Jessica Sparks Lilley, MD

My young patient with type 1 diabetes (T1D) had her cell phone out to provide a share code for her Dexcom clarity app as she was checking into her visit. As my nurse was recording the code, the patient asked him, “Hey, can you add me on Snapchat?”

Her father scrolled through his own Facebook feed in the chair next to her, showing no concern that his daughter was looking to connect with an adult on a social media platform. Meanwhile, we were all grateful that the little girl, who had had a seizure due to hypoglycemia in her preschool and pre–continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) years, had access to the tools harnessed within the sparkly encased phone she held in her small hands. But did anyone in the room fully understand the potential dangers?

We are living in an exhilarating era of diabetes technology, a treatment environment that I couldn’t have dreamed of during my pediatric endocrinology fellowship. T1D is a volatile condition that changes day to day, especially in growing children. A short decade ago, the best CGM available was a bulky device on loan to patients for 3 days at a time. Information was later downloaded in-office to get a better idea of general glucose trends, if insurance would approve its use at all.

Now, we have a variety of very wearable and accurate disposable CGMs accessible to most patients. Every major insulin pump has available closed-loop capabilities. Some patients can dose from apps on their cell phones rather than juggle another device or draw attention to an insulin pump at the cafeteria table.

These developments have been game changers for children and teenagers with diabetes and for their families. When wondering whether an athlete’s dazed appearance on a soccer field was due to hypoglycemia, a parent no longer must demand that a coach pull the player – a quick glance at a smartphone app can verify the blood glucose and change rate. Children can use programs and search engines to quickly verify carbohydrate counts. Life360 and other tracking programs have increased parental feelings of security, especially with young drivers living with a chronic medical condition.

The inevitable outcome of this available technology is that children living with T1D are given cell phones far earlier than are their siblings or peers owing to “necessity.” Parents understandably want a means to stay in close contact with their children in case of a medical emergency. As a physician and mother of young children, I am thankful for the technology that keeps my patients safer and that allows them to fully participate in everything from sports to travel to an uninterrupted night’s sleep. But I am also growing more concerned that we have not completely counted the cost of early smartphone use in children.

Smartphone presence in classrooms empowers teachers, students, parents, and school nurses to be aware of glycemic trends and prevent hypoglycemic emergencies. Smartphones have also shown to be a major distraction in that setting, causing many schools to ban their use entirely. Video apps such as YouTube and TikTok can provide a wealth of support and medical information but may also open the door to misinformation and dangerous social contagion, particularly surrounding disordered eating. Informative podcasts such as The Juicebox Podcast and online forums provide incredible support for families, but the constant siren call of a phone in their pockets leads to distracted parents constantly tending to other conversations or responding to ever more demanding employers rather than focusing on face-to-face education sessions.

The Surgeon General recently released a report concerning social media use in children. This eye-opening report revealed that one-third of children admitted to using their cell phones “almost constantly.” Social media use is associated with higher rates of anxiety and depression, especially in teen girls. This is particularly concerning for children with T1D, who are more likely to suffer from these conditions.

Beyond mental health concerns, especially to developing brains, unfettered Internet use increases the risk that children are exposed to predators and harmful content. The online safety monitoring platform Bark shared data from its 2021 surveillance. Bark found that 72% of tweens and 85% of teens were involved in an online bullying situation. Sixty-nine percent of tweens and 91% of teens encountered nudity or sexual content. Ten percent of tweens and 21% of teens encountered predatory behavior.

These alarming finds mirror the prevalence suggested by conversations in my office. I hear reports of my patients sneaking out at night to meet adults they met through social media, having suicidal ideation and attempts after Internet bullying, and sharing earnest belief in bizarre conspiracy theories gleaned from online forums that lead to dangerous health care practices.

Furthermore, time is a finite resource. Teens who are spending an average of 3.5 hours daily on their devices are running out of time to play, study, and grow extracurricular interests. My friend who coaches high school baseball lamented recently the poor athleticism in his recent teams. He theorized that his players had spent their summers on tablets rather than playing catch or climbing trees. The resulting declines in exercise in young people only serve to worsen the childhood obesity epidemic.

What is a concerned parent to do? First, all phones have controls that allow parents to choose which apps are allowed and which are blocked. Caregivers must understand how various social media platforms work. Installing programs such as Bark provides an additional layer of monitoring, though these are no substitute for parental vigilance. Importantly, parents should talk to their children about their concerns regarding social media.

Sadly, I have often noticed that caregivers pity the extra hardships their children endure as the result of T1D and other chronic diseases. Being lax with rules to attempt to compensate for other suffering is far too tempting. The goal is for children and teens living with T1D to have a full and normal childhood, and unrestricted smartphone access and early social media use should not be the goal for any child. For every family, a media use plan is a smart approach. The American Academy of Pediatrics suggests several commonsense steps to use technology wisely, and parents often must address their own relationships with their devices to model healthy engagement.

As health care professionals, we owe it to our patients to discuss the ups and downs of technology with our patients. We can’t ostrich our way through this. We can point our patients and families to supportive groups such as Osprey (Old School Parents Raising Engaged Youth), founded by Ben and Erin Napier from the HGTV show Home Town along with my college friends Taylor and Dr. Catherine Sledge. Wait Until 8th provides information and motivation for parents to make wise choices regarding phone use for their children. The documentary Childhood 2.0 is another compelling resource developed by pediatric emergency physician Dr. Free Hess and her team that summarizes many of these concerns.

In another decade, many of these dangers will be far clearer. As ubiquitous as smartphone misuse is in our society, I remain hopeful that our society will change its behaviors. Just because “everyone else” allows an unhealthy relationship with technology doesn’t mean that we should for our children.

When I was a child, smoking was glamorized in movies and restaurants had dedicated smoking sections. After strong public policy efforts, many geared toward children, smoking is now almost unthinkable. My 8-year-old asked me lately whether a lady smoking a cigarette in the car next to us would have to go to jail. I chose a career in pediatrics because I am an optimist at my very core. We can’t ignore the dangers associated with the wide door opened by mobile devices. We can celebrate the benefits while clearly facing the pitfalls.

Dr. Lilley is director of the pediatric diabetes and lipid program at the Mississippi Center for Advanced Medicine, Madison. She reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

My young patient with type 1 diabetes (T1D) had her cell phone out to provide a share code for her Dexcom clarity app as she was checking into her visit. As my nurse was recording the code, the patient asked him, “Hey, can you add me on Snapchat?”

Her father scrolled through his own Facebook feed in the chair next to her, showing no concern that his daughter was looking to connect with an adult on a social media platform. Meanwhile, we were all grateful that the little girl, who had had a seizure due to hypoglycemia in her preschool and pre–continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) years, had access to the tools harnessed within the sparkly encased phone she held in her small hands. But did anyone in the room fully understand the potential dangers?

We are living in an exhilarating era of diabetes technology, a treatment environment that I couldn’t have dreamed of during my pediatric endocrinology fellowship. T1D is a volatile condition that changes day to day, especially in growing children. A short decade ago, the best CGM available was a bulky device on loan to patients for 3 days at a time. Information was later downloaded in-office to get a better idea of general glucose trends, if insurance would approve its use at all.

Now, we have a variety of very wearable and accurate disposable CGMs accessible to most patients. Every major insulin pump has available closed-loop capabilities. Some patients can dose from apps on their cell phones rather than juggle another device or draw attention to an insulin pump at the cafeteria table.

These developments have been game changers for children and teenagers with diabetes and for their families. When wondering whether an athlete’s dazed appearance on a soccer field was due to hypoglycemia, a parent no longer must demand that a coach pull the player – a quick glance at a smartphone app can verify the blood glucose and change rate. Children can use programs and search engines to quickly verify carbohydrate counts. Life360 and other tracking programs have increased parental feelings of security, especially with young drivers living with a chronic medical condition.

The inevitable outcome of this available technology is that children living with T1D are given cell phones far earlier than are their siblings or peers owing to “necessity.” Parents understandably want a means to stay in close contact with their children in case of a medical emergency. As a physician and mother of young children, I am thankful for the technology that keeps my patients safer and that allows them to fully participate in everything from sports to travel to an uninterrupted night’s sleep. But I am also growing more concerned that we have not completely counted the cost of early smartphone use in children.

Smartphone presence in classrooms empowers teachers, students, parents, and school nurses to be aware of glycemic trends and prevent hypoglycemic emergencies. Smartphones have also shown to be a major distraction in that setting, causing many schools to ban their use entirely. Video apps such as YouTube and TikTok can provide a wealth of support and medical information but may also open the door to misinformation and dangerous social contagion, particularly surrounding disordered eating. Informative podcasts such as The Juicebox Podcast and online forums provide incredible support for families, but the constant siren call of a phone in their pockets leads to distracted parents constantly tending to other conversations or responding to ever more demanding employers rather than focusing on face-to-face education sessions.

The Surgeon General recently released a report concerning social media use in children. This eye-opening report revealed that one-third of children admitted to using their cell phones “almost constantly.” Social media use is associated with higher rates of anxiety and depression, especially in teen girls. This is particularly concerning for children with T1D, who are more likely to suffer from these conditions.

Beyond mental health concerns, especially to developing brains, unfettered Internet use increases the risk that children are exposed to predators and harmful content. The online safety monitoring platform Bark shared data from its 2021 surveillance. Bark found that 72% of tweens and 85% of teens were involved in an online bullying situation. Sixty-nine percent of tweens and 91% of teens encountered nudity or sexual content. Ten percent of tweens and 21% of teens encountered predatory behavior.

These alarming finds mirror the prevalence suggested by conversations in my office. I hear reports of my patients sneaking out at night to meet adults they met through social media, having suicidal ideation and attempts after Internet bullying, and sharing earnest belief in bizarre conspiracy theories gleaned from online forums that lead to dangerous health care practices.

Furthermore, time is a finite resource. Teens who are spending an average of 3.5 hours daily on their devices are running out of time to play, study, and grow extracurricular interests. My friend who coaches high school baseball lamented recently the poor athleticism in his recent teams. He theorized that his players had spent their summers on tablets rather than playing catch or climbing trees. The resulting declines in exercise in young people only serve to worsen the childhood obesity epidemic.

What is a concerned parent to do? First, all phones have controls that allow parents to choose which apps are allowed and which are blocked. Caregivers must understand how various social media platforms work. Installing programs such as Bark provides an additional layer of monitoring, though these are no substitute for parental vigilance. Importantly, parents should talk to their children about their concerns regarding social media.

Sadly, I have often noticed that caregivers pity the extra hardships their children endure as the result of T1D and other chronic diseases. Being lax with rules to attempt to compensate for other suffering is far too tempting. The goal is for children and teens living with T1D to have a full and normal childhood, and unrestricted smartphone access and early social media use should not be the goal for any child. For every family, a media use plan is a smart approach. The American Academy of Pediatrics suggests several commonsense steps to use technology wisely, and parents often must address their own relationships with their devices to model healthy engagement.

As health care professionals, we owe it to our patients to discuss the ups and downs of technology with our patients. We can’t ostrich our way through this. We can point our patients and families to supportive groups such as Osprey (Old School Parents Raising Engaged Youth), founded by Ben and Erin Napier from the HGTV show Home Town along with my college friends Taylor and Dr. Catherine Sledge. Wait Until 8th provides information and motivation for parents to make wise choices regarding phone use for their children. The documentary Childhood 2.0 is another compelling resource developed by pediatric emergency physician Dr. Free Hess and her team that summarizes many of these concerns.

In another decade, many of these dangers will be far clearer. As ubiquitous as smartphone misuse is in our society, I remain hopeful that our society will change its behaviors. Just because “everyone else” allows an unhealthy relationship with technology doesn’t mean that we should for our children.

When I was a child, smoking was glamorized in movies and restaurants had dedicated smoking sections. After strong public policy efforts, many geared toward children, smoking is now almost unthinkable. My 8-year-old asked me lately whether a lady smoking a cigarette in the car next to us would have to go to jail. I chose a career in pediatrics because I am an optimist at my very core. We can’t ignore the dangers associated with the wide door opened by mobile devices. We can celebrate the benefits while clearly facing the pitfalls.

Dr. Lilley is director of the pediatric diabetes and lipid program at the Mississippi Center for Advanced Medicine, Madison. She reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

My young patient with type 1 diabetes (T1D) had her cell phone out to provide a share code for her Dexcom clarity app as she was checking into her visit. As my nurse was recording the code, the patient asked him, “Hey, can you add me on Snapchat?”

Her father scrolled through his own Facebook feed in the chair next to her, showing no concern that his daughter was looking to connect with an adult on a social media platform. Meanwhile, we were all grateful that the little girl, who had had a seizure due to hypoglycemia in her preschool and pre–continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) years, had access to the tools harnessed within the sparkly encased phone she held in her small hands. But did anyone in the room fully understand the potential dangers?

We are living in an exhilarating era of diabetes technology, a treatment environment that I couldn’t have dreamed of during my pediatric endocrinology fellowship. T1D is a volatile condition that changes day to day, especially in growing children. A short decade ago, the best CGM available was a bulky device on loan to patients for 3 days at a time. Information was later downloaded in-office to get a better idea of general glucose trends, if insurance would approve its use at all.

Now, we have a variety of very wearable and accurate disposable CGMs accessible to most patients. Every major insulin pump has available closed-loop capabilities. Some patients can dose from apps on their cell phones rather than juggle another device or draw attention to an insulin pump at the cafeteria table.

These developments have been game changers for children and teenagers with diabetes and for their families. When wondering whether an athlete’s dazed appearance on a soccer field was due to hypoglycemia, a parent no longer must demand that a coach pull the player – a quick glance at a smartphone app can verify the blood glucose and change rate. Children can use programs and search engines to quickly verify carbohydrate counts. Life360 and other tracking programs have increased parental feelings of security, especially with young drivers living with a chronic medical condition.

The inevitable outcome of this available technology is that children living with T1D are given cell phones far earlier than are their siblings or peers owing to “necessity.” Parents understandably want a means to stay in close contact with their children in case of a medical emergency. As a physician and mother of young children, I am thankful for the technology that keeps my patients safer and that allows them to fully participate in everything from sports to travel to an uninterrupted night’s sleep. But I am also growing more concerned that we have not completely counted the cost of early smartphone use in children.

Smartphone presence in classrooms empowers teachers, students, parents, and school nurses to be aware of glycemic trends and prevent hypoglycemic emergencies. Smartphones have also shown to be a major distraction in that setting, causing many schools to ban their use entirely. Video apps such as YouTube and TikTok can provide a wealth of support and medical information but may also open the door to misinformation and dangerous social contagion, particularly surrounding disordered eating. Informative podcasts such as The Juicebox Podcast and online forums provide incredible support for families, but the constant siren call of a phone in their pockets leads to distracted parents constantly tending to other conversations or responding to ever more demanding employers rather than focusing on face-to-face education sessions.

The Surgeon General recently released a report concerning social media use in children. This eye-opening report revealed that one-third of children admitted to using their cell phones “almost constantly.” Social media use is associated with higher rates of anxiety and depression, especially in teen girls. This is particularly concerning for children with T1D, who are more likely to suffer from these conditions.

Beyond mental health concerns, especially to developing brains, unfettered Internet use increases the risk that children are exposed to predators and harmful content. The online safety monitoring platform Bark shared data from its 2021 surveillance. Bark found that 72% of tweens and 85% of teens were involved in an online bullying situation. Sixty-nine percent of tweens and 91% of teens encountered nudity or sexual content. Ten percent of tweens and 21% of teens encountered predatory behavior.

These alarming finds mirror the prevalence suggested by conversations in my office. I hear reports of my patients sneaking out at night to meet adults they met through social media, having suicidal ideation and attempts after Internet bullying, and sharing earnest belief in bizarre conspiracy theories gleaned from online forums that lead to dangerous health care practices.

Furthermore, time is a finite resource. Teens who are spending an average of 3.5 hours daily on their devices are running out of time to play, study, and grow extracurricular interests. My friend who coaches high school baseball lamented recently the poor athleticism in his recent teams. He theorized that his players had spent their summers on tablets rather than playing catch or climbing trees. The resulting declines in exercise in young people only serve to worsen the childhood obesity epidemic.

What is a concerned parent to do? First, all phones have controls that allow parents to choose which apps are allowed and which are blocked. Caregivers must understand how various social media platforms work. Installing programs such as Bark provides an additional layer of monitoring, though these are no substitute for parental vigilance. Importantly, parents should talk to their children about their concerns regarding social media.

Sadly, I have often noticed that caregivers pity the extra hardships their children endure as the result of T1D and other chronic diseases. Being lax with rules to attempt to compensate for other suffering is far too tempting. The goal is for children and teens living with T1D to have a full and normal childhood, and unrestricted smartphone access and early social media use should not be the goal for any child. For every family, a media use plan is a smart approach. The American Academy of Pediatrics suggests several commonsense steps to use technology wisely, and parents often must address their own relationships with their devices to model healthy engagement.

As health care professionals, we owe it to our patients to discuss the ups and downs of technology with our patients. We can’t ostrich our way through this. We can point our patients and families to supportive groups such as Osprey (Old School Parents Raising Engaged Youth), founded by Ben and Erin Napier from the HGTV show Home Town along with my college friends Taylor and Dr. Catherine Sledge. Wait Until 8th provides information and motivation for parents to make wise choices regarding phone use for their children. The documentary Childhood 2.0 is another compelling resource developed by pediatric emergency physician Dr. Free Hess and her team that summarizes many of these concerns.

In another decade, many of these dangers will be far clearer. As ubiquitous as smartphone misuse is in our society, I remain hopeful that our society will change its behaviors. Just because “everyone else” allows an unhealthy relationship with technology doesn’t mean that we should for our children.

When I was a child, smoking was glamorized in movies and restaurants had dedicated smoking sections. After strong public policy efforts, many geared toward children, smoking is now almost unthinkable. My 8-year-old asked me lately whether a lady smoking a cigarette in the car next to us would have to go to jail. I chose a career in pediatrics because I am an optimist at my very core. We can’t ignore the dangers associated with the wide door opened by mobile devices. We can celebrate the benefits while clearly facing the pitfalls.

Dr. Lilley is director of the pediatric diabetes and lipid program at the Mississippi Center for Advanced Medicine, Madison. She reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

“Dr. Lilley, you’ll always be my favorite doctor; you helped me grow.”

These were the parting words from the last patient that I treated during my endocrinology fellowship. I had watched this young man grow from a prepubertal 17-year-old to a young man who had reached his predicted family height as I treated his delayed puberty caused by Kallmann syndrome, a problem that had been missed for years. It was the appropriate bookend for my chosen specialty.

Watching children grow and develop into who they were meant to be is one of my favorite things about endocrinology, as well as forming meaningful relationships with families. Treating detectable deficiencies in logical and measurable ways is also extremely satisfying.

Too little testosterone? That’s a problem I can solve. Too much thyroid hormone? There’s a blocker for that! Endocrinology can be a straightforward field, and when all goes well, everyone leaves happy.

Except when they don’t.
 

Gatekeepers for treatment for children’s growth

“Nice to meet you. We’re here to get growth hormone.”

“We’re here because his pediatrician made us come. We’ve already decided we’re not going to put hormones into his body.”

These are common statements I hear when I first meet new patients whose parents are concerned about their children’s growth. Pediatric endocrinologists, after all, are the usual gatekeepers for this treatment.

Growth hormone (GH) often makes the news for controversial reasons – most commonly for its abuse by elite athletes hoping to exploit its anabolic effects – causing parents to have varied opinions about its possible use in their children.

Some refuse endocrinology referrals at all owing to concerns that we will push daily injections on their children. Others demand referrals for their children of average height, hoping for every perceived advantage.

GH deficiency (GHD) – a condition where the pituitary gland fails to produce enough GH – can occur because of congenital pituitary malformations; anatomic, surgical, or traumatic interruptions to the gland; or enzyme deficiencies leading to faulty production.

GHD is just one reason for poor growth, however.

Growth is one of the most important indicators of health in children. A waning growth rate may be an early symptom of serious problems. In my clinic, I’ve diagnosed severe hypothyroidism in a marathon runner, a brain tumor, celiac disease in a teenager with no gastrointestinal complaints, autoimmune hepatitis, and several other diseases needing treatment in children who show no symptoms other than poor growth.
 

Barriers to normal growth

Sometimes, the die is cast for children to have barriers to normal growth. Several genetic conditions can lead to poor GH production or response, and GH treatment is often necessary to approximate normal height.

These may include:

• Turner syndrome (in females who are missing an X chromosome in whole or part) should be considered in every girl with abnormally short stature; mosaic forms of the condition may be subtle and lack classic features.
• Noonan syndrome is important to detect owing to the possibility of cardiac or renal malformations that may also occur in this condition, caused by a mutation in one of the genes in the RAS-MAPK pathway.
• Russell-Silver syndrome can cause intrauterine GH restriction and has been traced to uniparental disomy of chromosome 7 or duplications, mutations, or methylation defects in chromosome 11.
• Individuals with Prader-Willi syndrome, which is characterized by low muscle tone, hyperphagia, and hypogonadism, have demonstrated dramatic benefits from GH therapy, primarily in maintaining a normal body mass index.

Children who are small for their gestational age may be GH resistant, and those who do not catch up to their growth curve by the age of 2 years may require GH treatment to reach their height potential.

GH therapy isn’t entirely benign. Rare adverse effects of overtreatment can include slipped capital femoral epiphysis (a fracture to the growth plate) and pseudotumor cerebri (idiopathic intracranial hypertension).

Overtreatment can cause acromegaly, which results in coarsened features and large hands and feet.
 

When is GH therapy warranted?

“Growth hormone therapy has been denied by her insurer. They want you to fill out an appeal.”

Insurance approval in the United States can be a herculean effort because GH is expensive: Out-of-pocket costs are prohibitive for most people without insurance assistance, ranging from $7,000 to $30,000 annually.

Pediatric endocrinologists aren’t in the business of cosmetic endocrinology. Treatment of idiopathic short stature has been controversial since this became an indication for GH treatment.

GH isn’t always necessary. Diagnosing the underlying cause for poor growth is the most important step.

Often, we find constitutional delay of growth and puberty, or “late bloomers.” This condition is characterized by a delayed bone age (growth plates more open than expected for age) and delayed pubertal onset. These children will often reach a normal height despite starting as some of the smallest of their peers.

However, GH plays other roles in the body than simply propelling height. Children with congenital GHD will require GH treatment to prevent hypoglycemia, especially in infancy.

GH is needed even in adults with fused growth plates for normal lipid metabolism, bone accrual, and maintaining normal muscle mass.

I have noticed marked improvements in muscle tone in many children with developmental delays who are treated with GH, and research supports cognitive benefits for certain populations.

The most common regimens for GH focus on treatment via subcutaneous injection nightly, when GH is naturally produced; sometimes, injections are given six nights out of seven to provide a break or for splitting time between households.

Newer once-weekly formulations have recently received approval, as reported by this news organization, and are coming into use.

Pediatric endocrinologists measure height and follow growth factors closely with visits every 3-6 months. GH levels are not useful outside of provocative diagnostic (stimulation) testing.

Insulinlike growth factor 1 or insulinlike growth factor binding protein levels are analyzed per Tanner stage of puberty to assess appropriate response and to make dose adjustments.

Annual standardized films of the left hand help predict progress and anticipated adult height. Treatment usually persists through puberty until growth plates are closed; if true GHD is noticed, much smaller doses are continued through adulthood.

Regardless, conversations about GH happen with your friendly local pediatric endocrinologist.

We are thrilled to help shepherd patients through their growing age to meet their potential. For more information about GH treatment for children, the MAGIC Foundation is the perfect place to start.

Dr. Lilley is director of the pediatric diabetes and lipid program, Mississippi Center for Advanced Medicine, Madison. She disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

“Dr. Lilley, you’ll always be my favorite doctor; you helped me grow.”

These were the parting words from the last patient that I treated during my endocrinology fellowship. I had watched this young man grow from a prepubertal 17-year-old to a young man who had reached his predicted family height as I treated his delayed puberty caused by Kallmann syndrome, a problem that had been missed for years. It was the appropriate bookend for my chosen specialty.

Watching children grow and develop into who they were meant to be is one of my favorite things about endocrinology, as well as forming meaningful relationships with families. Treating detectable deficiencies in logical and measurable ways is also extremely satisfying.

Too little testosterone? That’s a problem I can solve. Too much thyroid hormone? There’s a blocker for that! Endocrinology can be a straightforward field, and when all goes well, everyone leaves happy.

Except when they don’t.
 

Gatekeepers for treatment for children’s growth

“Nice to meet you. We’re here to get growth hormone.”

“We’re here because his pediatrician made us come. We’ve already decided we’re not going to put hormones into his body.”

These are common statements I hear when I first meet new patients whose parents are concerned about their children’s growth. Pediatric endocrinologists, after all, are the usual gatekeepers for this treatment.

Growth hormone (GH) often makes the news for controversial reasons – most commonly for its abuse by elite athletes hoping to exploit its anabolic effects – causing parents to have varied opinions about its possible use in their children.

Some refuse endocrinology referrals at all owing to concerns that we will push daily injections on their children. Others demand referrals for their children of average height, hoping for every perceived advantage.

GH deficiency (GHD) – a condition where the pituitary gland fails to produce enough GH – can occur because of congenital pituitary malformations; anatomic, surgical, or traumatic interruptions to the gland; or enzyme deficiencies leading to faulty production.

GHD is just one reason for poor growth, however.

Growth is one of the most important indicators of health in children. A waning growth rate may be an early symptom of serious problems. In my clinic, I’ve diagnosed severe hypothyroidism in a marathon runner, a brain tumor, celiac disease in a teenager with no gastrointestinal complaints, autoimmune hepatitis, and several other diseases needing treatment in children who show no symptoms other than poor growth.
 

Barriers to normal growth

Sometimes, the die is cast for children to have barriers to normal growth. Several genetic conditions can lead to poor GH production or response, and GH treatment is often necessary to approximate normal height.

These may include:

• Turner syndrome (in females who are missing an X chromosome in whole or part) should be considered in every girl with abnormally short stature; mosaic forms of the condition may be subtle and lack classic features.
• Noonan syndrome is important to detect owing to the possibility of cardiac or renal malformations that may also occur in this condition, caused by a mutation in one of the genes in the RAS-MAPK pathway.
• Russell-Silver syndrome can cause intrauterine GH restriction and has been traced to uniparental disomy of chromosome 7 or duplications, mutations, or methylation defects in chromosome 11.
• Individuals with Prader-Willi syndrome, which is characterized by low muscle tone, hyperphagia, and hypogonadism, have demonstrated dramatic benefits from GH therapy, primarily in maintaining a normal body mass index.

Children who are small for their gestational age may be GH resistant, and those who do not catch up to their growth curve by the age of 2 years may require GH treatment to reach their height potential.

GH therapy isn’t entirely benign. Rare adverse effects of overtreatment can include slipped capital femoral epiphysis (a fracture to the growth plate) and pseudotumor cerebri (idiopathic intracranial hypertension).

Overtreatment can cause acromegaly, which results in coarsened features and large hands and feet.
 

When is GH therapy warranted?

“Growth hormone therapy has been denied by her insurer. They want you to fill out an appeal.”

Insurance approval in the United States can be a herculean effort because GH is expensive: Out-of-pocket costs are prohibitive for most people without insurance assistance, ranging from $7,000 to $30,000 annually.

Pediatric endocrinologists aren’t in the business of cosmetic endocrinology. Treatment of idiopathic short stature has been controversial since this became an indication for GH treatment.

GH isn’t always necessary. Diagnosing the underlying cause for poor growth is the most important step.

Often, we find constitutional delay of growth and puberty, or “late bloomers.” This condition is characterized by a delayed bone age (growth plates more open than expected for age) and delayed pubertal onset. These children will often reach a normal height despite starting as some of the smallest of their peers.

However, GH plays other roles in the body than simply propelling height. Children with congenital GHD will require GH treatment to prevent hypoglycemia, especially in infancy.

GH is needed even in adults with fused growth plates for normal lipid metabolism, bone accrual, and maintaining normal muscle mass.

I have noticed marked improvements in muscle tone in many children with developmental delays who are treated with GH, and research supports cognitive benefits for certain populations.

The most common regimens for GH focus on treatment via subcutaneous injection nightly, when GH is naturally produced; sometimes, injections are given six nights out of seven to provide a break or for splitting time between households.

Newer once-weekly formulations have recently received approval, as reported by this news organization, and are coming into use.

Pediatric endocrinologists measure height and follow growth factors closely with visits every 3-6 months. GH levels are not useful outside of provocative diagnostic (stimulation) testing.

Insulinlike growth factor 1 or insulinlike growth factor binding protein levels are analyzed per Tanner stage of puberty to assess appropriate response and to make dose adjustments.

Annual standardized films of the left hand help predict progress and anticipated adult height. Treatment usually persists through puberty until growth plates are closed; if true GHD is noticed, much smaller doses are continued through adulthood.

Regardless, conversations about GH happen with your friendly local pediatric endocrinologist.

We are thrilled to help shepherd patients through their growing age to meet their potential. For more information about GH treatment for children, the MAGIC Foundation is the perfect place to start.

Dr. Lilley is director of the pediatric diabetes and lipid program, Mississippi Center for Advanced Medicine, Madison. She disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

“Dr. Lilley, you’ll always be my favorite doctor; you helped me grow.”

These were the parting words from the last patient that I treated during my endocrinology fellowship. I had watched this young man grow from a prepubertal 17-year-old to a young man who had reached his predicted family height as I treated his delayed puberty caused by Kallmann syndrome, a problem that had been missed for years. It was the appropriate bookend for my chosen specialty.

Watching children grow and develop into who they were meant to be is one of my favorite things about endocrinology, as well as forming meaningful relationships with families. Treating detectable deficiencies in logical and measurable ways is also extremely satisfying.

Too little testosterone? That’s a problem I can solve. Too much thyroid hormone? There’s a blocker for that! Endocrinology can be a straightforward field, and when all goes well, everyone leaves happy.

Except when they don’t.
 

Gatekeepers for treatment for children’s growth

“Nice to meet you. We’re here to get growth hormone.”

“We’re here because his pediatrician made us come. We’ve already decided we’re not going to put hormones into his body.”

These are common statements I hear when I first meet new patients whose parents are concerned about their children’s growth. Pediatric endocrinologists, after all, are the usual gatekeepers for this treatment.

Growth hormone (GH) often makes the news for controversial reasons – most commonly for its abuse by elite athletes hoping to exploit its anabolic effects – causing parents to have varied opinions about its possible use in their children.

Some refuse endocrinology referrals at all owing to concerns that we will push daily injections on their children. Others demand referrals for their children of average height, hoping for every perceived advantage.

GH deficiency (GHD) – a condition where the pituitary gland fails to produce enough GH – can occur because of congenital pituitary malformations; anatomic, surgical, or traumatic interruptions to the gland; or enzyme deficiencies leading to faulty production.

GHD is just one reason for poor growth, however.

Growth is one of the most important indicators of health in children. A waning growth rate may be an early symptom of serious problems. In my clinic, I’ve diagnosed severe hypothyroidism in a marathon runner, a brain tumor, celiac disease in a teenager with no gastrointestinal complaints, autoimmune hepatitis, and several other diseases needing treatment in children who show no symptoms other than poor growth.
 

Barriers to normal growth

Sometimes, the die is cast for children to have barriers to normal growth. Several genetic conditions can lead to poor GH production or response, and GH treatment is often necessary to approximate normal height.

These may include:

• Turner syndrome (in females who are missing an X chromosome in whole or part) should be considered in every girl with abnormally short stature; mosaic forms of the condition may be subtle and lack classic features.
• Noonan syndrome is important to detect owing to the possibility of cardiac or renal malformations that may also occur in this condition, caused by a mutation in one of the genes in the RAS-MAPK pathway.
• Russell-Silver syndrome can cause intrauterine GH restriction and has been traced to uniparental disomy of chromosome 7 or duplications, mutations, or methylation defects in chromosome 11.
• Individuals with Prader-Willi syndrome, which is characterized by low muscle tone, hyperphagia, and hypogonadism, have demonstrated dramatic benefits from GH therapy, primarily in maintaining a normal body mass index.

Children who are small for their gestational age may be GH resistant, and those who do not catch up to their growth curve by the age of 2 years may require GH treatment to reach their height potential.

GH therapy isn’t entirely benign. Rare adverse effects of overtreatment can include slipped capital femoral epiphysis (a fracture to the growth plate) and pseudotumor cerebri (idiopathic intracranial hypertension).

Overtreatment can cause acromegaly, which results in coarsened features and large hands and feet.
 

When is GH therapy warranted?

“Growth hormone therapy has been denied by her insurer. They want you to fill out an appeal.”

Insurance approval in the United States can be a herculean effort because GH is expensive: Out-of-pocket costs are prohibitive for most people without insurance assistance, ranging from $7,000 to $30,000 annually.

Pediatric endocrinologists aren’t in the business of cosmetic endocrinology. Treatment of idiopathic short stature has been controversial since this became an indication for GH treatment.

GH isn’t always necessary. Diagnosing the underlying cause for poor growth is the most important step.

Often, we find constitutional delay of growth and puberty, or “late bloomers.” This condition is characterized by a delayed bone age (growth plates more open than expected for age) and delayed pubertal onset. These children will often reach a normal height despite starting as some of the smallest of their peers.

However, GH plays other roles in the body than simply propelling height. Children with congenital GHD will require GH treatment to prevent hypoglycemia, especially in infancy.

GH is needed even in adults with fused growth plates for normal lipid metabolism, bone accrual, and maintaining normal muscle mass.

I have noticed marked improvements in muscle tone in many children with developmental delays who are treated with GH, and research supports cognitive benefits for certain populations.

The most common regimens for GH focus on treatment via subcutaneous injection nightly, when GH is naturally produced; sometimes, injections are given six nights out of seven to provide a break or for splitting time between households.

Newer once-weekly formulations have recently received approval, as reported by this news organization, and are coming into use.

Pediatric endocrinologists measure height and follow growth factors closely with visits every 3-6 months. GH levels are not useful outside of provocative diagnostic (stimulation) testing.

Insulinlike growth factor 1 or insulinlike growth factor binding protein levels are analyzed per Tanner stage of puberty to assess appropriate response and to make dose adjustments.

Annual standardized films of the left hand help predict progress and anticipated adult height. Treatment usually persists through puberty until growth plates are closed; if true GHD is noticed, much smaller doses are continued through adulthood.

Regardless, conversations about GH happen with your friendly local pediatric endocrinologist.

We are thrilled to help shepherd patients through their growing age to meet their potential. For more information about GH treatment for children, the MAGIC Foundation is the perfect place to start.

Dr. Lilley is director of the pediatric diabetes and lipid program, Mississippi Center for Advanced Medicine, Madison. She disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In early 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic changed everything about life as we know it, with widespread shutdowns across the globe. The U.S. health care system quickly adapted, pivoting to telehealth visits when able and proactively managing outpatient conditions to prevent overwhelming hospital resources and utilization. Meanwhile, at my practice, the typical rate of about one new-onset pediatric type 1 diabetes (T1D) case per week increased to about two per week.

Is COVID-19 a trigger for T1D?

There is known precedent for increased risk for T1D after viral infections in patients who are already genetically susceptible. Mechanisms of immune-mediated islet cell failure would make sense following SARS-CoV-2 infection; direct islet toxicity was noted with SARS-CoV-1 and has been suspected with SARS-CoV-2 but not proven. Some have suggested that hypercoagulability with COVID-19 may lead to ischemic damage to the pancreas.

With multiple potential pathways for islet damage, increases in insulin-dependent diabetes would logically follow. Still, whether this is the case remains unclear. There is not yet definitive evidence that there is uptake of SARS-CoV-2 via receptors in the pancreatic beta cells.

Our current understanding of T1D pathogenesis is that susceptible individuals develop autoimmunity in response to an environmental trigger, with beta-cell failure developing over months to years. Perhaps vulnerable patients with genetic risk for pancreatic autoimmunity were stressed by SARS-CoV-2 infection and were diagnosed earlier than they might have been, showing some lead-time bias. Adult patients with COVID-19 demonstrated hyperglycemia that has been reversible in some cases, like the stress hyperglycemia seen with other infections and surgery in response to proinflammatory states.

The true question seems to be whether there is a unique type of diabetes related to direct viral toxicity. Do newly diagnosed patients have measurable traditional antibodies, like anti-glutamic acid decarboxylase or anti-islet cell antibodies? Is there proof of preceding SARS-CoV-2 infection? In the new cases that I thought were unusual at first glance, I found typical pancreatic autoimmunity and negative SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. The small cohorts reported thus far have had similar findings.

A stronger case can be made for the risk of developing diabetes (types 1 and 2) with rapid weight gain. Another marked pattern that pediatric endocrinologists have observed has been increased weight gain in children with closed schools, decreased activity, and more social isolation. I have seen weight change as great as 100 lb in a teen over the past year; 30- to 50-lb weight increases over the course of the pandemic have been common. Considering the “accelerator hypothesis” of faster onset of type 2 diabetes with rapid weight gain, implications for hastening of T1D with weight gain have also been considered. The full impact of these dramatic weight changes will take time to understand.
 

The true story may not emerge for years

Anecdotes and theoretical concerns may give us pause, but they are far from scientific truth. Efforts are underway to explore this perceived trend with international registries, including the CoviDIAB Registry as well as T1D Exchange. The true story may not emerge until years have passed to see the cumulative fallout of COVID-19. Regardless, these troubling observations should be considered as pandemic safeguards continue to loosen.

While pediatric mortality from COVID-19 has been relatively low (though sadly not zero), some have placed too little focus on possible morbidity. Long-term effects like long COVID and neuropsychiatric sequelae are becoming evident in all populations, including children. If a lifelong illness like diabetes can be directly linked to COVID-19, protecting children from infection with measures like masks becomes all the more crucial until vaccines are more readily available. Despite our rapid progress with understanding COVID-19 disease, there is still much left to learn.

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

In early 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic changed everything about life as we know it, with widespread shutdowns across the globe. The U.S. health care system quickly adapted, pivoting to telehealth visits when able and proactively managing outpatient conditions to prevent overwhelming hospital resources and utilization. Meanwhile, at my practice, the typical rate of about one new-onset pediatric type 1 diabetes (T1D) case per week increased to about two per week.

Is COVID-19 a trigger for T1D?

There is known precedent for increased risk for T1D after viral infections in patients who are already genetically susceptible. Mechanisms of immune-mediated islet cell failure would make sense following SARS-CoV-2 infection; direct islet toxicity was noted with SARS-CoV-1 and has been suspected with SARS-CoV-2 but not proven. Some have suggested that hypercoagulability with COVID-19 may lead to ischemic damage to the pancreas.

With multiple potential pathways for islet damage, increases in insulin-dependent diabetes would logically follow. Still, whether this is the case remains unclear. There is not yet definitive evidence that there is uptake of SARS-CoV-2 via receptors in the pancreatic beta cells.

Our current understanding of T1D pathogenesis is that susceptible individuals develop autoimmunity in response to an environmental trigger, with beta-cell failure developing over months to years. Perhaps vulnerable patients with genetic risk for pancreatic autoimmunity were stressed by SARS-CoV-2 infection and were diagnosed earlier than they might have been, showing some lead-time bias. Adult patients with COVID-19 demonstrated hyperglycemia that has been reversible in some cases, like the stress hyperglycemia seen with other infections and surgery in response to proinflammatory states.

The true question seems to be whether there is a unique type of diabetes related to direct viral toxicity. Do newly diagnosed patients have measurable traditional antibodies, like anti-glutamic acid decarboxylase or anti-islet cell antibodies? Is there proof of preceding SARS-CoV-2 infection? In the new cases that I thought were unusual at first glance, I found typical pancreatic autoimmunity and negative SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. The small cohorts reported thus far have had similar findings.

A stronger case can be made for the risk of developing diabetes (types 1 and 2) with rapid weight gain. Another marked pattern that pediatric endocrinologists have observed has been increased weight gain in children with closed schools, decreased activity, and more social isolation. I have seen weight change as great as 100 lb in a teen over the past year; 30- to 50-lb weight increases over the course of the pandemic have been common. Considering the “accelerator hypothesis” of faster onset of type 2 diabetes with rapid weight gain, implications for hastening of T1D with weight gain have also been considered. The full impact of these dramatic weight changes will take time to understand.
 

The true story may not emerge for years

Anecdotes and theoretical concerns may give us pause, but they are far from scientific truth. Efforts are underway to explore this perceived trend with international registries, including the CoviDIAB Registry as well as T1D Exchange. The true story may not emerge until years have passed to see the cumulative fallout of COVID-19. Regardless, these troubling observations should be considered as pandemic safeguards continue to loosen.

While pediatric mortality from COVID-19 has been relatively low (though sadly not zero), some have placed too little focus on possible morbidity. Long-term effects like long COVID and neuropsychiatric sequelae are becoming evident in all populations, including children. If a lifelong illness like diabetes can be directly linked to COVID-19, protecting children from infection with measures like masks becomes all the more crucial until vaccines are more readily available. Despite our rapid progress with understanding COVID-19 disease, there is still much left to learn.

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

In early 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic changed everything about life as we know it, with widespread shutdowns across the globe. The U.S. health care system quickly adapted, pivoting to telehealth visits when able and proactively managing outpatient conditions to prevent overwhelming hospital resources and utilization. Meanwhile, at my practice, the typical rate of about one new-onset pediatric type 1 diabetes (T1D) case per week increased to about two per week.

Is COVID-19 a trigger for T1D?

There is known precedent for increased risk for T1D after viral infections in patients who are already genetically susceptible. Mechanisms of immune-mediated islet cell failure would make sense following SARS-CoV-2 infection; direct islet toxicity was noted with SARS-CoV-1 and has been suspected with SARS-CoV-2 but not proven. Some have suggested that hypercoagulability with COVID-19 may lead to ischemic damage to the pancreas.

With multiple potential pathways for islet damage, increases in insulin-dependent diabetes would logically follow. Still, whether this is the case remains unclear. There is not yet definitive evidence that there is uptake of SARS-CoV-2 via receptors in the pancreatic beta cells.

Our current understanding of T1D pathogenesis is that susceptible individuals develop autoimmunity in response to an environmental trigger, with beta-cell failure developing over months to years. Perhaps vulnerable patients with genetic risk for pancreatic autoimmunity were stressed by SARS-CoV-2 infection and were diagnosed earlier than they might have been, showing some lead-time bias. Adult patients with COVID-19 demonstrated hyperglycemia that has been reversible in some cases, like the stress hyperglycemia seen with other infections and surgery in response to proinflammatory states.

The true question seems to be whether there is a unique type of diabetes related to direct viral toxicity. Do newly diagnosed patients have measurable traditional antibodies, like anti-glutamic acid decarboxylase or anti-islet cell antibodies? Is there proof of preceding SARS-CoV-2 infection? In the new cases that I thought were unusual at first glance, I found typical pancreatic autoimmunity and negative SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. The small cohorts reported thus far have had similar findings.

A stronger case can be made for the risk of developing diabetes (types 1 and 2) with rapid weight gain. Another marked pattern that pediatric endocrinologists have observed has been increased weight gain in children with closed schools, decreased activity, and more social isolation. I have seen weight change as great as 100 lb in a teen over the past year; 30- to 50-lb weight increases over the course of the pandemic have been common. Considering the “accelerator hypothesis” of faster onset of type 2 diabetes with rapid weight gain, implications for hastening of T1D with weight gain have also been considered. The full impact of these dramatic weight changes will take time to understand.
 

The true story may not emerge for years

Anecdotes and theoretical concerns may give us pause, but they are far from scientific truth. Efforts are underway to explore this perceived trend with international registries, including the CoviDIAB Registry as well as T1D Exchange. The true story may not emerge until years have passed to see the cumulative fallout of COVID-19. Regardless, these troubling observations should be considered as pandemic safeguards continue to loosen.

While pediatric mortality from COVID-19 has been relatively low (though sadly not zero), some have placed too little focus on possible morbidity. Long-term effects like long COVID and neuropsychiatric sequelae are becoming evident in all populations, including children. If a lifelong illness like diabetes can be directly linked to COVID-19, protecting children from infection with measures like masks becomes all the more crucial until vaccines are more readily available. Despite our rapid progress with understanding COVID-19 disease, there is still much left to learn.

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

Clinicians in pediatrics have noticed a troubling pattern emerge during the pandemic, something that is darkly referred to as “the COVID 19,” or the 19 or more pounds that many of our patients have gained in the past year. This phenomenon has underscored many maxims in pediatric weight management: Mainly that frequent snacking, decreased physical activity, and less parental supervision lead to increased weight gain. But could we be missing another lesson this trend is teaching us? What about the relationship between catastrophe and childhood obesity?

Beyond the increased weight gain with lockdowns, I have observed other evidence in my own practice that childhood trauma or adverse experiences increase obesity. Our electronic medical record system gives an alert when a chart with sensitive information is accessed. One example might be if the patient had been seen at a clinic for children who have been abused. I am heartbroken at how often this happens. Academically, I understand the dire statistics about the incidence of child abuse, but the frequency at which I see this pattern is jarring.

Over the years, one striking correlation became clear among my patient population: Children with obesity were more likely to have been seen in the child abuse clinic than normal-weight peers.

I am far from the only one to have observed this relationship. Television shows focusing on severe obesity, such as “My 600-Pound Life,” often show trauma as both a cause and effect of severe obesity. This theme also became apparent on the show “The Biggest Loser,” which highlighted the difficulty of achieving and maintaining substantial weight loss. If even Hollywood has noticed this association, shouldn’t we be much farther ahead?
 

Pathways to obesity

Adverse childhood experiences (ACE) encompass various causes of child trauma, including abuse or neglect; poverty; household or neighborhood violence; and death, illness, or incarceration of a parent. A pivotal report in 1998 formalized the suspicion that many of us could plainly see: People who suffered ACE have higher incidence of heart disease, COPD, liver disease, incarceration, and drug abuse. For those with six or more ACE, life expectancy averaged 20 years less than those who had none. More recently, a meta-analysis found an odds ratio of 1.46 for adult obesity with known history of childhood trauma.

As a pediatric endocrinologist living in the poorest state of the country, I have clearly observed the correlation between childhood obesity and poverty. While prior generations may have associated child poverty with malnutrition and starvation, we are seeing in modern times that obesity has become a disease of lack. Calorie-dense and processed foods tend to be less expensive, more shelf-stable, and more accessible to people living in both urban and rural food deserts.

I am also a foster mother and have received extensive training in parenting children who have lived through trauma and neglect. For children who have endured food scarcity and deprivation, hoarding food and overeating are expected responses.

But the pathways to abnormal weight gain are myriad and expand beyond binge eating or numbing with food. ACE are particularly troubling because they affect developing brains and the neuroendocrine system; they alter epigenetics and cause heritable changes. Structural brain differences have been evident in the frontopolar cortex, which is linked to centers in the hypothalamus that control appetite. And increased stress raises cortisol release, increases insulin resistance, and alters satiety.
 

Shifting our approach to treatment

The significant cost of ACE is enormous and affects us all. Health professionals in pediatrics must understand these connections to effectively counsel children and their families dealing with obesity. Handing someone a diet plan and lecturing them about weight loss is never effective, but this common tactic is especially cruel if we do not assess for and address underlying pain. Obviously, blame and shame are ineffective motivators for lifestyle change in any circumstance, but these tactics may be especially harmful in the light of childhood trauma.

Screening for ACE is important in every aspect of pediatric care. The presence of obesity, however, should remind us to be more sensitive to the possibility of causative trauma. Clinicians for adults are not off the hook either. Fully 60% of adults suffered ACE and are dealing with the aftermath.

To improve health outcomes across the board, we must screen for trauma and become educated on trauma-informed care. Perhaps the most important first referral for a child suffering ACE and obesity is to a trained counselor or a social worker. Shepherding children through trauma will be more effective for attaining healthy weight than any remedy I can prescribe as an endocrinologist. Furthermore, this is our necessary role as healers. More than ever, we need to approach chronic diseases, including obesity, with the utmost compassion.

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

Clinicians in pediatrics have noticed a troubling pattern emerge during the pandemic, something that is darkly referred to as “the COVID 19,” or the 19 or more pounds that many of our patients have gained in the past year. This phenomenon has underscored many maxims in pediatric weight management: Mainly that frequent snacking, decreased physical activity, and less parental supervision lead to increased weight gain. But could we be missing another lesson this trend is teaching us? What about the relationship between catastrophe and childhood obesity?

Beyond the increased weight gain with lockdowns, I have observed other evidence in my own practice that childhood trauma or adverse experiences increase obesity. Our electronic medical record system gives an alert when a chart with sensitive information is accessed. One example might be if the patient had been seen at a clinic for children who have been abused. I am heartbroken at how often this happens. Academically, I understand the dire statistics about the incidence of child abuse, but the frequency at which I see this pattern is jarring.

Over the years, one striking correlation became clear among my patient population: Children with obesity were more likely to have been seen in the child abuse clinic than normal-weight peers.

I am far from the only one to have observed this relationship. Television shows focusing on severe obesity, such as “My 600-Pound Life,” often show trauma as both a cause and effect of severe obesity. This theme also became apparent on the show “The Biggest Loser,” which highlighted the difficulty of achieving and maintaining substantial weight loss. If even Hollywood has noticed this association, shouldn’t we be much farther ahead?
 

Pathways to obesity

Adverse childhood experiences (ACE) encompass various causes of child trauma, including abuse or neglect; poverty; household or neighborhood violence; and death, illness, or incarceration of a parent. A pivotal report in 1998 formalized the suspicion that many of us could plainly see: People who suffered ACE have higher incidence of heart disease, COPD, liver disease, incarceration, and drug abuse. For those with six or more ACE, life expectancy averaged 20 years less than those who had none. More recently, a meta-analysis found an odds ratio of 1.46 for adult obesity with known history of childhood trauma.

As a pediatric endocrinologist living in the poorest state of the country, I have clearly observed the correlation between childhood obesity and poverty. While prior generations may have associated child poverty with malnutrition and starvation, we are seeing in modern times that obesity has become a disease of lack. Calorie-dense and processed foods tend to be less expensive, more shelf-stable, and more accessible to people living in both urban and rural food deserts.

I am also a foster mother and have received extensive training in parenting children who have lived through trauma and neglect. For children who have endured food scarcity and deprivation, hoarding food and overeating are expected responses.

But the pathways to abnormal weight gain are myriad and expand beyond binge eating or numbing with food. ACE are particularly troubling because they affect developing brains and the neuroendocrine system; they alter epigenetics and cause heritable changes. Structural brain differences have been evident in the frontopolar cortex, which is linked to centers in the hypothalamus that control appetite. And increased stress raises cortisol release, increases insulin resistance, and alters satiety.
 

Shifting our approach to treatment

The significant cost of ACE is enormous and affects us all. Health professionals in pediatrics must understand these connections to effectively counsel children and their families dealing with obesity. Handing someone a diet plan and lecturing them about weight loss is never effective, but this common tactic is especially cruel if we do not assess for and address underlying pain. Obviously, blame and shame are ineffective motivators for lifestyle change in any circumstance, but these tactics may be especially harmful in the light of childhood trauma.

Screening for ACE is important in every aspect of pediatric care. The presence of obesity, however, should remind us to be more sensitive to the possibility of causative trauma. Clinicians for adults are not off the hook either. Fully 60% of adults suffered ACE and are dealing with the aftermath.

To improve health outcomes across the board, we must screen for trauma and become educated on trauma-informed care. Perhaps the most important first referral for a child suffering ACE and obesity is to a trained counselor or a social worker. Shepherding children through trauma will be more effective for attaining healthy weight than any remedy I can prescribe as an endocrinologist. Furthermore, this is our necessary role as healers. More than ever, we need to approach chronic diseases, including obesity, with the utmost compassion.

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

Clinicians in pediatrics have noticed a troubling pattern emerge during the pandemic, something that is darkly referred to as “the COVID 19,” or the 19 or more pounds that many of our patients have gained in the past year. This phenomenon has underscored many maxims in pediatric weight management: Mainly that frequent snacking, decreased physical activity, and less parental supervision lead to increased weight gain. But could we be missing another lesson this trend is teaching us? What about the relationship between catastrophe and childhood obesity?

Beyond the increased weight gain with lockdowns, I have observed other evidence in my own practice that childhood trauma or adverse experiences increase obesity. Our electronic medical record system gives an alert when a chart with sensitive information is accessed. One example might be if the patient had been seen at a clinic for children who have been abused. I am heartbroken at how often this happens. Academically, I understand the dire statistics about the incidence of child abuse, but the frequency at which I see this pattern is jarring.

Over the years, one striking correlation became clear among my patient population: Children with obesity were more likely to have been seen in the child abuse clinic than normal-weight peers.

I am far from the only one to have observed this relationship. Television shows focusing on severe obesity, such as “My 600-Pound Life,” often show trauma as both a cause and effect of severe obesity. This theme also became apparent on the show “The Biggest Loser,” which highlighted the difficulty of achieving and maintaining substantial weight loss. If even Hollywood has noticed this association, shouldn’t we be much farther ahead?
 

Pathways to obesity

Adverse childhood experiences (ACE) encompass various causes of child trauma, including abuse or neglect; poverty; household or neighborhood violence; and death, illness, or incarceration of a parent. A pivotal report in 1998 formalized the suspicion that many of us could plainly see: People who suffered ACE have higher incidence of heart disease, COPD, liver disease, incarceration, and drug abuse. For those with six or more ACE, life expectancy averaged 20 years less than those who had none. More recently, a meta-analysis found an odds ratio of 1.46 for adult obesity with known history of childhood trauma.

As a pediatric endocrinologist living in the poorest state of the country, I have clearly observed the correlation between childhood obesity and poverty. While prior generations may have associated child poverty with malnutrition and starvation, we are seeing in modern times that obesity has become a disease of lack. Calorie-dense and processed foods tend to be less expensive, more shelf-stable, and more accessible to people living in both urban and rural food deserts.

I am also a foster mother and have received extensive training in parenting children who have lived through trauma and neglect. For children who have endured food scarcity and deprivation, hoarding food and overeating are expected responses.

But the pathways to abnormal weight gain are myriad and expand beyond binge eating or numbing with food. ACE are particularly troubling because they affect developing brains and the neuroendocrine system; they alter epigenetics and cause heritable changes. Structural brain differences have been evident in the frontopolar cortex, which is linked to centers in the hypothalamus that control appetite. And increased stress raises cortisol release, increases insulin resistance, and alters satiety.
 

Shifting our approach to treatment

The significant cost of ACE is enormous and affects us all. Health professionals in pediatrics must understand these connections to effectively counsel children and their families dealing with obesity. Handing someone a diet plan and lecturing them about weight loss is never effective, but this common tactic is especially cruel if we do not assess for and address underlying pain. Obviously, blame and shame are ineffective motivators for lifestyle change in any circumstance, but these tactics may be especially harmful in the light of childhood trauma.

Screening for ACE is important in every aspect of pediatric care. The presence of obesity, however, should remind us to be more sensitive to the possibility of causative trauma. Clinicians for adults are not off the hook either. Fully 60% of adults suffered ACE and are dealing with the aftermath.

To improve health outcomes across the board, we must screen for trauma and become educated on trauma-informed care. Perhaps the most important first referral for a child suffering ACE and obesity is to a trained counselor or a social worker. Shepherding children through trauma will be more effective for attaining healthy weight than any remedy I can prescribe as an endocrinologist. Furthermore, this is our necessary role as healers. More than ever, we need to approach chronic diseases, including obesity, with the utmost compassion.

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