist and director of the Houston Travel Medicine Clinic. She said she had no relevant financial disclosures.

I began thinking of a topic for this column weeks ago determined to discuss anything except COVID-19. Yet, news reports from all sources blasted daily reminders of rising COVID-19 cases overall and specifically in children.

In August, school resumed for many of our patients and the battle over mandating masks for school attendance was in full swing. The fact that it is a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommendation supported by both the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Pediatric Infectious Disease Society fell on deaf ears. One day, I heard a report that over 25,000 students attending Texas public schools were diagnosed with COVID-19 between Aug. 23 and Aug. 29. This peak in activity occurred just 2 weeks after the start of school and led to the closure of 45 school districts. Texas does not have a monopoly on these rising cases. Delta, a more contagious variant, began circulating in June 2021 and by July it was the most predominant. Emergency department visits and hospitalizations have increased nationwide. During the latter 2 weeks of August 2021, COVID-19–related ED visits and hospitalizations for persons aged 0-17 years were 3.4 and 3.7 times higher in states with the lowest vaccination coverage, compared with states with high vaccination coverage (MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2021;70:1249-54). Specifically, the rates of hospitalization the week ending Aug. 14, 2021, were nearly 5 times the rates for the week ending June 26, 2021, for 0- to 17-year-olds and nearly 10 times the rates for children 0-4 years of age. Hospitalization rates were 10.1 times higher for unimmunized adolescents than for fully vaccinated ones (MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2021;70:1255-60).

Multiple elected state leaders have opposed interventions such as mandating masks in school, and our children are paying for it. These leaders have relinquished their responsibility to local school boards. Several have reinforced the no-mask mandate while others have had the courage and insight to ignore state government leaders and have established mask mandates.

How is this lack of enforcement of national recommendations affecting our patients? Let’s look at two neighboring school districts in Texas. School districts have COVID-19 dashboards that are updated daily and accessible to the general public. School District A requires masks for school entry. It serves 196,171 students and has 27,195 teachers and staff. Since school opened in August, 1,606 cumulative cases of COVID-19 in students (0.8%) and 282 in staff (1%) have been reported. Fifty-five percent of the student cases occurred in elementary schools. In contrast, School District B located in the adjacent county serves 64,517 students and has 3,906 teachers and staff with no mask mandate. Since August, there have been 4,506 cumulative COVID-19 cases in students (6.9%) and 578 (14.7%) in staff. Information regarding the specific school type was not provided; however, the dashboard indicates that 2,924 cases (64.8%) occurred in children younger than 11 years of age. County data indicate 62% of those older than 12 years of age were fully vaccinated in District A, compared with 54% of persons older than 12 years in District B. The county COVID-19 positivity rate in District A is 17.6% and in District B it is 20%. Both counties are experiencing increased COVID-19 activity yet have had strikingly different outcomes in the student/staff population. While supporting the case for wearing masks to prevent disease transmission, one can’t ignore the adolescents who were infected and vaccine eligible (District A: 706; District B: 1,582). Their vaccination status could not be determined.

As pediatricians we have played an integral part in the elimination of diseases through educating and administering vaccinations. Adolescents are relatively healthy, thus limiting the number of encounters with them. The majority complete the 11-year visit; however, many fail to return for the 16- to 18-year visit.

So how are we doing? CDC data from 10 U.S. jurisdictions demonstrated a substantial decrease in vaccine administration between March and May of 2020, compared with the same period in 2018 and 2019. A decline was anticipated because of the nationwide lockdown. Doses of HPV administered declined almost 64% and 71% for 9- to 12-year-olds and 13- to 17-year-olds, respectively. Tdap administration declined 66% and 61% for the same respective age groups. Although administered doses increased between June and September of 2020, it was not sufficient to achieve catch-up coverage. Compared to the same period in 2018-2019, administration of the HPV vaccine declined 12.8% and 28% (ages 9-12 and ages 13-17) and for Tdap it was 21% and 30% lower (ages 9-12 and ages 13-17) (MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2021;70:840-5).

Now, we have another adolescent vaccine to discuss and encourage our patients to receive. We also need to address their concerns and/or to at least direct them to a reliable source to obtain accurate information. For the first time, a recommended vaccine may not be available at their medical home. Many don’t know where to go to receive it (http://www.vaccines.gov). Results of a Kaiser Family Foundation COVID-19 survey (August 2021) indicated that parents trusted their pediatricians most often (78%) for vaccine advice. The respondents voiced concern about trusting the location where the child would be immunized and long-term effects especially related to fertility. Parents who received communications regarding the benefits of vaccination were twice as likely to have their adolescents immunized. Finally, remember: Like parent, like child. An immunized parent is more likely to immunize the adolescent. (See Fig. 1.)

Dr. Word is a pediatric infectious disease specialist and director of the Houston Travel Medicine Clinic. She said she had no relevant financial disclosures.

I once answered online skin questions. The most popular one was, “Is my penis supposed to look like that?”

Then the site was bought by an entrepreneur with a corporate sensibility. He opened two forums: for 15 bucks, you could access the Medical Forum and ask a doctor. For 10, you could join the Community Forum and ask anybody with an opinion. One guess about which forum was more popular.

Years later, a colleague referred a fellow who had run a poison ivy website for a decade and wanted to interview a doctor. He had never spoken with one before, “because it never occurred to me.” His site featured the usual folklore: that blister fluid spreads the poison, that you can catch it from your dog. His website had many pictures. Some were in focus, and a few actually showed poison ivy.

I checked a year later and found that he had never uploaded our interview to his website. When I emailed to ask how come, he said he’d been busy, and did I want him to? I told him I was OK.

What made me think of these old episodes was a phone chat I had the other day with an IT guy about my laptop.

After I told him my problem, he said, “Since you’re a doctor, could I ask you a medical question?”

“Sure.”

“Is the COVID vaccine safe?” he asked.

“I had two shots myself,” I said, “and I’m planning a third. Does that tell you what I think about how safe it is?”

He didn’t answer, and we got back to the laptop.

Five minutes later he said, “I just wonder whether we should mess with vaccines. Maybe we should let nature take its course.”

“How about polio and diphtheria?” I said. “Should we let nature take its course with them?”

He thought for a moment and said, “If you don’t get vaccinated, can you spread the virus to other people?”

“Yes, you can,” I said. “It’s not just that you can get sick, but you can make other people sick, and possibly die if they’re old or vulnerable.”

Again, no response. We finished up with the laptop.

“Thanks for your medical advice,” he said. “I get conflicting information from so many sources.”

Yes, he does. He and everybody else always have. When the issues are poison ivy and genital blotchiness, the stakes are not high enough for anyone to talk about. To a large extent, people have always made their minds up about things based on what their friends think and tell them.

If your friends all wear masks, they will stare at you if you don’t. If your friends don’t wear masks, they will stare at you if you do. Or more than that. Very few people like to be stared at. Or worse.

Dr. Rockoff, who wrote the Dermatology News column “Under My Skin,” is now retired, after more than 40 years of practice in Brookline, Mass. He served on the clinical faculty at Tufts University, Boston, and taught senior medical students and other trainees for 30 years. His latest book, “Doctoring from the Outside In,” was recently published. This is his last column for Dermatology News. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

I once answered online skin questions. The most popular one was, “Is my penis supposed to look like that?”

Then the site was bought by an entrepreneur with a corporate sensibility. He opened two forums: for 15 bucks, you could access the Medical Forum and ask a doctor. For 10, you could join the Community Forum and ask anybody with an opinion. One guess about which forum was more popular.

Years later, a colleague referred a fellow who had run a poison ivy website for a decade and wanted to interview a doctor. He had never spoken with one before, “because it never occurred to me.” His site featured the usual folklore: that blister fluid spreads the poison, that you can catch it from your dog. His website had many pictures. Some were in focus, and a few actually showed poison ivy.

I checked a year later and found that he had never uploaded our interview to his website. When I emailed to ask how come, he said he’d been busy, and did I want him to? I told him I was OK.

What made me think of these old episodes was a phone chat I had the other day with an IT guy about my laptop.

After I told him my problem, he said, “Since you’re a doctor, could I ask you a medical question?”

“Sure.”

“Is the COVID vaccine safe?” he asked.

“I had two shots myself,” I said, “and I’m planning a third. Does that tell you what I think about how safe it is?”

He didn’t answer, and we got back to the laptop.

Five minutes later he said, “I just wonder whether we should mess with vaccines. Maybe we should let nature take its course.”

“How about polio and diphtheria?” I said. “Should we let nature take its course with them?”

He thought for a moment and said, “If you don’t get vaccinated, can you spread the virus to other people?”

“Yes, you can,” I said. “It’s not just that you can get sick, but you can make other people sick, and possibly die if they’re old or vulnerable.”

Again, no response. We finished up with the laptop.

“Thanks for your medical advice,” he said. “I get conflicting information from so many sources.”

Yes, he does. He and everybody else always have. When the issues are poison ivy and genital blotchiness, the stakes are not high enough for anyone to talk about. To a large extent, people have always made their minds up about things based on what their friends think and tell them.

If your friends all wear masks, they will stare at you if you don’t. If your friends don’t wear masks, they will stare at you if you do. Or more than that. Very few people like to be stared at. Or worse.

Dr. Rockoff, who wrote the Dermatology News column “Under My Skin,” is now retired, after more than 40 years of practice in Brookline, Mass. He served on the clinical faculty at Tufts University, Boston, and taught senior medical students and other trainees for 30 years. His latest book, “Doctoring from the Outside In,” was recently published. This is his last column for Dermatology News. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

I once answered online skin questions. The most popular one was, “Is my penis supposed to look like that?”

Then the site was bought by an entrepreneur with a corporate sensibility. He opened two forums: for 15 bucks, you could access the Medical Forum and ask a doctor. For 10, you could join the Community Forum and ask anybody with an opinion. One guess about which forum was more popular.

Years later, a colleague referred a fellow who had run a poison ivy website for a decade and wanted to interview a doctor. He had never spoken with one before, “because it never occurred to me.” His site featured the usual folklore: that blister fluid spreads the poison, that you can catch it from your dog. His website had many pictures. Some were in focus, and a few actually showed poison ivy.

I checked a year later and found that he had never uploaded our interview to his website. When I emailed to ask how come, he said he’d been busy, and did I want him to? I told him I was OK.

What made me think of these old episodes was a phone chat I had the other day with an IT guy about my laptop.

After I told him my problem, he said, “Since you’re a doctor, could I ask you a medical question?”

“Sure.”

“Is the COVID vaccine safe?” he asked.

“I had two shots myself,” I said, “and I’m planning a third. Does that tell you what I think about how safe it is?”

He didn’t answer, and we got back to the laptop.

Five minutes later he said, “I just wonder whether we should mess with vaccines. Maybe we should let nature take its course.”

“How about polio and diphtheria?” I said. “Should we let nature take its course with them?”

He thought for a moment and said, “If you don’t get vaccinated, can you spread the virus to other people?”

“Yes, you can,” I said. “It’s not just that you can get sick, but you can make other people sick, and possibly die if they’re old or vulnerable.”

Again, no response. We finished up with the laptop.

“Thanks for your medical advice,” he said. “I get conflicting information from so many sources.”

Yes, he does. He and everybody else always have. When the issues are poison ivy and genital blotchiness, the stakes are not high enough for anyone to talk about. To a large extent, people have always made their minds up about things based on what their friends think and tell them.

If your friends all wear masks, they will stare at you if you don’t. If your friends don’t wear masks, they will stare at you if you do. Or more than that. Very few people like to be stared at. Or worse.

Dr. Rockoff, who wrote the Dermatology News column “Under My Skin,” is now retired, after more than 40 years of practice in Brookline, Mass. He served on the clinical faculty at Tufts University, Boston, and taught senior medical students and other trainees for 30 years. His latest book, “Doctoring from the Outside In,” was recently published. This is his last column for Dermatology News. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.